Liberals and Character - A Study

Here's a fascinating new study that identifies the value of character from a social-political perspective. The summary of the study gives the bias away, but the effort, and conclusions are surprisingly in the "right" direction: "The idea of "good character" sounds old-fashioned and patronising, but it may be the key to some of our most entrenched social problems. Politicians across the spectrum are starting to realise this."

The article identifies that character has been a more conservative issue, however "progressives" are now taking a second look at this issue considering that:

"...inequality of character may now be as important as inequality of economic resources. The specific concerns of progressives can be divided into three connected themes: the link between character attributes and life chances; the life chances "penalty" being paid by the children who do not develop a good character; and the growing demand for good character in the labour market."

Among the conclusions,

"So if there has been a corrosion of character—and the poor have been disproportionately hit—who is the villain of the piece? Historically, the left has blamed capitalism; Marx's exploration of "alienation" is an early example. But during the 20th century, concern has shifted from the labour market to the product market, with fears about the character-sapping effects of materialism and consumerism. The right, by contrast, points the finger at the loosening of social norms and constraints associated with the 1960s. Of course, there is some cross-dressing here, on both sides: Blair attacked some elements of 1960s liberalism and Cameron is a critic of corporate irresponsibility. But each side, in its own way, blames liberalism: for the right, the social liberalism symbolised by the 1960s; for the left, the market liberalism associated with the 1980s.
...

If market liberalism cannot be convincingly blamed for corroding character, what about social liberalism? Has the loosening of laws on divorce, abortion, contraception and homosexuality undermined character? Here the liberal defence is weaker: principally because of the influence of greater individual freedom on some aspects of family life.
...

Nonetheless, the liberalisation of attitudes has done some damage. The "anything goes" mentality has sometimes translated into a reluctance to pass judgement on the actions of our peers, even when they are clearly wrong. Communitarian critics of liberalism such as Michael Sandel and Alasdair Macintyre argue that individualism has crowded out virtue and morality: the regulation of public behaviour is one area where they are right.

Moreover, the impact of social liberalism may have damaged character development in the most important place of all: the family. The necessary sacrifices of good parenting collide with the assumption that the individual is entitled to lead his or her life only by reference to their own desires. Parenting is a sacrificial, self-negating activity, and not all adults are up to the job. Finding the time, energy and commitment that needs to be spent over decades to raise a child well is tough. This has always been the case—and it should be noted that most parents now spend more time with their children than in previous generations. But the assumption that parents can have it all is entirely at odds with the reality of successful child-rearing. One of the most positive developments of the last half century is the entry of women into the labour market, but it has, of course, subtracted from the time and commitment to making homes and children, and men have seldom stepped in to fill the gap.

The liberal ambivalence about authority is also problematic in the family setting. "One of the key things about a family that works well is the in-built hierarchy," says Julia Margo. "The ideal sort of family for character development is two adult parents and older siblings who are well behaved. Then there are opportunities for purposeful activities: a family holiday with joint activities, or regularly playing football in the park. Family mealtimes, and having meaningful conversations with parents, are particularly important."

In other words, "traditional" families make the best character factories. Parental authority is important, especially when children are young. Taking part in traditional activities like Sunday lunch is not nostalgia, just good parenting. And of course, anyone concerned with character must be concerned with family breakdown. It is harder to be a good parent alone. Not impossible, of course. But it is a fact that divorce or separation is where individual freedom collides most dramatically with the collective need for our children to be well brought up. It is not obvious how public policy can help parents stay together. But at least some politicians are talking about it."

And the final paragraph deserves a hearty "AMEN":

"Character is an old idea with contemporary relevance. A considerable number of pressing social problems—obesity, welfare reform, pensions, public disorder, educational failure, social immobility—are all, in part, questions of character. It is a treacherous political terrain, but one in which governments are increasingly entangled. Anyone who is interested in creating a successful liberal society is interested in character too, whether they admit it or not. Good societies need good people."