Light not heat?
A core objective of the RSA is to promote informed and constructive public debate. It is an aim which runs through our history and was also central to the values of the 18th century Enlightenment, whose champions saw tackling ignorance and prejudice as essential to social advance.
It is one of the reasons we are rightly proud of the phenomenal impact of RSA Animate. Upwards of 15 million people from around the world have now viewed these lectures. This figure is made up of people who have watched all or nearly all the edited lecture (otherwise YouTube don’t count it as a view). It is clear from the comments that Animate is making ideas accessible and entertaining not only to learned people but to many who had not previously thought of themselves as the kind who would choose to sit through a lecture on a subject like human motivation, the nature of modern capitalism or the principles which guide education. The most recent – highly engaging – addition is from the renowned public intellectual Stephen Pinker and having been posted for just a few days it has already (at time of writing) reached a quarter of a million views.
There are other ways the RSA is opening up ideas to a wide audience. Last night saw the second recording at the RSA of a set of lectures to feature in the new Radio Four slot ‘Four Thought’ being broadcast on Wednesday nights at 8.45. Radio Four is seeking to develop a new style of presentation, part lecture, part story-telling, part raconteurism. As it is broadcast right after Moral Maze I can’t be the compere, but RSA Fellows make up a large part of the audience and the Society is credited on air at the start of each programme.
It also make sure that my RSA role is mentioned in my intro on ‘Maze’. I know it’s a programme that drives some people nuts but I think it can, at its best, provide an invaluable and provocative insight into the moral dimensions of a contemporary issue. Its slightly adversarial nature may not be to everyone’s taste but it gives the programme its edge. Tonight we are debating whether charities (especially big ones delivering public services) have lost sight of the spirit of spontaneity and altruism which inspired their creation.
I have written here in the past of a long standing ambition to find a way of subverting the adversarial nature of much public debate. I have tried various ways of developing a programme format to do this. Now at last I think I have the right idea, and Radio Four have commissioned a pilot. But as it’s still in the formative phase I am looking for any thoughts and tips from my wonderful readers. The programme – provisionally titled ‘agree to differ’ – works like this. Two people well known for holding totally opposing views on a big issue are asked to participate. They are joined by an active Chair/presenter and a fourth person who may be well known for their opinions on other issues but has no strong view on the matter in question.
The meat of the programme comprises the protagonists interviewing each other to discover what lies at the core of their respective beliefs. For this to work they have to agree to abide by some strict rules, chief among which is that they have to conduct the interview in a thoughtful and friendly way, genuinely seeking to find out what makes the other person hold their beliefs. The role of the chair is to ensure the rules are enforced. The role of the independent guest is to reflect on how what they have heard has influenced their own view of the issue at question.
The power of the programme is that it subverts the usual process of public disagreement in which we caricature our opponents’ beliefs and – more perniciously – denigrate the motives which lie behind those beliefs. Instead the programme’s participants are committed to trying to get to the heart of the matter. Does their difference reflect disagreement about core facts, about ideological starting points or even matters of faith? Does the attempt to discover the foundations of polarised beliefs reinforce difference or start to bridge the divide?
So, dear readers, do you think this will work? How would you refine the idea? Can you think of some good parings (George Monbiot and Matt Ridley on capitalism and the environment, or John Gray and Jonathan Sachs on whether human beings are capable of ethical development are a couple of suggestions that have been made to me).
Who knows, if the format works on the radio (or even if it doesn’t) maybe we can try it out at the RSA. After all shedding light where there has previously been mainly heat is surely a foundational enlightenment ideal?
Comments
10 Comments on Light not heat?
-
Jonny McCormick on
Wed, 23rd Feb 2011 6:53 pm
-
Ian Christie on
Wed, 23rd Feb 2011 9:26 pm
-
Michael on
Wed, 23rd Feb 2011 10:57 pm
-
Christopher McCracken on
Wed, 23rd Feb 2011 11:48 pm
-
Anonymous on
Thu, 24th Feb 2011 12:02 am
-
Livy on
Thu, 24th Feb 2011 10:25 am
-
lily on
Thu, 24th Feb 2011 12:04 pm
-
Charles van der Haegen on
Thu, 24th Feb 2011 4:55 pm
-
Indy Neogy on
Sat, 26th Feb 2011 7:14 pm
-
Dave Gorman on
Wed, 9th Mar 2011 11:37 pm
I love the idea of this. Public debate is crucial, and indeed gaining more momentum with the emergence of a postmodern mindset. However, I am always worried and indeed put off by public debates that denigrates the person and not the idea that is being proposed. I have a pretty strict guideline that has become increasingly useful as I foray deeper into the world of academia and the public square. ‘Play the ball, not the player.’ It basically reminds me to pursue the idea being proposed by the person with whom I am interacting, even agressively at times, but not to pursue the person on a personal level. This is how offensive is shared. Attacking the idea is appropriate, even necessary, but not the person.
Nice idea, Matthew. One could add to the mix a requirement that each speaker spends some time discussing the argument or idea or item of evidence that seems to them the most powerful point against their position.
I think I’d put John Gray up against Matt Ridley. For George Monbiot, perhaps Claire Fox.
Karl Popper used to take the line that as a philosopher he could only defeat an opponent in print if he built up their case as powerfully as he could, giving every benefit of the doubt, and then attacked it at its strongest point. Finding a way to build that sort of method into the format could be worth a try.
This is of course a great concept. The idea of the Enlightment is far from worn off even in the 21st Century. If we still feel that we need to keep this way of thinking or this particular concept alive – any initiative is more than welcome! But, who listens to radio 4?!
What about Ian Paisley pairing with Martin McGuinness? Oh no, actually I think that has already been tried.
Mediaitng a public debate and chairing a public debate have different endings, sometimes.
Until recently I worked nights and would come home in the early hours, sometimes passing out in front of something on BBC 24 with Steve Richards and Janet Daley where they basically went at it, one on one. Pretty decent, I thought. Anybody know if it’s still on?
Ian Christie:
By bringing the charming Miss Claire Fox into this discussion you just sent a cold chill down my spine.
Thanks.
I mean…seriously? Come on.
Oh yeah, and Ridley is the man. Plain and simple. He would blatantly wax Monbiot.
I always thought if an idea was that good it should work on yourself not just others.
SO why not the enlightened one and the enlightened society take part and define the issue ( as relevent to the RSA) – lets see if we can have an enlightened debate amoungst ourselves before we go preaching to others?
Issues such as RSA engagement, RSA democracy, RSA vision, RSA enlightened?
If we nail it then future AGM’s will be much less painful.
Matthew vs ??
Or should we agree to differ before we start?
ps: isn’t difference the same as divide? by disecting the debate we run the risk of simply highlighting divisions – which is the problem in the first place.
I believe yours is a great idea.
Following suggestions though:
I like very much the ideas of the Theory of Socio-Cultural Viability, also known as Cultural Theory. I know you are aware of this theory. I know it is still very much kept outside of mainstream social science. Now, all over the world I see old paradigms fall one by one. In the end even social scientists will have to admit the limits of some of the paradigms on which their science is based. Don’t misunderstand, I am not a social scientist, merely a grandfather who tries to understand the state of the world,endeavouring to bring my contribution to society, for the smoothest possible shift. The shift will come, I believe, it will be signioficant, and we just starting to plough through its first manisfestations…. .
The idea that I capture for answering your question is the following:
Around a given subject you invite three persons: each known for holding the mutually opposing worldview of each of the “active socio-cultural solidarities”. You invite a fourth intervener, who plays the detached role of the Hermit.
Having three protagonists keeps the system dynamic, and so the (inevitable?) entrenchment risks, resulting from dyadic opposition, is avoided.
The Hermit’s role is to ensure a top-notch deliberative quality of the dialogue (I dare to call it dialogue, the process should result in one). He guides the three active “protagionists” to explain their deeper belief systems and worldviews (moving up and down the inference ladder – Chris Argyris).
As their deep belief system will usually be implicit (unconscious), the Hermit can help make them explicit (and by the same token open up their, and the public’s mind).
This process will lead the general public to understand that it is OK to have different worldviews, to understand where they come from, and to accept that solutions will necessarily have to be “clumsy”.
I believe It will be very powerful in raising the consciousness of both intervenors and public, in expanding their mental meaning making intelligence, in bringing about mutual respect for divergent opinions, and in fine, for promoting deliberative quality of debates throughout society.
This way, your initiative may contribute to fundamentally pave the way out the intractable problems of our time.
What I like very much about this idea is that it has the potential to move the RSA away from the lecture format.
Now there are those (Ken Robinson springs to mind) who can give a TED style talk at the RSA and enthrall and educate the audience.
However, to be frank, many of those who speak at the RSA just don’t do well in that format – and we’re treated to a fragmented and incomplete summary of their ideas, followed by a random grab bag of audience questions, incoherently moderated which don’t throw much light on anything, especially because there’s a lack of sustained follow up.
My fear is that when it comes to important and emotive issues like the environment and healthcare there will be many unsubstantiated statements and proofs by anecdote and it’ll take a very talented 3rd party to make sense and civility out of that.
I love this idea as well.
Why not Dawkins or Hitchens verses a rabbi or archbishop?
A Scots nationalist veres an English tory?
A liberal verses a real right winger
A technology optimist verses a luddite?
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.