Big Society: R.I.P.?

In my opinion Big Society is one of the most inspiring governmental initiatives … where has it gone?

I have been a fan from the beginning – at its core I saw the potential for this powerful idea to disrupt and transform some of the  imbalances in society that have accidentally become self-generating, arising as they have from genuinely well-meaning, but frequently out-of-date approaches to solving complex, interrelated problems.

I have seen Big Society as an energising concept that could help regular citizens see the potential of deploying their own ideas, energies and talents to making and shaping where they live, moving away from viewing their immediate physical and social environments as deliverables, external to their own agency and resourcefulness.

But sadly, there is very little of the original enthusiasm coming from No10 currently. And this seems counter to my experiences of working and talking with local government, with local councillors and with people working in central government departments.  Even in recent weeks I have had several contacts with central government departments and I have seen only a strong commitment to trying to understand and deliver the goals of the Big Society agenda. The civil service has been ‘on message’ but have also demonstrated a deep and genuine dedication to these ideas.

Outside of government even people who are aligned to another party, are fighting fiercely against inequalities or cuts, or are critical of economic policy, would support the underlying principle of helping more people take more control of their lives and communities, and prosper as a result.

The first year after the launch of Big Society generated a huge amount of criticism and debate, but by comparison over the last 12 months the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, has gone quiet about Big Society.  This is a great pity and I would like to question, and with others hopefully understand, more of the thinking that has led to this ‘hands off’ approach that has been adopted.

The criticism and debate about Big Society that we had in the first year was pretty disruptive to relationships, but it was urgently needed and incredibly valuable. Professionals working in communities in various roles were forced to examine and compare their practice, including their own roles in relation to the potential of citizens.  We blogged, argued, made peace, wrestled with our own work and generally had a period of healthy self and other criticism which has sadly largely disappeared.

Only to replaced by, and please do argue with me about this description, a general sense of everyone ‘just getting on with it’.  Pretty much as we would have been ‘getting on with it’ had the words Big and Society never been strung together.  It has not caught fire in the general population in any meaningful way that I can see?

So why has David Cameron gone so quiet on Big Society?  Was it a PR smoke screen for cuts as many thought it was?  If so the government has never been more in need of smoke or distraction, with an announcement today of a double dip recession.  If we caste our cynicism aside for a moment, perhaps the PM has been too busy with more important things such as the economy or international affairs to be paying attention to what others would describe as his ‘pet project’. 

Personally I have been convinced that David Cameron is really dedicated to the Big Society idea and it’s potential. So below are some of the potential reasons that could be the source of the ‘hands off’ approach currently being adopted.

1. Too much criticism?

 It’s pretty hard to take and there was a lot of it. Especially after launching BS in such a clumsy way originally, looking strikingly as it did like a governmental attempt to claim credit for much hard work being done for many years in communities and the voluntary sector. They launched an umbrella when what they needed was a platform. Is a ‘hands off’ approach really just a form of ‘keeping your head down’ instead?

2. Bad advice?

 The role of government in supporting the Big Society is still something of a mystery.  It is not as if previous governments haven’t attempted something similar.  It is very difficult to understand in any sophisticated way how much stimulation, scaffolding and support to give communities when they are still learning to do new things in new ways (neighbourliness aside). But it appears that these subtle mechanisms are not being determined through detailed evaluation or systematic action research.  Instead a rather painful myth seems to have emerged, one that conveniently requires neither money nor action.  It’s the ‘get out of the way’ myth.  The assumption being that Big Society, could and would become a ‘movement’, requiring nothing but an initial round of fire setting and a benign and general blessing. You get out of the way of an out of control train - and I don't see one.

3. Too much focus on professionals?

 I imagine it  is easy to hear professionals louder than regular people … but a year ago people I met around the country were talking about Big Society, now they aren’t. (To be honest, no one is talking about Big Society – including professionals) Big Society, if it happens at all, will be done by spreading the ideas widely, systematically and strategically to the millions of people who currently have had little or no exposure to some of the amazing ideas emerging of citizen-led change.

4. “We are quietly working behind the scenes to build BS infrastructure”?

