Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Why JS Bach still matters

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
From the introspection of his solo cello suites to the grand drama of his choral works, Johann Sebastian Bach is one of the musical greats – uniting technical mastery with a profound understanding of musical form and structure. Although exceptionally talented, his real genius lay in his ability to synthesise tradition with innovation, to create music not merely mathematically precise, but capable of expressing the full cosmos of human emotion.
But, in this year, the 300th anniversary of the premiere of Bach’s St John Passion, does this godlike figure of classical music still matter? Alas, it seems, even among music scholars, he is no longer considered a Titan. In some academic circles, the fact that Bach was a heterosexual white male makes him merely an irrelevance – and even offensive to modern sensibilities.
For example, take a pivotal scene in the Hollywood film Tár, in which self-declared ‘BIPOC, pangender’ music student Max says that Bach’s reputation for misogyny and cisgender-white-maleness make it hard for him to appreciate the composer’s music. Lydia Tár, the fictional conductor of an orchestra in Berlin and masterclass tutor at Julliard, suggests students should focus on the music instead of immutable characteristics. Edited phone footage of her comments becomes a contributing factor in Tár’s eventual cancellation from the heights of classical music fame. The scene seems entirely plausible.
In recent years, other composers of Western classical music have also faced hostile investigation. From claims that music theory is a racial ideology to be dismantled, to suggestions that studying white European music causes students of colour distress, it has become almost impossible in classrooms and peer-reviewed journals to assert the intrinsic value of classical music. In a bid to ‘decolonise’ the music curriculum, an Oxford professor branded musical notation itself ‘colonialist’. Beyond academia, efforts to popularise classical repertoire to new generations have been denigrated as the white supremacist project of an imperial society.
While some fight back by asserting that Bach and his companions in the canon are unassailable accomplishments of Western civilisation, is it enough to treat classical works with uncritical reverence? How can we judge an exemplary work like his St John Passion? Need we defend Bach the man to celebrate his music? Can we champion the transcendental quality of Western classical music against politicised opposition, indifference or claims of irrelevance?
SPEAKERSIvan Hewettwriter and broadcaster; chief music critic, Telegraph; professor, Royal College of Music; author, Music: healing the rift
Dr Lola Salemlecturer in French and music, University of Oxford; author; professional singer, Maîtrise de Radio France; critic
CHAIRElisabetta Gasparonilinguist; teacher; founder, Aesthetic Study Group

What’s the endgame for Ukraine?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Over two and a half years into Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, an end to the conflict seems as elusive as ever. Yet in many circles, the conversation has begun to turn towards the question of ending the war.
Certainly, the possible election of Donald Trump adds impetus to the debate. Trump has promised to end the war in 24 hours if elected, and his vice-presidential pick, JD Vance, has made no secret of his desire to end the war at any costs, nor his dislike for Ukraine’s president Zelensky. More broadly, international support for Ukraine seems at something of an impasse: countries like Germany have announced they are winding back support and the US seems unwilling to budge on its reluctance to let Ukraine use Western weapons to strike Russian targets on Russian soil.
Yet, Ukraine’s gamble in invading the Russian region of Kursk has suggested that, as much as Ukraine remains outnumbered and outgunned, it is still capable of surprises. But can it change what seems to be the direction the war is taking? Indeed, even many friends of Ukraine are wondering if now is the time for peace. After months of steady gains for Russia, Western outlets are now full of stories about Ukraine’s struggles with manpower, conscription, and war-weariness. All this raises the question: how long can Ukraine hold out?
In Ukraine itself, there seems some thawing to the ‘no negotiations’ spirit that had previously united society. Polls track an increased willingness to talk to Russia. But the same polls show little if any appetite for concessions on the crucial issues of territory, military size or NATO membership. Indeed, the fundamental dynamics which prompted the war – Ukraine’s existential difficulty in living next to a revanchist, belligerent and larger country – have not gone away.
If the debate about supporting Ukraine has thus far been confined to lies and platitudes about ‘whatever it takes’ –  is it not time to discuss what the strategy for supporting Ukraine should be? Does the outcome of war simply hinge on who enters the White House, or are broader dynamics at play? What should be the aim in supporting Ukraine – total victory or a better negotiating position? Does it play into Putin’s hands to talk about an end to the war, or is clarity a vital part of supporting Ukraine’s independence?
SPEAKERSMary Dejevskyformer foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington; special correspondent in China; writer and broadcaster
Tom Mutchfreelance journalist and war reporter
Jacob Reynoldshead of policy, MCC Brussels; associate fellow, Academy of Ideas
CHAIRBruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times

What is great art?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
If you want to know a quick answer to what is considered ‘great’ in the canon of art history, look no further than those targeted by contemporary climate activists: Vincent van Gogh, John Constable, Sandro Botticelli. Paintings by these artists are prized within national collections and treasured by the public because they are considered some of the best ever created.
Notions of greatness imply a hierarchy which, today, many see as a problem. For some, it is critics who are to blame – rightly or wrongly – for influencing this hierarchy. Austrian art critic EH Gombrich curated a narrative of art history using ‘welcome landmarks’ in his text The Story of Art, arguing that ‘the most famous works [of art] are really often the greatest by many standards’. In other words, great art is well-known by the public because it is great, and being guided by these standards is a means to make art history more accessible for those who might not know where to begin.
Scholars have long puzzled over the standards for artistic greatness. Should artists strive to achieve a good resemblance? What about trickery? Writing in ancient Greece, Pliny the Elder described how Parrhasius was crowned the greatest artist because he was able to fool his rival with an optical illusion. And what about aesthetics, from symmetry, perspective to colour theory? Or is there something more intangible to great art – the pain you feel standing in front of Picasso’s Guernica, or the or the joy of Klimt’s The Kiss? Should great art contain a magic that can only come from true genius, no matter how skilled the brushstrokes or carefully trained the sculpting knife?
Post-modern theories critique the notion of ‘great’ altogether, for representing an elite Western viewpoint. For these critics, the socially-constructed nature of ‘greatness’ as a standard of artistic value is a deception of objectivity that lionises the white male ‘genius’ while cloaking his scandalous behaviour. They ask why others – often black or female – have been given less attention, from Georgia O’Keeffe to Henry Ossawa Tanner. These debates have real-world implications. Today, curators may privilege certain works of art by putting them on (or off) display based on the artist’s identity, rather than the value of their work.
What are the standards for ‘great’ art? Has the drive to include diverse artists created a new hierarchy, one in which the public is led by identity rather than excellence? Should we scrap the canon altogether, and embrace the notion that art is a subjective experience? And if standards are still useful in art appreciation and the education of a new generation of artists, what should they be, and who should decide them?
SPEAKERSElla Nixoncurator; writer; PhD student, Northumbria University; fellow, Common Sense Caledonia; 2023 fellow, Roger Scruton
Dido Powellpainter; lecturer and tutor in art history and painting
Angelica Walker-Werthwriter, editor and programmes manager, Objective Standard Institute
CHAIRDr Wendy Earleconvenor, Arts and Society Forum; co-host, Arts First podcast

