An essay on the relationship between 'Class' and 'Employment' in Modern Britain.

Part One of this essays details the relationship in practice between Class and Employment in Britain since 1970:

Since 1970, both employment and the social class system have changed greatly in the United Kingdom, but the firm relationship between the two has continued (Crompton 2010). Deindustrialisation has led to wholesale decreases in manufacturing and the opening of new markets. The class debate has continued, with the ‘Registrar General’s” method of grouping classes being replaced with the modern “NS-SEC Scheme” in response to changes in society, notably the type of jobs British citizens fulfil.  

The decline of British industry, notably following the election of the Conservative government in 1979 had both immediate and lasting effects. Stephen Moore (1993, p51) suggests the changes made between 1978 &1993 in the British economy:

 “seem likely to maintain a permanently high level of unemployment.  The main changes include increasing automation in industry and related increasing productivity so that fewer workers are required, and the general decline of British manufacturing because of foreign competition.”

Moore goes on to suggest particular groups in society are more likely to suffer unemployment than others; the least skilled, those living away from the south-east & ethnic minority groups. Here, inequality is evident. Using the “Registrar General’s Social Class Scheme” in use at the time, we understand that then, as now, unskilled workers are considered to be working class. Moore explains that ethnic minorities are too more likely to suffer unemployment, as a large majority fill the unskilled or semiskilled worker category. Finally, those living away from the south east. This raises the issue of the north-south divide in the UK, on which Moore suggests the south east offers a more highly skilled work force than the north and a more affluent population. Again, discriminating against low-skilled, modestly paid, working class citizens.

Cuts to working class industrial jobs, saw high levels of not only unemployment, peaking at 13.1% in 1986, but high levels of social unrest, such as the miners strikes between 1984 & 1985 (Trading Economics, 2010). Such activities were seen as a response to the structural unemployment of millions of people being implemented by the government. Structural unemployment by nature reduces jobs in response to changes in the economy which should simultaneously open new positions for skilled workers. In this case, in order to enter an open market and tackle inflation, a policy of monetarism was introduced, with the belief that high levels of unemployment would eventually solve themselves as Britain moved into a new market. A change described by David J. Lee & Bryan S. Turner (1996, p184) as “the switch from manufacturing to services”.

In October 1986, the newly reformed British Stock Exchange reopened with national unemployment at a post-industrial high. The “big bang” that ensued managed to tackle much of Britain’s deficit with only 330,000 people working in City jobs (Marr, 2007). Meanwhile, those made redundant by the deindustrialisation and privatisation of Britain seemingly remained unemployed, struggling to find jobs in the new economy, particularly in areas with strong histories of manufacturing and production. The workers filling Classes 1 & 2 of the NS-SEC scheme were not only generating the majority of wealth in the nation, but wreaking most of the reward.

In an article for The Journal, William Green (2009) describes how the Conservative government, and in particular the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, left “communities devastated, mass unemployment, huge social unrest and a generation condemned to poverty”. The “generation” mentioned were not those in professional roles benefiting from the new “boom”, but the working classes. Phil Wilson MP says “she [Thatcher] left a lot of broken communities and that was the primary thing, but it was also the way she treated people who were unemployed…. there was nothing done to help them”. However, in contrast Peter Atkinson MP suggests that “Sensible and dispassionate people will realise there was no prospect of keeping coal mines or inefficient industries going” and that without such policies, regeneration would never have happened.

Eventually, as the initial reforms in the British financial and business sector began to grow, increasing numbers of jobs were created and a large number of the working classes went back to work, but even at the peak of the economic boom in 1989, 1.6 million remained unemployed. And on 16^th September 1992, Black Wednesday, Britain’s next “bust” occurred. Between the low of 1989 and Black Wednesday, unemployment had again risen and was around 3 million, continuing to rise into the following year (Trading Economics, 2010).

The cycle of boom and bust then began again. Unemployment dropped sharply through the mid to late nineties and continued to do so into the 21^st century, meanwhile Gross Domestic Productivity grew and Britain appeared richer than ever under a new-New Labour government. But once again the bubble burst, this time in 2007. A worldwide financial crisis rooted in over-lending and deregulated banks, resulting in the biggest recession in Britain for nearly 30 years. Similarly to the manufacturing decline of the 1980’s this resulted in huge levels of blue-collar unemployment, although this time it wasn’t being purposefully implemented by the government. Further comparisons can also be drawn; the unemployment rate amongst those filling “elementary occupations” was at 12% in the first quarter of 2009, whilst unemployment amongst “managers and senior officials” was at 3% during the same period. In sum, for every four elementary employees out of work, there was one manager or senior official: a display of inequality in class and unemployment, similar to 30 years previous (Hopkins, 2009).  

In beginning to conclude the debate on the relationship between class and employment inequalities in the Britain, we must consider many contributing factors. Geography, community and family have all been discussed but most prominent is the link between education and class, and the variations it produces (Reid 1998, Scott, 2002). Through both the Registrar General and NS-SEC scheme, class is determined by occupation, and occupation is largely determined by educational attainment (Reiss Jr. 1961).

Finally, looking back over the last 40 years of British employment, it is clear to see the unskilled and semi-skilled workers have traditionally been those to suffer worse at the hands of their white-collared counterparts. This has been the case in both of the major recessions detailed; however a main difference in inequality levels would be the aforementioned contributor, education. In 2010 more people than ever before are accessing higher education and obtaining the skills needed to survive in a new jobs market. Meaning that though the unskilled workers still suffer most, there are many fewer than there were 40 years ago.

Part Two of this essay details classic sociological ideologies in relation to Part One:

In many ways, employment can be said to define us. As a way of providing for ourselves, Michael Argyle (1992, p72) suggests that “work is a central, and essential, part of life”. However, as suggested there is much more to employment than the basic principles of providing food, shelter and protection; occupation has a close correlation with social status and class. Richard R. Hall (1975, p239-240) suggests that “In the absence of hereditary castes or feudal estates, class differences come to rest primarily on occupational position”. These notions have a place in a universal discussion, but in relation to Britain, the social division of class, and the research dimension of employment, they can begin to give an explanation of inequalities that exist.

“‘Class’ and employment have been sociologically linked from the ‘founding fathers’ onwards” suggests Rosemary Crompton (2010, p11). She summarises Karl Marx’s analogy of class as:

“The emergence, with capitalism, of a proletariat who had only their labour power to sell, exploited by the bourgeoisie who bought and controlled this labour” (Crompton 2010, p11)

Crompton goes on to identify basic similarities and differences between this point of view, and that of Max Weber:

“Like Marx, Weber identified the selling of labour as crucial to the definition of ‘class’, but specified a range of ‘market situations’ with which the sale of this differentiated labour was associated, associated with different levels of rewards and giving rise to different classes.” (Crompton 2010, p11)

When comparing these two “conflict” theories, we see that while both Marx and Weber consider employment to determine class, they do so by varying degrees. Marx describes a simple divide of those selling their labour, and those exploiting those selling their labour. Whereas Weber suggests that differing labours are rewarded with differing financial rewards, and that this is key in deciding whether people are nearer to being exploited, or exploiting others.

Finally, Crompton (2010) explains how these “academic and political commentaries” have led to official statisticians dividing up the occupational structure to create “employment aggregate class schemes”, such as the Registrar General or NS-SEC classifications.

Conversely to these conflict theories are the perspectives of sociologists such as Emile Durkheim, known as functionalists, who support the notion of “social meritocracy”. The idea that those with “merit” or the greatest skills rise to the top of the social ladder, and are appropriately rewarded, while those with the least will move down in a system known as “social mobility”. This view clearly relates to the Weberian notion of class stratification, but also links heavily with other aspects of class such as education: as those with the highest skills or merits are likely to have had the privilege of a good education, unlike many others. This is why Marxists would argue against social meritocracy and the social mobility theory, instead suggesting that such ideas are a fallacy implemented by capitalism with the aim of making the proletariat think they can become “embourgeoisied”, when really inequality is inherent within communities and families, and so the ability to move up through society is restrained by our ancestry.

In an article named “Social Mobility, not security” (2010) John Bird suggests that social mobility is “the only one cure for poverty” in the UK, rather than proletariat revolution Marx advocates. He agrees with Marx that a culture of poverty is bred into groups of society and that the welfare state confines them to remaining in these such groups, but says by giving these people “the encouragement to become independent … they can choose to live their lives the way they wish, rather than the way it has been foisted upon them”, suggesting that by cutting the working classes dependence on the state, it will increase their social mobility. The best example of this in action within the timeframe at hand would be the Conservative initiative of selling government owned social housing to tenants, in order to place them onto the property ladder and into the new free market; one of the few benefits felt by the working classes in the early days of Britain’s new economy.

Unemployment is of course key to the issue in hand. Many Marxists believe that unemployment is a constant feature of capitalism, benefitting the ruling class (bourgeois) and condemning the working classes (proletariats). Shane Jones of In Defence of Marxism (2004) writes: “There is no “natural” need for unemployment other than the need for greater profits to be made by the capitalist class.” This clearly relates to the period of structural unemployment in Britain through the 1980’s whilst large amounts of the working classes found themselves unemployed, as the “capitalist” class enjoyed the riches of the new open market.

