Margaret Thatcher, individualism and ignorance
Coming from somewhat 'humble beginnings', Margaret Thatcher seemed to manifest the individual's struggle: she reached her goal of becoming Prime Minister, through her own means, in an extremely male-dominated political world. Margaret Thatcher in fact dominated the patriarchy of politics for 11 years, as a woman. In this way, Thatcher herself became proof and evidence of her fundamental belief that one can truly make it, in the world, as an individual.
A brief history
When we think of individualism, we might think of it in comparison with collectivism. While collectivists would focus on more communal or societal interests; individualists promote and value independence and self-reliance, reinforcing notions of Libertarianism: a collection of philosophical and political philosophies, which seeks to maximise political freedom and autonomy. Thatcher was arguably more progressive than other Conservative leaders in terms of her break with Conservatism and the political past of the post-war consensus which lay before her. By favouring ideology over pragmatism and competitive individualism over elitist paternalism, Thatcher and her fellow Tories presented themselves as 'an alternative' to the electorate of the 1980s. However, it is questionable whether the 'social mobility' characteristic to Thatcher's economic policies was really in the interest of the people or in fact representative of something which might be more understood as 'selfish individualism'?
Thatcherism and individualism
The individualistic optimism of Thatcherism was idealistic and not realistic. Thatcher expressed her distaste for class politics and wanted to end the 'class war', but resulted in creating a classless society with her individualistic approach. It seems that this only created more social fragmentation among society, with the workers of British society taking the hits from Thatcher's policies towards Trade Unions, which essentially eroded their power. As a result, 20% of manufacturing jobs were lost and in 1989, there were more shareholders than Trade Unionists – highlighting the impacts of privatisation efforts made by the Tories during this time.
Society and the individual
Although public expenditure actually increased from £196.4 billion in 1979-1980 to £216.2 billion in 1990-1991, it was made clear that Thatcherism conflicted with the redistributive nature of and 'lefty', socialist connotations to the welfare state and instead, encouraged a centralised state emphasising security, defence and social conservatism. Thatcher famously denounced her views of society in an interview for Women's Own in 1987, saying that to her, “there is no such thing as society, there is only a collection of individuals”. Thatcher was arguing that individuals should take responsibility for themselves. However, it is incredibly difficult for individuals to take responsibility for mishaps in their lives which are in effect the consequences of or being worsened by government actions. To me, Thatcher's statement seems to be incredibly flawed: I view society and individuals as interdependent upon one another rather than two entities which would benefit from being separated from each other.
Lessening the influence of the welfare state within society is an attack, in the form of indirect discrimination, on the lower and working classes of society. The services of the welfare state might be the only means of assistance to some people. By promoting ideals of individualism and essentially, what I deem to be 'selfish' self-interest, one is ignorant of the fact that no one social group is as able as another. I see it as a further attack on a sense of community, which is vital to the success and productivity of human nature.
Can we draw any parallels from this to the recent governments we have seen?
'Skivers versus Strivers' was a phrase put together to describe the 'dependency' of certain groups of people, usually the poorer groups in society, on the welfare state. “We are the party of strivers” announced David Cameron in 2012 as he ridiculed the Labour Party's previous governance and in effect, patronised the supporters of that party too. There was an air of social hierarchy in politics and people were labelled and generalised as 'scroungers' for requiring benefits and assistance from services that their own government provides for them. I found that terms like this became aggressive stereotypes of working-class people, which, according to Ross McKibbin, eventually become “ideological truths” that in turn shapes “the mental world of Conservative politics”. The idea that Thatcher's encouragement of ownership through her privatisation policies appealed or catered to each and every individual was a complete farce. It benefitted the rich and excluded the poor. The gap between rich and poor was widened tremendously. Thatcher's aim of creating a society of “vigorous individuals” by cutting benefits was very juxtaposed.
It is evident that I am biased towards this topic and perhaps ought to be more forgiving to Thatcher's individualistic ideology. Individuals are, ultimately, responsible for their own actions and that is that. But it is the blurred line between self-interest and selfishness which I find jarring. Perhaps it all goes back to the 'survival of the fittest' analogy. After all, is it not in our innate human desire to preserve our own interests in surviving?