Will Kindness Come Back Into Fashion?

Some people believe that there's an evil elite intent on wresting complete control over humanity, and the world’s assets. That may be true; there's always been avarice and megalomania.

Yet there's also kindness. I've known people on a personal level with oodles of kindness and others with much the opposite trait. Most of us, however, are in the grey area, in between - showing different traits under different circumstances, at different times. I expect I’m somewhere in the grey area - sometimes, depending on the circumstances.

On the other hand, my wife tends more towards the kindness extreme. She spends her entire life running around, doing for, and giving to others - and she never seems to expect anything in return. Were it seen these days as one of the greater virtues, she'd get a medal (although a banker's bonus would be more welcome). I can think of few who could compete with her. (I'm not crawling. She doesn't use computers.)

For some decades now, it seems kindness has been unfashionable. There are those who advocate a ‘cruel to be kind’ approach and say that competitiveness stimulates growth and benefits everyone. We've heard expressions like, 'dependency culture' and 'nanny state' bandied about by those who point out that the burden of those in society deemed non-productive is unsustainable. That's understandable and in some ways true, but a harder kind of society has proven unsustainable too, as the 'trickle-down' myth has evaporated into economic meltdown.

However, I expect we’ll see a decline for a while, in the sort of ideology that has dominated society in recent decades, and some progress in the perspective that material wealth is not the entire measure of our worth. Maybe we’re due for a cultural shift, from one of taking, to one of sharing, from divisiveness to inclusiveness - from one of preying upon one another, to one of working for one another.

Those who cheat the benefit system are takers, for they deprive those who contribute and deny those in genuine need. Those who avoid or evade tax, whether as individuals or at corporate level, are takers - and it's no excuse to say that their first duty is to family, or to shareholders, for tax is a distribution needed to maintain the fabric of society. Those who pilfer and skive, who don’t pull their weight; those who asset strip, laying off workers, causing unnecessary idleness, those who drive down the quality of working life, are takers from those who helped to build up the assets. Those who employ clever solicitors to circumvent regulations, are takers from those whom the regulations were set in place to protect, depriving them, and leaving others to take up the slack. So too, are those who corrupt the lawmaking process by bribing their political placemen and undermining democracy.

When we take benefits for granted, when it snowballs out of control, when enough is never enough, we put everyone at risk. When we see concession as entitlement, when we confuse need with greed, or use threats, blackmail, pretext and deceit - when we bribe or accept bribes to maintain or further our social standing, we disintegrate the fabric of the society that nurtured us.

However, recently I've noticed some change in the political rhetoric. I expect politicians have to 'go with the flow’, for they largely reflect the values of the type of society they represent. Despite their talents or intentions, they must be flexible to get anywhere near to power. It’s a classic catch 22 - and when 'we, the people’ tend more towards kindness then I believe that the politicians will follow - initially at least, with their rhetoric.

There are greedy people who may well covet the world's wealth, and seek totalitarian control. They have no qualms about violence, bribery and corruption. That's not new and it's not the reserve of any particular class, creed - or ism. We all have varying degrees of that in our genes, but the majority of us are more balanced, and together we can redress the balance.

In the run up to the 2010, UK election, David Cameron, the Tory party leader, talked of a 'big society'. Was he suggesting that we be kinder to one another? It’s so vague; few people understood what it meant. It's not surprising, for his was the party, under Lady Thatcher, that stimulated the individualistic ideology that has dominated our culture in recent decades. There are generations who've known little else. ‘Big society’, like much political rhetoric, could mean almost anything we want it to mean.

Recently, Nick Clegg, Cameron’s Deputy Prime Minister, once again talked on TV, of fairness in society. Yet, how do we define fair society?

A TV interview I heard last year provoked a tirade of self-justification from a hedge fund manager, at the suggestion that there should be "a just, less aggressive kind of capitalism". “We can't define 'just’”! He responded indignantly. “What does 'just' mean?”

He made a good point. ‘The devil is in the detail’, for we can’t please everyone all the time. Legislation is a blunt instrument, and it can only be effective where there’s popular support. Political and corporate elites have a part to play - and as always, they’ll play it to their utmost advantage.

However, "value judgements" (as he put it), are as currency to 'social capital'. “Just”, “responsible”, cruel or kind - these things have a considerable impact on our quality of life, perhaps more so than legislation, but whether we see elites as oppressors, or merely opportunists, who take advantage of the complacency, naivety and disunity of the majority, in a democracy, are 'we, the people', not ultimately responsible for the values we engender?

I've no doubt there are those who cheat the benefit system and spoil it for genuinely needy people, leaving their neighbours to struggle under deteriorating conditions. There are those who’d police us too, with drones in the sky, robots in our computers and with economic chicanery, with squid-like tentacles perhaps, who’d drop bombs where food parcels would serve better. There’s always been that element, attracted to wealth and power. Yet history proves too that if we remove them, in due course, others with the same proclivity (not necessarily of the same ism) will invariably take their place.

There has always been megalomania - and elites can do much to influence belief, culture and trend. After all, they write the history and disseminate much of the conventional wisdom.

I know people, albeit too few, who'd give their last morsel to a needy stranger. I know some who'd steal the sugar from your tea, even though they already owned all the tea in China. I know there's a bit of all that, to varying degrees, in all of us. Yet, I believe there is always the potential to stimulate the good and discourage the bad - so to strengthen our social fabric for the benefit of everyone.

I believe that kindness is the wellspring of such progress. I believe that where there's kindness, no life goes to waste, for kindness gives us all a gratifying part to play, that no one should be redundant, that no one should feel undervalued or sidelined. Giving doesn’t necessarily involve money either. A smile costs nothing - even though it meets a scowl. We all have colleagues and neighbours who need our help; we don't have to seek them out. We just need to stop turning our backs on them. We need to listen to one another, to share each other’s burdens, give our time and help where we can. That’s what strengthens community, because the bonds of trust, empathy and courtesy are stronger than the bondage of economic and military might. If that weren’t so, guerrilla campaigns wouldn’t be so successful - and peaceful demonstrations would be a complete waste of time. The harsher the conditions, the more we need one another’s help and the more opportunity we have to prove our worth as individuals and as a society. That's as good a mission as we could ever have in life.

I don't know who said, 'the longest journey begins with a single step', but it seems appropriate to me to think of 'big society' in terms of the culmination of many individual acts of courtesy and kindness - each a step towards a better sort of society.

"You must be the change you want to see in the world", said Gandhi. That makes sense to me, for what better way is there to influence the behaviour of others, than by our own example?