It has been said that Britain has one of the most hierarchical and entrenched societies in the world, masquerading as its most open and democratic. While its elite is far from being the worst in the world, this is something that has been learned through hard lessons over the past four centuries, so that now the average British person is so familiar with his lot that it is hard for him to think of changing the status quo at the top.
I wrote an article previously about the different ways how Britain's elite maintains its position in British society. One of the most important ways that the British establishment is able to maintain its status and power is through its hold on education; namely the public school system and Oxbridge.
The important thing to ask about the public school system is: "why does it exist?".
The public school system was established before the Industrial Revolution as a way to ensure an educated, governing class. Once the British Empire existed in earnest, it was clear that a larger number of civil servants would be needed. This same system, by and large, exists almost unchanged today; the only difference is that the pre-pubescent children attending public school these days are there through the social ambition created by the parents (both foreign and domestic), and fed by the establishment to provide a constant supply of blood.
The British Empire no longer exists; therefore, it was necessary for the "establishment" to adapt to the times, and make a "public school education" as the best way to ensure a secure future for the children of ambitious parents with money to spare.
Parents who can afford to take their children in private education, do so for the sake of ensuring their children get the best education possible. These parents also say that they have the freedom to choose the best education for their children, and that it is wrong to begrudge them the opportunity if they have it. Any other person would do the same thing given the chance, they fairly imply. Lastly, they say they only use the private system because the state system cannot guarantee the same kind of quality that gives their children a lift up to the highest levels of society.
The public school system is therefore a leftover of the British Empire, updated to modern times by appealing to the vanity of people with means. Foreigners (as much as middle class parents) put their children into this system because it effectively buys their children an advantage impossible in their own country. This much is clear and undeniable.
In other words, private education is a form of bribe. By paying the fees to the private school, the parents are (as much as realistically possible) ensuring an advantage for their children unavailable to those of lesser means. Pay money to the school, and the children will go to "Oxbridge": this is the clear thought of the parents, and the implied suggestion of the school in question.
It is a form of corruption, and therefore immoral in a civilised society. This system is what maintains the British establishment, and ensures that the top ten per cent of society will always lead a life separate and unattainable to the vast majority of the rest of society.
Saying that this form of education is a "freedom of choice" matter misses the point: because only those people with the means to afford it have the choice. It is hardly as though poor people would choose state education if they knew that private education is better. To state the blindingly obvious, private education is better simply because of the fees that keep the school funded. It is the same for "Oxbridge". It is only money that maintains the quality of this system. There in nothing innate that makes private education better. Private schools may as well all have a sign above their entrance that says: "We are good because you pay us".
It is also this reason also why private school fees have a habit of increasing over time. In a reverse of free market logic, as private schools become more competitive, they have to improve their facilities to maintain their advantage, which means higher fees, making it more and more exclusive over time. This makes the private school system even more dysfunctional compared to the state sector.
But if it is "only money" that makes the private school system better, then in theory all these schools could become incorporated into a national government-ran system, if the government had the money through taxation. Alternatively, the rich philanthropic elite could be easily convinced to annually contribute to such high-quality educational establishments to ensure their continued "free-status" (and thus avoid anyone having to pay fees). That way, these "top quality" schools would be available to people on merit alone rather than the size of the parents' wallet, if the government had the money (i.e. will) to make such patronage unnecessary. And the same for "Oxbridge". There are many other methods of financing higher education than the status quo..
Of course, such humane logic assumes that those in the top ten percent actually care about genuine meritocracy. For many, the thought terrifies them.
So parents' argument in favour of "freedom of choice" and "wanting the best for their children" are distractions, and are symptom of the failings that the private system entrench in society. The logic becomes self-fulfilling, perpetuating the class system for eternity. Meanwhile, parents with the means shrug their shoulders at the status quo, pay up and "pay in" to the system.
But does "the system" they pay into really work for Britain?
There is another, more pertinent, question that the British establishment and the public school system should answer, apart from the moral questions. It is the question that few people seem to think about, or ask.
If the "public school" system is designed to create a well-educated governing class, then why are the people it produces so useless as it?
The current cabinet of the government is largely a product of this public school and "Oxbridge" system. And yet, the current crop of ministers are perhaps the most incompetent collection of individuals to have run Britain in living memory. The same point can be made for those people responsible for the financial industry, that has been the driving force behind the British economy for thirty years, and responsible for creating the greatest financial disaster for a hundred years.
So the most revealing thing about the British establishment is not so much the question of morality as incompetence. The education system is not only immoral; far more devastating, it is not fit for purpose. It is an extremely inefficient way of financing success in Britain as a whole, and completely unsuitable to the modern needs of Britain.
The problem is that it is fundamentally based on a system that is at least fifty years out-of-date. The British Empire no longer exists, therefore Britain no longer needs a "governing class", an "establishment". This form of education system is designed to sustain an elite that has lost touch with reality.
For an education system to work efficiently, it has to adapt to changes, as well as predict them, and create a syllabus accordingly. But the public school system, by definition, is designed to perpetuate the status quo; it is far less flexible in being able to reflect changes in society. The public school system is designed for educating those who have money to get more money and greater status; it is not designed to improve Britain. But because those who are at the top of society are educated in the most expensive schools in the country, they naturally assume this means they're the best qualified and best-educated. This explains why the likes of Cameron and Osborne are so sure of their views, but have so little idea about how to run the country and the economy. The same is true for the financial industry.
It is a truism that corruption breeds incompetence. The evidence suggests the same is true for Britain's "public school" system. Getting a career in the top echelons of society is mostly about having the right "markers" (such as an Eton and "Oxbridge" education) and connections, not brains. It's natural that in a system designed for those with money, those with most money are thought to be the smartest. Once you are in the higher echelons, surrounded by like-minded complacency, no-one is likely to challenge you intellectually. Cameron and Osborne, the two leaders of the country, are living proof of that. Private education is designed at getting those "markers" and high salary career, but there is little evidence that it offers value of money in terms of "real" education and developing analytical intelligence.
There is far more anecdotal evidence to suggest that state education offers a far better "value for money" in terms of preparing children for life and how to make a career on their own initiative, as well as giving you some first-hand experience in the social diversity of British society.
However, if you want your child to be a rich, well-connected, amoral, misanthropic psychopath, then put them into a public school. The choice is yours; if you have the money.
Showing posts with label elite. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elite. Show all posts
Friday, February 1, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
How Britain's Elite Stays In Power
The average foreigner thinks of Britain as symbolizing the equal, yet contradictory, ideals of democracy and tradition. Foreign tourists love the UK for its symbols: The Royal Family, The Houses Of Parliament, and so on. Modern Britain is seen by foreigners and Brits alike as a synthesis, brought about through continual compromises.
The UK itself is a bizarre creation, that confuses foreigners endlessly. Modern British society is a post-imperial creation, a melting pot of populations that have been arriving to "the homeland" since the end of the Second World War. But Britain's institutions have faced repeated scandals ever since the financial crisis, such to the extent that it's hard for people to know who to look up to as moral icons, or which of its cherished institutions can be trusted or believed any more.
It started with the scandals that have engulfed the banking sector, followed by the expenses scandal, followed by the Murdoch Press scandal that has implicated MPs as well as the police. Then there is the tax avoidance scandal, the crisis of confidence that has hit the BBC due to the Jimmy Savile scandal, many scandals involving how badly our public institutions are ran (such as the NHS, the immigration service etc.), and the corrupt relationship between politicians and government contractors. Britain in the early 21st century faces a series of systematic structural failings that bode badly for Britain's future, with governing politicians unable to deal with them or make a viable plan for the future. Britain is almost literally falling apart at the seams because of government failure. The routine incompetence and impunity of the governing elite is just another symptom of the dysfunctional state of those in power.
The institutions that wield power in the UK have root in the political convulsions of the 17th century. The constitutional monarchy as we know it, the Bank Of England, and the functions of the Houses Of Parliament all came about through compromises made in the 17th century.
That century began with Britain having its first all-conquering monarch, James I, who ruled the entire island of Britain. James' legacy lives with us today in the form of the King James Bible, and The Union Jack ("Jack" being a shortened version of the Latin for James), not to mention Guy Fawkes, the famous would-be assassin and terrorist. For all the things that James in responsible for that we take for granted today, there were many more that people wanted him quickly forgotten for. For James was also an inveterate schemer who ruled the United Kingdom (parliament refused to allow him the title of King Of Great Britain) through divide and rule; an approach that would be more associated today with the likes of Richard Nixon. Although not a war-like ruler, this was mostly (also like Nixon) through an act of amoral expediency. As much as only Nixon could have gone to China, only a schemer like James was the man to make peace with Spain.
