“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. These wise words can be found in any number of Instagram statuses, attributed to any number of people who didn’t say them. How would we recast them for the age of late capitalism? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you – then they find a way to make money out of you? Put that on a £19.99 T-shirt next to a picture of Mahatma Gandhi.
In Stage Three of this process as seen during the Black Lives Matter protests, you’ll remember, right-wing media were filled with hair-raising scare stories about what BLM really wanted. “Revealed:” burbled the Daily Mail. “The British arm of Black Lives Matter’s full agenda – abolish the police, smash capitalism and close all prisons”. No reference to this loose and decentralised racial justice movement went unaccompanied by mention that three of the prominent figures in it had described themselves as “trained Marxists”. You feel on stronger ground, I suppose, resisting a movement that you’ve decided wants to tear capitalist society and its institutions to bits than one that asks us to give people of colour an equitable stake in society and the hope of walking the streets without being harassed by the cops.
Yet, capitalism being miraculously forgiving, we have now entered Stage Four. Robin DiAngelo, of White Fragility fame, makes her main living as a “diversity consultant”, and is reported to charge north of £10,000 for a speech. She lectured Coca-Cola last year on “Confronting Racism”. And a brace of new books in her tradition indicates that far from wanting to smash for-profit workplaces, the diversity-industrial complex now wants to make capitalism safe for diversity. We have reached the stage, in other words, that trained Marxists would call co-optation.
Two books — one by Y-Vonne Hutchinson, How To Talk To Your Boss About Race: Speaking Up Without Getting Shut Down, and the other, A Judgement-Free Guide To Diversity and Inclusion for Straight White Men by Felicity Hassan and Suki Sandhu — are similar in scope and approach, though Hutchinson’s primary focus is race, while Hassan and Sandhu cover racism, sexism, ageism and homo/bi/transphobia too. They’re both aiming squarely at the business how-to market, most shamelessly in the case of the latter, which again and again mentions the “business case” for diversity and inclusion and barely makes the moral case at all.
In genre terms, we’re seeing the collision of two well established discourses: the boilerplate of antiracist discourse folded into the numbing cliches of the business self-help manual. This has the unfortunate effect, at least stylistically and in publishing terms, of making the case for antiracism or workplace diversity read like another vogue in management style — the new “mindfulness”, say — rather than an urgent moral imperative.
The books adhere to the same, by now familiar, theoretical framework — with leading anti-racists DiAngelo, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Ibram X Kendi liberally and respectfully cited, and microaggressions and privilege given the traditional working over. They both address the reader in a buttonholing, folksy way. “If you feel concerned that you may now be labeled ‘cisgender’ for the first time in your life, hold onto that thought”, say Hassan and Sandhu. “It’s all part of the learning curve”. Hutchinson opens with the words: “Let’s cut the bullshit”. If you resist any of this, in other words, it’s just another sign that you need to do “the work”.
That doesn’t mean, I should say, that the ideas they’re selling are in broad strokes wrong. We can agree that people from historically marginalised minorities continue to be disadvantaged even when they achieve de jure equality. To take one of the most obvious examples, racial disadvantage in the US is generationally baked in in all sorts of ways, and prejudice survives and adapts to legal remedies. This is why it makes sense to talk about “structural racism”.
There is much evidence — cited generously in both these books — for the notion that not only are black and brown people disproportionately under-represented in agreeable and well-paid jobs, but that more black and brown people in those jobs would make everyone, not just the black and brown people, richer and happier. And that what goes for black and brown people goes, in the broadest sense possible, for other minorities. It’s also true to say, as both these books do, that privileged people – white, cis-male, straight, able-bodied etc – can get a bit defensive when confronted with their complicity in such a system. Hassan and Sandhu address themselves, primarily, to the notional white dude standing in the way of reform; Hutchinson, primarily, to the person of colour seeking to start a Difficult Conversation with that white dude.
They both offer, in styles apt to the genre (Hassan and Sandhu: Venn diagrams, bullet-points, away-day exercises and wince-making tint-panels in which the likes of Richard Branson puff themselves by spouting abstract bromides about how much they value diversity), explanations of the jargon of the territory for bewildered newcomers, and hand-holding step-by-steps on how to help to centre marginal voices, be a good ally, and be the change in the world that you want to see. Most of the practical advice is not unobvious. Hutchinson, that said, has useful points to make about the way in which the task of changing workplace culture can all too easily fall on the unpaid labour of minority employees, and warns all too plausibly of how corporate HR departments are generally more interested in shielding the company from legal and financial risk than treating individual employees fairly.
