Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Ofsted: cruel judgement or making schools accountable?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Since its creation in 1992, Ofsted has rarely been out of education headlines. Ofsted’s role is to inspect schools and regulate educational standards across England. However, Ofsted inspections are notorious amongst teachers for the intense preparation involved and considerable pressure on the school community. Once released into the public domain, an Ofsted report can potentially make or break a school’s reputation.
In April 2023, the vice-president of the National Association of Headteachers, Simon Kidwell, claimed that Ofsted was ‘not fit for purpose’. He is not alone in suggesting that inspections cause excessive stress to the school community, which can be detrimental both to staff welfare (especially amid a recruitment crisis) and to teaching and learning.
After claims that primary-school headteacher Ruth Perry tragically took her own life after she was told that her school would be given the lowest possible Ofsted rating, the inspectorate now faces more intense criticism, partly for the conduct of inspection weeks and partly for the perceived fairness of subsequent reports. In this context, Perry’s sister, Julia Waters, has called for schools to boycott Ofsted, refuse to cooperate with inspectors and remove all references to it from their websites until an independent review has been carried out.
Additionally, there are concerns that Ofsted’s four-label grading system – outstanding, good, requires improvement, inadequate – reduces the richness of educational outcomes to a reductive, box-ticking exercise. More recently, some school leaders have even instigated legal proceedings against Ofsted to challenge inspection feedback. But how else could schools be judged? Ofsted’s outgoing chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, defends the use of grades on the grounds that they are welcomed by parents who find them accessible.
Certainly, polls show that most parents (86 per cent) agree that it’s important for them to be informed about school inspections. But should parents also have a full breakdown of what exactly is being judged?
And what about complex issues such as pupil exclusions? Heads can receive a low grade for sending home too many badly behaved children. But they will also be judged adversely if the overall standard of discipline is low, which could well be the case if badly behaved children are kept in school. Of course, parents take safeguarding seriously. Yet 78 per cent of parents think that safeguarding should be inspected separately from educational standards.
And with so many aspects of the school curriculum now embroiled in contentious and political culture war disputes, around everything from decolonisation to gender identity, what exactly constitutes ‘outstanding’ in relation to sex and relationship education, or diversity and inclusion policies?
Is Ofsted needed and, if so, what should its remit and practices include? Is grading schools Ofsted-style beneficial or detrimental to teaching and learning?
SPEAKERSJason Ashleyheadteacher, Redbridge Community School
Louise Burtonhistory teacher
Dr Sean Langsenior lecturer in History, Anglia Ruskin University; author, First World War for Dummies and What History Do We Need?; fellow, Historical Association
Martin Robinsondirector, Trivium 21c Ltd. education consultancy; author, Trivium 21c, Curriculum Revolutions, Curriculum: Athena versus the machine and Trivium in Practice
CHAIRIan MitchellEnglish literature and psychology teacher; writer, Teachwire; member, AoI Education Forum

ChatGPT: cheating or a new tool for learning?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Generative AI has changed the game when it comes to cheating in schools and universities. Students can make ChatGPT or Bard generate entire essays and presentations, and existing plagiarism-checking software doesn’t stand a chance. From one perspective, students passing off AI-generated work as their own are being lazy and unscrupulous. From another, students taking advantage of AI are responding rationally to a culture of high-stakes credentialism and ‘teaching to the test’.
Some suggest that today’s AI demonstrates – once and for all – the redundancy of the knowledge and skills traditionally taught in schools and universities. We should instead be equipping youngsters for an AI-dominated world by showing them how to get the best out of emerging technologies. Others, including Ofqual’s chief regulator, argue that AI makes traditional cheat-proof methods such as paper-based exams more important than ever. Others still argue that the proliferation of cheating reveals inherent failures in the education system to inspire a respect for knowledge and learning in general.
In this rapidly evolving context, how should educational institutions respond to the challenges posed by AI? How do we handle cheating when it is impossible to detect? What is the role of knowledge and learning in a world dominated by technologies that seem to do the work for us? Can student disengagement be blamed on AI tools, or is there a deeper problem in education?
SPEAKERSDr Catherine BreslinAI scientist; AI consultant, Kingfisher Labs
Donald Clarklearning tech entrepreneur; investor; professor; author, Learning and the Metaverse; founder, Epic plc; CEO, WildFire
Omar Mohamedstudent; president of Speak Easy, Royal Holloway University
Gareth Sturdyphysics adviser, Up Learn; education and science writer
Poppy Woodpolitics and education correspondent,i newspaper
CHAIRHarley Richardsonchief product officer, OxEd and Assessment; organiser, AoI Education Forum; blogger, historyofeducation.net; author, The Liberating Power of Education

‘Speaking as a…’: the tyranny of ‘lived experience’

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In an era of identity politics, ‘lived experience’ is often invoked – and has huge moral value. It is regularly cited as more authentic or truthful than empirical data – and can be used to trump analysis. Its subjective relativism is seen as a death knell to claims of universal knowledge. This approach is also influencing law. Hate crime is now described as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic’.
Citing lived experience can add personal credibility to a viewpoint – it’s clear to most people that experience is important. Having people who know what something feels like, with first-hand knowledge of a situation, can help provide a more accurate and truthful response.
But a prioritisation of lived experience can also mean some arguments become incontestable – presenting a serious challenge to democratic debate. People can be silenced for having a view on critical race theory because they have no ‘lived experience’ of racism. Men are told to ‘shut up’ and listen when women discuss sexual harassment. Even asking for empirical evidence in arguments over identity can be interpreted as questioning lived experience, and seen as an ethical transgression and a personal slight.
Ironically, some lived experiences are more equal than others. For example, it is demanded that institutions and individuals prioritise trans people’s ‘lived experience’ when claiming others’ attitudes are transphobic. Yet when a University of Melbourne associate professor of philosophy, Holly Lawford-Smith, set up a website asking women to share their personal experiences of encountering biological males in women-only spaces, she was denounced as a partisan hate figure on her own campus. When ordinary people articulate their experience of, for example, their community’s concerns about migration or their antagonism to ULEZ, their ‘lived experience’ is used as evidence of misinformed ignorance – irrational and unreliable as opposed to data and academic research.
Behind the idea of lived experience is the notion that identity groups share similar experiences. This can turn nasty – a range of senior Conservative politicians from ethnic minority backgrounds have been treated as ‘superficially black’, ‘coconut’ and worse, with their personal histories deemed inauthentic because their experiences have not led them to adopting particular political views.
Can our own individual experiences tell us something about collective identity? Or do we risk pigeon-holing each other by assuming that one experience is representative of a whole? Shouldn’t we listen to each other’s personal accounts, in order to understand each other? Or has a reliance on lived experience above all else driven us further apart?
SPEAKERSBen Cobleyauthor, The Tribe: the liberal-left and the system of diversity; public speaker; former Labour Party activist
James Essesbarrister; social commentator; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists
Esther Krakuecolumnist and broadcaster
Kunle Olulodedirector, Voice4Change England
CHAIRDr Alka Sehgal Cuthbertdirector, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth

Revitalising free speech on campus: Living Freedom and Speak Easy

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Many young people report they self-censor and fear ostracisation for deviating from orthodox opinions. On campus, student societies often encounter problems when wanting to discuss ‘controversial’ topics or invite diverse speakers. Given the new duty of free speech placed on universities in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, how can students use this to their advantage? Here we celebrate two initiatives that invite students themselves to champion free speech and take the lead in remaking the case for critical inquiry, free expression and open debate.
Speak Easy is a new platform for real debate and disagreement. Tired of debating societies and a lack of free speech on campuses letting you down? Feel like the topics and speakers you want to listen to don’t appear at your university? Finding it difficult to change the culture within student unions and societies on campus to stand up for open debate? Then look no further. Speak Easy is a movement fighting back against debating-society establishments by fostering a culture of diversity of opinion, casual debating and not shying away from the big topics.
Living Freedom is dedicated to renewing freedom through education and debate. Through ‘What can we learn from…?’, a series of salon-style events touring UK universities in autumn 2023, Living Freedom ensures new generations can face up to the challenge of understanding historic principles, present challenges and future oriented ideals as a means to renewing this core value of modern liberal societies.
Come along, find out more… and join us in creating a free speech renaissance.
SPEAKERSJack Barwellchairman, Speak Easy National Movement; president, Exeter University Speak Easy Society; founder and president, Bridge the Gap;
Felice Basbøllproject assistant, Ideas Matter; student, Trinity College Dublin
Emma Cabezaoliasstudent, Durham University; treasurer, Speak Easy national committee;
Ella Nixoncurator; writer; PhD student, Northumbria University; fellow, Common Sense Caledonia; 2023 fellow, Roger Scruton
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Battle of Ideas festival 2023: welcome address

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The eighteenth annual Battle of Ideas festival opened with a Welcome Address.
SPEAKERSBen Deloentrepreneur, mathematician and philanthropist
Claire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Andrew Tate and the Lost Boys

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From bad influences to rebels without a cause, society has always worried about young men. But the recent popularity of the influencer and self-titled ‘king of toxic masculinity’, Andrew Tate, among young men – and even pre-teen boys – has left schools and parents in a panic. Such is the fear of Tate’s influence that headteachers have reached out to the Department for Education for guidance on how to talk to their lads about his misogynistic views on women.
But the Tate phenomenon is complicated: many young men claim to take his messages about women with a pinch of salt, instead finding meaning in his proselytising about ambition, self-sufficiency and becoming ‘a man’. In fact, almost everyone agrees that we need to talk about men – from campaigns to improve their mental health to authors like Caitlin Moran releasing books called What About Men? The question is, why do we seem to be getting it so wrong?
Some argue that contemporary feminist discussions about young women, from ‘He for She’ campaigns to the fallout from the #MeToo movement, often seem to put boys down in order to raise girls up. Others argue that the contemporary condemnation of ‘toxic masculinity’ has eliminated any discussion about what a ‘positive’ masculinity might look like, leaving boys to turn to online figures to find out how to grow up.
Has our nervousness about masculinity left us unable to talk to boys about what it means to be a man? Does the popularity of Tate and other influencers prove that sexism is still a problem, or should we be more concerned that large numbers of boys are turning to strangers online for life guidance? Are we dealing with a generation of lost boys, or is this crisis in manhood simply a twenty-first century version of the problem epitomised by The Wild One’s Johnny Strabler?
SPEAKERSNick Dixoncomedian; presenter, GB News; host, The Current Thing; host, The Weekly Sceptic
Dr Ashley Frawleysociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
Matilda Goslingsocial researcher; author, Evidence-Based Parenting and Teenagers – The Evidence Base (forthcoming)
Dennis Kavanaghdirector, Gay Men’s Network
CHAIRToby Marshallfilm studies teacher; member, AoI Education Forum

Marking time: how should lecturers judge students?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
If once university and college lecturers were trusted to use their critical faculties, judgement and erudition to grade students, today they are regularly issued with template marking schemes to grade their students’ academic work. Indeed, in some educational settings, algorithmic assessments are seen as the most reliable measure of worth. It is argued that lecturers can’t be trusted to be impartial; that subjective and unconscious bias could skew judgements and marks.
Meanwhile, students are told that they need protection from frank but harsh critiques, whether in crits, tutorials or coursework marking. Indeed, the idea of discrimination now seems to assume only negative connotations, with educators being discouraged from using the concrete judgement of their red pen to determine right from wrong. Surely objective, criteria-based assessment is fairer than relying on one grouchy don’s views – or another woke lecturer’s hostility to ‘unfashionable’ political outlooks?
For some, this demonisation of judgement has undermined confidence in the idea of personal and professional discrimination. For others, a move away from old-fashioned judgment and criticism shows a new sensitivity to students, and a self-awareness of one’s own biases. But is this a demeaning view of thin-skinned students unable to cope with feedback? Some argue such changes are doing students a disservice as their work is, in effect, managed by administrators and pre-approved metrics that perpetuate the idea of ‘teaching to test’. What if a student considers an academic’s judgement as biased, or even bullying? Some institutions have predicted such complaints and have set up processes for student appeals – even litigation. Are academics right to be wary of students; to protect themselves from accusations? Or does that normalise suspicion of others’ motives and self-doubt about one’s own?
What is wrong with creating a better model of evidence-based objective assessment? Can the art of criticism ever be a constructive process? Or is it inherently subjective, and open to abuse?
SPEAKERSMatilda MartinEnglish student, University of Oxford
Dr Vanessa Pupavactranslator; senior lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham; author, Translation as Liberation
David Swifthistorian; author, The Identity Myth and A Left for Itself
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; convenor, Critical Subjects Architecture School