He also passed on to his eldest son, Charles, the arrogance of power, but not his father's carefully-honed political antennae. The Civil War, Charles' execution, and the Commonwealth, were a result of Charles' stubbornness and double-dealing, that would have been prevented if Charles had been more flexible.
As it was, even after the Restoration of the monarchy, both of Charles' sons (Charles II and James II) still created conflict with parliament, finally resulting the the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 that deposed the openly-Catholic James II and installed his daughter (Mary) and Dutch nephew (William) jointly in his stead.
The "Glorious Revolution" was the real birth of the constitutional monarchy as we know it today, for it made the monarchy effectively the property of parliament and (symbolically, at least) the people. This was put to the test very quickly when parliament stated that the monarch had to be an Anglican. After Queen Anne died in 1714, the title of king passed to a distant Protestant German relative who barely spoke English, rather than Anne's closest relative, James Francis, her brother from her father James II's second marriage, who was a Catholic. Thus the "Jacobite" cause was founded, which rumbled on for the next half century.
The British establishment from that point onwards has learned how to do what is necessary to stay in power. While every other major European power has experienced revolution to bring about social and political change, Britain has stood alone in being able to withstand the "reactionary forces", pursuing a consistent policy of incremental change. British people, compared to their European counterparts, don't "do" revolution. The closest comparison is perhaps Spain, but even they went through many decades of Republican government before the constitutional monarchy was restored.
But the British establishment is more than just the monarchy. The "establishment" really includes all those that have a vested interest in maintaining the current hierarchy, which means the aristocracy, the banking sector, "public schools", and so on.
The real legacy of the "Glorious Revolution" was a gradual melding together of the monarchy and the parliament (which had a large aristocratic element in any case). The two needed each other for legitimacy and continuity, rather like how the corporate elite maintain the political elite nowadays in the USA. This is one of the things that the UK and the USA have in common about their respective "establishments": they both have decades (even centuries) of experience in how to occasionally surrender powers to the populace in return for a greater hold on their positions.
The "establishment" therefore breeds unswerving loyalty and sheep-like servility in the electorate through maintaining an illusion of democratic power, while making sure their own positions are inviolate.
There are a number of ways it can do this.
First is the idea of a "narrative". America has its own narrative that everyone, from the lowliest person upwards to the "aspiring classes" buys into: the American Dream. The reality, of course, is very different. As is the same in the UK, where the"establishment" continues to give out the message of an "island nation", somehow different from the rest of Europe, and thus where "European ideas" should be treated with suspicion. This is another reason why much of the "establishment" is anti-European: it presents the wider populace with other, dangerous, ideas. The "establishment" is only pro-European when it thinks it can get something out of it for itself. The idea of a unified Europe terrifies it, as it would lose much of its power and privilege.
Second is the idea of the UK being a "civilised country", where people are good and caring towards each other, and where everyone is looked after. Much of this is simply talk. Under this is the "establishment" meaning of a "civilised country": where people shut up and don't complain, follow the rules, are respectful to one's superiors and "keep calm and carry on". This is another reason why British people don't "do" revolution: the "establishment" tells us its "un-British".
Third is the idea of Britain holding the "mother of parliaments". The Houses Of Parliament are two parliaments, one of them (The House Of Lords) entirely unelected, and mostly appointees by governments past and present. In other words, it is utterly corrupt in any objective meaning of the word. Until the end of the 20th century, many of them were there through "noble birth". Since the former Labour government "reformed" it, many of these nobles were replaced by government appointees, easily subject to influence and machinations.
The Houses Of Parliament are populated by people who are generally either there through (in the case of Conservatives) being from the right family or having the right connections, or (in the case of the other parties) there through connections or being involved in the political classes from young adulthood. In other words, the majority of these MPs have little grasp of "real life", and even if they do, are subject to influence from the "establishment" in any case. Labour's last tenure in office is a case in point: their politicians made some cosmetic improvements to society, but also vastly indulged the banking sector (leading to the current financial crisis), allowed the private sector to increase its influence in education, and made university more inaccessible to the poor by introducing tuition fees. Once the more "establishment-friendly" Conservatives were in power, these changes were accelerated, and government funding to the public sector dried up. Any attempt at reform of the democratic system beyond a cosmetic one (such as the "AV" referendum) is rubbished as being pointless and unsuitable to Britain.
In other words, the "mother of parliaments" is a sham, for it does not hold the "establishment" to account for its actions, but instead perpetuates its existence, while feeding a false narrative to the electorate about necessity of its existence.
Fourth is the idea that Britain has the best education system in the world. The USA also makes this claim, and in the same way, both Britain and America are right. The UK and USA have the best education systems for rich people in the world. "Oxbridge" and the "Ivy League" are what keeps the Anglophone "establishments" on both sides of the Atlantic alive and well. These are the foundations that keep things standing (and the "establishment" far above their respective populations). Its hardly surprising that so many up-and-coming "nouveau riche" from China and elsewhere are keen to study in the UK and USA, when both countries have the best education that money can afford.
The "establishment" maintains the fiction that these educational institutions can only be maintained through charges that exclude all but the richest from attending, and the the country needs these institutions to protect the future of the country for everyone else. There is an alternative answer to this, and it exists in the educational experience of the Soviet Union. While I am no Communist or fan of Communism in itself, it is undeniable that the Soviet Union had one of the most advanced and progressive educational systems (relative to its cost to the population) in the world at the time. The Russian education system did not collapse after the Bolshevik Revolution, as its "establishment" guessed. On the contrary, over time, it thrived as never before. Cuba's education and health system tells us a similar story.
"Oxbridge", so the "establishment" tells us, exists for the benefit of the whole country, even though it is only the children from the "establishment" who can really afford to go there. The Russian experience tells us that there is a possible alternative to the status quo.
Fifth, and last, is the popular romanticism and trivialisation of the class system in the media and collective mindset. The media (with a few honorable exceptions) is also part of the "establishment", and maintains its status, consciously or not. Britain has one of the most entrenched class systems in the world, with the lowest levels of social mobility in Europe. This is a fact. And yet the media and popular opinion often make light of this. Although the country has made reforms to open up society on the surface, social mobility has decreased in recent decades, to unprecedented low levels comparable with our GDP. This is because the money has simply been sucked up to the top, undoing any progression that was made in the decades following the Second World War.
The public's bovine respect for the monarchy and other British "institutions" is another symptom of the popular trivialisation of the class system. More seriously, the "establishment" finds it easy to distract criticism of the class system by highlighting the fact that many people now consider themselves to be "middle class". This is not a fact on the ground, merely a point of perception, and a complete illusion.
What is "middle class"? Thinking you are "middle class" is simply a sign that you have bought into the idea that you think you are socially better than someone else, and makes it all the easier for the "establishment" to sit back and smile at these simple people's delusions. As far as the "establishment" is concerned, a commoner can call himself the King Of England if it makes him happy and docile. In reality, the so-called "middle class" are now worse-off than they have been for decades. If being "middle class" is about lifestyle opportunities and real income, then the real "middle class" family these days should have a combined income of at least £70,000 per annum. Anything less is just self-delusion. And it is this mass delusion by people who think they are "middle class" that keeps the "establishment" happy.
It is these five strands of thought that keep the "establishment" in power in the UK. It is only by openly challenging these ideas that real change can come to the UK.
The UK itself is a bizarre creation, that confuses foreigners endlessly. Modern British society is a post-imperial creation, a melting pot of populations that have been arriving to "the homeland" since the end of the Second World War. But Britain's institutions have faced repeated scandals ever since the financial crisis, such to the extent that it's hard for people to know who to look up to as moral icons, or which of its cherished institutions can be trusted or believed any more.
It started with the scandals that have engulfed the banking sector, followed by the expenses scandal, followed by the Murdoch Press scandal that has implicated MPs as well as the police. Then there is the tax avoidance scandal, the crisis of confidence that has hit the BBC due to the Jimmy Savile scandal, many scandals involving how badly our public institutions are ran (such as the NHS, the immigration service etc.), and the corrupt relationship between politicians and government contractors. Britain in the early 21st century faces a series of systematic structural failings that bode badly for Britain's future, with governing politicians unable to deal with them or make a viable plan for the future. Britain is almost literally falling apart at the seams because of government failure. The routine incompetence and impunity of the governing elite is just another symptom of the dysfunctional state of those in power.