What do women need to be free?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The fight for women’s freedom has taken many forms – legal battles, policy wars, grassroots campaigns, stunts and setbacks. The difference in women’s experiences and opportunities from the postwar generation to today’s Gen Zers is stark. Women’s equality with men is now almost totally enshrined in law, but social norms regarding a woman’s place in public life have also become much more liberal. And yet, after all the waves of feminism – complete with allies and t-shirts – many argue that women still aren’t free in 2024.
Some point to remaining issues with women’s legal position in society. It might be formally illegal to pay women different wages to men for the same work, but expectations around motherhood, and eye-watering childcare costs, mean that many women don’t get the opportunity to reach as high or earn as much as their male peers. Pro-choice campaigners point to centuries-old law relating to abortion, which forbids women from making decisions about their own bodies, or restrictive healthcare policy relating to contraception, which likewise hampers women’s independence.
For others, the barriers to women’s freedom are more visceral – relating to fears about women’s safety in the face of male violence. Poor rates of rape convictions, high numbers of sexual-assault complaints and many women reporting everyday general harassment – from catcalling to flashing – all paint a picture of fear and uncertainty for women’s safety. Campaigners say the solution to this is greater state protections, from criminalising misogyny to tougher jail sentences for sexist crimes. Others point to old arguments from past women’s liberation movements, which rejected state paternalism as a solution to male violence.
And then there are some who make a more existential point about women’s freedom – that the experiences and expectations of the two sexes remain unequal. The idea that men aren’t as good as women at cooking, cleaning and watching the kids might seem cliché, but for many it remains true. Likewise, from beauty standards and teenage girls’ obsession with their weight to yummy mummies, trad wives and girl bosses, many women say they feel they’re constantly being held to a higher standard than their male friends.
What do women need to be free, and why does it seem so hard to achieve? Should we accept that the remaining hurdles will simply take time to iron out naturally? Is a new feminism, often focused on women’s feelings, getting in the way of talking about the nuts and bolts of women’s liberation? Is there a difference between women’s safety and women’s freedom – is one impossible without the other? And what changes could be made, from free childcare to decriminalising abortion, that might cement a future of freedom for women?
SPEAKERSFelice Basbøllproject assistant, Ideas Matter; student, Trinity College Dublin
Julie Bindeljournalist; author, Feminism for Women: the real route to liberation; feminist campaigner; podcast host, Julie in Genderland
Heather Binningfounding director, Women’s Rights Network
Dr Ashley Frawleysociologist; author, Significant Emotions and Semiotics of Happiness
David Goodharthead of demography unit, Policy Exchange; author The Care Dilemma: Caring enough in the age of sex equality and The Road to Somewhere
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want
 

Battle of Ideas 2024 Welcome Address

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
The nineteenth 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!
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

War and civilisation: a brief history

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In August 2024, it emerged that the US was preparing for the possibility of a nuclear attack coordinated between China, Russia and North Korea. Add in the support of Iran, and we might ask: is this an alliance of four rather different civilisations ranged against the Western sort? The 100million-strong Chinese Communist Party, Russian nationalism, North Korean Stalinism and Shia Islamism have little in common with each other. But all of these forces share the feeling that the West has lost its grip. Is that true?
In this lecture, Professor James Woudhuysen takes us swiftly through over 200 years of history to look at the way war has changed the world, from forging the nation state – a powerful force for civilisation – to the way it has been used not just to defeat external opponents, but internal opponents, too. While the 80th anniversary of D-Day reminds us that great, global ‘hot wars’ have been absent for decades, wars in Ukraine and Gaza are a reminder that conflict is never far away – with ramifications far beyond the particular battlefields on which it is fought.
With historical perspective on our side, what should we make of the various threats to the West today? Are we facing an existential threat from without or is the sabre-rattling merely bluster? If Western nation-states were shaped by war, do the same tendencies make future wars inevitable? Is the real problem that the West itself has lost confidence in Western civilisation?
SPEAKERJames Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRJean Smithfounder member, Our Fight UK; co-founder and director, NY Salon

The women who wouldn’t wheesht

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
For more than a decade, gender ideology seemed to enjoy unstoppable momentum across the Western world, establishing itself in the corridors of power, the faculty of universities, the HR departments of institutions and the boardrooms of corporations. As a consequence, from swimming-pool changing rooms to prison cells, woman’s refuges to political meetings, the ability of women to exercise sex-based rights has been under attack.
However, many now recognise that a shift has taken place in the sex and gender wars, with slithers of space opening up for women to speak about their views on gender ideology without being silenced. High-profile cases relating to equality law, parliamentary rows, and scandals within the healthcare system from the Cass Review to the WPATH files have empowered many silent but supportive people to come forward and say, enough is enough.
What is clear is that the influence of gender ideology would have continued unchallenged without ordinary and extraordinary women speaking up. The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht is a Sunday Times bestseller that captures an important moment in contemporary history: how a grassroots women’s movement, harking back to the Suffragettes and second-wave feminism, took on the political establishment and changed the course of history.
Through a collection of essays and photographs, some of the women involved tell the story of their five-year campaign to protect women’s sex-based rights. Including JK Rowling, former MP Joanna Cherry KC and those – like Jenny Lindsay, Gillian Philip and Professor Kathleen Stock, who lost careers or opportunities – the book also features anonymous women who fought for their rights as survivors of sexual abuse in the face of hostility from politicians. In a moving introduction, the woman who coined the phrase ‘Women Won’t Wheesht’ explains how she was motivated to fight for the right of her profoundly disabled daughter to have female-only care.
Join some of the contributors to the book to discuss the causes and consequences of this political upheaval of women’s rights. How did it take years of women risking losing jobs, families and friends to challenge a previously fringe ideology? And while some battles have been won – from the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon to widespread coverage of the injustices in sport – are the sex and gender wars still raging?
SPEAKERSJoanna Cherry KCKing’s Counsel at Scottish Bar; former SNP MP for Edinburgh South West; former chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights
Gillian Philipwriter and haulage worker
Susan Smithco-director, For Women Scotland; director, Beira’s Place; contributor, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht
CHAIRMarion Calderco-director, For Women Scotland

The wellbeing industry: is it doing us any good?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Wellbeing is big business and the ‘wellness’ industry is booming. Since the inaugural Global Wellness Day in 2012, annual worldwide spending on wellness has ballooned to $5.6tn dollars, considerably more than the GDP of Germany, the world’s third-largest economy. In the US, the number of professional therapists is growing faster than any other occupation. In the UK, as wellness programmes and wellbeing champions become prominent in the workplace, 290,000 therapists are now employed, double that of a decade ago.
Nowhere is the wellness industry thriving more than amongst the young. In line with government-sponsored initiatives like the University Mental Health Charter Programme, and supported by enterprises such as Student Minds, expansive counselling and welfare services cater to staff and students, who are urged to ‘develop insight, understanding and skills’ to manage and maintain wellbeing. Another burgeoning growth area is in new mental-health apps, popular tools to cultivate and tend your wellbeing.
The booming wellness industry coincides with an apparent nationwide deterioration of mental health, including rapidly rising levels of depression, anxiety and behavioural disorders.  Some put this down to ‘intensification’ of work, tighter deadlines, managers ill-equipped to look after employees or anxieties over the rising cost of living.  But others say the problems are more social and cultural, for example reflecting post-pandemic blues or toxic workplace culture, where employees are stressed from microaggressions, racism or homophobia.
With record absenteeism and debilitating impacts in terms of people’s ability to manage their lives, one question is whether the wellness industry is helping people. With growing mental-health problems seemingly outpacing the increased resources devoted to wellness, is there a need for more investment in professionals and an expanded remit, such as employers advising on life beyond work, from financial budgeting to exercise and eating regimes? But others warn society risks relying on professional ‘help’ that will undermine resilience to deal with the challenges of everyday life for ourselves.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions, Mel Stride, argues that we have ‘gone too far’ in medicalising the ‘normal anxieties of life’ and some worry the growth of wellness has a debilitating effect on wider society. Post-pandemic worklessness is rife as monthly numbers signing on long-term sick have doubled – with mental health the biggest single complaint. In universities, increasingly students cite wellbeing problems as mitigating or extenuating circumstances ahead of exams.
What is driving the growth of the wellness industry? Is it a necessary service helping those in need or unnecessarily encouraging us to declare we are ill? How can we strike the right balance between treating those who need help and avoiding causing problems for individuals and society? And how should we respond to the cultural ascension of the wellness industry and its politically imposed ideals?
SPEAKERSRachel Bosenterferhigher-education professional; women's rights activist
Amy Gallagherpsychiatric nurse and psychotherapist
Roy Lilleyhealth-policy analyst; writer; broadcaster and commentator; co-author, Wellness: why can’t we stop people getting sick in the first place?
Para Mullanformer operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
CHAIRRosamund Cuckstonsenior HR professional; co-organiser, Birmingham Salon

