Re-imagining the Economic and Social order – but what might it be based on?

In recent weeks I went to a seminar in London organised by the think tank ‘ResPublica’, entitled: ‘Reclaiming Capitalism: A Renaissance of Ethical Markets?’ and have read the books ‘Ill fares the Land’ by Tony Judt and ‘Christianity and the New Social Order’ (to mark the 70^th anniversary of William Temple’s original ‘Christianity and the Social Order’) by John Atherton, Chris Baker and my former colleague, John Reader.

I am struck that in various ways there is a similar critique of where we find ourselves as a country/society in each.  That somehow we have ended up over the past thirty years in a situation where economics has become the central determinant of all judgements – not that we ask any more, ‘Is it right?’ but instead, ‘What will it cost?’

We have also ended up with an atomised, individualistic culture where freedom is the value that trounces all others.  We know this isn’t really a true description of how people operate.  As John Milbank, one of the speakers at the seminar said, people are not abstract; they have attachments and work through trust.  Giles Fraser, also at the seminar, said we need to have a basket of values and to realise other obligations and constraints that provide benefits for people.

Judt charts the rise and demise of social democracy over the past century.  He sees the moderating role of the state upon capitalism, both as provider of those necessary things that don’t have a simple market value like public transport as well as a universal welfare safety net to ameliorate the worst excesses of the market.

He is perhaps better at somewhat polemically setting out, as he sees it, how we got to the place we are now in than how and what we should be striving for to reach the better place he would desire.  ‘Christianity and the New Social Order’ is much more prescriptive and sets out seven guidelines as a suggested programme based on Temple’s original middle axioms.  These are: The flourishing of every child; the commitment to education as lifelong learning for all; the development of health as personal and communal wholeness for all; the fostering of delight in the environment or whole created order, paying unequivocal regard to its intergenerational sustainability; recognising the continuing importance of income and work for personal and national wellbeing; developing financial systems to deliver and support greater wellbeing for all; pursuing greater equality as essential to the pursuit of greater wellbeing.   

The book goes to some length to not only be ecumenical in the spirit of William Temple, but recognises inter-faith concerns and indeed to goes further, distinguishing intra-disciplinary working that separates Christian or faith-based thinking from other disciplines such as the social sciences, and seeking to be inter-disciplinary.  Having spoken to John Reader about the book I understand that it was agreed with the publishers that it was to be written for a more secular audience, so it may be that in attempting to put forward inter-disciplinary ways of working there is a risk that it moves away from the Christian rootedness of what it purports to represent – Christianity and the New Social Order.  Therefore, the criticism of Peter Selby, former Bishop of Worcester, in his review in the Church Times, isn’t necessarily fair that it doesn’t examine in any serious way nor connect to its recommendations the Christian concepts it from time to time mentions.

And whilst Judt, hardly goes much deeper (as a secular, atheist Jew, he rejects religion as being marginal even in the US where he lived), he does say, ‘We are all children of the Greeks ... Natural Aristotelians ... we assume that a good society is one in which people behave well.  But in order for such an implicitly circular account to convince we need to agree on the meaning of ... well.’  He continues, ‘What we lack is a moral narrative: an inherently coherent account that ascribes purpose to our actions in a way that transcends them ... we need the language of ends not means ... we ... need to be able to believe in [our objectives].’

One of the frightening things that comes from reading the sweep of history as Judt sets it out, and in some of his warnings, is how we are in a similar situation to both 100 years ago before the First World War, when leading people could see the events coming towards them could make no sense, as well as the inter-war period, where the chaos and desire for safety and certainty led to totalitarianism.  What we are lacking is a vision of the future, that may well lead to programmes, but which needs to be based on a depth of philosophy and theology, whose workings can be seen for those who want to, that will lead us from our present despairs.

In some ways prescriptions are easy, there is no shortage of commentators on, for example, economics (Peston, Stephanie Flanders, Paul Mason at the BBC, Martin Wolf at the FT, Anatole Kaletsky at the Times, Larry Elliot at the Guardian, etc.) and writers behind them, most of whom focus on means but sometimes ends too.  But whilst there are many writers of Christian doctrine I am not sure who is making the connections between the two fields.  One answer seems, from recent discussions with friends, some of those from the school of Radical Orthodoxy, led by Milbank.  But a recent exchange in the ‘Church Times’ (for those who are Anglicans) suggests that not everyone is comfortable with their attempt to re-invent a kind of Christendom model to re-conquer the nation.