Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

The new populism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2016 on Saturday 22 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
ritain’s vote to leave the European Union is the latest electoral event to be widely interpreted using the concept of populism. For many commentators, the unexpected triumph of the campaign for a Brexit was yet another manifestation of the sort of populist sentiment that has become increasingly familiar across the Western world. ‘Leave’ campaigners, such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, have taken their places in a rogues’ gallery of demagogic leaders of rising anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic movements throughout Europe and the US (in the form of Donald Trump). The declining appeal of traditional parties of both left and right has been apparent for a generation, and now seems to have reached a head, to the consternation of those who see the new populism as a rejection of common sense. At the height of the referendum campaign, the Guardian’s Martin Kettle articulated the exasperation of the political establishment at the evident disaffection of the masses when he described support for Brexit as ‘part bloody-mindedness, part frivolity, part panic, part bad temper, part prejudice’.
Indeed, the concept of populism is generally used in a pejorative way. It is often preceded by the implicitly disparaging adjective ‘right-wing’ and directly linked to notions such as racism, ‘xenophobia’ or ‘Islamophobia’. Yet in the past, populist movements have as commonly had a left-wing as a right-wing character. They have often expressed an inchoate animosity towards a corrupt elite. Such movements are inherently unstable and tend to evolve, according to circumstances, in either a radical or reactionary direction. Recent political phenomena such as Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, the Five Star Movement in Italy, and the successes of Bernie Sanders in the USA and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, show the complexity of the popular movements that have emerged to fill the vacuum left by the decay of the old politics.
Mainstream politicians and commentators fear the polarisation resulting from the rise of populist movements, but seem unable to engage the public through open debate. Others argue that the upsurge of popular discontent with the stagnant political order points the way towards the revival of democratic politics, and is worth celebrating even if it unleashes uncomfortable sentiments. Are populist movements merely ‘morbid symptoms’ of a decadent political order, or harbingers of a democratic renewal?
SPEAKERSNick Caterexecutive director, Menzies Research Centre, Australia; columnist, The Australian
Ian Dunteditor, Politics.co.uk; political editor, Erotic Review
Ivan Krastevchairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia; permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna
Jill Rutterprogramme director, Institute for Government
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

The great inequality debate: are the super rich heroes or villains

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2016 on Saturday 22 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From the ‘new Versailles’ of Apple’s new Silicon Valley headquarters to the Rich Kids of Instagram, the super-rich have come to symbolise the excesses of 21st century capitalism. Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century became an unexpected bestseller by giving academic credibility to increasing discomfort with growing levels of global inequality, figures fuelled by the increasing amounts of wealth concentrated in the upper echelons of ‘the 1%’ rather than the middle. Figures such as ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli have become hate figures for rapacious price-gouging and corporate malfeasance. The leak of the Panama Papers earlier this year, meanwhile, seemed to confirm that the world’s wealthiest view themselves as standing apart from traditional obligations of citizenship and nationhood. A long queue of pop psychologists has formed to diagnose the new super-rich with a wealth of disorders ranging from sociopathy to ‘affluenza.’
Yet while campaigners and NGOs such as Oxfam call for increasingly powerful supranational institutions to regulate inequality, elsewhere the super-rich are hailed as capitalism’s saviours. Silicon Valley entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are widely praised for their ‘blue-sky’ approach to innovation, using their personal wealth to circumvent a risk-averse corporate outlook towards development in everything from space flight to the electric car. Bill Gates has arguably become as well-known for his philanthropic foundation as for being business guru. A key factor in Donald Trump’s successes in the Republican primaries was a commonly expressed view that his personal wealth meant he ‘couldn’t be bought’ by supposed vested interests in the political establishment. Even otherwise wary liberal commentators cheer on ‘activist investors’ (once known as ‘corporate raiders’) for bringing good governance and a strong sense of corporate responsibility to boards.
Are we entering a new age of oligarchs? Is the increasing influence of individuals with assets to rival small nations a threat to democracy or a welcome alternative to inefficient state bureaucracies? Is their rise an inevitable by-product of free markets or a symbol of their malfunction? Does global inequality matter if living standards are also improving for the majority? Would a rediscovered spirit of ‘philanthrocapitalism’ – much touted before the economic crisis – offer a positive side-effect of their rise, or a dangerous distortion of markets? Are the super-rich a boon or a menace?
