Is Society Broken?

(by Geoff Seeff <geoffseeff@cix.co.uk> on 5th January 2010)

Perhaps the first thing to say about "broken society" is that it is an expression that has been adopted by the Tories and which you will not hear from any other party. In this there is a certain irony as, in the not too distant past, the Tories did not even acknowledge the existence of the sort of "society" where there were collective responsibilities. Perhaps the second thing to say is that, delighted as we all are at Iain Duncan Smith's damascene conversion to the cause of social justice, the phrase which can be attributed to him, is founded on some fairly spurious research carried out by the "independent" think tank of which he is the chairman - the sort of research that starts with an hypothesis and ignores any evidence that disproves it. By the way, this "independent" think tank has had a substantial part of its costs paid for by the taxpayer as IDS has used, or I would say abused, his parliamentary offices allowances to fund certain projects - either the think tank is independent or it is the offspring of the Tory party - in which case no public funds should be applied to its work.

Whether or not the social problems the UK is currently experiencing can be categorised as evidence of a broken society, and make no mistake, the incidence of violence, theft, dysfunctional families, child abuse, drink and drug related crime, unwanted pregnancies and underemployment is not insignificant, it is a fact that it has been ever thus. IDS would have you think that there was some golden age when it was eternally spring, children played happily in the green meadows and all adults were unfailingly civil to each other. There was not. I am no social historian but Victorian England was a particularly brutal era if you did not have health and wealth - Dickens' and Conan Doyles' descriptions of the goings on in streets of the East End may have been coloured for the purposes of their yarns but they were founded on observation. Putting aside the world wars, which brought their own hardships, throughout the 20th century there was gangsterism, violence at football matches, terrible abuse of children in care ……and, on slightly different aspect it was only in 1967 that we brought in laws about drink driving. I remember the carnage on the roads on Saturday nights. The one major difference between then and now was that we all know about the problems almost as soon as it they occur, sometimes in advance, thanks to the extensive media coverage. Are these problems worse today …..I am not sure any of us can say with certainty since the records of what occurred in the past, to the extent that there were any, have long been obscured in the mists of time.

So why do I reject the notion of a broken society - ie one that is not functioning, and what can we do to resolve or at least minimise the very serious problems that persist?

One of the first reasons for thinking that society is functioning rather well is the fact people like us, and of course the press and other media, are able to discuss the subject freely, openly without fear, let or hindrance. That is in itself a good sign of a working society - we can think of many countries around the world where this would not be possible. But more than that we live in age of optimism - technology is advancing at an exponential rate and for the most part we benefit from it in that our lives are made easier, healthier and stimulating. Most people receive a good general standard of education - it could be better but it could be a lot worse. Our institutions, such as the health service, police and justice system by and large serve us - and, whilst our parliament and banks have let us down badly this last year, we are able to criticise them and put in calls for reform - more of that anon. We have thousands of voluntary organisations raising funds and doing phenomenal work for a wide range of good causes and that illustrates that most of us care about the human condition and the welfare of our fellow citizens. As a result of all of that, although, in part, a cause of it, the vast - no overwhelming - majority of citizens are hard working, law abiding - even when they don't agree with a law - who look after their families and join with their neighbours to try to create strong and supportive communities.

Now what can we do about the problems. Well I know what we should not do. IDS's researches tell us that delinquency occurs when children are brought up in unstable environments - well I think that goes without saying, although there is an element of delinquency in ostensibly stable families - and that marriage creates the necessary stability.

He would therefore like to encourage marriage through the tax system - and points out, quite correctly, that there is more financial incentive for a couple to cohabit than to marry. Ignoring for the moment the increasing rate of divorce, it is obvious to everyone but his researchers that the couples who do marry are the ones seeking and most likely to have attitudes consistent with stable relationships, ergo they exhibit more stability than those who choose not to - a perfectly valid choice in this day and age. There are many compelling reasons to get married but I doubt that a tax benefit features high on the list of those in love and who want to show their commitment to each other. The effect of offering tax breaks to married couples will simply be to transfer money from where it is needed to a group of people who don't need it, at least for the intended purpose of creating stability.

I believe that there are four simple things that can be done immediately and without great cost to the public purse that, without being able to obviate poverty and make model citizens of us all, would make a difference for the better to general welfare and civil behaviour.

* Encourage and pay via the NHS for the use of counselling services for families having relationship and other difficulties. Talking therapies may, in many cases, be more effective and much cheaper than picking up the consequential costs of families breaking up or when individuals are prescribed medication for depression.

* The creation of a youth "army" for all those between 16 and 24 who are not in work or in further education. The youngsters will be paid and the "army" will carry out community work (eg with the elderly) or participate in environmental projects - all under professional supervision. Participants will gain self-esteem and learn, amongst other things, how we all depend on each other and how we relate with the natural world. Hopefully this will in turn engender respect for person and property.

* Ensure that education about alcohol and sex is modelled on the practices adopted on the Continent where there is far less incidence of binge drinking and teenage pregnancies. Films and case studies exhibiting the consequences of abuse of drinks or promiscuous sex may deter some (but unfortunately not all) youngsters from choosing risky behaviour. The use of film and case study may be a suitable medium to convey the consequences of bullying, theft violence.

* Any individual selling or serving alcohol should undergo a course on the responsible use of alcohol and be licensed personally. The licence will be lost and they will not be able to work if they knowingly sell alcohol to underage persons or to persons who are already drunk or who are likely to be if they consume what is being served.

I would acknowledge that considerable discussion is required on each of these points and none of these measures will work in isolation. Together they can broadly be described as an attempt to put old heads on young shoulders - and keep them there throughout their lives.

Write a new message

Reply to this message.

Start a new thread in this forum.

Browse the forum

Question Time.