I never used to be interested in politics. I saw it as boring and the concern of middle-aged men. But one sentence I heard uttered some time ago by a guest speaker on a radio programme changed my position. She said: “Women often say they’re not interested in politics. But the fact is, they want change. And that’s what politics is all about; it’s about seeking to change things for the better.” Her words struck me. They made me realise that I have actually been political since I was in primary school. I have always spoken my mind on matters that I believe to be indicators of societal problems and I have always sought to do what I can to change things. You already know that: you’re reading a blog post on The Change Channel.
As a child for whom the extent of political knowledge was
the Prime Minister’s name, I remember once asking my mum what the job of the
Conservatives was. Voting Labour is the the generally accepted thing to do around where I live, so I
didn’t know much about ‘the other side’. She told me in simple terms: “the
Conservatives are all about conserving things, keeping things the way they are.”
She added half-in-jest: “They just want to keep all the money to themselves.”
It may have been a very simplistic explanation but even now
I still think it’s an accurate description of the Conservative party. That is,
the principal right-wing party in the UK. Now I’m not about to launch into eulogising
Ed Milliband or begin a discussion on the rubberiness of his voice. Instead I’m
going to tell you why I think a socialist approach goes hand in hand with
social justice.
What is social justice?
Social justice is generally agreed to be ‘justice in terms
of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society’.
Thomas Jefferson’s world-famous lines assert “that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” So if we were all
born equal, what happened in between?
It’s self-evident that there are multiple inequalities in
the world in which we live today. They can be found between men and women, the
rich and the poor, whites and non-whites, the sheltered and the neglected, the
able-bodied and the disabled . . . Social justice aspires to rid the world of
these wrongs with the aim of bringing about a better, fairer world.
And the place to start is acknowledging that some groups in
society are dealt a better hand than others from the start. So we may all
have been “created equal”, but the minute we enter a very unequal world, we are
either ushered up to the top of the pile or shoved to the bottom, according to
who society deems laudable or undeserving. The words of Rousseau come to mind:
‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’.
Capitalism
As I’ve grown older I’ve come to realise just how much the
way our society is run is dependent on who’s got the largest amount of money
(or who’s got hardly any of it). The fact is, money is power. So if you “ain’t”
got much of it, you “ain’t” got much power. Capitalism as a system is
characterised by the private ownership of the means of production (the raw
materials and the labour force), and inevitably results in the unequal
distribution of wealth. As its name suggests, it centres on capital (wealth),
unlike its counterpart ideology: socialism, which radically places society at
its focus, pushing for a society in which wealth is evenly distributed and is owned
by a collective community, usually through the state. I studied Marxism as part
of my Sociology course at Advanced Level and although the principles its
founders propounded seemed interesting to me at the time, I never really fully
realised the import of their ideological approaches until I came to uni. It was
here that I saw Max Weber’s theories acted out in real life.
In simplistic terms, the model which Marxists created saw
society as divided along class lines, the working class (the proletariat) and the upper classes (the bourgeoisie); staying in tune with a system intended to keep
the labour workforce in their place – working hard for the richer people. Provided
the proletariat stayed in their place, other institutions, like the media and
education could flourish effectively. Flourish effectively for one group of
people that is. Yep, you guessed it: for the rich dudes (the bourgeoisie folk).
Very simplistic illustration but that’s basically how capitalism works – there
are people on top who push others beneath them and make them do all the work so
that they the rich people at the top
– can have a good life: whilst the people breaking their backs get very little or
nothing in return.
Doesn’t sound very fair to me! How about you? Not really the
right conditions for social justice, I would say: makes for unequal distribution of wealth, opportunities and
privileges in a society. Want me to give you a few examples?
Women
OK so let’s look at the position of women in society. I’m
sure you’ll agree that even in the 21st century a massive amount of
inequality exists between men and women. Women make up 51% of the global
population but worldwide figures show us that women are less likely than men to
get an education, be employed or be elected to parliament – all the while they
are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, rape; more
likely to be victims of sex trafficking; forced to be child brides – and worse
still, some will deny females their right to live before they are even born, based
on the lie that they have nothing good to offer the world.
Pretty horrible state of affairs.
You might be wondering what all this has to do with ‘the
love of money’ that I referred to earlier, and the Marxist model and all of
that. Allow me to explain my thought process: men have been the ones in
positions of ultimate power for the past several centuries. In this modern age,
women face fewer obstacles (although still many) to their endeavours than they
once did, and so positions of power are no longer solely occupied by men.