Fair enough.  We have seen the launch of the Big Society Capital this month - £600m of unused cash in bank accounts. Inspired.  But what else … what are we waiting for? Some rather expensive initiatives appear to be failing - perhaps we should collaborate somehow to support them ...?

 5. The ‘inevitable’ assumption?

Although we have noticed a surge in  citizen-led activity world-wide I  think this type of activity is vulnerable, vulnerable to a hard recession, extreme politics, competition, unemployment, loss of optimism, hyperactivism ... things that increase the need for Big Society Thinking… but may destroy the fragile conditions under which communities will come together positively to collaborate and create. 

The optimistic view of the future that Big Society has tried to promote, one where we are more connected to our neighbours, where we are more productive and socially aware, where this emergent and cultivated connection and trust might start to work on serious social problems such as crime, unemployment, truancy, depression, isolation … This view is important and worthy of protection and whether we like the politicians of the moment or not, I think we need all our politicians to strive for this type of collaborative vision of the future and to help its citizens achieve it, not because the politicians insist on it, but because we do.

Rarely has an idea sparked so much discussion and debate... love it or hate it.

 I like Big Society and I would like it back.

 

UPDATE:

 Responding post: Big Society killed by its contradictions by David Floyd

Comments

[Johnpopham]

Spot on, Tessy on so many fronts.

One of the really powerful citizen-led initiatives which has got a lot of attention over the past fortnight has been the B4RN (http://www,b4rn.org.uk) community-driven rural broadband initiative in northern Lancashire. The publicity it has got is welcome, but, look at the tone of some of it. The Mail on Sunday (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133261/The-Dig-Society-action-In-scene-worthy-Ealing-comedy-villagers-waiting-broadband-create-40-MILE-trench-lay-cable.html) likened it to an Ealing comedy, and, in an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live, presenter Peter Allen struggled to contain his giggles in the early stages of the item (http://audioboo.fm/boos/769515-barry-forde-ceo-of-b4rn-community-led-rural-broadband-on-bbc-5-live)

Just what is so funny about communities doing things for themselves?

[David Wilcox]

Thanks Tessy for that bold statement. I agree with the analysis ... but cheer-leading from No 10 produces a lot of political push-back that puts people off adopting and sharing the best of Big Society ideas. Time for the Big Society Lovers Guide .. as a kind of meta Community Lovers Guide? A re-think of the BS wiki ...
Or perhaps we could invite people to join an open non-partisan exploration into how to amplify and share the best of (whatever you call it) ideas and approach. Do we need No 10 "leadership"? Maybe light-touch endorsement would work better. People are prepared to accept BS Awards.
Don't give up.

[Anthony Zacharzewski]

Big Society is dead, long live doing great things, is my view. I'd rather just bury it decently given the derision and political polarisation that use of the term brings these days.

Quoting one of Demsoc's governors:

"Today, Cool Britannia is a term used derisively. It lives in popular memory as a handful of celebrity parties and magazine covers, if it is remembered at all. But the most important fact about Cool Britannia is that it was right. The ideas it sought to capture are now central to the way Britain thinks about itself." (from http://dmsc.me/g8WHHe)

If that's what happens to Big Society, that's fine by me - I suspect at this stage it's inevitable.

[Matt Leach]

The challenge for Big Soc was that it was trying to be too many things simultaneously.

At its heart was I think a genuine attempt to start a dialogue with the public about the realities of living in a world where the role of the state would inevitably diminish - even if austerity hadn't kicked in, long term demographics will force it. That will inevitably force both changes in the social contract between individuals and the state and in the ways we will live and engage with one another. This is a difficult conversation for politicians to have with voters, and its unsurprising that it didn't quite work out. Its a tragedy, as its an important conversation that needs to happen sometime, and probably soon.

Its abandonment was helped by the unfortunate merging of an already difficult concept with a more conventional public sector reform agenda (which was already emerging) based around outsourcing of contracts to external players, in both for profit and not for profit sectors. A test of the Big Soc then became one of the effectiveness of local authority procurement practice at a time of financial cutbacks. Which unsurprisingly didn't really end up helping things.

Finally, localism, which at least has a tangible framework (albeit in early stages of development) kind of overtook it. And seems to provide a bit of space to explore some (but not all) of the stuff that made Big Society so interesting in the first place.

FWIW, I called the death of Big Soc in February last year http://www.respublica.org.uk/item/Big-Society-20 but rather heroically predicted the emergence of Big Soc 2.0, based on a bottom up seizing of initiative from the bottom up. We've clearly not quite managed that yet. And several more iterations of Big Soc have since passed through. If Big Society does manage to reemerge, the biggest challenge may be one of version control. Will we be onto v4 or v5?

[Davidbarrie]

Great post. Massively difficult question.

If you look around, a lot of the values of BS are filtering through and becoming minor, but important, adjustments to the way in which society is regulated. There will be, in time, a clearer and much more viable route to citizen engagement and control of assets and governance in the country. Also, there is a sea-change going on just now in corporate attitudes towards society and their role in it, and I feel sure that this would not have happened without BS and the leadership of central Government.

IMHO there has been a weakness and that’s because BS was top-heavy with social marketing in its earliest days, and fast became a slogan in search of an audience. (Have always wondered whether this is because of corporate interests, with a big stake in deregulation of the state, rather than slaves to the rhythm of grassroots democracy.)

I'm someone who’s started and seen through several large-scale community initiatives under this and the last Government, and it's hard to over-estimate the extent to which communities need an architecture of confidence around them, in which to organise, express themselves and become a genuine stakeholder in societal development. And confidence has not been the name of the game in recent times – obviously.

Good news is that values are changing, supported by the circulation of the BS idea and the meme of enhanced community involvement in society – and this should continue, whatever the political colour attached to it, and whether the PM stands at the front and beats the drum, or not. (which actually, sometimes, isn’t particularly helpful)

What’s important though is that as a country, man and woman, the ideas promoted by BS and their interpretation and application escape the paradigm of 'resilience' and big/small Government and take on a worldview that embraces Asian-style community capitalism. This offers a comparative, competitive form of economic and social progress.

[David Wilcox]

Matt - I agree, and here's my Big Society thread on similar lines. http://socialreporter.com/?cat=5
My sense is that the demise of Big Society as a call to action/gathering place doesn't matter so much for those (particularly London?) in the know ... who can tailor alliances and funding bids to take advantage of the BS policy context and agency attitudes.
But there isn't networking to share stuff, give support, connect and scale the good stuff that's happening.
Big Society Network is doing great work on philanthropy, social enterprise and other fronts, but isn't a wide-spread network. Your Square Mile is quiet.
How might BS 2.0 emerge - whatever it is called?

[Matt Leach]

Hi David, thanks for linking to your Big Soc blog thread; as ever great stuff there, all spot on. I don't think any single or simple answers, sadly.

The big unavoidable is that we WILL get a form of Big Soc eventually, as inescapable economics and demographics mean the state withdraws (or refocuses) and people adapt. The question is whether we get there in a managed and iterative way, or chaotically, and with a lot of wreckage deposited on the way. Tessy is right to mourn the lost opportunity to have a go at it whilst things are (relatively) easy. So one way there is wait and it will happen.

If you buy that take, I'm not sure being in London makes much difference, one way or another. It might help access bits of funding in the short to medium term; in the long run, those with the advantage will be those getting on with it, building experience and expertise on the ground.

The stuff in the Localism Act is incredibly important. It may take a while to take off, and its quite hard to predict what the final settlement will look and feel like. But the change in relationship dynamics between state and people will be real, and I think probably positive. Last weeks DCLG neighbourhoods event was interesting, exciting and confusing in equal measure - it certainly didn't feel like top down government, more like they are watching, learning, waiting, testing like the rest of us. (BTW was that the first ever UK government event run (sort of) on Open Space Technology principles? wow...)

There's a lot to be said for working in the meantime with those with an interest and capacity to engage with and support the new and emerging civic settlement. I'm betting on housing associations being critical players in all of this - for examples of those thinking hard about it all, check Trafford Housing Trust, Plus Dane, Poplar HARCA, North Star (to name just four - there are a lot more out there). Not least because their physical presence in communities - they cant up sticks and walk away, means they need to make things work at a local level, and - often - a social mission to match.

In the meantime, there's immense value in inspiration, story telling, and sharing. Whether its Indy Johar's Compendium, Tessy's books and blogging, your reporting. Change has got to start somewhere, and even if its not being driven by a Big Slogan, its still coming...

