Historical serials on television are often set in a period just beyond our memory – Downton Abbey or Upstairs Downstairs are obvious current examples. By contrast, White Heat on Thursday evenings traces a group of characters from University in the 60s to the present day – it is full of fashions and political events which we ought to be able to remember. And when we do, we may find ourselves wondering, was it really like that? If only we could have known at the time where it was all leading, if only we could have seen the process of historical development of which we were a part (eg Wilson’s white heat of technological revolution referred to in the title). Even the recent past can feel like a foreign country. And yet exploring that country and examining the way we got to where we are now ought to be enlightening – it might even make the past more interesting than it seemed at the time (except perhaps for the clothes (how could I have worn such ties?) and the prevalence of long hair and beards, boots and mini skirts.)
The characters in White Heat are all baby boomers who were born into the period of economic recovery after the war – a period that came to be dominated by a focus on social cohesion and the increasing opportunity for the wellbeing of those at the more deprived end of society. That was the era of strong social institutions – the Mother’s Union, the Women’s Institute, the Rotary Club, Civil Defence organizations, trade unions, political party membership, even the Church of England which had a great boost in vocations in the 1950s. High taxes, large scale social provision, and nationalised industries meant that government played a leading role in shaping a society in which politicians were still respected and respected each other, more or less. Manufacturing industries were vital to the economy and though football attracted huge crowds footballers were still held to a maximum wage. Even so, though Macmillan claimed in 1957 that most people had never had it so good, that didn’t apply to those who suffered from the sexism, racism and homophobia of the period. And the one size fits all model of social services could be notoriously restrictive and inefficient.
It was perhaps the rise of a certain kind of individualism which put an end to the apparent harmony of the post war era. Individuality and difference began to be celebrated as the baby boomers grew up and went to university. Politicians began to be mocked and parodied in shows like ‘That was the week that was’. By the late 60s the culture gap separating young people from their parents has been held to be greater than at any point since the early 19th century. The trade unions and students became more aggressive, the old economic policies seemed to be less effective, and stagflation and stop go economics emerged, old associations broke down and the stage was set for Thatcherism. The word ‘yuppie’ appeared in the vocabulary, society was denigrated as an idea without substance, old industries died, financial services displaced the production of goods, while old style workers were left to sink or swim. In contrast to students in the late 40s, young men and women began to say that they were more interested in a job that paid well than an interesting career at a reasonable wage. The conspicuous consumption of redundant consumer goods (who has the best trainers?) led to the rewriting of Descartes so now we could say, ‘I shop therefore I am.’ The earlier responsibilities of centralised government were dismantled as privatisation, entrepreneurship and the free market took centre stage. What united the new generation was not the interest of all but the needs and rights of each. The personal became political, in a famous phrase originating from feminist writing in 1970.
What we see developing here is the contrast between a collective and an individualist model. The state is seen either as the organiser of the public good, or the protector of the freedoms and rights of individuals to shape the life of the family or local community for themselves. This contrast is still a vital issue of British politics as it is in America. The heritage of the latter option and the deregulation of the banking industry that went with it has now perhaps been ironically exposed by the need for governments in both countries to intervene to save the financial institutions that had become to big to fall. Inequality and poverty, with the rapid expansion of the gap between rich and poor has made this country feel less sure of itself as people report lower levels of trust and increasing uncertainty about our national values and identity. Infant mortality, criminality, mental illness, obesity, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, illegal drug use, personal indebtedness and anxiety are now much more prevalent in this country than in continental Europe.
And the future is increasingly uncertain. To what extent will Great Britain still be able to think itself great on the international stage? As our economic status loses ground to Far Eastern and South American economies, as we find it harder to maintain a defence capability which can intervene in the troubled places of the world, while terrorism becomes more of a threat at home, as the affluent retreat to their gated communities and become less aware of conditions at the bottom of the pile, as semi skilled and unskilled work fast disappears not only because of increased mechanisation but also because goods can be more cheaply produced elsewhere, as employees get left behind more and more rapidly by technological developments, as people have to accept jobs which are far below their skill level, as citizens become less and less interested in joining political parties or even voting, let alone trusting politicians to be able to do anything that will make a real difference, where is our society heading? Are we condemned simply to lurch between the free market option and the interventionist state? Or should we look for a way through this stand-off and if so how might we as Christians respond to our national dilemma?
Our starting point might be the need to ask what men and women want for themselves and under what conditions those wants may be addressed? We need to question whether there are public goals and goods for which the market is not suited. We need to recapture the idea that we belong to a civic community which transcends generations. We have inherited from the past, and we need to conserve what was best in that inheritance and we need to be concerned with what future generations will inherit from us. We need to ask how the state is best placed to protect people from themselves and to provide space for them to take responsibility for themselves. We need to find anew a collective sense of responsibility and concern for what governments do and how leaders lead. We need to explore again how the spiritual and the material are related to one another to prevent the latter from dominating the language of progress. If markets favour needs and wants that can be reduced to commercial criteria and economic measurement, what of those goods that do not adapt well to such language (eg should we really be referring to students and patients as customers or consumers)? How do we diminish social tensions born of envy and how do we restore trust in society? At a very basic level we pay taxes because we trust them to be spent wisely and fairly, and we expect our fellow citizens to pay their fair share of taxes too and not to exploit the welfare state. Newspaper attacks on tax dodgers and welfare scroungers both imply how much such trust is in short measure. Evidence shows that people tend to trust one another more if they have things in common not just language but also income – greater equality results in greater trust.
All these questions point towards a profound religious question, What are we for? Can we find a way of talking about our humanity which helps us discover what sort of life we should be leading in order to fulfil that humanity? A secular version of this issue is well expressed by Tony Judt: ‘Even if we concede that there is no higher purpose to life, we need to ascribe meaning to our actions in a way that transcends them. Merely asserting that something is or is not in our material interest will not satisfy most of us most of the time. To convince others that something is right or wrong we need a language of ends not means. We don’t have to believe that our objectives are poised to succeed. But we do need to be able to believe in them.’
In religious terms we need a larger picture, a narrative to underpin our moral thinking. Our responsibility as Christians is to imagine ourselves not only against the background of what science or psychoanalysis or economics or sociology tells us about ourselves but in the light of God’s will and purpose for us. Central to that vision is equality and mutuality. We are all equal in God’s eyes, and we all depend on each other for who we are and what we become. We are both ‘needy and needed’. The more we give the more we belong in a common life upon which all depend. And in that common life no one is to be overlooked, downgraded or excluded, and no-one can be judged not to have anything to contribute. A good community is one in which no one should feel so anxious that they have to focus all their effort on self protection; everyone should be aware of the possible effects of their actions; all should be learning self awareness and self control; and each should offer respect and loving attention to their fellow human beings. So Christians should always be asking questions about the common good, how this or that policy affects the most disadvantaged. And they should also look to see what understanding of our humanity lies behind any political and economic discourse. What kind of self interest is being appealed to, what impact does this have on family life, how much time does this allow us to be unproductive, how much does this appeal to our more damaging competitive instincts?
In this way perhaps the church can rediscover its prophetic voice – a voice we desperately need in whoever is to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury!
Ideas for this letter have been extensively gleaned from ‘Ill fares the land’ by Tony Judt, and ‘Crisis and Recovery’ by Rowan Williams and Larry Elliott
The Vicar Writes
Stephen Tucker