But there’s little sense in either book that the received ideas or the received vocabulary of antiracism or gender politics needs any interrogation. This is, perhaps in keeping with the turn in identity politics where an individual’s own sense of themselves (in the case of the argument over aspects of queer and trans identity) or of their experience of oppression (in the case of much race discourse) holds an almost theological authority: that unless you have “lived experience” you don’t just have an inferior standing to consider the issues, but no standing at all.
Both books proceed from a position of epistemic confidence. “Is your workplace racist?” asks Hutchinson. “The short and simple answer is nearly certainly yes. The more nuanced answer is still nearly certainly yes”. What can the reader do? They can start, say Hassan and Sandhu, by “learning the language of diversity and inclusion”. A set of terms, rather than a set of ideas. “Set up a debate to debunk the philosophy that women compete more with each-other than their male counterparts”, they advise chirpily at one point. Foregone conclusions, regardless of the subject, isn’t what debates are traditionally about.
Yet the vocabulary is contested; and the remedies, when it comes down to fine detail, are contested too. Hassan and Sandhu make a distinction, for instance, between “diversity” and “inclusion” (though they seem to muddle the two at other points) and between “equity” and “equality”. They disagree with Hutchinson, a little, on “unconscious bias”. The Judgment-Free Guide finds the notion useful; How To Talk thinks we should stop pussyfooting around and call it racism, so as not to centre white people, their intentions and their feelings in a conversation about the harms done to people of colour. Do you capitalise “Ally”, as Hassan and Sandhu do, but leave “white” lower-case; or do you capitalise “White”, as Hutchinson does, and leave “ally” lower-case? At this point, I should say, my fragility is perhaps causing me to indulge in what Hutchinson identifies as the racist-in-denial tactic of “sealioning”: “focusing on details and small points of argumentation rather than the larger themes of the discussion”.
What I can say, which I don’t think is my fragility talking, is that however we may endorse those larger themes, or humbly submit to be educated by the emotional labour of their authors, this subject’s established orthodoxies can make for wearyingly abstract and repetitive writing. “Power is not binary”, Hutchinson writes, “It’s multifaceted and fluid”. I lost count of the number of times Hutchinson uses the word “leverage”, or Hassan and Sandhu — the front of whose book promises “everything you need to lead positive change” — talk about “journeys” and “driving change” (though, be it said, these are more the failings of bollocksy business books than identity politics books per se). As a side-note, isn’t it careless when writing about diversity and tolerance to quote, as Judgement-Free Guide does, Henry Ford and Chairman Mao — one antisemite, one mass-murderer — with approval? That’s a bit more judgement-free than many of us will be comfortable with.
Both these books default too often to a tissue of generalities and buzzphrases that tend to leave little or no impression on the mind. That isn’t sealioning. You can agree that the elimination of structural racism and all the other structural-isms is an urgent necessity, and still wish that writing on the subject were lively and original and precise; indeed, the more you recognise the urgency the more you’ll want some decent books on the subject. It’s a bit depressing to think that wine made from the vineyards of Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass and James Baldwin has found its way into bottles designed by Tom Peters.
questingvole 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Britain voted Brexit because of austerity”. I take it you didn’t vote for Brexit James, or you’d know that wasn’t true.
To be fair to James, he is quoting the views of others.
Thank you, Howard.
An excellent essay, in which the last three words of the first paragraph neatly encapsulate Vince Cable’s life in the political arena : “almost entirely pointless”.
VC is not pointless. He recently tweeted this;
“You don’t need to be a Communist or even a Socialist to recognise the positives as well as the evils in Lenin’s rule. Not least, his New Economic Policy established pragmatic market socialism which eventually succeeded in Deng’s”
He and his ilk are dangerous.
Sadly I have to agree. Far, far too many of his generation held similar deluded opinions, in fact in many ways they are the progenitors of today’s ‘woke’ sub-culture.
At the time (the 60’s) it was so fashionable to espouse liberal/socialist views, that even the so called Conservative Party was infected with the poison. Just at look at Ted Heaths and a plethora of other feeble Tory cretins.
For me, the seminal moment was the suspension of capital punishment in August 1964, and the subsequent atrocity perpetrated almost exactly two years later in Shepherds Bush. The State had abrogated its power to chastise with utterly predictable and foretold results.
To compare Lenin’s NEP to China’s economic policy is absurd, just absurd. The NEP was very small scale and did little more than enable a few entrepreneurs to make various goods avaialble for a couple of years. China’s capitalism is on a vast scale.
oi tosspot we did not vote brexit cause of austerity..we voted cause we have witnessed yrs of repression from the EU that differed from the economic union we voted into in the 70s and watched successive gvmts take from us over the yrs..do not put ur bile to our lips
beautifully put, Steve, Thank You.