The institutions that wield power in the UK have root in the political convulsions of the 17th century. The constitutional monarchy as we know it, the Bank Of England, and the functions of the Houses Of Parliament all came about through compromises made in the 17th century.
That century began with Britain having its first all-conquering monarch, James I, who ruled the entire island of Britain. James' legacy lives with us today in the form of the King James Bible, and The Union Jack ("Jack" being a shortened version of the Latin for James), not to mention Guy Fawkes, the famous would-be assassin and terrorist. For all the things that James in responsible for that we take for granted today, there were many more that people wanted him quickly forgotten for. For James was also an inveterate schemer who ruled the United Kingdom (parliament refused to allow him the title of King Of Great Britain) through divide and rule; an approach that would be more associated today with the likes of Richard Nixon. Although not a war-like ruler, this was mostly (also like Nixon) through an act of amoral expediency. As much as only Nixon could have gone to China, only a schemer like James was the man to make peace with Spain.
He also passed on to his eldest son, Charles, the arrogance of power, but not his father's carefully-honed political antennae. The Civil War, Charles' execution, and the Commonwealth, were a result of Charles' stubbornness and double-dealing, that would have been prevented if Charles had been more flexible.
As it was, even after the Restoration of the monarchy, both of Charles' sons (Charles II and James II) still created conflict with parliament, finally resulting the the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 that deposed the openly-Catholic James II and installed his daughter (Mary) and Dutch nephew (William) jointly in his stead.
The "Glorious Revolution" was the real birth of the constitutional monarchy as we know it today, for it made the monarchy effectively the property of parliament and (symbolically, at least) the people. This was put to the test very quickly when parliament stated that the monarch had to be an Anglican. After Queen Anne died in 1714, the title of king passed to a distant Protestant German relative who barely spoke English, rather than Anne's closest relative, James Francis, her brother from her father James II's second marriage, who was a Catholic. Thus the "Jacobite" cause was founded, which rumbled on for the next half century.
The British establishment from that point onwards has learned how to do what is necessary to stay in power. While every other major European power has experienced revolution to bring about social and political change, Britain has stood alone in being able to withstand the "reactionary forces", pursuing a consistent policy of incremental change. British people, compared to their European counterparts, don't "do" revolution. The closest comparison is perhaps Spain, but even they went through many decades of Republican government before the constitutional monarchy was restored.
But the British establishment is more than just the monarchy. The "establishment" really includes all those that have a vested interest in maintaining the current hierarchy, which means the aristocracy, the banking sector, "public schools", and so on.
The real legacy of the "Glorious Revolution" was a gradual melding together of the monarchy and the parliament (which had a large aristocratic element in any case). The two needed each other for legitimacy and continuity, rather like how the corporate elite maintain the political elite nowadays in the USA. This is one of the things that the UK and the USA have in common about their respective "establishments": they both have decades (even centuries) of experience in how to occasionally surrender powers to the populace in return for a greater hold on their positions.
The "establishment" therefore breeds unswerving loyalty and sheep-like servility in the electorate through maintaining an illusion of democratic power, while making sure their own positions are inviolate.
There are a number of ways it can do this.
First is the idea of a "narrative". America has its own narrative that everyone, from the lowliest person upwards to the "aspiring classes" buys into: the American Dream. The reality, of course, is very different. As is the same in the UK, where the"establishment" continues to give out the message of an "island nation", somehow different from the rest of Europe, and thus where "European ideas" should be treated with suspicion. This is another reason why much of the "establishment" is anti-European: it presents the wider populace with other, dangerous, ideas. The "establishment" is only pro-European when it thinks it can get something out of it for itself. The idea of a unified Europe terrifies it, as it would lose much of its power and privilege.
Second is the idea of the UK being a "civilised country", where people are good and caring towards each other, and where everyone is looked after. Much of this is simply talk. Under this is the "establishment" meaning of a "civilised country": where people shut up and don't complain, follow the rules, are respectful to one's superiors and "keep calm and carry on". This is another reason why British people don't "do" revolution: the "establishment" tells us its "un-British".