SPEAKERSDaniel Ben-Amijournalist and author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Dia Chakravartypolitical director, The Taxpayers Alliance
Paul Lewisfinancial journalist and broadcaster; presenter BBC Radio 4's Money Box
Joris Luyendijkfreelance writer; author of Swimming with Sharks
CHAIRDavid Bowdenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas; culture writer

Feminism: in conversation with Camille Paglia

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2016 on Saturday 22 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Internationally renowned American social critic Camille Paglia has been called ‘the anti-feminist feminist’. A staunch defender of individual freedom, she has argued against laws prohibiting pornography, drugs and abortion. Describing contemporary feminism as a ‘reactionary reversion’ and ‘a gross betrayal of the radical principles of 1960s counterculture’, she stands firmly on the side of free speech and against political correctness. She has argued that though today’s feminists strike progressive poses, their ideas emanate from an entitled, upper-middle-class point of view. This has led Paglia to become one of the US’s foremost critics of contemporary feminist orthodoxies such as the idea of ‘rape culture’, which she believes stifles women’s autonomy. Instead, Paglia is keen to stimulate reasoned discussion about some of the most controversial and inflammatory issues dominating campus politics and debates about threats to young women. She is calling such fashionable concepts such as ‘rape culture…a ridiculous term…not helpful in the quest for women’s liberation’.  She is associated with a brand of feminism which encourages women to embrace the dangers of being in the world and has argued that the current enthusiasm for things such as compulsory sexual consent classes in colleges illustrates how sex is being policed by ‘drearily puritanical and hopelessly totalitarian regulatory regimes and codes’.
As one of the most articulate and outspoken polemicists confronting the contemporary feminist focus on policing thought and speech, what does Paglia believe women should be fighting for today? After the gains made by feminism since the 1960s, why are women today so often presented as fragile, helpless victims? What does she make of the political and cultural state of feminism and its near ubiquitous embrace by the establishment? Camille Paglia sits down with Academy of Ideas director Claire Fox to discuss the past, present and future of feminism and to discuss the themes in her forthcoming (and seventh) book, Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism.
SPEAKERSProfessor Camille Pagliaprofessor of humanities and media studies, University of the Arts, Philadelphia; author, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson, Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender and Feminism (Forthcoming)
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Why are young people joining ISIS?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2015 on Sunday 18 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Increasing numbers of young European Muslims are joining ISIS. News earlier this year that a group of young medics had left to work in Islamic State-controlled hospitals followed the shocking story of four East London teenage girls fleeing their families and a promising academic future to make a perilous trip to Syria. ‘Jihadi John’ has been unmasked as Mohammed Emwazi, a British-brought-up university graduate. What could encourage these and hundreds of other UK citizens to abandon their relatively prosperous lives in a free society to join a vicious band of nihilists?
There is, of course, nothing new about young idealistic people being been drawn to exciting international causes. During the Spanish Civil War, over 2,000 volunteers left Britain to join International Brigades fighting on the side of the republican government, joined by thousands of others from across Europe. What makes young people joining ISIS different? Perhaps one factor is a generational estrangement that is not the preserve of Muslim youth: contemporary youth culture in general contains many strands of nihilistic alienation, from self-harm to vicious trolling. Moreover, rejection of Western consumer society and European values is normal within many UK universities. But when a significant minority of Muslim youth translate this anti-Western hostility into an embrace of a brutal caliphate, this represents a more serious rejection of society and raises difficult questions.
One response invokes the language of child protection: these ‘vulnerable victims’, it is argued, are ‘groomed’ and ‘brainwashed in their bedrooms’ by evil online preachers. But how do we explain that even the youngest teenagers involved actively sought out jihadist websites and chose to travel to Syria, despite some formidable obstacles?
Meanwhile, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act charges schools and universities with a statutory duty to prevent youngsters from ‘being drawn into terrorism’, implying some blame lies with educators not actively promoting ‘fundamental British values’. Yet outside of classrooms, Britishness seems to have little positive meaning and is highly contentious, as illustrated by the comparative closeness of the Scottish independence referendum and the SNP’s election landslide north of the border.
Getting to grips with why British society seems unable to elaborate values that bind everyone together seems crucial. To what extent is this a problem specific to young Muslims? What role have multiculturalist policies played in creating divisive and separate cultural identities? What explains the failure of a democratic way of life to inspire so many young people?
