It’s time to give nudge the elbow

These days it is increasingly likely that the “but” word will be used regularly when referring to how much we should allow citizens to be treated as autonomous individuals, enjoying freedom and liberty in society. “I am a liberal but…” reminds those of us old enough to remember those who were “against racism but…” or, very fashionably today those who are “for economic development but…” The classical ideas of liberty by Locke and Mill were shaped by the view that individual autonomy was sacrosanct; indeed it was far more important than making the ‘right’ decisions.

Those decisions deemed as being “right” are of course judged by a political elite, who have jettisoned the idea that we should have politics, where ideas are presented to the public about what to do with regard to organising society, such as overcoming unemployment, eliminating poverty, ending war or living on the moon. Instead, bereft of any inspiring visions and preoccupied with how disconnected they are from citizens, they aim to re-position and influence our private lives.  It is ironic that the very people who seem frozen in stasis when it comes to how to organise the state, whether that be through tendering out military jobs to private companies or the obsession with focus groups and consultants, seem determined to get inside our heads when it comes to the personal choices and decisions we make about what we eat and drink, whether or not we smoke,  reduce energy use, recycle,   save money, prevent teenage pregnancy or exercise.

President Obama has been a fan of Behavioural Economic for quite some time, as his appointment of Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Tzar demonstrated. For Obama, “Nudge Theory” was an important outlook and it betrays the outlook of the establishment today. They do not believe humans are rational and grown up individuals who can be engaged with in the world of ideas and action. Rather, we are somewhat akin to children who need to be “nudged” along (and when that doesn’t work a bit of a shove will be used).  Thus, in his admiration of Sunstein, Richard Thaler and other pop psychology writers – a tradition dating back to Daniel Kahneman’s “illusion of control” – the president exemplified the outlook for many today who consider themselves to be liberal. Such an attitude assumes that people are stupid and we need to get in to their deepest recesses and start nudging them in the way they “should” behave. The fact that this denigrates the most important part of choice, human consciousness and independence, seems to have passed them by.

Now following hot on the heels of New Labour’s sermonising from the secular pulpit about binge drinking, smoking and other lifestyle pursuits, we have all of these lovely oxymoronic terms such as “choice architects” and “libertarian paternalism” from David Cameron’s “behavioural insight team”.

It used to be the case that people railed against subliminal messaging in advertising as it was associated with trying to control people’s minds. Now it is all the rage. Based on the premise that humans, as we are continually told, are “hardwired for x” or “hardwired for y”, it has become increasingly popular to see people as automatons that need to be prodded along in the direction bureaucrats believe is best.

This Brave New World of Orwellian-speak of course sits alongside other more blatant measures of intervention, although they are also dressed up as always being for “our own good”. Thus, Michelle Obama lectures the food industry continually and hands out advice on how to parent and feed our children. Meanwhile, Thomas Farley, the health commissioner in New York City is not satisfied with banning smoking inside all public areas, now he wants to  ban it outside in parks and on beaches too!  Add to this trans-fat bans, smoking bans (in some apartments now too, as well as some states when driving with young people under 16) and proposals to prevent people in New York who use food stamps to purchase soda drinks.

When you add all of this together, it leaves us in a dire situation where only certain types of freedom are seen as acceptable. The solution to this is to vigilantly demand that people are treated as independent adults, able to make their own minds up – indeed, to do things that we think are really wrong and we disagree with. Tolerance, that other liberal idea, which has absolutely nothing to do with respect, should be part of our resilient and robust demands that humans have made history and are perfectly capable of making it again. Or not. Therein lies the real choice, the choice those ghastly “choice architects” fear so much.

Throughout October and November, The Independent Online is partnering with the Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time.

Alan Miller is a film maker and Director of The NY Salon www.nysalon.org in New York City, co-founder of London’s Old Truman Brewery cultural centre and is on the London Regional Council of the Arts Council England. He is producing the Battle Satellite event Ground Zero tolerance: religious freedom and America’s culture war on Monday 8 November at the Wollman Hall, The New School, 65 West 11th St, New York, USA

Recent Posts on Battle of Ideas

• 'Abortion industry': A slur on the women who support their choice
• Opera for the masses, by the masses?
• Twitter trolls and the Health Bill
• The bitter taste of sugar prohibition
• Welcome to the age of bespoke cultural identities