#3: The power of knowledge
By: Stephen Miller
Tags: Knowledge, Build Back Better, Inequality

When we say ‘build back better’, how can we be sure we’re all referring to the same thing?

I’ve been reflecting on what it means to build back better. For me, and for others. Because there isn’t a shared definition. There isn’t one source of truth about what it means and what the future should look like. And that’s a problem.

Consensus forms truth, even if sometimes it may not reflect empirical reality (see Habermas for more on this). So with ‘building back better’, has there ever been enough consensus to make up the truth of what it means? There appeared to be a something close to a consensus emerging earlier this year about what a ‘better society’ may look like. One that provides safety and security through a strong welfare state. A better connection with, and appreciation of, nature. An economy that enhances, rather than degrades, our environment. A society that values the essential but less glamourous institutions and services we take for granted, such as schools, supermarkets and hospitals. Work that provides decent pay, security and self-esteem. A society where everyone has a home, and no one goes hungry.

We stood on our doorsteps and balconies and clapped for key workers, and thought twice about what we really value. In that moment, we saw something resembling our shared ethics and morality (see Hume for more on this). Briefly, I think, we rediscovered our common humanity.

This should really give us a solid basis to develop a shared vision of what ‘building back better’ actually looks like. But it won’t.

Tanks but no thanks? Do the risks taken by key workers matter anymore?

Truth is not always formed by consensus. Some people are in a better position to reinforce their validity claims, and consequently make them ‘true’. For example, The Minister for Women and Equalities Liz Truss recently exorcised the ghost of Foucault to set us all straight on what inequality really looks like, and how it’s solved (less virtue signalling, more data apparently). Or the recent spat between Jacob Rees-Mogg and Unicef is another example of this. Is child food poverty in the UK getting better or worse? Depends who you ask, but those children going to bed hungry every night won’t survive on philosophy or data alone.

This year I’ve been fortunate to work with many amazing people, including Bonnie Chiu and Jara Dean-Coffey, who reignited the debate about how we conduct research and how we produce knowledge. In particular, they highlighted the racialised dimensions to the social production of knowledge (see here and here for excellent accounts of the argument). They highlighted how those with power get to decide what is valuable, what counts as legitimate knowledge and ultimately, what is the truth. They are asking important questions, questions that I also think are crucial for developing any consensus about what building back better looks like:

How do we decide what is good and right?

What information do we regard as fact versus opinion?

How do we decide what is real?

What information and sources do we trust?

The answer to these questions is not simple. Despite the heralded return of the expert, money and power dominate validity claims in modern capitalism. This plays out on many levels. They frame and shape national debates, and ultimately, as a result, moral issues become undermined. We can no longer talk about how we provide homes and food for everyone, or how we ensure racial equality, without references to money or perceived unfairness. Morality takes a backseat, particularly when issues threaten entrenched wealth and power. And because moral issues and democracy are consistently so devalued, sociologists from Durkheim to Marx to Habermas have argued this results in people feeling they have no control over their social world’s. Utilitarian attitudes begin to dominate. We can already see evidence of this, as more people scramble to get life ‘back to normal’ so they can go down the pub and see their friends, than are scrambling to reform the welfare state etc.

All of this has implications for what counts as common sense (see Gramsci) and will affect what ‘building back better’ looks like. We’ve already seen this with the co-opting of the slogan by the current government. While they announced £12bn for a ‘green revolution’ they have also announced the biggest road building programme ever. Thus the version of reality being presented back to us is not the same as many envisaged at the start of summer.

The solution to this is not easy. I can’t help but think that a constitutional overhaul is one part of the solution. If we are a true democracy, then surely we need mass democratic debate and participation in designing what comes next?

Accompanying this, of course, is debate and action at a local level. My intention for 2021 is to facilitate much more genuine co-design and co-production processes in my own work. That includes, amongst many things, recognising my own power and privilege, greater reflection on my role in the knowledge production process (see reflexivity) and a greater appreciation of the value of lived experience and qualitative insights (not withstanding my reservations about bounded rationality).

These are small steps on a long road. But perhaps this time next year, when we say ‘build back better’, we can be more sure we’re all referring to the same thing.