Cheryl Kernot on social enterprise and the participation society
June 1st, 2009 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Brisbane, Economics, Ethics, Notices, Sociology | 68 Comments
While the ‘economic management debate’ rumbles along its predictable partisan grooves, something interesting has been taking place elsewhere – something of a concatenation of the better legacies of the communitarianism of the 90s and a shift in values which has gained traction with the Global Financial Crisis. There has been increasing talk of the creation of social value and social creativity, and the harnessing of community connectivity through social enterprise.
In her post-political career, Cheryl Kernot has been actively working in these fields, and analysing them within academia. The latest edition of Griffith REVIEW, Participation Society, addresses many of these questions, and Kernot will be talking at the State Library of Queensland on Wednesday night at 6.30pm on ‘A Participation Society’, riffing off some of the themes of her GR essay.
Details of how to book tix and rsvp are on BrisCulture’s Facebook group.
Cross-posted at BrisCulture.
Has there been a shift in values since the GFC? There’s been a shift in governmentality viz economic policy with Social Democrat orthodoxy displacing Neoliberal orthodoxy at least rhetorically. But a wider shift in values?
.
Dunno about that.
.
In this country, since c 1990, we’ve seen the emergence of a class system with privileged people born to a sense of entitlement and an ‘underclass’ who feel categorically excluded. I don’t see any shift in values away from that.
Adrien – some of the social attitudes research I’ve seen suggests a shift away from materialistic and individualist values towards an increasing degree of concern and care for society and the natural environment, and a desire to focus on other things than work, work, work and $. I think that’s actually been gaining ground for some time, and to some degree has just been accentuated by recent events.
I would have posted this on “Lazy Sunday”, but it wasn’t really lazy enough. Yesterday we had one of our approximately thrice yearly planting sessions in the park. This time it was revegetating the banks of the creek with rushes and poa grasses. A lot of the people there were from a local church group, irritatingly chirpy and some hilariously dressed for gardening work in the mud (Snow white parka? Pristine chinos and clean trainers?? Dangly amethyst necklace??!!) but all in all, a nice lot of people. They didn’t try to convert me. There were dog walkers and others there as well. The council helped with some of their workers who were willing to come out on a Sunday. After a couple of hours we walked up to the hill to where the local Scout caravan was parked. Some nice elderly people were busy sizzling sausages AND vegetarian options and pouring cordial and water for us.
an increasing degree of concern and care for society and the natural environment? Creation of social value and social creativity? We haz it.
Exactly, Helen, and it’s obscured not illuminated only by those who are stuck thinking in terms which really don’t reflect people’s lived experience. I’m careful to talk about social values here (which may or may not be able to be politicised) – constructs such as “social democracy” and “neo-liberalism” are just that – intellectual concepts which have very little resonance with how values are created and recreated socially and culturally.
I went to the Griffith Review’s event in Sydney last month to hear Kernot and Wayne Goss speak. If it’s anything like the one I went to I can strongly recommend it to Brisbanians. Line of the evening for my money:
The other contributors were a bunch of fascinating folks as well—one of the men from this story for instance—people with games, and stories to tell, as the saying goes.
I think that’s actually been gaining ground for some time, and to some degree has just been accentuated by recent events.
.
Okay. I’m not sure what the research is or who exactly is doing this. You might be speaking of the seachange movement at least partially. And I think there are trends against mindless consumerism. And movements against it etc. But I see an awful lot of it still about. And the social snobbery and exclusion that’ve emerged in Oz over the last 15 years or so seems to me here to stay.
.
Unfortunately.
Glad Kernot has found a way, probably a more productive way, to keep contributing to public life. Her downfall was a great disappointment.
Wasn’t Latham (for all his faults- you have to kind of add that disclaimer when talking about Latham these days I think)into this same set of policy ideas? To the extent that he used to visit Kernot in the UK to compare notes?
My 3rd disparate comment is to say “concatenation” – wow. You win scrabble today.
What possible skills/training/achievements could Cheryl Kernot use in academia? Sandwich making? What a joke of a “university”.
You were funnier when you were hosting ‘Perfect Match’, Greg Evans. Even then the robot was smarter than you.
Mentioning Kernot seems to have attracted some nastiness from elsewhere.
