By Jeremy Rodell
Jeremy examines how societal values in the UK have shifted. He cites Professor Linda Woodhead and Sir John Curtice, who argue that the increasing liberalisation and secularisation of our values has led to the culture wars, where values are contested along lines defined by age, education, and religion. The political landscape is now characterised by two dimensions rather than one: the traditional "Left/Right" divide, and a newer “Libertarian/ Authoritarian” dimension. Jeremy concludes that it is important to foster a shared set of values to secure social cohesion in our more diverse society. He is (volunteer) Dialogue Officer at Humanists UK and Chair of South West London Humanists.
The re-election of Donald Trump, a man not known for his honesty, kindness, or decency, to the most powerful role in the world is a good time to look at values here in the UK. Back in 2021, Professor Linda Woodhead delivered four online lectures entitled ‘Values are the new religion’ (see useful links below). She’s someone worth listening to: former Professor of the Sociology of Religion at Lancaster University, now Head of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at King’s College London, she’s been described as ‘one of the world's leading experts on religion’. You can see her ‘In Conversation’ with Andrew Copson on the Humanists UK website.
Her thesis in the lectures is that there used to be a dominant set of Christian-based values in most of the UK. She labels it ‘Give Your Life’ because it emphasised the virtue of self-sacrifice, especially for women. That has been replaced by a new dominant ethic, which she calls ‘Live Your Life’, a balance between caring for yourself and caring for others. There’s an emphasis on authenticity, being the person you really are in terms of religion, or lack of it, sexuality, or gender, and showing kindness and respect to yourself and others, regardless of how different they are. She associates the change with the moral decline of institutional Christianity, the challenge to the Christian ideal of unconditional love – especially from feminism – and the increase in moral and religious diversity, including the growth of the non-religious population. But within and beside the dominant broadly liberal ethic, there’s diversity, deep personal identification with chosen values, and a view that everyone is entitled to be heard – with social media providing the means to do it. Resulting in culture wars.
‘What should we make of the culture wars?’ was the title of the 2024 Humanists UK Holyoake Lecture, delivered by the UK political scientist Sir John Curtice (see useful links below). His key conclusion from the data was that traditional Left/Right British politics has given way to a two-dimensional division. Left/right is still there, but the other dimension is what he calls ‘Libertarian/ Authoritarian’, with authoritarians characterised by values such as the importance of obeying rules, and attitudes towards LGBT people and those from ethnic minorities. In his view, the culture wars have arisen because society has on average become more liberal, driven by higher numbers going to university, and secularisation, while a substantial minority have not moved so far. The result is that values are now more contested, with the divide characterised not by social class or Left/Right politics, but by age, education, and religion.
Linda Woodhead argues that there are ultimately three ways any society, organisation or group can respond to culture wars: ‘Value Cohesion’; ‘Value War’; and ‘Values Pluralism’. By Value Cohesion she means establishing ‘our values’ and making sure everyone agrees with them. Value War means fighting for what is right against those who threaten it. Values Pluralism, which she favours, means accepting that values are sometimes incompatible, such as liberty and equality, and that often there’s no clear answer to moral dilemmas, only less-bad options – anyone familiar with the ‘Trolley Problem’ thought experiment will recognise that. She advocates more understanding about values and their histories, teaching about values in schools, and developing skills in discussing, discerning, and sometimes disagreeing about values. We should consciously develop self-awareness and group-awareness about biases and instincts, and the education and ability to think through what our priorities should be.
It is hard to disagree with this. But if we are to avoid ‘Values Pluralism’ slipping into ‘Values Relativism’ (implying, for example, that FGM or homophobia is OK in some cultures but not in others), it is hard to see how we can avoid combining it with Value Cohesion and a willingness to engage in Value War if we are to promote a cohesive society. It is surely right that the government of a plural society such as ours should promote a fundamental set of widely-accepted values, even if it knows that not everyone subscribes to them.
‘Values Pluralism’ is itself a manifestation of liberal values. What matters are its limits in terms of impact on other people. If someone thinks abortion is murder, they have the right to express their view, and seek to change the law. But they no longer have the right to use ostentatious prayer outside an abortion clinic to harass the women using it. There is no law against holding traditional Islamic values on LGBT rights, assisted dying, women’s rights, or freedom to leave or change religion. But there is argument about them all, and ultimately, the law. We do aim for Value Cohesion, but draw the boundary quite widely, and protect it by two levels of sanction: argument (and often accommodation) near the limit, and the hard sanction of the law beyond it.
