thumbnail of Couchiching conference; 3
Transcript
Hide -
A. This is the third session of the thirty first coaching conference from Geneva park in Ontario the Canadian Institute on public affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Present once again discussion on the new Europe. So far we've heard presentations questions and answers on the position of Great Britain's application for membership in the New Year and some necessary and existing isms and attitudes both for members and observers. Tonight the social and
cultural pattern in place of miss you at the end here. The speaker will be William Clark the Commentator Eric Patterson. My name is Bob Wilson and I'd like to introduce you now to the chairman for the evening George grand associate professor of religion at McMaster University. The way. At this thirty first conference we've been talking about the new Europe. Tonight Mr. and Chan parish chairman of the European Atomic Energy Commission was going to talk about the new social and cultural patterns which were emerging in that society. But because of the personal reasons he's been called away in the last few minutes. Mr. Hirsch was going to talk of what it was like when the affluent society the new affluent society of industrialism
came to Europe with all its problems a society which we have had for slightly longer than Europe is going to talk. For one thing about the fact that in the new industry. There was has come about a changeover as we know well from what we call blue collar to white collar workers changeover because of the nature of autumn ised industry. He was going to talk about leisure and the problems of leisure which through the centuries of European history have been reserved largely for one class and which are now opening for all classes in society. He was going to talk of the new educational patterns. Which a mass industrial society raises technological forms of education and other forms of education.
What in other words he was going to talk about was the the kind of society that is emerging in the immense prosperity of Western Europe at the moment and what it is going to be like. And of course this is something that we have deeply in common with the Europeans because we are faced with this uses mass industrial society. One difference he was going to emphasize was that the Europeans unlike ourselves have a different tradition as far as the role of government in society. When we asked him Could an election be 40 in France about the issue of socialism versus free enterprise. He laughed this was out of the question. Europeans are used in a way we are not to the role that the government will play. Perhaps
a national government perhaps a more than a national government in Europe over questions of welfare. The organization of industry the organization of education and he was going to emphasize that this was a very deep and profound reason why he believed the Europeans were going to be able to face the problems of this industrial society in a way that we are unable. So in place of Mr. Hirsch Mr. William cark at very short notice has said he would talk to us. Mr. William Clark is the director of the Overseas Development Institute in London England. For many years he was he worked for the very famous Sunday paper in London and the observer. And we are very grateful to Mr. Karkoc as a commentator to what Mr. Clarke has to say. Mr. Eric Peterson.
Sweden is going to speak to us. Mr Peterson is in the research department of the Confederation of Swedish trade unions and recently he has been in Berkeley California studying questions to do with the relation of trade unions to the new kind of automated society we're having and I think we are extremely lucky to have two people of the quality of Mr. Clark and Mr. Peterson to direct it and talk to us this evening and I'll call on Mr. Clark to talk to us. I don't think you're all that lucky because I certainly cannot I give a talk on the impact of the affluent society on the traditional size societies of Europe with anything like the ability to admit it could have done. And I'm not going to attempt to. For one thing I must change the subject in the sense that I will talk
maybe about my own country Britain and the changes that have taken place in the last 15 to 17 years and a little longer. And the change is that this is making in our relationship with the outside world particularly the outside world of Europe. And I'll do if I may what I did the other evening when talking which is to go back just for a moment to the pre-war world and dance of death and see said Speak what it is we sprang from the cultural pattern of Great Britain in the 1930s in which I grew up was a cultural pattern that was dominated by a class system. The class system is still quite a powerful influence in Great Britain as I shall say. But in the 1930s it really was a tremendously important part of our life. The church was divided along class lines to a very large extent
the upper middle class belonged to the Church of England. A great deal of the working class belonged to what was called chapel as opposed to church. The school system with the public schools and the grammar schools at the secondary level was a division roughly speaking on class lines and their universities old already begun to be open to talent. It is still true when I went up to Oxford in the late 30s that the great majority of people at Oxford were the sons of parents who for better or worse were just able to pay the way our sons gave them. They were even by the time that I went on the air before the war it had become common so that nearly half the students at Oxford were receiving some financial assistance from the state or from our progenitors who had left money to the colleges. So in their period there was I think a class system
and a social system. That was the divided the country pretty neatly. Not really into three classes the aristocracy was not very important but into an upper and a lower class into in fact rather typically as the English railways always were then arranged into first and third. This showed because in the leisure of people in the sense that the movie is as you would call them and the flicks as we call them quite rightly because they came to us a good deal later when they flickered around the mall. The Flex was what where what the great majority of people saw. The play was what the mist of the middle class saw. And if I may contradict myself there was a faint flicker of the upper class at the opera but in the 1930s was still governed quite largely by the governing few.
