For a list of the current Friends of the Scottish Review, click here
R D Kernohan’s thoughtful analysis (9 August) of his ‘three lost causes’ (the quality press, the Tory Party and the Church of Scotland) prompted reflections which led me in a direction that I suspect he would not wish to go.
He was careful to acknowledge that, in each case, there were able and committed people who continued to do good work: intelligent journalists who wrote informative articles that did not simply re-cycle press releases; decent politicians who wanted to make a positive contribution to national life; ministers and parishioners who were active and respected in their communities.
He regretted that the collective expression of each sphere of activity had been weakened – in the case of journalism partly by new technology; in the case of the Scottish Conservatives by their continuing perception as damaged goods in the aftermath of Thatcher; and in the case of the church by its preference for bureaucratic evasion rather than robust engagement with matters of faith. But he stopped short of questioning whether something more fundamental was happening to all institutions. That is the line of inquiry I wish to pursue further.
A society’s institutional structure is an important expression of its traditions and values. Political organisations reflect varied conceptions of the good society and aspirations for the future. In a democracy a free press allows for critical interrogation of government and the expression of dissent. And churches of different denominations offer alternative perspectives on the human condition, asserting that there is a spiritual as well as a material dimension to experience.
But what happens when people begin to lose faith in institutions? For example, most people would agree that some conception of justice is vital in a civilised society but might question whether the agencies which are intended to uphold justice (the police, the legal framework, the courts) can always be relied upon to fulfil their duties. Like R D Kernohan, they might acknowledge that there are individual police officers, lawyers and judges who try to do their best but question whether the system as a whole ensures a just outcome.
Again, there would be general agreement that education is a key social value and that most teachers show professional commitment, but that is not the same as saying that schooling in its present form embodies educational values that would gain widespread endorsement. Likewise, there might be a significant gap between, on the one hand, belief in the importance of knowledge and truth as academic principles and, on the other hand, perceptions of the way many universities now operate.
It is true that no institution can ever be perfect and that shortcomings will always be evident. But what I am suggesting is rather more serious than that. A case can be made for saying that there has been a fundamental loss of trust and respect for all institutions. This extends far beyond the obvious cases of a banking sector that treats ordinary customers with disdain or a political class that happily makes rules for others while disregarding the rules that apply to themselves. It can be seen, for example, in the way members of health boards seem unembarrassed by failings in patient care, producing back-covering reports that fail to address the real issues. Many people have simply lost faith in complaints procedures, regulatory bodies and overblown statements of customer ‘rights’ and client ‘entitlements’.
Bureaucratic reports rarely produce outcomes that bring about real change. Consider those dreadful cases of neglect and abuse which lead to the death of a child. Invariably, inquiries are held and predictable recommendations made: the need to pick up early warning signs, to follow through initial concerns, to improve communication between professionals, to offer better training and support to case workers. It is all expressed in terms of procedures and protocols, sharing information about vulnerable children and more effective case conferences. It is at least arguable that what might help to prevent some of these tragedies is not just better organisational systems but an individual with the courage to step outside ‘approved procedures’ and challenge out-of-touch managers obsessed with budgets and targets, thereby shaming the various agencies into taking action. But, of course, justified moral outrage is not seen as a desirable ‘professional’ characteristic.
How have we reached this point? The reasons are varied and complex and I do not pretend to have all the answers. Let me focus on two related aspects. Firstly, public institutions and professional bodies usually start from the best of motives but, over time, they develop systems that are essentially self-serving. This causes a serious disparity between their altruistic rhetoric and the bureaucratic practices which become established as ‘norms’. What also tends to happen is that a gulf develops between institutional leaders and ‘front line’ providers of services. In recent years this has been exacerbated by the importation into the public sector of approaches to management and governance borrowed from the private sector. Elaborate forms of protection for senior staff, devised by skilful lawyers and presented as corporate ‘prudence’, serve to insulate leaders from the cold gaze of public contempt. High salaries and undeserved bonuses no doubt help them to overcome any residual embarrassment they might feel.
Secondly, approved institutional procedures seek to de-personalise transactions. Personal feelings become less important than following protocols. The loss of the personal is, I would argue, one of the main reasons for declining faith in institutions. It is rare for an individual to be held responsible when things go wrong: the usual response is simply ‘we will review procedures and learn lessons’. There is a reluctance to appear ‘judgemental’ when, in fact, that stance itself entails a judgement.
We need to reinstate the validity of the personal and make it easier for individuals (whether employees or members of the public) to challenge institutional pronouncements. Given the damaged position of the churches, there is an understandable reluctance to enter territory that might be construed as uncomfortably ethical in character. But if the churches have lost authority, we need to look to other sources of enlightenment. Perhaps part of the reason for the current state of affairs is a failure of moral courage on the part of all of us.
Walter Humes held professorships at the universities of Aberdeen, Strathclyde and West of Scotland and is now a visiting professor
of education at the University of Stirling
