I phrased the question slightly more softly by saying "should we make a distinction between social enterprise in general and social enterprise from the church? The former being motivated by middle-class self interest and the latter by a desire to serve the most needy."
I was glad for this lecture on Social Enterprise as it seemed to me to be analogous to Big Society and answered some of the doubts I've had about it. I've been pretty sceptical about the idea of Big Society as it seems to be promoted by the Tories as a smoke screen or veneer for their ideologically driven cuts to the state. I've tended to remember Big Society by the acronym 'BS' as it seemed like a lot of BS to me when I first heard it.
And yet the concept of a more cohesive and generous society that seeks the common good is surely one to supported? What the realisation of of the distinction between social enterprise in general and as driven by the church showed me was that the key is 'motivation'. Where social enterprise (or Big Society) is driven by love and to serve the needs of the poor and marginalised then it is to be whole-heartedly supported. The church is well placed to lead the way in this regard (although will not be unique in this altruistic or generous outlook). Where social enterprise (or Big Society) is to serve the needs of the already empowered, as is the case when it is driven by the free market - opened up to any who have the means and opportunity - then it will tend towards widening inequality.
One example is that of 'Free Schools'. I've heard it suggested that Free Schools are a simple progression from the Academy programme. However, by opening up the investing and running of schools to the market Free Schools are seen to be opposite in their outcomes to the Academy programme. Where Academy schools aim to provide investment into struggling schools for the benefit of the most deprived, Free Schools provide opportunity for middle class parents to avoid the schools that are most struggling, thereby further condemning the worst schools to struggle with even less resources.
What are the motivations driving the changes? For Academies, we, the State, wants to improve the worst schools for the sake of the most deprived. For Free Schools, the middle classes are motivated by self-service.
The principles of Big Society do not need to be opposed to the state. Big Society is neither the preserve of the right nor the left. Having said that, Big Society would perhaps fit best within a leftist framework, finding its ultimate expression in a strong state which represents the will of the people and is fully accountable to the people. If we can begin to understand the state in terms of 'we the state' rather than 'them the state' then we will see that the state is the Big Society.
