Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Cultural appropriation: compliment or theft?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2017 on Saturday 28 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Throughout history, the most successful societies have been the ones that were open to cultural exchange and borrowing. The development of religion, philosophy, science, the arts and technology is the cumulative outcome of communities borrowing, assimilating and copying aspects of each other’s cultural achievements. Today, however, such mingling and remaking is viewed with suspicion if not hostility, denounced by some as ‘racist theft’. Critics of ‘cultural appropriation’ insist that cultural engagement is one thing, but the taking up ‘without permission’ of another culture’s practices, symbols and ideas is another.
Denunciations of usually white celebrities for appropriation are now a regular part of the entertainment and fashion landscape. Singer Selena Gomez has been slammed for wearing an Indian bindi; fashion designer Marc Jacobs was attacked for styling models in colourful dreadlocks; fashion house Valentino and high street brand Mango were both slammed for failing to use African models to promote Africa-inspired clothes. Even eating has become a political minefield, with college cafeterias denounced for serving samosas, kebabs or burritos. In the US, one of the highest profile cultural furore has centred on white girls in Oregon selling tacos; there is even a ‘Feminist Guide to Being a Foodie Without Being Culturally Appropriative’.
Last year, American novelist Lionel Shriver controversially denounced the whole concept as a passing fad, but it still seems to resonate well beyond celebrity call-out culture. When New York’s Whitney Museum displayed white painter Dana Schutz’s painting of Emmett Till, the victim of a 1955 racist murder in Mississippi, black British artist Hannah Black wrote to the curators, calling not only for the artwork to be removed, but also destroyed. Hal Niedzviecki was hounded out of his job at the Canadian Writers’ Union for proposing an Appropriation Prize for the ‘best book by an author who writes about people who aren’t even remotely like her or him’. Jonathan Kay of The Walrus magazine and Steve Ladurantaye of flagship news programme The National were also forced to resign after tweeting in support of Niedzviecki. And bestselling British children’s author Anthony Horowitz claimed he was ‘upset and disturbed’ to be told by his editor that it was wrong for him to create a leading black character. US academic James Anaya is even spearheading an international campaign for the UN to: ‘obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions’; expressions, not just artefacts.
Are there unbridgeable differences in experience and understanding between different groups of people and do particular cultures have distinct, unique and irreducible essences? Is cultural appropriation a zero-sum game analogous to the seizure of land or theft of artefacts, especially if some cultures are marginalised and at risk of being forgotten or misunderstood? Are Enlightenment and universalist ideas about shared humanity now relics of the past? Or were they never any more than a cloak for imperialism? Why is cultural appropriation such a key focus for anti-racist campaigners today? And what does this mean for challenging racism, historically a struggle based on solidarity and overcoming difference rather than preserving difference?
SPEAKERSDr Sarah Cheangsenior tutor, History of Design, Royal College of Art; co-editor, Hair: Styling, Culture and Fashion; author, Sinophilia (forthcoming) on role of Chinese material culture within histories of Western fashion
Dr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should stay there
Kunle Olulodedirector, Voice4Change England; creative director, Rebop Productions
Bijan Omranihistorian and classicist; editor, Asian Affairs Journal; author, Caesar’s Footprints: Journeys to Roman Gaul
Sameer Rahimmanaging editor, Prospect Magazine
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panelist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Battle 2017 Lecture: how do we create an economic renaissance?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2017 on Sunday 29 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Productivity growth is widely regarded as key to economic growth and rising living standards. For too long, economists and politicians across the Western economies have been puzzling over why productivity growth has been so lacklustre. Nowhere more so than in Britain, where productivity has flatlined since before the financial crash. In response, a familiar wish list of more research, easier funding for startups, a modernised infrastructure, and more relevant skills training is easy to state. However, efforts in these directions have so far appeared to have had little effect. As a result, some draw the conclusion that we have entered an era of low growth, or ‘secular stagnation’, and that we need to get used to it.
In his new book, Creative Destruction: How to start an economic renaissance, Phil Mullan argues that there is a way to ensure a better economic future: by creating one. What is needed is comprehensive economic restructuring brought about through political and cultural change. For too long, state intervention has been about ‘stabilising’ the economy, creating a corporate dependency that has entrenched economic stagnation.
Recasting economic and industrial strategy to enable creative destruction to operate again will not be painless. In the short term, businesses would close and jobs would be lost. A return to higher levels of business dynamism will need to go hand in hand with comprehensive measures to assist people during their transition into the better jobs in new sectors and new industries.
So how do we create an economic renaissance? Do we need a bout of creative destruction, or does that risk generating more hardship? How could a state which has reinforced the zombie economy change to lead in laying the foundations for the next industrial revolution?
SPEAKERSPhil Mullaneconomist and business manager; author, Creative Destruction: How to start an economic renaissance
CHAIRAngus Kennedyconvenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

Diversity: does it matter?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2017 on Saturday 28 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women’. So argued a Google engineer, James Damore, in a now infamous 10-page document entitled ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’. The memo caused international outrage and Damore was sacked for asking if we should uncritically accept diversity as an incontestable good that should trump all other values. Regardless of whether one agreed with any or all of the author’s arguments – such as the idea that women are underrepresented in Silicon Valley not because of bias and discrimination, but possibly because of psychological differences between the sexes – his appeal for more debate is worth exploring.
Damore certainly took on a sacred cow when he challenged the orthodoxy on diversity, one of the most ubiquitous values in modern society. There is now a growing multi-billion pound ‘diversity industry’, populated by myriad consultants and facilitated by government policies, legislation and funding. All organisations – whether public or private – now have elaborate strategies to both recruit more diverse workforces and accommodate the supposedly different needs of diverse users. Damore is not alone in querying whether enforced hiring targets, quotas and the like are divisive. There are worries about whether the overall effect of treating people differently may fuel a sense of exclusion rather than cohesion and also concerns about tokenism.
For example, despite the recent fuss about the BBC’s gender pay gap amongst its most best-paid presenters, diversity is presented as a core BBC aim. In its Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2016-2020, BBC director-general Tony Hall promises 50 per cent women, 15 per cent black, Asian and other ethnic minorities, and eight per cent each of LGBT and the disabled will be prominent in the areas of staff, leadership and on-screen portrayals. Should organisations be engaged in such demographic number-crunching or employing the best, regardless of ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation?
Others fear that while diversity training inside organisations is supposed to ‘promote inclusive good relations’, it can be used to police employees’ ‘wrong’ attitudes and their informal interactions with workmates. ‘Unconscious bias’ training, using pseudo-therapeutic techniques, is widely practised, but also said to exacerbate tensions between different identity groups, encouraging people to view innocent interactions through the prism of prejudice.
Beyond the workplace, representing diversity in depictions of the past has become politicised and contentious, with accusations of rewriting history. Christopher Nolan’s widely acclaimed film, Dunkirk, has been criticised for a lack of gender and racial diversity. A review from USA Today’s Brian Tuitt notes ‘the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way’. Meanwhile, there has been a spat between Professors Mary Beard and Nassim Nicholas Taleb about the evidence (or not) for ethnic diversity in Roman Britain, in response to a BBC animated film featuring a ‘typical’ Roman family with a black father.
On the world stage, diversity is seen as a standalone medium for change, an antidote to what are seen as backward forces clinging on to outdated national cultures and institutions. Britain’s decision to leave the EU (motto: ‘United in diversity’) is regularly posited as representing an attack on plurality and a retreat from a progressive, diverse Europe, an antidote to national monoculture. When Joe Biden was US vice-president, he received international accolades for arguing that ‘greater diversity, including more women and openly gay soldiers, will strengthen the country’s armed forces’. Diversity was not only seen as the saviour of American militarism, but of the nation itself. Biden stated that ‘tolerance and diversity make America great…The secret that people don’t know is our diversity is the reason for our incredible strength’ with no mention of values usually associated with that nation’s values such its Constitution, liberalism, individual freedom and civil rights. Inevitably, one of the most serious critiques of President Trump is that he is not a champion of diversity.
