Thought Economics

Photography

2015-05-19T14:55:00.000+01:00

Is Humanity Defined By Its Images?

In this exclusive interview series, we speak to David Bailey CBE, Albert Watson and Peter Lik (three of the world’s greatest photographers), HRH Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands (Patron of the World Press Photo Foundation) and Professor Francis Hodgson (Co-Founder of the Pictet Prize). We discuss the powerful role of photography in culture, arts and communication; and examine the true nature of the photograph, the photographer and- in the process- ourselves.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, May 2015

The history of human culture is a paradoxical epic, flowing in a series of ebbs, spurts and leaps, yet tied together with a singular narrative, hooked around two significant plot twists. Firstly, the invention of linear writing, and secondly, the image… This connection between writing and the image is perhaps why it is no accident that the word photography itself is derived from the Greek words ‘phos’ (for light) and ‘grapho’ (for writing).

“Images are significant surfaces…. Images signify- mainly- something ‘out there’ in space and time that they have to make comprehensible to us as abstractions (as reductions of the four dimensions of space and time to the two surface dimensions)” writes Vilém Flusser. “Images are mediations between the world and human beings. Human beings ‘ex-ist,’ i.e. the world is not immediately accessible to them and therefore images are needed to make it comprehensible.” (Towards a Philosophy of Photography, 1983). This may seem overly philosophical, but we cannot underestimate the cultural significance of a picture. “When we look at a photograph,” writes Dawn Phillips “knowing that it is a photograph, we have a distinctive kind of experience: a visual confrontation with remote but actual objects and events. We scrutinise a photograph with a sense that we are scrutinising the actual objects themselves, although they are distanced from us in time and space. In this way, photographs enable us to gain information, to recollect details, learn new facts and correct mistakes. They can stimulate feelings of delight and disgust. They can cause us to react with shock or sympathy, surprise or recognition. They often sustain attitudes of curiosity, nostalgia and desire; but also an attitude of indifference. These experiences have special epistemic and affective status because they can legitimately be understood as responses to real objects and events.” (Fixing the Image: Rethinking the mind-dependence of photographs, Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics Vol 6. No.2, August 2009).

It was c.1826 when the first known photograph was taken, as an experiment, by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, of the view from an upstairs window at his estate. This experiment has been succeeded by billions of deliberate acts of recording moments, from the utterly mundane to the unquestionably significant (such as pictures we receive from conflicts and from explorations). Each one takes us on a journey, from an insight into someone’s daily routine to the sense that we are standing right there, on the surface of the Moon, being one of the first two human beings to observe Earth from another celestial body. Each experience is different, but neither is more or less significant than the other.

If ever you doubted the importance of photography, it is estimated that humanity conservatively generates and shares over 700 billion individual photographs per year on the Internet alone. This mix of images manifests as cultural ephemera, art, science and journalism but each represents the fact that “…photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event.” (Henri Cartier-Bresson). So how then, can we define the role of photography in human culture?

In this exclusive interview series, we speak to David Bailey CBE, Albert Watson, and Peter Lik (three of the world’s greatest photographers), HRH Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands (Patron of the World Press Photo Foundation) and Professor Francis Hodgson (Co-Founder of the Pictet Prize). We discuss the powerful role of photography in culture, arts and communication; and examine the true nature of the photograph, the photographer and- in the process- ourselves.

Considered one of the pioneers of contemporary photography, David Bailey is credited with photographing some of the most compelling images of the last five decades. He first rose to fame making stars of a new generation of models including Jean Shrimpton and Penelope Tree. Since then his work has never failed to impress and inspire critics and admirers alike, capturing iconic images of legends such as: The Rolling Stones, the Kray twins, Damien Hirst and Kate Moss, these simple yet powerful black and white images have become a genre in their own right.

Albert Watson has made his mark as one of the world's most successful fashion and commercial photographers during the last four decades, while creating his own art along the way. Over the years, his striking images have appeared on more than 100 covers of Vogue around the world and been featured in countless other publications, from Rolling Stone to Time to Vibe - many of the photographs are iconic portraits of rock stars, rappers, actors and other celebrities. Watson also has created the photography for hundreds of successful advertising campaigns for major corporations, such as Prada, the Gap, Levi's, Revlon and Chanel, and he has directed many TV commercials and shot dozens of posters for major Hollywood movies. All the while, Watson has spent much of his time working on personal projects, creating stunning images from his travels and interests, from Marrakech to Las Vegas to the Orkneys. Much of this work, along with his well-known portraits and fashion photographs, has been featured in museum and gallery shows worldwide.

Peter Lik has spent over 30 years pushing the boundaries of fine art. A self-taught pioneer in the field of landscape photography, he has become synonymous with pristine images of cascading waterfalls, ethereal mountain peaks and peaceful desert canyons.

In 2014, Peter shattered all world records by selling the most expensive photograph in history. "Phantom," his black & white masterwork depicting a ghostlike image at Antelope Canyon, was acquired for an astounding $6.5 million. To accompany this sale, Peter's images "Illusion" and "Eternal Moods" were also acquired for $2.4 million and $1.1 million, respectively. Along with his sale of "One" for $1 million in 2010, Peter now holds four spots out of the top twenty most expensive photographs ever sold. These historic acquisitions not only gained Peter international acclaim, they secured his position as a leader in the field of fine art photography. Amongst the hundreds of prestigious accolades and merits garnered over the years, Peter has been awarded the title of Master Photographer from both the Australian Institute of Professional Photography (AIPP) and Professional Photographers of America (PPA). He has also been awarded fellowships from the British Institute of Professional Photographers (BIPP) and The Royal Photographic Society (RPS). Lik's masterworks include "Pele's Whisper," "Sacred Sunrise," "Eternal Beauty" and the highly acclaimed "Ghost." He has sold upwards of $500 million of artwork to his many valued collectors, including royalty, presidents and celebrities. Peter's images can be viewed in luxurious hotels, prominent estates, leading corporate offices and in all of his galleries around the United States.

Constantijn Christof Frederik Aschwin Prince of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Esquire of Amsberg was born on October 11, 1969 in Utrecht, the third son of Princess Beatrix and Prince Claus. Prince has two brothers, King Willem-Alexander (1967) and Prince Friso (1968-2013). Since 2008, His Royal Highness Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands is the royal patron of the World Press Photo foundation. World Press Photo is an independent, non-profit organization based in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Founded in 1955 the organization is known for holding the world's largest and most prestigious annual press photography contest.

Francis Hodgson is an internationally recognised critical writer on photography. He studied history at Oxford before completing an MA in Museum and Gallery Management at the City University in London. His dissertation was on UK photographic institutions. Hodgson has separately held a number of senior posts in businesses centred upon the photograph: he has been the Head of the Photographs Department at Sotheby’s auction house and creative director of Photonica and Image Source (both large commercial photo-libraries). Hodgson is a co-founder of the leading photography prize the Prix Pictet (on which he has twice served as chairman of the panel of judges). He has also been the chairman of judges on the Sony World Photography Awards, judged the Jerwood Awards, D&AD, British Journal of Photography Awards and AoP awards among others. He has recently been appointed as Professor in the Culture of Photography at the University of Brighton, his first academic position.

Q: Why does photography matter?

[HRH Prince Constantijn] Photography has brought the world closer and at the same time widened our horizons. It can be highly aesthetic as well as troubling and confrontational. And whereas the images we see are reflections of a frozen moment in time they are also universal, and make us stop, look, and reflect.

Q: Why do we take photographs?

[Prof. Francis Hodgson] We take photographs because we can. Photography is a simple technology, a refinement by hundreds of actors over time of a magical piece of Victorian tinkering. In essence, photography freezes vision. That in turn allows us better to contemplate the world at the human speed which is quite slow. I read somewhere that certain hawks have vision as good as 20/2, some eight times more acute than human sight. Goshawks probably don't need to freeze vision in order to make sense of it. Humans do; and once the technology was available, we availed ourselves of the ability whenever we could.

The magic, by the way, is not necessarily that certain materials are light sensitive. The magic was being able to freeze that. If your kids leave a tent out on the lawn for any length of time a pale shape will show where the sun was prevented from reaching the grass. Same with a watch-strap preventing the sun from tanning your wrist. That's not very exciting until you can find some way of freezing that effect after the tent or watch has gone. That's what the early photographers did. Once you had that – once, in effect ¬you had parcels of portable sight – you could compare one to another, you could compare one to real life elsewhere and so on. Photography allows us to think about the world. It starts with that most empirical of certainties: I can see that. Of course we know that not all photographs speak the literal truth, far from it. No matter how many times we see tricked or wrong photographic versions of the truth, we cannot shake the base conviction. I see it. It may not be right, and that needs explanation or solution. But I see it. And the particular trick of photography? I still see it, even though it's not there any more.

Q: What is the role of photography culture?

[David Bailey] Photography was the first great recording, allowing people to record the moment. The moment is the only thing you’ve got when you think about it… As we’re talking now, we’re already history, but a photograph can turn it into a moment.

Forget all the art sh** and all that nonsense, people keep albums to keep memories alive. Your brain can’t cope with all your memories, as you get older, your hard drive gets overloaded. If you see a snap from the 1970s or whatever, you might think ‘oh, I remember that moment!’ but if you didn’t have it? The moment would have been gone forever, and nobody would remember it.

Photography is a great moment-taker, much more than movies….

[Albert Watson] Asking the role of photography in culture, is like asking the same question of an art-form like painting. You can have pop-art and many other genres, and even see distinct differences between periods of the same artist like Gaugin, for example; and each of these will have a different emotional impact on you.

The one interesting thing about photography, and why I think it has such mass-appeal, is that it’s very easy to understand. You can take different things out of a photograph, and have different interpretations, but for the majority of photography you will find that the majority of people understand what it is. Regardless of whether it’s a Cartier-Bresson, Avedon, Adams or otherwise, people can still tell what it is, understand it and appreciate it very much. The average person can understand photography to a high degree. Obviously, the more information you have and the more knowledge of art you have, the more you may be able to take out of the picture… If you take somebody from the middle of nowhere and put them in a 3* Michelin, they may like it and say it was pretty good however, you can take a gourmet food-critic to the same restaurant and he will take something else out of it. There are different levels of appreciation and understanding in food, art, photography and all parts of culture.

[Peter Lik] Photography is like any other art form – it is all about communicating a message. It is there to remind us of something, teach us something and even create emotion. Taking pictures is also an important way to stay connected to something or someplace when we are elsewhere. We love the art form because it uses very real subject matter and translates an idea through imagery in a way that we could never experience with the naked eye.

[Prof. Francis Hodgson] The literate of today is literate in pop music and films and advertisements and design and food and maybe football, too. Among all that, photography lies at the centre. Photography, by its accessibility has been a great democratizing tool. Who needs a mandarinate with such a simple communication tool of such power to everybody's hand?

I suppose my view is that photography is our culture. There used to be three relatively large industries implicitly derived from photography : making cameras, making film, and processing and developing. Now, as those industries have atrophied, another group of even larger industries is unthinkable without photography, though photography itself is not their business. Pop music, so largely devoted to that word 'image'. Politics, vast swathes of the travel business, fashion, even publishing. Advertising, of course. For all of them, photography is not the prime product nor even necessarily a very important product. Yet all of them are unthinkable without the central role of photography. Apple does not ask us to think of itself as a camera-manufacturer; yet every smart-phone is a camera, as we know. Apple doesn't ask us to think of itself as a processing and developing firm; yet every smart-phone user distributes pictures through them. Photographs have always been regarded as culturally marginal – in my view quite wrongly. Here the phenomenon is repeated in its new guise. Photographs are central in these large businesses even though they are not photographic businesses.

It's a very odd fact that photography has remained very largely a cottage industry of many small producers, even as other cultural production has been rapidly agglomerated. In spite of Getty images (and its imitator, Corbis), brilliant agglomerators if ever there were, corporate control of photography remains slight. Think of newspaper reviewing, something I have done through all my career. If you review opera, or books, or the theatre, or dance, or pop music, or television, or films, you deal with a number of monolithic houses which exert a remarkable control over all production, even if they don't quite own it all.

In photography, that is not so. Photographs are produced everywhere, distributed almost by seepage. 'Famous' ones are not really distributed much more than vulgar or meretricious ones. See only the tidal waves that pass on the internet every so often, for cat-bearding, or hamuketsu if you doubt it. Very few photographs are produced as cultural artefacts and consumed as such.

They have become central to identity, memory, activism of various kinds. The desire to be clear about who one is and how one would like the world to be - these things are now articulated in photographic terms. Or perhaps in photographic terms first.

Q: Why has photography become such an appealing art-form?

[David Bailey] Photography has become appealing because it’s so easy! That won’t make you Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon, but you may think you are! People can mess-about with images on Photoshop, and kid themselves that they’re artists. Photography has to be art if it’s gonna’ be any good.

[Prof. Francis Hodgson] We're only really just beginning to shake the notion of art out of photography. The historiography of photography has largely been written until fairly recently in terms borrowed from art-history. One can say ( I do say ) that photography is at the very core of every development in art certainly since the latter third of the nineteenth century. Some artists have run away from it, others have embraced it. None has been able to ignore it or to remain indifferent to it. I remember a major exhibition at the Royal Academy in 1989, celebrating the hundred-and-fiftieth 'official' anniversary of photography. The Academy sent out press releases congratulating itself on its daring in showing photography seriously for the first time. In 1989 ! I wrote a snippy little article saying that every single one of the artists they had shown in those hundred-and-fifty years had been passionately, obsessively involved in photography even if they had never held a camera. The Academy was hopelessly late, not daringly early. Photography is the core of our visual culture. Ask not how it relates to art. Ask rather how art relates to it.

At the opening of that same Royal Academy show, the great English documentary photographer Ian Macdonald stood up and made a very plain speech. Among other good things, he said this:

"Two of the most obvious things about photographs intrigue me, their stillness and silence; these are for me also their major strengths. Photographs, being silent and still, preclude reality other than in that most superficial sense of the representation of an apparent likeness. In precluding reality they fall into the realm of myth, where everyone is free to invent by association as they see fit, for the meaning of each photograph is conditioned by those personal experiences the onlooker takes to viewing each image. This makes many types of photograph universally accessible. It follows that it is close to impossible even to contemplate the irrelevant notion, which is, are photographs Art? As Paul Strand so succinctly stated 'All painting is not art'".

The principal approach to photography has ignored that sound sense. For years, photographs have been shown in exhibitions and sequenced in monographs as though they were watercolours. Throw your mind back a few years to recall that news pictures or commercial pictures or scientific pictures or sports pictures or family albums used not to be considered quite respectable until the book or the exhibition had appeared; as though, in fact, photography had to borrow the old Victorian habit of the media it had so comprehensively blown out of the water as cutting-edge and modern. Certainly, vernacular photographs of every kind flew under the radar. The truth is that photography itself has taken our old notions of aesthetics and thrown them up in the air. As I wrote some time ago, ugliness and horror and pain and squalor slide onto light-sensitive paper just easily as grace and harmony. Who cares, in the end, quite how this Protean medium deals with the finer points of limited editions or sales to collectors or canons of star names? Photography represents visual thinking. In the end, it is not only aesthetics that photography turned arsey-turvey. Communication itself has been re-shaped by photography. We live in the post-photographic world.

Q: What is the purpose of the photograph (as an artifact)?

[Peter Lik] For me, the purpose of the photograph is to keep an image present and tangible. There are some scenes that just beg to be photographed – at least that’s why I do what I do. The beauty of Mother Nature needs to be shared. My role is to capture beauty in a way that will translate and hopefully affect the viewer. Everyone plays that game when they are a kid and you look up at the clouds and see all sorts of different faces and objects – but everyone sees something different. Part of being a photographer is the challenge of getting across what you personally see in a single frame. I think people are most drawn to the photographs that are very successful in that way.

[Prof. Francis Hodgson] To be interested in photography itself is by definition to be interested in everything. It's not just that everything can somehow be photographed. It's also that in photography we invented many of the ways of thinking which are characteristic of the era. For example, it was in photography that we first found that we could habitually experience something without analysis. The repercussions of that are huge. The modern political sound-bite, for example, is received as a photograph. It is aural, not visual, but it plainly traces its ancestry back to the photograph. To rub up against experience and to keep the choice whether to make something of it or to pass on by, that may be the true legacy of photography . All over the contemporary cultural map, we see ways in which we are exposed to experience without having to make sense of it. Video games and the cinema, of course have that, direct descendants of photography as they are. But even the modern experience of driving a car seems to be post-photographic. Many writers have noticed the distancing effect of driving along on one's own upholstery, listening to one's own music on the stereo, watching the world process silently by on a large screen ahead. Cars are the way they are for all sorts of reasons. But we experience driving them in ways of thought learnt in photographs.

The very odd thing is that nothing has proved resistant to photography. I know of no field which once photography had made inroads into it was not hugely altered by that fact. Indeed, a terrific recent book which came out of a project at the Smithsonian is simply called Photography Changes Everything. One of the examples there concerns ophthalmology. "When ophthalmic photography went from being documentary to diagnostic it changed the practice of ophthalmology and subsequently saved the vision of millions of people worldwide." That's a very photographic story, repeated often. Photography arrives somewhere a useful tool. Sooner or later the field is radically upheaved by photography. The history of photography is the history of a continuous uninterrupted expansion; constant boom, like the Big Bang. Photography is successful in the Darwinian sense. It adapts easily to new uses and roles. Every circumstance is a field for photography. New technology comes along, and for a while voices are heard, "That's it, photography is over…" It's still here, more than ever.

The photograph itself corresponds so well to all of that that it's almost uncanny. Small, cheap, light, portable, reproducible….If a camera can be pointed at anything, then a photograph matches that by being able to be shown to anyone. Photographs are as nearly as anything in the world transcultural, transnational. They slide onto screens more nearly unchanged than most kinds of imagery. Graspable by a four-year old or by a university professor, photographs remain around the world as a mulch of things seen. Of course many of them are probably not very interesting in their own right – until someone decides to be interested in them. When that happens, they all are. Anyone can be an editor with photographs. Increasingly, with the explosion in digital photography, everyone is. For a teenage boy to tear a picture of a model or a singer out of a magazine and pin it to the back of his bedroom door is an act of curatorship every bit as justifiable as for a major department head to go three times before her acquisitions board to ask for a huge sum for a masterpiece. The photograph respects no boundaries, knows no restrictions. It's an invitation to think (whether that may be to argue or dream or catalogue) from which no one is barred.

Q: What is the essence of a great photograph?

[David Bailey] Photography is not an art, like painting is not an art, and it depends on whether the person doing it is an artist or not.

You need to have it in your genes, you can’t teach art. You can teach techniques, and with photography that’s the trouble- you have people that are technically good and that overshadows the art. There’s a snobbery about photography because it’s so easy to do, but people don’t realise; so is drawing. A bad drawing tells you more about the person than a bad photograph… A bad photograph is a recording machine, but a bad drawing is someone’s bad drawing.

There are many millions of people are out there taking pictures, and very few float to the surface… it’s always been like that. Even in something as superficial as modelling, there’s only ever 10 great ones in the world at any given moment. You can’t explain someone like Kate Moss… maybe she’s not the most beautiful girl in the world, but she’s the most photogenic girl in the world… but you can’t explain it, and that’s what makes it so interesting.

It’s like meeting your heroes, often it leaves you with regrets (well, I don’t do regrets!)… I slightly regret the fact that I never photographed Picasso, but on the other hand; suppose I walked into his studio and there he was, and he farted! It would be terrible for me, because he changed my life! Now this old, balding fat man farts! I didn’t want to meet him, I wanted to keep him where he was. My two biggest influences are Disney and Picasso…

[Peter Lik] I don’t know. It is a question that is almost too impossible to answer. There are just certain images that people are drawn to for a variety of reasons. A simple answer is that if someone thinks it is “great” then it is – because it is to that person. Even with all the talent, timing, luck, experience and solid gear in the world, there is still no guarantee that you are going to come up with a shot within the realm of greatness. For me, I have literally put myself out there every single day for over thirty years. When you have that much dedication the odds start to swing in your favour and a few really good things have come out of that. Good old-fashioned hard work is the best way to get there. No doubt at all.

[Prof. Francis Hodgson] Photography does borrow solid old-fashioned habits. Composition, tonal range, 'interest' evenly spread across the plane, verisimilitude, legibility….these are not much different to those prevailing in much older imaging systems. But the fantastically effective message-carrying ability of photographs is not only bound in with those. We see photographs, but we also read photographs, if given half a chance.

For a long time I have struggled with the idea that the principal difficulty photographers must overcome if they wish to convey complex messages is that of holding the eye of the viewer on the page for long enough. Photographs, we know, can carry wonderfully sophisticated and subtle messages. But they can't do that if that the viewer sees them in one gobbet, and is gone. Photographs are swiftly graspable for their base content. As conveyors of one-liners, they are unequalled. Buy this. Hate that. Here's Nana. He did it… But a viewer once invited to linger upon them, can get much, much more through them. So a photographer who takes the trouble to use in a picture all the resources of his accumulated visual culture to lead a viewer around the elements of the picture in the way he wants them to be led can expect that viewer to follow an argument, be persuaded of a belief, be referred to a previous cultural position – and so on. There is nothing that words can do that photographs can't. Parody, description, wit, allusion and reference, different 'voices', narrative … all of it. If only a photographer can slow the eye down long enough, all of that is possible within photography. Some do it by making the surface less slippery: by building in surfaces of their own under the slick, skiddy, eye-repelling surface of 'normal' photographic objects. Others do it by composition. Others again by reference to what the viewer already knows. Greatness in photography does not lie only in great skill. It lies in great skill in the service of great messages. I suppose I think that a great photographer at the height of her powers is not merely a wonderful catcher of the world, but a great communicator. Certainly, a very fine photograph with nothing to say is not a very fine photograph.

Q: What is the role of the photographer?

[Prof. Francis Hodgson] If you follow the line that photography is a branch of art-history, the role of the photographer is easy and plain to describe: a specialist kind of (usually realist) artist, equipped with certain kinds of light sensitive equipment, and with a specific visual cultural background. There has for a long time been a peculiar slipperiness to photographs. We got used to the idea that the same picture might mean powerfully different things according to the context in which it was found. A news picture became something very different on gallery walls, that was the standard example. So then one asked about the original purpose of the photographer, and answered as one could.

If , on the other hand, you don't limit yourself to that art-historical line then the question is much more difficult. My own view, over a number of fairly recent years, has inclined towards there being a rift so huge in the middle of 'photography' that we need new language to describe it. For me, the number of practitioners who are actively concerned with the past culture of photography – who situate themselves in some line of development within it, whose work is in some way a critique of work they know to have preceded them, and who address themselves to audiences consciously interested in photography – is diminishing fast. For those, I propose to reserve the word 'photographer'. For the others, the millions and millions for whom photography is a rapid, effective transcription or message-passing system, essentially neutral and not really to be thought about in its own right except in so far as it serves the purposes it is applied to, I propose to use the phrase 'camera operator'. The distinction is borrowed from the cinema, of course, where the industry has had no great difficulty separating out the role of the imaginative, creative, cultured cinematographer from the technical, effective, role of the operator.

In Britain today, and I suppose pretty much elsewhere, it is standard for the traffic wardens who ticket your car for being wrongly parked to take many dozens of pictures a day to be used in evidence. They are not amateur productions: the job of the people making them is intrinsically bound to their effectiveness in making those pictures. In fact, those pictures have by definition to be good enough to stand up in court. Yet those traffic wardens are not remotely interested in photography, nor are they expecting their audience to take any interest in the making of the photographs they produce, but only in what they depict. In the jargon, they are making photographs to be transparent. In my coinage, they are camera operators, not photographers, even though their use of photography is so deliberate, serious, and professional.

It used to be that a top commercial photographer was definitely in the former category. She was trusted as a creative artist to represent the brand's purported values. The photographer was a kind of creative director or a design consultant whose style and manner were as much in the hire as her control of cameras and lights. But that has changed immeasurably. As commercial clients have become more anxious to control every detail of the messages they send out, and as the costs of error have multiplied enormously, so it has become more usual for the photographer's leash to be tightened and tightened. The commercial photographer won't be a photographer for long ( saving exceptions ). She'll be a camera operator, controlled by agency representatives and client representatives physically present in the studios, looking shot by shot at Mac screens.

More and more fields like that, formerly clear zones of photography, will become zones of camera operation.

But all photographs are interesting once somebody has become interested in them. So my construction goes one step farther. Much of the impact of photographs is not down to the photographer, but to the editors, curators, picture editors, picture researchers, designers … who use them, down to and including that boy who tore a picture of a singer to put on his bedroom door. We're all editors, now. If we are online, we wallow in a giant archive, all the time. I suspect it was always true that the great photographs were the ones somebody had described as great. Now, that's obviously the case. Put pictures together – any pictures – in a sensible way, and you have a communication package ( if I can call it that ) not dreamt by the photographer. Whether it's rescuing supposedly naïve vernacular photographs for sophisticated ethnographic or anthropological ends, or merely putting 'nice' kitchens on Pinterest, the grammar and syntax of picture-editing and curation are now available to everyone, as the vocabulary of making pictures has been for some time.

It may be that one day photography in the sense I've outlined will have reverted to a kind of museum art-form, practised by a few archaeologising specialists in vintage materials and processes. But the ability to archive ( the privilege of archiving ) will not cease to be available to wider and wider groups.

Q: What’s the role of aesthetic and beauty in photography?

[David Bailey] Of course photography has an aesthetic and beauty, if you’re an artist. It’s only a paintbrush! I paint, take pictures and make bronzes, there’s no difference for me… It’s making an image of something you haven’t seen before.

Copying is the worst thing you can do though; actually… there’s one thing worse than copying another artist, and that’s copying yourself. That really is disaster, it means you’ve got nowhere to go… Nobody knows how they’re going to continue inventing something new, if I did? I’d fu****g go to Samsung and bottle it!

You need the accidental to make art, and that’s why digital isn’t so good.

[Albert Watson] For me, a photograph is there to represent minimalism, memorability and simplicity. If I mention a photo that I’ve done, in less than a second you will register that image and remember it, and almost give me a description of that image. For example, the Steve Jobs image that I did for the cover of his book or a movie poster for something like Kill Bill with Uma Thurman and a sword!

Simplicity enables you to remember a picture carefully. It’s something I strive for, but I’m not saying it’s the essential ingredient. There is a photograph by Cartier-Bresson for example, of a family on a Sunday having a picnic by the Seine. It’s much harder to describe that picture, it was shot from the back, they were sat on a grassy bank with the river in front of them, I then start to wonder what they were eating, what the table-cloth was and so forth. There are complex photos that are important, but I’m saying that simplicity and power are something that I’m quite interested in. I don’t always achieve it, but I continue trying.

I have been involved in many different types of photography, and if you take one of my books such as ‘Cyclops’ you could be on a page looking at a still-life of Elvis Presley’s suit, and then turn the page and see prisoners at Louisiana penitentiary and then see Haute Couture in Paris. I’ve always had different projects. I’ve always done still-life, I’ve always done landscape, I’ve always done celebrity portraits, fashion and so on. The smallest component is maybe reportage, but I still have quite a lot of that also.

I trained firstly as a graphic designer at what used to be called St. Anne’s University in Dundee, which is now Dundee University, and at the time took photography as a craft project. After this, I went to the Royal College of Art in London in 1960s which- at the time- was a 3 year course, and attended film school. I had seven years of art training there, specialising in graphic design with craft subject of photography- and onto film school where I wanted to be a director. If you put these components together, you can analyse all the pictures I’ve done, and drop them into the category of film, graphics or a combination of those two.

A classic graphic piece for example, maybe a monkey with a gun, it’s not just pure graphics; but graphics combined with a concept. You have to come up with the idea to start with of portraying a monkey with a gun, and then come up with the solution- which is the graphic itself.

[Peter Lik] Photography does have its own beauty. Capturing the moment is important but how it is captured and then produced is what really takes it to an artistic level. After doing this for over 30 years I have learned so much about looking at a scene with the naked eye and understanding how to recreate it through the lens. You gotta consider light, shadow, colour, time of day, texture, angles, formats (panoramic or otherwise), and an overall unique perspective that sets it apart from any other photograph. Before I release any image, it must call back to the moment I snapped the shutter. It’s never about just capturing the moment – it’s also about capturing the feeling you had at the moment. The way you felt when you saw it for the first time. That’s the beautiful part.

Anyone that knows anything about me knows that I see Mother Nature and beauty as synonymous. There is nothing sad or ugly about her. Maybe it’s the ultimate innocence and that’s what beauty is to me. I’ve often said that she is the artist and I’m just there to capture her work. There’s also the old saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That line has stood the test of time because it has always been and always will be totally true. There is no possible way for me to say exactly why any particular image or scene will captivate me – and even if I did know why, it would not be the same reason for the next one I encounter. If something has the right aesthetic it just speaks to me – to my soul.

[HRH Prince Constantijn] Photography is as rich as humanity. There are so many purposes, subjects, colors, angles. Endless choices make the medium so interesting. From pure aesthetics to raw depiction of reality. From a selfie to a staged setting. Digital technology and distribution now allow new layers of expression and communication, through the reuse, combining and manipulation of images. It has further widened the medium

Q: How can photography communicate the essence of a person?

[Albert Watson] After film school, I was involved in a lot of direction and did over 500 commercials. When Steve Jobs said, “what do you want me to do?” I said, “I have a very simple idea, I know you’re scheduled for an hour, but I can get you out in 35 minutes…. [which made him very happy].” I asked him to just give me one look, and asked him to imagine sitting across a table from 20 people that are against him, and don’t want to do what he wanted to do, but told him to remember that he knows that his way is the right way, and that he will win… He said, “I can do that, I deal with it every day!” Consequently, he did the look, and was unblinking at the camera, and didn’t hesitate; he was direct and that’s when I took the shot.

There’s some more background to this too. Steve Jobs challenged the fact that I was shooting on film and not digital! I was shooting on a 4x5 camera, which is quite old-fashioned and has bellows on it. It’s quite a long-lens and gives you a lot of compression in the shot. Telephoto lenses tend to bring a lot of aspects of the face onto the same plane by compressing the face; not so much to distort it, but somehow making it’s aspects more immediate to the camera. Part of the look of the shot was due to that. For elements like that, you don’t want the subject to be aware, that’s my job, but important nevertheless in capturing the essence of the subject.

[Peter Lik] Every time I look at a photograph, I learn more about myself. Even the photographs I don’t particularly like still help me understand my own tastes and style. When we watch a film or stare at a piece of art, all we really see is what our spirit wants to see. There is always some kind of message in there somewhere. If we take the time to examine what we are feeling and thinking at that moment we might learn volumes. A single image can change the way you view the world.

Q: What has been the relationship of technology to photography?

[David Bailey] If I go to Afghanistan, or somewhere a bit dodgy, I’ll take digital because I don’t want to fu** about getting rolls of film when I’m coming in and out of a helicopter. When I went to find the head-hunters, I wanted a camera that was serviceable and quick. That’s a different kind of photography.

If you’re going to learn photography, you need to learn film. Even though it won’t be used in the future, it’s still a good basic way of learning. It’s like the renaissance guys; most of them could draw very well… they didn’t need to! I’ve never seen a drawing of Francis Bacon. To be a great artist you don’t need to draw, but many do, it teaches you about shade and colour.

[Albert Watson] I remember many years ago when my son in the studio looking at one of my cameras. On the front of a camera you have shutter speed, f-stops, distance guides, depth of field guides and so on. He looked at me and very innocently asked if I knew what all those numbers meant…. Well, of course yes is the answer! However, for the masses; they didn’t know and weren’t quite sure what the relationship between shutter speed and aperture was. The advent of digital and mobile photography has taken all of that knowledge out of the users hands and onto the camera, it’s removed the mystery of photography and democratised it. Anyone can take a half-decent picture of the Empire State Building, Big Ben or whatever; they don’t need to worry what those numbers on the camera mean!

There is still however, a gigantic difference between amateur and professional photography. The difference is between somebody who drives to work every day, and somebody who is a grand-prix racing driver. There are many amateurs who are posting interesting things; but as far as someone who is working as a real professional, unless you are dealing with a Mozart situation (which people always like to bring up, even though there’s only been one Mozart, one Einstein, one Michelangelo, and so on…) it’s a huge gulf to cross. When you’re younger, 15,16,19,20,21 for example; you can use that argument and inspiration, ‘well, if they can do it… I can’ but an amateur photographer would have to significant work to get into the realms of a professional.

Artistically, there could be one component of an amateur that has a certain appeal without them realising what that appeal is. There are many books available, and collectors, that put together snapshots of amateur photography; and they’ve been curated with a good idea. A lot of amateur photography can look like fine-art pictures. Many may say this makes the argument null and void. You have here an amateur who can take something that a collector wants… but a lot of it is accidents and mistakes, and the naivety and primitiveness is part of the charm and appeal. With someone’s good eye who rescues that image from the garbage, they can put it on show! There was an exhibition a couple of years ago at MoMa in New York where collectors put together a beautiful exhibition of snapshots taken by unknown amateurs who didn’t know what they were doing!

[Peter Lik] Photography wouldn’t exist without technology. Without a paintbrush, a painter can’t paint. Without tools, a sculptor can’t sculpt. Without a camera, there is no photograph. Technology has advanced in every art form including photography and I totally embrace it. When I started out, there was no GPS or Google maps. I had to wait weeks sometimes just to see a handful of shots and I was lucky if I even had one good one. Now I can get a good understanding of the shot right there on the spot with my digital cameras. With modern technology I can also check weather patterns, moon phases and I don’t get lost nearly as much!

Q: What is the role of sex, love and the basic human traits in photography?

[David Bailey] I can’t see any difference between photography, art and sculpture…

You see equal sex in Caravaggio or Bernini. If you look at The Ecstasy of St. Teresa, it’s the sexiest piece of art in the world! It’s sexier than any photograph I’ve ever seen. If you’re gay? Caravaggio’s Boys is probably the sexiest thing you’ll see, he manages to make those boys look so naughty and sexy!

A woman climaxing is the most exciting thing I’ve ever seen in my life! It beats a fu****g sunset.

Q: What is the essential beauty of landscapes and cities that means we want to capture them?

[Peter Lik] Although I am more known for images found in the natural world, I am also amazed at mankind’s brilliant endeavors to decorate this planet. That’s why I love places like New York. It is this sense of awe that you get when looking at architecture on such a grand scale. Perhaps landscapes and cities are so attractive as art pieces because they are often expansive and very difficult to just grab a shot of or even see with the naked eye in their entirety. In all of my photographs, I want you to see every detail there is – whether it’s the Chrysler Building or Mount Huangshan in China. You can stare at them for hours – get lost in them. How often in your everyday life can you gaze at miles of the Great Wall or a Hawaiian coastline in total solace? These photographs take you there, to that peaceful and serene moment – away from the distractions of the day-to-day life.

Q: What is the role of photography in the press and journalism?

[HRH Prince Constantijn] The combination of photography with text, written or spoken is very powerful. One image can say more than words could ever do, but text gives context and nuance that may be missing in a photograph. A written testimony doesn’t carry the same weight of photographic proof. Together they make journalism what it is today.

Great photos have many layers. The true skill is to capture an image that tells a whole story, that conveys a sentiment, a feeling, a sensation to those who were not a witness and do not know the circumstances.

Q: What is the role of philanthropy in photography?

[HRH Prince Constantijn] Good journalism sells good newspapers. With digitization the business, the craft and the delivery are all changing, but there is still a huge need and reward for quality reporting and imagery. Philanthropy may help in this transition, to ensure good photographers get the support they need to adjust their practices and become more entrepreneurial. There are also projects and stories that may never sell but need to be recorded and communicated. Here philanthropy has a role to play, as well as in archiving, storage and digitizing images. By the way, WPP is supported by sponsors and philanthropists, but its not in itself a philanthropic organization. It is an organization that defends the highest standards in the craft and actively promotes and trains the most talented photojournalists. It is activist in the best tradition.

Q: Can photographs change the world?

[David Bailey] A photograph stopped the Vietnam War I think, the girl on fire… It’s just a press picture. That’s not art, it’s being there. Taking a picture and making a picture are two different things. I’m not saying taking a picture isn’t important, it is… if it’s the right picture, in the right place… but you can’t call it art, if there was 500 photographers stood next to you, they would all have taken the same fu****g picture. The other famous picture, of the bloke shooting a guy? Turns out it gave the wrong impression, because the bloke was a real ar** hole…

[Vikas: what about now?]There are too many people in the world. Politicians go on about petrol, but the simple thing- which is so obvious- is that there’s too many people! Eventually, the world won’t be able to take it… Scientists aren’t going to solve it, unless we can find a cheap way to go to other planets; and they’re not going to do that. It’s a bit like Easter Island, they cut down all the trees, burnt them and they were stuck on the island; and the Earth is just an island in the universe. The only other thing that could unite the human race is the discovery of aliens. [Vikas: do you think they exist?] I can only go by my common sense, which is very limited. If I met God, I wouldn’t be able to comprehend him anyway. I don’t believe in God, I believe there’s something else, maybe quantum maths, who knows, or maybe we’re the dream of Krishna, who knows, collective electricity, I don’t know what the fu** it is, and if someone showed me, I couldn’t comprehend it; my brain’s not big enough. We’ll never find out who God is, our brains just aren’t big enough! There’s a story that when Captain Cook first came into contact with Aborigines, they couldn’t see his boats because they couldn’t comprehend them.. That’s a bit like seeing God, on a lower level.

[Albert Watson] The speed of communication is growing exponentially, and photography is at the forefront of that. On a Friday night, a couple of weeks ago, I was at a restaurant in Moscow about 400 yards from where Boris Nemtsov was assassinated. I heard sirens and things like that, but assumed it was a fire or some other event. After the dinner, I got back to my hotel and put on CNN and saw the pictures of the bridge next to where I was!

If Jennifer Lawrence, in California, does a nude picture of herself and sends it to her boyfriend through the internet as little tiny electrons and pixels, a hacker can- within a few seconds can intercept that image from their computer in, say, Australia and spread it! It’s the speed of the communication that has an aspect of the power.

Photography has been around for about 150 years in it’s modern form, but never before have we had the speed of communication. It’s not just how the pictures affect you when you get them, but their immediacy.

I’m always amazed at speed. I can be in Paris reading my copy of the New York times before anyone in New York is; that’s because they publish at 4am New York time, consequently it’s 10:00am in Paris and I’m sat having breakfast reading the paper before New York has woken up. Of course photography can alter things dramatically, but it’s how fast those images disseminate across the planet that’s important.

[HRH Prince Constatijn] Not by themselves, but a photo can influence events, change behavior, make politicians amend policies, outrage a community. Photos raise awareness, expose abuse, and by doing so turn the public from unknowing bystanders into potential agents for change. They now have a choice to act or look away, but the photo disallows us to hide in innocence and ignorance.

[Prof. Francis Hodgson] I have been involved since its very beginning with the Prix Pictet, a huge prize routinely described as the largest in photography. That distributes ( and awards ) some of the most moving photography you could imagine on the broad theme of sustainable development and the environment. Year after year, we have evidence that those pictures, edited and 'creative-directed' as they are, have an extraordinarily powerful effect where they land as they tour the world. There's nothing revolutionary about it. It's the old, old documentary impulse in a more contemporary guise: do but show something clearly as it is, and you very likely show the need to change it.

Q: What would a world be like without photography?

[David Bailey] A world without photography is beyond comprehension! It’s such an important part of our lives… thinking about it though, it probably wouldn’t make much difference…. If there was no Oranges in the world, or no Coffee, or no Bananas, would it make a difference?

If there was no art in the world? Would it make a difference? If there was no religion or flag-waving, I think the world would be better. I don’t like religion and flags…

You need poetry in the world, it’s as important as food; although you can’t tell that to someone who’s starving, they’d choose the food… They wouldn’t choose an Eliot, they’d say, ‘let’s have a cheese sandwich!’ [laughs]

We’re like ants, but we have art. Ants have practicality… Art takes us out of the norm in a way. Most animals don’t seem to be artistic, but I’ve never been in the brain of a chimpanzee. I think we’re collective animals, and what we imagine tends to happen- and that’s scary. There must be a collective consciousness to make that happen, and you need the ar** hole artist to come along and say, ‘I don’t agree with that…’

[Albert Watson] I remember going to do the collections in Rome where I may have been for 2 weeks in the 1970s and early 80s. There were often a couple of days between shoots, and I was often on my own or with an assistant. On a few rare occasions, there was time to do some visiting, but after 20 years of shooting collections in Rome, you get bored of seeing the Coliseum! Sometimes you get trapped in your room, and back then you only had Italian television. Now, technology means that with sling-players, I can watch [nearly] live British TV in my living room here in New York! I have 120 channels of British Television and I can watch everything from Match of the Day to the 6 O’Clock News and record it if I want to. The difference in technology has made a huge change to availability meaning I can now be in Rome and watch whatever television I want, instantly. I can switch on and see live CNN with barely a second delay to anywhere in the world.

I remember what it was like before I had my television available to me 24/7! I used to take a lot of books with me, and was reading. I had several magazines that I’d read cover to cover. You adapt to what’s in front of you, and based on what’s available to you.

If you don’t have a smartphone to take selfies of yourself, then you don’t do it! Technology has altered our social patterns gigantically!

If you want to get a gauge of what life was like before photography? Read a Charles Dickens’ book! That was an era where photography was beginning but was still pretty brand new.

[Peter Lik] Terrible. Horrible. What would I do for a living? No one would believe the things I’ve seen in nature without the photographs to prove it! That sounds like a frustrating nightmare to me.

[HRH Prince Constantijn] I would like to rephrase this question. What will the world be like when no photograph can be trusted to convey the truth. All digital images can be easily manipulated. Where humans are inclined to believe what they see this may be a thing of the past. I don’t dare to speculate what this will do to trust in society, the legal system, politics, etc.

Q: What do you see for the future of photography?

[HRH Prince Constantijn] I am not the person to ask. All I see is that the trade changes. That the photographer becomes more important as a personality. That viewers and readers can be reached in many different ways and that there are a lot of opportunities in the traditional and new media opening up for photographers who dare to be entrepreneurial. There is always a market and an audience for creative ideas, imaginative storytelling and high quality journalism. I’d hope that the next generation and the ones that follow will continue to strive to deliver this to their audiences.

[David Bailey] I don’t give a sh** about the future of photography, if it’s not there, there’ll be something else… I don’t think photography or art is precious, the artist is precious. The people who made the gothic cathedrals are great artists, but nobody knows who they were! They were probably some of the most exciting buildings ever built, much more exciting than the pyramids… which were wonderful in their simplicity… but something about the gothic Churches is beyond imagination; a bit like in India, some of the temples are incredible, those sex temples are just breath-taking.

We need the rebel, the poet. Count Basie was asked; ‘what’s jazz?’ (it’s like asking what art is… )He replied, ‘It’s four beats to the bar and no cheating…’ I’ve lived my life like that ever since.

Q: What would be your message to the future creatives?

[David Bailey] If you want to be an artist you’re in trouble… You either are creative, or you’re not. My greatest advantage over most people is that I’m completely dyslexic, so I see the world completely different to the average person… If there was more people like me, my vision wouldn’t be so interesting!

When I was growing up, I wanted to be Chet Baker. I mucked about with photography, but I never thought it was anything to do with art, I never really thought about art. Being dyslexic, I didn’t have a choice. I had to be something to do with the visual world- movie making, or whatever.

You don’t have to be great… most art is boll***s, remember that. It’s that thing which makes us not be like ants. If you enjoy making art? Do it!

You can’t teach art. Artists should be like Shamans, they think outside the box. Most people don’t even know what the box is, so how can they get out of it?

[Albert Watson] I’ve always maintained an old-fashioned look at life. I was interested in diverse subject matter, that was personal to me. A lot of people challenged that and told me that people wouldn’t understand who I was, but I challenged that and said that it was about the photography, the work, and not me… People don’t have a problem understanding that they can switch on their TV and see the 6 O’Clock News, and that they can hit the remote and see football or an old-movie. They understand that each of those has a category and can be analysed for what it is. You don’t have to follow a convention…..

However…. Early on in my career, I would take a picture on a Monday that I thought was the Sistine Chapel, by Tuesday I wasn’t quite sure and by Wednesday it was in the bin. It was always interesting to me why I liked something so much on a Monday, and hated it by Wednesday. A lot of this was a lack of technical fluency that meant that I wasn’t able to get to the purity of what I wanted to say because I didn’t have the correct technical ability to make the image stronger. The analogy is really to make sure that people learn to drive the car before they decide where to take themselves.

Young people nowadays are faced with the difficulty of having a false perspective of age. A guy came to see me to get a job as an assistant. I saw him because someone knew him and I thought I’d give him a meeting. He turned up and was in shorts and a t-shirt and had a skate-board under his arm. It was summer time and I thought, fine I’m not expecting an assistant to come in with a suit on. By the end of the meeting he told me that he was trying to find himself, he wasn’t sure if photography was what he wanted to do, and that he was only 31! This was an astonishing statement for me. Here was someone that knew really nothing about photography, and they were 31. In our day, you could say you weren’t absolutely sure what you wanted to do at 14, and maybe that you were not sure exactly but have a rough idea at 19, but by 21 you were starting down a road towards something, you were heading in the direction of your goal. Young people today think they’ll be playing tennis at 120 years old! Its not going to happen unless there’s some ridiculous genetic breakthrough. I read an interesting article recently which said, “yes, people are living longer, but not really” it was pointing out that Ramesses 2nd was 94 when he died 3,000 years ago, Michelangelo was 84. You could say that we’re programmed to make it to between 90-100 and by eliminating a lot of problems down the line like bubonic plague, we’re allowing humanity to reach it’s potential based on what’s written in our individual genetic code. When is your life supposed to take place now?

[Peter Lik] If you truly want to be a successful photographer – start now. Start as early as you can and never stop. Immerse yourself in it and embrace and use every bit of technology you can get your hands on. The more you put yourself out there and the more you shoot, the more you will understand yourself and develop a style. You also need passion, talent and hard work. Take one of those elements out of the equation and you’re done for. And you must get enjoyment out of it! As hard as I have worked and with as many challenges that I’ve faced, I still find shooting Mother Nature the most fulfilling part of my life.

--------------------------------------------------

There is a beautiful alliance between the written word and the image. Imagine you were asked to explain the colour red. With the best of intentions, you could perhaps describe things that are red, maybe talk around the physics of light or even how the colour makes you feel. The only way to really ‘explain’ red is to show it, in an image. At a very basic level, this is the relationship between the text and image. They are both truths in different forms, one may consider the image to be the truth between the words. As Ansel Adams once said, “When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.”

The photograph however, is a primal and unique form of image. Assuming we put aside the drawn-out arguments in aesthetic circles about the artistic value of photography, we are left with something uniquely profound. As the philosopher Alexander Sekatskiy notes, “Despite all that has passed since the camera began its survey of the world, we remain unable to comprehend what it sees. The vision of the lens is closer to a kind of divine vision than to human perception. It shows what is permanent and hides everything accidental and temporary.”

Sekatskiy continues, by using Plato’s classic cave allegory to illustrate his point, where Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who lived (from birth) chained to the wall of a cave, facing a blank wall. All they can see is shadows projected onto the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them. For the prisoners, the shadows are their reality.

“Perhaps,” writes Sekatskiy, “…to follow this train of thought, the photographic version would go something like this: imagine a camera in which we are imprisoned and that has the capacity of operating with long exposure times. This apparatus cannot register rapid movements such as facial expressions, which will disappear into a barely visible blur and, thus, might be thought of as inessential. Only traces of solid life would remain: a table, some apples, a harp, a pot, a pair of worn shoes. This camera could function as the eye of a less flippant being than you or I. Now imagine increasing the exposure by a thousand times and examine the resulting image. Not a lot is left. The apples have rotted away and only the seeds remain, though these may have begun to germinate. Given enough time, even the table will not survive. Increase the exposure again, by another several thousand times. Enlarge and position the camera so as to survey the world from all points of view at once. Now everything incidental has disappeared. The only thing left of the harp, one might say, is the idea of the harmonies it might have once produced, for only harmony is permanent but the vessels that contain it must perish. All becomes a blur, a thin fog on the face of the image. As we ascend through these photographic effects towards the idea of time, we might be able to see with more clarity those objects that appear to our mind’s eye when we turn our gaze inwards. We would be able to see the immutable, the universal forms: eidos. We would be able to have an unmediated experience of those things that we can sense only vaguely and of which we have the faintest awareness. For absolute knowledge is not an accumulation of infinite particulars, but this ability to see beyond the particular is what we value in the work of masters of photography. And if we increase the exposure on our camera to correspond to the vision of a god, an exposure equivalent to eternity, the subject of contemplation will be ‘being as oneness’. This omnipresent and omni-powerful eye is a photographic camera with an infinite exposure and an absolute perspective on all things.” (Philosophy of Photography, Vol 1, No. 1)

We know that the ability to see motionless objects is a fairly recent stage of visual-evolution, until then most creatures possessed only the ability to discern movement. Thus (in Sekatskiy’s view) human vision is planted squarely between ‘frog’ and ‘God.’ Photography moved this evolutionary development sideways, the ‘image’ moved from the imagination (based on the Latin ‘imaginari,’ – meaning picture to ones-self) to the tangible reality. This shift to tangible reality of the mnemonic (in the form of the written word), and (perhaps) everything else (in the form of the image) came with another profound ability.

Humans, as far as we know, are the only creatures that have a sense of their temporal relation with the universe. We don’t live quite so immediately in the world as other creatures, and have a sense of our existence in the continuum of time, and within the context of the past and future of our world. Writing is perhaps the first offshoot of this, allowing knowledge to exist independently of time and the dissolution of it’s cultural origins- but yet it lacks something, as we can only imagine in the context of our own history and experience. That’s where photography differs. It doesn’t require us to have a pre-existing context, rather it presents an instant of existence, truthfully, undistorted, for us to understand; whether that is a picture of a fashion model, a historic political moment, an image of space or otherwise.

Photography has given humanity its first true time machine, and that’s remarkable.

Entrepreneurship

2015-03-25T09:00:00.000+00:00

In this exclusive interview series, we speak to Sir Richard Branson (Founder of Virgin Group) and Robin Li (Founder of Baidu). We discuss the fundamental nature of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs themselves, and the role of entrepreneurs in society and the economy. We look at the key sources of entrepreneurial ideas, characteristics of successful enterprise and the role of wealth in the entrepreneurial journey. We also look at how entrepreneurship has changed, what the future holds and how entrepreneurs are addressing some of the world's most pressing problems from poverty and economic crises to climate change and health.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, March 2015
Updated from original edition, published January, 2013

"...Over 28% of all the 'history' made since the birth of Christ was made in the 20th century." noted the Economist in June 2011, adding "... Measured in years lived, the present century, which is only ten years old, is already 'longer' than the whole of the 17th century. This century has made an even bigger contribution to economic history. Over 23% of all the goods and services made since 1AD were produced from 2001 to 2010..." Google's Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt also notes that, "...every two days now we create as much information as we did from the dawn of civilization up until 2003."

The evident growth in humankind led early economists such as Thomas Malthus to foresee a future of doom for our burgeoning civilisation. "Extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics... and gigantic inevitable famine..." were considered near-certain as a result of an increase in human density on our planet. The truth is that Malthus (and his counterparts) were (largely) wrong. While the astonishing growth of our species' numbers over the past century has come at a heavy price (resulting in hunger, conflict and more)- it has also delivered incredible economic and social growth. As at March 2015, the combined market capitalisation of the 10 largest companies in the world was US$ 2.86 trillion- the equivalent of around 50% the size of the entire world economy in 1960 (and less than 4.5% of the world economy today).

"When conjectures are offered to explain historic slowdowns or great leaps in economic growth, there is the group of usual suspects that is regularly rounded up-prominent among them, the entrepreneur. Where growth has slowed, it is implied that a decline in entrepreneurship was partly to blame (perhaps because the culture's 'need for achievement' has atrophied). At another time and place, it is said, the flowering of entrepreneurship accounts for unprecedented expansion." (Baumol, 1990) There is historic precedent for this... "From the fall of Rome (circa 476 AD) to the eighteenth century, there was virtually no increase in per capita income in the West. However, with the advent of entrepreneurship, per capita income grew exponentially in the West by 20% in the 1700s, 200% in the 1800s, and 740% in the 1900s..." (Murphy, 2006).

Conservative estimates state that over 400 million people in 54 countries are actively engaged in entrepreneurship- (loosely defined as starting and running new businesses). This figure doesn't include the (potentially) hundreds of millions more engaged in forms of pseudo-entrepreneurship in science, medicine and politics- their contributions no-less important to our society's economic, social and intellectual growth.

So what is the role of entrepreneurship in society, economy and the story of our civilisation?

In this exclusive interview series, we speak to Sir Richard Branson (Founder of Virgin Group) and Robin Li (Founder of Baidu). We discuss the fundamental nature of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurs themselves, and the role of entrepreneurs in society and the economy. We look at the key sources of entrepreneurial ideas, characteristics of successful enterprise and the role of wealth in the entrepreneurial journey. We also look at how entrepreneurship has changed, what the future holds and how entrepreneurs are addressing some of the world's most pressing problems from poverty and economic crises to climate change and health.

Sir Richard Branson is Founder of the Virgin Group. Virgin is one of the world’s most recognised brands and has expanded into many diverse sectors from travel to telecommunications, health to banking and music to leisure. There are now more than 100 Virgin companies worldwide, employing approximately 60,000 people in over 50 countries.

Branson has challenged himself with many record breaking adventures, including the fastest ever Atlantic Ocean crossing, a series of hot air balloon adventures and kitesurfing across the English Channel. He has described Virgin Galactic, the world’s first commercial spaceline, as being “the greatest adventure of all”. Space travel has been a dream for Branson since he watched the moon landings on TV, and he registered the Virgin Galactic name in 1999. Testing for commercial service is underway, with Branson planning to join his family on the first space flight.

In 2004 he established non-profit foundation Virgin Unite to tackle tough social and environmental problems and strives to make business a force for good. Most of his time is now spent working with Virgin Unite and organisations it has incubated, such as The Elders, Carbon War Room, B Team and Branson Centre of Entrepreneurship. He also serves on the Global Commission on Drug Policy and supports ocean conservation with the OceanElders. Branson was awarded a knighthood in 1999 for services to entrepreneurship.

Robin Li is the Co-Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Baidu, Inc. Since founding the company in January 2000, Robin has led Baidu to be China’s largest search engine, with over 80% market share. Baidu is the largest Chinese search engine globally and the second largest independent search engine in the world. China is among the four countries globally—alongside the United States, Russia and South Korea—to possess its own core search engine technology.

In 2005, Baidu became a NASDAQ-listed public company and in 2007 was the first Chinese company to be included in the NASDAQ-100 Index. In 2007, The Financial Times listed Baidu as one of the Top 10 Chinese Global Brands, with Baidu being the youngest company as well as the only Internet company in the top ten.

As one of the pioneers and leading figures in China’s Internet industry, Robin’s achievements are widely recognized. In 2013, Robin became a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. He currently acts as Vice Chairman of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce and Vice Chairman of the Internet Society of China (ISC).

Q: What does ‘entrepreneurship’ mean to you?

[Sir Richard Branson] Entrepreneurship is about taking risks, pushing boundaries, and not being afraid to fail.

I tend to go with my gut feeling and by personal experience- if I relied on accountants to make decisions, I most certainly would have never gone into the airline business, most certainly would not have gone into the space business, and I certainly wouldn’t have gone into most of the businesses that I’m in. In hindsight, it seems to have worked pretty well to my advantage!

[Robin Li] I have a strong desire to do what I like to do. I think that happens to be a necessary quality for entrepreneurship. For me, entrepreneurship is about doing what I can to positively impact people’s lives through technology. I come from a technology background, so naturally I feel that I can make the most meaningful impact through tech, but depending on their background and their abilities, others might choose other approaches. I also believe that whether it’s innate, or it's an something that wells up later in life, the urge to entrepreneurship only bears fruit when you plant the seeds at the intersection of passion and ability—the overlap between the things that you love, and the things that you’re really good at.

Entrepreneurship means a constant willingness to keep learning. It’s about maintaining that start-up spirit—where you’re forever young, and forever in crisis. It’s about always having your mind on the business: Lying in bed and constantly asking yourself, “What should I do?”

Q: What is the role of entrepreneurs in an economy and society?

[Sir Richard Branson] It's my strong belief that those with the power to help should be encouraged to do exactly that: It’s important for entrepreneurs to nurture talent, to provide advice and to provide investment where required. Increasingly we are hearing more about how big business needs to play its role in society for the greater good. We all have a role to play and it makes business sense. In fact, consumers demand that business be responsible.

[Robin Li] Entrepreneurs have been absolutely essential in the transformation of the world we live in. By creating new businesses and new markets, they’re real change agents in history. This is something that’s been happening for many hundreds of years. As an entrepreneur you have a certain perspective and real motivation to see what’s in store for the future. And in trying to anticipate the future, entrepreneurs are chief agents in bringing the future about. It’s really been the role of the entrepreneur to take the measure of what people will want in the future, and to change the way people think and behave. They are and will continue to be a vital force in defining the world of the future.

That’s a lot of responsibility, and entrepreneurs need to demonstrate a consciousness of their importance and the potential they have to do both good and evil. They have to have a greater sense of social responsibility, especially in times of crisis, whether we’re talking about economic, environmental, or social crisis. Entrepreneurs should be focusing their efforts on creating a more equitable, just, and sustainable future

Q: What are the key drivers for an entrepreneur?

[Sir Richard Branson] It’s a combination of passion, vision, creativity and a sense of adventure.
I have said on many occasions the reason to start a new business should not be about making money! You need to have a passion for the project and want to make a difference.

At Virgin we enter into new markets to stir up the competition and offer a choice and transparency to the consumer.

[Robin Li] I don’t think that those who set out to create companies with nothing in mind other than making money are apt to succeed. That’s not going to get you out of bed, eager to get to work. It has to come from a higher place. In my case, I knew that I had the ability, through these technologies that I understood well and could confidently implement, to make a real difference in the access ordinary people had to information. And I knew that connecting people to information in the easiest, most convenient way would make a tremendous difference in the world. It wasn’t an abstract desire to create. And money is just an afterthought. What drove me to it was this desire to make a difference in an area that badly needed it, and my recognition that I was the right person to step on and take on that challenge.

Q: What are the characteristics of a great entrepreneur?

[Robin Li] I think that only a very small handful of entrepreneurs are “born” with all the requisite abilities they need to succeed. Most of us have many skills that we’ve needed to learn along the way. In an incredibly dynamic industry like the Internet, you’re faced with the constant possibility that you, the disruptor, will quickly become the disrupted. You have to be ready to embrace change, and to be ready for it not just in terms of your business, but psychologically ready for the kind of change—excited by, and attracted to, change itself. I think an entrepreneur needs to have finely tuned sensitivity to what change is coming. You have to have almost a precognition of what’s around the next bend. But you need to balance this with an ability to shut out noise, to avoid distraction and to stay focused on what you’re doing. It’s not easy in such amid the great clamor and the rapid change.

Great entrepreneurs thrive and feel truly alive when they’re in the heat of competition. They have an intense desire to do everything they do to the best of their ability. They are not afraid of losing. They take risks, but informed, calculated risks, neither heedless nor needless.

Q: What are the sources of entrepreneurial ideas?

[Sir Richard Branson] There are many things that can inspire an entrepreneurial idea - for example if you receive poor customer service you may be inspired to create a better product or experience.

Listen to friends and family - they often have great ideas and can offer invaluable advice.

I always carry a small notebook to jot down thoughts, ideas and conversations I have with people when travelling or working. The idea to start an airline came when I was stranded in the Caribbean and decided to charter a flight out - I sold seats to the other stranded passengers to pay for the charter.

Have an open mind as you never know when an opportunity or idea might present itself.

In the next 10 years, we will all head into unknown territory as we face a vast increase in our demand for energy, yet remain worryingly over-dependent on oil. If entrepreneurs go into the field of renewable energy for the right reasons, along the way they are likely to create some very exciting new technologies and successful new businesses.

[Robin Li] Opportunities generally arise from landscape change. But entrepreneurial ideas can come from anywhere. They can come from recognizing where the pain points, the bottlenecks, and the inefficiencies are. They can come from late-night conversations with friends, or from random eureka moments. But for me and for Baidu, one source of entrepreneurial ideas has been the need to serve the underserved population. Serving the underserved is a real impetus for innovation. Making technology accessible to people who aren’t inherently tech-savvy, and who might be far from fluent with technologies that educated and wealthy urbanites now take for granted, isn’t about making simplified, dumbed-down versions. It actually poses technology challenges. A great example of this is speech input for mobile phones. Speaking is the most intuitive interface of all, but there’s a real challenge in being able to capture words accurately—and an even greater challenge in actually understanding the meaning of those words, and their intention. I think that in today’s world, looking to serving the needs of the next billion Internet users—or even the next three billion—will generate many of the greatest entrepreneurial ideas.

Q: What do you feel are the characteristics of a successful enterprise?

[Sir Richard Branson] I believe that success in business can be measured by if you enjoy what you are doing; create something that stands out; create something that everyone is really proud of.

A great company needs to have an excellent product or service at its core; needs strong management to execute the plan and a good brand to give it the edge over its competitors. It also needs excellent people who really believe in what they’re doing. People are at the heart of all Virgin businesses. Often entrepreneurs can create a good product and a brand but need to bring in management to help expand and create a truly great company.

[Robin Li] From my own experience, I think success comes from focus and persistence—in my case focus on and persistence in technology. I’ve really done one thing for well over 20 years now. I’ve always believed that hard work and the ability to stick to it can overcome almost any differences in natural intellect among people. Success comes not from IQ but from values, passions, willingness to learn, motivation to improve, and dedication.

Focus is not at all easy. There are countless temptations along the way, and often an entrepreneur will waver and be tempted to pivot to another opportunity. For Baidu, in our crucial years, we resisted the siren song of things like wireless value-added services and games, which many of our Chinese peers were seduced by. It may have meant good short-term revenues, but it took them off mission while we continued to stay very focused on search.

Every company is going to experience the ups and downs, and be plagued by all manner of troubles and problems. But if you hew to your ideals and believe in your future, that can go a long way toward getting you through the difficult stretches.

I would also add that a strong core company culture is really important. It’s the glue that can really hold a company together. For us, that core culture has always been about “simplicity and reliability.” Simplicity means that we encourage a real directness and candor in speech. We don’t use any honorific titles, and we keep the organization very flat. There’s an abhorrence of any office politics. Reliability means that every Baidu employee brings a spirit of professionalism and we expect and deliver nothing short of excellence.

Q: What does wealth mean to you as an entrepreneur?

[Sir Richard Branson] Money is not my first priority - I have always pursued what I am passionate about whether that will make me money or not, my fascination is learning and discovery more than being rich and powerful. I believe that success in business can be measured if you enjoy what you are doing; create something that stands out, create something that everyone is really proud of; be a good leader and be visible.

Wealth may improve aesthetic aspects of life in terms of being able to over indulge and travel to luxurious locations however, true success in life can only be gauged by something which is priceless; how much love you have in your life – I am truly fortunate to be surrounded by extremely loving and fun family and friends and nothing beats spending time with the people I love.

[Robin Li] I didn’t start with anything, and I do the things that I do because I believe profoundly that they are of tremendous value, and because I’m good at what I do. That’s why I stay up late and get up early, excited still every morning when I wake up. A lot of people work through the week just waiting for the weekend. Not me. I’m exactly the opposite: When the weekend comes, I can’t way to get back into the office. I see change happening in the world every day, and every day I see that things that we’re working on impacting people’s lives. This is what gives me a sense of fulfillment. So no, I don’t work for money. My personal definition of wealth and fortune are very broad. Money is not nearly the most important piece of it. What matters is that you’re doing something that you love and finding fulfillment in that.

Q: What is the role of philanthropy in entrepreneurship?

[Sir Richard Branson] I’ve always regarded business as a powerful tool for delivering positive change in the world; so in my opinion entrepreneurship has a crucial role in addressing these Global challenges and many others besides. Public funding and open-ended research is absolutely crucial for coming up with better ideas, novel technology and progressive policy, but it seems only the markets are capable of pouring resources into truly scaling things up; and those markets began with entrepreneurship.

Prizes can be a real catalyst for moving an idea along, especially if it’s a novel but profoundly important area. The X Prize foundation are a shining example of how prizes can incentivise innovation, and we liked the concept so much we even have our own equivalents, like the Virgin Earth Challenge, a $25m prize for ways of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to help tackle global warming and help people and the planet.

[Robin Li] Naturally I support and encourage philanthropy on the part of entrepreneurs, and I’m very glad to see that engagement with broader social issues, giving generously to worthy causes, and working for a common good are now things very much expected of corporations. I would add that the best thing an entrepreneur or company can really do is to build in a real nobility of mission from the very outset. If you set out to do something where your company’s success also means bringing tangible benefit to society, that’s really the highest form of philanthropy. Baidu’s a great example of this. When our business does what we set out for it to do—to provide the best and most equitable way for people to find what they’re looking for—then we’re doing great good in the world.

Q: How does entrepreneurship manifest in the arts?

[Sir Richard Branson] I think within the arts and entrepreneurship you have to show a desire to be creative, to stand alone and follow your passions, even when those around you might not share your idea or vision.

I believe we need to encourage all young people to consider an alternative to the traditional career path, and I think entrepreneurship offers some hope. I identify with these young people. As a young businessman, I faced my fair share of difficulties when I was starting up. Our music mail-order business was almost brought down by postal strikes in the early 1970s, but we adapted, and that prompted me to start Virgin record stores.

Q: What is the role of education and mentoring in entrepreneurship?

[Sir Richard Branson] In 2010, we launched Virgin Media Pioneers, an online community for young entrepreneurs, with the aim of helping young people realise their potential. By championing a cause that is both close to my heart and vitally important to the future of the UK's economic recovery, we are providing easy access to peers, practical advice from experts and tangible support for young entrepreneurs

I still find it strange that you can access money as a young person to go to university but that level of funding or even a fraction of that amount is not available to people with good ideas to set up a company. We must try to make early stage finance more available and ensure the banks do look at micro-financing or low rate long term loans for aspiring business builders. Together with Virgin Media Pioneers, we are campaigning for a fund for young entrepreneurs on similar terms as student loans.

Q: What are the key differences you see between entrepreneurship across cultures (e.g. USA vs. China)?

[Robin Li] One thing you notice among the more successful private enterprises in China is that their CEOs tend to be their founders. It’s not like any of them are doing it for the money: These are all people who are already very well off by any standard. They continue to work hard because of a kind of idealism. While in the U.S., founders often either cash out or are moved aside by their boards in favor of professional managers at the first sign of difficulty, in China that’s not often been the case at all. I understand this very well, personally. I doubt that many professional managers would have made some of the decisions that I’ve made as Baidu’s CEO over the last 15 years—decisions that have proven to be the right ones for the business.

We’re starting to see convergence, especially in culture, between U.S. and Chinese companies in the Internet space at least. I often travel to the U.S. and always meet with leading Internet companies there—from founders and CEOs down to ordinary engineers—and I’m finding that they’re increasingly interested in what’s happening in China, and much more receptive to working together with Chinese companies like Baidu. Despite the well-known obstacles, I nevertheless see communication and cooperation across the Pacific growing, and that’s very encouraging.

Q: What is the role of government and policy in entrepreneurship?

[Sir Richard Branson] Governments and policymakers usually have an important role to play in creating the fertile grounds for entrepreneurs to succeed. Many of our Virgin businesses wouldn’t be able to operate without the rules and regulations that govern their sectors. Though as with many instances in life, one must generally find a balance between enough policy and regulation and not too much.

An analogy I find useful is to think about entrepreneurship like a game of football. There are certain rules of the game which you must follow, such as there being two halves, running for 90 minutes and not being able to use your hands, but when it comes to how you arrange your team, and what strategies you use to score goals, it’s completely up to you. The same should be true for business: policies and regulation can create the pitch and the rules and then entrepreneurs can play how they like.

Many democracies go hand in hand with entrepreneurship, though I’ve seen many examples of people building successful businesses in less democratic political regimes. Like nature, even if the environment isn’t ideal, entrepreneurship will find a way.

[Robin Li] Speaking here just of our home market, China, the government obviously plays a supervisory and market-regulatory role. At the same time it can and often does play an important role in providing support to companies. The government should create an environment in which companies can foster innovation and grow. It should create systems that are conducive to creativity and fair competition, including a legal system that safeguards the rights and legal interests of entrepreneurs. I believe that innovation flourishes best under a system that gives maximum free play to entrepreneurship.

Q: How do you feel entrepreneurship has changed over the last quarter-century, and what do you think the future holds?

[Sir Richard Branson] The big change to entrepreneurship over the past 25 years has been technology. Now, more than ever, anybody can create their own business and be up and running in the time it takes to register a website. The growing start-up community has fostered a spirit of creativity and collaboration where everyone feels they can become a successful entrepreneur. And they’re right – they can! In the future I think entrepreneurship is going to become even more widespread than it is today. More and more people are realising the way to get ahead in the business world is to get out there, be brave and make things happen.

Q: What would be your message to future entrepreneurs?

[Robin Li] This is something I speak about quite often, and I always emphasize that entrepreneurs should focus on what they believe is worthwhile, exercising their own judgment without blindly following the crowd. Find that sweet spot at the intersection of what you do best and what you love to do the most, and your odds of success are immediately much higher. If you do what you excel in doing, you’ll be better than your competition. And if you focus on what you love to do, you’ll be doggedly persistent even when faced with strong competitors, reversals of fortune, and beguiling distractions.

Not everyone makes it. There’s no small amount of risk, and failures large and small along the way are inevitable. But if you really have the ambition to become an entrepreneur, if you’re someone with a dream planted firmly in your heart, if it’s something you want so badly you can taste it, if you believe you can make it, and if you’re sure that you’ll be bringing something great into the world that will benefit society, then you shouldn’t let anything stop you, and you should just reach for it.

--------------------------------------------------

"The essential point to grasp is that in dealing with capitalism we are dealing with an evolutionary process...." wrote Joseph A. Schumpter in his seminal work 'Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy' (1943). He continues to write that "Capitalism... is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary. And this evolutionary character of the capitalist process is not merely due to the fact that economic life goes on in a social and natural environment which changes and by its change alters the data of economic action; this fact is important and these changes (wars, revolutions and so on) often condition industrial change, but they are not its prime movers. Nor is this evolutionary character due to a quasi-automatic increase in population and capital or to the vagaries of monetary systems of which exactly the same thing holds true. The Fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates."

Schumpter also noted that entrepreneurship (as the engine of capitalism) cannot be studied in isolation from time or context.

"First," he identifies "..since we are dealing with a process whose every element takes considerable time in revealing its true features and ultimate effects, there is no point in appraising the performance of that process ex visu of a given point of time; we must judge its performance over time, as it unfolds through decades or centuries. A system—any system, economic or other—that at every given point of time fully utilizes its possibilities to the best advantage may yet in the long run be inferior to a system that does so at no given point of time, because the latter’s failure to do so may be a condition for the level or speed of long-run performance." He continues to explain that "...since we are dealing with an organic process, analysis of what happens in any particular part of it—say, in an individual concern or industry—may indeed clarify details of mechanism but is inconclusive beyond that. Every piece of business strategy acquires its true significance only against the background of that process and within the situation created by it. It must be seen in its role in the perennial gale of creative destruction; it cannot be understood irrespective of it or, in fact, on the hypothesis that there is a perennial lull..."

Humanity is quick to forget the context by which it moves forward ‘on the shoulders of giants’. Our rationalistic and reductionist thinking mean that we see phenomena (such as economies) in isolation, and break them down into components. This process may help an observer understand how a thing or a system works (at any given moment in time), but will give you little indication of what led to its being, or the context in which it exists. Understanding- for example- what makes Sir Richard Branson successful is not a matter of analysing the performance of each component of his businesses now, but rather requires an understanding of the cultural, social and economic contexts leading those businesses to emerge from the abstract space of the mind into reality… in other words, their story.

In much the same way as its biological counterpart, entrepreneurial evolution is a story of the success of good ideas. Billions of iterations occur, and those which add value to the system of humanity flourish, and become part of our culture- and increasingly quickly. The Wright brothers made the first powered flight in 1903 (over a distance of 120ft). Just 66 years later in 1969, two humans were stood on the Moon looking back at earth - and in 2012, almost 3 billion air passengers were carried a combined distance of over 5 trillion kilometres (enough to get to the sun and back over 16 thousand times). In a similar feat, our species progressed in less than 70 years from the first basic digital computer in 1941 to having the total sum of human knowledge in a globally connected amorphous cloud of computers.

Our innate capability to generate ideas is potentially the most powerful faculty our species has at its disposal. Entrepreneurs are simply those who take a gamut of resources (capital, knowledge, tools, infrastructure) and transform their ideas into physical or virtual assets which can then be absorbed into society and wider culture.

Put simply, "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world...." (Buddha)

Capitalism - What Comes Next?

2015-03-19T08:00:00.000+00:00

In this exclusive interview series, we speak to Nobel Prize Winning Economist, Edmund Phelps (Director of the Columbia University Center on Capitalism & Society and the McVickar Professor of Political Economy at Columbia University) and Professor Lawrence ‘Larry’ H. Summers (Charles W. Eliot University Professor and President Emeritus at Harvard University. He served as the 71st Secretary of the Treasury for President Clinton and the Director of the National Economic Council for President Obama). We look at the story of modern capitalism, the benefits it has brought, and the challenges it has created. We explore the 'post crisis' economy, the role of government in society, the relationship between capitalism and conflict, inequality and look at what needs to be done to 'fix' our global economy, and the science of economics itself.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics,
Originally published September 2011, updated March 2015

In any iteration of human civilisation, the primary 'mode of operation' of society often impacted the 'mode of thinking' of the time. This can be seen in the spirituality and 'reverence for nature' held by agricultural and pre-industrial societies- and can also be noted in the rather more 'material' thinking (held in esteem within mercantile civilisation) and the 'mechanical and scientific' mode of thinking we saw during our industrialisation, which has persisted through to the present day. These 'modes of thinking' also influenced what we (as a species) were capable of achieving. As individuals and small family units, while reasonably successful- our actions provided little more than secured food and shelter. When we began 'group think'- however- things became interesting. Religion and culture provided us with a uniquely shared mode of thinking which mobilised tens of millions of individuals (who shared that religion or culture) to perform astonishing feats of success (e.g. building pyramids, cities, and more), and to perform astonishing feats of evil (e.g. engaging in war, committing genocide).

Economically, this mass-mobilisation of individuals, resource and capital into action (capitalism) has persisted for hundreds of years. Capitalism is, "the dominant economic system in today's world, and there appears to be no alternatives in sight..." (Richard Swedberg, Cornell University, 'The Economic Sociology of Capitalism'). This system has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of subsistence and- in a relatively short space of time- has allowed society to perform miraculous feats of innovation and development ranging from dramatic improvements in our lifespan, to the development of mass-communications, the internet, financial markets, and technologies which have sent members of our species to view Earth from other worlds while others send sensors deep into the planet, and far into space- probing the origins of man, and the origins of the universe itself.

In the past century, as our civilisation embraced technology and transportation, we globalised- connecting the dots in capitalism to create a profoundly powerful economic civilisation. Our understanding of this phenomenon, explains Swedberg, has been largely been based on, "...the proposition that interests drive the actions of the individuals, and that interests [in capitalism] come together in a very specific way. The actors in society are driven by a variety of interests – political, economic, legal and so on. The plurality of [these] interests make the analysis realistic as well as flexible. Interests of the same type, as well as of different types, may reinforce each other, counterbalance each other, block each other, and so on. Interests, very importantly, are what supplies the force in the economic system – what makes millions of people get up in the morning and work all day. Interests also explain why banks, financial markets and similar institutions are so powerful: they can mobilize and energize masses of people into action through their control over economic resources."

As the blinkers of egoism have been lifted, we (as a society) have realised that capitalism- while ostensibly responsible for the vast majority of our civilisation's advances in the past quarter millennia- has also been responsible for creating vast inequality, conflict, and potentially irreparable damage to our planet. With no viable alternative to capitalism, however, the time has come to discuss "What happens next?...."

In this exclusive interview series, we speak to Nobel Prize Winning Economist, Edmund Phelps (Director of the Columbia University Center on Capitalism & Society and the McVickar Professor of Political Economy at Columbia University) and Professor Lawrence ‘Larry’ H. Summers (Charles W. Eliot University Professor and President Emeritus at Harvard University. He served as the 71st Secretary of the Treasury for President Clinton and the Director of the National Economic Council for President Obama). We look at the story of modern capitalism, the benefits it has brought, and the challenges it has created. We explore the 'post crisis' economy, the role of government in society, the relationship between capitalism and conflict, inequality and look at what needs to be done to 'fix' our global economy, and the science of economics itself.

Edmund Phelps is both the Director of the Center on Capitalism and Society and McVickar Professor of Political Economy at Columbia University. He is the winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Economics. His career began with a stint at the RAND Corporation. Back east in 1960, he held appointments at Yale and its Cowles Foundation until 1966, then a professorship for five years at Penn. In 1970 he moved to New York and joined Columbia in 1971. Phelps's work can be seen as a program to put 'people as we know them' back into economic models - to take into account the incompleteness of their information and their knowledge and to study the effects of their expectations and beliefs on the workings of markets. He has adopted this perspective in studying unemployment and inclusion, economic growth, business swings and economic dynamism. Phelps was elected a Fellow of the National Academy of Science in 1982 and made a Distinguished Fellow of the American Economic Association in 2000. In 2008 he was named Chevalier of the Legion of Honor and was awarded the Premio Pico della Mirandola for humanism and the Kiel Global Economy Prize. In the same year the University of Buenos Aires Law School established the Catedra Phelps for Programs on Dynamism and Inclusion. He also holds many honorary doctorates and several honorary professorships. An extraordinary tribute occurred when scholars came from around the world for a large Festschrift conference in his honour just three weeks after 9/11.

Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers is one of America’s leading economists. In addition to serving as 71st Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, Dr. Summers served as Director of the White House National Economic Council in the Obama Administration, as President of Harvard University, and as the Chief Economist of the World Bank.

Dr. Summers’ tenure at the U.S. Treasury coincided with the longest period of sustained economic growth in U.S. history. He is the only Treasury Secretary in the last half century to have left office with the national budget in surplus. Dr. Summers has played a key role in addressing every major financial crisis for the last two decades. During the 1990s, he was a leader in crafting the U.S. response to international financial crises arising in Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Japan, and Asian emerging markets. As one of President Obama’s chief economic advisors, Dr. Summers’ thinking helped shape the U.S. response to the 2008 financial crisis, to the failure of the automobile industry, and to the pressures on the European monetary system. Upon Summers’ departure from the White House, President Obama said, “I will always be grateful that at a time of great peril for our country, a man of Larry’s brilliance, experience and judgment was willing to answer the call and lead our economic team.” The Economist recognized his influence when it defined the “Summers Doctrine,” an approach to economic policy during financial crises that fuses a microeconomic “laissez faire” mentality with macroeconomic activism. “Markets should allocate capital, labour and ideas without interference, but sometimes markets go haywire, and must be counteracted forcefully by government.”

Q: What is capitalism?

[Edmund Phelps] As a matter of history it's crucial to distinguish between what I have taken to call 'mercantile capitalism' and what I like to call 'modern capitalism'. Mercantile capitalism I think of as prevailing in Britain, Holland, Spain and elsewhere from around 1500 to 1800 or so. The American colonies were, of course, part of that. Following this, thanks to a number of antecedent developments; political and economic- by the early years of the nineteenth century, Britain was able to put all the 'bricks in place' for a prototype of modern-capitalism that launched with the end of the Napoleonic wars in around 1815. Then I see America as joining that list in around 1830... and one must give recognition to France within this story- even though they never became as strong an example as Britain and America. In the 1860's and 70's, Germany joined the group- and things began to become complex.

Fundamentally, modern capitalism was a system for indigenous innovation- while mercantile capitalism didn't have much innovation at all. Perhaps more importantly- the innovations that did occur during the mercantile period were, in essence, applications of scientific and navigational discoveries outside the economic system. What was striking about the modern economies is that they were internally creative. I don't just mean creative in the sense that you may refer to an individual's potential creativity before they have done anything... I mean that they [participants in modern capitalism] actually delivered. They delivered new products and new methods with stunning frequency- ultimately every day! This occurred right through the early nineteenth century, and some countries went through this journey again- the United States, for example- during the inter-war period between around 1921 and 1941- it was an extraordinary time. This happened again between 1955 and 1975 and then disquieting things began to develop.

Q: What have been the greatest benefits to society from free-market capitalism?

[Prof. Larry H. Summers] There have been no engines of human progress that have been nearly as effective as freedom, markets and technological-progress. People today live longer, richer, safer and more fulfilling lives than they did hundreds of years ago, and they did three hundred ago, and so on. The reason for this is the progress that has been inextricably intertwined with market-based systems.

That does not mean that markets do not need to be supplemented, monitored, regulated and stimulated. Nor does it deny the fundamental importance of non-market institutions, of which the most important is the family. But… as a way of organising the production and distribution of goods and services, there’s no real alternative to markets.

Q: What are the key drivers of economic growth?

[Prof. Larry H. Summers] Education, health, innovation and entrepreneurship are core to economic progress, it’s hard to imagine people who are sick making rapid progress! Without knowledge it’s difficult to produce anywhere near the cutting edge in today’s global economy. Successful countries, like successful companies are those which encourage initiative and innovation.

Q: What are the key problems with modern-capitalism?

[Edmund Phelps] I think there are some very worrying developments.

If we start with demographics- we have the huge wave of retirement coming up in the next ten years. The United States will be, to an appreciable extent- much more than before- a country of older people. These people will be drawing on retirement and medical benefits. More than that, they will be withdrawing their labour services from the economy, and they're not being replaced by a new-wave of young people coming up. Capital is going to find itself with less labour to work with so I'm afraid business investment activity is going to be weak ten years from now... and is weak already in anticipation of that. The decade beginning around 2020 will not be a good time for capitalism.

Next, if we turn to innovation. there's been a tremendous slow-down in productivity, beginning in the 1970's. Economists all knew about that- many wrote about it. As recently as the late 1990's I realised that the slow-downs of productivity had a lot to do with the rise of unemployment. I had thought, until then, that it was just bad-economics... that some people were just too feeble-minded to separate the level of economic activity from the growth of the output produced by the economic activity. It turns out the man on the street was right, and I was wrong... there is a very close link between productivity growth and unemployment. Primarily, the massive productivity slow-down in Europe accounts for the fact that the German unemployment rate barely budged from 0.8% from around 1960 to 1973. And now? it's around 8%. A spectacular rise in unemployment.... So why has productivity slowed down? I think there has been an underlying decline in the rate of innovation in the economy. There's not as much tinkering... not as much dreaming... not as much conceiving new-ways to do things... If we go a level below this and look at the cause of that. We see that a huge amount of short-termism which has crept into the system. CEOs routinely devote their lives to hitting the next quarterly earnings targets... and that doesn't leave very much time for thinking about the medium term future. This creates a number of mysterious questions. Taking Silicon Valley, which is so famous and so admired... why didn't all those venture-capital firms multiply and sweep through the world? You have a small number a small number of venture-capital firms which tend to operate in Shanghai and other places, but you have not had an explosion of venture capital... There are a lot of very worrisome questions about what has happened to the dynamism of modern economies such as Britain, America, France and Germany. We did, of course, have the internet revolution... but that too was in just a pretty small sector of the economy. I'm worried that a lot of that innovation is not very job-creating... and to the extent that it is also job-creating, those jobs can be done perfectly well by production workers in China... maybe it doesn't need the loving attention of craftsmen (for example).

Q: Are there any specific areas of additional dynamism needed in our economies?

[Edmund Phelps] I don't think there was ever a specific need for dynamism... Dynamism is the elixir of life. We need to have new challenges! We need to have new ideas! If we don't have new ideas, and we don't the opportunity to work on ideas, develop them, test them, try them out in the market, use them, take them home.... if we don't have that, we're going to be zombies. I think this is a very serious thing. I'm not saying that there's some problem out there which means that some particular innovation is needed for an un-met need... although a cure for cancer would be nice. The NIH actually undertook to do this, around twenty or thirty years ago, and it was an amazing thing- around a year ago- when they made a public statement confessing to failure. They confessed that they had been unable to do it.

Q: What is the impact of economic stagnation?