SPEAKERSKalsoom Bashirco-director, Inspire, an NGO working to counter extremism and gender inequality
Professor Ted Cantle, CBEdirector, Institute of Community Cohesion (iCoCo); chair, Community Cohesion Review
Professor Bill Durodiéhead of department and chair of international relations, University of Bath
Shiraz Mahersenior research fellow and head of outreach, International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR), King's College London
Mohsen Ojjaprincipal, The Crest Academies
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Should we fear democracy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2014 on Sunday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
After surging forward through the latter part of the twentieth century after the defeat of fascism, decolonisation and the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy appears to be in something of a retreat. According to the Economist, even though 45 per cent of the world’s population live in countries that ‘hold free and fair elections’, there is now widespread recognition that ‘democracy’s global advance has come to a halt, and may even have gone into reverse’. After many years of trying to spread democracy abroad, the US and other Western powers seem to have lowered their sights following the tragic, contemporary debacle in Iraq. Elsewhere, the ‘Arab Spring’ has fared little better. Even in the established democracies of the West, democracy appears to have lost its enduring appeal, with declining voter turnout and a hollowing-out of once mass-membership political parties. It was once claimed that only democracies could develop economically; now, democracy is blamed for gridlock. The contrast between the failure of the US Congress to agree a budget and the ability of China to get things done is much remarked upon.
Very few in the developed world openly discount democracy as an ideal, but nearly everyone agrees the reality is flawed. Some would reform it in various ways: lowering the voting age, using more new technology, etc. Occupy activists oppose ‘representative democracy’ altogether, preferring ‘direct democracy’. Some argue for limits on democracy in favour of the considered opinion of experts. Elected governments in Greece and Italy have even been replaced by interim technocratic administrations during the European economic crisis, and democratic mandates can be annulled when people vote the ‘wrong way’, as when the Irish voted ‘No’ to the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 or when the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt. And far from being cheered as a historic democratic exercise that ousted an entrenched Gandhi dynasty, this year’s election in India provoked fears that 815million voters were expressing atavistic religious prejudice.
If anything sums up the contemporary concern with democracy, it is the word ‘populism’. In Europe, it is the fear of people voting for the wrong sort of political party: the Front National in France, the PVV in the Netherlands, UKIP in the UK. In America, it is the fear of what used to be called the ‘moral majority’: conservative voters out of step with the liberal consensus on social issues.
Are populist political movements simply throwbacks, appealing to the bigotry of greying voters? Or do they give voice to the frustrations of citizens who feel increasingly cut off from an aloof and deracinated political class? Will the twenty-first century see the demise of democracy in favour of technocratic governance? What has so tarnished our view of what used to be the foundational principle of Western civilisation?
SPEAKERSIvan Krastevchairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia; permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna
Professor Chantal MouffeProfessor of political theory, University of Westminster; author, Agonistics: thinking the world politically
Brendan O'Neilleditor, spiked; columnist, Big Issue; contributor, Spectator; author, A Duty to Offend: Selected Essays
Dr David Runcimanprofessor of politics, Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS), Cambridge University; author, The Confidence Trap: A History of Democracy in Crisis from World War 1 to the Present
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Reassessing paternalism: is autonomy a myth?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2015 on Saturday 17 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all.’ Immanuel Kant, What is Enlightenment? (1784)
When One Direction announced they were splitting up, child psychologists offered parents of grieving tweenies advice on how to console their offspring. In the same month, parents were also told by researchers how long they should read to their children each day. Business Secretary Sajid Javid has ordered university heads to establish a taskforce to take on sexist ‘lad culture’ and guide students to conduct their interpersonal relations in line with enlightened mores. Of course, not everyone follows expert advice on any of the above. Policy advisers and academic experts frequently complain about those who refuse to acknowledge their wisdom and carry on smoking, drinking sugary pop, being laddish. Cutting-edge techniques of behavioural psychology are being marshalled to deal with this problem. The UK’s Behavioural Insights Team, now a private company, has quadrupled in size since it was spun out of government in 2014. It is now working for the World Bank and the UN, while ‘nudge’ teams are being established in Australia, Singapore, Germany and the US.
The ubiquity of nudge heralds a new renaissance for unapologetic paternalism. But where does that leave the great Enlightenment breakthrough, the idea that individuals should be self-determining and capable of making their own choices? Kant’s description of ‘mankind’s exit from his self-incurred immaturity’ seems strangely at odds with today’s enthusiasm for paternalistic intervention. For Kant, the outcome of any particular choice was less important than the cultivation of moral autonomy. The Enlightenment idea was that we should stop ‘outsourcing’ decisions about how to live to external agencies, whether the church, the monarchy, or some natural order. Today, though, new forms of authority have taken their place, leaving us just as childlike in relation to the new experts.
Sceptics about the idea of autonomy suggest breakthroughs in neuroscience have revealed we are less rational than Enlightenment thinkers suggested. They argue it is wrong for strong-willed individuals to run rough-shod over vulnerable groups with less power. In a complex world of multiple choices, what is wrong with people seeking help to make informed decisions? Is autonomy really undermined if students themselves demand university authorities provide safe spaces, issue trigger warnings on course materials, make lessons in consent compulsory? If we are nudged into the good life, what harm is done? Should we grow up and accept new paternalism or does this mean sacrificing self-dominion and consigning ourselves to a life of permanent dependence? Is individual autonomy an outdated myth?
SPEAKERSDr Tim Blackeditor, Spiked Review
Dr Katerina Deligiorgireader in philosophy, University of Sussex; author, The Scope of Autonomy
Dr Daniel Glaserdirector, Science Gallery London, King's College London
Professor Mike Kellysenior visiting fellow, Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge; researcher in nudge theory and choice architecture
Georgios Varouxakisprofessor of the history of political thought, Queen Mary University of London; author, Mill on Nationality
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Our morals, their moralism?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2014 on Sunday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The charge of ‘moralism’ or ‘moralising’ is always complicated. Nobody endorses immorality, we all know the difference between moralism and morality. Or do we? The former implies an unattractive self-righteousness; the latter is ‘the real thing’. But without righteousness, does morality have any meaning? The obvious danger with rejecting moralism is that we abandon any attempt to talk about right and wrong. Indeed, contemporary culture seems uncomfortable with the language of morality. Terms like good, bad, right, wrong, should, should not, duty and obligation are often seen as moralistic ‘tut tutting’ that unfairly stigmatises people.
To some extent, the kinds of moral judgements that are acceptable or not change with the times, such as attitudes to slavery or eugenics. But do changing moral norms always reflect more enlightened attitudes, or just changing prejudices? For example, is the routine denigration of those who embrace traditional ideas of morality any more than a new form of ‘moralising’? Earlier this year, UK Supreme Court judge Lord Wilson of Culworth declared that the nuclear family had been replaced by a ‘blended’ variety, and that Christian teaching on the family has been ‘malign’. Paradoxically, though, something like homosexuality was not only once considered immoral and now seen as fine; one’s attitude to it has become a marker of one’s own moral standing: ‘enlightened’ or ‘bigoted’. The intriguing result is that those who still frown on homosexuality might well protest against the ‘moralism’ of those who condemn them, while the latter retort that some moral judgements are beyond debate.
In other cases, moral etiquette changes for seemingly more fickle reasons. While judgementalism about sexual mores is ostensibly frowned on, the intense moral reaction that followed recent allegations of historic sexual offences seemed to go beyond particular crimes to condemn old-fashioned attitude to sex, and even the past itself. Or take the sphere of public health, in which medics and politicians cite ‘the science’ while engaging in what otherwise looks like a moral crusade to change attitudes to what we eat, drink or smoke, showing a remarkable willingness to tell others what they can and cannot do, or else. The zealousness of those policing behaviour in relation to lifestyle choices points to another apparent contradiction in today’s moral landscape. If religious moral values are seen as too narrow, we seem less troubled by formalised norms dictated by rigid codes of conduct, ethics committees, or ‘you can’t say that’ speech rules, the last of which cast certain words as morally reprehensible, and dubs those who may utter them as beyond the pale.
Such discrepancies are hard to explain rationally, perhaps because they have less to do with individual or collective moral judgements than with moral ‘fashion’. So is it possible to engage in serious moral debate that avoids both self-righteous groupthink and relativistic indifference? Are morals best left to individuals, or is there a place for ‘intelligent moralising’?
SPEAKERSDr Hannah Dawsonhistorian of ideas, King's College London
Kenan Malikwriter and broadcaster; author, The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics and From Fatwa to Jihad
Alister McGrathAndreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, University of Oxford
CHAIRDolan Cummingsassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story (forthcoming from Zero Books)

Is there a future for liberalism?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2015 on Saturday 17 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Liberalism emerged as the first ideology of modernity, forged during the Enlightenment in opposition to the hierarchy and reaction of the established order. More than two and a half centuries later, arguably liberalism itself is the established order, with many of the core values associated with liberalism now institutionalised throughout the Western world. Ideals such as tolerance, freedom of speech, liberty, individual autonomy, free elections, the rule of law, freedom of contract and the market have become accepted at least in principle across the political spectrum. This apparent triumph of the values of liberalism stands in sharp contrast with the disintegration of the other ideologies that emerged subsequently, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth century, from nationalism to various forms of socialism. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism appeared as the last ideology left standing. Francis Fukuyama famously heralded the triumph of liberal democracy as synonymous with the End of History.
