David Cameron’s oppressive Big Society

Ryan Shorthouse

DCAM 300x225 David Camerons oppressive Big SocietyThe Conservatives’ passion for the Big Society chimes with a deep human desire to be an esteemed and popular part of a social group – whether it be a family, a peer group or a neighbourhood. Indeed, psychologists report that even the most ambitious people – doggedly independent, seemingly – are actually motivated by a longing to achieve membership of some exclusive grouping. A strong sense of belonging to a group – a duty to, love for, and respect from others – is deeply satisfying and enriching.

Too many people lack this in our society, plunging them into depression and worse. Just look at those children from turbulent homes, where families are in an unstoppable cycle of indifference and conflict: they are more likely to suffer from mental health problems and become anti-social.

But though group security can bring comfort and belonging, it can also perpetuate injustice and ignorance. The understandable craving for affection and status within a group – and what esteemed physicist and author Leonard Mlodinow claims is the deep need for an “affinity with a group identity” – often leads to people immersing and identifying themselves in only a few social networks.

And so we have group-think: too little interaction, and thus empathy for, other groups. Instead, a deep internalisation and fierce defence of one’s own group norms. Indeed, as the psychologist  Jonathan Haidt in his new book The Righteous Mind shows, what people find right and wrong  is often not universal, but different from culture to culture.

Problem is, this leads to people prioritising loyalty above facts: assumptions and values – sometimes regressive and repressive – are passed on from generation to generation. Fresh evidence and ideas that could lead to individual emancipation and greater social progress are ignored.

So, yes, the Big Society can be oppressive, antithetical to individual freedom. Tories have, rightly, always worried about the state restricting individual autonomy: whether it be nannying regulations or, at the other end of the spectrum, the clamping down of freedom of speech through government intimidation and force. But they should be worried about continuing repressive social norms too, which hamper people from doing what they really want to here in modern-day Britain.

Let’s take three examples of repressive social norms that are prevalent in too many families and communities: the undervaluing of education; the belief that mothers should not work when their children are young; and the belief that gender determines preferences.

First, studies have shown that in some social groups, parents are less likely to value the long-term benefits of education for their children. So a culture of expectation of exam success and university attendance is less likely to be created. Indeed, research from Mexico finds that children from less advantaged socio-economic groups under-estimate the wage premium from higher education considerably. Without a belief in the life-changing nature of education, the chances of social mobility, economic advancement and cultural capital are reduced.

Second, among some social groups, there is a strong intuition that it is the role of women to stay at home and look after their young children full-time for many years. Yet, analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study shows that children’s character development at nine moths or five years of age is not affected by whether their mother is working or not, but the quality and richness of the parenting and caregiving the child receives. Evidence shows that many children would in fact benefit from being exposed to social environments outside the parent-child relationship, such as formal childcare. As two-earner couples are considerably less likely to live in poverty, maternal employment would also have wider positive effects. Still, many women find they have to accept it is their role –and their role alone – to leave the labour market for long periods of time – damaging their job prospects – to look after young children.

Third, and the most widespread, is the belief that men and women think and behave differently because of biology. As for this this pseudoscience of neurosexism, its chief cheerleader John Gray who wrote Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, has no evidence to support it. Scientists are increasingly showing the intellectual differences between men and women are not innate, but learnt. If you look at the verbal test scores of young children, for example, gender plays a minimal role in explaining variation.

The reason why men and women behave differently is because of social custom: some tasks and professions continue to be seen as masculine or feminine – for instance, plumbing or childcare. Such prejudiced assumptions prevent people from discovering and developing their true preferences. Doing so would be seen as too abnormal, potentially leading to stigmatisation in the social network they belong to. What we need, as psychologist Sandra Bem wrote, is “to help free the human personality from the restrictive prison of sex-role stereotyping”.

In modern-day Britain, we do not need communities with archaic assumptions constraining individual behaviour – we need strong individuals building diverse and tolerant communities. Its big people who create the Big Society we want.

Photo credit: Getty Images

Tagged in: , , ,
  • rustle

    Brilliant photo! I don’t know about “big society” but Dave looks like he’s trying to explain the expression “big girls’ blouse”!

  • rustle

    I agree and would add that the “big society” concept predates DC. Thatcher professed belief in making taxpayers responsible for their own lives, the aim being to delegate the whole of the social aspects, to date “provided” by the state and largely won by Old Labour, of the taxpayers lives and welfare to the individual. Dave picked up where she left off but, with the help of some crooked PR outfit, gave it a more convivial camouflage! If this is allowed to continue “negative equity” will be promoted to “abject poverty” for the majority!

  • VelocetteKTT

    Cameronites are more likely to suffer from mental health problems and become anti-social.
    “”"” Its big people who create the Big Society we want….. “”"”
    Cameron isn’t one , never will be , doesn’t want to be and wouldn’t have the brains to be ,,,,, even if he did wanted to .
    He’s a third rate prat and a bloody disgrace .
    ” Prime Minister ” ,,,, suddenly , second hand car salesmen don’t sound so bad after all.

  • VelocetteKTT

     It’s not an illusion , they’re just a bit short of spin doctors to do it for them at the moment .

  • VelocetteKTT

    Well said  Ryan Shorthouse, I’ll be proposing you for the 2013 Internatianal Drivel Award.Your only serious opponent will of course be Cameron.The judges will have a difficult choice between the two of you.Gosh , lets hope that Simon Cowell will pick this one up for a new ITV series.”Britain’s got no political Talent”  ,,,,, brought to you by prats Inc., The Independent and a sponsor near you.


    this supposed new longing to be part of  a group is quite simply a direct result of the cult of the private motor car – so private that all the small, everyday, casual, potentially serendipitous interactions with  humans (and other animals), even when just token smiles or comments on the weather, are lost; the world seen forever through glass is a sad and lonely place?

    less trite and more traditional longings to join a group are often fuelled by social, financial and power-based ambitions; the most rewarding longings, more readily fulfilled, are for shared creative and cultural talents, beliefs and practices- nothing new there?

  • Emma Thomas

    Rule of thumb: everything Cameron and Osborne say is to maintain power and privilege in the hands of the people who have lots of both already.

    The rest is claptrap you should never, ever believe.

  • HorstNRW

    Surprisingly despite the headline, the article doesn`t discuss the implications of the slogan Big Society. To pretend state run nursing is better than caring for children at home in early infancy is doubtful. It doesn`t matter who takes care of the children  if one salary could keep a family afloat.

  • PaulOnBooks

    Pretentious, pseudo-academic garbage. “So” implies a logically-drawn conclusion is to follow – not that “I’ve quoted enough from newspaper reviews of pop psych books, now I’ll get some keywords in”.

  • Kugelschreiber

    I can’t stand the propaganda-fake-speak, like “Big Society”, that this Govt is so fond of using, to conceal their true motivations

Most viewed



Property search
Browse by area

Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter