Editorial

Citation

Coleman, J. (2001), "Editorial", European Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.2001.05413aab.008

Editorial

Edited by John Coleman

Deputy Editor  Aidan Rankin

Editorial

If there is a unifying theme for this issue of New European, it is the problems that arise when ideologies go out of control. This preoccupation might surprise some readers. We are constantly being told that we live in a post-ideological age, which has banished the great abstractions of the past and solves problems pragmatically. Communism and Fascism have been discredited, except among the desperate and the deluded. In the West, Europe especially, the power of organised religion to oppress the individual has all but vanished. Yet the desire to transform human nature seems itself to be one of human nature's constants. One of the constants of politics, therefore, is the attempt to create an "ideal" human being or an "ideal" society, regardless of the consequences for real human beings or the impact on real societies.

Such perverted idealism blinds intellectuals to reason and transforms politicians into dictators. Like men and women possessed, they seem determined to disrupt the lives of others, destroy traditional loyalties and "liberate" individuals whether they wish to be liberated or not. Invariably, their schemes result in cultural and moral impoverishment. But happily, another constant of human nature is resistance to abstract dogmas and the misery they create. Throughout the ages, brave individuals have kept alive the sacred flame of liberty. They have defended freedom of speech and thought, fearlessly championed the individual, upheld objectivity and reason against fanaticism, bigotry and tyranny. Their actions ensure that tolerance and decency survive.

One such courageous soul is Christina Hoff Sommers, W.H. Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. New European's editor, John Coleman, often reminds me of the distinction Benjamin Disraeli drew between the abuse of a principle and the principle itself. A similarly valuable distinction underlies the work of Dr Sommers, between "equity feminism" and "gender feminism." Sommers is an equity feminist. She believes that womens' rights are individual rights, that in a free and fair society women must have the chance to fulfil their potential and that barriers to their success must be removed. Equity feminism aims to enrich the lives of women and men alike, to foster reason, compassion and responsibility in both sexes. Gender feminists, by contrast, promote a spirit of hostility towards men. They identify relations between the sexes as a form of class struggle, through which "equality" can come only when the female triumphs over the male. Censorious and dogmatic, gender feminists are scornful of other women, who believe that equality means partnership with men, and that friendship, love and trust between the sexes is an essential part of civilisation.

In her 1995 book, Who Stole Feminism? Sommers lays bare the pernicious effects of gender feminism on US higher education. Her latest work, The War against Boys (Sommers, 2000) examines its baleful influence on schools, and the harm it is doing to male pupils. Like other totalitarians, gender feminists believe that human nature can be radically refashioned, that human behavior is socially constructed, with biology playing no part, and that children are not individuals, but malleable organisms. Accordingly, schools can be turned into laboratories for the androgynous society that gender feminists desire.

Sommers exposes the distortions spread in the name of fashionable ideology: that girls are "short-changed" by school (when in fact their results are improving all the time); that traditional "gender divisions" encourage male violence (when in fact they encourage males to act honourably) and, worst of all, that boys need to be "reformed" by feminisation. The effects of such "reform" are absurd and grotesque. They demoralise boys and young men and in so doing harm both education and society. Dr Sommers reveals an unhealthy alliance between gender feminists and "progressive" educators, between the "boy-reformers" and those who put therapy in the place of moral guidance. The mother of two sons, she realises that boys need a structured but humane environment in which to grow into responsible adult men. The last thing they need is an attack on their masculinity, as if that were itself politically incorrect. Sommers is an optimist, for she believes that reason will eventually prevail over dogma. I agree with her. I am also inspired by her courage and her affection for humanity.

Affection for humanity requires affection for real human beings. In political terms, this means that there is more to life than economics, which is after all just good housekeeping. Without family and friendship, economic prosperity can neither be shared nor enjoyed. It is to the family that Gerard Casey turns in his article, or rather to the European Union's ideological hostility to family life. Just as "progressive" education's amorality paved the way for gender feminist campaigns in schools, the EU's crude economism has yielded easily to politically correct schemes. Dr Casey quotes a wise writer named Lorraine Fox Harding as saying that "even an ostensibly laissez faire policy may contain implicit assumptions … about what families are and should be like."

The EU's moral neutrality on the family is in itself a highly contentious moral judgement. Casey shows that the EU places above the welfare of children and the stability of society a blend of hedonism and collectivism. He identifies two impulses – narcissistic individualism and radical egalitarianism – as the driving force behind EU family policy. The first incites the individual to rebel against traditional restraints, the second tells us that "there are no significant differences between one human being and another (in particular between men and women)." Both forces work against family life, the security of children and settled values of any kind. Casey's insights confirm my belief that the European project resembles Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. We do not have Euro-soma yet, but I am sure that some committee in Brussels is working on the idea.

