With an unprecedented pandemic framing the narrative, we saw how a combination of lockdowns, unemployment, boredom and misinformation created a situation where both sides of the culture war could construct a narrative that suited their outlook.
As a result, Western society is probably more divided than it has been in a long time. Issues that have been quietly smouldering over the decades have now been relit and have caused untold damage. Areas where the vast majority agree (that racism and police brutality are bad) have become battlegrounds between iconoclasts and traditionalists.
These are infuriating, yet fascinating times. I feel like Nero.
As per usual, the working class are being vilified. However, it is no longer just the right bemoaning dole scroungers and chavs. It is also large parts of the left, using Brexit to label them stupid (because it was Russian bots, apparently), little Englanders (the Empire's over, don't you know) and racist (because it was all about immigrants, allegedly).
Time will tell on how smart Brexit was but, in the midst of this hand wringing, it's all too easy to forget that there is much more to the argument. Most commentators now accept that Brexit was a cry of protest from a disillusioned working class. But why was that?
Enter Paul Embery, stage left.
A columnist for Unherd, fire fighter and trade unionist, Embery occupies an unusual place in the current discussion: a left wing Brexiteer, a pro-immigrant writer arguing for manageable numbers, a socialist articulating positions in favour of law and order as well as traditional family values. Of course, there will be those who will see nothing contradictory in those views at all. But it is an example of how far the discourse has fallen that being seen to advocate such positions is enough to make some heads explode a la Scanners. Indeed, one person who claims to be an academic, wrote the following comment when I announced I was reviewing this book:
Given that the same person accused me of working for Unherd, I think he’s done a great job in demonstrating the type of strawman arguments that get levelled at the likes of Embery and the paranoid outlook that causes such people to froth at the mouth when they read/hear something they disagree with. Pathetic.
Before delving into the book, it's worth taking a moment to acknowledge the cover: as the heavily implied snobbiness that such an image brings out in some was (inadvertently) articulated by Caitlin Moran in her most recent book. According to Emily Hill:
A tall order, I'm sure you'll agree. Although there are issues, Despised allows us access to a worldview that is often misunderstood and derided but is deceptively simple, according to Embery.
Beginning by depicting Britain now that the Red Wall has crumbled and arguing that the Leave vote, in working class areas, was driven by a desire to kick back at an establishment that didn't listen to, or care for them, Embery traces the roots of this discontent back to the 1960's and the "...new age of free love, drugs, self-gratification, individualism, divorce, contempt for tradition and disdain for the concept of personal responsibility..." which has led to "...family breakdown and fatherlessness, atomisation and loneliness, teenage pregnancy, widespread drug abuse, social exclusion, an abject lack of discipline in the education system, and the steady drip of lawlessness and disorder on our streets...", although he is quick to stress that free market capitalism has played just as big a role (thanks to long hours and low wages).
It's an argument that has some merit but seems negligent of Tony Blair's "respect" agenda, which talked about how:
It’s not necessarily Embery’s fault, as he doesn’t claim to be familiar with every argument regarding the death of social cohesion among the population, but it does betray something of a myopic view when discussing the issue. Especially when Embery points the finger of blame at New Labour for the beginning of the decline in support for the party, and thereby showing that this is a problem that predates Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
This decline is put down to several factors, such as Blair’s infatuation with the market, refusal to reverse privatisation, Iraq War and the gradual removal of working-class voices from Labour's benches. However, Embery argues that New Labour were able to get away with this for a few years because the Tories were in a shambolic state. But with Labour not winning the popular vote since 2001, the rot set in quickly and, coupled with the recession, Gillian Duffy and Emily Thornberry incidents, the working class split from Labour was on in earnest.
These arguments ring true, although I am bemused at the lack of mention of the ‘chav’ phenomenon, which came to prominence in the early 2000’s. Often propagated by the sort of social climbing champagne socialist deplored by the likes of Embery, this deep dehumanisation of the working class through the likes of poverty porn and a culture aimed squarely at the middle class (as depicted by Nathalie Olah) had as much to do with disenfranchisement as the Iraq War.
Where the book really hits home is when discussing his roots in Barking & Dagenham. Depicting it as a close-knit working-class community that made up for lack of opportunity by having a large social net to fall back on, these threads begin to unravel whenever globalisation and open borders become the norm in the late 90's. This meant that, within 5 years, the area had seen a vast growth in recent arrivals from other countries and the area returned 6 British National Party candidates in the 2006 election, leading to various pieces in the media asking how could this be happening.
Embery is quick to differentiate this generation of immigrants from the Windrush generation, even pointing out that a good proportion of people from minority backgrounds voted Leave as they felt that EU free movement was unfair giving their experiences, and that it also gave a leg up to white Eastern-Europeans. And that a poll of Brexit voters showed that the majority believed that recent immigrants should be allowed to stay in Britain. Therefore, Embery argues that race and racism was never a factor amongst the vast majority, merely the wish to have immigration properly managed.
This is a very tricky area to discuss, and kudos must go to Embery for tackling it head on. Clearly making the point that immigrants were not at fault for anything, and that change will always happen, it was a topic that quickly became toxic for debate due to politicians not understanding the concerns of tight knit communities, preferring to dismiss them as parochial, bigoted reactionaries. Indeed, Embery freely admits he did indeed dismiss such concerns as racist at the time, and the BNP result made him reassess his thoughts.
In some regards, it's reminiscent of how the media portrayed Sinn Fein and their voters throughout the 1980's. Vehemently anti-Provisionals, the likes of RTE and the Irish Times (often comprising members sympathetic to the Workers Party, whose own armed wing were an open secret) were blind sighted by the success of the hunger strikers in elections, as well as the Assembly elections a year later. Instead of acknowledging how out of touch they were, these media establishments just kept on demonising Sinn Fein and their voters.
By not learning from these mistakes, the southern establishment are potentially sleepwalking into an Irexit style situation, especially when you've got a shower of shite who have the cheek to call themselves Irish nationalists distributing racist bilge and vilifying front line workers who have set up home in this country, all in an attempt to tap into the existentialist fears some have over loss of national identity.
Closing with a defence of the nation state and a plea for a return to a more communitarian style of politics instead of the polarisation we are ‘enjoying’, Embery brings his Blue Labour thinking to the front. A country where government intervenes: to save jobs, tackle corporate fat cats, has a welfare system based on reciprocity and a place where people’s way of life is respected. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative in other words.
For some, such a view could only be described as nostalgic and backward looking. While I would be partially sympathetic to that view, I do genuinely think Embery understands the need to try and regain social cohesion and solidarity. Whether it is reparable or not is a different matter, but at least it’s a vision. Something other commentators are incapable of articulating.
Although an admirable attempt at being a book that analyses our times, there are issues. Running at 200 odd pages, it could probably do with losing 50 pages where Embery labours the point about the modern left being intolerant, with a myopic outlook and addicted to social media (which has long been established) while the reel of cancellations surrounding #MeToo, Brexit, immigration, language and patriotism (although important for context) becomes tiresome to read after a while.
This isn't entirely Embery's fault, as I believe the old-fashioned book is still unable to properly articulate and engage with the rapid pace of outrage/cancel culture. Maybe, whenever this culture either slows down or consumes itself, we can get a proper examination of it, it's contradictions and how what seems like a cult (according to James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose) is actually comprised of former shitposters either looking for kudos, inarticulate (but well meaning) teenagers, bored office workers and activists who have no concept of human nature.
Also, his section on how multiculturalism has been, in his view, a disaster is light on details and analysis. He should (if he hasn’t already) read Kenan Malik’s seminal From Fatwa to Jihad, which lays out in plain detail how multiculturalism (as a political entity) was introduced by the Thatcher government as a way of keeping working class minority dissent off the street.
In spite of all that, Despised is one of the first books to really focus on, and wrestle with, the deep divide between the have nots and those who (traditionally) wished to ensure the gap between the haves and have nots was marginal, certainly from a UK point of view. Coming from a writer with a pro-worker, pro-working-class worldview, it’s a welcome contribution to the debate we are having, especially now it’s the end of the year.
