Buoyed from my contribution to the School of Life’s Self-help Summit I had intended writing a blog about overcoming nerves when presenting to an audience. I may yet, but something happened at the event that created a more urgent need for me to articulate my thoughts: a major clash between two of the participants.
With my piece said and the Q&A navigated (in fact I was probably a bit full of myself by then and the chairman – Oliver Burkeman of The Guardian – had trouble wrestling back the microphone) I sat back to listen to Frank Furedi: a professor of sociology at the University of Kent. His big thing is scaremongering, and how competing groups in the modern world have fostered a culture of fear and paranoia.
Of course, the self-help industry is a small part of this but, for Furedi, the worst offender is government. Nearly all governments of whatever stripe indulge in behavioural management to try and manipulate their citizens, he said (going as far as to use the word “brainwashing”). Governments have assumed the role of suggesting what is and isn’t appropriate for the rest of us with respect to acceptable behaviour and have even shaped policy accordingly (witness this week’s minimum alcohol price imposition in England). Yet, according to Furedi, this has become so ingrained, he feels we are heading towards a form of “soft totalitarianism”.
Furedi was immediately followed by Nic Marks – who walked down to the speaking area loudly berating Furedi for his criticisms of what Marks called the “well-being agenda”. Indeed, Marks is founder of the Centre for Well-Being, part of the New Economics Foundation, although his ire appeared to have been particularly tweaked by the criticisms of the current government’s “nudge” initiative.
For Furedi, Downing Street’s “nudge unit” is the government “elbowing into our private lives”. It is “telling citizens how to think”. Meanwhile, for Marks, not only does he support the idea of government taking up the cause of well-being amongst the citizenry (a stated aim of the nudge unit), he saw it as a vital factor in community cohesion and even sustainability. In fact, Marks’s main problem wasn’t government intervention into the private realm but the fact the well-being initiative was being championed by the Tory-led coalition (giving rise to such verbal contortions such as “libertarian paternalism”).
For me, the clash was a coincidence because I’d been reading the book behind the controversy (and the inspiration for the creation of the nudge unit within Downing Street) – Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein.
So what is “nudge”?
“A nudge...is any aspect of choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding options or significantly changing their economic incentives,” write Thaler and Sunstein.
The book states that every choice presentation is weighted and shaped by the way it is presented. So we can frame choices consciously and ethically in order to “help” people make better decisions regarding their lives. Of course, they remain free but have been nudged in the right direction.
Much of the concern here is focused on the lower orders – helping people choose work rather than benefits-dependence, for instance, or contraception over unprotected sex, or social responsibility over unsociable behaviour.
Yet it can extend to moral concerns further up the social scale. One example is organ donation. Currently, most jurisdictions require “explicit consent” from donors but if a democratic society decided organ donations are a social positive they could switch to “presumed consent”, or perhaps “mandated choice” in which, say, driving licence holders must specify a preference. Such a change – from an “opt in” to an “opt out” – maintains freedom of choice but makes the commonly-perceived social benefit clear and nudges society forward.
The environment provides other examples. For instance, with recycling, simply labelling litter bins “for landfill” and “for recycling” allows people to make an informed choice while being encouraged towards the socially beneficial action – or at least informed of the true consequences of taking a certain path.
So what could be wrong with this? Plenty, according to Furedi. He stated four clear objections:
1) The devaluation of moral independence – basically the notion that others not only know what is or isn’t in our interest, but morally engineer us towards their will.
2) Nudge and other such initiatives erode our capacity to develop a capacity for judgement, he states. We end up simply outsourcing our judgement to the government.
3) It also erodes the separation between the public and private sphere, and devalues the private sphere while doing so.
4) Having the government dictate our well-being will disorient us and even increase our anxieties.
The trouble is I agree with Furedi on every point – yet I still support the “nudge” initiative. Apart from being morally and intellectually confused, can I explain myself? Well, yes. Furedi is morally and intellectually right – his four objections are all valid in my view. Yet this isn’t about morals and intellect, despite being presented that way. In reality – given the stresses and strains on the tiny piece of real estate called the UK – “nudge” is a very practical way of trying to rub along without having to get too authoritarian about it.
Here’s my take on a very practical defence:
1) Given the growing population and growing competition for resources (especially in crowded cities such as London) waiting for others to develop judgement – and meanwhile suffering the consequences of their behaviour – is unfair on those with judgement. Most people agree that personal freedom only extends to the point it impacts others. Yet increasingly, (and with respect to noise, light, rubbish, parking, resources, education and just about anything else you can think of) someone else’s behaviour has an impact sooner rather than later.
2) It is ridiculous to assume there is no such thing as a vulnerable person. Judgement, like intelligence, is not a given – it varies wildly. Just as some people need help with their reading, others will make poor decisions without guidance. Especially given the decline of the nuclear family, someone has to offer (unforced) guidance – if not a government agency, who would you suggest?
3) Indeed, who should be the arbiter of our behaviour? The loudest, the greediest, the most aggressive – even the richest? Seems like a democratically-elected government is the best potential arbiter, although it should perhaps work within a framework of limitations (such as a Bill of Rights).
4) Sure “nudge” can be patronising, but – in many ways (such as the bin-labelling mentioned above) – it is encouraging the liberation of judgement. For instance, who now is against food labelling? Yet left to itself, I think it unlikely the food industry would have willingly adopted a practice that so liberated the judgement of the consumer.
5) Sure, government intervention can increase dependencies, even moral dependencies – if that’s the result you are after – but they can also encourage autonomy. For instance, if people are made aware of the consequences of their behaviour (such as the wayward youth impregnating unemployed teenage women and generating a £1m plus benefits liability) then we have at least sorted the arrogant from the ignorant – and can therefore take a view on how we deal with both.
No comments:
Post a Comment