Symphony and Sense Redux

I've been informed by a friend of a related question asked by Carrie Brownstein. Personally, my "line in the sand" is quite similar to Carrie's. I'm interested in a musical performance, not a dramatic spectacle with a soundtrack. Other elements that bother me are an avowed apoliticism claimed by the band, reactionary politics interspersed into lyrics, and to a lesser extent, a lack of complexity and originality in the work (i.e.: three chord songs in the key of G with some 'fresh' lyrics).

Nothing Like a Good Oxford-Style Debate

The Economist is launching a new gimmick set to start mid-October that asks participants to "take part in a severest contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress"- a debate, Oxford style.

Besides the obvious cultural bias built-in to the debate structure that favor any aversed in the Oxford Style, the English language, and Anglo-American society, there is a more sinister and clearly deliberate agenda being perpetuated by the Economist in this 'debate'.

The Economist allows web users to 'vote' on the proposition to be debated. This first round is about education, and the 'audience' has five positions to choose from. The phrasing of these propositions uses positive language in favor of the value assumptions of the Economist (namely free markets, competition, deregulation and the marketization of government, to name a few), which is likely to implant the 'correctness' of these positions in people's mind (not that most Economist readers need much convincing). As an example, one proposition states "This house believes that the 'digital divide' is a secondary problem in the educational needs of developing countries" - the authoritative language does not leave much room for debate.

Secondly, team debating has been done away with, and in its place two individuals will square off. What is especially interesting is that the Economist decides who will be debating, chosen from a panel of 'experts', and they will only release these names once the proposition has been chosen. Effectively, and likely, the Economist can mismatch the competition so that the proposition they support comes out on top. The audience is allowed to participate, but only secretively, and comments or questions will be screened by the moderator. These veto points simply turn the debate into a spectacle of capitalist power excercise through the assertion of Economist-friendly values.

In an age where 'full' democracy supposedly reigns, the Economist could open up the discussion to the general public at extremely low-cost. But they insist on staying true to their nineteenth century roots: the advancement of the capitalist project at all costs by continuing to hide behind prejudiced notions of 'intelligence' and 'ignorance'. Almost certainly, those who do not conform to the Economist's format - arguing for or against a proposition using a specific brand of western rationality enveloped in neoclassical economic theory - will be termed 'unworthy'. Pure intellectual theatre may certainly entertain an uncritical middle class, but it is hardly a debate in the real sense of the word.

So, in spite of the history of the Economist and everything it has stood for "journalistically" since its inception to the public discourse, I propose (somewhat laughably) that they use their vast resources to hold a true debate, one not confined to the "spirit of the Oxford" style, which really means controlling the limits of discussion within the narrow realm of 'acceptability'. In a society supposedly promoting 'liberalism', capitalist technocracy continually stands tall as a dominant ideal. If liberalism is truly an ideal, and not just rhetoic, the Economist should open this debate up to anyone and everyone who has an interest in contributing. The problem is, they might not be able to handle the results.