Paul Embery, 2020, Despised: Why the Modern Left Loathes the Working Class. Polity, ISBN-13: 978-1509539987
As a result, Western society is probably more divided than it has been in a long time. Issues that have been quietly smouldering over the decades have now been relit and have caused untold damage. Areas where the vast majority agree (that racism and police brutality are bad) have become battlegrounds between iconoclasts and traditionalists.
These are infuriating, yet fascinating times. I feel like Nero.
As per usual, the working class are being vilified. However, it is no longer just the right bemoaning dole scroungers and chavs. It is also large parts of the left, using Brexit to label them stupid (because it was Russian bots, apparently), little Englanders (the Empire's over, don't you know) and racist (because it was all about immigrants, allegedly).
Time will tell on how smart Brexit was but, in the midst of this hand wringing, it's all too easy to forget that there is much more to the argument. Most commentators now accept that Brexit was a cry of protest from a disillusioned working class. But why was that?
Enter Paul Embery, stage left.
A columnist for Unherd, fire fighter and trade unionist, Embery occupies an unusual place in the current discussion: a left wing Brexiteer, a pro-immigrant writer arguing for manageable numbers, a socialist articulating positions in favour of law and order as well as traditional family values. Of course, there will be those who will see nothing contradictory in those views at all. But it is an example of how far the discourse has fallen that being seen to advocate such positions is enough to make some heads explode a la Scanners. Indeed, one person who claims to be an academic, wrote the following comment when I announced I was reviewing this book:
Embery is the absolute embodiment of the worst kind of Sp!ked adjacent, authentocrat arsehole. Sincerely looking forward to months of journos telling me his reductive analysis is the deeply authentic expression of the ‘left behind’, though. He's quite at home with the rest of the cranks that populate Unherd and the other fourth rate publications that give him endless publicity.
Given that the same person accused me of working for Unherd, I think he’s done a great job in demonstrating the type of strawman arguments that get levelled at the likes of Embery and the paranoid outlook that causes such people to froth at the mouth when they read/hear something they disagree with. Pathetic.
Before delving into the book, it's worth taking a moment to acknowledge the cover: as the heavily implied snobbiness that such an image brings out in some was (inadvertently) articulated by Caitlin Moran in her most recent book. According to Emily Hill:
...the book...concludes with a rewrite of Rudyard Kipling’s If and offers hope that I could become a woman, after all, if only I one day witness my ‘daughters catcalled outside their school / By a man in a van’, and then run ‘after the van and, banging on the side, screaming, / She’s TWELVE YEARS OLD, YOU GIGANTIC PAEDOPHILE'...No one who was dropped off and picked up from school in such a noble vehicle by their old man, every day, aged four to 11, would stand for the honour of van men being besmirched like this. Of course, Moran is careful to note that the man in this fictional scenario ‘looks like one of the Mitchell brothers.’ He’s certainly not black or Asian like the overwhelming majority of van drivers here in London. No. No. That would be racist.
Although an extreme example, owing to Moran's wealth, it does demonstrate the divide between what Embery has referred to as the Hampstead crowd and the Hartlepool crowd, both of whom are needed by Labour to win elections. Hence, this book has the potential to be a UK version of Mark Lilla’s The Once and Future Liberal.
In the introduction, Embery sets out his lofty aims when he writes about how:
In the introduction, Embery sets out his lofty aims when he writes about how:
The past few years in Britain have been a lesson in what happens when an arrogant elite takes its hegemony for granted. If you don't take people with you, if you haven't won hearts and minds, if you plough on stubbornly while millions of working-class voters are imploring you to hold back or change course, then you are asking for trouble. And in the end, trouble came... working-class people seek to revive the politics of belonging, place and community as an antidote to galloping globalisation and rapid demographic change. The assumption that greater economic and social liberalism would pave the way to a new age of progress, prosperity and enlightenment now looks woefully mistaken ...The left bears a heavy responsibility for this polarisation, and it is why it is currently standing decimated and flirting with irrelevance. In this book, I set out why this happened and how this might be fixed.
A tall order, I'm sure you'll agree. Although there are issues, Despised allows us access to a worldview that is often misunderstood and derided but is deceptively simple, according to Embery.
