Our rejection of the methods of outward domination, and of the appeal to force, applies not only to international affairs, but to the whole problem of industrial control [ed: what we might now call economic injustice and ‘structural violence’ ]. Not through antagonism but through co-operation and goodwill can the best be obtained for each and all.
I believe that interpolation in square brackets by the editors of PNE shows the lack of historical perspective which has tended to characterise the debate about the New Economy.
The Foundations Of A True Social Order 1918
According to the notes in the appendix to QF&P, passage 23.16 is taken from Foundations of a True Social Order approved by London Yearly Meeting in 1918, the year which saw an armistice ending the First World War and the start of post-war peace negotiations. The interpolation in square brackets by the editors of PNE equates paragraph vi of the original, 1918 document and its reference to the ‘whole problem of industrial control’ with economic injustice and structural violence. I believe that this interpretation of 23.16 is a mistake and that we need better to understand the 1918 passage in its historical context.
The reference to the problem of industrial control is a reference to the troubled relations between labour and capital in the period before the First World War. 1910-1914 were years of great industrial unrest in Britain, as were the post-war years 1919-1926. Evidence for this is the comparative number of days lost to industrial disputes then and now http://www.unionancestors.co.uk/Images/Strikes%201901-2000.pdf. Similarly, the years before the outbreak of the First World War were a period of widespread political unrest, in Ireland and on the streets of London in agitation for women’s suffrage. The 1918 call is for political and industrial peace, for no return to the violent suppression of strikes and dissent which had marked the pre-war period. Above all, the 1918 document is a call for an end to, and no resumption of, world war. The Foundations of a True Social Order was written in the context of a fear of a return to pre-war industrial violence and, more importantly, of a fear of actual, devastating global war. It is wrong to see the Foundations in terms of structural violence; the issue concerning the Quakers of 1918 was actual violence – on the streets, in workplaces and, above all, on the battlefield.
Structural ViolenceThere is little justification for equating paragraph (vi) of the Foundations with the modern notion of structural violence. Structural violence refers to a form of violence wherein some social structure or social institution may harm people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs. The term is a sociological one dating from 1969 used to label selected social structures and institutions as detrimental to human rights and well-being. The social sciences have their place in Quaker discourse but human and spiritual relationships are not reducible to the structures which may manage or constrain those relationships, be these structures churches or government departments. The term 'structural violence' needs to be used cautiously, because it can be a lazy way of stigmatising agents with whom one has a political disagreement. Ultimately it does not sit well with the Quaker commitment to the equality of persons and to answering that of God in everyone in love and truth. The term was not one known to Quakers of 1918 who, had they wanted to proclaim a new socio-economic order, could have looked to the Bolshevik Revolution of the previous year. Instead, the 1918 Foundations proclaimed the brotherhood of man and called for peace on earth and harmonious industrial relations, the antithesis of the Bolsheviks’ commitment to class struggle with its related modern notion of structural violence. (If one wanted to find good examples of structural violence one need look no further than to the institutions of the former USSR). London Yearly Meeting of 1918, rather than calling for a new social and economic order and the overthrow of established institutions, upheld the ethical capitalism which is in the Quaker tradition. Indeed, the Foundations can be read not as a revolutionary manifesto but as a conservative, even reactionary, document, as a call for a return to the peace and progress of the nineteenth century before the breakdown in political, industrial and international relations of the early twentieth century.
The fundamental Quaker valueIn carrying forward the work on The principles of a New Economy it would be worth our while considering how far, a hundred years on, the world has changed since 1918 and how far the aspirations in The Foundations of a True Social Order may have been met. Such consideration gets us to focus on the fundamentals of Quaker principles enunciated in the Foundations. Attention needs to be paid to paragraph (ii) which says that the social order should be directed towards the growth and personality truly related to God and man; (viii) similarly says that the ownership of material things, such as land and capital, should be directed towards the need and development of man. This is a humanist, not a socialist value. What counts is not socio-economic equality as such but the opportunities for each and everyone of us to flourish. In 1918, Friends saw that harsh working conditions, long hours and the lack of welfare provisions and of educational opportunities were not conducive to the spiritual development of the individual, but they did not seem to believe that socio-economic inequality was per se a bad thing.
Readers will want to ponder the social progress that has been made in the UK since 1918. The key statistic is life expectancy, which was about 50 for men in 1918 (disregarding the statistic impact of WW1 which put male life expectancy at less than 45 in that year) and is now about 75. Life expectancy is now half as good again as it was when the Foundations were drafted. This is a crude but highly significant measure of social and physical progress. Other examples of progress in the UK that spring to mind include: full franchise for women (1928), National Health Service (1948); homosexuality decriminalised (1967); Open University (1969) and growth in tertiary education based on information technology; Equal Pay Act (1970) and subsequent equal opportunities legislation; same-sex marriage (2013) etc etc. None of these may have reduced socio-economic inequality by strict financial measures but they will have greatly advanced human rights and increased quality of life and the scope for the personal growth of the individual.
Outside the UK, the aspiration in the Foundations for the brotherhood of man has been largely fulfilled in the founding of the International Labour Organisation (1919) the United Nations (1945), the European Union (1993 and earlier) etc etc.