Particular perspectives influence how individuals think about politics. But how do members and supporters of a single party create a collective perception of its ethos – what it stands for and where its future lies? Karl Pike examines these concepts in relation to the Labour Party, and explains how ethos can affect political direction

Pike, Karl

LSE Research Online

5/10/2017What does it mean to be Labour? Understanding the party’sethosblogs.lse.ac.uk /politicsandpolicy/labour-ethos/Particular perspectives influence how individuals think about politics. But how do members and supportersof a single party create a collective perception of its ethos – what it stands for and where its futurelies? Karl Pike examines these concepts in relation to the Labour Party, and explains how ethos canaffect political direction.The Labour Party ‘has a life of its own,’ Henry Drucker argued in 1979. Many political commentators,observers, and members of the party will instinctively comprehend this concept of ‘ethos’: thetraditions, beliefs, and folk memories which Drucker believed helped bind and motivate Labourpeople.Comprehending what comprises Labour’s ethos is aided by Raymond Williams’s work on culture, who suggestedpeople were shaped by a ‘structure of feeling’: this was ‘as firm and definite as “structure” suggests, yet it operatesin the most delicate and least tangible parts of our activity’. With ethos being both structural and constitutive, itprovides the lifeblood of institutions and actors, yet has the capacity to interact and change over time as newgenerations arrive.Ties that bind, with some important disputesLabour people have different understandings of the party’s ethos, and these affect their views and actions withregard to its political direction. Depending on their relative strength, these alternative understandings can affect thedominant ethos at a given time. Yet, while Labour’s ethos can be affected by actors, there exists a dominant ethosat which can act as both a constraint and an enabler; it affects what is and isn’t possible for the direction of the party.This dominant ethos has a structural effect, with perceptions of it being particularly important.In utilizing this concept, it is necessary to consider the different comprehensions of Labour’s ethos. These can beseen through four central debates around what Labour’s ethos entails. Broadly, these are:Socialist theory and the Labour method: The role of intellectual activity and theoretical work, to underpinhow Labour thinks and governs, is subject to different interpretation and prioritization among Labour people.The ‘grey area’ – when doctrine becomes faith: Connected, but separate to debates about theoreticalunderpinning, is a debate about the line between particular policy and the party’s mission in Labour’s ethos.This sees, across the doctrinal spectrum, policy become more akin to faith.The Parliamentary Labour Party as leaders and as delegates: Closely linked to policy discussions aredebates about the role of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP). While tensions between parliamentariansand ‘the grassroots’ are not unique, the singularity within the Party is the relative bellicosity on both sides thatstems from a question of organisational ethos: are Members of Parliament delegates of the movement, andno more?The ‘Parliamentary paradox’ – an ‘outsiders’ party and an ‘insiders’ party: This debate includes thetendency of ‘them and us’. Labour’s traditions posit an ‘outsiders’ party. This comprehension of Labour’sethos at the top of the party had weakened over the decades, but has made a very recent comeback.Taking the role of theoretical debate as an example, an extensive vocabulary exists within Labour’s mental universethat divides it into two broad camps – theoretical socialists and practical socialists. As Ben Pimlott wrote of Wilson’sopinions on Tony Crosland and Roy Jenkins, ‘he saw Crosland… as a philosopher or, in his own terms, a socialist1/2theologian, and Jenkins as a man of letters and practical policies. The Prime Minister was an empiricist,intellectually as well as politically’, therefore favouring Jenkins.The theoretical and the practical are consistently raised by Labour politicians and engaged observers of Labourpolitics. Its regularity emphasises its place in Labour’s traditions and folklore, having become a part of how Labourpeople interpret the party’s ethos, and what it is to be Labour. For example, the ‘essentially non-theoretical MrWilson’, who displayed ‘the habitual Labourist contempt for theory’ though being, in the hopeful New Left appraisalof the early 60s Wilson, ‘far more theoretical… than any previous leader ’; or the recollection from former DeputyLeader, Roy Hattersley, that: ‘Many people in the Labour Party think ideology is a waste of time… Jim Callaghanwould say about ideas, “what we need to do is obvious, you don’t need to have theory”.’Corbyn’s LabourAs Owen Smith’s 2016 leadership challenge demonstrated, a left-wing policy platform does not bring a Labourperson close to Corbyn’s ethos. Jeremy Corbyn has shown – admittedly, through a sharply curtailed pre-electiontenure – limited interest in providing Labour with a theoretical underpinning. His rhetoric emphasises a moralcertainty, based on long-held positions that are more akin to faith. On the role of the PLP, Corbyn considersparliamentarians to be delegates of Conference and the movement, though as a recent Guardian editorial pointedout, this can rub up against his commitment to policy as faith, for example with Trident.Perhaps the most commented-upon aspect of the Corbyn Labour ethos is his interpretation of Labour as an‘outsiders’ party. He thrives outside of Westminster. The focus of his most loyal followers is not electoral triumph, butpolitical and organisational transformation. In many ways, this interpretation rejects the ‘compromise’ ofparliamentary socialism, feeding off, as it does, the perception of New Labour’s management of a conservativecountry._____About the AuthorKarl Pike is a PhD candidate and Teaching Associate at the School of Politics and InternationalRelations, Queen Mary University of London.  2/2

What does it mean to be Labour? Understanding the party’s ethos

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online