Tuesday 6 March 2012

The Rise of the Morlocks


Sociology is not my subject. More than that, it seemed to me to be one of more tendentious academic disciplines, the happy hunting ground for all sorts of lefties. Bogus theories compounded by bogus politics that, for me, is sociology.

Or, rather, was sociology. I’m pleased to say that my view here was far too partial! I delight in serendipity, the art of discovering things by chance. Charles Murray is a new discovery for me, a sociologist of unique and refreshing vision. Presently working for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank based in Washington, he is best known for a book called The Bell Curve. In this he was rash enough to discuss the IQ levels of different ethnic groups, attracting a rush of liberal hatred.

But it’s his views on poverty that I find most compelling, his argument that state action in this area, the so-called ‘war on poverty’, has the reverse effect from that intended – it increases the number of poor people. More than that, it’s corrosive of personal responsibility and independence. This is my own view exactly. In an article I published here at the beginning of last year (The Dead Hand of Welfare, January 11) I opened in combative style;

The one certain consequence of aid, of any kind of welfare, is poverty. Look at this country, look at the dreadful Dependency State, a financial burden that has crippled us for years and resulted in a form of entrenched, institutionalised socialism, almost impossible to shift, no matter the political complexion of any given government. Billions of pounds have been spent and we are not a step closer to ending poverty.

In his work as a number cruncher Murray has added substance to this assertion in an American context. Like Britain, billions have been spent on antipoverty programmes but poverty remains stubbornly entrenched. Worse still, those targeted, the recipients of benefits, have lost the incentive to work hard and raise children within the context of a stable relationship.

Murray is also, I’m delighted to say, a libertarian, very much of my own kidney. He explained himself in What it Means to be a Libertarian, a book published in the late 1990s. In this he calls himself a ‘lower-case’ libertarian, too fond of the “indispensible role of tradition and classic virtues” to go along with the likes of Ayn Rand. Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, his heroes are my heroes!

In 1989 he was asked by the Sunday Times to investigate if we have an ‘underclass’ a term he popularised that same year, in this country. He used three measures in his investigation: drop-out from the labour force among young males, violent crime and births to unmarried women. These, he concluded, were associated with the growth of a class of “violent, unsocialised people who, if they become sufficiently numerous, will fundamentally degrade the life of society.”

He returned to the same theme, again at the behest of the Times, ten years later, saying that Britain had become “just another high-crime industrialised country”, and that the underclass was “driven by the breakdown in socialisation of the young, which in turn is driven by the breakdown of the family.” Last year’s London riots are sufficient proof of his claims, if any proof is needed.

He has now published Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 in which he discusses the growing fractures in American society and the dangers presented by an underclass, cut off from a common set of values. His fears are my fears; for, in the end, I suspect the Morlocks will consume us all.

14 comments:

  1. You can emigrate to the States as you will have more places to hide until you are eventually consumed. No, you will be extended sanctuary in my tribe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's very kind of you, Anthony. Thanks. :-)

      Delete
  2. The left hates Murray because he deals in cold, hard numbers---facts, in other words, things that cause the average progressive to begin frothing at the mouth & spewing invective at whoever has the temerity to brandish them. Like Count Dracula when confronted with a rope of Van Helsing's garlic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Bob, it's always the case. The left does not deal in truth but presuppositions.

      Delete
  3. My hobby is researching my family history. My ancestors were all at the bottom of the pile which has led me to some background reading. Since the reign of Henry II there have been dozens if not hundreds of Acts of Parliament regulating "The Poor". Many of them were designed to solve problems caused by previous Acts. I would guess that the percentage of the really poor has remained constant; although the actors are changing all the time. Even if we shot the bottom 10% of the population, there would soon be replacements.

    I have no answers - just an observation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of Biblical wisdom, Michael. The thing is, though, in the past the poor were part of society and people were, by their own efforts, able to improve their conditions. Now the underclass seek immediate gratification by no effort at all.

      Delete
    2. Michael, your observations are consistent with plenty of empirical research that shows the dynamism of individual experiences in a healthy economy and society--at all levels. In other words, many of the individuals in the top 5% economically were not in the top 5% last year, and won't be in the top 5% again next year, and the same is true of the bottom 5% and all levels in between.

      People have good years and bad years, and they migrate up and down the economic levels accordingly . . . the social (and ultimately political) problems start when rigidity sets in and the top economic group successfully prevents new entrants from joining them / displacing them (but often in the context of an overall rise in national income and wealth--viz. look how many more billionaires there are today versus 30 years ago, even taking inflation into account) and successfully preserves their position by preventing others from prospering, and conversely the question posed to Murray, which may be happening in the US, the UK and elseswhere: when the bottom economic group becomes a static, perennial underclass of the same individuals (weeded out, sadly, by early death, incarceration, hospitalisation, etc.) who never enter the workforce after being a student, or bounce back from losing a job, an illness, or a divorce--the main reasons for a dramatic fall in the income of an individual--and adopt a lifestyle based upon not working and funding themselves through government support, handouts from family and romantic partners, or crime . . .

      Delete
  4. There is a reason why the Declaration of Independence identifies 'the pursuit of happiness' as an unalienable right, not its attainment. What socialists fail to understand is that no one can pursue it for another.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you look back at the establishment of the Union workhouse system in the 1830s, you will see that although it was a national scheme, it was operated and financed locally. Everyone paid the Poor Rate and knew who the poor were. I expect there were people who wanted immediate effortless gratification; there was just no one willing to pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sociology is a perfectly respectable academic discipline. The problem is that, like philosophy, it attracts hordes of charlatans and what George Orwell called "shrieking poseurs", from both the political left and right. Even the opinions expressed in this post are just that...opinions, to be accepted or rejected depending on pre-existing opinions. The problems of an industrial underclass are real, but the diagnosis is overly simplistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, Dennis, you should have been in London last summer!

      Delete