I have published this video this morning. In it, I note that politicians like to pretend that we live in a binary world. It's us or them, they suggest. But the real world is really not like that, so are they doing us a massive disservice by pretending that politics has to work that way?
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
I often wonder why we live in such a binary world.
If the standard narratives that are often used in our society were to be true, you would think that most of the time we are faced with decisions that require us to choose between left or right, City or United, one political party or another, and even right and wrong.
The truth is that the world is, in the vast majority of cases, nothing like this.
Left or right rarely seems to be an appropriate description of our politics these days. As a consequence, tribal loyalty to most of our parties appears to be very hard to generate, which is reflected in their ever-declining memberships.
In addition, if we're really interested in football, the choice between City or United, or whatever other alternatives suit your preferences, are not as important as a few like to make out.
Even when it comes to right and wrong, we need a whole judicial system to determine what this might be, and even then, we allow for appeals because judgements might be incorrect.
In other words, we live in a world where uncertainty is normal, and little is really black or white, and there are, instead, a very wide variety of shades of grey.
If this is the world that we really live in, but our politicians like to pretend that it is otherwise, the question to ask is, are they really doing us a service?
The question is genuine because I am well aware from my experience of meeting many politicians over nearly five decades now that most of them know that the world is nothing like the one that they seek to project to us. In truth, most of the time, politicians from all parties seek to find common ground on which they can agree because that is the normal mode of human behaviour, precisely because, much of the time, lots of us are able to do precisely that. We do, in fact, know of the exceptions when this cannot be achieved precisely because they are exceptional.
Let me stress, though, that I have not offered these thoughts for some abstract reason. That is rarely, if ever, my purpose. I have done so because I believe that our politics would be substantially improved if our politicians were forced to accept that the binary pretence that they seek to create, which is reinforced in the case of the UK by the oppositional structure of the House of Commons, and even the existence of an Official Opposition, should be laid aside.
If we are to really tackle the problems facing this country we have to stop pretending, for example, that the private sector or the state in isolation has all the answers to our problems when that is obviously not true. We get best outcomes when they work together.
Likewise, to presume that one political party is possessed of all wisdom and the other is not is obviously false. That is not only because there are at least 14 political parties currently represented in the House of Commons, it is also because the reality is that most of them are capable of coming up with at least some good ideas at least some of the time, although I might make an exception in the case of Reform and their allies in Northern Ireland.
And the fact is that the people of this country know that. Very few of us have had any substantial faith in any of our political leaders for some time. We have even less confidence in many of those who they have appointed to their cabinets.
And there have been many occasions when even party loyalists have been heard to whisper that someone in another party might make a good member of the government, with Caroline Lucas being the person about whom this was said most for very many years.
In that case, what people really want from the political system is something quite different from what they are now being offered.
They want a frank recognition from politicians that none of them know the answer to all the questions.
They want to see those politicians working to find the solutions that are appropriate for our society.
They know that this will require compromise, and at present, they're profoundly frustrated that so many politicians are apparently unable to accept this necessity.
They also want politicians to take a long-term view, knowing that their period in office might be limited but that they should consider the consequences of their actions after they have been in office.
And most of all, they want the diversity of views that exist in society to be reflected in decision-making so that as many people as possible can feel that their views are reflected in those of the government of the day.
None of this is, of course, likely when a first past-the-post electoral system is in operation. That system is intended to reinforce binary decision-making, and as such, it is at the heart of our political malaise.
If we were to have a proportional representation system, with the inevitable consequence that coalition governments were likely, the whole idea that compromise is a necessary goal to achieve would be embedded within our politics.
I believe that is what people want. We are living in a country that is clearly ill at ease with itself, its politicians, our political system and its ability to represent the variety of views that exist within each of the countries that make up the UK. In a political system that cannot adapt to embrace our diversity of opinions, we are destined to remain alienated, dysfunctional, and inappropriately governed.
If nothing in life is truly binary, and very little is, then it really is time that our politics embrace nuance. Until it does, it will fail us.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The fact that proportional representation would result in coalition governments is often used as an objection to changing the system, completely ignoring the fact that our main political parties are, themselves, coalitions of diverse views. In fact, when their leaders try and enforce strong party discipline, it usually leads to the eventual decline of that party’s time in power.
The Single Transferable Party; the modern raison d’être of the Labour and Conservative Parties, is entirely dependent on spinning a narrative that politics is binary. The electorate, under the firm guidance of FPTP fall for it; time, after time, after time. That is how an effective elective dictatorship, a one-Party state that looks like a two-Party is achieved. You have been scammed; there is little more to it. The mainstream Press leads the media Agenda in ensuring all political discussion and all political problems fit the binary two-Party, Left-Right division. Then the Single Transferable Party operates economic policies (that drive everything else) fit the private agenda of a one-Party state. And nobody notices. The electorate are too busy arguing, having been duped into following the binary division into pointless and meaningless exchange that never change anything substantive. Policy is set in stone.
Starmer? Sunak? Whoever? It makes no difference. Reduce and eliminate the deficit. Reduce the National Debt. Nothing else matters. Don’t pass debt on to future generations. It is all complete humbug.
The whole structure of Government and its financing has been wholly dependent on passing costs to future generations for the last 300+ years (the founding of the BoE transformed Government funding methods, and created the environment for Britain’s economic transformation, and for the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century); because by the time they actually pay debt off, and not roll it over; it is far less material for government finances. That is how Government financing works; by deferral. Pay interest, and defer the capital. By the time the deferred costs are paid off (on time scales beyond anything private enterprise can attempt); then the erosion of time, economic change and inflation makes the amounts relatively trivial to pay off for the redeeming generations. That is how The cost of WWI and WWII was funded; deferred and finally paid off in 2006 (ninety years later – and the debt had risen to 250% Debt/GDP in 1945). The eye-watering cost of emancipating slaves in 1833, was finally paid off in 2015 (one hundred eighty three years later). How on earth could anyone believe it was done?
‘BoE transformed Government funding methods, and created the environment for Britain’s economic transformation, and for the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century..’ Helped by the Portuguese gold (from Brazil) as payment for Britain’s military assistance fighting for Portugal against France.
The reliance on Gold was overestimated, and became farcical. It was suspended to fight the Napoleonic Wars: The Restriction Period (1797 to 1821). The official review of the 1825 Bank crisis demonstrates that scarcely anybody had the slightest idea what they were doing; and still didn’t in the conclusions. There were more bank crises in 1830s, as a result.
Assume nothing. Believe nobody; except real evidence, if you can ever find it (because it is typically hidden and buried deep).
Might political binarism be a form of excessive, distorting simplification of what currently passes for politics?
Might inappropriate binarism enable and pseudo-justify career concerned politicians in the easier, more facile, activity of attacking opposition instead of addressing the complexities of generally beneficial, national government?
I would so much like to agree with this proposition, because I agree really with almost all of this article. Yes, we do need a better system, one that can deal with nuance. But, and there’s always a but in subjects like this, isn’t there ….
Any new system, whatever it may be, will need designed and placed before Parliament to be voted for by those who hold power. They need to acknowledge that our current system needs to be overhauled and that PR is, in fact, the best alternative; that it will deliver the much needed change to the way in which the country is governed. All the while the two parties that alternate power see that they can, at least, ‘have their turn’, I see little hope for change.
There is a party that has PR as part of its agenda, the LibDems. But, I get the impression that they have decided there is little to be gained from emphasising that aspect of there own policies. It was very quiet on this topic as far I can see. If there is a groundswell of public opinion for PR, it doesn’t seem very high on their list of priorities. PR just isn’t seen as a vote winner.
There is a need for the views of the majority to be listened to. Labour are now showing that they are prepared to ignore the needs of the majority (and follow in the footsteps of the tory party), leaving voters with the feeling that the major parties aren’t listening and have no intention of listening, thus opening the door to parties such as Reform.
I can only see this continuing.
So much as I agree with the proposition, I wonder how we get the needed changes proposed and implemented? Further, how do we get a changed system that is actually fair and unbiased? ie what is the workable route from where we are now to a different system?
What we would be asking is for those with power now to relinquish power. Sadly, if I understand the history of the human race, this sort of change rarely happens peacefully. Perhaps someone knows better?
Many parties have it on their agenda
The Tories don’t
The Labour leadership refuses to recognise its own members’ demand for it
I think your last paragraph sums up the problem. The majority relinquish power to a minority, the minority use it to further their own interests, and refuse to give it back. And because it’s power we’re talking about, the now powerless majority are powerless to make demands. Any system that hands power from the many to the few leads to inequality, as we see the world over, those with power have and those without it have not. Voting is insufficient to the poly-crisis we face, and the state prevents people taking action themselves, so we’re stuck between a rock and the proverbial hard place. Something will give, but its unlikely to be a change of heart by the powerful.
Binary options allow people to present a false dilemma that is designed to gaslight people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
By pretending that there are only two options, it fools most people into not realising that there may be an alternative.
The media is complicit in promoting it.
The false dilemma allowed George W Bush to proclaim: “You are either with us, or against us” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us
The US media would not include Robert F Kennedy into the presidential debates, leaving just a Democrat and a Republican as the choice.
False dilemmas are a staple of politics. If you don’t support Democracy, then you must be a Communist.
“The US media would not include Robert F Kennedy into the presidential debates”
The US media had NOTHING to do with it.
RFK, Jr. did not qualify to have a podium at the debates under the rules and regulations governing said debates.
Ross Perot and John B. Anderson, both third party candidates, qualified for the debates and were given a podium.
If you give one unqualified candidate a podium, you have to give all unqualified candidates a podium.
“RFK, Jr. did not qualify to have a podium at the debates under the rules and regulations governing said debates.”
I think it is more complicated than that. The rules and regulations are determined by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Biden, Trump and mainstream media have effectively circumvented the CPD.
While the commission restricts debates to candidates that have polled 15%, this figure is arbitrary, and of no surprise when you know that the CPD is funded by the two main parties. It looks anti-democratic to me. There are no other independents who came close to RFK Jr.
Biden and Trump Want a Presidential Debate Safe Space
https://reason.com/2024/05/16/biden-and-trump-want-a-presidential-debate-safe-space/
There’s No Good Reason to Keep RFK Jr. Off the Debate Stage
https://reason.com/2024/06/27/presidential-debate-rfk-jr-biden-trump-cnn/
Does it matter?
He has quit the race, after all.
I would argue that all representative democracy is broken by design, even allowing for PR.
It is a sham designed to give the electorate the illusion of control.
The current government’s interests are so intertwined with Capital that the necessary end of that economic system is fundamentally opposed even as it becomes ever more apparent just how unsustainable that path is.
Our newspapers are no longer the bringer of news. Instead they offer comment and ‘outrage’. The family Express/Mail head line ‘FURY AT’ quite a number of things-the EU, ‘woke’, asylum seekers, trade unions etc. Probably more people are moved by emotion than reason and argument. The electronic media tend to follow the agenda of the newspapers even though fewer read them and most of them are the older generations. In the era of 3-4 TV channels many saw the news as a matter of course. In that way they were aware of the main issues and even of the positions that people took in regard to them.
The owners of the media are politically motivated and know that simplistic, emotive stories get more traction. They have IMHO too much influence. Politicians and indeed journalists find it easier to repeat these stories than argue a more complicated position. The household budget being the same as the national budget being the most obvious example.
Until we implement reform of the media (and the role of ‘big money’ in politics ) and I am uncertain what that would look like, I don’t think even PR would be enough.
“The family Express/Mail head line ‘FURY AT’ quite a number of things-the EU, ‘woke’, asylum seekers, trade unions etc.”
How does anyone take The Fail/The Slow serious when they they each ran at least six stories each on Katie Price’s latest (her 17th) breast augmentation. No one in the USA takes The National Enquirer or The Star seriously. Yanks take these tabloids with a large spoon of sugar plus a pinch of salt as they are mindless entertainment and nothing else.
A very thoughtful piece if I may say so. The world is not binary and very often issues are complex and require complex solutions. An advantage of a proportional system would be that governments would have to argue their case and justify it. I recall being on a community group committee some years ago. There were no groups so no-one had the power to over-rule anyone else. Issues had to be discussed and debated and you had to get agreement from others on the committee rather than say ” We are doing this whether you all agree or not.” Also no hierarchy which was important!
I’ve tried for some time to work out when this current political paradigm of binary choice began. I still don’t know, but it was crystallised in the binary choice of 2016. The seam of malevolence exposed to the light of day at that time has since increased, pumped up by our Dear Leaders. Why? Because it serves their purpose to keep us ever more divided. We are easier to control. Those of us who ACTUALLY care about what happens to our fellow citizens have no charismatic, principled figure to unite behind. Starmer is neither.
You’re quite right, Richard – Left and Right are now meaningless. As are phrases like “union barons” – hardly anyone in politics nowadays was even born when that was relevant. The words are used as hooks to snag groups of people who have been gaslit into fearing “the other”. For a while, Left and Right were superseded by Leave and Remain, which muddled up old political divides. Unfortunately, instead of grabbing the opportunity to redefine our politics, we were forced back into Left and Right.
Binary choices are not really choices. Look at the last election. Labour was elected because they were not the Tory Party. Despite multiple warnings from multiple people and multiple organisations that Labour was not really Labour any more, and that electing Starmer’s party would be a disaster, the binary nature of our “choice” left voters with little real alternative. Being forced to vote for a party you know has no core values and no real policies, simply because it is the less awful option, is not choice.
And here we are, with arguably an even more dangerous government than the last one. Why more dangerous? I’m glad you asked me that. Because giving people who have been crushed and broken the false hope that they are voting for real change in their lives, and then denying them that change, is a betrayal of the worst kind. It is significantly more damaging than not offering hope. It endangers democracy – because it opens the door to more totalitarian political parties, which play on the anger and hopelessness of the people betrayed.
That is the destructive effect of binary choice.
It’s not just that “my way or the highway” takes place in the political arena it also takes place in the business arena because the few control the deployment of capital. The latter has to change too whilst retaining the entrepreneurial spirit.
“In addition, if we’re really interested in football, the choice between City or United, or whatever other alternatives suit your preferences, are not as important as a few like to make out.”
This shows more than anything how removed you are from working class culture.. you really haven’t a clue
Total nonsense
I was brought up on Ipswich v Norwich
And hi can also see the nonsense
If you think working class is about being mindless, I do not. Why do you?
This shows more than anything how removed you are from working class culture.. you really haven’t a clue
@jon,
So you are saying more working class people have a greater level of interest/care in who wins a football trophy than access to clean drinking water, the NHS, good school places, roads fit-for-purpose and affordable housing/transportation?
Binary: climate deniers versus climate catastrophisers
Non-binary: climate realists and carbon taxers
The binary nature of things is, of course, especially true in the broadcast media. The late great Robert Fisk reporting in the middle east for the Independent used to say that you cannot report on the Isreal Palestine conflict like a football match – there was a great injustice being done to the Palestinians by Israel and that had to be explained, documented and reported on.
I suppose the binary nature of things can be followed through into international trade. We had Jonathan Reynolds in the Observer extolling the virtues of Britain joining CPTPP and the possible deals with the Gulf states and India. All to ‘compensate’ for leaving the EU.
One or the other. (The last time I looked at my atlas, Britain was about as far away from the Pacific as you can get in the world!)
Binary: In the EU (or CU/SM at the very least), or ‘wonderful world beating’ trade deals with far away places that (for instance and in many cases) France and Germany have higher volumes of trade with!
What a win win situation!
(Reading Reynolds in the Observer, has probably made me switch my vote to the Lib Dems or Greens next time.)
Reynolds is really not very bright
It all starts much closer to home as with “the Council”.
Binary Council: Hate Clarkson’s Farm (shut it down now!) or love Clarkson’s farm (this enterprise is helping me sell my pastoral animals for farm-to-table cutting out the middle man)
Working together Council: How can we partner (force) Jeremy Clarkson to invest in a silk-screen operation to employ people locally to locally produce (silk-screen) all T-Shirts sold in the 16 mile radius jurisdiction of the council??
My example is rather ridiculous but both councilor and MP “politicians” are not looking for mutually beneficial solutions to problems that may be easily solved. The problem is NOT just with Whitehall.
The things photography has taught me about life………………
Great post – which I would sum up as an obsession with black and white and completely missing out on the amazing shades of grey in between (I speak as an amateur photographer who desperately misses his Kodak Tri-X and Ilford FP-4 film – not to mention a few others and his trusty Nikon FM2N camera and lenses).
The ‘greyscale’ in politics in particular is what is missing as you rightly point out. All that wonderful detail that can be rendered there and be seen and be acknowledged. Spot on.
Enjoy the coffee.
I discovered FP4 still exists recently….that takes me back
It does Richard as FP4 Plus and it is very expensive to buy and to develop which is why I use digital now having also seen my wages decline by 25% since 2010.
Using B&W film left me with a deep appreciation of tonality however which I now apply to a computer program.
I suppose digital has less environmental impact, but I miss looking at negatives and instructing printers etc. A decent home scanner is also out of the question due to cost.
I have a phone and camera with black and white settings – and I really like shooting it
I doubt I will try 35mm again. It was fun in its day and cost really made you think. But, electronic works.
You say FPTP encourages polarisation – yes, but Labour were very anxious to say their ‘change’ mantra was only within their ‘iron clad’ ‘balance the books’ ‘there is no money’ ‘rules’.
In other words they were conveying two contradictory messages – we are so very different but we will use the same failed austerity approach as the last 14 years.
PR would certainly help – but how are we to get there – when neither main party will ever want it?
I suppose one hope is that Labours slease crisis – added to their economic uselessness will promote some kind of upheaval and rethink – but that will be fraught with danger.
It’s the arrogance in the Labour Party that undermines it. That arrogance has been there a long time. How else do you explain the behaviour of Philip Snowden in the 1920’s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Snowden,_1st_Viscount_Snowden
I am reminded of the following slogan found on a tee-shirt:
There are 10 types of people who understand binary.
… and those who don’t
Image: https://amzn.eu/d/49OE8ys
🙂
[…] Why is the world so binary? Funding the Future […]
I think the answer to the question depends on what you believe modern politics is for. I think voters are given binary models to encourage false competition and obscure what political parties largely have in common. The function of the modern political party is simply to get power and keep power in an era of inevitable managed decline. For the Conservatives and their doner class to extract as much money and prestige from the system as quickly as they can before it implodes and for the Labour Party to give rhetorical cover for their slightly less rapacious doner class to do the same.
Certainly good, effective ideas exist across the political spectrum but are mostly they are antithetical to a way of thinking entirely focused on profit to the exclusion of any other values. There is a reason why, within 90 seconds of talking to any politician, you find yourself stuck in a conversation about ‘where the money is going to come from’ regardless of where you started.
Meanwhile a block of flats in Dagenham is entirely in flames. 200 firefighters required; 100 residents evacuated, two injured. The block is currently being re-clad. This is part of the disaster of Grenfell, the totally inadequate Government response, and a catastrophic failure of regulation. The FCA has to fine an audit firm £15m because it did not report potential fraud. but hey, who needs regulation? But hey, the tabloids will find a story to bleat about “Red Tape” soon enough, so the scavengers who effectively run Britain can continue scavenging savagely at the imminent risk to the health, safety and financial security of the British people. But hey, how else could anyone make any money in Britain?
Starmer, it seems will promise it will all be worse soon enough. Don’t bank on the promise it will be better in time. We have seen the Starmer U-turns often enough already. The mess we are in is not being tackled. Look at the blood scandal. Not fixed – ask the victims. Not the Post Office – ask the victims. Not the thousands in fire hazard buildings – just look. They haven’t fixed anything since 2008: just made it all far, far worse, from Brexit onwards. We are going to be the first advanced Western failed State, if we keep going following the demented Labour-Conservative Single Transferable Party path.
The SNP have made big mistakes, but Scotland lives on a fixed Budget in a serious crisis; it needs to stop the introverted, self-harming self-blame. The problem is with the British State; nowhere else.
Starmer and Reeves will make ‘hard decisions about cladding, lives, spreadsheets and budgets and people will die as a result John, because that’s what the budget demands.
The labour party campaigned on offering a choice and gave me the impression that they would give priority to those in our society who were less advantaged, and that things would be different. The way its turning out is a great disappointment.
I am concerned that alienation will grow and the attraction of the parties with extreme views will also increase. It’s a recipe for instability in a period where we need consensus to tackle climate change and how we get the supplies the raw materials, food etc that our society needs.
But to try to be optimistic, the tories have hit the rocks at the moment and (hopefully) won’t recover, labour are [in my view] heading into the rocks too. Perhaps at the next general election, the disaffection with the two big parties will provide the crisis point needed to get the idea of PR to be taken seriously by the electorate.
Joined up citizen centred government is possible if there is consensus on the issues facing that citizenship. The consensus largely does exist amongst them, cost of living being #1. UK politics however exists simply to deny, divert and keep power for neoliberal parties, and as such IMO is a fundamental betrayal.
Although it saddens me to say so, the one politician who has come closest to echoing your views on the idea that we don’t need to be paying interest to the commercial banks on their centrally held deposits is a certain Mr Farage. About the one and only time I thought he might be talking some kind of sense. So maybe even some common ground with Reform, occasionally?
I don’t think so
Some dualities …. some spectral …. some overlap ….. some not..
Adversarial vs Inquisitorial
Autocracy vs Consensus
Authoritarian vs Libertarian
Sweet vs Savoury
Private vs Public
Monetarism vs Keynesianism
Fiscal vs Monetary
Tom vs Jerry
Socialism vs Liberalism
Liberalism vs Conservatism
Capitalism vs Socialism
Individualism vs Collectivism
Communism vs Capitalism
Proles vs Party
Reactive vs Proactive
Truth vs Lies
Marxism vs Anarchism
Fact vs Fiction
Fascism vs Communism
Democracy vs Plutocracy
Hierarchy vs Heterarchy
Oligarchy vs Collectivism ( Theory and Practice of … )
The binary world is the world of the left hemisphere, according to the arguments of the polymath Dr Iain McGilchrist.
I cannot do his work justice in a single comment but to try to sum up one of the main arguments of his hugely enjoyable book The Master and his Emissary: McGilchrist says that the existential multi-crises faced by modern Western civilisation have been in large part due the predominance of the left hemisphere’s way of seeing, and in turn, constructing of our world. McGilchrist says we need both hemispheres, but we need the “emissary” left hemisphere to operate in the service of the “master” right hemisphere.
Society suffers in periods where the proper hemispheric balance has gone awry and he argues that western civilisation is in such an existential moment of crises now.
The more I read McGilchrist, the more I see examples of how the left hemisphere view of the world has captured our common notions of progress, and ways of doing politics and economics. His works have given me a radically new take on the causes underpinning the hegemony of neoclassical economics; the binary, confabulatory and arrogant nature common to populist rhetoric and so much more.
Dipping into his books Master and his Emissary and Matter with Things, I have collated the below quotes I hope provide commentary and insight into the binary nature of modern discourse :
“The left hemisphere needs certainty and needs to be right. The right hemisphere makes it possible to hold several ambiguous possibilities in suspension together without premature closure on one outcome. The right prefrontal cortex is essential for dealing with incomplete information and has a critical role to play in reasoning about incompletely specified situations. The right hemisphere is able to maintain ambiguous mental representations in the face of a tendency to premature over- interpretation by the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere’s tolerance of uncertainty is implied everywhere in its subtle ability to use metaphor, irony and humour, all of which depend on not prematurely resolving ambiguities. – McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary, P82
The left hemisphere “has a tendency to jump to conclusions, to become entrenched, to be unwilling to see other points of view and, frankly, to make stuff up, if it needs to, in order to maintain its point of view. And it has a desperate need for certainty. According to Marinsek and colleagues, ‘the left hemisphere appears to detest uncertainty; it creates explanations and fills in gaps of information in order to build a cohesive story and extinguished doubt.'”
P154 The Matter with Things, McGilchrist
“The two hemispheres have different ways getting a grasp of the world…the left hemisphere favours analytic, sequential ‘processing’…the right hemisphere tries to take in all the aspects of what approaches at once. No part in itself precedes any other: it is more like the way a picture comes into focus – there is an ‘aha’! moment when the whole suddenly breaks free and comes to life before us. ”
“For the right hemisphere, knowledge comes through a relationship, a betweenness, a back-and-forth reverberative process between itself and the Other, and is therefore never finished, never certain.” P228 MaHE
The last quote also speaks volumes to me about the need for plurality in ‘economic’ thinking and why ‘politics’ and ‘economics’ can never be separated.
There is so much more I could say/quote but I heartily recommend to your readers both Iain McGilchrist’s recent books, they are treasure troves that continue to inspire and enrich my ways of looking at the political/societal/economic problems in the world.
Apologies, I had nicely spaced out my message but the formatting all disappeared once I pressed submit 🙁
This is an annoying wordpress feature at present. The formatting is actually fine.
The binary world is the world of the left hemisphere, according to the arguments of the polymath Dr Iain McGilchrist. I cannot do his work justice in a single comment but to try to sum up one of the main arguments of his hugely enjoyable book The Master and his Emissary, McGilchirst says that the existential multi-crises faced by modern Western civilisation have been in large part due the predominance of the Left Hemisphere’s way of seeing, and in turn, constructing of our world. McGilchrist says we need both hemispheres, but we need the “emissary” left hemisphere to operate in the service of the “master” right hemisphere.
Society suffers in periods where the proper hemispheric balance has gone awry and he argues that western civilisation is in such an existential moment of crises now.
The more I read of him, the more I see how the left hemisphere view of the world has captured our common notions of progress, politics and economics. For me , his works have given me a radically new understanding of the hegemony of neoclassical economics, the binary, confabulatory and arrogant nature of populist rhetoric and much more.
Dipping into his books Master and his Emissary and Matter with Things, I have collated the below quotes I hope provide commentary and insight into the binary nature of our thinking :
“The left hemisphere needs certainty and needs to be right. The right hemisphere makes it possible to hold several ambiguous possibilities in suspension together without premature closure on one outcome. The right prefrontal cortex is essential for dealing with incomplete information and has a critical role to play in reasoning about incompletely specified situations. The right hemisphere is able to maintain ambiguous mental representations in the face of a tendency to premature over- interpretation by the left hemisphere. The right hemisphere’s tolerance of uncertainty is implied everywhere in its subtle ability to use metaphor, irony and humour, all of which depend on not prematurely resolving ambiguities. – McGilchrist, The Master and His Emissary, P82
The left hemisphere “has a tendency to jump to conclusions, to become entrenched, to be unwilling to see other points of view and, frankly, to make stuff up, if it needs to, in order to maintain its point of view. And it has a desperate need for certainty. According to Marinsek and colleagues, ‘the left hemisphere appears to detest uncertainty; it creates explanations and fills in gaps of information in order to build a cohesive story and extinguished doubt.'”
P154 The Matter with Things, McGilchrist
“The two hemispheres have different ways getting a grasp of the world…the left hemisphere favours analytic, sequential ‘processing’…the right hemisphere tries to take in all the aspects of what approaches at once. No part in itself precedes any other: it is more like the way a picture comes into focus – there is an ‘aha’! moment when the whole suddenly breaks free and comes to life before us. ”
“For the right hemisphere, knowledge comes through a relationship, a betweenness, a back-and-forth reverberative process between itself and the Other, and is therefore never finished, never certain.” P228 MaHE
The last quote also speaks volumes to me about the need for plurality in ‘economic’ thinking and why ‘politics’ and ‘economics’ can never be separated.
I heartily recommend to your readers both Iain McGilchrist’s recent books, they are treasure troves that continue to inspire and enrich my ways of looking at the political/societal/economic problems in the world.
Reeves’ decision on Pensioners’ Winter Fuel Allowance is a perfect example of false binary-think in action.
She has divided state pensioners into 2 – those who qualify for means tested benefits and those who do not qualify. This has been accepted by numerous commentators, including the Guardian’s Polly Toynbee, who have shouted about how sensible this decision is as they know hordes of wealthy pensioners who do not want or need the WFA.
Pension credit itself may give the claimant very little additional pension income. It may be as little as £1 per week, which may be a reason why so many people fail to claim it, but its value lies in it being a gateway benefit, opening the door to thousands of pounds of other benefits. It has been estimated to be worth £8,900 per year.
It is also a cliff edge benefit. If you receive more income than the limit (even 5p per week more) you get nothing extra. So if you are a single pensioner with a weekly income of £218.10 you have access to an additional £8,900 per year. A single pensioner on £218.15 has access to nothing else.
Like almost everything in life, pensioner income and poverty is not binary. But treating it as if it is has produced a huge anomaly which will cost lives this winter.
I have a theory about why this has been done, and it is simple and disgraceful. It used to be the case that people’s means were tested individually by civil servants or local authority staff, so properly nuanced and targeted support was possible. But that cost money and the staff who dd it have been got rid off over the years of austerity. So as with much of central and local government we have a third class system which is not fit for purpose.
Thank you
You are 100% right about the absurdity of this benefit
That’s not quite right about pension credit being a cliff edge benefit. If you’re 5p a week over then you will still get most of your rent and council tax paid.
But it is still a cliff edge benefit