Scarcity or plenty? – Book Review

Lewis Hyde, The Gift: How the Creative Spirit Transforms the World (Edinburgh: Canongate, 2007; first publ. 1983)

Like Marcel Hénaff’s Le Prix de la Vérité (see forthcoming review), Hyde’s book is a reworking of the concept of gift, as analysed by Mauss (‘Essai sur le don’, 1923-24), Lévi-Strauss (Les Structures élémentaires de la parenté, 1949), and others.

In this case, Hyde focuses on the arts, making characteristically bold claims for the scope of his work. To give him his dues, The Gift is a a wide-ranging treatment of the topic. Beginning from the classic starting point in social anthropology, Hyde goes on to offer a detailed analysis of usury in the Christian West, including some good points with regard to Calvin and Luther. The latter, for example affirms ‘a scarcity of grace and gift’. Scarcity becomes a dirty word when Hyde contrasts it with plenty in this section. Furthermore, he identifies that in a gift-based system any surplus is passed forward to the recipient, while in usury the surplus is retained by the creditor.

There are also fascinating chapters on Walt Whitman and Ezra Pound, and insights into the workings of political and business economics in 1970s and 80s Capitalism.

Certain themes recur throughout Hyde’s study. The most prominent of these is the grouping of money, Logos, and commerce over and against gift, Eros, and imagination. It is easy to see which grouping Hyde finds most attractive, and only in the final chapter does he begin to ask how the two groups can interact. It is here that more thinking is required, to see how the arts – and society at large – can reincorporate the idea of plenty into our scarcity-driven thinking.

Filed under Arts, Books, English, History, Society | Comment (0)

Federal Liberty – the seed of an idea?

‘The Swiss Reformed Protestants in the sixteenth century, following the Bible, defined liberty as federal (from the Latin foedus, meaning covenant) liberty (i.e., the liberty to live according to the terms of God’ s covenant with humanity entered into), rather than individual liberty as natural liberty.’

This quotation from Daniel J. Elazar’s article, ‘Communal Democracy and Liberal Democracy: An outside Friend’s Look at the Swiss Political Tradition’ in Publius, Vol. 23, No. 2, Communal and Individual Liberty in Swiss Federalism (Spring, 1993), pp. 3-18 (p. 13) links the theological concept of ‘covenant’ with the political concept of ‘liberty’ in a potentially fruitful way.

We tend to think of liberty exclusively in terms of the individual, and have learned to dismiss communal ideals as idealistic. But ideals are not necessarily unrealistic, and a communal form of liberty may well prove far more workable and sustaining than our bankrupt individualism, which in the light of the banking crisis and the disintegration of society, is clearly an unworkable idealism.

Filed under Books, History, Society | Comment (0)

To be a Pilgrim: An experiment in inclusive language

Let’s take the text of a favourite hymn, and subject it to a grammatical/linguistic experiment.

In the original version, the first verse of Bunyan’s ‘To Be a Pilgrim’ goes:

‘He who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let him in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.’

Of course, the words ‘he’, ‘him’, and ‘his’ are problematic, as the pilgrim could just as easily be a woman:

‘She who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let her in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make her once relent
Her first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.’

But this is just as exclusive as the first version. So we try a version that does not specify gender:

‘They who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let them in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make them once relent
Their first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.’

Or, in what I am told is the emerging feminist consensus:

‘Zie who would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let hir in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make hir once relent
Hir first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.’

On balance, the slightly dodgy grammar of the third option wins over the sheer strangeness of the fourth. So the third person plural comes to be treated as if it were a gender-inclusive form of the second person singular.

A fifth and final option:

‘If one would valiant be ’gainst all disaster,
Let one in constancy follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement shall make one once relent
One’s first avowed intent to be a pilgrim.’

While it has the virtue of being grammatically consistent, this version has little warmth or vigour!

To you to decide…

Filed under English, Society, Spirituality | Comments (2)

Local authority cuts – an ongoing debate

The following is a summary of recent email correspondence on the topic of local authority cuts and the lack of a shared sense of purpose in our society…

From: Joel
Sent: 01 March 2010 16:20
To: Richard
Subject: Blog about local government cuts. 5 actions proposed.

