Social, political and economic theories are only valuable if they find application in practical government policies. The period spanning the last two centuries has seen the emergence of many competing theoretical explanations for the nature and organization of civil society over the course of recorded history. These theories cover such fields of enquiry as sociology, psychology, political science and economics. The dialectic of the recent two centuries has been between the theory and practice of ‘capitalism’ and its opposing ideology ‘communism’. And each country’s social policies fit within either of these two economic systems. As it stands now, many democratic governments across the world (including here in Australia) have embraced one or the other variant of capitalism. But purely in terms of theoretical principles, it is socialism that offers broad scope for devising and implementing social security policies for citizens. More importantly, in the context of this essay, it is Marxism and Socialism that address directly issues such as public welfare. Since Marxism puts the collective good ahead of individual interests, robust social security policies are to be found within this analytic framework. (Arato & Gebhardt, 1978)
Moreover, when one looks at the performance of social security measures in Australia, some major failure areas become apparent. Access to basic healthcare, quality education and decent standards of living are in no way guaranteed to a majority of citizens. It is only the top 20 percent of the population (in economic terms) that can avail of these necessities without uncertainty. The rest of the population is dependent on favourable labour market situation, foreign policy environment and public welfare initiatives to make ends meet. In this context, a case is to be made for revisiting the process of the dialectic and look for fairer solutions to these persisting social problems. Marxism and its later branches, including Western Marxism, the Frankfurt School, etc, by way of providing nuanced understanding of the organization of societies also thereby offer new alternative solutions to social issues. (Craib, 1997, p.64)
Social problems in contemporary Australia and elsewhere are created by inequitable wealth distribution, inequity of power and political franchise, human exploitation for private profits, domination of the working classes by the elites, commoditization of culture and the alienation of humans from their work and from each other. In this context, revisiting Marxism (especially the Frankfurt School) is a healthy exercise, as it has the potential to offer up solutions for these issues. It was Marxism that first propounded the notion of class division – something that was present in all historical societies and civilizations – being at the root of most social problems. Marx was particularly vocal on what he perceived to be the domination of one social group (the working classes/slaves/peasants) by the minority group holding much power and wealth (capitalists/royalty/feudal lords). (Habermas & Michnik, 1994, p.5)
In contemporary Australian demography such distinctions are not stark. As a participant of the global neo-liberalisation program, Australian economy and society has undergone rapid change over the last three decades. As this rapid transformation unfolded, categorical distinctions of class are no longer straight forward. For example, many highly-skilled immigrant professionals from minority communities were able to establish their careers and integrate themselves into the Australian mainstream. To the extent that this situation has spread the wealth of the country more evenly, the task of the policy makers is alleviated. But public institutions and the policies they implement are still far from ideal, carrying several flaws from the previous eras. And Marxists’ analysis of class domination is still evident in the country. This situation makes it imperative to implement social security policies for the benefit of those groups in the demography that is disadvantaged or identified as high risk.
Although Australia is one of the more advanced nations in the world with democratic credentials, its domestic policies are somewhat skewed to favour the elites. With a strong tendency to fall back upon conservative principles, social cohesion in Australia is decidedly less consolidated compared to those of the United States and the United Kingdom. This is reflected in the slew of racist attacks on ethnic Indians (despite official proclamations of them as opportunistic crimes). The overwhelming majority of Caucasian Australians are yet to accept people of other ethnic, racial and cultural backgrounds as their own. This is not surprising when one considers that as recent as 1970, ‘White Australia’ was the official government motto. Marxism and its off-shoots, by way of condemning domination of all sorts, are also against institutions of domination. And bringing in such refreshing new perspectives to the policy framework, Australian society can make rapid strides toward greater cohesion and unity. And approaching those solutions from the Marxist perspective is likely to lead to effective and just solutions. The thoughts of Western Marxists, especially the Frankfurt Schoolers are highly relevant too, for their analysis and synthesis is far more sophisticated and insightful than what Marxists traditionally expressed. (Harrington, 2005, p.54)
Coming to practical solutions for aforementioned problems, the works of Emile Durkheim becomes quite relevant, for he is a key figure in revisionist Marxist thought. He is seen as an important intellectual figure in twentieth century philosophy and some of the concepts introduced by him are relevant to policy makers. Although Durkheim agreed with many premises of traditional Marxism, he was against revolutionary tendencies therein, and instead preferred a more gradual reformist approach. Also, as against totally dismantling capitalist economic organization, Durkheim suggested a middle path, whereby socialist elements (including social security policies and citizen welfare schemes) could be incorporated within a broader capitalist framework. One of his objections to total revolution is that it would create too much chaos and instability – a situation that would undermine the implementation of any possible reforms. Extending this assessment to the Australian social security policy, the prudent way forward would be to induce welfare measures within the existing institutional arrangements and not aim for radical overhauls.
