Civil christianity
In the line of articles discussing the so-called “decline” of civility in Australian and British society, the Australian publishes this essay, which places the blame squarely at the feet of the decline of institutional Christianity:
The key to the collapse in civility is the decline in Christianity. The British character was shaped by the early 19th-century evangelical revival, which centred on the role of the family and duty to neighbours. This religious revival developed into a creed of respectability that became as natural a guide to behaviour as the air that was breathed. Respectability was not imposed by a pushy middle class. It was engendered by the working class, which learned from experience that chaos was the alternative to a life emphasising respect for others as well as for oneself.
The author also suggests that families have failed as well in carrying our their duties, and proposes a radical solution:
I believe that with the demise of the church’s role in teaching clear guidelines to decent behaviour, the state has to assume this responsibility itself. It should begin with welfare contracts making payments conditional on good behaviour. Likewise, school contracts should specify the behaviour expected of parents and pupils, as well as opening up the debate on what skills young people require (for example, I have found a key wish of pupils is to learn how to be good parents).
So far, the British Government has shown itself unwilling to move swiftly to a contract culture. But something needs to be done urgently to restore the ethic of respect in our society. Our societies cannot survive for long if they are careless about safeguarding their own futures.
I find the whole “civility” debate bizarre in the extreme, and it seems to echo down the ages as a constant grumbling about the standards of “young people these days”. However, it is amazing to me that the Howard government seems to have elevated this to the level of policy discussions. Anyway, this suggestion about a “contract-based” society seems to be cropping up all around the place at the moment and I am not too sure what I think about it.
On the one hand, I don’t think that there is inherently any problem with so-called “mutual responsibility” programs as an alternative to welfare charity as a means of changing patterns of behaviour which are detrimental to the community. Recently this has cropped up as a question of Aboriginal communities contracting to maintain certain hygiene standards in exchange for the government installing infrastructure including a petrol bowser. As I said, I don’t have a problem with these arrangements per se, so long as the agreement is truly mutual and everyone is happy about it and that the issues which are contracted have a genuine impact on areas such as health or education which are genuinely part of the governments business.
However, one problem I have is that where the “contract society” is tied to welfare or public schools or similar (as advanced above) it seems lopsided. It disproportionately affects those that have limited choices. And when you have limited alternatives, how do you determine whether these contract based mechanisms are in fact mutual and voluntary and all the rest? It is the same problem as with the WorkChoices legislation, which theoretically gives employers and employees the ability to negotiate mutually agreeable arrangements. Such a system works fine for someone like me, who, by virtue of the fact that I can get a different job and am relatively difficult to replace, has a relatively strong bargaining position. But if you are an unskilled factory worker who is easily replaced, then the situation is somewhat different.
Not to mention the fact that this idea seems to suggest that the young and the poor are those that are to blame in the whole public civility debate. Either that or the incivility that is perpetrated by the older and wealthier is not a problem that we wish to address. I know plenty of uncivil rich people.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
On your closing sentiment: Maybe the reason that such mutual schemes are always tied around restricting welfare is that it is seen as ‘carrot’ system that wont cost the government much or as a ’stick’ system that only removes things that are required but not completely deserved. Of course that is complete shit, welfare is needed, theres no two ways to look at it.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
In the interests of continuous improvement - can we add the recent comments section near the top of the page…Please?
February 28th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Bring back teacging from the catechism for kids…it dun me sum good.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Of course that is complete shit, welfare is needed, theres no two ways to look at it.
There is always two or even 100 ways to look at everything - especially welfare. I have worked for most of my career in welfare (I’ve also sold life insurance and super-annuation, so I’m not so certain I can be entirely trusted). I have seen 2nd and even 3rd generation welfare recipients, I have seen people give up work that would provide them with dignity and self respect simply because “the dole pays me more money” (this was from a person with 4 children, and he was right - the dole did pay him more than he could earn at that point.)
Currently I work with UnitingCare Ageing as the Volunteer Services Manager for one of their regions in NSW. We ahve 4 Work for the Dole projects that we currently sponsor. We ahve had over 300 participants come through our program and I have seen people who gave it a good go build their own confidence and develop transferable emlpoyment skills, but more importantly developed life skills and a desire to contribute to and not simply sit back and take from society.
Now I do actually belive that most people want to contribute to their community and I do not think that employment is a necessary part of that contribution - however gettoing off you arse and doing something is!
February 28th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
Lionfish, I don’t understand - isn’t the recent comments section near the top of the page for you? Where is it?
February 28th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Lionfish - it is there - the three column layout is broken today for some reason - we will address it asap
February 28th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
checking…
February 28th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
I’m using IE. When I decrease text size from medium to smaller (on the View, Text Size menu) I get three columns instead of two.
Possibly all you need is to increase the width of the display window? Just a suggestion.
February 28th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
yep, working on it. We think we might widen it and make the text bigger.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:03 pm
I vaguely remember hearing about the ‘hygiene for petrol bowsers’ agreement when I was in China. Except the way I heard it was from an American who had heard that the Australian government was going to inspect Aborigines to make sure they take a shower. Which is exactly what it is about when you start considering how such an agreement could be enforced. Scott and I were shocked and joked inappropriately about whether we’d get home to find Howard sitting in our bathroom logging Scott’s shower times.
If you want to teach hygiene, nutrition, etc, then you do so respectfully, in the knowledge that habits take time to change and that every community in the world finds some practises okay that others find disgusting, rude or inexplicable.
Just as the baby bonus only provides an incentive to people already wanting to have kids and centrelink is only a disincentive to people already wanting to work, I think these ‘civility contracts’ are only going to work for people already convinced that they want to be ‘civilised’!!!
March 1st, 2006 at 6:03 pm
In the news about that particular mutual obligation, it appeared (at least to me) that it was in fact wholeheartedly supported by the elders of the particular community who saw this type of contract as a solution to a situation where welfare was provided on an individual basis and spent on individual community harming pursuits such as alcohol consumption.
So that is where I came to the position that I didn’t object per se to these agreements if there is genuine mutuality and benefit to both sides in that way.