A one day conference in London to which a large number of people were drawn from all over the UK for the launch of the new look CHRE. A new law (yes - another one) has been recently passed to reduce the Board of the CHRE down to six members plus a chair (removing the reps from the regulated bodies), all of whom are now new to the job. The strapline for this streamlined outfit is "Building Partnerships: from self regulation to shared regulation", which in itself is extremely ambiguous, if not downright misleading.
This is an emerging feature: something is being murdered - all reference to the previous incumbents of the Board is gone. The CHRE was invented by the HPO2001 to cure what was supposed as the problem of Self Regulation. What has happened to those intervening years?
In the morning's workshops there was a little bit of time to ask a question:
Question: what evidence is there that this kind of regulation increases levels of trust between professionals and their patients?
Dame Professor Professor Dr Dr Dr: What do you mean this kind of regulation?
The Dame in question is a perfectly lovely woman with 3 honorary doctorates, 2 honorary professorships, and fellowships etc at four prestigious national bodies. What, then, reduces such an accomplished lady to such a degree of blankness?
what evidence is there that the regulation practised by CHRE and its ilk reduces real risk and increases true trust? What ground is there for supposing that the new modus operandi is actually achieving its much trumpeted aim?
Onora O'Neill's 2002 Reith Lectures happened to be close to hand, so I quoted a little to situate my concerns: some arguments against performance auditing are that it creates a huge administrative burden that damages delivery of service; that professional work cannot be measured in the same way as the financial health of a company; and, worst of all, these kinds of measures are misleading and can create perverse incentives.
Dame: The world has moved on since that was written.
Well, yes, it is 2009, but Onora O'Neill's points might as easily be seen to have grown in significance and pertinence, rather than to have conveniently faded away. Here's another quote "Our revolution in accountability has not reduced attitudes of mistrust, but rather reinforced a culture of suspicion. Instead of working towards intelligent accountability based on good governance, independent inspection and careful reporting, we are galloping towards central planning by performance indicators, reinforced by obsessions with blame and compensation. This is pretty miserable both for those who feel suspicious and for those who are suspected of untrustworthy action - sometimes with little evidence." (click here for link to OU + BBC page)
Dame: I don't think I agree with the basis of your question.
OK - it is true that anyone asking for 'evidence' these days is usually on the attack (as Onora O'Neill predicted). Lets try a different angle: "O'Neill is especially known for her universalist and cosmopolitan standpoint. She believes that institution building can specify and allocate obligations to the needy. They are to specify who is obliged to fulfill economic rights. O'Neill firmly holds that the institutions have to be made accountable. This can be done through new technologies that are ideal for achieving transparency and openness. Justice, according to her, means finding the means for the vulnerable to express legitimate consent.finding the means for the vulnerable to express legitimate consent." [quoted from 4to40 website, click for link]
A major stumbling block that separated us in that room was the idea that there was any other kind of Regulation. 'What kind of regulation', seemed to produce a hole in the fabric that threatened to pull everybody in. Is there another way to speak, a way that doesn't produce such a terrifying void? I am fond of thinking etymologically:
Regulation: "Regular 'according to a rule' is the most instantly recognizable English descendant of Latin regula 'rule' ... It goes back ultimately to the same Indo-European base as produced Latin regere 'rule' (source of rector, regent, etc) and rex 'king' (source of English regal, royal, etc). From it was derived the late Latin verb regulare, which has given English regulate [17] and may also lie behind rile 'annoy' [19], ..." quoted from John Ayto's remarkable Dictionary of Word Origins (Bloomsbury, 1990, p437)
Governing is not reducible to a universal set of principles. We knew that. So where has this wisdom gone? I think it is being murdered, murdered by the way we speak.
Showing posts with label evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evidence. Show all posts
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Master Signifers, Aggression, and Truth.
Developments in linguistics and in anthropology brought this idea into use in the early parts of the last century. I shall not lecture you on it but invite you to cut to the chase.
There are words or phrases frequently uttered that have great power but very little meaning - they appear unattached to other elements either in a sentence or in the world. They point to nothing. The vagueness of this can raise anxiety, especially when uttered by people occupying positions of institutional and legal power. Lets call them 'master signifiers' - they have power 'because I or We say so'.
I should add that they are not always necessarily bad. They are a part of language and life and can be extremely useful and put to the good with care. They are a necessary feature of language, in fact, because when we speak we are usually trying to speak about something beyond speech, something that our speech aims to invoke. I think this might be particularly difficult for native English speakers to grasp, because we are so seldom required to face the foreigness of our mother tongue. If we forget this nature of language, however, we can easily forget how important it is to attend to the invention and deployment of master signifiers. Lets keep this practical.
Three of the major master signifiers that organise the discourse around the hpc are: Evidence, Public Protection, and Regulation. I have been trying to turn Public Protection into a meaningful phrase by attaching it to specific examples and paying particular attention to its use (which section of the public is being protected, from what particular harm, and on which specific occasion?). In this way the signifier is introduced to other signifiers with which it is revealed to have an otherwise hidden relation. The concealed relations leave them unquestionable, and we have seen in the case studies particularly, that this can be seriously unhelpful.
When the relations are left in the dark, the phrase can get wielded rather aggressively - intentionally or not - by someone who happens to be occupying a position of power. If used by someone not in any kind of position of power you can safely ignore them as a babbling fool. Unfortunately, these phrases are very often heard coming out of the mouths of people in positions of power - journalists, politicians, members of panels, committee members, for example. To call these people babbling fools might be true in that particular moment, and there have been times in this country when it has been perfectly acceptable to say so, even if you are no-one in particular yourself. But - and its a big but, and one that needs to be acknowledged and understood - at the moment because these people are supported by society and given positions of power, calling them such without great tact seems likely to provoke much more than their own personal wrath. It is as if the whole edifice will crumble away with them, as if they personally are the power. To speak out seems to risk bringing the power of the institution right down on your head.
So, master signifiers are instruments of power: they are cut off from meaning and draw attention to the power of the person that speaks; and they are used to cut off meaning in other conversations, to disempower other speakers - this is a double whammy.
There are words or phrases frequently uttered that have great power but very little meaning - they appear unattached to other elements either in a sentence or in the world. They point to nothing. The vagueness of this can raise anxiety, especially when uttered by people occupying positions of institutional and legal power. Lets call them 'master signifiers' - they have power 'because I or We say so'.
I should add that they are not always necessarily bad. They are a part of language and life and can be extremely useful and put to the good with care. They are a necessary feature of language, in fact, because when we speak we are usually trying to speak about something beyond speech, something that our speech aims to invoke. I think this might be particularly difficult for native English speakers to grasp, because we are so seldom required to face the foreigness of our mother tongue. If we forget this nature of language, however, we can easily forget how important it is to attend to the invention and deployment of master signifiers. Lets keep this practical.
Three of the major master signifiers that organise the discourse around the hpc are: Evidence, Public Protection, and Regulation. I have been trying to turn Public Protection into a meaningful phrase by attaching it to specific examples and paying particular attention to its use (which section of the public is being protected, from what particular harm, and on which specific occasion?). In this way the signifier is introduced to other signifiers with which it is revealed to have an otherwise hidden relation. The concealed relations leave them unquestionable, and we have seen in the case studies particularly, that this can be seriously unhelpful.
When the relations are left in the dark, the phrase can get wielded rather aggressively - intentionally or not - by someone who happens to be occupying a position of power. If used by someone not in any kind of position of power you can safely ignore them as a babbling fool. Unfortunately, these phrases are very often heard coming out of the mouths of people in positions of power - journalists, politicians, members of panels, committee members, for example. To call these people babbling fools might be true in that particular moment, and there have been times in this country when it has been perfectly acceptable to say so, even if you are no-one in particular yourself. But - and its a big but, and one that needs to be acknowledged and understood - at the moment because these people are supported by society and given positions of power, calling them such without great tact seems likely to provoke much more than their own personal wrath. It is as if the whole edifice will crumble away with them, as if they personally are the power. To speak out seems to risk bringing the power of the institution right down on your head.
So, master signifiers are instruments of power: they are cut off from meaning and draw attention to the power of the person that speaks; and they are used to cut off meaning in other conversations, to disempower other speakers - this is a double whammy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
