The Toughest Place to Be a… Leftist

Suzanne Saunders-Blundell, a midwife from the Midlands in BBC Two's 'Toughest Place to Be a…'

I don’t know which is worse, the awful BBC Two series ‘The Toughest Place to Be a…’ or David Milliband’s latest speech on the future of the Left. They’re actually pretty indistinguishable.

The gambit of the BBC miniseries is a familiar one in late capitalism, where it’s easier to defend the political and economic system we live under in the West by holding up examples of how it could be worse than by pointing to ways in which it is good. The special twist it is given, and the timing of its broadcast, make it a perfect tool of tory propaganda. The premiss is that three British public-sector workers – a paramedic, a bus driver, and a midwife (pictured above) – are sent to what we might as well, since it reflects the spirit of the programme, call benighted countries, to see how life is lived there. The paramedic is sent to Guatemala City, where instead of dealing with victims of car crashes she is brought face to face with the extreme violence of the city’s gun culture; the midwife is sent to Liberia, where very basic levels of medical supplies are matched by levels of sensitivity to mothers that she finds difficult to swallow.

The message of each of the documentaries is the same, and to preserve the myth that it is not BBC propaganda, it is the protagonists themselves who draw the obvious platitudinous conclusion: ‘gosh, it’s so awful here (outside Britain); we don’t know we’re born; we shouldn’t complain about anything ever again’. So, a midwife is upset by Liberian norms of what she sees as hurrying deliveries and disregarding mothers (we see babies put on sideboards by the telephone rather than on mother’s breast as soon as born, for instance). This repulsion is grounded in her deep cultural commitment to the British way of doing things (it is clear, incidentally, that the Liberian mothers and midwives see things very differently. When the Englishwoman is allowed to perform a delivery according to her own preference, ending by placing the baby on the mother’s breast, the mother is unmoved and uninterested: in order to feel the ‘loss’ of this sensitivity to mother, mother of course has to receive the cultural training to consider this a norm). Yet the English midwife manages, by the end of the programme, to voice the opposite and classically postmodern view: she says she is now impatient with British women who want a epidural to release them from their pain, after seeing the greater suffering of the Liberian women, which their midwives are both powerless and culturally unpredisposed to do anything about. So, a sympathy with the plight of Liberians that is created by her English cultural situation is then turned against the suffering of individuals in England. You think you’re in pain? Get over it: you’re in Sutton Coldfield. It could be much worse. I’ve got no sympathy.

There, in a nutshell, is the principal defence of the postmodern late-capitalist system of the West. ‘Yes, there are problems, yes you might feel the need to march about them (we’ll ignore you, of course), but basically you should shut up: you’ve never had it so good, and if you would just take the time to visit anywhere else, you’d see that. Yes, we might be making cuts that will drastically reduce the quality of life of millions of people in this country, but are you seriously comparing this to the suffering of these Liberian women, these families in Guatemala City? Get a  grip.’ Something of this cynicism inevitably feeds through even into reporting of the revolutions across the Arab world. The very poorest will always objectively make the suffering – no less genuine for being less extreme – of the Western worker seem trifling, at whatever stage we find ourselves in the economic cycle of capitalism. The loss of the EMA or vast increases in the cost of university education (where even Sweden has now joined the ranks of those who charge) looks like a piffling matter – which it is not – simply by being juxtaposed with something worse. The point is to develop a skin so thick to suffering that only the very extremest forms of it are to evince the merest flutter of sympathy. The capitalist class has had this thick carapace for centuries; it has enabled it to garner its enormous material advantage at the expense of almost the entirety of the population. What late capitalism, with its mania for voyeuristic–tourist consumption of the ‘invigorating, inspiring, authentic’ suffering of the world’s poor and disenfranchised, attempts to do is to make the rest of the population, including those who suffer most in the West, develop exactly the same sympathy-blocking shell. It’s for this reason that I said the timing of this awful BBC programme could not have been better. Cameron and Osborne must have held house parties to watch it.

But David Miliband’s latest speech, available on the New Statesman website here, maunders on for a few thousand words to make much the same point, albeit from a different angle. For him, as for the government, there is no alternative to the structure of late capitalism. It is, as Fredric Jameson, Slavoj Žižek, and others have noted, literally easier today to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism. The Thatcherite project we’re still enduring packages this very conveniently. When the soviet system fell two decades ago, so (according to the myth) did the possibility of an alternative to capitalism. Here, demonstrably, was the historic and total failure of the Left, of any opposition to the onward cancerous growth of capital. Miliband, a committed centrist, of course believes this wholeheartedly. The speech is peppered with his faith that it is only by being more centrist, more committed to capitalism (more efficient, but fairer, is one of his mantras), that the European Left can regain office. The failure of the Left, for him, is a failure to be centrist enough.

This, ultimately, is why the West is the toughest place to be a Leftist. Major European parties of the Left are in disarray not for the reasons Miliband thinks but because with the fall of soviet-style communism they threw out the baby with the bathwater. Rather than asking how the third sequence of communism could be formed, specifically by rejecting the barbaric and ineffective party system of the classic second-sequence communist model (what we saw in the Soviet Union and still see in China), the Left simply capitulated. Capital is the only game in town. And when that appears to be the case, those parties become irrelevant. Yes, we can adopt some of their social changes that have little effect on capital (gay marriage, etc.) so that capital continues to develop its human face, but the really costly elements that the Left bequeathed to early 21st-century Europe – in particular the social-democratic welfare state – must be shed. Already New Labour was doing this, but the tories can do it much more efficiently, and they are.

So European parties of the Left, having forsaken their historic commitments with the fall of soviet-style communism, have made themselves irrelevant not by straying from the centre ground but by approaching it. Until they regain a radical critical economic theory, they will always advance the interests of the rich and powerful. But while the propaganda machine of postmodern popular culture like ‘The Toughest Place to Be…’ continues to run, and the sympathy of the worker for the worker – what we might translate from emotional to political terms as solidarity – continues its drastic erosion, there is little hope.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. .. arguably ‘Toughest place to be’ as a programme could be useful, as it shows the end point of the small state, private provision , we can’t afford … wages, pensions , councils , health trusts etc etc After all every day is Tax Freedom Day in Liberia.
    With his nostalgia for the pre collapse era when neoliberalism could afford some a palliative as opposed to a strictly punitive aspect Miliband is yesterday’s man , but not alas, history.

  2. Oh dear. This blog post is a great example of what happens when you view the world through politics-coloured glasses. Let’s get this out of the way: I am not English (Canadian, do the colonies still count?) but I am most certainly one of the most liberal people I know. With that out of the way…

    Author, get a grip! As a questionably-wise man was once paraphrased as saying: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You must also think that The IT Crowd is a biting social commentary produced by the computer-geek lobby or that Black Books was part of a subversive plot by the book publishers’ cabal to drive forward their hidden agenda.

    Yes, it is the citizens’ duty to question the government. Yes, I find the ‘austerity cuts’ your Tory government is pushing very troubling (especially the tripling of university tuition – talk about short term gain without seeing the long-term pain, eh?) Continuing steady on the tax & spend course is of course untenable but I’m not sure if privatization and the tripling of tuition is the solution.

    But let’s get real. The BBC’s “Toughest Place to be a…” may not be the paragon of excellence in broadcasting but it’s an interesting hour of television. Often amusing, sometimes educational, occasionally poignant. The ‘Bus Driver’ episodes showed us what happens when the citizens of a strictly Catholic country (the Philippines) have to reconcile their faith, which forbids contraception, with the realities of poverty and the real chance of their children dying of malnourishment. Rogelio, the Filipino host, works 12 hours a day, six days a week and makes £8 per day after expenses. He will work until he dies, never taking a vacation.

    We, the viewers, are shocked when we are shown that his family lives in a tiny house with three floors. Each floor consists of one room about the size of a medium-sized Western loo. Then we learn that Rogelio lives in the nicer area of the city. We visit his friend, Elsie, whose family of 14 (like many, she believes that contraception is a sin) live on two floors each measuring 3m by 3m. Yes, 10 feet long and 10 feet wide.

    These stories and images are above pro or anti-government propaganda. They appeal to our innate humanity and sense of injustice. A program like this serves to remind us of the social inequality that exists in the world. Most people will be touched by these images, a few will cry, fewer still will send a donation to charity to help. But a day or two later they will forget this unfairness and move on with their lives.

    Schopenhauer once said that we all have a certain (as in ‘set’) amount of misery in our lives. The woman who has to walk 12km a day in sweltering heat to bring water to her family may not necessarily be unhappier than a middle-aged male with a wife, kids, a mid-level cubicle gig and a Honda Fit in the garage. We all have a ‘baseline’ of misery. When something happens that is worse than the status quo we feel unhappy, and when something happens that is better than the status quo we feel happy. This program serves a purpose. It resets this misery baseline so that for a few hours we can truly appreciate how *relatively* amazing our lives really are.

    Could it be a plot by David Cameron to dissuade dissent lest the complainer be accused of being insensitive to people who have it worse than the English? Sure. I guess. In an alternate universe somewhere. Personally, I think your suggestion that the government even subtly guided the hand of BBC gives the Tories more credit than they deserve.

    *tips hat*
    Thanks for an interesting read.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s