Good afternoon to all our audience. We are hoping that we have as much of a turn out as the signups promised. So welcome to our second seminar in our series under the theme Society, Culture and Law, a research theme within the School of Security Studies at King's College London. I have the great pleasure to introduce two eminent people in the field of strategic communications research. Our speaker, Dr. Claire York, whom I will introduce in a minute, and our chair, Dr. Neville Bolt, who is the director of the King's Center for Strategic Communications. He is also editor-in-chief of the Defence Strategic Communications Journal, a peer-reviewed academic journal of NATO's Strategic Communications Center of Excellence. Then he's a reader in strategic communications and convener of the master's programmes on the same theme, and he has a not misspent previous life in television, both as a television journalist and producer editor at the BBC ITV and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He has the pleasure to chair Claire's talk. And I am now going to hand over to Claire, who is really delighted to have her here because she will be talking to us about an incredibly important subject and one that is really in much need of understanding better and hopefully also, at least that's my part of my mission here, proselytising on the theme, whether a more empathetic politics is possible. Claire is a writer and academic researcher and she has just finished a very successful Kissinger postdoc period at Yale University. And she's currently preparing her book on and related to the theme of empathy in strategic communications, which we will all await with bated breath and she will tell us more about at some later stage. But without further ado, and to give the person who really needs the limelight, the limelight, I hand over to Claire. Thank you. Thank you so much to all of you for having me. Thank you for inviting me to speak. It's a pleasure to be back at King's where I did my PhD and to talk about a topic that I really love and that I care very passionately about and have been studying for the past few years. So thank you. Claire, good afternoon. Thanks for joining us today. And it is a pleasure to see you back at King's actually and we had a great time together. I did certainly I was a pleasure and a privilege to supervise your doctorate. And I think it's fair to point out that your eminent examiners and they were eminent examiners concluded that yours was one of the best PhDs they had ever read. So congratulations to you, but you've moved on since then. Those are those are the old days. So let's talk about empathy. You, you researched in depth the Nixon Mao talks of the 1970s and what engaged you was trying to understand what was the role of empathy. And, you know, we throw this word around empathy and a lot of people don't even know the difference between empathy and sympathy, but more to the point you would argue they actually don't really know what empathy means. Why don't you tell us. Yeah, so I'm really interested in how we understand and conceptualize empathy and I think it's such a critical component of human relations, but it's not simply one thing. And often we see this division and how empathy is defined where it's emotional or it's cognitive. So it's kind of a feeling that we have towards another or towards others. It's very innate, something embodied and we feel that and we experience that sense of connection. But then you've also got this cognitive dimension, which is much more of a conscious process of reflecting on the lived experiences of others and trying to understand how they view the world. What does the world mean to them? Where do people derive value and significance in their everyday lives and how does that inform the way in which they engage and interact with the world around them. And I would argue on top of that we've got these different forms and other people also write on different forms of empathy, but I would categorize them for the purpose of this talk. As interpersonal empathy, which is the kind of empathy that you see between two people, how people develop a sense of connection or rapport with another and feel that sense of, I know this person, I can work with this man as Margaret Thatcher famously said. You've then got what I call strategic or political empathy, which is used to communicate or connect with audiences as part of political discourse. And this is more to do with the communication of empathy from, say, an individual or a small group of individuals to a collective, because often empathy is understood as between individuals or between small groups. Whereas I think it's something that can be very much communicated in dialogues and performances in signaling to show other people that they matter to them, that they're being heard and listened and understood and that their concerns and grievances are being taken into account. And then I think as part of that, I think that's an important role to consider of empathy of performance, so performative empathy and the sense that the very act of performing empathy has itself a value or a virtue, because empathy has these connotations of virtue. So there's then this difference between performative empathy and sincere empathy. And I think that's one of the things that we sometimes see in this space is that people feel the need to demonstrate empathy. And so we need to interrogate, but is that actually translating to genuine empathy and concern? How much is that going into actual decision making processes informing the ways in which they're changing their attitudes and behaviors towards different people in different groups. And so I want to think about it as well in that sense. And as part of that, it really draws our attention to this difference between the rhetoric and reality. Because rhetoric about empathy is far easier. You can talk about it. We know certain codes of expressing understanding for others. We know what it is you have to be saying, I feel your pain as Bill Clinton famously did in that election. And then there's the real hard work of empathy. And that's something I really want to kind of emphasize in this talk that actually empathy is not something light and fluffy. It's hard work. It's a process. It's a practice. And it's about really taking on the very difficult challenge of trying to understand and tolerate difference in order to connect across divides. And I think it's so important right now when we're dealing with such a polarized and divided political space that we're able to start to talk about what does this actually mean? What is the hard work? What are the practices that we have to do to try and create something that's better and that transcends the challenges that we're facing today? And so I think, I mean, empathy, I think it's inherently political. It has a lot of challenges, a lot of problems associated with it. And I think the more we understand that, the more we understand the limitations and the problems with empathy, that it's not just that nice fluffy thing you insert into a debate and suddenly things sound better. But we understand it's real, the courage and the hard work that you have to do, I think we get closer to them being able to realize it. Yeah, that's interesting. And I suppose the question is, apart from the fact that you've written a PhD and very shortly we'll publish a book on this, but why are we increasingly talking about empathy? I mean, I think there's multiple reasons. At first, I think we're seeing in the context of the pandemic, the real importance of trying to understand how this virus that is still so unknown, we still don't know what it means, but it is causing such kind of havoc and hardship to people in terms of welfare and health and livelihoods and well-being. That there is this real need within our political leadership for empathy and for concern and also for compassion for people from many different backgrounds to show that people in the highest echelons of government and politics are taking it seriously. We're also seeing empathy being discussed in new forms of leadership. So we're seeing a lot of praise, for example, for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and others who've really used empathy both in response to the terrorist attacks in Christchurch a couple of years ago, but in her response as well to this coronavirus crisis and really centralizing it as part of her discourse about how politics should be conducted. She spoke about it at the World Economic Forum. She's really tried to put it at the heart of economic policies and welfare policies, and she's also not the only one to do so. Barack Obama in 2006 was talking about an empathy deficit and about the way in which society had lost sight of one another, that we had lost our ability to connect and that actually society and politics had become about interests, about financial gain, about economics, and really what we've missed is that society is about people and politics is about people. And we're seeing it again now in the American elections. It's very much central to Vice President Joe Biden's campaign, this idea that he is a person who connects with the every man. He's a person who really, as a man of character, prioritizes empathy in his dealings with people in his politics. But we've also seen it, as I wrote about in an article recently for the World Today, in how President Trump is talking about himself. It was a feature of the Republican National Convention as well as the Democratic National Convention, where they're talking about how Trump called his staff when they were sick to check they were okay, and how he was talking to certain frontline care workers, and this performative empathy really coming to the fore, that it was seen as a political tool and an asset for both campaigns. But I think with all of that considered as well, what I want to come back to is that idea of empathy offers us a great lens for understanding and interpreting emotions and for understanding what is going on right now when we're looking at the rise in identity politics, we're looking at increased divisions within society and polarization, we're looking at real, really prominent debates about inequality and injustice and racism and the lack of care and the sense of marginalization that people are feeling. And I think it's so important that people are saying we need to be able to incorporate far more awareness of different lived experiences into our politics. And we need to, I think, understand how different people are feeling, how people not only engage with politics in the level of reason and rationality, but how they are experiencing it at a very felt level, and what that means collectively for public moods, for public attitudes, what people are responding to. And I think those emotions in this political space are often unquantifiable and hard to really decipher, but we can and we should be trying to understand what the implications are for different politics on different communities and how then you navigate that with a more nuanced understanding of lived experience. I'm interested in this bridge between rhetorical empathy as performative politics, and also can I just call it individual sincerity on that level, because a lot of the time, and you know the American election is very much presidential election very much in our minds at the moment. And for an awful lot of international, let's call them intellectuals, empathy is associated with Biden as being very much part of his makeup, his personality, and that it's genuine, it's sincere. And yet when Donald Trump employs it with his supporters and sympathizers, somehow we're suspicious of that. We see it as a tool of politics. Is that unfair, do you think? I mean, I think it really speaks to me to some of the challenges of empathy, and you're right to point out the challenges that we have in deciphering and interpreting it. And