What do we need to achieve the good society?

Absolutely right Hilary!  One of the core problems with the so-called "market" approach is that it seeks to "externalise" any inconvenient issues such as the real social and environmental costs of production. Of course there can be no economic and social justice without environmental justice. One only needs to remember the outrage in Bhopal to realise that!

How do we in the voluntary sector organise around these issues without being seen as both bizarre and ideological (challenges to charitable status etc.) when large parts of the voluntary sector seem to be desperate to join the market at all costs and seem prepared to bid for almost any contract that's going without any regard for precisely these "externalities"?

Richard I think you are slightly caricaturing my position!  I don't think my approach is abstract - indeed my view is that if we fail to adequately define our terms then we will end up with some very concrete problems. If we do not seek to control the way in which we use certain terms then (as Wittgenstein said) our language will take us on holiday. We frequently use terms like "community", "market", "state" without knowing what we mean. We often then get beguiled by our language - the fact that we have a term like community which we apply liberally to almost anything, does not mean that every time we use it there is anything that actually corresponds to this in the real world.  I agree with you that some of the most interesting concepts like those above are the most difficult to define and have fuzzy edges - so of course there is no neat distinction between the market and civil society.  However it is not difficult to find instances (A4E, Capita) where entrerpises that purport to have a social dimension can be seriously questionned in terms of their real motives - e.g. to make money  from dealing with the difficult situations faced by ordinary people. This is quite different from most social enterprises or charity shops and we can tell the difference quite easily.  

I have never believed that the world is neat and tidy - I am not like this myself and certainly do not expect the world to be! Indeed I am interested in the shades and ambiguities of meaning that sometimes bewitch us and that often hide ideological presuppositions that we almost never unpack. Far from being a purist I celebrate diversity and hybridity but still believe that we should strive to be clear in our thinking when we can be. Furthermore I think that our failure to control the way in which we (ab)use some deeply ideological concepts like community, cohesion, social capital etc. is becoming a serious impediment to our ability to be clear about the world and then to effect any serious positive change upon it. ("Philosophers have hitherto merely interpreted the world,  the point is to change it")

I do not even have a theoretical objection to charities delivering SOME publicly-funded services where they can add value by doing so. By this I mean that they should be doing this for reasons other then just that they need the money! They should be adding value by representing the views of their clients, accessing groups of people who are excluded, empowering their users, contributing specialist skills and knowledge including about about the needs of their clients etc.  Sadly there are many charities who are chasing contracts without considering whether they can actually add value in this way -  this usually results in a group sacrificing it mission to join the market in a way that does it and the entire sector great damage. In my vew charities should not RUN prisons or asylum detention centres or make money from bullying disabled people off incapacity benefits and into jobs that aren't there.

I agree with you that it is not necessarily the case that winning a government contract involves losing independence - but I do think that charity trustees should be constantly alive to this danger and always put their own mission and the interestes of their own beneficiaries first. I think this may be what you mean by your last sentence but I am not sure - what does "dealing with the subtleties beneath such rhetoric" actually mean? Can you give some concrete examples?

All the best

Andy

I certainly don't have an ideological objection to charities running shops or pubs. But I certainly do to them running prisons or asylum detention centres. I do not believe that punishment and incarceration can be captured in any charitable object that I can envisage. I would love to have a substantial argument about this issue but for reasons of space would instead refer you to the facebook site for "Charities Should not Run Prisons" where some of these arguments are rehearsed at length.

I  am however, also very concerned by your notion that you don't have any worries about "which sector provides what social and political good". I think this stems from a dangerous new virus which can be summed up as the assumption (usually without any real argument) that public = bad and private (or better still voluntary sector!) = good. In many areas of our lives I think it is important that we share as users and contribute through our taxes to public services. Opting out of these often damages not only the fabric of those services themselves, but also the vital social solidarity that we gain from such commonality. This is why I have been a lifelong believer in the NHS

The problem with privatisation and voluntarisation is that it often involves a diminution in social solidarity as well as the standards of provision for the majority. This is why I am totally opposed to private and faith schools, successful or even dodgy creationist academies etc. Not only do I not believe they are charitable (even with the new and rather facile "community benefit" requirement) but more especially  I believe that there is a basic social solidarity that is involved in universalism which is subverted by the highly ideological notion of "choice". Such notions of "choice" actually breakdown to the ability of the well off or powerful to opt out of common provision through an ability to pay, or an accident of class, location or influence  which  far from representing real choice actually rebounds on the ability of the less well off majority to access good services. The "Good Society" is therefore a society where there is a large degree of Commonwealth in the sense that Gerrard Winstanley meant in the mid 17th century. He was right then and saw these things more clearly then I think we now do!  

I have just finished Steve Wyler's excellent book "A history of community asset ownership". Given how exciting the book is, the title is not the most compelling!  Further to my earlier remarks that a "good" society should have a high degree of "commonwealth", Steve traces the history of the community ownership of land from Saxon times and shows effectively the reasons for the establishment of his organisation - the Development Trusts Association. He shows that this notion of commonwealth is still a vital and vibrant one and he confirms my view that if we are to give any meaning to terms like community, social capital etc. then this is to do with real issues of power and ownership rather than merely passive identification (whether by self or others) that one is a "member" of a particular "community". In short community is a  process not a state; it revolves around doing something active together rather than just being a passive member,  and it often forges itself in opposition to both state and market forces.

A good society will encourage and empower such groups because they help us consider and confront our futures as active citizens rather than as passive customers, consumers or clients. At the same time a good society will not be defined in terms of the lazy nostalgia that often passes as social policy - with its constant use of the term community as a kind of magical fetish, a wand which once waved makes everyone feel somehow better - when actually in reality nothing has actually changed (but an empty word has been uttered like a communion rite which only serves to confuse us all)!