As I recall Kernot showed a distinct set of public vices.
.
First she shafts the party that brought her to power pretty much on the basis of one of the ALP’s standard recruiting practices. Second she decides, on the basis it seems to me of pure egotism, to tackle a tough seat rather than accept a cushy one. Third, when she loses, she wallows in self-pity, publicly blaming everyone except herself.
.
She showed herself to be rather on the light side. Should’ve stayed on the fringes. Maybe then she’d still be fooling us.
.
I would’ve preferred Latham to Kevvie. Latham’s a real human being not a plastic technocratic cut-out. Has Satan refurbished Hell and added new circles for the likes of Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Kevvie?
.
That said I am extremely skeptical of members of the political class producing reports and studies that say we can create an ‘inclusive’ society by decree. What appears to me to be happening is that we have a vacuous self-orientated culture in which environmentalism is one of the latest coolest things to get into. It’s promoted by various grinning idiots who think that their jetset lifestyles can be off-set by putting their wedges of Caciocavallo Podolico, their bottles of Lorenzo’s Oil and their Delafee chocolate in a reusable bag. These same people are as committed to sustainability as supermodels were to the anti-fur campaign way back when, as in for ten minutes.
.
And the politicians who say they’re committed to sustainability have by and large used it to create yet another self-serving round of rent-seeking nepotism in which we all get price hikes on energy and the large concerns responsible for most of the pollution will be compensated for their losses at our expense all whilst not really having to change their ways. And most of the Left’ll poo poo these objections on the basis that at least the ALP is in power.
.
And I wonder how enthusiastic Gen Y’s gonna be about Kevvie’s caring comeback when they have to deal with a buyer’s labour market for the first time in their lives.
.
Solutions to difficult problems are not easy and often there aren’t any. But still, we can dream…
Yawn. Another attack of greenslime….
And Adrien, why commit to anything. It’s so much easier to snipe from the sidelines as you usually do.
Indeed Adrian. That’s what I’m doing. It’s so much easier to write comments that are in full agreement with the spirit of the post than write things that query its veracity. It’s so much easier to pay all of your attention to the discourse of people with a range of choices and solid belt of prosperity who say they’re going to move to the mountains and live a simple life than to point out that the common experience of life on the streets of our cities is one of increasing discourtesy, carelessness, callousness and venality.
.
It’s much easier to produce a report that refers to the return of some isms (that I don’t remember) from the 90s than to point out that street buskers are regularly subjected to condescendsion, snobbery, even violence because, as their Time magazine’d and Gap wearing suburbanite taunters tell them: you work on the street. That the youht who I’m told are so concerned about the environment are the same ones that leave huge piles of trash on benches less than a metre away from a bin!
.
Sure. Easy.
.
It’s so much easier to look difficult problems square in the face in all their complexity than to put all your hopes and dreams into some managerial schpiel by a failed politician whose claim to fame is that she jettisoned her old comrades for a better job and then shafted her new ones because the world failed to share her great opinion of herself.
.
Easy.
.
But I’m gonna turn over a new leaf. I’m gonna organize a march rally and start yelling whaddawewant whendowewannit. ‘Cause that’s, like, difficult n’ shit.
Said no doubt by someone whose own skillset is beyond reproach.
It’s the pointless and egotistical snark and the pat yourself on your back cynicism so often displayed by certain individuals in blog threads and elsewhere which really has worn out its welcome, I think.
[Irritated rant redacted] Really, is anyone else around here gritting their teeth and wishing someone would grow the fuck up?
OK, as you were.
Well, as the old saying goes, don’t feed the troll.
Note that in 4 minutes, “Greg Evans” lost 1/9 of his name. Became Greg Evan. If the depreciation continued at that rate, he became [blank] and ceased to exist, about 32 minutes later, at 6.18pm.
And the Universe, in its wisdom, neither lamented nor noticed the disappearance.
OK, as you were.
My comments are not egotistical or pointless when snarky or otherwise. When they’re snarky it’s almost always a response in kind. I have serious concerns that world is dominated by myriad forms of expertese who confuse research, reports, mission statements and soundbytes with what’s actually going on, intentionally and otherwise. What did Foucault say about such stuff?
.