An interesting article containing a lot of truth. I am slightly surprised that Cable seems unable to see that there might be more important things than economics. He always struck me as having a little more depth than that, although I believe he was an economist for an oil company.
Having said that, the triumph of money and the economy has been with us for some decades now and has swept up almost everyone in, say, the top 50% of the population. I include myself to some extent, before I started to wake up over the last 15 years or so.
My first fegree was economics. The classical definition of which is the study of how a society allocates scarce natural resources to one of a number of possible uses.
Towards tye end of my studies, I came to the notion that economics is really about providing an intellectual justification for a political objective. Usuallywhere the political objective was the advancement of those who ere supporting the economic idea.
Afam Smiths invisible habd was no more than a justification to shift power from the landed aristocracy towards commercial enterprise. Likewise, Marx argued to take power from those who had it by dint of owning factories etc in order to replace power with those without such ownership.
Call me a cynic if you will.
Cynic then !The very clear difference between positive and normative economics was drummed into me at A level and then at the LSE..I focused on the former and very much took the view that it was a source of research for political science-not the other way round.Having said that,most economic debate currently appears to be characterised by sloppy thinking and an absence of any scientific method.
So the author is quite convinced that property assets – he means houses – should be taxed. He makes no attempt to explain why this wealth tax – which is what it would be – should apply to just one asset. A person with a million pound house is taxed on their wealth. A person with a million pound share portfolio is not. This is sensible? How does this economics expert propose that his tax will work with legal partners, for example husband and wife, each owning half the asset? It makes no sense and has never worked anywhere. And in any event, we already have a wealth tax called IHT. To raise more revenue, the Government, any Government, is going to have to look at the big number taxes: income tax, National Insurance, and VAT.
The Author obviously hasn’t heard of Council Tax,or death duties on Income /inheritance of £240,000 or above
I’d favour internet sales. And a tax on FATGA.
I used to be one of the naive souls that thought a strong economy (which meant a good chunk of free market economic policy) could only be grounded in a reasonably free and open political system. I am older now, and I know that for a fiction – not because of China (or somewhere smaller, like Singapore) proving me wrong, but because I now understand the power of the modern state to dictate how people think, quite frankly to manipulate it, through and with a media which is for its own reasons allied to it. The current propoganda on Covid is just the latest example – but based on opinion polls there doesn’t seem any doubt that it is highly effective in exerting control.
So, no, to the extent that a strong economy gives rise to a strong state, a state which is capable of dominating any communication medium it chooses to, I am quite certain that the example of China is not an aberration, it is quite capable of being the future for all of us.
‘China is not an aberration, it is quite capable of being the future for all of us.’
And that future is approaching fast. The US and the EU are clearly heading in the direction of a China-style society, while literally handing over their assets and markets to China. The same is true of Canada. Whether or not countries such as the UK and Australia can somehow hold out as islands of democracy and some sort of freedom will be one of the great questions of the years to come. As you say, our mainstream media is now in lockstep with the state, so the omens are not good.
Sadly I believe You are mostly Correct! ”Bladerunner” Style of Woke Capitalism and Chinese communism Societies , awaits the next Debt ridden generation?….”There is hope.”.thought Winston as he entered ‘Victory mansions’…
Did project fear fail because people thought other things were more important than personal wealth and wealth of the nation or was it because many saw it for the utter bullshit it was.
Where is the economic logic of staying tied to 7% of the worlds population – a 7% that sees its share of global GDP decline year on year, compared to sacrificing some of the benefits of being part of the 7% in order to seek new and better opportunities with the other 93%? Those who argue for staying with the 7% are defeatists that have no pride in or ambition for their country.
Taxing housing assets? Do you mean taxing people out of their houses? Where are they to go? We aren’t exactly flush with spare flats.
Mr. Kirkup is broadly right about China, but:-
“(And I still do: the sooner we start taxing housing assets to fund social care the better.)”
As if Britain does not tax “housing assets” already! And that a particular “new” tax can be reserved for a particular purpose.
Not only does HMG already tax houses, but VAT is levied on building repairs. That is a huge tax on essential annual maintenance which should be encouraged, not discouraged.
One supposes stamp duty doesn’t count as a tax either.
“Effective economic policy is trumping politics.” Except that no-one to my knowledge says that there is no politics in China. In fact I am sure that the CCP itself would say that ‘the leading role of the party’ guarantees that ‘politics is in command’. Deng’s turn toward ‘capitalism with Chinese characteristics’ was prompted by politics; the prospect that the party would lose power if it did not improve the people’s standard of living in an East Asia which was on the march, developmentally. South Korea and Taiwan show that China’s particular brand of party-state is not the only political route to prosperity, even in Asia. What should stimulate our concern is not China’s success, but our own current failures, both economic and political.
