The 'whatever' society

Unhappily, the opposite is, almost, the case. While it might be going a bit far to suggest that a largely uneducated, illiterate and uncouth population is precisely what contemporary society needs (and thoroughly deserves), intelligence and basic refinement may not be the unquestioned virtues some of us like to think they are.

The most convincing form of the criticism concerns our fitness to participate in a "knowledge economy". A makeshift education, on this view, means not only that its victims never get to appreciate the beauty of literature or great music but that they cannot even fully participate in the labour market. In the new order, literacy and numeracy are, if anything, even more important than in earlier times.

Being a master of the MP3 universe is not enough. We are all knowledge workers now (or very soon will be) and, as COAG says, lifelong learning is the key to increased productivity and prosperity. We need higher standards of formal education. And we need to be able to express ourselves clearly. After all, the new economy consists almost entirely of words and symbols.

Except that it doesn’t - or only in the most superficial way. The "knowledge" content of the knowledge economy is rather like the "intellectual" content of most intellectual property. All it means for the overwhelming majority is that, because of technological advances, they will use their brain rather than brawn to earn a living. It does not mean they need to be any more sophisticated.

Tradesmen, scientists and the minority of genuine thinkers, artists and technocrats aside, work will continue to consist predominantly of repetitive tasks, selling increasingly redundant goods and services, ordering others to do so, or functioning as more or less well-paid servants. Our cardinal role will be as consumers.

And for this a short attention span, modest cerebral horizon, crude manners and a downmarket fantasy life are entirely suitable adaptations.

Equally suitable is a public language in which nothing substantive is actually said. It is especially needed at the higher reaches of peonage, like the senior public service, where to call things by their right name would rob professionalism of its entire raison d'être.

Speaking in managerial tongues gives the useful impression of depth and objectivity, even when its purpose is not prevarication. Indeed, being unaware that one is talking gibberish can be a positive advantage in negotiating today's corporate rapids.

As overtly displayed at street level, the more incomprehensible the patois, the stronger the tribal bonds. Most groups do not wish to speak to each other anyway — except for the most basic transactions — so mutual unintelligibility is a perfectly rational move.

Likewise, the increased aggressiveness of urban life is at one with the admired combativeness of corporate routine. Both are a results-driven manifestation of the general fad of loutishness. Cutting across class, racial and generational lines, it is the cultural cringe of our new economy, the verbal and physical expression of an individualism that eschews autonomy.

The conclusion to which this leads is not, however, a pessimistic one. With all respect to Drs Donnelly and Watson and Ms Truss, we who are offended by current fashions are in a generally comfortable minority and should be thankful that, on the whole, the others leave us alone. Society is an ever-mutating organism which does not stand on ceremony. Or talking proper. Or even being able to spell your favourite obscenity.