Hey guys,

Having heard the news this morning, I’m feeling quite worked up! So I’ve written an entry on my blog proposing some actions – for myself and others… What do you think about this news? Will you join my campaign?

J

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:27 PM:

Good Afternoon,

I agree with most of your points but in reality with the amount of debt the country has taken due to the systematic failure of the banks the government will have to be cutbacks somewhere, it was only a matter of time and as the economy is now pulling out of recession these cutbacks in local government were always going to be implemented.

R

Sent: 03 March 2010 07:47

Hi R,

Thanks for this reasoned and economically informed response! You’re right about national debt, about the fact that cuts need to be made, and even perhaps that local government cuts were on the cards.

My contention is that these cuts go right to the heart of what it means for Britain to be a society. Either we care about the elderly, the state of our roads, our public buildings and services, etc. Or else we don’t.

These cuts send the message that we no longer care enough to invest in each other and in our shared public life. I think it is time for us as a society to ask what we think local communities are for. This is not about political affiliation or economic considerations, but rather the underlying philosophy of our society…

J

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:55 PM:

Hi J,

Tell me about it, with a child on the way and potential cuts in the child benefit system and obviously the slow decay of the school system over the next few years it will impact us as well which we in turn will not be happy about. But these areas will also be hit so no one will escape unscathed from the downturn.

I think more reform in the way things are done and run, I read an article the other day that said one council sent out questionnaire at a cost of several hundreds of thousands of pounds asking how they could cut down costs in the local government / councils …. The response was a rather unsurprising stop spending insane amounts of money of surveys and actually get off you backsides and do something!!

If councils were regarded as a business entity rather than a government service it would highlight areas which would benefit from radical reform which in-turn would be able to cut back on costs rather than quality of service / job cuts. It’s what the governments always say they will do but they never manage to stamp out the inefficiencies.

R

Sent: 08 March 2010 20:40

Thanks R,

Returning to our little debate… I agree with you that the problem is systemic, but I disagree with the solution you propose.

Business efficiency is a great model if your goal is to make money. But the goal of a local authority is not to make money.

Strictly speaking, efficiency means larger class sizes, fewer public-facing staff, outsourcing to India, etc. (basically the kinds of cost-cutting we have seen in the rest of our economy in recent years). In many ways, efficiency is the enemy of the local and the human. But public services are all about the needs of the local community and the individual!

Anyway, there is nothing inherently inefficient about the public service model. Employees in the public sector are actually pretty cheap. Their pay is scandalously low, in fact. Plus, they cost the taxpayer less money per man/hour than those bankers we’ve just bailed out.

I would suggest that the only reason our public services have become inefficient in recent years is because we have allowed them to. After all, they are our public servants, accountable to us.

So the solution must be some kind of mass action, whereby the people of this country decide what kind of society we really believe in, and then fight for it.
I firmly believe it might be time for a general strike!

Love,

Your Comrade

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:32 PM:

Afternoon Buddy,

If you propose not to cut the local government budgets what areas would you “balance the books” to reduce the deficit in Gordorn Browns back burner?

I agree that councils are not run to generate a profit but how much value are we receiving for our money??? I’m sure there are areas were processes and red tape can be cut down without impacting the staff numbers and classroom sizes.

The fact that some of the banks are 80% owned by the taxpayer hopefully in the next few years once these are turned around we will see some dividend back in the form of the initial bailout money and some interest, there are also some deals still going through for instance the Iceland banking refund to the English and Dutch governments who bailed out their respective countries savers, but again until the deal is agreed and the money starts to flow back into the treasury cuts will be made across the board.

Interesting to read that council tax will not be rising in London, not sure about Cambridge in 2010, I’m sure this will have a further impact on the cuts that will be mad.

R

Sent: 10 March 2010 23:22

Hey R,

I’m enjoying this debate we’re having. How would you feel if I re-wrote it as a dialogue for my blog? I could change your name and remove any identifying characteristics, and show it to you before I post it…

Let me know what you think about that – and the following!

With regard to the cuts, we have to look at this situation in its historical context. This is not the first time that local government has had to make cuts. And once something has been cut, it is hard to bring it back into future budgets. So we find a gradual erosion of public services over time.

If there is still some slack in the system, as you suggest (and there must be some somewhere, given the nature of large-scale organisations), then wouldn’t this be better used to secure funding for other, essential areas?

I find it disgusting that council tax should remain the same, while people lose their jobs. A few pounds on everyone’s bill would be enough to save a lot of jobs.

And in the short term, saving jobs will also save the taxpayer money (admittedly from a different pot, at the national level) because these people will not have to start signing on…

Let’s hope that the banks will start to pay us back, but this doesn’t absolve us as citizens from our duty to pay – collectively – for the services we all need. ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their need…’

J

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:16 AM:

Hi J,

Yes that’s fine by me, no need to change my name … I’ll have a little think about the below and get back to you off to Venice next week so It maybe a few weeks

R

Filed under Society | Comment (0)

The public good: just another 25,000 jobs or the gradual erosion of our society?

According to BBC News, local authorities may be looking to save money by cutting up to 25,000 jobs. Councils are keen to assure residents that job cuts will not affect so-called front-line services, but rather managerial and back-office posts.

This is far from comforting.

In a country where public services are already over-stretched and under-funded, these cuts will drop local provision below acceptable standards. There are already potholes in our streets, which are already dirty. Our parks are not well cared for. Teachers do not feel valued. Provision for the elderly, the homeless, and the mentally ill is already sketchy.

Even if local authorities are right, and the only jobs to go will be administrative, this means less support offered to front-line staff, less oversight, less quality control, slower responses to requests and complaints from the public, and less strategic planning. In short, cost-cutting exercises of this type will only sow the seeds of a larger disaster in the medium- to long term future.

So what can we do?

The last thing we should do is to continue ‘covering’ for our councils and central government – however good or bad or needy they are. Third sector voluntary agencies are excellent at noticing gaps in provision, or in providing something extra, different, or experimental. Their role is not to replace statutory provision. Neither should members of the public or local communities fill the gap, either through individual/voluntary action, nor through optional top-ups to public funds. Local service provision is the job of local government.

The second-to-last thing we should do is to sit tight. Doing nothing is what got our country into this state in the first place. So we cannot be silent, or passive. We must speak out!

Fortunately, systems still exist in the public sphere for exactly the kind of feedback I am envisaging.

1. Writing to local government organisations (city council and county council), protesting any cuts to their services – front-line or otherwise. We will not be fobbed off by the false distinction! Local government should be urged to petition central government, while we as citizens do the same.

2. National government has a responsibility to support local government, particularly in order to even out inequalities in the demographic make-up of each geographical area. This is exactly the kind of injustice that will be exaggerated under Conservative proposals (such as easyJet-style top-ups for optional services).

Where mechanisms for the fairer distribution of wealth already exist, they should be used. Where they do not exist, they should be created. If national government can bail out commerical banks, thus guaranteeing the wealth of senior executives and city brokers, why can’t it see council services as ‘too important to fail’, and bail them out too? If government fails to do this, it is sending the message that some rich people are more important than the ordinary citizens of this country.

Worse, it is saying that the fabric of our society is not worth saving. It is the end of society as such and the (re)introduction of a rabidly antisocial capitalist model. Therefore I will also write to my MP, saying precisely this.

3. Where are the political parties that stand for a fairer society, and the protection of essential services? They should be found, or created, and joined en masse!

4. What is the press doing to check the plans of Labour and Conservative MPs who would dismantle our local government services unchecked. I will therefore also write to the press.

5. Direct action? Any ideas?

Filed under Birmingham, Society | Comment (1)

Stereotypes quote

“The problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story” (from Chimamanda Adichie’s TED Talk YouTube video)

Filed under English, Society | Comment (0)

Twin Narratives – for discussion/reflection

“History and fiction each concretize their respective intentionalities only by borrowing from the intentionality of the other [...] This concretization is obtained only insofar as, on the one hand, history in some way makes use of fiction to refigure time and, on the other hand, fiction makes use of history for the same ends.” (Paul Ricoeur, 1988, III, p.181; quoted by Aurelio Ramos Caballero in his unpublished MPhil thesis, 2009)

Filed under English, History, Society | Comment (0)