RSA: 21st century enlightenment

February 8, 2010 by
Filed under: The RSA 

From this week, RSA Fellows and observers may start to notice a new strap line appearing on our website, at our events and in our materials: ‘RSA: 21st century enlightenment’.

This has emerged from a pretty extensive conversation involving RSA staff and Trustees and is based on research with Fellows and partners. We wanted something broad enough to reflect our heritage and cover the range of our activities but also bold and interesting. Rather than spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a face-lift our approach is, as it were, to drop the phrase into conversation and see what people make of it.

The reason I liked 21st century enlightenment (despite having lots of ideas of my own) is that it has two meanings. The ‘soft’ interpretation is simply that the RSA seeks to enlighten people as to the nature of the modern world and the best ideas to make that world better. With an amazing programme of lectures and events, not to mention the website and Journal, we can certainly claim to be meeting this objective.

The ‘hard’ interpretation is an unashamed championing of the values of the Enlightenment, the era in which the RSA itself was established.

If I can be excused a very superficial reading of history, the idea I associate with the Enlightenment is this: There is a good way to live one’s life but this ideal does not rely on rules handed down by kings or bishops but can be derived from an account of the kind of society in which we want to live and the kind of people we are and have the capacity to be. 

In the past I have spoken about a social aspiration gap, defined as separating the kind of future most people say they want for society and the kind of future we are likely to build relying on current patterns of thought and behaviour. This gap can be seen to have three dimensions, three ways in which we the people must develop to close the gap. Collectively we must be more engaged, more self reliant and more pro-social.

Personally, I believe there are many things wrong with modern society including our, as yet, inadequate response to climate change . These challenges help to make the case for us to live differently. But the case for 21st century enlightenment does not rely on these pressures. Being engaged, self reliant and altruistic is the way to live the good life in the good society.

As someone who calls themselves progressive, I worry sometimes that people who share these values feel the best way they can make the case for a different way of living is to say we are in a crisis, whether environmental, social or economic. In this way progressives can sound very much like pessimists. On occasion, for example, environmentalists sound like they would be disappointed if a technology was invented which took carbon from the atmosphere without us all having to stop travelling and shopping.

The point for me is not that human beings have failed to achieve progress (who among us wish to return to a time when the average life expectancy was less than forty?) but that more is required of us and more can be achieved by us.

This can be a century when the human race not only meets the challenges it has created for itself, but when it can aspire to reach a higher level of functioning with more and more of the human race feeling more able to discover and express their full capabilities. This is the ideal of 21st century enlightenment.

I realise this all sounds rather trite. Whether the new strap-line works is more about what the RSA does than what it says about itself. This means our lectures, our research, the feel of our House and most of all the ways we support our Fellows to be a force for good. Of one thing  I am reasonably confident; this is an account of our mission of which our founding fathers (they were all men) would approve.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: ,

Comments

19 Comments on RSA: 21st century enlightenment

  1. Indy on Mon, 8th Feb 2010 9:41 pm

    2. Happy New Year – Interesting post Matthew.

    1] Slightly concerned with the phrase – “RSA seeks to enlighten people” [see below]
    2] “more engaged, more self reliant and more pro-social” is a very interesting position – but denies how structurally a Fordist economy has stripped purpose from a majority of work & people and replaced it with a “consumer economy” driven to produce & sell momentary gratification & fulfilment [simplistic I know but you get the gist]

    Why does the RSA not focus its power & force on the instruments & infrastructures of pacification as opposed to calling for us to more engaged. So how about an RSA that seeks to Liberate us as opposed to enlighten us – the latter we can do ourselves?

    Matthew, I only say this because I care about the RSA and believe it can play a vital role in building a progressive civilisation. Also forgive if this debate has already been done.

    Indy

  2. Julian Dobson on Mon, 8th Feb 2010 11:22 pm

    3. Of course once you start to define enlightenment, you start to exclude the possibility of being enlightened about anything beyond that definition.

