In her blog on Research impact: thinking outside the tick box, Bridget Anderson looks below the surface of some of the trite even convenient proposals presented in the UKBA's consultation on Employment Related Settlement, Tier 5 and Overseas Domestic Workers and wonders why the real questions are not being asked. These are political and theoretical, she states, but in fact are "the questions that affect us all". I share these musings on the two cited by Ms Anderson:
Do we want a sustainable population strategy?
Britain faces a land, demographic and economic conundrum in which it appears we resort to crisis management according to political whim. Will our nanny state leaders look beyond restrictions and curtailments to the valuing, respectful governors they purport to be? They espouse "integrated, cohesive communities" but these are just words when there is no genuine buy-in from all concerned.
Now HOW do we achieve that and keep focused on a thriving, successful UK, at the same time! In order to deliver a sustainable populaton (if we had a stragegy), our political leaders need to realise that a comprehensive, holistic and truly inclusive approach across human society and related systems may be challenging but may well work! Sadly, personal agenda will be the price to pay and that may be too high, not just for the politicians and government workers but also for individuals, communities and political parties everywhere. It is a tough call; perhaps altruism is too idealistic, too utopian. Take the handful of leaders who may be considered to have held 'altruistic' ideals: while Gandhi, King, Suu Kyi and Mandela may fit the label, the accumulated impact of their lives' work on humanity and world citizenry is barely recognisable to my cynical eye.
Still, our difficulty in putting aside personal self-interest is not about to bring the world to its end. It is just a shame our progress as a 'human' species does not match our technological, scientific advances.
Why is domestic labour not considered work?
That human species that we profess we belong to continues to be at a loss about valuing each other, the assets that we are and the potential that we have to shared coexistence on a tiny blue planet. We may not have come far enough on our evolutionary road as conscious beings to maintain the rational learnings of the 'liberation' and rights movements of the last century. I can only assume we have merely taken the earliest steps on that route, with a very long way to go yet. How else can one explain the arrogant ignorance of those who demean the work of fellow human beings with supporting roles as mothers, carers, cleaners, labourers etc? How can any contribution, however 'lowly', to the fullness of our human existence be considered insignificant, inessential, unworthy or invaluable? Surely every task, every effort impacts on our human endeavour as the sentient beings we believe we are.
Yes, these musings are more philosophical, moral and idealistic, not to mention individual. Nevertheless, they ask fundamental questions of ourselves as a civil, thinking society and should not be swept under any carpet of 'evidence'-led rhetoric based on power or political designs.
No comments:
Post a Comment