I think it speaks to the subjectivity of empathy and our own positionality, and I struggle with this as well because I think we have this idea that empathy is about kindness and it's about care. And I think that for the most part is true. But we also have to think about, is it empathy if I don't like what it looks like? If it doesn't speak to me or to the causes and the concerns that I have, is it still empathy? And I think what's so interesting is how particularly populist leaders have been quite effective at mobilising this performance of concern for other people in their politics, at trying to say we understand your grievances, we understand how you view that the political establishment have not spoken to you and have marginalised you or forgotten you. And we are going to offer a different alternative that speaks to what it is that you care about and the insecurity or the uncertainty that you're feeling. And so with Trump, I think it's hard to argue that he has that personal sincerity of care and the way we see with Biden. But I'm also not convinced that his supporters want that from him. I think it's quite interesting looking at how we have different expectations about political leaders, how we have a different need for concern depending on our own experience with politics and what we value within society and our interaction. And I think actually talking to people who do vote for Trump when I was in America, you know, they would say, well, we know that he's vulgar and we know that he says it like it is and sometimes it's not very polished, but he speaks to the concerns we have and we don't see other people doing that in the same way. He says it like it is. And I think that's something we have to be thinking about is what's happened in this political environment that means that people no longer feel that politicians are maybe speaking to them authentically or speaking to them and reflecting in the reality of what they are experiencing. So it's definitely part of the subjectivity of it and I struggle with that because it does mean we have to maybe consider that empathy isn't always something that we find palatable. And because it's so difficult for us to understand or get inside this subjectivity or multiple subjectivities. So let me just go back to your original research back in the which dealt with the 1970s but most importantly, it was transnational transcultural. And so when you were looking at Richard Nixon, who sat down with Mao, both global leaders but from different cultures, but maybe not such different backgrounds, maybe, spiritually. How does that complicate this discussion? I mean, I think what was so interesting with that is seeing the ways in which President Nixon and Henry Kissinger prepared for those talks. And really we're conscious that there would be a divide in how each country approached the topic and the impressions that each side had of the world. And I think again, I mean, Nixon, like Trump, it's hard to argue was sincerely empathetic in the way that we would associate with Joe Biden or others. But he starts when he speaks with Chairman Mao, he tries to find points of connection with this leader of the People's Republic of China. You know, we both come from humble origins. We've both risen to be these great men in our own nations. We both understand the challenges and the weights that are on our shoulders. You know, and it's debatable whether the Chinese saw him as sincere or not, you know, but this sense of performance that he felt that the way we get this done is by building this personal relationship. And he did a lot in terms of reading the literature that Chairman Mao was reading at trying to understand what it was that they would be prioritizing. And I think in many ways, empathy is so critical, particularly across cultures, particularly in terms of trying to bridge those different divides in understanding and meaning within different societies. But I think that's where we find common points of humanity. We find that we're all individuals, we all can find things in common despite our differences. And I see this kind of in the practices they do and Kissinger as well and his much more extended discussions with Joe and I would constantly try to speak to the intellectual interests and the background of his counterpart and try to understand the concerns and the grievances and the insecurities that the Chinese felt at that moment in time faced with the Soviet Union on their borders, faced with a sense of uncertainty in the global environment. Did you get a sense that Mao and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party were actually going through the same process vis-à-vis Nixon? I did.  You see, there's one of the transcripts where Joe and I talked about how he watched Patton, the film, because he knew that it was Nixon's favorite film and how this film gave him an insight into the mind of Nixon. And I think it's actually just part of good negotiating practice that you try and understand the person at the other side of the table from you and you try and connect. And I think good diplomats, good politicians are very aware of this that you can't do business as someone if you're not willing to speak their language in some form. You're not able to find mutual points of connection and engage with them and meet them where they are. And I think sometimes we've lost sight of that a little bit, you know, that it becomes just about interests. But you can't do that if you don't have trust and you don't have mutual respect. And that was one thing that really emerged through the archives is how much Nixon and Kissinger spoke about that importance of trust and empathy was a vehicle to build in that. And that's something that people like Professor Nick Wheeler and Ken Booth have written a lot on, you know, this centrality of trust and empathy is a real vehicle to help build that, especially when there's been long periods of animosity between two sides. And so how do those thoughts resonate with what we are seeing with the week to go to the American election with two candidates who appear to despise each other? I mean, I think it's just so interesting to see the nature of discourse in the US right now, the kind of the debates where you see how dialogue is really declined that there is this real division between the two sides and this lack of ability to build consensus. And I think, looking forward, what's going to be key, whoever wins. And I think, especially because Joe Biden has campaigned on a platform of empathy and unity and building back better, this kind of how does he reach out to those people who didn't vote Democrat. And especially for those who are undecided or who are not on the more extreme edge of the political spectrum. How do they say to them, you didn't vote for me, but I'm still going to care about your interest and your concerns. Because to move forward, there really needs to be this period of healing in this period of dialogue. There needs to be this sense of overcoming the divisions, finding areas of commonality because otherwise I think there's a danger they will entrench even more. We're seeing such division within the rhetoric and such kind of shaming as well on both sides. I think that's one thing we're seeing in the US and we also see in the UK that the mobilization and weaponization of shame and humiliation about political opponents. And I think it really makes it very hard to find a political space where both sides can come together when you start to deny another side their dignity, even if you disagree with them and you think that politics is awful. And even if you don't respect where they're coming from to not show them the dignity and give them space to at least engage in dialogue and listen to find those points of commonality to find, okay, we disagree on this. But actually we're both concerned about our economic well-being. We're both actually concerned that our children are healthy, that they have schools to go to, and that we have jobs. And so I think that's going to be key for whoever leads. I'm not sure how a new Donald Trump administration would do that because we haven't really seen that during the last few years from him. But I think it's something we much more would expect from Biden, but I don't think it's going to be easy. I think there's going to be many years ahead of trying to rebuild the kind of bridge and reconnect with society and both in Congress and in their political establishments and institutions, where there's been a real lack of cross-party collaboration since really the period of Reagan, but also within society and communities themselves. Yes, I don't want to be the sound like the voice of doom, but you don't feel that the positions are so entrenched in American society, not just American society, more broadly in Western democratic societies also, we see similar things happening. You don't think that positions are so deeply entrenched that you, as an advisor to policymakers and politicians, that you would have to just throw your hands up in the air and say, sorry, we have nowhere to go on this. You know me and you know I'm an eternal optimist. So no, I don't, but I do think it's a case of, you know, rolling up your sleeves and being really prepared to go, right, what have we learned from this period? And I think this is interesting because it speaks to the importance, for example, of honesty and for apology and for acknowledgement of error. We have not done this right. We have made errors and I think particularly for the Democrats in the US to be able to say, okay, you felt like maybe democratic politics has failed you. We've had this vision of liberal international politics that was meant to help everybody and create opportunities and some of you don't feel like we have. And this is what we're going to do about it. And the same in the UK, I mean, looking at the way in which the pandemic has been dealt with, I think there is this need to say we haven't got this right. And again, looking last week at the case with Marcus Rashford and Booth for schools, having someone come out and say, we got this wrong. This is how we're going to rectify it and it's a real concerted concrete plan of action that will make a difference and that acknowledges that maybe we misread the mood. And that's one thing we see from leaders who model good empathy is that they're not above accepting where they've made mistakes. You know that they're humble enough to say the facts have changed or my understanding has changed and now I'm going to change course. I, and I do think one thing the pandemic has shown us is the power of communities to come together in a crisis. Yes, it's been complicated by confused lockdown rules and by maybe, you know, breakdowns in trust in society towards political institutions or towards one another. But I think it's still possible that we can reconnect with that sentiment that had people staying home, looking after one another, making sure that those who are most vulnerable were cared for. There's something now that can be built on but it needs real genuine leadership and a commitment for something better. You mentioned before the need for new forms of leadership. And you mentioned two people, very specifically Barack Obama, and just into her in New Zealand. And a lot of people, of course, would be critical of Obama for being really quite intellectual, aloof, arrogant, distant, which is not the case with her visit.  And yes, and this is, this is a criticism that comes up often in relation to Obama that intellectually he fully understood the power of empathy. And his speeches on it, I mean from 2006 and onwards are beautiful, you know, you see, after this awful attack in a church in America. Yes, well, you know when he starts to sing amazing grace and you see the sense of connection that he has. But then other people would say but he doesn't always do the cross party work and he doesn't know how to connect with people if he's in the cerebral state and he's thinking. Whereas we see then with Jacinda Arden it seems very much integrated into how she engages with the world and those that she comes in contact with. And I think both are valuable. We need people who understand intellectually that empathy should be a form of, should be a tool within our politics that it should be something that we are using to try to understand how different people are living. And I think that's something that Obama did repeatedly in his speeches and in his outreach trying to empower different groups and organizations. But we also need to see from our leaders that they are accessible as well. I think this is what Jacinda Arden seems to do. You see her when she's hugging people after Christchurch when she really goes out into the communities. And she's also when she's there on the Zoom call with her baby and she's being very real and normal and, you know, on TikTok and making cups of tea. You know, people need to see that their leaders are accessible and that they care for them. So is this is so you putting all your money on one bet. Is it basically that we're relying on individuals to emerge in the in the coming years. Or would you propose that there are institutional structures that we can put into place that actually help this bridge building process in order to highlight the role of empathy and the need for it. I mean, I think I think there's multiple areas that we need to be looking at. I think absolutely it's hugely dependent on leadership and the ability to model good behavior, good practice, empathetic concern, understanding and new forms of discourse. But then we also need to be looking. Firstly, how do our organizations and institutions incorporate empathetic understanding into how they design policy and how they engage with diverse communities and reflect the concerns and needs and interests of them and show that they are really taking this inclusive and considered approach towards how we respond to the challenges that we're facing today. I think we also need to be talking about the media and the quality of media reporting on the ability of media to really lend its power. The media is so powerful like being able to shine a light on diverse stories and different accounts of politics and society and people's experiences in a very real and compelling way because it's using stories much more obviously and in a very emotive way. So we need to be looking at how the media provides comprehensive coverage of what we're facing and also holds governments and politicians to account that it's really doing that role in keeping the diversity and the inclusion of debate alive and giving people voice where maybe they don't feel they have one but I think critically we also need to not just look to other people to solve this and I think this is where it really comes down to citizens themselves. How are we in our everyday life going to contribute to more empathetic politics and that isn't about waiting for other people to do it for us. It's about sitting around the table this Christmas and saying you know what my uncle has crazy views on Brexit. How am I going to listen and how am I going to understand and have a dialogue and not just shut them down. And I know that you know I struggle with this as much as anybody else because we have this desire to be right and we have this desire to signal our own virtue. I think we need to be able to say OK where's the commonality what do we have in common what unites us and how do we start to listen and genuinely listen not not to think about what we're going to say next but to really listen to what other people are saying the stories that they have the experiences that they have the vulnerabilities that they're sharing and how do we understand sources of humiliation that people have felt because of the way our political systems are structured. How do we understand the inequalities that they're experienced because systems are not working for them. How do we start to create spaces for more tolerance and I will specify that this also should include creating clear boundaries and I don't mean that sitting and listening to other people is about just listening. No matter what they say it also means setting clear boundaries of if you're going to say anything racist or sexist or homophobic or misogynist or anything like that. There's no space in this dialogue for that. And that's what we need to get much better at doing it being able to kind of have tolerant inclusive understanding conversations with people while also being very clear on the limits of what is not acceptable. And I think that's how we start to change the conversation and I think it's a symbiotic relationship citizens and leadership and we start to then co create something. Very good. That's a perfect point for me to hand over now and to open the conversation out Andreas can actually lead this conversation from now on and over to Andrea. Thank you. Thank you very much to Claire and Neville for giving us an absolutely exciting intellectual ride through a lot of really interesting themes. Before we go into the discussion Q&A period. Can I first let everyone know because now names might be read out that we are recording this. So if you would rather not be known by your name then try to stay anonymous and I will not indicate that you would rather not I read out your name. And secondly for your questions. Could you please type them into the Q&A box and then I will be able to read them out and put them to Claire. While everyone is thinking to pick up a theme Claire that you almost ended on and that is the question of once uncle's awkward views about Brexit. If a particular theme or topic or political almost one ideology has been become almost weaponized or hijacked by arguably by a by by a group of people who have a very clear agenda which may or may not some people may not agree with me. But maybe very much narrow very much more hard line than perhaps many of the people who voted for Brexit intended because for them. The reason for voting for Brexit was another than the reasons for which we're now leaving potentially with no deal or if we have a deal with a very thin deal and the people. Some of the people who voted for Brexit might actually end up having to be punished for being punished for that decision. Now if there are so many other influences which have skewed the debate is there a comeback via empathy or does it take more or something different in addition to empathy beyond the individual level. In terms of bringing different people together again yeah yeah I mean empathy is always just going to be one of many tools. I think what it does is it lets people feel seen and it lets people feel that they are being listened to which is valuable but I think as well it also needs to be matched with a genuine understanding of where are these more extreme views coming from. And in some times you're actually not going to be able to negotiate with them you're not going to be able to say to kind of give validity to some of their views. So then it's are there other points of connection are they talking really about frustration to do with unemployment to do with their financial situation to do with opportunities like how do we find other points of connection. And I think there's interesting there's some interesting work done in kind of conflict resolution on how you bring in groups from the extremes, you know, and sometimes it's, sometimes it's impossible some groups will be beyond the scope of bringing them into the fall but then there might be ways in which, offering small amounts of power or offering opportunities to connect on issues that are important to them but that do not do harm to others. And might then help kind of neutralize some of that I mean I think it's, it's incredibly problematic and that's the problem and we see this as well politically when you do get people such as Hillary Clinton talk about the need to empathize with America's then that the question then in the house about do you really mean we're meant to empathize with ISIS, you know, and how do you politically make a case like that. You know, and how do you try and say well actually yes we do and maybe, maybe what it is about is understanding the difference between public and private spaces it's about understanding what kinds of expressions of understanding should be done publicly, what should be done about private initiatives or trying to find ways to build relations and build trust so that people then feel that they are able to engage in a process again that they're not being marginalized or sidelined in it. But I don't think empathy is a magic bullet I think it's a real critical asset but I don't think it's a magic bullet. Yeah, I entirely agree. I think another sort of set of people I had in mind was that the vertical question of those who voted for Brexit and those who are not driving the implementation of it but we can park that for the moment because we have a question inviting you to please, but from Nikki to please speak on the role of vulnerability and also gender as we've talked about just in the adan in empathy. So the role of vulnerability and of gender in empathy. Yes. I think this discussion about gender and empathy is fascinating and also any discussion of vulnerability I think just speaks to one the work of Brené Brown, who's kind of sociologist who really talks about vulnerability. And the power of people to be able to share their concerns in a in a way that is safe and how do you build political environments where we don't need to see the strong man who actually doesn't have all the answers but therefore creates more problems because they aren't able to be vulnerable or humble enough to accept that they didn't get it right, or they don't really know what they're doing and then don't really know how to manage a situation. And therefore we'll talk you through the process and I think in gender terms we've seen throughout this pandemic. A lot written about the power of female of women and leadership and female leadership to express concern for others to show care and compassion for citizens and to seek advice and change course when it's being needed. And I think it's really important because it shines a light on different forms of power that power is not just about might and domination and strength and this sense of being an impervious figurehead that actually power can be about vulnerability and showing that you care and that you want you want the best for the people that you're serving in a position of leadership. But I also would argue that empathy is not an intrinsically female trait. I think as it's dimension that women have maybe been traditionally socially constructed or being conditioned to care because of the roles that people have taken within society. But actually, if we view it as just a female trait, I think we do a real disservice to many empathetic men and we should be empowering men to express more emotion and more empathy as a source of power and strength. Thank you very much. That was really enlightening. I hope Nikki is happy with the answer. If you have further questions, please just type type them in. Here's Olivia Kearney asking thanks for first thanking you for a great presentation. And then she was wondering if you could speak a bit more about what you were discussing with the mobilization of shame, especially during a campaign time I feel like there's too often too often a do as I say not do as I do approach from politicians. In the case of Biden and Trump, Biden obviously doesn't have a brush comments as brush comments as Trump, but they're still strong political rivalry and opposing Twitter comments. What have you seen in terms of the disconnect between leaders promoting some sort of empathy through their words but their actions say otherwise, which is a stronger force how can we work towards not