Although Marx spoke of a “lumpenproletariat” or “rag proletariat”, the notion of an “underclass” is more in sync with the Weberian idea of class stratification.  The lowest class on the NS-SEC system, Class 8, describes its members as either: Never Worked, Long-term Unemployed or Long-term Sick. And although this category potentially contains contradictions ( for example, a long-term unemployed worker who for the 30 years previous has earned £100,000 a year), it is the proposed “underclass” which has suffered worst in terms of employment in Britain over the last 40 years.  The fact that national unemployment in Britain has only dropped below 5% on a couple of occasions between 1979 and 2010 (Trading Economics 2010), displays how the notion of an underclass can be supported. Those who failed to find reemployment following Britain’s deindustrialisation, particularly in areas with strong traditions of manufacturing and production can be seen, in large numbers, to have never returned to work. From a Marxist point of view, they have passed this trend on to generations to come, geographically concentrated, particularly in the north of England, displaying ancestral class inequalities (Crompton 2006, 2010; Bourdieu 1996; Erikson and Goldthorpe 1993). Again this subject could be related to other sociological perspectives, with the functionalist notion of social mobility arguing that this group of people (the underclass), previously hard working and industrious, have been “suffering labour market disadvantage” (Lee and Turner 1996, p189) and as a result have sunk to the bottom of society, finally ending up “heavily stigmatised” and “live[ing] on the margins of society” (Macionis and Plummer 2008, p310).

When concluding the sociological theories and perspectives related to class and employment inequalities in Britain, it has been clear that the Marxist and Weberian ideologies have been most useful. In particular, Marx’s position on employment and Weber’s stance on class categories have led us to explore other avenues, such as structural unemployment and the development of an underclass in Britain. In relation to both of these conflict theories, the functionalist perspective has introduced opposing concepts such as social meritocracy and mobility.

Finally, the importance of the relationship between class and employment is summarised by Mike Savage (2000, p52) who complies with Weberian suggestions that broad class divisions can be related to income inequalities, but most importantly suggests that “this division is more marked than other possible categorical divisions”, ethnicity for example.

Bibliography

ARGYLE, Michael (1992). The Social Psychology of Everday Life. London, Routledge.

BIRD, John (2010). Social Mobility, not Social Security. [online]. The Guardian, 26 April. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/social-mobility-not-social-security

BOURDIEU, P (1996). On the Family as a Realised Category. Theory, Culture and Society, 13(3), 19-26

CROMPTON, R (2006). Class and Family. Sociological Review, 54(4), 658–76.

CROMPTON, R (2010). Class and Employment. Work, Employment and Society, 24(1), 9-26

DAVIS, Evan (2007). Blair’s economic legay. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/evandavis/2007/05/tony_blairs_economic_legacy_1.html

ELLIOT, Larry (2002). How Thatcher stumbled on her Big Idea. [online]. The Guardian, 20 March. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/mar/20/5

ERIKSON, R and Goldthorpe, J.H. (1993). The Constant Flux. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

GREEN, William (2009). After 30 years, the big debate rages on. [online].  The Journal, 4 May. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-198980576.html

HALL, Richard H. (1975). Occupations and the Social Structure. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.

HEYWOOD, Andrew (2000). Key Concepts in Politics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

HEYWOOD, Andrew (2007). Politics, 3rd Edition. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

HOPKINS, K (2009). Blue-collar workers ‘bear brunt’ of recession. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jul/14/unemployment-blue-collar-workers

JONES, Shane (2004). Unemployment: An Organic Feature of Capitalism. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.marxist.com/unemployment-feature-capitalism.html

LEE, David J. and TURNER, Bryan S. (1996). Conflicts about Class: Debating Inequality in late Industrialisation. New York, Longman Group.

MACIONIS, John J. and PLUMMER, Ken (2008). Sociology, 4^th Edition. London, Pearson Education.

MARR, Andrew (2007). A History of Modern Britain. Oxford, Pan Books.

MARX, Karl and ENGELS, Friedrich (1998). The Communist Manifesto. New York, Signet Classics.

MONAGHAN, Angela (2009). UK recession in 1980: What was it like? [online]. The Telegraph, 23 January. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4323064/UK-recession-in-1980-What-was-it-like.html

MOORE, Stephen (1993) Social Welfare Alive. Cheltenham, Stanley Thornes.

OFFICE FOR NATIONAL STATISTICS (2008). Analytical classes and operational categories and sub-categories of NS-SEC. [online]. Last accseed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/classifications/current/ns-sec/cats-and-classes/analytic-classes/index.html 

PETTINGER, T (2007). UK Economy under Mrs Thatcher 1979-1984. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://econ.economicshelp.org/2007/03/uk-economy-under-mrs-thatcher-1979-1984.html  

REID, I. (1998) Class in Britain. Cambridge, Polity.

