By Tony Weekes on October 26, 2009
Margaret Legum – a well-informed and radical economist, and an active contributor to the work of SANE – the South African New Economics Network – died almost two years ago, on 1 November 2007. An obituary can be found in The Guardian, 16 November 2007. Some of her writing can be seen on the SANE website (www.sane.org.za); She was, and through the legacy of her work she remains, a contributor to the solution of the problems we now face.
A paper of hers – entitled The Dream of Creativeness as Outcome of Political Economy – was published in the Post-autistic Economics Review October 2006 and can be retrieved from the website www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue39/Legum39.htm.
The title intrigues me, and I offered it as a theme for discussion by Friends at Leinster Quarterly Meeting in Dublin two years ago.
What followed was interesting. The initial reaction was to say that ‘creativeness’ was something beyond many of us. But then the discussion warmed up, and we began to see that we all have creativeness in us, but the present economic system doesn’t easily value its many diverse forms. In consequence, we forget that all of us have it in some form. Recognising its different forms, and fostering it could be a step towards a more sustainable society.
Re-reading Margaret’s article, I find myself disappointed by her description of what must change. There’s more to be said than is there.
So I offer this as open questions to readers of the blog: Could ‘creativeness’ become – to use Margaret’s own words – “the agreed objective of political economy”? If so, what is it that would be fostered? What is stopping us? … and are the obstacles insurmountable?
Let’s see who can be creative!
3 Comments
Creativity would certainly be a more worthwhile basis than “celebrity”. We have an excellent arts centre in Builth Wells, providing theatre, cinema and art space. The nearest similar centres are in Hereford, Aberystwyth, Newtown and Brecon. Activities there attract small numbers of people from a wide area. However the centre has to go through an annual begging process for Assembly support, and is not a viable business because of appalling lack of support. We recently enjoyed an excellent evening entertainment there, as part of a forty strong audience. As the artists commented a “small but perfectly formed” audience. One friend, who has recently become full-time artist, has been heaped with grant aiding and can achieve substantial prices for her work, while others, some undoubtedly more technically able, struggle to find a market, encouragement or support. What is clear from the above, is that I am very confused by the economics of creativity as arranged presently. The potential market for art is mired into shallow consumerism and strange concepts of celebrity, and so ignores excellent work even when made available to them cheaply and conveniently. It is possible to find food, prepared with love and creativity, and similarly crafts, Britain is now rich in such merchandise, but the bulk of its potential market is unaware of its attraction. The Arts and Crafts movement was founded on the idea of replacing the shoddy and machined, with quality items hand made with love and respect. It was successful but not to a majority audience. I shall be interested to follow the link and explore this idea further.
Well, thanks, Peter … the blog has been quiet lately, but this may bring other contributions. I have my own thoughts as to what Margaret’s intention may have been, but I’d like to think it’s time to see what others can come up with.
Keynes wrongly predicted that rising prosperity would reduce the working week to fifteen hours, whereas in the UK the fear of traumatic loss of one’s job has driven us to a long working hours culture that is almost unique in Europe. Until the recession, this has been partly offset by the trend towards early retirement (though those with second or late families often need to continue working for longer). However, the early retirement trend does little to benefit families struggling to do a good job of bringing up young children.
Whilst I have no personal experience of childcare, it seems to me that society should be much more focussed on the needs of young children identified by Margaret Legum, but without simply returning to the past. Some strategies can work well, such as:
· There are examples of prominent women with the resources to combine a stellar career with successfully bring up a family
· Grandparents, if available, can provide loving and stable care (provided they have the stamina!).
These strategies are not available to all families and many do not feel they have any choice. I was especially struck by Margaret Legum’s suggestion that society should pay for mothers on low incomes to stay at home to look after their pre-school children. After schooling begins, there are still conflicts between working and children’s needs, e.g. illnesses, attending school events.
Rather than focusing solely on the issue of child care and fostering creativeness, I would want to ask what sort of society do we want that better fosters children’s full potential, i.e. what fundamental changes do we want to our society and its economic structure.
The highly regarded book ‘The Spirit Level’ has convinced many that high and rising inequality is a significant driver of a range of social problems (mental health, drug addiction, teenage pregnancies, imprisonment rates, lack of trust) that reduce subjective well being at all levels of society. A less unequal society would undoubtedly reduce some of the pressures on families bring up children.
The issue of whether the economic system is causing dysfunctional childhoods (middle class as well as those lower in the social hierarchy) may be a better way of getting people to question the present system than talking about giving up the materialist, consumer lifestyle because of environmental constraints (a ‘turn off’ for many people).