Putting the past on trial: burning dead witches?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Sunday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Denouncing racism in football, Prime Minister David Cameron recently declared, ‘we will not let recent events drag us back to the bad old days of the past,’ exemplifying a new trend to look back at the past from a position of moral superiority. Past decades are routinely disparaged today as a toxic legacy, particularly in the discussion about revelations of child abuse in the 1960s and 70s, but also in debates about ‘old-fashioned’ patriotism, traditional religion and ‘dead, white European males’ being taught in school curriculum, not to mention football hooliganism.
Far from celebrating the achievements of the past, the cultural script of the 21st century seems ever-hostile to the practices and values of yesteryear. When it comes to parenting, for example, the experience and insights of previous generations are castigated as dangerously old-fashioned prejudices, far too out-dated for our progressive, enlightened times. And in the debate about Baby-Boomers betraying today’s ‘jilted generation’, the older generations are admonished for the allegedly hedonistic, selfish and unsustainable lifestyles of their youth. Geoffrey Wheatcroft declares, ‘If there is any hope at all, it must be that our crappy generation can slink away in shame, and let a younger generation see if they can manage things better’.
Against this, Irish writer John Waters has warned against a dangerous condescension to the past and what he characterises as an ‘unlimited appetite for past obscenities’. Certainly we seem to have a morose fascination with excavating yesterday’s culture for secret scandals and hidden abuse. In the aftermath of the Savile scandal and amid Operation Yewtree, the police are openly encouraging people to examine their past for any possible abusive behaviour. For critics, this means inviting individuals to make sense of their current problems by seeing them as part of the damage inflicted by past wrongs. Should we accept the implication that their lives today were scripted by past childhood traumas? And are we being encouraged to reinterpret past experiences through the prism of present day preoccupations, obscuring our understanding of the past in its own terms? Why are we so keen to turn backwards and put the past on trial today, rather than concentrating on an optimistic embrace of the future? And was the past so bad anyway?
SPEAKERSJennie Bristowsenior lecturer in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Sociology of Generations: New directions and challenges and Baby Boomers and Generational Conflict; co-author, Parenting Culture Studies
Allan Massieauthor, nearly 30 books, including 20 historical novels, including A Question of Loyalties and Dark Summer in Bordeaux; columnist, Spectator
John WatersIrish newspaper columnist; author, Jiving at the Crossroads and Was It For This? Why Ireland Lost the Plot
Professor Sir Simon Wesselypresident of the Royal College of Psychiatrists; head of the Department of Psychological Medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Soul on the slab: is there no limit to what neuroscience can do?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Sunday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Neuroscience provides previously unimagined access to the inner workings of the brain. For enthusiasts, it could be the scientific holy grail, unravelling the mechanics of consciousness and uncovering the biological basis of the human character. Certainly, astonishing claims are made for new techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Every new advance in brain scanning technology leads to greater claims for the power of science. Scanned subjects’ response to different stimuli, when regions of the brain ‘light up’, are said to correlate with emotions, intentions, and feelings. Might an ability to visualise the mind within the brain provide a window into our innermost thoughts, reveal the sources of our deepest desires?
Despite the tremendous potential of breakthroughs in neuroscience, there is now increasing disquiet at the alleged exaggerations made in its name. Critics such as Thomas Nagel, Sally Satel and Raymond Tallis argue the overzealous application of brain science undermines notions of free will and responsibility, reducing all human behaviour to crude determinism. Others fear the rise and rise of neuroscience is side-lining centuries of insights into the human condition provided by the humanities, philosophy, psychology, politics, even religion. But such concerns are often dismissed as outdated and ill-informed, and even heretical when voiced by scientists themselves. So neuroscience’s colonisation of all aspects of life looks unstoppable, spawning a range of new disciplines such as neurolinguistics, neurogenetics, neuroeconomics, as well as educational, behavioural, cognitive and evolutionary neuroscience. Meanwhile, the supposed unlocking of the secrets of the human mind has attracted fashionable enthusiasm far beyond the world of science: policy makers, marketeers, pollsters, artists, lawyers now see neuroscience as the key to unlocking everything from why consumers make certain choices to why people vote left or right, from why we listen to music to why some of us commit crimes.
Has the explanatory power of neuroscience been overestimated or is it the key to reading our minds? Are those calling for a radical neuro-transformation of criminal responsibility, education, public health, social policy too credulous about what some term ‘neurobollocks’? Or is scepticism about neuroscience driven by a stubborn refusal to accept that we are less autonomous than we think? Should we anyway be seeking to keep what goes on in our brains out of public policy?
SPEAKERSDr Julian Bagginifounding editor, the Philosophers' Magazine; author, Freedom Regained: the possibility of free will and The Edge of Reason: A Rational Skeptic in an Irrational World
Professor Bill Durodiéhead of department and chair of international relations, University of Bath
Professor Geraint Reesdirector, UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience; senior clinical fellow, Wellcome Trust
Dr Sally Satelresident scholar, American Enterprise Institute; psychiatrist; author, Brainwashed: the seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Leveson one year on: what future for press freedom?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Sunday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It is a year since Lord Justice Leveson published his inquiry into the ‘Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press,’ but decisions about future press regulation are still far from being resolved. Attempts by Labour peers to include Leveson-type reforms in the recent defamation bill have failed, and the prime minister’s cunning plan to avoid state regulation of the press through a Royal Charter have floundered, as no publishers have agreed to sign up to the proposed regulator. Leveson and his team have been beset by scandals, and rumours that the future of press regulation was decided over pizza in the early hours by politicians and three members of the pro-regulation Hacked Off lobby group, but without a single member of the press present have marred the government’s approach. Even the ongoing support from celebs such as Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan has done little to keep it in favour. As the press formulate an alternative, what’s now been dubbed the ‘pizza charter’ seems doomed to failure.
Is the Leveson report now - as is widely reported in the press – discredited, or is all the muckraking and conspiracy theorising by the press a conscious attempt by the ‘feral’ press to dodge his proposals? With the public apparently supporting the implementation of Leveson –around two-thirds are in favour according to recent polls - how can it be in the public interest to have an unregulated press? Does the Royal Charter proposal does represent any sort of positive alternative to statute-backed regulation, or could the implications for free speech be even worse? Finally, with the so-called ‘blue-chip’ hackers - law firms and insurers – now under the spotlight, were offences by the press as grievous and isolated as was first made out?
SPEAKERSProfessor George Brockhead of journalism, City University London; author, Out of Print: newspapers, journalism and the business of news in the Digital Age
Professor Roger GraefCEO, Films of Record; award-winning filmmaker, including the Bafta winning Police series, Police 2001, Turning the Screws, and The Secret Policeman's Ball; visiting professor, Mannheim Centre for Criminology, LSE
Patrick Hayesdirector, British Educational Suppliers Association (BESA)
Professor Tim Luckhursthead, Centre for Journalism, University of Kent; author, Responsibility without Power: Lord Justice Leveson's constitutional dilemma
CHAIRViv Reganmanaging editor, spiked

Building trust or cleaning up the public realm?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Sunday 20 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The problem of collapsing trust has become all-pervasive. Many of society’s most treasured institutions, private and public, seem to have lost the faith of the public. Scandals have led many to question the integrity of the police, the Catholic Church, the banking system, parliament, newspapers, the BBC and the NHS. The responses to such crises now have a familiar script of their own: a public inquiry exposing institutional malaise, followed by swift calls for external regulation, tougher penalties, staff purges and ‘root-and-branch’ retraining. There have also been calls to protect whistleblowers and to ensure greater diversity at management level to guard against perceptions of cronyism.
While a bout of soul-searching is understandable following failures such as Mid-Staffs, however, the jury is out on how far such moves rebuild trust. External regulation is greeted with cynicism, provoking accusations of incompetence if the regulators are recruited from outside the profession (as in the NHS and police) and corruption if they are drawn from within (Libor). Self-regulation, meanwhile, is widely derided as, to quote Jeremy Paxman, akin to ‘the bloke down the pub telling you you’re sober enough to drive.’ For some, however, the crisis that engulfed safeguarding authorities over child abuse provides a salutary lesson of how efforts to restore trust can backfire: with ‘tainted’ senior staff replaced by inexperienced juniors and professional judgement eroded by bureaucratic exercises such as CRB checks. One doctor lamented, ‘every box ticked is a kindness lost’. More broadly, a concern with being seen to be whiter than white may be a distraction from the core work through which all institutions must ultimately win the public’s trust.
Does treating every individual as requiring constant scrutiny and supervision, and encouraging them to report on colleagues, risk undermining the professional ethos institutions draw their strength from? If a witchhunting dynamic is allowed to take hold – and those who seek to defend their reputations dismissed as arrogant troublemakers - are we in danger of driving anyone who doesn’t match up to a sanitised idea of the public servant out of our institutions? Do reasonable demands for accountability become too easily sacrificed to PR-friendly scapegoating and panicked reform? Or are such criticisms merely more buck-passing and resistance to much-needed change for failing organisations? Can anyone be trusted to restore the public’s faith in our institutions?
SPEAKERSLord Victor Adebowalechief executive, Turning Point; non-executive director, NHS England; chancellor, Lincoln University
Paul Daviespartner, PwC
Alex Deanemanaging director, FTI Consulting; Sky News regular; BBC Dateline London panellist; author Big Brother Watch: The state of civil liberties in modern Britain
Brendan O'Neilleditor, spiked; columnist, Big Issue; contributor, Spectator; author, A Duty to Offend: Selected Essays
Jill Rutterprogramme director, Institute for Government
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Listening to music: a private or public activity?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Saturday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
ETA Hoffmann’s famous 1810 review of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony declared instrumental music to be the highest of all art forms because it opened up to listeners the realm of the infinite, ‘a world that has nothing in common with the external world of the senses’. Precisely because of its independence from words, music could express that which lay beyond the grasp of conventional language and be interpreted by any one of us in a multitude of ways. In a celebrated passage in the novel Howards End, EM Forster captures a whole range of types of listener among six characters listening to Beethoven’s Fifth.  Responses ranged from the visceral (Mrs Munt tapping) to the technical (Tibby ‘versed in counterpoint’), from Helen ‘who can see heroes and shipwrecks in the music’s flood’ to the nationalistic. What all listeners had in common was that they experience music in public, typically in a concert hall.
Today, however, music is a ubiquitous backdrop to everyday life, experienced in lifts, in TV jingles or on a multitude of radio stations. And who needs the concert hall when we access personal playlists in our own time and schedule? Even listening to music in public – on the street or on a train – can be an intensely private experience. Cultural attitudes have also changed. A new audiences initiative has declared ‘the most alienating of all classical music’s rituals is that concerts take place in concert halls’, which is all too much like a museum. What’s more, it’s suggested that in today’s visual culture, staring straight ahead at the musicians or closing your eyes and listening intently is not sufficient: a visual dimension is necessary to engage contemporary audiences.
Contemporary music ensembles are reminded that millions of people listen to music at festivals, nightclubs, discos and private parties, and expect a similarly immersive experience from concerts. But should all musical experiences really be the same, or is there something to be said for a degree of reverence in some circumstances? Does visual accompaniment distract us or help us concentrate on the layers and subtleties of music? Should we throw off the classical concert hall as a burden? How and where should we listen to music to really hear it?  Is really listening to music a public pursuit or a private passion?
SPEAKERSIvan Hewettchief music critic, Daily Telegraph; professor, Royal College of Music; broadcaster; author, Music: healing the rift
Marshall MarcusCEO, European Union Youth Orchestra; chair; Sistema Europe
Gabriella Swallowcellist, broadcaster and arts commentator
CHAIRAngus Kennedyconvenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

Do as I say not as I do: what's wrong with hypocrisy?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Saturday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Of all scandals involving public figures, the ones that are relished most are those in which the protagonist has been found to be privately indulging in behaviour they have publicly condemned: the pious champion of family values who turns out to have a gay lover on the side, the politician who talks tough about border controls while employing an illegal immigrant as a maid, or the socialist who rails against unearned privilege while quietly sending her children to private school. The resulting charge of hypocrisy has always been an ambiguous one, however. Is the real issue the hypocrites’ inability to live up to their own high standards, or their moralistic condemnation of behaviour that is perfectly reasonable and ought to be blameless? Do the republican ideals of a Thomas Jefferson count for nothing because he was a slave owner, or can we uphold them even as we condemn his hypocrisy?
In recent years, there has been a greater focus on the private lives of politicians and other public figures. If there once existed a gentlemen’s agreement whereby the press turned a blind eye to the private indiscretions of ministers, no such niceties apply today. But should we really be judging people by what they do in their private lives, rather than by their public achievements, or lack of them? Does it really matter if a politician, business leader or sports person is a horrible and immoral person at home, if at work they enact policies that improve people’s lives, create jobs or perform on the sports field? Or should we expect and demand personal integrity and good character in anyone in a position of responsibility and influence? Should we demand more transparency and openness, so we can be sure our public figures are what they claim to be?
Or does a focus on their private lives reflect diminished expectations about what people can and should achieve in the public sphere, regardless of any personal flaws? And does a preoccupation with judging people’s private behaviour by their own public standards reveal a certain relativism – a reluctance to make an absolute judgement about what is and is not acceptable?
SPEAKERSAnne Atkinsnovelist, columnist and broadcaster; prize-winning journalist; regular contributor, BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day
Ruth Dudley Edwardshistorian and journalist; author, The Seven: the lives and legacies of the founding fathers of the Irish Republic (forthcoming)
Dr Michael Fitzpatrickwriter on medicine and politics; author, The Tyranny of Health
Joe Friggieriprofessor of philosophy and former head of department, University of Malta; poet; playwright; theatre director; three-times winner, National Literary Prize
CHAIRDolan Cummingsassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story (forthcoming from Zero Books)

State vs. market: is there a way forward?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Saturday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The free market has long been understood as a key aspect of freedom more generally. But critics also see the market as a place of exploitation, as a threat to, rather than an expression of, our freedom. And in the past 150 years there has grown up a counterbalance to the market in the form of the state: both the protector and regulator of the market. Should private businesses be compelled to obey the dictates of the public as personified by the state? Or, conversely, should they enjoy the same freedoms as private individuals – the freedom to buy what they want and sell what they want? Does that extend to discrimination in the labour market? Should employers be able to discriminate against employees they think are too old or customers they just don’t like?
Might it be that an increasingly top-heavy state is holding back the entrepreneurial dynamism of the market, or should we view it as vital life-support to a system far beyond the capabilities of private enterprise, however large? Is it right that the market should be involved in the traditional functions of the state like prisons, healthcare, even the army and the police? And must the state act as a prop to the market by subsidising industries that are failing or would never start up in the first place without a hand-out from the taxpayer? Can it, given the scale of public debt, even afford such largesse? Is it time to find a way past the opposition between state and market? Do the terms even make sense anymore, given the degree of mutual reliance and interpenetration they have now achieved?
SPEAKERSLouise Cooperfinancial analyst and blogger, CooperCity.co.uk
Thomas Hylland Eriksenprofessor of social anthropology, University of Oslo; novelist; author, Ethnicity and Nationalism and Globalization: the key concepts
Phil Mullaneconomist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: How to start an economic renaissance
Dr Andrew SentanceSenior Economic Adviser to PwC (since 2011); formerly, external member, Monetary Policy Committee, Bank of England
CHAIRAngus Kennedyconvenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

East Asia: the new global hotspot?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2013 on Saturday 19 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Kim Jong-un’s North Korea may call for a ‘merciless, sacred, retaliatory war’ against the US imperialists and South Korean ‘puppet warmongers’ it blames for inching the Korean peninsula towards thermonuclear war. But China, despite distancing itself from its communist neighbour’s antics, also feels itself threatened by the US. In the East and South China Seas, across the Pacific, and even in its relations with India, China feels encircled, whatever successes are achieved by its ‘String of Pearls’ strategy of alliances with countries such as Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Is it paranoia or imperialist ambitions that lead China to hack Pentagon computers and build up a carrier fleet? What should we make of Xi Jinping’s talk of his ‘strong-army dream’ and desire for ‘the great revival of the Chinese nation’?
Japanese military posturing over the Senkaku Islands has led its military ally America to call for restraint and cooler heads. But some see the US guarantee of Japan’s security as a potential trigger of world war – analogous to the interlocking alliances that precipitated World War I a hundred years ago. How accurate is it to see conflicts in the East and South China Seas, and nearby, through the lens of the tensions that broke out in 1914? Is Myanmar really a new Serbia? What about the dangers of border skirmishes between India and China? India and Pakistan? And has the friction really gone out of the relationship between China and Taiwan?
Is East Asia really the key cockpit for tomorrow’s major wars? Perhaps saner voices will prevail against the national resentments that characterise China, Japan, America and other states in the region. But what is the exact nature and strength of the different nationalisms at work there, anyway? Does Asia’s arms race reflect rivalry for natural resources, historical resentments, or the simple fact of China’s rise and America’s decline? Could hothead nationalism – whether Japanese, Chinese or North Korean – be the spark that ignites war in the east?
SPEAKERSBen Chueconomics editor, the Independent; author Chinese Whispers: why everything you've heard about China is wrong
Professor Steve Tsangdirector, China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, London South Bank University
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, IoI Economy Forum