[Prof. Larry H. Summers] We need to take a broad perspective. Economic growth this year (2015) is almost certainly due to exceed 3 per cent, that’s the rate at which the global economy doubles in a generation. That’s a growth rate 10-100x more rapid than has been observed through most of human history. None of that is to minimise our problems, but rather than to show the fact that we live in a world where growth is taken for granted; and that is not in the normal historical condition of man.

Stagnation in the industrialised world has many reasons, there are serious issues of demography- with populations ageing and sub-zero replacement (fertility). There are real-issues of shortfalls of demand that lead to shortfalls in hiring, and shortfalls in investment. There are important issues in areas such as Japan and Europe, where barriers exist to economic dynamism and entrepreneurship. The challenge of maintaining growth that is sustainable and strong appears particularly pressing right-now in much of the developing world, with real issues around governance in countries like Brazil and Russia. China is facing challenges after years of remarkable growth, and the weaker industrial-world economy puts further pressure on them.

Q: Are we facing a "new-normal"? What can we do to secure our economic future?

[Edmund Phelps] I think we are facing a new normal. This new-normal will have a higher natural rate of unemployment... like seven percent rather than five and a half that it was in the 1990's. Slower growth is also part of it.. maybe at two percent per annum instead of three percent that we have seen in more recent decades, and four that we saw in the 1950's and 1960's. This, of course, raises the question... "Oh my god, what can we do about this!?"

Sure, we can do some things that would be good to do in response... It would be good to get rid of this short-termism... some of which is coming from the financial sector. These financial guys are putting a lot of pressure on the CEO's to be short-termist... to deliver short-term results. We do need a reform of the financial sector, and we do need more ways of nurturing venture capital. I've been advocating a first-national bank of innovation. America is a country that has subsidies for almost everything.... education, farming... and hidden subsidies for manufacturing and exporting... you name it! There is very little subsidy, however, for work - and almost no subsidy for innovation. There is a tax-credit and some tax-deductibility for research and development expenditures, but research and development expenditures are confined to a small number of industries- and that's not a huge amount of money. We have to make it easier for a young entrepreneur to start a company... to start his innovative project. We have to make it easier for an established company to start a new innovative project.

I know there are a lot of scientists out there who say, "you dummies out there in economics, you don't realise that science is the fountain of all progress... and we'd have more technical progress if we had more scientific activity..." and then of course, the green people say, "...yes, we ought to set-up national institutes for reduction of carbon-use, solar, and so forth...". The trouble is... those science projects will not create a lot of jobs for ordinary people. It may create some jobs for scientists and engineers... We're not going to get back to the dawning of the modern age from 1815 to 1870, where everybody and his brother was running around trying new ideas.... we're not going to get there by having some grants for research projects. We have to get back to our roots... get back to the old spirit of experimenting, exploring, trying things out, discovery... on a broad scale. Every company would, ideally, be doing a lot of this all the time.

Q: What should be the role of government as it relates to the economy?

[Prof. Larry H. Summers] Governments have a basic role in providing public-goods, those goods from which everyone benefits, but where only a small fraction of those benefits are received by the provider. Examples include national defence to basic research and environmental protection. Governments have a crucial role to ensuring fairness; to ensure every child have a chance, and that those with a chance get the education and healthcare they need, to ensure that revenues for state-functions are collected based on ability to pay rather than neglected because of political power… Governments have a crucial role in establishing a framework in which capitalism can operate. They must prevent and, where necessary, regulate monopoly. They must establish framework for property and contract rights, and a structure in which markets can operate.

Q: What are your thoughts on the role of government in inspiring ideas (for example, using the space programme and lunar missions)?

[Edmund Phelps] The programme to go to the moon and explore space was a wonderful expression of modernism... but I'm afraid it would be disastrous if we made that a recipe to be used all-over the economy... we wouldn't want the whole economy to be under the direction of a bunch of NASA's. This has to be at a grass-roots level.... I think Buzz-Aldrin was right that the lunar missions were inspiring... they intended to be inspiring... but maybe it's a mark of the change in our times, that nobody even thinks of proposing something new like that, they don't care anymore.

Q: What have been the benefits of, and challenges brought by, capitalism?

[Edmund Phelps] There's no question, anymore, that the material benefits of capitalism were phenomenal- almost from the get-go around 1815. There was a tremendous pick-up in the growth rate of aggregate output and standards of living were increased tremendously. That resulted in huge increases in public-health with a corresponding reduction of disease- and the emergence of all-kinds of comforts...

Modern capitalism ought not to be viewed as merely a system for producing goods (more or less the same goods that had been produced during the mercantile period). It was a system that stimulated the production of new commercial ideas- and stimulated the development of those new commercial ideas by entrepreneurs. It also stimulated the development of a crude financial system- that lent some support to entrepreneurial activity- and this system led many producers to spend time or hire people with expertise in evaluating new products and new methods of production. Consumers also came to have a new way of life! Consumers would go to the mall on Saturday morning to look at the new stuff on display! More generally, though, western society went from a life in which ordinary people were not much involved in the economy, to one where people were engaged in conceiving new ideas, experimenting, tinkering, exploring new possibilities, experiencing the 'new' - this was an intellectual revolution. I like to amuse myself by pointing out that the arts changed alongside. Music became completely different two or three times after 1815- the visual arts such as painting followed the same trend. Modern capitalism offered a new way of life, not just a higher standard of living.

The downside? Well.. of course there's always a downside to everything. Modern capitalism is a system in which some people are very lucky- they just happen to be at the right place at the right time... and can cash in big-time; while other people aren't! Some people are very unlucky- they make decisions which turn-out to be ill-fated. That could, of course, have been true to some extent in mercantile times also. With the transformation of capitalism from mercantile to 'innovational', however, there was a tremendous increase in uncertainty. The future became anyone's guess... In that sort of a world, you can find yourself on a very bad path- or you can find yourself on a marvellous path which you had never dreamed of! So there's just naturally a considerable amount of inequality that this system generates.

Q: Why do poverty and inequality exist on such a large scale?

[Edmund Phelps] As I just said, there is naturally a huge amount of inequality in modern-capitalism. Capitalism can, to a degree, address that inequality by subsidizing- in one or more ways- the employment of workers at the bottom... low wage workers. It also helps to pull up their wages. This helps increase economic inclusion and reduce inequality so that low-wage participants in an economy can feel that they're not receiving unnecessarily low-wages and low-rewards... that society has addressed their situation and done something about it. We could interpret John Rawls book, 'A Theory of Justice' as- essentially- being an argument for low-wage employment subsidies up-to the fullest level- as far as society will allow. A crude translation of Rawls would be, "maximise tax revenue in order to maximise the money the state has to put into things like low-wage subsidies."

That will, of course, leave the Bill Gates' of the world who are very rich because, besides being very bright and driven, they got extraordinarily lucky. Wealth inequality of that sort doesn't cause me concern- It doesn't matter to me that the Rockefeller's may own half of Maine (for example) or that Ted Turner may own half of Montana... What does it matter? I think Ted Turner did a great thing with CNN and he's very rich! so what? I just don't get it. I just never understood why there was such an aesthetic revulsion to outsized rewards for people who had a big idea and- generally speaking- worked their heads off to develop that idea. I don't have any problem with it. I understand, though, that some very rich people use their wealth to get involved in politics- and I find that a little bit ugly. It's important to say that this is on the 'left' and the 'right' - there are plenty of leftist billionaires, and even more right-wing billionaires around.

[Prof. Larry Summers] On a global scale, inequality has declined more rapidly than ever in human history over the last several decades, as China and India- which together comprise around one third of our global population, have converged towards the industrialised world. It is markets, markets for export, markets for foreign investment, markets that promote the flow of capital, that have made that possible internationally; and it has been the increasing adoption of markets, rather than command and control domestically, that has explained China’s take-off since 1979 and India’s take-off over the last generation.

The story of economic development used to be one of divergence, with the rich-countries pulling away from the poorer countries. Increasingly today, it is convergence and the adoption of market systems has a great deal to do with that. To say that markets work better than command and control is not in any-way to endorse laissez-faire or simply leaving markets unregulated and un-supplemented.

Even as inequality across countries has gone down, inequality within countries in many cases has gone up, and that makes a strong case for policies which make taxes more progressive, and to make fundamental public investments; particularly in education and health, that give everyone a chance to succeed.

Q: What do you feel is the social context of capitalism?

[Edmund Phelps] I think modern-capitalism has given a huge breadth of people a range of opportunities that could not have been imagined in 1750 or earlier. Ordinary people have opportunities (at least in the more capitalist economies of the western world) for meaningful careers- careers of problem solving, venturing into the unknown- and in the course of that not only experiencing the development of their capabilities but also self-discovery- discovering who they are. More than that... it's about having an adventure that leads them to become something that they didn't know they could be... to become something way beyond what they could have been had they not taken that adventure. This development is not something you can do on an island alone (although even Robinson Crusoe could come out of his journey almost disbelieving what he had been able to do!) ... The social-interactions are an important part of this. The interactions you have with other people lead you to become a different person. A person you could not have become had you not had them.

Money culture has really taken-over to excess... In the nineteenth century, people were on a tremendous adventure. They didn't know what the future held. They were meshed in a colossal discovery process which was enormously exciting! Now it seems that people are in business just to make money. They want to take the adventure out of everything, they want to mechanise things as much as possible... they want to take the business of making mortgage loans to home-buyers, for example, and turn that into some sort of standardised packaging... so that nobody ever sees the home-buyer or even the house... people just enter a code into a system and get the terms of a loan.

Q: What do you feel is the relationship between capitalism and conflicts (such as the Arab Spring)?

[Edmund Phelps] As I see it... and I feel pretty-sure after talking with experts, that I'm right about this... The revolt of the urban youth in Tunisia and Egypt is all about wanting to have careers... wanting the ability to start your own business... wanting the ability to enter an existing enterprise without benefit of connections (i.e. solely on your CV to date and the people you or your family know).

I think Egypt and Tunisia were examples of yet-another economic system... namely the system which, for a lack of a better word, we call 'Corporatism'. This system has private ownership... one of the things that Egypt did, for example, in the last ten or fifteen years was privatise a lot of enterprises. Those enterprises became owned by people in the military. Corporatism doesn't mean social-ownership... that's socialism. Corporatism means that there is a great deal of central control, directed by the government, of the private sector. A great deal of regulation... a great deal of two-way communication occurs with the private sector seeking favours from the government and the government seeking the same from the private sector.... In Egypt and Tunisia, you had a very rudimentary corporatist system which was being exploited all-out by the rulers who took advantage of their powers to put their cronies in place as managers and owners of various enterprises. The bulk of the population, many of whom who- by this time- have college or university degrees of some sort.. cannot break into the system! They can't get jobs in those enterprises.. they are strictly for the insiders. They can't even sell their fruits on the streets without a license- and there aren't very many of those [licenses] distributed. It's a very closed system... a system that's about as far from modern capitalism as you can get! Well functioning modern capitalism allows anybody to start-up a company, to go into business for himself, and start coming up with new ideas, and working on their development.

In the European corporatist model, you have giant employer-federations and you have giant labour-unions... and so you have a tri-partite system of economic power. In Tunisia and Egypt I think it's fair to say that the labour-leg of the tripod isn't there. It's just the businesses and the government.

Big corporations are highly politicized and have close relations with their national governments... Corporatism has always been around... there were certainly corporatist strains in Bismarck's capitalism. The government was pretty-cosy with a lot of big companies. Companies were going in and out of government offices trying to get contracts, trying to get favours.

[Prof. Larry H. Summers] It’s very tempting to suggest that terrorism is caused by poverty. I hate terrorism, and I hate poverty, but my reading of the evidence suggests that they are less closely tied together than many suppose.

Those on the planes on 9/11 were highly educated and had cosmopolitan, international experiences. Most of the studies of terrorism find that it has more to do with disillusionment on the part of those who do not feel themselves fully part of progress at moments when rapid progress is underway- rather than it coming from people who are simply frustrated at being poor. The phrase, “revolution of rising expectations…” is often historically apt.

Europe was flourishing in an economic sense, in June 1914, and it was at war by August of that year. There are plenty of good arguments for economic growth, and for markets, but I think it’s somewhat naïve immediate and direct linkages with terrorism!

As my Harvard colleague Steven Pinker has emphasised, deaths due to violence have been on a long-term downward trend for thousands of years, hundreds of years, and for the last several decades. While the causes are complex, the greater sense of human enlightenment, empathy and connection that is present in the modern world, have to be an important part of the story – and that is surely related to what capitalism has brought.

Q: Is there a relationship between Oil and the well-being of economies?

[Edmund Phelps] This is a question which has been debated for a long time... You certainly can see that in some countries in the Middle East (excluding North Africa) that the government acquires the ownership and possession of the oil- and then uses the oil to spread money around the country... not only to keep itself in power, and prevent political competition- creating an absence of new ideas, new energy and so forth... but also the whole population can live off these stipends, subventions, emoluments... this flow of money that comes to them without having to lift a finger. This is tremendously damaging to whatever curiosity, drive and zeal the individuals were presumably born with.. and becomes very damaging to these economies.

It's very dangerous to generalise though. If you look at Norway, for example, it's done a pretty good job of not throwing-around the oil wealth in a way that would be a 'death-knell' to society. They recognise that oil will not last forever, and place their oil revenues into a sovereign wealth fund. Then, of course, you have to determine what you do with the income from the sovereign wealth-fund! The returns on sovereign wealth can, of course, be used for various purposes to better society. Maybe Norway is saved by the fact that their oil-wealth is not so colossal that it puts the whole rest of the advanced economy in the shadow- so that it doesn't matter anymore. Maybe also good sense and propriety combined with prudence and abstemiousness... avoiding 'blowing' all that money day by day has also contributed.

Q: Has globalisation and the advent of multi-nationals impinged on competition and innovation?

[Edmund Phelps] Is the pharmaceutical industry more nearly-monopolised or more nearly under the control of a small oligopoly now that many companies have become globalised? It seems the case in pharmaceuticals that they have all become globalised- so they all compete with one another as before, but they're all global now- rather than national. I would suppose that there's more competition now of American pharmaceuticals, for example, with pharmaceuticals in Switzerland and Germany and so forth- than there was in the 1920's or the 1890's! A large company now has to answer to a whole-lot of governments whereas previously it only had to answer to one- or one central government, one state government and one local government. That's not only a distraction, but introduces significant red tape (getting permissions from a number of governments for example).

Q: What is the future of economics as a discipline?

[Edmund Phelps] Economics is in a tremendous crisis... especially since it doesn't know it's in a crisis.

This may sound funny... but it didn't damage me (personally). I spent most of my career trying to put people back into economics! The day I won the Nobel prize, I was asked at a press-conference to encapsulate my life's research in one sentence. I said, "...in my work, I've tried to put the people back into economic theory..." Some of my earliest work looks at a farmer considering new seeds and fertilisers... contemplating whether or not he can take the risk of trying any of these new things.... and whether he should adopt them. The answer depends on his educational background.... his willingness to bear some uncertainty... and so forth. Later on, when I was working on unemployment and inflation- I asked myself... What would I do if I was a company? I realised I would be worried about what other companies were doing about their wages! In the process of increasing their wages, to the extent that they are, I must increase mine too in anticipation. I then introduced wage-expectations and price-expectations which were not talked about before. Later on, around 2000- I started talking about the visions of entrepreneurs... those are real life people who have visions! People who from any walk of life can have an idea.... A truly modern economy is all about ideas and people!

Economics has contributed to the march away from these principles by reducing economies to 'stochastic steady-state models' in which prices are the entire interest. Prices, in these models, 'vibrate' in some way. I find this incredible.... This thinking began seeping into the financial sector so then the banks started importing French mathematicians to work out how to price various assets as if anyone could possibly know what these assets are worth? We live in an uncertain world... not just a vibrating one! Economics will (and should) always have a scientific side... but it has to remember that no piece of evidence is ever decisive on its own... we have to understand that our subject is human creativity. That will be a very different kind of science from what we have had before. There hardly is any science of creativity yet- yet alone a science of individual or societal creativity which understands the interactions of people- that's the next giant-step.

--------------------------------------------------

"Economists..." wrote Sendhil Mullainathan in his 2004 paper, 'Psychology and Development Economics', "...often study scarcity, yet their conception of decision-making assumes an abundance of psychological resources. In the standard economic model, people are unbounded in their ability to think through problems. Regardless of complexity, they can costlessly figure out the optimal choice. They are also unbounded in their self-control able to costlessly implement and follow through on whatever plans they set out for themselves. Whether they want to save a certain amount of money each year or finish a paper on time, they face no internal barriers in accomplishing these goals. Furthermore, they are unbounded in their attention. They think through every single problem that comes at them and make a deliberative decision about each one. In this and many other ways, the economic model of human behaviour ignores the actual bounds on choices(Mullainathan and Thaler 2001). Every decision is thoroughly contemplated, perfectly calculated and easily executed."

The reductivist fallacy behind this 'rational economic agent' is similar to the paradox in thinking described by the British Philosopher Karl Popper, in his seminal lecture "Of Clocks and Clouds" (1966) where he makes the distinction (as summarised by David Brooks) between clocks as, "neat orderly systems that can be defined and evaluated using reductive methodologies..." and clouds which are, "irregular, dynamic and idiosyncratic." Brooks describes how Popper felt Clouds were, "...Hard to study because they change from second to second.." and can, "...best be described through narrative not numbers...". Popper himself wrote, "...according to what I may call the commonsense view of things, some natural phenomena, such as the weather, or the coming and going of clouds, are hard to predict: we speak of the `vagaries of the weather'. On the other hand, we speak of clockwork precision' if we wish to describe a highly regular and predictable phenomenon."

He elucidated his concept looking at the paradigm of a cloud or cluster of small flies or gnats. "...Like the individual molecules in a gas, the individual gnats which together form a cluster of gnats move in an . astonishingly irregular way. It is almost impossible to follow the flight of any one individual gnat, even though each of them may be quite big enough to be clearly visible." Likening this to our own society, he continues, "...the cluster does not dissolve or diffuse, but it keeps together fairly well. This is surprising, considering the disorderly character of the movement of the various gnats; but it has its analogue in a sufficiently big gas cloud (such as our atmosphere, or the sun) which is kept together by gravitational forces. In the case of the gnats, their keeping together can be easily explained if we assume that, although they fly quite irregularly in all directions, those that find that they are getting away from the crowd turn back towards that part which is densest. This assumption explains how the cluster keeps together even though it has no leader, and no structure-only a random statistical distribution resulting from the fact that each gnat does exactly what he likes, in a lawless or random manner, together with the fact that he does not like to stray too far from his comrades. I think that a philosophical gnat might claim that the gnat society is a great society or at least a good society, since it is the most egalitarian, free, and democratic society imaginable."

If we compare our economy to this 'cluster of gnats' we see a range of (disorderly) economic actors ranging from central banks, to financial institutions, investors, businesses, consumers and more. Each actor appears 'unpredictable' yet the cloud (the economy) "keeps together fairly well.." If any economic actor strays too far from the crowd, the gravitational pull of capitalism- where the human system is at its most dense (the need to work, access capital, be part of the group to flourish- manifested perhaps best in cities) quickly causes the actor to return to the core. This 'core' gives the economic system a perceived order (which we misinterpret quantitatively and reductively) and gives it a sense of arrogance claiming it is a good society, a free society, and (perhaps most arrogantly) a democratic one.

"Everyone agrees that people have reasons for what they do..." wrote H. Simon in his 1986 essay, 'Rationality in Psychology and Economics', "...they have motivations and they use reason (well or badly) to respond to these motivations and reach their goals. Even much, or most, of the behaviour that is called abnormal involves the exercise of thought and reason. Economics sometimes feels called on to defend the thesis that human beings are rational. Psychology has no quarrel at all with this thesis. If there are differences in viewpoint, they must lie in conceptions of what constitutes rationality, not in the fact of rationality itself. The judgment that certain behaviour is "rational" or "reasonable" can be reached only by viewing the behaviour in the context of a set of premises or "givens." Economics without psychological and sociological research to determine the givens of the decision-making situation, the focus of attention, the problem representation, and the processes used to identify alternatives, estimate consequences, and choose among possibilities-such economics is a one-bladed scissors. Let us replace it with an instrument capable of cutting through our ignorance about rational human behaviour."

In Simon's assessment (above) lies perhaps the biggest clue in answering "..what follows capitalism?". As society progressed through industrialisation- it was unsurprising and (largely) appropriate that our thinking became reductivist, we made machines- and those machines, in turn, made us... The world has, though, evolved and modern civilisation- in its highly globalised form, is as much a knowledge economy as a mechanical one. This is an iteration of civilisation which can leverage the power of capitalism to ensure the billions living in poverty 'join the economy'. This is an iteration of civilisation which has the innovative power to create solutions for ecological problems our predecessors have created, and the power to create economic entities which provide opportunity for a huge number of people to generate wealth in a democratic fashion.

We have had mechanical-capitalism. Now it's time for human-capitalism.

Storytelling

2015-02-01T00:01:00.000+00:00

How Creativity, Animation and Stories define us.

In these exclusive interviews we speak to Ed Catmull (Co-Founder of Pixar Animation, and President of Walt Disney Animation Studios), Nick Park (Oscar Winning Writer, Director and Animator with Aardman Animation) and Jonathan Gottschall (A world expert in storytelling and Distinguished Research Fellow in the English Department at Washington & Jefferson College). We discuss the fundamental role of storytelling in human existence, and learn the secrets of creativity, animation and great stories.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, February 2015

For a significant part of human history, it was thought that a sharp line existed with us (as humans) on one side, and the rest of the animal kingdom on the other. In truth however, there is very little that separates us from the other species with whom we share this planet.

“We are part of the continuum of evolution,” notes the leading primatologist, Dr. Jane Goodall, “and [we] are not the only beings on the Earth with personalities, minds, thoughts and feelings.” Dr. Goodall has spent the vast majority of her life studying primates in their natural habitats to learn more about them and- in turn- ourselves, and when I asked her about what is it that makes us human, she paused and gave a rather beautiful response. “For me, our sophisticated way of communicating- with words- is that crucial difference. It meant that for the first time, we could teach another about something that wasn’t present… whereas young chimps just learn by observing. We can read books about the distant past, and plan the distant future. Chimps can only plan the immediate future. As far as we know, they don’t have any concept of a distant future to plan for.” (Thought Economics, June 2013)

This capability to communicate is hooked on the fact that we are hard wired to understand our existence, not in isolation as a series of causal events- but rather, in a discernable context… as a story. As Sir Ken Robinson notes, “Human beings have very powerful imaginations; and we don't live in the world in the same way that other creatures seem to. We don't live in the world quite so directly, we live in the world of ideas... we have concepts, artefacts, languages, music, images, theories, philosophies, faiths and values which we work-on, inherit, construct, challenge, change and form. We end up living in the world virtually through the ideas that we conceive.” (Thought Economics, October 2014)

Each of the 100 billion humans who lived and died before us, and the 7 billion who exist now, carry a unique biography. Each of us was born into a line stretching back thousands of years, will lead lives that nobody has ever lived before, and will die an uncommon death. Humanity relies completely on storytelling as the primary architecture by which we make sense of our lives and communicate our culture, heritage, news, values and knowledge between people, generations and even through time. Stories engulf our lives in a way so primal and profound, that only perhaps the most skilled meditators have been able to quieten their conscious minds sufficiently to experience existence outside their narratives.

With that in mind, understanding storytelling is a crucial part of understanding ourselves.

In these exclusive interviews we speak to Ed Catmull (Co-Founder of Pixar Animation, and President of Walt Disney Animation Studios), Nick Park (Oscar Winning Writer, Director and Animator with Aardman Animation) and Jonathan Gottschall (A world expert in storytelling and Distinguished Research Fellow in the English Department at Washington & Jefferson College). We discuss the fundamental role of storytelling in human existence, and learn the secrets of creativity, animation and great stories.

Ed Catmull, Ph.D, is co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios and President of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios. Previously, Catmull was Vice President of the computer division of Lucasfilm Ltd., where he managed development in the areas of computer graphics, video editing, video games and digital audio.

Catmull has been honored with five Academy Awards, including a Technical Achievement Award, two Scientific and Engineering Awards, and one Academy Award of Merit for his work. In 2009, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awarded Catmull with the Gordon E. Sawyer Award for his lifetime of technical contributions and leadership in the field of computer graphics for the motion picture industry.

He also received the ACM SIGGRAPH Steven A. Coons Award for his lifetime contributions in the computer graphics field, and the animation industry's Ub Iwerks Award for technical advancements in the art or industry of animation. Catmull is a member of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Visual Effects Society, and the University of California President's Board on Science and Innovation. Catmull was honored with the Randy Pausch Prize from Carnegie Mellon University's Entertainment Technology Center in 2008, and was selected as the recipient of the IEEE Computer Society's 2008 Computer Entrepreneur Award.

Catmull has a bachelor's degree in computer science and physics and a doctorate in computer science from the University of Utah. In 2005, the University of Utah presented him with an Honorary Doctoral Degree in engineering.

English animator Nick Park is the creator of the Academy Award-winning Wallace and Gromit Claymation films.

Park began using his mom's 8-millimeter camera and pieces from her dressmaking kit to create stop-motion films, and at age 13 he finished his first short, Walter the Rat. At 15, he submitted another creation, Archie's Concrete Nightmare, to the BBC's Young Animator's Film Competition; the piece didn't win, but it aired on BBC2.

Park studied art at Sheffield City Polytechnic before moving on to the National Film and Television School, where he began work on his first 35-millimeter Claymation film. A Grand Day Out tells the tale of a middle-aged man named Wallace, who builds a homemade rocket and takes his quietly frustrated but faithful dog Gromit into space to procure some moon cheese. The unfinished product caught the attention of Aardman Animations Ltd. founders Peter Lord and David Sproxton, who hired Park in 1985.

At Aardman, Nick Park initially contributed to commercials and music videos, including Peter Gabriel's award-winning "Sledgehammer," while finishing A Grand Day Out. Additionally, he began work on Creature Comforts, a five-minute piece in which zoo animals offer a range of opinions on life in confinement. Both were completed in 1989 and nominated for Best Animated Short Film at the 1991 Academy Awards, with Creature Comforts claiming the prize.

Park followed with two more Wallace and Gromit shorts, The Wrong Trousers (1993) and A Close Shave (1995), which further refined the characteristics of the well-meaning but shortsighted inventor and his silent canine compatriot. Both were well-received and garnered Academy Awards.

Having secured Hollywood's attention, Park and Lord co-directed Chicken Run (2001), a feature-length animation film distributed by DreamWorks Studios. A feature-length Wallace and Gromit adventure co-directed by Park and Steve Box, The Curse of the Ware-Rabbit (2005) also fared well for Aardman and DreamWorks, but the two studios soon ended their association due to creative differences.

A fire at an Aardman Animations warehouse destroyed several original Wallace and Gromit sets and storyboards in October 2005, a misfortune that was offset by an Academy Award win for Ware-Rabbit a few months later. In 2007, Park oversaw production of Shaun the Sheep, a television series based on a character from A Close Shave. The fourth Wallace and Gromit short, A Matter of Loaf and Death, earned Park another Oscar nomination in 2010.

Known worldwide by fans of all ages, Wallace and Gromit have become cultural icons in their creator's home country. In 2009, London's Science Museum opened the "Wallace & Gromit Present: A World of Cracking Ideas" exhibition, where fans could inspect the duo's famed offbeat inventions. In conjunction with the exhibition, a contest was created for kids to submit their own weird and wonderful creations.

In 2013, Park presided over the opening of the Thrill-O-Matic, a Wallace and Gromit ride, at the Blackpool Pleasure Beach theme park.

Jonathan Gottschall is Distinguished Research Fellow in the English Department at Washington & Jefferson College. His research at the intersection of science and art has frequently been covered in outlets like The New York Times Magazine, The New York Times, Scientific American, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nature, Science, and NPR. His blog, The Storytelling Animal, is featured at Psychology Today. The Storytelling Animal was a New York Times Editor’s Choice Selection and a finalist for the LA Times Book Prize.

Q: What is creativity?

[Ed Catmull] I think of creativity very broadly, for me it’s about solving problems. A lot of people put creativity into the narrow bucket of artistic expression; including film-making, creative writing, music and so on- but there are many who understand that if you look at science and engineering, there are a lot of very interesting problems that require creativity and you see a great outpouring of new ideas.

Fundamentally, where creativity is concerned, people are trying to express an idea or solve a problem. This applies in business, the arts, or even solving family or societal problems.

Creativity has a spectrum: if you compared segments such as the arts, business and so on, you find things in common, and differences. If you look at the arts as an example, there are people who stir us and make us think about things differently or see things in a different way- but you also find people in the arts who do derivative work. You might ask what the difference is between someone who creates art that stirs us, and someone who creates derivative work- and it’s pretty hard to define, but you do know it. In business you also find people who think in a process-oriented way, replicating what is known to work externally or internally. On the other hand, you find businesses that challenge themselves in what’s happening both within and without and creatively change the world. We always have this mix in each area, but people tend to categorise creativity by discipline rather than by the individuals within those disciplines.

One of the surprises to me was when I began diving deeply into what happened at Toyota many years ago. I was looking at this firm because in the early days of PIXAR we were a manufacturing company! What I realised was, that in studying other manufacturing companies, in particular Toyota, I could see that their mechanism for distributing responsibility and pushing it far down the organisation turned them into a creative enterprise! This is the opposite of what most people think, which is that the purpose of manufacturing is to reliably produce the same thing over and over again. In one sense, this is one of the goals- but in order to achieve that goal, the group of people doing it had to be very creative in order to solve the problems that came up. To me it was a great revelation to find creativity in the midst of something that was not thought of as being creative.

[Nick Park] Creativity makes us human, it defines our humanity… that freedom and ability we have to contemplate our existence, make changes to it, and leave it different to how we find it.

I believe that everyone is creative in some way or another whether that be using words, music or using one’s hands to paint, or whether it be changing the environment, or making the world more beautiful in some way.

Creativity makes you very powerful, and being a storyteller is a very powerful position. A friend of mine told me that the ability to move people is a great power, perhaps one of the greatest you could have.

[Jonathan Gottschall] Creativity is hard to define, and probably harder to teach.. The last book I remember reading about the subject was Jonah Lehrer’s now infamous ‘Imagine,’ and the advice on how you become more creative struck me as obvious or vague with little gems like, “hey, go take a warm shower and may be an idea will come to you…” I’ve sometimes suspected that the buzzwords of creativity and innovation, amount to little more than a way of selling business books and TED talks.

As far as I can tell, there aren’t any shortcuts to becoming more creative. You find something you really care about. You immerse yourself in it. You work like hell. If you do that—and if you get lucky—you might turn up something new.

Q: What is the role of storytelling in human culture?

[Ed Catmull] Storytelling is our fundamental way of communicating with each other, and informing each other. If we start from the beginning, one of the most rewarding things for the child and the adult is having the child on your lap whilst you tell them stories or read to them from a book. You are not only telling a story, but forging an emotional bond in doing that. Then you go to school and receive another form of storytelling, where you’re told the stories of our past, our history and our culture; what happened with our presidents, kings, revolutions and heroes… Whatever those stories are, they are always simplifications of what happened… We can never live through the events of the past, the only things we have left are the stories… The art-form of storytelling is trying to figure out how you capture the essence- to inform someone about what’s important in what happened, but they can never live it themselves. This is an on-going process.

If you look at the world of animation, we went through something in developing this art-form and we tell new people what happened. When we tell them what happened, it becomes a mythology; we lived through it, they cant. All they can have are the stories.

As we move forward into the future, people aren’t trying to relive the stories of what happened in the past, they’re creating their own. We want people to think about creating their own stories and live their own experiences, but at the same time pass on the essence of what happened to other people in other places.

[Nick Park] Storytelling seems so important to humans. Every culture revisits stories throughout their lives- from children hearing the same stories over and over again, to people sitting around the campfire sharing tales and experiences.

There seems to be something very primal and basic about storytelling that involves us re-affirming who we are, our world, how we understand it, and the forces that are shaping it from within and outside. Someone once told me that stories are the rooms in which we grow up; and as children- that’s how we explore the world! You can encounter allsorts of evil and other things- stories help equip you for the world!

Humans seem to have this ability to contemplate our world and our existence. We tell stories that speak of truths about this existence, that are not necessarily there in a physical or immediate way.

[Jonathan Gottschall] People sometimes look for a role that storytelling plays in society, but I object to that. Story is not a single-purpose tool like a hammer or a screwdriver. It is a multipurpose tool, somewhat like a Swiss Army Knife.

In a very basic evolutionary sense, it’s quite weird that we tell stories at all. We spend an enormous amount of energy and time telling stories without any obvious biological benefit. Why do we spend such huge chunks of our lives inside all types of story worlds? What are the possible benefits that offset the costs?

For a long time, anthropologists have argued that story acts as a social glue; it binds a society together around a common culture, core values, and collective identity. That can be hard to see in our big, modern societies but if you go back and look at the traditional tales of small-scale tribal societies, it’s pretty obvious. And even today with our fractured media world, we are spending a lot of our lives absorbed in the same stories. You might read Harry Potter at a different time than me, but we’re both reading it. You might binge-watch something on Netflix at a different time than me, but we’re both being subjected to the same stories. And stories almost always portray a basic human morality. They are set up so that they affirm the prosocial values of the protagonists, and condemn the greed and selfishness of antagonists. And studies show that the values we read about in stories sink in. They shape how we look at the world.

So we love stories. We are enormously fascinated by the fake struggles of fake people. But the love is mixed with a little Puritanism: If it feels so good, it can’t be entirely good for us. So, for centuries we’ve worried not only that stories waste our time but, worse, that they promote laziness and moral corruption. I think this worry is misplaced. My book argues that stories—from conventional fiction to daydreams—are an essential and wholesome nutrient for the human imagination. Stories help us rehearse for the big dilemmas of life, bring order to the chaos of life experience, and help unite communities around common values. We shouldn’t feel guilty about our time in storyland.

Q: Is storytelling learned or instinctual?

[Jonathan Gottschall] Story is absolutely instinctual. There are aspects that are learned, and an awful lot of learning goes into becoming a master storyteller- but the hunger for story is instinctive, and the structures of storytelling seem to be instinctive also.

Stories are universal. As far as we know, there has never been a society without storytelling in the history of the world. Furthermore we are hard pressed to identify societies where stories are significantly different from our own. If you travel to the Africa or the Arctic Circle or to any far-flung place you will find that their stories are , more or less, exactly like ours. They translate easily- we can enjoy their tales, and they can enjoy ours. It’s just not plausible that all these people around the world happened- by chance- to develop the same forms and structures of stories.

The other line of evidence that’s even more powerful is children’s storytelling. Kids come into the world wired for story. We don’t have to bribe or teach them to do it. You take small children, put them into a room, and they’ll spontaneously create stories. This isn’t a Western thing. It’s a people thing. Children’s make believe is universal.

Q: What makes a great story?

[Ed Catmull] Most of us recognise that there are some films, for example, that have impacted world culture. Into this you could put Toy Story, Star Wars, The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Lion King and more.

When you have a story that touches culture so strongly, you will always have people that say that they want to replicate it in some way. The safe way to do that is, “I will do something like what they did because if they touched world culture and copy what they did, then I will touch world culture too…” It doesn’t work that way!

To touch world culture, you have to tell something new and take a different kind of risk. Stories are the communication of our emotions to other people, we are drawing on the life experiences of the storytellers who- in turn- are trying to put those life-experiences into their stories. Rather than copying the generic form of a story, they are trying to do something else. How do you do that? One of the ways is to draw on your experiences, and of those around you. What we did at PIXAR, to avoid the trap of repeating what someone else did, was to go out into the world and go somewhere where you would learn something you wouldn’t otherwise know. In Finding Nemo for instance, the filmmakers went to Australia and went diving down in the reefs! With Ratatouille, they went into the 3* Michelin restaurants in Paris… into the kitchens… to see what really happens. What happens in that kitchen is not the same thing that happens in your home kitchen, or the same thing that you see on the Cooking Channel! When making Ratatouille, we got an insight into what takes place in those kitchens (which we could only have made by being there) and we put those insights into the movie. Since most people have never been inside the kitchen of a real high-end restaurant, they wouldn’t know whether what they are being shown is correct or incorrect- how would they know? Yet- we put it in there, and the audience senses that it’s real. It’s not explicit… but they sense that it’s real, and they know they got something they didn’t see before, it touches them and gives them something new.

[Nick Park] We like to keep coming back to stories for some reason. The scriptwriting guru Robert McKee says that classic stories are those you can come back to again and again, they don’t fade with time and hold power across generations. They speak of some truths that are universal, and perhaps humour is a big part of that. Homer (not Simpson!) eluded to the fact that things are funny because they’re true; and that’s quite a profound statement. It doesn’t matter how abstract, absurd or ridiculous what we’re seeing is- we ultimately recognise something within it that makes us laugh.

Great stories can also be quite an extreme form of our own lives in caricature, yet recognisable. Stories cannot exist without this simple truth. You don’t always inject that truth deliberately, but it has to be there.

There’s a striving for authenticity underneath storytelling. That’s what makes clay so attractive to me, it’s a real material. What’s been important in creating the stories and characters is that there’s been some kind of struggle going on… creativity usually needs time and a struggle, and that’s what makes it hard- what means everyone isn’t doing it- but that’s what makes things that are unique and special.

Great stories often come from a creative struggle and a long incubation period.

There’s a lot of interest in the literal effort that goes into animation; with people talking about the millions of drawings and frames, models and movements- but it’s the story that matters- that’s the thing we want people to relate to. We want people to relate to the characters, be gripped, compelled and engaged.

There’s something about the technique in which animation is made, which also has a lot to add to that. I’m a great admirer of CGI, and especially PIXAR. I love their work and learn a lot from it all the time. For me however, a lot of our story is born of the technique. Gromit for example, was born out of the clay technique. I don’t know if I would have arrived at Grommit, or the same Grommit if I was working on a screen. I was actually planning to have him as a much more lively and exuberant dog to start with, but the difficulties of the technique made him the way he is- I found it so hard to move him, and to re-sculpt every frame, that I started to just move his eyebrows- I found that gave me so much! It was a great economy, but it was wonderful. Moving his brow made him an introvert, a very feeling and put-upon dog that had very strong feelings and emotion- this contrasted well with Wallace who was already the extrovert. The intensity of Wallace made Grommit suddenly feel very human and misunderstood… this wasn’t by design, I found it in the clay.

Economy can be a huge strength to storytelling. It’s not about being elaborate and expensive, less can be a lot more.

[Jonathan Gottschall] Story has a universal grammar, without which you have almost no chance of making a story great, and without which you simply cannot rivet people’s attention, rouse them passionately, and change how they look at the world. The structure is extremely simple.

A story always has some form of character. The character has some type of problem, predicament or trouble in their life that they want to solve. Stories around the world have a problem-solution structure.

You’ll find some counter-examples to this pattern, but you will find these to be primarily in the realm of 20th century experimental fiction where- on purpose- writers try to break the rules. Those are fascinating artistic experiments, but they universally fail to attract big audiences. Rather, they’re designed for an elite or academic audience.

If you want to really absorb human attention on a grand scale, you have to stay within the grammar.

But the grammar isn’t enough of course. A great story has a lot more to it. When that little kid comes into the world, they already know the basic grammar: batman is in trouble, the baby is in trouble, how are we going to save them? Great storytellers use the basic grammar, but they also employ a great deal of subtle art and craft.

Q: Is there a biological component to our love of stories?

[Jonathan Gottschall] Biology is deeply involved in our processes of storytelling and story enjoyment. There are tendencies within the brain that create a story-hunger. The brain needs stories to make sense of the chaos that is continually pouring through your senses. The brain filters and sorts this information, hunting for story-patterns. The downside of this is that the human mind seems unable to tolerate a vacuum of story. Stories create meaning and they are comforting. So if the brain can’t find a meaningful story to account for some phenomenon it tends to simply make them up. You see this in a lot of psychological research. You also see it in conspiracy theories and perhaps religion.

There is a peculiarity about the way story is processed by the brain that can account for its power. You can slide a person into an FMRI machine that watches the brain while the brain watches story, that can read the brain while the brain reads a story. And if you do that you’ll find something interesting--the brain looks less like a spectator on the action, than a participant. So if Clint Eastwood is angry on screen, your brain looks angry too; if the scene is sad, your brain will look sad too. Not like you are sitting back passively and watching someone else get angry or sad, but that you are actually experiencing the emotions yourself.

So stories are so powerful for us, at least in part, because at a neurological level whatever is happening on the page or stage isn’t just happening to them, it is happening to US as well. “We” know the film is fake, but that doesn’t stop unconscious parts of the brain from processing it as real.

Q: Can stories impact and change society?

[Jonathan Gottschall] When I go into my introductory literature classroom, I sometimes point out how strange it is that we spend such a large part of our lives telling and absorbing stories. Why do we care so much about the fake struggles of fake people? I ask my students for an explanation and eventually one raises a hand and says, “escapism.” They look at story as a kind of mental vacation. They go into storyland, they have a nice time, but then they walk away unchanged. Research suggests this is wrong. It suggests that we are moulded strongly by the stories consumed in our lives. Stories wash over our lives, shaping us in the way that flowing water shapes a landscape.

Studies repeatedly show that our attitudes, fears, hopes, and values are strongly influenced by story.

For instance, if psychologists get a bunch of people in the lab and just tell them all the reasons it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, they don’t make a lot of progress. People who feel differently, dig in their heels, they get critical and skeptical, and they don’t walk out of the lab with more tolerant views.

But if we watch a show like Will and Grace—or modern family, or glee, or Six Feet Under, and so on--that treats Homosexuality in a non-judgmental ways, lab studies suggest that our own views are likely to move in the same direction.

And if a lot of us begin empathizing with likeable gay characters—on shows like Ellen, Modern Family, The L-Word, Glee, Six Feet Under, and so on—you get a driver of massive social change. American attitudes have liberalized with dizzying speed over he last 15 years or so, and many social scientists give TV a lot of the credit. Social scientists have a theory to explain this rapid pace of change: They call it “The Will and Grace effect.”

By the way, the psychologists even have a theory for why this works. The best predictor of whether or not you’ll have liberal attitudes toward homosexuality is whether or not you know one, and that you know that you know one. Whether you have a friend or a family member who is gay. This is a better predictor than education level, or religious affiliation, or whether you are democrat or republican. But here’s the cool part: it doesn’t seem to matter if the people you know are real or not. Fake gay friends like Will and Jack seem to do the job.