The War Against the Past: looking to the future

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Whether through toppling statues, decolonising curricula and institutions – or even erasing terms from our vocabulary – Western civilisation, and its past, is now regularly portrayed as a story of shame. Where once society boasted of its history, marking anniversaries and celebrating great achievements, today a bleaker and more apologetic view often prevails.
For Professor Frank Furedi, this assault on our cultural heritage is a problem. In his latest book, The War Against the Past: Why the West must fight for its history, he writes that ‘a society that loses touch with its past will face a permanent crisis of identity’. To be able to understand where we are today, and where we might move in the future, he writes, is impossible without an appreciation of how we got here.
Some worry that a detachment from a sense of a collective past might hamper a sense of social solidarity – preventing people from identifying as members of a common community. They argue that when human accomplishments – from Greek philosophy or the intellectual revolution of the Enlightenment to the scientific achievements of modernity – are indicted for association with exploitation and oppression, we risk removing the building blocks that give us confidence to progress further.
If we deny a dialogue with history, despite how repugnant we now find experiences of slavery, religious dogma or colonialism, do we risk robbing society of an understanding of how to move forward? On the contrary, some argue a re-writing of Western history is necessary to forge a fairer future. As Jonathan Sumption put it in his review of Furedi’s book in the Spectator, those who argue for decolonisation don’t see slavery or colonialism as ‘just historical phenomena but symptoms of underlying attitudes whose persistence is held to be the main obstacle to the proper recognition of marginalised groups’.
What complicates matters is that history has never been a settled story. From a conservative orientation to tradition to a left-leaning belief in the future, including a modernist confidence in breaking from the past, how society relates to its history has long been contested. Are critics right to say that the defence of the past today simply amounts to a new generation of nostalgics taking refuge in their version of the past?
What is the role of our historical inheritance? Is a war against that past that devalues our ancestors and erodes humanity’s past achievements a fatal blow to the pursuit of political change today? Or should we be less concerned with the past and more about how to make the case for progress in the here and now?
SPEAKERSProfessor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels
Dr James Orrassociate professor of philosophy of religion, University of Cambridge
Emma Webbwriter, broadcaster and presenter at GB News; fellow, New Culture Forum
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

The turn against (over)tourism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Holiday lets, overpriced bars and trinket shops – many of the world’s most beautiful destinations rely on tourism to stay afloat. Tourism is also a serious economic consideration for many countries – in 2023, the worldwide travel and tourism market recovered from a Covid-era slump and bounced back to a figure of around £7.6 trillion, making up 9.1 per cent of the global GDP. But not everyone is thrilled about the return of happy campers. Over the past few years, once-welcoming tourist destinations have now become verboten for visitors.
Last year, Amsterdam discouraged unruly British visitors with their ‘stay away’ advertising campaigns, warning against drinking to excess, urinating in canals and taking illegal drugs. In Barcelona, a growing housing crisis has brought scrutiny to the short-term rental economy propped up by apps like AirBnB. Anti-tourism graffiti has been spotted all over the city, and members of a ‘tourism degrowth’ organisation have been filmed squirting tourists with water pistols and blocking hotel doors with tape, revealing the tensions between local Barcelonians and the customers much of the city’s industry relies on. The city’s mayor has pledged to suspend short-term lets by 2029, taking pressure off the shrinking residential sector. But some argue these measures will simply force landlords underground, creating a black market for unruly tourists.
Some areas have introduced levies to soften the impact of overtourism. In 2023, Unesco threatened to move Venice onto their world heritage danger list following a rise in avoidable damage by tourists to the city’s fragile structures. While a €5 visitor levy introduced this summer has raised around £1million for the city’s council, it has seemingly done nothing to curb visitor numbers or to lessen nuisances for locals. This May, Wales proposed its own visitor tax for tourists staying in overnight accommodation, arguing that it is ‘fair and reasonable to ask visitors to make a contribution towards the wider costs of tourism’. But critics, like the Taxpayers’ Alliance, have argued that this charge will be detrimental to Wales’s ‘competitive edge’, harming small businesses and Welsh residents in the hospitality and tourism sectors as prospective visitors decide to go elsewhere.
We all love a holiday – indeed, the aspiration of ‘seeing the world’ is something many of us still hold as an essential human experience. With cheap flights, social norms more accustomed to international travel and more people seeking out the same destinations, how should we balance the lives of locals with the desires of out-of-towners? What effect did the pandemic have – why did many locals, accustomed to the solitude brought by Covid-19 on their beaches and beauty spots, suddenly become so hostile to tourists? Is there a bigger question of management, with states failing to control overtourism in attractive locations, while other parts of the nation decay and see less revenue? Is it up to the state to resolve this, or should local decision-making play a more significant factor?
SPEAKERSDr Jim Butcherlecturer; researcher; co-author, Volunteer Tourism: the lifestyle politics of international development
Katie Glasscolumnist, feature writer and travel journalist
Emma Zaoliinternational relations and French student, Durham University
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.

The rise and fall of the ivory tower

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The UK’s higher-education sector is in crisis, with 40 per cent of universities and other higher-education institutions expected to run a loss this financial year. Fewer 18-year-olds are electing to go to university. Courses are closing, academic redundancies are on the rise, students are dissatisfied, staff are demoralised, bureaucracy is increasing, and, if you believe the hype, standards are falling. More universities are at risk of bankruptcy.
Should we be bovvered?
Figures produced on behalf of Universities UK claim the sector is worth £116 billion to the economy, supporting more than three quarters of a million jobs, of which nearly half (382,500) are indirect, through businesses that benefit from the economic stimulus universities create. The fallout of a financial meltdown could be considerable.
But some commentators think it may be time for a shake-out of a bloated sector in order to move to a slimmed-down educational offering. University for the brightest and best, but not for the rest?
What is causing the perceived imminent collapse of the UK’s educational establishment? One factor may be students voting with their feet as a post-Covid reaction to the way that they were treated: locked down, online and isolated. Another concern is the high cost of higher education – with students paying £9,250 per year, but some only receiving one or two lectures a week. Then there’s the thorny issue of ‘useless’ degrees. Students have long been promised better paid jobs by getting a vocational degree. But is it a myth that unis can solve the skills crisis, while undermining the academic purpose of higher education as an outcome?
Perhaps the cause is that lecturers’ wages are too high because of trade unions’ excessive demands – or maybe it is the exorbitant salaries paid to vice-chancellors and their army of functionaries. And there is disquiet with standards, either from curricula that are now perceived as more concerned with expounding political viewpoints than teaching critically neutral subject matter, or because grade inflation has brought universities into disrepute. Inevitably, some point to Brexit as the problem. After all, foreign students have long been encouraged to come and fill the funding gap, paying upwards of £30,000 in annual fees.
Will the new Labour government be able to turn things around? Is this an inevitable corrective for a sector that expanded too far – or are we in danger of losing valuable departments, institutions and educational opportunities? And what about the impact on local economies if student numbers fall?
SPEAKERSJennie Bristowreader in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Maeve Halliganstudent; musician; member, The Hooligans; student representative, Academic for Academic Freedom (AFAF)
Dr Neil Thinauthor; honorary research fellow, social and political science, University of Edinburgh; former director of teaching, SPS Undergraduate School
CHAIRAustin Williamsdirector, Future Cities Project; honorary research fellow, XJTLU, Suzhou, China; author, China’s Urban Revolution; series editor, Five Critical Essays.

The queering of society

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The word ‘queer’ has had many iterations. First it meant ‘strange’, ‘odd’ or even ‘eccentric’ – think of the expression, ‘there’s nowt so queer as folk’. During the trial of Oscar Wilde, a letter by the Marquis of Queensberry described Wilde and other gay men as ‘snob queers’. Indeed, for many, the term still produces a wince, as it took on the form of a homophobic slur.
Today, however, ‘queer’ has been adopted positively, falling under the LGBTQ+ umbrella representing those whose ‘gender identity’ or sexuality does not fit into ‘cisgender’ norms. No longer just a word, the concept of ‘queering’ has now emerged – a technique to challenge binaries, boundaries and ‘heteronormativity’ across society as a whole. While originally associated with the takeover of Pride events by queer activism, queering is now visible in everyday life – it is impossible to walk down a UK high street and not see ‘queer’ symbolism in the shape of flags or traffic signs.
Applying a queering methodology is inevitably pervasive in academia, but increasing numbers of artistic or cinematic works now incorporate ‘non-binary’ or ‘queer’ figures. This can involve re-writing history – for example, the recent Paris Olympics opening ceremony, which portrayed what seemed to be the Last Supper complete with drag queens and men sporting thongs. Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre queered Joan of Arc (they/them) in its production of I, Joan. Even items recovered in the sixteenth-century shipwreck, Mary Rose, from nit combs to gold rings, have been reassessed through a ‘queer lens’.
Queering can also apply to thinking about the future – a recent report published by Queen’s University Belfast encouraged a gender-inclusive approach to discussion of the Northern Irish border by ‘queering the peace process’. Queers for Palestine are a regular feature on Gaza protests, arguing that we should ‘unpack the multiple intersections of queer politics and the Palestinian struggle’. Likewise, there are calls to queer the education system and curriculum to ‘encourage intersectional ways of thinking’ among primary-age children; to allow them to appreciate the tyranny of boundaries.
Critics of queering argue that this clashes with the reality of most people’s lived experiences in which rules, boundaries and norms are, well, normal. For example, referring to the debate about transwomen’s access to women-only spaces, tennis legend Martina Navratilova tweeted: ‘All our lives we are taught about boundaries, we teach our children about boundaries and now we women are supposed to give them all up for males?’
What is behind this complete shifting of language and the attempt to re-write the past, present and future through a ‘queer lens’? Is queering simply a new way of looking at the world, one which we should embrace with an attitude of ‘live and let live’? Or is there something to be defended in our understanding of binaries and boundaries, that help our understanding of each other rather than harm?
SPEAKERSJames Essesbarrister; social commentator; co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists
Professor Frank Furedisociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels
Kate Harrisco-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance; formerly Brighton Women’s Centre and Brighton Women’s Aid
Graham Linehancreator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