undermining to not undermine attempts at empathy. I suppose that speaks to your distinction between sincere empathy and and performed empathy and I was going to ask on that as well so I hand over to you. Yes. So I hear two questions in there. The first is about the use of shame, which I'll come to second. And the second line is about this mismatch between what people say they are, and then what they do. And to me this really speaks to the importance of integrity and we don't really talk about what it means to have integrity and politics anymore but we need to return to a view of people valuing the idea that you are who you say you are and that you will do what you say you will do. And I think it's quite interesting looking at what happened in the UK. During the lockdown first lockdown I'm originally from up north. And it's so interesting to talk to people up north who really say the moment that Dominic Cummings broke lockdown is the moment we lost trust with the government. I know that's understood fully in the capital and people really felt like they're being, they're actually willingly giving up freedoms and giving up their social life and their, and their kind of everyday normality to try to protect people and to look back to the NHS and then it's being broken and that sense of trust. And it speaks to the kind of the importance of trust within society that politicians are doing what they say they'll do, and that they are also doing it in the best interest of society and I think the politicians deviate from that, the harder it becomes for people to trust them. And that has implications that extend beyond the immediate act itself because it starts to deteriorate the kind of the fabric of the social contract, the fabric of what we expect from positions of leadership and government. And I think again, it's interesting what we would tolerate from Trump and what we would tolerate from Biden may be different. I think it's quite interesting that what Trump is able to get away with politically is very different to what we would permit from Joe Biden. And I think it's interesting to say why is that what is the perception of the character of the man that someone can do so much more with so little consequences, where someone else we hold to a different standard, and we need to be reflecting on that like why is that that's happening. And so I would really speak to the power of integrity and really understanding how we rebuild integrity and political office. And then I would also look as well this idea of shame is I think so key we, it's such a powerful political tool but I think it's incredibly destructive. Because the more we shame people I think we find that it has a counterintuitive logic we think by shaming people for not wearing masks for not behaving according to certain norms of society for deviating from the standard expectations of behavior we think that they will change their course of action and come back to behave in the way that we expect they should. But actually shame often forces people to entrench even more in that identity or to do other behaviors that are equally provocative. And I think it also makes it harder for them to then feel heard and understood which makes it harder to then connect to bring them back into the political space to then create something that's more inclusive and fair and so we need to be looking at how we're using it. And shame certainly has a role, but we need to look at when it's when the balance is wrong. Thank you very much Claire that was very enlightening. You talked earlier in your in your in your presentation you talked about morality and and that was sort of linked into the question of sincere empathy versus performative empathy. Could it be that there and what you also talked about how we don't necessarily see Trump's empathy, even though his followers might see his approach as empathetic, whereas we are for us it's easier to recognize Biden's empathy. But this have something to do with different moral codes so that the value set Trump appeals to gets transmitted through a vehicle that is recognizable by his followers as empathetic and not by us because we have a different value set which is more likely to be a certain value set of morality and this is where one can then start talking about maybe different types of morality, which made it make a difference in what we recognize as empathy. I wonder whether you had any thoughts about that or on that. Yes, I mean I think, I think discussions of morality is so interesting and also again quite subjective and we can, we could have a kind of incredible philosophical discussion about. I really think it speaks to as well as the diversity in people's expectations of politics and politicians, and what they feel their role is, and what they feel their engagement with it is and also how involved they want politicians to be and it's one politicians who are taking up a moral crusade to end hunger and poverty and provide education for all or do you actually believe that the imperative of politicians is to leave you well alone, and to just provide the very basics and then it's up to you to be a powerful citizen who provides it. And I think we see this especially in America that there are different expectations and demands made. And it's slightly less I think in the UK because we have different systems and structures. And I know throughout Europe and beyond this kind of every society has its different kind of origins and evolution that it speaks to but I think especially in America. So morality is connected to what people want to see and what they feel is needed and required of society. And we're seeing that really play out right now. Thank you very much. I have a question from Monica Jill. Thank you for you for a great discussion could Claire possibly speak to the relationship between empathy and compassion, how as tools might they be deployed in different ways in politics. Thank you Claire. And I really probably should have given a definition in the first opening section on the difference between everything compassion so thank you for that question. So, everything compassion, I think are connected, but they're not the same. Compassion is an expression of care for another and it's often pro social acts of compassion often compels action it compels a response for you to try to alleviate or help the suffering or pain of another. And there's this amazing movement right now compassion and politics which is really looking at putting care back into politics and really looking at how do we design societies that really privilege individuals, especially vulnerable individuals but everybody as part of a society. And so I think compassion therefore becomes a really motivating tool for this citizen centric approach to politics and empathy is connected to that and empathy is about acknowledging that there is no unity, unitary experience of society and politics, and that there is there is a diversity and plurality of experiences, but it doesn't necessarily compel action to alleviate pain or suffering. I think as a model could but as we spoke about the subjectivity of empathy means that it's multi directional. And so you then get into questions of, who are you empathizing with, what are the implications of that empathy, what's the power of that empathy, who, who should you direct your attention towards whose story should you be listening to. So empathy serves as a tool to try to gather as much information, and as much understanding to make informed, sensitive responsive policies to the very different communities and experiences that we have with any within any country. But it doesn't necessarily compel that same action, we then determine how much it informs the responses. So it's more cognitive in some ways. Thank you very much Claire I have two more questions both are slightly lengthy but I will still read them up because you need the context in which they've been asked both contributors thank you very much for a wonderful or fantastic discussion. So they both were enamored, which is good. So Caroline Faber is asking, when you were talking about the role of empathy informed policy and particularly in US China relations. She was thinking about how empathy might connect to or be more central to administrations that have adopted an explicitly feminist foreign or development policies such as Sweden and Canada. And so Caroline was wondering whether you had any thoughts on what role empathy might play in a feminist foreign policy. I think it's absolutely key to a feminist foreign policy. And again, there's some great people who are doing work on feminist foreign policy right now, such as essential from feminist foreign policy. And it really, because of, because the very idea is saying there is not one voice within a foreign policy, it forces people to confront alternative voices. And to say how do women for example experience politics differently how do policies have diverse implications depending on your gender or your sexuality or your position within society. And what are the implications then for the impact of that policy and I think these countries that you mentioned that have started to consider it recognizing that politics has manifold applications. And if we only look very narrowly at politics as being about dealing with a citizen who is kind of homogenous and data driven, we miss the fact that there are so many different stories. We miss the fact that people come from so many different backgrounds and that there is this very different encounter with politics. And so I think it forces self reflection and I think that's also one of the things that's key to empathy for me is for people to be empathetic they have to be willing to self reflect both on their own assumptions their prejudices their experiences and their past actions and behaviors and be able to acknowledge how that's had an impact on others and be willing to kind of recognize and change it where appropriate. I think it's that kind of management of ego that's really key. Management of ego I like that concept. That is a very, very important concept. I think underwriting the power of humor is partly related to self defecation. So Callis Loggins, I hope I didn't completely mangle and mispronounce that surname. Thanks you for a fantastic discussion and says, I'm interested in your recent work on strategic empathy you spoke earlier about that crucial difference between performative and sincere empathy, but where do you draw the line between the strategic empathy is almost inherently a tool for achieving political aim. Is it more about the motivation behind that expression of empathy or rather about the goal it's trying to achieve. Or is that judgment simply made from an individual's own subjectivity. So the difference small western really cool and the difference between strategic and performative empathy. I say strategic empathy, as I understand it is. It's about using empathy as a way to inform sound decision making that takes into account the longer term in longer term, longer term implications of a policy, and really being able to consider how do other people experience what we're doing. How have other people in the past experienced us. So for example in the case of the US and China, the US would ask, how does China view the United States based on its past interactions with it. But you know the opening of China in the 1800s and that sense of century of humiliation it's understanding the other to then determine how you design policy and strategy that's more responsive and nuanced towards someone else. And so it comes, it covers a much broader range of processes within policymaking and politics in terms of decision making in terms of diplomatic practice in terms of the ideas and intellectual process involved. Formative empathy is then about this sense of using empathy to signal your virtues to signal your character and your care. And that then can be sincere