REISS, Albert J. Jr (1961). Occupations and Social Status. New York, Free Post Glencoe.

ROSE, David (1995). Official Social Classifications in the UK. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU9.SAVAGE, Mike (2000). Class Analysis and Social Transformation. Buckingham, Open University Press.

SCOTT, J (2002). Social Class and Stratification. Acta Sociologica, 45(1), 23-35

THE TELEGRAPH (2008). Have we really never had it so bad? [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2652771/UK-recession-timeline.html

TRADING ECONOMICS (2010). United Kingdom Unemployment Rate. [online]. Last accessed 7 December 2010 at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=GBP

Should Compulsory Voting be introduced to Britain?

Compulsory Voting: the threat of consequence if a citizen fails to turnout to vote. The systems and consequences vary between each nation that implements Compulsory Voting (CV), but the basic aforementioned principle remains the same throughout. For example, in both Belgium and Australia, citizens are only forced to enter the polling booth, whereas in Brazil marking of the ballot paper is required. Punishments also vary; in Greece it would be possible for somebody to be sent to prison for failure to vote (although this has never happened), in Belgium there is the threat of disenfranchisement and impossibility of promotion within a public body, and in Bolivia certain public services can be withdrawn from non-voters (Electoral Reform Society, 2003).

Following the Second World War, 83.9% of the Great British public turned out to vote in the 1950 General Election. Fifty one years later and the lowest turnout since was recorded in 2001, with only 59.4% of the public voting in the General Election (UK POLITICAL INFO, 2010), so with voter apathy seemingly at an all-time high in 21^st century Britain, CV is certainly an option. 

Much research has been conducted in to Compulsory Voting over the last century, including the positives and negatives of what it entails, but how do these findings relate to our island, and ultimately should the people of Britain be forced into voting?

Supporting the notion of compulsory voting in 2005, Leader of the Commons, Geoff Hoon MP, gave a speech declaring that the introduction of CV in Britain would be “a way of ending political alienation, restoring community and addressing the dangerous issue of “serial non-voters” (Wintour, 2005). If this is the case then the argument “for” in Britain is clearly a strong one. Supporters of CV claim that citizens become engaged in politics, and the educative effect is the main benefit (Engelen 2007). As all groups of society would be required to turn up to the polling booth, there would be an increased incentive to understand the effects of the vote.  This would certainly be considered a positive in a nation where the same people are perceived to vote in every election. Mr Hoon says “"My fear is that as the older, more regular voters die, we will be left with a significant number of people for whom voting is neither a habit, nor a duty” (Wintour,2005).

Many academics would support Hoon’s proposal for Britain for a variety of reasons. Lijphart (1997) suggests low voter turnout poses a grave democratic issue because the results of such elections may not be representative. This then raises the issue of legitimacy. To give a very simple but not unrealistic example, if only 50% of the population turned out to vote in the next British General Election, winning with a 50% majority, that would mean only a quarter of the 60+ million population had giving the winning party a mandate. While remaining democratic as everyone who is eligible to vote has the opportunity, this result certainly couldn’t be considered representative.

Undoubtedly, political participation in the United Kingdom is imbalanced between different groups in society. Typically the groups most involved would be said to be educated, politically motivated and employed, (Wolfinger & Rosenstone 1980; Powell 1986; Brady 1995; Jackson 1995) and will also feel like they have some sort of civic duty to vote, almost like paying their taxes. Lijphart (1997) suggests that CV should be implemented in such democracies, as it is  the best way to resolve the issue of a small number of groups (for example, white males over the age of 40) deciding the outcome of elections, as every section of the population would be fairly represented.

However, this is not an argument that everyone agrees with. Selb and Lachat (2009) suggest that CV compels a substantial share of uninterested and less knowledgeable voters to the poll, who in turn may vote whimsically, randomly, or not in correlation with their political affinity and in turn will not receive what they actually wish to achieve from voting, therefore questioning the argument that CV promotes equal representation of political interests. Compelling uninformed and often uninterested citizens to vote does not only infringe upon their liberty and choice to remain indifferent, but it may well result in elections being decided by such persons (Jakee and Sun 2005). Consequently, Selb and Lachat (2009, p575) argue that “CV brings citizens to the polls who would otherwise not vote, but will not increase their level of political sophistication”, therefore going no way to tackling the issue of equal representation. They go on to claim “Equal representation requires both socioeconomically unbiased participation and voters who vote in accordance with their wants and needs. While CV tends to ensure the former condition by boosting levels of turnout, it fails to guarantee the latter.”

Prior to the introduction of the 1924 Compulsory Voting laws in Australia, voter turnout was as low as 47%, but in the decades since this number has risen to around 94% to 96% (Rosenberg, 2001). But is this legitimate? Jakee and Sun (2005) argue that CV laws inevitably boost turnout as the example shows, tackling one of the issues raised by Hoon; “serial non-voters”, but this is due to fear of reprisal, rather than an increased political activity.  

In an article named Should compulsory voting be introduced in Britain? The No argument, British MP Oliver Heald, opposes Hoon’s proposals for the introduction of CV to the British voting system. He complies with Jakee and Sun’s (2005) notion that CV would be an infringement of citizen’s liberty and an unwanted extension of the State into people’s lives, stating that “the right to vote includes the right to say “No thanks””. Finally, Heald suggests that the free vote should be campaigned on “a message of hope and encouragement” rather than focusing on destroying candidates, which can be a popular method, used to influence voters who are unsure of who to vote for, but sure of who not to vote for (Heald, 2009).

As we can see the arguments for and against the use of CV anywhere in the world are strong on both sides. But each nation differs in political background, public attitude and way of life. The political term laissez faire is undeniably French, and this reflects the attitudes of Le Bleus when it comes to political interference. Without interventions such as CV, the 2007 Presidential election brought 84% of the population out to vote. A display of the Frenchs heavy political involvement in most of the nation’s social groupings, furthered by a culture of large scale strikes and often rioting, as seen in 2010. 

So with similar issues being raised in both the UK and France in recent times, why have we not seen this in Britain? Some nations, such as France, are heavily politicised through cultural influences, rather than intervention. High turnouts and industrial sized public political reactions show this. In Britain, voter apathy is said to be at an all-time high. But why? Britons have had plenty to be unhappy about over the last decade; two international wars to say the least. But during a time of general wealth in Britain, these issues are far from home, and although indirect effects can be felt in the UK, they have not been played out on citizen’s doorsteps as the Second World War was. However, following the recent financial crisis we have begun to see increased rates of reaction by the public, the violent protests in London during the G20 Summit of April 2009 are a good example of this, as are the student lead marches against tuition fee rises in November 2010. These examples seem to point in the same direction, with Britons appearing to be apathetical in times of general content on home shores, changing when unhappiness, or even fear, is widespread on citizen’s everyday lives. The 84% turnout of 1950 and increased political activity following the recent financial crisis support this notion. This may go some way further to detailing whether CV should be introduced in the UK or not.

In conclusion, we must consider both the negatives and the positives argued for and against the compulsory vote. Many issues have been raised, but I believe three most relevant factors are; political outcome, culture and legitimacy.

The overall majority of people in Britain are enfranchised and there are no viable arguments against this. But I do believe that there is a danger if CV was to be introduced to Britain, that less-educated, less-politicised and less-wealthy citizens would literally be forced into voting as the likely financial deterrent would be too much to face. But how many of these people forced into voting will have knowledge of the election or politics in general? As suggested previously it is these such citizens that are likely to vote “whimsically, randomly, or not in correlation with their political affinity”. The argument against this point is that voters may only be forced to enter the polling booth, or merely tick a “No Vote” box, which would go some way to tackling the issue I raise here, with the majority of those forced to vote choosing this option. But the effect the minority of this group could have is huge, potentially deciding the final outcome of a tightly ran election such as the UK’s last general election in 2010.

The culture of voting is something which is inbuilt in an older generation of British society, a duty to those who have given their lives before us so we could live and vote in a free society. But as this sentiment begins to lapse from generation to generation, the increased turnout when Britain is unhappy is a cultural path we remain on.

Finally, with all this in mind, would the British public swallow being forced to vote as legitimate? The United Kingdom places itself as a world-wide symbol for freedom and democracy. Much impetus of which lies with the “free vote”; seen as a cornerstone of what makes Britain a tolerant and libertarian society. Much as politicisation is important to the French way of life, toleration is key to British lifestyle; free speech, free thought and in turn the “free vote” are all key to this. Therefore, many would argue that attempting to “increase democracy” in the UK through fear is both wholly undemocratic, and wholly un-British.

Bibliography:

BRADY, Henry (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.

CHUNG, Jen (2007). French Presidential Election Voter Turnout: 84%. [online]. Last accessed 6 December 2010 at: http://gothamist.com/2007/05/07/french_presiden_1.php

ELECTORAL REFORM SOCIETY (2003). Alternative Voting Methods: Compulsory Voting. [online]. Last accessed 6 December 2010 at: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=46

ENGELEN, B (2007). Why compulsory voting can enhance democracy. Acta Politica,  42(1), 23–39.

HEALD, MP Oliver. Should Compulsory Voting be Introduced in Britain? [online]. Last accessed 6 December 2010 at: http://www.oliverheald.com/gallery.aspx?id=38-

HEYWOOD, Andrew (2000). Key Concepts in Politics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

HEYWOOD, Andrew (2007). Politics, 3^rd Edition. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

JACKSON, Robert (1995). Clarifying the relationship between education and turnout. American Politics Research, 23(3), 279–299.

JAKEE, Keith and SUN Guang-Zhen (2005). Is compulsory voting more democratic? Public Choice, 129(1-2), 61-75.

LIJPHART, Arend (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1–14.

MARR, Andrew (2007). A History of Modern Britain. Oxford, Pan Books.

POWELL, Jr, G.B. (1986). American voter turnout in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 80(1), 17–43.

ROSENBERG, Matt (2001).  Compulsory Voting: Australia is Well-Known for its Compulsory Voting Laws [online]. Last accessed 6 December 2010 at: http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/compulsoryvote.htm

SELB, Peter and LACHAT, Romain (2009). The more, the better? Counterfactual evidence on the effect of compulsory voting on the consistency of party choice. European Journal of Political Research, 48(1), 573–597.

UK POLITICAL INFO (2010). General election turnout 1945-2010. [online]. Last accessed 6 December 2010 at: http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

WINTOUR, Patrick (2005). Hoon calls for compulsory voting. [online]. Last accessed 6 December 2010 at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/jul/04/uk.voterapathy

WOLFINGER, Raymond and ROSENSTONE, Steven (1980). Who votes? New Haven, Yale University Press.

What is the role of Utopia in political thought?

Before understanding the role of Utopias, Utopia, and utopianism in political thought we must first understand the diverse origins of these terms and ideas. The word “Utopia” derives from the original Greek meaning of “nowhere” and the English interpretation of “good” or “well” place. This leads to the popular notion of Utopia as the “good place that is no place” (Sargisson, 2007, p30). The word itself was invented by Thomas More, and entered the vocabulary via his publication in 1516, long after the best-known early utopian writing: Plato’s Republic. More’s Utopia depicted the frame work of an island, including its social, political and religious structures. The Utopia described was understood to be an ideal model of society, a critique on the existing order by imagining the perfect alternative, a style which has since blossomed into what is now described as utopian thinking, or utopianism (Heywood 2007).

It is also important at this point to understand the term “political thought”. Political thoughts and thinking within this essay will be taken to involve both the classic and modern political ideologies and theories, as well as the notion that “politics” is encompassed in almost every aspect of our day to day lives. From communism, to the price of coffee, we understand that political thoughts can be had on both.

Utopianism has grown in many different ways since Utopia and has affected many aspects of social life such as philosophy, economics, sociology and architecture (Sargisson, 2007). But the major influences have been in literature and political ideology, some of which have been positive and some of which have been negative, some have been written and some have been lived. So, in order to understand Utopia in political thinking, we must first understand these.

Many anti-utopians claim that Utopia is as an untouchable blueprint, and as such, utopianism “can be used, as justifications for terrible wrongs” (Wallerstein, 1999, p1), can only be achieved through violence, and can only be kept through political repression. Utopia is then totalitarian (Levitas, 2001), and it was dreams of “perfection” that lead to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia; both states which killed possibilities of change and progress for large sections of society, disallowing them the chace of a “perfect society”(Sarigsson, 2007, p31).Sarigsson explores this vein of argument by looking at the views of philosophers such as Karl Popper who argue that: “Utopia is supposed to make us all happy, but how could one person know another’s interests or desires? …One person’s dream may be another’s nightmare” (2007, p28). Popper argued totalitarianism has its roots in utopianism as far back as Plato’s Republic. The society described by Plato, was according to Popper; anti-libertarian, anti-democratic and in the interest of the ruling class, as were, in parts, the two aforementioned real-life totalitarian states. This displays the dangerous links between attempting to turn fiction into reality, and such criticisms continue to fight the cause of utopianism and its alleged search for perfection.

Respondents to the criticism that Utopia is a final-blueprint, or that it is perfection seeking, see utopianism as much more than this. Sargisson (2007,p30) suggests that some Utopias are in fact blueprints, but that perfection “is a final condition, it is static and it does not change”, continuing to say that utopias are seldom static or even reached. Conversely to Popper, Sargisson views both Plato’s and More’s respective Utopias not as final plans but as thought experiments, explorations of another way. This point is supported by Bloch who argues that the “propensity to reach for a better life is manifest in everyday life” (Levitas, 2001, p27) and:

 “Most people in the street look as if they are thinking about something else entirely. The something else is predominantly money, but also what it could be changed into.” (Bloch, 1986, p33)

Utopias, then, are omnipresent in our lives. Through our thoughts, as Bloch suggests, they help us imagine alternatives, allowing us to approach society anew. But also in the physical world around us, for example, many allegedly utopian seeking societies practice alternatives that aren’t alien to us at all, e.g. the co-operative, co-inhabitant and trust methods of owning property (Sargisson, 2007).

So whilst utopian thinking is all around us, we begin to understand that Utopias are not so much about the final result, as this is very rarely reached, but the small footsteps in between. For example, the utopian dream of a 20^th century British Feminist may have been a nation of complete gender equality, and though this has not been achieved to date, many things that would lead to the end goal have; enfranchisement to say the least. Particularly in the sense that Utopia is within our everyday thoughts, Utopia is political and plays a large role in political thinking. In August 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the footsteps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington and said “I have a dream”, a dream which led to huge changes in the USA and around the world, a dream of a better nation: a Utopia that he imagined as not perfect, just better than the society currently in existence. It is this kind of utopianism that responds best to Popper’s criticism of “seeking perfection”.

Sargisson (2007, p30) proposes another argument saying that “Utopias are self-consciously flawed”. The word itself is “the good place that is no place” after all. This is perhaps one of the strongest indictments in favour of utopianism; that whilst its supporters embrace its possibilities, the majority do so whilst realising that “Utopia” itself is the least important part of the journey. It is all that comes in between which makes the difference.  

The final criticism that must be rebuked by utopianism is that it takes it’s directives from fictional literature, and as such, should not be taken seriously. This point is combatted by some of the arguments already made, most effectively by Bloch’s suggestion that utopian thoughts are in everyone’s minds, not just those that take the time to formulate them into written word. More than this though are the examples of positive real-life utopian projects, which can be said to be much more influential than many utopian writings. Robert Owen’s New Lanark for example, was a founding community in the development of Socialism. A 19^th century British commune focused on the development of its members through education, improving living standards, and creating a fairer society; displaying once again how the search for Utopia is much less about the final destination than the changes which can be made along the way. As such, New Lanark had major impacts on social philosophers, politicians, and communities the world over: from the Russian Royal family, to the new communities springing up across America, and into smaller groups such as those who later founded “New Australia” in Paraguay. These examples perhaps show the role of Utopia in political thinking at its active best; inspiring positive communities. But it is the accusation that utopianism is, and has been, the inspiration for some of the most negative communities on our planet that damages its cause the most. This argument has partially been explored by Popper who suggests totalitarianism derives from utopian literature. The examples given of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are examples which certainly strive for another way, but they surely cannot be described as being driven towards Utopia. And although Utopia itself is built upon slavery, its aim is a land “free of the inequality, economic exploitation, dynastic squabbles, and legal chicanery that More observed all around him” (Greenblatt, 2005, p519): a society that would be the “perfect alternative” for every citizen, not just a select few. Something even the most ardent utopian would suggest is near impossible in practice. So the fault lies then not within the texts, they merely provide a message for change, the fault of utopianism resulting in totalitarian societies lies with the reader extracting the wrong message. 

Politics and utopianism then seemingly play a role within one another. Utopias lived and written offer examples of another way, observations of political, social and economic alternatives. In this sense, the imagining of another way surely suggests that politics needs utopianism in order to create any change whatsoever. Utopias give politics and political thinkers a sense of where they want society to be, and in return for these thoughts, politics supplies some of the vehicles needed to implement them, such as political parties and pressure groups. Sargisson (2007, p42) says “Without politics, Utopia remains on the page”.

Utopias can also be attributed as one of the best indicators of the issues and debates of their time. Plato and More were both Humanists but their publications are separated by nearly two millenniums meaning that their conclusions are very different. Utopian thoughts and writing much closer to each other in timescale can also result in very different visions of the world, such as Bellamy’s Looking Backward and Morris’ News from Nowhere. Dystopian literature is also worthy of note in the discussion of utopianism and political thought. Novels such as Orwell’s 1984 and Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale describe societies that are not the “perfect alternative” but some of the foulest alternatives imaginable. These dystopias can be seen to act as warnings to society, perhaps most starkly warning us against misunderstanding Utopia.   

It is such misunderstandings of utopianism that have led to its downfall in popular culture; linked to totalitarianism and in turn all things negative about politics. But as we have seen you need not delve too deep to find the truth about utopianism, and dispel the myths of an ideology reaching for an impossible dream.