Q: What makes a great animation?

[Nick Park] People often look at animation and say, “wow, you can be so creative… that’s the freedom of animation!” In a way, they’re right… but… freedom can be a great set-up to fail. If you have too much budget, you can end up with enough rope to hang yourself! Discipline is very good for creativity.

We fight this constantly on projects- how do we find solutions by being creative rather than using another helicopter shot, or blowing something up. We want to film creative solutions that are more to do with the edit and story, and less to do with special effects.

An example for me was when we created the penguin, Feathers McGraw in ‘The Wrong Trousers.’ He was such a simple thing, and I had a wonderful reaction. My colleague Steve Box animated him for me, and we very much talked about making sure that we didn’t make him some funny Disney-style penguin with Donald Duck actions as he waddled along. He’s almost not a penguin, he’s a milk-bottle floating along; and this brought the sinister aspect to the character. He turns in basic ways and gives solitary blinks. This gave the character a lot of power rather than doing an elaborate animation.

Q: Why has animation grown to become such a popular art form?

[Ed Catmull] Reality can never be expressed in a complete and true story; it’s always going to be too complicated. The story we can tell, whether it’s live action or animation, is an abstraction. With animation, you easily accept the fact that what you’re seeing isn’t reality. With live action, people sometimes think they’re seeing reality – but with animation we don’t have that delusion, and that allows the animator and storyteller to focus on the essence of what they’re trying to tell, and in doing so- we connect with people. From the viewer’s perspective, this allows them to accept the rules of the world they’re being immersed in and to feel the emotions that come from that; and this happens regardless of whether it’s hand-drawn animation, puppets, paper cut-outs or full CG. We just accept it as a different world, accept the rules of the world, and explore how to connect with it. Animation gives a great freedom to the storyteller.

Q: What is the role of anthropomorphism in animation?

[Ed Catmull] If you look back at the earliest days of animation, it tended to be very much gag-oriented. People were enthralled by funny and silly things that were happening on screen. You had plants dancing, boats tooting around… that wasn’t anthropomorphic, but they had a sort-of life to them. Then Walt Disney put together a group that went to the next stage; they wanted the audience to believe what that character was thinking.

As a species, we think at a different level than other creatures; we recognise of course that pets and animals think, but there’s something different about our thinking. In recognising thought processes in something like a lamp, and believing that the lamp is thinking, something in us connects with them. We can call it anthropomorphism, but in reality we are trying- in an abstract way- to touch some of our deepest emotions and sensibilities.

Interestingly, we have had numerous cases where animation seems to have touched people who have specific brain processing problems and issues where they almost can’t understand other people, because there’s something about the presence of a real person that makes them cower. Animation gives them a safe space; something about it draws them out. It’s a very interesting phenomenon.

[Nick Park] There has been a great tradition in animation to use anthropomorphism, and animators are able to bring animals and objects to life.

We accept something from an animal where we feel for them more because they’re helpless, vulnerable, cute or powerless – or they express some focussed aspect of ourselves. When I did Creature Comforts back in 1989, it was fundamentally just human beings talking- that was what we did first, interview people talking… then we added the animals. Until that point, the founders of Aardman had done similar things with human beings, and I took it into the animal kingdom. Grommit isn’t really a dog, he’s a person!

What I love about PIXAR is that they’re animals are a certain degree of anthropomorphism… lets take Nemo- he’s very human in aspects of his speech and emotion, but he’s very much a fish too! Let’s compare that with Sharks Tale where the characters are very much more humans dressed as fish….

The balance with anthropomorphism is how much reality and how much fantasy you choose to use!

[Jonathan Gottschall] Good question. I’ve never considered it before. But here’s what I would say. Anthropomorphised stories seem- in the main- to be targeted at children; just take a look at films from Disney Pixar or at folk tales from around the world.

In Brian Boyd’s On The Origins of Stories he noted something simple yet powerful. He said that the first job of a storyteller is to rivet our attention. If the storyteller cannot grip the attention of an audience, then what’s the point? Without attention, Boyd says, art dies.

So it seems to me that one common strategy for riveting children’s attention is to anthropomorphise animals, plants, and inanimate objects in order to grab attention and to signal the magical nature of the story-world they’re entering into. Some stories for adults also anthropomorphize, but they’re few and far between in comparison to those aimed at children.

Q: How has technology impacted animation?

[Ed Catmull] If I go back to the earliest days of animation when film was just invented, it was a new technology- although, we don’t think of it in those terms now. When the technology was new, it stimulated people to try to use this technology to tell stories. Until that time, storytelling was verbal, books, plays and so forth. The technology of film broadened the base of storytelling and brought more people to it. I don’t think many people understood the interplay of technology and art, but instead focussed on the final output. Over time, people remembered the art- but down-played the technology. Over time, technology ceases to look new and becomes an artefact of the past. When computer graphics arrived, it injected into the art form of new technology which then stimulated more people.

The number of animated films produced now is much higher than 30 years ago, and more people have access to it. One of our goals is to ensure that we don’t forget that it is this combination of art and technology and that it is an on-going stimulating relationship. We don’t want to forget this as people have in the past. As computers get faster and more accessible, you open the door for more people to use it; you now see more pieces, such as the funny little vignettes produced on YouTube. If you look at feature-length films; they’re more widely available for sure, but I wouldn’t call it ‘democratisation’ as they still cost many millions of dollars to make. But the trend will continue as costs go down and more people are enabled to tell stories.

At the same time, the new technology is enabling a lot of stuff that isn’t very good … but in this process, you will also find gems, because people who don’t ordinarily have access now do so. We will have surprising new storytelling in the future; but we can’t foresee what that is. When you enable more people have access to storytelling technology, you are giving yourself more opportunities to be surprised.

The internet has clearly altered the mechanism by which stories get out into the world. This has pros and cons. It enables a large number of people to distribute their work in various forms, and also enables a large number of people to sift through work and recommend it to others. At the same time, the mass of the content being generated is so large, that you lose a shared cultural experience. It used to be that movie-houses and radio became a nationwide shared experience. Television then became a shared experience due to a limited number of channels… now we have this technical evolution where there’s a diminishing of that, with a few long-form programmes coming out with cultural impact. Rather than watching certain channels for example, people may watch a particular series such as Sherlock Holmes – and I wish we had more content like that! My daughter and I watch Dr. Who all the time, it’s watched a lot here in the USA and for those who are watching it, it’s a shared experience. But it is shared with a smaller percentage of the population than when I was young.

The Internet gives you different types of experiences, but I wish more people could share them.

[Nick Park] I wouldn’t want to sound like a stick-in-the-mud as technology is part of the artform now. We use technology, we make armatures for our puppets- we use video to record and playback, but we want to retain a hands-on quality.

CGI doesn’t help or hinder, it’s a choice… The challenge is different… Technology enables the animator to manipulate the character in the most human way they can. What I like about clay animation is that it’s very direct. When we know that we simply can’t do something using clay- for example, fire or a waterfall- we may use CGI. I like the charm that comes from reality- from fingerprints, from clay, from people actually manipulating things.

However… CGI is great for certain subjects. Let’s take the film Frozen for example. The way the ice crystals were, or the snow… or the building of the tower… the dress of the girl – and how realistic everything was. It was so amazing- but it’s not in my aesthetic- that’s not my personal artistic style.

[Jonathan Gottschall] Today, we often hear a doom and gloom narrative suggesting that that twitter or facebook or whatever are ruining story. But I don’t think the digital revolution or social media are killing storytelling—quite the opposite. First, many people use their social networking accounts as storytelling platforms: Facebook, for example, is a way for many people to tell their continuously updated life story. Even many twitter users tell serial stories, and the site is—in large part—a way for people to promote and share links to longer form storytelling.

The larger point, for me, is that I think story is utterly unkillable. People are storytelling animals, and that won’t change until human nature does. In the future, story may evolve in new directions (in my book, I talk about the emerging form of video game storytelling). But in a thousand years the basic structure of story will be exactly like it is today. What’s happening right now is NOT that modern technology is crowding out storytelling, it’s that most of us are using new technology to cram more story into our lives than ever before.

Q: How can people benefit from applying creativity into their lives?

[Ed Catmull] Most of us want and have a deep feeling of needing safety. The easiest way to see and get safety is to repeat the things that you believe worked in the past, and believe that others are doing; and that applies at a personal level or business level. If something is known to work, you tend to want to copy it and it feels safer.

What differentiates the creative person, is that they are willing to abandon certain elements of the past and do something they haven’t done before. This is tricky as you can’t abandon everything, and you don’t really know what to abandon; you are going into unknown territory. The differentiator is: do you have the ability to let go of certain things with the belief that if the new thing you try doesn’t work, then you can always go back to the thing that worked. A lot of people can’t do that, and it’s an emotional need for safety that keeps them from venturing into doing something that may not work. By definition, if you’re going off into a new area, then a certain percentage of things you try won’t work and furthermore, you don’t know how big the problem will be if you try something new! It could be rather minor, or very major. The mind-set of the creative is that they will still continue to do it!

Q: What would be your piece of advice to the next generation to put creativity into their lives?

[Ed Catmull] I’ve thought a lot about this; and it’s a hard thing to describe. People want to go to the safe side… they want to repeat what works without understanding that rut they are in. Even for people who venture into the unknown and do something original, a large proportion of those people, having experienced something new, then fall back into repeating what they did in the past.

People should adopt a fearlessness where they are trying new things, but then accept that by doing this- a certain percentage of things will fail. Failure is not a necessary evil, but rather- it is a positive part of on-going progress. If you don’t have some failures continually, it is a signal that you have retreated into the conservative past.

Most people still interpret failure as an unfortunate thing to get to success, but this isn’t actually what it means. What failure really means is that you are trying to live life, and the fact that you fail means that you are trying. As soon as you try to avoid failure, you are facing the wrong direction.

[Nick Park] Yes, do it!! [laughs]

The way younger generations are naturally comfortable with technology is great- but they have to realise that technology is a tool. David Hockney was using an iPad last time I saw him on TV, he commented that the Paintbrush itself was technology!

An interesting parallel; I’m writing a new script for a feature film at the moment. It’s been a good 2-3 years in writing, and I’ve read so much about screen-writing techniques and theory- but ultimately the war is between you and a blank piece of paper. It relies on you for good ideas, and to work those ideas up. You can use those techniques and tools to help you stay on course and to challenge you, but tools will never be a substitute- they won’t help you to write a great script- you need creativity and good ideas.

Technology could become a substitute for creativity if we’re not careful. Let’s not forget that you can be incredibly creative with a pinhole camera or a pencil and a piece of paper. Having technology won’t make you more creative….

Creativity comes through practice, learning and doing it!

[Jonathan Gottschall] You don’t need to tell people to go have sex, to eat, or to breathe. If people can do these things, they will – they don’t need your encouragement. People are going to consume stories, and they will consume them heavily.

Stories are a very good thing. They are one of the things that make life most worth living. But you can have too much of a good thing. Compare story to food. A tendency to overeat served our ancestors well when food shortages were a predictable part of life. But now that we modern desk jockeys are awash in low-cost grease and corn syrup, overeating is more likely to fatten us up and kill us young. Likewise, it could be that an intense greed for story was healthy for our ancestors, but has some harmful consequences in a world where books, MP3 players, TVs, and iPads make story omnipresent—and when we have, in romance novels and TV shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians, something like the story equivalent of deep-fried Twinkies.

So people need to learn to regulate their story diets. Flipping on the TV to channel surf is like standing in front of an open refrigerator and boredly stuffing food in your mouth. Instead, plan out a Netflix strategy. Plan out a novel strategy (I like to work my way through good internet lists of classic thrillers, sci-fi stories, mysteries, and canonical classics). Try not to consume in a haphazard way but to do so more thoughtfully.

--------------------------------------------------

A characteristic of humanity is our unwavering sense of growth. As C. S. Lewis wrote, “…We seek an enlargement of our being. We want to be more than ourselves. Each of us by nature sees the whole world from one point of view with a perspective and selectiveness peculiar to himself. And even when we build disinterested fantasies, they are saturated with, and limited by, our own psychology. To acquiesce in this particularity on the sensuous level- in other words, not to discount perspective- would be lunacy… we want to escape the illusions of perspective on higher levels too. We want to see with other eyes, to imagine with other imaginations, to feel with other hearts, a well as with our own.” (An Experiment in Criticism, 1961)

Lewis was here talking of literature, but where we consider this [literature] as a metaphor for storytelling, the depth of his analysis can be seen. “[Literature] admits us to experiences other than our own…” he writes, “Those of us who have been true readers all our life seldom fully realise the enormous extension of our being which we owe to authors. We realise it best when we talk to an unliterary friend. He may be full of goodness and good sense but he inhabits a tiny world. In it, we should be suffocated. The man who is contented to be only himself, and therefore less a self, is a prison. My own eyes are not enough for me, I will see through those of others. Reality, even seen through the eyes of many, is not enough. I will see what others have invented. Even the eyes of all humanity are not enough… Literary experience heals the would, without undermining the privilege, of individuality. There are mass emotions which heal the wound; but they destroy the privilege. In them our separate selves are pooled and we sink back into sub-individuality. But in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do.”

This urge to transcend flows from without and within ourselves. Maya Angelou told me “We have some impulse within us that makes us want to explain ourselves to other human beings. That’s why we paint, that’s why we dare to love someone- because we have the impulse to explain who we are. Not just how tall we are, or thin… but who we are internally… perhaps even spiritually. There’s something, which impels us to show our inner-souls. The more courageous we are, the more we succeed in explaining what we know.” (Thought Economics, October 2012)

Whether we look at the domains of art, the humanities or science, we see storytelling as their basis- a foundation on which things can be built. In each of these intellectual territories, the works that stand tall- sculptures, essays, theories, films and more- do so because they speak authentically, and with certain essential truths that we can each resonate with intuitively and naturally. As a Jewish teaching describes “Truth, naked and cold, had been turned away from every door in the village. Her nakedness frightened the people. When Parable found her she was huddled in a corner, shivering and hungry. Taking pity on her, Parable gathered her up and took her home. There, she dressed Truth in story, warmed her and sent her out again. Clothed in story, Truth knocked again at the doors and was readily welcomed into the villagers’ houses. They invited her to eat at their tables and warm herself by their fires.”

Storytelling is ‘that’ which makes us human, and our relentless pursuit of the story of our species means that each of us is now able to start our own narrative, once upon a time, at the beginning of the universe, when we existed together- forward through the branches of individual existence, and onwards to the time the universe will end, bringing us together again.

The End.

Understanding Democracy

2015-01-11T17:00:00.000+00:00

In these exclusive interviews we speak to Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who (with over 150 books published) is regarded as "one of the most critically engaged public intellectuals alive today" and Glenn Greenwald (Multi Award Winning Journalist, Constitutional Lawyer and Author). We discuss the state and future of democracy around the world together with the role that government, corporations and the media play in shaping our lives. We also look at the global war on terror, globalisation, and how the world will look in the next quarter century.

---------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, Originally Published April 2011 - Updated January 2015

In March 1949, Dr. Quincy Wright (1890-1970) of the University of Chicago presented a paper for the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) entitled "Philosophical Enquiry Into Current Ideological Conflicts; The Meaning of Democracy". Dr. Wright states, "Like all social and political terms which serve at the same time as slogans for movements and as symbols for conceptions, the word democracy has in fact varied in meaning according to time, place, and circumstances. This variability is, in fact, a condition of most forms of popular discourse. They are continually acquiring new meanings as can be seen by studying any historical dictionary." He continues by citing examples of this variability. "Democracy..." he writes, "has always suggested a wide popular participation in the support, conduct and benefits of government, but the conception has taken colour from the conditions and opinions which advocates of democracy have at particular times and places found in opposition to their aims. Thus, in a struggle against an unpopular rule of a monarch or oligarchy, democracy has referred to government by the many, rather than the few; in a struggle against social privilege, class or race discrimination, and economic inequality, democracy has referred to equality in social position and economic welfare; in a struggle against government monopoly of economic initiative, public opinion and political association, democracy has referred to freedom of enterprise, communication, opinion and association; in a struggle against corrupt and arbitrary manipulations of opinion, democracy has referred to procedures for regulating elections and party action in order to assure freedom of opinion, wide participation and fair representation; in a struggle against excesses of majorities and oppression of minorities, democracy has referred to the rule of law and protection of fundamental human rights; in a struggle for freedom of dependent or oppressed peoples, democracy has referred to home rule, self government, and self determination of distinctive groups; in a struggle for influence of suppressed groups or classes, democracy has referred to consent of the governed, non-discrimination and procedures for consultation among all interested groups in policy formation."

Humanity is a plurality made-up of many different individuals forming highly interconnected communities of mutual interest and co-operation (families, political groups, cities, countries, and so forth) and it is the individuals within the groups rather than the group 'in general' who, ultimately, exert power. "Democracy is [therefore] a compromise designed to balance interests among members of a community." (Han Zhen, Democracy as a Way to Social Compromise, 2006). As our society has grown from small villages of (at most) few hundred people to a vast interconnected global economy of six billion, the complexity of the compromise along with the incredibly varied interests of group members has introduced profound challenges to democracy itself. These challenges (often left unaddressed) leave our society in a near-permanent state of visible conflict (albeit with varying intensity) across all dimensions of struggle (akin to those outlined by Wright, above).

Against this backdrop of social, economic and political conflict, what is the future of democracy?

In these exclusive interviews we speak to Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), who (with over 150 books published) is regarded as "one of the most critically engaged public intellectuals alive today" and Glenn Greenwald (Multi Award Winning Journalist, Constitutional Lawyer and Author). We discuss the state and future of democracy around the world together with the role that government, corporations and the media play in shaping our lives. We also look at the global war on terror, globalisation, and how the world will look in the next quarter century.

Noam Chomsky was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 7, 1928. He received his early education at Oak Lane Country Day School and Central High School, Philadelphia. He continued his education at the University of Pennsylvania where he studied linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy. In 1955, he received his Ph. D. from the University of Pennsylvania, however, most of the research leading to this degree was done at Harvard between 1951 and 1955. Since receiving his Ph. D., Chomsky has taught at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he now holds the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics. Respected and honoured numerous times in the academic arena, he has been awarded an Honorary Doctorate by the University of London and the University of Chicago, as well as having been invited to lecture all over the world. In 1967, he delivered the Beckman Lectures at the University of California at Berkeley. In 1969, he presented the John Locke Lectures at the University of Oxford and Sherman Memorial Lectures at the University of London.

Glenn Greenwald is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law. His most recent book, No Place to Hide, is about the U.S. surveillance state and his experiences reporting on the Snowden documents around the world. Prior to his collaboration with Pierre Omidyar, Glenn’s column was featured at The Guardian and Salon. He was the debut winner, along with Amy Goodman, of the Park Center I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism in 2008, and also received the 2010 Online Journalism Award for his investigative work on the abusive detention conditions of Chelsea Manning. For his 2013 NSA reporting, he received the George Polk award for National Security Reporting; the Gannett Foundation award for investigative journalism and the Gannett Foundation watchdog journalism award; the Esso Premio for Excellence in Investigative Reporting in Brazil (he was the first non-Brazilian to win), and the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer Award. Along with Laura Poitras, Foreign Policy magazine named him one of the top 100 Global Thinkers for 2013. The NSA reporting he led for The Guardian was awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for public service.

Looking at the UK, USA & Europe

Q: To what extent are our societies free and democratic?

[Noam Chomsky] These Societies are quite free by historical standards. They are democratic in the sense that they have formal elections that aren't stolen, and so on. They're undemocratic to the extent that forces other than popular will have an overwhelming affect on who can participate in electoral outcomes. The United States is the most extreme in this respect. Right now in the United States, elections are essentially bought. You can't run an election unless you have a huge amount of capital- which means overwhelmingly, although not one hundred percent, that capital was sought from strong corporate backing. For example, in the 2008 election- what carried Obama across the finish line first at the end was a very substantial amount of support from financial institutions which are now the core of the economy. The coming elections are supposed to be a two-billion-dollar election, and there's only one place to go for that kind of money.

There used to be a system of chairs of committees in congress, who were there through seniority and so on. By now, it is generally required that funding go to the party committee- which means those are also, in large part, bought. This means that popular opinion is very much marginalised. You can see this very clearly on issue after issue. So the huge issue right now, domestically, is the deficit. Well... People have ideas about how to get rid of the deficit. For example- most of the deficit is the result of a highly dysfunctional healthcare system which has about twice the per-capita cost of other countries and by no means better outcomes- in fact, rather poorer outcomes. The population has long favoured moving toward some kind of national healthcare system- which would be much less expensive and (judging by the outcomes) no worse, maybe better. That would, in fact, eliminate the deficit! That's not even considered!

[Glenn Greenwald] The extent to which our society is free and democratic is all relative, the question is- relative to what?

There are clearly a lot of ways in which the range of acceptable ideas within society is narrowed, and the political choices we have are seriously constrained. In a lot of senses we have the appearance of freedom and democracy, and much less so a reality. You can have societies in which people can go to a ballot box once every 3-5 years and pick who their leaders are going to be, but that doesn’t mean you have freedom or democracy in any meaningful sense; and that’s generally how I would describe most western countries.

Q: What really drives our foreign policy? and how does that impact us, as citizens?

[Noam Chomsky] Foreign policy in the UK and Europe tends to follow the United States, not entirely- but the US does remain the prime driver in foreign policy. It's not a secret what foreign policy is driven by. For example, Bill Clinton was quite explicit about it. His position, expressed clearly in congress, was that the US has the right to carry out a unilateral military action, sometimes supported by a (so-called) coalition of the willing in order to secure resources and markets and it must have military forces forward deployed- meaning foreign bases in Europe and elsewhere- in order to shape events in our interest. Our interest does not mean the American people, but rather the interests of those who design policy- primarily the corporate sector.

Foreign Policy can be undertaken in ways which are expected to harm security. In fact, that's not at all uncommon. If you follow the Chilcot enquiry- the head of MI5 testified- merely extending what was already known- but she testified that both the United States and Britain recognise that Saddam Hussein was not a threat and that the invasion would very likely increase the threat of terror. And, in fact, it did! About seven-fold in the first year according to quasi-governmental statistics. So an invasion was undertaken which would harm the citizens of the invading countries, as indeed it did. At first, of course, the reasons were presented with the usual boiler-plate which is informative presentation which goes along with every act of force citing democracy and all-sorts of wonderful things. When it was becoming clear that the war-ends could not be easily achieved, towards the end of the invasion- certain policies were stated clearly. In November 2007 the Bush administration issued a declaration of principles stating that any agreement with Iraq would have to ensure the unlimited ability of US forces to operate there- essentially permanent military bases- and such an agreement would also secure the privileging of US investors in the energy systems. In 2008 Bush re-iterated and, in fact, strengthened this in a message to congress where he said that he would ignore any legislation that limits US capacity to use force in Iraq or that interferes with US control over Iraqi oil. That was stated very clearly and explicitly. In fact, the US had to back down from this goal as a result of Iraqi resistance; but the goals themselves were clear and explicit and had nothing to do with the security of Americans. The same is true elsewhere, so one leading specialist on Pakistan recently reviewed US policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan revealing once again that these policies are significantly increasing the threat of terror and in fact possibly nuclear terror. He concluded that American and British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan in order to make the world less secure for Americans and British. That's not so unusual. Security is not, typically, a very top priority of states. There are other interests.

[Glenn Greenwald] One of the most amazing and illuminating exchanges over the past couple of years was an incident in the House of Commons in the UK where George Galloway stood up and questioned Prime Minister, David Cameron about British policies in Syria, and the people with whom the UK has aligned itself. David Cameron’s response- in essence- was that he wasn’t surprised to hear that question because this particular member always found ways to ingratiate themselves with the world’s dictators.

If you look at the foreign policy of the UK, and specifically the allies of Cameron; you see these trips he makes, and the praise he heaps on people who are the worst dictators of the Arab world.

In each countries foreign policy, there is a very overt form of loving dictators whilst spewing the rhetoric of freedom. It’s more disguised and subtle at home, but it’s very much the same dynamic.

Q: To what extent is the media influenced by corporate and government objectives?

[Noam Chomsky] There are cases where direct government and corporate interference takes place, but I don't think that's the major issue concerning corporate and government influence over the media. Using the United States as an example, the media are major corporations- so it's not a question of corporate influence, they are corporations who are closely linked to government. There's a constant flow of people from the corporate sector to government, the interactions are very close. The framework of selection of what to report, how to report it and so on is shaped overwhelmingly by the shared interests of elite sectors in the business world, government and so forth. In fact it's not very different in the Universities, and you can see it day by day. Just take the no-fly zone in Libya. In Libya, the intervention- whether one approves of it or not- is being carried out by the three traditional imperial powers, the US, Britain and France. There is marginal participation by several other NATO countries, but the major countries are simply refusing to be involved, and many are just opposed to it. The BRICS for example, are opposed and Turkey doesn't want to get involved and so on. Well the three, this imperial triumvirate, quite heavily in their propaganda discussed an Arab league request for a no-fly zone. The Arab league statement was rather tepid and was qualified shortly after but there was, in fact, a call for a no fly zone. At the same time, the Arab league called for a no-fly zone over Gaza. In the United States that literally was not reported. While some small newspapers may have discussed it, there was no majors- no New York Times, Washington Post, none of the major media reported it. In fact, in the entire Anglo-American press the only apparent story was in the Financial Times. Well, that's a no-fly zone over Gaza.. which doesn't fit US objectives and therefore it wasn't news. At the same time, the no-fly zone over Libya did fit the objectives of the imperial triumvirate and so that was major news. And this is standard, it happens all the time.

One of the very striking examples which tells you something about the general intellectual culture, had to do with Wiki Leaks. The exposure that received by far the most attention in terms of headlines and euphoric commentary was that the Arabs support US policy on Iran, hostility towards Iran. That was all over the place and was quite interesting because what it was, in fact, referring to was Arab dictators. What about Arab public opinion? Well.. that was also studied and was studied by the most prestigious US polling institutions and released by prestigious institutions like Brookings. These studies are not reported! In the United States, literally not reported- I believe there was one report in England. These reports rank Egypt as the most important country in the region, and within Egypt over ninety percent of the population regard the United States as the most major threat. Eighty percent think the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. Only a small number, maybe ten percent, regard Iran as a threat. Those figures are rather similar throughout the region. But, for policy makers that doesn't matter- as long as the dictators support us? what else matters.

This takes us back to our first question looking at the attitude towards democracy. The attitude is that the population doesn't matter, as long as it's under control; and you can see that. Incidentally, this is quite an old issue. If we had serious reporting on these issues, it would not only report Arab public opinion, but would report that the policy of ignoring Arab public opinion has been around for some time. Back in the 1950's President Eisenhower was concerned about what he called the 'campaign of hatred' in the Arab world; not by governments, but by people. In the same year, the national security council released a study concluding that there is a perception among the people of the Arab world that the United States supports harsh and brutal dictatorships, blocks democracy and development, and we do so because we want to maintain control over their energy supplies. It went onto conclude that the perception (of foreign policy objectives) is more or less accurate, and as long as the dictators support us- then who cares that there's a campaign of hatred? as long as we can control the population... That has remained a consistent policy, very dramatically so today- and as you can see by the reaction to these exposures and unreported crucial data- that's become a generally accepted attitude among educated sectors.

[Glenn Greenwald] One of the most significant trends in the past several decades of mass media has been the fact that media outlets have become large corporations themselves, functioning with the same dynamics that every other large corporation would that may sell arms, insurance policy and investment funds.

The finer attributes of large corporations; to be as uncontroversial as possible, to affirm orthodoxy as much as you possibly can to avoid upsetting those who wield power over your business… those are rational powers to adopt if you’re running a business, as they will maximise your profits. Unfortunately, that’s the same dynamic that drives corporate media outlets. It’s not just about maximising profits, but making sure that these corporations- that have so many other interests besides their media outlets- end up not suffering for them as a result of what their journalists are producing. This has produced a very pro-orthodoxy, pro-power posture in media outlets. Maybe that’s OK when you have a company selling insurance policies, but when you’re trying to engage in journalism? Nothing could be more harmful.

Q: What is the role of press freedom as it relates to the justice system and wider democracy?

[Glenn Greenwald] The theory of why the free press is protected in the US constitution is one that I believe in. The founders of the United States were mostly preoccupied with the notion of how you create a centralised government without imbuing it with the kinds of authoritarian power that they had waged wars to raise themselves from. The only answer they could come up with was to create a whole bunch of checks on those kinds of power, things that would push back and be adversarial to it, and be designed to work against it.

One of the instruments for providing some limits on political power was a free-press. This did not mean people who got a degree in journalism and went to work for a media corporation, but rather anyone citizen who does journalism! Any citizen with a printing press! This was protected on the grounds that it pushed back against power. If all media was going to do was just amplify the claims of people in power, you wouldn’t need to protect the free press; for one, it wouldn’t have any value, and for another it would never be targeted with repression.

The only way that free-press can be valuable is if it serves as an adversarial force against those who wield the greatest power. That’s what journalism is all about.

Q: What is the reality of the level of capability of government and state monitoring of our communications?

[Glenn Greenwald] The capabilities that governments have to monitor communication are genuinely limitless. Whenever people ask me what the most shocking or significant revelation was from the Snowden archive, I always say the same thing. It wasn’t any specific story, but rather all these documents that describe what their [government] aspirations were as a spying agency. The thing that shocked me, even though I have been working on surveillance for a long time was that they literally had a stated goal of converting the internet into a limitless realm of monitoring and surveillance. That’s a motto that appears over and over again in these documents, they literally want a scenario where there are no communications that take place electronically between human beings that are beyond their surveillance and monitoring reach. In essence, they want to eliminate privacy in the digital age.

There are steps that can be taken to protect your communications, but by and large there are no limits on what government surveillance systems are capable of monitoring.

Q: To what extent is government monitoring of communications necessary?

[Glenn Greenwald] The crucial difference is between targeted surveillance and mass surveillance. I don’t think there is anyone in this debate who believes that it is inherently illegitimate for the state to ever target someone for surveillance. The difference is between targeting individuals where it is believed that they are engaged in some form of wrong-doing versus indiscriminately putting entire populations of hundreds of millions of people under a surveillance microscope despite any evidence of wrong-doing of any kind.

It’s because the US government and their allies are engaged in mass surveillance rather than targeted surveillance that there has been an Edward Snowden, and there has been a debate at all. If it were just them monitoring suspected members of Al Qaeda or people who are likely to engage in terrorist attacks, their would have been no whistleblowing or debate.

Q: Can you balance the need for state security and privacy?

[Glenn Greenwald] It’s always difficult to find the exact perfect balance between security and privacy. It’s difficult to assess what the government needs to prove in order to target someone with the legitimate extent of surveillance- but you could certainly much more reasonably proximate what is a legitimate and reasonable balancing point, even if it’s imperfect.

The current surveillance posture of the US has no balance. They want to collect everything because they can; it’s the opposite of a balanced mind-set, and that’s what makes it so pernicious.

Q: Has the Internet enabled our freedom of speech and democratic liberty?

[Glenn Greenwald] The Internet has been vital in rejuvenating the idea of free speech, the free press, and democratising political and media discourse. That’s long been the promise; as heralded by fans of the Internet, and I think it’s finally starting to come to fruition.

For one thing, in order to reach a large audience a decade ago- you had to work for a large media outlet such as the New York Times, NBC news or one of the big British newspapers- and you’d have to submit yourself to all of their editorial strictures and methods for doing journalism. Now? There are all kinds of people who have built very large readerships by starting a blog! That’s how I began journalism! Even now, there are people with thousands of followers they reach, even without having worked at a large media agency- that has really enabled people outside the corporate structure to have a serious influence on how we think about things.

Q: What are the greatest threats that exist to our democratic freedom of expression?

[Glenn Greenwald] The existence of mass surveillance is- itself- a huge threat to the values the Internet enables. The history of communication and media technology shows that whenever something is created that threatens to change the concentration and distribution of power; that the people who wield power try to subvert it, and try to annexe it for their own use. This is exactly what Internet surveillance is doing. One of the pre-requisites to being able to speak freely and use the Internet to engage in activism is the idea that you can do so with privacy and anonymity. The idea that you can express ideas without feeling like you’re being judged for them is important.

Studies show that when human beings are being watched, they become much more conformist and their behavioural traits narrow significantly. There’s a huge tension between the open thought the Internet enables, and how mass surveillance creates self-censorship.

Q: What is the true nature of information subversion seen by governments and corporate institutions?

[Noam Chomsky] I should say that, by now, there are thousands of pages of detailed documentation on this topic. Without going too far afield, let's look at the topics we just mentioned. Is it important for us to know that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken with the expectation that it would increase terror? was undertaken with the intention of ensuring US corporations have privileged access over Iraqi oil? and it would be a permanent US military base? I think it would have been important for the public to know that. I think it would be important for the public to know now that Arab public opinion is so hostile to western (specifically US) power- that it regards the US as a prime threat, and thinks the region would be better off if Iran had nuclear weapons. Is it important for people in the United States and Britain to know that? I would think so! We can go on with case after case. Is it important for Americans, for example, to know that if we had a healthcare system similar to other industrial societies the deficit would be erased and we wouldn't have to go after teacher's pensions and Medicare payments for the elderly and so forth? Yeah, I think that would be important to know. I think, in fact, that ought to be blaring headlines!

All this information can be found out if you do a research project- but it doesn't even enter the public eye.

Q: What influence do large corporations exert in society?

[Noam Chomsky] Corporations play an overwhelming role in society. I don't think that fact is even contentious. Similar observations have been made as far back as Adam Smith who pointed out that in Britain the principal architects of policy were merchants and manufacturers, the people who own society- and they ensure that their interests are served however grievous the impact on the people of England. This is far more true today, with much higher concentrations of power- we are not just manufacturers, we have financial institutions and multinational corporations. They have an enormous influence, and the influence can not only be harmful, but in many cases lethal.

Taking the United States as an example- the corporate sector has been carrying out major propaganda campaigns to try to convince the population that there is no threat from global warming. This, in effect, has led to the majority of people now agreeing it is not a real issue. Business funding has also been the primary instrument in bringing a new group of cadres to congress- figures who are virtually all climate change deniers. These individuals are about to enact legislation to cut-back funding for the international organisation (the IPCC) and the capacity of the environmental protection agency who may not even be able to monitor the effect of greenhouse gases or carry out any other actions which could reduce the impact of global warming which is a very serious threat! This has been done by the corporate executives who are carrying out these propaganda campaigns and funding political figures who are undercutting such efforts. They understand as well as anyone else that global warming is a very serious threat, but there is an institutional role that enters here. If you are the CEO of a corporation, your task is to maximise short-term profit. That's much more true now than it ever has been in the past. We are in a new stage of state-capitalism in which the future just doesn't matter very much, even the survival of the firm doesn't matter very much. What matters increasingly is short term profit and if a CEO doesn't pursue that, he will be replaced with someone who will do it. This is institutional effect, not individual effect, and has extraordinary implications on society. It may, in fact, destroy our very existence.

[Glenn Greenwald] There is an artificial division when we talk about the government versus large corporations such as Google. Aside from the fact that they work together on all kinds of common-objectives and goals- such as the PRISM programme and so on.

In Western democracies, money plays a huge influence in political outcomes. In some ways, the government becomes a tool for those who wield the greatest economic power. It’s not as though there’s a separate thing called the Government, and this other thing called Google – but rather that they’ve become one. You have all this mass surveillance on the part of the government, but similarly Google, Facebook and a whole bunch of other corporations act the same way and carry it out.

Q: To what extent does a class-system still exist in western societies?

[Noam Chomsky] The business-classes are constantly fighting a bitter class war, and they are aware of it. If you read the business press they mourn about the hazard facing industrialists and the rising political power of the masses- and the need to fight the everlasting battle for the minds of men, and so forth... and they act on it! They are constantly carrying out major campaigns to ensure the concentration of power in the hands of the corporate sector will increase. In the last thirty years or so, there have been changes in the nature of the economy- shifting from capitalist to state-capitalist. A lot of the dynamism in an economy comes from the state; computers, the internet, the IT revolution and so on. The applications come from the private sector, but not the basic research and development. That has remained true, across the board. Over the past thirty years, there has been a significant change- a move towards "financialisation" of the economy. Financial institutions now have a far higher share of the profit in the economy than forty years ago. Another shift has been towards the outsourcing of production which, in effect, places working people throughout the world in competition- with obvious consequences. Well those changes have set in motion a vicious cycle in which wealth is more and more concentrated within an extremely small population. In the United States, the primary factor of inequality is the extreme concentration of wealth within a fraction of one percent of the population comprising CEO's, hedge fund managers and so on. As that concentration of wealth increases, it carries with it a concentration of political power since wealth has an enormous effect on the political system- and the political power in turn leads to legislation, which enhances the concentration of wealth. Fiscal policies, deregulation, rules of corporate governance and so on. This cycle exists all through the world, but is very striking in the United States. Within the last generation, for one thing, we have seen repeated financial crises which simply didn't occur in the fifties and sixties when new-deal regulations were still in place and the financial system was much more restricted. Increasing financial crises are not a problem for the big banks and investment firms because they can rely on the nanny state to bail them out. If we had a capitalist system, financial crises would be serious but they would be overcome simply by bankruptcy of the culprits, so Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase and Citigroup simply wouldn't exist- they would have gone bankrupt a long time ago! But since we don't have a capitalist system, they have been rescued by the taxpayer repeatedly. In fact, they are given what amounts to a government insurance policy called "too big to fail" and the credit-ranking agencies take that into account. When they determine the credit-level of Goldman Sachs, they take into account that if they partake in a lot of risky transactions, and hence make a lot of profit and the system collapses, there will be a bailout- that increases the firms credit-ranking and means that can get cheaper loans and so on. Meanwhile, for the general population of the past generation or so- for the overwhelming majority, incomes have pretty much stagnated while working hours have increased and benefits have declined leaving a very angry, frustrated and confused population that is pretty much divorced from political decisions. Decisions which are extremely in the hands of an extremely narrow concentration of power- and the media go along with it, as they are essentially part of the system. There is some sniping around the periphery, this is a free society after all- but the overwhelming thrust tends to support the system. These are very anti-democratic tendencies, and also quite dangerous.

Looking at Conflict:

Q: What is your view on the 'global-war-on-terror'?

[Noam Chomsky] One problem is that it doesn't exist. You don't fight a war on terror by carrying out actions which you anticipate will increase terror. The invasion of Iraq, again, was undertaken with the expectation that it would increase terror- and in fact it did. That is not a war on terror. There shouldn't be a war on terror, but rather an effort to undercut terror. The ways to do this are well-understood. Britain is a perfectly good example. Take, for example, IRA terror which was pretty serious! As long as Britain responded using violence, that increased and escalated the cycle of terror. Finally- partly through United States influence, and partly from internal pressure- they responded by paying some attention to the legitimate grievances that existed in the background of the terrorist actions. Well, that led to a decline in terror. By now, Northern Ireland- while not utopia- is certainly not how it was even fifteen years ago. That's the way you deal with terror! Look at its roots, sources and do something about them.

[Glenn Greenwald] The War on Terror has spiralled so far out of control, so far beyond what it claims to be; from the question from what even is terrorism and who is actually doing it, to the way that there’s an enormous gap between the policies that are justifying the means versus the reality.

When I was in New Zealand a couple of months ago, I was reporting about mass surveillance in the run-up to that country’s elections and at first the government denied it engaged in mass surveillance even though documents proved it did; and of course they resorted to claims of ISIS and all these other terrorist groups that they had to keep people safe from. This is New Zealand! A country with a small population, at the very bottom of the Pacific Ocean!

The spectre of fear mongering has become so potent, that all politicians have to do is utter the words and citizenry capitulates and acquiesces to whatever they want. The War on Terror has become a justifying mantra for Western Governments to do whatever they want.

Looking at Globalisation & Society:

Q: What are your views on globalisation and a shift of economic power to China and India?

[Noam Chomsky] First of all, we should be a little careful when discussing a "shift of economic power". It is certainly true that China and India have had very significant growth rates, but these are very poor countries. Take a look at their GDP per capita for example. According to World Bank figures (which are grossly underestimated) China has maybe five percent of the GDP per capita of the United States, India maybe two percent. These figures ought to be doubled or tripled, but even so they are a small fraction of western power. China has grown spectacularly and there's been quite significant impact on reducing poverty and so on. Nevertheless China remains, as of now, an assembly plant. If you take a look at the trade deficit of the United States with China (which is much discussed) and calculate it accurately, in terms of value-added, it turns out the trade deficit with China is over-estimated by about twenty five to thirty percent. The trade deficit with Japan, Taiwan and South Korea is underestimated by the same figure. The reason is, within the dynamic East Asian production system- the high technology parts and components come from the periphery- from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China assembles. Over time, this will change as China moves up the technology ladder, but that's how it is now. It's even more the case in India- which has hundreds of millions of people who are completely excluded from the system. Peasant suicides are increasing at roughly the same rate as the creation of billionaires. A couple of hundred million people have gained, and many more have not- and their situation has been getting worse. There are also enormous ecological problems which are not counted as costs, though they should be. What's going on there is pretty spectacular.

There is much talk of China's holding of US debt and what that implies and so on. Japan's holding of US debt is approximately the same, that does not give Japan power over the United States. There's a lot of misleading commentary about these topics.

Q: What do you think the world will look like 25 years from now?

[Noam Chomsky] Well, there are a number of things taking place. The United States after the second World War was overwhelmingly dominant, its power has been declining since and is declining right now. In part, this decline has to do with the increasing growth in Asian production- we shouldn't exaggerate but it's certainly a part of it. Another factor is the internal attack on the health of American society- the corporate onslaught that has taken place over the past generation has severely weakened American society. There is an attack on the educational system which will have severe long-term effects on economy- there is a general attack on the workforce- the vicious cycle I described is fine for a very small sector of the population, but is harmful for everyone else. The infrastructure is in very poor shape. Anyone who travels from Europe or even Asia to the United States often think they are coming to a third-world country! This is increasing. It is not a problem for the small-sector of wealth and power that off-shore's production and engages in financial manipulations- for them it doesn't really matter if the country declines. It is declining, and it is under attack internally. The United States does have a financial crisis- deficit and debt problem- that is due to two things. One, the enormously bloated military budget which is approximately the same as the rest of the world combined and secondly, a highly dysfunctional privatised unregulated healthcare system. Those two elements are being protected and that, along with the vicious cycle that I mentioned, is leading to severe internal problems which will continue the decline. In addition, the environmental problem is very serious. If the United States does not take the lead, the rest of the world is not going to do very much. If the United States undermine efforts deal with environmental problems- as is now happening- that is going to be even more serious and that's exactly what we see in front of us for the institutional reasons that I mentioned. Thirty years from now, that will be much more significant.