It is a mistake to imagine that the class system in the 20th century in Britain has ever been very static. It's been easy enough to come up and to rise to the top but not usually quite in one generation. There was in fact a bit slow moving aristocracy in Great Britain. That is to say that there wasn't a static aristocracy just descended from those who had done something during the wars of the races. But I was in fact a group of people at the top who had got there largely by their abilities but also largely because of the position they started from. And above all this is what I can remember say well in my Oxford days there was never very great expectation of change. People did not expect if they were miners living in my part of Northumberland that they
would be particularly well-off unless a constant dream. They won something on the football. At the same time those who were well-off did not imagine that all this was likely to be taken away from them with any speed. Then came the wall and all the unexpected things happened and happen very quickly. Roughly speaking what was decided by Mr Churchill the prime minister primarily I think who was himself an heiress to crack of the old school and tended I think to regard the middle and lower classes as very much the same. It was his decision was that in fact they were to be very much the same throughout the wall and that was to use his end phrase. In fact at a later date in attacking the Labor government an equality of misery. In fact I don't think most of us were all that miserable in the wall. But there was a feeling
which was. Very powerful in the actual legislation of the war yeah. That no one should do well out of it and no one ought to have special privileges. This showed in some fairly important things like the taxation system which really made profiteering such as the first war impossible. And I don't think there's been any charge that anyone profited in the second war. Secondly there was something much more the five shilling meal. I don't know how many of you visited Britain during the period when you were not allowed to spend more than five shillings on a meal which meant as I remember one disastrous occasion myself that having eaten two gals eggs I discovered that I had exhausted my limits and was lied to name on the five shilling limit on meals was a symbol it was not terribly important. It was a symbol that the rationing system was to be carried out strictly so that wealth could not purchase
privilege. And through the wall the spivs who did well who managed to have. A bottle of champagne under the counter who managed to have a good rest to be said cetera was an unpopular unpatriotic character. I don't pretend he didn't exist. I don't pretend that some of us didn't occasionally patronize him but we did it with shame not with a feeling that is so common that we were cheating the authorities which is a president reputable thing to do. The great leveller at this period was of course in fact the services a greater level or in my opinion in Britain and in any other country at that time. Because it was a rule as far as I can remember this was universally true that whatever all previous condition of servitude said speak that whatever your education and so on you began as a private and helped by Marit into the officer
class. Of course it is perfectly true that those who had the better education which was offered by the so-called public schools in universities usually got done first. That's quite true but in fact they began equally. And that sense of equality was something that was quite unlike the Britain of the even of the thirties and very unlike the Britain of 1914. Another interesting thing that the wool brought up was that it made brain which had not had a very high rating in Great Britain was popular partly because we discovered we needed them and partly because people whose pursuits were intellectual discovered that they could pursue them during the war in a way the people whose pursuits were concerned with say playing as a good eating good food unable to do so. As a result. In fact the cult of music for instance
which was not an English cult in the 30s all of the 20s became one of the most important for a middle class upper middle class and even working class. Then Mara Hisss recitals in the National Gallery at lunchtime and National Gallery in Trafalgar Square. Used to be filled to the doors day off the day off today by the secretaries the typists the young men who were back for a week from the forces and she played as marvelous recitals some of us remember forever during the war in Trafalgar Square. On People I think came out of the wall with a determination that we should not go back to the 30s. I don't believe the 30s were quite so bad as we thought they were. But I'm quite certain that it is always useful to find a scapegoat and the scapegoat for the
existence of the wall the outbreak of the war was partly the men of Munich and a large part of the Conservative Party and partly the 30s. And just as I remember during a long period in the United States people voted against Mr. Hoover in 1929. So in Britain for one thousand forty five and quite a large extent I think in 1951 people of 88 against 1939 88 against the 30s against the unemployment against the misery against the static most against the feeling that our country was stuck in the mud unable to move itself had no great future was going to continue in its rather stratified class ridden way. All of that was to be swept away by. The purging fire of the wall and then by a new government with a new socialist party in control
and full power for the first time to a socialist government. Well as you know things never change quite as much as one expects. But in fact the immediate post-war period did see the building of the basis of modern Britain. And this in my opinion is something to which we add a great debt of gratitude to Clement Attlee the prime minister of that time who managed in a curious way to hold the country together while making some very drastic changes. Held it together in the sense that whenever one used to see him in those days he was always interested in really rather typically British middle class pursuits. He would slip away from the cabinet room when he could to watch the Test match at Lord's or the oval. He never missed I think the main cricket matches of his old public school. Helen Bray and so on.
