78% of people polled by the Commission on the Big Society said that government had failed to properly explain the concept. So what? It does not matter whether there is a wide understanding of what ‘Big Society’ means. Those who are interested can either click onto the Cabinet Office website or thumb through the latest edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English. Everyone else, feel free to expunge the term from your mind. It will be of no significance to you if you never hear the words ‘Big’ and ‘Society’ placed next to each other for as long as you live.
It’s time for everyone to move on from definitions. Much of Government already has – how often have ministers recently used the actual term? Stage one – the PR strategy -has reached its end. The smiley faced logo was needed to symbolise a change in direction for government: that the Conservative’s wanted to encourage a new relationship between state and people. It did its job. The public is aware Cameron wants to be different from the previous Labour regime, plus a debate has been sparked. Whether you love or hate the concept, no-one can deny that social enterprise is being talked about.
Inevitably, the term has become so loaded it now serves little political purpose. When people talk about ‘Big Society’ you can tell from the tone in their voice whether they have decided to be supportive, sceptical or down right hostile. Because of this the term ‘Big Society’ can no-longer be a catalyst, instead it is much more likely to be a dampener as good intentions acquire needless political baggage.
Stage two is about the doing, ability to do and ultimately the outcomes. At a Whitehall level it’s about the provisions contained in the Localism Bill, Free School policies and the upcoming Open Public Services White Paper. At a town hall level it is about understanding how to utilise new freedoms at a time when resources are scarce. No individual will ever wake-up in the morning and say “I want to be ‘Big Society’ today.” What they may think as they open their curtains is “There is nowhere for our children to play. What can we do to change this?” Such desires are not about nebulous concepts, policy papers or strategic planning. They are about those who want to be a part of tackling a problem being able to do so, rather than waiting for the cogs in the system to turn. The sum of Big Society’s parts will always be bigger, and more important, than the concept as whole.
When the Prime Minister, the Big Society Network, or whoever next announces a new ‘Big Society’ initiative it will be the details around what is happening that counts, not the state of a brand.
Update: David Brooks has been over in the UK this week promoting his new book. His take on Big Society is – unsurprisingly – spot on.
“The Big Society started in part as a political gadget, as a way to distinguish the current Conservatives from the more individualistic ethos of the Thatcher years. It has turned out to be something of a damp squid politically. Most voters have no idea what the phrase “Big Society” means. But, substantively, the legislative package has been a success. The British government is undergoing a fundamental transformation.”
Related posts:
New blogpost: The ‘Big Society’ is dead, long live big society http://bit.ly/jmmv1S #fb
The ‘Big Society’ is dead, long live #bigsociety http://bit.ly/mmRKDj The language is no longer important; it’s about the doing
The ‘Big Society’ is dead, long live big society fm @betapolitics Tory @PlatformTen blog http://bit.ly/j4DOFK #bigsociety Significant
Very interesting points and I am glad that someone has flagged up ACEVO’s fascinating report.
But while I agree that putting the policies in action is essential, I think it would be wrong to give up the definition of the project.
The Big Society is something emotional, it is trying to appeal to people to change their attitudes towards each other – that requires a message, it requires a narrative and that requires definition. As the ACEVO report stated:
“Rather than generating interest, the lack of clarity and consistency around the big society is in danger of generating inaction or cynicism…[it] empowers critics, takes the wind out of the sails of enthusiasts , encoruages people who don’t understand the vision to believe that if they carry on as usual in the end all the talk about the ‘big society’ will go away, and pushes potential allies into thinking that the agenda is simply an ideological attack on the size and role of the state.”
The Big Society is in danger because the lack of definition is giving critics the chance to define it as a cover for cuts – and you always fail if you allow your opponents to define you.
Moreover, the policies of Localism, Open Public Services etc. require people to believe in a vision for Britain. No one is going to give up more time to their communities, to get involved in local democracy, to innovate public services, to volunteer, to sacrifice some of their income for good causes unless they feel they are part of something – essentially a wider social movement.
It is because we have been confused, because we have never really consistently repeated the mantra of the Big Society since coming into Government (there have been one or two speeches every now and again, but as soon as the papers attack it for being vague, our politicians run away) – there has been no momentum, no clear impression given to the public of what the end game is (partly because I think politicians are unwilling to follow it through to its logical conclusions) and as such it is in danger of floundering.
Of course the policies are important, but people will only act on these new opportunities if they feel that they are a part of something – the Big Society is essential to that.
@PlatformTen @betapolitics Interesting article on Big Society http://bit.ly/j4DOFK
The ‘Big Society’ is dead, long live big society http://t.co/AUHykAm
Hi Ed,
As always, thanks for your contribution.
The first stage was very important in kicking off the debate and getting everyone – especially policy makers – to realise that change is happening.
Big Society is no longer about the single message. All the action that is happening cannot be defined under one umbrella phrase, and most people would not wish it to be. There are infinite ways of acting and infinite motivations for these actions. It is now time to let go of trying to push the high concept. Everyone needs to concentrate on delivery and talk about what is actually happening.
I’m not talking about dumping the idea, I’m talking about where I think it is evolving to. In five years time when we step back, maybe then we can say: “This is a Big Society”.
Nick
@BigSocietyLive This blog may interest your followers: The ‘Big Society’ is dead, long live big society http://t.co/0WpjWgo
The Big Society interpreted as rebalancing the relationship between citizen and the state, particularly in the delivery of public services is very much alive. As a newly elected District Councillor I’m deeply involved at examining and implementing new delivery models very much using the concepts of the Big Society with the third sector etc as I’m sure anyone else in local government is; the whole theme behind the Localism Bill absolutely reflects that. Just because the commentariat have moved on don’t be mislead. The delivery agenda is only just beginning.
Yes, the term ” Big Society” has been floated but the mere fact that people feel it hasn’t been well explained doesn’t mean it’s dead in the water. But it will become believable when it can be seen to work and when it has a place in people’s daily lives. There’s a bit of a vicious circle here since the one cannot occur without the other. The first commentator has a point in so far as people’s mindset needs to be changed after a time when the increasingly competitive nature of society has meant that people have had less time and energy for community concerns. The idea has deep roots in the nineteenth century but then it was fuelled by a middle class with more time and money at its disposal than today. But it is a truly interesting idea as it goes beyond the Left-Right dichotomy of the state v. the individual. As my hero Bernananos says, people don’t think just for the sake of thinking, people think only because they have to in order to solve the practical problems of their lives.
Hello Bruce.
I 100% agree with you. The agenda is now all about the doing, what you and otheres like you are doing. It is not about selling the overarching concept anymore. In a few years, once everything has settled down, then we can asses how society has evolved and talk about it in general terms.
Richard – As you say people need to experience what is happening. They will do this in many different forms that are specific to them. At first it won’t seem like a Big Society action because it is an individual/small community action.
Today isn’t about re-re-launching #BigSociety – the brand. It’s about the details of what is happening http://bit.ly/mmRKDj #platform10
This blog from Pete Hoskin on Coffee House is worth a read.
“When it comes to voting, people tend to put the tangible ahead of theories of the state and civil society — however good those theories are.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6967568/going-big-on-the-big-society.thtml
@pete_hoskin Hi Peter, Good blog. I wrote something for @platformten on Friday that strongly supports your conclusion http://bit.ly/mmRKDj
Pingback: Platform 10 » Blog Archive » Why we should – must – keep talking about the Big Society
Pingback: Platform 10 » Blog Archive » What does a “Big Society” success look like?