In the next article, by Michael Gove, we stay with the idea of rights-gone-wrong. The piece is adapted by the author from his devastating critique of the Northern Irish peace process, The Price of Peace (Gove, 2000). Gove explores the way in which the principle of human rights has been abused for the benefit of former terrorists and subverted by Republican and Loyalist ultras. Terrorism, in a sense, is political correctness carried to its logical conclusion. This is because for terrorists there are no individuals, only groups whose members must be liberated or destroyed. Northern Ireland's human rights law enshrined group rights. It demands sectarian quotas for the police and obliges employers to "prove that they do not discriminate" rather than individuals to prove that they were discriminated against. The discrimination covered is not merely religious, but extends to every conceivable minority interest. It is binding on private business as much as it is on state institutions. In the name of abstract equality, discrimination in reverse becomes not just permissible but compulsory through quotas and "targets." This means that genuine equality before the law is abolished, just as terrorists and their sympathisers would wish. Sinisterly, Gove shows us that Northern Ireland's group rights are a political model for radicals in the rest of the UK. Unless we are alert, they could be the shape of things to come.

Unless we are alert, we could also run out of oil, argues David Fleming, an ecologist whose rational, scientific approach is a refreshing contrast to much of today's Greenery. Our short-sightedness stems from another ideological dogma, that of economic growth for its own sake, allied with what George Soros calls market fundamentalism. We have lost site of the idea that the Earth's resources are finite, because we assume a right to consume insatiably, without concern for future generations, or for our fellow creatures. The result is not greater freedom, but dependence on resources that can and will run out. As a society, we would be completely lost without oil, and yet we do not look ahead to a time when it will be more scarce.

Oil is the fuel for our entire consumer society in the West, and for the model of development which we impose on others. With no oil, or greatly reduced supplies of oil, the structure of international trade would collapse like a house of cards. The ideology of "market forces", which sustains it, would be reduced to hollow rhetoric. Fleming hopes that we can do now what we have apparently failed to do with climate change: step back, take a long term view and learn to live comfortably but consume less.

One of the reasons why the ecological message falls on deaf ears is the negative attitude of so many green campaigners. At one level, they appear to be misanthropic, even anti-life, at another they use the environment to bootleg left-wing ideas. Peter McCaig's piece, although moving and well-argued, reflects some of these "alternative" prejudices. He rejects the "pageantry" of Remembrance Day, when we honour our War Dead, assumes that the young men who died in the Great War were "ignorant," fighting only to preserve "privileged elites" and that he, with the benefit of a post-1960s education, possesses superior insights. His dislike of monuments to our War Dead, his knee-jerk "anti-colonialism" and his easy dismissal of patriotic sentiments reflect a sub-Marxist view of history, of the kind imposed on too many children by their half-educated teachers. And yet I do not think that Peter McCaig really believes what he writes. For he clearly admires his father, a veteran of the Second World War, who acted with dignity, modesty and stoicism. McCaig's pride in his father gives the lie to his green leftism and is proof that humanity can triumph over ideological excess. I thoroughly enjoy his piece, although I disagree with it almost as thoroughly.

The monuments deplored by Peter McCaig are more than monuments to young men who died in battle. They are part of our national identity, and they express our memory as a people. They allow us to unite in shared grief and pride, and yet preserve our individuality and our ability to think for ourselves. That is how national identity becomes a force for good. When we lose that identity, we fall prey to new forms of oppression. Chief among these are politically correct ideologies imposed by governments and the homogenising power of transnational corporations. Usually, it is a combination of both, and nowhere is this more true than in the process of European political union. Left-wing supporters of the EU, such as Giacomo Benedetto, make a persuasive case for a humane European "social model" which affords protection against capitalist excess, guarantees individual freedom and offers economic security.

Reality is very different, however. The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights is far more collectivist than individualistic[1]. It is based on group rights, providing ringing endorsements of "gender feminism" and reverse discrimination. The unification of "Europe" around a common legal framework (based on Napoleonic law), common political institutions and a common army serves well the "multinationals" whose influence Benedetto rightly fears. It is becoming clear that political union cannot provide representative institutions, with which Europe's peoples can readily identify. The concept of "European citizenship" has no real cultural or historical roots. It should be abandoned, for the sake of true friendship between Europeans, and the rights of free peoples to govern themselves.

Ideological dogmas contain the seeds of their own destruction. Humanity is stronger than they are and breaks them eventually. Yet the process of breaking them can involve much pain, and to this our war memorials bear testimony. Another danger, more pressing today, is that we might sleepwalk into tyranny. The contributors to this issue are all, in their own ways, keeping us awake.

Note

1. 1.

   At the time of writing (November 2000), this Charter does not have full legal power. Yet it provides a clear indication of the way in which the EU is going.