X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House Culture House Daily

Ken Loach’s Bafta’s diatribe shows he is stuck in the past

13 February 2017

10:49 AM

13 February 2017

10:49 AM

Ken Loach, who seems to defy the rule that you get more right-wing as you get older, used his Bafta acceptance speech last night to attack the Tories. He said that the Government would ‘have to be removed’ and went on to say: 

‘In the real world, it’s getting darker. And in the struggle that’s coming between the rich and the powerful…the big corporations and the politicians that speak for them on the one hand, and the rest of us on the other the film-makers know which side they’re on.’

To be fair to voters, they seem to be quite set on removing governments, or at least overturning the status quo: first in Britain and then the United States, and this spring perhaps even in France and the Netherlands. In that existential divide, between nationalism and globalism, film-makers very much do know which side they’re on.

Last week, there was an interesting profile of another anti-establishment type, Steve Bannon, who is seen as one of the intellectuals behind the Trump regime. This passage, highlighted by Rod Dreher, shows what a revolutionary air there is about him. It brought to mind Christopher Lasch’s prophetic 1994 work The Revolt of the Elites, which I think is essential to understand what is happening now. Lasch, who died before his great work was published, saw how the western overclass was diverging from the rest of the population and that this would have serious implications for democracy. He predicted that identity politics would grow because it served a similar function as religion once did:

The same benefits misleadingly associated with religion – security, spiritual comfort, dogmatic relief from doubt – are thought to flow from a therapeutic politics of identity. In effect, identity politics has come to serve as a substitute for religion. Or at least for the feeling of self-righteousness that is so commonly confused with religion.

These developments shed further light on the decline of democratic debate. ‘Diversity’, a slogan that looks attractive on the face of it, has come to mean the opposite of what it appears to mean. In practice, diversity turns out to legitimise a new dogmatism, in which rival minorities take shelter behind a set of beliefs impervious to rational discussion.

Most of all what Lasch saw almost a quarter of a century ago was how much social revolution would be pushed forward by the elite and resisted by the non-elite. As he wrote: ‘It is not just that the masses have lost interest in revolution; their political instincts are demonstrably more conservative than those of their self-appointed spokesmen and would-be liberators. It is the working and lower middle classes, after all, that favour limits on abortion, cling to the two-parent family as a source of stability in a turbulent world, resist experiments with ‘alternative lifestyles’, and harbour deep reservation about affirmative action and other adventures in large-scale social engineering.’

A rising tide may or may not rise all boats, but a storm will destroy the weaker ones. It is no surprise, then, that the most serious opposition to Trump’s nationalism has come from northern Californian tech companies, among them Facebook and Airbnb, and that universally the ‘corporations’ line up against ‘the people’.

The social revolution of the past few decades is something of a new Reformation, bringing with it a conflict over values, but what Lasch’s world means is that the aristocracy practises a different faith to the rest of the population. Historically where this has been the case, such as Ireland under the crown, it has not been not been without turbulence. Most of it all it was felt – quite reasonably – that the rulers were not loyal to the ruled, would not have their best interests at heart, looked down at them and lacked legitimacy. I can understand why Loach feels so angry and wants to do something about poverty but his vision of social conflict between a working-class Left and upper-middle-class Right is so ancient now as to be barely comprehensible.


Show comments
Close