At the same time under his aegis there is a very considerable social changes did take place in Great Britain. This was a period of very considerable strain. Because I'm sure you will realize that by this time the old upper class and relatively rich people I mean by that good giving figures but the top sort of 25 to 35 percent of the population had been paying income tax at roughly 50 percent for four or five or six or seven years. They had been finding themselves unable to use what money they had left anyway for anything that enjoyable and they found themselves in fact getting pretty irritated at the way in which they were being discriminated against as they saw it. So what happened was that in this period two things happened. First of all the education under Mr. Buckler the law one of the
last things the conservative all of the coalition government Mr. Butler's Education Act much greater educational opportunity was given to the ordinary person in Britain. So and secondly and that by the way the universities became open to talent and talent. It is it was then is now extremely difficult to get into a university on the ground that your father went on and it is not easy to buy your way into the university at all. And the second made change of course was a purely socialist government measure the Health Act introduced by Mr and IRA investment and under that the medical care became virtually free throughout Britain. This was a change that seemed revolutionary at the time as it has elsewhere about which.
We had 13 or 14 years of it is accepted and almost forgotten. That is there. I was there at that time of joining the socialist government from 1945 to 51 a very considerable strain in the country a tendency to pull apart and not the class system. But the remains of the class system expressed largely in terms of income was. A parent and the seemed a very considerable danger to me that the country would really split once again into two nations as Disraeli spake of it not so much the rich and the poor as they were rich the rich and the less poor who had now got rather more. And I was feeling of quite considerable sort between But two things I think saved us from splitting as a nation. One is the Mr
aptly managed to keep an R in Devon and the left and even the fairly extreme left in the labor movement and Mr Churchill managed to keep Mr Butler and the left wing of the Conservative Party on top so that the election of the day and the election of 51 and I may add the subsequent elections have all been fought at the middle at the center. They have not been fought between extremes and this is one of the great good fortune of Britain that it has not been dragged apart by its political. Discussions and his political campaigns. But I must say it was somewhat touching go in 1950 and 51. That was a fairly strong movement amongst the upper middle class of exasperate and this is where
affluence came in and poured cold water on hot heads. And it has done in my opinion a certain amount of very considerable good to the British people as I believe others will know much more than I do. It has done something fairly similar on the continent. I remember that Lord Wilton who was minister of food joining the war. During one of the campaigns 50 or 51 the phrase when we return we hope the people will be able to have some good red meat a reference to the rationing of meat which still continued to some extent that somewhat incautious phrase which redundant against him a bit at the time did express what the conservatives hoped to do in the early days of the tenure of power. They hope to loosen up a notch in fact to reintroduce inequality but to allow equality to be
a good deal looser not to have rationing of everything not to have equality of misery about all. But again Winston Churchill's phrase set the people free. I didn't say that the people were really all that much set free I don't know whether it was due to conservative wisdom or to the fact that there was once again. As a result that a large incentive the Marshall Plan and of wise planning a fair amount of economic activity which resulted by about 1955 in becoming what I think can be called an affluent society and affluence affluent in the sense not that everyone was very well-off but that was a real floor under poverty which I believe was largely the work of the Socialist Party in 47 and 52 and 51 and at the same time an opportunity for making money for expansion.
