Interdependency?

Have a look at this: Jonathan Rutherford: The new Conservatives say that there is such a thing as society, but are they prepared to pay for it? | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk. There's a very interesting prospectus for the future of culture and politics: "Interdependency will be the new political virtue. Individual market choice will no longer command policymaking. Instead relationships will be the priority. Emotional life, not rational choice, is the glue that holds society together. Emotional intelligence and trust, not micro-management, is what makes organisations function well. Emotional liveliness, not testing, creates good education. Collective enterprise, not competitive individualism, is at the core of a successful economy."
This certainly rings bells with what a lot of sociological writers seem to be saying regarding the current 'mood' of western society where the turn to the subjective is in full swing. Bauman charts it in his various 'Liquid' books. Heelas calibrates it against current spiritual and religious trends. I would say it is only a matter of time before it finds expression more fully and formally in our society. The thing is; how does it gain practical political expression? And then the big question: how do we as church respond? Read Heelas and Whitehead, and you'll get a sense of the shift and how awry the 'classic' form of church and proclamation are from what is culturally shifting. I think, actually, that Heelas overstates some of the characterisation of the subjective turn in a way that overplays the distinctions. Nevertheless we have the theological resources to meet this, an Irenaean theology would work much better, for example, in my opinion. If you want to think more, you could do worse than look at John Drane's 'New Age' work. And you might like to look over my MA thesis for clues as it deals with life coaching and spiritual direction in a cultural context and so attends to many of the concerns.