How far should we go as a society in the pursuit of diversity? Can diversity, with its elevation of particular identities and rights over universal political freedom, create a sense of common loyalty within everything from corporations to counties? Do diversity policies invite a permanent war of cultures, with society increasingly segmented along the lines of identity? How should we strive for fair treatment for all members of society and equal access to jobs without creating discriminatory hiring practices or treating people as members of a group rather than as individuals? If there is discrimination, how can we solve the issue without allowing diversity of political viewpoints and honest debate? Once diversity becomes institutionalised as a political weapon, might it lose its positive potential for opening society up to new ideas?
SPEAKERSJosie Appletondirector, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club; author, Officious: Rise of the Busybody State, blogs at notesonfreedom.com
Amali De AlwisCEO, Code First: Girls; chair, BIMA Diversity panel; fellow, RSA
Dreda Say Mitchellauthor, journalist, broadcaster & campaigner; winner of CWA's John Creasey Dagger for debut novel, Running Hot; latest novel, Blood Daughter
Cathy YoungUS journalist and commentator; weekly columnist, Newsday; author, Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panelist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

What’s God got to do with it?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2016 on Sunday 23 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Even in the most secular societies like the UK, where religion has long been in decline, God remains a ghostly presence in many social and political debates. Issues like same-sex marriage and assisted dying often divide avowed secularists from those who hold traditional religious views, while the question of the relationship between the Muslim religion and violent Islamism remains as thorny as it is inflammatory. Much seems to hinge on whether religion is a valuable source of wisdom, or an embarrassing hangover from less enlightened times. For many conservatives, it is the decline of belief that accounts for such problems as a breakdown of social solidarity or the loss of parental authority. For many critics, it is the persistence of belief that is holding society back from embracing positive change like greater equality. But perhaps both sides attribute too much significance to belief or otherwise in God?
After all, there are few religious values that are not also shared by significant numbers of non-believers. And conversely, few of the values held dear by secular liberals can be wholly derived from scientifically verifiable facts. Would we not be better simply arguing out our differences on the merits of the arguments, including subjective beliefs, preferences and desires? Is this not in fact how we do argue most of the time? Yet for many, both religious and otherwise, this is not enough: there must be some absolute source of authority. Of course, the desire to root our beliefs and values in something beyond the hurly burly of secular interests is understandable. And appeals to authority are not limited to God. In some contexts, science and other forms of academic knowledge are used to support claims that arguably reach beyond their purview; for example, the claim that children need particular styles of parenting in order to thrive. So does this desire for absolute authority drive even atheists to ‘play God’?
There is a strain in conservative thought that values religion less because it is true than because it is useful: the idea is that if people believe in God they are more likely to be well-behaved and respect authority. Is this now mirrored by a secular mind-set that replaces holy writ with professional expertise and a set of politically correct, received opinions on social issues? If so, are we in danger not only of closing down debate, but of trivialising difficult social and moral questions by insisting there must be a right answer that somehow exists independently of thinking and feeling human beings? Even if there is a God, is it not up to us to decide how we live in terms that would make sense even if there were not? Is there a conversation to be had that includes everyone, regardless of religion, or are we inevitably separated from one another by our different beliefs about religion? What’s God got to do with it?
