Whilst it is possible to see the logic of this argument and its synthesis in Tim Clark's mail, there is an alternative approach that might provide an equally compelling analysis:
1. The reinvention of particular political and policy forms within new languages and concepts may be as much a strategic activity as a genuine attempt to rearticulate or develop new articulations from past positions. Seeing historical lineages that knit together successive attempts at social democratic formation, for example, might say as much about accumulation and legitimation crises as it does about the rich possibilities of these lineages. Here, the language of the Third Way is seen as more part of the means of maintaining some form of hegemonic control or co-ordination of popular - and perhaps more speciticically academic and literati - dissent or subscription.
I am not suggesting here a simple reduction of the third way. There are other relevant approaches to the Third Way as political marketing or the im perative of the big idea for electoral support in a time where big ideas no longer sustain or can be sustained by state or party. What i am suggesting is that the rhetoric serves purposes, is used instrumentally for those purposes, and is part of attempts to rewrite history and shift debate onto terrain preferred by those who champion it, however centre of right.
2. The problem with big ideas that concentrate on processes, institutional co-ordination and networks, and operate at a meso or micro level, however congruently with contemporary scepticism over larger social analyses, is that they concentrate on form over substance. Values and ideas are subordinated to formal systems that may or may not provide greater access, participation and mediation of interests, with the result that we praise plurality and democracy (rightly) without asking what values and political, policy positions are inpregnated within formal structures, processes, institutions and networks. We lose the means of addresing wider questions, gridlocked by the formal parameters set by this field of vision. Here, good old analyses of power, control and ownership provide some sobering reflection.
3. The rhetoric of newness and post-structuralist, post-Marxist and radical democrat critiques of left narratives do provide some rich and insightful critiques and counters to traditional left positions. But remember Geras caution in response to Laclau and Mouffe. Do we sometimes spend to little time on the easy consignment of left and right to the dustbin? There is a richness and diversity in left thought that belies any parody, and has something to say about how left ideas can be utilised in new and insightful ways. Again, one wonders at the political value of those championing the new politics that they can so easily trash the old. I am not suggesting Lenin or Trotsky shoulod be read as Gospel - I am critical of Marxist and radical ideas. Yet I am equally concerned that we do not become so compelled by looking forward to the new that we get trapped in a too easy denial of the old - look at analyses of globalisation that draw much from left thinking. And Anthony Giddens is a salutary lesson to us all! Interestingly, the right, however much they rearticulate their politics, are far more happy to link their present and past, and some might argue the shift to the 'new centre' in New Labour locks in some of the constraints the right would put upon a genuine centrist, left or alternative shift.
What does it mean for joined up policy? It means we should carefully analyses the rhetoric for contradiction, lack of application and representation of policy. We should look at what is happening and how far the language dresses policy change. I am sceptical. We also need to think about how previous attempts to develop these forms of policy co-ordination failed, how this is different and what the meaning of co-ordination and collaboration across agencies, networks and institutions - will it result in inertia, or the propagation of rhetoric and not application? Will the complexity of networks and agencies hinder rather than enable? Who is benefitting from this over other approaches - who gains and loses of those political classes that constitute public debate?
I am not saying joined up policy should not be given a hearing, or even qualified support in its development. Any policy development that can effect policy outcomes that suit those who whom they are aimed have value. Critical analysis must work in a context of pragmatism and enabling.
I am saying that scepticism and criticism are part of that process, and of the process of working out as early as possible if it is a feature of a depoliticised politics, a politics of buying vocal or powerful interests, a politics of dissolving debate within system, or a politics of dissembling opposition and resetting an agenda that increasingly leaves key segments of society beyond help - or encourages their pathologisation for that very purpose.
Oh I am sceptical but I am willing to be persuaded!
Paul
>>> Tim Clark <[log in to unmask]> 01/22 2:20 pm >>>
Ok ok I promised not to write in again but you people just make it far too
interesting for me to resist.
I picked up on the 'newness' theme precisely for the same reason as P
Spicker. Ideas and concepts associated with JUP do have a history that
needs exploring and incorporating. However it seemed to me that some of
the responses seemed to imply that because in some senses it wasn't new it
didn't need further exploration because 'it has been going on for 25 years'
or similar sentiments. The point about filing cabinets was mine.
Therefore I absolutely agree that the history of these ideas must be looked
at again. What I don't understand is if you wanted to direct our attention
to this (as everybody would surely agree is a good idea) why not just say
so. Approaching this issue by 'scepticism of newness' just threw me on the
wrong scent.
The second part of P Spicker's message is, of course, absolutely correct.
By reverting back to left and right I did not mean an over simplistic
dictomy but that the old politics has the bad habit of being dogmatically
opposed to each other. That is why I profoundly disagree with the last
part of the message. Right now perhaps, the third way is more of a slogan
but its potential goes far beyond since it is the only current political
philosophy that seeks to INCLUDE valid points from both left and right.
This is new and could well be much more than just a slogan.
Errica woods sums up my thinking much better than I could myself when she
says could JUP "become an ongoing interactive process, promoting social
inclusion, developing citizen awareness and involvement, enhancing our
culture. JUP's history, as a means of informing the present, might show us
the lessons of past mistakes". This is what I was trying to get at when I
talked about political as well as institutional joined-upness.
I believe JUP can do these things and will work towards this goal. Right
now JUP remains mostly ideas and concepts but with help from those like P
Spicker and the rest with previous experience us 'newbies' have a good
opportunity to get things closer to all of our ideals. Constructive
criticism is vital of course but it will help no one just to slap a
government down without trying to support its intentions and offering to
develop solutions. Lets get behind JUP and make the damn thing work for
everyone- it must be at least as good as anything we have tried before!
|