Over the summer break last year, almost everything I read contained a reference to ‘a good life’, in one way or another. I felt energised, and comforted that my beliefs, those that are central to my vocation, were shared by authors across a wide range of literature.

It has continued again this year, partly by re-reading some of the same material, and I feel impelled to write something down about what I see as a good life and how we view ambition through this prism. I also would like to try and relate this to the current education system and its failings. And as a structure, I am borrowing from Michael Sandel’s suggestions at the end of his book entitled ‘Justice’. When I re-read them again yesterday, I was struck by just how relevant they are, twenty or so years after he wrote them.

But first, what do I mean by a good life?

For me, it is steeped in my belief in Catholic social teaching. Based on seven core principles including the common good and solidarity, CST provides a framework for organisations as well as a personal creed. It provides a good starting point for a life of flourishing, service, solidarity, happiness, purpose and collective joy. It is equally appropriate to my late brother Richie, severely disabled as he was, as it is to a highly-credentialed, ambitious person such as Rishi Sunak. A good life can be enjoyed by all, on a continuum from Richie to Rishi. People should be encouraged to flourish without any preconceptions about what constitutes success or failure.

I agree with Sandel’s central thesis in his brilliant book, ‘The Tyranny of Merit’ which offers a profound critique of individualism. He argues that meritocracy, as played out in our society, is poisonous and creates hubristic winners and guilt-addled losers. Those who gain success in society attribute their position to their own hard work and talent, and by association look down with little sympathy on those who are less successful. This individualistic separation is anathema to a good life.

Instead, a good life surely has to contribute directly to the common good of society. It cannot be seen in isolation. It is therefore anti-individualist, and increasingly anti-consumption. As Barack Obama said after the banking crisis in 2008, ‘Instead of a call to service, we were asked to go shopping.’ Obama, like many other political leaders, tried to move the dial, but came to realise the limitations of his power.

So that is where education comes in. Schools are uniquely placed to shift that dial just a little bit more within their own communities. If this becomes a group of schools working together, that shift could end up being a paradigm shift, who knows. We have to hope; we have to believe.

Sandel’s first recommendation is for more citizenship, sacrifice and service. We must find a way to push back against the purely privatised notions of the good life and instead cultivate civic virtues. Schools can explore this through initiatives relating to community partnerships, local volunteering, multi-generational learning. Politicians don’t seem to have the will, nor the vision to create something like a National Civic Service as proposed by people from Adrian Pabst in the New Statesman, or William Hague in the Times. So educators will need to set up their own programmes, nudging young people and the communities that they live in.

Next is to consider the moral limits of the market. Examples proliferate across society, but let’s just consider those related to education. We must rail against the injustices of the grotesque league tables, how crude data drives school values and pushes us more and more towards audit and surveillance, squeezing original thinking out and leaving creative minds moribund and scrambled. It is leading to isolationism and desperation as schools compete for money, pupils, prestige and power. This is at the heart of the recruitment and retention crisis; not money but the crushing of joy and spirit.

Instead, we must be guided by moral principles and stand up for our beliefs whenever the market leads to injustice and inequality. If and when in power, a Labour government could solve this in a few weeks, without any extra financial commitment. Just cut out all those elements of the marketisation of education that have proved so divisive and destructive.

Thirdly, Sandel laments the undermining of solidarity in institutions and in public life.  As I wrote a couple of years ago here https://allencompasscouk.wordpress.com/2021/07/22/bursting-bubbles/, too many people live in bubbles now, separated from their countrymen and women. Technology has led to communications being virtual, impersonal. There are fewer civic institutions that pull us together.  Whole swathes of people avoid public transport (unsurprisingly when it is so poor), and when they do take it, invariably their eyes stay fixed to their phones. Faced with such a rapid change, it would seem unfair to ask schools to solve the problem, but they can go some way to doing this in the same way I suggested above, through community volunteering, multi-generational learning etc. I also continue to press for schools as community hubs and recently have noticed at least two articles advocating the same. Schools can be the saviour of our trust in public institutions; they may become the only ones left at this rate.

Finally, we come to welcoming moral disagreement, not suppressing it. Sandel worries about an impoverished social discourse, which surely has worsened significantly in the years since the book was published. Instead of throwing grenades from our silos, we need a culture of encounter where disagreements can lead to growth, respect, understanding and change. If you haven’t read Arthur Brooks’ book, ‘Love your Enemies’ then do so. He makes this case very powerfully. Pope Francis does the same in his encyclical ‘Fratelli Tutti’. As educators, we must infuse our young people and their communities with this culture, placing it at the centre of our curriculum.  

Which brings me to ambition. Ambition is often used as a proxy for a good life, particularly for pupils from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Without it, goes the argument, you are destined for futility and poverty.  Get on!! Climb the ladder!! Leave your old life behind!!

But if all this approach does is to prioritise the pursuit of more money, more social standing, more social media followers, more consumer products, more time spent creating a perfect body or face, then I want nothing to do with ambition.

Instead, we need to define ambition directly in terms of what a good life means. This is especially true of multi-academy trusts that pepper all their marketing and visioning with ‘ambition’. Some even include it within their titles. But what does it mean? Because ambition as described above works emphatically against all the values and virtues outlined by Sandel. In projecting ambition within our educational establishments, we must be very careful not to add to the carnage, giving people a legitimate claim to grab as many of the grapes as they can from a withering vine.

For me, ambition should be the ability to lead a good life. To find fulfilment and dignity in work, to have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances from the whole of society, to be part of civic life and community, to find happiness in nature and the world around us, to be strong in the face of consumerist pressure, and to have a thirst for lifelong learning, not simply learning to accrue credentials.

The New Economics Foundation has used the word ‘well-being’ instead of ‘a good life’ but look at how much synergy there is. It states 5 elements that it believes lead to a life of good well-being.

1. Connecting to people around us
2. Being active in our bodies
3. Taking notice in the world
4. Learning new skills
5. Giving to others.

It would appear there are lots of people saying the same thing here. Notably, Sir Michael Marmot, the academic/researcher from University College London who was commissioned by the World Health Organisation and the UK government to research health inequalities. He talks in terms of a ‘life of dignity’ and how relative poverty is as much about the psychological pressures that accompany living a life with scant resources.

In conclusion, a ‘good life’ is available for all, maybe even a right for all. You could not get two more different characters than my brother Richie and our current PM Rishi, but they are on that same continuum, and are (were, in the case of Richie) equally valuable to our common home.

It is an alternative to meritocracy, and one much needed in order to end its tyranny.