Renowned for his nuanced understanding of modern social problems, Durkheim makes a distinction between late feudal/early capitalist societies studied by Marx and the newly emerging ones. In the latter the role of religion upon citizens is on the decline as more people have access to education. He coined several new concepts such as social facts, mechanical solidarity, organic solidarity, collective conscience, anomie, egoistic suicide, anomic suicide, etc. These concepts are related to one another and by understanding and identifying their manifestations in real-life, constructive social policies can be taken by governments. One concept of Durkheim that is of special significance to policy makers is one of Anomie, for it relates to cohesion and order within society. Good governments make sure that law and order are maintained in cities and towns across the country. In order to achieve high standards of law and order, all members of the society will have to accept common rules and norms. (Farrands & Worth, 2005, p.43)
Further according to Durkheim, this expression of solidarity is not all beneficial, for it means that individualism and individual consciousness will have to be suppressed for social solidarity. At the same time, an excess of individual expression will lead to breakdown in moral regulation of society and lead to anomie. Hence, in order for the Australian government to implement social security policies, the degree of anomie should be less. What is also to be ensured is that the conditions of solidarity achieved through strict law and order enforcement do not manifest in their extreme forms, namely, ‘mechanical solidarity’ and ‘organic solidarity’. Considering that Australian society is largely urbanized, the prevailing form of social cohesion can best be described as ‘organic solidarity’. For example, the high mobility of the population, racial and ethnic diversity, a developed division of labour, etc are all factors contributing to organic solidarity in Australia. One consequence of this is weak collective conscience. (Dillon, 2010, p.188)
It should be the focus and emphasis of policy makers in Australia to ensure that the prevailing weak collective conscience is suitably addressed and remedied. What this entails is setting up the doctrinal foundations for solidarity through the education system. Young people will have to be educated about their roles and responsibilities as members of civil society and hence put collective interests on par with individual interests.
“What we must do is to bring to life new groupings which are in harmony with the present day social order … But the only way of succeeding in this is to breathe life into the spirit of association. These groups can not be created by force. … It is precisely at this point that the role of the school can be considerable. … We have through the school the means of training the child in a collective life different from home life. … We have here an opportunity to take hold of the child at a time when the gaps in our social organization have not been able to alter his nature profoundly, or to arouse in him feelings which make him partially rebellious to common life … because of the critical situation in which we find ourselves, the services that the schools can render are of incomparable importance” (Durkheim, 2002: 235-6).
The values of social solidarity imparted to the child during its formative years will greatly help government officials to implement social security policies like unemployment benefits, palliative care provisions, etc. Durkheim also believed that the division of labour imperative of capitalist systems contributes in its own way to fostering solidarity and preventing anomie. Division of labour indirectly fosters solidarity, in that it makes all sections of society dependent upon one another. This way, the rich and powerful members become indebted to the less privileged members of society, thereby creating cohesion and unity. What division of labour also does is to restrain the selfish impulses of humans by reminding of the inter-connectedness. This atmosphere is most conducive for authorities here in Australia to draw up welfare schemes for the most needed groups. (Dillon, 2010, p.188)
Policy makers in Australia can also peruse the works of Critical Theorists in making prudent policy choices. Critical Theory is a large and varied body of work that emerged as a critique of traditional Marxist thought. Critical Theory found its most vibrant expression in the fertile intellectual atmosphere of Western Europe during the middle of the twentieth century. Two important intellectuals in Western Europe, who helped shape Western Marxist thought, are Gyorgy Lukacs and Karl Korsch, whose insights on class divisions and class relations bear upon the essay topic (Alway, 1995, p.17) Lukacs and Korsch can be seen as the pioneers who brought ‘culture’ into the seemingly abstract politico-philosophical Marxist discourse. Culture, as opposed to other disciplines within the humanities, is highly subjective and its substance is generally value-neutral. Despite this intuitive mismatch between culture and Marxism, Lukacs and Korsch elaborately integrated the former into the study of the latter.
Another influential figure who belonged to the Frankfurt School was Theodor Adorno. He too emphasized the need to study culture as part of the Marxist critique. For example, Adorno asserted that the ideas underpinning late capitalism are strongly ideological in nature. But at the same time, he objected to the sweeping generalization that Western culture is largely a depiction of false consciousness. That culture should simultaneously be preserved and overcome is the thrust of Adorno’s argument. On one hand, culture serves to “legitimate conditions that continue to cause tremendous human suffering; this is why it must be overcome. On the other hand, to denounce culture as false consciousness would wrongly extirpate every chimerical anticipation of a nobler condition…” (Cook, 2004, p.100)
Culture is significant to the government policy context in Australia, for an abstract economic analysis alone will fail to lead to viable social security measures. Understanding the unique socio-historical and cultural contexts in the country is essential for arriving at successful policies, and to this extent the thoughts of other influential Frankfurt Schoolers need be considered. For Australian policymakers, the nation’s chequered relation with aborigines will be the paramount issue. Having long been reduced to a minority group living on the fringe of mainstream society, the aborigines are slowly seeing reparative justice. And land-ownership schemes and other special welfare schemes for them have gradually been implemented in recent decades. (McClelland & Smyth, 2010) While no amount of reparative justice will suitably compensate for grave losses already incurred by the community, understanding the cultural emphasis of Critical Theorists and incorporating it’s suggestions in the policy framework is the right way to go forward.
References
Alway, J. (1995). Critical Theory and Political Possibilities: Conceptions of Emancipatory Politics in the Works of Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and Habermas. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Arato, A. and Gebhardt, E., eds (1978) The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, edn. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Arato, A. (1993). From Neo-Marxism to Democratic Theory: Essays on the Critical Theory of Soviet-Type Societies. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Cook, D. (2004). Adorno, Habermas, and the Search for a Rational Society. New York: Routledge.
Craib, I. (1997). Classical Social Theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 11-22 and 64-85
Farrands, C., & Worth, O. (2005). Critical Theory in Global Political Economy: Critique? Knowledge? Emancipation?1. Capital & Class, (85), 43+.
Harrington, A., ed (2005) Modern Social Theory: An Introduction, edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J., & Michnik, A. (1994). Overcoming the Past. New Left Review, a(203), 3-16.
McClelland, A. and Smyth, P. (2010) Social Policy in Australia: Understanding for Action, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Dillon, M. (2010) Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts and their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, Chapter 1, pp: 181-214. (THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL / CRITIAL THEORY)
Chapter 1, pp: 77-114. (THE ANALYSIS OF EMILE DURKHEIM (1858-1917) AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY)