Summary: there is more to politics than Westminster.
NB I don’t think I’m the only person to think this. But it is not something understood so I will be another. One similar thing I have heard in common speak is “political with a small p”.
‘Politics’ in the Narrow and Broad Senses
Words have many flavours of meanings, and the distinction I will discuss here is between politics in the narrow sense and politics in the broad sense.
Usually, when somebody says that they are interested in politics, they mean what politicians do: Parliament, Westminster, Whitehall, councils, etc. Stories such as the Labour Party Conference, a Cabinett reshuffle, an announcement or inquiry or criticism or statement, MPs expenses scandal, the budget, and so on. Sometimes this might stretch to include bigger issues like voting reform, membership of the EU, the House of Lords, or the state of the Union. This I would like to call ‘politics’ in the narrow sense. Many people – perhaps even a majority of the UK population – do not care for this sort of politics, do not engage in it (apart from maybe voting, but that’s still <70%). The word ‘politics’ is a quick switch-off.
(This is probably somewhat advantageous to establishment politics, if most people don’t care or think about it. Vote blue or red at an election, then let them get on with it.. People often complain about things the establishment does badly, but don’t engage much with it. Or only engage when it finally comes round to affecting them, whether this is in the form of ‘nimbyism’ or if it’s about their particular issue – not realising the message that Martin Niemöller gave us that it does not work to stay quiet until they come for you. I can’t blame them, as it is not exciting or inspiring, but it’s a necessary chore as far as I see it).
Yet there is much more to politics than this narrow version. Politics is about relationships between individuals and communities. Anything about the social sphere, rules and norms and institutions and actions. This is politics in the ‘broad’ sense. We could see it as an expansion from the above-desribed narrow-politics: the general issues that we as a society elect politicians and a government to sort out. But that isn’t what I mean. I mean something much broader. It isn’t that narrow establishment politics is the core of broad politics; I see it as only one strand.
Practical Examples of this Distinction
Blah blah blah. So why does this matter? Here are a few real-life examples which show this misunderstanding being problematic.
As part of the anti-Corbyn fear-mongering done by the Conservative party and the normal press, Michael Gove (Conservative cabinet minister) said that “supporters of Corbyn risk bringing protest to the streets”. <http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2015/sep/13/michael-gove-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-protest-street-video> The issue here is that from what Gove says, there is only one correct method of political engagement: the narrow sort. Demonstrations on the street are not legitimate political expression, according to this view, as he says that some of Corbyn’s supporters, such as UK Uncut, are “not civilised”. My paraphrase: “there are certain ways to be political, and protest isn’t one of them.”
A second example comes with Russell Brand, saying a year or so before the 2015 general election that he would not vote. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24648651> Oooh – it’s the parapet again! He stuck his head up and said something people didn’t like, but instead of a decent discussion of the issue, he got attacked for it. His point, as I understand it, was that there wasn’t anyone he could vote for who he thought represented him, and voting didn’t seem to change much, so why bother. It makes sense – though I don’t agree and think that voting does make a difference. But the part of what he said that was (generally – some of the discussion understood it, but most of it didn’t want to) ignored was that he was all for engaging politically – just in the broad sense. Discussions, marches, demonstrations, actions. Brand has been involved quite a lot in this sort of stuff – he started a news show on youtube, discussing many issues which are not discussed (or at least not in this manner) in the usual media, he went on protest marches highlighting issues, such as housing issues of poor people. This quite probably had a bigger effect than his vote would have.
Why It Matters
It matters because by casting the ‘political’ in the narrow form only erases (or at least obscures) the broader political engagement. Some critics of Russell Brand, and Michael Gove’s interview, are really saying: don’t demonstrate, voting is the only political expression you have. This is problematic because these are powerful and legitimate political engagements, part of democracy. There are so many issues in the past which were not changed via the Westminster system, but only because of action outside it – ranging from big protests for the abolitionist movement to South Africa boycotts to end apartheid and the Suffragettes destroying paintings. The more people realise that this is legitimate and effective political engagement, the more likely it is to be done.
You might say that this is just a semantic issue, and that these views don’t erase other political expressions. Sure: but there is a definite subconscious effect. There is no such thing as “just a semantic issue”: language is about meaning, and using one word over another changes the meaning.
Establishment or Westminster politics is far from the only type of politics. I think most people agree with that, and what I’m saying here is about how we talk and think about it (the two are of course connected).
When people say “I’m not interested in politics”, they are either saying something absurd, or their language is not what it should be. If they mean that they aren’t interested in the narrow sense of politics – then they should say that. Their language has the subsurface meaning that narrow politics is the only politics. They aren’t thinking about all the other strands of politics, all different issues relating to society and relations between people and peoples. And it also makes the statement that narrow politics does not do a good job of dealing with many broad political issues. They should say something like “I don’t care for Westminster politics” (preferably with a reason). Then it’s clear that they can care about some other political issues. The benefits they receive. The neighbourhood they live in. Whether we drop some bombs in Syria. Etc.
(If they mean that they aren’t interested in politics in the broad sense, then let’s take away half of everything they have and give it to people who need it.)
How far does this go?
Are you a feminist? That’s political: you want to change gender relations in society. Care about racism? That’s a political issue. Your local council is doing a consultation on rebuilding the local park? That’s political. Going on a march to highlight a social justice issue? Supporting a charity or NGO? Sharing a post on facebook which discusses the refugee crisis? These are all political.
This could be taken further. When you study ‘politics’ for A-Level or at University, you might study political parties, voting systems, trends, political theories or philosophy, and so on. This is all narrow. Studying history is about politics, as it is always bound up in affecting peoples lives and social changes. Geography is a political subject (apart from physical geography) as it is about the relationship between humans and the environment – yet this usually includes relationships between humans too.
Economics is political: economics is about solving the problem of scarcity and interactions between people – though this political/moral element is usually forgotten in the current age of neoliberal economics where we have forgotten that the economy is meant to serve us, not the other way round. The choice of a free market economy is a political one: it says that we would prefer a rich person to be able to buy a second house at the expense of a poorer person being homeless; it says that it is just as valid for one person to spend ten million pounds on a luxury yacht as it is to spend ten million pounds giving hungry some people some food.
Law is political: laws are about governing the social sphere of interactions between people, and judges are deciding issues between different people. Making and interpreting law and deciding cases are really a conflicts between different visions of society (Liz Fisher says this in a paper somewhere about environmental law). Ooh, jurisprudence! There’s more to be written about this I’m sure: Dworkin says that law is inherently moral, but when the morals are about relations between people, then law is inherently political, with judges (and lawyers and legislators) making political decisions. Law as interpretation includes conflicting political theories. This is most obvious in tort law, which is common law: in the tort of negligence, when judges decide to recognise a duty in a new situation, they are deciding who is responsible (and so liable) for which risks; allocation of risk within society is clearly political. In nuisance law, they are deciding the political issue of what neighbours must tolerate from one another. I’m reminded of a couple of bits of dicta in the Occupier’s Liability context too, with Lord Hobhouse saying (in Tomlinson v Congleton) that the law should not deprive the remainder of society of liberties and amenities to protect foolhardy individuals.
George Orwell writes that all literature is political, though I tried to have a look through a collection of his essays to find the reference and what he actually says and could not find it. Certainly language is political (as he writes in the essay “Politics and the English Language”), but I think he takes it further in saying that all stories and narratives are political. I’ll stop there, but I thought Orwell deserved a reference – his essays Politics and the English Language and The Prevention of Literature I think are great.
————————————-
Comments and feedback are very much encouraged.
I think there’s something inherently political about testimonial and narratives. Sharing stories – fictional and otherwise – contributes to social consciousness, right? And there’s definitely political implications and elements to the dissemination of literature, from funding to censorship and the use of that literature in broad and narrow political ways. The production of and access to knowledge (which is often grounded in literature production and dissemination etc.) is definitely political.
I’d also generally argue that all academic subjects are political – yes, even physical geography! Aside from the institutions in which they are practiced, they are influenced and informed by politics and are used for political ends (but then I guess you might choose or be able to separate the production of scholarship and the use of said scholarship?) I tend to find that, in the academy, to be seen to be ‘political’ is considered less legitimate scholarship? The idea that ‘objectivity’ is the goal? Which (as a History and Women’s Studies student, especially) is both false and limiting for academic growth. Let alone getting onto the relationship between academia and ‘narrow’ and ‘broad’ politics …
So, yes, I definitely agree that the general perception of what’s ‘political’ needs to be realised at a much wider level – but as you said, it’s often in the interest of ‘narrow’ politics for this not to happen. What’s the answer? To talk more about it? To encourage people to vocally politicise (or acknowledge the political nature) their interests? Obviously politics education could be altered – in my experience (at least at A Levels) this was an element, but definitely not as developed as it could be.