Losing ground

I have certain sympathies with the reviewers who suspect that "Theodore Dalrymple" might be a hoax. He is supposed to be a doctor working in poor neighborhoods in Africa, Latin America, the South Pacific and Britain, as well as a practicing psychiatrist, but also the author of dozens of books, including several novels. Most of the books, strangely enough, are well-written tomes about political and cultural topics. "Dalrymple" also writes regular columns in a wide assortment of conservative magazines. The name is a pseudonym, but a certain Anthony Daniels is said to be the man behind the mask. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Daniels is just the front man for an entire committee of people, using the "Dalrymple" moniker!

"Life at the Bottom" is a very extreme book about the British underclass, purportedly based on the author's own observations when working in a hospital in Birmingham. Most of it deals with the White underclass, but it also covers the East Indian ditto. The people described are a motley collection of unregenerate violent criminals and their (equally poor) victims, all of whom espouse self-destructive behavior to the maximum degree. You probably need a strong stomach to sift through this material.

However, "Life at the Bottom" also raises some interesting political points.

Unsurprisingly, Dalrymple rejects the leftist or "liberal" notion that low material standards in themselves breed violent crime. This seems to be largely correct. Hazing in elite schools, wife beating in the upper and middle classes, or star students turned terrorists are good examples of violence not bred by poverty. Besides, non-violent "white collar" crimes can be just as damaging as violent ones. What makes "Life at the Bottom" interesting, is that the author also rejects several conservative explanations for the existence of an underclass. Thus, Dalrymple doesn't believe that the mere existence of a welfare state breeds an underclass. In Britain, the welfare states was created shortly after World War II, yet the complete break-down of all meaningful social bonds in the underclass didn't happen until the 1970's and 1980's. (The author doesn't seem to like the welfare state, but he admits it can't be the sole or main explanation for the permanent existence of an underclass in post-war Britain.) Genetic factors á la "The Bell Curve" can't explain the underclass either, since the British underclass is mostly White. Dalrymple points out that some East Indian immigrant communities, despite starting out in slums, nevertheless manage to work themselves up into the middle class, for instance by starting their own businesses.

Dalrymple favors a different kind of conservative explanation, one centered on culture and ideas (this seems to be a recurring theme in all his writings). On one level, the poor themselves are to blame for their poverty and crime. The author is very extreme (some would say callous) in his condemnations, claiming that many poor people are voluntarily homeless, that victims of domestic violence are to blame for their fate, or that drug addicts often fake over-doses. On another level, however, the liberal intellectuals who dominate public discourse in Western society are to blame. When their hedonistic and relativistic ideas about everything from sexuality to crime percolate down to the underclass, self-destructive behavior follows. The criminal underclass simply mimics the decadent "morality" of the privileged. As a case study, Dalrymple points to the East Indian poor, where those who adopt "liberal" values stay at the bottom together with the White underclass, while those who keep to their authoritarian Hindu-derived values (which the author doesn't really like) manage to rise themselves up from poverty.

I can't say I found this explanation very convincing either, at least not as a full explanation. Many societies throughout history had a criminal underclass, including those who placed a premium on being morally upright, sober, industrious, family-oriented, etc. Even in antebellum America, that conservative paradise, some layers of the free White population were hedonistic, present-oriented and irresponsible. One of Dalrymple's critics have pointed out that the murder rate in Britain was higher during the Middle Ages! Yet, there was no liberal intelligentsia in Britain under, say, King Richard the Lionhearted... Note also that Dalrymple's explanation mirrors his social position as one of the highly cultured literati. Intellectuals often overestimate the power of pure ideas (such as their own - or those of their opponents among the literary elite).

What Dalrymple as a conservative (or perhaps libertarian with culturally conservative leanings?) doesn't want to face is that most class societies throughout history deprived a greater or lesser portion of their populations of wealth, status, power and/or meaning (that, after all, is what "class society" means). That the permanently underprivileged turn to crime and self-destructive behavior (rather than to Dalrymple's love for French literature) is hardly surprising. The privileged *want* it that way. The last thing they want is for the underprivileged to stop being self-destructive and go on a constructive rampage á la Nat Turner! In the end, books like "Life at the Bottom" will simply be used as another argument to deny the poor access to the welfare systems, including the single-payer slum hospital where Dalrymple himself supposedly worked when making his observations.

That being said, the solution to our present predicament obviously isn't easy. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that modern society hangs in the balance, due to peak oil, climate change, overpopulation and other more or less intractable problems. Add Vladimir Putin and ISIS to the mix, and...well, you get my point. What's needed is presumably a network of organizations and communities which combine elements of "old fashioned morality" with social justice. It will be an uphill battle, but it's a necessary one. On one point, I agree with The Shadow Organization Known As Theodore Dalrymple. Hedonistic "liberalism" has to go. Fighting racism, patriarchy or exploitation is alright by me, but not in the name of an ultimately self-destructive relativism and nihilism (which arguably exists in both "liberal" and "libertarian" forms - in Sweden, libertarians are hardly culturally conservative).

Pure ideas from the literati might not be the "cause" of the crisis, but they can't give us any guidance during the rocky road ahead...