Value War arises where the rules of civilised argument or rule of law break down. For example, where someone receives death threats, or suffers actual violence, for manifesting perfectly legal values which others find offensive. Blasphemy is an example. That sort of response crosses a line and has to be fought. The need for a broad-based set of values around which we can cohere chimes with a 2024 speech by Amanda Spielman, the former head of Ofsted, which is the UK's Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (see useful links below). She was concerned about a breakdown in the values consensus, and stressed the important role of schools, asserting ‘there is no such thing as value-free education’. She praised Michael Gove, then Secretary of State for Education, for the 2014 instruction to all schools (see link below) – including independent schools – ‘to ‘actively promote’ the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs’ – noting that the emphasis is on people, not beliefs. That looks like a pretty good list. The snag is, the next sentence says ‘These values were first set out by the government in the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011’. Prevent is part of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, originally developed in response to Islamist terrorism (though now covering all types). Michael Gove is widely seen by British Muslims as hostile. So not only did some people disagree with the ‘British Values’ framing (because they are not exclusively ‘British’) but Muslim activists and their supporters saw the idea as yet another way to get at Muslims.
If you go into a school today, you may see these ‘Fundamental British Values’ (FBVs) on the wall. But most schools, especially primaries, also have their own set of school values, usually developed by their teachers and pupils, and often displayed more prominently than the official FBVs. One of Linda Woodhead’s students reviewed these sets of values across a wide range of schools, including faith schools. She found that ‘respect’ was by far the most common term. It seems that the concept of a common set of shared values is well-embedded in the education sector. The same applies in many companies and organisations. The question is how widely accepted they are.
In response to the perceived contamination of FBVs, Amanda Spielman argued that we need to develop a new set of ‘common values with the widest possible consent’ in order to avoid any ‘unspoken’ sub-text. That could be difficult, for precisely the reason she thinks it should be done: there are real differences in some of the values some people hold, the gap is wide, and a lowest common denominator is likely to be too bland to be useful. In any case, is the problem with the current FBVs really fundamental? Are people really not agreeing with democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance? Or is it all about the Prevent/Michael Gove branding? Do we need a new set of values, or just a re-brand? Richard Harries (Lord Harries), former Bishop of Oxford, has recently put forward a Private Members Bill in the House of Lords (see useful links below) which would do both, but without the national debate Amanda Spielman envisaged. It would re-brand them as ‘values of British citizenship’ and amend the list to comprise: democracy, the rule of law, freedom, individual worth, and respect for the environment. It’s not yet clear how far it will go.
In the past, humanists and other secularists have seen Christian privilege and the imposition of biblically-justified values as the main challenge. That has not gone away entirely, with churches leveraging their opposition to a change in the law on assisted dying for example. Islam brings newer faith-based challenges. Yet the most potent of the culture wars are not directly about faith-based issues. Two in particular stand out: immigration and asylum – which are too often confused and conflated – and trans rights versus women’s rights. (One idea that is rarely considered on immigration and asylum is whether there should be a requirement explicitly to accept a set of values – a form of social contract.)
Humanists find themselves in various positions on these hot-button issues. In working them through, three items from Humanists UK’s statement of values (see useful links below) could be useful:
recognising the dignity of individuals and treating them with fairness and respect
respecting and promoting freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law
taking opportunities to combat all forms of prejudice and unfair discrimination.
But, just as the FBVs are not uniquely British, these are not uniquely humanist, and would be shared by many people from all the main religions. Linda Woodhead is probably right. In sociological terms, for most people, values – not religion – are ‘the thing’.
Useful links
Professor Linda Woodhead Cadbury Lecture Series 2021 Values are the New religion
John Curtice Hollyoake Lecture 2024
Fundamental British Values Guidance - UK Government Guidance on British Values
Education Bill 2024 - Values of British Citizenship
Humanists UK Strategy 2021-2025
"Prevent is part of the government’s counter-terrorism strategy, originally developed in response to Islamist terrorism (though now covering all types). Michael Gove is widely seen by British Muslims as hostile. So not only did some people disagree with the ‘British Values’ framing (because they are not exclusively ‘British’) but Muslim activists and their supporters saw the idea as yet another way to get at Muslims."
The phrase “British Muslims” places the emphasis on the noun “Muslims”, making the religion more important than the nationality. “Muslim Britons” does the opposite. Are those here “British Humanists” or “Humanist Britons”?
It is no surprise that “Muslim activists and their supporters saw the idea [British Values] as yet another way to get at Muslims."…