C.9.d.‐ LOS PARIENTES MAYORES

Neoliberal economics and politics come with values that justify and sustain this system. The foundational value of neoliberalism is individual freedom (Harvey, 2005/2009, p.40-41). This is supported by other beliefs, for instance the majority in power in most rich countries believe that “elitism is efficient, exclusion is necessary, prejudice is natural, greed is good and despair is inevitable” (Dorling, 2010b, p.1), which is probably also true of many poorer countries. These beliefs support the existing system by justifying the power of the rich and excusing negative outcomes as unavoidable, and bolster preferred moral stories of rulers: “that we are decent folk trying to do our best” (Ignatieff, 1998, p.288). Discourses supporting inequality map onto neoliberal values, which support individualism, meritocracy, hierarchy, consumerism and growth. A dominant trope of capitalist hegemony is that ‘capitalism works’ whereas socialism has been ‘demonstrated’ not to work (Levitas, 2007, p.300).

These values do not inevitably lead to inequalities. The idea of the individual is central to western philosophy, economics, politics and religion. It is not inherently problematic, but could be considered to be a social evil when it takes the form of narcissistic self-absorption which is understood to be a response to loss of agency and solidarity (Thake, 2008, p.3, p.5-6). Loss of solidarity, for example, exists in those parts of India where the poor queue because they have to and those who can push in do push in (Corbridge, 2004, p.190); such behaviour encourages self-interest. Whether having benefited or suffered from individualism, one response is to be more defensively individualistic. Whilst individualism is not inherently problematic, it can develop a form that is socially corrosive when individuals are set competitively against one another.

Meritocracy is currently seen as a desirable characteristic of a society. However meritocracy is deeply problematic if thought to be a way of addressing inequality of outcome. Meritocracy means rewarding ‘abilities’ and ‘efforts’, and therefore generates inequalities of outcome (White, 2007, p.53-55). These inequalities of outcome mean that true meritocracy is difficult to achieve because people have different starting points in life (Toynbee and Walker, 2008/2009). Meritocracy is therefore contradictory because whilst differential rewards are central to meritocracy they also compromise the possibility of people having comparable opportunities (White, 2007). Establishing a meritocracy was satirized as a warning of what could happen to Britain and is now, partially, becoming true (Young, 1958/1961; Young, 2001). Belief in meritocracy can result in people blaming their own abilities and effort for their social position, rather than the wider social forces that influence this.

The possibility for social mobility is a key aspect of meritocracy, because in Margaret Thatcherʼs language, it allows the tall poppies to grow (Thatcher, 1975). Thus an able and hardworking poorer person should be able to move up. In the UK economic inequality is often unchallenged because of political focus on social mobility (Sheldon et al., 2009, p.5), rather than making rewards more equal. Social mobility puts the onus on individuals, based on an assumed availability of opportunities. Mobility is related to inequality, as greater mobility exists in more equal societies where social classes are less entrenched so moving between them is easier (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). However a preferable policy choice would be to favour greater equality on ethical grounds, with greater social mobility being an additional benefit.

If meritocracy operated flawlessly and some individuals really were better than others, which is widely believed (Young, 2001; Dorling, 2010b), those at the top of the social hierarchy would be ‘better’. Being at the top is communicated symbolically, and aspirations to exhibit such symbols of success drive consumerism according to tastes and consumption patterns partly shaped by large retail and entertainment corporations (Chatterton, 2010, p.513). It is these “excesses of individualism, consumerism and greed” that are integral to social, economic and wider political life in contemporary Britain (Creegan, 2008, p.10).

Consumption and lifestyle are core Western values to the extent that Australian Labour and Liberal politicians discussing climate change solutions stressed the importance of maintaining lifestyles, expressing a sense of entitlement to high standards of living which form part of national identity (Kurz et al., 2010, p.6 & 18). This is not just a rich world phenomenon: middle class Kenyans have been described by lifestyle magazine editors as “aspirational” and Nairobi book shops stock titles like “The 7 habits of highly effective families” and “Why we want you to be rich” (Wrong, 2009, p.281-2). Such aspirations can divert people from a critical assessment of the structure of the society within which they compete to rise and then protect any ground they gain.

Bowing to the economy and shrinking the state is a facet of neoliberalism that requires public endorsement, which is often partial as the full implications are rarely communicated. This process is presented as technical, not ideological, using terms like ʻemployabilityʼ and ʻflexibilityʼ which shrink the state and make labour increasingly casual and precarious (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999, p.42). Market principles rather than welfare ideals are used to determine resource distribution (Smith and Easterlow, 2004, p.101), but very often the “pauperization of the state and commodification of public goods is accepted with resignation as inevitable in the evolution of nations” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999, p.43). A hyperactive penal wing becomes a necessary limb of the neoliberal state, whose pulling back of welfare leaves people struggling. When presented with a policy package of flexible reorganisation of low-paid jobs, workfare rather than welfare, the public are not also told about a proactive and expensive penal wing. Yet the resulting inequality causes the penal system to be rolled out to manage growing lower class crime (Wacquant, 2010). Thus there is a mismatch between how neoliberalism is presented and the reality of its social effects. Such half-truths often extend beyond the domestic to the international arena. For example pressure for poorer countries to open their markets and for free trade to develop is prescribed by countries such as Britain and the United States, despite amassing their own wealth through protectionism and interventionist trade (Chang, 2003, p.1).

Since the late 1970s the shift towards political and economic neoliberalism and its associated thinking has penetrated common sense understanding to the extent that neoliberalism is seen as a necessary and natural way to organize. Antonio Gramsci notes how this can happen by the dominant classes coercively persuading subordinate classes that their values embody the natural order (Gramsci in Jackson, 1989, p.53). Consumerist and economic rationalist discourses become culturally pervasive and limit political debate. This “common sense” overrides good sense (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999, p.41; Harvey, 2005/2009, p. 2 & 39-41; Kurz et al., 2010, p.22-3). Societal understandings often take their form from American social particularities which are generalised to the rest of the world as “notions with which we argue rather than notions that we argue about” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999, p.41). The concepts of neoliberal globalisation need passeurs (carriers) to transport these logics, values, and modes of organisation (ibid., p.46), and it is to these transporters of the “common sense” of the period that I now turn. The strict loan conditions of the International Monetary Fund since the 1980s have brought neoliberalism to many countries, including Argentina, Mozambique and the Philippines, often enriching the wealthy at the expense of the poorer majority (Chatterton and Gordon, 2004, p.12; Harvey, 2005/2009, p.40). Conservative think tanks have played a role in naturalising and spreading neoliberal thought since 1979 (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999, p.42). The political context was that Deng Xiaoping made steps towards liberalizing the Chinese market in 1978, Margaret Thatcher became British Prime Minister in 1979, and in 1980 Ronald Regan became President of the United States. University of Chicago economists also played an important role in promoting neoliberal thinking (Harvey, 2005/2009, p.1 & 8). The spread of New York City-style penal apparatus was promoted throughout Latin America and Western Europe by the ‘policy evangelism’ of the Manhattan Institute. In Mexico this was funded by telecoms tycoon Carlos Slim (Wacquant, 2010), which illustrates a snug connection between the wealthy and social control. Another set of passeurs are the media and education, with their great potential to educate and motivate the public (Rosenblatt, 1996, p.145; Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999, p.41).

Inequalities embodied in hierarchies often appear natural when there is close “correspondence between the social order and the principles of its arrangement” (Bourdieu, 1972/2009, p.164). System justification theory proposes that people are, often sub-consciously, motivated to support the status quo through resisting change (Jost et al., 2004, p.912). ‘Coping strategies’ to make injustice more bearable similarly defend inequalities through categorisations such as the lazy poor and the industrious rich (Bamfield and Horton, 2009, p.14). Those living privileged ways of life are also likely to be more unwilling to change, and may feel powerless to do so.

Forms of concealment of ideas and concepts surround most social practices. These include isolation (practices are separated from wider society and historical context); conflation (practices are not differentiated); eternalisation (practice appears unending rather than historically bounded); emphasising

natural causes (obscures the social causes); overlooking interrelations between

practices; and hiding conflicts of interest between differently positioned subjects. Social practices are ideological when the concealment of the concepts behind practices benefits a dominant social force (Urry, 1981, p.60- 61). Karl Marx considered that the concealment enacted by ideology not only hides one’s own interests from oneself as false consciousness, but also hides one group’s interests from others thus representing ruling class interests as those of the whole society (Marx in Jackson, 1989, p. 49). Focusing on three capitalist countries, this thesis identifies neoliberal discourses that bolster economic inequality. This work identifies discourses that promote inequality and dissuade us from change.