The politicisation of maternity

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Having a baby is a joy, but it’s also no easy task. Aside from the pains every woman has had to go through – from months of indigestion to hours of labour – women bringing a baby into the modern world are now faced with a set of extra challenges. From moral panics about feeding practices to endless books and podcasts on parenting styles, being pregnant and giving birth has become a political act.
Even the medical services women rely on to have children safely have been politicised. As Sirin Kale revealed in the Guardian, midwifery and maternity services have long been influenced by external groups like the Natural Childbirth Trust (NCT), which advocates for unmedicated, ‘natural’ births, using hypnobirthing and aromatherapy. As a result, many women have expressed guilt or shame about asking for pain relief during labour. What used to be common sense – loving your newborn – has now become a studied science, with lessons on skin-to-skin bonding and oxytocin production encouraged by NHS staff across the country.
Likewise, the practical question of how to feed a baby is now a hotly contested topic of debate – one which can often get nasty on social media. Breastfeeding advocacy has won over governments and international NGOs, who have, through legislation and health policy, imposed a ‘breast is best’ narrative. Likewise, the ramping up of efforts to monitor women’s alcohol consumption both before and during pregnancy aims to protect women from the ‘unhealthy choice’ of a glass of wine in pregnancy.
For some, motherhood is political. In the 1960s, woman’s campaigners railed against the over-medicalisation of pregnancy and birth, and contested the benefit of the singularly powerful influence of doctors. Intrusive medical practices and a disregard for women’s bodily autonomy inspired a reclaiming of maternity as an expression of womanhood. But for others, this politicisation of pregnancy created a sense of pressure to do things the ‘right way’, leaving some women feeling like they have failed a test if they do not.
The dark backdrop to all of this is that maternity services are in crisis – with the Care Quality Commission finding in 2023 that two thirds of the maternity units it examined were ‘inadequate’ or required improvement, declaring ‘many are still not receiving the safe, high-quality care that they deserve’. From preventable maternal and infant deaths to extreme birth trauma becoming commonplace, has the move towards a natural, politicised birth come at the cost of safety?
Has all this talk about the right way to be pregnant and give birth scared some women off completely, with birth rates consistently dropping? Or are these new practices in maternity a necessary correction to a lack of woman-centred care that was characteristic of previous generations? Should the NHS be involved in political campaigns from La Leche League to the NCT, or are these external organisations merely providing guidance to women who want it? Can, and should, we aim to take the politics out of maternity?
SPEAKERSEmily BarleyMaternity safety campaigner
Dr Ruth Ann Harpurclinical psychologist; co-founder, Infant Feeding Alliance
Professor Ellie Leeprofessor of family and parenting research, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies
Clare Murphyco-director, Feed; former chief executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service; former health reporter, BBC
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