    An open quest for a better world is a great idea, even if it is one that most people wouldn’t disagree with (including the kings and bishops, for all I know). More interesting is your comment about the ‘crisis’ approach to social change. A healthy dose of fear can do us a power of good sometimes, in that it can help us stop doing stupid things (like putting lead in petrol or prescribing thalidomide). So I think the crisis approach has value, when the crisis is real.

    A better approach, though, might be to talk of social justice or addressing social evils: the things that prevent us achieving the progress and fulfilling the potential you speak of. Of course that comes with moral and ethical (not to mention political) baggage, but it saves us from the idea that we only need to find a technocratic solution and all will be well.

    Enlightenment without equality? I don’t think so. Now you can all shoot me down…

  3. Tessy Britton on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 9:29 am

    4. I like ’21st Century enlightenment’ very much Matthew, and also how the RSA seems to have taken a very light and sensible approach to the idea of examining the RSA’s branding, a process I remember as being filled with nervous expectation, the pressure to produce something ‘high impact’ … and often unreasonable cost.

    The association with the word enlightenment relates very neatly to the RSA’s historical roots, presents the idea that we are now in a similar time of social reflection and change, but also, and perhaps most importantly for me personally, points to the fact that the RSA is an institution which aims to inform and stimulate new thinking.

    One of the concerns about the RSA examining the branding has been that 27,000 RSA Fellows share that branding and association, so in a very real sense the RSA’s decision on this has been very important to a lot of people. While Fellows often find it difficult to pinpoint exactly why they like the RSA so much, there is a real passion for the institution. The idea of enlightenment, change and informed thinking (and a whole range of other personal interpretations) may not necessarily encapsulate all the detailed attributes of the RSA , but I personally think it is broad, bold and vital – and re-enforces rather than diverts from an important reason why many Fellows support the work of the RSA and create an increased sense of mutuality and collaboration.

    I hope that you will get a good response to this from Fellows in particular!

  4. Matthew Kalman on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 11:00 am

    5. Hi Matthew,

    I was hoping you’d put up your thoughts about David Halpern’s very enjoyable presentation last night about his book ‘The Hidden Wealth of Nations’.

    I did end up with the nagging feeling, though, that David rather wriggled out of any of the really difficult questions, which to my mind is the place where novel thinking –  real 21st century enlightenment! Clumsy solutions!! – can occur.

    For instance, in the Q+A, your first question was about the effect of rising immigration and diversity on trust (ie social capital levels).

    This was pretty clearly a reference to the major piece of research by Robert Putnam which found that multicultural communities seem to have a very damaging effect on social capital, driving people of all communities into a more atomised existence.

    David avoided responding about Putnam’s actual findings (though he does know about them; I asked him about them at another event, and he was very clued up).

    Actually David’s response was kind of funny at times (as you pointed out!). He argued that policies to encourage internal cohesion in immigrant groups, would see them integrate more quickly.

    As you jokingly pointed out, maybe Spain could promote the internal cohesion of the the British expats in Marbella?! But you were less than convinced that it would help them integrate into Spain, at all quickly…

    What about the repeated Ipsos-Mori finding that social cohesion is negatively correlated with the level of Pakistani and Bangladeshi population – though social cohesion is, by contrast, positively correlated with having a “large Indian population”?

    This was the kind of difficult area that David seemed to me to avoid.

    Similarly I rather hoped that when the issue of women and gender came up in the Q+A, he might mention the key finding that women’s happiness is in a 40-year marked decline – after all, his talk began with a focus on happiness research.

    He made no mention of this troubling and hard-to-explain finding.

    I think it’s fantastic that David – and others – now pay attention to issues relating to culture, values, happiness etc that didn’t even register on the agenda in the past.

    But it feels like the next step is to face up to *all* the research findings, and not just dwell on the easy bits, that are very digestible by anyone on the soft left, without any cognitive dissonance.

    21st century enlightenment certainly can’t be about sleepwalking onwards intellectually… ;-)

    That said, I’ve not read the book – and, as you pointed out, there’s an awful lot more in it than he had time to talk about!

    Cheers,

    Matthew

  5. Paul Hebden on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 12:06 pm

    6. Matthew,

    My definition of the Enlightenment comes down to this: Justification. I don’t think this is far away from your definitiion. The Englightenment gives us moderns a common and public position of verification from which to insist that all people accept must justify their actions, provide reasons etc.
    An Enlightened world rules out blind acceptance of capricious and arbitrary justifications, the sort of reasons deployed by absolute monarchs or the papacy.
    An Enlightened world also rules out wars based on ‘conscience’ or social solutions based on a reified idea of ‘the market.’

    I laud the achievements of the Enlightenment. But I think that too much of it has been pathologised.
    For example, what Englightenment justification can support the decision to slash university funding to fund bank re-capitalisation?

    Paul H

  6. Olivia on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 12:59 pm

    7. Something that has come out of many of the discussions at work and my own interest is that the common assumption is that enlightenment is about heading toward a point; that progress can be achieved. Isn’t it in fact the concept of constantly re-evaluating the state we are in that represents true enlightenment? We don’t have a pre-determined notion of good citizenship/the future etc, but we will always evaluate and reflect on our attempts at addressing social issues – so when one thing is achieved, we don’t accept that as done and dusted, we embody critique always in our attitude. I love the new strapline, but recognising the stigma attached to the word enlightenment; something that unfortunately it was arguably branded with as a consequence of our obsession with truth and science at the time, will be an issue.

  7. esp on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 4:38 pm

    8. I am very pleased that the RSA is explicitly associating with Enlightenment. If ever this country needed a dose of rational thinking, it is right now.
    I am interested to read Olivia’s comments and she expresses well some common concerns. So, we all have a responsibility to explain and explore how science is not actually about Absolute Truth but rather about improved understanding. The “Truths” of physics have been turned upside-down a few times in the last century or so.
    The guiding though is that wonderful quote from Isaac Asimov: “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny …’ ”

    Secondly, there is a difference between Science as an approach to understanding and The Insitutions of Science – with all the drawback and politics of any isntitution – and Scientists, who are human and not infallible.

  8. Alison Berry on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 7:39 pm

    9. I think if the RSA is going to go for a re-interpretation of the historical Enlightenment ( and I am all for it), it would be useful to look at the reaction against it that led to the rise of Romanticism in philosophy and literature in the 18th and 19th centuries. That way, we can perhaps anticipate the possible stereotyping and antagonism that the original movement provoked.

  9. Caitriona on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 9:33 pm

    10. I agree with Olivia. I like the idea of enlightenment being a state of mind and a process of continuous search to understand and shape the world for the better that is shared – in its many forms – by the Fellows, rather than you (the RSA top bods) deciding what exact shape that future better world will be.

    I like the new strapline. It combines an appropriate respect for from whence the RSA came, with a forward-looking challenge to Fellows to keep thinking and to keep re-defining where it’s going.

    And it’s not cheesy and “cool”, which would have been rubbish.

  10. David Thomson on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 10:34 pm

    11. As a Bishop and an FRSA: no problems with the Enlightenment, nor with avoiding a society based on rules handed down by Bishops, but singificant issues with a take on these that assumes that Bishops are in business to hand down rules that are necessarily in conflict with a bottom-up exercise. And unsurprisingly I would maintain that it is the existence of some built-in value structure to the way things are that means that we can discover and achieve worthwhile value and achievement bottom-up, without this being reducible to a simple power struggle between one person’s take on value and another’s.

  11. Patricia on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 11:49 pm

    12. The sense that Enlightenment is about re-evaluation, reflection, exploration and progress is consistent with the claim that ‘Enlightenment is about heading toward a point’. Indeed, I think it is a mistake to insist that there is a big mystery or conundrum surrounding the problem of pre-determining or defining the goal of Enlightenment. In some ways Matthew did a good job speaking of ‘a good way to live one’s life [which] does not rely on rules handed down by kings or bishops but can be derived from an account of the kind of society in which we want to live and the kind of people we are and have the capacity to be’. Although perhaps one could use a much shorter paraphrase – it is all about ‘the unlimited and universal participation of all in the consensual generation of the principles governing public life’ (with all the connotations of building reciprocity through self-reliance).

