What Sort of Society?
My late friend (and erstwhile school colleague) Howard Elcock published a book in 1982 with the title What Sort of Society? Economic and Social Policy in Modern Britain [1]. It was a collection of chapters contributed by himself and fellow members of the School of Government, at Newcastle Politechnic. It is an excellent title, framing a question that every voter in the country should pose for themselves. A good first step towards improving our 'quality of life' would be to identify our objective; our ideal state.
Plato thought it was obvious that the ideal society would be ruled by an an educated and enlightened aristocracy; but then he was himself an aristocrat. He probably thought also that 4 slaves per household were necessary for comfortable living.
My ancestry is essentially Scottish. I think my ideal would be a united, one-class, population where only small differences in wealth exist, and where everyone shares common goals. I can see that this social unity arises naturally where there is a common enemy, be that the climate, or competitive neighbouring states. Given the natural disparities in ability, a uniform society of this sort requires (of its citizens) strong discipline, guidance, and education. Such a model seems to have evolved in Scandinavia; and it might suit Scotland better than it would suit England. (I can also see that it might be a little dull.)
For island dwellers in a mild climate, for example in southern England, feudalism evolved into a paternalistic 'Merry England' social structure with an aproximately ten-to-one ratio of 'workers' to 'gentry' [2]. The 'gentry' owned most of the land, and employed the non-gentry or rented them land to farm. They also built and maintained the church and provided such charity as was needed. Until the 1832 Reform Bill only the (male) gentry had the vote. This resembles Plato's Athenian ideal except that the slaves are waged, not owned. After a pandemic (such as the 'Black Death'), wages might rise dangerously for a period, but the high breeding rate of the workers restores an equilibrium. This system must have proved satisfactory for both high and low, as it was stable for the better part of a thousand years.
The rôle of religion in this 'Merry England' model should not be underestimated. A two-fold rôle. The concept of an after-life encouraged charity from the well-off, and seemed to justify the patience of those born into the working class [3]. There might have been cynicism in the highest ranks of the clergy, but the average aristocrat seems to have been a sincere believer; witness Robert-the-Bruce (King of Scotland) who wanted his heart taken to the holy land after he died. (This leads us to wonder if the dwindling interest in religion plays a part in the crumbling of conservative England.)
Two world wars, education, and the invention of machines have, between them, essentially eliminated the concept of 'servants'; and, progressively, the concept of 'manual workers' also. Only immigration provides us today with our health service, hospitality industry, bus and taxi drivers, and our summer fruit-pickers and vegetable harvesters.
There may be lessons to be learned from the giant, ex-communist, one-party states of China and Russia. Unfortunately, I have too little knowedge of the means by which either Russia or China achives its stability. We see the figure-head Presidents (Xi or Putin). But what structures lie beneath: cabinets, civil servants, secret-police, army, courts and judges? How is power exercised, and stability achieved. It seems that a steadily improving standard of living will produce a contented citizenry. But how is that engineered?
We like to believe that our more democratic society is 'better', more 'grown-up'. We believe we are more free, and we cherish that freedom. But should we? And are we? Perhaps there is too much freedom? Freedom to exploit? If I were to nominate a problem that needs fixing in the capitalist world, I would point to the widening gap between the very-rich and the rest of society as the main (fixable) problem. We seem to have evolved a system in which we voluntarily pour more and more money into the hands of frivolous playboys, who use it to shoot rockets to the moon.
☜☜☜☜☜ O ☞☞☞☞☞
Footnotes
[1] Elcock, Howard (ed.) "What Sort of Society? Economic and Social Policy in Modern Britain" (1982) Martin Robertson, Oxford.
[2] Wikipedia suggests that less than 5% of the population had a vote before the 1832 Reform Act. Only the males had the vote, but their wives would share the status of 'Gentry', hence my suggestion that 10% of the population be 'gentry'. It would be interesting to know if something like the Norman Conquest was required to set up an elite class in the first place – to ensure a sensible initial distribution of capital, and a suitable legal system. The evidence is that some people force their way into the aristocracy by virtue of their ability and character-type (intelligent, competitive, robust/ruthless). Doubtless they will find their way to the top of whatever social system exists to order society.
[3] "As Sir Roger de Coverley is landlord to the whole congregation, he keeps them in very good order, and will suffer nobody to sleep in church besides himself". Joseph Addison (1711) in The Spectator.
