BRAINS, ETCETERA

New Zealand Listener, Volume 20, Issue 518, 27 May 1949, Page 14

BRAINS, ETCETERA

Written for "The Listener" by

A. R. D.

FAIRBURN

HE man who thought of the "brains trust" idea was one of the | | genuine innovators of broadcasting. I presume it was Donald Mc--Cullough who first gave it the form now so familiar to us, but I may be wrong. At any rate, his BBC Brains Trust, which began on January 1, 1941, was the beginning of the thing as far -as the man in the street is aware. There was nothing especially novel about "the ingredients: a microphone, and four or

: : five men and women chosen for their ability to talk about a wide range of topics about which questions were serit in by listeners. The session caught the ear of the public partly because it was a change from the single speaker, and partly because of the "slant" that was given to it by calling it a "brains trust." Having acted as -Questionmaster in 1YA Opinion Please session, I feel impelled to get a few things off my chest. Opinion Please is, of course, closely modelled on the BBC session. Most people probably refer to it as the "1YA brains trust." The term is catchy, but not without its back-lash. There is, after ‘all, something slightly insolent about five people trying, as it were, to set up a monopoly in "brains." It shouldn’t be looked upon in that light, needless to say. No doubt the BBC meant the term to be taken more or less playfully. But I have no doubt it irritates some people. They should regard it as nothing mofe than a piece of orange-coloured cellophane in which the goods are wrapped. * * * THINK the reason why the brains trust idea caught on is that it reflects fairly faithfully an attitude, and a particular technique, that have evolved naturally during the past few decades and have come to be part of mid 20th Century life. Let me try to explain what I mean. First of all, the attitude. We are rather less certain of ourselves nowadays than were our grandfathers. Their world was .more stable. Their beliefs were. strongly held, and seemed to be well-founded. It was natural enough for them to lay down the law. The idea of a man speaking ex cathedra on any particular subject did not seem to them to be the least bit preposterous. In these times we take rather less for granted. We distrust those who claim to have discovered the final truth about anything. We even distrust our own hesitant beliefs. The idea of haying some question talked over by several people, who take different points of view, appeals to us much more than listening to a single speaker. It provides a sort of "objective correlative" for our own habitual scepticism. (I am referring only to discussion about controversial things. We listen readily

enough to speakers who tell us about their own experiences, or who merely provide information about things we are interested in.) The brains trust pattern .somehow fits our notion of how controversial ideas should be put forward. I mentioned also a "technique." "In past times people in positions of high authority could very often act successfully without taking thes advice of others. The world of affairs was less complicated, and a single mind was better able to keep a grasp of things. To-day it would be beyond the power of .any man, whatever his intellectual stature, to master all the knowledge required in running a state, or a massproduction industry, or any large organisation. Nowadays men in high positions are compelled to rely very largely, not on one adviser even, but on half-a-dozen, or 20. I have been told that the late Mr. Coates, when he was Prime Minister of New Zealand, used to summon his four or five advisers round a table, put some question before them, and let them wrangle about it. He would listen to the talk, not saying much himself, but trying to find the answers he needed. This was all very right and proper. They were there to have their brains picked; it was his job to pick them, The technique he adopted was more or less that of the brains trust. The same technique is used by many men in positions of authority to-day. And, if the public wants information, there is no reason why broadcasting should: not allow them to use the same method. ae * % T would be fatuous, all the same, to. suggest that the primary purpose of a radio brains trust is simply to supply Sra te) This brings me to the question: What is a_ brains trust? Or rather, what ought it to be? There is a method used by theologians to define the nature and attributes of the Supreme Being, by a process of negation, or exclusion-that is, by setting down all the things that God .is not. Perhaps that is the best way to go about describing a brains trust. First of all, a brains trust is not a quiz. The quiz is intended to bring forth factual information, and at the (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) same time to test the knowledge (or expose the ignorance) of the victims. The brains trust works in the less definite field of ideas and opinions. We are led on, from this point, to another negation. Is itsethe purpose of a brains trust to provide listeners with afiswers to knotty problems of ethics, aesthetics, and other speculative fields of knowledge? To some small extent, yes. But consider the thing soberly. Let us imagine that somebody sends in this question: "Ih politics, does the end justify the means?" Now, the philosophers of all the agés have sweated over this question. Books have been written about it, in which the most distinguished minds have set down their views, after giving it profound thought over a long period of time. Before publishing their views they have had time to go over them and revise them, Would it not be a little unreasonable to expect Dr. -, or Mr. -, members of the brains trust, to give us an impromptu answer that was completely satisfactory? And would it not be a little presumptuous for the brains trustees to claim any sort of genuine authority? If people are. looking for guidance on this and similar questions, they may ( be lucky enough to gain something by listening-in; but they should not omit to do some solid feading of books that are in every library. * % aoe FTER the first broadcast we did in Auckland a friend wrote to me and said he thought these sesSions were an excellent idea. "To paraphrase Wilde," he said, "their merit is that by giving us the views of the uneducated, they keep us in touch with the ignorance of the mases." Beautifully put, you will agree. We brains trustees cannot afford to spurn bouquets of any kind, whether they be made up of orchids or withered parsnips. There is an appalling amount of truth in it, too. It is only when you get up in frofit of a microphone and have half-a-dozen questions fired at you from the undergrowth-questions dealing with anything and everythingthat you begin to feel really uneducated. Fortunately, however, the limitations of brains trustees (eveh of the fabulous Joad) don’t conflict seriously with the objects of the session. When you listen to a brains trust you mustn’t expect to get feliable informatién; any more than you would expect the world’s record fot a hundred yards to be broken in an egg-and-spoon race. The chief aim, nécessarily, is to provide entertainment. The entertainment, when you get it, is obtained from hearing four or five people put on their mettle, and compelled to discuss, as intelligently as possible, questions they probably haven't thought about for years. If they tend now atid then to brawl politely, so much the better. . Sometimes a brains trust discussion may help to illuminate some dark corner gf a listener’s mind. But if those taking part were to set out with that sole aim in view, they would no doubt end up by talking to themselves. It is an excellent thing for a brains trust to engage in a certain amount of serious discussion. But it would be regrettable if the listeners did not have the feeling,

for a good deal of the time, that they were watching a game of blind-man’s buff, or a pillow-fight, or a sack-race. * * * ND now, to enlist the sympathy of listeners, let me touch on a few of the difficulties brains trustees have to cope with. A good deal depends, of course, on the questions. If somebody asks, "Are women treated fairly in the modern world?" the trustees are in a jam immediately. It is as if someone had tossed them a lump of kapok the size of a house and asked them to do a juggling turn. Treated fairly in what respects? And by whom? And in comparison with what? The thing is so vague. And don’t forget that their wives may be listening in. Then there is this sort of question: "What is the coefficient of expansion of gun-metal?" If there happens to be a scientist on the panel, we may get afi answer. Otherwise there will be a blank silence, during which the Questionmaster tries desperately to do a bit of gagging. The question is one for a quiz session, not for a brains trust. My own view is that questions (and the discussion of them) ought either to be quite serious, and as concrete and definite as possible, or completely frivolous. The "middle-brow" sort of questions, such as "Do you think Democracy has failed?" is not likely to result in either entertainment or enlightenment, The same question put in some tighter form might give the trustees something to bite on. In that vague and abstract way it exposes them to the temptation to be solemn. With even The Listener commentator chucking @ brick at us for knitting our brows too much, we shudder gently whenever the "Elephant and Society" situation threatens to arise, : There are many small difficulties to be faced. To avoid talking one another down, atid at the same time to avoid awkward gaps in the conversation, calls for a good deal of alertness and selfcontrol. The Questionmaster is usually at fault when these things happen. Then one must remember not to strike a match too near the microphone (it sounds like an atom bomb test to the listener), and not to edge up too close or lean back too far. There is also the little problem of studio-claustrophobia, which is more acute in hot weather. I don’t want to create a false impression. These difficulties are superficial, and the trustees enjoy the sessions. It’s nicer wotk than carrying coal. If the listeners enjoy them as much, there’s no more to be said-except this: that I haven’t put anybody off sending in a question, They’re always welcome, and even if, for any particular reason, they are unsuitable for discussion, we're still grateful to those who go to the trouble of thinking them out, writing them down, and posting them. — ss