Beginning by depicting Britain now that the Red Wall has crumbled and arguing that the Leave vote, in working class areas, was driven by a desire to kick back at an establishment that didn't listen to, or care for them, Embery traces the roots of this discontent back to the 1960's and the "...new age of free love, drugs, self-gratification, individualism, divorce, contempt for tradition and disdain for the concept of personal responsibility..." which has led to "...family breakdown and fatherlessness, atomisation and loneliness, teenage pregnancy, widespread drug abuse, social exclusion, an abject lack of discipline in the education system, and the steady drip of lawlessness and disorder on our streets...", although he is quick to stress that free market capitalism has played just as big a role (thanks to long hours and low wages).
It's an argument that has some merit but seems negligent of Tony Blair's "respect" agenda, which talked about how:
...social solidarity remains the only way to secure the future of a country like Britain ... Respect is about more than crime. It's about the loss of a value which is a necessary part of any strong community; proper behaviour; good conduct; the unselfish notion that the other person matters ...
... but ended up in a situation where, as Kenan Malik has described:
The policies of the respect agenda, such as the introduction in 1998 of Asbos, were popular because they spoke to the experience of many working-class communities of the daily struggle to assert one’s dignity. The trouble, though, is that it was not a decline in moral standards that had fostered antisocial behaviour. Rather, it was that antisocial policies, policies that exacerbated inequality, undermined social connections, singled out certain social groups, from ‘problem families’ to benefit scroungers to asylum seekers, as moral problems, had helped reduce respect for other people and eroded the sense of mutual obligation.
It’s not necessarily Embery’s fault, as he doesn’t claim to be familiar with every argument regarding the death of social cohesion among the population, but it does betray something of a myopic view when discussing the issue. Especially when Embery points the finger of blame at New Labour for the beginning of the decline in support for the party, and thereby showing that this is a problem that predates Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
This decline is put down to several factors, such as Blair’s infatuation with the market, refusal to reverse privatisation, Iraq War and the gradual removal of working-class voices from Labour's benches. However, Embery argues that New Labour were able to get away with this for a few years because the Tories were in a shambolic state. But with Labour not winning the popular vote since 2001, the rot set in quickly and, coupled with the recession, Gillian Duffy and Emily Thornberry incidents, the working class split from Labour was on in earnest.
These arguments ring true, although I am bemused at the lack of mention of the ‘chav’ phenomenon, which came to prominence in the early 2000’s. Often propagated by the sort of social climbing champagne socialist deplored by the likes of Embery, this deep dehumanisation of the working class through the likes of poverty porn and a culture aimed squarely at the middle class (as depicted by Nathalie Olah) had as much to do with disenfranchisement as the Iraq War.
Where the book really hits home is when discussing his roots in Barking & Dagenham. Depicting it as a close-knit working-class community that made up for lack of opportunity by having a large social net to fall back on, these threads begin to unravel whenever globalisation and open borders become the norm in the late 90's. This meant that, within 5 years, the area had seen a vast growth in recent arrivals from other countries and the area returned 6 British National Party candidates in the 2006 election, leading to various pieces in the media asking how could this be happening.
Embery is quick to differentiate this generation of immigrants from the Windrush generation, even pointing out that a good proportion of people from minority backgrounds voted Leave as they felt that EU free movement was unfair giving their experiences, and that it also gave a leg up to white Eastern-Europeans. And that a poll of Brexit voters showed that the majority believed that recent immigrants should be allowed to stay in Britain. Therefore, Embery argues that race and racism was never a factor amongst the vast majority, merely the wish to have immigration properly managed.
This is a very tricky area to discuss, and kudos must go to Embery for tackling it head on. Clearly making the point that immigrants were not at fault for anything, and that change will always happen, it was a topic that quickly became toxic for debate due to politicians not understanding the concerns of tight knit communities, preferring to dismiss them as parochial, bigoted reactionaries. Indeed, Embery freely admits he did indeed dismiss such concerns as racist at the time, and the BNP result made him reassess his thoughts.
In some regards, it's reminiscent of how the media portrayed Sinn Fein and their voters throughout the 1980's. Vehemently anti-Provisionals, the likes of RTE and the Irish Times (often comprising members sympathetic to the Workers Party, whose own armed wing were an open secret) were blind sighted by the success of the hunger strikers in elections, as well as the Assembly elections a year later. Instead of acknowledging how out of touch they were, these media establishments just kept on demonising Sinn Fein and their voters.