I don’t see a swing-back to some inclusiveness, sorry. I see an ever widening ethical void and an increasingly autocratic response. I don’t like how this story ends.
.
And for those who wish to defend Cheryl Kernot’s credentials: it’s not to much to supply a list of her qualifications and achievements is it?
Mark, good to see you’re still posting at LP on occasion. Good also to see your posts have the ability to make me scratch my head and go ‘what the hell is he on about now?!???’ On this occasion, it was one particular word that was the head scratcher:
While the ‘economic management debate’ rumbles along its predictable partisan grooves, something interesting has been taking place elsewhere – something of a concatenation of the better legacies of the communitarianism of the 90s and a shift in values which has gained traction with the Global Financial Crisis. There has been increasing talk of the creation of social value and social creativity, and the harnessing of community connectivity through social enterprise.
Communitarianism? Is this a sociological term? I looked it up in Macquarie, and after a bit of delving, I found this:
communistic
// (say komyuh’nistik)
adjective 1. communist.
2. tending towards or sympathising with communism.
–communistically, adverb
There wasn’t any real communism around in the ’90s, so I’m not sure what you mean.
But Adrien, you questioned its veracity by saying ‘Where’s your research?’ and then came up with a whole heap of unsubstantiated generalisations of your own. I’m happy to ‘query its veracity’, but I also query your querying. There’s not much point in finding methodological shortcomings if you can’t lift the bar yourself.
Not me. I subject them to condescension and snobbery (but not violence, got to draw the line somewhere) only when they can’t play for toffee and need to get out of the public ear sharpish.
PC – But Adrien, you questioned its veracity by saying ‘Where’s your research?’ and then came up with a whole heap of unsubstantiated generalisations of your own. I’m happy to ‘query its veracity’, but I also query your querying. There’s not much point in finding methodological shortcomings if you can’t lift the bar yourself.
.
Very true.
.
But my unsubstantiated generalizations, and they are that, are based on observation. You don’t know me but in private life I’m known to be fairly perceptive. I’m not saying that to be egotistical just attempting to illustrate that I am credited amongst real-life peers with a certain acumen in that regard.
.
Not that it takes such to see what I’m talking about. But you’re points quite unassailable. I’ll remain silent on this until I come back with something a little ore substantial than what I’ve seen.
.
Not me.
.
Me neither.
.
I subject them to condescension and snobbery
.
I assume your elitism is perhaps based on their incompetant minsteralcy as opposed to the fact that they work on the street? I’m talking aboutn the latter. Highly skilled and also very funny performers I’ve seen copping crap from some smug twerp who probably spends 60 hours a day in Dilbert Hell.
.
Hey! Maybe that’s got something to do with it.
That’s ‘your points’ not ‘you’re points’; you are not points, sorry.
TimT – just go to Google and type in the search box
define:communitarianiam
But Adrien, I live in the same city as you and probably walk down some of the same streets, and my observations are quite different. I don’t know that they form any sort of truth but I don’t think yours do either. Could we also be talking about matters of temperament and what we choose most to notice? This isn’t a critcism of you, btw.
But I’m not sure there is a shift in values currently. How can we even begin to know this?
@15 – TimT – try the Wiki entry as well as a starting point. Armagny @ 7 is correct to say that some of Latham’s better ideas had similar resonances:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism
I wonder why I bother at all, when I read some of the comments on this thread.
So the onus is always on those who wish to cite someone’s positive contribution to defend it? Rather than asking for a ‘list of her qualifications and achievements’, Adrien, you might do some actual work before commenting and read her essay to which I’ve linked. I don’t think Kernot had an unimpeachable record in politics, or always made good choices, but who does? Blog commenters who are always ready to cast the first stone perhaps? In any case, what she has done after politics speaks for itself, but it isn’t up to me to defend her against reflexive cynicism, because that’s a complete waste of everyone’s time. If you had any genuine interest in her work, you’d take the time to read her essay.
Note also, that, as usual, we’re debating Adrien and his ideas, not the substance of the post – which in any case, is really just a plug for an event. What a complete waste of everyone’s time. All you’ve succeeded in doing, Adrien, is putting me in a grumpy mood and reminding me of why I was so disillusioned with blogging in this space once again.
You’re a funny guy Adrien. Funny weird, mainly. But also funny ha ha sometimes.
