Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Alone together? Cultivating social solidarity in the year ahead

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Sunday 30 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
One thing the riots this summer revealed is that in recent years there has been an implosion of community life in much of Britain. Many urban youth seem to have so little commitment to the neighbourhoods they live in that they are prepared to trash them. While the riots may be an extreme example, the broader dearth of solidarity is not confined to British teenagers. Throughout the Western world, policy-makers and social critics are increasingly concerned about social fragmentation, individuation, and a ‘look the other way’ culture. While commentators variously blame government cuts and neoliberal greed or street gangs and poor parenting for destroying social bonds, there seems to be a deeper problem that is barely addressed. The erosion of basic ties of solidarity between parents and other adults, between the generations, and across cultural groups, suggests a diminished sense of society per se, and a loss of agreement about where authority lies. Explanations focusing on individual behaviour and those pointing to impersonal economic forces seem equally inadequate in accounting for what amounts to a crisis of meaning. Arguably this trend has been accelerated by decades of misguided government interventions meant to alleviate or compensate for social fragmentation, from divisive multicultural policies and short-termist welfare programmes to over-zealous child protection schemes that institutionalise distrust.
The historic context is surely the demise of more organic social bonds, from churches to trades unions, and the associated political ideals. Indeed, collective political action seems a distant memory. While some talk up relatively feeble examples of political activity, from sporadic student gatherings to marches against the cuts, critics contend that in the absence of a much more coherent and persuasive vision for social change, this is little more than wishful thinking. There is little evidence of an upsurge of people coming together seriously to confront the economic and social problems we face, and candidly debate the barriers to social solidarity.
Even calls for us to come together for the sake of the greater good (such as David Cameron’s Big Society) implicitly assume we must put aside self-interest in favour of abstract community cohesion (‘we’re all in it together’), rather than making genuinely common cause on the basis of shared interests that might involve changing society. Artificial schemes for community service, compulsory volunteering, even supervised networking can make matters worse. What could be more corrosive to spontaneous social bonds than collective schemes supervised from on high by the state and its agencies? So how do we distinguish between sham solidarity and the real thing? Can we develop a real stake in our own communities, and look to each other - rather than the state - to solve the problems we face? How can we cultivate a more powerful sense of solidarity?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

The rise of the clicktivists: will the revolution be digitised?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Sunday 30 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
A new generation of online activists is credited with fuelling a resurgence in contemporary protest, using blogs, Twitter and other social media to mobilise and get their message across. These so-called ‘clicktivists’ boast they are transforming the way protests are organised, taking a leaderless, spontaneous and quick-moving form. Blogger Laurie Penny even claims the web is ‘the greatest democratising force of our times’. Numerous commentators have dubbed the uprisings in Tunisia and across the Middle East ‘Wikileaks revolutions’ because of the way activists used the web to communicate and coordinate protests. And clicktivists aren’t just fomenting protests on the streets: internet group ‘Anonymous’ has taken on the websites of some of the world’s largest companies, and many claim the world’s first ‘cyberwar’ is on the horizon. Nevertheless, this new kind of online activism is also being promoted by governments. The US State Department is actively encouraging digital activists in certain countries with oppressive governments. Even the UK government is encouraging a kind of clickivism, with new forms of e-petitions being proposed to better engage with the views and desires of the public.
Is the internet just another tool in the activists’ toolbox, accelerating normal protests, or has it brought about fundamental changes? If it has, for better or worse? Is it increasing the amount of debate and discussion around protests, or actually making protests more superficial; diminishing what it is to be committed to a cause and estranging campaigners from grassroots concerns? Does the new ‘leaderless’ form of organisation online mark the development of a powerful weapon against the status quo, or instead mean protests are likely to be fleeting, ineffective and chaotic? In his book The Net Delusion, Evgeny Morozov argues that the internet can just as easily be used by governments to counter protests and for increased surveillance and control. Hosni Mubarak’s faltering administration even shut down the internet in Egypt for a week, suggesting it would be a mistake to make activism too dependent on the web.
Is proclaiming ‘It’s Twitter wot won it’ diminishing the hard work and dedication that goes into meaningful protests? Will future revolutions happen online, or do the clicktivists need to put down their laptops and get out more?
SPEAKERSDavid Babbsexecutive director, 38 degrees, an online campaigning community
Phil Boothcoordinator, medConfidential
Paul Masonbroadcaster; author, Financial Meltdown and the End of the Age of Greed; technology editor, BBC's Newsnight
Martyn Perksdigital business consultant and writer; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation
CHAIRPatrick Hayesdirector, British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA)

Is individualism bad for society?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Sunday 30 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
“…individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There lies its immense value. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine” Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Everything from social fragmentation to the economic crisis, and the riots that broke out across English cities in the summer, has been blamed on a modern ‘cult of individualism’, epitomised by Margaret Thatcher’s insistence that ‘there is no such thing as society’. Labour leader Ed Miliband denounces ‘a “take what you can” culture’ that began in the 1980s, which he concedes New Labour did little to challenge. But Tory Prime Minister David Cameron also seeks to distance himself from his infamous predecessor, championing the ‘Big Society’. It has become routine to despair of individuals’ greed for consumer goods. More broadly, strong-willed individuals who know their own minds are accused of arrogance, egotism, even bullying. But isn’t there something to be said for individualism? After all, the individual has historically been asssociated with independence of mind, self-determination and self-reliance. Strong individuals have been admired for their courage and imagination, even valued for the unique contributions they can make to society rather than regarded as necessarily undermining social solidarity. So are we wrong to focus on the negatives, or is it time we recognised the damaging effects of individualism? Critics remind us that the individual smoker’s choice can imperil public health; one person’s free speech can cause offence and sow discord for countless others; motorists who insist on their individual freedom to drive petrol-guzzling SUVs clutter the roads and pollute the air.
Meanwhile, developments in neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and genetics cast doubt on the very idea of individual autonomy: some suggest free will is an illusion. Individuals are seen as hapless and hopeless if left to their own devices, too easily influenced by the malign advertisers or populist demagogues. Paternalist policy-makers and ‘choice architects’ regard the idea of moral autonomy as little more than an inconvenience, preferring to nudge individuals into making the right choices. But don’t diminished views of the individual also undermine the possibility of a strong society? If the ‘we’ in any collective comprises such feeble individuals, what is the content of society or solidarity?
Arguably, even seemingly self-sacrificing acts of public service - from volunteering to help others to laying down one’s life for a greater cause - require a strong sense of personal autonomy. By contrast, if we value conformity to social norms above individuality, is our ‘free will’ reduced to what JS Mill called ‘ape-like imitation’? And anyway, does self-interest necessarily preclude generosity, empathy and solidarity? Was selfish individualism really to blame for the summer’s riots? Or was it a breakdown of any sense of individual responsibility that caused so many to join the frenzy of looting? Can ‘individualism’ be good for society?
SPEAKERSDr Maurice Glasmanarchitect, ‘Blue Labour’; director, faith and citizenship programme, London Metropolitan University; Labour life peer (Baron Glasman); author, Unnecessary Suffering: managing market utopia
Clifford Longleyauthor, broadcaster and journalist; leader writer and columnist, Tablet; pannellist; BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze
John SutherlandEmeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of English Literature, University College London; author, The Lives of the Novelists
Bruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times; co-author, No Means No
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Loyalty in an age of whistle-blowing and Wikileaks

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Sunday 30 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Until recently, leaking - the disclosure of confidential information - was generally perceived as an act of disloyalty, irresponsibility or betrayal. It was also rare, and for the leaker it involved a moral dilemma. More recently, it is secrecy, confidentiality and privacy that have been stigmatised. So what was once castigated as an act of betrayal is increasingly recast as the heroic deed of a brave whistle-blower. Loyalty is no longer seen as an unalloyed virtue, disloyalty no longer viewed wholly negatively. One reason breaches of confidence have become normalised is that trust in officialdom and institutions, from parliament to multinational corporations, has been steadily eroded. We seem to take it for granted that politicians lie and big business is involved in dodgy dealings behind closed doors. In such circumstances, it is not what politicians, officials and business leaders say or do, but rather what they are allegedly trying to hide that becomes the subject of interest. Hence, the leaking of information per se is presented as an heroic act: anything that means more transparency can only be good.
This feeds a new form of conspiratorial thinking. Wikileaks’ Julian Assange and his followers argue that as long various networks of conspirators are free to plot behind the scenes, their domination of the world will continue. Thus, exposing their nefarious activities to the public gaze represents a blow for freedom, since it diminishes the flow of ‘important communication between authoritarian conspirators’ and weakens their grip over society. Others suggest this worldview is overly simplistic, and actually fuels rumour, suspicion and mistrust? If people believe their lives are controlled by hidden forces beyond their comprehension, won’t the public become even more immobilised and cynical? And if institutions and individuals in positions of authority constantly fear their private deliberations and confidential correspondence may be leaked, won’t they become more wary of frank exchanges? More guarded, more secretive? And how useful is all this leaked information anyway? While leaks can embarrass individuals and institutions and occasionally bring to light important facts, are they a serious replacement for what can potentially be learned through analysing the world, through research and investigation, and, of course, through the clash of opinions and ideas?
Should organisations expect loyalty from staff? Should colleagues demand loyalty from one another? What distinguishes loyalty from blind obedience? Is the problem that there are too few organisations and causes that are genuinely worthy of loyalty?
SPEAKERSMick Humeeditor-at-large, online magazine spiked; author, Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?
Joyce McMillanchair, Hansard Society Working Group in Scotland; judge, 2010 Saltire Scottish Book of the Year Award; theatre critic, Scotsman
Henry Porterpolitical columnist, Observer; UK editor, Vanity Fair; novelist; author, Brandenburg winner of Ian Fleming Steel Dagger award for best thriller
Gwyn Prinsresearch professor, LSE; director, LSE Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events
Richard Sextonpartner, PwC
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Fracking and Fukushima: our energy security fears

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Sunday 30 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
To a casual observer, two of the biggest news stories of early 2011 – the Arab Spring and the partial meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant after an earthquake and tsunami – could hardly have seemed more different. But for many in the West, the two events had one important factor in common: both had global consequences for the problem of energy. Political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa sent panic through the energy markets as oil supplies were once again threatened, while the spectre of nuclear meltdown at Fukushima offered a grim reminder of the risks posed by moving beyond ‘dirty’ fossil fuels. Indeed, barely a year goes by without an energy problem dominating the headlines: be it the BP oil spill of 2010 or recurring disputes between Russia and Ukraine over gas supplies. Even before one factors in the challenge posed to the EU27 countries by their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 20% on 1990 levels by 2020, energy security is near the top of the agenda of every leading nation.
With renewable energy still a long way from being able to meet the shortfall, many gloomily predict a future of brown-outs, tough energy efficiency measures, regular deep-sea drilling disasters and even bitter resource wars. Yet not everyone is so pessimistic. The discovery of huge reserves of shale gas around North America and Europe has been dubbed a ‘game-changer’ in terms of security and reducing environmental impact, although some doubt the safety of the apparently miraculous ‘fracking’ process. Despite the apocalyptic nightmares, however, even some leading sceptical campaigners conceded that the avoidance of catastrophe at Fukushima demonstrated the potential safety of nuclear energy over other available forms. Others advocate ambitious global energy grids of the sort under construction in the North Sea and west coast US, but even this might end up creating more security headaches than it solves.
Will the struggle for energy security result in a new ‘Great Game’, as some predict, with increasingly energy-thirsty developing countries joining the fight for dwindling resources? With the UK’s notoriously ambivalent approach to providing abundant energy, will ‘less is more’ become a patriotic duty as well as an eco-mantra? What role can innovation and alternative energy sources play in keeping the lights on?
SPEAKERSProfessor Gordon MacKerrondirector of Science and Technology Policy Research, School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex
Tanya Morrisongovernment relations manager, climate changes, Shell
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, London South Bank University
CHAIRTony Gillandassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas

Has tolerance gone too far?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Sunday 30 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Tolerance is a virtue, except when it isn’t. Critics of ‘the permissive society’ have long warned against the idea that anything goes, and even championed ‘zero tolerance’ policing. But many self-styled liberals are just as intolerant when it comes to ‘hate speech’ – for example the homophobic rants of the Westboro Baptist Church in the US, or misogynist rap lyrics – or the burqa, regarded as a symbol of women’s oppression. And the one thing many won’t tolerate is the intolerance of others. But do we confuse tolerance with respect and approval? Can we uphold the idea of tolerance while maintaining the right to criticise and judge rather than succumbing to moral relativism?
The tradition of tolerance – through John Locke, Voltaire, Kant and JS Mill – emphasised the importance of moral independence, not relativism. Locke tolerated what you thought because no one could ever establish tyranny in your heart. Mill also tolerated what you did – so long as it did not harm others. And crucially he valued the existence in society of views and opinions he found objectionable – their existence vital to the pursuit of truths which we should not assume we know. Tolerance, in this sense, was a response to a world made uncertain by the erosion of moral absolutes and conventional prejudices. As Voltaire wrote in his Essay on Tolerance: ‘Think for yourselves, and let others enjoy the privilege of doing so too’. Today, by contrast, the big issue is where the limits of tolerance should be. Defining the concept of harm to include subjective harm is one way of tightening those limits: society should not tolerate the emotional distress caused by offensive speech. Some even argue we should not tolerate acts which harm only ourselves: banning smoking; curbing binge drinking; warning against ‘junk’ foods. And, in the name of protecting tolerant societies from their enemies, the war on terror has justified intolerant measures – laws against incitement to terrorism or religious hatred – in many countries. Is this is a pragmatic limitation, without which tolerance would be just a naive ideal, or is it simply political censorship? What does tolerance mean today?
If we allow tolerance to mean being non-judgemental, do we risk becoming indulgent, indifferent even? Does the concept of ‘zero tolerance’ – often deployed in defence of those at risk of harm – mask an unwillingness to debate and argue? Should we approach the question of tolerance from the standpoint of my freedom to act, or your need for security? Can we afford to be tolerant of those who are themselves intolerant?  Can we afford to tolerate other people making mistakes along the way to getting it right? Is tolerating the vulgar, the offensive, the shocking, not, in part, the price of liberty? Or are such concepts vain and dangerous in today’s very uncertain world?
SPEAKERSChristopher Caldwellsenior editor, Weekly Standard; columnist, Financial Times; author, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: immigration, Islam and the West
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history
Professor Anna Elisabetta Galeottichair of political philosophy, University of Piemonte Orienatale in Vercelli; author, Toleration as Recognition
GM Tamásvisiting professor, Central European University; author, Les Idoles de la Tribu
CHAIRAngus Kennedyconvenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

