Pankaj Mishra’s exposé of the poverty of economic man (Welcome to the age of anger, 8 December) is powerful but, among the “more complex drives” he lists, he omits “belonging” – key to understanding “identity politics”. Facing danger our instinct, like that of animals who herd, is to cling to the familiar and the group. Incomers may or may not be a realistic threat, but they are easily perceived to be in times of disturbing upheaval. This need not be a counsel of despair; it could be a cause for hope. Globalisation and technical change may not be inevitably destructive: whether they do harm or good depends on the values by which we handle them. If we remain dedicated to the competitive pursuit of material gain and are indifferent to the feelings of shame, humiliation, helplessness and anger of those who are left out – or if, worse still, we continue our persecution of the poor – then recent events are just a foretaste of a future that will be bleak indeed.
Michael Briant
Cambridge
• Thank you for Pankaj Mishra’s stimulating essay. It’s worth highlighting two arguments with implications for public policy. First, I would question his representation of the desire for recognition as vanity. Recognition has been identified as a vital human need, associated with the psychological need for respect of one’s dignity as a human being. Arguably the lack of recognition of marginalised groups, including people in poverty, has fuelled the rage of which he writes. Second, in challenging the “prevailing image of Homo economicus”, Mishra could draw on feminist theorising around an ethic of care, which has long challenged this attenuated representation of human experience. Research has uncovered “gendered moral rationalities” (Duncan and Edwards) in which economic rationality itself can take second place to different forms of rationality, which prioritise caring over economic success. Social policies that recognised the dignity of people living in poverty and the value of care-giving could represent small steps along the path Mishra starts to sketch.
Ruth Lister
Labour, House of Lords
• Pankaj Mishra screams banalities at Donald Trump, calling him compulsive groper, white supremacist, serial liar and tax dodger. At the same time we hear that the Time magazine has named Trump as a person of the year. As much as Mishra hates Trump and assumes that his supporters are at best misguided fools, the reality is that the man has been democratically elected. When Modi was elected in India we had a similar outpouring of hysteria from Mishra. It was as if the end of the world was nigh. All the indications are that Modi remains a popular leader who is not corrupt and has brought about numerous radical changes for the better. Blaming western capitalism and the democratic model is meaningless unless you can come up with a viable alternative. What does Mishra want? Does he want a communist-style model to take over the world or is there any other utopia he has in mind? If Mishra is really interested in bringing about a better world he should be directing his efforts towards all the countries where there is no democracy or freedom to live as free spirits. It is the lack of freedom and democracy that is driving millions of people from their homes. Even the most welcoming people will come to a point when they will legitimately ask when will the migration of people fleeing civil wars end? To call the legitimate fears of the people racist is the height of arrogance and hugely counterproductive for the minorities.
Nitin Mehta
London
• Politicians and their parties seem unable to grasp that the electorate, with scant regard to traditional political divisions, has realigned itself. The split in England is not between an economic elite and a disregarded, powerless majority, but between those who are broadly socially liberal and internationalist in their outlook and those who are more socially conservative and nationalistic. Brexit is the glue that brought together previously disparate sections of the electorate, whose voices were rarely heard in concert.
If Pankaj Mishra is right and we have lost sight of the emotional and cultural values that can motivate people’s political actions, it’s important to recognise that there is more than one set of values at stake. Unless the liberal centre-left can create a coherent expression of its values and can establish a party, or coalition of parties, that will deliver a realistic political programme, its role will be that of a world-weary observer, unable to act because it could not abandon life-long assumptions about who its allies really are.
Peter Martindale
Castle Bytham, Lincolnshire
• Pankaj Mishra tries but fails to show that the current wave of resentment and economically irrational voting cannot be accounted for within the intellectual framework of enlightenment rationalism. He mentions but then ignores Thomas Piketty’s explanation in terms of inequality. He does not even mention the substantial evidence that voting was often irrational long before Trump and Brexit, nor does he mention the fears about migration and culture change whipped up by regressive newspapers and politicians. The fact that humans are emotional creatures is not incompatible with enlightenment rationalism. Does anyone honestly doubt that the explosion in inequality is the main cause of the current predicament? We don’t need a new intellectual framework. We just need different economic policies.
Roger Paxton
Morpeth, Northumberland
• I’d like Wolfgang Streeck to be right, that capitalism is dying (Review, 10 December). I fear he’s not, it’s democracy that’s dying. Back in 2008, it did look as if capitalism was imploding and a new model was urgently required. But all that happened was billions of QE to the banks, propping up a system sold to us as “trickle-down economics” whereby if the rich got rich, the populace would all benefit. Instead, what we’ve seen since 2008 has had nothing to do with money trickling down, and everything to do with vast sums of money hoovering upwards. The 21st century sees the western world going backwards, a new feudalism is hoving into view as more and more people become disenfranchised and dispossessed. But the capitalist system will keep marching on.
Victoria Trow
Totnes, Devon
• I appreciate the sentiment behind Stefan Stern’s article (Work should be a route to a better life, but people need to be paid properly, theguardian.com, 8 December). People need to be paid properly? We could start with the recognition of the value of unpaid care work.
The puritan work ethic that underpins our narratives and political dialogue is a huge part of the problem. The assumption continues that, in order to afford to live, we have to work for pay or else we are bleeding the state. We forget that automation threatens an increasing amount of jobs. The pool of paid human labour is shrinking.
We also neglect to bear in mind the huge number of carers (predominantly women) – of the young, the sick and the elderly – for whom their necessary and valuable hard work is unpaid. In effect, we have to justify our right to exist in a society in which wealth inequality is widening, capitalist exploitation has reached new heights, and precarious work conditions and contracts threaten our wellbeing and security. Nowhere is the message that paid work equals full citizenship clearer than in the case of women who choose to care for their young children. We are rebels in the house of capitalist equality.
At some point, our economic system and political priorities have has to start to recognise the human beings at the centre of our societies. Redistribution of wealth and labour – with human social policies for housing, health and education, reduced working weeks and days, a living wage for carers, and a universal basic income – are a necessary counterbalance to continued market exploitation, higher living costs and rampant individualism.
Vanessa Olorenshaw
(Author of Liberating Motherhood, Birthing the Purplestockings Movement)
Sevenoaks, Kent
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
