Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Age of ‘isms’: what happened to ideology?

Recorded on Sunday 16 October 2022 at Church House, Westminster, London
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
With epithets such as neo-fascism or cultural Marxism hurled around with abandon, you could be forgiven for thinking society is gripped by partisan political rivals in thrall to ideological fervour. In reality, while we face many enormous challenges, big political ideas seem in short supply. But is that true?
The Tory leadership race attracted scorn for offering little more than reheated versions of Thatcherism. Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is criticised as a poor Tony Blair tribute act. Attempts to outline new political ‘visions’ – from Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ to Johnson’s ‘Levelling Up’ – invariably fall flat. At the same time, disruptive change that does have potential to transform the status quo – from Brexit to Extinction Rebellion – is routinely dismissed as extremist.
For most of the twentieth century, politics was dominated by big, competing visions of the future and contested ideological outlooks – the major ‘isms’ of Liberalism, Socialism and Communism. But after the end of the Cold War, politicians began to make a virtue of avoiding such all-encompassing visions, announcing that the ‘end of history’ meant a retreat from such political conflict. In the new post-ideological age of technocracy and managerialism, politicians promised to run governments like businesses, based on ‘results’, not big ideas. An obsession with ‘delivery’ and calls to ‘follow the science’ and defer to experts seemed to place ideological vision beyond the pale.
However, with politics today feeling ever more charged and divisive, we might ask if the hold of ideology over society remains as strong as ever. After all, we’ve seen the rise of a new generation of ‘isms’ – from neoliberalism to globalism. Meanwhile, sweeping changes to society are being realised as government departments, policy makers, arts institutions and corporations alike pursue agendas of environmentalism and transgenderism, albeit presented as promoting the ‘values’ of sustainability and diversity. In our supposedly non-ideological times, has ideology been smuggled in through the back door to remain pervasive in all parts of society, whether public or private?
What do we mean by ideology and what forms do they take today? How does ideology differ from other categories, such as morality or political ideals? Do we live in an era of less explicit or even silent ideologies and, if so, what are the important systems of ideas today? In times of crisis, when pragmatism is associated with short-termism and endless U-turns, could we benefit from an injection of ideological zeal? How do those who seek support for a transformative political project move forward today?
SPEAKERS
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; author, The Road to Ukraine: how the West lost its way and 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation
Rod Liddlecolumnist, The Sunday Times, the Sun and the Spectator; author, The Great Betrayal; associate editor, Spectator; former editor, BBC Radio 4 Today programme
John McTernanpolitical strategist; former director of political operations, Blair government; writer, Financial Times and Unherd
Dr Zoe Strimpelhistorian; British Academy research fellow, University of Warwick; columnist, Sunday Telegraph; author, What the Hell Is He Thinking?, The Man Diet and Seeking Love in Modern Britain
CHAIR
Alastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Can culture survive the culture wars?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 9 October at Church House, Westminster, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Cultural works of value were previously understood to be those that proved themselves through the passage of time. Many people will be familiar with the defence of culture by Matthew Arnold, who described it as ‘acquainting ourselves with the best that has been known and said in the world, and thus with the history of the human spirit’.
But for some, the past is increasingly viewed as a dark and problematic place. Works from previous generations inevitably contain ideas and words that were of their time – some we might want to hold on to, and some might seem unacceptable today. And a growing number of contemporary critics now argue that cultural artefacts of the past that don’t align with modern sentiments and values should be forgotten – even removed – despite their aesthetic quality.
Censorship has long existed in the arts – from governments banning authors like DH Lawrence for his sexually explicit content to the BBC refusing to air Ewan McColl’s music because of his ‘communist’ sympathies. But many argue that today’s hostility to cultural heritage is different. Instead of conservative attempts to control the status quo by rejecting new ideas, today’s critics are focused on what has come before.
Both Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn and Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird have been removed from curricula and libraries in the UK and US, with critics complaining of the use of the ‘n-word’ and racist stereotypes in both books. Likewise, the Tate’s director, Alex Farquharson, has said that JMW Turner ‘mustn’t be idolised’ because he once bought a share in a Jamaican cattle ranch. There was uproar when the Royal Court staged a new production of Andrea Dunbar’s play Rita, Sue and Bob Too, with one critic arguing that a ‘a tale of grooming, underage sex and “slut-shaming”’ shouldn’t have been allowed in a post #MeToo era.
Channels like Turner Classic Movies and Disney Plus have placed content warnings on films like Gone With The Wind to inform viewers of racist content before they begin viewing. Similar moves are afoot in theatre, where a recent production of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet featured trigger warnings about its depiction of suicide, moments of violence and references to drug use. Fans of such moves applaud the ability to make works more ‘relevant’ or ‘accessible’, while critics argue that these modern tweaks change the audience’s ability to come to their own conclusions about the meaning and intent of the play.
What happens when we judge the culture of the past by the morals of the present? Do we risk missing art’s transcendental or universal qualities if we focus on the political content of our cultural history? Who decides what is culturally acceptable, and what must face the chopping block? Is the war on culture righteous iconoclasm, or is this resistance to the past a danger to our appreciation of culture in the here and now?
SPEAKERS
Jan Bowmanartist; illustrator; author
Dolan Cummingsauthor, Gehenna: a novel of Hell and Earth; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas; co-founder, Manifesto Club
Jonathan Grantchartered accountant; arts critic
Josephine Husseyschool teacher; theatre lover
Dr Philip Kiszelylecturer in performance and cultural histories, University of Leeds; author, Hollywood through Private Eyes
CHAIRJane Sandemanchief operating officer, The Passage; convenor, AoI Parents Forum; contributor, Standing up to Supernanny

What does the Sewell Report mean for education?

Recorded at Open for Debate on Saturday 31 July 2021 at Church House, Westminster, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In summer 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson commissioned an investigation into race and ethnic disparities in the UK. The committee published its report this March, and many of its key findings focus on education. At a time when anti-racist campaigners accuse the education system of entrenching a system of ‘white privilege’, the report argues that the relationship between education and racial discrimination is not so straightforward.
The ‘Sewell Report’, colloquially named after its lead author Dr Tony Sewell, claims that ‘new arrivals to Britain have seized on the opportunities afforded by the state-school system and access to university. The story for some ethnic groups has been one of remarkable social mobility, outperforming the national average and enabling them to attain success at the highest levels within a generation. Conversely, other groups experience lower than average educational outcomes which can have a significant impact on employment rates, earnings and general wellbeing. It is important to understand why these disparities arise and what can be done to reduce them.’
The report’s practical recommendations include: ‘raising the status of technical and vocational education, providing more school-leaver apprenticeships and offering second chances for those who do not get on the academic ladder at 16, or who fall off it at or after university’. It also appears to acknowledge the validity of calls from Black Lives Matter campaigners for a ‘decolonised curriculum’, in its recommendation that all pupils should be equipped with ‘a wider understanding of the UK which encompasses the contributions made by different groups, cultures and regions’.
Despite the report’s claims to provide a nuanced insight into the issue of race and racism, it generated immediate controversy. A group of teaching unions branded it an ‘insult to all those in Britain who experience racism every day of their lives’. Kalwant Bhopal, director of the Centre for Research in Race and Education at the University of Birmingham, said the report was ‘based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how racism works’. Defenders of the report, however, have argued that critics have not engaged with its content, and that it provides a much-needed positive alternative to the dominant victim-oriented account of race relations.
So what does the report actually say, and how valid are its claims about race and education? Is education really the ‘single most emphatic success story of the British ethnic minority experience’, or does the report undermine attempts to tackle racism in schools and universities? How does the way the report’s supporters and critics understand the concept of race differ? This is a chance to hear directly from the lead author and discuss what, if anything, we can learn from the report.
SPEAKERS
Kunle Olulodedirector, Voice4Change England
Zara Qureshiproject manager, The Equiano Project; co-founding member, Free Speech Champions
Dr Tony Sewell CBEchair, Generating Genius; chairman, The Sewell Report; former chair, Race and Ethnic Disparities Commission
James Tooleyvice chancellor, University of Buckingham; author, The Beautiful Tree
Professor Patrick Vernon OBEindependent non-executive director, Birmingham and Solihull ICS; social commentator; co-author, 100 Great Black Britons; creator, Every Generation Game: Windrush Edition; fellow, Clore and Winston Churchill
CHAIR
Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthberthead of education and co-ordinator, Don't Divide Us; author, What should schools teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth