Let me begin by saying that I love TED talks. I think they’re treasure-troves of insight, filled with sweet glimpses into the wonders of our common humanity, and I watch them all the time. TED talks are incredibly valuable. Not only are the topics enriching, but unlike the $6,000 invitation-only conference, they’re also widely accessible and free for us lowly hoi polloi.
I also love the idea of TED: Bring a bunch of extraordinary people together, have really great conversations, gather “Ideas worth spreading”, and then spread them when the conference is over, both through the attendees putting them into practice and to a larger audience through the TED talks and events like TEDx. I take serious issue, however, with TED’s definition of who is “extraordinary”. More on that below.
TED has so much potential. Can you see it? And yet, in spite of so much going for it, TED, beyond the artfully lit confines of its own eloquent echo chamber, is largely irrelevant. Before I go into the reasons why, allow me to address one thing: I’ve heard a lot of self-proclaimed TEDsters defend TED by claiming that if you’ve never been, you cannot possibly understand its power and therefore have no right to criticize the conference.
Bullshit.
If my knowledge is limited only to what I can directly experience, then vast swaths of human study would be rendered useless – history, quantum physics, astronomy and religion not least among them. Having never been a slave, I can still grasp and criticize the immorality of slavery. Having never visited fin-de-siecle Germany, I can still cultivate a deep understanding of gendered political iconography from the era and its relationship to national identity. And having never been to TED, I can still see that it is both filled with potential and pretty much irrelevant to humanity at large.
And now we come to why. Why is TED so irrelevant? There are two obvious reasons and one more sinister, but less apparent reason. The obvious reasons are:
- TED is prohibitively expensive for most people.
- Attendance is invitation-only (you have to apply and then wait to be accepted or rejected).
The two points above serve to make TED elite, which is already problematic for a conference that’s supposed to be all about “Ideas worth spreading”. Tell me how something so inaccessible can have any significant measure of relevance for most people. Oh sure, great ideas might come out of TED. How many regular people are affected by them? Maybe a few, largely through TED talks rather than any post-conference effort on the part of attendees. But how many more people might be affected if they had actually been allowed to participate in those conversations, those “Ideas worth spreading” about their world? And I mean really participate, not pay $500 to attend the TED simulcast and watch from afar.
But here’s the real rub: In order to even be considered worthy of attending (not even speaking, just attending) TED, you must already be, in the words of the conference’s own site, “exceptional“. And TED defines “exceptional” thusly: You must have already done great things in your field. You must already be a thought leader. You must have already achieved extraordinary professional success. You must already be at the top of your game. To those of you who ask how dare I criticize TED, I ask how TED dares use such narrow criteria for who is and is not exceptional enough to attend?
Is a public defender advocating for inner-city youth exceptional? How about a poor honors student who’s one funding cut away from not being able to go to college? How about someone who has finally found the courage to leave an abusive relationship? How about the legions of smart, talented people who are doing extraordinary things every day on a much smaller, but no less meaningful scale? Are they exceptional? Of course they are. And think of the insights they could offer, the diverse perspectives they could bring to TED’s well-heeled elite! But they’re not the kind of attendees that TED wants at its conference.
And so here is TED’s dirty little secret: It’s not really about how exceptional or extraordinary you are. It’s that TED doesn’t really want to include regular people in the conversation. Implicit in TED’s selection criteria is the belief that if you haven’t made extraordinary and extraordinarily visible achievements, if you aren’t already elite in some way (whether through birth, luck, hard work or some combination of the three), then you aren’t fit to join the conversations at TED. Rather than acknowledge that great ideas come from everywhere, TED’s mindset invites only snobbery and close-mindedness, a self-congratulatory gathering of outliers.
By adopting such exclusive selection criteria, TED is effectively dismissing tremendous quantities of human potential. That is no trivial thing. It’s the exact opposite of what’s needed to foster “Ideas worth spreading”.
