This year’s opening
event of the Manchester International Festival was one in which professional performers
played no part. Instead, the spotlight was on a selection of citizens from
various walks of life, strutting their stuff, one-by-one, along a raised
catwalk, while information about them was projected onto huge screens. It was
an open-air event, free to view and therefore socially inclusive in all respects.
The participants – whether established, public figures or homeless individuals
struggling to put a life together – all got a cheer from the crowd, simply for
being who they were. The genius of the event lay in its egalitarian intention: nobody
was presented as more special than anyone else.
When they all left that
stage, however, the reality of social inequality would surely re-establish
itself. The homeless man would still be homeless, the recovering addict would
revert to spending her days seeking support from diminished social services and
the well-paid professional would still be well-paid and professional. So was this
a performance, or was it another of those political expressions for which the
city has been notorious ever since Queen Victoria declared it a hotbed of troublesome
anti-establishment activists? I hope it was the latter. For, despite the
earnest wish harboured by so many for integration, society persists as a
collection of bubbles bumping in to one another.
It was interesting to
see this in another context: the exhibition at Tate Liverpool, Portraying a Nation: Germany 1919-1933, which
features the works of Otto Dix and the photographer August Sander, both of whom
made images of their contemporaries in the various social strata. Sander’s
approach took was to show his subjects in the specific context of their social
standing and occupations. There were, for example, tradesmen standing proudly in
their work-wear and doctors, sombre-looking, moustachioed gents, trussed up in
three-piece tweed suits to indicate their gravitas and high standing in the
middle classes. Sander’s body of work reveals a Western European social model
that still exists, in essence.
However, as the mighty
Bob revealed as far back as 1968, “the times they are a’changing” and a project
such as Sander’s, if it were to be attempted today, would turn up some very different
images. At the local Health Centre last week, the doctor who saw me was a very
young woman of African descent, friendly, personable, and impeccably middle-class-English
in her manner. (I assume she is also a capable doctor, though her skills were
not stretched on this occasion.) In encountering her, I was delighted to see
some evidence of social mobility that was perhaps unthinkable a generation ago.
Nevertheless, those who
aspire to upward social mobility face challenges that they may not have
factored in to their plans: the profession of doctor is just one of many that
are losing ground in terms of prestige and consequent earning-power because of
the rise of computing power and the development of robotics. Anecdotally, a
friend told me that a surgeon had advised him to postpone proposed knee surgery
for a few years until the procedure has been programmed in to a robot. The
outcome of such a delicate operation should not be entrusted to an unreliable
human unless absolutely necessary. Moreover, the writing is on the wall for GPs
in respect of their diagnostic function: an individual doctor will have a
limited amount of knowledge at their disposal, whereas a robot could,
theoretically, have all of human knowledge available within seconds, thereby
making diagnosis more of a science and less of a guessing game.
As artificial
intelligence becomes more widely available, the currency of knowledge, as
banked by specialists, will devalue, while qualities such as humanity and
compassion will attract a premium: perhaps that is when we will see big pay rises
for nurses and carers.
No comments:
Post a Comment