Venue: MMK Museum für Moderne Kunst, Domstraße 10, D-60311, Frankfurt, Germany

Tickets: For information please call NovoArgumente +49 69 97206701 or email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). This event is in English and invitation ONLY

Visionaries in the last century told us that by 2000 we would have successfully colonised the moon, robots would aid us in our everyday lives and our life expectancy would be beyond 100 years. As we enter the second decade of the new millennium, we are in a good position to reflect on how much has been achieved. Do factors like the elevation of the precautionary principle in science, the short-termist financialisation of business culture and the hostility that now exists to open-ended experimentation mean, in effect, that our society has lost faith in progress through science, technology and human ingenuity? Contemporary society shuns innovation while paying it lip-service. Nobody has been to the moon since 1972. In Germany, a social climate of fear and suspicion dominates every political debate about future technologies like genetic engineering. Far from showing an appetite for risk-taking, we are now calculating our carbon footprints. Robots do exist, but confined to factories rather than being part of everyday life. IT is everywhere, but has it really revolutionised our societies? We are heading towards a ‘Green Economy’, which is said to be far more progressive than one based on a supposedly antiquated faith in growth and progress. Our focus is now no longer on reaching for the stars or thinking big, it is not about making a mark; instead, it seems to be all about stealing away quietly into the night.

Previous waves of innovation, like the first and the second industrial revolutions, were international and advanced the living conditions of hundreds of million people. They coincided with major social, economic and political upheavals and new hopes in the possibility and necessity of progress.  Why have we become so pessimistic about the pursuit of challenging objectives? Why does life now seem to just trundle along? What are the alternatives? Where is the new innovation wave of the 21st century?

This event will be attended by David Bowden, as a guest representative of the Battle of Ideas Organising Committee

Venue: Landmark, Lower Level, Palladium High Street, Phoenix Mills, Lower Parel, Mumbai, India

Tickets: Free, email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) for more information.

Celebrities are notorious for courting publicity one minute and protesting the next about the invasion of their privacy. Not only filmstars but sportsmen and indeed politicians often have an ambivalent relationship with the media. So do public figures forfeit any right to privacy, or should they be protected from the public gaze? Some argue that those who depends on media attention for their livelihoods must accept the consequences. If Bollywood stars want newspapers and TV stations to hype their latest movies, they should not be surprised when reporters are equally interested in their personal relationships, and any salacious details of their private lives. After all, when the public buys in to a celebrity’s personal brand, they want their money’s worth. But what about those celebrities’ families and other parties unwittingly caught in the flashlights? Shouldn’t their privacy and dignity be respected?

For some, it is a simple question of free speech. Either the media are free to report as they see fit, or they are subject to censorship. This principle has often been invoked by those opposing any proposed privacy law or broadcasting legislation that might undermine the editorial autonomy of media outlets. Others argue that media have undermined their own credibility by behaving irresponsibly, for example by conducting fake sting operations. Indeed, some critics see deeper problems with today’s ‘celebrity culture’, with its focus on superficial gossip and scandal. Don’t the media have a responsibility to inform the public as well as entertaining it? The question is especially pressing when it comes to politics, which some argue has come to resemble show business rather too closely. A figure like Rahul Gandhi attracts attention not so much for any particular political message or idea as for who he is, and perhaps his filmstar looks as well as his family heritage. Shouldn’t the media focus more on the substance of politics than on personalities?

Some believe that the very boundary between public and private is changing, and that ordinary citizens as well as celebrities are increasingly living their lives in public, sharing information and pictures of themselves of ‘social networking’ websites like Facebook. Is such information fair game for the media? How should the media balance the public interest with the privacy of individuals, whether they are in public life or not?

The discussion will be introduced by Angus Kennedy, head of external relations, Academy of Ideas

Venue: Landmark, Apex Plaza, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai, India

Tickets: Free, email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) for more information.

India is not only the world’s largest democracy, but also one of the most high-tech, having pioneered electronic voting machines. Technology has not only modernised the physical act of voting, however, but arguably transformed the practice of democracy more generally. Politics now pervades the internet, with politicians and activists taking advantage of everything from email to blogs, video-sharing and social networking sites. Laptops and mobile phones have become increasingly affordable and highly-effective political tools. People have the freedom to access public information like never before, and to publish their own opinions, challenging traditional sources of authority: ‘citizen journalists’ break stories and electoral candidates connect with their electorates via YouTube. But how revolutionary is new technology really? Does it really lead to a redistribution of political power? Or are political parties and multinational corporations simply using new technology for their own traditional ends?

New technology has certainly opened the door for the majority, rather than the minority, to create and have their say and engage in political activism. Chinese dissident activists can communicate beneath the radar of the authorities, while in democracies like India, individuals have the potential to communicate across great distances and regardless of social boundaries. But does the reality live up to the hype? Or do people prefer to use the new technology for more mundane purposes like entertainment and chatting to friends? Does the cost of technology unfairly exclude some of those who most need a political voice? As some fear with electronic voting machines, might technical flaws or ‘gremlins’ actually undermine democracy? And even when everything works perfectly, might the informality and anonymity of the web itself undermine democracy by encouraging incivility and offence, or allowing people to communicate only with others who share their own opinions? Can citizens and politicians alike harness the potential of the internet to develop new and more open forms of democratic engagement, or should politics come back down to Earth?

The discussion will be introduced by Claire Fox, director, Academy of Ideas

Venue: Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3GA

Tickets: £7.50 (£5 concessions) per person. Tickets are available from the Academy of Ideas website.

In the run up to the general election, Labour announced plans to slash the legal aid budget and to introduce measures that would have led to the closure of 80 per cent of legal aid criminal defence firms. Given that Labour created over 3000 new criminal offences, one for each day they were in power, this proposed slashing of legal aid raised the question of who is supposed to defend those accused of all these new offences. The new coalition government has announced its intention to put a stop to the creation of ‘needless’ new criminal offences, yet the question of how the Ministry of Justice is to manage budget cuts of £320 million has been left up in the air. Criminal legal aid is still under threat.

In spite of the gravity of the situation, legal aid is rarely discussed by anybody outside the legal profession. Further, it seems that any positive case lawyers make for legal aid is greeted with accusations of overt self-interest and greed. Is the right to choose your own lawyer, which depends on the availability of legal aid, still important? Or is it a waste of funds that would be better spent on preventing crime happening in the first place? Should the state handle the defence as well as the prosecution in the name of greater efficiency, or are independent criminal defence services worth defending? What is the role for criminal legal aid in a society with more criminal offences than ever before?

The discussion will be introduced by Shreela Ghosh, director, Free World Centre.

Venue: Barnes & Noble, 86th & Lexington Avenue Branch, 150 East 86th Street, New York NY 10028, USA

Tickets: This event is free and open to the public. For further information please email Jean: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

With an estimated twelve million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., many people agree that something must be done. At the same time most citizens acknowledge with pride that our country was founded by immigrants seeking to build a better future for themselves and their families. No other country has offered this to the same extent as the U.S. This implied open borders not only for people traveling inside the country but also for people traveling or moving to the U.S.

Many have lambasted Arizona’s new immigration legislation signed into law in April by Republican governor Jan Brewer. In July a federal judge blocked implementation of provisions in that law that require police to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect of being in the U.S. illegally. And yet there has been much less criticism of the Democrats’ plans to tighten border security and require all U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who want jobs to obtain a high-tech, fraud-proof Social Security card each with a unique biometric identifier.

As the temperature rises in the immigration debate, what should our vision be for American society in the twenty-first century? Do we want to live in a country that shuts others out or is there a moral case to be made that welcomes immigrants and their aspiration for a better life?

Venue: Programmkino Tilsiter Lichtspiele, Richard-Sorge-Str. 25a 10249 Berlin, Germany

Tickets: Tickets cost €4.50 and can be purchased on the door. For information please call NovoArgumente +49 30 4409292 or email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

The immigration issue has become linked to almost all the other major debates in Germany today, from education and crime to the question of economic growth. It is increasingly perceived as a problem, as commentators point to the poor performance of immigrant children in German schools or to studies showing rising unemployment rates amongst young people of certain ethnic origins. Other debates allude to the idea that large numbers of Turkish immigrants have failed to integrate into their host community, citing the controversy over Turkish-language schools. The aim of promoting integration is now enshrined in German law. As a result of these debates, campaigners who argue that Germany can’t cope with the rate of immigration have become more assertive. Liberal critics respond by insisting that immigrants have contributed a great deal to the cultural enrichment and the economic stability of the country.

The More The Merrier by UK film-makers WORLDWrite, attempts to make a positive case for immigration as the free choice of individuals who want or need to move to other countries. The film argues that a debate about immigration should be closely linked to the question of how we want to live and of whether we cherish the concept of freedom of movement. From this perspective much of what is currently seen as a defence of immigration – the notion that immigrants can help the economy by filling skill gaps etc – actually reduces the debate to a very narrow and partial focus.

Can a case be made for immigration and freedom of movement in its own terms, or is it always a matter of weighing economic and cultural benefits against the costs? Should supporters of immigration argue for open borders and freedom of movement, or treat immigration on a case-by-case basis? Is there a risk that arguments in favour of immigration involve unfairly labelling critics as simply racist?

This event is supported locally by the British Council, the United Kingdom’s international organisation for cultural relations and education.

It will feature a screening of the 15-minute film The More the Merrier followed by a panel discussion. The film Neukölln Unlimited will be showing at 10.30pm: tickets for this and the debate together cost €7.00.

The debate itself will be in German and will be attended by David Bowden, as a guest representative of the Battle of Ideas Organising Committee.

Guido Jansen, of the British Council, Germany, will give a brief introduction to the organisation’s activities in the area of migration and integration.

Venue: This event will take place in the Barbican Area
Tickets: Please contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) for details, and to reserve a ticket.

The banking industry has had a tough time of late. In 2008, when the money-go-round stopped, confidence fell off a cliff and governments and regulators around the world had to step in. Banker-bashing has become a regular feature of political and media debates; while public trust in banks seems at an all time low. Business Secretary Vince Cable has even described bankers as ‘Scargills in pinstripes’. What will it now take to restore confidence and pride in the banking industry? Is regulation essential to restoring confidence in banks? How important is transparency? If, as one commentator, suggests customers now want evidence of ‘service over swagger’, is the issue one of image? Might banks need to better communicate their role and worth in order to restore trust?

In a special breakfast Battle Satellite for individuals working in the financial services sector, organised by international PR consultancy Hotwire, a panel of expert speakers will explore these questions in light of the findings of a major survey to be launched at the event.

Venue: The Wollman Hall, The New School, 65 West 11th St, New York, USA

Tickets: This event is free and open to the public. For further information please email Jean: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

The clearance by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission for the so-called ‘Ground Zero mosque’ to be built in lower Manhattan received national coverage amidst a raging debate, initiated by Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich and then weighed in upon by Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama, as to whether Park 51, the 13 storey Islamic cultural centre, should be allowed to be built so close to 9/11’s Ground Zero.

Those who oppose Park 51 argue either that the project is insensitive because Ground Zero is unique and a kind of ‘hallowed ground’ as Charles Krauthammer put it, or that it is politically motivated, with an anti-American agenda, and should not be treated with the same tolerance as a religious institution. Those defending the Islamic centre have been quick to label opponents as bigots, and claimed the centre will be a bridge to cultural harmony, promoting moderation, non-violence and diversity. The New York Times called the centre a ‘monument to tolerance’.  Similar debates rage in Europe where some governments have moved to ban Muslim women wearing the burqa and minarets have been banned and debates rage on about whether the wearing the hijab, niqab and indeed certain practices of Islam itself represents a challenge to Western values. Some critics cry Islamophobia in response, and demand we respect all cultures and religious regardless. Others argue that such bans and restrictions are an attack on freedom in general, and consider them a gross overreaction.

Is this apparent new backlash against Muslims in Western nations and the arguments around the issue a new version of the ‘Culture Wars’?  While religious freedom has been a consistent part of the Enlightenment tradition, does the increasing antagonism towards Muslims in the West express a feeling that we tolerate the intolerant at our peril? Is it true that today’s politically correct ‘tolerance’ results in a craven accommodation to radical Islam even when it is antithetical to Western values? How should today’s American society deal with clashing belief systems?  Is this simply a case of religious freedom and free speech? Does the current preoccupation with Islam, whether sympathetic or hostile, reflect a deeper lack of certainty about what Western values are?

Venue: Sheffield Doc/Fest, The Chapel, Norfolk Street, Sheffield S1 2JD.

Tickets: Entry to this session and all other festival sessions requires a delegate pass. For further information go to: http://www.sheffdocfest.com

The maelstrom of economic austerity has shaken up every sector, from the arts to scientific research. While the coalition government ignites a ‘bonfire of quangos’ – with high-profile victims such as the UK Film Council – broadcasters tighten their belts, and commissioning of serious TV looks ever more precarious. In this desperate climate, what’s a documentary film-maker to do to secure funding? Taking the place of quangos are independent foundations and corporate marketing bodies, keen to trumpet new models of funding and distributing documentaries. From the UK’s BRITDOC to the Gucci Tribeca Fund and the Sundance Institute, the media landscape is changing dramatically. Filmmakers are advised that the best way to ensure ‘ambitious, issue-driven films get made’ is by turning to ‘charities, foundations, brands and companies with CSR agendas’. But is there a danger of losing sight of the purpose of documentary filmmaking in pursuit of funds?

Some worry filmmakers will end up dancing to the tune of organisations with agendas of their own. NGOs and charities may well be delighted if offered films that reflect their core, partisan concerns. But does this put pressure on filmmakers to talk up their social purpose in order to attract funding and attention? It is argued that ‘third sector and documentary filmmakers have much in common’ because ‘they both want to create change around an issue they care passionately about’. But might this not mean using social purpose films to usurp politics and democracy? BRITDOC champions the newly fashionable idea that ‘Films are the best medium for changing hearts and minds and lives’ and that ‘Films inspire people to engage and act’. But is such hyperbolic politicking too much to ask of films? Should they not be free to document and observe and let audiences make their own minds up? Is complexity and nuance threatened by the propaganda needs of changing the world?

Meanwhile corporates – defensive about their poor reputations and a popular hostility to big business in the wake of the financial crisis – may well be delighted to fund films to demonstrate their corporate social responsibility. But as capitalism seeks to justify its worthiness through finding a new social mission, and everyone from Puma Vision to McKinsey have become interested in worthy documentaries, should filmmakers be wary? Who protects editorial independence when documentaries are ‘sold’ to the myriad of new funding partners? Is it possible to build a clear wall between the donor/sponsor and creative vision? While it’s naïve to imagine a golden age when TV commissioning editors never interfered in programme content to improve ratings, arguably that commissioning process was more direct and transparent. To whom are the new foundations, content-commissioners by default, answerable? Might they be a new quangocracy, accountable to no-one? Can film-makers tap this new source of funds without compromising their integrity. What do the emerging funding models say about the role of documentary today?

Venue: Foyles Charing Cross Road, 113-119 Charing Cross Road, London WC2 0EB

Tickets: Free, but contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) to attend

Natalie Haynes is an award-winning comedienne who studied Classics at Cambridge. Her latest book, The Ancient Guide To Modern Life (Profile Books) explores events and characters from the past that are ‘sufficiently sparsely drawn for us to insert our own subtext’. So The Wire’s Stringer Bell is Oedipus; The Simpsons is a modern version of the work of Aristophanes. The question is, if we interpret to suit contemporary conditions, might we be in danger of missing the actual text?

Come to this agora, held in conjunction with Foyles Bookshop, for oratory followed by the democratic mandate.

Battle of Ideas 2010 End of Festival ‘WRAP’ Party

RCA Students’ Union Art Bar, Sunday 31 October 7.30pm – 2am.

Carry on the debates informally over bargain price drinks in the festival’s provocation zone, hosted by the RCA Students’ Union.

Concern about the poor state of people’s well-being is growing globally. Well-being has been enshrined as a human right by the World Health Organisation, and there is widespread support for government-sponsored interventions claiming to develop well-being in education, legal systems and humanitarian aid. But what does well-being actually mean, and is it best understood in terms of philosophy, religion and morality, or psychology and neuroscience?

From advertisements for herbal teas or a day at the spa, to philosophy classes at the University of Oxford, ‘well-being’ seems to mean anything to anyone. For some, it’s simply a faddish word for happiness. For others, it’s a bland euphemism that includes everything from clean air and a good social life, to decent living conditions, equality and more ‘me time’. But it’s psychologists who dominate the policy debates about well-being, presenting it as a set of psychological ‘constructs’ or ‘skills’ that can be diagnosed, developed and assessed, including stoicism, resilience, optimism, altruism, emotional regulation, being in the moment and mindfulness. Claims that well-being can be turned into ‘skills’ which produce educational, social and life success have fuelled a massive rise in interventions in British and American schools. A new ‘happiness movement’, launched in September 2010, puts a special focus on children and their emotional environment, arguing for free psychological help, and citing the case of an eleven year-old child in Liverpool who was taught reconciliation techniques at school and then managed to get his warring parents to talk to one another. According to supporters, ‘Schools are our great opportunity as a society: the audience is (nearly) captive. Children want to be happy and to learn the secrets of happy living’.

But while today’s discussion is dominated by psychology and neuroscience, history tells us that these so-called skills are rooted in older philosophical, religious and spiritual interpretations. In British Victorian schools, psychological constructs of ‘well-being’ were the focus of moral education. In America, these constructs were integral to ‘character education’. So would it be more honest if governments and psychologists hoping to enhance our well-being admitted their moral and spiritual concerns? Are those who object simply in denial about the benefits of positive psychology and neuroscience? If stoicism, resilience, optimism and altruism have such a positive effect on our lives, does it really matter if they are spiritual dispositions or psychological skills? Or do we need to retrieve ideas about well-being from psychologists? Is intervention in well-being an intrusive attempt to instil good behaviour and develop character? Is a psychological interpretation the only way to talk about well-being in a diverse, fragmented society reluctant to adopt religious ideas or moral education?

Listen to session audio:

The financial implosions of 2008-09 brought Western capitalism to its most severe economic crisis since the Second World War. Opinion remains divided on the underlying causes, and the implications for the future. In particular, views diverge today on what role if any the state must play in restoring prosperity. But are we even having the right debate?

A year ago we were all ‘Keynesians’ again, but this consensus was short-lived. Many, including the governments of Germany and Britain, argue the most important priority now is to cut back on state spending and reduce the debt burden. Without an urgent shift into austerity mode, they claim, funding could dry up, the private debt crisis will become a sovereign debt crisis, interest rates will go sky high and the economy will relapse into recession and an even deeper crisis. Others, including the White House, warn that premature budget squeezing will itself precipitate a double-dip recession. The private sector remains too weak to take up the responsibility for driving growth. The lesson of the 1930s, they argue, is that withdrawing the stimulus too quickly only prolongs and exacerbates the crisis.

But perhaps it is time to break from this Keynesianism versus Austerity discussion and recognise that neither will restore vitality to Western economies. Some argue the real problems are more substantial and deep-rooted, requiring radical change and more incisive state intervention. The state should be less concerned with short-term solutions, and focus more on addressing the long-term economic problems that brought the crisis about. Unless we can revitalise growth, other economic challenges will be far more difficult. So did the government stimulus measures prevent us from falling into depression, or merely postpone the next phase of the crisis, building up their own problems along the way? Is the private sector credit crisis now morphing into sovereign debt crises, as government levels of debt explode? Does this dilemma necessitate austerity policies? Or do we need more focus from the state on investment and rebuilding for growth?

Listen to session audio:

The appointment of Carol Ann Duffy – well known from her place on the curriculum - as Laureate, and the controversies over the election of the Oxford Professor of Poetry, have kept the sullen art in the headlines. Christopher Reid picked up the 2009 Costa Book of the Year for his collection A Scattering, while Bright Star saw John Keats join Dylan Thomas, Allan Ginsberg and Sylvia Plath as recent stars of the big screen. Poetry performances are increasingly popular at music festivals and at gigs, and pop stars such as Mike Scott (of Waterboys fame) and Rufus Wainwright have even recorded musical interpretations of WB Yeats and Shakespeare’s sonnets.

Yet increasingly it feels as if poetry’s renaissance is built on a constant rebranding to make poetry relevant to our daily lives. Last year Andrew Motion accused Britain’s schools of patronising students by failing to challenge them with poetry which wasn’t ‘a poem about football for a football loving boy, a rap for a fan of Eminem’. Yet he himself famously wrote a ‘Birthday Rap’ for Prince William. Similarly, while many others praise the therapeutic qualities of poetry in helping us cope with the stresses of the hectic, 24-7 modern world, some recoil when poems such as Duffy’s ‘Education for Leisure’ have an apparently more disturbing message.

Where can we draw a line between opening up difficult and complex works of literature to an unfamiliar audience, and simply being patronising? Is seeking relevance a response to the challenge to ‘make it new’ for another generation, or does it risk losing some of the original value and meaning? In a climate where so much of academia and education is encouraged to demonstrate its ‘impact’, can or should poetry justify itself? What is poetry for and how should it be taught?

Listen to session audio:

While the glitterati have often been accused of supporting fashionable causes, until recently this rarely extended as far as the whole fashion industry. The supermodels of the 1990s would rather have gone naked than wear fur, but today’s fashionistas are eager to be seen wrapped up in ethical chic of all kinds. Ethics are no longer applied to the odd piece of women’s wear and the way it’s made but to all clothes and accessories, their production and consumption.

Fashion magazines praise designers for their sustainable and green-friendly credentials. Being seen in last year’s outfit is just as likely to provoke cheers for ‘upcycling’ than gasps of derision. Meanwhile some leading fashion shows show off their ‘plus-size’ models. Off the cat-walk ethical concerns are increasingly taking over high-street fashion as well. Budget retail giant Primark has reaffirmed its commitment to offering bargains but ‘not at the expense of the people who make our products’. TV schedules are awash with programmes revealing the human cost of Western luxuries. Campaigners and parents have called for regulation over everything from padded bikinis for children (and other ‘inappropriate’ goods) to the airbrushing of models in ads.

Is sustainable fashion a contradiction in terms or is it time the fashion industry woke up to its responsibilities? Should we cheerlead for a culture in which designers can realise their artistic vision above all other concerns? Would fashionistas be better off getting a bit of perspective on the world’s problems? Can fashion change the world, simply make it better-dressed, or both?

Listen to session audio:

This year, Belgium and France both took steps towards banning women from wearing the Muslim burqa in public, and similar bans have been seriously discussed elsewhere in Europe. Meanwhile Switzerland has banned minarets. So is Europe now putting its own ‘secular’ culture before religious toleration?

The legacy of the Reformation and religious wars, followed by the Enlightenment, spawned a particular tradition of secularism in Europe based on the separation of religion and politics, and the principle of tolerance. Of course, religious conflict was never completely stamped out, but until recently it was assumed that religion was becoming less important, as the process of secularisation unfolded, and enlightened, liberal values took the place of superstition and deference to religious authorities. This assumption has been upset most starkly by the growth of Muslim communities all over Europe, made very visible by the appearance of women in headscarves and burqas, as well as more dramatic manifestations like the protests against the notorious Danish Mohammed cartoons in 2004 and 2005. Following 9/11 and 7/7, the presence of large communities within Europe who seem not to share its values has caused panic among many would-be guardians of European secular liberalism. Are they right to see the burqa as a symbol of dangerous reaction that must be suppressed? Or are such concerns overblown, and even racist?

In Britain too there have been heated debates about hijabs and niqabs, but tellingly, concerns about religious threats to secular values are not confined to Islam. When then shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said before the general election that he thought Christian bed and breakfast owners should be allowed to turn away gay couples, there was an outcry, and all mainstream commentators agreed that the law should prevent any such discrimination. But some conservative Christians have protested that it is they who suffer discrimination, or even persecution, because of their religion. For them, it is not Islam that threatens to undermine traditional culture, but a militant secularism. The debate about faith schools and whether they should be allowed to privilege members of their given religion reveals a similar tension. So who is tolerating whom, or not?

At the heart of the issue is a conflict over what secularism means: is it about leaving religion behind and embracing modern, liberal values, or instead about allowing individuals and communities to live by their own values without official interference? Should religion have special treatment, in the form of exemptions from equality legislation, for example? Or is such legislation itself too prescriptive for a truly secular and multicultural society? Should we all be free to discriminate according to our own consciences? Should Europe stick up for its liberal values against religious threats, or turn the other cheek?

Listen to session audio:

Digging up old stuff has perhaps not enjoyed such popularity since the heady days of Schliemann at Troy. Amateur enthusiasts with metal detectors search fields for Roman treasure, Time Team’s three-day digs command audiences in the millions, and documentaries detail the recovery and identification of bodies from the trenches of the First World War. Numerous websites list opportunities for volunteer archaeologists, offering backbreaking manual labour in the heat and dust, wages and accommodation not included. Archaeologists even hit the news, embedded with military units, trying to save Sumerian treasures from destruction in the Iraq war. Just what lies underneath all this?

As an academic discipline, rather than in popular culture, archaeology finds it rather more difficult to justify itself in these days of university impact statements and funding cuts. One of the first victims of the new government’s spending retrenchment was the proposed £25m Stonehenge visitor centre. Although Augustus Pitt Rivers long ago established a clear divide between archaeology and antiquarianism, by including mundane objects in the record as well as things of beauty or value, archaeology can still be uncomfortable with itself as a discipline. Within archaeology debates rage between those unhappy with the rigid but human-centred scientific approach of the ‘New Archaeology’ of the 1960s (‘archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing’) and postmodernists who stress the role of interpretation over process, culturally-sensitive self-reflexivity over impartiality.

In a wider context, some object to the damage digs may do to the environment, or have ethical concerns about the destruction of sites of importance to descendant peoples. Still others hold up the presence of archaeological sites as reasons to block developments such as dams, often despite the fact that these sites will go unexcavated because of the prohibitive cost or the aforementioned ethical concerns. To cap it all, there are problems of looting, and the fact that objects that have already entered the archaeological record are now increasingly subject to repatriation claims.

Perhaps it is partly in response to these dilemmas that archaeologists have sought to reach out and popularise their work. But does this run the risk of reducing the study of prehistory to the modern equivalent of charting your family tree? An entertaining diversion for the amateur history nut? With no great damage done but not much uncovered either? While we do not need to shed any tears at the demise of the Indiana Jones model of white man brings beauty back from savagery, do we not need to articulate better just what archaeology is good for? After all, without it we have no way of finding out more about the historical development of pre-literate human societies: the early development of technology, agriculture and religion, or supplementing what meagre written records we may have from ancient cultures. Should we be more serious about digging up the past?

Listen to session audio:

There is increasing awareness that there may be an energy crunch looming over the next ten years, as existing sources of energy such as ageing nuclear power stations go off stream. There is a lack of consensus as how to tackle this problem, however. Some argue for more nuclear power, some for massive investment in renewables; some have even welcomed the recent recession as a curb on our consumption, which may allow us to keep going with existing levels of supply. While there seems to be agreement that any solution must be green, there is a notable lack of urgency about putting solutions in place - actually funding the investment and getting started - and, importantly, a lack of clarity as to just why we need so much energy. Much discussion focuses on increasing energy efficiency (loft insulation and smart metering) but there is much less discussion about the need to increase the absolute amounts of energy available.

Have we really got enough energy? Is it imperative for energy policy to be dictated by concern about carbon emissions, or is there an argument for energy for its own sake, whatever the weather? Few argue that impacts on the climate should be ignored, but should they be the primary driver for policy or a secondary, longer-term, consideration? Just what share of investment should be directed towards ‘clean’ energy production? Or is it incumbent on us all to get over our addiction to oil and start to live more sustainably? What future for energy?

Listen to session audio:

From players deliberately handling the ball to gain advantage and feigning injury to get opponents sent off in the World Cup to spot-betting in cricket, cheating is a hot topic. Uruguay’s Luis Suarez came in for criticism for his professional foul against Ghana, punching the ball off the line. The fact Uruguay went on to win the match rather than getting their just deserts was particularly galling to many people. A lack of sportsmanship is not confined to football. From batsmen in cricket who refuse to walk to ‘bloodgate’ and eye gouging in the supposed gentleman’s sport of Rugby Union, it seems anything goes these days to try to gain an advantage in sport.

There are repeated complaints from some quarters that the commercialisation and professionalisation of sport is eroding its ethos of achieving excellence while playing by the rules. Others counter that the real ethos of sport is winning at any cost, and it is up to referees and umpires to spot and punish infringements. Suggested methods range from the use of video technology, greater use of adjudication panels and even criminal proceedings for dangerous play. Elsewhere, bodies such as the FA try to foster a sportsmanlike atmosphere by rewarding clubs and individuals for ‘Fair Play’, regardless of whether they’re losers on the pitch. Meanwhile, off the pitch allegations of business corruption, betting rings and the use of performance enhancing drugs continue to cast a shadow.

Should we worry about this culture of cheating and hark back to a golden age of sport when the code of behaviour and honesty was more important than the result? Or did this golden age never exist? Is the professional foul an integral part of sport? Does the obsession with cheating risk undermining the competitive excitement of sport, or does even the hint of unfair advantage sour the greatest victory?

Listen to session audio:

Peer review, the system whereby scientific and scholarly work is subjected to the scrutiny of other experts in the field, has long been cherished as a guarantor of academic rigour. But today it appears to be in something of a crisis. Recent controversies have included the retraction (12 years after publication) of Andrew Wakefield’s peer-reviewed paper suggesting a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, the ‘Climategate’ scandal involving emails between climate researchers appearing to manipulate peer review to their advantage, the assertion by eminent stem cell biologists that a clique of reviewers has been blocking the publication of quality research, the ‘Glaciergate’ incident in which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was taken to task for predicating its assertions on non-peer-reviewed ‘grey literature’, and the acceptance of a hoax paper from the ‘Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology’ (CRAP) in the peer-reviewed ‘Open Information Science Journal’.

Obviously peer review has never been infallible, but it has been trusted as the best mechanism for maintaining impartiality in research. This is now challenged. Some critics have argued peer review is merely a socially-constructed smokescreen for objectifying science, a cover for commercial and ideological interests. Others complain that while peer reviewing must depend on the collaboration of a community of experts in a given field who are committed to impartiality, inevitably subjective criteria enter the process and distort what passes for peer-reviewed science: Phil Jones, the central figure in the Climategate scandal, promised to keep two research papers out of the IPCC report. ‘I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is’. With the best will in the world the individuals who constitute a ‘community of experts’ are often asked to review and referee their friends, competitors, sometimes even their rivals. Some critics argue that one of the most disturbing threats to the integrity of the peer-review system has been the growing influence of advocacy science and the implicit pressures to provide evidence to fit in with policy objectives. In numerous areas, whether concerning climate or drugs, research has become a ‘cause’, increasingly both politicised and moralised. Conversely, the same trends have turned peer review into a ‘last word’ source of authority, silencing contestation not only over scientific facts, but over what are in fact political disputes. From this perspective, voices which lack the authority of peer review are, by definition, illegitimate. Politicians frequently wave peer-review at those who challenge their evidence-based policies on everything from behavioural economics to our individual lifestyles.

Does peer review need to be amended, or should we adjust our expectations of what peer review can achieve? Can we uphold peer review without creating the impression that if something is published in a peer-reviewed paper this automatically makes it ‘true’? Is the ideal of a pursuit of truth, free from vested interests, realisable or even desirable?

Listen to session audio:

The UK’s Holocaust Memorial Day Trust believes the ‘Holocaust must have a permanent place in our nation’s collective memory’ in order to teach people today the consequences of hatred and discrimination. It advocates listening ‘to the voices from the Holocaust and Nazi persecution, so as to realise its lessons of hope for a safer, inclusive and tolerant society’. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum describes itself as providing ‘a powerful lesson in the fragility of freedom, the myth of progress, the need for vigilance in preserving democratic values’. It has a ‘unique power and authenticity’ to cultivate ‘a sense of moral responsibility among our citizens’. The Holocaust is argued to have an ongoing relevance - it ‘could happen again anywhere and at any time’ - that demands our vigilance. In fact, for some, it has happened again in places like Cambodia and Rwanda, or it will happen again, if we do not check xenophobia, racism and bigotry.

Great store is put in the ability of memories and representations of the Holocaust - as maybe the only contemporary moral absolute everyone can agree on - to have a transformative effect on the young, and to create active and engaged citizens. This emphasis on remembrance, the charged ideological and political backdrop, poses a real difficulty, however, for treating the Holocaust as a normative field of historical study, that is for attempts to try and understand it. Understanding the history of the Holocaust, necessarily, means recognising that it happened in the past, in a very different set of circumstances than obtain now. In collective memory, however, it is the continuing presence of the Holocaust that is emphasised.

Is it possible to hope to understand the Holocaust in all its scope and complexity through the individual accounts of its victims? Is there a danger that as we try desperately to remember and never forget, that this is precisely what ends up happening? That a film like The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, or the Anne Frank Trust’s attempts to tackle bullying in schools through drama and performance poetry, may leave the complexities and ambiguities of the past behind in favour of a simple moral made relevant to the present? Why do we not trust history and historians to maintain the record? If the aim in keeping the Holocaust alive in memory is to teach the young to be good citizens, to transcend barriers of race, sexuality and religion, then why bombard them with the clearest example of man’s inhumanity to man? Might this not be an easier lesson to teach if we drew instead on the best that humanity has to offer us, rather than the worst? Is it unthinkable that the Holocaust be left to history rather than to memory?

Listen to session audio:

Liberalism was one of the big ideas of the Enlightenment. Why is it that liberal politics have failed to thrive during the past two decades? And what’s the future for liberalism in the context of a new UK government promising a more liberal agenda, and in the decade ahead more broadly? Most important of all, what does it mean to be a liberal today? In different contexts, the term can refer to polar opposites – champions of laissez-faire or supporters of a redistributive state – and it long served as a term of abuse on both left and right too, denoting a wishy-washy lack of conviction. But of course the word is derived from the Latin liber ‘free (man)’, and is still associated with an affirmation of free speech, movement, and independent thought, and a commitment to civil liberties. In this sense, a liberal society is free from narrow-minded prejudice and arbitrary or unnecessary constraints, and tolerant of divergent thinking. So shouldn’t we all be liberals?

In fact, there is a great deal of confusion around the issue. Peculiarly, assaults on freedom often come in the guise of liberalism. Left-leaning ‘bleeding-heart liberals’, supporters of freedom for ethnic minorities and permissive attitudes to sexuality, have long been associated with ‘political correctness’, or attempts to silence hate-speech, as well as curbs on religious freedom in the name of secularism. In continental Europe, liberal parties commonly associated with right-ish economic liberalism nonetheless endorse everything from tight immigration controls to bans on the burqa. During the election campaign, Nick Clegg proposed internal movement orders reminiscent of Stalinism, while Vince Cable boasts of his regulatory powers over business. While obvious attacks on freedom, such as the emergence of a ‘surveillance society’ or the extension of detention without trial, do cause a stir, even ardent civil libertarians often fall silent when authoritarian measures are justified in terms of protecting children from abuse. And more informal aspects of illiberalism barely elicit a murmur of protest. When it comes to smoking and booze bans or ‘nudges’ to eat healthily and recycle, few liberals seem confident that people should be allowed to exercise their freedom, that ‘wrong’ choices should be tolerated.

While the Conservative-Liberal coalition promises to set us free at last from the constraints of the New Labour regime, the confusion around the meaning of freedom presents a challenge for those who wish to promote an older sense of what it means to be a liberal. But could the spirit of freedom, once let out of the box, inspire us all to stand up against petty authority and say ‘it’s a free country’? Victor Hugo proclaimed that, ‘No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come’. Is liberal an idea whose time has come?

Listen to session audio:

If once it was feminists who campaigned against the objectification of women, now it’s a Conservative prime minister, backed up by Mumsnet. David Cameron has made headlines condemning the ‘commercialisation and sexualisation’ of young girls. There is widespread outrage over retailers selling t-shirts bearing Playboy bunnies, toy pole-dancing kits, and lingerie deemed unsuitable for prepubescence. Figures like Lily Allen and Amy Winehouse are criticised for making ‘sluttishness’ fashionable. Does this backlash represent a new wave of feminism, or rather old-fashioned moralism about female sexuality? It was the third wave ‘lipstick’ feminism of recent years that urged us to move beyond worrying about sexist images and appearance. Out went the bra-burners and dungarees; in came new female icons like the characters from Sex and the City. But given that recent surveys of teenage girls have found more than half would consider being ‘glamour’ models, and a third see Katie Price as a role model, have things gone too far? Do we really want our daughters, sisters - ourselves - to aspire to such diminished caricatures of ‘independent’ women? One of the New Feminism’s original architects, Natasha Walter, certainly thinks there’s a problem. In her latest book Living Dolls, The Return of Sexism she admits, ‘I was wrong’ to suggest feminists should focus on political equality and not worry about the ‘raunch culture’ of celebrities, pole dancing and an increasingly blatant sexualisation of women and girls. ‘The language of empowerment has been harnessed to confuse sexual liberation with sexual objectification,’ she writes.

Many young women do complain bitterly that they are valued for their appearance rather than achievements, intelligence and talent. But can feminists challenge unwelcome objectification without then policing the drunken fun of ladettes, imposing models of correct female behaviour, and tut tutting if girls choose to wear clothes deemed inappropriate? Is it helpful if feminists back up conservative criticisms of everything from frilly pink pants for children to ‘size zero’ models? Young Muslim women who embrace the hijab often claim they want to avoid the harassment of the ‘male gaze’. But it’s not just religious conservatives who worry about pressures on young women to dress provocatively. Does an unease about ‘sexualisation’ constitute a challenge to sexism, or simply distaste for modern life and openness about sexuality?

Finally, does it not matter if women tend to care about their appearance more than men? Or are there still unanswered questions about the true meaning of sexual liberation and equality? Is the battle for formal political, legal and equality between the sexes really over, so all that’s left to fight over is bikinis and burqas?

Listen to session audio:

Faith schools - whether you love them as bastions of a traditional education and discipline or loathe them as peddlers of homophobia and sexism - regularly occupy the headlines. Opponents call for their abolition in the name of multicultural integration rather than educational ghettoisation, equal access to state-funded institutions, and educational openness rather than indoctrination. Defenders of faith schools point to their excellent academic record, and argue that institutions must be free to set their own rules based on their beliefs, noting that the right of free association is not worth much without the right not to associate with some people. Should this argument be allowed to stand, however, when children are being taught values with which much of society now takes issue ? Such as that contraception is a sin or that women’s hair is an evil temptation?

Parents do ask, though, don’t they have a right to determine what kind of education their children should have? In what some see as an increasingly value-lite society, it might also be asked: just what’s so wrong with being brought up to believe in something? Are children really so deferential to adult authority that none of them will kick against the pricks? Even some humanists prefer overt religious doctrine, which young people can take or leave, to the apparently value-neutral but contentious messages often put forward in the secular curriculum, not least when it comes to the question of tolerance itself - and intolerance of intolerance.

But opponents protest that faith schools apparently get the best of both worlds: running costs covered by the state, but exemption from the obligation to treat everyone equally. Is it fair that faith schools are allowed to operate a form of selection, with middle-class parents feigning religious belief to shun the profanity of local comprehensives? Should we continue to tolerate faith schools? Do they have any place in a secular society?

Listen to session audio:

When the great Victorian engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel suggested the Great Western Railway be extended to New York, he wasn’t put off by the fact that the Atlantic was in the way: he resolved to build the Great Western steamship. That was in 1836. Today by contrast, Peter Head, director of the world’s leading engineering company Arup suggests we should ‘live within the environmental limits of the planet’. Two very different attitudes, which reflect different historical realities. To put it another way, environmentalist George Monbiot has suggested that ‘the battle lines are drawn between the expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits’. So with limits and restraint the fashionable buzzwords, what role for engineers?

Many observers criticise calls to put engineering and manufacturing back at the heart of the British economy as nothing more than nostalgia for a past long eclipsed by the rise of the service and technology sectors, let alone by the low-wage industrial economies of China and India. In India almost every student seems to want to be an engineer: in the UK it’s almost anything but. In China, every member of the Politburo is an engineer (although lacking the profession’s creative expression). Economist Philippe Legrain suggests the desire to return to manufacturing ‘“real” things that you can drop on your foot’ is a misplaced backlash against the tarnished and ethereal finance-driven economy. With the UK’s heavy industry a distant memory, Brunel’s ability to call on an army of navvies exemplifies a bygone era of labour-intensive hard-graft. Today engineering and manufacturing are more light-footed.

Whereas Joseph Bazelgette singlemindedly built London’s drainage network to eliminate London’s Big Stink in the 19th century, today the Building Regulations suggest we reduce pressure on the system by flushing the toilet less often. Optimising extant infrastructure is engineering’s new Big Idea. We are told there’s no need to build a desalination plant to provide 140 million litres of water each day, because the UK can save 3.5 billion litres of water a day by eliminating leakage. Why build a new runway or high-speed rail-link, if ‘radical localism’ is the way forward? Why build more when you can make do with less? After all, Gordon Murray, McLaren Formula 1’s ex-engineer, has just developed the T.25 city car which needs much reduced energy to power it. In order to reduce its carbon footprint, Buro Happold have engineered the 2012 Olympic Stadium using one-tenth the steel required in Beijing’s 2008 Bird’s Nest (and looking one-hundred times less impressive). Is this just the normal efficiency drive inherent within engineering practice, or are we increasing the efficiency of existing products and industries - for example metering devices to monitor energy use – at the expense of inventing new ones?

Listen to session audio: