As with most things in the social and political sciences, definitions of ideological and theoretical positions that are 100% agreeable across the board are very hard to come across. Whilst in many ways this makes up part of what is so intriguing about studying social and political disciplines (the fun and depth of debate are always there ready to rise up!). It can nevertheless be said to be hard for a keen student of the disciplines to wade through all the contrasting explanations that seem to make up the same ideological or theoretical position. Indeed, the more I listen and read the more it becomes apparent that, although you should learn the positions of ideologies and their classic definitions you must be prepared to turn around at some point and take a step back. It must be all taken with a pinch of salt and an understanding that traditions overlap and that people and political parties cannot very easily be categorised. This is rather like the would-be composer who has learnt all the scales and chords that he feels he needs to make the music he wants to. However, when he comes to the writing of the music, he finds that he is too constrained by the shackles he has imposed on himself, and the only way out is to step back and free his creativity.
Perhaps this is a slightly clumsy and elongated way of stating that ideology and theory within the social and political sciences are not exactly straightforward, and that I’m equally fascinated by it with every unexpected turn! However, I think this is possibly the biggest lesson I have taken from university so far; you cannot simply learn a definition and duplicate it as and when called upon. You need to search the terrain and scope out a broad range of perspectives both from within and from outside the particular ideological perspective you wish to scrutinise or engage with.
With this in mind, and as this is blog is still in its infancy, for the rest of this post I’m going to attempt to outline my understanding of social democracy as the political ideology I most closely identify with.
In pretty general terms, I see social democracy and its manifestation and influence in government and policy, as offering (rather idealistically):
· -A mixed economy that consists of a blend of private and publicly owned institutions
· - A blend of co-operation and competition
· -Regulation of the economy, particularly private institutions, in the interests of the least advantaged
· -Progressive taxation policy
· -A socially progressive outlook that (hopefully) suggests historic and traditional cultural and moral norms are far from fixed and limited in scope
· -The welfare state
· -Promotion of social justice and egalitarianism
Whilst we must be sceptical of whether such a definition of social democracy has or will ever exist in such a totality, I nevertheless think that taking such a definition and then comparing it to its closest relatives (in my opinion, democratic socialism and social liberalism) is fascinating in the context of my earlier discussions. Whilst some might regard the traditions as almost in a position of warfare (particularly social democracy and democratic socialism in terms of their stance on the position of capitalism in state organisation), others have however suggested that in some areas social democracy can be said to be somewhat of an umbrella term that encompasses both democratic socialism and social liberalism, despite the obvious links the two traditions hold in relation to socialism and liberalism respectively. I’m not sure I agree totally with either account, but there are certainly some interesting overlaps between the traditions.
I’ll take the basic building block of social liberalism as an example here. Social liberalism’s opening point seems to be an emphasis on the freedom of the individual to choose their own life path, taking firmly into account that individual nature and choice cannot and do not take place in a context void of all social influence. As such, it is the role of the state to ensure that the playing field is levelled sufficiently to allow all individuals the freedom to choose their own path in such a manner that means society is not restrictive. Broadly, social liberals argue that the state’s role is to provide and ensure equality of opportunity. In this way, I think this is certainly an example of confluence between social democracy and social liberalism.
One particular leftist criticism of this, however, might be that the focus on equality of opportunity does not go far enough, and rather the focus should be on both equality of opportunity and the monitoring of equality of outcome. However, whether or not equality of outcome is offered comparatively by social democracy itself is something of a very subjective nature and, as with anything, must be said to be reflective of the cultural and temporal context within which social democracy has been or is being applied. As such, the boundaries between seemingly distinct, yet closely positioned ideologies can be said to be far from clear.
-This was a guest post by Tom Douglass, who is studying Sociology at the University of Nottingham
No comments:
Post a Comment