TimT, Communitarianism is a pretty common term in applied ethics circles.
I am torn about how much stock I put in this movement – though I don’t doubt its existence. I suspect economically different times frequently provoke these feelings (mind you, Putnam was only last year putting about that his bowling alone phenomenon has gotten even worse, partly because of working hours, partly because of the internet. Personally I think his definition of community is one destined to fail but that’s by the by).
One thing that is truly different, I believe, is climate change. I hope that it’s enough to encourage more of these thoughts. Also, unlike Putnam, I believe the internet has helped communities, not harmed them. But I would, wouldn’t I, posting here!
What I respected about Kernot was that she resigned her position in the senate a few days before she was eligible for the super pension.
She also resigned her senate spot and did not simply change parties as others had done before and after her.
For anyone who wants to read Cheryl Kernot’s essay, it can be downloaded here.
Thanks, Sally!
For what it’s worth, Mark, I value both your comments and posts at LP. I feel quite certain I am not alone, and moreover; believe your thoughts here enable far more interesting, enlightening discussion than would otherwise occur. This particular scale is definitely tilted to value more than anything else.
Thanks so much, patrickg, I appreciate that!
“And Adrien, why commit to anything. It’s so much easier to snipe from the sidelines as you usually do.”
This comment evidences an almost unbelievable lack of self-awareness.
As for social enterprise, if it is being set up in opposition to the strands of thinking that have been dominant for the last 15 years (at least), then there’s a little irony here. Surely the social enterprise movement is the adoption of capitalistic notions of ‘the firm’ and related modes of thought and processes, i.e. it is the extension of ‘the market’ into formerly market-ambivalent (even resistant) community structures?
BBB
Adrien, I’m not sure I agree about Kernot’s lack of cred (etc), although I’ve suspected a lack of weight for a long time. She did, after all, achieve a fair bit in the Senate. (Don’t press me for details. It’s late. I’m tired and emotional.)
Otoh, the comments by Greg Evan @ 8 & 9 were uncalled for.
Mark,
You and I disagree (IIRC) quite regularly. That is not to say I do not value and respect what you say. It would be good for you to continue here.
David Irving,
Is that the usual parliamentary “tired and emotional”? As in “The Senator was so tired and emotional after a celebration of a win that he was unable to walk to the Comm Car.”
I always thought that was a great euphemism.
The essay is very good. The catalogue of State failures is depressing. But it really does demolish the standard social democratic thinking on community engagement, participation, health, etc. which is of course based largely on the (claimed) superiority of State mediation and, to those paying attention, coercion. So at the same time it is all very encouraging; one can envisage a whole host of organisations undertaking voluntary social entrepreneurship in place of essentially violent government. But then what would you call it? Classical liberalism?
BBB
>puts head up above parapet, adjusts steel helmet<
We’re certainly seeing a great surge of interest in social businesses and enterprises here in the UK. Our web site at clearlyso.com is becoming something of an international gathering place for this kind of business, and we have lots of interest interest from ‘people in the street’ (i hesitate to use the word ‘consumers’) of all kinds who are disillusioned with current economic thinking & are finding out what social enterprise can do for them and their communities.
There’s still a long way to go to build a more ‘social’ economy, and clearly there are entrenched attitudes to business which will take some shifting, for which there is no silver bullet, but the column inches devoted to social business in recent months alone would seem to suggest it is more than a mot du jour. Great to see passionate debate on the subject.
That’s an interesting essay, Mark. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
You’ve got to admire the people who think outside the tired old ideological divisions and look for solutions. OneWorldHealth is a particularly good example of an inspiring idea brought to fruition.
BTW, I for one hope that you continue blogging. This space wouldn’t be the same without your contribtions and your civility.
@35 – Andrew, thanks. I’m still thinking about my blogging future. There certainly will be one, but I’m not sure it’ll be here.
@37 – BBB, as you may have noticed, I’ve been arguing for years that social democracy should not and need not be identified with statism. There was a wrong turning – in the English speaking world’s version at any rate – way back when public enterprise and government action were modelled on a bureaucratic command model – largely driven at least in ideological terms by the Fabians. The (re)introduction of notions of participatory governance and social value is certainly not the same thing as ‘classical liberalism’.
