« | Home | »

Nothing But Feeling


There was a moment in her interview with Emily Maitlis on Newsnight on Friday when Theresa May mentioned a woman who had escaped the Grenfell Tower fire in just a T-shirt and knickers. The woman stays with you. Very briefly, something broke through the repetitions and evasions of the official discourse being deployed by the government, Kensington and Chelsea council, and ‘interested’ corporate parties who insist that regulations were complied with and profess to welcome any investigation.

Downing Street had clearly decided that May’s performances on Thursday hadn’t worked. It was feeling that the prime minister was sent out to communicate the following day; her repeated use of the words ‘horrific’, ‘terrible’ and ‘horrendous’ was the obvious index of this. And her repeated reference to the £5 million emergency fund, with its connotations of practical immediacy, was intended to make up for the lofty distance suggested by the public inquiry she had announced the day before. By Saturday morning, direct speech had been abandoned altogether, with Damian Green, the first secretary of state, insisting that ‘she’s distraught by what happened as we all are.’

It’s easy to charge May with a lack of empathy, a personal psychological failing. But her evolving language after the Grenfell fire is part of a bigger official discourse, which is itself in crisis. It is an axiom of popular knowledge that politicians never answer the question that’s put to them; a cliché that most political representatives don’t listen. Conversely, political parties never seem to tire of telling their constituencies what they are thinking or what they ‘really’ meant when they voted for Brexit or Ukip or Labour or the Lib Dems. And when they don’t respond predictably or conveniently, when they respond with anger or contempt, or propose an alternative version of events or proposal for what should be done, it is conventional for politicians to represent this not as conflict or divergence but as a communication failure: we just didn’t get our message over clearly enough.

The work and pensions secretary, David Gauke, gave an interview to Channel 4 News on Friday evening. As he tried to step deftly between ‘regulations’ and ‘guidance’ while saying nothing that would implicate him or his government in anything at all, it was almost inevitable that Gauke would slip. The speed at which he self-corrected ‘simplify the regulations’ to ‘simplify the guidance’ was remarkable. There was a startling lack of concrete nouns in Gauke’s language, and had it not been for the interviewer, Cathy Newman, you would hardly have known what events Gauke was talking about. He used the word ‘fire’ only twice in the six-minute interview, and despite Newman’s repeatedly asking whether the residents of Britain’s 4000 tower blocks could feel safe, Gaufe avoided using the words ‘safe’ or ‘safety’. He wasn’t speaking to the moment but to a probable future; his words had been chosen to withstand the scrutinies of inquest, investigation and enquiry. He said nothing that attributed responsibility to anyone or anything. The Downing Street statement that support for victims in the immediate aftermath of the fire ‘was not good enough’ is comparable:

The response of the emergency services, NHS and the community has been heroic. But, frankly, the support on the ground for families who needed help or basic information in the initial hours after this appalling disaster was not good enough.

This crucially obscures the question of where the support might have – should have – come from.

Gaufe’s replies were part of a catch-all disaster script, stuck together with boilerplate phrases: ‘we must get to the bottom of … we must understand … we mustn’t jump to conclusions.’ The ‘we’ of government is a problem in this crisis, raising a raft of questions about responsibility. May, Gauke et al. can adopt a ‘we’ quite comfortably if it is the ‘we’ that makes money available or instructs other agencies (fire services, local councils etc.) to make checks, follow guidelines and, by inference, bear responsibility for the fire and what follows. This ‘we’ also does vaguer stuff such as offer condolences, ‘get to the bottom of’ things and ‘try to fully understand’ them. But it quickly finds itself in tricky territory. ‘We’ mustn’t rush to conclusions or pre-empt investigations, and it can soon look as if ‘we’ isn’t doing much at all except standing on the sidelines and exhorting.

Responsibility is a double bind. The government, Kensington and Chelsea council, and the companies they outsource to, must appear to be agents who are in control and capable of dealing with what May called ‘an absolutely horrendous tragedy’. But they also want to deflect from themselves any responsibility for causing it, with the effect that they sound distant, defensive, repetitive and on occasion paralysed. Discursively they cannot win, which is one reason the fetish for feeling is so critical.

In May’s Newsnight interview, the fire was a ‘tragedy’, an ‘event’, an ‘incident’, at one point, agonisingly, a ‘circumstance’, nouns nearly always preceded by such epithets as ‘horrendous’, ‘terrible’, ‘terrifying’, which were themselves sometimes preceded by ‘absolutely’. Painful as this discourse is, it is uncomplicatedly intransitive: it promises nothing but feeling, and sidesteps hard questions about responsibility and agency. So if there is psychological failing, there is also, more importantly, political strategy. Virtues and their opposites have historically specific forms and perhaps it isn’t surprising that empathy and understanding, the demonstration of feeling for others, have assumed such significance in such a fundamentally unequal society.

Comments on “Nothing But Feeling”

  1. IPFreely says:

    Don’t worry, be happy. The only other example of a political leader betraying his/her complete incompetence I can think of is Eden trying to justify attacking Egypt in 1956. (Oh, and Sir Alex but he was relatively harmless, a beached Tory trying his best.) That May is still in office is incomprehensible to me. She probably sees herself as a successor to Thatcher, battening down the hatches as Jonny Argie attacks, seeing in a flash how she was going to get out of the one. And what is worse, the lackeys in the media and in her party who are telling that she is doing a good job.

  2. Apala C says:

    I did a double take when I heard May say,
    “Knickers” in the interview. I instantly wondered if it had been a deliberate word choice to help feminise her – or if we were catching a glimpse of the inner May. Never have I lingered for so long on the semiotics of “knickers”.

    • Lashenden says:

      I found May’s enunciation of ‘t-shirt and knickers’ both discomforting and illuminating. As an attempt project the PM’s personal authenticity it was jarring and implausible, as an example of empathetic public language it was hopelessly crude but also oddly prurient, somehow only succeeding in adding bodily shame to the tribulations of the individual she was describing. I’d totally agree that we were catching a glimpse – of the Conservative Party’s panicked desperation as the incoherence of it’s ideology and addiction to power at any cost becomes evident to all.

    • GeorgeMKeynes says:

      I thought definitely the inner May. Told to try to imagine being a victim, the closest she could get was the extreme embarrassment that would be felt by a vicar’s daughter finding herself in public with only T-shirt and knickers.

  3. IPFreely says:

    It gets worse and worse. According to the manufacturer, the cladding was suitable because it was “fire resistant “. Is it possible that anybody doubts that the cladding was the major reason for the incredibly rapid spread of the flames upwards and around the whole building. The responses of the administration have been abysmal. One leader resigned, which will help nobody. How long will it take the former tenants to find suitable, affordable housing? When will the prime minister resign? This is one of the most appalling scandals since the days of Rachmann and his like.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • Graucho on The Deal: Can you have an open border without belonging to the customs union ? If so how ?
    • rm1 on Lecturer Wanted, £10 an hour: This is especially worrying given the high fees charged by NCH which would presumably entitle the students to a first class service which £10 an hour...
    • michael bosley on The Deal: As the internet meme has it, "Rents continue to rise as woman pays £1bn for 6 months in central London home" As a illustration of the utter decad...
    • LTK on Lecturer Wanted, £10 an hour: The last position sounds deeply unappealing. Either they've gone too low and are going to struggle to get a suitable candidate or else the price is ri...
    • R. B. on Lecturer Wanted, £10 an hour: Sad indeed to report that, as an unemployed U.S. academic, my first reaction after reading the "plumbing new depths" terms of this job was to think it...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement