Together for The Common Good towards a National Conversation; Edited: Nicholas Sagovsky and Peter McGrail; published 2015; SCM press.212 pages, paperback.
I first heard about the “Together for the Common Good Project” from a friend at church. Her excitement and enthusiasm were factors persuading me into buying this book as soon as I could. Before I had started to read it I found myself sharing an early breakfast with her on Easter Day. I expressed the hope that the book would have been able to reach agreement on the meaning of the common good. She let me down gently and once I started to read the book, I realized the naivety of my hope. What I found in the book was not a simple formula, rather an exploration of traditions, ideas and shared activities that invited all of us into a shared conversation. To quote David Marquand:
We need a wide-ranging, national conversation, across the boundaries of party, doctrine and tradition, about the economic, political and moral crisis that has engulfed us: (…) The conversation should not be an end in itself. The ultimate objective is change, change not talk. But there can be no worthwhile change without a new public philosophy; and the last, best hope for discovering such a philosophy lies in talking together and learning from one another.
So, if you agree that: change is needed; the recent pre general election debate was less than an honest attempt to achieve “the common good” for, especially, the most vulnerable in the country; that our last best hope lies in talking together and learning from one another; read on and; most importantly add your voice and the voices of those voiceless people with whom you live or work to this national conversation.
The introduction explains how the book was inspired by the work of Bishop David Sheppard and Archbishop Derek Warlock, between the mid-1970s and 1996, in Liverpool.Aiming to reflect on their legacy and ask how that legacy can teach and inspire us today a conference was held in 2013 at Liverpool Hope University. The conference and ensuing study days led to two key questions: “What is the common good?” and “How can we work for it together?” This book reflects conversations both at the conference and the study days but is not a record of either. The introduction reflects on the difficulty of defining the common good and asks the question;”If we cannot define the common good is the concept so general in its scope as to be useless?” Clearly the contributors to the book think not!
Part one of the book comprises two contributions to the conversation under the heading the Language of the Common Good. Anna Rowland’s conversation uses immigration as an example.She suggests that the principles of Catholic Social Teaching: such as human dignity; the right to sanctuary; the richest offering most to the poorest; can help build a bridge between our scripture and our context: a context; which has to resolve the complexities of welcoming the stranger; whilst maintaining those aspects of life in Britain, which make it so attractive to immigrants. Andrew Bradstock’s conversation: The Unexamined Society; briefly visits public reasoning, social justice, politics, the economy and government. How can we hope, given the plurality of beliefs, culture and politics in the UK today, to find a common good? Bradstock argues that to seek the common good takes pluralism and social difference more seriously than conventional politics; that we can aim to identify a range of goods and services, benefits and opportunities which all citizens need; that we can look forward to change in the nature of political discourse which brings back civic pride and encourages moral engagement.
Part two comprises seven conversations grouped together as The Traditions of the Common Good. Patrick Riordan SJ explores a secular analysis of the common good, re-constructing Aristotelian principles. He argues that although our age differs from that of Aristotle in key aspects, these conflicts can be resolved, rendering an Aristotelian analysis relevant. Esther Reed in “Wealth and Common Good,” focuses on the relationship between wealth and poverty within nations. She cites Christian principles in relation to wealth creation which enable an equitable sharing of resources. Samuel Burgess applies the principles of Burke, an 18th century politician, to present societies. This teaches us, he argues that: to cultivate common good our society cannot simply be a fusion of alien cultures but must be one that respects its history and anticipates its future; and we must prize stewardship, not constructing a society that prioritises transient and immediate gratification.Jon E. Wilson in The Common Good after the Death of God suggests that in an age of “pithy but meaningless political slogans the absence of a definition for the common good is singularly attractive.” The common good can be experienced as a way of working, he argues and points to experiences of groups working to a shared project. He tells “a practical historical story” about institutions that were able to nurture a sense of the common good.Jonathan Chaplin in Evangelicalism and The Language(s) of The Common Good sets out 5 signature languages of the common good and their underlying visions. He argues that
“most likely a broad-based, ecumenical, movement for the common good will involve a shifting, patchwork quilt of multiple coalitions which each partner will fall behind in those instances of the common action that their convictions and constituencies can currently endorse.”
In “Social Action that Crosses Boundaries and Overcomes Barriers,” Tehmina Khazi, writing from a Muslim perspective points to two key concepts of Islamic jurisprudence related to the common good. Maslaha calls upon people to strive for the best public solution in terms of co-operation with others, on a macro and micro scale. Istishlah is the practical side of maslaha and means to “seek the best public interest.” She goes on to give examples of interfaith projects that work for the common good. Lastly, Malcolm Brown in The Church of England and the Common Good argues that the C of E may be especially well placed to negotiate an ethic of the common good. He points to the parochial system, the 2010 Archbishop’s Council, Quinquennium goals to illustrate his theory.
The final section, The Market and the Common Good; comprises 4 conversations. In Markets and the Common Good Brian Griffiths examines the question of whether or not markets contribute to the common good. He argues in the affirmative, citing reasons such as: enabling human qualities, for example creativity, enterprise and adventure to flourish; the co-ordination of the different interests of people; forcing suppliers to anticipate and adapt to the changing needs of the consumer. He also states that regulation is necessary to ensure competitive markets and points out that not all goods and services are suitable to trade in markets.
“When a market economy becomes a market societyit can undermine the common good because of a bias to individualism, the lack of a moral framework and the inference of a materialist philosophy of life.”
Philip Booth, in Pluralism and the Common Good in a Market Economy, argues that the common good cannot be realized without a reasonably free economy. He points to the trust which has existed between those engaged in the market and quotes a motto of the stock exchange, adopted in 1923, my word is my bond. He points to the way that, in modern times, the state has taken over many of the functions, previously fulfilled by charities. In Victorian times the middle class donated around 10% of their income to charity; currently it is less than 1%. He argues that perhaps the state should see its role as supporting the voluntary sector, for example, in dispensing welfare rather than in replacing it. Maurice Glasman from within the British labour tradition argues in Politics, Employment Policies and The Young Generation, that asserting the priority of labour, putting people before things; the integrity of family life; and the superiority of work to welfare; requires championing the living wage and limiting the power of money by an interest rate cap. These need to be complemented by a new kind of statecraft that strengthens civic institutions and allows virtues and vocations to flourish. Finally, Clifford Longley, in Market Economics, Catholic Social Teaching and the Common Good writes about regulation and the market. He quotes Will Hutton, who called free market fundamentalism “the biggest intellectual mistake this generation has ever witnessed, arguably the world has ever witnessed.” He uses Catholic Social teaching to identify several clear threats to the common good arising from the way free markets operate.
In a society where: the most popular Christmas present was the camera stick required to take a “selfie;” and where a government that has promised to take 12 billion from the poorest has recently been elected; it is very welcome to read a book with “the common good” in the title. However we need more than “mother love and apple pie.” These conversations are more than that. I was ignorant of much of catholic social teaching and found the expositions here helped me to identify some clear guidelines with which I can decide how to act in complex situations. I welcomed the secular traditions because it is certain that many politicians will be wary of seeming to favour one religious tradition over another in this secular society. I very much welcomed the Islamic conversation. When we seem to be surrounded by terrifying phrases such as “the war against Islam,” it is good to be reminded that Muslim teaching, too, has the common good at its heart.
I am not an economist and I found the last section hard going in places. However some points really stood out for me and challenged my thinking. I have long been an advocate of fair trade and been angered by global supply chains that can so often exploit the most vulnerable. However it is those same global supply chains that have helped to bring about the unprecedented reductions in world poverty since 1980. I have been cynical about ideas such as “the Big Society;” seeing them as money savers that expose the vulnerable to haphazard support. It seems, however that the Victorians were a more charitable society than the present day and it is hard to deny that during my childhood, in the 50s and 60s, communities were more neighbourly and supportive of each other.
I welcome this introduction to a wide-ranging conversation and look forward to “the ultimate objective which is change, change not talk.” For the marginalized in our society that change cannot be too long delayed.
Wendy Quill