“Armagny @ 7 is correct ”
I find the basic structure and form of this argument entirely pleasing.
Heh!
The communitarian critique of liberal political theory is probably the most important development in mainstream Anglophone political thought since Rawls. One would expect to encounter versions of that critique in any introductory political theory unit taken at a tertiary level. While not a word that is used widely in this country outside of academia, communitarian ideas appear right across the political spectrum in the US, UK and here, from ‘Save Our Suburbs’ to some contemporary forms of feminism, from the GOP to, well Griffith Review.
While not in direct disagreement with much of the critique itself, I’m very suspicious of communitarian cultural politics for their inattention to the role of mass media and popular culture, and generally for having an ‘organicist’ vision of community lurking somewhere around the place. To the extent that such a vision implies that community formation is the actualisation of some pre-existing essence of community, then I think it’s incredibly dangerous.
I agree, Klaus. But community action doesn’t need to proceed on the basis of those assumptions.
Indeed, I guess I’m just staking out the intellectual background a bit rather than offering a critique of this particular direction. The use of more active metaphors – even ‘entrepeneurship’ – already implies a constructive process, rather than the realisation of some pre-existing community. Further, as Helen describes, some of the ad-hoc forms of local community action emerging already resist such a model – they create mundane coalitions around specific projects, but are in no sense a ‘coming together’ as a shared identity. In some places we can see well beyond the unidimensional ‘authentic’ vision of community that inhabits the ’90s versions (or its theoretical precedents of the ’70s and ’80s), but I will remain wary. Definitely going to take a look at this Griffith Review though.
Mark,
Just to disagree (again). I would argue that, provided it is not encouraged or forced by the State, the notions of community activism, moral responsibility and other such ideals are the root of classical liberalism. Mills, for example, was particularly strong on these. I would suggest a read of Mills’ “On Liberty” (as classical liberal a text as you can get) and in particular chapter 4. This passage, I think, sums it up nicely:
It was as true then as it is now. One of the great problems I have with statist philosophies is that they tend to try to reserve this role to the State – believing that it will not happen (or happen efficiently) unless it is forced – to the great detriment of society at large.
Mills and the other great classical liberals were right (IMHO) on this. These things can be managed outside of the State – or at the very least with a much greater role for the non-State sector than we have now. To me at least “…notions of participatory governance and social value…” (provided they are not Statist in nature) are classical liberal ideas.
“on Liberty” (to me at least) makes this perfectly clear.
I have the privilege of living next door a family that no doubt would ascribe to this communitarianism waffle. I hope they appreciate the communitarianism of me firing up the leaf blower/vac early on a weekend morning to clean up the communal mess from their bloody Mulberry and Paulownia trees.
And if their newly acquired hens continue to wake me in the mornings then they can expect the return of the dingo to North Perth in short order, armed with a Gerber.
Razor, several decades of political thought says that communitarianism is not ‘waffle’. Just because you don’t like the sound of it, and hadn’t heard of it before now, does nothing to change that. Further, your mutual antagonism with your neighbours has, as you imply, nothing much to do with the topic except by broadest inference – perhaps you should vent your frustration in an alternative forum? Perhaps, beyond that, you might consider some kind of third-party mediation, so that we don’t have to continue to read about how horrible it would be to live next door to you.
Mark – …as usual, we’re debating Adrien and his ideas, not the substance of the post
.
As usual?
.
I suspect the majority of posts on this blog don’t discuss any of ‘my ideas’. I wouldn’t know because I only read certain posts. Most of the posts I comment on tend to go off on tangents that have nothing to do with what I say. Where does such an assertion come from?
.
As for talking about the post, the post says:
That is what ‘my ideas’ are concerned with here. I’m skeptical of this. I see a desire to address a, say, lost of community. But I don’t see any actual movement. Is that somehow a derailment. My apologies if so. But I don’t see it.
.
What a complete waste of everyone’s time.
.
Well okay. I did have a few snippets on this issue. Data, as Pavlov’s Cat rightly said, might actually be a bit more interesting than sweeping generalities. But I wouldn’t want to waste everyone’s time.
.
All you’ve succeeded in doing, Adrien, is putting me in a grumpy mood and reminding me of why I was so disillusioned with blogging in this space once again.