In conclusion, having viewed both the arguments for and against utopianism, we begin to understand the importance of the subject in political thinking. It’s most important role being to provide the driving force behind change, and whilst we have seen arguments that suggest utopianism can sometimes bring changes considered dangerous, we have come to understand that however it is viewed, it is ever-present and in every sense required by politics. Every change made in society, particularly those for the better, are because of someone’s, or some people’s, dreams and hopes. The practice of taking these such ideas and turning them into reality, is neither utopian nor political, it is both. Politics and utopianism exist not just alongside one another, but they are interwoven entities, drawing life and feeding from one another.  

With this thought in mind, we understand how utopian thoughts and writings have had major influences on society throughout time. From Plato’s Republic to Huxley’s Island, Utopia has been ever-present and at the forefront of man’s mind. Similarly at the forefront has been politics, it was, after all, Plato’s most famous student Aristotle who told us that: “Man by nature is a political animal”. The role of utopianism in political thinking then lies not in the agreeance or disagreeance of it, but the fact it exists in our minds; anarchists have strongly clung to utopian thinking, relating the two individual ideologies through their similar features of “contingency, immanence and prefiguration”, whilst opposing groups, such as the followers of Marx have suggested it as “unrealistic, impracticable, and unscientific”. The most recognisable factor being that both groups are thinking about Utopia (Honeywell, 2007, p239;241).

Utopianism then lives on into the 21^st century through the notion that social change is part of the utopian process. More than this we understand it lives in both people’s minds and in literature. Specific 21^st century political ideology may also be described as utopian; the “Third-Way” for example describes a new way of politics, pulling from both the left and right of the political spectrum to achieve a final goal. However, Spannos (2008, p3) says that “where utopia offers vision escaping reality it has rightly been rejected by serious Leftists”, giving hope to the thought that utopianism is now beginning to be understood for what it is on a more wide scale level.

Finally then, the importance of Utopia’s role in political thinking can be summed up best by the thought of a world without the dreams of figures such as Emmeline Pankhurst and Martin Luther King. The thought of political thoughts without Utopia is a miserable one indeed.

Bibliography:

ATWOOD, Margaret (1996). The Handmaid’s Tale. London, Vintage.

BELLAMY, Edward (1986). Looking Backward: 2000-1887. Harmondsworth, Penguin Classics.

BLOCH, Ernst (1986). The Principle of Hope. Oxford, Blackwells.

CORNFORD, Francis Macdonald (1941). The Republic of Plato. London, Oxford University Press.

DICKSON, Niall (1999). What is the Third Way? [online]. Last accessed 6 December 2010 at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/458626.stm

EATWELL, Roger and WRIGHT, Anthony (eds.). (2004) Contemporary Political Ideologies, 2^nd Edition. New York, Continuum.

GREENBLAT, Stephen and LOGAN, George (2005). Sir Thomas More 1478-1535. Reprinted in: GREENBLAT, Stephen et al (eds.) The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 8^th Edition.  London, W. W. Norton & Company, 2005, 518-590. Vol. B.

HEYWOOD, Andrew (2000). Key Concepts in Politics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

HEYWOOD, Andrew (2007). Politics, 3^rd Edition. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

HONEYWELL, Clarissa (2007). Utopianism and Anarchism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 12(3), 239-254.

HUXLEY, Aldous (2002) Island. London, Joanna Cotler Books.

LEVITAS, Ruth (2001). For Utopia: The (Limits of the) Utopian Function in Late Capitalist Society. In: GOODWIN, Barbara, (ed). The Philosophy of Utopia. Abingdon, Routledge,25-43.

LEVITAS, Ruth (2010). The Concept of Utopia. Bern, Peter Lang. Ralahine Classics, Vol. 3.

MORE, Sir and Saint Thomas (1997). Utopia. Translated by Ralph Robinson. Ware, Wordsworth Editions.

NEW LANARK. Robert Owen. (2010). [online]. Last accessed 6 December 2010 at: http://www.newlanark.org/robertowen.shtml

ORWELL, George (1986). Nineteen Eighty Four. Harlow, Heinemann.

PLANT, Raymond (1991). Modern Political Thought. Oxford, Blackwells.

SARGISSON, Lucy (2007). The Curious Relationship Between Politics and Utopia. In: BACCOLINI, Raffaella and MOYLAN, Tom (eds.). Utopia Method Vision. Bern, Peter Lang. Ralahine Classics, Vol. 1.

SPANNOS, Chris (2008). What Is Real Utopia?. In: SPANNOS, Chris, (ed). Real Utopia. Edinburgh, AK Press, 3-11.

WALLERSTEIN, Immanuel (1999) Utopistics. New York, The New Press.