Culture and stuff

It is not often that I come across the material as has been around for the last few weeks. Let’s start with Lady Hodge’s statements about the Proms last week. First let’s take a look at the quote the BBC pulled out.

"The audiences for some of many of our greatest cultural events - I'm thinking particularly of the Proms - is still a long way from demonstrating that people from different backgrounds feel at ease in being part of this,"

I am normally loathed to comment on politicians daft statements, mainly because I would need to become a full-time writer to keep up. But this one stuck out as it hit a nerve. I wrote about a similar topic in a previous blog entry where I stated, in short, that one way to make us feel more inclined to accept the EU is to stop threatening our identity and culture as English. We have a country where the inhabitants are either Welsh, Scottish or British.

Lady Hodge of course could not be talking about the Proms as the Proms itself is a celebration of international classical music with a wide range of composers. So it cannot be the subject matter. There are expensive tickets and there are cheap tickets and anyone who can afford to go can go. So it cannot be an elitist cost driven thing. I suspect that the particular point she is making is about the last night which tends to be over the top Britain and Empire and I doubt anyone who watches feels anything other than pride. Why should the event be as it is? Why should the audience have to be diverse? Why does one size have to fit all? I do not feel insulted or not integrated because I do not go to the Bollywood festivals around the country. Despite the fact that it is not a traditional part of British Culture I have no objections to it and have no worry that, because it does not appeal to me, that it is to be derided or criticised. The same goes for classical music. It is not for everyone. You tend to find that classical tastes are educated tastes and not class oriented. It may just well be that what we see at the Proms is a set of better educated people who have been educated, from a young age, to appreciate high culture. An education that sadly most kids these days seem to be devoid of (over to you then Ed Balls). This is the latest pilot from Labour education ministers. 15 pounds per year per child to get 5 hours of culture and art per week. Let's set aside the complte farce of that budget to achieve anything but the idea is sound. Educate sensibly at a young age the value of art and culture and in the future you will get a more diverse audience. Maybe Lady Hodge should go to education. On a number of different levels.

So please stop watering down these things. You would not make such statements about any other culture's traditions without cries of racism. And by the way, Coronation Street is not culture. Do not mistake 'popular' with culture and art. Coronation Street is popular but so is binge drinking but that does not make it something we should be proud of.

The second interesting discussion came up this morning on Radio 4. A deaf guy was being interviewed (by a sign language interpreter) and the discussion was one about whether embryos should be screen for deafness. The guy in the interview was outraged that we might screen embryos for deafness. His argument was that it undermined the living deaf somehow as being worthless and that the deaf have a great culture and should not be disabled. Therefore, deaf children should continue to be born, even if avoidable, because there is a great deaf culture and they have rich lives (to be clear here we are not talking abortion, just the selection of embryos). His main argument was that he did not consider deafness a disability. On the one hand I applaud his attitude. To be deaf and to get on with your life as many deaf people do is remarkable. But he takes it too far. It is great that our society is able to ensure that deaf people have support and facilities available to them to bring their lives to an equal footing with the rest of us. But should we then extend this to say that because we have reached this level that we should not recognise deafness as a disability and actually positively allow the selection of deaf embryos by deaf parents. For this is what he was proposing. Given two embryos, one deaf and one not, he is suggesting that the deaf one get equal chance or allow for positive selection if the parent decides this is ok.

It is a stunningly difficult ethical question. My instinct says no, we should not allow a parent to select a deaf embryo over a healthy one where there is a choice. While it is great to be able to accommodate deaf people to the extent that they are equal in nearly every respect in society I do not believe that they have the right to impose deafness on a child. As with all ethical questions it moves from a breaking a simple principle (choose healthy over unhealthy) to a far more difficult set of questions around what disabilities and diseases are acceptable. Should we treat a child who is going deaf or just leave them to go deaf as to be deaf is ok? Should Down’s syndrome parents be allowed to select a Down’s syndrome baby over a healthy one? How about HIV? Where would we draw the line?