Towards Ethical Politics, Blackwood Project 2002
Thursday, 5 June 2002
The following is a sketch of the issues we see leading to the question: “What is ethical politics?” and some indications of how the question ought to be answered. What follows is a draft by Geoff with some amendment in the light of discussions with Bill and Andy.
Although political and social developments of very recent times are pushing the question of ethical politics to the fore, ethical politics can be seen to be deeply rooted in processes which have been unfolding throughout the modern era. Ethical politics is the field constituted by the tension between redistributive justice and the struggle for recognition. Questions of redistributive justice spring from the socialist tradition, aiming to redress economic inequalities and are located under the signs of equality and liberty. Questions of cultural recognition spring from the new social movements of the post-1960s era, aiming to redress the misrecognition of cultural specificity and the devaluation of difference, and are located under the signs of recognition and difference.
Thus ethical politics is the form that the problem of the different oppressions suffered by the “holy trinity” of class, race and gender takes in the current period opened by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Further, ethical politics seeks to address the problem of the “embarrassing etc.” alluded to by Judith Butler - the “etc.” that gets appended to a list of the oppressed and that holds the place of future claims — by seeking expansive frameworks of universality and solidarity that might accommodate the future interests of specific groups who have not yet articulated their demands for social justice and cultural recognition.
The question of ethical politics arises in a distinct context, defined by the “post-socialist condition,” on the one hand, and the rise of right-wing populism, on the other. The “post-socialist condition” is characterised by the discrediting of Marxism and the retreat of the Left from questions of redistributive justice, towards a politics of cultural recognition that neglects or devalues traditional socialist objectives. Struggles informed by the agendas of the new social movements now dominate the strategy and tactics of the Left. While feminism, multiculturalism, anti-corporatism, environmentalism, gay and lesbian identity politics, national autonomy movements and ethnic collectivities cannot be reduced to the struggle for “identity” in isolation from political reforms and economic objectives, these, as a rule, take place within the umbrella of a claim to equal recognition of the moral worth of persons, as opposed to struggles organised by material interests. Thus, environmentalism and the anti-corporate movement, for instance, position themselves as moral reform movements contesting the validity of lifestyles and modes of personal realization, where material interests and political power are distinctly secondary. Hence, for example, support for “sustainable development” and opposition to the influence of the corporate bio-technology lobby are consequences of an endorsement of “green” values and lifestyle priorities, rather than a conversion to, say, red-green economics and decentralised governance. Politically, this can be traced to the collapse of Soviet Communism, the mainstream political consensus on economic rationalism and the popular endorsement of a shift in politics “beyond Left and Right”.
At the same time, the far Right has enjoyed a resurgence in the context of economic globalisation. Driven by racist ideologies, the populism of the Right has enabled the politicians of neo-liberalism to maintain their hegemony of the political field, despite the increasing unpopularity of economic rationalism. Blaming the massive shift in wealth and the containment of democratic controls on the state on “cultural elites” and “illegal immigrants,” the populist Right - from neo-fascists to mainstream conservatives - have effectively dominated the political agenda in the industrialised democracies.
Association with the agenda of the Right increasingly taints Leftwing populism - from republicanism to classical social democratic nationalism - an agenda which is centred on rolling back policies of cultural recognition while continuing to invert the redistributive framework of the welfare state. The real risk that a left-wing republicanism now runs is that its populist appeal to the opposition between “the people” and the “power bloc” cannot be sufficiently differentiated from the rightwing attack on “cultural elites” and “the chattering classes”. A Left capable of challenging for hegemony in democratic politics could, of course, control the reception of discourses of opposition to “elites” and therefore prevent the association of left-wing populism with the attack on multiculturalism and “cosmopolitanism”. But this is not the case: precisely the reverse is true, thanks to the unprecedented dominance of the Right in politics today. Likewise, left-wing nationalism cannot sufficiently distinguish itself from the racist attack on “illegal immigrants”. While the Left must aim to construct a discourse capable of dividing society between “the people” and “the power bloc,” between “us” and “them,” populism cannot be the form of this discourse.
Bluntly, “ethical politics” seeks to “ride the tiger” of popular moralism in exactly the same way that the mainstream Right has been able to ride the tiger of populist racism. At the same time, ethical politics links up with the forefront of intellectual debate on the theoretical options confronting the Left today. This intellectual debate, rather than being a theoretical ghetto (on the lines of the obscurantisms of postmodern cultural studies), is capable of challenging mainstream political philosophy, sociology and ethical theory on its own terrain and shifting the debate to the left. Ethical politics therefore addresses the key dimensions of “moral and intellectual leadership” that are central to the ideological struggle for hegemony.
Ethical politics differs from moralism, such as that of the “political correctness” movement in the United States, simply positing a moral imperative and demanding compliance as a substitute for addressing the problematic conditions which give rise to the offence in the first place, like Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No!” campaign. Ethical politics, nevertheless needs to be able to mobilise the immense potential constituency of the moral common sense of the Western societies. This moral common sense is defined by the notion of respect for the moral worth of all persons. This moral common sense underwrites many of the claims for cultural recognition that have been successfully institutionalised in multiculturalism and equal opportunity legislation. It also underpins the moral aspects of “justice as fairness” that informs concepts of wage justice and social welfare. But an ethical politics need not be limited to the moral conceptions supporting political liberalism.
In opposition to the manifest corruption of the governing parties in the industrialised nations, the monstrous defiance of international conventions on human rights that accompanies the “war on terrorism” and the tightening of the defensive perimeter of the post-welfare security state, the demand for ethical politics strikes back against the ruling neo-liberal political configuration. Yet the meaning of the term “ethical politics” in popular usage is indistinct. Does it mean a re-moralisation of the public sphere? In this case, it could only be a pernicious moralism: a substitution of moral judgment for rational justification as powerless as it would be strident. A concern with public values as opposed to “reasons of state"? This would be another effort to set limits to the legitimate employment of government authority - an effort that might issue in some sort of “post-liberal theory” as an attempt to resurrect the spirit of liberalism. A call for the restoration of the balance between legality and authority? This would be a species of communitarianism, advocating the return to a singular collective good, and imposing the necessary consensus by authoritarian means under the sign of a reversal of the “priority of right over the good”. An attempt to set limits to the science of government by means of ethical committees? These would begin as an impotent cavilling and end as a species of casuistry.
Ethical politics is none of these things. It is not a moralism. It is not a utopia. It is not a mask for communitarianism, nor a political voodoo that might re-animate liberalism. It does not seek to restore the “lost balance”. It does not imagine that the power of the multinationals can be confronted by extra-political moral pressure alone. It is not a confederation of “concerned citizens”. It is - above all - not an attempt to “clean up” the political landscape. “For Ethical Politics” is not an effort to launch a political temperance society. Opposition to the agenda of mainstream politics cannot become a moralistic cavilling or a defence of actual elites at the expense of those whose interests are really at stake in neo-liberal policies and their populist smokescreen: the increasing numbers of ordinary people for whom economic, political and cultural globalisation brings new uncertainties and declining living standards.
Nor can it afford to fall into the trap of the “Third Way” renewal of social democracy, namely, the acceptance of neo-liberal policies as the foundation stone of sound government. While the appeal of the British New Labour to a renewal of moral values and social solidarity met with an enthusiastic reception, this soon turned out to be merely a scheme for a flexible version of privatisation and deregulation. For all the talk of “civilising global capital,” the Australian Labor Party has not broken from economic rationalism and seems likewise incapable of imagining alternatives to the populist demonisation of “illegal immigrants”. This Party needs not a moral band-aid but a complete policy transfusion.
The dominant mode of mobilisation on the Left at the moment is alliance politics, which is struggling to make an abstract unity of redistributive justice with cultural recognition. This coalition building creates fruitful conditions for the promotion of ethical politics, which in turn can facilitate coalition building on the Left, but ethical politics must above all take a critical stance in relation to alliance politics.
The hope guiding this inquiry is that ethical politics might be the focal point for the convergence of a broad spectrum of political tendencies breaking with the hegemonic neo-liberal political agenda of both Liberal and Labor parties. Whether these tendencies are republican, socialist, communitarian, feminist, multiculturalist or environmentalist seems to us less important than their potential coalescence around the need for a different way of doing politics. All of these tendencies have highly articulate criticisms of mainstream politics and definite agendas for their respective political alternatives. The only thing lacking is a common public perception of how such alternative could be approached. In the absence of this awareness, the agenda of government is driven by the “unholy trinity” of economic neo-liberalism, the politics of the “war on terrorism” and populist prejudice, and the assault on social cosmopolitanism and ethical universality in the name of a reduction in the power of so-called cultural elites. What links the parts of the unholy trinity is their effort to manage the impact of globalisation not through governance of social processes but through ideological scapegoating. What is ethical in the opposition to the dominant agenda is the focus on respect for the moral worth of persons, whether this takes the form of the legitimacy of group identities, respect for cultural diversity and equality of opportunity, or the defence of human dignity through wage justice, social welfare and democratic rights. Underlying this opposition is the latent concept of political justice linked to an ideal of democratic ethical life in modernity as characterised by rational universality and social diversity.
In contrast to the contemporary fashion for the abstract declarations of “alliance politics,” ethical politics rejects the idea that additive combinations around fully formed political constituencies can be the basis for a different way of doing politics. Instead, ethical politics promotes sustained reflection on normative and programmatic questions that would equally challenge existing political formations and while forming the basis for the integration of existing struggles for social justice and cultural recognition into a unified framework.
How is the link between social justice and cultural diversity to be framed? What are the just, and what the unjust, modes of governance that can be imagined for a self-governing political community? What sorts of links can be established between authority and legitimacy? How might democratic citizenship and civic virtues promote a culture of democratic politics within which egalitarian agendas might flourish? What are the public values that support freedom, and what are the forms of universality that contribute to diversity? Ethical politics sets itself to respond to these questions, not solely with new ideas, but also with new laws, new policies and new political directions.
Geoff Boucher, Andy Blunden, Bill Deller