[David Wilcox]

Thanks Matt - you and others may be interested in this exploration I'm starting, with others, into the role of community enablers and how digital tech may help them http://socialreporter.com/?p=2285

[ArmenianJames]

Interesting article - thanks Tessy.

You say "I like Big Society and I would like it back"....But - like poverty - it has & is with us always.....DIY community action pre-dates Cameroon by a long chalk and will still be there long after.

I think you miss a key aspect (if I may say): BigSoc as 'tarnished concept/product'...the quietitude nay silence on BigSoc is because it's been politically toxic....and not surprising if you view VolSector Cuts online: currently showing "495 cuts reported for 2011-12, worth £75,417,854" and "33 cuts reported for 2012-13, worth £1,947,709".....which leads me to still contend that:

The Big Society 'House' is (still)being constructed as the foundations are simultaneously undermined (by cuts).

There is also DIS-honesty in Gov't (surprise!): take 1 specific....Localism Act 2011 initiative for community-led Neighbourhood Plans - great idea but Gov't (beyond £20,000 per pioneer plan) is (AS YET) putting zip all in to encouraging these plans....thus localism is seen as abandonment....get on with it communities you have our good wishes, but no material resources!

By their deeds ye shall know them!And know them we do :(

James

[Nathan Roberts]

Hi Tessy,

Agree with many of your points and with many previous comments posted by others.

For a slightly off beat take on BS and what I'd love to hear DC say, see here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17O9mK0Ax-oHhp9L6c-7wzaGduiVb4382xHYFO5JsEZA/edit

[David Wilcox]

Hi Nathan - I like the script ... but as others have remarked, few people will listen if declaimed by DC. Can we crowdsource and own a better script for Big Society?

[Mike Chitty]

Big society was never a government initiative.

It was label to put on the self sufficient work that communities have always done, and the capacity for which, over many decades a series of governments have effectively eroded. As McKnight says 'competent communities have been invaded, captured, and colonized by professionalized services' and I would say seriously weakened as a consequence. Now that some debt needs paying off, and the 'professional services' are being withdrawn, the ask is that we pick up where we left off, as if all that capacity and capability could just be turned on and off like a tap.

And, that instead of focussing on real needs we focus instead on how we can help these professionalised service providers to maintain their empires through 'volunteering'.

Sadly many of us have been complicit in the professionalisation of services as we convert civic endeavours into social enterprises and re focus community development on state funded policy objectives - instead of having confidence to work on on the priorities that we find at our own kitchen tables and at the places where, increasingly rarely, our neighbours meet.

So for me it is about re-discovering self sufficiency, self-interest and association as the means through which we can build fair futures for as many as possible, with governments and their policies and procedures being seen increasingly as, at best, impotent.

For me Big Society was never an inspiring initiative but really just a political land grab. But the work of building our communities needs to be bought back inside our communities and we need to recognise that any form of dependence on our government as an investor needs to be handled with immense care. For they are often a fickle investor. Much of my work at the moment is helping a range of charities, social enterprises and other components of the beloved Big Society to re-build themselves in a world where the public money has simply disappeared. Building a strategy for social change based on assumptions that the state will be a benevolent and consistent investor has always been risky.

[David Floyd]

Good post. Agree with Matt (above) that "The challenge for Big Soc was that it was trying to be too many things simultaneously."

I think this was particularly problematic because out of the three main stated goals: Community Empowerment, Opening Up Public Services and Social Action - the way that the second one has been implemented in most cases has made it the antithesis of the other too.

Outsourcing services to A4E, Capita and Serco - whatever other benefits it may bring - doesn't empower communities, or tackle the problem of delivery structures being massive, unwieldy and unresponsive.

Another problem has been that while Big Society ideas - whether or not they're described as such - are often appealing to groups of people trying to get things done, they're less appealing to people faced with committing a proportion of their budget to making them happen.

This is clearly partly because of the stress on those budgets but it's also because, in the NHS for example, a Big Society approach would need a fundamental change of mindset in the way that NHS staff relate to people who use the services that they're delivering.