.
Again baffled. How is skepticism about the veracity of the above statement cause for disillusion? I was under the impression that the value of these sorts of salons was in the fact that they precipitated debate. I also thought it would be obvious that I regard the posts I comment on as worthwhile. If otherwise I wouldn’t bother.
Andrew #46 – It’s all very well to quote Mill but he lived in an era where there was extensive associationalism motivated by the desire to improve society. That was grounded in widespread religious belief. As the authority of religion and the effect of an economic system which permits unprecedented freedom take their toll people become less cohesive (what is there to cohere them).
.
The assumptions of Mill and others of the perseverance of alturistic endeavours in a free market were grounded in assumptions of a Christian society. Mill was an atheist product of an Enlightenment education, perhaps the Enlightenment education, and made the fundamental error that Reason could replace religion entire.
.
It’s for that reason that Nietzsche called him a blockhead.
.
There is a correlation between lower trust levels, flimsier friendships and Anglo-Saxon economic culture. There is also evidence to suggest that we don’t trust each other the way we did fifty years ago.
.
I’m demonstrably skeptical that this problem can be resolved by some technocratic manoeuvre or intellectual discourse. I’d seek instead a resurgence of associationalism. But there I also see a problem because so much of this culture reeks of the puritan condescension which 19th century cynics once used to deride it. Or at least that’s a perception of it. I’d say to be effective that the new associationalism would have to reflect 21st century culture. I’m not anti-religious per se but I don’t believe that a return to universal religion is possible or desirable.
.
We need something new. Something, shall we say, a tad Greek.
..Nude wrestling?
Sorry. [Runs away]
Are we all talking about the same Cheryl Kernot here?
The one I know is dim, yet semi-educated. Her complete lack of integrity saw her betray her political party, screw her way to the middle – hasn’t feminism progressed women immensely – before being exposed by Laurie Oakes for the low-life she is/was, and then run out of the country.
And now the mediocre ethics-vacuum returns to a hero’s welcome from people on this blog!?
We can only conclude that her supporters here must have similar personality profiles.
Greg, if you can’t express an opinion without imputing all sorts of motives to people and making risibly sweeping judgements about personalities, you are breaching the comments policy and you are not welcome here if you continue to do so.
“…you are breaching the comments policy”
Also, by being J*hn Green*ield.
There’s that too!
Her complete lack of integrity saw her betray her political party, screw her way to the middle – hasn’t feminism progressed women immensely – before being exposed by Laurie Oakes for the low-life she is/was, and then run out of the country.
.
I think that the supporters and/or detractors of Cheryl Kernot are getting off the point. I’m not sure she’s as great as people make out. If she is I’d like to hear specifically why. But the issue here is social cohesion – inclusiveness to use the fashionable buzzword – and I’d personally like to see an interplay of views on whether this is a problem and if so what strategies can be used to tackle it.
.
That would be really interesting perhaps? That is the topic? Yes?
.
Sinclair Davidson has a post on the racial violence against Indians in Melbourne entitled Get Off Your Bums. At first I thought it was a call to the generality. But that was naivety born of not being entirely cynical. Instead it was an argument that someone (ie the State) should do something. Ironic coming from a libertarian no?
.
That said I’ve heard Indians get slandered and did nothing. Didn’t want to get my head kicked in, which, for some reason, I’m a lot more wary of than I used to be.
I was folowing on from Mark’s comment that you can run a communitarian system without State coercion, but that this would be other than classical liberalism. I showed (I hope) that this is classical liberalism.
You may disagree that this is possible, but that is a point opposed to Mrk’s ideas – not the point I was trying to make.
Sorry Andrew I skimmed. And I do think it’s possible.
.
Communitarian/ associational. Not exactly the same thing. I s’pose the former implies some kind of economic relationship. But I don’t see it a contrary to classical liberalism at all.
.
I see it more as something classical liberals don’t talk much about. Socialists do. And classical liberals moan about their solutions. But at least they’re paying attention.
Adrien,
I do not see it as contrary to classical liberalism either – which was my point. As long as no force is used by the State (or only so much as to ensure that each person involved is exercising relative freedom of will then, to me at least, it is perfectly harmonious with classical liberalism.
Just an apology I haven’t had time to join in the debate very much. Things are really crazy at the moment – 12 hour work days and all that. I will be taking some notes at the event tomorrow night (though may not have a chance to write them up for a bit). I’ll come back and read over the thread when I do.
Mark,
your posts and contributions are valued by many of us,
cheers
Thanks so much, Ambigulous!
BBB wrote: But then what would you call it? Classical liberalism?
Perhaps it’s social(neo-)liberalism. Not necessarily a bad thing, and not unlike the movement toward Social-liberalism that informed Deakin in the 1900s. Kernot’s langauage and her arguments read like Neo-liberalism, with all its critique of being governed too much by the state, given a social twist: social-capital rather than human capital, social enterepreneurship rather than the self as enterprise. I’m part of a few “social enterprises” but these rely on huge donations of time – effectively unpaid labour – and are sometimes just forms of being governed from a distance, by local council and state government.
Or perhaps it is just people being people – getting on with their lives and not relying on the government to come up with solutions. It’s just called living.
Andrew, I think that some of the distinctions would be clearer if you took a look at some material on the liberal/communitarian debate. The communitarians take issue with several important aspects of liberal political philosophy. Firstly, the notion of the ‘unencumbered self’ – for communitarians, the self is a product of a community and is primarily defined in its terms. You can’t just posit an individual self radically separate from community in the way that liberals tend to. Secondly, the liberal position on state neutrality and the distinction between justice and the good life (ie morality and ethics). For communitarians, the question of what constitutes the good life shouldn’t be out of bounds for politics, or even the state.
I would recommend Will Kymlicka on ‘Community’ from the Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Blackwell) or perhaps Daniel Bell’s book Communitarianism and It’s Critics. In many ways I’m more sympathetic with Rawls’ or Kymlicka’s liberalism than with Bell, Sandel, Alisdair Macintyre or the other communitarians, but I think the critique has some merit. There has been a sort of drift whereby liberals have come to agree with large parts of the critique and reformulate their own positions accordingly – even Rawls did this to some degree; on the other side we can see positions like Mark’s that take up some of the communitarian positions and interests but drop the problematic assumptions in the wake of post-structuralist and other criticisms.
Having read Kernot’s essay (thanks Sally I missed that, not much sleep lately) I find what she’s talking about to be very interesting. I’m a little dubious that it’s a revolution in public policy and the phrase ‘social entrepreneur’ irritated me.
.
But when you consider it, it fits reasonably well. After all instead of waiting for ‘someone to do something’ this guy just went and did it. The govt got involved in a supporting role, it followed.
.
I have reservations about Kernot’s rose-water view of this as some kind of social watershed. But it’s nevertheless brilliant stuff. Forget bureaucratic programmes, lists, categories and due process and simply go in and make it up as you go along. And best of all it really doesn’t matter what the differences between communitarians and liberals. When you read the comments above there’s a sense that ideology is preventing people from acknowledging that they pretty much agree.
.
It is a bit odd that the language of the market is taking over something that isn’t really a market however.
Yeah, I agree. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Mark – I haven’t stopped thinking (and talking) about it the last couple of days…it keeps returning me in mind to Kim’s thread last month – Corporatism, Rudd style
Agree about what Adrien? That the moral of Kernot’s story is ‘Just Do It’?
And with whom?
Agree about what Adrien?
.
There’s some farnarkling about non-Statist solutions to problems. I haven’t seen anyone object to that. They tend to be discussing whether it communitarian or old fashioned associationalism, compliant with the principles of classical liberalism, defiant of the principles of classical liberalism…
.
That the moral of Kernot’s story is ‘Just Do It’?
.
Yeah but it’s not her story. Her story is all about the Centre for Social Impact. I’m not entirely certain but I’d wager Andrew Mawson’s glad the idea’s being spread around but he and others like him probably didn’t need a research centre’s papers to do it. Contrary to some of the language she’s using this isn’t about public policy. Such policy may support but I reckon these things succeed best if someone’s, as she says, enterprising and the system follows and supports.
.
I also think maybe we should be careful about statements to the effect that there’s a return to this or that movement simply because an academic/former politician’s getting into it currently.
.
And with whom?
.
With anyone that’ll have ya. :)