Lionel Shriver | Full Q&A at The Oxford Union

SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-union.org/
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@stevejhkhfda]

Shriver is a great woman. More intellectual courage than most in the current age.

[@morpheos111]

Once in a while Oxford a guest that has something interesting to say. Shriver is one of the few.

[@MsChitterchat]

morpheos111 So is Tommy Robinson. A must watch.

[@jazzfusioner9840]

Truth...

[@malgorzatajakubowska-chaab3613]

Lionel Shriver as always wonderful.

[@wmurray689]

Lionel is made of steel. I like her a lot.

[@granvillew12]

Long time since I liked someone as instantly.

[@pneron2032]

Me too. I don't know what it is. I think that it is her rare mix of gravitas and intelligence with humour and goodness.

[@sosofilms6514]

great talk, wonderful brain

[@garyk.nedrow8302]

First, I admit to being a great admirer of LS, even when I disagree with her. Unlike politicians, who speak in "sound bites" to advance an ideology, LS has actually thought about issues, parsed them, and written about them. She can carry on a conversation and debate issues with great insight. Unfortunately, in this video, the interviewer doesn't give her much help, so the conversation is awkward and one-sided. Second, LS seems highly conscious of the venue and realizes this video will likely be available for many years. Consequently, she is speaking carefully, often haltingly, so as not to misspeak, when her real forte is thrust and parry. She can argue extemporaneously with the best. Like most writers, LS loves words and is adamant about meaning. Vague words lead to slopping thinking. She is quite right to point out the flaccid euphemisms of the political left. The neo-Marxists have been deconstructing language and meaning for decades now and altering meaning to suit a political agenda. As a fellow writer, I share her concern. But our society as a whole speaks in generalities and jargon. Vague expressions are a refuge for those unable to formulate a precise thought. For example, the hyperbole and vulgarity common on blog sites are mere venting -- they express emotion rather than thought. Likewise, politicians speak in "sound bites" as an anodyne for thought, and university graduates who are incompetent in English composition are legion. The inability to speak and think precisely has real consequences, not the least of which is the inability to articulate a logical argument or to express a coherent idea. A disrespect for words and language translates into a disrespect for logic and reason. LS is one of the few centurions willing to do battle with the semantic barbarians at the gate. We need many more like her who care about words and how they are used. Our freedoms depend on it.

[@nikmills]

Classy move to open bottles of water on the guest's opening words.

[@queenanne5917]

Very rude

[@ktnworth]

Yes it seemed to take her ages too lol

[@formerfundienowfree4235]

I thought it sent the tone of "we're just a bunch of intellectuals sitting around talking", which i like.

[@mmc1086]

Didn’t bother me. It was undoubtedly a nerve wracking position to be in as interviewer and maybe she was feeling dry mouthed and knew that was important to overcome in order to be able to ask questions without coughing for eg. I don’t see it as rude.

[@timsplanet2]

People of colour. Why do we need a category at all? Why not just say ‘people’? We don’t say ‘dogs of spots’ or ‘cookies of chocolate’. The more we talk about race - which is purely a social construct - the more it becomes a problem. I’m white, British, middle-class & male, by the way.

[@latitudepost]

A very interesting talk and I like Shriver's works. You know, ultimately, what really matters is whether one has anything original or fresh to convey.

[@Cotictimmy]

Lionel is Wonderful - & my brother would regard that praise as too mild.

[@StreetsOfVancouverChannel]

Kierkegaard also employed indirect communication (fiction) as his primary conversational style/tool to disseminate his own ideas. His own perspective was that people in general can't readily handle much direct conversation or communication. I believe that Shriver is sympathetic in her own regard. Both writers have employed the semantic/linguistic strengths of each. It's fairly obvious that many people in general do let their guard down with works of fiction so that they can perhaps ruminate or ponder ideas that would have been firewalled from accessing the brain via nonfiction works.

[@TomorrowWeLive]

The problem is that propagandistic fiction tends to be either didactic and off-putting, or so subtle readers don't get the point at all

[@davidanderson9664]

L.S. is a first class mind and a great novelist. DO read Mandibles and Kevin. She gets the problems of the woke culture war etc. But... she fails utterly on economic policy/ gold standard / Brexit, however. I'd still invite her to my dinner parties - nobody's perfect. D.A., J.D., NYC

[@johnmccormick8159]

When Americans say "liberal" what they mean is "progressivist". Actual liberals in the US are called libertarians. American progressivists appropriated the label "liberal" after the the less complementary features of progressivism (eugenics, race science, etc.) came to wider scrutiny. I only learned of Lionel Shriver a few months ago. She is a breath of fresh air. I come from the math and science side of the world, and I purposefully avoid any fiction that is less than many decades old, but I can see here that, even today, there are some very clear-headed people writing fiction today.

[@nandrumacparlan4086]

The term “Liberal” in America is in no way connected to or derived from Libertarianism. The libertarian political philosophy is the delusional child of Ayn Rand, a fantasy of free will with no consciquence, with no responsibility to the society that hosts you. The absolute opposite of traditional liberalism.

[@johnmccormick8159]

@@nandrumacparlan4086 That's basically what I said. Cheers.

[@JayJay-wg5ex]

I am of the same opinion about Shriver and fiction. Unfortunately my library is modernising the collection according to the trends which is to the detriment of the collection. I worry it will be hard to get hold of powerful fiction in future

[@christopherhorn8539]

@@nandrumacparlan4086 Rand's position was objectivism, not libertairianism, which is a concept originating in the 18th century.

[@christopherhorn8539]

When American's say anything they don't mean anything monolithic. Some conflate liberalism and progressiveism, most do not.

[@jamiebo100]

Shriver should have said " I'm sorry, should I wait until you're finished with playing with your bottle of water ?"

[@ManInTheBigHat]

One comment appreciated this informal approach. I think it was rude and reflected this poor girl's anxiety at being in over her head.

[@michaeldillon3113]

I take comfort from the fact that by the time most of the audience are in positions of power and probably in no10 - I will by virtue of age , be dead !!!

[@M123OCT]

Lionel Shriver is a breath of fresh air in a stifled world. And my respect for her is only heightened by the fact that she managed to restrain herself from asking why the interviewer talked as she did, with that dreadful, fashionable 'vocal frying' voice, a vomit-inducing affectation which detracts from everything you say. WHY are people speaking like ths?

[@geoffreynhill2833]

What on earth are you talking about? 🤔

[@M123OCT]

@@geoffreynhill2833 You either haven't listened to the interview, or you haven't read my comment carefully enough. I write carefully - it needs no explanation. 👍

[@gerhard7323]

Brilliant.

[@scoppio07]

I'm part of the rest of the UK and I like Trump.

[@petercrane2065]

I dont like Trump the man, But I think Trump the president is doing a great job. I just hope he keeps it up.

[@mikegray8776]

Lionel, as always, is at once both entertaining and thought-provoking. I cannot hear too much from this eminently witty commentator. Somewhat irritating and constant rising-inflection from the interviewer ..... makes even a profound question (there weren’t many) sound trivial and frothy.

[@lechenaultia5863]

It's the (now ubiquitous) vocal fry that sets my teeth on edge

[@macbaryum]

I wonder how Lionel feels about Biden now?

[@ManInTheBigHat]

Her Trump Derangement Syndrome, like that of many others, has led to a dire situation.

[@burleybater]

As to the question why write in such a manner as to preach to the converted (or retain an attitude of dialogue with those who generally are in agreement.) There are thousands of layers of subtle nuance in the understanding of an issue. You can understand it in a kind of comic book fashion, pop style. Or you can understand it in ways that encourage a dialogue and debate that can often arrive at levels of confidence in why we think and believe as we do (compared to more Pavlovian responses.)

[@flawedandbeautiful4166]

There are absolutely *no* moderates in the Democratic primary

[@deadeaded]

Not according to the rest of the world. The only reason they sound extreme to you because the US is much more right-wing than the rest of the developed world. As far as other countries are concerned, it's the Republican party that has been taken over by extremists and radicals.

[@deadeaded]

@Kirk Lazarus I agree that that's a bad idea, but do you not remember Sarah Palin? Republicans did it first.

[@Tritriumchannel]

@@deadeaded What the democrats are proposing is extreme even in my western EU country, it wouldnt, and in fact doesnt fly, our last election proved that. And the current polls in this country point to an even mluch greater victory to the opposition of these ideas. What you're really talking about is the "reality" that the media in the rest of the west has been putting out. It has skewed people's vision of what is actually real to an extreme degree. But only in so far as the "far from my bed" realities. - When you have to wring yourself through a dozen ideas that each require fundamental cognitive dissonance to occur, in just 3 sentences... Then the problem isnt the reality thats wrong, its your version of what reality is, that is wrong. Or more accurately, the version of reality that is described to you by the media you passively consume. Yet its almost impossible to get people to realize that that is what is happening to them. More then anything i get the argument that "but look all the media is saying X, then it must be true?". This is of course the entire point when you are propagandizing, have a unified message to convince people X is real. For me thats the time when all the alarm bells start ringing and i delve into a source material search. - You wouldnt believe how many times i ended up with some column asserting X, anonymous source saying Y, a game of telephone on a large scale, completely made up stories based on nothing whatsoever, lies by omission, outright lies, cutting and pasting video footage together to literally create statements person X never said, etc... And then thats where the "factual" articles are based on. But that is the reality of the media today, nearly everything you read in the media today is opinion pieces handed off as "facts". You have to dig to find that out, and that is not something most people have time for today. Its extremely disturbing how bad it has gotten today. - The US sounds more rightwing to you because the overarching sentiment in europe is government centric. In the US the overarching sentiment is anti-government, sometimes to the extreme degree. But the same can be said about the EU sentiment over here, where being part of the political EU is described as a "moral good". Deriving your morals from a political empire like the EU is about as extreme as one can get. Because that is really what you're saying when you castigate the opposition to the EU as "evil rightwingers". What someone like that says to me is that he doesnt have any morals, his morals are whatever the political class of the EU tells them they are. - When is the last time you read up on what fascism & communism is fundamentally about? Ill give you a few keypoints: -Is opposed to both traditional left-wing and right-wing political parties. (the public center) -strives for social unity and the elimination of all existing class and conflicts of interest. -despises contemporary conservative institutions. -honors display of power and the use of force, insofar as it aims to overthrow the existing social order. -seeks to establish a political dictatorship. (end product of the "we're all good & they're all evil" thought process) -Wants (complete) control over social life and social and cultural organizations. - Id love to know what you think of these keypoints, wether you recognize them in a contemporary sense, and wether you agree or disagree with them.

[@davidanderson9664]

Her article in Harper's - harpers.org/archive/2019/12/lefty-lingo/ D.A., J.D., NYC

[@alanbrooke144]

Thanks for the link; a wonderfully, well-written read.

[@abuhuraira3685]

When writers die they become books Which is, after all, not too bad an incarnation

[@mohdaatif5569]

Hii bro

[@abuhuraira3685]

@@mohdaatif5569 hi! Asif

[@mohdaatif5569]

Where are you from brother

[@abuhuraira3685]

@@mohdaatif5569 I'm from Pakistan and you?

[@mohdaatif5569]

I'm from india

[@DavidPaulNewtonScott]

I hate the 'people of colour' expression my Philippino wife and our two daughters are coloured. They have more melanin in their skin than me and they are therefore coloured. The colouration is a property of them they are not owned by the the colour. I think people who use this expression are just patronising coloured people should tell them to knock it off.

[@nandrumacparlan4086]

I couldn’t agree more. To reduce a person to a category that obliterates their cultural heritage is very dehumanizing. Your wife and daughters are no more “of color” than I am.

[@wikkibabu3070]

Pick up 10 family from my country India. You can easily find every colour of people. There has never been any tension between colour of people in the world.

[@jep1912]

Any British people to invite to speak? Anyone...? Anyone...?

[@simonking2869]

Aye. Plenty.

[@TroupeGoal]

Surprised LS reads the Guardian and watches c4 News and NN, i must say

[@otaliesin2133]

The woke way to deal with terminology with 'baggage' is to create new 'baggage' for existing terms (white), or to create new terms with baggage -An Empty effort.

[@MarcusCorbett]

Trump sought the advice of Fauci. Wnere did that get us.

[@kathya1956]

Appalled at increase of debt by Trump. How about your dearest Obama?

[@rwess]

"Colored" or "of color" is absurd. But absurdity abounds. I'd go with dark- or light-skinned, which helps point out the true absurdity of the differentiation. But we are fundamentally absurd anyway. That's why we categorize self-servingly and always find "an other" to blame. As to exercise-classification/rating, another absurdity, but a harmless one - so leave it be... But I guess writers have to write about something. 😁

[@pneron2032]

Race is biological. So are dog breeds. Dog breeds are not a "construction" - or do you think that they are?

[@rwess]

@@pneron2032 You're asking about genetics here. How similar is the human genome between races? I think it's a mere social construct, not a real scientific one. We Homosapiens have been mixing a long time. As to dog breeds, I would guess the human-bred dogs are genetically similar, but the ancient ones (say wolves and African dogs for example) might be further apart (similar to Neanderthals and Homosapiens?). So I wouldn't equate races with dog breeds, but some geneticist could give you a more definitive answer.

[@pneron2032]

@@rwess Thanks. My point is that you are correct to say that dog breeds are *very similar* - but that that does not eliminate the very real differences between them in everything from health to temperament. So with race: race is not merely imagined - it is biological.

[@rwess]

@@pneron2032 Well, the concept of race has certainly been around a while, but we also could have come up with other categorizations, maybe less broad and more valid... Tall/short, Cultured/uncultured, hairy/bald. Race is pretty malleable. Do Asians see Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Mongolians, Filipinos, Indians, etc. as different races? If not, why not? (I really don't know.)

[@pneron2032]

@@rwess I see your point - but there are clear groups. Great Dane vs Labrador. Those are just demonstrably different. As are African black and Chinese. No hope of confusing one for the other. Now - west vs east African? - Variation on a theme. Nuance is needed (ethnicity). But that does not detract from the big racial groups: black Africans, East Asians, Europeans.

[@williamesser2057]

25:55 clarify whose election white western world suffers of solipsism also 35:40

[@neilwalsh3977]

So much postmodernism in Universities. So boring, so trivial with some exceptions.

[@interestingvideos4me]

people of color refers to the unmarkedness of whiteness. Just like diversity is an euphemism for non-white. Both expressions mark whiteness as the 'norm' and this is where the conversation should start. How has 'whiteness' become the norm and what are the consequences of that? For those who don't know, I give you a hint: think of someone winning a bet because he or she knew the results before hand. That, my friend, is how white meritocracy has been operating for centuries. All the games have been won at the expense of some form of advantage, in some cases, the literal incarceration of half of a population so that they could not compete. And then the winners of the bet believed they were lucky or skilled, and cry when someone shows them they were not deserving winners, but won because they were favored. Never they asked 'oh well, had a black man been given the chance to study instead of being enslaved, would he be better than me at my trade?' Yes...you have been fooled to believe you are capable, smart, and deserving but the sad truth is that you are where you are because your ancestors made sure you would be way ahead in the game by holding back huge masses of people so you would make it first...and be able to uphold the belief that you are who you are and have what you have by 'merit' but merit it was not. Sorry to break the news to you.

[@tommym321]

This is an unbelievably stupid comment

[@geoffreynhill2833]

About the problem of young men... Firearms have figured throughout US history and continue to be celebrated in their movies and TV; Westerns, The Mafia, Cop shows etc. not to mention their revered American Rifle Association. And voiceovers on adverts for such as aftershave are usually deep-chested, hunky and macho, celebrating and perpetuating a violent past they themselves never actually had. Do they really want to revive it? Can't they let it go? 🤔

[@prospero4183]

It has always been thus but gun murders have trended down

[@geoffreynhill2833]

@@prospero4183 That's good to know, Prospero, but America's still a tempest. 😖

[@davidcockayne3381]

The notion of cultural appropriation certainly is "transparently stupid". But we must have the argument in order confirm that stupidity and to maybe even to persuade adherents that they are wrong. The term appropriation means theft, and to this to accuse someone of cultural appropriation is to claim that they are stealing something which belongs to someone else. This implies that culture is property in the same way as a house or a car. The essential quality of property is that it has a price and can be bought, sold and taxed. Since culture does not satisfy this essential quality it cannot be considered to be property and therefore it cannot be appropriated. Of course, asking others to respect my culture is perfectly reasonable.

[@makara80]

"But we must have the argument in order confirm that stupidity and to maybe even to persuade adherents that they are wrong." Isn't it ultimately counterproductive to devote finite time and energy debating concepts that by any reasonable, rational standard are _moronic_ though? Supposed 'cultural appropriation' undeniably qualifies in that regard. Indeed, treating such cretinous, intellectually-vacuous notions with undeserving reverence only inadvertently serves to legitimise the illegitimate. One would also have to be _extremely_ optimistic (and masochistic) to assume that rational argument could ever persuade the race-baiting, offence-taking exponents of such arrant nonsense.... Put simply, attempting to reason with ardent ideologues is the _apotheosis_ of an exercise in utter futility.

[@davidcockayne3381]

@@makara80 No it isn't counterproductive. On the contrary, every stupid, false and evil idea that people have adhered to throughout history was sustained on the proposition of its undeniability - until it was challenged by reasoned arguement, supported where appropriate by empirical evidence. It was undeniable that slavery was a natural institution (Aristiotle said so) until it was challenged. It was undeniable that the earth was the centre of the universe (scripture and the church said so) until it was challenged. It was undeniable that the Greeks or the Romans or the Anglo-Saxons were the superior race (just look at their achievements) until such claptrap was challenged.

[@makara80]

"No it isn't counterproductive. " David, do you really believe that 'debating' with disingenuous, asinine ideologues over some bigoted lunacy they've concocted for (imagined) grievance points is a reasonable and constructive use of one's time? After all just imagine what sort of pertinent, relevant, _actual_ issues/topics intelligent people could discuss and debate if they weren't wasting time bickering with the ideological equivalent of flat-earther's! Regardless, the paradoxical problem remains that there exists those who will always conflate attention with _validation_ , and in this social media-addled age those who publicly expound such divisive nonsense typically seek both. I therefore struggle to see the tangible benefits by indulging them quite honestly. Besides if we really have to reassert that the grass is green to those insistent that it's purple (metaphorically speaking) - and count it as some sort of victory, then humanity is truly regressing! Discrediting such latent idiocy in public debate is akin to winning an _arm-wrestling_ match against a frail octogenarian....

[@davidcockayne3381]

@@makara80 Well, oddly enough, not only do I consider that I am doing God's work by taking on the bigots, of both left and right, I also find it intellectually stimulating, and even mildy pleasureable. I take especial pleasure from skewering their fallacies and then trying to predict their responses. Anti-Semites are the easiest. It's also worth bearing in mind that when one challenges bigotry with reason, while the patient may refuse the cure, as it were, there are others watching who may be enticed from the darkness of the cave. As for octogenarians, I come from an area where many in their 80s are former paratroopers and the like. They may have frail limbs but they have a war-like spiit; personally I wouldn't risk challenging them. Sadly, they grow fewer by the day.

[@JayJay-wg5ex]

Elvis would not have made it.

[@AlvaSudden]

"People of color" is what people of color say, and yes people DO talk that way.

[@Flat-White]

@Jamel West Well said. I think people of colour sounds terrible.

[@nandrumacparlan4086]

How about respecting people enough to ask them how they self-identify?

[@DrBe-zn5fv]

the questioner's toxic vocal fry is as much to do with her insecurity mixed with cognitive dissonance at having to respect her interlocutor, compounded with her sense of being out of her league as it has with her need to try to maintain her entitled superiority, as she sees it conferred by her chair and political leaning, which itself finds clearer expression in her use of a schoolgirl-bully´s use of that laugh in the voice. she will likely do 180 at some point and become the next candace owens .. bring it on!

[@ManInTheBigHat]

Time Stamp?

[@audreymaclelland3995]

Is b Lionel not a man?????