Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Eugenicist genealogy of Brexit, via Enoch Powell

brogdale

brogdale

Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
A thought provoking and potentially provocative Politics Theory Other (PTO) interview with Robbie Shilliam in which he proposes a eugenicist (radicalised) antecedence for the 'populist neoliberalism' variant that brought us to Brexit, and posits Enoch Powell as the first modern neoliberal.

(jump to 2.30 to skip the guff)



Robbie Shilliam joins PTO to talk about his article, 'Enoch Powell: Britain’s First Neoliberal Politician' which appeared in the New Political Economy Journal. We spoke about how Enoch Powell, far from being a political throwback was in fact a key figure in the emergence of neoliberalism and Thatcherism, and how his politics presaged the Brexit project. We also chatted about how Powell, in contrast to many conservatives became hostile to nostalgia for the British Empire and how he believed that an independent Britain, neither ruling an empire, nor becoming part of the embryonic European Union would find its proper place in the world.
Click to expand...

Might produce some debate?

1618489372882.png
 
brogdale said:
A thought provoking and potentially provocative Politics Theory Other (PTO) interview with Robbie Shilliam in which he proposes a eugenicist (radicalised) antecedence for the 'populist neoliberalism' variant that brought us to Brexit, and posits Enoch Powell as the first modern neoliberal.

(jump to 2.30 to skip the guff)





Might produce some debate?

View attachment 263401
Click to expand...

very interesting points, will have to listen again
 
Anyway...back to Eugenist notions of the ideal, orderly independent neoliberal citizen and the role that Powellite racialised beliefs about preserving anglo-salon exceptionalism played in promoting Brexit...
 
Powell was one of the first British politicians to embrace monetarism but don't see how he can be placed within neoliberal thinking, which in practice has been as enthusiastic about invading other countries as it has been relaxed about high levels of immigration. Powell might have rejected eugenics on Burkean conservative grounds: too much power to the State. I don't know if his opinions on the subject are recorded.

Powell was a Tory nationalist and what Shilliam is talking about can be explained in terms of nationalism and the kind of individualistic social arrangements and attitudes which Conservatives are usually keen to ascribe deep historical roots to in England.

There were influences from eugenic thinking and the London school of differential psychology among some Conservatives associated with Thatcherism, as blurted out by Keith Joseph and later on Alfred Sherman. It would be interesting to know how extensive these were.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I struggled with the podcast, mainly because it felt like it was stretching the definition of eugenics.
 
MadeInBedlam said:
Yeah I struggled with the podcast, mainly because it felt like it was stretching the definition of eugenics.
Click to expand...
Interesting take; I'd always thought that excluding people, regarded as "inferior" or "undesirable" from a population was a core notion of eugenic thought?
 
But is the the exclusion of such people through the cultivation of ‘personal responsibility’ (and if you starve or just never have the financial security to safely and happily have children then it’s your fault for failing this bizarre ‘moral’ test) - rather than the state directly intervening in who gets the procreate - strictly speaking ‘eugenics’
 
Last edited:
brogdale said:
Interesting take; I'd always thought that excluding people, regarded as "inferior" or "undesirable" from a population was a core notion of eugenic thought?
Click to expand...

Comparing a picture of a wolf with pictures of all the different dog breeds which selective breeding has produced over countless generations gives an idea of the power eugenicists have aspired to having over humankind and the 'lower orders' in particular. The aim is not just to exclude but to shape.
 
Doodler said:
Comparing a picture of a wolf with pictures of all the different dog breeds which selective breeding has produced over countless generations gives an idea of the power eugenicists have aspired to having over humankind and the 'lower orders' in particular. The aim is not just to exclude but to shape.
Click to expand...
Yes, exclusion being just one means, among other interventions, that might 'shape' the desired subject.
 
brogdale said:
Yes, exclusion being just one means, among other interventions, that might 'shape' the desired subject.
Click to expand...

If it was proposed explicitly as part of some eugenicist program then sure, but xenophobic hostility and keeping the Hill People away from your daughter long predates Francis Galton.
 
