Reheated (13)
For newcomers, three more items from the archives.
On the socialist pieties of Professor Zygmunt Bauman.
The professor claims that “the quality of a society should be measured by the quality of life of its weakest members.” My initial response to this was to think of a drunken woman I sometimes see not far from where I live. She’s a slightly incongruous sight around mid-morning: fag in one hand, can of cheap beer in the other, chugging away merrily and looking a little unsteady. I’m guessing she’s not a physicist or a brain surgeon, or even a professor of sociology. It’s unlikely, I think, that this woman can hold down a job and I’d guess the odds are good that her morning beers are paid for with state benefits. Now if Bauman wants us to judge the quality of society as a whole by the quality of this woman’s habits and decisions, or the decisions of others like her, that seems a tad unfair. It’s also unclear what, if anything, Professor Bauman would want to do to this woman – sorry, do for this woman – in the name of “social justice.”
Seumas Milne demands “social justice” and the right to take your stuff.
Note the phrases “naked class egotism” and “unchallengeable entitlement.” Now to whom might they apply? Those who wish to retain just under half of their own earnings, or those who feel entitled to confiscate even more from others in order to indulge their own moral sentiments, or pretensions thereof? Do notions of greed, presumption and selfishness apply only to people above a certain level of income? Or can they, for instance, be said of some recipients of welfare? Can such things be said of the state, or of the righteous Mr Milne? To how much of your income is the government morally entitled?
Eco-hippies weep for fallen trees. “I want you to know, trees, that we care.”
And feel free to skip barefoot through the greatest hits.
“Bauman… hailed as “one of Europe’s most influential sociologists”…”
That doesn’t say much for the profession.
svh,
Well, Madeliene Bunting was the one doing the hailing in this instance, so perhaps we shouldn’t be too harsh. Though Bauman is almost a guru in some quarters, a role I suspect he enjoys. Maybe his non-socialist output is better, I couldn’t say. But if the essay and interview I link to show the typical standard of argument – grandiose assertion, caricature and endless begged questions – then the disrepute of sociology is easier to understand.
Bauman doesn’t explain why the “weakest members” of a society must be *the* yardstick of that society’s overall merit and functionality. Yet this assumption crops up repeatedly, and lots of other assumptions are piled on top. It’s one of his “defining principles.” And Bauman says it is, or should be, one of the “constant and non-negotiable assumptions” of the left. But for all his alleged interest in the underdog, or perceived underdog, he doesn’t seem terribly interested in the role played by individual decisions, or practicality in general. Should we measure our society by its “weakest members” regardless of why that “weakness” arises and persists in any given instance? And exactly how much theft and coercion does the professor intend to employ in order to bring his personal utopia to Earth?
If a tree falls in the forest and crushes a hippie, does anyone care?
Somewhat on topic…
Amynda Marcotte is indulging in a little Doublethink, of the “freedom is slavery” kind:
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/libertarianism_is_fundamentally_anti_human/
The headline is so patently ridiculous, reading her childish rant that follows is almost superfluous.
o_O
In days gone by, wasn’t there a commenter at LGF by the name of Elrond Hubbard?
“What, for instance, happens to a person’s moral agency if that person is permanently shielded from the fallout of their own actions and is compensated not just for hardship and misfortune, but for negligence, selfishness and habitual idiocy?”
This happens.
“The parents don’t work. And who could blame them? They would have to have a joint salary of £67,000 to match what they get in state benefits. To be fair to Mr and Mrs Davison they say they would really like to find work, but Mr Davison hasn’t had a job for the last 13 years. So the state funds what I can only describe as their children habit. They have ten, ranging from three year old Trinity to 20 year old Amy. They receive £20,280 in child tax credits alone.”
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/08/madness-of-our-benefits-system.html
In the comments at Iain Dale’s:
“Have Mr and Mrs Davison found out what’s causing these children yet?”
Karen,
“This happens.”
People respond to incentives and that’s something Bauman doesn’t seem terribly interested in. The professor claims that the welfare state “resists the present-day neo-liberal tendency to break down the networks of human bonds and undermine the social foundations of human solidarity.” But prolonged exposure to the welfare state, as in the case above, can do much the same.
The Davison family show little “solidarity” with those who are expected to fund their chosen lifestyle on an indefinite basis. The “networks of human bonds” – including responsibility, parental duty and a sense of reciprocation – have apparently been replaced by a sense of gross entitlement. And if Professor Bauman believes that the existence of such people is an indictment of society and grounds for greater redistribution via taxes, isn’t there a problem here?
I am always fascinated by the lengths the left goes to in order to “measure society.” Whatever standard is used though we soon learn that it falls woefully short of the ideal.
There are various ‘charities’ examining levels of poverty (which always finds that there are desperately poor people who cannot afford the largest plasma TVs and sometimes have to go to shops like Game to buy pre-owned Playstation games) and sociologists pronouncing that those having no job prospects — people who really, really would like to work and have yearned so for many years –– are suffering what is tantamount to a loss of personal rights that no amount of (free) cash can seemingly fully redress.
We have, apparently, a crap society but it will be made better thanks to the tireless efforts of the left. Yet strange that all those years of Labour governments and Marxist influence have somehow failed to correct matters. Of course, it is entirely possible that they were the wrong Marxists in office and anyway, Socialism still hasn’t been done ‘properly’ yet.
But it will get better and then there will be no poverty, no loss of rights. No need to measure as all will be well. I, for one, can hardly wait.
Aside to Spiny Norman:
You’ve got a good memory. Yes, I used to post at LGF (as you did). But one day I was banned, along with many others.
David,
“It’s one thing for you to help me out of your pocket, it’s another thing for you to help me out of his pocket.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaPO4j85irY