No doubt these observations will become out of date. I remember in a Russian city a wonderful evening talking to a group of writers who made a point of insisting that they were a 'non-official group'. The youngest was in her early twenties, the oldest must have been at least seventy. I recognised this group as very similar to ones in England; but I also realised that they needed to struggle to keep their own happy autonomy.
Sometimes voluntary groups agree to work side by side with official organisations that have been set up local governments and local institutions. Why should they do that? In practical terms they may be able to use premises more cheaply or make effective contact with specialists. They can advertise their existence through local government channels. They can apply for grants. They are given the blessing of official approval.
For example, let us consider the group of parents campaigning for a special children's heart unit at their local hospital. They might be asked by the local health authority if they would like to organise holidays for children with heart problems. "We already do that,' they might say. 'Ah yes,' say the local officials. 'But there are many such children whose parents are not part of your association. But you know about organising holidays for these children, you know about the difficulties.... and of course we would pay the organisers.' Perhaps there are several people in the group who would like to do this both for the pay, and because they want to be helpful. Perhaps the group think that such work would bring more people into their association, and make their campaign more effective. But on the other hand, they may decide that they do not have much time, and they prefer to devote it all to campaigning. After all, they might have to oppose the local authority. So they do not want to be co-operating too closely.
Some groups who choose to work with official organisations flourish. Take the example of Scouts and Guides. The Scout movement became international nearly one hundred years ago. Today versions of its methods and activities exist in most countries of the world. Baden-Powell began his Scout movement with twenty boys camping on an island off the south coast of England. His association was voluntary, run by voluntary workers and free of official interference. But he was enthusiastic about bringing his Scouts and Guides into line with government policies and values. His boys and girls had to swear allegiance to God and the monarch, and to follow rules which echoed military and other official rules. Most (but not all) children loved this commitment; and they could always leave if they wished to do so. With the endorsement of the British government, Scouting became immensely popular. It was imitated by Soviet governments when they established and developed Pioneers and the Komsomol. But the big difference was that there was no pressure for individuals to join the Scouts or the Guides, and there was no retribution or difficulty for those who decided to leave. Although they were close, the Scout Movement and the British government were never in formal alliance.
Similarly some of the major campaigning environmental groups such as Greenpeace have had a crucial but uneasy relationship with governments. Usually their role is to attack government policies worldwide. After all, if they agree with policies of a particular country they do not need to be very active in that country! But recently, now that environmental matters have become so urgent to governments throughout the world, Greenpeace is sometimes called in as a specialist organisation which can give good advice. 'Greenpeace says...' announces a Government official. Is that a good thing? If the environment matters so much, then surely it is a good thing when powerful organisations listen to this voluntary organisation? But is Greenpeace then in danger of becoming a tool of government? In order to be effective, the campaigning group must preserve its autonomy and independence. Major debates take place about just how far it ought to co-operate even with the most friendly government.
In this chapter I have tended to emphasise the smaller groups, the local intimate activities in which so many people take part. Sometimes Russians ask me questions such as, 'Do English people generally join reading groups?' or 'Do divorced parents generally join a club for single parents?' At this point I realise that my explanations have been inadequate because 'generally' is a word that leads to serious misunderstandings. 'Generally' implies that the activity is practiced by a majority of those who are eligible to take part. 'Children generally have to study both sciences and foreign languages at school.' 'Parents generally try to help their student-age children with financial assistance if they can afford to do so.' Behind these usages is a sense that an authority of some kind expects this behaviour. The authority may be the state, or 'public opinion', or 'experts', or the moral norms of a society.
By contrast, within the "voluntary associationism" which I have described there is no such authority, visible or invisible; individuals choose to join or not to join; to join many groups, one group, no groups. So - 'do people generally join reading groups' is a question to which the answer is 'No, only a minority' and 'The whole point of a club or group is that it attracts a small minority - because everywhere there are groups for different kinds of people. And if you don't want to join anything, that's fine too.
Chapter 3. Helping others: The Big Issue and other bright ideas
We all have an idea of charity: an old woman is poor or ill, somebody else sees her suffering and gives her money so that she can buy some food or medicine. That person is being charitable. Why? Because human beings can feel pity; because we can imagine what it is like to be that poor sick person; because we are grateful for our own good fortune. Perhaps because we believe that our religion asks us to do so; perhaps because we are atheists with a belief that good human acts must be done in this world. In any case, being charitable is a impulse that occurs in all human societies. In this chapter I describe some of the ways in which the British respond to other people in need of charity.
On the streets of Britain you can see beggars asking for money. There are far fewer than twenty years ago, and you can be reasonably sure that they are known to social workers. Some of them sleep outside, others in hostels for the homeless. Occasionally you may be approached in the street by someone asking for 'a bus fare back to my home'. These people are usually trying to get money for drugs. Passers-by will sometimes give either kind of beggar fifty pence or so, and hope that the money brings them a little comfort.
You can also see individuals standing at specific sites, selling copies of a magazine called The Big Issue. These are homeless people who earn money by selling this weekly magazine of entertainment and current affairs, published by "The Big Issue Company'. The Big Issue sellers (known as Vendors') buy their copies from the company for 75p and sell for £1.50, thereby earning 75p per copy. The magazine is read by over half a million people every week throughout Britain. Any further profit generated through the sale of the magazine or the sale of advertising is passed on to the company's associated charity, 'The Big Issue Foundation' which currently supports over 2500 homeless people across the country. So here we have a different form of charity. The beggars are encouraged to earn their living, and the public, who, by buying their magazine have become interested in their problems, then give money to the Foundation to help them with all the problems associated with poverty and homelessness. Two people founded the company; they put their efforts and knowledge - and money - into producing an attractive and informative magazine, and into organising London's homeless into an effective network of vendors. Who is paid? First of all, the people who write and produce and print and distribute the magazine. Wages and production costs come to 75p a copy. The vendors earn their own money, knowing that those who buy The Big Issue at £1.50 are mostly well aware that half the cost goes to the vendor.