There is also, unfortunately, an increasing threat of nuclear war and even nuclear terror. That's why I mentioned before US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan- part of that policy increases the risk that fissile materials will fall into the hands of radical Islamists. I should say that radical Islam has been strongly supported by the United States and Britain for a long time as a barrier to secular nationalism. The US has also supported the nuclear programmes of Pakistan, India and Israel- the three non-signers of the non-proliferation-treaty. All of that is a very combustible mix.

There are also going to be increasing conflicts over resources. Resources are being pressed to the limit and with increasing growth, there will be competition- which will lead to severe resource conflict and maybe wars of some kind. They may not be military wars, but some kind of conflict. For example- if we look at the major world energy resources in the Middle-East, more are now going East than West! The United States so far is tolerating this- they want Saudi oil to go to China to undercut China's initiatives in Iran- that's part of US geopolitical strategy but that will cause conflict and is true of other resources- Iron, Copper, Lithium and so -on. This is a growing and serious problem- and gives a pretty gloomy prediction of the future unless something significant changes.

---------------------------------------------------

In his 2009 book "Freedom For Sale", John Kampfner discusses that by 2000, "... for the first time, democracy had acquired majority status in the world. Yet, as the writer Paul Ginsborg points out, at the very time it appeared to be dominant, liberal democracy had actually entered a profound crisis. This was not a crisis of quantity; quite the opposite. The crisis, rather, was one of quality." Kampfner continues by citing many cases of this quality-issue including the "dubious judicial legitimacy" of the 2000 US Presidential election along with the more recent manipulation of evidence leading up to the Iraq war, the humiliations of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the systematic use of torture in secret jails around the world, and more.

"In order to succeed in this moral void..." he writes, "the new authoritarians came to a pact with their peoples. The specific rules varied between countries, but the template was similar. Repression was selective, confined to those who openly challenged the status quo. The number of people who fell into that category was actually very few... The rest of the population could enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as they wished and to make and spend their money. This was the difference between public freedoms and private, or privatised, freedoms.... After all, how many members of the public, going on about their daily lives, wish to challenge the structures of power? One can more easily than one realises be lulled into thinking that one is sufficiently free".

His view of being sufficiently free brings us back to the view of democracy being a "...compromise designed to balance interests among members of a community" albeit rather than balancing interests in a true sense, democracy (as we see it) becomes a pseudo-negotiation between a ruling elite (be they political or corporate) and their peoples as to what freedoms they (the peoples) are prepared to cede in exchange for perceived comforts. This moral-equilibrium-point is further provoked into volatility by the huge inequality we see between societies with the population of one wishing for the freedoms (be they economic, social, or political) in another. In 'western' civilisation, consumerism has provided a unique substrate for this pact. As Kampfner points out, "...people in all countries found a way to disengage from the political process while living in comfort. Consumerism provided the ultimate anaesthetic for the brain."

Unlike true-dictatorships, citizens in 'the west' have a sense of debate, control and participation in the issues affecting their lives. This sense of participation is supported by the level of information citizens receive about their democracy and the opportunities they have to interact with it through voting rights, panels, protest, and many other means. If, therefore, they feel sufficiently engaged in the democratic process- why should they even question the democracy of it!

The fact is we are encountering what can only be described as a participation-fallacy. Yes, citizens have the right to elect leaders (albeit who have sufficient capital to run for election) and vote on a wide variety of issues; but if we consider the most important issues which have had the most profound influence on western society in the past decade (including wars, bank-bailouts, climate change and more) aside from the right to show public-opinion through protest, have citizens really had the opportunity to exercise public-opinion? The answer is no- and even the most cursory glance of public opinion polls and outlets will show the widespread displeasure at many decisions which, while ostensibly "taken in citizens' best interest", rarely were.

This is not a problem we can solve overnight, the status-quo has become embedded and systemic in every part of our society. For our world to truly become democratic, the process has begin with education and end with culture meaning that citizens are not only more aware of the opportunities and processes of democracy, but are also culturally driven towards a culture which Dr. Wright describes as, "...a theory, policy, procedure and art, emphasising human welfare, individual freedom, popular participation and general tolerance. It can adapt itself to many conditions, but it thrives in an atmosphere of education, toleration, peace and prosperity." The traits of "Ignorance, dogma, war and poverty.." Dr. Wright argues (traits which have almost become hallmarks of our civilisation) "are its enemies. They breed absolute and arbitrary government, uncritical and lethargic people, which are the reverse of democracy."

"People in the long run.." stated David Eisenhower, "are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." For that to happen, though, we must realise that we (as people) are in this together and that the notions of society and self-interest are, for the most part, incompatible. By understanding that in exchange for a few notional-comforts we (actively) give-up our own freedom and the freedoms of billions of citizens around the world, we lose any perceived moral high-ground we have and any assertion of the freedom of our society.

"There is no such thing as a little freedom..." said Walter Cronkite, "either you are all free, or you are not free."

Mental Health

2014-12-10T12:15:00.002+00:00

The World's Most Profound Health Challenge

In these exclusive interviews we speak to: Dr. Thomas Insel (Director of the National Institutes of Mental Health, NIMH), Dr. Shekhar Saxena (Director of Mental Health for the World Health Organisation), Paul Farmer (Chief Executive of Mind, the world’s largest Mental Health NGO), Sergeant Kevin Briggs (Guardian of the Golden Gate Bridge) and Marcus Trescothick (International Cricketer and Mental Health Campaigner). We look at the realities of mental health worldwide, understand the true burden on individuals, communities and countries and look at the opportunities to deal with our global mental health crisis.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, December 2014

Everything we are now, and will ever be, is contained within 1.5 kilos of matter- intricately woven into what, as far as mankind knows, is the most complex object in the universe- the mind. This cage provides a filter that allows us (as individuals) to make sense of the incomprehensible diversity of sensory noise that fills our world and the billions of other beings that we share it with.

It should perhaps come as no surprise therefore that an object this complex- and in many ways beautiful- comes at a huge price. The mind is the seat of our self, and with this amazing capacity comes the ability to cause us profoundly deep pain; illustrated by the fact that every 40 seconds, someone in our world commits suicide (around 1 million people each year).

It is estimated (conservatively) that 1.3 billion people around the world suffer from mental health disorders, with around 600 million people doing so severely enough to be disabled (in some capacity) by them; and losing many years of their lives to mental health related disability. Barely an individual exists on this earth that has not directly or indirectly been impacted by mental health in some way, perhaps fighting their own battles, or experiencing them by proxy through a friend, family member or colleague.

The burden of mental health also puts huge financial pressure on our world. By 2020 (less than half a decade from now) it is estimated that mental health will cost our world over U$6 trillion in lost-productivity and direct costs each and every year (a similar figure to the aggregate current global health expenditure). Yet- with this in mind- we find that mental health is underfunded, poorly understood, and abhorrently low down the social, political and economic agenda of our world.

In these exclusive interviews we speak to: Dr. Thomas Insel (Director of the National Institutes of Mental Health, NIMH), Dr. Shekhar Saxena (Director of Mental Health for the World Health Organisation), Paul Farmer (Chief Executive of Mind, the world’s largest Mental Health NGO), Sergeant Kevin Briggs (Guardian of the Golden Gate Bridge) and Marcus Trescothick (International Cricketer and Mental Health Campaigner). We look at the realities of mental health worldwide, understand the true burden on individuals, communities and countries and look at the opportunities to deal with our global mental health crisis.

Thomas R. Insel, M.D., is Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the component of the National Institutes of Health charged with generating the knowledge needed to understand, treat, and prevent mental disorders.

Prior to his appointment as NIMH Director in the Fall 2002, Dr. Insel was Professor of Psychiatry at Emory University. There, he was founding director of the Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience, one of the largest science and technology centres. Dr. Insel has served on numerous academic, scientific, and professional committees and boards. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine, a fellow of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, and is a recipient of several awards including the Outstanding Service Award from the U.S. Public Health Service.

Dr. Shekhar Saxena is Director of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse at the World Health Organization (WHO). A Psychiatrist by training; with about 30 years of experience in research and programme management, service delivery and information systems in the areas of mental health and neurological disorders, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Paul Farmer has been Chief Executive of Mind, the leading mental health charity working in England and Wales since May 2006. Paul is Chair of the NHS England Mental Health Patient Safety Board, he is an advisor to the Catholic Bishops on mental health and was on the Metropolitan Police commission on policing and mental health. He is a trustee at the Mental Health Providers Forum, an umbrella body for voluntary organisations supporting people with mental distress. Paul is also trustee at Lloyds Banking Foundation and Chair of the ACEVO board. In November 2012 Paul received an Honorary Doctorate of Science from the University of East London in recognition for achievements in promoting the understanding and support of mental health.

Kevin Briggs entered the United States Army in 1981, where he spent three years serving across the United States and Europe. In 1987, he became a correctional officer and worked at Soledad and San Quentin State Prisons. In 1990, he graduated from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) academy and worked predominately on the Golden Gate Bridge (GGB). This assignment proved to be very challenging, as the GGB produced an average of four to six suicidal subjects, multiple collisions, and dozens of other law enforcement “calls” each month. In 1999, he completed training at the CHP Motor School, and in 2008, was promoted to Sergeant. Having graduated from the FBI’s Crisis Negotiation Course, one of his duties was to train new CHP officers and GGB staff on crisis interventions/negotiations. Sgt. Kevin Briggs retired from the CHP in November, 2013, to promote Crisis Management, Leadership Skills, and Suicide Intervention/Prevention worldwide.

Marcus Trescothick is an international cricketer, regarded as one of England’s most outstanding batsmen of the modern age.

At 29, Marcus Trescothick was widely regarded as one of the batting greats. With more than 5,000 Test runs to his name and a 2005 Ashes hero, some were predicting this gentle West Country cricket nut might even surpass Graham Gooch's record to become England's highest ever Test run scorer. But the next time Trescothick hit the headlines it was for reasons no one but a handful of close friends and colleagues could have foreseen. Marcus has since become one of the UK’s leading advocates for mental health awareness. He continues to play for Somerset, working as a commentator and analyst for Sky Sports in the off-season.

Q: What is the state of mental illness?

[Dr. Thomas Insel] Mental illness has been with us for centuries, perhaps forever.

We try to capture the public health significance of an illness by looking at mortality and morbidity. Mortality- when you think about it – is driven by heart disease, cancer, and to some degree infectious diseases. Morbidity - or disability- is quite another thing.

Mental illness accounts for 26% of all years lost to disability. It trumps virtually all other sources of disability- and this is for two reasons. Firstly, mental illnesses are highly prevalent. In the USA, nearly one in five adults had a diagnosable mental illness in the past year. More important, around 4-5% of the population is disabled by a severe mental illness- nearly 1 in 20 adults. Moreover, what makes mental conditions different from heart disease or cancer is that these disorders start very early in life- 75% before the age of 25. The current estimates are that depression is the single largest source of years lost to disability. That's extraordinary to think that depression is globally a leading source of disability -- this would not be on most people's lists of public health challenges.

[Dr. Shekhar Saxena] The state of worldwide mental health is a cause for very serious concern, not just for governments but also the World Health Organization. There are a very large number of people with mental disorders, but a huge number who also have mental and psychological symptoms (not amounting to disorders) who need support. Although some people require care and services, many require help to take care of their mental health, to prevent future disorders.

We are talking about a huge population; not just people who have diagnosed disorders and require treatment, but all of us - you and I - who need to pay more attention to our mental health.

3-5% of people in any given population, at any moment in time, have a mental disorder with substantial disability. 10% of people in any given population, at any moment in time, have a mild mental disorder. Overall, in 1 in 4 families there is someone with a mental disorder, and that's without including disorders related to alcohol and substance abuse.

What causes us great concern is that the attention paid to mental health by policy-makers and health services at large is extremely small. There is a large need, and not enough attention. The World Health Organization’s mental health programme is called the mhGAP – the Mental Health Gap Action Programme – which signifies the gap between the needs and availability of resources in this sector.

[Paul Farmer] We know that 1 in 4 of us will experience a mental health problem at any one given time- by which we mean people who will need help for their mental health. In broader terms however, we all experience mental health challenges- and one of the most important parts of our work is to think of mental health in context of the whole population as well as those specific individuals who do experience mental health problems.

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] Mental illness in society today is more serious then ever before, in my opinion. According to the World Health Organization, there are approximately 800,000 suicides in the world each year. And, for each completed suicide, there are 20-25 attempts. We are still learning about the brain, how it operates, and how it is affected by mental illness. The key to reducing the stigma surrounding mental illness is education and an open mind. Take stress/mental illness in the workplace for example. They tend to remain near the top of the list for time lost from work. I believe if there were more training in the area surrounding this issue, particularly on how to recognize/approach a person suffering from mental illness/anxiety/stress, there would be a significant amount of money saved in lost time at work, thus reducing workmen’s compensation. People would also in fact be happier and contribute more to the success of their company.

Q: What was your experience of mental health challenges?

[Marcus Trescothick] If I look back, mental health impacted my life more back in 2006- when I was away playing in India, and became too much of an issue to deal with… which is why I returned from there and began the process of dealing with it, understanding it, and learning how to live your life with it.

In truth, it had been underlying for quite a long period of time. It had always been there and I hadn’t perhaps given it the credibility it warranted. I used to suffer quite a bit from homesickness from an early age- around 11- and the symptoms were very similar back then to how they are now still. At the time you think it’s just homesickness and you learn to cope with it for that period of time and it moves on. It’s only really at the time when it became more severe, that I understood what it was- and the reasons why. It became more of a ‘problem’ once I acknowledged what it was!

Mental health impacts everything. When I’m playing cricket, I could immerse myself in the game and what I had to do. I could distract myself and manage it more easily- and that’s part of the problem where if you’re not doing a great deal, you can sit with it, dwell on it, and it can become a bigger problem. My challenges certainly did have an impact on my job, but I learned to manage it to carry on and still deliver- and do what I need to do- even if I don’t feel 100% or as good as I would normally do on a daily basis.

Q: What is the social, economic and political burden of mental health on the community?

[Dr. Shekhar Saxena] Mental disorders have an impact on a number of levels. First, there is the health impact; they cause deaths and a huge amount of disability. More than 10% of the world's Disability Adjusted Life Years lost is due to mental and psychological problems. This is huge. We mustn't forget though that lives are lost. People frequently identify mental illnesses as causing disability, but not death; but that's not correct. Around the world over 800 000 people lose their lives to suicide each year, and a large number of people with mental disorders die significantly earlier than the general population as they ignore their health needs and may not therefore get treatment for tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, cancers and so on. Unfortunately mental illness are often ignored by the health system; and they get much less attention in the hands of policy makers and health-care providers.

The social burden of mental illness is huge. Mental health problems give rise to absenteeism in the workplace, marital discord, child maltreatment, neglect and abuse, and also violence. I don't want to feed the misconception that mentally ill people are violent, that's absolutely not true. People with mental health disorders are more often at the receiving end of violence. Both people with mental health disorders, and their families, often suffer from stigma and discrimination. Sufferers are often denied access to social services, the jobs market and even social and cultural activities. This is extremely hard to measure in monetary terms, but is hugely significant.

The economic impact of mental health disorders is also very large. Working populations may experience reduced productivity, greater absenteeism and even ”presenteeism” where the person is at the job but not performing at well. You also find economic burden within the justice system as a result of drug and alcohol usage. A very large proportion of the prison population all over the world, but particularly in North America, has mental health disorders. In effect, the state spends more money on the indirect effects of mental health on society than actually treating the disorders in the first place.

The cost of mental health on society is not measured in millions or billions, but in trillions of dollars. This scale is largely unrecognised by policy makers.

The best voices to highlight these concerns are the people with the mental health disorders themselves, and their families; the advocacy organisations in this sector are not just few in number, but weak in stature. There is a lot of self-advocacy for HIV, cancer and so forth, but not so much for mental health. The people who suffer the most have the quietest voice - not just because of the illnesses themselves - but because of the stigma. This is one of the reasons why mental health issues do not get the attention they deserve.

[Paul Farmer] Mental health can be seen as a continuum. Many people manage their mental health well, and are able to live the lives they want to- and there are numerous examples of people who have achieved fantastic, incredible things whilst living with mental health problems… others have more complex and enduring problems that impact every aspect of their lives… ultimately and very sadly, there are also 6,000 people in the UK alone who take their own lives- and that is the ultimate impact of someone’s poor mental health.

Q: What is the toll and impact of suicide globally, and what is the challenge of suicide prevention?

[Dr. Shekhar Saxena] Over 800 000 people die by suicide each year, and the numbers are almost certainly under-estimated; a significant number of suicides are reported as natural or accidental deaths. For each death by suicide, there are over 20 attempts. These attempts leave a great deal of mental and physical disabilities. For each death by suicide, there are family members, friends and colleagues that are affected, and who sometimes blame themselves. It's a huge problem that countries need to discuss. This is beyond health; it is a cross-sectoral issue.

We must recognise mental disorders at an early stage and provide proper care so that suicides can be reduced. We must also make sure that people at the front-end of services (such as medical staff, together with those working in the law enforcement and judicial systems) are trained to ask the right questions to detect people with suicidal tendencies early. Most people who eventually commit suicide and die have sought help within the previous 12 months, but did not receive appropriate help. We must also ensure that the means of committing suicide, such as pesticides and firearms, have restricted access. It's genuinely believed that if a person is bent on suicide, that they will do but this is not true. Suicidal tendencies are often transitory and if you can prevent the person from taking their own life for a few hours or days, they may often never do it. We must also look at the fact that alcohol is very closely linked to thoughts of suicide and death by suicide. Reducing the amount of alcohol consumed in society will have a very positive impact on preventing suicide.

We believe that there is no acceptable rate of suicide, that each and every suicide is one too many and that each and every country has a responsibility to act on this issue.

Q: Why do you think people see suicide as a final way out?

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] This of course is just my opinion with regards to why people become suicidal. This is based on my own observations of the many folks I have dealt with. With mental illness comes shame. In most of the world, mental illness is looked upon as a sort of made up concoction is one’s head. You dare not speak about, for fear of loosing family, friends, even your employment. So, people suffer for years with getting treatment. Even those who face this head on can struggle greatly, due to the severity of the illness at times. Some of those who suffer, even after seeking help, become so ashamed and incapacitated by their illness, they believe they simply cannot go on. They feel they are a burden, and are actually doing everyone a favour by their demise. Then they are the one’s who have committed criminal acts, such as lewd acts with children. When they are discovered, they shame and embarrassment is too much. As many ways as there are to loose one’s life to suicide, are that many reasons to do it.

As far as a cry for help, there are those that start to do an act, say, come to the Bridge and go over the rail because they know they are going to get attention. It is my belief that most do not do this for attention. We do have our “frequent guests” so to speak, but each and every time they are handled with respect and as if it was their first time on the Bridge. You just never know what is really going on in a person’s mind, so it is important to take each case with the utmost care and concern.

Q: What were the reasons why people had decided to make attempts at taking their own lives on the Golden Gate Bridge?

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] There are a multitude of factors why people think suicide is their only way out of the pain/loneliness they are suffering. The vast majority of the time years of suffering from mental illness have occurred. Mental illnesses like Depression and Bi-Polar disorders wreak havoc on a person. Some do very well with therapy and medication. Others loose their way and decline steadily, over the years, emotionally, financially, and finally loose their ability to cope. Once is a while a person will loose their life to show another person what they have done to them. It is a retaliatory action based on what a loved one, business partner, or person close to them has done.

Q: What was the mental state of those you observed on the Golden Gate Bridge?

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] Most of the people I have encountered over the rail did in fact suffer from a diagnosable mental illness in one form or another, and varying degrees of severity. Alcohol and drugs was observed in many, as this helps to alleviate pain and give them courage for the task at hand. Two of the people I dealt with directly were in fact not under the influence of alcohol/drugs. They had been suffering from mental illness for years. Their demeanour was generally calm and collective. Both were extremely polite, and seemed as if they were ok with what they intended to do, and had made peace with it.

Q: What was the impact you saw from suicide?

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] The impact of what occurs when we observe a suicide is difficult to fully explain. If we have spoken to the person for some time, it is like loosing a friend. The bond created just before one’s death leaves an emptiness in your heart and guilt in your soul. “Could I have done better?” We ask this of ourselves each and every day. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The family and friends can be affected so deeply that it may trigger other suicides. I have seen parents simply give up on life after their child has lost his/her life to suicide. The guilt can be tremendous. Although they may, and probably did, do everything to the best of their ability, a suicide has ripple affects that lasts a lifetime.

Q: How did suicides impact you (personally) and the officers/personnel you worked with?

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] The suicides that we do witness will forever be ingrained in our minds. It is very personal, and each of us deals with it differently. We (the California Highway Patrol) have what’s called an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) where we can see a psychologist seven times a year. This has helped many of us.

I look at it a couple of different ways. One is that fact that I believe we help many more then we loose. The other are words a Rabbi from New Jersey told me once after I spoke to a young man, just 32 years old, who flew out to the Bridge from New Jersey and jumped after I spoke with him for an hour. I was feeling extremely guilty and very down on myself. The Rabbi told me, “Kevin, if you ever stop feeling the way you do right now, get out of the business.” He explained it is the compassion and thoughtfulness that’s helps so many, and that even though we try with all our heart and soul, some folks just cannot be reached.

Q: In your role; how would you try and diffuse the situation(s) and talk-down individuals?

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] I use active listening skills in the hopes of generating conversation to find out what is going on in their life. Honesty is huge. I in no way advise them their life will be a piece of cake if they come back over the rail, but I do relate the importance of their life, their self worth, their responsibilities, and try and install hope. Listening is critical. Many times, all a person needs is someone who will listen, without an agenda or argument.

Q: What is the state of attitudes towards mental health?

[Dr. Thomas Insel] There is a lack of understanding about mental illness.

In the developing world, mental illnesses tend to be viewed as a first-world problem. In the developed world, it's often seen as a private family issue and is rarely a priority for people who set the public health agenda. Mental health oddly has been carved away from the rest of medicine as being a social-services problem rather than a medical or public health problem. That's a critical part of the difficulty we've had bending the curve for mortality and morbidity as they relate to mental illness; we've not been able to get traction in the world of medical practice.

The World Health Organisation reckons that around 3% of healthcare dollars are spent on mental disorders, yet these disorders account for 26% of years lost to disability. It's a huge gap between investments and costs.. Patients receive the equivalent of less than $2 per person per year in this space- and that's incredible considering the disability associated with mental illness. It's not simply a question of disability – mortality is also a concern. The WHO global suicide report cites conservatively that there are more than 800,000 suicides in the world each year, 90% of which can be attributed to mental disorders and 75% of which are in low and middle income countries. Mental health is not only a first-world problem, and the suicide data demonstrate that, when neglected, this a problem with fatal consequences.

In the USA we have around 12 suicides per 100,000 people each year- a rate which is about average for an OECD country. Note that the deaths from suicide are more than double the deaths from homicides each year: the USA has around 16,000 homicides each year, and 39,000 suicides! In the USA, there is an immense focus on homicides, it's a lead story in each and every newspaper but you rarely read about suicide which is twice as prevalent. In fact... homicides have come down around 50% whereas suicides have only trended upwards.

There's a remarkable neglect for suicide. Around the world we have people accountable for reducing medical deaths, road traffic accidents and so forth, but it's difficult to find who's accountable for preventing suicide in most countries.

[Dr. Shekhar Saxena] The stigmatisation of, and discrimination against, those with mental health disorders is found all over the world.

The stigma is not just due to a lack of knowledge, but attitudes. It's easy to change knowledge, but hard to change attitudes and behaviours.

One of the reasons self-advocacy is weak, and we are experiencing a policy hiatus, is because policy makers don't like to think or plan around mental health because of the stigma. The public discourse in developed countries is changing, but it's far from adequate ̶ and in much of the world, the discrimination is rampant.

There is also a very clear link between mental health disorders and human rights violations. These violations occur in mental institutions and in the community. Almost 70% of psychiatric beds are in mental hospitals and not general hospitals. Mental hospitals, by their definition, are isolated and often far from cities. They have conventionally been more of a place to keep people with mental disorders away from society, rather than for treatment and services; this unfortunate reality continues in the present day in both the developed and the developing world. Human rights violations are rampant and because of a lack of transparency and accountability, these violations are able to occur both within and outside the law. In many countries, there are laws that deprive people with mental disorders of their basic civil rights such as voting, driving, property ownership and so forth. Laws aside, we see frequent abuse of people with mental disorders; they are deprived of their liberty, and sometimes locked-up in institutions for life. Even basic physical needs, such as food, clothing, shelter and basic healthcare, are often denied.

It's not just within healthcare settings that these abuses occur. Communities frequently violate the human rights of their citizens who are suffering with mental health disorders. We hear stories about people being chained and locked-up in their houses for years ̶ this is indicative of the way society treats people with mental disorders. This is not just illegal, it’s immoral.

Mental disorders are disorders like any other, but they are stigmatised and deprive people of their human rights. Society must do something about this.

[Paul Farmer] There is no doubt that mental health stigma remains a huge challenge to overcome. For generations, we’ve ignored the issue of mental health, and those with mental health problems have been literally kept out of sight, out of mind. Let’s not forget that it wasn’t that long ago that people were locked-up in long-stay institutions! That was the way that society viewed mental health!

We are beginning to see progress… For the first time, partly as a result of the Time to Change campaign, that we run with ReThink Mental Illness we’ve seen an improvement in public attitudes to mental health. In specific areas, attitudes are changing quite quickly. In the workplace for example we know that many employers are recognising the importance of improving well-being for employees, and supporting people who need it. We also still know that many people feel they can’t disclose their mental health problems to their employer or colleagues.

It’s important for leaders to be open about their experiences, and that’s not something that happens very often. It makes a huge difference. There’s been a lot of work around how leaders can be open about their mental health challenges, as it can often be doubly-difficult in a workplace. If you’re a member of staff, it’s hard enough going to your manager – but if you’re in charge? Who do you talk to and how!?

[Marcus Trescothick] I [personally] don’t see this perhaps as much as it’s reported in the media, but I can only really judge it on my own circumstances and a few friends in the profession who’ve been through it. Whether we’re just lucky and people allow us to carry on playing the game? …it doesn’t affect us too much. It doesn’t affect the decisions made on us, we’re still allowed to carry on and do as normal. You do hear a lot about it in other areas.

Even now however, I know lots of people who still don’t want to admit to their boss or team-mates what they’re going through. That’s people within the game, but also from other walks of life.

People still believe there’s an issue or stigma… but it’s not until it’s a major problem that people go, ‘sod it, I’ll just tell everyone….’ And that made it a lot easier for me!

Q: Is there a link between high performance careers and mental health?

[Marcus Trescothick] From what I see, I think there probably is. There’s a lot of demand put on yourself – you push yourself through hours and hours of work; that could be hours of training at the gym, practice, on the pitch, travelling and being away from home. The England team for example spend around 270 days a year away from their families and homes- that’s pretty demanding.

There must be some correlation between demanding lives and mental health… that said, I know many people that suffer these problems who don’t have those same life challenges. Everyone’s issues are relative to how their brain operates- they still have the same stresses and worries that we all do.

Q: What is the state of treatment for mental illness?

[Dr. Thomas Insel] We think of treatment in two big buckets. One is medications. The medications we have today, around 30 anti-depressants and 20 anti-psychotics, are not strikingly different from the drugs we had 40 years ago. That's not to say they're not effective; they're actually quite useful and may be essential for those who are severely ill.

Medication isn't sufficient however... you need a series of non-pharmacological interventions deployed with medication. In much of the developed world, people get medication but not much of anything else. The second bucket includes the range of non-pharmacologic treatments, from psychotherapies to devices, including mobile health apps. There is a lot of innovation right now in the development of inexpensive, accessible treatments that can be used in low resource environments.

Medications can treat the symptoms, but may fail to address the core of these illnesses, which are often cognitive. In the developed world, we're too singular in our approach- focusing on medication or cognitive therapy but rarely combining treatments to get optimal outcomes.. In many developing world, patients don't- in many cases- even have access to the medication! The WHO estimates that 85% of people in the developing world receive no treatment whatsoever! All these medicines are generic and incredibly cheap, and could be available everywhere to everyone. It wouldn't be enough of course, but antidepressant and antipsychotic medications should be in every formulary in the world.

[Paul Farmer] There is a very long history of mental health being continuously underfunded as a result of which, only 25-35% of people with mental-health problems receive treatment at all. There’s an enormous treatment gap between the number of people who need help and support and the number of people who get help and support.

Evidence suggests if we invest systematically in mental health, not just at the treatment-end, but also with early interventions and appropriate crisis care, that it can be clinically and economically effective. There isn’t any reason why these investments can’t be made now, especially given the savings that could be made in acute hospitals and primary care; lots of people who go to their Doctor or A&E have mental-health problems, and many people on acute wards have some mental health problem. There’s a really good opportunity to change the way that mental health services are provided, and in our manifesto for the next government, we’re encouraging this to be at the heart of thinking.

Q: What are the most promising areas of science in mental health?

[Dr. Thomas Insel] At the NIMH we think a lot about how we get better at diagnosing and treating these disorders. Much of what we do today, and have done for the past several decades has been focussed on symptoms rather than the underlying cause or strategic treatments. The hypothesis we have here is that mental illness is related to something going on in the brain, just as chest pain is usually related to something going on in the heart or the lungs. We don't know enough about these illnesses as brain disorders, but if we apply the extraordinary tools of modern neuroscience- there's great potential. Modern genomics and neuroscience could transform how we think of mental disorders and provide us with new diagnostic tests and treatments. Just as an example: in the era where pharmacology was the main foundational science for mental disorders, there was a tendency to think of the brain as a black-box and to consider an illness as a chemical imbalance- as if depression meant you were a quart low in serotonin. The new perspective views depression as a problem with circuits in the brain that aren't operating properly- something more like an arrhythmia in the heart. The task of treatment is to get the circuit synchronised in the right way- Medications can help but circuit tuning may require cognitive psychotherapy or targeted brain stimulation. It's becoming increasingly clear also that depression is many different disorders that impact brain circuitry, as much as fever comes from many different causes- neuroscience should give us the assays to understand depression in this way.

Science is taking us in a new transformative direction for mental illness.

Q: What are the key determinants of mental health?

[Dr. Shekhar Saxena] Mental health disorders have many causes. I can say upfront that we don't fully understand the causes of all mental disorders, although for some we have a very good idea.

The causes of mental health disorders vary from biological to social, and also psychological. Biological causes are to do with brain functioning, neurotransmitters, genetics and even structural lesions within the brain. The psychological and social causes are due to stress factors, and the risk factors that exist as a result of inequality, conflict, wars and so-forth. There are avertable causes, and also non-avertable causes, but we do know that rapidly changing societies, and those going through upheavals caused by conflict and natural disaster for example, predispose their populations to a higher incidence of mental disorders; and we can do something about that through anticipatory action and the right interventions post-event.

Q: How do demographics impact mental illness?

[Dr. Thomas Insel] One of the things that is so unique about mental illness is its prevalence in children. A fascinating question has come up about the genetics of conditions ranging from autism to schizophrenia and bipolar to ADHD. It turns out that the genetics are very similar across them all, indicating there may be a common vulnerability. Some disorders occur more in children, some more in men than women. Autism and ADHD are 4 times more common in boys for example, while depression and eating disorders are more common in women. Is there something about the fundamental mechanisms of these diseases that causes some to occur by aged 2-3 (such as autism) and some much later (such as schizophrenia) which emerge in the early 20's. Could the age of symptoms reflect the development of relevant brain pathways? Do the gender differences represent hormonal influences that are protective?

It is also possible that age and gender alter the presentation of these disorders. One line of thinking today argues that the same disorder looks like anxiety at aged 8, depression at 28, and dementia at 68. It can be the same biology and may require the same treatment. We know that men and women with the same disorder have different presentations. For instance, women with depression more often present with the sadness and gulit; men often exhibit irritability and hopelessness.

[Paul Farmer] At Mind we’ve been thinking about how we can support the resilience of those who are most at-risk of developing mental health problems. We’ve been doing quite a lot of work thinking about mental health in a public health concept in much the same way as people look at smoking or obesity. There’s also benefit in identifying groups who are at specific risk; for example- older people who are at risk of isolation, mums-to-be, who are at risk of post-natal depression, unemployed men in particular due to the elevated risk of mental health problems in those who are not at work, vulnerable migrants, people from the African and Afro-Caribbean community, and also those with long-term physical health problems- they are all at greater risk of developing mental health problems. We want to work with public health teams at a local-level to put in place strategies that allow people to have the resilience they need to deal with mental health problems.

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] Most of the time it is white males, ranging from 18 to 45 years old that jump from the Bridge. They differ in socio-economic levels. There really are no patterns to suicide on the Bridge. Some years have more age groups then others and sometimes more in the spring and after school begins, but really, suicide from the Bridge crosses all races and economic borders.

Q: How do the justice system and our political framework deal with mental health?

[Paul Farmer] We have three cornerstones in legal terms when thinking of mental health. The Human Rights Act is an incredibly important part of the support and safeguards that people with mental health problems have, and so too is The Equalities Act. Since mental health is perhaps the only situation where someone can be forced to receive treatment against their will, The Mental Health Act and The Mental Capacities Act provide those legal policies and frameworks to safeguard and define any state intervention in someone’s life.

We are detecting a greater degree of political interest in mental health as an issue, and all of the [UK] political parties are taking it a lot more seriously. There is still a long road to travel down before mental health is embedded into government policy-making, and that’s really what we would like to see.

Q: Is there enough will to fight mental illness?

[Dr. Thomas Insel] We're stuck in a situation where mental health has become hugely fragmented and misunderstood. Secretary Hillary Clinton recently spoke about the need to redefine mental health as a public health problem. She pointed out that in some countries, including the US, mental health has become a criminal justice problem- as more people with mental illness are in jails than in hospitals.

There's a great need to educate policymakers as to the importance of this problem, and the need to address it. It's not expensive! We're not talking about high tech diagnostics and therapeutics for each ill-person, but re-organising resources to achieve better outcomes. In fact, we know how to do this. For example, NIMH supported scientists are about to publish the results of a large study to improve outcomes in individuals following their first psychotic break (usually in their early 20s). To reduce subsequent arrests, re-hospitalisations, and poor treatment compliance, this study bundled together treatments that have been available for three decades. We can do so much better without any new science; just by making sure we do what we need to.

Q: Who are the key stakeholders in mental health solutions?

[Dr. Shekhar Saxena] Mental health issues should be everyone's business, starting from policy makers who have a responsibility to make national policies to prevent mental disorders and promote mental health, and service providers. The budget allocated to mental health in low- and middle-income countries is less than 2%, and less than 3% elsewhere in the world - but the burden of mental and neurological disorders worldwide is around 10% of the total disease burden.

Civil society has a huge responsibility to highlight issues and take action to make things better. Those with mental health disorders (and their families) have a responsibility to speak out and demand the services they need. The media also has a role to play. Many misconceptions about mental health are strengthened by inappropriate reporting ̶ meaning that people are given the picture that those with mental health disorders are abnormal, cannot be cured, are violent and aggressive, cannot take responsibility and more. All of these things are untrue. In the majority of cases, those with mental health disorders can become 'normal,' and work, marry, look after themselves and their families and have good lives. People with mental health disorders need the support of society, not the ridicule that is often heaped upon them.

Commercial organisations play a role. The healthcare sector (including pharmaceutical companies and researchers) have the responsibility to further research treatments of mental health disorders ̶ this is not just good business, but also in the public health interest. Employers must do a better job of looking out for the mental health of their employees. We have a large responsibility for mental health in the workplace, and that's often ignored.

Even you and I are stakeholders in the mental health agenda. We need to be on the look-out for people who may need help, in our own families and among our friends and colleagues. Often, because of stigmatisation, those needing help do not get it in a timely way and may be at risk of suicide.

Q: Will we see a world free of mental health problems?

[Dr. Thomas Insel] The community of people involved with mental health have really never sought a cure, the way advocates have campaigned for cures for cancer, heart disease, and AIDS. Mental health advocates are developing a culture of recovery -- their most ambitious aim is to make sure that everyone can recover. That is fine, but prevention and cure need to become part of our vision when we think about autism, severe depression, and schizophrenia.

People are now starting to talk about prevention, recovery and cure in their agendas. We need to look at this in similar terms to heart-disease. We need early detection- rather than waiting for someone's first psychotic break at 22, we need to detect the prodromal problem at aged 8, 12 or even 15. In the USA, we have around 100,000 people who have their first psychotic break each year, we want to reduce that by 50% through early detection and intervention. This field simply hasn't had a vision of prevention and cure – which will require better science. We’ve been mostly about provision of services. Better services are critical but will this reduce morbidity and mortality? It's a real challenge for us to realise that maybe what we have to offer today is not good enough and that we need to do something better to prevent psychosis and suicide.

[Dr. Shekhar Saxena] I don't see a world in the foreseeable future that is free from mental health disorders, but I do see a world with greater attention given to mental health, and a world where people are encouraged to promote their mental health and to effectively take care of disabilities and conditions if and when they occur. I also see greater participation of people in society within the mental health agenda, and the mainstreaming of mental health into policy making. This is a realistic goal. We are not seeing the end of cancers in the foreseeable future for example, but we have a better understanding of prevention, care and services, and this is what we want for mental health.

The World Health Assembly Resolution on Mental Health was passed by all the health ministers in 2013. I see this as a major advancement in the recognition of mental health, and a commitment by the world. It was remarkable that all 194 Member States of the World Health Organization, committed themselves to the same vision, objectives and targets for mental health. This gives me a lot of hope about future actions and achievements in improving the lives of people suffering from mental health disorders and their families.

Q: What is the role of education as it relates to mental health?

[Paul Farmer] There is a serious need to give young people a good grounding in mental health. In the Time to Change campaign, we take mental health messages directly into schools and work with teachers, pupils and support staff. When our team leave, we hope that people are able to ask the right kinds of questions and talk around these issues. Formally and informally, there’s a huge job to be done…

We’ve also seen positive evidence around supporting mental health right back in the 0-2 year old group where you can do a lot to build positive resilience through positive parenting programmes for example.

Q: How is technology impacting mental health?

[Paul Farmer] Accessing information and support has helped people with mental health issues tremendously. For example, our Ele-Friends peer-support community is a fantastic example of what you can do in a positive way using online empowerment. We are also seeing the emergence of access to online therapy, and the use of apps to monitor mood and so forth.

There’s also a strange-paradox where people may feel that technology can make them more isolated rather than less isolated; so despite the fact that we have may ways of communicating perhaps we’re doing it less in quality terms.

We have to keep a close eye on the impact of modern technology on the mental health and mental wellbeing of any society, but on the whole we see it as a force for good.

Q: What would be your view of the future of mental health?

[Paul Farmer] We are living through a key-part of mental health’s journey. We are coming out of the shadows, and mental health issues are now much more visible in a positive way. The next 10 years or so could hold a great opportunity to reach a tipping point in public attitudes to mental health in the same way that attitudes have changed towards gender, sexuality or race. With that will come a significant increase in demand for help, and so it’s important that the support services are in place to absorb that demand.

In a really optimistic way, I think there’s an opportunity for a real significant sea-change, and we are on an inexorable path towards that.

Q: What was the greatest lesson you learned in your time as a guardian on the bridge?

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] I have learned so many things since I began working on the Bridge, not only about people in general, but about myself also. My professional career has been primarily in “macho” jobs (military, corrections, CHP). This path had hardened me somewhat, making me emotionally shut down. To see what we see in this business and still be able to go back and do see the same thing the next day, you need to be able to put the bad away and move forward in a fast manner. What has really struck me is the empathy you show can really make others shine, no matter where that be. Everyone of us has emotions, and when confronted by obstacles in our life that can seem overwhelming, all it can take is just one caring individual to really make a difference. That little amount of time you spend with someone can make a lifetime’s worth of hope for them.

Q: What has been your greatest insight during your recovery journey?

[Marcus Trescothick] One of the most valuable lessons I learned was that you only start to learn how to cope with your problems when you acknowledge what they are. You then come to terms with what it is, learn about it, understand it – and start to improve yourself!

I had been hiding from my mental health problems for a long time, almost since I returned from India. You’re almost trying to cover your tracks, and cover your ‘secret’ – the best thing to do at that point was to tell everybody. It made it easier, it meant I didn’t have to lie to the media about the reasons why I was doing this or that – when you talk about it, you find that people understand what you’re going through and often are going through it too. The point where I was open and honest about my mental health was definitely an important turning point for me.

I didn’t have any preconceptions about mental health before then. You obviously hear a lot of people talking about how they’re depressed and so on; and I didn’t really realise what it was about – I thought maybe people were run down or worn out. You hear a lot of stories about people prejudging those with mental health issues, but you never really understand it until you go through it yourself.

Q: What would be your message to those currently experiencing mental illness?

[Dr. Thomas Insel] I am hopeful but also I think we need to be realistic. The tools we have today are unprecedented, we have never been able to offer so much to so many.... however.... we need to admit that the quality of care in most places is not good and that, in contrast to much of medicine, diagnosis and treatment depends more on whom you ask rather than what you have.

All of us have family members who have been impacted by mental health issues, and many have done remarkably well, while for some it's still a challenge. We need to be honest -- we don't have the treatments we need for autism, for many aspects of schizophrenia, and for dementia. I am hopeful that science will give us better diagnostics and therapeutics, but this is a long-term effort. We also need to recognize that we can do much better with the treatments we have today. For instance, creating toolkits with medication and evidence-based psycho-social treatments could make a big difference in the short term. And for the best outcomes, we need to involve families and patients to empower them to direct their own care. If we can do that, my message is that there is hope for recovery in the short-term and prevention and cure in the long-term.

[Dr. Shekhar Saxena] People with mental disorders can help change the world around them. By recognizing and articulating their needs, and by having a say in decisions made, they can not only improve their own lives, but make the world a better place.