Making a fortune every now and again at the top. And that was the affluent society that exists today and that is the product of a two party system. Working as I think they should by alternation in office. Perhaps one of the more important things that the Conservative government did which was fully in line with this general movement was to introduce commercial television into Great Britain. All of us belonging to the eggheads. Well. Shocked at the idea I opposed it quite strongly I must say in their columns of the observer there. I must say I didn't think in fact it was time that the monopoly of the BBC was broken somehow. We with the introduction of commercial television. In fact a quite new and very important cultural factor was introduced into Great
Britain. Not just because of commercial TV but because competitive TV meant an enormous expansion of the of what was available on television. And incidentally on radio and today I'm think that we are beginning to see the emergence of a new class system in Great Britain also somewhat regrettable which would be labelled not upper middle and lower class but Home Program light programming. This is a real fact and is a real and important aspect of the Great Britain that is now facing the continent. The division of the country is no longer so noticeable on the lines of money and of the things that money
buys. It is far more becoming a division of intellect. The 11 plus exam which some of you may have heard about and read about well by people decide it is decided for young children of the age of 11 and a half or so that they belong to one of three major streams of intellect is a curious class ridden way of approaching the educational system. I happen not to think very highly of it and this is undoubtedly emerging from my words. But this is a very arguable point. But with me images of a country which is divided more on intellect than on money the party system in Great Britain ceased to correspond by any means accurately to either the interests or the attitudes of people. The party system of Great Britain is based on the old
class system with people above the medium range of income hating conservative and people below the median range of income since it's always true that there are rather more below. Why are always Labor government the answer is that for a variety of reasons a lot of people who happen to get less money than they think they should like nonetheless to think of themselves as belonging to the upper part of society and secondly there is always the problem. Unpredictable in a bachelor like myself. Of wives many of them it seems opposite to the husbands I've shopped versity or out of a conviction that they belong to the upper class by nature. Faced with this new society which began to emerge in the early 50s the Labor Party had to adapt itself
and one of the most interesting aspects which I'm not getting at length of British society today has been the emergence of a new type of labor party based on Mr Gates skills conviction that it was only going to be possible to have a winning Labor Party if it was one that included people who solidly thought of themselves as middle class and upper middle class and Asus and a party to which included intellectuals of both the left and in socially in Labor Party terms the right. As a result as Gates has rather has certainly played down I would have liked I think to have abandoned the idea of nationalization. And he has. I'm no good. Tried to give the Labor Party my dream a fair amount of success. A new image as a national classless society
which would naturally include all elements of society. I think this was necessary very largely because there was it was impossible to place the emphasis on the rights of workers. All the wrongs of workers because on the trade unions in Great Britain were powerful and in a period of inflation where getting a good deal of what they wanted and the wrong that is people who really did suffer even in the welfare state had the number of those people had sunk to a level at which there was no great feeling of protest. I maintained I don't want to give my earlier talk ever again. One of the difficulties is that the Labor party of Great Britain is a party dedicated to doing something for the poor and the poor. And the longer the voters because then they're longer in Great Britain
to be found in Africa and Asia and Latin America. That however is my earlier talk we went back into that. What I believe I was asked to talk about to some extent was the relationship of all this to our relations with the continent. I think about two things particularly that have moved Great Britain closer to the competent one. As I say it was the new intellectual ism which I believe to be one of the most significant features of Britain today. The fact that plays by the way that the style of music and particularly the European festivals from all over Europe the fact that all of these began to be something that was talked about in Britain that was that caused interest in Britain and were doctored by an increasingly large number of people or something that was their interest. This has made us even more than the ease with which we can get across to come to
the continent. Much more feel ourselves part of the come. I think in fact it is true to say the way the intellectual life of Great Britain is pretty well a part of the continental intellectual life. One thing that I'm interested in naturally having worked for roughly speaking an intellectual Sunday paper is this that when we finished when I first went to the paper 947 the observer and the Sunday Times were the two Sunday papers that were roughly speaking intellectual. The others on the have dealt with horrible revelations in our life. The observer and the Sunday Times at that time enjoyed a joint circulation of just under half a million. Today we've been joined by another paper The Sunday Telegraph and we enjoy a joint circulation of nearly three million I think to some