Nevertheless, liberalism today appears more than a little disoriented and confused. In Europe, self-avowed ‘liberal’ parties are in disarray and may even face extinction. In the United States, many individuals who identify themselves as liberals self-consciously distance themselves from the classical liberal traditions of the Enlightenment. They often prefer to define their liberalism in opposition to conservative values, even at the cost of abandoning the toleration that was once the hallmark of liberalism.
Classical liberalism has very few friends on either side of the Atlantic. One symptom of this is society’s estrangement from the idea of liberty, which is often perceived as the hobby-horse of backward-looking right-wingers. The ideal of free speech is frequently trumped by the claim that it must be regulated in order to protect the powerless. Individual autonomy is invariably labelled as a myth. Even the liberal principle of tolerance has been criticised for being too judgmental and insufficiently accepting of those who are ‘merely’ tolerated.
Since there is little agreement on what liberalism means today, it is worth asking whether the legacy of liberalism is at all relevant to the public life of the twenty-first century? If it is, which components of this legacy are worth retaining, and why?
SPEAKERSAndrew AdonisLabour peer; author, 5 Days in May: The Coalition and Beyond
Steven ErlangerLondon bureau chief, New York Times
Dr Katrina Forresterlecturer in history of political thought, Queen Mary University of London
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
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Is technology limiting our humanity?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2015 on Sunday 18 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From Big Data to the driverless car, we seem to live in an age of dizzying technological progress, which many hail as a ‘new industrial revolution’. Robotic intelligence is becoming so advanced that many warn machines could take white-collar jobs within a generation, while computers are moving ever closer to passing the Turing Test. Meanwhile, smart technology is increasingly marketed as desirable for reducing the capacity for human error: Google’s developers note that most accidents had by their driverless car are caused by other drivers. Global companies such as IBM are involved in designing purpose-built smart cities, such as South Korea’s Songdo, which can manage the climate and water supply or respond to citizens’ movements in real time.
While much of this seems cause for celebration – liberating us from banal tasks and informing our ability to make choices – others sound a note of caution. Wall Street’s ‘flash crash’ in 2010 was allegedly caused by ‘spoofing’ technology tricking automated trading systems into believing a share crash was taking place, wiping over £500 billion off the market in a few minutes: an example of the real-world impact of entirely virtual activity. It similarly remains unclear how the driverless car would respond to systems failure or pedestrian behaviour. Architect Rem Koolhaas raises the concern that cities where citizens are ‘treated like infants’ with no ‘possibility for transgression’ are not necessarily desirable places to live.
Is it troubling that innovation seems so concerned with eliminating human failure or has that always been the aim of technological development? Is humanity facing its ‘greatest existential threat’ from today’s robots, as Tesla’s Elon Musk warns? Does the ‘new industrial revolution’ mean a welcome transformation in how we interact with the world or a limitation of our capacity in act waywardly and unpredictably?
SPEAKERSDr Tom Chatfieldwriter and broadcaster; author, Live This Book! and How to Thrive in the Digital Age
Dr Norman Lewisdirector (innovation), PwC; co-author, Big Potatoes: the London manifesto for innovation
Juliette MorganC&W Tech Global Lead – London Head of Property – Tech City UK
Andrew Orlowskiexecutive editor, Register; assistant producer, All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace
Dr Paul Zanellichief technical officer, Transport Systems Catapult
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Hashtag feminism: radical or banal?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2014 on Saturday 18 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Today’s feminism seems a far cry from its historic roots. In the developed world, at least, many of the issues that animated the fight for equality and women’s rights – from workplace discrimination to abortion – seem largely resolved. While only around 13 per cent of FTSE 100 corporate board members are female, few see this as the result of systematic oppression; in many professions, strenuous efforts are made to get women into leadership positions. More young women go to university than men; socially, women are visible, vocal and no longer doomed to domestic drudgery. Hardly anyone believes women are inferior and blatant sexist attitudes are considered anachronistic and embarrassing.
Nevertheless, recently there has been a resurgence of high-profile feminist campaigns that declare women are as oppressed as ever. The Everyday Sexism Project catalogues instances of sexism, such as cat calls and unwanted compliments, with a view to uncovering a hidden epidemic of misogynistic abuse. Is this a necessary corrective to complacency, or does the focus on relatively minor and subjective offences indicate that the battle for equality really is mostly won?
For better or worse, a new ‘hashtag feminism’ is all over social media, from #whyineedfeminism to #bringbackourgirls. #YesAllWomen, in response to the Isla Vista shooter, got over two million tweets in the week following the tragedy. Campaigners argue this highlights ‘the reality that misogyny is alive and well and all women have experienced some form of this in their lives’. Critics, however, point to a censoriousness in the new feminism. Today’s feminists often cheer when Twitter trolls are imprisoned for online abuse, #NoToPage3 and #losetheladsmags seek to police the newsstands, and student unions have banned allegedly sexist pop songs. The infamous online spats over intersectionality invariably end up in calls to ‘no platform’ either side. These censorious demands seem at odds with Germaine Greer’s assertion in The Female Eunuch that ‘freedom is fragile and must be protected. To sacrifice it, even as a temporary measure, is to betray it.’
So how did a fight for freedom in the Sixties become a demand for censorship today? Or is that assessment unfair? Are contemporary feminists right when they counter that the progress made towards equality has been limited? What about the falling rates of conviction for rape and sexual assault, the prevalence of online porn, the pornification of adverts and music videos? What about the fact that women have been disproportionately affected by the recession through cuts to services and part-time, flexible jobs? Even if there have been advances for professional women, what about the ‘deeply different life experiences between elite women and their less-privileged sisters’, as noted by Alison Wolf in The XX Factor? Does feminism still have something positive to offer those who want a better society for us all? Or, whatever change is still needed, does talk of misogyny and ‘patriarchy’ obscure rather than enlighten?
SPEAKERSKate Figesjournalist; author, Our Cheating Hearts – love & loyalty, lust & lies
Ann Furedichief executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service; author, The Moral Case for Abortion
Kate Maltbytheatre critic, The Times; associate fellow, Bright Blue; researcher on intellectual life of Elizabeth I
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Growth is good: mission or mania?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2014 on Sunday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
News that the UK economy is slowly lifting itself back to its pre-crisis 2008 peak has been widely welcomed. Annualised growth rates of nearly three per cent seem possible and some have even trumpeted the UK as the fastest growing economy in Europe. Yet there is also considerable scepticism in some circles about the merits of growth.
It may seem obvious that economic growth is a good thing after many years of belt-tightening and cutbacks. The experience of Greece since the Eurozone crisis, for example, is a salutary example of the hardship and loss of independence that can occur in the absence of growth. Yet the idea that growth should be limited and sustainable was a dominant current of thought before the crisis. Growth was criticised for not making us happy, for damaging the environment, and for increasing inequality in society. These ideas have not disappeared, although those who support them have found it prudent to be rather more muted than before. Nonetheless, continued protests against fracking, against HS2 and against new runways at airports - to take just the case of renewing infrastructure - show that doubts about the value of growth remain.
It is ironic that these doubts should exist at a time when there is actually very little growth taking place. Business investment has yet to take off since the crisis and interest rates remain stubbornly low. There has been little reduction in the US trade deficit and UK productivity has not recovered to pre-crisis levels. Is a lack of faith in growth preventing governments from taking the measures needed to revive their economies? Is this scepticism about the benefits of growth leading policymakers to fall back on financial solutions - like quantitative easing, house-price bubbles and consumer debt - instead of investing for real wealth creation?
Rising prosperity means more choices for us all. The continued existence of some 2.5 billion people living on less than $2 per day should on its own make the case for going flat out for growth to life people out of poverty. Is it possible to make a positive case for growth today or must we accept – perhaps even welcome - limited growth as the ‘new normal’? In the absence of productive growth, is another financial crisis simply inevitable? What can be done to create the conditions for growth, for an economic renaissance?
SPEAKERS
Daniel Ben-Amijournalist and author, Ferraris for All: in defence of economic progress and Cowardly Capitalism
Ricardo Fuentes-Nievahead of research, Oxfam GB; co-author. Working for the Few: political capture and economic inequality
Mark Littlewooddirector general, Institute of Economic Affairs
Kitty Usshermanaging director, Tooley Street Research
CHAIRAngus Kennedyconvenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

From literature to Twitter: the death of the reader?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2015 on Sunday 18 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When Roland Barthes infamously declared ‘the death of the author’ in 1967, he also intended it as a celebration of ‘the birth of the reader’. And while literacy campaigners continue to fight the Reading Wars over literacy rates, by most measures reading is in a healthier state than ever. Polls indicate the number of Americans reading books has doubled since the 1950s, and reading is increasing among under-30s, while sales of printed books are proving remarkably robust in competition with e-books. The announcement that Harper Lee would be publishing her sequel to To Kill A Mockingbird generated a storm of international media interest, as did Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that he was launching his own online book club with 31 million members. Meanwhile, that once-seemingly doomed literary form, the essay, seems to have enjoyed a resurgence, as new media embraces the ‘long-read’ and serious literary journals and small publishers continue to thrive rather than face extinction online.
Nonetheless, many others share Philip Roth’s concern over the long-term health of ‘people who read seriously and consistently’. He warned that ‘every year 70 readers die, and only two are replaced’. Perhaps the stress should be on reading ‘seriously’: young people may be reading more than before, but by far the largest spike comes from young adult fiction, with no strong evidence they are moving on to more serious material. Moreover, adult society seems increasingly ambivalent about drawing the kind of sharp divisions between the nineteenth century’s ‘men of letters’ and the ‘unlettered’, though a special type of scorn seems to be reserved for the term ‘tabloid reader’. At the same, where reading was once closely associated with liberation and dangerous subversion – the prosecuting QC during the court case over Lady Chatterley’s Lover famously asked whether the jury would tolerate ‘your wife or servant’ reading such a text - increasingly university students demand the right not to read books that come with a real or imagined ‘trigger warning’.
Is the twenty-first-century reader facing a crisis of cultural confidence like that of the author in the twentieth? Has the legacy of the millennial Reading Wars been that we focus too much on reading as a technical skill rather than on what we read? Can we still appeal to an ideal of ‘the reading public’, or is the reality one of many discrete audiences with only occasionally overlapping tastes? Is the digital age undermining erudition or broadening our horizons? Is society losing the ability to read serious and difficult literature, or are we simply becoming more selective and discerning?
SPEAKERSTeresa Creminprofessor of education (literacy), Open University; trustee, UK Literacy Association; board member, Booktrust
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
Sam Leithliterary editor, Spectator; judge, Man Booker Prize 2015
Laurence Scottlecturer in English and creative writing, Arcadia University; author, The Four-Dimensional Human: ways of being in the digital world (winner of Royal Society of Literature Jerwood Award for 2014)
CHAIRDavid Bowdenassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas; culture writer

Can we manufacture a new economy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2015 on Saturday 17 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
While the UK economy has recovered from the economic crisis, few would argue that the recovery is built on strong foundations. Wages are only just starting to rise in real terms after a number of years of decline. Economic output remains weak compared to previous recoveries, and the state is still spending almost £90 billion a year more than it receives in tax. A particular concern for economists is low productivity – the amount of wealth produced by each worker – which is well below that of other countries and 15 per cent below where it would have been if pre-crisis trends had continued.
Yet across the main political parties there seems little vision of how the UK economy could look different in five, 10 or 20 years’ time. The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has made much play about the creation of a ‘northern powerhouse’. The HS2 railway has cross-party support, but many are sceptical about its economic potential. Beyond this, there seems little sense of how the economy could be transformed. Indeed, many new industries with the potential to revolutionise the UK economy – like fracking, nuclear power and biotech – have faced considerable resistance.
In 2014, the Wright Report, an independent report commissioned by the Labour Party, called for ‘a modern, active industrial policy’ that was not about ‘government “picking winners”, investing in large companies, or trying to plan the economy’ but focused on ‘improving the environment in which companies operate, recognising the positive influence that government can have, and working together to tackle the challenges’. These included barriers to investment, the overall load of taxation and the lack of skilled workers, all still serious problems. That said, there are causes for optimism. In certain sectors, productivity has risen sharply in recent years. Productivity in car manufacturing is high, while in aircraft engine manufacturing and financial services, the UK is a world leader. Moreover, the UK’s universities offer excellent capacity for research and development.
If UK businesses can be excellent in some arenas, why is the UK apparently so unproductive overall? What are the barriers to a new and innovative economy? Why is new business investment so low? Do we need a bout of creative destruction, making painful choices about leaving some areas of economic activity behind, in order to allow new sources of wealth creation to flourish?
SPEAKERSFrances Coppolaassociate editor, Pieria; contributor to Nesta’s Our Work Here is Done, exploring the frontiers of robot technology
Katie Evanseconomist, Social Market Foundation
Phil Mullaneconomist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: How to start an economic renaissance
Bauke Schrambusiness reporter, International Business Times UK
Mike Wrightexecutive director, Jaguar Land Rover
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, IoI Economy Forum

Big Data, big danger?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2014 on Sunday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In recent years, with advances in data-storage capacity and accessibility, more and more information about us is being captured and analysed by government agencies and private companies. While there is some nervousness about this, the proponents of ‘Big Data’ argue that the benefits outweigh the risks to privacy.