Third is the idea of Britain holding the "mother of parliaments". The Houses Of Parliament are two parliaments, one of them (The House Of Lords) entirely unelected, and mostly appointees by governments past and present. In other words, it is utterly corrupt in any objective meaning of the word. Until the end of the 20th century, many of them were there through "noble birth". Since the former Labour government "reformed" it, many of these nobles were replaced by government appointees, easily subject to influence and machinations.
The Houses Of Parliament are populated by people who are generally either there through (in the case of Conservatives) being from the right family or having the right connections, or (in the case of the other parties) there through connections or being involved in the political classes from young adulthood. In other words, the majority of these MPs have little grasp of "real life", and even if they do, are subject to influence from the "establishment" in any case. Labour's last tenure in office is a case in point: their politicians made some cosmetic improvements to society, but also vastly indulged the banking sector (leading to the current financial crisis), allowed the private sector to increase its influence in education, and made university more inaccessible to the poor by introducing tuition fees. Once the more "establishment-friendly" Conservatives were in power, these changes were accelerated, and government funding to the public sector dried up. Any attempt at reform of the democratic system beyond a cosmetic one (such as the "AV" referendum) is rubbished as being pointless and unsuitable to Britain.
In other words, the "mother of parliaments" is a sham, for it does not hold the "establishment" to account for its actions, but instead perpetuates its existence, while feeding a false narrative to the electorate about necessity of its existence.
Fourth is the idea that Britain has the best education system in the world. The USA also makes this claim, and in the same way, both Britain and America are right. The UK and USA have the best education systems for rich people in the world. "Oxbridge" and the "Ivy League" are what keeps the Anglophone "establishments" on both sides of the Atlantic alive and well. These are the foundations that keep things standing (and the "establishment" far above their respective populations). Its hardly surprising that so many up-and-coming "nouveau riche" from China and elsewhere are keen to study in the UK and USA, when both countries have the best education that money can afford.
The "establishment" maintains the fiction that these educational institutions can only be maintained through charges that exclude all but the richest from attending, and the the country needs these institutions to protect the future of the country for everyone else. There is an alternative answer to this, and it exists in the educational experience of the Soviet Union. While I am no Communist or fan of Communism in itself, it is undeniable that the Soviet Union had one of the most advanced and progressive educational systems (relative to its cost to the population) in the world at the time. The Russian education system did not collapse after the Bolshevik Revolution, as its "establishment" guessed. On the contrary, over time, it thrived as never before. Cuba's education and health system tells us a similar story.
"Oxbridge", so the "establishment" tells us, exists for the benefit of the whole country, even though it is only the children from the "establishment" who can really afford to go there. The Russian experience tells us that there is a possible alternative to the status quo.
Fifth, and last, is the popular romanticism and trivialisation of the class system in the media and collective mindset. The media (with a few honorable exceptions) is also part of the "establishment", and maintains its status, consciously or not. Britain has one of the most entrenched class systems in the world, with the lowest levels of social mobility in Europe. This is a fact. And yet the media and popular opinion often make light of this. Although the country has made reforms to open up society on the surface, social mobility has decreased in recent decades, to unprecedented low levels comparable with our GDP. This is because the money has simply been sucked up to the top, undoing any progression that was made in the decades following the Second World War.
The public's bovine respect for the monarchy and other British "institutions" is another symptom of the popular trivialisation of the class system. More seriously, the "establishment" finds it easy to distract criticism of the class system by highlighting the fact that many people now consider themselves to be "middle class". This is not a fact on the ground, merely a point of perception, and a complete illusion.
What is "middle class"? Thinking you are "middle class" is simply a sign that you have bought into the idea that you think you are socially better than someone else, and makes it all the easier for the "establishment" to sit back and smile at these simple people's delusions. As far as the "establishment" is concerned, a commoner can call himself the King Of England if it makes him happy and docile. In reality, the so-called "middle class" are now worse-off than they have been for decades. If being "middle class" is about lifestyle opportunities and real income, then the real "middle class" family these days should have a combined income of at least £70,000 per annum. Anything less is just self-delusion. And it is this mass delusion by people who think they are "middle class" that keeps the "establishment" happy.
It is these five strands of thought that keep the "establishment" in power in the UK. It is only by openly challenging these ideas that real change can come to the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)