or it could be solely because you acknowledge people right now need to see that I am on top of the great wall of China talking about China's cultural heritage, because people need to feel within China not the people across the table in the room, I mean, but the people of China need to see that America is thinking differently about China, and that we're acknowledging the civilization and the decades of animosity that we've had and to signal that it's coming to an end. And it's not then about understanding the whole Chinese population in a strategic sense to understand the formative power that empathy has in saying, we are changing, we are listening, we are caring. And so for me, it's slightly different. They're very connected, but it's slightly different performative is very much that kind of you see as well a lot of people talk about how empathetic they are and then you see that actually behind the scenes they're not necessarily practicing it or putting it into effect. It's very much about the need to be seen to be virtuous and that virtue signaling. Thank you, Claire. I'm Marina de Largi. I hope that's correct. So does empathy exist in politics and post Soviet countries, for example, in Russia or Ukraine, which I think is a really interesting question. I'm assuming it does exist, but let's see what Claire tells us. Yes, I mean, I think whatever you have a sense of shared history or shared identity or common stories, you will find that there are sources of empathy that people will feel a sense of connection for the other. The question is then what do people do with that. How does that then inform the way in which they engage with others, their sense of identity. How does it inform politics and I think we've seen in some of the post Soviet countries that some leaders have really played on the empathy that they've, you know, that sense of connection that they feel in terms of identity to their history to try to create a different sense of national identity today. But I'm not an expert on kind of the post Soviet states themselves to be able to give very concrete detailed examples of exactly where we're seeing it. So Vladimir Putin is quite skilled at creating performative empathy, his photo series of, of riding their chested through Siberia or gambling with little baby tigers probably is meant to create empathetic connections with a large part of the Russian population. So I'm assuming there's quite a lot, a lot in there. And one last questions, question. Nikki has come back, which is welcome back Nikki. She asks, in my reading on empathy, I have recently discovered the topic of empathy fatigue, particularly from Professor Kristen Neff, often referenced by Brené Brown. Is this something that you have seen in your research and could you speak to that please. Yes, I think it's absolutely key this idea that we only have so much bandwidth emotionally, personally, politically. And this idea of empathy fatigue where you can no longer take in the concerns of others and this is why when I'm in the concluding part of my remarks really talking about the need for boundaries within this and again it's something that this authors also speak about that need to set the sense of, I care, but these are the boundaries like this is what I cannot engage with. And so I think we need to look at how we manage that kind of fatigue, how do you learn about different experiences and really understand some of the hardships that people are going through that maybe we're unaware of either because we haven't thought to before because actually, it feels like too much to care we need to be able to engage with that and I think the more we're able to discuss it, and we're able to talk about for example Britain's history of slavery and colonialism we have to be having that conversation. And I think in that process there will be a sense of empathy fatigue that people will, because they don't know what how to process the emotions that arise with that storytelling but we have to do it. And then you have a storytelling process. The more we talk about the problems of those stories, like how it is hard to learn these things that have not been told or shared, but absolutely should be told or shared because they're part of our collective history. The easier it becomes to manage it that this isn't something that you have to do on your own. It's a collective effort and I think that therefore helps to alleviate some of that fatigue but we also need to recognize that it's okay to say, today I need to turn off the news. Today I don't need to hear another story about the pandemic. I cannot watch a documentary about war. I'm going to take a break and then I'm going to come back to it when I'm ready. Like this need for us to always be on and always be empathetic is I think also harmful for ourselves. So it's finding the way to balance it intelligently. So we use it most constructively and most powerfully. Thank you Claire. Now, this is really the last question that we can just about squeezing. This is from Francisco Lobo. Thank you for your presentation he says. Do you and I'm very glad we have a little bit more gender balance here because it was very much skewed towards the female part of the audience. Initially so Francisco, you've done well. So yes, do you believe empathy is the modern equivalent of the revolutionary concept of fraternity and if so how can it do better than its predecessor in the 21st century so how can it do better now than its predecessor had been doing. Yes, I mean I think in some ways yes I think all of these concepts have in common is a desire to recognize our shared humanity. We're all individuals. We're all part of the same community in so many ways and we need to then reconnect with others. And I think empathy is about that process of recognizing the shared humanity with others and of trying to work, not for our individual self aggrandizement and our own gain. But for the collective good and to work together as part of a society to create something better that really addresses the inequalities and injustices that people are seeing and to try and reduce the harms that people are experiencing. I think these themes are recurring. I think empathy broadens it beyond fraternity to sisters and everybody else within the spectrum of humankind and we need to be doing that. Well, thank you very much Claire. We are almost entirely on the dot. I mean that is well organized. Thank you for what I thought was an amazingly interesting last hour. It was one of those highlights of the day. But if I don't learn anything else today, then I shall have done all my learning and then some. I hope everyone in the audience goes away as enriched and stimulated for further thoughts and has lots of other creative ideas around empathy. Thank you again for joining us and for making this such a rewarding experience. I shall formally close the session in a second, but I want to ask never whether he would like to have the last word. Forgive me I'd already switched off just so you wouldn't hear me me drinking my coffee. I'd just like to thank Claire very much for being so open and responsive as well because some of these questions have been really, really quite challenging questions. And thank you. Thank you for addressing them and embracing them with great sympathy and understanding. And I agree with Andrea. I've learned a lot today and I'll carry a lot away from this from this session. Thank you. Thank you to everybody as well for taking part and joining us. Yes, thank you to all the participants for asking very, very good questions. So have a great afternoon and when the weekend comes a great weekend.


You're welcome back to the breakfast on Plus TV Africa. We're finally talking about today in history and I'm going back to the year 1951 on this day, the 8th of July. And on this day in history, the city of Paris celebrated its 2000th birthday. Now, this may not seem like a big deal, but there are only a few cities in Europe that can actually boast of such rich history, such long history that can boast that they have the word BC around their name. I mean, this is a city that is known as the city of light. It was most likely founded around 250 BC and the history, like I mentioned, very rich. And this was, it can be traced to the Gallic tribe known as the Parisi. Now, this tribe around this 250 BC settled on an island that runs through present day Paris. It's a very long story about how, you know, Paris then eventually became the capital of France. But it was such a historic moment in time, you know, that they had to celebrate when they clocked their 2000th birthday on the 8th of July, 1951. Right now, Paris is home to about two million residents and an additional 10 million people live in the surrounding areas in Paris. And it's one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. It's renowned for sites like the Eiffel Tower. And this was built in 1998, 1889 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the French Revolution. And that's it for today in history. Totally love it. Love the story. Love, you know, love how much, you know, can be learned in 2000 years in one city. And you can imagine the amount of development and growth and culture and tradition, well, not tradition, well, some tradition, but history basically that lives in that city also reminds me of how much I need to travel and, you know, we need to visit the world.  There's a time that I lived in Paris. That's a lie. Also visit your village people. That's a lie. But yeah, you know, it's really, really interesting.  Yes, I'm talking about Nigeria. Well, when I, when I read stories about cities like this, and I think about, you know, the comparison to Nigeria, you see how they preserve structures that have been there for decades and decades. But here, if when a man has money, he feels, oh, the mother house is outdated, and they, you know, they demolish it and build a new one. I'm not saying don't build a new one, but there's just an attitude that we have that unless you go to like the remote hinterlands, would you find, you know, buildings or, you know, more structures that have been there? I've been standing for thousands and thousands of years. We need to preserve these things. So I think the problem is really because we don't take our tourism, you know, sector seriously. That's one. And then second, we, we don't value, I don't think in Nigeria, we value our story as much as we should.  