there are some ideas in some sections of "the welfare state"and/or"caring professions"about how these"disciplines"think" about themselves and their own histories.these might be"academic",or"intellectual"or"rational"but they are certainly ideaologically informed.
it seems to me for example that some,perhaps much of the radical thinking of the 1960s and 1970s is reduced in such modernised accounts to simply being negative.some of it was undoubtedly negative but i would suggest that much was liberatory and in the process tried to explode some of the previous intellectaul assumptions,and yes sometimes"we"threw out"the baby with the bathwater",or at least we tried to do so.....the new"theory"criticises the someties radical,liberatory theories for conclusions that i believe the new simply assume attach to the old.in this case,that it all concluded"nothing works".a state and its policies could not decide to"leave us alone"on this basis,nor can it accept that nothing works.one of those teories had indeed been"radical non-intervention(ism)".it was indeed very challenging.
then there was the development of what i believe is called meta-theorising in which social theorist and researchers look at all the infomation/research with a particular brief and seek to analyse and drawer conclusions from what might be very diverse,different and even antithetical material.this seems i have to say to be a "dodgy enterprise" at best-forcing material into a shape it may not fit,in order to well-drawer conclusions that may neither fit nor be appropriate.this in turn drives what is suppossed to be a methodology for further research and construction of projects and policies based on "what works?" which is supposed to be evidence based.
however,this is itself a ery ideoalogically informed view.there is extensive criticism of it at a number of levels-to pick a few,that comebviously to my mind:
*.in reality the researchers/theoreticians choose which material they include in their assessment of "what works".those choices are rarely explained or rationaly justified.
*.the only things in practice which does not seem to have an evidence based foundation is that in most/all agencies of social policy is that everything has to be filtered through a"business plan"menatality/focus.
*.mostly pilot projects are no longer testing grounds but are simply the vanguard of programes,poolicies and initiatives that WILL be imposed once politicalky decided.
*.there a wide use of subtle,sophisticated"soca friendly"terms which actually lack content or forensic clarity but make for the kind of language and discussion which makes disagreement increasingly difficult and places any critic in a negative position.any critic can then be characterised as"spoiling the party"
*.i think it was dr.geobbels,the nazi propoganda minister who suggested i think rightly(yes he was a fascist,but just occassionally an insight can still be right)that if you keep it simple and repeat the same lies long,loudly and frequently enough they become accepted and believed.evenetualy it becomes difficult to challenge the climate of lies and illusions.appaearance replaces reality.
*.i would also argue that rather than being analyticaly sound,the very"battering"of informatin into a common shape,reflects how and what social policy is now designed to do-which is to modufy behaviour and attitudes at an active and aggressive level,and to"batter"us with the consequences.i believe this wil apply with both"olympic legacy"and"welfare reform".any distance between the two is reduced by the common attitude of state,caitak and corporations to all of it and to all of us.
i am not claiming by any means that i have the whole picture for a critique here,but id suggest that actually if we applied these ideas-and i know there are other critical tools,to the rhetoric of"olympic legacy"and any other issue relating to the olympics,we might actually get a truer picture of the what is going on.
indeed,i suggest marxist method and critical(social)theory are keys too,i also suggest that the word rhetoric gives us a clue.for me one of its-rhetorics-modern meanings hints at the gap between the way something is spoken of,"the spin"and the actual,material outcome.
vigilance is also a very useful tool.i think if there is to be any substantive"legacy"for society as well as simply those sections that dominate it,including the state itself and the various fractions of capital,then we have to be vigilant.we will have to ask detailed questions and follow through to wherever that leads.and we cannot give them any"benefit of the doubt".we must make sure the standard is according to"the letter of the law"in relation to even the smallest of their promises.we have to go well beyond"reasonable doubt".that very notion can be manipulated,and their class are good at it."reasonabe doubt"is indeed the standard of their class.ours ought to be for"absolute proof"and"absolute truth".yes,its a tall order.i make no apologies for believing they simply cant and wont be able to meet it. those who know me personally that i gave up being"reasonable"a very long time ago.i would reply with"be realistic-demand the impossible".i dont just want the"pound of flesh",i want every detail of every commitment met in full and in detail.my standard will be to demand nothing less.
No comments:
Post a Comment