Harry Brighouse

28 July 2009

What is it about your political beliefs that put you on the Left rather than the Right?
I believe that everyone should have equal prospects for a flourishing life; one in which they are able to find fulfillment and contribute to the wellbeing of others, in which they can attain self-knowledge and can act on that, and in which their interdependence with others is tempered by social conditions which prevent those others from tyrannizing them with the arbitrary use of power.

Equality, in this sense, is a centrally important moral value; and only the left, over the past two centuries or so that we’ve had a left, has consistently pursued it. That’s not to say that the movements pursuing equality on any particular dimension are naturally of the left. The pattern tends to be that while a group is struggling for equality on some dimension – think of gender, or sexuality – it is allied to the left in some way, but as it becomes more successful, it ceases to be so closely allied to the left. The recent fracas over whether the Tories or Labour are more gay-friendly is symptom of the success of the gay lesbian and transgendered movement, and as it becomes more successful (as, surely, it will) it will become even less closely connected to the left. What makes the left the left is that whereas each dimension of unjustified inequality (class, gender, race, sexuality) triggers action from some interested parties, the left is concerned with all dimensions.

What do you consider made you Left wing?
There’s no single event or influence I can point to, but I can identify two particular moments which illustrate thoughts that crystallized for me the value of equality and thus, eventually, placed me on the left. The first was watching TV coverage of the Biafran war (by looking it up on wikipedia I see that I was 6) and thinking how unfair it was that the people caught up in that war were facing such horrors, while I and my family lived a happy and wealthy life. It seemed obvious to me that I should have less good in my life if that would enable them to have more.

The second was sometime toward the end of my time in primary school in Buckinghamshire where we took the 11+. Despite the convincing insistence of my parents that it did not matter whether I “passed” or not, and the egalitarian character of my school, we all knew that some children were being picked out for extra resources and special attention so that they could have more privileged lives, and the cruelty of this was really brought home to me by the fact that I “passed” and my two best friends did not.

How would you describe the sort of society you want Britain to be?
I’m cautious about answering this, because although I am British and love Britain, I’ve committed myself to living my life in another country, so I’m not sure that my opinions should have much weight. It is also a difficult question to answer because the moral ideal of equality demands a much more egalitarian society than I can imagine being achieved within a few generations, so anything I say to describe a society regulated by that ideal will sound hopelessly utopian. In the short-to-medium term, then, I’d like to see a Britain in which everyone gets a high quality education which prepares them for meaningful contribution to society and for a flourishing life, in which poverty is eradicated, in which ethnic and racial diversity is, and is seen by all as, a source of cultural wealth, and in which religious differences give rise to spirited and lively debate from which all parties seek to learn.

What one or two changes would make the biggest difference to bringing that about?
First, the elimination of child poverty, through radical changes in the tax structure and investment in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and the public institutions that serve them, is feasible, and would go a long way to improving the quality of education for almost all children including many non-poor children. It cannot be achieved without diminishing the standard of living of the wealthiest 10% or so, and we should face that fact and not pretend otherwise. This should be the central focus of any left-leaning government.

Second, people learn to trust one another through embodied personal contact in situations where something meaningful is at stake; a push to increase the incentives for leaders of faith communities and ethnic communities to cooperate in civic life, whether running schools, managing housing investments, or other projects, would help make ethnic racial and religious diversity a strength rather than a problem.

What most makes you angry about the way Britain is now?
I am not angry, but disappointed by the recent electoral successes of the racist right, the fractiousness around religion, the destructive cynicism of the press and the persistence of large-scale poverty, but incredibly encouraged by other things, like the wide acceptance of same-sex civil unions, and the fact that despite the successes of the racist right Britain is a mostly peaceful and incredibly racially diverse society.

Which person, event, era or movement from the past should we look to for inspiration now?
The Victorian settlement movement (most famously embodied in Toynbee Hall, where John Profumo spent his life, post-resignation) has current echoes in Teach First: as for individuals I would look at a great innovating educationalist like Sir Alec Clegg, who experimented with and reformed schools in the West Riding in the 1940s and 50s, and the early women’s suffragists like Sylvia Pankhurst who not only fought for the vote but, in doing so, helped to foment a social revolution in the way that women were thought of and treated, and thought of and treated themselves. It’s not the particular things they did that we should take inspiration from, but the way that they did them – looking for spaces within which action is possible, and working through the details of change with a close eye on what the effects were.

Position: Professor of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison

3 Comments

3 Responses to “Harry Brighouse”

  1. willearp
    July 29th, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

    I am in complete agreement with the idea that the traditional 'leftist' values of Freedom and Equality should not be viewed as solely the possession of the left. These core moral values now pervade all of politics and society and it impossible now for any political party not to embody them. So, a question like 'what it is to be on the left?' cannot be met with an answer that merely states the ideal of Freedom, Equality, and Community.

  2. stuartwhite
    July 29th, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

    willearp: yes, all parties give some lip service to the notions of freedom and equality. But I don't think any mainstream party seriously accepts their implications.

  3. Defending Lasch, Left and/or Right | Front Porch Republic
    October 9th, 2009 @ 5:33 am

    [...] “equal prospects for a flourishing life” a central value being almost stereotypically a left-wing attitude rather than a right-wing one), but it’s an odd left, a left that owes more (and more directly) to Rousseau’s [...]

Leave a Reply





  • Join the Mailing List





  • About Demos

    Demos is a London-based think tank. We generate ideas to improve politics and policy, and give people more power over their lives.
    Go to Demos

  • Labour Leader Election events

    Ed Miliband Q&A

    David Miliband speech

    Ed Balls in conversation

    Andy Burnham Q&A

  • Open Left launch





    Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, writes for Open Left about what being on the left means to her. Click here to see what she thinks.

  • Contact Us

    openleft@demos.co.uk


    For an archive of Open Left project press, see here.

  • Open Left Project

    immigration Jobcentre Plus jobseeker's allowance Labour Unemployment welfare