Re-moralising Britain? Day two

Today was much more positive and substantial at the conference: six speakers compared to yesterday's three, and they each engaged much more competently and interestingly with the issues on the table: ten years of New Labour, faith, morality, and governance. Nevertheless, the biggest disappointment was again the biggest name: Will Hutton, whose paper suffered from some similar faults to Giddens, although none of Giddens' twattishness was evident in Hutton. Common to Giddens' and Hutton's talks and delivery was a fuzziness of logic, an undisciplined and uncritical approach to terminology, and an attempt to avoid discussion by elevating highly contentious propositions to the level of assertion, or even unquestionable fact. I don't think that in either man this was a particularly deliberate or pernicious gesture, but simply a consequence of having spent so much time in journalism and politics — a realm that thrives on the soundbite, the convenient phrase which sounds authoritative but really hides a great deal of confusion and lack of intellectual rigour.

The particular highlight for me was a very well prepared presentation given by Jess Steele, which addressed very well a wide range of issues associated with urban regeneration and the values implicit and necessary in achieving regeneration goals. There was also an interesting paper given by John Atherton on the "happiness hypothesis" which seems to be fashionable (particularly amongst David Cameron's drones). Atherton's basic argument was that politicians do need to pay more attention to the emotional, psychological and general well-being of people as well as their economic status, but that also the language of the "happiness hypothesis" was somewhat deficient and lacking in the clarity required to express the diversity of factors making up human wellbeing. I found myself disagreeing quite strongly to the discussion at all, though; it seems to me that striving for "happiness" is quite anachronistic, and not obviously compatible with a Christian worldview. As I've written before, a state of contentment, satisfaction, or general "happiness" can be stultifying, and it is no place (utopia) to think from. Happiness can be just as negative as depression; it inhibits our ability to respond with a range of emotions and attitudes to the world, and therefore diminishes our imperative to act in the world. While there is so much injustice left in our society both locally, nationally, and globally, it seems to me that seeking "happiness" for its own sake is a particularly pernicious and selfish ambition, and it is in any case unrealistic, since human nature does not seem thus inclined. Furthermore, that there could be a political incentive for government to produce and distribute happiness is a prospect I find deeply disturbing.

Tags: remoralising, britain, willhutton, will, hutton, anthonygiddens, anthony, giddens, contentment, happiness, happinesshypothesis, hypothesis, manchester, university, conference.

Labels: manchester, politics