Languages that are even lost, extinct. There's so much history in, you know, four, five, six different cities, you know, in Nigeria that should make, should make books across the world, you know, people would love to read about. But these things aren't things, I mean, I remember that, you know, we probably heard these things when I was in primary school, you know, maybe junior secondary school, but that's the end of that conversation. And you stop to hear about Ibadon. You stop to hear about Belkota. You stop to hear about, you know, some of those mountainous regions, rocky areas in the in the north, you know, that really had rich, rich, rich history. The city of Benin also, the only time you hear about those things now, when there's arguments about where, what are your, what people came from, those things. But do you know why these things out? Do you know why this is white as today? It still goes back to our past, our history regarding how we communicate and how we preserve our own history. We know that for Africa, we were big on oral tradition, right? We pass our story through word of mouth. The father tells the grandfather or the grandfather tells the father who tells the son, that's how it is. And you know, over time, your memory changes, your memory fades in some way. So you don't exactly get the full grasp of the story. And you sometimes you forget, but you see abroad how they write, they document things. So we need to start documenting our own stories, rather than, you know, it's sad that if I want to find out about My Own City, it's a book written by a white man or something compound by a white person on Wikipedia. You don't have Nigerian authors telling authentic Nigerian stories about our history. I think that's one of the reasons why we have, so we need more writers, need more storytellers, more historians. Yes, you know, and I agree that we should do, you know, not do oral, you know, transfer of knowledge and history. These things should be written. They should be, they should be documented. But that's when we decide that we're going to take these things seriously. For a long time, we have failed to take it seriously. And that has given the space for people to rewrite history and create their own narratives from, from, you know, where we're coming from. These are cities that are thousands of years old. People will tell you where the ebos come from. Even those who want to argue whether the ebos are Jews or not Jews, you know, that's a really weird argument. But they will tell you so much about, you know, how long the ebos have been on the earth. You know, how long the Bini people have been on the earth, how long the Yoruba people and Fulani people have been on the earth. They will tell you all those stories. But we, we in Nigeria don't have those. Take, take, for instance, Egypt. Egypt is one of the oldest civilizations on earth, right? They documented, quite all right, but they use heligraphics, right? It's this system of, you know, writing, communicating through certain inscriptions. And people had to go study how to understand and decipher those languages and codes.  But because it wasn't English, a language that we all generally now have come to understand, you know, that barrier is still there. So it still, it still remains that we need to preserve what we're coming from through, you know, by writing that, by writing stories about it.  All right. We spoke about football a few minutes ago with Wale Scott. I'm going back to tell you a little bit more about football in history. And we're going back to 2014. In recent history, not very long ago, a couple of months ago, about a year ago, we saw one of the most shocking defeats in football history. And that was Bayern Munich against Barcelona that ended 8-2. But before that, in 2014, on this day, one of the world's most shocking defeats occurred. And that was Germany completely blowing away the Brazilian national team that was at that time seen as favorites to win the World Cup. Germany eventually did win it, and Brazil came out fourth.  Seven goes to Neil. Beats them black and blue and many other colors. Seven won, I beg your pardon. Beat them in numerous colors that were not in any way good. Beat them rainbow. It was also an interesting day because nobody expected it to be that bad. I mean, people maybe had, you know, thought that one team was going to win, but no one thought it was going to be that bad. I think Tony Cruz eventually, you know, also, I think scored three goals in that game and took over as highest goal score at that time from Ronaldo. It was a shocking, embarrassing defeat of the Brazilian national team. And let me share a couple of records that he'd also broke. It marked several record, tournament records. Germany's win marked the largest margin of victory in a FIFA World Cup semi-final. The game saw Germany overtake Brazil as the highest scoring team in the World Cup tournament history and become the first team to reach eight World Cup finals. Miroslav Klosas scored his 16th World Cup career goal and surpassed Brazil's own Ronaldo as the tournament's all-time goals score. And of course, Brazil at that time had a 62 match on beaten record, but, you know, that ended on that day with those goals. Those seven goals. Eventually, of course, Brazil still lost, you know, the third place match and eventually finished fourth while Germany went on to win the World Cup. Wow. This match, like, it buffered a lot of pundits. It buffered lots of sports analysts because the question they could all ask was what went wrong? What went wrong with Brazil? What went wrong with the match? Like I mentioned, it went on to break lots of records as one of the most goals scored in the semi-final, you know, and all of that. Yeah, I guess that's one record that meant four to be broken. Absolutely. Another record I remember is Manchester United against Roma. Seven goes to one, Champions League.  No big deal. Anyway, that's the day in history 2014. Seven goes to one, Germany against Brazil, and of course, the city of Paris. Yes, 1951, when they celebrated their 2000th year anniversary. And that's it from us today. Thank you for staying with us all through till 10 a.m. I am Aneta Felix. And I am Osaugi Obama, wish you a very beautiful Thursday ahead.


So we just got home from my sisters and I'm just about to do a bit of bulk cooking for the coming days. We've got basically one and a half KG of lean kangaroo mints made up into meatballs and kangaroo patties, and they're delicious and fuck, and that crows, you can't really beat them. These burger patties, each one, 27 grams of protein, three grams of fat, one gram of carbs. And these meatballs, which actually have some tomato through them, have 27 grams of protein, one gram of fat and five grams of carbs.  Tell you what, get on this games. This is games too. This bridge, but the reason I'm showing you this bridge is because this took two years to make. That is some good news. Anyways, what are we gonna talk about? Just got home from work. It's a long day, 10 hour day.  And it was a 10 hour shift. It's about eight o'clock at night now. But I think we actually talked. We talked like the whole entire day.  Well, it feels like I do. And I suppose you gotta give everyone a chance. And I didn't even know the camp before I started working today. So it was probably pretty bad on my behalf to go into the situation, feeling like I was this morning, which was like, can't be fucked. But no, it was good. The client was all right today. So, you know, it's a good day. It's a good day when the client's good, it's a good day. I pasted some wisdom on Reese, is his name. And we had a great time. So anyways, it was actually really cool because I haven't edited any of this footage yet. So I've, you know, I've got hours. I've actually got hours of footage so far. So today I actually had a bit of spare time while my client was in town to actually sit down on my laptop and, you know, crack into things.  But when I'm at work and I'm actually getting paid, fuck, I'll knuckle down to anything. You know, anything that's not work related is like bonus because I'm getting paid. So that's what I did today. I put together the first couple of vlogs, which I'm excited about. I'm really excited to bring this series to you. I'm tightening up, which is the main thing. You know, getting leaner again. I've still got quite a lot around the lower abs and around the lower back. But I know that, you know, once I start really getting into that, then my body is gonna change a lot.  It's all gonna come from my waist. So what that basically means is that the V-taper goes from being like that, like that, to like that.  So anyways, that's exciting. I'm obviously sticking to the diet well, and it's working, which is great. A couple of things I've got to do tomorrow, which I'll say now because otherwise I'll forget, is I've got my car booked in for a service. So I've got the day off. I've got a couple of things I need to do. Cars booked in for a service. And I have an appointment with the bank manager, finally. So I haven't been able to get in, you know, since I made the offer on the place, on my house, investment property. So finally, I'm actually going to go and see him and put together a proper application for the full purchase price because I actually only got approved for 250K when I'm actually going to need about 280. So that's a bit stressful, but it's okay. So we'll go in there tomorrow, see how we are.    Cause a couple of weeks ago, probably about three weeks ago, I actually made a video on my channel about finally going through all of my finances and getting everything, you know, in place in order payment arrangements in place of things that I'd let go.  I thought, right, I bought the house, that's the main thing, you know, I got that loan, this place I'm talking about, not the second one. And I just let everything slide, you know? And my rego was out, my license has been suspended cause I didn't pay fines.    Which I would recommend that you guys do as well, depending on your situation. You know, I'm 25, I've got quite a few expenses now, nowadays, it's not like I was living at home anymore. So I would recommend, you know, knuckling down one day, writing up an Excel spreadsheet on the computer, which is what I did, and budgeting, you know, knowing how many expenses are actually coming out of your account. Because at that stage, when I did that, I was just about to put in an offer on a second property. And I thought, well, before I do anything stupid, I really need to know whether I can actually afford this. And it turns out that, you know, it's gonna be a stretch, but I can. And I have, yeah, decided on a property and it's all go, it's all great, I'm excited.  And it's just, it's statements and a couple of bills there, so I'll pay them tomorrow too. But I'm feeling good, everything's sweet. I've actually got one of these. Oh look, I mean, the packages are my, well, what is it? Oh, that actually might be the TMJ hoodie and the sups that I got the other day. Cause I haven't checked it since then, so maybe I don't have anything.  But anyways, it's eight o'clock at night, finished a 10 hour day. I fasted until three o'clock p.m.  I'm awake, five or six hours.  But since three till about eight o'clock tonight, five hours I've had about a thousand calories. I'm not feeling too bad, although I am gonna have something else before I go to the gym. And then I will be smashing another workout as per usual, you know how we do it. I did back yesterday, a big back session. I did chest the day before, triceps and legs the day before that.  But anyways, last night I was meant to hit biceps after doing back, so I'm gonna do biceps and I will be coupling that with something else as well, but I'm not sure what. So that'll be good.  Not bad, not bad. I'd like it to be up here though. That'd be pretty sweet. One day. Anyway, that's enough talking for now. I will take my camera to the gym, get a bit of footage. I hope you guys have been liking my footage in the gym. You know, I'm not doing anything different to what I'd normally do. I'm just training normally. It's just I'm setting up a camera. So if you guys want to see voiceovers or you just want music to the background or whatever you want to see, let us know because I'm all about the people and this channel will be nothing without you guys. So I really appreciate all the support once again and I'll see you in the next clip. All right, we are nearly ready. Decked out, the gym stays. White on white's tee and the black track shorts and tights, feeling like I got swag. Gonna be the swaggeriest swagmaster in the gym.  So whenever you see me without glasses, I'm guaranteed to have contacts in.  I can't even see like hardly that camera.  Needed them since I was five. It's actually funny, man. I used to want to sit at the back of the class like everyone else does, but I literally could not see anything on the board. So my work would only go as fast as the person behind the Sony because I'd have to copy everything off the airport. But that brings back some memories. If only, if only I was as confident as I am now when I was at high school. Then I would have wore glasses every single day and had a much better time. But at that age, you care far too much about what anyone else thinks and you're not gonna wear glasses, are you? Oops, what are you gonna do?


From San Francisco extracting the signal from the noise. It's the Q covering oracle open world 2015 Brought to you by Oracle Now your hosts John Furrier and Stu Miniman Okay, welcome back everyone. We are here live in San Francisco for Silicon angles the cube This is our flagship program. We go out to the events and extract the signal noise I'm John Furrier the founder of Silicon Island showing Stu Miniman our big our systems analysts at wikibon.com Our next is a John Fowler executive vice president of the systems group within Oracle the head honcho for the engineering systems former cube alum Engineering legend in the industry been following your career for a long time. Welcome back to the cube All right, thanks for having me guys on the big stage So so obviously the big thing right now in our mind is cloud end of the client server era You've been a big engineering part of that era the cloud is here. It's all about going to the next generation So there's a lot of systems being discussed systems systems conversations. What's the next operating system? But yet you got cloud mobile social you got a transformation on the database side big data analytics all this stuff pointing to the Integrated cloud of which engineered systems is a big part of it So as someone who's been in the industry for so many years I mean, how do you make sense of this because you've got a good perspective you've got a historical perspective But you're also on the front lines of Oracle's leadership team building out the engineering Yeah, so I mean it's interesting because I think a cloud in a lot of ways is the same thing again Right, which is how do you have great programming interfaces? How do you make sure that applications can run? How do you then solve business problems? But then express in a different way which is instead of the classical way where you just buy all your own stuff and And develop and run it yourself. You have other people helping you do that The interesting thing is in the cloud is then the problems are the same for the people who run it where they care about they got to have Security they got to have performance. They got to have reliability. They've got to have Efficiency so they have cost so in a way it's a kind of a twist on The same technical problems we've been trying to solve for years and years the business side of it is expressed differently So it feels different to people because the business side is expressed differently, but the technical problems are very much the same Security's top of mind this year. I see in the engineering systems security's been around for a while encryption specifically And now we talked last at Oracle's cloud announcement Redwood shores and we were talking about silicon, right? Putting software on silicon me and Dave a lot they would you want Dean were like man This is the holy grail if you can abstract down to the chip level. Yeah, you can do encapsulate and abstract away a lot of the Pain in the butt kind of things that that bother people around security audits these things So what what is going on in silicon right now and relatively with respect to security? Yeah, so thanks We've we've had a you know a direction for a while now where we take hardware and software engineers and put them together And you've seen that next to data and our storage products and others The thing that we've been working on now for several years is how do we take that knowledge and take it all the way to Processor development, which I believe is really what the next decades about it's not just about cores and threads anymore It's gonna be putting functions in silicon and so this week We will be making major announcement of new hardware incorporating that new silicon which includes we tackle two big problems Besides performance is how do we improve security and then how do we prove the database and and and database performance and efficiency So in security encryption's funny old technology But people suddenly care and that's because there's a lot going on in the world right and It's important. So we got Java one going on today, right? I'll see there's a database transformation going on. You're seeing it now in cloud I'm gonna on-prem. I got hybrid cloud got public cloud. You guys are the number one database out there You got Java going on now and people want end-to-end security without without performance sacrifices Absolutely everyone would always optimize around performance because of the database Overhead and the overhead involved in Java now if you take the overhead away, that's cool I get that yeah, but now security again encryption pretty intensive Yeah, what is yeah So my vision is a fully encrypted data center and by that I mean is nothing coming in nothing getting stored Nothing going out is unencrypted. There is no clear clear is gone Okay, and by building this into processors it scales with everybody's infrastructure, right? You don't have the SSL terminator you have it built into every application process So what we'll be talking about this week and announcing products around is products that can do exactly that You can turn on and use encryption at all tiers of your application And you can have nothing in the clear and still accomplish the kind of performance and latency that customers want to expect But better yet it's built in so you don't have to be a total we need to go use it, right? It's just built in you go use it so that is absolutely a goal And what about performance what about performance great performance will announce world record benchmarks and we're submitting Encrypted which is not in a requirement of the benchmarks because our passion is we believe that you should be able to turn on encryption And still have outstanding business performance, so we'll announce World records in computational style benchmarks where we've turned on encryption even though that's not a requirement of the benchmark Just to show off and core up it's on cores I'll see it's Moore's law more smaller faster cheaper That's been a big thing of the industry any updates on Cores that you guys going to be announcing. Yeah, so we'll have the world's highest core count at 32 We're going to have a huge clock rate We're going to have all the usual things to give you a world record benchmark But the other thing we've done is we've integrated some capabilities specifically for data analytics So we work with the Oracle database team and we've integrated co processors that understand data And it's called the data analytics accelerator and we've made the Oracle database work with this to tremendously Accelerate the common data manipulation well if you don't realize sort of like encryption is Today most applications are doing a huge amount of work just to take a bite put it over here take a bite put it over here Compare it. We're making those accelerated action by co processors So we're using silicon in more clever ways than just cores and threads John first of all congratulations five years ago Steve mill said that spark was dead and obviously it's not dead Yeah, can you talk a little bit about how from an engineering standpoint you keep, you know pushing and pushing the ball forward And you know differentiating against x86 How do you fight that you know beating drum of Moore's law? Yeah, I mean, let me be very candid You know when we came into Oracle is kind of a tough fight and you know the conversation Larry and I had was We're gonna go partner really hard with Intel But let's look at some things we can do differentiate because we want all the customers to come to us So regardless whether you like Intel or you want to look at our differentiation So security and database acceleration with two of the early areas we looked at which is how do we do those now? The interesting thing is it's very hard to actually do technically So we put together engineering teams. We built simulation models. We designed chips We ran workloads before we made the chips So we know that we're on the right track because in one place we're able to design it empirically understand whether it would work So, you know, it's been an exciting journey We have come out now. This will be our Sixth processor in five years is joining Oracle, which is a tremendous pace of processor development So earlier this year at the engineered systems launch you talked to Dave Vellante about how not only you're building kind of the integration into The hardware, but you also have to support an ecosystem Can you talk a little bit to the kind of the balance that you have there? I mean I look at tonight's keynote the CEO of Intel is gonna be there. So obviously there's that tension Yeah, so obviously a company like Oracle has to both both partner as well as compete on many levels And so we want to make sure our software runs on everything as optimized as possible And we're not afraid to innovate the hardware layer because at the end of the day What we're thinking about is we're not as much thinking about all these different vendors as we are as one of the customer wants Right and their customers are gonna want extra security in their silicon They're gonna want to have the high performance data analytics and their customers that want some of the economic Open capabilities of Intel. That's okay. Right. That's okay. It's good for us people want more They want more they want more they want more cash. They want more performance. They want more cores. They want lower latency And particularly you mentioned big data analytics Sequel on silicon is something that we've been seeing Teasing out the last time. What is the sequel on silicon? Is that Oracle only environment or how do you look beyond Oracle on? Yeah, good question So so we evolved the original design with the Oracle database team But we designed it to be data analytics acceleration. Okay, and at this show this week, we'll be demonstrating Spark with a K There's an open-source project called spark with a K Which is about in-memory analytics on top of Hadoop and so we've integrated the software and silicon data analytics Accelerator in with spark and we'll be showing a demonstration here on the demo floor, which I hope you come see it's Sintolating I promise but it shows the performance capability you can get when you integrate some actual function I do that and we think there's going to be a number of other applications That take advantage of these so obviously first out of the gate is the Oracle database, but we're completely open It's an open interface. We provide the libraries will provide the programming tools other people will take advantage of these to build data rich Applications, yeah, so you bring up a great point We've been looking at wiki bond kind of the intersection of technologies like flash and how in-memory analytics applications Are going to affect things when you look out a couple of years What do you think the kind of data center of the next couple of years is going to look like what's kind of some of the Flash and I've always gone on record I'm a little counterculture of saying flash isn't that exciting because I actually want everything in memory So if you look at my last two things that I mean we just talked about right I've worked on security to protect memory better so that you can have these big emmer merries I've worked on co processors to actually operate on memory better So I think the data center of the future is going to be very very large in memory systems connected by 100 gig and beyond ethernet Or in finna band ethernet type rdma networks and then you're going to have flash really is a backing store Right, and you're never reading anymore You're only writing to storage because everything you use is always in memory and there's a number of advantages that is super efficient You know the footprint and capability is super efficient And so you're going to see that whole thing happen That's what we're working towards the all-in-memory encrypted data center So one of the attacks from the competition is that you do great at integrating for that red sack Yeah, you can control kind of the price on that. What about the other applications the other workloads? You know you bring somebody over like Dave Donatelli who has a you know strong history competing in that market Are we going to see Oracle, you know kind of branch out more and you know, what's the state of other applications? Yeah, I mean absolutely many of the things we do actually benefit other workloads including other database workloads, whether it's side base dv2 or so on But we also really focus in on things like database middleware and Java because so many applications are built on top of them So it's absolutely critical that we do great at all these workloads There's no Oracle monoculture in the world including here at Oracle, right? We all use and build our own applications. So that's an absolute focus area in memory.  So couple things one is the cloud now the mainframe and how the customer is migrating it out if you've got encryption you got all these performance Performances are addressed. How do they do that? How do they take essentially a mainframe if you will or is it a mainframe like functionality just decentralized? And then what about migrating in and out of that securely? Yeah, so so one of the things we're doing John is we have worked to integrate our on-premises tools with our cloud So you can take for example database that you're running on-premise and just Migrate it to our on-premise our off-premise cloud database service And then you can also watch it with the same set of tools so you can see what's my performance and what's our capability These tools will continue to improve over time so this integration becomes more and more seamless We want to make that as easy as possible We know that we're unique in that we have a full suite of software and a full suite of hardware for on-premises computing And we build a super skill cloud so if you look at every other vendor in the business They don't have that ability right and we think that's what the next decade is about the next decade is about People picking and choosing where they want to run cloud services What do they want to run on-prem? Can I run this way or that way and we feel we're uniquely positioned to be able to do that and I'm wiring those tools together I love I love first of all. I love this being operating systems and undergraduate computer science back in the 80s But we hit you know units was the state of the art Linux then came after that But now what you've done at Oracle is you've taken spark right and you've integrated engine engines just to make the cloud Enabled and and compatible live make Rachel and Christian stuff. What is where does units go from here? I mean it's clearly not going away this concept of units systems Management systems architecture operating systems is the cloud. It's an operating system. Yeah, so what's the linker? Where's the loader with the compiler? How do you as a computer scientist and look at the future if you look at this the cloud of the 20 mile stair you say You know, what is out in the horizon? Yeah, I think there's one big difference then from the operating system days of old is we have a strong Abstraction and things like Java so you're not writing deposits anymore You're really running to Java and you have a standard abstraction with the operating system level We still have a huge number of problems to go solve right as we talked about before about embedding and making encryption and security completely made it Life cycle management update is huge in the cloud because you're running 24-7. You have zero downtime You got to constantly bring things up to date and deal with that because the the the requirements are you have shared multi-tenant environments Virtual machines as well complicated machines complicate things as well and then on the other side There's also efficiency, so what happens you want to run a cloud environment your margin Relates pretty directly to how efficiently you can run things and so I want to make the most efficient platforms in the world That's part of what these coprocessors about and built-in security and features in the operating system Is I want to make it so for a dollar we can deliver more capability than anyone else in the world because that relates that an operating System plays a huge role in that how about encryption? Why is it taking this long to have encryption on the chip? Is it is it just just the geopolitical landscape and business or is it just The timing of all the components and from a performance standpoint is it versus is it just timing? Yeah, so we've been working on this for a while So back at Sun we kind of led this bandwagon and I've joked about nobody cared and nobody used it Right, we didn't have very many users But the the thing that's actually changed is that is the is the landscape right is every time you turn around people are losing data and Encryption is only one part of a complete security story and we have a lot of other aspects of security story But because encryption is expensive and slow people choose not to use it now where we are going in the fully encrypted data centers I want to make it so that secure systems are the default So the way things have been for decades is you buy a system and it's very open to begin with You get to choose your root password, you know, which is a stupid idea to begin with right and then you go from there And then you got to go read a white paper and be an expert to turn on a bunch of things And so this week we're also announcing a new super cluster where we are Reversing the sense of that which is the default install is pretty damn secure And if you want to turn things off, you're gonna have to read a white paper And I think that's where we're all gonna have to go by building in encryption I make it much easier to do that which is to make secure a default attribute of the platform as opposed to an Optional attribute of the platform versus the old model of perimeter based security right now everything secure in your vision Absolutely, we move the perimeter to the servers and stores themselves right because you know You can't you can't depend on on just perimeter based security now security theory is you got to have defense in depth You do perimeter security use system level security store security, right? But we we up the game significantly one of the things we hear from customers when they look at cloud is you know Will they have portability? Can they own their data? Yeah, I guess a concern that would be bring up is if you do you know kind of security that way by default If I go somewhere else, I don't have that so can you talk about you know, how can I take my data? How do I play with other environments? Can I tie into AWS and Azure? Yeah, so so first of all we think that the security of our capability is one of our value ads, right? So of course we want you to come and stay with us but The way it works with your data is you always own and have access to your data and your data is always encrypted You manage your own private keys, so we don't have that, right? So you have your private key you get to have your data if you want to take your data off of us Decrypt it and put it in your storage service. You're absolutely free to go do that There's no no question that you you can't do that They'll fear for you to do that so mission critical your vision always secure from the start Yeah, and read a white paper to make it unsecure. Yes, do something medieval if you will. Okay, that's cool I get that I love that love that vision and encryption if you can crack the code on performance with that That's killer. So okay with that in mind. How do you define open? With with that. Okay. You mentioned earlier. You guys are open. What does open mean to you now in this new reality? Well, I mean open means obviously the database itself programming all those Application layers remain open and you mentioned the mainframe and and customers occasionally bring the DM question up to me Right as I call the M question right is the difference between today and the mainframe is in the mainframe You got a machine and then you got a programming manual for RPG 2 or PL 1 or whatever And you're programming to OS V tam or CICS and you can't move right with us You're programming to Java J2 EE the database tier and you can move wherever you want your applications are completely portable The tools are all the tools are open the whole tool chain You know that the runtimes are portable Java's portable So it's a completely open environment So if you don't like me and you want to take your application take it somewhere else You're completely free to do it, which you weren't in the mainframe, right? This is a huge difference in our current environment, right? So John We've seen a lot of changes in the industry recently mega acquisitions You know this year there's been over three and a half trillion dollars worth of M&A I'm curious what's lifelike at Oracle compared to some of these horizontal moves and changes that that we've been seeing Especially he seems to be picking up so I'm watching with some sort of bemusement right at all these different things But you know what we are at Oracle is we're very steady on the strategy and as you guys know I've interviewed you guys several times We invest in core engineering we invest Billions of dollars in core engineering and we're working on building out the world's best platform all the way the application tier both cloud Non-prem and so I look at a lot of the things going on in the industry What I see is smaller players that have much smaller portfolios Trying to figure out how to get together because they don't have enough asset base and the combination of hardware and software to actually build those kinds of engineered and integrated systems and and and I think that's going to be the The future of a lot of these kinds of things now that doesn't mean there's not gonna be a lot of innovation because it's all in open Interfaces you're gonna have lots of companies around this ecosystem, but some of these core technologies are very difficult And they're gonna come from a few players awesome John Fowler. Thanks for coming on the queue really appreciate you Chan your insight certainly I'll see your expertise and going way back and now in Oracle's phenomenal My final question for you is for the folks out there the customers And all the press and analysts who are looking at the sea of noise or just a lot of announcements come in Oracle What's the bombs are dropping everywhere? I mean a lot of amazing stuff Relative to the engineered systems and the stuff you're working on here with the silicon software and silicon security and whatnot What should they be paying attention to if you can focus their attention in a few key areas? Yeah Yeah, yeah, so I think you know from Oracle I think the biggest thing is to understand our breadth of being able to solve enterprise on-prem and cloud Right, so if you're taking your company over the next decade Who do you want to go partner with if you partner with Oracle? Whether you do want to do it on-premise or you want to do with cloud We can cover all those with the same applications Nobody else can do that the second thing we're working on and you'll see this in Larry on Tuesday Is we've got a maniacal focus on security? We want to go lead on security because we have the applications as well as the middleware in the database We have more tools to go tackle that particular problem than anyone else right it's kind of interesting because oracles always been about performance You'll see a big message there comprehensive portfolio on-premise and cloud huge focus on information security in the years to come I mean that you can nail the security thing that the game changer because customers want more right now They want they want more of everything. Yeah, but security seems to be the thing that stops the ball Absolutely, it's like the defense and in forward progress Congratulations, John. Thanks for coming. Thank you. We appreciate the cube live here in Howard Street Oracle of the World Day one kickoff Sunday Java one go by again open Java's open You know and now we got the cloud the cloud is one big mainframe But not technically a mainframe, but thanks for sharing engineered systems in the cloud and on-premise. This is the cube We'll be right back after this short break