Ideas that appeal to different constituencies

When discussing the impact of the New Right’s thoughts on the ‘underclass’ in Britain, Mann and Roseneil (1994) ventured the notion that an idea or discourse could only become successful if it had fully demonstrated a practicable appeal to numerous sections or, as Mann and Roseneil succinctly put it, numerous ‘constituencies’ within the social community as a whole. Only in this way, they continued, could sufficient momentum be gathered to carry the idea or discourse into the policy arena. By the same token, this book contends that such ideas or discourses also have to be applicable to the ‘general domain’ (Foucault, 2002) of neo-liberalism’s current hegemonic dominance. In this respect, an idea or discourse has to be of pragmatic use to both governments and powerful vested interests (Harrison with Davis, 2001). Importantly from our perspective, this framework of understanding not only allows for the continued prevalence of structural-functionalist interpretations of society but, as we shall see, also provides a limited allowance for certain (if not specific) complementary discourses to thrive and adapt through compromise yet contribute to the general reinforcement and fortification of the overarching stance taken by New Labour.

With this in mind, it is now possible to introduce the ideas and thoughts of Charles Murray (1984, 1996a, 1996b), Lawrence Mead (1986, 1987, 1988, 1991) and David T. Ellwood (1988). All three, it will be argued, have managed to produce accounts of the ‘underclass’ that satisfy and appeal to New Labour’s social protestations. Although such ideas are not strictly functionalist (Murray, for instance, would call himself a libertarian if anything), they do nonetheless provide a more than useful point of reference for New Labour. Murray, probably the most prominent of the three, does not have to declare his allegiance to functionalist theory. His very description of the underclass does that for him. By implication, his description sees the good ‘citizens’ of this world as having to work hard, be honest and having come from a ‘stable’ family background. Put simply, they have to follow the functionally prescribed moral norms of society: responsible individuals have to be functional, not dysfunctional.