It follows that some men feel threatened by the emergence of
women in an arena in which they once found themselves alone. They resent that
women will now have more of a say in their own lives, rather than having
matters decided for them by those who want to “keep them in their place”. As
things currently stand, in many cases women are still not paid the same amount
of money as their male counterparts for the same work and they find themselves
up against a ‘glass ceiling’ which prevents them from getting promoted in their
fields because those positions are reserved for men.
How can we explain this if it not with capitalism? The more
women get promoted, the fewer men get more cash in their pockets. Capitalism
has a system to uphold and anything that shows any signs of messing with that
status quo is soon stopped in its tracks. Think Jimmy Savile, that fishy so-called philanthropist who in actual fact used his powerful position to abuse
thousands of young girls. Looking back on his life and the plethora of
complaints made against Savile in his lifetime, it seems mind-boggling that something
was not done earlier to change things.
But once I thought on things more deeply, I could see that
it suited the interests of capitalism to leave a powerful man like Savile
alone. The guy had been honoured by the Queen and was one of the most famous
presenters on the TV: if he were to be charged, that would mean the end of high
ratings for the BBC for Top of the Pops.
If they got a man with that much power into trouble they would surely lose out
on the power stakes themselves. People often have difficulty understanding why
survivors of rape do not immediately report the crime: but in Savile’s case
should it be so hard to believe? A rich white man loved by the British public
against young teenage girls – who would be believed?
To my mind there is a clear link here between ‘the love of
money’ and the evils sustained against women. Capitalism stacks the odds
against those whose oppression it benefits from.
I’m not saying that capitalism is to blame for all the
inequalities that women face today. However it is responsible for giving men more
opportunities than women and it does grant the powerful safety nets which
protect their interests, and this governs who ends up where. In spite of all
this however, women continue to work hard and are still achieving great things.
Despite being told they couldn’t do it, they are making their mark on science,
sport, literature and many other fields. The thing is, it’s just so much harder
for them to get there than it is for men. And that’s not fair.
Class
Capitalism presumes that the path to success is easy –
because the path to success for those at the top of the capitalist ladder is
easy. David Cameron (leader of the Conservative party) comes from a family
which to this day is still benefiting from the ‘compensation’ they gained when
they lost their slaves after the abolition. This sum, which equates to millions
in today’s money, didn’t do Cameron any harm when he attended some of the
highest fee-paying schools in the country.
The Conservatives, in their practice of capitalism, would tell us, ‘Work hard and you’ll get
to where you want to in life.’ That’s their answer to everything. Work hard,
that’s all well and good – but what if you have the attitude of a high-flyer yet
are constantly having the opportunities which are your due right snatched away
from you? That’s what happens if you’re a member of the lower classes – we see
it everywhere.
Here at Oxford, where I’m studying, the evidence of classism
is plain to see. It is with good reason that the university has a reputation of
being a place for the cultural elite. Within the infrastructure and the intake
of the students each year the upper classes most definitely come out on top. Studies
in the past have shown that applicants from private schools were 14% more
likely to be offered a place at Oxford than those with the same grades who went
to a comprehensive school. Although only
7% of British children attend fee-paying schools, students from private schools
make up 43.2% of Oxford students! I mean, is that classist or what??
So it’s evident that people that go to universities like these
are more likely to have a say in the running of their countries. If they’re more
likely to have a say in how the country is run they will be directly impacting
on the lives of thousands, even millions, of people. And if only one small
subsection of society is allowed to have a say in how people live their lives, how are things ever going to change?
We need a change from the bottom-up. The working classes and
middle classes need to be given a say in how the country is run – because they
make up over 70% of the nation. When less than 20% of the country is making the
decisions that affect everyone then things
are never going to be fair.
That means that universities like Oxford and Cambridge have
a duty to accept more working class and middle class students than they
currently are. The education system at large needs a massive overhaul to get
the less well-off and the more deprived on the straits to success. At present
those who live in poorer, more crime-filled areas, are less likely to get
admitted into good schools. ‘Good schools’ being those who provide an adequate
amount of teaching staff with decent sized classes so that each student is
given the opportunity to learn properly. They are also more likely to be
encouraged to take more vocational paths, being whispered the lie they are not
skilled enough to go into the field of academics. And of course it is those who
go into the academic field that end up having the most power in society. So the
false consciousness to which the
Marxists referred – the state of being that the working classes often find
themselves in: where they are so accustomed to being exploited that they no
longer question it and instead adopt the views of their oppressors – becomes
instrumental in maintaining the status quo.
Many repeat that oft-used phrase: “They’re taking all our
benefits!” to excuse the mistreatment of the working classes. But what they
fail to realise is that the “scroungers” that sit on their bums all day and get
paid by the state are very much in the minority: an unfortunate piece of the
puzzle but very much in the minority. There are thousands of people in this
country who work hard but find themselves displaced from the top-earning
positions in the world of work (for reasons I have discussed above) and rather
find themselves earning just enough to be out of the benefits cap but not
enough to live comfortably. With childcare costs at a ridiculous high, many
young families find themselves in debt before they have hardly gotten off the
ground – and still they find themselves faced with that mantra: “Work hard and
you’ll get where you want in life.”
It’s for people like this that I believe we need a
re-structuring of wealth distribution. The richest 10% of the UK population
owns something like 40% of the wealth. That’s just not fair – especially when
those at the top largely didn’t work for what they had, but were just born into
it – whilst those at the bottom find themselves dealt an unappealing deck of
cards.
Race
Equality of opportunity is important again when we consider
the structural inequalities that result from divisions along racial lines. Racism
just isn’t over. If you’ve read my post about racism and the role of ignorance,
you’ll already be familiar with the advice that black parents are wont to give
their children: “Work twice as hard at
everything you do, because it’s going to take twice as much effort for you to
get as far as a white person”.
If the working classes are in the minority in Oxford then
ethnic minorities are an even rarer find. Out of term-time I live in the highly
ethnically diverse and multicultural city in the North of England known as
Manchester. It’s a vibrant place of friendly faces. The contrast between
Manchester and Oxford couldn’t really be more different – when I return to the
city of Dreaming Spires it’s literally a game of ‘spot the black people’. I can
remember when I told a friend that I had been admitted into this university. He
said: “You’ll be the only black person there!”
Figures have shown that in years past, over 25% of white
applicants to Oxford University were successful, with only 17.2% of ethnic
minority applicants getting in. White applicants to Medicine were twice as likely to get a place as
minority ethnic candidates, even when they had all obtained 3 A* grades. Institutional
racism is very clear to see. Only 3.9% of Oxford’s professors are of a BME
(black, minority ethnic) background, to talk less of the curriculum being
fiercely Eurocentric. Oh and don’t forget, one of the world’s most notorious
racists has a library and a scholarship in his name over here. (That would be
Mr. Cecil Rhodes, the man behind the apartheid in South Africa.)
Thankfully I don’t go to one of those super elitist colleges
in Oxford where I’d be the only black person there in 5 years, or the only
person from the North of England in my year, or something ridiculous like that.
Somerville College is one of the more open and diverse colleges, with the
majority of students having attended state schools. (I’m also proud of it for
being one of the first colleges in Oxford to cater for women.) However that hasn’t
made me oblivious to the racism that unfolds here in this university on a daily
basis.
Every time I go to a debate at the Oxford Union I am genuinely
astonished by just how oblivious some people are to the plight of others, and just
how easily they can spew racist bigotry without batting an eyelid.
Equality of opportunity as far as race is concerned is
imperative if we are to see true social justice take place in the nations of
the world. Ethnic minorities find themselves more likely to be demonised by the
police, more likely to find themselves out of work, less likely to get good
housing, less likely to be believed when filing a crime complaint . . .
The status quo keeps the traditional owners of wealth and
power at the top. They “keep us in our place” by telling us that we’re not good
enough, not pretty enough, (here I explore the relation between capitalism and
the “beauty industry”), not skilled enough.
Disability
Disabled people are a group I fear we don’t talk enough
about. They’re often forgotten in discussions about discrimination and
equality. They shouldn’t be: there are over 11 million people living in the UK
with a long term illness, impairment or disability, meaning they often cannot work. The school of thought that puts society first says that everyone
should have the same amount of wealth so that we can all lead fair lives even if we're born into difficult positions: those who are on the capitalist side will only make those who are hurting the hurt even more. (click here to read more about how disabled people are already unfairly treated under current law.) Not a
very just system, I don’t think.
