Sprocket 7 – Problems and Solutions.
One of the deep oddities of complex societies ha government, big or little has real problems defining new thins to do. The world slips on, new problems terrorism and the environment) might be defined, an yet the government cannot think new way to tackle he problem. Or again certain problems, say crime or the economy are the kind of problems that simply are out here. They do not go way or change, they just are. A government then is defined not by its solution to he problem so much says their taking an attitude around, the problem. Solutions are seldom actual 'solutions' to a problem that is quite possibly beyond every solution, or certainly beyond the solution of complex societies, an are rather badges of identity, or brands a government as to proof who they are. Or else they are punts on the future; That is wile it is the case that certain perhaps man problem hang around for generation others (say disestablishment of the church or the monarchy or else currently at least inflation, come and go. A government with viable solution, or perhaps better, a government which as papering over the cracks with a solution just as the problem solved itself, will be able o claim a success. One an hand wide range of solution, so that political opportunism will allows claims to be made. Although ere sometimes other rules kick in. The 1992 crash out of the ERM. This was a shock so profound that it squeezed (apparently) inflation out of he economic stem for a political generation (well eighteen years so far). This was major achievement one that successive governments had been after for twenty years or more. And yet such was the condition of the squeeze that the then government found it never to impossible o claim the credit. Their claim o have solves inflation was then derided. A move that was odd, as many of the Thatcher revolutions were also political opportunisms, and yet she got the credit for them,
Perhaps all his seems utterly cynical. And yet if one looks at the problems, say came or migration, it immediately becomes apparent that this is less cynicism and more the problem of social expression in complex societies. That is, to take of problem such as migration Here is essence is one of those problems which creates a reality out of rather lot of very distinct moves (a perfect gear then). Behind the problem certainly lies two fats. Firstly living with insecurity in relation to money is actually crippling in a society which values goods over God. On the other hand, numerous government policies have found it very difficult to deal with or mitigate the social problems created by high densities of people. Housing sates are not easy (o chap0 of effectively run. How could they be/They involve the coordination of a large number of different people, with different interests and values, in one fairly small social space. The e cheapest houses are then built in estates that to manage would actually take considerable efforts, funds and organization. The logic o t seem is then that these people are simply let to get on with it. Their lives very slip into being difficult, and from difficult, as solution such as drugs and drink appear, slip then into being impossible.
The problem of migration hen falls on this world like a solution. Here the move is ain doubtful. On the one hand there is the very simply (and quite erroneous fantasy) that elsewhere, is so hetropia there are others, other people who are receiving endlessly benefits of a the system .I a sense of course this is true (this I the middle classes). And yet it is not expressed there (as that would be too difficult, it would threaten the entire society). It is rather then changed or converted into the fantasy of the pampered migrant. He person aided by he seems must be other than any thing those in bedlam know. They most be falling on the system from outside, taking jobs and scarce resources. They must then be stopped. A problem of high density living is then shifted into a rather easy problem, of stopping people entering the country. The problem is of course that it was never about numbers, and only about concentrations. The migrants are aspiring o the very life, that it is British imamates find so difficult.
On he other hand, the current obsession of government for monitoring its, so hat it can proof or at least demonstrate facts about itself to others creates a falls value system based on tests. We are aware (or mostly aware0 hat there are currently very sharp inequities in society. It you tick box of a Brown scheme (you are a pensioner or on tax cedit0 you life suddenly transformed on a personal level Society is the full of little transformation; that is of people having more money. His fact itself breeds a double resentment. On a small-scale there is those who feel they have been left out of the system of just missed out. They look for a reasons, an find it is the fact that there is another groups who must be taking even more funds. But on a far larger scale it is one of the odd facts of society is actually how little throwing money at problems appease o do. So most pensioners are better off, but what do they spend it one? Does it real make them feel that much better off? Or they think of the new money they are given as their right, and merely spend it without a thought and without feeling than much better off.
Migration then falls on a system that appears o be attempting to ‘mend; itself with one, and yet that men is not achieving the desired result. It is not making the problem feel better. Migration is then seen as the missing element. To blame others has been a political no-no ( or has been for twenty years or so) Bu the oddities of the problem – the money does not appear really to help problem demands a new or at least a different solution, an migration raises it head again. The problem of course is that politicians actually cannot easily address it in the manner that it needs o be addressed. That is a as problem from elsewhere, as hat level of ;social explanation will appear patronizing. More that that of course it undermines the entire pretence of democracy which is that people make sensible decisions went hey form a government. He myth o rationality that defines out system therefore demands that the ‘problem is solves ad if it were a real people politicians might ignore it for a while, but then at some point all kinds of solutions needs o be found.
The problem at this point once again changes The solutions suggested will be as such badges of entities as they will be anything else Their solution’ are then based less of analysis and more of words that allow those caught up in the ‘story’ to locate themselves that their would be saviour within it. Badges like white working class’ and their ‘problems’ are bandied about, as if addressing this group itself was the solution. The problem here I not in a sense that hi is not the problem. That is thee is a measure of disgruntlement amongst a group who might be called white working class (or dwellers high density housing or whatever). And yet, the badge of course includes much than that. It unifies these problems under a single racial-cum-occupational badge, that has within it a whole galaxy of implied (stock) solution. The problem then becomes about the job market, or housing stock or whatever other ‘solutions be found.
