The central feature of David Goodhart's view of the world is the reductive oppositions. After the binary of somewheres vs anywheres we now have the tripartite head, hand & heart. But in the real world these clear divisions don't exist.
The population has always been highly mobile. The people we characterise as somewheres are often themselves migrants or their children. Many "towns" were created by wholesale transplantation, & often quite recently (eg Scottish steelworkers in Corby).
Similarly, the vast majority of jobs combine cognitive, manual & social skills. Think of a butcher, a nurse or a librarian. The undervaluing of care work has nothing to do with the dominance of "heart" & everything to do with the structure of the care industry.
Ultimately, Goodhart's analysis suffers from an instability of interpretation. Is he describing intrinsic characteristics (temperament), elective affinities (values) or environmental constraints (structure)?
It's hard to avoid the conclusion that he is in the first instance simply romanticising conservativism, while his latest Casaubon-like "key" takes this a step further by seeking to re-establish the great hierarchy of being under cover of a parity of esteem.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.