George Matafonov is author of Fire & Water: Market Morality & Civil Society and is also running a survey at www.moralcompass.org [1] to determine the impact of free-market economics on traditional morality. Welcome to Webdiary George, and thankyou for this optimistic challenge to us all.
by George Matafonov
The calls for unity around Australian values following the Cronulla riots highlighted, once again, an uncomfortable reality: no one seems quite sure what are Australian values. And this provides a strong clue to where we should look for answers to much of the social unrest we are experiencing today.
As humans, we have been living in societies for tens of thousands of years and have developed values and our sense of morality to enable us to live in peace, harmony and prosperity. Chief of these values was the belief that we should always look after one another, by doing right by others, as articulated in the concept of a "fair go", and in the biblical exhortation of "love thy neighbour". This traditional morality is also brilliantly expressed in the Golden Rule, which has bubbled up, in one form or another, wherever and whenever humans formed societies.
And here lies the problem and the reason for the confusion. In the space of less than 50 years, economic theory has turned all this upside down by insisting our chief value should be competitive self-interest. Enthusiastically embraced by politicians of all persuasion and enforced through the market - which is quickly becoming the central institution in terms of influence on our lives - the morality of the market is spreading outside the confines of market at an alarming rate. According to a survey at www.moralcompass.org [2], up to 40% of respondents no longer subscribe to key aspects of traditional morality.
Not only is a growing number of people renouncing long-held values that historically have been used to create cohesive societies, but there is also confusion about values that goes right to the top. Take, for example, Brendan Nelson's attempt last year at defining our values to the Muslim community. He suggested there are nine values and include: care and compassion; doing your best; fair go; freedom; honesty and trustworthiness; integrity; respect; responsibility; and understanding, tolerance and inclusion. Apart from the imputation the Muslim civilization has somehow forgotten all this, what could be wrong with teaching such values? Well for one, they are not values; they are outcomes of living certain values.
Is there any doubt adherence to the biblical exhortation of "love thy neighbour", religious hypocrisy aside, results in tolerance, compassion, loyalty, honesty, selflessness, kindness, altruism and all that we refer to as virtues? In the same way, is their any doubt that "compete with thy neighbour" will give birth to their opposites?
If there is doubt, there shouldn't be because for tens of thousands of years we have been passing on this knowledge from generation to generation, even shrouding it in religious concepts to remove all questioning of this basic truth we discovered.
Such confusion between cause and effect allows politicians to get away with publicly endorsing and promoting traditional virtues, while at the same time espousing economic policy that not only undermines the same virtues, but also encourages their opposites. It also allows them to get away with scapegoating multiculturalism and minority groups, thus deflecting the reality that their unequivocal embracing of economic theory has created a climate of moral relativity.
If the guiding principle for action is the self, as the market insists, then it plays to the idea that we should each have our own morality, and hence tolerance should be the overriding value. Thus any sort of behaviour that seems natural to someone becomes a moral standard, and by default should be approved by society, or at least tolerated. But how does a society of self-centred individuals exist without disintegrating into anarchy? In the economic life the answer, according to the theory, is competition; in the personal life the answer is political correctness.
And this represents a paradigm shift where once the community played a vital role, through the notion of a common morality and a common set of values, in influencing the choices we make, we now have bureaucrats dictating behaviour through ever-intrusive laws. Reliance on just the law for social cohesion, as we are starting to learn, results in nothing more than clogged courts and over-populated prisons.
So what is the solution? The first step, I believe, is to question the basic assumption of this new theory. Do we really believe there is no common morality, no common set of values that binds society together: that everything is relative and hence tolerated? The answer is no, according to the same survey.
The survey results to date suggest strongly that we don't believe the moral relativists, with only 4% of respondents believing our morality should be based exclusively on our needs. Also, about 60% of respondents believe that social cohesion is best achieved by a common morality first, supplemented by law.
The Moral Compass also points clearly to a simple, yet powerful common belief - that our morality should be based on the needs of others - which can bind society around a common value of concern for others: "...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded!", as Emerson once expressed it.
The challenge for modern societies everywhere is how to re-establish this sense of traditional morality without negating some of the efficiency advantages of economic theory. Fortunately, we don't have to reinvent the wheel because we can look to the experience of the Church, when it was the central institution of society. Faced with a similar problem, it taught and reinforced the principles of traditional morality by recounting the lives of saints and sinners.
In a secular society, the same concept of teaching and reinforcing by example can be implemented by running an awareness campaign entitled, "Do Right by Others. It's the Australian way.", which re-establishes the guide to action, outside our economic life at least, should be the concern for others.
This is nothing new. It is the essence of a "fair go" for all, it shines bright in the spirit of the ANZACs who made the supreme sacrifice so others can breathe easier, and we see it everyday in the selfless acts of countless volunteers in a myriad roles, who sacrifice their time, and often more, in helping others.
It was this value that was under attack in Cronulla when the louts attacked the Life Guards. This was no simple assault; it struck at the very core of what many perceive it means to be Australian, resonating deeply within the whole community.
While the Cronulla attack was physical, the more insidious attack by economic theory is perceived at a different level by many, resulting in the so-called Howard haters. Many of these people have never met John Howard and don't hate Howard the man, but do resent, even hate, what they perceive is an outright attack on the core value of not just Australian society but humanity itself.
For this reason, such a campaign may come under ridicule and attack by the current government because it would mean admitting culpability and taking responsibility for the social division and unrest. The first objection would be that competitive self-interest and the value of doing right by others are not mutually exclusive. Let's lay this to rest by a simple example.
Imagine you are running a small business and a competitor moves in next door. Do you welcome this competitor with open arms, share some of your research, pass on tips of how to succeed in this market? Of course not, more than likely you will drop your prices, increase your advertising and do whatever it takes to get rid of your competitor before he or she gets rid of you. This is competitive self-interest.
Contrast this with a neighbour moving in next door to where you live. More than likely, you will welcome your neighbour, you may even help with moving in; invite them over for coffee and do whatever it takes to help them settle in. This is doing right by others.
The two values are at opposite ends of the spectrum and as a society we need to affirm which is our core value. If both are to live side by side: competitive self-interest in our economic life, and doing right by others in our personal and social life, then should we not be putting as much effort, if not more, into promoting the latter as we are into promoting the former?
While the campaign mentioned earlier is probably best run at government level, it does not need to be. It could be citizen initiated and community run drawing on another important lesson of Cronulla: the power of social pressure, as demonstrated by the contrition of some of the rioters once their identity was made public.
Thus, the Do Right by Others campaign would encourage all communities to provide not only examples of people doing right, but also bring out into the open the activities of those who do wrong by others and let them feel the full force of societal condemnation. Like it or not, we are social creatures, and there is no greater pressure than condemnation from those whom we love and respect.
While this is a staple of current affairs programs, this will be the first time it will be wrapped in the idea of establishing and promoting a core value.
Additionally, we could encourage every newspaper and every magazine - in every language - to have a regular section dedicated to promoting the value of doing right by others by reprinting content. In this way we will not only establish the true heroes society wide, but also bring to bear the greatest pressure on those louts, gangstas, politicians and corporations who do wrong by others.
With our core value defined and clearly articulated, all else will follow. The result will be not only be a stable society but also a society with less need of a coercive force to keep it together because most people will automatically do the right thing by others, and hence the greatest freedom. Once again, this is nothing new. The Moral Compass shows, and common sense affirms, the more selfish and self-centred individuals in society, the greater the mistrust, the greater reliance on law and the greater the need for some coercive force to keep society together.
When welcoming immigrants to our wonderful country, let's make it clear that we are a tolerant society and expect the same tolerance from them, but there is one thing we will never tolerate is any action that is not consistent with our core belief of doing right by others. Let's make it an integral part of the pledge of commitment and the working definition of a "fair go".
Will the immigrants find this an alien concept? On the contrary, they will recognize it as their own because it is the essence of every mainstream religion; it is our common heritage and, arguably, the cause of all social progress.
Uniting around a common value like this will also stifle the Jihadists and the Fundamentalist who want to drag us back to the Middle Ages. In the same way, it will also stifle the ambitions of those who profit, economically, socially and politically from divisiveness and conflict. It will also expose as nonsense the "clash of civilizations" theories.
Restoring the core value of society is also the best way to achieve social change and social justice. It firmly sets the direction for the politicians who, contrary to the common misconception, reflect community values, rather than lead - providing the values are clearly defined. New options and new ways of organizing society will emerge contrary to the claims of those who argue TINA (there is no other alternative), enabling us to better meet the challenges of the Information Age.
All this with just one value? Christ was once asked which is the greatest commandment in law. This was an important question to the Jews of the time because they had over 500 commandments, and all had to be obeyed. This question is equally relevant today because of the legislative bog of political correctness. Christ's response was simple and straight to the point: love God and love thy neighbour, thus affirming there is only one core value which matters, and reinforced its primal position by using religious concepts as our ancestors have done since the earliest times.
Too utopian or maybe we are past some point of no return? The survey results at moralcompass.org suggest not, with Traditional Progressives still in the majority. Traditional Progressives believe we should organise society around the concept of looking after each other, based on selflessness, inclusion, humility and cooperation of free individuals. Besides, this is how we created cohesive societies for tens of thousands of years, which has enabled us to progress from living in caves to walking on the moon, despite the many setbacks along the way.
I have no doubt, that such a campaign will not only yield better results than relying on just the law, but also will bring unity where there is division, provide guidance to the young, the immature and the newcomers, teach the irresponsible a sense of responsibility, make the excluded feel included, give the confused a sense of direction, and, maybe, finally we can create a society where common decency is the norm again, and it is safe to walk the streets at night, free from fear.