The polarisation problem: can we speak across the divide?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
It is almost a cliché to note how ‘bitterly divided’ and polarised politics and culture has become. The UK’s summer riots revealed a deeply troubled society, with different groups in our towns and cities seeming to live parallel lives. Meanwhile, polarised abuse is ubiquitous on social media. No doubt algorithms keep us trapped in ‘echo chambers’, but the sense that there’s less willingness to engage with, or even hear, the views from the ‘other side’ is pervasive. Straw men are the order of the day, rather than steel-manning arguments.
Indeed, we don’t agree on what problems we face, let alone the solutions. In fact, we often presume the problem is each other. We even seem to speak different languages – sure, we communicate in the same native tongue, but we can’t agree on the basic meaning of words. For example, what does ‘far-right’ mean when it is promiscuously applied? Likewise, many who run institutions seem fluent in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion lingo, while millions become tongue-tied when faced with acronyms such as LGBTQI+, or trip-over linguistic hurdles thrown up by prescriptive language codes.
Beyond describing this polarisation, what’s to be done? Calling for more civility and a better standard of debating is undoubtedly a positive initial step. Yet often those who claim they want to make exchanges less toxic, preaching a kumbaya ‘be kind’ approach, advocate for censorship which, in turn, only creates more polarisation.
Consider the core message from Labour culture secretary Lisa Nandy when she declared that the ‘era of culture wars is over’. ‘In recent years we’ve found multiple ways to divide ourselves from one another’, she told her new staff at DCMS, ‘changing that is the mission of this department’. For many, this ‘nothing to see here’ approach read as an order to ‘shut up’. Indeed, Nandy’s colleague, the education secretary Bridget Phillipson, dumped the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act for similar reasons, arguing that it was an example of the Conservatives’ ongoing ‘culture war’ against Britain’s institutions. For technocrats, polarisation is merely a nuisance that gets in the way of efficient governance. Labour may be desperate to draw a line under all those tetchy debates about trans rights, racial identity politics and free speech, but isn’t that asking one side to accept defeat rather than achieving genuine peace?
Is it possible to encourage genuine pluralistic debate without sacrificing your principles and ideals? After all, it’s no good pretending to get along if our political divisions represent real problems that need solving. Can we transcend our acrimonious personalised differences in an era of individual and group tribalism? Is identity politics the problem, rather than polarisation? And if the culture wars aren’t over, can we argue our way out of them?
SPEAKERSDr Calum TM Nicholsondirector of research, Danube Institute
Max Sandersonassistant managing editor, Guardian
Tom Slatereditor, spiked; co-host, spiked podcast and Last Orders
Dr Kathleen Stockcolumnist, UnHerd; co-director, The Lesbian Project; author, Material Girls: why reality matters for feminism
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

The Great British Energy crisis

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Labour government has set out an ambitious goal to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply by 2030. Labour’s plan includes prioritising renewable energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. In line with this, the government has indicated it may halt new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The government also announced the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly funded body to invest in renewable energy. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, claims these measures will make the UK’s electricity supply greener, more secure and cheaper.
However, there are plenty of commentators warning about the feasibility and impact of this strategy. Renewable energy, while crucial to achieving decarbonisation, is notoriously unpredictable. The sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow, leading to concerns about the reliability of the energy supply – unless renewables are backed up in some way, whether by gas-powered plants, rising imports or expensive storage. Far from being cheaper than fossil fuels, critics note, renewable energy continues to need substantial subsidies, which are even more glaring as the price of gas has returned to more normal levels following the energy-price crisis of recent years.
Moreover, most of the UK’s nuclear power stations, which have long provided a steady and reliable source of low-carbon electricity, are set to close between 2026 and 2030. Replacements for them are still a long way off, with Hinkley Point C years behind target and Sizewell C still tied up in paperwork and court cases. The previous government’s plan to produce 24 gigawatts (GW) of power from nuclear sources by 2050 – up from 6 GW now – seems increasingly over-optimistic. Indeed, Labour already seems to be getting cold feet on a proposed nuclear-power plant in north Wales.
Will Labour’s energy strategy lead to a cheaper, more secure electricity supply, as it claims? Or are we on the brink of an energy crisis, with higher costs and increased vulnerability to blackouts? Are higher bills a price worth paying to tackle climate change or, when global emissions are still climbing, a pointless sacrifice of British jobs and living standards?
SPEAKERSDr Shahrar Aliformer deputy leader, Green Party
Lord David Frostmember of the House of Lords
Prof Dr Michaela KendallCEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate