The Antifundamentalist Manifesto. 

Antifundamentalism is a non-existent philosophy which I have made up. You can thank me later. It is a philosophy which rejects the middle ground, while also rejecting the extremes of dogma and fixed ideology. It starts from the premise that progress is inherently good. Not growth, not expansion, not “bigger and better,” but progress, kaizen, call it what you like. We all have a responsibility towards progress, but that progress will only come if we take a groundswell of people with us. If we stay balanced in the centre ground, not wanting to annoy anyone or push too many barriers, there will be no progress. If we stick zealously to the purist way of thought, no-one will join us, and there will be no progress. Progress only comes when we can bring enough people with us on the same journey. 

Example 1: The vegan movement. Most scientists accept that we need to drastically reduce the amount of meat, fish, and dairy we consume, to prevent climate change, and for our health. The public seem to broadly accept this and are moving towards this in increasing numbers. The centrist view argues that “less but better” is the way forward, knowing that in practice this will mean that nothing changes. This approach must be rejected. However, on vegan forums, debates, Facebook pages, you name it, any slight aberration from an absolutist view of veganism is treated as heresy. Paul McCartney calls on people to go vegan and this is A BAD THING because he isn’t vegan himself. McDonalds sell a vegan burger and this is A BAD THING because of course they still continue to sell meat burgers. The Covid vaccine has to be tested on animals, and therefore if you take it you CANNOT BE A VEGAN, because only extremists and purists can be vegan. This approach must be rejected. 

Tony Benn famously spoke about politicians acting either as weathervanes or signposts, changing their opinions on a whim or maintaining their principles through thick and thin. This is a useful lens through which to view Antifundamentalism, because in order for there to be any progress at all in the world, people have to be allowed to change their minds. We need, in my view, rather fewer signposts – unchanging, unbending, entirely fixed in their world view – and a few more weathervanes, who are open to new knowledge and new ideas, who have a broad suite of views which form their approach to life and community, but who do not feel like their lives are being deconstructed if over time some of those views change.    

Example 2: The “debate” around trans rights. I speak as someone who would march in the streets alongside trans people who felt they were being persecuted, victimised or discriminated against. I have reservations about self-ID however, I think irreversibly medicalising children is very rarely the correct approach, and I absolutely abhor the stifling of academic debate on a topic which has compelling academic and philosophical arguments on many different fronts. Unfortunately, in the views of many people involved in the “debate,” I am therefore either a) a misogynist who has bought into a cult-like fairy tale propagated by dangerous men who want to invade women’s spaces or b) a transphobe, a TERF, who must be silenced at all costs and who’s views are absolutely beyond the pale. Both these approaches must be rejected.

When we think of moments of great change, it’s easy to cling to historic examples which frankly have little bearing on what is happening now. The methods we use to advance arguments has to change in an agile way or risk being left behind. One might see the 1997 UK General Election as a great inflection point, but at that point you could equally argue that almost any change would have been embraced. So the lever to change required wasn’t so great. Equally, one could look back to the civil rights movement in the USA in the 1960s as a great moment of change, but if that moment had occurred during a time with, say, rolling 24-hour news and Twitter, the outcome could have been hugely different. It’s possible that change might have come much quicker, as grass-roots organisations were empowered by social media. It’s possible that change could have been stifled at birth by a powerful mainstream media establishment which saw its norms being challenged. We’ll never know. There are no control subjects in history. What we can look towards is the points at which various movements become irreversible, and how that might be applied to arguments we make today. 

Climate change should be the greatest priority of every government on the planet. The overwhelming scientific evidence for urgent and drastic change is beyond doubt. The fact that something so blindingly obvious is not being engaged with is a striking example of how Fundamentalism has seized control of the narrative. 

Example 3: Climate change. Overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that the world needs to change course immediately if catastrophe is to be avoided. No matter what the economic impact of these changes, analysis from the Stern Report onwards shows that the costs of inaction vastly outweigh those of action. Action is stalled consistently however. A vocal Fundamentalist faction, comparable to anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers, argue that climate change is a hoax unworthy of discussion. Meanwhile, an equally noisy Fundamentalist minority instruct us that anything short of returning to the caves in sackcloth and ashes is insufficient. Both these approaches must be rejected, because time is not on our side, and the risks are too great. 

An Antifundamentalist approach has to be to improve the lives of our neighbours, and ourselves, while simultaneously combatting climate change, even if it be by stealth. If we say “Climate change means you have to do X,” nothing will change. It is only by saying “Your life will be better, your kids will smile more, and you will spend less money” that change will happen, and it is within these sheep’s clothing that we must disguise the wolf of anti-climate action (for the avoidance of doubt, my tongue is firmly in my cheek here). This means:

A universal basic income;

An integrated, comprehensive and cost-effective low carbon public transport system;

Shared access to services, utilities and assets where it is effective. 

Funded by:

Greater taxation on corporations and the super-rich;

A focus on tax avoiders rather than welfare fraud;

And my personal favourite:

A complete overhaul of the inheritance tax system. Inheritance tax would be abolished for amounts under £5 million, and would be levied at 100% on all assets over this amount, to include property, and -crucially – to include every citizen of the UK, including the Royal Family. In a little under one hundred years, this would return vast swathes of privately owned land to a common treasury of nationally owned assets. As a nation, or group of nations, we are rich in every sense beyond our wildest dreams. All that is required is the vision to spread those riches more fairly. 

Hang on. Does this make me a Fundamentalist…?