This debate was a farcical exercise in avoiding the issue.
Last Tuesday, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising organised a debate at the House of Commons: "The anti-woke agenda is fuelling creativity".
And what a wasted opportunity it was.
But then again, why was I surprised?
Adland's institutions (its associations, awards shows, trade papers, and big London-based network agencies) have, for 12 years, failed to critique the influence of the woke agenda (to use the language that framed the debate) on our industry.
Instead, for years, they embraced Social Purpose as the go-to-market strategy and currently unquestioningly accept DEI as the organising principle for agency recruitment and internal affairs.
In the "debate" itself, all four speakers - to varying degrees - were actually against the motion!
As Nick Asbury has observed the "proposers and opposers were of one mind in defining ‘woke’ as standing for all good things (not racist, not sexist, not fascist) – a definition that pre-emptively casts any dissenting opinion as ‘anti-woke’ and therefore beyond the pale".
There was no mention of the fact that woke has become synonymous with cancellation, de-platforming, trigger warnings and fear of misspeaking. Or that, in "unconscious bias", it asserts that all white people are inevitably racist whether they know it or not. Thus automatically calling into question any opinion they might be bold enough to proffer.
Nope, no one referenced the above - or the fact such traits might just be inimical to the expression of alternate points of view, original thinking or creativity.
On the contrary, the speakers inveighed against a diabolical "anti-woke movement". Nick Asbury and I tried our best to see our creative industry (advertising) in this context but eventually had to explain that, in our circumstances, the "anti-woke movement" essentially amounts to erm ... him and me.
I also pointed out that in our world, woke (in the form of Social Purpose campaigns) has not been rejected by some fiendish cabal (aka Nick and me) but by a) our clients and b) the consuming general public.
Aside from that, there was no mention (never mind critique) of woke censoriousness (and groupthink) and its baleful impact on creativity.
Which surely is what we should've been debating.
But then again, it's a discussion that our industry panjandrums have been avoiding for years. And they probably went home on Thursday evening happy at another snow job well done.
Absolutely excellent debate in Committee Room 14 yesterday evening organised by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, sponsored by our new President Christine Jardine MP and expertly chaired by Baroness Sater, who kept us all in order. Passionate and informed arguments advanced both for and against the motion - "The anti-woke agenda is fuelling creativity" - by respectively Asad Dhunna, seconded by Lucy Barbor and Shelina Janmohamed, seconded by Dede Laurentino. The contributions from the floor were also numerous and uniformly excellent, whilst the result could not have been closer with a tellers' count required. Ultimately, however, the motion was carried. The Group's next debate will be on Tuesday 26 November - keep an eye out on here and our other usual channels in the coming days for further details. Photograph below shows L-R: Stephen Woodford, Lucy Barbor, Asad Dhunna (in full flow), Baroness Sater, Shelina Janmohamed, Dede Laurentino, Paul Bainsfair Stephen Woodford Lucy Barbor Asad Dhunna Shelina Janmohamed Andre (Dede) Laurentino Paul Bainsfair IPA (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising) Graeme Griffiths MIPA James Delves Will Nicholson FRSA Michael Sturrock Chris Combemale Phil Goodman Charles Rogers Jo Allan Rupert Smith Debrah Harding Simon Tunstill Will Lane Terry Martin Clive Mishon Carey Trevill Matt Bourn Jim Rothwell
-
PhD in Management at IIFT, DELHI | MA Economics from Swami Vivekanand Subharti University | MCOM from Hindu College
1moCan current PhD students participate in this conference. Does the conference is fully funded or self funded. Can the conference be waived or does it mandatory to be paid (€390). Please tell