SPEAKERSProfessor Tim CraneKnightbridge Professor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge; author The Meaning of Belief (Harvard UP 2017)
Dolan Cummingsassociate fellow, Academy of Ideas; author, That Existential Leap: a crime story (forthcoming from Zero Books)
Ken MacLeodaward-winning science fiction writer; author, 16 novels, from The Star Fraction (1995) to The Corporation Wars: Dissidence (2016)
Professor Mona Siddiquiprofessor of Islamic and inter-religious studies, School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh
John WatersIrish newspaper columnist; author, Jiving at the Crossroads and Was It For This? Why Ireland Lost the Plot
CHAIRDr Michael Fitzpatrickwriter on medicine and politics; author, The Tyranny of Health

What is the truth about ‘post-factual politics’?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2016 on Saturday 22 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The US presidential campaign and the Brexit referendum result both fuelled concerns about the rise of ‘post-truth politics’, with many painting 2016 as the dawn of a post-factual era’. After all, Donald Trump has called fact-checking an ‘out-of-touch, elitist media-type thing’ and his seemingly cavalier relationship with truth seems to stretch far beyond even the most cynical spin-doctoring of mainstream politicians. Brexit leader Michael Gove’s now infamous claim that ‘people in this country have had enough of experts’ continues to provoke outrage. Many asked pointedly if he would dismiss the expertise of doctors when ill. Many in the science world have taken his remarks as a rejection of empirical research and a challenge to the efficacy of evidence.
But never mind ‘populist politicians’; what to do with ‘ill-informed voters’? Almost the whole global economic, scientific and financial establishment lined up to warn of the consequences of Brexit, but 52% of the country ignored them. Why, when data and quantitative information is everywhere are, did people seemingly ‘vote with their hearts’? Some blame the media for running attention-grabbing half-truths in their headlines. Others argue it is up to the experts to go on the offensive in order to get their insights across. But when one expert advocates using ‘our skills not only as subject specific experts, but as teachers, to try to nudge society towards a democratic process based on true critical thinking,’ is an important point being missed? This appears to assume that if only the public understood expert advice they would follow it; that there is no room for legitimate disagreement or debate. In fact, those who see experts as a new ‘priestly’ class argue that far too much of political life is being outsourced to experts - whether at the Bank of England or the government’s ‘Nudge Unit’, and that huge swathes of decision-making have been removed from democratic accountability. Some argue this political privileging of expertise is the real threat to expert knowledge, representing an erosion of knowledge as an end in itself. Increasingly, academic and scientific research is expected to serve a social or economic purpose; ‘policy-based evidence’ in support of an implicit political agenda. Indeed, might some of the bemoaning of a ‘post-truth’ politics reflect disbelief that the experts’ own liberal-cosmopolitan worldview has been challenged?
What is the future for experts in an era of ‘post-truth’ politics? Have experts been over-reaching into areas where what is needed is not so much facts as political principles? Or if the facts are dismissed, will society sink into the mire of prejudice and superstition, with policy little more than a non-evidence based shot in the dark?
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
Josh LoweEuropean politics reporter, Newsweek
Professor Neena Modiprofessor of neonatal medicine, Imperial College London; consultant in neonatal medicine, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust; president, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Dr Adam Rutherfordgeneticist, science writer and broadcaster, BBC; author, Creation and A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived: The Story In our Genes; presenter, Inside Science and The Cell
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Who are we? Identity politics dissected

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2016 on Sunday 23 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over recent decades, identity politics has become ubiquitous. The content of what one says, the convictions one articulates, the universal principles one espouses are turned to dust by those dread phrases ‘As a black woman’, ‘As a gay man’ or ‘As a Muslim’. Western university campuses are just the most visible sites where left/right ideological political battles or material interests have been usurped by internecine warfare between competitive personalised identities, jostling for recognition, checking each other’s privilege. People increasingly categorise themselves by race, gender, sexuality, religion, and culture. In his book, Humanism Betrayed, Professor Graham Good calls it ‘The New Sectarianism’.