For example, the benefits of having huge pools of data from medical records to examine the pros and cons of medical treatments or the dangers of certain lifestyle choices - allowing hitherto unrecognised relationships to be identified and new hypotheses to be formed - are said to be worth the risk that medical confidentiality will be breached. We are told that if the police and security services have access to mobile phone, credit card and travel card data, then it will be easier to prevent crime and terrorism.
However, while computers can do the heavy lifting in collating and analysing data, the choices about which data to collect are made by humans. For example, why choose to collect data from Oyster cards instead of using passenger surveys? Another criticism is that researchers’ prior assumptions are given the veneer of objectivity and authority simply by being stated in statistical form. The way that data is used as a replacement for political principle is also troubling. It is far harder to hold to the principle that people should be free to drink alcohol as they please if opponents have stats and graphs that seem to confirm a strong link between alcohol and violent crime. As a result, politicians may endeavour to justify policies using the supposedly unimpeachable evidence of Big Data rather than on more philosophical grounds.
There are also concerns for individual liberty. Data can tell us much about trends and tendencies across populations. But there are fears that data may be used preemptively, to identify individuals who are more likely to commit crime, become obese, fail at school or suffer an early death - leading to premature or unnecessary state intervention.
Regardless of the sophistication of computer technology, ultimately decisions must be based on human judgements. For example, statistician Nate Silver achieved fame by correctly predicting the outcome of the 2012 US presidential election in 49 out of 50 states. But, as Silver himself noted, his predictions were based on applying mathematical techniques to a range of information, including the opinions of experts. Expert judgement is still required to enable Big Data to fulfill its potential.
Should we question the hype around Big Data? Is it really true that the benefits of Big Data outweigh the dangers? Should we place limits on data collection to protect individual liberties? Even in areas where data is put to benign use, could over-reliance on algorithms impede the process of human judgement? Is it time to recognise the limitations of Big Data and put the stats in their place?
SPEAKERSSheila Birdprogramme leader, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health
Yann Bonduellepartner, UK Consulting leader, Data & Analytics team, PwC
Marion Oswaldhead, Centre for Information Rights, University of Winchester
Sandy Starrcommunications officer, Progress Educational Trust; webmaster, BioNews
CHAIRTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer & broadcaster; presenter, Futureproofing and other BBC Radio 4 programmes; author, Big Data: does size matter?

Let's talk about race

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Too often, talking about race feels fraught with difficulty, leaving us walking on eggshells to avoid offence. However, this can mean that important questions and queries go unanswered, and grievances can fester. Luckily, more and more authors are taking up the challenge – and this session features three of them in conversation.
Rakib Ehsan’s Beyond Grievance: What the Left Gets Wrong About Ethnic Minorities argues that the left too often buys into toxic, imported ideologies around identity politics. Left-wingers are also complacent, he argues, assuming they can depend upon a traditional support base among ethnic minorities. As a result, they fail to engage with the small-c conservative values around family, faith and flag that many of these communities support. Yet these values could create a fairer multi-ethnic society based upon equal opportunity, social cohesion and a national sense of belonging.
Remi Adekoya’s book It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth notes that Western conversations on race and racism often revolve around the holy trinity of the race debate: colonialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the ideology of white supremacism. However, Adekoya argues that it is socioeconomic realities which play the leading role in sustaining racial hierarchies in everyday life. He looks at the global big picture, regularly overlooked in the current debate.
Finally, in Against Decolonisation: Campus Culture Wars and the Decline of the West, Doug Stokes challenges the theories and arguments deployed by ‘decolonisers’ in a university system now characterised by garbled leadership and illiberal groupthink. More broadly, Stokes examines the threat posed by Critical Theory to wider society and critiques the desire to question the West’s sense of itself, deconstruct its narratives and overthrow its institutional order.
SPEAKERSDr Remi Adekoyalecturer of politics, University of York; author It’s Not About Whiteness, It’s About Wealth and Biracial Britain
Dr Rakib Ehsanauthor, Beyond Grievance: what the Left gets wrong about ethnic minorities
Professor Doug Stokesprofessor in international security and director of the Strategy and Security Institute, University of Exeter; senior adviser, Legatum Institute; author, The Geopolitics of the Culture Wars
CHAIRDr Jim Butcherlecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development