Academy of Ideas

#BattleFest2015: We the People, you the Mob?

From controversial law cases such as that of the footballer Ched
Evans through to intense bursts of outrage at offensive jokes or
unpopular opinions, the Twitterstorm seems to have replaced the mob in
twenty-first-century imagination. While some defend the use of such
tactics as a (mostly) harmless letting off of steam, others have become
increasingly uncomfortable about what such tactics mean for the state of
public debate more widely. In his much-discussed book, So You’ve Been Publically Shamed,
journalist Jon Ronson explored the real-world effects of such
vituperative mob justice, from unfairly destroying reputations to
ruining lives: last year, an investigation into ‘trolls’ targeting the
parents of Madeleine McCann ended in the suicide of one of the accused.
From psychologist Gustave le Bon’s 1895 work, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, to Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible,
and even behavioural economics, there has been no shortage of
intellectual inquiry into the nature of mobs, yet little consensus about
what defines them. Protestors accused of mob violence in riots across
US cities counter that it is heavy-handed police responses that turned
organised demonstrations into anarchy. Meanwhile, claims that vigilante
mobs mistakenly attacked paediatricians during the child-abuse panic at
the start of the millennium have been found to have said as much about
prejudices about the mob as the mob itself. If fear of the mob is
nothing new, however, is there anything different about its spectral
online version?
Why does the concept of mob rule seem to haunt public debate at a
time when the masses play such a minor role in mainstream politics? Has
the mob found a new home in the online world, with its seeming hostility
to traditional forms of hierarchy and authority? Does the fear of mob
rule reveal an elitist contempt for mass politics, or an anxiety that
contemporary institutions lack the strength to articulate popular
frustration? 

SPEAKERS




Josie Appleton

director, civil liberties group, Manifesto Club




John Coventry

global communications director, Change.org




Rupert Myers

barrister and writer




Daniel O'Reilly

comedian, aka Dapper Laughs




Cathy Young

contributing editor, Reason magazine; author, Ceasefire! Why women and men must join forces to achieve true equality



CHAIR



David Bowden

associate director, Institute of Ideas

#PodcastOfIdeas: Jo Cox, Orlando and the referendum

Claire Fox, David Bowden and Rob Lyons discuss the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, its implications for the EU referendum campaign and the parallels with the Orlando night-club massacre.

#PodcastofIdeas: John Tierney debunks recycling myths

#BattleFest2015: Free-range parenting - reckless or responsible?

Recorded at the Batle of Ideas 2015
In a week where opprobrium has been heaped on the parents of a four-year-old child who had to be rescued from a gorilla enclosure at Cincinnati Zoo, while the parents of a Japanese seven-year-old boy face charges after abandoning him to wander in the woods for a week, listen to this session from the Battle of Ideas 2015 where Lenore Skenazy argues that far from being obsessed with what our kids might be up to, we must give them the freedom to roam and explore without constant adult supervision.
The term ‘cotton wool kids’ has become part of everyday language. Indeed, many parents, academics and others share a concern that children have become over­protected. The worry is that youngsters no longer have enough freedom to explore, to get into scrapes, have accidents and work out how to deal with situations when they don’t have adults telling them what to do.
Discussions about this problem often focus on Mum and Dad: the blame, it is said, lies with irrationally fearful, overprotective ‘helicopter parents’. Yet when parents do try to give their children more freedom, they can face a great deal of hostility and even legal action. In the US, the parents of so-called ‘Free Range Kids’ have been charged with child neglect, while UK parents who let their young children cycle to school on their own have become the subject of protracted public debate about whether this is neglectful. Parents are told almost daily that their children’s health, welfare and safety are at risk, not just from strangers lurking in the park but from adults they know and thought they could trust, including family members, teachers, doctors and volunteers – and the apparently ever-growing menace of online grooming and abuse. Given this state of affairs, how could parents not end up being fearful and paranoid?
How should we, as adults collectively, think about how best to protect and care for children while at the same time challenging and testing them in creative ways? Why do we find it so hard to agree on a ‘commonsense’ approach to child-rearing? Are projects that focus on letting children ‘run free’ the answer? Or are these becoming just another parenting fad, accessible mainly to middle­-class parents who can weekend in the country? Is it possible, or even desirable, to change the way we raise our children in a more profound way? How might we find ways to develop character, determination and independence of thought and action in future generations?
SPEAKER Lenore Skenazy founder of the book, blog and movement Free-Range Kids; “America’s Worst Mom” RESPONDENTS Alice Ferguson director, Playing Out
Dr Helene Guldberg director, spiked; author, Reclaiming Childhood: freedom and play in an age of fear and Just Another Ape?
Lisa Harker director of strategy, policy and evidence, NSPCC
CHAIR Dr Ellie Lee reader in social policy, University of Kent, Canterbury; director, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies

#PodcastOfIdeas: Brexit, fracking and public-health infighting

Claire Fox, David Bowden and Rob Lyons discuss the week's news.
In this week’s Podcast of Ideas the team discuss whether the
left’s mealy-mouthed support for the Remain campaign belies contempt for
the demos and a fear of right-wing populism, why we should all be
celebrating the decision to frack in Yorkshire, the public health
lobby’s loss of credibility, the ban on legal highs and a patronising
new campaign to protect women on social media.

#BattleFest2015: European Referendum - what will decide the vote?

Recorded at this week's Institute of Ideas event at Goodenough College.

On 23 June, the UK will vote in a referendum on whether
or not to remain a member of the European Union. The decision is a
momentous one, the first time British voters will have had a direct vote
on membership since 1975.
Yet the public debate about the pros and cons of Brexit has been
frustratingly shallow. The aim of this event was to offer a panel of
high-profile speakers an opportunity to set out the case for Remain and
Leave, and allow an audience of almost 300 people to get involved,
offering their own views as well as challenging the panel. The result
was a lively, engaging and passionate debate. For anyone interested in
hearing the arguments played out with intelligence and without
name-calling, this debate is well worth listening to in full.
SPEAKERS
Rt Hon David Davis
Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden; former Foreign Office minister (1994–1997) and Shadow Home Secretary (2003-2008)
Simon Nixon
chief European commentator, Wall Street Journal
Vicky Pryce
board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; former joint head, UK Government Economic Service; author, Greekonomics
Bruno Waterfield
Brussels correspondent, The Times; co-author, No Means No
CHAIR
Claire Fox
director, Institute of Ideas; panelist, BBC Radio 4’s Moral Maze.

#PodcastofIdeas: Local elections, anti-Brexit arguments and the kid’s strike

In this edition of the Podcast of Ideas, the team chews over Sadiq Khan's election as London mayor and the implications of the different election results across the country for the major parties - particularly the way old assumptions about political strongholds have been called into question. With BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg being targeted over her coverage by Corbynistas, how should accusations of media bias be handled? The team also discusses the claim that Brexit might lead to war in Europe, the controversy over SATS exams and the effect on wider society of claiming that schoolkids are too sensitive to be tested.

#BattleFest2015: The Personal is Political - is identity politics eating itself?

In her 1969 essay, ‘The personal is
political’, feminist Carol Hanisch defended consciousness-raising groups
against the charge they brought ‘personal problems’ into the public
arena. She argued that most difficulties women experienced in private
were rooted in political inequality, so personal problems could spur
women to political action in public life.
Today, consciousness-raising groups are less common. Yet the idea
that ‘the personal is political’ has survived, albeit giving way to an
increasing fractious identity politics. The bizarre story of Rachel
Dolezal, a white woman presenting herself as a mixed-race leader in the
NAACP, has raised sharp questions about how we think about who a person
is. 
More broadly, there has been an explosion of different groups vying
with one another for social recognition and respect. US writer Cathy
Young argues this has led to a ‘reverse caste system in which a person’s
status and worth depends entirely on their perceived oppression and
disadvantage’. Burgeoning feminist clubs in universities and a diversity
of gender, ethnicity, religious and cultural identity groups on college
campuses and in the world of activism, reflects a substantial shift in
how politics is understood and practiced in modern society. In
particular, such groups are often divisively set up in competition with
others’ claims to be the victim.
Feuds over ‘intersectionality’ and ‘hierarchies of oppression’ have
created internecine warfare between ‘terfs’ and the ‘trans’ community,
between black women and white feminists, middle-class lesbians and
working-class men: checking ‘privilege’ has become a routine pastime. As
some critics of contemporary feminism note, identity politics
inevitably turns each individual into her own group: demanding the right
to assert ‘who I am’ becomes the primary goal of political action. So
when Rachel Dolezal claims to be black, who are we to argue against her
self-identification?
Is this any different from the demand for public applause for Caitlyn
Jenner – once known as Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner – who now
self-defines as a woman? Is there a point past which we can’t choose our
personal identity, as suggested by those who reject comparison between
Dolezal’s ‘cultural appropriation’ (‘a glaring example of white
privilege in action’) and Jenner realising who she/he always really was?
Do today’s identity wars preclude possibilities for transcending
gender, race, disability? Does the feminist war cry of ‘personal is
political’ inevitably lead to such a narcissistic focus on self?








Speakers




Julie Bindel

journalist, author, broadcaster and feminist activist; research fellow, Lincoln University




Andrew Doyle

stand-up comedian; playwright; biographer




Sabrina Harris

technical author; longtime gamer; regular commentator on issues relating to freedom of speech and internet subcultures




Jake Unsworth

trainee solicitor, Bond Dickinson; convenor, Debating Matters Ambassadors




Dr Joanna Williams

author and academic; education editor, spiked



Chair



Claire Fox

director, Institute of Ideas; panellist, BBC Radio 4's Moral Maze