[Paul Farmer] It’s important for people to realise that you are not alone. So many people who are developing a mental health problem feel very alone, isolated and even scared about seeking-help. We want to send a message to people saying that it’s OK, you’re not on your own, and that there’s a lot of help and support out there for you- formally and informally. We want to encourage people to seek-out and reach that help.

[Sergeant Kevin Briggs] To those who are suffering from mental health challenges, or just feeling low at times, which very much includes myself, I’d like to give you some advice that I use for myself. I know all too well how hard this illness can be in your life. At times there is extreme loneliness, lethargy, and even disgust with one’s self over what may be occurring in your life. At least this is how I feel at times. But, I also know there will be days when all just seems right with the world. When those days occur, write down how you felt, what you did, whom you were with (if anyone) and if anything assisted you in feeling better (sunlight, foods, walking the dog….). On your bad days, look at this and it will help you get through it, knowing it will pass.

[Marcus Trescothick] You have to seek help straight away; whether that’s a doctor or a psychologist. You have to try and get a bit of direction, and get to a point where you know how to start dealing with your mental health. You need to get to an area where things start to improve, and that takes time- but if you’re not asking or seeking the advice, then you’ll never get the clarity about how it’s going to get better.

If I broke my leg, I’d go straight to a hospital and they’d put a cast on me and give me a rehabilitation programme; but because you don’t see the physical problem, you move away from it, and think you can cope with it yourself.

Men are often guarded about what they’re feeling, and may perceive it as a weakness to ask for help. It’s often only when they have been through-it and experienced it that they realise this isn’t true. We [as men] can get help, we can ask for help, we’re just normal people at the end of the day.

--------------------------------------------------

It is perhaps appropriate for this author to conclude this piece by disclosing a rather personal interest in the subject matter.

I have lost more than one of my closest friends to suicide, and have spent decades at the torment of my own mind’s depressive states and, on occasion have come to understand- quite vividly- the depths of darkness that lead people to think- and do- the unthinkable.

I contend that I am me, and nobody else will ever know how I feel- and with that contention comes the realisation that the challenges of mental health are solitary unspoken battles between myself and my soul, with invisible wounds and selfish victories, which- in turn- create my greatest weaknesses and most profound strengths. It is this contention that means that I (and many more) fight alone….

… The truth is, I am not alone. Should humans be categorised by those with, and those without mental health challenges – I would be part of an immense family – and one desperately in need of a voice.

Mental health challenges kill over a million people each year, and cause profound levels of suffering to billions more. Given we have the technology and capability to treat the vast majority of mental health disorders, each and every life lost is a failure on our conscience- and each and every moment of suffering is an injustice at our hands.

I hope, dear reader, that you will join me in taking up arms – and speaking from the heart, on behalf of the mind.

How Power Shapes our World

2014-11-11T10:37:00.000+00:00

In these exclusive interviews, we speak to Moisés Naím (Distinguished Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Minister of Trade and Industry for Venezuela and Executive Director of the World Bank) and Admiral James Stavridis (Dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University and former Supreme Allied Commander at NATO). We discuss the fundamental nature of power, how it shapes our world economically, politically, socially and how it impacts the lives of every single individual on the planet.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, November 2014

To understand the story of humanity is to bear witness to the story of its greatest paradox; power. This phenomenon creates the constraints in which we operate, yet is responsible for the structures that bind our society together.

The exercise and accumulation of power is endemic to humanity. In the 20th century alone, this phenomenon has been responsible for over 200 million deaths through war and oppression, and has concentrated over 50% of the world’s wealth into the hands of just 1% of the world’s population meaning that billions of our global family have been subjected to hunger, thirst and disease. Power has also enabled social movements that have brought rights, freedoms and opportunity to many billions more.

The unrelenting growth of technology in the past quarter-century has brought with it conceptually challenging notions to our incumbent ideas of power. Facebook, with more than 1.3 billion users is now (perhaps) as powerful as many sovereign states. Diffuse communications networks have also enabled hundreds of millions to come together in revolutions and acts of protest; in some cases, dismantling power structures that have been incumbent for hundreds of years. Even the most abstract seat of power- knowledge- is being challenged as the Internet democratises access to the total sum of human insight. Technology has also allowed the world’s governments to infiltrate our lives ever more deeply; being able to monitor, analyse and consume unimaginable quantities of information on the daily lives of citizens and entities, and build weapons to destroy them in more astonishing ways. “We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world - or to make it the last.” - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Regardless of whether we stand on the opposite plinths of that which is considered the moral good or evil, we must agree that every major advancement and challenge our species has experienced has been as a result of the ebbs and flows of the great forces power projects into our world. As Michel Foucault comments, “Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategic situation in a particular society."

In these exclusive interviews, we speak to Moisés Naím (Distinguished Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Minister of Trade and Industry for Venezuela and Executive Director of the World Bank) and Admiral James Stavridis (Dean of The Fletcher School at Tufts University and former Supreme Allied Commander at NATO). We discuss the fundamental nature of power, how it shapes our world economically, politically, socially and how it impacts the lives of every single individual on the planet.
Moisés Naím is an internationally-syndicated columnist and best-selling author of influential books including the recently-published The End of Power, a startling examination of how power is changing across all sectors of society, and Illicit, a detailed expose on modern criminal networks. In 2011, he launched Efecto Naím, an innovative weekly television program highlighting surprising world trends with visually-striking videos, graphics and interviews with world leaders which is widely watched in Latin America today. Dr. Naím gained international recognition with the successful re-launch of the prominent journal Foreign Policy and, over his fourteen years (1996-2010) as editor, turned the magazine into a modern, award-winning publication on global politics and economics.

His prize-winning work is highly influential in the world of international politics, economics and business. In 2005, Illicit was selected by the Washington Post as one of the best nonfiction books of the year; it was published in 18 languages and is the basis of an Emmy award-winning National Geographic documentary. Of his recent book, The End of Power, former US president Bill Clinton said it “will change the way you read the news, the way you think about politics, and the way you look at the world.”

Dr. Naím’s columns and media commentary have a worldwide audience. He is the chief international columnist and “Global Observer” for El Pais and La Repubblica, the largest daily newspapers in Spain and Italy, a contributor to The Financial Times “A-list”, and an associate editor at The Atlantic. His columns are also carried by all leading newspapers in Latin America, and have been published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg Business Week, Newsweek, Time, Le Monde and Berliner Zeitung. In 2011, he was honored to receive the Ortega y Gasset prize, the most prestigious award for journalism in the Spanish language . In 2013, Naim was named one of the world’s leading thinkers by the British magazine Prospect and in 2014, Dr. Naím was ranked among the top 100 most influential global thought leaders by GDI Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute for his work on The End of Power.

Dr. Naím is a distinguished fellow in the International Economics Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC. He is the founder and Chairman of the Board of the Group of Fifty (G50), which brings together top-flight progressive Latin American business leaders, and a member of the board of directors of the National Endowment for Democracy, Population Action International, the Open Society Foundations as well as several global companies.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Naím served as Venezuela’s Minister of Trade and Industry, as director of Venezuela’s Central Bank, and as executive director of the World Bank. He was previously professor of business and economics and dean of IESA, Venezuela’s leading business school. Dr. Naím holds MSc and PhD degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He lives in Washington DC.

Admiral James Stavridis, is the 12th leader of The Fletcher School since its founding in 1933. He holds the title of Dean of The Fletcher School, Charles Francis Adams / Raytheon Dean's Chair

A former Admiral in the U.S. Navy, he led the NATO Alliance in global operations from 2009 to 2013 as Supreme Allied Commander. He also served as Commander of U.S. Southern Command, with responsibility for all military operations in Latin America from 2006-2009. A Fletcher PhD, he won the Gullion prize as outstanding student and has published five books and over a hundred articles. His focus is on innovation, strategic communication and planning, and creating security through international, interagency, and public/private partnerships in this turbulent 21st century.

Admiral Stavridis served as Supreme Allied Commander, NATO and commander of U.S. European Commander (2009-2013) and is currently Chair of the Board, U.S. Naval Institute (2013-present). He led U.S. Southern Command in Miami (2006-2009), served as Senior Military Assistant to Secretary of Defence and Secretary of the Navy and was first commander of Navy’s “Deep Blue” strategic and tactical think tank after 9/11 Pentagon attacks (2001-2002).

Admiral Stavridis is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards including Intrepid Freedom Award, Athenagoras Human Rights Award, Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow, Alfred Thayer Mahan Award, John Paul Jones Award, Arleigh Burke Award, 38 US and international military medals and the Gullion Prize (Top in class), The Fletcher School, Tufts University

He holds a PhD and MALD from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University and a BS from the U.S. Naval Academy. Stavridis is also a Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 2014, he released a book of his story, "The Accidental Admiral: A Sailor Takes Command at NATO"

Q: What is power?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] The classical definition of power, commonly used by political scientists and others, is that power is the capacity to get others to do or stop doing something now, or in the future.

Power is also a source of order, and a source of comfort for some people. Remember that the extreme situation where nobody has power, is anarchy… and Anarchy is an inferior Hobbesian society and leads to inferior social outcomes to societies where structures and entities that impose power, limits and rules to create stability and prosperity. Some neuroscientists have even argued that power is hard-wired into our brains, and evolutionary psychologists have similarly argued that power (and the quest for it) is an evolutionary trait- an instinct.

[Admiral Stavridis] There are several centres of powers that drive society in a broad sense. First and foremost we see demographics; human capital, the people and population- tied to which we see their education levels and productivity. Traditionally, we also talk of military power- albeit I think this is suffering the law of diminishing terms as in our current global society, huge force on force confrontations are less-likely, though not impossible. Increasingly cyber or information power is also extremely significant, and I would tie this to the idea of 'idea' or 'message' power, which is society's ability to influence other parts of the world in the power of its messages. I would argue that western society, over the past several centuries, has been able to move the ideas of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of education, freedom of assembly, gender rights, racial equality and more. Given the centre of power can be seen as your ability to produce or convey influential ideas; this is certainly important. Cultural power is also significant, the degree to which your society's popular culture; films, books, art, theatre, music and sports are received nationally and internationally. Separate from this is political power which, in many ways, derives from all the other things I've spoken about. Geographic and resource power are also fundamentally important, and are derived from not just the size of your country, but how much water and energy you have access to. Innovation power is also very important; the creative spark your society has.

All these factors taken together will determine how influential a nation is at influencing the behaviours of other nations and organisations.

Q: What are the dynamics that influence power?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] The sources of power have changed, and the ability of incumbents- those who already have power- to maintain it, is diminishing. Power is decaying because it has become easier to acquire, much harder to use, and thus easier to lose.

Q: Is it inevitable that power will concentrate?

[Admiral Stavridis] Today, sociologically speaking, we are seeing a broad diffusion of power. Look at the way that individual ideas, groups and individual people are able to exert power using communications technology. This could be violent or extreme groups, and also groups who are doing wonderful things for sustainability, the environment and ecology. Groups are forming, and power is diffusing away from nations and moving more toward sub-groups. The recent referendum in Scotland, the potential Catalonian split and the break-apart of Ukraine are all examples of power diffusions. Counterbalancing this, it's worth pointing out that power is concentrating in Europe; through the European Union. I believe this is in a state of tension however; and generally power is diffusing.

The most important form of power is human capital, people.. and their education. In today's world it is easier for people to amass education and communicate their ideas than it has ever been before. Education is still withheld from vast portions of the globe, but these individuals will get there. Today, education constitutes around 10% of what moves the internet. When that number moves up to 20, 30 or even 40%, more people will be educated and have access to technology. Over time, this will cause power to diffuse even more.

New corporations such as Google and Facebook are also examples of power diffusing from nation states and moving to new forms of entities. Technology will only accelerate this trend.

Q: What are the instruments used to maintain power?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] The instruments to maintain power vary between sector and activity. If you are a church, power sits in the number of your followers… If you are a political party, power sits with the scale of your voters and your ability to fundraise… If you are a company, power is your balance sheet, your brand, your unique selling points and technology… If you’re an army, power is your resources; your troops, ships, tanks and technology and if you are a nation, power is a combination of demographics, resources, military capability and so on.

Q: How do those with power defend their positions?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] The Historically, size was very important. We came to equate power to size; the larger your balance sheet- for example- the more difficult it was for challengers and rivals to displace your market dominance. If you were an army and had huge expenditure, budgets, weapons and technology- it was difficult for others to fight you. Now everything has changed. In the case of the military, we have relatively small groups like Al Qaeda, The Taliban and the Islamic State who are capable of challenging the mightiest and most advanced militaries of the world. In the commercial space, we have also seen how small start-ups are able to contest- and even displace- the dominance of centuries-old multinational corporations. We have also seen how new churches are attracting believers that have traditionally been faithful of other religions. Size continues to be important, but is no longer the main factor shielding the powerful from the challenges of newcomers and new arrivals.

Q: How can power be dismantled?

[Admiral Stavridis] How power can be governed is one of the most fundamental questions of the 21st century. Most of what passes for crises is- in reality- about governance and the ability of some entity (usually a nation) to contain and shape behaviours by sub-groups; some very small violent extremists, or large corporate entities.

If nations are not going to be able to exert governance, who will? The answer to this question is unclear, and whether this Westphalian state that emerged in the 1600's will continue to be the dominant governance structure of society is in doubt. Long term, my intuition is that society will have different organising features. Just think about this... What is a global citizen? We think today about passports, and we treasure our individual national passports that allow us to stride boldly from country to country, and yet in a century it may be more important to understand what it means to be a global citizen. I suspect that Bitcoin or some variant of it may have grown to become a global currency; and by that time, technology will allow us to speak commonly- although we may hang onto the precious nationalism of our languages for a long time. All these trends will slowly start to create the idea of global citizenship as distinct from what we think of today, which is state sovereign citizenship.

Q: How is power changing in our world?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] The definition of power has not changed, but the ability of those who have it to retain it, and the ability of those who want it to acquire it has changed. The common wisdom says that these changes have mostly occurred due to the Internet; personally, I question that. I don’t doubt that technology has an important role, but I believe that role is far less defining.

The barriers to entry that have previously defended the incumbents are getting significantly less protective. The forces that are weakening those barriers are many, manifold and diverse- but I group them in three large categories. The ‘more’ revolution, the ‘mobility’ revolution, and the ‘mentality’ revolution.

The ‘more’ revolution tries to capture the fact that ours is an age of profusion. There are more people, countries, cities, political parties and armies. There are more goods and services, and more companies selling them. There are more students, and more terrorists, more preachers and more criminals, more medicines and more food. The world’s economic output has increased five-fold since 1950, income per capita is 3.5x greater than it was then. There are also two billion more people than just two decades ago. By 2050, the world’s population will be 4x larger than a century before. The ‘more’ revolution has progressed in the face of terrorism, repression, earthquakes, economic recession, repression, civil wars and environmental threats. It’s much easier to wield power into smaller and less-educated, less nourished, populations than to apply it to larger- better educated- and better informed peoples.

The ‘mobility’ revolution looks at the fact that not only do we have more of everything, but… we move more. Products, goods, services, ideas, criminal entities, terrorist enterprises, religions, political parties, universities, companies… they are all moving more. Borders are no longer the limits in which activities take place, everything is going global. Power needs a captive audience, and given the erosion of distance- and the lower costs of communication, coordination, transportation and interaction- the ‘mobility’ revolution has an impact on weakening historically strong barriers. Here; the Internet and communications revolution play a part, but they are just one factor.

The ‘mentality’ revolution is important. We live in a world where the aspirations, expectations, assumptions and values of populations change. People no longer stay in the religion of their fathers or forefathers, ideologies are no longer stable, and traditional sources of power such as the assertion that, ‘you do this because it’s always been done this way…’ no longer hold water. The traditional psychological forces have weakened, and people are more willing to question authority and less willing to tolerate the behaviours and obligations that were expected of them in the past.

The ‘more’ revolution overwhelmed the barriers that protect the powerful, the ‘mobility’ revolution helped people circumvent those barriers and the ‘mentality’ revolution undermines the barriers themselves. Together these forces interact to create a situation where power is easier to acquire, harder to maintain and easier to lose.

Q: How will our notions of leadership and diplomacy change in the future?

[Admiral Stavridis] My hope is that the future will see more of what I have coined 'Open Source Security.' Over time, the answer is collaboration. At the moment, collaboration is primitive; it's NATO, alliances, coalitions such as those we have in Afghanistan and loose partnerships. Over time, this idea of global citizenship and collaboration will lead us to a very different kind of governance construct; the trends are already pointing in this direction.

Asserting control by letting-go may sound paradoxical, but societies that try to exert enormous levels of control will create bodies that will blow them apart. Nations that embrace the idea of open-source diplomacy, collaboration and sublimation of nationalism to larger ideas and causes will be the nations that have a better chance at attaining and maintaining the loyalty of their citizenry.

China is a prime example of a nation that has a better chance of succeeding by easing back on the throttle of control. Whether they do that or not remains to be seen!

Q: Do citizens understand the influence of power in their lives?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] Increasingly, broader populations are aware of the impact power plays in their lives. There is so much to applaud in the trends we are seeing. This is a world with more opportunity, and where those who have been excluded and disempowered can shape their own futures and change their conditions. This is a world where authoritarians have a hard time holding onto power, and where those who want to create a political movement, a company, an religion or NGO; have a chance to do so.

I’m not saying that power concentrations exist. There are countries, companies and individuals who continue to possess immense owner. From Vladimir Putin to the Head of Goldman Sachs, and from the Editor of the New York Times to the head of Google and even China’s leader or Pope Francis… The Vatican, Pentagon, Kremlin and even Mountain View (the headquarters of Google) are all immense centres of global power. All of these centres do- however- have a harder time wielding and retaining their power. Their ability to perpetuate power is significantly less than the past.

[Admiral Stavridis] The vast majority of our citizens enjoy their lives, face the challenges of the world, struggle or are entertained by what happens, are occasionally threatened by it or- if they're unfortunate to live somewhere like Syria, they will feel it very extremely and tragically. Most people however, do not spend time focussed on these larger questions.

Leadership matters. In a democracy, we select somebody to worry about the big problems for us. We criticise them, support them and maybe tire of them and throw them out of office.

We- as a people- do not spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about big problems, we outsource that to our leaders and use tools to shape the outcomes for our country. Democracy has a better chance overall of being the long-term solution, it creates a safety-valve. If you don't have democracy, if you don't elect a leader and 'put some of your skin in the game...' the pressures build up, and this is what we're seeing in China right now. People there do not have a say in the election of their leaders, and while they were content when growth was in double-digits... when that growth slows and leaves debt overhangs, environmental damage, inequality and corruption- they are found without a safety valve. This can play out very broadly in a society where there is no buy-in with a system like democracy. While the Chinese may argue the counter and say that democracy is messy and cannot be used to make decisions; I would point them to Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for everything else...."

Power is more diffuse in democracy, and that allows those at the centre to let-go a little bit and allow power to be more equally shared through the population.

Q: What is the power of the illicit economy?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] I was previously the Editor in Chief of Foreign Policy Magazine. The remit of this publication is to understand the consequences of globalisation, and to detect the unintended consequences and surprises from the new ways in which the world is connected. That role led me to discover that international traffickers of money, people, drugs, weapons, human organs, counterfeits and so-on are at the frontiers of globalisation. These transnational networks are faster and more effective than anyone else in detecting and exploiting the new opportunities created by globalisation.

There are significant asymmetries faced by traditional Weberian bureaucracies when they have to confront and compete with decentralised fast-moving networks. Governments therefore face huge challenges (which they often lose) when tackling these transnational criminal networks. Interestingly however, the same challenges to power faced by governments, and other institutions, are also faced by transnational criminal networks. If you look at the traditional Russian mafias, the Yakuza, the Columbian drug-traffickers… there’s no doubt they still wield power. There is no doubt that huge drug cartels exist in Mexico, and it’s common knowledge that Russia is deeply penetrated by organised crime and that China and Japan, criminal organisations hold significant sway. If- however- you look in detail at who they are, how they work, and their challenges- you discover that they are also part of the story… They have more contestants, more challenges and the barriers that gave them power are no longer as protected as they used to be.

Q: Will the changes occurring in power impact our notions of sovereignty and identity?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] Just look back at the Summer of 2014, you see there is weakness everywhere. Analysis has shown that even Putin who is looking like Russia’s new Tsar- who has an ability to grab territory across borders and impose views- is experiencing weakness at home. He is using nationalistic land-grabbing and expansionary 19th century tactics to boost popularity at home. He is succeeding, but just in the short term- he has brought sanctions against an already frail economy. He hated NATO- it was one of his most despised institutions and was (frankly) on its way towards irrelevance. Thanks to Putin’s moves in Crimea and Ukraine, NATO has a second lease of life and Putin has therefore revived his mortal enemy. He has created a more-unified set of alliances against Russia. This is a clear example of how power is changing political sovereignty; we also in this sense see the impact Islamic State is having in challenging the US government to re-enter conflict in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.

Many have argued that technologies have created virtual environments capable of challenging the notion of statehood, but I am not in this camp. I do not believe the nation state will be in decline within the next 100 years. We will have states that must create new ways of relating to their citizens, new political institutions and changed interactions with the real and virtual economies. There are many challenges ahead, and many sovereignty eroding forces at work such as the creation of Bitcoin- the first time that the creation of money is delinked from central banks… and onwards to communication structures and even criminal and terrorist networks. The state is being pulled in all kinds of directions. Trends like decentralisation and fragmentation are very real in this regard; we are speaking today in the week that Scotland is voting for independence. Regardless of the outcome, this shows that power is eroding. Nation states are also pulled by supranational forces- that can guide them in many other directions. Unfortunately however, most states are unable to respond to these challenges- as governing structures are stagnating in terms of ideas, organisation and ways of operating.

Q: What are the opportunities created by changes in global power?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] Depending on the sector and country you’re in, the changes of power have created differing effects. For many people and many countries, it has created fantastic new opportunities for participation, economic growth and social creation, dynamism and more. In politics however, we have seen extreme polarisation, fragmentation and paralysis and gridlock.

We live in a world of innovation. For our waking hours, and even when we’re sleeping, our lives are touched every day by innovations of the past 20 years. Innovation has transformed our lives in almost every aspect- aside from how we govern. In government, politics and governance- innovation is stagnant- especially in political parties. We need to bring the spirit of innovation, disruption and empowerment into government and political parties.

Q: What will be the shape of our geopolitical landscape over the next quarter century?

[Dr. Moisés Naím] 25 years is a very short time in geopolitics. I do however think that China will have overtaken the USA in terms of GDP; but China will also exhibit deeper frailties and will be rocked by social and political upheaval in more ways than we have ever seen before. If you ranked countries in terms of where the more, mobility and mentality revolutions are happening in greatest effect? I will bet you that China is at the top of the list. This will have important consequences for the rest of the world. I feel will also see a Russia that will be beset by economic problems, and perhaps greater political frictions.

The two most powerful forces that will reconfigure the world over the next quarter century will be the energy revolution taking place in the United States and elsewhere. We are looking at an incipient new world energy order. The Summer of 2014 witnessed plummeting oil prices at a time when- historically- oil prices ought to have been soaring. Conflicts in the Middle-East, Russia, Ukraine and many other factors should have lifted oil prices and made them skyrocket. Instead of this, oil prices came down. This is because the United States is now the world’s largest producer of oil. July 2014 saw global production of oil reach the highest figure since 1987. We are looking at an incipient new global order where the key players in Carbon Energy may not be the usual suspects. The United States now produces more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia for example. Just imagine a world over the next 25 years where oil- instead of being U$100 per barrel is in the band of U$80-70. That changes geopolitics and country interactions in profound ways. The other powerful reshaping force is climate change- which is giving us climate accidents, extreme weather and severe, often catastrophic, changes to our human environment.

--------------------------------------------------

Understanding power requires the same philosophical rigour we apply to the question of free will. The author Sam Harris notes that, "The question of free will touches nearly everything we care about. Morality, law, politics, religion, public policy, intimate relationships, feelings of guilt and personal accomplishment - most of what is distinctly human about our lives seems to depend upon our viewing one another as autonomous persons, capable of free choice. If the scientific community were to declare free will an illusion, it would precipitate a culture war far more belligerent than the one that has been waged on the subject of evolution. without free will, sinners and criminals would be nothing more than poorly calibrated clockwork, and any conception of justice that emphasized punishing them (rather than deterring, rehabilitating, or merely containing them) would appear utterly incongruous. And those of us who work hard and follow the rules would not 'deserve' our success in any deep sense. It is not an accident that most people find these conclusions abhorrent. The stakes are high..." (Sam Harris, Free Will, 2012)

If we consider power through the lens of free will, we quickly start to understand its relative shape and form. On the (fair) assumption that we (as humans) are beings of (relatively) free will, we can see power in abstract as being the perimeter of the environment in which that will is allowed to exercise; or- to put it another way, power defines the boundaries in which we are allowed to be free.

For those wielding the power however, Newton's second law (from his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica) is more relevant. Here, Newton states that F=ma where F is the vector sum of forces on an object, m is the mass of the object, and a is the acceleration of the object. Power, when applied in a sociological sense follows a similar structure whereby the amount of power exerted by an idea or ideology (F) is directly equal to the gravitas of those who support it (m) multiplied by the pace at which it is accepted (a). One need only look to the Arab spring as proof of this where a hugely influential public movement (m) spread the idea of freedom incredibly quickly through the population (a) and as a result had the power (F) to topple governments.

Ultimately we need to cease referring to power as being a phenomena that exists outside us, akin to the weather. Power is a human phenomena; it is the manifestation of our collective will, and a reflection of who we (as a society) want to be; and that's profoundly impactful.

"All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come" - Victor Hugo

Learning To Be Who We Are

2014-10-17T16:19:00.000+01:00

In these exclusive interviews we speak to Marina Abramović (internationally acclaimed performance artist), and Sir Ken Robinson (widely considered to be the world’s foremost expert on creativity, innovation and human resources in education and business). We question the fundamental nature of learning and education and discuss the life long journey of understanding our purpose and who we are.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, October 2014

Inside your head is a 1.5-kilogram object, which, as far as we know, is the most complex entity in the known universe. Your brain is a collection of 100 billion nerve cells, intricately wired together with over a million billion connections; creating a system more complex than anything mankind has ever made.

The gestalt nature of our brain is therefore clear. Here is a system capable of delivering the functional aspects of mind, but also attributed to being the centre of consciousness itself. Without the ability to learn however, the system would be useless. From before we are born till the moment we die, our mind is engaged in the process of learning, forming associations that modern science still cannot understand, which allow us to make meaningful perceptions of our place in the world, the contents of that world, and the relevance of our existence within it.

The philosopher Nicola Abbagnano identified that, “…the fundamental revealing fact of the nature of existence is that man should be compelled to ask himself what he is and what he should be (what beingness is). This fact excludes the possibility that existence should be beingness and implies on the contrary that it is a research of beingness. It excludes also the possibility that man should be infinite and shows that man is finite…. Man is finite, not because he excludes other things from himself, things which he may know and understand beyond any fixed limit; he is finite in the sense that his very beingness escapes him and therefore he must strive to attain it with his research. With his thought, man may embrace the entire world and for this reason he does not live in that corporal exteriority in which things exclude each other mutually. But even when his thought extends to the extreme limits of the universe, the question about what he is and what he should be still presents itself to him with the same urgency, and still implies on his part the necessity of a decision and a choice.” (Outline of a Philosophy of Existence, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 Dec, 1948).

The underlying assertion that Abbagnano makes is that whatever learning we undertake, ultimately tends towards answering those great questions of our existence; and for that reason, we must consider the story of learning and the story of ourselves within the same discourse.

In these exclusive interviews we speak to Marina Abramović (internationally acclaimed performance artist), and Sir Ken Robinson (widely considered to be the world’s foremost expert on creativity, innovation and human resources in education and business). We question the fundamental nature of learning and education and discuss the life long journey of understanding our purpose and who we are.

Marina Abramović was born in 1946 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Since the beginning of her career in the early 1970s when she attended the Academy of Fine Arts in Belgrade, Abramović has pioneered the use of performance as a visual art form. The body has been both her subject and medium. Exploring the physical and mental limits of her being, she has withstood pain, exhaustion and danger in the quest for emotional and spiritual transformation. As a vital member of the generation of pioneering performance artists that includes Bruce Nauman, Vito Acconci and Chris Burden, Abramović created some of the most historic early performance pieces and continues to make important durational works.

Abramović has presented her work with performances, sound, photography, video and sculpture in solo exhibitions at major institutions in the U.S. and Europe. Her work has also been included in many large-scale international exhibitions including the Venice Biennale (1976 and 1997) and Documenta VI, VII and IX, Kassel, Germany (1977, 1982 and 1992). In 1998, the exhibition Artist Body - Public Body toured extensively, including stops at Kunstmuseum and Grosse Halle, Bern, Switzerland and La Gallera, Valencia, Spain. In 2004, Abramović also exhibited at the Whitney Biennial in New York and had a significant solo show, The Star, at the Marugame Genichiro-Inokuma Museum of Contemporary Art, Japan and the Contemporary Art Museum, Kumamoto, Japan.

Abramović has taught and lectured extensively in Europe and America. In 1994, she became Professor for Performance Art at the Hochschule für Bildende Künst in Braunschweig, where she taught for seven years. In 2004, she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the Art Institute in Chicago, The University of Plymouth and Willams College.

She was awarded the Golden Lion for Best Artist at the 1997 Venice Biennale for her extraordinary video installation/performance piece Balkan Baroque and, in 2003, received the New Media Bessie award for The House with the Ocean View‚ a 12-day performance at Sean Kelly Gallery.

In 2005, Abramović presented Balkan Erotic Epic at the Pirelli Foundation in Milan, Italy and at Sean Kelly in New York. That same year, she held a series of performances entitled Seven Easy Pieces at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York. She was honored for Seven Easy Pieces by the Guggenheim at their International Gala in 2006 and by the AICA-USA, which awarded her the Best Exhibition of Time Based Art designation in 2007. She was the subject of a major retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, The Artist is Present, in 2010; the following year, the Garage Center for Contemporary Culture in Moscow, Russia also presented a major retrospective of Abramović's oeuvre. Abramović's work is included in numerous major public and private collections worldwide.

In 2011, Abramović participated in visionary director Robert Wilson's, The Life and Death of Marina Abramović, the critically acclaimed re-imagination of Abramović's biography, which continues to tour internationally. The feature length documentary, Marina Abramović: The Artist is Present, premiered in January 2012 at the Sundance Film Festival and has since received widespread critical acclaim.

Abramović is currently developing the Marina Abramović Institute (MAI) in Hudson, New York, an interdisciplinary performance and education center dedicated to the presentation and preservation of long durational work and the fostering of collaborations between art, science, technology and spirituality. Special thanks to Giuliano Argenziano, Allison Brainard and Sidney Russell at ABRAMOVIC LLC

Sir Ken Robinson, PhD is an internationally recognized leader in the development of creativity, innovation and human resources in education and in business. He is also one of the world’s leading speakers on these topics, with a profound impact on audiences everywhere. The videos of his famous 2006 and 2010 talks to the prestigious TED Conference have been viewed more than 25 million times and seen by an estimated 250 million people in over 150 countries. His 2006 talk is the most viewed in TED’s history. In 2011 he was listed as “one of the world’s elite thinkers on creativity and innovation” by Fast Company magazine, and was ranked among the Thinkers50 list of the world’s top business thought leaders.

Sir Ken works with governments and educations systems in Europe, Asia and the USA, with international agencies, Fortune 500 companies and some of the world’s leading cultural organizations. In 1998, he led a national commission on creativity, education and the economy for the UK Government. All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education (The Robinson Report) was published to wide acclaim in 1999. He was the central figure in developing a strategy for creative and economic development as part of the Peace Process in Northern Ireland, working with the ministers for training, education enterprise and culture. The resulting blueprint for change, Unlocking Creativity, was adopted by politicians of all parties and by business, education and cultural leaders across the Province. He was one of four international advisors to the Singapore Government for its strategy to become the creative hub of South East Asia.

For twelve years, he was professor of education at the University of Warwick in the UK and is now professor emeritus. He has received honorary degrees from the Rhode Island School of Design, the Open University and the Central School of Speech and Drama; Birmingham City University, the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts and Oklahoma State University. He was been honored with the Athena Award of the Rhode Island School of Design for services to the arts and education; the Peabody Medal for contributions to the arts and culture in the United States, the Arthur C. Clarke Imagination Award, the Gordon Parks Award for achievements in education and the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the Royal Society of Arts for outstanding contributions to cultural relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. In 2005, he was named as one of Time/Fortune/CNN’s ‘Principal Voices’. In 2003, he received a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II for his services to the arts.

His 2009 book The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything is a New York Times best seller and has been translated into twenty-one languages. A 10th anniversary edition of his classic work on creativity and innovation, Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative was published in 2011. His latest book, Finding Your Element: How to Discover Your Talents and Passions and Transform Your Life, will be published by Viking in May 2013. Sir Ken was born in Liverpool, UK. He is married to Therese (Lady) Robinson. They have two children, James and Kate, and now live in Los Angeles, California.

Q: What is the relationship of our body to our environment?

[Marina Abramovic] We treat our body like a rubbish-can, and it's become worse and worse... I always ask myself the same question; why do we like junk food more than good food? why do we not like to exercise and instead sit in front of the television? why are we not good to ourselves? It's like we try to make the wrong choices!. If we treat our body in the right way, our consciousness will change.

Q: What is the relationship between our minds and our bodies?

[Marina Abramovic] There are so many different philosophies and cultures, and every one of them answers this question differently. The most important thing is balance between mind and body. In western culture, people live for the mind and neglect the body completely. See how philosophers look, with their big fat bellies? and scientists... they look like their bodies have been neglected, but they have an incredible brain...

For most of my life, I thought the mind ruled the body. Only in my later years, when I was introduced to Brazilian Shamanism; I changed the relationship and realised we have to listen to our bodies. Our bodies create certain rules which the mind must obey. The mind always moves-off with willpower, and we just push ourselves. The body is an incredibly precise machine, and it gives us specific and clear signs. It tells us when we need to rest, when we are overworked, when we are stressed, when we are about to have a heart attack... If we listened to our body, our relationship to everything would be different. We are talking of a microcosm that reflects a macrocosm.

Q: What is the role of education in society?

[Sir Ken Robinson] Education has four key roles in society, each of which is connected.

Firstly; education serves an economic purpose, something which is often disputed. In the history of the philosophy of education, there have been many discourses and arguments about whether education should have any extrinsic purposes or whether it is an inherent good and should be done for its own sake. At every level, people do consider- however- that becoming educated will bring economic advantages to them personally- and that if their kids go to school and do well, they will be in a better economic position than they would have been otherwise. This is one of the reasons why governments invest so much money in education, they (correctly) assume that a well-educated population will be in a better position to contribute to economic prosperity. The big issue of course is to understand what kind of education we need to meet economic purposes these days.

Secondly; education plays an important cultural role. One of the reasons that we educate people- particularly our young people- is to initiate them into the cultural values, traditions and ways of thinking that characterise our communities. This is one of the reasons why there's such a heated contest over the content of a curriculum. Whenever people try to create divisive standards or curricula, it quickly becomes a very heated discussion. I remember when the national curriculum was introduced in the UK, there was a lot of debate not about whether Shakespeare should be included; but which play. Education is a high-stakes cultural process, and this is something we have to recognise given how important cultural identity is in a precarious world; indeed many of the major conflicts that continue to plague humanity have cultural origins rather than economic.

Thirdly; education plays an important social role. We expect education to play a role in helping students understand how their societies work and how they can play a part in them. Particularly within democratic societies, as John Dewey once said, "every generation has to rediscover democracy." I live in Los Angeles, we recently had a mayoral election- millions of dollars were spent, and we only had a 15% voter turnout. Many people are losing confidence and interest in democratic institutions given how easy it is to take for granted the rights that we've inherited from previous generations that they fought, and even died for. Education has to pass on the knowledge, understanding and willingness to participate in social institutions, that's not to say that people must accept the status-quo, but more that they must understand the principles upon which our society operates.

The fourth area is personal. Education should be about helping individuals discover their talents, their purpose in life, their sensibilities, their interests and to enable them to live a life that's purposeful and fulfilling in its own right. In America just now, there's been a problem where kids have not been completing high-school- I hesitate to use the word drop-out as this implies they've failed the system where, in fact, it's often the other way round- kids are just disengaging. As soon as we treat education as an impersonal process... a mechanistic and data driven process... as soon as we lose sight of the fact that we're dealing with living, breathing human-beings then education ceases to be anything worthwhile.

Q: Is there a unique relationship that we have with other individuals?

[Marina Abramovic] All human beings are different, but this in itself is a contradiction. In one way, we are all different- we have different DNA, different social backgrounds, different religions, different beliefs, races and so on. Yet... we are all connected by the very fact we are human beings. In that diversity, we have to find a way to communicate and live together.

Q: What is the real role of the teacher and the student?

[Sir Ken Robinson] There are a lot of misconceptions and stereotypes around teaching. For quite some time for example, I've been hugely interested in having creativity at the centre of education. I often hear people assert that you can't teach creativity; the truth is that you can! Understanding that you can and how you can relies on having a proper understanding of what creativity is and how it works, but also relies on a proper understanding of what teaching is and how it works. People can often slate teaching with instruction- feeling that it's simply a matter of telling people what you know, so that they know those things as a result.

Instruction is part of the repertory of any great-teacher, sometimes things do need to be set out and explained by someone who understands the issue better than the learner... but teaching is much more. Really good teachers insight curiosity, provoke, set puzzles, stir the imagination and excite people so that they will learn. Learning is a hugely personal process... you can't make people learn... you can threaten them with the consequences of not learning, but if you really want people to flourish as learners, enjoy learning and feel they can carry on being independent and creative thinkers... then you have to excite them in the process of learning.

There was a recent book called "The Empty Space" published by Theatre Director, Peter Brook. In this book he describes how his commitment is to make theatre the most powerful experience it can be, rather than a passive evening. This starts with understanding what theatre is, and breaking it down into a thought experiment. If you take an average theatre performance, what can you remove from it and still have theatre? You can get rid of the costumes, script, director, stage-crew, the building and more. All you need is an actor in a space, and someone watching. The actor performs a drama, and theatre essentially describes the relationship between the performance and the audience. That relationship is the one we have to focus on, and we shouldn't add anything to it unless it improves it; we should keep it away. There's a very clear analogy there with education. The ultimate purpose of education is to help people learn; and there's a difference between learning and education. People are always learning, and we learn things everyday without being taught them. Children are born with a voracious appetite to learn which begins even before they're born, they are constantly absorbing information and putting things together. Most of the really remarkable things kids achieve, they achieve with no instruction. Imagine how hard it is to learn how to speak? You encourage them, mentor them, but you don't teach them. Children also pick up all the cultural nuances, patterns and relationships in their world without being told. Education is simply an organised version of this; an organised programme of learning underpinned by the belief that there things students should learn that they may not ordinarily come across and that we can help them to learn more effectively than they would be able to do so on their own. What always interests me is that very often, kids who go to school with a huge appetite for learning, lose that appetite by the time they get a few years into their journey. They become bored and disaffected.

The heart of education is learning, it's not warehousing, discipline or supervision- it's learning. If you think of medicine, that is about helping people be well and get well. If hospitals ended up as centres for disease themselves and contributed to high mortality rates, they would not be doing what they were designed to do in the first place. Schools should be there to help people learn, and at the heart of this is the relationship between the teacher and a learner. The conceit of teaching is that we can help people learn; and we have to focus on the relationship. Much of what has happened in education in recent years has distracted from this relationship and focussed on testing, data-driven outcomes and so forth. The consequence has been that the relationship between teachers and learners has become impoverished; this has disaffected teachers and students alike.

Teaching and learning are not two hermetically sealed processes. The great teachers learn from their students, the great students also learn from each other. It's a multi-faceted relationship. Several years ago, I did an event with the Dalai Lama- one of the world's great teachers. He was asked a question in a room with around 2,000 people; followed by which there was a very long pause. We were all sat there expecting a fantastic insight, but in the end he said, "I don't know.." People were shocked and many commented, "what do you mean you don't know!? you're the Dalai Lama" but he responded to the audience, "I've never thought of that, what do you think?" The great teachers know they don't have to know everything, they are there to guide learning; often their students know more- or know better. I'm not a religious person, but I'm told that in some religious services, the priest or officiator faces towards the congregation. In some religions, the priest faces forward in the same direction as the congregation; the premise being that they are all learning together.

Q: What are the consequences of a dysfunctional education system?

[Sir Ken Robinson] If you go to either end of the system, you will find an increasing problem of graduate under-employment (people who are doing work for which they are overqualified, or for which their qualification is not relevant). That is very significant. The current system of education is based on a very linear view of the relationship between education and the economy. The origins of mass public education lie in the industrial revolution; it was designed with explicit economic purposes in mind. This is why we have a broad base of elementary education, a narrower base of secondary education and so on. It was originally that a very narrow apex of university education existed because the vast-majority of people were destined to a life of overalls or factory work. A smaller group of people were needed for clerical roles, and an even smaller group for professional roles... Education was designed with this economic model in mind and for the most part, it worked well; albeit many people who were perfectly capable of achieving great things in education were never given the chance. In the post-industrial era however, it doesn't work at all. In the industrial era, 1:20 people went to university now it's nearer 1:3. Politicians opened the sluice gates to university as we now live in a knowledge economy. President Obama recently made a speech where he pointed out that many of the most 'basic' jobs in manufacturing now require quite substantial amounts of IT literacy.

When I was at college, the idea that you would not be able to find work with a college degree was preposterous; the reason? relatively few had a degree. Now every other person has a degree and so it's not as valuable as it used to be as a currency. Most countries have focussed on pumping out more and more graduates, and this has had big consequences. China has far too many graduates now; many who have worked hard to get advanced degrees are returning to their villages unable to find work, or are doing jobs they are far too qualified to do.

Unless you work on the supply and demand mismatch in education, you will have problems. The world moves far more quickly than you can adjust the system to cope with.

The people who don't go through college or higher education are finding themselves in a skills-gap where jobs exist, but they simply don't have the skills to do the work. You also have an achievement gap which shows how these factors play out across different cultures and communities. It's often the case for example, that African American's are not graduating from school at the same rate as White kids and so forth. This all contributes to the growing gap between the wealthy and the poor.