Moral panics or just panic?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Saturday 29 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Earlier this year, the media itself became the focus of a media-fuelled ‘moral panic’.  The vocal political and media crusade against the News of the World quickly turned from an understandable disgust at the hacking of murdered teenager Milly Dowler’s phone into a seemingly out-of-control firestorm.  What started with revelations about less-than-savoury tabloid excesses soon threatened to engulf the whole of journalism and became the focus of animated activity for everyone from left-wing anti-corporate activists to usually moribund parliamentary sub-committees. Scalps are still being gleefully taken in a feeding-frenzy that has resulted in the closure of one of Britain’s oldest newspapers and the demise of top executives.
For all the fury, it seems unlikely that what drove the Twitterstorm, parliamentary hyper-activity and general hysteria about Hackgate was simply the sudden discovery of ‘evil tabloid hacks’.  After all, British public life has lurched from one such high-profile scandal to another in recent years, focusing on promiscuous celebrities, expenses-claiming MPs, greedy bankers and now scurrilous tabloid hacks working for Murdoch’s evil empire. Taking a sceptical view, the cultural script always seems to read: shocking revelation, followed by shrill denunciations of wrong-doers by an array of scandal-mongers; then fleeting but intense bursts of moral outrage, the search for ever more shocking revelations and new wrong-doers and demands that ‘something must be done’.  One scandal emerges as quickly as the old one subsides. So is there something more fundamental driving this process?
These episodes in some ways seem similar to traditional ‘moral panics’, whether over crime, youth, drugs or sexual freedom, each considered a threat to the moral fibre of society at that particular time. Critics noted how these panics focused irrationally on ‘folk devils’, from teenagers to immigrants, expressing a deeper anxiety about challenges to traditional norms and values. Today’s panics, however, appear to have a different character. Contemporary ‘folk devils’ could literally be anybody, from any social group. The unpredictable, free-floating dynamic can attach itself to a wide variety of events or personas. In some ways today’s ‘panics’ seem to act as a substitute for morality itself, an outlet for the expression of moral fury. The discovery of scandal allows for the exercising of something that is increasingly rare – moral certainty itself, or at least the playing out of a fantasy about Good taking a stand against Bad. All sections of society seem to be animated by the latest scandal, with each exposure of terrible wrongdoing seeming to rally new layers of hand-wringing activitists and certainly expressing an urgent and real feeling of anger about something, anything. But does anything good come of all this? And if such bouts of fury reveal a deeper moral malaise, what can be done to address it?
SPEAKERSDavid Aaronovitchcolumnist, The Times; author, Voodoo Histories; chair, Index on Censorship
Brendan O'Neilleditor, spiked; columnist, Big Issue; contributor, Spectator; author, A Duty to Offend: Selected Essays
Jenni Russellcolumnist and broadcaster; writer, Evening Standard, Sunday Times and Guardian; 2011 winner of Orwell Prize for Political Journalism
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Creativity and curiosity: do we make stuff up or find it out?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Saturday 29 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
For many music lovers, it is the seeming inevitability of a musical sequence that makes it beautiful, as if it has always existed, waiting to be discovered by its ‘composer’. Typically, we value serious literature for the truths it tells about the human condition, rather than for mere flights of fancy. The proverbial Indian woodcarver, asked how he approached his work, answered that he simply cut away the wood that didn’t look like an elephant. Perhaps, as Oscar Wilde said, art really is ‘the science of beauty’, revealing the world to us rather than adding something new. Or is all this an illusion? Is it an aesthetic judgement rather than a scientific one that leads us to describe a work of art as ‘truthful’?
Historically, great artists were often employed by the Church to glorify God, and their work was seen as a mere reflection of His Creation. Early scientists like Isaac Newton also saw themselves as revealing the glory of Creation. For modern thinkers in the wake of the Enlightenment, however, man made God in his own image, not the other way round. The led to a more heroic conception of both artists and scientists. Looking back, the great medieval cathedrals could be seen as monuments to man’s own ingenuity. Artists came to be seen as ‘creative’ in their own right, while scientists seemed to be unravelling religious beliefs with their discoveries about the natural world. But the resulting scepticism also opened the door to new forms of fatalism, a process still unfolding today. As neuroscience advances, some think we will discover we are not much more than human ants, determined by natural laws. As for the mysteries of art, there are countless examples of scientific or mathematical explanations of the Mona Lisa’s beauty or the perfection of a symphony. At the same time, though, some doubt the objectivity even of mathematics. Some doubt that complex numbers really ‘exist’, for example, and suggest mathematicians are inventing theories rather than discovering eternal verities. Meanwhile, the romantic celebration of artists as special individuals has given way in many quarters to doubt about the value of ‘postmodern’ art that seems neither true nor beautiful.
Modern humanity exists in a vast cold universe, but (most of the time) we don’t feel crushed by its weight. Are we fooling ourselves with stories we tell each other, papering over the existential cracks? Should we be much more honest about our significance, given what scientific measurement might reveal to us? How far can art and creativity go in informing our understanding of the world? Does art just reflect reality? Is reality shaped by art? Do we find what we are looking for? Even create what we want to find? Are we human because we make ourselves so, or just animals putting on airs?
SPEAKERSDr Ken Arnoldhead of public programmes, Wellcome Trust; author, Cabinets for the Curious
Dr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should stay there
Professor Colin Lawsondirector, Royal College of Music; period clarinettist; author, Mozart: Clarinet Concerto and Brahms: Clarinet Quintet
Ruth Padelpoet and writer; author, The Mara Crossing and Darwin: a life in poems
Professor Raymond Tallisfellow, Academy of Medical Sciences; author, philosopher, critic and poet; recent books include NHS SOS and Aping Mankind; chair, Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying
CHAIRDolan Cummingsassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story (forthcoming from Zero Books)

Profiting responsibly? Business in the big society

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Saturday 29 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Not long ago, ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) was all the rage. Leading consultants Giles Gibbons and Steve Hilton (now advisor to David Cameron) argued business could change the world, and it would be good for business too. Such rhetoric is increasingly seen as a cynical ruse, however, often dismissed as ‘green wash’, or a cynical means of avoiding unwanted regulation. But if the CSR brand is slightly tarnished, perhaps the Big Society offers a new lease of life to the idea of business as a force for good. David Cameron wants private enterprise to pick up the burden from the state and play a greater role in delivering public services. And while funding CSR programmes is no longer a no-brainer, at the 10th Annual Responsible Business Summit held in London at the start of May, top CEOs declared themselves eager to earn a ‘licence to operate’ by demonstrating their businesses’ social worth. This may be understandable, with the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer showing trust in British CEOs dropping from 51% to 35%. The public seems increasingly cynical about fat cats and powerful corporations. But how should business contribute to society? Milton Friedman famously argued a corporation’s purpose is solely to maximise returns for its shareholders. Traditional free market advocates explain that businesses make profits by producing useful goods and services, creating jobs in the process. What more do you want?
Today, however, shareholders’ interests are often pitted against those of broader stakeholders. The new buzz-phrases are ‘social accounting’ and ‘the triple bottom line’, with demands that the social and environmental effects of a company’s economic actions are made transparent to consumers, investors such as pension funds, and communities in the areas where the corporation operates, as well as regulators and the media. A cursory glance at the course content of MBA courses - bulging with as many modules on environmental, ethical and social issues as traditional topics like accounting and management - shows young entrepreneurs and tomorrow’s senior managers are routinely taught to ‘think and act beyond the bottom line’. But is the bottom line and profit really at odds with society as implied? Is it naïve to insist corporations’ contribution stands on its own merits? After all, long-term improvements in health, living standards, the arts and higher education depend on wealth creation.
Does business leaders’ eagerness to demonstrate their social worth in new ways reflect a loss of confidence in that core contribution? Perhaps it is easier to turn a profit by manipulating the public perception of brands, and benefitting from government largesse in the form of spurious public-private partnerships, than by investing in innovation and creating jobs in new sectors of the economy. If so, are critics letting corporations off the hook? Do CSR demands help restore trust in business, or create a world of smoke and mirrors? Should corporations take responsibility for forging a Big Society, or should they mind their own business?
SPEAKERSSue Clarkcorporate affairs director, SABMiller
Professor Bill Durodiéhead of department and chair of international relations, University of Bath
Giles Gibbonsfounder and CEO, Good Business; founder, Sustainable Restaurant Association; co-author, Good Business: your world needs you
Leo Johnsonpartner, PwC Sustainability & Climate Change; host, BBC World's Down to Business
Philippe Legrainvisiting senior fellow, LSE’s European Institute; author, Immigrants: your country needs them and European Spring: Why Our Economies and Politics are in a Mess – and How to Put Them Right
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

What is nature for?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Saturday 29 October at the Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Even in our culturally advanced and technologically sophisticated modern world, it seems we are fascinated by the natural world. Recent government plans to sell off woodlands were met with a storm of outrage; David Attenborough’s Planet Earth and Blue Planet documentaries have been international success stories, and Cornwall’s Eden Project has long outlived the Millennium Dome as a tourist attraction. But what do we mean by ‘nature’? Many of the ‘natural’ habitats we revere are actually the products of human activity, from agriculture and horticulture to the very act of selective conservation itself. Moreover, for much of human history, untamed natural forces were to be feared rather than admired. Even the 21st century citizen is not entirely insulated from such forces: whether it is the devastation wreaked by natural disasters such as the Asian Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina or the Haiti earthquake, or the unintended consequences of our own activity, from landslides caused by deforestation to anthropogenic climate change, we are regularly reminded how precarious civilisation can be in the face of Mother Nature.
The contemporary reaction to such rare disasters – ‘Nature’s Revenge’ ran one headline after the Fukushima earthquake – seems to suggest we are a long way from the Enlightenment view of man gaining freedom by controlling nature. As Rousseau put it, ‘Nature commands every animal, and beasts obey. Man feels the same impetus, but he knows he is free to go along or to resist; and it is above all in the awareness of this freedom that the spirituality of his soul is made manifest.’ Today, mankind seems more concerned with protecting nature than mastering it: witness the ferocity with which the Heathrow airport expansion was opposed. While many talk up the possibilities of alternative energy sources drawn from wind, solar and biofuels, the prospect of using ambitious bio-engineering to ‘improve’ nature makes others uncomfortable. Environmentalists insist we should see ourselves as an integral part of nature, rather than somehow outside it.
Is human history the story of man’s gradual but relentless domination of nature? Or is it possible for even the most ardent modernist to argue for keeping some spaces ‘natural’? Is nature an obstacle for mankind to overcome, or should we learn to work within its limits? What do we look to nature for, and why does it still have such a hold on the imagination of those who have benefitted from industrialised living?
SPEAKERSJosie Appletondirector, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State
Dr Jim Endersbysenior lecturer, University of Sussex; author, A Guinea Pig's History of Biology
Matthew Oatesspecialist on nature & wildlife engagement, National Trust
Ruth Padelpoet and writer; author, The Mara Crossing and Darwin: a life in poems
CHAIRPatrick Hayesdirector, British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA)

Battle of Ideas festival 2011: welcome address

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Saturday 29 October at Barbican, London.
SPEAKERS
Ann Furedichief executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service; author, The Moral Case for Abortion
Dr Paul Thompsonrector and vice-provost, Royal College of Art
Jamie Wallsvice president, UK communications, Shell
Mike Wrightexecutive director, Jaguar Land Rover
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive
 

Is nothing private anymore?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Saturday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘An Englishman’s home is his castle’ is a phrase that sounds so quaint and dated today it’s hard to remember the ideal it expressed. This was a clear sense of a private sphere into which the state and public authorities had no right to enter and the individual enjoyed autonomy. Today, that private space is increasingly subject to public scrutiny. It is now official policy that family life and child-rearing be subject to greater external intervention and scrutiny. Concerns about domestic abuse seems to justify any amount of probing into the intimacy of marital disputes, with a broader assumption that away from public view and left to their own devices, people will use the privilege of privacy to perpetrate unspeakable horrors. Those who have secrets they would rather not share are often treated with suspicion, especially if they are in positions of authority. We demand to see people’s tax bills and wage slips, to read organisation’s memos, internal company emails and financial dealings. The institutionalisation of transparency, the ubiquity of leaking, the hero-worship of whistle blowers and suspicion of any institution that does not bare all, suggests an end to any validation of privacy.
Nevertheless, in recasting privacy as the refuge of behind-the-scenes malevolence, some argue we denigrate one of the most important sites of human experience. The private sphere provides a space for self-exploration and reflection – for organisations as well as individuals – and intimate relationships certainly require privacy. The ideas, emotions and passions that are expressed to an intimate soul mate become something very different when disclosed to a public audience.
What constitutes the barrier between private and public has become ever more fuzzy. Are comments made to ‘friends’ on Facebook public pronouncements or private mutterings? Who owns the personal photos of our families, our baby bumps, ourselves behaving badly when we publish them online? And have these questions arisen only because of new technology, or has there been a deeper cultural shift? Was it better when the media turned a blind eye to the indiscretions, leaving the public to judge them as purely public figured? Is our preoccupation with the private lives of artists and celebrities a distraction from what really matters? Where does the public domain start and end? Is a culture of transparency and revelation creating a refreshingly open society or a tyranny with nowhere to hide?
SPEAKERSDavid Aaronovitchcolumnist, The Times; author, Voodoo Histories; chair, Index on Censorship
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history
Andrew Keenentrepreneur; founder, Audiocafe.com; author, Digital Vertigo: how today's online social revolution is dividing, diminishing, and disorienting us
Ursula Martinezcult cabaret diva; writer and performer, Me, Me, Me!, Hanky Panky and My Stories, Your Emails
Christine Rosenfellow, New America Foundation; senior editor, New Atlantis
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

What's wrong with equality?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2012 on Saturday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In his State of the Union speech this year, President Obama declared that inequality is ‘the defining issue of our time’. He said everyone should get ‘a fair shot’, do ‘their fair share’ and play by ‘the same set of rules’. Such fairness, such equality, was a matter beyond politics (‘not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values’), something without which the very fabric of society was at risk. In the UK, too, Prime Minister David Cameron has railed against ‘the incredible inequality of the modern world’. Economic debates are dominated by the spectre of dangerous inequalities. From Richard Layard’s economics of happiness, with its focus on relative income and the ‘paradox of prosperity’, to the fashionable endorsement of The Spirit Level, a bestselling book by academics much cited by politicians of all parties, to the Occupy movement, it has become an orthodoxy that unequal societies do worse in education, mental health and social cohesion.
The moral force of demands to lessen economic inequality seems to derive from the historically progressive demands for political equality. Who can object to that call for equal rights, whereby groups oppressed because of their gender, race or sexuality fought for their democratic rights? But does the fairness agenda really stand in the tradition of anti-slavery, civil rights and women’s suffrage? Is demanding regulation of bankers’ pay or calling for a mansion tax of the same order as the fight against Apartheid or the decriminalisation of homosexuality? Or are we in danger of confusing what we mean by equality by conflating the economic with the political?
The origin of the modern idea that ‘All men are created equal’ lies in Thomas Jefferson’s ‘immortal declaration’ in which equality was inalienably linked to liberty as a rebuttal against authoritarian rule. And yet demands for more equality can be used against individual freedom, religious freedom, free enterprise. Equal rights for minority groups may be progressive, but what about contemporary equal opportunity policies, such as quotas, that emphasise equality of outcomes? Talent is not equally distributed: some of us are fast, some bright, some musical. Some are not. That might not be ‘fair’, but there it is: we are not all born the same. Is it fair to discriminate and handicap to level the playing field? Or does such affirmative action come at too high a price in personal freedom? Do we really want economic redistribution to the level that we all have the same? Is the importance of equality more in allowing us to be different or in allowing us to be the same? What has equality come to mean today?
SPEAKERSSue Christoforoupolicy and research manager, The Equality Trust project, One Society; policy analyst
Thomas Hylland Eriksenprofessor of social anthropology, University of Oslo; novelist; author, Ethnicity and Nationalism and Globalization: the key concepts
Joyce McMillanchair, Hansard Society Working Group in Scotland; judge, 2010 Saltire Scottish Book of the Year Award; theatre critic, Scotsman
Brendan O'Neilleditor, spiked; columnist, Big Issue; contributor, Spectator; author, A Duty to Offend: Selected Essays
Trevor Phillipsformer chair, Equality and Human Rights Commission
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

