Spinning off the fear.
Okay perhaps agan we need to admit it we are scared. There is something very scary about the world with no boundaries in it – a world that is naked to its own chances. I mean the advantage of a state or a God was that there wqas something between oneself and the myriad of tiny causes that makes he world – and yet reamin thinkable nd absolutely uncomfortable to us who are made through them. Or to put it another way states mattered – and mattered not because they were real – or useful - that is not because they were not something that could not – perhaps logically should wither and die – but rather because they gave us a two tiered level to undertstanding the absolute oopeness oof the universe. I mean in the stae we had somekind of intermediate representaion of us nd the world. We did not open ono everything else – did not lie naked in the face of all other things0 as between us an then their was the larger and very comforting world of the state. Within the state- as a par of the state we could belend our thouyght together within a way that we felt that – as a community we could cope with, understnd and to a degree control. The state then offered some kind of acess- so kind of principle across which we could spin onto the uncetainity of life- and give meaning to that uncertainity and to our positins in it.
Now of course the state is not the only possible solution Christendom or the Kafilate are just as good solution (and in someways far beter- s they allow a far better grasping of the muliplicty of each member of the community) – but what5 ius clear is that the free Market is a lousy solution. The free market- with its demand that we all open ourselves immiedately on the uncertainity of the world- and stay their blindly grasping between ever changing and highly complex possibilities – is just about the least comforting paradigm one can imagine. I suspect that faith in this paradigm is only possible if one has a mutually contrary and yet equally strong faith in the state. It is of course the mystery of these two actually mutally exclkusive views that compose much of the conservative party. One on the hand there is a commitement to utter free market principle and on the some kind of patriotic nonsense. Of course it is only the firm and unquestioning belief in the latter that makes the former saustainable and comformatable.
And yet in a world where we have thron down all boundaries it strikes me this this tradition tory double think is increasely under threat, I mean in a global world it is clearly less and less obvious what it is to be British. I mean in the world of tfree market – and a free for all on believes- it is clar being British is not being a racial group 9thank God) or even having pone historial background (countries never o have this) – or – well anything inparticualr. The problem of course is that this fact wqill by itself force us back upon the world and ininfte complexity we are trying so hard to esacpe. That is of course equally unthinkable. Now- this is of course a problem that then demands of a solution – and it strokes wme we are currently seeing in botht eh main two parties a very nasty – but logically coherent possible solution.
If being Biritish is nothing about what one is either essentially or socially- then perhaps it come down to being in a certain postion in th world- a postion that we must actively defend using arbitrary laws – and rules. I mean here that due to cruelty and historical accient (and nothing about any intergral skill of its current citizens) Birtian finds its self in a very privelledge position in the world. Now the argument runs it is effectly this privelledge postion and this alone that must be defended as British. The battle grounds then of these defense immediately becomes immigration and cultural identity. This latter move being vitl as it is te myth of cultural identity that will allow everyone to feel that they are actively particuaipating in Britishness- and therefore are using the state to screen themselves against the full horror of the mass uncertainity of the world. We are Birtish then because of our helth care system – because of our systenm of befeits – because of our priveledge standard of living – it is these – and not anything we are really actively doing that is what is making us British. To be British is to be a privelledge consumer- in an enviromenet that hass been carefully crafted for enjoyable consumption. I man here- it is to be in a green and pleasant land which were carefully manage to be green and pelesent. To Be Btitisih is then actually to have the wonderful live style which we have ( a live style where not only do we mostly not strave- but also all have access to mobile phines!). A fascinating and vital corrallary of this postioin is of course that to be poor – or not to want to consume or be privilledge becomes in itself unpatriotic. We are only British because we consume in the way we do!
Now the problem is of course that this priveledged postions comes at a huge ciost- a cost I think it is fair to say we never really pay. The are privleldge in part because other parts of the world are produceing us of and clothes far too cheapily. Likewise we are privleldges because we are only concerned with our kith and kins wealthfare. That is because we we worry about our smallest complaints- whuile letting the rest of the world die of TB. But of course all this comes also at a cost to ourselves. While wealthy we re not absolutely wealthy – orour priveldges are only ours because we are selfish – because we do not help others. To be britisih then immediately becomes not just to have a privelledge life style – but also to act to defend it – and that action emans to act to exclude others form having it. This act I currently of course maniny being fought out on th issue of immigration. The economic mgrant is someone whose life is so wretched – and someno who the cuyrrent systems screws so bady that they are prepared to leave everything – and take a chance somewhere mles away – doing work that the citizens of the country would not dain to do – and for very little wages – they are then to be lauded – and yet the logic of our poistin is that we must despise them. I mean we do not see the desperation, and the sheer bravery of that act – we merely grasp at the way it could effect us- and our new cultural ideneity – that is our identity as one of the priveleldged few in th wolrd. Immaigiratnst clearly are coming to take away this priveleldge- and must be excluded at all costs. They are anti-Biritsh in a very real sebse: If we opened up our doors to them – and they ‘flooded in’ – our very ability to be British – that is to comsume as and when we do would of course disappear. We miust then arbiraily exclude them to defend our unearnt and arbitiray welatyh.
Now there are two main problems with this act of unjustice. Firstly- and most clearly it is so vlarly unjust. As British we impose on the world the fee market – we force others to trade with us freely and without any protection form our commercial ggressivlenes-- and wealth.. And yet , and at the sam time take spets to ensure that when our fellow humans act the only way they can = relaitate the only way they know how- by following the wealth we have ripped out of their country – to where it has cgone we arbitrarily act against them. The full idiocy of this arbitarieness is of course immediately obvious to everyone. After all the cardinal poijunt of the free market is that it needs fgree labour – that is free migration. Only if people can go where they will does one actually have a free market – if they cannot or arbitrary restriction are imposed on th poor – one does not ave a free market so much as a new form of slavery. Is it any wonder that organised groupos loath us so much?
But there is a second far more interesting asoect is the sense that the fear is real- and yet is actually the obverse of what were are busy fearing., I mean we are living in a world of the free market – where people are only paifd for actually doiung something in the world – and wehave it as one of our ancient priveledges tas Birtish that we really do noting at all. Noe currently that doing nothing0 that being a consumer feels viable and sustainable- we hve rigged the gobal onomy to allow us to be wekathy and reamin wealthy. And yet the logic of the market surely cannot run this way. If afterall de are doing nothing ()not even staffing telesales!) is follows that drop y drio our money will flow out of our economny. We might wriggile we might cheat- we might lie – we might threaten – and I am sure we will do all three – and fight numerous wars against others suceding – and yet ultimately the logic of the postion is that our ealth will gradually move elsewhere – move to thise we are currently paying slave w=ges to. Our fear of the migrant is then iun a sense a misplaced but real fear. By pretending that he problem is themnigrant – that the problem is they want to come to our land – we simulataneoius express a worry- namely that our money is going to their land – and that useless as we are – our power is waining - ; while at the same time justifying our postion – that is t as long as people want to come to sample our priveledge it will be all alright. Migration then becomes a perfect containmenet and eneial of a very real fear- a fear that in the world of the free market our priveldges days must surely be numbered. In raving against immiragantsa are are then expressing and continaing a fear- and yet one it left suspecting that not only are we not treating the geneuine fear, that is the certainity that wealth will drain fro th country – but we are also mking the time of our dominance – limited as it is ever one unpleasant – and violent. My final remark is given our priveledge is limited- perhapos we opught to accept that fact- and accept our task as manging our decline- and not blindly running from it, and making the world an awful lots nastier place as a consequence of our blind fear.