These solutions these froth of explanation and partial actor answers are then signed less to actually solve the problem as to contain it within a social discourse. That is the underlying problem of the difficulties of living in high density housing, and the fact that occasion lottery style windfalls do not sole this problem, then remain, and remain as inexpressible as ever. But this managing inexpressible problem is then watered down or render safe, by being ;’absorbed’ within a wider series of standard off the shelf political debates and political positioning. Life might remain a bugger, and then one dies, an yet in the meantime political journalists and politicians can make living about debate o dissecting that buggeration, and government come and come according to he remarks they make.
Or to put the argument another way, Foucault noted a while ago (ad for another reason Marx did before him) that in large societies collective expression is a complex affair and very dangerous affair. In the Chinese wipers of society, problems and generalized problem go and change across stories and urban legends (what hose migrants get, or the life lived by the criminal classes). Endless generalized pegs are created upon which many differing problems are pitched. This then creates a very complex problems for a state. On the one hand every stat needs to ensure that the ‘problems’ the social ills its society believes it are not actually opposed to the state itself, f they are then civil war is merely twist away. The managing of a stable society is the managing of badges and the rendering o those badges as b and large pro state. On of he problem s, perhaps in say modern Kenya, is that ht local corruption of he sate, ahs been so very great that it has ceased to make this move. He result I ht I is in a frozen sate of evil war - where a rearmament is being carried out in the face of elections to come.
states then have to manage unreasoning and disruptive mass grumbles. And yet here of course democracy hits problem of its own. Democracy is fundamentally based upon the idea that this management ought not to be cynical. Politicians are then elected on the promise of being able to solve the general disgruntlement. Hey need therefore to address it and o treat it seriously. They heed to appear to believe in it, however loony they privately think it .The result is of course one of those shadow politics, Generalized problems are address with specific policies by differing governments with varying effect.
At this point the great strength and the very weakness of democracy clearly come into play. Its strength lies I the fact h it is able to take these generalized social disgruntlements an turn them into political problems. People feel or at least feel in part included within the system. They not only disgruntle in safe ways, but also this disgruntle is lesson to and acted upon. H myths they that people on mass create are taken up and address in a passion play of politics, where the ‘people’ for an audience responsible for comings and going in h action. The entire thing might be a stage, and ye it is a rather gripping one.
The weakens of course is that certain problems are rather hard to solve. That is if the solution would run against too many safe; and current sable disgruntles then it is very hard o have a solution. Take the example of energy. Here is no obvious solution. We need o use less. And yet this solution is political impossible; we are used to cars (and the reams to the electric cars) and to effortless consumption To threaten that would be to unleash a disgruntle that any amount of migrants cannot contain. But the problem is that other solutions are tricky as well. One might up taxes, and use the money to increase the efficiency of the system, and yet then logic of society makes this solution after tricky. This the disgruntle about paying the government more, is usually enough to eclipse any reward a government (in the UK at least) has for spending that money wisely (or at least the trust is not their). The only other solutions to build more power plants and yet that solution involve making all kinds of longish term choices about sources on energy, choices that are actually not resolvable in any clearly way at the moment: the problems of climate change, unstable regimes, and evolving technology makes ever solution currently available liable to be the wrong one. The result is of cause inaction and irresolution. A democracy finds it very difficult to do as say China does, and impose different solutions of different regions and see what happens. It merely sits as festers, wondering what to do, what it can sell I people.
In effect then our society is defined by at any one time a series of problems which loop together both personal elements and wider social concerned. The point of these problems is to link our individual lives both to a local community, but also to national, historical and global matters By out problems we feel ourselves a part in the world. the game then of democratic politics is to configure around these solutions a debate that renders then safe and apparently managed. Problems like medieval questions might exist for generations, and yet at last they are sable (no one question the existence of the system, as no medieval philosopher wanted to question God. The recurring paranoia though f our society – the problem that cannot speak its name, is ht there might very well exist other problems what cannot be easily included within this selective world of certain problems, problems that hen might be too difficult to think (too destabilising) and certainly cannot be solved. Our nightmare then is that the world (however that is understood) bowls us a googly beyond our current formation of personal cum social problem. Distopias are then created under the question ‘what would we do then?’ A problem that always haunts every generation (revolution or climate change) and threaten to take it forever beyond the snug world of politics….
This last problem also threatens to take a system beyond itself. Face wit this abyss, the political-journalist system we have has one effective solution. They murmur fine words, and play with a ‘trading’ system which might (o a good day) contain the political problem if not the actual one; having then addressed the issue they go on to loudly talk about solving something else Thos deep problems then beyond our current system of government ore kicked into the long grass, or render internationalized or half defined, and political sterilized. It remains however a matter of faith wither this move really always must work, or whether at some time or other a problem which is not sayable in our system might arise, and demand something other more rigours of us all.
