Esther McVey, A.K.A Rushi Sunak’s “Common Sense” Minister, declared “war against backdoor politicisation” by suggesting a ban of “divisive” rainbow coloured lanyards among civil servants (which caught most of media attention), and a ban on all jobs dedicated to equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). This probed my curiosity in what “common sense” really meant.
Here’s a quick summary from reading the Wikipedia page (perhaps GPTs would do a better job here but let’s keep this authentic!). Earlier (~BCE 350ish) Aristotelian definition of “Common Sense” focused on the five senses, how there must be a common way in which people (and creatures) perceive the world, tell apart constructs across modalities, for example “sweetness” from “white”. This understanding of “Common Sense” was mostly translated and updated after Enlightenment, in the late 18th Century, to mean a set of collective and conventional moral consciousness, sense or sentiment that doesn’t need reasoning (with Kant standing against the feeling bits). This philosophical line of representing “Common Sense” as an “universal moral law” has been adopted in Catholic and Christian apologetics, such as CS Lewis’ influential book “Mere Christianity”. Across the Pacific Ocean, ancient (~BCE 300ish) philosopher Mencius wrote (English translation) about a similar concept, that humanness is defined by their innate feelings of commiseration, shame, modesty and complaisance. These philosophies shaped our modern understanding of “Common Sense”: (1) very optimistic view of the human condition, (2) universality of this moral judgement that does not require reasoning or reflection, and (3) “Common Sense” is used to define humanness.
Here are a few quick arguments to the “Commonness” in “Common Sense”. *Assessment of the human condition is not relevant to this discussion so I will just say I do not hold the same optimistic view of human nature as Mencius. A low hanging counterargument to (2) is the shift of what’s deemed to be morally acceptable over time, context, society structure and locations. Killing animals for fun was “universally” accepted, until it’s not. Slavery was “universally” accepted, until it’s not. Given (3) is true, with (2) being relative to space and time, accordingly, what defines humanness (3) becomes relative. The key question, hence lies at who decides what is Commonly Good, and when it is no longer Commonly Good.
How did Esther McVey know rainbow coloured lanyards are “divisive” and are against “Common Sense”? By definition, there is no need of reasoning for Esther to explain her decision. On a personal level, I acknowledge (accept, but maybe not at endorse level) other modes of “knowing” that does not strictly rely on reasoning. For example, faiths, beliefs, trust, relationships, values can not always be meaningfully explained or metricised and quantified into degrees of reasoning. People are rightfully living by their beliefs, without the need of justifying how they have conceived their beliefs, with or without reasoning. I mean, I still can’t fully understand why people voted for Trump, but I am satisfied to not demand their votes to be reasoned before them be deemed valid, and I can co-exist with them in a democratic society. However, in the public sphere, this way of knowing without reasoning removes the transparency and justifiability of decision-making. Relying solely on this way of knowing re-mystifies politics back to the era of empire-theocracy. The politicians (decision-makers) are left with the opportunity to misuse their power of exceptionality. Reason is required for this reason. Fortunately, in a democratic system, there are still mechanisms to challenge this power – We’ll see when it happens (when’s general election?).
There are several foreseeable practical impact on public servants following Esther McVey’s announcement. This instrumentalised view of civil servants as a horde of machines with assumed neutrality might be preparing for large-scale AI takeover. Jokes aside, this un-reasoned power to put restrictions on people – humans – to express themselves will soon be shooting the already weak civil services in their own foot. There are two kinds of expressions that are being restricted – visible and invisible sense of identities (Back to Aristotelian!). Visible ones are like the example, carrying rainbow lanyards, but could be extended to, say, wearing a hijab, looking too Asian, does not drink, revealing ankles etc… When the expression of personal identity conflicts with what’s deemed to be “divisive” or “Common Sense”, it will always be the individuals’ humanness that are disrespected. Heck, “Esther” too is a name originated in Jewish/Christian traditions, should we move to use numbers to call civil servants during their duty hours (hello again, 1984)? Esther McVey’s attempt to promote inclusion in civil servant workforce serves as a recipe to undermine the exact thing she is trying to improve.
There are wider implications on identities that are invisible. Networks to support people from different religion or country of origin are now suppressed. Role models, peer support that were previously more accessible are now hidden. There is no easy way to identify other people who are similarly minded, who are happy to support, for mentorship, informal chats or discussions. This assumed “neutrality” then, again perpetuates a biased resource allocation system towards people with high capabilities (in terms of social capital etc….), and not potential. The already clunky “machine” Esther hoped to fix will keep on failing her expectations.
Would universities and higher education institutes follow suit? UKRI has made precedent in October 2023 by banning Research England EDI Expert Advisory Group (with independent investigation found no evidence of any breach). Will these bans extend to university staff who are technically publicly funded? I had a rainbow lanyard when I was at King’s College London, would they take those away too?
End with a whip of good news – in the latest news today, the lanyard ban does not appear in the actual guidelines. But it was never just about the rainbow lanyards. More is coming, and next time it might concern you, when your sense of individual and humanness is no longer respected, remember, it’s just “Common Sense”.
JosePhD 