We produced a thinkpiece 'Better Mental Health in a Bigger Society?' last year: http://www.mhpf.org.uk/information-centre/publications/better-mental-health-in-a-bigger-society

The concern at the moment is that the organisations within mental health that typify a Big Society approach are the ones most likely to go out of business over the coming years as the NHS either bunkers down and does a bit less of the same, or outsources big chunks of services to private outsourcing giants.

[Juliet Brain]

I think there's too much naivite and fear for BigSoc to take root. Being responsible for and running your own community initiaves isn't easy. There are too many people scared of the status quo being rocked or losing their jobs in local authorities and public services to fully embrace the concept so when those who 'do' attempt to 'change' for the good of the community there are many who 'block' and make it difficult - irrationally in many cases. Our youth enterprise/community interest initiative (www.unitspace.org.uk) has seen us at council meetings where people who weren't supposed to have been there have turned up seemingly with the approval of the Head of Council who was hosting the meet, we have been shouted down and experienced inappropriate behaviour - I sense mostly out of fear and because 'getting things done simply and effectively' appears to make a mockery of bureaucracy and those who work happily/ comfortably within it, but weathering such behaviour takes experience and stoicism. Effecting real and positive change can't happen overnight and a lot of 'Big Society' relies heavily on money coming from somewhere - and where there's big money, there is commercial interest - if it becomes a battle or a power game then of course people are going to lose interest. Our Parish Council has attempted to adopt Big society approaches, but have either been thwarted directly by government or simply struggled to find people with the time to commit fully (the already busy people being the ones who usually come forward). The nitty gritty of Big Society is thrown into sharp relief against redundancies, wage cuts, and enforced change in people's lives as a result of recession. We have a lovely community farm in our Parish, fully supported by the PC and there's nothing like baby lambs et al to bring in the volunteers, but the more successful it gets the more attractive it becomes to those without the 'community' eventually the commercial interests will get their foot in the door and how long will it be before it becomes a council run or heaven forfend a Tesco run 'community farm' ?

[Mike Chitty]

Do 'public services' strengthen our communities or weaken them? On balance? In the long run....

[Seamus Bennett]

Big Society doesn’t need a govt label, but it could do with sustained, intelligent support to overcome barriers & facilitate action.

eg #1 Cameron’s Working Families Everywhere initiative doesn't even have money to cover unemployed person’s bus fare to interview training.

eg #2 Community swimming group has to stop outdoor events due to fear of being sued.

eg #3 Excellent charity drop-ins staffed by volunteers for people with learning disabilities being decimated by need for quadrupling of fees and advance payments.

eg #4 Worse-off / disabled volunteers can’t get to events on time due to cuts in bus passes and/or services.

Add to that ever-present media cynicism, a recession and a local electoral system loaded against ordinary people gaining office, and it’s no surprise there’s been no transformation.

A really big society means existing power holders giving it away or having it taken from them. It’ll happen in spite of government involvement rather than because of it.

[twitter.com/socialtechno]

I read this post because I was looking for inspiration for something I'm writing, and now I feel really quite despondent! I hope people aren't giving up On Big Society.

I thought one thing on which we could all agree was that Big Society is one of David Cameron's favourite things, and even though a lot of people don't trust the Conservatives (and a lot of Conservatives don't trust Cameron), the Prime Minister has put the ball i9n play, so to speak, and it's up to us to run after it, if we want to.

I see it differently from Seamus Bennett. To me, it's less about power holders giving power away, than it is about government recognising that it doesn't have all the power it needs to deliver all the things that politicians promise in their speeches. whether it's obesity, or burglary, addiction recovery or care of the elderly, the government is only one part of a bigger social system. And I think it's to any politician's credit to have worked out that they can't create societal outcomes by setting targets and compelling people.

There is, of course, a massive paradox in the PM announcing a top-down initiative for bottom-up reform. But it's about re-designing our institutions so that government can be more responsive to the citizens. Several people have given exasmples of both good projects, and face-palmingly bad flaws in government thinking.

I believe that some of the people at the top do genuinely want to change the way government works. I can also see that Big Society is controversial all across the political spectrum. It's no good standing on the sidelines, grumbling that government hasn't made it's mind up what it wants. We need to get enthusiastic and make things happen and tell the government what we need from it. Then, something wonderful might happen.