The Problem of Community is the Problem of the Epoch or how Owen Jones built his house on shaky ground at the 21st NCVO Hinton Lecture
In 1923 when the architect Le Corbusier attested that the "equilibrium of society" depended upon the house the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), whom Owen Jones addressed at their 21st annual Hinton Lecture, was named the National Council of Social Services and reading the transcript of his lecture it appears at times Mr Jones felt he was addressing this organisation sometime during the interbellum.
During the lecture Owen Jones made a case for why, in a Socialist future, we in the Third Sector will all be out of a job, and we should be very happy to be, because all will be sweetness and light and the State will provide for all our needs. Owen lay most of the current ills of society at the door of successive Conservative governments operating in the legacy of the milk-snatcher-in-chief herself and felt they happily left charities to pick up the mess as part of the noble offering of the Big Society, the philanthropy of the wealthy, and, the PR-friendly CSR of tax-dodging corporates. When Mr Jones praised volunteers he focused on those who selflessly gave their time, delivering charitable services and raising funds, because the lack of a Socialist government meant this was necessary.
Now here's a confession I have to make: I'm a Socialist. Tax the Rich, Stop the War, Save the Planet... I'm up for all of that. I view most of Margaret Thatcher's legacy with disdain (and if someone wanted to install a colour changing sprung floor disco somewhere in the vicinity of her grave I would not bat an eyelid). I sympathise with Danny Dyer's succinct description of David Cameron. I rejoined the Labour Party because of Jeremy Corbyn. I deeply respect Owen Jones.
However I think he got his assessment of charity and its role in society, Socialist or otherwise, worryingly wrong.
"Natural raw materials... are legion"
By repeating the quote oft attributed to Clement Attlee ("Charity is a cold, grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to the help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.") and labelling (that could be misspelt) Ernst & Young as facilitating "tax avoidance on a colossal scale" Owen Jones is missing the point, and value, of an enormous segment of charity. It is also a fallacy to portray major donors in this way, no longer is giving driven by noblesse oblige, the majority having a deep connection to the cause and many far from rich; to suggest their donation is on a whim (or, indeed, they would resent a higher rate of tax) is deeply insulting. And, whilst philanthropy is an important part of modern charity, it is probably not the most important.
The Problem of Community is the Problem of the Epoch
During the late 1970s and 80s much of the sense of community was slowly dismantled: union organisation was, at best, frowned upon, at worst, smashed; social housing was sold into private hands; workers rights were eroded. Greed was, indeed, good. This led to an atomisation of society, a rise of the individual at the expense of community. It also lay the foundations of what we see now as a critical paucity of affordable housing, an escalation of private rents and a dangerous spike in homelessness.
During the lecture Owen Jones made a case for why, in a Socialist future, we in the Third Sector will all be out of a job, and we should be very happy to be, because all will be sweetness and light and the State will provide for all our needs. Owen lay most of the current ills of society at the door of successive Conservative governments operating in the legacy of the milk-snatcher-in-chief herself and felt they happily left charities to pick up the mess as part of the noble offering of the Big Society, the philanthropy of the wealthy, and, the PR-friendly CSR of tax-dodging corporates. When Mr Jones praised volunteers he focused on those who selflessly gave their time, delivering charitable services and raising funds, because the lack of a Socialist government meant this was necessary.
Now here's a confession I have to make: I'm a Socialist. Tax the Rich, Stop the War, Save the Planet... I'm up for all of that. I view most of Margaret Thatcher's legacy with disdain (and if someone wanted to install a colour changing sprung floor disco somewhere in the vicinity of her grave I would not bat an eyelid). I sympathise with Danny Dyer's succinct description of David Cameron. I rejoined the Labour Party because of Jeremy Corbyn. I deeply respect Owen Jones.
However I think he got his assessment of charity and its role in society, Socialist or otherwise, worryingly wrong.
"Natural raw materials... are legion"
By repeating the quote oft attributed to Clement Attlee ("Charity is a cold, grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to the help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.") and labelling (that could be misspelt) Ernst & Young as facilitating "tax avoidance on a colossal scale" Owen Jones is missing the point, and value, of an enormous segment of charity. It is also a fallacy to portray major donors in this way, no longer is giving driven by noblesse oblige, the majority having a deep connection to the cause and many far from rich; to suggest their donation is on a whim (or, indeed, they would resent a higher rate of tax) is deeply insulting. And, whilst philanthropy is an important part of modern charity, it is probably not the most important.
Central to modern charity is building awareness: we do not want to be nameless or faceless, doing good with no one other than current beneficiaries noticing, we need to be big, bold, forces that cannot be ignored, to be a lightening rod to draw others to our cause. Without that level of awareness it is not only difficult to compete for fundraising but impossible to reach those who require the services provided. Therefore it is vital that the fundraising base is as broad as possible, that volunteers are embraced as tribunes for the cause and that the charity is built by and from community not imposed upon it like Attlee's "cold, grey loveless thing".
