Saturday 30 October, 1.30pm until 3.00pm, Upper Gulbenkian Gallery Keynote Controversies
The 2010 UK general election saw unprecedented attempts to get into the heads of the public: more opinion polls than ever, results of polls on responses to politicians’ gaffes published hours after they occurred. New technologies were used to probe deeper into our thoughts - notoriously the Ipsos MORI ‘Worm’, which measured the immediate reactions of voters during politicians’ speeches. Alongside these attempts to understand the public, new strategies are being implemented to try to ‘engage’ it, from online petitions to the first ever televised leaders’ debates. The government says it wants to ensure it has the ‘buy-in’ of the public before acting, and its Big Society idea even promises ‘power to the people’. The obsession with engaging with the public is not confined to the political sphere: public engagement is the buzzword in worlds as diverse as science and broadcasting. Theatres, museums, and concert halls analyse demographics to ensure ‘hard to reach’ members of the public are included. The public is even asked to curate exhibitions, perform music, choose repertory; being a passive audience member is no longer deemed sufficient. Meanwhile, universities are told they must demonstrate their public value if they are to receive funds; the government backed Beacons for Public Engagement scheme charged academics with getting out their ivory towers and making their work accessible. Public service news organisations plead with us to ‘email in the news that matters to you’ and text / tweet and phone in our views, all so they can prove they’re engaging the public.
Should the ‘the great ignored’ be flattered that those in power seem interested in their opinions? Perhaps not. Scratch the surface and contempt for the public seems ever more apparent. From Gordon Brown’s ‘that bigoted woman’ to the claim that ‘dumbing down’ culture is ‘giving the people what they want’, these trends seem less about honouring the public, and more about treating them as cardboard cut-outs, useful if compliant, privately despised. The truly remarkable feature of the election campaign was the complete silence of the wider public, with stage-managed photo opportunities, and handpicked audiences allowed to ask only carefully vetted questions. It often seems people are reduced to lab rats to be prodded, measured and manipulated, instead of rational adults capable of taking part in debate.
If ‘public opinion’ is mediated in this way by journalists and ‘experts’, is it even reliable? The short-lived media frenzy (or fantasy) about ‘Cleggmania’, with Clegg dubbed the new Obama by two broadsheets, might indicate a chasm separating the ruling elite from the actual public. Can opinion polls be trusted when a significant proportion of the opinion communicated to pollsters is influenced by a pressure to provide the ‘right’ responses, or be branded a bigot or worse? And anyway, in today’s fractured and individuated society, is there any meaningful sense of a public to analyse or engage with?
Listen to session audio:
|Professor Frank Furedi|
sociologist and social commentator; author, What's Happened to the University?, Power of Reading: from Socrates to Twitter, On Tolerance and Authority: a sociological history
director, BritainThinks consultancy; leading political pollster; author, Talking to a Brick Wall
chair, Hansard Society Working Group in Scotland; judge, 2010 Saltire Scottish Book of the Year Award; theatre critic, Scotsman
|Graham Stuart MP|
Conservative member of parliament, Beverley and Holderness; chairman, Education Select Committee and East Riding Health Action Group
Dr Tiffany Jenkins
writer and broadcaster; author, Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should stay there
The coming cuts mean that arts institutions need to start thinking more about audiences and less about themselvesNicholas Kenyon, Independent, 22 September 2010
Pollster Deborah Mattinson speaks to us about her new book, which tells how New Labour’s failure to listen to what the public were saying wrecked its relationship with voters.Robert Bain, Research, September 2010
The zeitgeist is all about joining in – in video games, theatre, TV. But are we losing the ability to sit still?James Meek, Guardian, 21 August 2010
Reviews the New Labour years from the voter's point of view. It tracks the ups and downs of the Blair/Brown era as seen from beyond Westminster, showing how closely political reputation correlates with voter connection.
Deborah Mattinson, Biteback, 28 June 2010
No one wants to talk about the problem of turnout this time — perhaps because they no longer care if millions of ‘bigots’ and proles don’t vote.Mick Hume, spiked, 5 May 2010
The relationship between intellectuals and the public is an awkward one. To play their traditional role, intellectuals certainly need the public. But does the public need intellectuals?Dolan Cummings, Academy of Ideas, June 2003
Capitalism What Is it Good For? - Sanjaya Baru
"Of all the political and cultural festivals, none beats the Battle of Ideas for its eclecticism and willingness to invite controversial and absorbing debate."
John Kampfner, Chief executive, Index on Censorship; former editor, New Statesman