Categories: uncategorized
Date: 02 June 2007 07:53:29
This BBC News article reports on "Tony Blair's "respect czar" Louise Casey" saying that we need to put the manners back into society.
Within the article she is reported as using classic New Right reasoning for the deciline in politeness in society by saying, "a rise in single-parent families and less church-going and neighbourliness were all possible factors in falling levels of politeness." (She is obviously a good disciple of Charles Murray)
I do agree that making sure that people are more polite and show more consideration for others is important and that we need to work to ensure the general decline in our society doesn't continue.However, I do think she in many ways has been lazy and chosen the easy explanations, (and the wrong ones) by going for the classic Functionalist explanation of the norms and values of soceity (the agreed ways to act and think) negatively change as the key institutions in society (particularly family and religion) decline.
I think there are a range of factors involved, which may to a certain extent include the decline of some institutions, as others (particularly the media) have grown in influence. What I would argue has caused more of the negative change though is the change of culture, bought about particularly by Thatcherism and then New Labour within our country, which basically promotes self-advancement and self-sufficiency at the expense of other people and the wider community. It is in many ways the promotion of these values and the self-centred materialism which goes with them which has led, in a large part to the decline of the traditional institutions and the decline in helping others. (How many lone parents are in that situation because of relationships which break up due to financial pressures or time pressures caused by our consumerist lifestyles and constant battle to have more money to buy more "stuff"?). Too often the rights of ownership and freedom have been promoted without mentioning or by intentionally disregarding the responsibility to others which should go with those rights. Also in many cases the ownership or freedom has been clearly at the expense of other people.
Also I think that her explanation is based too much on narrow and inaccurate stereotypes. She is putting forward, through the connection she makes, a picture of lone parents which is wrong and unhelpful. In my experience lone parents are just as strong in promoting politeness and an ethos of service amongst their children as couples (and whilst yes I would say that it happens to be true!). Also her view of the role and nature of churches seems some what idealised.