Doodler said:
If it was proposed explicitly as part of some eugenicist program then sure, but xenophobic hostility and keeping the Hill People away from your daughter long predates Francis Galton.
Click to expand...
I think (?) that what Shilliam was getting at was that the state intervention required to turn the welfare state into a neoliberal compliant consolidator state indicated an ideologically eugenicist antecedence, rather than any 'classical liberal' (laissez-faire) or social Darwinist tradition.
 
brogdale said:
I think (?) that what Shilliam was getting at was that the state intervention required to turn the welfare state into a neoliberal compliant consolidator state indicated an ideologically eugenicist antecedence, rather than any 'classical liberal' (laissez-faire) or social Darwinist tradition.
Click to expand...
I've not listened to the podcast but that sounds like a long reach to me. As MadeInBedlam and Doodler have pointed out there is a big gap between eugenics and the traditional classical liberal contempt for the working class or 'non-productive' peoples. For example are you going to make Locke a proponent of eugenics? If you are then are you not including most of the classical liberal tradition?

EDIT: OK listened to the podcast now.
The stuff on Brexit and economic growth is totally backwards. Neoliberalism was overwhelming behind remaining in the EU on the basis of preserving economic growth. What I would agree with Shilliam on is that (to be found here)
economists and ideologues have never had sole ownership over the neoliberal project
Click to expand...
but neither did politicians
 
Last edited:
He’s engaging , I like his stuff. Worth a second listen for the outlining of how empire was latterly relegated as a cost centre upon his realisation that it didn’t the nation much good, suggesting it harmed true white god given superiority over the hordes. The neoliberalism pathfinder theme I am less happy with but it all fits kinda nicely into the malaise and flaccidity of 21st politics and the invocation of dog whistle flegs as a substitute for identifiable stance
 
Last edited:
In terms of the "first neoliberal" angle - the attempt at an alternative ideological genealogy seemed half-baked (largely hung on the peg of certain neoliberals who were cheering the project along based on fantasies that Powell disparaged), and it felt like the interviewer was doing as much, if not more, work in drawing themes together than the author. Maybe I should read the piece, though - good writers aren't necessarily good speakers.

Will also check out Doodler's link - looks helpful...
 
Last edited:
Surely if the individual can change their character, from idle dependence to orderly self reliance, then their genetics aren’t determining their character/behaviour/‘usefulness’ to society?
 
Doodler said:
Powell was one of the first British politicians to embrace monetarism but don't see how he can be placed within neoliberal thinking, which in practice has been as enthusiastic about invading other countries as it has been relaxed about high levels of immigration. Powell might have rejected eugenics on Burkean conservative grounds: too much power to the State. I don't know if his opinions on the subject are recorded.

Powell was a Tory nationalist and what Shilliam is talking about can be explained in terms of nationalism and the kind of individualistic social arrangements and attitudes which Conservatives are usually keen to ascribe deep historical roots to in England.

There were influences from eugenic thinking and the London school of differential psychology among some Conservatives associated with Thatcherism, as blurted out by Keith Joseph and later on Alfred Sherman. It would be interesting to know how extensive these were.
Click to expand...
Powell didn't just embrace monetarism: he was in favour of deregulation, privatisation and the "free" market. He can therefore be considered a proto-neoliberal. Indeed, his ideas were popular with Thatcher, Joseph, Sherman and the rest of them.


Powell was an early advocate of monetarism and his free market ideas were subsequently embraced by both Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher as they sought to fashion the neo-liberal Conservative counter-revolution in economic and social policy in the 1970s and 80s by such means as de-regulation, privatisation and reform of the welfare state. While Powell’s name will forever remain synonymous with the `Rivers of Blood’ speech, his contribution to the Conservative counter revolution in economic and social policy is arguably of even greater significance.
Click to expand...
www.birmingham.ac.uk

A reflection on Enoch Powell's return to Birmingham

Birmingham REP revisits the lead up to, and aftermath, of Enoch Powell's controversial `Rivers of Blood' speech which was delivered in Birmingham on 20th April 1968.
www.birmingham.ac.uk

JSTOR article by Andrew Gamble here.
www.birmingham.ac.uk

A reflection on Enoch Powell's return to Birmingham

Birmingham REP revisits the lead up to, and aftermath, of Enoch Powell's controversial `Rivers of Blood' speech which was delivered in Birmingham on 20th April 1968.
www.birmingham.ac.uk

More inform
 
8ball said:
Wow, had no idea it was going on that early.
Click to expand...

No my mistake and a really poor one at that - Powell wrote a short book/long essay in 1966 titled 'A New Look at Medicine and Politics' in which he claimed the NHS's nature as a centralised, nationalised institution created fundamental problems. To address these while preserving 'communal provision of medical care', which in any case had existed 'since time immemorial', he considered forms of partial privatisation but concluded these were politically unfeasible for the time being.

It can be read online at the Socialist Heallth Association website.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sptme
Genealogy of the British Far Right
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
petee
petee
Back
Top Bottom