By not learning from these mistakes, the southern establishment are potentially sleepwalking into an Irexit style situation, especially when you've got a shower of shite who have the cheek to call themselves Irish nationalists distributing racist bilge and vilifying front line workers who have set up home in this country, all in an attempt to tap into the existentialist fears some have over loss of national identity.
Closing with a defence of the nation state and a plea for a return to a more communitarian style of politics instead of the polarisation we are ‘enjoying’, Embery brings his Blue Labour thinking to the front. A country where government intervenes: to save jobs, tackle corporate fat cats, has a welfare system based on reciprocity and a place where people’s way of life is respected. Fiscally liberal, socially conservative in other words.
For some, such a view could only be described as nostalgic and backward looking. While I would be partially sympathetic to that view, I do genuinely think Embery understands the need to try and regain social cohesion and solidarity. Whether it is reparable or not is a different matter, but at least it’s a vision. Something other commentators are incapable of articulating.
Although an admirable attempt at being a book that analyses our times, there are issues. Running at 200 odd pages, it could probably do with losing 50 pages where Embery labours the point about the modern left being intolerant, with a myopic outlook and addicted to social media (which has long been established) while the reel of cancellations surrounding #MeToo, Brexit, immigration, language and patriotism (although important for context) becomes tiresome to read after a while.
This isn't entirely Embery's fault, as I believe the old-fashioned book is still unable to properly articulate and engage with the rapid pace of outrage/cancel culture. Maybe, whenever this culture either slows down or consumes itself, we can get a proper examination of it, it's contradictions and how what seems like a cult (according to James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose) is actually comprised of former shitposters either looking for kudos, inarticulate (but well meaning) teenagers, bored office workers and activists who have no concept of human nature.
Also, his section on how multiculturalism has been, in his view, a disaster is light on details and analysis. He should (if he hasn’t already) read Kenan Malik’s seminal From Fatwa to Jihad, which lays out in plain detail how multiculturalism (as a political entity) was introduced by the Thatcher government as a way of keeping working class minority dissent off the street.
In spite of all that, Despised is one of the first books to really focus on, and wrestle with, the deep divide between the have nots and those who (traditionally) wished to ensure the gap between the haves and have nots was marginal, certainly from a UK point of view. Coming from a writer with a pro-worker, pro-working-class worldview, it’s a welcome contribution to the debate we are having, especially now it’s the end of the year.
Paul Embery, 2020, Despised: Why the Modern Left Loathes the Working Class. Polity, ISBN-13: 978-1509539987
⏩ Christopher Owens was a reviewer for Metal Ireland and finds time to study the history and inherent contradictions of Ireland. He is currently the TPQ Friday columnist.
Another great review Christopher. Taking a lot of page views as well. I think you gave a balanced appreciation. Embery writes for UnHerd - a great source of ideas not liked by the wokerti - and while much of what he writes is questionable he makes people think.
ReplyDeleteAM,
DeleteThanks very much. It was a tricky review to write for two reasons:
- the various misconceptions about Embery
- my expectations about the scope of the book
I think it turned out ok in the end.
Christopher - anybody who comes at it like Embery squeezes our comfort zone and is met with pushback. In the very woke culture of today even a reviewer can be made to feel the chill if the review does not conform to what the Wokerati preordain as true.