extent. People will always say particularly as we left the papers that they have standards but there is ONE us who have left the papers and still consider them quite good. Realize that they have raised our price and our standards fairly continuously since the war and that in fact today. The this represents a launch a mass of people in Great Britain whose intellectual life is not bounded by the channel. That's one things brought us closer to the continent. The other a rather minor thing in my opinion. In a way is the ease of travel and the fact that people spend holidays there are a more important one. Again there's a somewhat intellectual is this. The fact is the best Britain and the continent. Today I live in the mainstream of American culture and this is the thing which really dominates a great deal of our thinking and a great deal of
our lives. We live in the mainstream of American culture. Just to show the world lived in the mainstream of British culture during the 19th century. Today just as people used to have a better life in India in the 19th century people without blue jeans in the north of Scotland. The habits of American clothing the habits of American jazz the American films a great deal of the American novels and so on. All of this is a profound influence on all our lives whether we live in London or in Paris or in Belgrade. And this is something which is pulling Europe together because it is. A stream in which we are all somewhat swept along and I'd like to hear more from the people from the continent on this. But just one word on the U.K. reaction before I play and that is
this on the show the British naturally have a certain feeling of jealousy of the United States. We are top nation. There is a good deal of quiet snickering when America makes some major mistake. I think that there was a certain amount of tasting even in the city on the day that Wall Street looked like having a slump. All of this. They're quite mind does exist what exists rather more is a consciousness of our own existence and a habit perhaps of being just that little bit more quiet withdrawn upper class if you like. Clipped accent clips from a stylish. That makes it clear to us that we do exist as a people in our own right and in this of course that is one another very important thing. Without which any account of Britain's culture would be incomplete. And that is the moniker the moniker
for us is the symbol of existence as a state and as a will state and the money which we Americans can have however much they write about it satisfies. Today Britain is designed to be itself. The question is whether this will give us confidence that we really are ourselves. For us to go into Europe and be ourselves in a partnership with countries which are not quite like us. Thank you. Ah. It'll
be Mr. William cark has been talking about the effect of the new affluence on Great Britain. A mosque Mr Peterson of the Swedish trade unions to talk about the new social and cultural patterns as their pet. Europe as a whole. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It is a young woman. Let me first say that my knowledge in the topic under discussion to die is somewhat limited to say the least and I will love one night of the subject and speak about some developments in my own country Sweden and I think that it was some generosity that might be squeezed under the title of cultural and social changes in the new Europe as I still tend to believe that Sweden although perhaps it will still belong to Europe. Moreover I would only try to identify a few of the forces behind these
changes and I would give an even more imperfect picture of the nature of these changes and the resulting culture. And the first and perhaps most important force behind the changes is the economic development if we go back a 50 60 years or so is way to most predominantly agricultural society. Most of the people living on the countryside and all the people in the towns some of them have taken this step first to that could use their own industrial materials and then on to that of an effector of finished goods. Together with this development and partly as a result of this development we had some important changes in the political and so in your own eco sector at the start of industrialization Sweden was a lost society
in the old sense of the and the political system was there all the time and I gradually as society changed into modern democracy industrialization gave birth to the labor laws and from this neighbor clause a labor movement developed this moment had from the start two branches one was a trade unions and the other was a social democratic party and this close relationship. Both around the informal is still a reality in Sweden. In this does age meant an increasing degree of tension I say which on the one hand gay people are an ever increasing standard of living. But on the other hand resulted in a loss of trust and security in individuals families and small groups were not any longer self-sufficient. If they could not get security under the old bases they tried to get it through other ways. And that
was through forming organizations. I've already mentioned the trade union movement. I've got a number of other organizations as well among employers retailers and local everybody. I think perhaps this is a most characteristic thing in this weird society today. The amount of organizations and the role different organizations play in the forming of the society and their com economy it. Another result of the industrialization process was that the laser ships between and within the economy and the society became more and more complicated in order to have a smooth development it was necessary to create a larger degree of cooperation between various individuals and groups. This was a cause not realized immediately. On the contrary it took a great number of fights and battles for it before
people realized that the future lay in cooperation and compromises rather than than strikes and broke out and the increasing importance of them and the power of the trade unions and the SO Democratic Party. It also meant that we got a organization in the society that was willing and had the power to. Give people the security they want. That was the beginning of a number of legislative exits and other measures that created what now is called a welfare state. This was not something that was scientifically planned or phone or device mode attached and on the contrary development has been buried for the very winding road where the rapid development in certain areas and
stagnation perhaps. The trade unions and the political party did not only change the rules of society in the sense that we got new legislation but the values and attitudes in these groups in the labor groups came to influence the social development in other areas and tend they tended to be accepted by people that could be said to have originated in these groups. With other words it means that the the the goals that originally was taken in the labor movement has now more or less been accepted by a majority of the people. But at the same time as this development went on the trade unions and the Social Democratic Party and
change themselves in the same pace that they were able to change the society when they reached or near some of the goals they had set up they had to find new goals to go on to and in their development old dog most tended to lose much of the latter. Significant when they were exposed to reality. No one realized that economic growth steady employment and a narrowing of income differentials for instance could be read quite differently means that they had thought from the beginning the nationalizations of industries ceased to be a Big East you found that voluntary agreement often much better than a compounds or legislation. And that's different political groups tended to come closer to each other. The old terms
conservative liberalism and socialism has lost much of that and in the meaning they had for an older generation. If there are any you know you've got differences between those groups nowadays. I will say that perhaps more in the moral field and in the way to look on the human being. Associates tend to emphasize the human being as a member of a group and as having responsibilities that goes beyond his own individual and the other groups on the other hand still tends to have the focus on the individual himself and to believe that if he is led to more or less on his own he will have a find the best way to go to happiness. The development in the filo communications center to this changes and
helped dealing out a difference between groups and individuals. A new transportation means for instance have made it possible to have a mass distribution that's the fundamental thing for mass production. That has created a broader common base and tastes and values. Radio and increasing extent TV is entrenched in everybody's house today as we have only one radio and TV corporation and one TV program and three radio programs that means that the people who listen to or look at these programs are exposed to about the same type of information and about the same development is going on in the newspaper feed the local papers tend to die out and the big city papers are spreading all over the country. Take that national rather than local problems and the issues dominate the
debate. You know in the people's minds. To summon up this exposé I would say that there was a development in the economic and social political it had led to as a more integrated society. That is that the Commissaire value Singo was have broadened this does of course not mean that all the princes disappear or that in the lipstick that you would have been wiped out they increase standard of living has tremendously increased. The choice is open for a consumer and the buildout Social Security system has reduced the fear of the individual about tomorrow and given him better possibilities and more freedom in planning its own future. On the international level. On the other hand there are some tendencies that the buildout welfare state and tend to create perhaps more involved looking for people to use it to
introduce the other day and I can't say whether this is true or not in the long run but certainly this development in Sweden hasn't taken I was very much nearer to the other countries on the European continent. Am. It'll. Thank you very much Mr. Peterson. And now ask the audience for questions about what both Mr. Clark and Mr. Britishness that I personally have. Mr. Clark myself thing that I don't think has come out yet. You take for granted what seems to be most English leaders do the thing that is going to go into the Common Market. What are the Syrian people I don't mean the romantics like Lord Beaverbrook serious reason why which would which would make certain English people not want to
go in to the European community. I think the desire to maintain national identity. I happen to be someone with an immense vein of seriousness as you can tell. Does want to get in because I feel that we are part of Europe and it's no good pretending we aren't. But there are quite a lot of people who regret the narrowing of the channel and who wish in fact that we should maintain the very high standards that we have maintained over the years of cultural contribution. And it is those people above all who quite seriously regret joining a society they regard as having different standards or some of them that they regard as being more frivolous and essentially serious minded British. Aaron I tend to believe that
we have been in this country once slightly too satisfied with ourselves and that it would be a high time that we begin to criticize our set. Normally when somebody speaks of self criticism it criticizes the other. But in the special case I will take the French situation and be slightly less satisfied with our own situation. And in Sweden Great Britain seems to be satisfied with themselves. In spite of that I will. STARTING POINT says that maybe the description of the British social scene is slightly to both and possibly exist other classes than the TV classics. But let us take the case of farms. It could be said that all the phenomena are described by our friends in Britain in Sweden exist. They had been a rather increase rapid increase in standard of living.
There had been a high rate of close but in spite of that I would see the social tensions in the French society today are very great indeed and I think it would be worthwhile to search for the reasons of the social tensions in spite of those so-called economic success. Quint. There are many reasons was it the first one is that we are NOS not so affluent as we like to see into believe in point of fact which is in France three times or two times according to their way of calculation below the American which is. And I don't believe the English wages are so much higher than in France. So what I have to say about the not so affluent French society is illiterate too. In any case it was a British percent. Certainly it's not true that the people are satisfied only when it is getting slightly better for them. After all the great French will see ology stock deal has
Explain that revolution normally start when the things are going better and because when things are going better you expect even more left. Reason for those social tensions in France. One of them is of course the Algerian war more generally the loss of the empire it has been accepted on the whole by the French opinion but not without some resistance. And beyond that we have a special tension of our hummus. It's not especially a French farmers are dissatisfied but the proportion of the agricultural population in France is much higher today than in Britain and in Sweden. And this will mean social problems in France is a modernization of the French agriculture of eventually culture is to a certain extent a museum of all forms of agricultural production from the Middle Ages to the 21st century. The
result. Five or six hundred thousand of small farmers have to adapt themselves first to the modern time in beat to the Common Market and it may well be that we will head in France at the same time. So-called economic prosperity and violent social tensions beyond Yet it's not so clear as a whole French population accept we split what is called Must society. There is a certain degree of reluctance among the ordinary French citizen to accept G.-V is a question of the proportion of TV sets in France we are much below Great Britain or Germany or even Italy. We are not so far advanced or so far into the treaty. Depends how you look. It depends how you do look at television. Now it's a last word to criticize a little bit of what was said by my friend
about American influence. It's not absolutely demonstrated when there is a mega handle large scale television before us but television or video is after all in me not in any in the sort of culture which is diffused by television is not necessarily the American culture it is often and part of the resistance of the television may be linked with a refusal to accept in principle or in words American influence in spite of the fact that the fashionable novels are American. But there is a great difference in accepting the reality and accepting the work. But my main point is different. We are Americanized. In a certain way but it may be that America is a little bit overblown and at the same time you know the way is a key factor in my
view is not that Europe becomes a part of America but that both Europe and America become a part of the same word. There is certainly a two west traffic and after as a place of Saat which is not a great friend of the United States played in the United States possibly even more of its union in spite of the political finances of Saat. So if we can to the question of culture. It would be dangerous to confuse the common features of every industrial society with the diffusion of American culture. It depends a little bit what we call culture. If we call culture radio television mass production mass your collation of paperback books. Certainly we are all in America. But if culture means certain expression of a certain idea of living together or a certain calling in relation to life.
In that case I believe it will mean many cultures and I hope they will survive. For one. Was I. Just a minor. Because the chairman I think if we are speaking here from a social pact on a new way since so far any of us is able to bring satisfying examples and dissatisfying examples if I sees a situation in my country and I would explain the most dissatisfying example then certainly I would speak from a certain tendency of lack of moderation. We have too many goals so we are wanting to realize full employment stable money. Hi all where
better distribution of property and much other goes but it is titled too far to be treated here in a short. Contribution of discussion. Myself I would like to know bring a satisfying example. It is in a small extent but it is set to spying. Specially because we must always regard in my country which is as you know along the iron curtain so the percussions of it what we are doing on the people of our own people on the other side of the Iron Curtain. And all of our people under communist propaganda and it is specially necessary that we are developing our own social order in a way that the people is convinced that our way is the better way. Not in the sense of any key
then in a constructive way. In my small example from which I think it is a constructive contribution. On the way of developing a better social order is the story of the so-called People's Capitalism. These People's Capitalism in my country means the following that we are trying to divide on a broader basis of property on housing and of course on industrial production. And so far we may see in the last years icing. Satisfying progress right. So continue the discussions at Lake could change Mr. William Clark kindly
substituted for Monsieur edge and here she is speaking on the social and cultural pattern of the new Europe concentrating on Great Britain. Mr Clarke is director of the Overseas Development Institute in London England. Commentator for the evening was Eric Patterson who was with the research department of the Confederation of Swedish trade unions. Mr Paterson is about to return to Stockholm after a year of study in the United States. George Grant who was associate professor in the Department of Religion at McMaster University was chairman. These conferences are good teaching or a joint presentation by the Canadian Institute on public affairs and the CBC. If you'd like to attend a single session under within traveling distance of Geneva park in Ontario you'll be welcome to take it's may be purchased at the door. Tomorrow night discussions on the new Europe will continue with the topic of government management and labor. The radio portion will be somewhat different than usual in that it will not be a fixed
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
Series
Couchiching conference
Episode Number
3
Producing Organization
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-kw57jg37
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-kw57jg37).
Description
Other Description
The 31st edition of an annual meeting held in Geneva Park, Ontario. Political matters are discussed, with an emphasis on how they relate to Canada. This edition focuses on "The New Europe."
Date
1962-07-30
Topics
Global Affairs
Environment
Public Affairs
Media type
Sound
Duration
01:00:08
Credits
Host: Wilson, Bob
Producing Organization: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Producing Organization: Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 62-ex2-3 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Couchiching conference; 3,” 1962-07-30, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed January 18, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-kw57jg37.
MLA: “Couchiching conference; 3.” 1962-07-30. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. January 18, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-kw57jg37>.
APA: Couchiching conference; 3. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-kw57jg37