The Battle against the Fates

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2011 on Saturday 29 October at Royal College of Art, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Men at some time are masters of their fates:The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,But in ourselves, that we are underlings.(Julius Caesar, 1.2.146), Cassius to Brutus
Education Minister Michael Gove says the government wants to help all Britain’s children shape their own destinies and become ‘masters of their own fate’. But is this a realistic aspiration, or even a meaningful one? Certainly the human struggle for self-mastery has a fine pedigree, going back to the ancients. But has the modern age brought us closer to this goal, or simply revealed the futility of trying to tame the fates? After all, one scientific discovery follows the next suggesting our behaviour is genetically driven. Some scientists claim everything from sexual preference to criminality, altruism to greed, is hardwired. Brain research and evolutionary psychology are mobilised to argue that even religious beliefs and morality are expressions of genetic and neurological dispositions. When US President Franklin Roosevelt said in 1939, ‘Men are not prisoners of Fate, but only prisoners of their own minds’, he was of course unaware of the gains of modern neuroscience. Bestselling authors like Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values and David Brooks in The Social Animal tell us a ‘cognitive revolution’ has occurred in recent years, ‘producing amazing insights about who we are’. Behavioural economics suggests we are essentially irrational, simply acting out our unconscious urges. Social determinism is also influential: it is taken for granted in the current discussion on social mobility that where you are born, both geographically and in class terms, is likely to dictate your future. Meanwhile, we feel increasingly powerless to deal with external forces, from international terrorism to swine flu, climate change to volcanic ash clouds.
The fatalistic zeitgeist means we tend increasingly to downplay the significance of our own actions and focus instead on external forces beyond our control. Frequently this leads to a conspiratorial mindset, and fears of being manipulated by anything from subliminal advertising to unknown powers that have no name. In such circumstances, our ability to change our destiny seems futile; we have little option but to defer to fate. What explains today’s intellectual temper of fatalism? If we believe individuals cannot control their own behaviour, let alone their future, where does that leave the exercise of free will? If our capacity to influence events is so limited, can there be any meaningful sense of responsibility? How can we be held to account if ‘my genes made me do it m’lud’? Or is it cowardly to avoid understanding that man-made science is now freeing us from the metaphysical ignorance that suggested we could determine who we are? Can the capacity for moral independence be rescued or is it a futile rage against the inevitable? Where does fate end and free will begin?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history
Peter Hunter OPprincipal tutor, philosophy, Blackfriars Hall; Dominican Friar
Steve RaynerJames Martin Professor of Science and Civilization; director, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford
Jeffrey Rosenprofessor of law, George Washington University; author, The Supreme Court: the personalities and rivalries that defined America
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Turbocharging devolution: boost or bust for democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From ‘street votes’ to ‘parish deals’, county councils to metro mayors, ‘devo-max’-style national governments to reforming the House of Lords, the UK is awash with new measures designed to enhance devolution and localism as a counter to ‘gross over-centralisation’. When Keir Starmer said a Labour government would empower communities to ‘take back control’, some commentators decried it as cynical repurposing of that renowned Brexit slogan. But in reality, parties of all colours now proclaim the need to ‘turbocharge’ devolution as the means to revitalise democracy.
Critics of centralisation seem to have a point. County, city and local authorities operate at the behest of Whitehall and a national ‘one size fits all’ approach. This often leaves local leaders without the powers and investment to direct funds and strategies to meet local needs. Legislation with enormous impact, for example on migration, can be determined by unelected Lords, with seemingly little thought to the towns and cities under pressure to house new arrivals. With England now the one UK country lacking its own devolved government, new decision-making powers at local level on employment support, transport, housing, culture or childcare provision appear to make sense.
But if devolution pushes power closer to the people, to what extent are people now in control? While place-based approaches seem commonsensical, do they simply add more bureaucracy or become a trojan horse for new elites? After all, measures such as low-traffic neighbourhoods and ultra-low emissions zones are led by experts – who often ignore the results of consultations with residents and businesses. Private-public collaborations such as Local Enterprise Partnerships hand over power to business and unelected ‘public’ appointees. Meanwhile, devolved national parliaments arguably reinforce technocratic power, implementing for example, restrictions on lifestyle choices or, in the notable case of the Scottish Government’s Gender Recognition Act, measures that most Scots opposed.
Is there a means to ensure that new mechanisms of local democracy – from public consultations to local partnerships to devo-max governments – help to expand local control? With the Northern Ireland Assembly paralysed and the SNP-led Holyrood government imploding, are opponents of devolution right to argue it should be reversed? And where does the citizen figure in the new devolved world? At a time of disenchantment with citizenship, can there ever be a serious level of cultural support for democracy and commitment to engage with the demos?
SPEAKERSNiall Crowleydesigner; writer; former East End pub landlord
Dolan Cummingsauthor, Taking Conscience Seriously and The Pictish Princess.. and other stories from before there was a Scotland
Frank McKennagroup chairman & chief executive, Downtown in Business; former leader, North-West Regional Assembly; business programme host, City Talks radio
Jo Phillipsjournalist; co-author, Why Vote? and Why Join a Trade Union?; former political advisor; fellow, Radix
Dr Dan Robinsondirector of research, Pharos Foundation; author, Natural and Necessary Unions: Britain, Europe, and the Scottish Question
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question