Faith - the New Labour way

I was asked on to the Today programme this morning to discuss my former boss’ speech on faith. It’s a well-argued and passionate speech, worth reading whether you are religious and not. I try to think of something original to say on these occasions, but this morning sitting in the Millbank studio I couldn’t get far beyond summarising the speech’s main points.

It was then I was struck by something very familiar about Blair’s analysis. The speech is a New Labour approach to faith. When he became leader of the Labour Party, Blair had two messages for his Party: ‘reform or die’ and, ‘if we do reform we can prove to a sceptical public that our values are more relevant than ever before’.

This is exactly what he argued last night in Westminster Cathedral, but this time it was a speech on behalf of the faith party. Blair’s case was that if moderate people of faith can win out over the extremists and the sectarians they can show faith to have a new relevance in meeting the challenges of globalisation.

I don’t personally share Blair’s belief that religious faith is the most powerful inspiration for altruism. However, as Roberto Unger said in his recent lecture here, globalisation will always feel threatening unless we explicitly allow it to take different forms in different places. Sensitivity to the tensions between globalisation and faith based values is crucial if globalisation is not to be experienced by people as a wrecking ball. Indeed, much of the background to recent uprising in Tibet is about indigenous people objecting to the pervasiveness in their country of the Chinese form of global consumer capitalism. 

I find myself more convinced by some aspects of Blair’s inter-faith strategy. In particularly his attempt to get different faiths to put aside their differences to tackle the millennium development goals seems to me more credible than his hope that faith difference can be overcome by focussing on the common features of faiths themselves. To use a trivial example, as a West Brom fan (wish me luck at Wembley tomorrow!) if I wanted to work with a Wolves fan I probably wouldn’t suggest we start off talking about our views on football!

The RSA is an enlightenment organisation. We won’t find common ground with forms of religion which are reactionary, sectarian or anti-scientific. But many of our Fellows are people of faith (as indeed were many of the fathers of the enlightenment) and it is faith that is often the driver of the kind of ‘pro-social’ altruism we argue is a necessity in the modern world. My reservations aside, Blair’s speech is an important contribution to the debate and I hope Fellows agree that it would be interesting to ask him to write a piece along these lines for our new, improved Journal.    

• Steve Nimmons - 05 Jun 2008 1:48pm

  I attended the “Question Time on Sustainable Design and Development” on Wednesday evening and found the discussions very interesting. Griff Rhys Jones made an excellent chairman, combining effervescence, levity and intellectualism with enviable ease. There seemed to be ‘scant’ agreement about the impact of personal ‘pro-social’ activity in relation to carbon off-setting and although we might all have a little chuckle at personal wind turbines or solar panels as the latest self-righteous housing adornments, it is as little too easy to just reject social responsibility in relation to the environment as something of a fashion statement of the liberal middle class. I was subsequently very encouraged to hear that Atos Origin (my employer) has announced a project with the RSA “the first ever trial to enable real-time calculations of personal carbon emissions” and how this relates to the RSA’s CarbonDaq trading platform. I wonder if you could provide some additional insight into this and the overarching work of the RSA’s CarbonLimited project?

• Matthew Taylor - 05 Jun 2008 1:38pm

  Thanks Fenton, really interesting. I won't respond in detail to the content as I find myself broadly in agreeemnt. But please accept that I am not a reductionist. I am not advocating anything merely suggesting that we are moving into a time when how we think is given as much weight as what we think. This future contains possibilities but also perils. Neurological reductionism is one of the perils

Please sign in below if you already have an account (your username will be your email address).

Don't have an account?

If you are a Fellow, please sign up for an account now to gain access to Fellows-only areas of our website.

Problems logging in? Forgot your password?

If you cannot login, or have forgotten your password, please go to our Password Reset page to change your password.

If this doesn't work, or you have any other queries regarding your account, just give us a call on +44 (0)20 7451 6927. Alternatively you can also email the Fellowship team.