In the USA 1.2 million kids leave high-school before they graduate each and every year; many go into education later in life, or may choose another path. What is true however, is that a significantly high proportion of people on social welfare programmes did not graduate from high-school and a very-high percentage of people in the correctional system did not graduate from high-school. If you add up the savings in social programmes and add the increased taxation income from people in work, if we could halve the non-graduation rate in US high-schools, it would create a net gain to the US economy of over U$90 billion a year; or around U$ 1 trillion over a decade. That's worth paying for.

Education is based too much on standardisation, and is not allowing people to adapt and have a sense of purpose, direction, and a life that has meaning for them and their communities.

Q: What do we- as human beings- strive for?

[Marina Abramovic] The most important thing to develop in human beings is a sense of love, and an understanding of unconditional love. I'm not talking about the love towards a specific person, but love in a general sense; for life, for the planet, for purely existing. We completely forget how temporary we are. From the moment we are born, we are closer to death- and death can happen anytime, anywhere, unexpectedly; you don't need to die from sickness, you could just go- that's it... This uncertainty should make our lives more beautiful, appreciated and rich, but we forget this- and instead, we spend our time on bullshit. We spend our time wasting time instead of understanding our purpose on the planet.

People, especially the younger generation, are losing purpose. They don't see clearly. Everybody is here for a reason- and sooner or later, we will find that reason. If someone was born to be a great baker and make the best bread in the world, that is purpose! If someone was born to be a mother, that was purpose! same for someone who was born to be a politician, gardener or artist. The Dalai Lama once summed up the problems of the western world to me... He described how we go to the supermarket to buy toothpaste, and we are confronted with hundreds of choices; and we can spend our whole lives trying different brands... It's the same with religion... Right now, there are hundreds of spiritual and personal-development agendas, and you will constantly lose your time trying to find the right way. Whatever you find though, you have to go for it...

Anyone can find their purpose in life, you just have to look deeply inside yourself. We don't look deeply enough because we are so overwhelmed with our culture. The world turns us into consumer junkies, we consume too much of everything... too much television, too much internet, too much phone and text, too many goods we don't want or need. This gives us such little space to be with ourselves, that it's hard to find purpose.

Q: Why does art exist?

[Marina Abramovic] It's interesting to find the reason why cavemen had to make drawings in the middle of caves inside deep mountains... It looks like human beings, from the start of our existence, had to be expressive. The need to create is in our DNA... Hundreds and millions of people without art, but I believe it's the oxygen of society. Good art has many layers of meaning... It can predict the future, it can ask the right questions (though it may not answer them), it can be disturbing, it can open your consciousness and really lift your spirits. Good art is a generator of energy, it's beautiful. People need to share this beauty with each other. Life can be so grey, and art gives it a touch of something else. If the artist is connected with divine energy, then the spiritual element can create immense power.

For me as an artist, I see the public as an engine. I provide the key for the motor, but the audience become the work; and function without me. I create without even being aware of the consequences and possibilities. We are so lost right now, we have lost our spiritual centres. Just looking at art is not enough anymore, we have to be part of it.

Q: Is there any aesthetic in dark experiences?

[Marina Abramovic] To look at someone being decapitated on the internet for example, is hugely disturbing- there is no aesthetic. I simply feel incredible sadness that here- in the 21st century- human beings still need to kill each other and commit these terrible acts. We have so much pain expressed in the world through the hell of war, and I am much more interested in changing the human spirit.

The Dalai Lama once observed that only when human beings learn to forgive, can they learn to stop killing. This is what we have to do... we have to learn to forgive and stop these messes. Look at our politicians? We don't have figures like Gandhi or Mandela anymore; we are voting for terrible people and reflecting our imperfections into them. Why can't we create something else?

Only individually, if every human being can change their consciousness, can we change the world.

Q: What is the role of sex and love in human experience?

[Marina Abramovic] I'm tired of looking at art as only being a reflection of reality. Our reality today is fucked up, I don't need to reflect it; I can see it on television and in the papers. I'm only interested in what I can change and what I can bring that's different.

Human life always has the same themes: First, we are temporary- and afraid of dying, we are scared of pain, we fall in love, we have melancholy, and we seek out sex. If you look at art from beginning to end, you find that many artists find their own way to express these same subjects.

Q: Can every life have meaning?

[Marina Abramovic] I hope that everyone could wake up in the morning and wonder what their purpose is. This is the main question of our existence! So many people are lost, taking anti-depressants and drinking, and often because they don't want to face this fundamental question, or because they don't have time to face this question. It's often easier to take anti-depressants and become a zombie instead of posing this question to yourself. Life is a miracle, it's the most beautiful gift in the world, we're temporary visitors to this planet and we have to be happy... And to be happy, you have to understand that death can come at any moment, at anytime. Once you accept that, you see that every moment is precious.

Q: What are the roles of intelligence, success and failure in education?

[Sir Ken Robinson] Intelligence is obviously a central concept for education, however most education systems perpetuate a very narrow conception of it. There are two western derived systems that dominate the cultural ideas of intelligence; the first is IQ and the other is academic ability. Both of these are important and interesting. IQ was an idea developed in the early 19th century, building on the work of Sir Francis Galton (a cousin of Charles Darwin) who was accounting for a way of accounting for the different circumstances of the wealthy and the poor. He observed that wealthier people seemed to be more intelligent than poor people and wondered if there was some causal relationship between these two things; and looked for a way of measuring intelligence. What he overlooked of course was that wealthy people could afford to educate themselves! Separately work was being undertaken by Binet in Paris who was looking to help kids who weren't doing well in education because of special needs of various sorts; he was looking for ways of commenting objectively on different levels of ability. Historically, this idea of an intelligent quotient was picked up by other people (and institutions) very quickly and became a measure for social-processing, coinciding with the growth of mass public education. Versions of IQ tests were used as screening tools for people that wanted to migrate to America at Ellis Island; and also for the military. Because IQ has become part of the public-conversation on intelligence, people tend to think it's an unproblematic idea and feel that if you take the test, and answer a set of questions over half-an-hour, that you can determine how much intelligence you have, and give it a number! Well of course, this idea is absurd... there are all kinds of ways that intelligence can manifest, quite apart from those measured by IQ tests. I know all kinds of wonderfully smart people who don't do terribly well on these tests, and others who do very well in these tests but who aren't very smart in other ways. IQ is a measure of something but people do treat it like a blood-test; which (unlike IQ) gives you biological facts.

The idea of academic ability is also important. People, often in America but also in Europe, use the word academic as if it were a synonym for intelligence. Academic ability is very important... I taught in universities for years, and I'm not here to say it's not... however- it is very particular. Academic intelligence refers to the capacity for certain types of deductive reasoning, and is rooted in propositional knowledge, analysis and certain types of discourse. It's mostly conducted in words and numbers; and that's important. If all we had as human beings was academic intelligence, then most of human culture would never have happened.

Intelligence is wonderfully diverse, we think about the world in all kinds of different ways. There are some things we can only think about in words and numbers; it's a point Richard Feynman made when he noted that you need mathematics to understand quantum physics- you can't get to it in blank verse. If you want to tell someone how much you love them, for example; write them a poem! don't give them an equation! We think in sounds, images, movement and in all the ways our senses and mind allow us to conceive.

I was at a meeting with a senior education official in Austria, and was talking with him about the diversity of intelligence. He asked for the evidence of this diversity! I told him to look around him! We were sat in a beautiful 17th century building, in a room that was ornately panelled with Oak and adorned with fantastic paintings with Mozart playing in the background. Our meeting took place around an intricately designed Mahogany desk, sat on a beautiful woven carpet... and on this desk was an iMac, we also had a multi-channel high-definition television on the wall and I said to the man, "...where do you think all this came from? this isn't the result of essays! these are things people have conceived of, made, designed and brought to together with a tremendous array of intellectual capacities, aesthetic judgements, skills and traditions..."

We have ended up dividing the world into academics and non-academics, and this means that people who feel disengaged with academia are classed as 'non-academic' which is often used as a synonym for not being very 'bright.' This is why so many people go through education thinking they're not very bright after being stigmatised at school for not being good at the things that schools have come to prioritise.

Success and failure are important concepts. I'm not living in some wacky romantic commune here in Los Angeles where failure doesn't exist, there are of course things that don't go very well! There are catastrophes, problems and allsorts. In most processes however, and in most practical purposes, having a harsh distinction between success and failure often isn't terribly helpful. I chaired a national commission in the UK on creativity and education. One of the people on the panel was Professor Sir Harry Kroto, who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his work on nano-chemistry. I asked him once how many of his experiments failed, and he reckoned around 90%! He said that failure wasn't the right word, what you are in fact doing is discovering what doesn't work. All scientific processes involve trial and error, nobody gets it right the first time unless you're lucky. It's a recursive incremental process led by hypotheses, it's what Karl Popper described as being a process of conjecture and reputation, what Thomas Kuhn described as shifting scientific paradigms; we don't always move in a straight line, but convulsively from one way of seeing things to another in heuristic leaps. Michael Polanyi talked a lot about how the heart of science is a leap across a heuristic gap which you don't cross logically, but jump across with intuitive acts of imagination which are then back-filled with experiments and testing. 'Failure' is an inherent part of this. Have a look at the manuscripts of musicians, they're laden with crossing-out and reworking, this is why they invented the cut and paste feature in Microsoft Word. Trial and error is a good way to think about thinking. Thinking in terms of success and failure misrepresents the real way that people think, work and the way that progress always comes about.

Q: What would be your advice for the next generation?

[Marina Abramovic] Everyone has their own path and their own truth to follow, and we become the product of many things- our parents, our environment, and so on. It's very important to make sure that you understand, as early as you can, who you really are- and what you want to do in life.

You can't follow the wish of your family, or fashion. A young kid came to me and said he wanted to become an artist, I told him you are not an artist... You cannot 'want' to become an artist, you either are- or you are not- it's part of your DNA. There are so many professions where you feel that way, and you have to be in touch with yourself to find it.

I would very much like to introduce meditation into the school curriculum, and to engage this whole different way of study. I want to show people the truth about society, how perverse our advertising is... I want to show children the truth about life, which is often masked by the kaleidoscope of their existence.

You have to be a very strong character to survive life. How can a child, with such little strength, fight a world that is so fucked up? We can't change the child, we have to change the world and realise that we're born alone, and we die alone.

[Sir Ken Robinson] There are very few things that set us apart from other forms of life on Earth. Other creatures are not on telephone calls like this, surrounded by technology and speaking in articulate languages. These are things that human beings get up-to...

Human beings have very powerful imaginations; and we don't live in the world in the same way that other creatures seem to. We don't live in the world quite so directly, we live in the world of ideas... we have concepts, artefacts, languages, music, images, theories, philosophies, faiths and values which we work-on, inherit, construct, challenge, change and form. We end up living in the world virtually through the ideas that we conceive. These powers of imagination manifest in all kinds of creative outcomes. Creativity is applied imagination, it is the process of putting your imagination to work. Every human being has creativity, it comes with the kit! It does however, need to be worked on.

Every single human being on the planet, since the first emergence of man, has a unique biography. We all create our own lives which, in turn, are the most important act of creativity we ever undertake. We create our lives through the judgements we make on the world around us, we constantly reframe and remake our lives and we can recreate too. The Psychologist George Kelly once said that nobody need ever be painted into a corner by their own history, nobody needs to be a victim of their own biography. The great march of human history has been the development of new ideas and seeing things in a fresh light. Our species is now more connected than ever before, this brings benefits but also fragility; there are countless examples of how much more interdependent we have become, and how fragile our civilisation now is- these are challenges we have never faced before. We are 7 billion people, heading for maybe 12 billion by the end of the century. We will meet or not meet these challenges by the power of our imagination, courage and insights.

We create our lives, and we can recreate them too. Your biography is not your destiny.

--------------------------------------------------

The disconnect between education and self-discovery came largely as a result of socio-economic pressures that required the world to produce a population with the prerequisite knowledge to function productively, as a collective. Deep thinking and self-discovery were tasks largely left to the intelligentsia and societal leaders in the spheres of religion, politics and nobility.

As our species has progressed technologically, it has also become protean in nature. A citizen is no longer defined by ‘what’ they do; but rather exists as an individual who is able to learn, to question and to grow. Our new diffuse culture has also created the opportunity for humanity to innovate; we can explore who we are and what we are capable of in more dramatic ways than could ever be imagined. In the 1950’s for example, it would have been impossible to conceive the total sum of human knowledge being contained within a man-made computer network, that we would have the technology to decode our very DNA, or that billions could be educated digitally in communities that still lack basic access to food and water; but less than half a century later, those things are taken for granted. The pace of change socially, culturally and technologically in our world is increasing rapidly, meaning that the shape of humanity even a decade from now will be significantly different to today; and invariably will require a different set of cognitive, emotional and spiritual apparatus to that which we wield today.

Even the fundamental question of what we are when we refer to ‘I,’ is fraught with doubt. Every day our body is changing and regenerating (physically) and developing (mentally); it’s unlikely for example that you have many cells in your body now which were present at your birth, and the connections in your brain will be vastly different now than even a decade ago. When you refer to the self, you are really talking of the experiential continuity that has brought you to this present moment; you are in effect the result of your own idiosyncratic path through the gamut of reality, and the fact that those experiences are unique to you creates the self as an individual- the you- that exists as a phenomenon in time irrespective and apart from any other individual. “We are born, we die, and our lives are constituted by what we do and experience in the time between these two termini.” (Self: Philosophy in Transit, Barry Dainton – 2014)

Understanding the self in this way is important. You are a unique and beautiful living experiment that is conscious enough to observe itself. The experiment of you is informed by a constant process of learning, given context by our education.

To put it another way: we live, we learn

Disability & The Injustice Facing over 1 Billion People

2014-07-13T18:08:00.000+01:00

In this exclusive series of interviews, we speak to Javed Abidi (Chair, Disabled People's International DPI), Sir Philip Craven MBE (President, International Paralympic Committee IPC) and Professor Hugh Herr (Head of the Biomechatronics research group at MIT Media Lab and Founder of BiOM Inc). We discuss the human rights and social injustices faced by the those living with impairments and disabilities around the world, look at issues ranging from economics and politics to culture and sport and discuss opportunities for the future and whether technology could even end disability.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, July 2014

More than one billion people in the world today live with some form of disability; that’s one in seven of all of us. Almost everyone alive on the planet will, in his or her life- experience temporary or permanent disability of one form or another.

With that in mind consider that in our supposedly advanced society, people with disabilities are subject to economic and social inequalities, violations of dignity and in some cases denied their very autonomy. Whilst the levels of such basic rights violations may vary from place-to-place, the truth is that they occur everywhere from the richest countries in the world (where buildings and transport systems may not be designed with the disabled in mind) to the poorest (where people may be subject to violence, prejudice or imprisonment).

Before we progress however, it’s important to realise that the term disability is misleading. Human beings can become impaired through physical, mental or sensory limitations; but that does not become a disability until that impairment stops them from participating in community life. The term is also used (wrongly) as a broad catch-all for a diverse group of people, and used with the conviction by which we categorise gender. We say (usually) with some certainty that a given person is male or female. Unfortunately, we are also just as quick to categorise an individual as disabled or not. By doing this, we oversimplify and perhaps trivialise the fact that disability – rather than being something looked upon as a ‘condition’, is really a phenomenon that occurs at a complex intersection between our humanity, policy, society, culture and the environment. The complexity of the topic combined with significant political and social blindness towards it, has led to disability becoming one of the most significant un-addressed issues of modern time.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed on 10 December 1948 supposedly expressed the baseline level of rights to which all human beings are entitled. For many groups who were marginalised, even this was not enough to defend them. Specific conventions defending against discrimination on the basis of race, gender and youth were adopted in 1969, 1979 and 1989 respectively. It wasn’t until the 21st century however, in 2006, where the United Nations formally agreed on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with the aim “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.”

So what is the current state of the world faced by those living with impairments and disabilities?

In this exclusive series of interviews, we speak to Javed Abidi (Chair, Disabled People's International DPI), Sir Philip Craven MBE (President, International Paralympic Committee IPC) and Professor Hugh Herr (Head of the Biomechatronics research group at MIT Media Lab and Founder of BiOM Inc). We discuss the human rights and social injustices faced by the those living with impairments and disabilities around the world, look at issues ranging from economics and politics to culture and sport and discuss opportunities for the future and whether technology could even end disability.

Javed Abidi is Chairperson of Disabled People’s International and Honorary Director of National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP).

Javed was affected with spina bifida at birth and has been a wheelchair user since 15. After graduating summa cum laude from Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, U.S.A, he came back to India to pursue a career in journalism. He made his foray into the Indian disability sector after a chance meeting with Smt. Sonia Gandhi. This led to his appointment as the Programme Officer in charge of the Disabled Persons Welfare Unit at the prestigious Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. He served there for five years from 1992 to 1997.

In those five years, several pathbreaking initiatives were launched, the most noteworthy being the Lifeline Express Project and the Motorised Tri-wheeler Scheme. It was during this period only that work began specifically on cross-disability issues, particularly the drafting and passage of the Disability Act 1995.

In 1993, he founded the Disabled Rights Group (DRG). He was also instrumental in setting up of National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP) in 1996 and has been its Director since 1997. As an impassioned advocate for India’s disabled citizens, he has given voice to an “invisible minority”, one that has been denied to them by both political and social sectors for decades.

He has successfully led several path breaking advocacy initiatives in India. This includes filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India in 1997 regarding the non-implementation of The Disability Act. The case continued for over a year, at the end of which the Court directed the Union of India to undertake several measures, for example the appointment of the State Disability Commissioners, etc.

Abidi has also drafted the chapter on disability which has been reproduced as it is in the 11th Five Year Plan (2007 – 2012); catalysed 3% reservation for disabled people in Indian Administrative Services; ensured inclusion of disability as a category in Census 2001; facilitated the 2005 Inclusive Education Policy for Children and Youth with Disabilities to ensure education will be disabled friendly by 2020; played an active role in creating awareness and expediting the ratification process of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Other successful advocacy campaigns include ensuring the inclusion of disability in the Right to Education Act; revision of Guidelines for Indian Government Websites mandating WCAG 2.0 compliance; proper enumeration of people with disabilities in Census 2011; inclusion of people with disabilities and disability experts in the various Steering Committees formulating the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) to ensure that disability is looked at a cross-cutting issue and the creation of a separate Department of Disability Affairs

Has formed the one and only cross – disability network across India called National Disability Network (NDN) with a reach in 324 districts, He is an Ashoka fellow and has been awarded the IBN 7 Bajaj Allianz Super Idols – Lifetime Achievement Award.

Sir Philip Craven has been passionate about sport all his life. He was born in Bolton in the north of England, and educated at the University of Manchester where he graduated with honors in 1972.

Sir Philip is an accomplished five-time Paralympian in wheelchair basketball (1972 to 1988) and swimming (1972). He won gold medals in the Gold Cup - World Championships, European Championships, Commonwealth Games, and the European Champions Cup.

His many astounding contributions to Paralympic sport led to his election as President of the International Paralympic Committee in 2001. Following this he was elected a member of the International Olympic Committee in 2003 and a board member of the London 2012 Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. He was President of the International Wheelchair Basketball Federation from 1998 to 2002.

Away from the basketball court, Sir Philip was knighted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for services to Paralympic Sport in 2005, awarded a Doctor of Science, Honoris Causa, from Manchester Metropolitan University in 2006, and an Honorary Doctorate of Laws from Nottingham University in 2007. In 1991 he was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for services to wheelchair basketball.

He is a keen amateur de vin and has been awarded the highly prestigious Chevalier de l’Ordre de la Croix de Bourgogne (2007). Sir Philip and his wife, Lady Craven, enjoy gardening, sports, and travel.

Hugh Herr directs the Biomechatronics group at The MIT Media Lab, and is the founder of BiOM, which markets the BiOM as the first in a series of products that will emulate or even augment physiological function through electromechanical replacement.

His research program seeks to advance technologies that promise to accelerate the merging of body and machine, including device architectures that resemble the body’s musculoskeletal design, actuator technologies that behave like muscle, and control methodologies that exploit principles of biological movement. His methods encompass a diverse set of scientific and technological disciplines, from the science of biomechanics and biological movement control to the design of biomedical devices for the treatment of human physical disability.

His research accomplishments in science and technology have already made a significant impact on physically challenged people. The Transfemoral Quasipassive Knee Prosthesis has been commercialized by Össur Inc., and is now benefiting amputees throughout the world. In 2006, he founded the company iWalk Inc. to commercialize the Powered Ankle-Foot Prosthesis and other bionic leg devices. Professor Herr’s work impacts a number of academic communities. He has given numerous invited and plenary lectures at international conferences and colloquia, including the IVth World Congress of Biomechanics, the International Conference on Advanced Prosthetics, the National Assembly of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, World Economic Forum, Google Zeitgeist, Digital Life Design, and the TEDMED Conference. He is Associate Editor for the Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, and has served as a reviewer for the Journal of Experimental Biology, the International Journal of Robotics Research, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, and the Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences. He has been invited to participate in joint funding proposals from other universities and corporations, and has served on research review panels including the National Institute of Health, the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In 2007, He was presented with the 13th Annual Heinz Award for Technology, the Economy and Employment.

His work has been featured by various national and international media, including Scientific American Frontiers, Technology Review, National Geographic, the History Channel, and CNN.

Q: What does the term 'disability' really mean?

[Javed Abidi] Disability is an impairment, but an impairment is not necessarily a disability. The interaction of an impairment with the social barriers that surround you may or may not turn that impairment into a disability. For example; I am a wheelchair user, and If I see a building in front of me with three steps, I cannot get into it. If I cannot get into it, it's not because I'm on a wheelchair; it's because the building has 3 steps. If the same building had a ramp, my wheelchair would not be an impairment and I could easily get into the building.

[Sir Philip Craven] The word disability is the embodiment of pure negativity... and when it's used as a catch-all such as 'the disabled,' it's even worse. Everyone is an individual, and those individual personalities should shine through, not the labels.

Ask a person who's getting a bit older and may have a visual, hearing or mobility impairment if they're disabled? They'll throw that title off with vehemently! They view disability as being a community they don't belong to.

I'm Philip Craven, I'm me... the fact that I use a wheelchair is immaterial. I am what I am.
At the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, we were staying at the Westin. They had an 'adapted bathroom,' with a little sink that never emptied. I called one of the hotel team who pointed out the sink was on a siphon, and that siphon had to be half-filled with whatever you had spat-out into the sink before it emptied. I told the hotel it wasn't acceptable to have something this crude in a 5-star hotel, and the response was... "well, what do you expect... it's a disabled sink in a disabled bathroom..." This clearly illustrates the way people think- assuming we want something different- when we don't!

If you're told you're disabled long-enough you start to feel it. I sometimes get asked if things changed for me after my accident. They didn't because I damn-well made sure they didn't and fought against it... You have to throw off your impairments, and make sure that you have the confidence to decide your own destiny- rather than allowing others to decide it for you because you're disabled.

[Prof. Hugh Herr] Sometimes people view disability as something permanent when, in fact, our bodies are malleable with technology. One could be disabled for a portion of one's life, and then not be for another; the body is malleable and transformable with technology. Disability is not a fixed condition, it's fluid. This is good news- it means that we can ultimately eliminate disability.

When I was first sent to the rehabilitation centre after my legs were amputated, I was fitted with my first pair of artificial limbs. The rehab Doctor asked me what I wanted to do and I said that I wanted to return to mountain climbing, ride a bicycle and drive a car. He told me I could drive a car with hand controls, that I may be able ride a bicycle, but that I would never be able to return to mountain climbing. When I was going through this transformation from a 'normal' body to an 'unusual' body, society communicated to me that not only was I to be pitied... but the aids and prostheses that the medical establishment gave to me were to be accepted and that was that. That's an emotionally troubling and inaccurate message.

I've spent my career convincing people that they can flip this message and push the boundaries of technology and society.

Q: What is the true scale of discrimination faced by people living with impairments and disabilities?

[Javed Abidi] There is gross discrimination taking place, and to deny it would be like pulling wool over your own eyes. Historically, disabled people have been discriminated against across the world; not just in the Global South but also in the 'so called' developed world.. It was only in the late 1960's and 70's that a movement began in certain parts of the world. America and some of the Nordic countries gained an advantage over others. Even in a country like the UK, the first disability laws arrived only in 1995.

When we talk of disability, we are referring to over 1 billion people; 80% of whom are in the Global South, the poorer countries of the world. Here we are in the 21st century, and we have practically nothing in place for them to protect their rights when it comes to accessibility, education, social-living and more.

Historically, one of the biggest mistakes the world made was to look at disability as a pity or charity issue. If you go into the history of disability in the USA and Europe, and even today; money is collected in Churches for the welfare and wellbeing of people with disabilities. When you do that, you are automatically painting a picture of these 'poor, crippled, handicapped people... who are in need of your charity...' That should never have been the case. Disabled people never asked for anyone's charity, what they have asked- and are asking for more vociferously now- is a level playing field.

Let's look at the same question differently... If we go back to the 30's, 40's and 50's - if the world had looked at disability as a human rights and development issue and not a charity or a pity issue, we could have made sure that our transport systems and buildings were accessible by all. This would have ensured that disabled people were able to step out of their homes, to move around, to go to schools and colleges, attend universities, and go to jobs. Why was this so difficult to do? Disabled people are not asking for quotas, concessions or handouts- but simply the same opportunities as non-disabled people. Because of these historic mistakes, disabled people lost out on 40-50 years of global development in which most of the world's infrastructure of buildings, buses and trains, was developed. Disabled got left out of this 'progress' and a world emerged where- by default- disabled people are at a huge disadvantage. If people cannot get out of their homes, cannot get on transport, cannot get into an office building... If 90% of schools are inaccessible to disabled people... as they are in Asia.... then instead of levelling the playing field, it became very warped.

The majority of laws protecting the rights of the disabled came into effect from the 1990's and onward. The world is now slowly waking-up to realise that disability is a development and rights issue, and this is a paradigm shift.

The damage that has been done to the rights of disabled people is undeniable, and I feel that it could take 50-100 years to put that right.

[Sir Philip Craven] I personally don't encounter any discrimination that often, but I wouldn't go to places or meet with people again if they gave me that impression. That said, I'm sure that much discrimination exists.

The real way to change perceptions in society against these mythical 'groups' of people is through positive experiences, and not to just ram new laws down their throats. In some cases however these laws are necessary. Wider parking spaces for example, mean that people can get out of their chair into the front seat of their cars! Education is imperative in all formats to do this, as it allows people themselves to change their minds about others rather than being told they have to believe or act in a certain way.

Around 10 years ago in the USA, Paralympians were called 'super-crips' by some people in the communities they themselves were supposed to belong to; perhaps because people couldn't associate with them- but in truth, they are there to showcase what is possible when you really put your mind to it...

You only change perceptions by showing yourself as being what you are. People won't do it for you...

[Prof. Hugh Herr] There's rampant discrimination going on. Looking at my case, that of Oscar Pistorius and any other athlete that has unusual bodies you see this manifest. When you're an athlete with an unusual body (leg amputation, blindness and so on..) and you're not competitive against persons of normal physiology- you're called 'courageous.' It's not a word like 'talent,' courageous means you're performing because you try hard- it's cute, but it's not cutting-edge or state-of-the-art. There's been a few times in history where that person with an unusual body, as an athlete, starts being competitive with persons of normal physiology. The moment that happens- instantaneously- the attitude shifts from that person being courageous, to being a threat. That ultimately and typically leads to claims of that person not being a great athlete, but rather that technology is helping them cheat in some way.

Broadly across society, there is a discrimination around the perception that having an unusual mind or body is weakness- that you're weaker, that you're crippled. Technology is so important- it can change that social view to something far more positive wherein we will see a future world where that person with an unusual body or mind will be bionic. They're going to be powerful, attractive and won't be discriminated against. They will be equal members of a broader society

Q: What are your views on the perceptions of how disability occurs versus our views of the people themselves?

[Javed Abidi] Today, with our improved healthcare systems, people are living longer. It's no longer unusual for someone to get to 90 years of age in many countries of the world. As people age, they acquire disabilities. You don't acquire disability only out of tragedy... that's an ancient and stereotypical concept that has been woven into our history- that disability is something that befalls you when you do bad things. This is re-enforced in countries like India with social concepts such as karma, and the misinterpretation of concepts in most religions. Disability is a part of our life cycle. Each one of us will experience disability in our lifetime; not necessarily out of an accident or natural disaster, but even if you live in a very safe and healthy environment, and you're the richest person on earth who lives a responsible life and eats great food - you'll live longer - your body will age - and as your body ages, you acquire disabilities.

We need to shift our mindset, and the world needs to catch-up. The past cannot be wiped-away, but the future can be written. We have to make a pledge that no building in the world will ever be constructed without considering access. It doesn't cost a single penny extra, it's a design issue... The world, and our world leaders and opinion makers are yet to realise the full potential of universal design. We need to have a world with infrastructure, built environment and services that all of us whether old, young, tall, short, man, woman or otherwise can use with dignity and safety.

Q: To what extent is there political will to improve the situation faced by those living with disabilities?

[Javed Abidi] After all these years of making mistakes in the 30's, 40's, 50's, we have built a very unequal world that is meant only for the fittest. In India, until 10-15 years ago, we had a policy that said that any building up to 4 storeys did not need a lift. The working presumption was that the average Indian was healthy enough to be able to climb 3 or 4 storeys. A friend of mine who came to visit me a few years ago said that India was built for superman or superwoman because these idiots.. whoever came up with that stupid policy... thought they would never age. You have a lot of government colonies in India where you are allocated flats on 2nd, 3rd or 4th floor in the prime of your youth. You are- then- arrogant, but 20-30 years later you age. I have heard horror stories of people who are on the 3rd or 4th floor of buildings and who cannot even go down steps to the park because of mobility issues.

Finally, in the year 2007, the United Nations passed the Conventions on the Rights of People With Disabilities UN-CRPD. The United Nations had a convention on the rights of women, the rights of children and the rights of refugees, but even the United Nations- which is supposed to be the cradle of human rights- failed to look at the issue of disability with any seriousness until 2007. As we speak, around 140-150 countries have ratified it, and many have not. My concern is that while that convention has been drafted and passed, and while many have ratified it, there still isn't political will. I'm yet to see the issue of disability being taken up with the seriousness it deserves... the UN-CRPD has started a discourse, but progress is still very slow.

Unless there is political will, no change will happen. Most issues facing disabled people can be solved with the stroke of a pen, they don't even need resources. You need resources to correct the damage of the past, but I'm saying we should put that aside for the time being- all the buildings that are not accessible, let's put blinkers on- but why is it so difficult for any government to pass law that means that for the future - no public building will be constructed without accessibility. When you procure a new plane, a new bus or new transport system... why can it not be accessible.

The reason that politicians do not look at disability with the seriousness the issue deserves is because they don't see disabled people as a potential vote-bank. Historical failures mean that many disabled people are virtual prisoners inside their own homes. If you go to an average country in the Global South, you just don't see that many disabled people. If you go to a mall or station or cinema in India, Nepal, Pakistan or elsewhere- you hardly see any disabled people. Is it because they don't exist? are there less disabled people in the Global South than the USA? my contention is that there are more! Because the disabled are not able to step out of their homes, because they have not been able to access education they are unemployed, because they are unemployed they are not empowered. And that's 1:7 of all humanity that remains unseen, unheard and unaccounted.

[Sir Philip Craven] There's a lot more that needs to be done.

One year before the winter games in Vancouver, I met with the Governor General of Canada; the Queen's representative. I told her that when I travel around the world, I had used Canada as a country which- at that time- had made the most progress. I asserted they were about 30% there... She asked what I meant, and I explained it to her in very general terms and told her that the games could lift it to 70% but then she has the obligation to maintain it and create a legacy. All countries have done 30-40% of what needs to be done, maybe less- even zero in some countries. The west hasn't got all the answers however. If you give a different impression to government- who ultimately support the greatest change- and show them there is a positive way forward, rather than adopting the position of charitable beneficiaries- we can enable people to care and develop themselves.

In Britain, I was very pleased that what was the Disability Act now falls under the Equality Act. Some people may assert that not a lot has changed, but the change in terminology is very important. The United Nation Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disability (2007) was similar. Countries had to first sign up to the principles and then ratify that convention. With our support, a world record 86 countries signed up to UN-CRPD on day 1! This wasn't just an IPC success, but all our members who in turn wrote to their members. A very senior UN individual told me in Sochi 2014 that they needed my help in convincing the USA to ratify the UN-CRPD and mentioned two other conventions they have not ratified. This goes to show that the most powerful country in the world decided not to ratify a detailed, well written and fundamentally important convention; meaning there is a lot of work that is yet to be done, and the USA is not alone in that regard.

There is only one paradise in this solar system, Earth. We have to give back and make this a home that works for all of us.

Q: What is the social, economic and cultural role of events such as the Paralympics?

[Sir Philip Craven] The Paralympics are a major sporting event, with great athletes who love competing in sport, enjoy the competition, and love winning (accepting that losing is just a step to learning how to win next time!). We have 4 key values: determination, courage, inspiration and equality. Athletes don't view themselves as courageous but other people do... and that's why we keep that one in there.

What's interesting is the effect that the Paralympics have on people- who could be sports fans or just people who want to come along and enjoy a major event, as they would a concert. At the Olympics and Paralympics, everyone had a great time and the positive experiences at the event and outside left a lasting experience. I was with the Chief Marketing Officer of a major worldwide company recently and he said that London 2012 changed his life... and that's the kind of effect that we want to have on people.

Paralympic athletes may not realise, but they are giving people something different to what they have seen for hundreds of years. They are changing perceptions and encouraging people to see that we all belong to one society.

Q: What is the role of the Paralympics when considering rehabilitation?

[Sir Philip Craven] Rehabilitation can be many things. Whether you lose mobility, become blind or otherwise gain impairment from a major accident, illness or congenital problems; you may be left thinking you have less than others, and question why 'it' happened to you. You may have had to go through painful operations, and so many other things which can challenge your outlook. After this? you need something that's fun again! Not everyone likes playing sport, but many people who don't enjoy sport have had a bad experience with it- a bad teacher, a bad coach, bullying or otherwise. Sport and physical activity, when taught properly, and when open to all to participation- can get the brain ticking.

Rehabilitation after a major injury, accident or illness is required; while physiotherapists and doctors may get you moving... it's up to you to rehabilitate yourself and get benefit out of it.

In 1966, I was lying in bed for 8 weeks, having broken my back. I got up into a wheelchair and went to the Gym. I was paralysed in the middle of my trunk and didn't have good sitting balance, never mind walking! In those days, the seating situation was that if you did not have good sitting balance- you would probably fall forwards out of your chair. They sat me in front of a mirror and told me to practice my balance by looking at myself. I didn't have a problem with myself after my accident, but if I did have and if I was depressed? the last thing I would have wanted to do is see myself in this new situation 8 weeks after I was running about. Just next to the mirror was a table-tennis table. In truth, this would give you subconscious ways of developing your balance whilst also having fun. that's just one example....

Two and a half years ago, I spent 3 weeks in a spinal unit in Southport where I had my initial treatment 47 years previously. I had broken my femur in Korea and don't feel the area where I broke my leg. I came back on 3 planes to the UK, and that's what they diagnosed that I'd done. General hospitals in Britain are useless at looking after paraplegics and tetraplegics from a bodily-functions perspective if they have to stay in hospital following a serious operation. My operation was wonderfully done by a surgeon, but I got out of that general hospital as fast as I possibly could- with blood still seeping from my wound- to the spinal unit. I spent 3 weeks in bed there, but made a few observations. Most of the people using wheelchairs had not been shown how to use them... there was also a purpose built swimming pool, but it was only accessible for patients between 7:30 and 8:30am because after that it was used by local schools. The money gained by this helped the trust to not make a loss! I asked more questions and found that where Sir Ludwig Guttman had brought sport and physical activity into rehabilitation for spinally injured persons in the 1940's and 50's, this was no longer done. It's a scandal, and we're now dealing with that through the Ministry of Health. There's no real re-integration into society for these people anymore, they are treated as a body that needs fixing rather than a person who needs to fix themselves.

18 months ago I was in Finland for a presentation. I had the chance to visit a spinal unit in Helsinki which seemed to be run in the way that most should be run in Britain. It had a man and woman, one of whom was a paraplegic and the other who was a tetraplegic. They were paid to work there to help get people moving; I was doing the same in France 40 years ago, working as a sports rehab trainer and playing for the local basketball team! The head physio was really humbled that we were so pleased with their facility, but told us they learned everything they know from the UK!

Q: Have the Paralympics empowered the development of technologies to assist those who are impaired or live with disabilities?

[Sir Philip Craven] If we look at mechanical and technological support for people who need to get about, there has certainly been a positive impact. If you look at the chairs that we had to play wheelchair basketball 40 years ago, they were a massive improvement on what was there previously, but they didn't move in the same way that today's chairs do. All the modern good-looking wheelchairs that people use in everyday life have been developed from wheelchair basketball. This didn't come from big companies, but from two sports people; Bud Rumple and Henk MaCkenzie. Bud Rumple developed the box frame that doesn't fold and has better cornering. MaCkenzie and Rumple both invented the chairs with camber on wheels, and a change to wheel placement to make the chair spin more easily. All of these innovations have come from sports within the Paralympic movement such as wheelchair tennis, rugby and more. People feel good about being in a chair that moves, rather than one which is designed for you to be pushed around in.

Companies are now making super lightweight incredible prosthetics too that are allowing people to not just compete, but also go about their day to day lives with greater ease. The Paralympics also encourages people to look into new ideas and move forward to execute those ideas.

Q: What are the key technologies that are transforming the lives of people with physical and mental impairments?

[Prof. Hugh Herr] One important set of technologies relate to the interface with the human nervous system. If you can get information in and out of the brain and nerve endings, that has very important implications for disability. You could- in principle- treat conditions ranging from severe depression to limb amputation and paralysis. Many other areas of science and engineering such as robotics are making profound changes too such as actuators that replicate muscle tissue.

Approximately half of the world's population have unusual bodies or mind. These disabilities exist because of insufficient technology, and cause a profound amount of human suffering. Using technology to eliminate disability is an enormous market with billions and billions of dollars of wealth to be created. These technologies will be drivers of the economy and will simultaneously mitigate human suffering. It's a wonderful opportunity.

Q: What are your views on the potential for human enhancement and augmentation through technology?

[Prof. Hugh Herr] Through the mission of ending disability, society will develop technology that will serve as the basis of extending beyond normal physiologies. The same interface into the brain that exists to treat severe depression, could also be used to enhance mood, concentration or cognitive performance. The same bionic ankle that allows me to walk could wrap-around a perfectly normal biological leg and augment it. There is a wealth of technological platforms that will affect all of humanity regardless of their physiologies or minds.

Humanity will be pushed in philosophical realms to grapple with the question of what it means to be human. If you replace all four limbs of a human being, are they still the same human? normal people would say yes they are. If you start truly augmenting the brain, are they still the same human? some people would argue yes and some no. It's a fertile ground for philosophical debate.

Q: What are the ethics and policy challenges of human augmentation?

[Prof. Hugh Herr] Like any new technological era, this raises ethical questions. There are ways of using technology appropriately and as-intended, and ways that are unintended and perhaps harmful. I think commensurate with the development of these technologies, that ultimately will be critical to ending disability, is the development of policy and law around augmentation technology. We need sophistication on technology and policy.

Technologists, scientists and all the stakeholders must be part of the committees that will look into these challenges. Often people that are not scientifically trained believe things are possible that are not, and believe things will be sooner than they will be. They may not even comprehend technologies that will be here in a decade or two, and the implications of those technologies. Scientists should be up front in that conversation.

We always need to choose policy that coaxes society in the direction of greater human diversity, and maintained individual freedoms. As an aside; we're not doing very well. We live in an information society and largely we don't own our own data- nor are we demanding it. We freely give away our own data. As citizens we need to be more careful as technology becomes more acute and pronounced.

There is a huge opportunity here. We can employ these new sciences and technologies to develop policy, law and culture where the individual is embraced and very powerful and has great freedom and authority. A society in which we have enhanced from our current state and widened human diversity. There's a real risk we could go in the opposite direction... for example; in the world in which we have the technology for parents to design their offspring, it would probably result in a massive mitigation of the diversity of our specie. Our culture's narrow viewpoint of what beauty and intelligence are would play into parental decisions on what their offspring should be. Another world that would enhance diversity would be to view the human body as malleable- as a blank sheet on which to create; somewhat like the genre of piercing or tattoos where the skin is a place of creation. Bionics enable you to do more than tattoo or pierce. If you want a third arm, you can have a third arm... What you are physically and cognitively could be flexible by your own design. That's an interesting world, a place where our notion of beauty could change. That's the future that I want, and the future we should drive toward.

Q: What would be your message to those living with disabilities?

[Javed Abidi] You have to live your life, and make it a full and wholesome life ...nobody is going to come and deliver it to you. It's a tough world for everyone, but a little tougher for us- with the additional difficulties we have. I myself am a person with disability, I am a wheelchair user. My condition- Spina Biffida- is congenital. I was only 'normal' for the first 8 years of my life. After my first surgery, I was left with a limp. I was on crutches till the age of 15, and since then I have been a wheelchair user- so I speak from experience. You have to fight, you don't have a choice. You have to go that extra mile to ensure you get that education and those skills. Nobody will give you a job out of charity or pity. It's an unequal world, to pretend otherwise would be foolish and you have to fight for your rights- you must demand them- and then go and get them.

[Sir Philip Craven] You have to be yourself and decide what you want to do with your life. If you have negative thoughts at the moment, you have to see what other people have done in your situation but realise it's you that will change your life with the support of others; not others that will change your life for you.

You have to get information in your mind about what's possible, but you need determination to go and get it, and if anyone stands in your way? fight them like mad!

Life's a fight, it's a struggle- and you have to take it to them. You are in a community with written and unwritten rules, but life is for freedom. You have to create your own freedom.

[Prof. Hugh Herr] Don't accept mediocrity. Don't accept what has already been accepted. We all have gifts to give.

I am a technologist, scientist and engineer - if that's what you inspires you, then jump in and start designing... there are so many initiatives and technologies that need to be developed. If you are policy or legally minded, there is a lot of work to be done there too.

Jump in the race to solve this massive human rights issue.

--------------------------------------------------

Think of the absurdity of a world where the colour of your skin would be considered an impairment, leaving you (in the eyes of wider society) disabled. Whilst the word disability was not specifically used, it was not that long ago in human memory where the colour of your skin, or your gender would- in very real terms- prevent you accessing the vast majority of opportunities in your community. It took a century of campaigning and advocacy in both cases to make the world realise the idiocy of such asinine views.

Think of a similar absurdity of a world where people are patronised for their life achievements in-spite of their skin colour or gender, "Oh..." they said, "isn't it brave how those [insert colour here] people are able to walk around society, even though they're [insert colour here]..." Most reasonable people would see these views as dehumanising and yet for the billion affected by impairments, such views are a day to day reality.

The human body is unimaginably complex. Each of us is the result of 3 billion base-pairs of genetic code that created a system of roughly 37 trillion cells, controlled by a brain with 1,000 more connections than the number of stars in the known galaxy. And there are over 7 billion of us roaming an environment which we have elementarily tailored to our fragile bodies. Whilst our cognitive apparatus is designed to categorise and segment; it is impossible to deny the inevitable diversity of mankind when confronted by the quantitative nature of ourselves. We are not a population of groups with set parameters, but a population of individuals exhibiting the beautiful gamut of biodiversity which our species is capable of.

The concept of disability is a word rooted in a society built on physical acumen, but in a world now powered by knowledge, the word is redundant. Professor Stephen Hawking's contributions to our understanding of the universe were not diminished by his physical impairments, they were wholly irrelevant to them. In his own words, he advised the world "Don't be disabled in spirit as well as physically..."

We need to move on from disability, and move to a world where we embrace the variety of our species and commit to ensuring that every individual is able to maximise their contribution to society regardless of their physical or mental ability, their social or economic background or any other determinant you care to use.

As philosopher Bahá'u'lláh once said, “So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth.”

Religion, Science and Society

2014-06-02T17:17:00.000+01:00

In this exclusive series of interviews, we speak to four world experts on religion and science. Fr. José G. Funes (Director of the Vatican Observatory), Prof. Alister McGrath (Director, Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University), Dr. Deborah Haarsma (President of the BioLogos Foundation) and Prof. Justin Barrett (Director, Thrive Centre - Fuller's Graduate School of Psychology). We discuss the fundamental roles of religion and science in society together with their roles in shaping our history, and our future.

--------------------------------------------------

Vikas Shah, Thought Economics, June 2014

Since the dawn of modern humanity, our species has sought to reach out beyond the rational and empirical limits of observation. Some facet of our being impels us to seek ‘truth’ in the meaning and significance of our lives and wider existence.

It’s no coincidence therefore that the United States of America, arguably the most powerful nation on Earth, has adopted the maxim; “In God We Trust.” Americans are not alone…. More than 80 per cent the 7 billion adults and children alive today- some 5.8 billion people- consider themselves religiously affiliated. Of those remaining 1.2 billion people, many hold religious or spiritual beliefs (such as belief in God or a universal spirit) even though they don’t identify with a particular faith.

It would be easy to argue such beliefs as out-dated at a time where we have such deep understanding of science, but history shows a constant tension between scientific and theological thought. It is perhaps the greatest debate that humanity has ever created. In ‘ Reason Vs. Religion,’ Tom Laity notes that “superstitions and religious leaders, philosophers, sceptics, laypeople and scientists, throughout history and ancient history, have endlessly argued and discussed the existence or non-existence of God, gods and goddesses”

“Some, who believe that a true religion should be supported by science, believe the tension is real. Others believe that the tension is illusory and based upon a misunderstanding about the nature of both science and religion.” Writes A. A. Sappington. He continues by identifying that “perceived tension between religion and science occurs not only in specific areas of conflict such as different claims about the age of the earth or the authenticity of relics; it also occurs perhaps more fundamentally in that the determinism and reductionism characteristics of science may seem to leave no room for the action of the divine, or even of free will. Psychology especially has threatened many people in that it has often seemed to make irrelevant such concepts as choice or moral responsibility” (The Religion/Science Conflict, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1991).

For every thinker believing in such tension, there have been equally significant peers who saw a balance. As Albert Einstein once commented, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind..” and as Pope John Paul II added, “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes...”

In this exclusive series of interviews, we speak to four world experts on religion and science. Fr. José G. Funes (Director of the Vatican Observatory), Prof. Alister McGrath (Director, Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University), Dr. Deborah Haarsma (President of the BioLogos Foundation) and Prof. Justin Barrett (Director, Thrive Centre - Fuller's Graduate School of Psychology). We discuss the fundamental roles of religion and science in society together with their roles in shaping our history, and our future.

Fr. José Funes, SJ was born in Cordoba, Argentina. He completed his masters' degree in astronomy (licenciado en astronomía) at the National University of Cordoba in 1985, writing on the computational analysis of the photometry of eclipsing binary stars. In the same year, Funes entered the Society of Jesus.

He obtained a bachelor's degree in philosophy in 1990 at the Universidad del Salvador in San Miguel, Argentina. In the same university he attained the masters in philosophy (licenciado en filosofía) in 1996. In this master thesis he discussed cosmology as a science from the point of view of scientific realism. He was ordained to the priesthood in 1995 after completing the bachelor's degree in sacred theology (S.T.B.) at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. In 2000 he obtained his doctorate in astronomy at the University of Padua with the study of the kinematics of ionized gas in the inner regions of 25 disk galaxies.

He joined the Vatican Observatory Research Group as staff astronomer in March 2000 and was appointed Director of the Vatican Observatory in August 2006 by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Fr. Funes specializes in extragalactic astronomy. His field of research includes the kinematics and dynamics of disk galaxies, the star formation in the local universe, and the relationship between gravitational interaction and galactic activity.

Alister McGrath is the third holder of the Andreas Idreos Professorship of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion. McGrath sees the Idreos chair primarily in terms of public engagement with the great questions of science and faith, embedded in a tradition of outstanding teaching and research.

Alister Edgar McGrath was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He was awarded an Open Scholarship to study Chemistry at Wadham College, Oxford University in 1971, where his tutors included JR Knowles. He gained First Class Honours in Chemistry in 1975, and pursued research in molecular biophysics in the laboratories of Professor Sir George Radda in Oxford’s Department of Biochemistry. He was awarded an EPA Cephalosporin Research Studentship at Linacre College, Oxford, from 1975-6, and a Senior Scholarship at Merton College, Oxford, from 1976-8. He held a fellowship at the University of Utrecht, funded by the European Molecular Biology Organization, in 1976. While at Merton College, McGrath simultaneously continued his research in molecular biophysics, while studying for an Oxford undergraduate degree in theology. In 1978, he gained both his Oxford doctorate, and First Class Honours in Theology. He was awarded the Denyer and Johnson Prize by Oxford for the best performance in the Final Honour School examination. McGrath then took up the Naden Studentship in Divinity at St John’s College, Cambridge from 1978-80, while also studying for ministry in the Church of England at Westcott House, where his tutors included Rowan Williams, and his fellow-students John Polkinghorne. He married the psychologist Joanna Collicutt in July 1980, and was ordained deacon in the Church of England in September 1980. He served as curate at St Leonard’s church, Wollaton, Nottingham from 1980-3, and was priested at Southwell Minster in September 1981.

McGrath served as the first Director of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics from 2004-6, subsequently becoming its President. During this time, he developed a close working relationship with the Oxford Faculty of Theology. He became a member of the Faculty in 1983, and was appointed University Research Lecturer in Theology in 1993. He taught frequently at Regent College Vancouver, and served as its Research Professor of Theology from 1993-7. In 1999, in recognition of his research, McGrath was elected to a personal chair of theology at Oxford University, with the title of “Professor of Historical Theology”. He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (FRSA) in 2005 in recognition of his role as a public intellectual. From 2006, McGrath became Senior Research Fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford, and retained this role after moving to London in 2008 to take up a chair of theology at King’s College London. In 2009, McGrath also became Associate Priest in the Shill Valley & Broadshire benefice in the Diocese of Oxford, a group of village churches in the Cotswolds.

Deborah Haarsma serves as President of The BioLogos Foundation, a position she has held since January 2013. Previously, she served as professor and chair in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

She is author (along with her husband Loren Haarsma) of Origins: Christian Perspectives on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design (2011, 2007), a book presenting the agreements and disagreements of Christians regarding the history of life and the universe. She edited Delight in Creation: Scientists Share Their Work with the Church (2012) with Rev. Scott Hoezee, an anthology of essays by Christian biologists, astronomers, mathematicians, and other scientists. She and Hoezee directed The Ministry Theorem, a project of Calvin Theological Seminary and the Calvin College Science Division to provide pastors and ministry leaders with resources for engaging science in the life of the church. She also contributed to the Faraday Institute's Test of Faith (2010) film and curriculum, and to Keith Miller's Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (2003).

Haarsma is an experienced research scientist, with several publications in the Astrophysical Journal and the Astronomical Journal on extragalactic astronomy and cosmology. She has studied very large galaxies (at the centers of galaxy clusters), very young galaxies (undergoing rapid star formation in the early universe), and gravitational lenses (where space-time is curved by a massive object). Her work uses data from several major telescopes, including the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico, the Southern Astrophysical Research optical and infrared telescope in Cerro Pachon, Chile, and the Chandra X-ray Observatory in orbit around the earth. Haarsma completed her doctoral work in astrophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and her undergraduate work in physics and music at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Justin L. Barrett joined the Fuller School of Psychology in 2011 as Thrive Professor of Developmental Science and Director of the Thrive Center for Human Development. He came to Fuller from the University of Oxford, U.K., where he taught and served as senior researcher for Oxford’s Center for Anthropology and Mind. He has also taught at the University of Michigan and Calvin College, and served as co-area director for Young Life in Lawrence, Kansas.

Most of Dr. Barrett’s academic work has concerned cognitive scientific approaches to the study of religion; a new project in this area will be helping to extend cognitive science of religion to China, for which he won a grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation (2011-2014). His current research interests include cognitive, evolutionary, and psychological approaches to the study of religion; cognitive approaches to the study of culture and archaeology generally; and religious and character development in children and adolescents. Barrett’s main focus at Fuller is to work with others to develop the Thrive Center into a world leader for positive youth development—cultivating spiritual, character, and virtue development and general flourishing in childhood and adolescence.

Barrett’s publications include Psychology of Religion (ed., 2010) and Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (2004), along with the forthcoming book, Cognitive Science, Religion, and Theology. His most recent book, released in the spring of 2012, is Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief. He has also published academic articles and book chapters across several disciplines.

Q: How did religion and science emerge in society?

[Prof Alister McGrath] Science and religion are two sides of the same coin; they both have to do with meaning. People have always wondered how we can make sense of the world and understand the deeper meaning of who we are and what we’re meant to be all about. I tend to see science and religion as distinct yet related; the problems arise when science begins to think it’s religion, and religion thinks it’s science.

Religious people may sometimes feel they are offering a scientific explanation for things, and I don’t believe that’s generally true. In recent times, some scientists have begun to argue that a scientific explanation of something is the ‘only’ answer.

What we need is a rich engagement of the world and life at many levels of meaning. Science and religion are two of those levels, but we need to realise they are working at very different levels.

There has always been conflict between science and religion, but it’s a complex picture. It’s not simply the fact that there has been conflict; but also the often overlooked fact that there has been synergy, resonance, tension..

[Dr. Deborah Haarsma] I’d like to first tell you a little about my own background to give some context for my answer. I am a religious person myself; I believe in the core tenets of the Christian faith, and am from the evangelical tradition in the United States. I am also a scientist and have a PhD in Astrophysics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). For me, religion and science are embodied in who I am.

Historians of science like Peter Harrison have written on how the terms 'religion' and 'science' did not emerge until fairly recently. Before the nineteenth century, the activities we now call “science” were called natural philosophy, and typically seen as a natural part of one's religion and view of the world. In fact, “science” and “religion” were not independent entities but one whole.

Similarly, before the eighteenth century, people didn't look for some over-arching term to describe the different religions of the world. Lumping them all together often doesn't work as they each have a different relationship with science. A Hindu or Buddhist picture of science might differ significantly from the monotheistic faiths of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.

I prefer the term worldview rather than religion to encompass the different lenses and approaches through which people perceive the world, and how they answer those big questions like “does God exist?” “what is moral and right?” “what is the purpose of human existence?” The term worldview encompasses agnostic and atheistic views as well as the various world religions.

Now top scientists of the past and present have held many different worldviews. They agree on the importance of science and the scientific method, but for different reasons. For example, I am motivated to pursue science for reasons similar to Hoyle and Kepler, because I believe science is the study of God’s creation, the same God I have devoted my life to. But someone who doesn’t believe in God will be motivated by other things. Thus, scientists can agree on the practice of science while having different answers to the big questions and putting a different spin on scientific results.

Conflicts occur when people argue one worldview against another. They may be arguing Atheism versus Monotheism, then pull out science as a weapon saying, "science proves I'm right because of this or that..." In my view, science is rather more limited than this. Science has a lot of interesting resonances with the big questions, and can inform them, but I don’t believe it can answer them. When people claim science has solved these big questions, you end up with battles. I personally do not see a battle between science and Christianity. Many great scientists, like Galileo and Faraday, were Christians.

[Prof Justin Barrett] There are a number of different answers to this difficult question, and at this point we don’t have compelling evidence to support one over another. The lens of your own theoretical orientation, and what evidence you are prepared to count will also determine this.

Some people assert the fact that we see evidence of symbolic behaviour around 100,000 years ago; for example, the Blombos Caves in South Africa. Getting from symbolism to a belief in a higher power and the supernatural is a bit of a stretch.

Material evidence suggests that 100,000 years ago, homo sapiens were cognitively capable of the kind of thought that seems to be critical for religious thought. Whether or not they were engaged with it is something else. Fast forward to around 30-35,000 years ago, we began to see elaborate cave paintings and shamanistic depictions of humans and animals which many people assert are in-keeping with supernatural thinking. I’m sceptical…

If we go back to 25-50,000 years ago, we start to see very deliberate symbolic burials where people are being buried with goods and their bodies adorned. One could argue this suggests a belief in the afterlife…

Maybe we’re looking at the evidence wrong. Maybe we should be looking at when our ancestors seemed to have the right kind of conceptual capabilities that meant when operating under normal conditions as we understand them today, seemed to compel people towards religious thought. When do our ancestors begin to think in terms of intentionality? When did they begin to have some form of meta-representation to allow them to think about thoughts in a complex way? When did they begin to solve complex co-operative problems that meant they had to track other minds and so forth? Evidence of that kind of thought seems to be the necessary precondition for religious thought. If we see that kind of thinking combined with evidence of belief in the after-life and in the supernatural? Then we’re in the right area. For my money, we’re looking at this being during the dawn of behaviourally modern humans… and maybe this is as far back as 100,000 years, or even earlier.

Q: Is human theism inevitable?

[Prof Justin Barrett] In theological studies, theist means a high-God, one God that is in charge of everything. By this definition I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the claim that theism is inevitable.

If we define theism as the belief of at least one intentional supernatural agent, it seems that our minds do have this belief as a conceptual path of least resistance. Our minds are really open and receptive to that idea, and in the ordinary course of interacting with other humans and our world… that is perhaps where our minds go.

I’m part of a school of thought often unglamorously referred to as ‘by-product’. In essence this means that religious thought is an evolutionary by-product. That doesn’t mean it isn’t valuable, important or true necessarily, but rather that it was not an adaptation that made us more suitable for our environment. We seem to have a constellation of other kinds of adaptations that solve other kinds of problems that conspire or collaborate toward religious belief and action. We know that humans are immensely social beings, and we spend a huge amount of time and conceptual resource thinking about who did what? and why? That ‘who’ is immensely important, we distinguish actions as having intent versus events. This may not be important for other species or our ancestors, but given the kind of social beings that we are – and our need to deal with other ‘minded’ beings, we have developed what can be described as a hypertrophic social intelligence and a tendency to think in terms of intention, desire, goal and purpose rather than simply mechanisms. That floods the way we interact with each other and the world. It’s very easy to see the utility of that kind of thinking.

We have experimental evidence to show that under certain conditions, humans very easily attribute beliefs, desires and purposes to natural events and non-living objects. When it comes to the natural world, there is good evidence that even in early childhood, we see design and purpose in how the natural world is structured. We make early conclusions about why animals behave as they do, why mountains are the way they are and more. We may even spontaneously generate these ideas and- of course- purposes then readily connect with the idea that ‘someone’ intended those purposes.

Q: Why does the core ideas of religion resonate across so many cultures?

[Prof Justin Barrett] We reason from our perceptions and intuitions to certain claims and beliefs. If our intuitions are largely shaped by the unconscious mental processes that make us see purpose, we will invariably look for design and contemplate who created everything… and then these intuitions will resonate across cultures.

The proposition that ‘someone’ accounts for the design that we perceive has an intuitive ring to it… it just makes sense and seems-right. It takes a little more conceptual work along with social pressure to override these intuitions. Research has shown that even trained scientists have tacit preferences thinking about the natural world in terms of design and purpose, and this has to be unlearned. They have to say ‘no, this is not how I do science… that purpose I see is not real… that mountain is not here for a reason.... that river is not here so that people can go fishing…’

When it comes to regarding someone(s) as being behind the events and design that we see in the world that we regard as meaningful and purposeful… the belief that something about us is separable from our bodies and may persist after death… all of those beliefs are rooted in natural intuitions that we all share regardless of cultural conditions.

At the cultural level, these intuitions either get rebuffed or cultivated, in the latter case the details get filled in!

Q: Are science and religion seeking to answer the same questions?

[Dr. Deborah Haarsma] In most senses, science and religion are answering different questions. In my own field of astronomy, we may ask “how does a galaxy change over time?” This is not a question that any religion has much to say about.

Most scientific questions are not about things that worldview, religion, or philosophy would address- and conversely, most questions about relationships, meaning, and purpose are not addressed by science. You could for example do an experiment on your friend to see how true a friend he is, but it wouldn't be very nice! Instead, we draw on other types of knowledge and ways of viewing the world which allow us to understand how we relate to one another and the supernatural.

John Polkinghorne is a physicist who became an Anglican priest and has written many volumes on the relationship between science and religion. He gives a lovely example which involves a tea kettle. If you ask the question “why the kettle is boiling?” one answer would be entirely scientific: “the water is undergoing a phase transition as heat from the burner is stored in the latent heat of water vapor” or you could say, "the water is boiling because I want a cup of tea." The two answers are not contradictory, but rather they are answering different questions about the same phenomena.

Many questions related to morality, ethics, love and so on, are questions that science simply isn't equipped to answer on its own. Science can provide some important context, but religious, historical, relational, legal, and other ways of knowing are needed.

Q: What is the relationship between science and theology?

[Fr. José G. Funes, S.J.] Firstly, it's important for us to understand what science and theology are. The definition of each is important to our understanding of the questions they raise.

Science seeks explanations that are based on natural causes, and at a natural level. Science makes progress by proposing new models of nature that are tested and can be used to make confirmable predictions. A good example is the big-bang model.

Theology is the critical understanding not just of the contents of faith, but also the human world and relationships as they are seen in the light of faith. It's about significance, and making sense of history, nature and more.

Between science and theology have existed many conflicts, Galileo being one of the most often quoted examples. Also, we are in a moment now where dialogue is possible. Pope John Paul II asked the Vatican Observatory in the 1980's to promote the dialogue between science and theology, and part of contribution of the Vatican astronomers has been to further the understanding of how our universe works.

Q: Are the key questions in science antagonists to religious belief?

[Dr. Deborah Haarsma] This idea of antagonism is long-standing. The first example most people cite is Galileo. In the early 1600s, Galileo found evidence that the Sun is at the centre of the solar-system and that the Earth goes around it. The Church pushed back, condemning Galileo’s views and banning his book. People give this is a prime example of conflict between science and Christianity.

But if you look at the details of this incident, you will see there were many other factors at play. Jesuit scholars in the Church initially supported Galileo, and the Pope who later condemned him started out as one of Galileo's colleagues. Galileo himself was known to have a rather arrogant personality. There was a lot of politics going on, both in the universities and the Church. So it wasn’t a simple case of religion opposed to science.

For most of the history of science, there have been relatively few instances of conflict between science and Christianity. In most times and most scientific areas, they have gotten along quite well. Several leading scientists today are Christians, including Francis Collins who directed the international Human Genome Project and now leads the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Q: Does the structure of our universe point towards the existence of a God?

[Fr. José G. Funes, S.J.] The big bang model is the best scientific model we currently have to explain the origin of the universe. Pay attention to the fact that I use the words 'origin of the universe' and not 'creation of the universe'. I believe in God, but in the word creation there is theological meaning. In the scientific context I prefer to say ‘origin of the universe’. From the perspective of science, the big bang is the best explanation we have until now.

From the perspective of theology, we have religious views on the beginning of the universe. We say there is a continuing process of creation as God sustains the universe with his will. From the big-bang model, what we can say that there was a beginning... and we have an age for the universe (around 14 billion years). This points towards a universe with a beginning. There would be no contradiction between science and theology therefore to argue that this does point towards the universe having been created.

[Prof Alister McGrath] What we see in the world around us does not prove there is a God, but is easily explained if there is a God. Religion has inferential structure that asks whether, in the light of the hypothesis that there is a God, the world around us makes more sense if that hypothesis is true? My personal view is yes! I would however, be very cautious about using language about proving God’s existence. It’s much more that belief gives us a big picture to look at things, and grasp their interconnectedness.

Q: How could we ever prove divine action?

[Fr. José G. Funes, S.J.] We have to distinguish different levels of reality. When we talk of the dialogue between science, philosophy and theology it's important to remember they have different languages, different methods, and goals. When we talk of divine causality, this exists at the level of philosophy and theology, not in science- which refers to the level of natural causes, but rather at the metaphysical level.

The universe came from something not from nothing. That is a logical point of view from the world of philosophy, and we (as people of faith) believe that it was God that created the universe.

[Prof Alister McGrath] One of the big debates in philosophy relates to whether natural phenomena exclude or include divine action in some way. If we look at a natural process such as rain falling, we can ask the question as to whether God uses natural processes in some way to engage in the world. Many religions believe that God uses secondary causality; processes within nature that God is able to work through.

I am not a big fan of the ‘God of the gap’ idea in this debate. It seems to me to be saying that God explains everything science cannot. That seems to locate God in areas of the world where science cannot currently offer an explanation. Science is always expanding its scope and so this always changes.

For me, God is about the bigger picture – about the fundamental question as to why we can explain anything at all!

Q: How does cognitive science deal with spiritual concepts such as mind-body, the soul and free will?

[Prof Justin Barrett] The cognitive science of religion operates at the level of understanding why people have the beliefs they do, not necessarily whether those beliefs are true or not. When it comes to understanding the relationship between mind and body for example, most folks working in the field take the view that the mind and body at a certain point are indistinguishable. The mind is some kind of way of describing the functional properties of a complex and embodied neurosystem.

Why, however, do the vast majority of people across culture regard the mind and body as distinguishable? There’s disagreement here, but some threads that are aligned. We have certain kinds of conceptual systems that naturally develop that deal with physical objects, like bodies. They generate intuitions, inferences and predictions about the behaviour of those bodies. We share this with other mammals (especially primates) and these conceptual systems develop very early in life… within the first few months of life, they may even be approaching adult levels of intuition and reasoning. We then have a difference conceptual system to think about minds that don’t seem to approach maturity until we’re about 5 or 6 years old, and is only in a few other existent species and therefore has a different evolutionary story. This conceptual system also has different inputs and outputs to the one we use to understand the physical world. These two systems developed largely independently of each other, operate independently of each other (our mind system has to be able to think about minds that are not bodily present, otherwise we would not be able to have this conversation!). So it looks like these two systems are distinguishable, and zippering the two together is actually quite an achievement – and it is tenuous. It’s very hard to think of minds as bodies, and only bodies. Maybe for that reason we are what Paul Bloom (Yale Psychologist) calls intuitive dualists. The dualistic position that minds and bodies are separable is the natural default position. The difficulty which monists (who think the mind and body are one) experience in maintaining their position is also evidence of this intuitive dualistic nature.

If someone proposes something like a mind, soul or spirit that can be extracted from the body, and which doesn’t stop functioning when it leaves the body? It is at best minimally counter-intuitive!

Freedom is another one of these things. We perceive ourselves as free-will agents and the idea that we are not is radically counter-intuitive. It doesn’t mean that we are free-will agents (although I think we are). Where cognitive science of religion gets into murky water is where there is a confusion between the study of the concepts and how they spread versus whether those concepts themselves are true. A lot of us working in the area are- unfortunately- not well versed in the philosophy of freedom, determinism, mind-body and so on. We sometimes therefore stumble into our philosophical colleagues back-yard uninvited and make assumptions about determinism and so on!

Morality and justice are also interesting. Rather than morality and justice emerging from proto-religious impulses, the two are mutually re-enforcing. There may have been other cognitive or emotive foundations that underlie our moral thinking, normative justice and ethical reasoning. A lot of us are fascinated by ‘moral foundations theory’ which identifies 5 or 6 different adaptive cognitive emotive complexes; moral intuitions…. One of these is harm/care, where we have an intuition that drives our caring for other people- particularly our offspring, and that harming our people is a bad thing. What needs to be worked out is the conditions under which this is violated… who counts as my group? What counts as harm? Fairness and reciprocity is another foundation. We all have intuition that we must reciprocate fairly in fields of life such as material exchange.

When it comes to enforcing our morality and punishing those who defect… and we do defect!... it’s really handy to have supernatural punishers or rewarders around. They’re more likely to catch cheaters and virtuous people privately and reward or punish them in ways that humans can’t pull-off! One of the more prominent adaptationist arguments is that once the cognitive ability exists to think about gods (in the broad supernatural sense as beings who can interact with this world in important ways), and if these gods are morally interested in the world, these beliefs would encourage pro-social behaviour and intra-group collaboration, and pays dividends for the group and the individuals within it. That gene-culture complex that gave rise to that kind of thought, therefore, has a significant advantage over ones that didn’t.

Q: Can science and religion co-exist?

[Prof Alister McGrath] Science and religion can be compatible, albeit they are different modes of thinking. There is an oft-quoted example of a kettle being plugged in and the process being described in scientific terms (the generation of heat), or in terms of wanting a cup of tea… both are true!

When I do science, I don’t invoke God to explain things. I can quite happily leave God out of the research, but can understand this in terms of my belief that God created the structure of the world and the framework that allows science to exist.

A scientific account of many of our areas of human experience such as love, beauty and so forth is not adequate to explain them. You might say that love is the result of certain hormones surging through our bodies, but our experience of it is far more complex.

For me as a human being, I am looking for a deep and rich understanding of the world. Science is part of that picture, I value it greatly, but it is not the whole picture. We need to bring science and religion together collaboratively so that we can see the big picture, and not just parts of it.

[Prof Justin Barrett] It’s too easy to give a broad answer to this. When you say science, which science are you talking about? Are you talking of the premise of science? Which theories? …or if you are talking of religious belief, which religion? Which practices?

On a broad level, do I think that modern epistemological science is an antagonist to religious and supernatural belief? ….no, I don’t. Historically it looks like modern science rose-up because of theological commitments, and folks like Newton and Bacon didn’t see a conflict, but it depends…. Certain religious commitments would be at odds with modern science. Certainly, insofar as how some religious communities make empirical claims about the world… they can be wrong, and science can say there’s a problem. Just to give you a simple example… If an ancient Greek religion claimed that climbing Mount Olympus would put you in front of humanoid beings of approximately ‘x’ size, and if an expedition to the top of the mountain proved this as false, well yeah… science has posed a problem there! That may sound like a trivial example, but religious communities regularly make claims about things such as human behaviour, thought, tendencies and so forth.

The human sciences are challenging or affirming these claims. The religious community does however, have the tendency to rebuff such challenges by saying, “well actually, those aren’t our central claims… our central claim is simply that there is a God or Gods!…” Many religions therefore who announce this as their central claim remain immune to scientific investigation. That doesn’t mean that scientific findings can’t weigh in on theological claims however…

The cognitive science of religion is an interest case study. Most of my colleagues are not religious people themselves, they are agnostic or atheist. Many of them do feel that their findings are a threat or challenge to religious belief. But on the other hand, many religious traditions (including Islam and Christianity) have long affirmed that humans have natural religious instincts or propensities. Cognitive science of religion could be seen as providing evidence in support of those claims.

Just coming up with a naturalistic explanation for cross-cultural recurrence of religious belief does not mean that religious beliefs aren’t true. The fact is that there may be a psychological explanation for why we do or believe the things we do. I believe there is someone with a mind on the other side of the phone line right now, I know there is a scientific story as to why I believe that, but once that scientific story is told, it doesn’t invalidate the truth of the belief; nor does it mean that it is true necessarily.

However, religious belief is incredibly common across culture. Even in parts of the world where you have high rates of atheism, people believe in religious entities and behaviours… they may not believe in God, but they will believe in ghosts… Britain is an interesting case study. As adherence to Church of England has declined, belief in ghosts and spirits has actually increased proportionately. The UK is remarkably less theistic than the United States, but is a lot more superstitious.

Branding is certainly an issue. If you look at the secularisation of Ireland, the priest abuse scandal in the Catholic Church caused a huge number of people to reject the Church itself as an institution. We are seeing the same in China. One of the really fascinating things there is that a huge number of people are atheist, but they are burning money, cars and houses to their ancestors.

Q: Do science and religion have a wider social function?

[Dr. Deborah Haarsma] Both science and religion are social communities, so they play an important social role in the same way as sports teams and musical groups. We are human, so we work together to share experiences and build culture.

One great aspect of science, on a social level, is that it spans the world. Scientists of all nationalities and cultures are studying the same universe and investigating the same physical laws, giving them a bond that transcends other divisions. Another social aspect of science is, of course, the incredible benefits it brings to society in medicine and technology.

Religion plays a major role in every human culture. Evolutionary psychologists like Justin Barrett and Robert McCauley have studied the emergence of religion in various cultures, and they say that everyone is religious. It is an innate instinct. Research has shown that everyone is looking for meaning and purpose. Most people find it in some form of religion or spirituality, although atheists find meaning in other ways.

The world's religions have also inspired people to devote their entire lives to caring for the sick, educating others, and lifting up the poor. In the United States, Martin Luther King, Jr and other civil rights leaders argued for racial justice from an explicitly Christian point of view. Christian faith continues to play a key role in the work of racial reconciliation - I've seen how the Christianity has brought together people of very different views, and allowed them to find common ground.

Q: What formed humanity’s need for purpose and directionality?

[Prof Alister McGrath] If you’re a religious person, as I am, you could argue that God may have made us with a kind of homing-instinct, meaning that faith is a way of finding our way home. You might also offer an evolutionary explanation… but whichever means you use, you find that there always seems to be this inherent sense that humans feel of something deeper beyond the empirical, something greater beyond the horizon that we can somehow reach out and grasp.

To be human is to appreciate that we need to transcend our limits and grasp something bigger than ourselves.

Q: How would religion and theology deal with breakthroughs such as the discovery of extraterrestrial life?

[Fr. José G. Funes, S.J.] There is a well-affirmed field of research called astrobiology in which the Vatican Observatory has engaged in different ways since 1995- where we organised the first summer school on this subject. Astrobiology requires one to be competent in different fields including astronomy, biology, geology and more- this is not easy. We are able to do research, but ultimately we cannot know the results. It may equally happen that we find life tomorrow, or it may never happen.... and that's just the very primitive forms of life....

I am not saying that there isn't intelligent life out there, but I do believe that it will be difficult to make communication. [joking] It's sometimes difficult enough to find intelligent life here on earth, never-mind the rest of the universe!

In the same way that there is science and science fiction, there is theology and theology fiction. Science deals with scientific facts and observations, and as we sit here now, we do not have any evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. If (and it's a big if) we discover life and more-so intelligent life, I do not believe it is conflicting with our view of creation. It is in accordance with our view of the universe that there will be other spiritual creatures out there.

From a cultural point of view, it would be similar to the experience that Europeans had when they met Native Americans for the first time. The debate which followed raised questions over the dignity and nature of human beings. If we ever do meet intelligent life from outside our planet, we could be faced with similar challenges.

The sort of questions that the search for extraterrestrial life poses are varied. What is life? how do you define life? what are the criteria to say what is life and what isn't? what is the meaning of a person? what does it mean to be a spiritual being? This research also helps us understand ourselves, life on our own planet, and where life could form elsewhere.

Q: What is the difference between information and meaning?

[Prof Alister McGrath] Information is an accumulation of observation. Meaning is the sense in which we notice patterns in that information, discerning something deeper that lies behind that information. Meaning allows us to make sense of information and understand the bigger picture of what lies beyond it.

One of my concerns is that we live in a culture that seems to be obsessed with information. One of the great things about science is how it takes things apart to see how they work. Religion however, puts things back together again so we can see what they mean.

Q: Has science impacted our understanding of God?

[Fr. José G. Funes, S.J.] I'm sure that we will have debates and conflicts between religion, theology and science in the future, as we have done through history. What is important is that we sort these conflicts with dialogue, and without human suffering.

Without perhaps realising, Galileo helped us to gain a better understanding of the reading of the Bible. From Galileo's experience, we learned that we cannot read the Bible literally, or as a book of science. If I am studying binary stars for example, I don't think it will have philosophical or theological impact. If I am studying those topics on the border such as astrobiology, the origins of the universe or string theory however... those issues should have a theological and scientific dialogue too.

The mission of the Vatican Observatory is to show, somehow, that the Catholic Church wishes to promote and communicate good science. Our aim is to show that it is possible to believe in God and also to be good scientist.

Pope Benedict XVI was giving an address in 2010 to students of Catholic schools. He told the young people that they should always keep in mind the big picture, and not to become narrow-minded.

Science gives us comprehension of the universe and our world, and as Pope Francis recently said, faith is not afraid of science, and the Church rejoices with scientific discoveries. The risk for scientists is that they may be left with a one-dimensional view of reality. We cannot reduce our comprehension of the world to science. We have so many dimensions to life, culture, literature, poetry, music and they each have truth and beauty.

We cannot reduce all human activities to scientific method, I fear we may then lose the inherent truth and beauty within them.

Q: Have we seen a decline in religion and a growth in science?

[Prof Alister McGrath] In the West, we’ve seen a rise in science and a decline in organised religion; albeit there is a lot bubbling under the surface, which we usually call spirituality. Science is now asking deep questions about the meaning of life which have typically been beyond the scope of that mode of thought and its methods; opening the door perhaps to religious thinking.

[Dr. Deborah Haarsma] I do not see the growth of science and the decline of religion as being related, although they are both happening at the same time.

Sometimes it is portrayed this way because of a line of reasoning called “the god of the gaps.” When science only explained some aspects of the world, people tended to point to the aspects that science could not explain and say “there’s a miracle.” This “god” of the gaps is there merely to explain what science cannot. We now understand more and more of the natural world so there are fewer gaps in our scientific knowledge. People sometimes describe in terms of science advancing while religion is being pushed aside. I don't see it that way. The God of the Christian Bible, and the divine aspect in most religions, is much more than simply a mechanism to explain what science cannot. Looking through the lens of my Christian worldview, I see the growth of scientific knowledge as giving us a better understanding of how God governs the universe, not pushing God aside. I believe that God created all things and continually sustains all things by his divine providence. The laws of physics would not continue to function if God weren't sustaining them! So, the advance of science is not a demotion of religion, but an expansion of understanding of God’s activity.

Other factors have played a role in the decline of religion in the west, such as the philosophy of the enlightenment. The world wars also had a huge impact on how people thought about religion and about God. Science was advancing at the same time, but it was part of a gamut of things occurring in the Western world during the decline of religion there.

If you look around the globe today, religion is actually skyrocketing. For example, in South Korea, Christianity and science are both growing at a huge pace..

At another level, it is true that science is now starting to answer questions which previously were the realm of philosophy and religion, questions like the beginning of the universe, the emergence of life from non-life, why particles have the masses they do, etc. The scientists have climbed the mountain of knowledge, only to discover that the theologians have been sitting at the top of the mountain this whole time!

I don't see this as being a convergence of science and religion, because they will be asking different questions of the same phenomenon. Astronomers are looking at the physical properties of the big bang: the expansion rate, temperatures, particles and so on. Scientists construct hypotheses, make predictions, and test them. What scientists discover will inform people’s religious views about the beginning of the universe, but won’t answer big questions like the purpose of the universe and why there is something rather than nothing.

Keep in mind that “converging” implies that the “science” and “religion” were separate or in conflict, but early in the history of science these were viewed as one whole.

Q: Why do we need something to believe in?

[Fr. José G. Funes, S.J.] Humans need to know the answers to the big questions about meaning, behind the universe, and behind the hundred billion galaxies that exist. We are struck with wonder as to why this beautiful universe exists, in which the human-being evolves. Why does this universe exist, rather than nothing? We also ask ourselves why we live in a universe with so much human suffering.

We need to ask ourselves the important questions of meaning. In our search for the answers to these questions, we may find the belief in God or- at least- we may try to find an answer. Even atheists or agnostics are searching for their answers to the same questions.

[Prof Alister McGrath] Even those who would describe themselves as agnostics actually do believe in something. All of us need to feel that there’s something that helps us to make sense of life, of who we are, and why we’re here. It doesn’t matter if you’re religious or not. This quest for meaning is very deep. It’s almost as if human beings are meaning-seeking animals, and we need something to give us orientation, purpose and direction.

[Dr. Deborah Haarsma] Earlier I mentioned research that shows humans all have an innate desire for religion. Now, you can spin this different ways. Some atheists say that everyone is born with the instinct for religion, but it's just a childish instinct and something that can be overcome with rational thought. But believers can see this completely differently. As a Christian, this need to believe makes perfect sense with my faith. The Bible teaches that God created humans to have an innate desire to know God, that it was his intention. As the Westminster Catechism states, "...the chief end of [humanity] is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever."

Q: What happens in a society where belief in God is lost?

[Prof Justin Barrett] The evidence is less than compelling that we’re seeing a general sustained trend away from a belief in God. We also have reason to believe that even if people are not believing in the God of- say- Christianity, they will entertain other supernatural beliefs. Sociologist of religion Rodney Stark has commented that if people don’t believe in God, they will believe in anything… That is, people have natural religious impulses, and they will be exercised one way or another. If we look at the decline of state-organised religions in the USA and UK, something will fill that void…. And often these new beliefs are more idiosyncratic, less organised and more entrepreneurial.

The issue then arises as to whether society will be better without religious thought. The optimism around this is very peculiar. Many making the claim argue that religion is good at regulating society, helping to re-enforce if not dictate what is good or bad. They argue the state can step in and fill this role. However, this then begs the question as to who is good, who is bad and so forth. The evidence presented that Europe is doing swimmingly with secularism is really premature. A lot of us who study religion argue that Europe is still riding on the coat-tails of religious sentiments and morality. It will be a generation or two before we can tell if the pro-social moral sensibilities and compass will be sustained without the presence of traditional religions there. If you turn to China, you see clearly there is a moral vacuum and moral confusion because there isn’t that kind of organised religion… and this is changing… the Chinese are becoming wealthier, and Christianity together with other religions are growing. This goes against the secularisation theory that states that the more comfy and secure you are, the less religious you are.

Many philosophers argue that moral intuitions are not enough, and that you need some kind of reflective system to hold them together and encourage pro-social behaviour. Even ideas like universal human rights may not be able to be supported on non-religious grounds as it’s hard to distinguish humans from non-humans… We’re just a big swoosh of genetic stuff!

--------------------------------------------------

Whilst the debate over the role of science and religion may seem to exist in the meta-verse, outside the realms of our individual existence, it’s important to note that it is we- as individuals- who contribute to it. Our knowledge of the world (and attitudes to it) are informed from four sources: our senses, our powers of rational thought, the testimony of others, and our memory… The first obvious thing to note about all these sources is that they are fallible (Thomas Dixon, Science and Religion, 2008).

Dixon notes that, “debates about science and religion are, on the face of it, about the intellectual compatibility or incompatibility of some particular religious belief with some particular aspect of scientific knowledge…. Historians have shown that the Galileo affair, remembered by some as a clash between science and religion, was primarily a dispute about the enduring political question of who was authorized to produce and disseminate knowledge…” This ‘authorisation’ component is critical. Our culture (including science and religion) is manifest from a long-process of collaboration and shared understanding, and this requires a ‘benchmark’ from which we develop our thinking. The political component is that which sets the baseline of ‘what’ is generally perceived to be the truth of a particular iteration of man. Through history, this has moved from a view of us being a part of nature, through to organised religious societies, onwards to societies driven by science and perhaps the cynics may argue we are now in one where the primary truth is money.

We may however, be missing something critical in this view. Albert Einstein once wrote that “…the most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed… I do not believe that a moral philosophy can ever be founded on a scientific basis. You could not, for instance, teach men to face death tomorrow in defence of scientific truth. Science has no power of that type over the human spirit. The valuation of life and all its nobler expressions can only come out of the soul's yearning toward its own destiny.”

As humanity has grown-up, so too have our world-views, and with that- our ability to understand them in context of ourselves has grown too. Science has come of age and now understands that rather than a single systematic set of natural laws, there are different concepts of order that exist in different states of existence, and across different branches of scientific investigation. Laws that appear to be true at a quantum-level, for example, are incompatible with our observations of the world at human-scale- albeit both views are empirically equally correct. This may seem like a logical paradox but to understand it simply requires a shift of perception to agree that theories are only relevant in the parameters set by the field (and scale) of their enquiry.

Perhaps we must realise that our understanding of the world is split not just into fields of enquiry, but also levels that are informed by our present experiences and shared history. We have the physical level- informed by the domains of science… we have the cultural level- informed by the domains of philosophy and we have an experiential level- informed by the domains of aesthetics (including religion and theology). I can physically explain the composition of two human beings, I can culturally explain why they may wish to be together, but only aesthetics can begin to touch on the beauty of the love they experience in their brief time together on this Earth. The science, the culture and the aesthetic aspects of their love are equally true- but can only exist in unison.

The universe existed long before our species emerged, and will continue long after we cease. For the brief time we are here (at the universal scale), we are perhaps the only form of life able to contemplate itself, it’s purpose in the universe, and the purpose of the universe itself. The truth is that whether you believe this is a bi-product of millions of years of cognitive evolution in a universe that spontaneously came to be… or through the intended creation of a supreme being, it is still a miracle.