I had the most amazing couple of days, and now all I can think about is the passive aggressive phone conversation I’ve just had about choir. GROWL. Unlikely though it may seem, I am actually not a fan of confrontation. In fact, I hate arguments and find them deeply upsetting. However, what I hate even more is someone thinking ill of me when it is unjustified. If I’ve actually been a proper pain in the arse, and of course, that happens all the time, then people can think ill of me all they like – it’s fair enough. But when they are gripping the incorrect extremity of the woody growth, I find it extremely hard to let things lie. I shouldn’t care, I know. What does it matter what they think, as long as I know the truth? But hey. We can’t all be mature. And fortunately I have ten A4 pages of hand-written notes (front and back) to bring the last two days back to life.
Just like last year and the year before, I attended the Battle of Ideas in west London, a two day debating forum run by the Institute of Ideas. And here follows what I learned, and, in square brackets, the irrelevant self-obsessed ramblings that popped into my head during each debate:
First up for me was a debate about Parliament, where all four speakers (including Martin Bell) agreed that reform of the political system is urgently needed. [Is it antisocial to eat a banana in this environment?] Over the course of the weekend, it seemed to go without question that the monarchy needs to be abolished immediately, that power should be shared out more equally among Parliament, that select committees should have more power, and that the House of Lords should be fully elected. Unless we have greater self-determination and greater control over our lives, we won’t become engaged in politics. All this makes sense to me, I just don’t see it happening. So many good ideas, but seemingly so little chance of any real change occurring. I left feeling a bit hopeless. [Would that guy’s stutter be deal-breaking?]
Next: Post-Recession Ideologies. How should the financial crisis change the way we think about the world? [How easy would it be to duplicate the wrist-band I’m wearing and sneak someone in for free tomorrow?] Despite working in a bank, I found this one less gripping, but this was the first time I’d heard people attacking the politics of austerity – the idea that we’re all being blamed for being too greedy, that we should all have allotments and go back to basics and stop travelling more than three metres from the house where we were born etc. In this discussion, there seemed to be anger that we are not looking for positive solutions to the problem, and are instead being shackled with this mantle of collective guilt. Terms like ‘the force of globalization’ only serve to make us feel powerless and disenfranchised, which is probably what the governments want – whereas we do have choices, and we should be getting angry and politicised.
Third on Saturday: When is it right to go to war. FASCinating. I couldn’t have been more glued to my seat on this one. [Hmmm. There are a lot of left-handers here. I like that.] The panel was really opposed, which made things more heated, and I came away not knowing what I think, which was uncomfortable but I could feel my brain recalibrating, which is always satisfying. A fairly pacifist speaker started off (1) , saying that firstly, it is profoundly undemocratic to engage in interventions in another country for reasons other than self-defence – it means we’re basically saying, “Our domestic system is perfect – all that’s left is to spread this system around the globe.” Additionally, going to war justifies more war, normalises violence, and makes no effort to address the causes of systemic conflict on an international level. We want less war, not more. [Is it acceptable to take the bus to the tube from here or is that unforgivably lazy?]
The second speaker (2) disagreed, saying that there are occasions where we must defend those who can’t defend themselves, and that if we wait for UN endorsement, we will wait forever, because there will always be some vetoes on every possible conflict. He argued that there weren’t enough interventions. Speaker three (3) said that since we don’t have a democratic society, thus we don’t have democratic control of our armed forces. Once we have successful national governance, only then can we partake in a valid global governance. And it will only be then that we have the right to legitimise intervention. I could see his logic, but I worried about the hundreds of thousands of people dying in genocides around the world. Then I worried about the people dying in the UK armed forces in conflicts that I didn’t agree with. Then the fourth speaker (4) started, and was deeply patronising but basically seemed to have faith in the concept that we know what is right, and we know what is wrong, and that we have a duty to defend those who are being treated cruelly. And it’s precisely this idea that there are universal truths that I find difficult. I’m just not sure I would feel confident knowing which side is right in a war that’s being fought on a different continent over battle lines that were often drawn centuries before I was born. But 4 was convinced: we are all suffering from way too much post-colonial guilt, we have to stop self-flagellating and get involved. It’s become politically incorrect to say that we are in the right, and so we do nothing while people die. I agree – it has become politically incorrect to say that. But I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. [I’m going to have duck and pancakes tonight. But will I be able to fit in Singapore noodles as well?]
1 said that sovereignty and self-determination is a human right – other nations can’t make those decisions on your behalf. 2 said it’s a choice, then, between self-determination or universal human rights – you can’t have one or the other. How much self-determination is ‘allowable’? What if horrific cruelties are being acted out with women and children being raped? Is it ‘appallingly imperialist’ to say that is wrong? Sure, a lot of the values we have might have western origins, but that doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong. An audience member asked us to remember that, although war kills, peace kills too, which I thought was a good point. How do we get rid of evil dictatorships if we can’t use force? But then pacifist 3 spoke again, using vivid images of civilians being bombed at weddings by allied forces, innocent children being killed at school. It does turn my stomach and it’s hard to justify. Maybe impossible. 2 agreed with 4, that the very concept of universal values is now seen as imperialist and wrong, and that he is not prepared to allow fear of imperialism to trump socialist values. Then 1 said that it’s this very self-flagellation that is making us go to war, not stopping us – we feel so guilty for having caused so much crap around the world that we feel like we have to fix all the messes. And speaker 3 said, I thought profoundly, that if something truly was a universal value, it probably wouldn’t need to be imposed. An audience member said that, who were we kidding, we only get involved in interventions when we have stuff to gain, like oil. [I fancy the guy in the checked shirt. A lot.] And patronising 4 said that you don’t get cheap oil from fighting wars, you get it from doing deals. The politicians aren’t trying to stay in Iraq and colonise it for resources, they’re trying to get out. I left the debate feeling none the wiser, but privileged to have seen such intelligent people arguing with such passion about a topic with such global significance.
Next – Rethinking Freedom: Rights or Liberty. There was a real sense throughout the weekend that we aren’t as free as even I might have imagined. I mean, obviously I have long been grumpy about the Nanny State, and I’m not happy about CCTV, and I’ve always been passionately opposed to ID cards, but there seem to be a number of stealth laws that have been passed that are eroding our freedoms in a slightly terrifying way. I’m wary of getting too Orwellian about it all, but these people were persuasive. The very idea that having rights (i.e. laws that protect us) removes our freedom is a contradiction that I hadn’t really thought much about before. The second speaker argued that rights and freedom shouldn’t be mutually exclusive but I’m not sure it’s possible to have them both. She was very strong about privacy, arguing that without it we have no political refuge. Agreed. Speaker 3 said, sensibly, that the state can, and should, guarantee rights – but it should also guarantee us a space in which to exercise those rights. A fan of rights and legislation might say that “the right to live free from poverty is more valuable than the right to live with freedom of expression.” 3 disagreed. Then the discussion turned to the BNP and freedom of speech, with 4 talking passionately about illiberal liberalism, where we’re heading towards a one-party monolith, an authoritarian, totalitarian state where there is only one acceptable opinion. It’s as if free speech is okay, as long as it’s liberal. He quoted Voltaire: “Think for yourselves, and allow others the privilege of doing so too.” The conversation about the BNP on Question Time then shifted to the BBC itself, which was widely seen as part of the problem, a state apparatus promoting government interests.
Speaker 2 said that the idea of universal freedom is difficult (as we had seen in the war debate). Civil rights as separate from civil liberties. Free speech vs. equality. Some say we need to repress speech that might offend oppressed groups – but 2 said she found that deeply patronising. We need to have the ability to engage in argument and debate. That’s where self-belief comes from. People only engage with civil liberties when the discussion affects their own civil liberties. What we need to work on is engaging their interest about the liberties of others.
An audience member commented that we have given up our privacy, and with it our sense of our own importance – we now feel powerless and we’ve lost confidence that our opinion is every bit as valid as that of the people who rule us. That definitely resonated. I too feel powerless. I have opinions but no voice. And even if I have a voice, I am deeply sceptical about my ability to change anything at all. [Woo! I asked a question and got applause! From a cool black guy wearing Sennheiser headphones!]
Then I cheered up in the final act of Saturday – a balloon debate between six revolutions, the French, Industrial, Sexual, English, Scientific and American. [The guy talking about the French Revolution is unquestionably very fit but I’m not sure about the way he’s pushed up his jacket sleeves.] It was all very arbitrary but in the end it was a draw between the Scientific and the Industrial, and the genuinely brilliant chairwoman had them decide it by an arm-wrestle. Science won. [It is unacceptable that she is so ridiculously intelligent and stunning.]
Then on to Sunday. Are you still with me? Perhaps not, but I need to get this off my chest. Topic one: the Human Rights Act. [Aw, the chair was introducing the speakers on his left and right and had to look at his hands and make an L in order to tell which one was which!] This debate was all a bit technical for me and I’d had no idea of the controversies surrounding the 1998 piece of legislation, but once again, it seemed to be a fight between rules and freedoms. As far as I’m concerned, freedom sounds alluring but the consequences of universal freedom are a bit scary when conflict seems like an inevitable by-product. Universal freedom is fine as long as everyone can sit down and debate things rationally, but given the inarticulacy of the planet (me included) when it comes to dealing with opposing views, a peaceful, free society doesn’t seem likely. Still, legislating for everything is certainly not the way to achieve the goal and the chair of the discussion (a lawyer himself) went so far as to say that the Human Rights Act had contributed to the death of political culture in the UK and that we have been neutered… That said, there was broad support for the Act in some form or other and all the panellists believed that it or something like it was important (clearly some laws are OK). [I think that guy is photographing me. Look pretty and clever.]
Second on Sunday: Mr Obama Goes To Washington. I have to admit to drifting off here, which was strange because one of the speakers was the Managing Editor of my beloved Prospect magazine, but he did repeat almost verbatim his article in the latest issue so I’m sure he could understand me drifting off. [Is the Managing Editor of Prospect magazine out of my league? I think probably yes.] The general thrust of the debate seemed to be that Obama had done pretty well in his first ten months, but could have done more, and the major criticism seemed to be that he defined himself as the anti-Bush, but hasn’t yet put forward many strong policies of his own. Is there are Big Vision? A coherent ideology? Surprisingly, not so much, and without a vibrant opposition against which to pitch themselves, they don’t know who they are; they know what they don’t want, but they’re not so clear on what they do. Obama consults everyone, but there’s a lack of conviction. Interesting. [I think I’d fancy him more if he had better glasses. The Managing Editor, that is. Not Obama.]
Then on to The Good Society: Virtues for a Post-Recession World. Four very different speakers made their points. 1 said that we are pretty much always in a post-recession world – the only thing that's different is how long ago the last one was. Either way, recessions are an inevitable fact of life, so we shouldn't really be bothering with trying to formulate particular virtues specific to now – there are universal virtues we should be thinking about, and they’re timeless. His belief is that what matters most to people is having a good job, and that consequently, anything we can do to create and retain jobs should be our first aim. Everything like charitable giving, good parenting and so on come late, once employment is sorted out. And the way to create this, he believes, is to be optimistic. Hope breeds new ideas, whereas giving up is the ultimate tragedy. We should concentrate on possibility and cultivate the will to achieve. Because “the pessimists are always on the losing side.” I liked that. Don’t turn against the risk-takers, he said – don’t over-regulate, bankers or otherwise.
2 was similarly aspirational, saying that to be a good human is to be active, to want to shape reality, to want to give something back, to refuse to accept the given world as given. It doesn’t have to be total selflessness – we should enjoy the beauties of the world because it is these that often move us to gratitude. I loved what she said, but disagreed with her that it is embarrassment that prevents people from aiming for virtue – I think the truth lies somewhere between laziness and a feeling of hopelessness, that we can’t make a difference even if we try.
Speaker 3 was fascinating in that he saw things from a perspective I’d never considered. He said it is commonplace to think of ourselves as living in an age of greed and selfishness, where our lack of restraint has led to this turmoil, where we’re all culpable and should all be ashamed. He said that this is the first time that it isn’t an elite getting criticised – this time it’s everyone, from Fred Goodwin, to the peasant in China who dares to buy a fridge, to the greedy low-income families who take out a mortgage they can’t afford. This has led to a feeling that there should be global restraint – loud calls for cutting back on pretty much everything, but, unusually, with no possibility for redemption as a result. We have to give up everything we’ve come to love, flying, eating meat, smoking, boozing, debating – we’re just evil consumers, users of resources – and we should turn this around. We aren’t just consumers, we’re creators, and we should be celebrating our achievements and looking to the future. We’re suffering from a lack of vision and need to regain the confidence that we can be problem-solvers as well as problem-makers. Decadence is a product, not a cause of the problem. Marx said we can create the new world through ruthless criticism of the old. We need freedom and prosperity to take us forward.
Then the wonderful Evan Harris MP was speaker 4, who launched an attack on the politics of celebrity. I’d been to a debate on Saturday where someone pointed out that an ex-Big Brother contestant is running for election in Scotland with the hands-up admission that “I know nothing about politics, I’m just going to vote with my conscience.” We need to have more political conviction, not less. But as Harris (or Evan. Can I call you Evan?) pointed out, we’re going to lose out to personality. “I don’t care about the leaders! Any of them!” he said, recklessly. “It’s the policies that count.” Refreshing but unlikely to make a difference. Sigh. [I think I want to be an MP.]
Yet again I felt simultaneously inspired and depressed. So many fantastic ideas, so much truth, but seemingly so few opportunities to execute these changes that need to be made so urgently. I stood up and said that there seemed to be a lot to be done and I felt truly hopeless and a bit like crying. Evan said I wasn’t the first woman who had said that to him and he did try to offer what he felt would be practical solutions: restoring inter-party democracy (presumably by bolstering select committees and by taking power away from the PM and the Whips) but expressed doubt that the findings of the committee he is, I believe, chairing, which will recommend parliamentary reforms, will be heeded at all.
Then downstairs to Is The NHS Institutionally Ageist? which seems to be a firm yes from all sides. It’s an interesting issue for someone who knows nothing about it (like me). There aren’t enough resources – so how do you issue them fairly? Allocating in response to need is fine, as long as needs are finite – but they’re not. There is infinite need. So then you start thinking about ‘meetable needs’ – but then there’s also the issue of benefit, in that you want to get as much bang for your buck as possible, which always discriminates against the elderly in that the cost of treating them is always greater and the ease of treating them is always less. Apparently the NHS has QUALYs, Quality Adjusted Life Years, and it basically says that the maximum you can spend to gain one more QUALY is approximately £30,000. This obviously discriminates against the elderly because their treatment is way more expensive as it’s way more complicated. They rarely suffer from just one condition, and their conditions are chronic and thus less glamorous and less well-funded and less well-researched than more prestigious (speaker’s words) illnesses that affect younger people. An audience member made the valid point that we live in an ageist society, and until that changes, there won’t be enough pressure on the health service to be any different. [I wonder how much weight I’ve gained this weekend?]
And finally, to What Next?, where panellists gave us the bees from their bonnets, what they felt were the most important issues for the coming months. And this was when the whole weekend came to life for me. Seeing the raw passion as each person spoke about the one thing they believe is most worth fighting for – it was inspirational and moving. James Boyle said that the most disgraceful problem in the UK is that every year the number of illiterate people rises. Even if you don’t care about them, he said, they are a massive drag on the economy. There is nothing more wasteful than uneducated people, he said: attack illiteracy.
Anthony Horowitz was incredibly angry about the Independent Safeguarding of Authority, the countless CRB checks that have to be done before parents can help out at their kids’ schools etc. Ian Huntley had been CRB checked, he pointed out. It’s pernicious, it destroys our relationships with children and is an horrendous piece of legislation.
Susan Neiman said that the split between religious and secular people is what needs to change the most. Religion is not the foundation of morality. But equally, secularists shouldn’t heap scorn on the religious. Whether god exists is beyond human knowledge. We should acknowledge that, whatever it was that created the world, it wasn’t me. So I have an incentive to give back for the gift of creation. A sense of gratitude is a moral emotion that will counter the sense of pessimism and misery. I am all for overcoming barriers between people (this is my main complaint against humanism, which I fear constructs more), so this resonated.
Katherine Rake, formerly of my beloved Fawcett Society, said that nostalgia may be all the rage, but it makes us fear the modern. And let’s not aim to recreate some sort of 1950s golden era that never existed. As an audience member later said: grow-your-own, make do and mend, it’s a return to domestic labour, and we all know who’ll be doing the majority of that.
James Panton spoke amazingly about the hyper-regulation of everyday life. We have a tendency to view other people’s actions as harmful to us. Smoking, drinking, photographing in public are all regulated. And sure, sometimes bad things will happen. But he hates the idea that, left to our own devices, we will cause each other harm: the inference is that we can’t work out a compromise within our community, amongst ourselves. So we legislate and regulate. We’re living life through license and it incapacitates us, but worse, we don’t just put up with it, we actually call for more. We’re becoming infantilised. We can take charge of our lives, we can organise these things for ourselves.
At this point I was squirming in my seat. How can we do it, though? Give me practical pointers, please. So I put my hand up, and the chair said, “Yes, to the lady in the yellow hat,” and I said, “I’ve been tremendously inspired by a lot of what I’ve heard this weekend. But I’m not in a powerful position. I’m not a respected journalist, or an MP. I don’t work for a think tank. I’m just a PA, a secretary, and I don’t know what I can do. What one thing would you suggest?”
James Panton said that I should refuse to allow people to control my life from above, and in response to Susan Neiman said, “I know that god doesn’t exist and I am sure that I create the world.” It was the most extraordinary sight, one human’s absolute certainty in his own power. I could have kissed him.
Susan Neiman and Katherine Rake said that I should think globally but act locally – believe in the power of the grassroots and do whatever I could to make as much change as I could, no matter how small it feels at the time. How do we raise the level of discussion when we have global media and other bodies that have a vested interest in keeping us stupid? We need to make ideas as fascinating as we can, as gripping as the latest MTV reality show. Let’s improve the way we communicate what’s important. And finally, that got me engaged. One thing I can do is communicate, and I agree that there is a huge gulf between the engaged academic and political class and the rest of the population. But I think I’m straddle the gulf. I like shopping. I worry about boys. I think I can speak to people and get them engaged. I just need a forum. It was food for thought. Rich, delicious, nourishing food.
And then Claire Fox, founder of the Institute of Ideas, summed up by saying that she believes in freedom, in freedom of speech, in autonomy, in humanity. That she is worried about the over-cautious, risk-averse nature of our population. She wants us to debate. To become better intellectually equipped. “Be idealistic,” she instructed. “Ideas matter. You can change the world. Human reason can conquer all. Believe in the capacity of people to change and to be change-makers.” I had tears in my eyes.
An extraordinary weekend that gives me goosebumps just remembering it. And then I went home and watched The X Factor Results.
No comments:
Post a Comment