Institute of Ideas | Ideas, Intellectuals and the Public

Past Events

Institute of Ideas and Goodenough College
Ideas, Intellectuals and the Public: Date: June 20, 2003 to June 22, 2003; This event has now taken place

Friday 11am - 12:30pm:

Opening Plenary The decline of the intellectual in public life:

Intellectuals are historically associated with public life, and there is little doubt that the critical voice of the intellectual has been crucial to the evolution of modern Western culture. From the salons of the 18th century, and the Dreyfus affair onwards, intellectuals have regularly intervened in the public sphere to put forward their point of view on the important questions of the day. More recently there has been some discussion, initiated by Russell Jacoby's The Last Intellectuals about the declining influence of public intellectuals. Even their existence is in doubt.
Today's academics appear hesitant about embracing the broader role of the intellectual, preferring to stick to thier own narrow specialisms. Journals and papers written in dense academic jargon seem only suited to the narrow world of academia, and are inaccessible to a general public. Intellectuals seem conspicuous by their absence from public life, where indeed 'intellecual' is often used as a term of derision. Has the role of the intellectual diminished? How much does the situation vary between Britain, Continental Europe, North America and beyond? Are the barbarians at the gate or are we simply suffering a bout of cultural pessimism?

Speakers:

Russell Jacoby: history professor at UCLA, and author of The Last Intellectuals
Alan Hudson: Director of Studies in Social and Political Science, Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford
Jeremy Jennings: Professor of Political Theory, University of Biringham, and editor of Intellectuals in Twentieth-Century France and Intellectuals in Politics
Sabine Reul: Frankfurt-based writer and journalist; Novo magazine

Chair

Claire Fox: director, Institute of Ideas

THE FATE OF KNOWLEDGE We are told that we live in a knowledge economy and that knowledge is the key to the future. Yet nobody seems sure what knowledge means any more. Not just on the internet, but in education too, the distinction between knowledge and information has become blurred. Academics shrink from the canonical body of knowledge, and flirt instead with relativism. New knowledge is often feared for its potential to create new problems, from designer babies to genetically modified monstrosities. So, what is the fate of knowledge today?

2-3:30pm

The legacy of relativism

Over recent years there has been a stark loss of faith in the Enlightenment idea of knowledge with a capital K. Those who believe in humanity's capacity to grasp objective reality are dismissed as arrogant and elitist. The more modest proposition that all knowledge is particular and contingent is now rarely challeneged. Partisans of identity politics reject the supposedly universal body of knowledge as a mask for hegemonic interests. History is decried as a socially constructed grand narrative. In place of the universal, we see the proliferation of many 'knowledges', many 'histories'. At the same time, insights gained from experience and emotion are often privileged over supposedly absolute truths. The earlier Culture Wars saw vigorous attacks on Western culture and the literary canon. How has this relative attitude to knowledge affected the way soceity views ideas and intellectual endeavour? How can we make the quest for knowledge an open-ended exploration - instead of a rigid defence of absolutes or a vacuous embrace of everything?

Speakers:

Simon Blackburn: Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge University
Robert Eaglestone: Lecturer in Twentieth Century Literature, Royal Holloway, University of London; Series editor, Routledge Critical Thinkers
Kenan Malik: writer, lecturer and broadcaster; author of The Meaning of Race and Man, Beast and Zombie
Steve Woolgar: Professor of Marketing at the Said Business School of the University of Oxford and director of the Virtual Society programme

Chair

Claire Fox: director, Institute of Ideas

4-5:15pm

A knowledge revolution? Information overload and the crisis of judgement

With the rise of the electronic media, many have noted the huge amount of information that is now available to the public. We all have access to raw data and information without gatekeepers to filter what we know. Contemporary pedagogy now suggests that the internet can replace much of formal education. We are offered the e-university, surfing is compared to research, ICT is said to put learners in the driving seat. Many celebrate the fact that ordinary people can become information producers as well as consumers; everyone can publish their work without the need for peer review, expert approval or editorial control. Universities face competition from alternative Knowledge Creating Institutions (KCIs). Is the information revolution creating new ideas and opening up intellectual life to more people? Are we in danger of confusing information with knowledge? How is raw data tranformed into knowledge, by whom and by what means?

Speakers:

Ron Barnett: Professor of Higher Education, Institute of Education
James Woudhuysen: forecaster and Professor of Innovation, De Montford University
Michelle Selinger: education specialist, Cisco Systems

Chair

Dolan Cummings: Institute of Ideas

5:30-6:45pm

Ethics and knowledge

Are there any ideas intellectuals should not examine? Some areas of knowledge are deemed so problematic, we rein in investigation and stifle debate. In the case of anthropology, a whole discipline is tarnished by association with colonial oppression, and its practitioners struggle to find ethically acceptable methods. In science, the field of geneticshas been subject to unprecidented external scrutiny. Ethical regulations and ethics committees rather than the demands of the field of study now determine the degree and conduct of research, for example in therapeutic cloning. Media concerns and public opinion are cited to justify limits on what can be acceptably pursued. How can ideas develop if they are hemmed in by ethical concerns, interest group lobbying and public opinion? What effect does this climate have on intellectual life in general?

Speakers:

Peter Lipton: Professor of Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University; member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Catherine Scott: School of Education, University of New England, New South Wales
Richard Shweder: cultural anthropologist and Professor of Human Development, University of Chicago

Chair

Dolan Cummings: Institute of Ideas

Saturday

IVORY TOWERS AND IDEAS

The university is the traditional source of new ideas. But the ideal of institutions dedicated to expanding the sum total of human knowledge through research, committed to passing on the best which has been thought and said to new generations, seems increasingly quaint. Many critics of the 'ivory towers' even refute the possibility that we might arrive at truth though the application of reason. Many argue that universities must find a 'Third Mission', on top of teaching and research, to justify their claims on society. Under pressure from government-led initiatives then, dons are as likely to mould their work around external criteria as the demands of their disciplines. Changes in funding mean private bodies increasingly pay for - and possibly influence - research projects. The demands that universities act as agents of social change means non-educational criteria influence the recruitment, retention and assessment of students. The development of ideas has apparently become a sideline. Can academia still provide intellectual breakthroughs?

10.30 - 11.30 am

Crisis in the academy - the Culture Wars re-examined

In recent years, universities have become mired in controversy, whether about political correctness, postmodernism, academic freedom or affirmative action. Two academics, from either side of the Atlantic, assess these Culture Wars and ask whether academia, in its present crisis-ridden state, can recapture a pivotal role in intellectual life.

Speakers:

Frank Furedi: Professor of Sociology, University of Kent at Canterbury, author of The Culture of Fear
John Agresto: Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts, Wabash College, Indiana; President Emeritus of St. John's College, Santa Fe and author of Liberty and Equality Under the Constitution

Chair

Claire Fox: director, Institute of Ideas

11.45 - 1 pm

The ideal university re-examined

How useful is John Henry Newman's The Idea of a University for modern times? Do universities hold up as the embodiment of freedom of enquiry, sites for the disinterested pursuit of knowledge for its own sake? How important is autonomy to intellectual development? Should universities be entirely free from external pressures, whether political, economic or social? Should the demands of the disciplines be the only pressure on academic endeavour, or should academics be subject to the same auditing checks and balances as other public institutions? Is the present relationship between government, industry and academia qualitatively new, or has academic freedom always been more myth than reality? Is the idea of the university as a space to reflect away from the concerns of soceity a self-indulgent luxury? What makes universities different from other educational establishments and 'Knowledge Creating Institutions'?

Speakers:

Ron Barnett: Professor of Higher Education, Institute of Education
Gordon Graham: Professor of Philosophy, University of Aberdeen, and author of Universities: The Recovery of an Idea
Ellie Lee: Sociologist at the University of Southampton and overall editor of the Institute of Ideas' Debating Matters series

Chair

John O'Leary: Editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement

2.15 - 3.30pm

The ideal don re-examined

How relevant is the academic to contemporary life? Are academics too distant from the world outside the ivory towers? Are academics now so specialised that they cannot act as public intellectuals addressing a broader audience? Are they too concerned with research rather than teaching future generations? Are they too concerned with teaching and neglecting the research, which will expand the world of knowledge? Is the solution a two-tier system of teachers and researchers? Must academics choose between immersing themselves in their discipline, and communicating it to their students and the public? Is the master-pupil relationship the relic of an era of deference, or a valuable model for initiating novices into the intellectual world? Is the reinvention of academics as 'facilitators' of knowledge a victory for student-centred democracy, or an abdication of intellectual leadership?

Speakers:

Vaneeta D Andrea: Carnegie Scholar and Director of the Educational Development Centre at City University, London
Dennis Hayes: Centre for Education Research, Canterbury Christ Church University College; editor, The McDonaldisation of Education
Diane Middlebrook: Professor of English Emerita at Stanford University

Chair

Claire Fox: Director, Institute of Ideas

3.45 - 5pm

The ideal student re-examined

Why do students go to university today? Has the shift to mass higher education altered the way society views students and students view themselves? If students are encouraged to see themselves as customers, are they more interested in purchasing pre-packaged degrees than in working hard to attain knowledge? As HE is reorganised around political ends such as access, social inclusion and empoyability, how is the curriculum being redrafted to make it more relevant to the intellectually diverse student base? With the emergence of student-centred assessment, pedagogy and curricula, are students having their self-esteem boosted rather than having their ideas challenged? And what happened to the 'revolting students' - are universities discouraging critical thinking and the questioning orthodoxies?

Speakers:

Bob Brecher: Campaign for the Future of Higher Education; reader in moral philosophy, University of Brighton
James Panton: Lecturer at Exeter College, Carlyle Scholar in the History of Ideas, University of Oxford
Alison Wolf: Professor and Director of the International Centre for Research on Assessment at the Institute of Education

Chair

Dolan Cummings: Institute of Ideas

5.30 - 7pm

Keynote Plenary

The audience for ideas: dumbing down or wising up?

More bookshops than ever before, more graduates than at any time in history, newspapers bulging with more articles and supplements, th Tate Modern teeming with visitors, an economy that values brain rather than brawn. Surely intellectual life has never been healthier, and the audiences for ideas never larger. And yet, contemporary society seems deeply hostile to claims of excellence, a canonical body of knowledge or higher culture. High art, from opera to museums, and academic excellence, from A levels to Oxbridge, are regarded as elitist, and deemed to exclude mass audiences. We doubt people's ability to cope with difficult ideas. Frequently broadcasters sideline documentaries, current affairs and 'ideas programming' to make way for TV shows more 'accessible' to viewers. Academics who push their students too hard are accused of bullying, and handouts have replaced books as staple reading for most undergraduates. Are we witnessing a vast expansion in audiences for ideas, or has there in fact been a loss o faith in the 'general reader'? Has the ideal of a self-selecting intellectual public been lost in an indiscriminate marketplace of ideas? Does appealing to the public mean sinking to the lowest common denominator?

Speakers:

Stefan Collini: Professor of Intellectual History and English Literature at the University of Cambridge and author of Public Moralists
Frank Furedi: Professor of Sociology, University of Keny at Canterbury, author of The Culture of Fear
Russell Jacoby: History Professor at UCLA, and of author of The Last Intellectuals
Jonathan Rose: Author of The Intellectual Life of the British Working Class

Chair

Claire Fox: Director, Institute of Ideas

Sunday

THE NEW INTELLECTUALS

Many contend that traditional academia has lost its intellectual monopoly to a diverse range of alternative arenas. New media, from digital TV to online 'blogs', offer endless outlets for thinkers to reach the public. Thinktanks gather creative minds from academia and public life to develop new initiatives, to second-guess future trends and think the unthinkable. Non-expert 'stakeholders' such as consumers and activists are given equal status to traditional experts in consensus committees and public inquiries. Are the new intellectuals a new source of ideas, or is all this an assault on disinterested enquiry and a move away from 'real' expertise?

11am – 12.15pm

Media punditry

In recent years the media seem to have grown in both size and importance. With a proliferation of outlets from digital television to the internet, there is more space to discuss ideas than ever, and with party politics seemingly in decline, journalists have acquired greater stature, not just as celebrities but even as public figures. Meanwhile, young academics can carve out careers as ‘media dons’, starring in their own popular science and history series on peak-time TV.

While the space for ephemeral punditry has grown with 24-hour news and talk shows, is there a danger of marginalising the outlets for serious debate? Are the ratings wars consigning challenging content to ghetto slots? Are the new media commentators accessible scholars, who explain research clearly and intelligently, or are they reducing complex ideas to unsubtle soundbites? Have the media generates a new cadre of public intellectuals, or do the sheer numbers of commentators add up to a public sphere in which everyone speaks but no-one listens?

Speakers:

Abigail Appleton: Head of Speech Programming, BBC Radio 3
Andrew Billen: The Times ; TV Critic New Statesman
Janet Daley: columnist, the Daily Telegraph
Frank Furedi: Professor of Sociology, University of Kent at Cantebury

Chair

Tiffany Jenkins: Institute of Ideas

1.30 – 2.45pm

The rise of thinktanks

In our post-ideological age, many bright thinkers see a career in politics as a practical one, less ideological, more technocratic. Policy is all. The job of policy advisor is one of the most powerful among the political elite. Thinktanks are the new hubs for ideas, attracting the smartest talents to the world of policy papers, lobbying, advocacy research and public influence. Elsewhere, there are increasing demands that university research should have direct consequences for public policy. The new public policy don enrols on a media training course, presents lectures in Power Point, sits on public policy committees and initiates partnerships with community groups. In this atmosphere, ideas without policy implications are often dismissed as irrelevant. This calculating, instrumental approach is antithetical to the concept of ‘knowledge for its own sake’.

Are thinktanks replacing academia as the new arenas for thinking the unthinkable? If practical ends determine the value of ideas, what becomes of the free-ranging, open-ended approach so necessary for intellectual life to flourish? Does their hostility to ideology mean thinktanks take a fresh approach to intellectual endeavour, or does it simply make them insubstantial? Can today’s socially-aware academics be any more than apologists for the status quo, designing eye-catching initiatives for an intellectually staid establishment?

Speakers:

Mick Hume: Editor of spiked and columnist for The Times
Gregor McLennan: Professor of Sociology, University of Bristol
Ziauddin Sardar: writer and broadcaster, co-author, Why do people hate America?

3 – 4.15pm

The demise of peer review and the rise of public experts

It is rare for scientists to bring out a report, whether on BSE or mobile phones, without it receiving widespread scepticism, despite evidence which has been endorsed by peer review. But while society seems frequently to distrust traditional experts, new voices are now endowed with authority. Medical opinion is seen as one-sided, masking the vested interests of the medical profession, but patients and relatives are invited onto medical bodies and treated with reverence. Consumers are consulted on matters normally resolved in the lab or through experimentation. Public participation in scientific decision-making is becoming the norm. Environmental activists and NGOs are given equal status to scientists on consensus panels. Advocates claiming to give voice to particular sections of the community, from the disabled to ethnic groups, are deemed more trustworthy than ostensibly disinterested intellectuals and their peers.

If non-expert participants are free from the rules of evidence given by a discipline, how useful can they be in difficult scientific discussions? Is academic peer review just another set of opinions, or should it retain a privileged status? Is intellectual expertise incompatible with democracy?

Speakers:

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick: London GP and author of The Tyranny of Health

Chair

Tony Gilland: Institute of Ideas

4.45 – 6pm

Final Plenary

The dissenting intellectual: challenging new orthodoxies

One crucial role that intellectuals have always played is to force us to question the status quo by picking apart conventional wisdom and received opinion. Today, the idea of dissent is paid due reverence, and ‘critical thinking’ is regarded as a key skill for students to acquire. But what does this mean at a time when consensus is valued as a supreme good, and confrontation, intellectual or otherwise, is frowned on? Certain new orthodoxies are not so open to question. Ideas like environmentalism and multiculturalism seem to have become morally if not intellectually indisputable. Meanwhile, those critical of the state of universities are frequently dismissed as purveyors of elitist nostalgia, ‘the forces of conservatism’. Preferring a quite life, most academics have learned to avoid issues that might offend their students or their colleagues.

How will ‘critical thinking’ keep its edge if the demand for consensus prevails? If we accept the notion that ideas should be inoffensive, how will we hold new orthodoxies up to scrutiny? Does the dissenting intellectual have a future?

Speakers:

Sondra Farganis: Director, the Rose and Erwin Wolfson Center for National Affairs, new School University, New York
Ziauddin Sardar: writer and broadcaster, co-author, Why do people hate America?
Claire Fox: director, Institute of Ideas

Chair

Phil Mullan: author and nonexecutive director of Easynet