    The problem is not that the goal of the project of Enlightenment cannot be defined but rather that it is a normative ideal – that is, it stipulates a norm we should aspire to which is far from being actualised. A simple way of putting this point is that although it is goal-driven or telos–oriented, the project of Enlightenment, or Modernity as some like to call it, remains incomplete.

    A combination of the remoteness and intangibility of this goal together with the empirical critique that the project of Enlightenment misfired and culminated in some kind of a nightmare of technocratic/instrumental distopia accounts for the problem of ‘incentivising’ people to act on the principle of Enlightenment you identify Matthew when you talk about the crisis approach to social change.

    Enlightenment did indeed leave its promises unfulfilled. This however, rather than providing a motivation to give up its goal, should be an incentive to address and cure some of the most obvious pathologies which emerged over the last 200 years (here, most apparently, the problems of the capitalist market and the bureaucratic state apparatus escaping the intuitive grasp of everyday life and the increasing specialization of the domains of science, morality, and art which cut people adrift from their cultural tradition). It is precisely the point about requiring more rather than less. To give up on the project would be tantamount to giving up on the aspiration to a form of mutuality and reciprocity in our society that could be premised upon genuine autonomy of human beings rather than servitude and absolutism imposed by a few on the many.

    It is a great thing that the RSA is taking on board the task of completing the incomplete project of Enlightenment. Both from the point of view of the future of the project and the aptness of the alleged ‘re-branding’ of the RSA – perhaps you could co-opt not just the key word ‘Enlightenment’ but also this following motto as a statement of your mission: to persist with ‘the extravagant expectation that the arts and sciences [will] not merely promote the control of the forces of nature, but also further the understanding of self and world, the progress of morality, justice in social institutions, and even human happiness’.

  12. Enlightened on Wed, 10th Feb 2010 11:59 am

    13. Is this a joke?

    The Church of the RSA : 21st Century Enlightenment
    “Join us and walk into the light”

    “This has emerged from a pretty extensive conversation involving RSA staff and Trustees and is based on research with Fellows and partners”
    I find it hard to believe this ‘tag line’ is the result of serious conversation across your membership. Do you have figures (how many took part) and documents (methods, conclusions and content) or links (to the online contributions)?

    The comments here already indicate a massive difference in interpretation and level of ease with this. Did noone in the congregation realise 21st Century Enlightenment sounds like a Christian science church in deep south US?
    Did noone realise that ‘enlightenment’ isn’t really a time related activity e.g. would the Buddha still be enlightened now or does he need to update? Perhaps we need monthly or yearly enlightenment statements e.g. Enlightenment for February 2010

    Wouldn’t you be best expressing this supposed enlightenment? Starting with an enlightened process for openly and creatively sourcing a tag line and meaning?

    Haven’t seen a tag line so inappropriate and trite for some time, may as well be

    B&Q – 23rd Century Enlightened – babble.

  13. esp on Wed, 10th Feb 2010 4:24 pm

    14. Re: 1.Enlightened on Wed, 10th Feb 2010 11:59 am

    Blimey, “Enlightened”, that’s a bit harsh! I think a fair proportion of the intended audience aren’t likely to mistake Enlightenment for Endarkenment!
    Anyway, as I said above, the RSA may need to make an effort to explain some aspects to people.
    But Enlightenment is absolutely correct for the RSA and, whilst consultation is a Good Thing, choosing straplines isn’t a matter of democracy but of expertise. In fact, I’d urge the RSA to make it much more central than just a strapline.

  14. matthewtaylor on Wed, 10th Feb 2010 7:25 pm

    15. This is a great conversation. Even ‘enlightened”s comments are thought provoking if slightly OTT. BTW, David, I meant no slight on Bishops!

    It is important, I think, to remember two points.

    First, that the RSA brand is currently a handicap externally. People think we are an arts organisation or want to know why we aren’t doing more projects on manufacturing (we have arts and economic projects but we do lots more too).

    Second no strap line is perfect. The alternatives we came up with to 21st CE all sounded too generic to me – things like ‘thinking into action’ or ‘ideas for a better world’. I like the way 21CE has started this kind of debate; is progress about the pursuit of an ideal or a process of continual inquiry, is enlightenment about truth or the understanding that truth is merely the word we give to today’s incomplete knowledge; how would we make the ideals of enlightenment real in our day to day work?

    We always hoped that one of the ways the strap line would get noticed was that it would provoke a debate. So, so far so good.

  15. Patricia on Wed, 10th Feb 2010 10:37 pm

    16. Re: David Thomson on Tue, 9th Feb 2010 10:34 pm

    Point granted that there’s no inconsistency between pursuing the project of Enlightenment and being committed to the claim that there is a value structure which should command universal respect. The question is whether this hierarchy of values is written into the order of things (latently waiting for men to stumble upon in a Eureka moment); or whether it is a product of human interaction. It seems that the latter fits better with the ethos of Enlightenment but the point to stress here is that it does not follow that if a value system is not objective it is automatically subjective. If one takes ‘the consensual generation of the principles governing public life’ seriously enough, the intersubjective validity of values one strives to achieve belies the suggestion of ‘a simple power struggle between one person’s take on value and another’s’.

    Re: Enlightened on Wed, 10th Feb 2010 11:59 am

    Perhaps you would prefer the tagline ‘postmodern cynicism’?

  16. Enlightened on Wed, 10th Feb 2010 11:34 pm

    17. All things considered it appears a lazy, inaccurate and conceited strap line.

    Again I’d be interested in how it was actually decided upon, who was involved and what 21st century enlightened thinking and technology fuelled its methods.

    I’m not sure constructive feedback ;) and a question is the same as cynicism
    I’m not sure this tag line will be of beneficial widespread appeal (to the young for example)
    I’m not sure to proclaim 21st century enlightenment is exactly the RSA’s position (it needs to reach out not proclaim superiority)
    I’m not sure the enlightenment period of history can be readily transferred to a modern day evolution – I suspect Descarte and Hume aren’t on facebook ;)
    I’m also not sure that my interest or opinion can have any effect on a decision already made
    I’m not sure how in the context of 21st century enlightenment Tony Blairs christian faith lectures for example will be perceived (both from a philosophical point – enlightenment period characterised independence from organised politics and religion – and from an adjective point of view – that TB’s Faith lecture tour represents ’21st century enlightenment’?)
    I’m finally not sure that any reaction or attention is good. This any press is good press idea doesn’t work for me. I for one, am being seriously put off the RSA – and I’m enlightened!!! :)

    I am sure that the membership summarising the identity and vision can play a powerful role in achieving some exciting aims. Fellows need a sense of ownership, inspiration and pride in how the RSA presents itself to the world and work with others to achieve our aims?

    Something seems to be missing here in how the membership are being galvanised and how it is then being defined. But I am enlightened enough not to care :)

  17. Brenton Holmes on Sun, 14th Feb 2010 11:57 pm

    18. Have just made my first antipodean link with Matthew’s blog. Like what I see. Found myself trawling back through past posts. Enlightening all. If Brits are interested in what’s happening in Australia, a good place to start is Australian Policy Online, a site that weekly summarises newly published reports, articles etc. across a range of policy arenas. Go to http://www.apo.org.au

  18. Choosing Peace « RSA Comment on Mon, 21st Feb 2011 11:16 am

    19. [...] Taylor, in his stirring paper asserts that the ideal of the good life ‘can be derived from an account of the kind of society in [...]

  19. Albert de Pétigny on Sun, 1st May 2011 11:06 am

    20. Regarding 21st century enlightenment, I’ve found today your essai dated june 2010 and your annual lecture posted june 17th on Youtube.
    I was wondering if there were French translations of those ?

    http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/315002/RSA_21centuryenlightenment_essay1_matthewtaylor.pdf

    Thanks in advance for your response.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!