In my post on Robert Jenrick's proposals, made on behalf of Reform, to change UK policy on health and disability benefits, I mentioned my concern about his choice of language in his Telegraph article, in which he outlines these ideas.
In it he describes the existing approach to social security as “suicidal empathy”. That phrase would be objectionable at any time when discussing people experiencing anxiety, depression and other forms of mental distress. At this particular moment, following the death of Jason Arday, its insensitivity is particularly striking.
Arday had achieved precisely the sort of participation in working life that Jenrick claims to want. Despite being autistic and dyslexic and having faced significant barriers throughout his life, he became a professor at Cambridge. He did not withdraw from society or employment. He participated in both and achieved success.
He then became the subject of intense and hostile scrutiny, including from the right-wing press, concerning whether he should have occupied the position to which he had been appointed.
Following his death, serious allegations have been made about the impact this sustained campaign had on him. It would be wrong to speculate about matters that have not been established, but that is precisely why anyone discussing mental distress and suicide should choose their language with exceptional care.
Another disturbing contradiction here should not be overlooked. The political right tells people experiencing mental ill health that employment is essential to their wellbeing and that they must participate in working life. Yet when a Black, autistic and dyslexic man overcame immense barriers and secured one of the most prestigious academic positions in Britain, parts of the same political and media culture devoted considerable effort to questioning whether he should have had that job. That fact should make anyone hesitate before suggesting that employment is simply waiting for those prepared to make sufficient effort.
Prejudice is very real on this issue, not least from Robert Jenrick and those who support his party. The repugnance of the language Jenrick is using should be noted: he condemns himself by his choices.
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!
[…] (Speaking of language, see my separate post on Jenrick's choice of language on this issue, here). […]
Agitator Jenrick’s language tends to be chosen with intent. This hateful term, which I’m uncomfortable repeating, looks to emanate from the North American right and popularized by Elon Musk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicidal_empathy
Interesting. This reminds me of a related topic that I came across in discussions of the fantastical musings of the “tech bros” Musk and Altman et al.
It’s TESCREAL, an acronym for (deep breath)
Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singularitarianism, (modern) Cosmism, Rationalism (denoting the ideology of the rationalist community), Effective Altruism, and Longtermism.
The men in charge of our tech future purport to believe in this stuff (and it is akin to a religion, particularly the idea of the Singularity).
We should be aware of it creeping into our political dialogue too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TESCREAL
I think you are right
They do believe this sort of thing.
Look, for example, at Peter Thiel of Palantir.
Extraordinary, really, that empathy – the ideal that people might want to understand and care about each other – could be framed as a bad thing. Just as awareness of social inequality is pilloried as being “woke”.
What is it about compassion and solidarity that these people find so repugnant?
Who is the nasty party now? Arrogant, selfish, unkind, aggressive, bigoted, cruel. It is the dark triad (Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy) manifested in public life.
Agreed
Jenrick’s over eagerness is frankly why one finds him hard to take seriously on one hand but also what makes him so dangerous.
Even an ex BBC editor has queried BBC’s judgement in providing 3 days of headline coverage to Reform’s lates diversionary propaganda . They are not ‘the Opposition’, they have fewer MP’S than several other parties – to whom BBC give little attention <p>
The BBC almost completely ignored the previous week’s Green’s presentation , which included climate change specialists arguing that no way should the govt give the go ahead to two new oil and gas fields in the North Sea and off Shetland. . And BBC have not mentioned the open letter to the govt by 40 climate academics urging to keep the oil in the ground.<p>
Richard – you posting several times about Jenrick could suggest you are going along with the social media algorithms which promote controversy to maintain engagement – – It maybe better to dismiss him and Reform out of hand rather than engaging about his language and contradictory logic etc.
Asking the questions of him that others do not does matter.
Bent-as-a-nine-Bob- Jenrick can always be relied on for a deeply nasty, vindictive, false comment to stir up a bit of rage- bait for stupid, mean-spirited supporters. Calculated and cynical. Ditto Rupert Lowe.
Must be a slow news day – BBC2 broadcasted uninterrupted coverage of a Reform press conference on its performatively cruel “welfare” policy for the best part of an hour this morning.
Why does the national public broadcaster feel the need to provide such extensive free exposure to a fringe party? Only eight MPs. When was the last time the Green party or the SNP or even the Lib Dems (71 MPs – almost ten times Reform) got an hour of coverage on national television for a political announcement like this?
That is a question asked here this morning.