DeleteChristopher, I think Paul Embery and Blue Labour have much to say worth hearing but I think the people in control of the Labour Party have no intention of listening, whatever faction they belong to. The Labour Party‘s cold war of sorts between the patriotic socially conservative working class (the somewheres) and the affluent social progressives (the anywheres) goes back decades and has had more than just two sides. In relation to what is happening now the divide in the early 1960s over the issue of unilateral nuclear disarmament seems like the first obvious sign of what was coming along - the anywheres strongly in favour, the somewheres more concerned with day to day realities like their standard of living. The two mostly ignored each other for decades. During the period of Harold Wilsons government in the 1960s legislation was passed that brought in legalisation of abortion, divorce and homosexuality, the abolition of hanging and the use of the birch in prisons, the end of theatre censorship and the Race Relations Act. Most of these were introduced into parliament by private members bills and received cross party support to get through. Had Harold Wilson signalled his government’s intentions regarding these landmarks of the cultural revolution to traditional Labour voters in the 1966 election I think they would have been overwhelmingly against them. By the mid 1970s Labour at local level at least in London was being taken over by the brand of left wing politics that would eventually see Ken Livingstone as leader of the GLC. Thatcher‘s defeat of the miners in 1985 was a factor in allowing the dividing up style identity politics of Livingstone to start to eat into the party. The very middle-class and very right on Red Wedge could not have happened before 1985. The point about Thatchers government and multiculturalism is interesting. Her most serious challenge in government was not the IRA, CND, the Argentine military junta, the miners or even the poll tax but the unprecedented serious social disorder that occurred in urban areas with large West Indian populations - Brixton, Tottenham, Handsworth, Toxteth etc. Local labour councils in these urban areas perhaps unwittingly eased the pressure on the tories with their identity politics led policies ie. anti racism initiatives, designed with the best of intentions and also to hoover up votes. The vote to leave the EU was not surprising. Britain has always had a half in half out attitude however enthusiastic and compliant the UK political class have been to the EU, it is mainly an English hostility though. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer who considered abolishing the pound to bring in the euro would have found the hill for their political career to die on. Labour‘s future is very uncertain. Besides the red wall they now no longer have the votes in Scotland they once took for granted before the SNP dominated. Without Scotland can they even win an election again. Paul Embery has been severely critical of Labour in the last few years but still implored people to vote for them in recent general elections. It is as if he feels there is nowhere else for him and many other Labour voters to go and quite cynically Labour knows that and won‘t change course even when some voters have gone elsewhere. I think Blair‘s Labour Party gave up on the working class long ago hence the mass immigration it allowed seeing it as nothing more than new Labour voters to replace the old. Thanks for the review. I always enjoy your book reviews and come away feeling better informed even if it is an author or subject I knew little or nothing about.
ReplyDeletePaulJPMN - a good as the comment is it would have made a much better article. I was fascinated by the perspective and insight. A lot to think about.
ReplyDeleteTnanks AM. I tried to keep it from being too long and it has ended up a bit disjointed! What Paul Embery is writing about within the Labour Party finally had its day of reckoning as a result of an external force where party politcal tribalism could not be relied on - the vote to leave the EU. A vote which was followed by the refusal of the political class to accept the result. But party menbers and Labour voters bear responsibility for refusing to face that division head on years ago including Embery himself.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeletethere is much truth in what you write. That divide between party and voter, while not uncommon, was certainly one that could have been managed had Labour retained an ear to the ground. In a way, it reminds me of the struggles of the Workers Party to balance traditional republican history/ideology with their fanatical worship of the Soviet Union (which of course ended with the split). Could Labour be heading for a similar scenario? I certainly think Embery, at some point, will have to make a decision on whether to remain or not (he has openly admitted Labour wouldn't have him as a candidate).
Political parties and their voters! People who consider themselves conservative vote consistently for the Conservative Party which has never been conservative and is now Blairite. The Conservative Party though has had Nigel Farage to worry about. But Labour has had no threat to its onward direction from a prominent figure on the left. Tony Benn left a vacancy and no successor. I don’t believe Paul Embery would have written the book if Labour were in power even if he still had the same criticism of them. I think he would have just kept hoping (in vain) to influence a reset from within, like many other members dissatisfied with the direction of the party. His own loyalty to Labour may undermine him. Leaving might marginalise him more. A historic down the middle split in the party would be the only chance of change. The defection of a few MPs and members as happened with the SDP in the early 80s would not be enough.
ReplyDeleteThe Workers Party always looked to me more like a cult than a political party, a structure where tribal loyalty was more important to keeping it together than any political direction (post Costello split). Growing up in Dublin as I did in the 70s and 80s The Workers Party seemed to exist for the benefit of the people who ran it. Time Out magazine had an interview with one of the Littlejohn brothers in 1973 where he claimed that the British security services were very interested in the pro Soviet stance of the Officials and what inroads they might make into politics in the south of Ireland in the early 70s.