Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Benevolent Paternalism

U

Ultimate

Member
Some people might think benevolent paternalism is an oxymoron, and I'm aware that people on this forum tend to be anarchist-inclined, so I suppose their first reaction would be to say no. But I think it should be at least considered as a possible antidote to the chaos, wastefulness and aggressive, macho competitiveness of neo-liberal capitalism, replacing it with order, efficiency and predictability.

Neo-liberalism expects us all to be budding managers and to behave like little capitalists. Those who can't or don't want to are treated as inadequates, criminals or both. It emphasises freedom and choice, which seem very attractive if you haven't got it, but if you have got it, it can mean being burdened with too much choice, having to make decisions all the time, and having to compete whether you want to or not. Imagine instead a society made up mostly of institutions where everyone has a well-defined place, and some dignity whatever your rank. This is incompatible with the dogma of neo-liberal capitalism, which sees authoritive institutions as a necessary evil which should therefore be as small as possible.

The idea of other people making decisions for you all the time might sound unattractive, but it could work if they genuinely do know what's best for you, and if you are in a position to argue if you strongly disagree with their decisions. In such a society, part of a teacher's job would be to assess each pupil's skills so they could be prepared for a career that matched those skills. Those who genuinely know what they want, and are judged to know what they are talking about would be free to pursue their ambitions, but for the majority who don't have strong ambitions, the decision would be made on their behalf - with their consultation of course.

The free enterprise world would be there for those who want it, but unlike under the present system, there would be an alternative. The competition between the free enterprise world and the authoritive institution world could be compared with that between the BBC and the commercial media, except that under the present system the government and establishment generally is biased towards the latter.

I think this is worth serious consideration, given that neo-liberal capitalism seems to be becoming less and less popular, but no one seems to know what should replace it. Which is at least partly why it's still here.
 
Ultimate said:
In such a society, part of a teacher's job would be to assess each pupil's skills so they could be prepared for a career that matched those skills. Those who genuinely know what they want, and are judged to know what they are talking about would be free to pursue their ambitions, but for the majority who don't have strong ambitions, the decision would be made on their behalf - with their consultation of course.
Click to expand...

What a high opinion you have of teachers' wisdom!

I teach. I'm lucky, though: I teach adults. I don't think teachers or anyone else has enough insight and wisdom to play the role you propose.
 
butchersapron said:
What is benevolent paternalism then?
Click to expand...
The term is my own, and it means roughly rule by an authoritarian state in a non-oppressive way.

JHE said:
What a high opinion you have of teachers' wisdom!

I teach. I'm lucky, though: I teach adults. I don't think teachers or anyone else has enough insight and wisdom to play the role you propose.
Click to expand...
That's because they're not trained for that role. Alternatively, this job could be done by careers specialists rather than teachers - and before anyone says anything, my opinion of careers advisors is as low as most other people's. But this is one of my 'in an ideal world' theories.
 
Ultimate said:
The term is my own, and it means roughly rule by an authoritarian state in a non-oppressive way.


That's because they're not trained for that role. Alternatively, this job could be done by careers specialists rather than teachers - and before anyone says anything, my opinion of careers advisors is as low as most other people's. But this is one of my 'in an ideal world' theories.
Click to expand...
So it's ha ha drivel.
 
It's a stupid contradictory idea that only blairite savages would do anything but laff at. It's not even in the stream enough to be heretical.
 
Ultimate said:
Some people might think benevolent paternalism is an oxymoron, and I'm aware that people on this forum tend to be anarchist-inclined, so I suppose their first reaction would be to say no. But I think it should be at least considered as a possible antidote to the chaos, wastefulness and aggressive, macho competitiveness of neo-liberal capitalism, replacing it with order, efficiency and predictability.
Click to expand...

What you're asking for is what we would like the Empire to have been. Unfortunately you engender problems like nepotism, racism ('white man's burden' / Middle Kingdom syndrome), rebellion, people 'knowing their place', etc. People resent being patronised. People resent the lack of freedom.
 
Quartz said:
What you're asking for is what we would like the Empire to have been. Unfortunately you engender problems like nepotism, racism ('white man's burden' / Middle Kingdom syndrome), rebellion, people 'knowing their place', etc. People resent being patronised. People resent the lack of freedom.
Click to expand...
I've no idea how you make a connection between this and empire. And what the hell is Middle Kingdom syndrome?
 
Ultimate said:
Some people might think benevolent paternalism is an oxymoron, and I'm aware that people on this forum tend to be anarchist-inclined, so I suppose their first reaction would be to say no. But I think it should be at least considered as a possible antidote to the chaos, wastefulness and aggressive, macho competitiveness of neo-liberal capitalism, replacing it with order, efficiency and predictability.

Neo-liberalism expects us all to be budding managers and to behave like little capitalists. Those who can't or don't want to are treated as inadequates, criminals or both. It emphasises freedom and choice, which seem very attractive if you haven't got it, but if you have got it, it can mean being burdened with too much choice, having to make decisions all the time, and having to compete whether you want to or not. Imagine instead a society made up mostly of institutions where everyone has a well-defined place, and some dignity whatever your rank. This is incompatible with the dogma of neo-liberal capitalism, which sees authoritive institutions as a necessary evil which should therefore be as small as possible.

The idea of other people making decisions for you all the time might sound unattractive, but it could work if they genuinely do know what's best for you, and if you are in a position to argue if you strongly disagree with their decisions. In such a society, part of a teacher's job would be to assess each pupil's skills so they could be prepared for a career that matched those skills. Those who genuinely know what they want, and are judged to know what they are talking about would be free to pursue their ambitions, but for the majority who don't have strong ambitions, the decision would be made on their behalf - with their consultation of course.

The free enterprise world would be there for those who want it, but unlike under the present system, there would be an alternative. The competition between the free enterprise world and the authoritive institution world could be compared with that between the BBC and the commercial media, except that under the present system the government and establishment generally is biased towards the latter.

I think this is worth serious consideration, given that neo-liberal capitalism seems to be becoming less and less popular, but no one seems to know what should replace it. Which is at least partly why it's still here.
Click to expand...

i am intrigued by your opinions, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
Ultimate said:
The term is my own, and it means roughly rule by an authoritarian state in a non-oppressive way.
Click to expand...

53a530.jpg
 
The idea of other people making decisions for you all the time might sound unattractive, but it could work if they genuinely do know what's best for you, and if you are in a position to argue if you strongly disagree with their decisions. In such a society, part of a teacher's job would be to assess each pupil's skills so they could be prepared for a career that matched those skills. Those who genuinely know what they want, and are judged to know what they are talking about would be free to pursue their ambitions, but for the majority who don't have strong ambitions, the decision would be made on their behalf - with their consultation of course.
Click to expand...

so basically run the world by middle managers, recruitment consultants and social workers?

huxley, orwell, move aside. There is a new master of dystopian ideas
 
In such a society, part of a teacher's job would be to assess each pupil's skills so they could be prepared for a career that matched those skills.
Click to expand...

A Manitoba mother was surprised last year when her kids came home from daycare with note informing her she’d be fined because the lunch she’d packed for them—complete with homemade roast beef, potatoes, carrots, an orange and milk—was unbalanced.
And the kicker for Kristen Bartkiw came when she read how the daycare had balanced the lunches: her five-year-old son and three-year-old daughter were each given Ritz crackers to make up for the missing grain required under the province’s school lunch policy.
“They have certain legislation that they have in place where you have to follow these food groups,
Click to expand...
http://metronews.ca/news/winnipeg/8...ng-ritz-crackers-to-school-with-kids-lunches/

The teachers had to assess the lunches, to make sure they were balanced. So this kid got given Ritz crackers.

And you want these people choosing the life path of students?
 
Ultimate said:
Some people might think benevolent paternalism is an oxymoron, and I'm aware that people on this forum tend to be anarchist-inclined, so I suppose their first reaction would be to say no. But I think it should be at least considered as a possible antidote to the chaos, wastefulness and aggressive, macho competitiveness of neo-liberal capitalism, replacing it with order, efficiency and predictability.
Click to expand...

Benevolent paternalism has co-existed alongside modern capitalism since the Industrial Revolution. It isn't an antidote, it's an ameliorative for the effects of capitalism advanced to some workers, never all. Even so-called paternalistic governments such as those of Disraeli and Gladstone were only as paternalist as shoring up the interests of the ruling class required.

Neo-liberalism expects us all to be budding managers and to behave like little capitalists. Those who can't or don't want to are treated as inadequates, criminals or both. It emphasises freedom and choice, which seem very attractive if you haven't got it, but if you have got it, it can mean being burdened with too much choice, having to make decisions all the time, and having to compete whether you want to or not. Imagine instead a society made up mostly of institutions where everyone has a well-defined place, and some dignity whatever your rank. This is incompatible with the dogma of neo-liberal capitalism, which sees authoritive institutions as a necessary evil which should therefore be as small as possible.
Click to expand...

The society where everyone has a well-defined place isn't a society in any real meaning of the word in a social world, it's merely a boss's wet dream - "a place for everyone, and everyone in their place", to paraphrase an old saw.
The "society" you posit would be defined by its' stasis, and would still, just like our current society, place some people (regardless of their ability) as those whose role is to be part of the reserve labour force.

The idea of other people making decisions for you all the time might sound unattractive, but it could work if they genuinely do know what's best for you, and if you are in a position to argue if you strongly disagree with their decisions. In such a society, part of a teacher's job would be to assess each pupil's skills so they could be prepared for a career that matched those skills. Those who genuinely know what they want, and are judged to know what they are talking about would be free to pursue their ambitions, but for the majority who don't have strong ambitions, the decision would be made on their behalf - with their consultation of course.

The free enterprise world would be there for those who want it, but unlike under the present system, there would be an alternative. The competition between the free enterprise world and the authoritive institution world could be compared with that between the BBC and the commercial media, except that under the present system the government and establishment generally is biased towards the latter.

I think this is worth serious consideration, given that neo-liberal capitalism seems to be becoming less and less popular, but no one seems to know what should replace it. Which is at least partly why it's still here.
Click to expand...

I think it's unworthy of serious consideration, until and unless you can explain any consequential differences for "the people" between what we have now, and what you ant to give them - otherwise, all you're doing is encouraging people to move a little while still staying out in the shit-shower.
 
Ultimate said:
The term is my own, and it means roughly rule by an authoritarian state in a non-oppressive way.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that your formulation has an inherent contradiction.

An "authoritarian state" accepted by all governed by it isn't authoritarian, and any government that is genuinely authoritarian cannot express itself non-oppressively, however benign it may appear to be.
 
Ultimate said:
It's a heretical idea that I hope a few people will be prepared to discuss seriously, even if they don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

It's not heresy, merely very poorly thought-out, which is quite possibly why we haven't heard of it this side of between-the-wars Fabianism.
 
I'm all for strong centralised redistributive states and for the primacy of expertise over the fleeting demands of an ignorant populace, but the idea that anyone can tell what skills people have and find them a suitable career is nonsense. Recruitment consultants are sharkish intermediaries and careers advisers are disingenuous bluffers; no sensible state would take either of them seriously.
 
Thanks for those replies, especially Violent Panda's. It seems the dispute here between my suggestions and everyone else's dismissal of them is that you are envisioning a society like the present one, but without democracy. I'm envisioning something much more radical, the main advantages of which should be, as I said in my OP, social, economic and political stability.

My 'Benevolent Paternalism' is, in fact, meant to be a kind of socialism, but without the pretense that we can all be equal or that a society can function with no one in charge. There can be no such thing as social equality, and any society has to have a government of some kind. That is my starting point: if we have to have a govenment and a social hierarchy, let's turn it something good instead of seeing it as a necessary evil. I totally reject the ultra-cynical suggestions made above that all authority is inevitably oppressive. We can argue about the meaning of 'authoritarian', but 'paternalism' means using authority in a caring way - the idealised image of a father (though this also applies to a mother, incidentally).

I didn't expect many people to agree with this idea - I know what this forum is like - and while even I aren't taking very seriously, I wanted to put forward a heretical idea and see what would happen. But I'm not trolling - I don't do trolls. I don't imagine for a moment these ideas will become a reality in the foreseeable future, and I'm not a campaigner, just an ideas person with a lot of imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom