Paper given by Frank Furedi

THE POLITICS OF STASIS

Left and right have lost their meaning in political life.

For the left, the problem now is not inequality or economic exploitation, but too much affluence. The current discussion of happiness implies that being discontented with what you have is wrong. People are portrayed as greedy for wanting more.

The left pathologises discontent. Any desire for a better future is seen as negative, destructive and right wing. Even the desire to produce more in society is seen as wrong. What is wrong with wanting more? Why should being happy with what you have be ‘progressive’?

Humans are recast as individuals who are vulnerable and passive. Even the anti-war movement has taken this on: its concern about the war is expressed as concern about the effect on the returning soldiers, and how traumatised they will be.

The implosion of the left is characterised by its embrace of environmentalism. The left is seeking refuge in nature because it can’t promote a social message. But this turn towards environmentalism is also something you see with the religious right. There is reluctance by the right to affirm traditional values, such as the family and religion. All sides are going Green.

Environmentalism is seen as an ethical absolute. It is characterised by a move back to nature: the question is no longer about what humans do, but about the way in which nature impacts upon humanity. Humanity is seen as at risk from natural forces, such as epidemics and climate change. History becomes a question of how species have been destroyed, or what happened millions of years ago. This transmits the message that in the grand scale of things human beings amount to nothing.

Instead of working towards the future, sustaining what we have has become the dominant theme in intellectual and cultural life. Human agency is seen as ‘unnatural’. Stasis has replaced political life. The primary virtue is now to keep things the way they are rather than changing things in the future. The dismal Malthusian concept of sustainability is rhetoric but it really means ‘do nothing’. It is directed against our humanity.

DEPOLITICISATION

Depoliticisation is not just about the decline of an ideal: it is characterised by an absence of conflict or choice.

The paradox is that the more society is depoliticised, the more every aspect of life is politicised. The more depoliticised public life becomes, the more everything can become political: the body, food, childcare, etc.

With the erosion of the political there come more profound institutional and structural manifestations. An important development is the fact that the relationship between interest and action is now unclear. There is now no real connection between social interest and political action.

There are no clear sectional interests now. In the past different social groups – the aristocracy, the middle class, or the working class - pursued a political outlook. Now there is an absence of political interest groups: there are no clear political constituencies, and we have seen the fragmentation of class as a distinct political constituency. The Labour Party is no longer linked to the working class, for example.

We have also seen the fragmentation of the public. Who knows who is going to vote for whom? Votes for the British National Party went up in the local council elections, but why? What does this mean? The only pattern is arbitrariness.

Political intent is seen as a bad thing, as entirely negative. Political interests are seen as selfish and corrupting. Instead, the preferred term is ‘stakeholder’, a passive individual who happens to have a seat at the table of debate.

This is a pre-political period in history, in which there is not only an absence of purposeful political action but there is no Realpolitik (the art of the possible), only Banalpolitik (arbitrary action).

This prepolitical period is characterised by a commonplace fear of change, presentism and conformity, and widespread illiberalism and intolerance.

THE MANIFESTO CLUB

We are all affected by the regressive influences on political life. The Manifesto Club is for people from different traditions who are concerned about the current state of affairs and who have common concerns. These people include:

-- Religious people, who are worried about the crisis of meaning, and the way that therapeutic ideas have replaced beliefs;

-- Humanists, who are worried about superstition replacing values;

-- Liberals, who are concerned about society’s inability to affirm liberty and individual autonomy;

-- Socialists, who are concerned about the renunciation of progress, or the way in which equality has been degraded.

There are problems common to the different traditions, certain processes we all have to go through:

-- We need to reflect on our own agendas to see how far our ideas are still relevant;

-- We need to look at how human agency has been defined downwards in all areas of life;

-- We need to renew Enlightenment ideals as relevant now. This is not a nostalgia trip, but a recognition of human beings’ potential, and the possibility of changing the world.

The Enlightenment is under constant and fierce attack – it is dismissed as the ‘Enlightenment project’, and seen as responsible for the destructive features of society. But the Enlightenment raised ideals; it didn’t specify how to achieve them. Working out how to do that is our challenge today.

The Manifesto Club is not a movement or a party. It is a laboratory to test out ideas and new ways of working.

Why launch this project now?

First, because the absence of left and right opens up new possibilities for politics. In the past, the form that left and right took meant you had to take a particular position or ‘line’. Left and right became caricatures of themselves. Now we are freer to experiment with ideas and strategies.

Second, because we can now see that regressive cultural influences are leading nowhere but downwards. People are looking for something new.

The Manifesto Club is a new voyage of discovery. There are signs that a minority will take a stand against this regressive culture. The key question of this period is the individual. You can’t have powerful social movements when you have a degraded view of the individual.

A final point. There is no point in getting involved in the Manifesto Club unless you feel optimistic about the future. We need to promote and celebrate every positive manifestation of human genius.