And like Le Corbusier's natural raw materials for house mass production the natural raw materials for charity are legion. Volunteers are many, around a quarter of the population take on voluntary activity at least once a month, and this involvement is driven by many different benefits. In disentangling charity from philanthropy Owen highlighted compassion and connection to the cause but these are just two with personal benefit ignored. Volunteering for many is about gaining skills, friends, wellbeing. Volunteering combats isolation and loneliness, gives a gentle, non committal path towards employment or social activity. Volunteering strips back alienation, providing a unique sense of community.
The Problem of Community is the Problem of the Epoch
During the late 1970s and 80s much of the sense of community was slowly dismantled: union organisation was, at best, frowned upon, at worst, smashed; social housing was sold into private hands; workers rights were eroded. Greed was, indeed, good. This led to an atomisation of society, a rise of the individual at the expense of community. It also lay the foundations of what we see now as a critical paucity of affordable housing, an escalation of private rents and a dangerous spike in homelessness.
Faced with a paucity of housing in 1923 Le Corbusier stated that the "problem of the house [was] the problem of the epoch" calling for the mass production spirit to be embraced for housing. And now there, as result, perhaps, of a very different war, is a requirement for a growth in affordable housing, but more so there is a requirement for community to be rebuilt. This is evident in so many ways, from bringing an end to silo thinking in business to the fact record numbers are living alone, isolated, or are on the edges of society. Truly the problem of this epoch is the problem of community. So should we be calling for mass production community?
Each community is unique, as unique as the individuals that shape it. Each charity binds people across geographic boundaries into a community, or those within a local area with a common goal. Each method, style, purpose of communication is unique to the needs and requirements of the beneficiaries and community it creates. Take for example the charity I work where the beneficiaries are people with M.E.: M.E. is an oft misunderstood condition and 25% of people with M.E. are housebound. Any M.E. community best tackles isolation by bringing together those who understand M.E. personally, digitally or by post, rather than by those in a local community who may be well meaning but, ultimately, lack empathy.
Each community is unique, as unique as the individuals that shape it. Each charity binds people across geographic boundaries into a community, or those within a local area with a common goal. Each method, style, purpose of communication is unique to the needs and requirements of the beneficiaries and community it creates. Take for example the charity I work where the beneficiaries are people with M.E.: M.E. is an oft misunderstood condition and 25% of people with M.E. are housebound. Any M.E. community best tackles isolation by bringing together those who understand M.E. personally, digitally or by post, rather than by those in a local community who may be well meaning but, ultimately, lack empathy.
A mass-produced community, one delivered by the State, would not be unique, would not be fit for purpose, would not be, in essence, a community.
Charity in a Socialist Society
Currently market forces give people the choice of charity, which to support, which to help them develop, which to be the beneficiaries of. The freedom of the current system allows interest groups to flourish into charities supporting health initiatives like ParkRun, challenging government decision making like a local hospital campaign, or enshrining tradition like CAMRA. A future Socialist society must encourage such organisation, indeed it would fail without it.
Bottom line is: charity is a political force, whether we like it or not. Charities bind communities, provide purpose, education, empowerment far beyond their mission and stated aims. Some Socialists may argue that a community spirit will exist automatically under a Socialist society and that alienation will be reduced to such an extent that the workplace will conclusively engender the community spirit of the charity. I would contend this, for a start would the organic local community look too different to a charity, and secondly in Owen Jones' model of Socialism where capitalism still exists would those empowered by volunteering be better supported by the efficiency of the State or employment by the Petit Bourgeoisie? To put it bluntly: no.
Socialism requires community organisation, holding to account, striving for improvement. Community organisation requires good will, governance & direction. In short Socialism requires charity. Much of current charitable service provision may be provided by the state but, just as the NCVO changed their name from the National Council of Social Services the direction of charity may change, there will still be injustices to be fought, campaigns to be run and improvements to be made; forgetting this or assuming perfection leads to arrogance and State dictatorship. There may not be need for all aspects of charity but there will always be the need for some aspects of charity. Like the NCVO's name change it may be the very act of volunteering that is the aim of charity in Owen's Socialist future, the binding force of a community spirit, awaiting rekindling and vital to any vision of Socialism.
With apologies to architects and urban planners
Bottom line is: charity is a political force, whether we like it or not. Charities bind communities, provide purpose, education, empowerment far beyond their mission and stated aims. Some Socialists may argue that a community spirit will exist automatically under a Socialist society and that alienation will be reduced to such an extent that the workplace will conclusively engender the community spirit of the charity. I would contend this, for a start would the organic local community look too different to a charity, and secondly in Owen Jones' model of Socialism where capitalism still exists would those empowered by volunteering be better supported by the efficiency of the State or employment by the Petit Bourgeoisie? To put it bluntly: no.
Socialism requires community organisation, holding to account, striving for improvement. Community organisation requires good will, governance & direction. In short Socialism requires charity. Much of current charitable service provision may be provided by the state but, just as the NCVO changed their name from the National Council of Social Services the direction of charity may change, there will still be injustices to be fought, campaigns to be run and improvements to be made; forgetting this or assuming perfection leads to arrogance and State dictatorship. There may not be need for all aspects of charity but there will always be the need for some aspects of charity. Like the NCVO's name change it may be the very act of volunteering that is the aim of charity in Owen's Socialist future, the binding force of a community spirit, awaiting rekindling and vital to any vision of Socialism.
With apologies to architects and urban planners
Comments
Post a Comment