Of course, there is nothing new in seeing identity as important. But historically, progressive political movements have fought for people not to be defined by their race, religion, gender or sexuality. Modernity has been the story of forging one’s identity in defiance of birth or biology, through what you achieved by engaging with the world beyond yourself. Increasingly, though, radicals seem to be rediscovering the lure of essentialism. Privileged millennial activists claim historical injustices such as slavery continue to cause them pain and suffering because of their colour. Western-born wannabe jihadis claim they are motivated by assaults on the global ummah. After the massacre at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, some LGBT activists fought for exclusive ‘ownership’ of any solidarity. Self-conscious identitarians retreat into segregated safe spaces at universities, with increasing demands for LGBT-only accommodation in the UK and ‘racially-themed dorms’ in the US. There are spasmodic backlashes: American columnist Michael Tomasky decried the ‘million-little-pieces, interest-group approach to politics’. The splintering of identities can be easy to lampoon - which of the 71 Facebook gender identities will you choose from? But identity politics seems remarkably resilient. Ironically, while support for Donald Trump is understood partly as a backlash against political correctness, Trumpian ‘new nationalism’ has recently been described as ‘a brand name for generic white identity politics’.  Meanwhile in France, clampdowns on the assertion of religious identity (fought over the summer through the state’s ban on the burkini) take the form of an assertion of French secular identity. 
What is it about our society that is so hospitable to new identities yet seems unable to affirm any more universal political ideals such as democracy and equality? Can the historical, more humanistic identities that once gave meaning to people’s lives – from institutions such as the family, class and nation to political movements for change – be reconstituted? Or were these too broad to represent everyone? Philosophically, how should we seek to construct a sense of ourselves today?
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
Ivan Hewettchief music critic, Daily Telegraph; professor, Royal College of Music; broadcaster; author, Music: healing the rift
Sunder Katwaladirector, British Future; former general secretary, Fabian Society
Professor Michele Moody-AdamsJoseph Strauss professor of political philosophy and legal theory, Columbia University; author, Fieldwork in Familiar Places: Morality, culture and philosophy
Brendan O'Neilleditor, spiked; columnist, Big Issue; contributor, Spectator; author, A Duty to Offend: Selected Essays
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze; author, I Find That Offensive

Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty: What next for Europe?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2016 on Sunday 23 October at Barbican, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
When European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker recently declared that, ‘borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians,’ he expressed a widespread, fashionable belief: transnational institutions such as the EU are the champions of cosmopolitanism and internationalism. Indeed, many have argued that the recent vote for Brexit in the UK and the rise of anti-Brussels populist movements throughout Europe are an expression of parochialism. To reject the EU is to pull up the drawbridge against the world, to turn inwards. Indeed the New Yorker has characterised this period as a worldwide revolt against cosmopolitan modernity. For his part, Junker went on to argue, ‘We have to fight against nationalism.. [and] block the avenue of populists’.
Is there necessarily a contradiction between national sovereignty (and therefore democracy) and an internationalist outlook? After all historically, internationalism and the cosmopolitan ideal (as first conceptualised by Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant) emerged alongside the nation state. It was less about diluting national sovereignty than identifying common interests between people firmly rooted in particular national cultures, traditions and institutions. In contrast, contemporary cosmopolitanism is broadly hostile to the idea of the nation state. It sometimes appears that those most involved in globalised institutions are uniting across borders against their own nation’s populace: national elites evading accountability by forging allegiances among themselves. Arguably, then, while its rhetoric is universalist, the new, rootless cosmopolitanism is narrow, bureaucratic and shallow. To critics, all the virtue signalling about how we must all stand up for open borders, visa free travel – and, er, abolishing mobile roaming charges – amount to a thin, ‘lifestyle cosmopolitanism’, a parody of the richness of Enlightenment universalism or the revolutionary cry: ‘Citizens of the world, unite’.
Looking to the future of Europe, in a special final lecture, sociologist Frank Furedi will explore the changing meaning of cosmopolitanism, what European identity means today and how we might find a way to be European, open-minded and outward-looking far beyond the EU.
SPEAKERProfessor 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
CHAIRAngus Kennedyconvenor, The Academy; author, Being Cultured: in defence of discrimination

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