It is not just V. Cable – the international establishment is generally in love with the Communist Party dictatorship of the People’s Republic of China.
Listening to Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum fawning over “President” Xi’s speech to the international elite about “freedom and democracy” would be funny if it was not so tragic. The international establishment assume that a Social Credit system of censorship and control (denying people with the “wrong” cultural and political opinions, employment or the ability to trade) will only be used against people they dislike – never against them themselves.
As for Donald John Trump – yes the election was rigged, but he seems to have had no plan about what to do if it was rigged (even though many people warned him that the election would be rigged), Not planning out what to do if the election was rigged, was a massive failure.
On trade the policy of President Trump was straightforward – free access to the American market IF a trading partner gave free access to its market. President Trump was not interested in one-way-trade (with America importing but not exporting) – he wanted two way trade (open both ways). Hardly rocket science – so I am surprised that V. Cable does not understand that the objective was always to “make a deal” – get access for American exports.
Idiots like Cable have no comprehension of sustainability, resilience and sufficiency whether on economic, political, cultural or ecological levels.
Similarly, very little is understood in terms of the economy being an energy system and how the rising energy cost of accessing and distributing energy is increasing. This is reducing the supply of surplus energy to create meaningful prosperity which is why living standards have laboured since before the Financial Crash.
Consequently, QE and other forms of monetary stimulus are effectively subsidising the increasing energy cost of accessing and distributing energy in order to avoid a prosperity crash.
Essentially, Western economies have reached secular stagnation and monetary stimulus is life supporting a system that has reached peak prosperity in relation to fossil fuels.
https://surplusenergyeconom…
This puts greater emphasis on ecological, cultural and political wellbeing.
Idiots like Cable think they know best but it is always the working class who are experiencing reality on the ground.
Vince cable is a numpty, as is James Kirkup.
..
If we want an economy like Germany or Switzerland then perhaps 70% of the population is going to have to change it’s attitude to trade and technology. One take a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. What proportion of the British population have the same attitude and academic attainment as the Swiss entering their various technical institutes?
An interesting review of both the book and its author.
Politicians (and others) who live by the “economy is all” theory are taking a rather psychopathic view. I think that this applies to many modern politicians and, indeed, it may be a necessary qualification for long term political success. More and more, their ideology (including this particular ideology) seems to trump every other consideration.
One sees plentiful displays of ostentatious humanity, but I think most of us are capable of seeing the difference between the true and the false in this regard – in fact, I think that most of us see that rather more clearly than our politicians do.
Having just watched the brilliant documentary on the BBC about the Delorean affair, anyone who thinks that economics can ever be divorced from politics shouldn’t be seriously involved in either.
I’m not convinced that China is proving much of anything wrong. They have about 4 times the population of the US, yet are still behind it in GDP. It’s always easier to play catch up when you’re well behind than it is to continue making fast progress when you near the target. Assuming there’s no revolt against the regime for losing the Mandate of Heaven, we’ll have to see what they can do in the next few years. I’m not as concerned as the author or some of the commenters here. Of course, I may be wrong.
The role of quantitative easing is to finance budget deficits when the tax base is too low. It funds welfare and while the bond market is dysfunctional it is a free ride off the surplus countries. The last thing that is needed is populists or ignorant members of the public interfering with it with their views reflecting their vested interests. Its adverse distributional consequences are best deal with by using fiscal policy to tax the windfall gains it produces.
It is fascinating to me as growth has slowed over the last 45 years (blame EU loony Tories Brown all deserve credit) in the UK and indeed seems to have got slower by the decade if I could put a chart here I’d demonstrate…. Yet we saw Labour win 2 re-ections and accepted from a coalition Conservatives win 3 re-elections twice.
a 10 years line is better i.e mapping last 10 years but this does it note fewer but deeper recessions and no actual booms lately
I was minded by the Labour leaders debate where I saved time and did not watch and read someone comment on the Trans discussion and I said did anyone ask their economic ideology or discuss economics? Nope. Not a factor.
As Austerity (OK pedants it’s not what you define as austerity but to question terms is a fallacy argument as you know what I mean) showed in 2010-Pandemic really people do not blame slow growth more unevenly spread necessarily even if decent economics would make things better. 1% or 2% growth can be seen on a graph and maybe if you live in side by side countries that differed but clearly does not hit people in the eyes. TBF some of it is timing Clinton was a disaster and led to 2008 but he was long gone and his pointless budget surpluses (seriously they served no purpose in the 90s USA) etc were not obvious to all but economics professors.