Preconditions of the Big Society

David Cameron’s effort to revive the Big Society raises a question: could it be that the social preconditions for an active, autonomous voluntary sector are lacking? I’m thinking here of three things:
1. A body of frustrated workers. A century ago, the voluntary sector was staffed by women who had been excluded from the labour force (think of Isobel Crawley in Downton Abbey), whilst trades unions and friendly societies were established by intelligent, energetic workers. Today, though,  the women who provided the backbone of voluntary societies are in the labour force, whilst some of the men who energized trades unions got to university and left their class for middle class jobs.
2. Colossal inequality and genuine poverty. This encouraged workers to set up self-help groups, as no-one else was going to help them. It also encouraged voluntary work by the upper class, either out of a sense of noblesse oblige or by giving them a private income that freed them from paid work and hence made them look for something to do.
3, Religion.  There’s some evidence that religious believers are more prosocial and more likely to give to charities. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are nicer than non-believers. It might just be that the fear of eternal damnation gives them different incentives than non-believers.
The thing is, though, that these three conditions are weaker now that they were in the (perhaps mythical) golden age of the big society. The potential supply of self-help and voluntary workers is thus less than it would otherwise be.
This leads me to two thoughts.
First, most readers of this blog will think it a good thing that these factors are not so strong now as they were many years ago. And yet I’m not sure that the lack of supply of volunteers and self-help is a good thing: I fear that the public’s apathy about the Big Society has the same roots as its lack of desire for worker ownership and control. Some good social developments, then, can crowd out others.
Secondly, might Cameron be making a similar mistake to the more enthusiastic libertarians? They have long though that, if the only the state would get out of economic life, it would unleash a wave of entrepreneurial activity. Cameron, likewise, seems to think that if the state gets out of social life, it’ll unleash social entrepreneurs. But in both cases, it ain’t necessarily so.

Comments

[Frank Little]

One might add the well-to-do with time on their hands. Think of the great charities from the National Trust to the NSPCC. Even now, it is the so-called middle classes who form the bedrock of the voluntary sector.

[James Reade]

Or it could be that some of the "religious", notably Christians, are motivated by thankfulness for the "Amazing Grace" that is at the core of Christianity, as opposed to any fear of damnation.

Because they are thankful for what they have received, they do things for other people. Very different motivation.

But I wouldn't expect the stereotype peddled here about "religious" people to die away any time soon.

[James]

On the religious aspect, you could add:

1. The impact of changes in ideology. Many of the nineteenth century Christian philanthropists who worked and died in Seven Dials and the East End were followers of newish ideas that extended the reach of Christian charity beyond Christians, that sought to make the world fit for Christ's return, and, in particular, found inspiration in the more activist attitude of American revivalist preachers like Moody. I.e. something about their religion had changed, recently, and they were responding to that.
2. What helped them in this is that the various Christian churches represented pre-existing networks, with capital in the form of buildings, land and so forth. Someone like Canon Hannan in Edinburgh might have ended up building vast premises in St Mary's Street for the Catholic poor - out of which emerged Hibs - but he had premises to start with: when he came from Ireland, it only felt as if he was landing on a barren shore.

[BenSix]

Religion ensured people were more communalistic, perhaps? In days of old you'd meet your neighbours at the local church. Only people I see before noon on Sundays are composed of dream.

[IngridK]

I'd say there's another pre-condition. The assumption that we have responsibility to our fellow humans that goes beyond paying taxes. Less "the government should" to "we could". And that responsible citizenship extends beyond voting. The idea of service.

This isn't completely dead, but nor is it lauded as it should be.

[alanm]

Let me suggest an unintended outcome for Cameron.

The vol sector plugs gaps in statutory provision. This works well, someone will always want to save a creature/cure something/help someone that the state is to slow or doesn't choose to react to.

Fine.

But is the vol resources are all taken up running statutory services that the state can provide then these gaps might not get plugged.

Smaller society?

[Glenn]

I'm puzzled - the state is, in pure terms, the collective institutions and activities acting for and on behalf of the citizenry. We elect politicians to act on our behalf, and also appoint civil servants. We buy into / accept the institutions of the state - law, policy, property rights etc.

Obviously the state and the citizenry may be a tad disconnected.

Perhaps an alternative such as a written constitution enshrining citizens' rights and the relation to the state is a better idea and something that folks can relate to more than wittering on about the Big Society.

An added bonus is that we could get rid of the house of lords and constitutional monarchy at the same time of course...

Perhaps replace HoL with some kind of local representatives - thus giving localism some kind of political role and as a counter to the centralising tendencies of whitehall.