Ultimately, TED’s hallowed halls are a playground for the privileged, however civic-minded they may be. Any enlightenment that occurs there may be shared with the masses, but God forbid that unexceptional people be allowed to witness the glory of TED in person. Oh, point to TED Fellows all you want; it’s no better than elite universities who open up a token number of slots for underprivileged applicants, while still maintaining a vastly aristocratic student body.
No offense to TED attendees whatsoever. I think you’re extraordinarily smart, highly capable people who really can change lives for the better. But it won’t happen at TED. It won’t happen because of stuff you heard or people you met at TED, either, because that’s only the smallest beginning. So you had lunch with Meg Ryan? Got inspired by Bill Gates? Felt like part of a super-special “in crowd”? Good for you, but from the bottom of my heart, I don’t give a damn.
I give a damn when you start working to make the world a better place by spreading and acting on some of those great ideas. I give a damn when you begin to personify TED’s great potential, when you fight to open up that potential, to bring it out into the world where it can actually do something. That’s how TED becomes relevant – through inclusion, not exclusion. And the more TED is willing to include the humble masses, the greater the scope of what we can accomplish.
Coming later this week: Some concrete ways that TED can open itself to the vastness of human potential and become relevant.
Get fresh posts delivered straight to your inbox.
Interestingly, from my experience (so, obviously subjective) TED’s neither as it describes itself, nor as you interpret it. But it does need real change to remain relevant and extend its relevancy. I think there’s some of that happening, though it’s fairly nascent right now – look at the TEDx program and TEDED for example. If change doesn’t occur, TED risks becoming a cheaper WEF – wealthy old people fighting to maintain their “specialness”.
So, in no particular order, except that which came out of my head as I typed:
Yes, there’s a big disconnect between the saying and the doing; that needs changing so that real and immediate actions and outcomes can emerge from the important work showcased at TED. I think that things like the TED Prize are trying to do that.
Yes, the feel out of the Long Beach venue is particularly exclusive (I think to the detriment of TED as perceived by many), and it’s a real problem that needs addressing. It was discussed extensively amongst some attendees last week.
It seems exclusive, but I get the feel that it’s not as exclusive as some (including TED) like to make out. I’m no high flyer – I own a small business – yet I can go.
Yes, it’s way too expensive (but to attend TEDActive, for example, is no more expensive than many other events, especially if you’re a TEDx organizer). TEDActive is a lot less expensive and the crowd skews younger and more accepting (from my POV).
So, to TEDx – kind of like a mini-TED held locally – which has the capacity (with over 1500 events held in 18 months) to expose the TED style and the kind of thinking presented there to a wide audience. They’ve been held everywhere from Kibera and Soweto to Dubai and my hometown of Canberra. The benefit of organising a TEDx – a huge discount on a ticket to TEDActive.
As an attendee at TEDActive in Palm Springs, I use the week just gone to reset my mind for the year. It’s a crazily inclusive event – from college freshmen and Soweto residents and small business owners (like me) to the types we see at the main TED event.
I’m not defending; You’ve hit on some points that TED need to address. There are real problems of inclusiveness, access and relevance beyond the wow moment as you see something special on stage (a printed kidney is pretty special, no?).
I think there’s a real issue of perception – from TED, from attendees, and from others who are neither. TED should be striving to bring people together, not set them apart.
Stephen, thanks for such a thoughtful comment. I think TEDx is awesome – I wonder if it just might be the future of making TED relevant. Talk about unleashing the potential of TED’s ideas in the real world! I’d also be curious to compare the attendees and feel of TEDActive to the main TED event.
Bottom line, sounds like we’re in agreement. I think you said it best when you said that “TED should be striving to bring people together, not set them apart.”
I love TED Talks- but I’d like to be part of a “think tank” style meeting with lots of other TED-plebs like me, including one or two “real” Tedders. I’d like TED to get into sponsoring or inviting sponsors for that sort of event- and frequently and all over the place. There might be even more workable ideas emerge from smaller, more diverse gatherings around the globe.
I;m a great fan of Hans Rosling and his graphic world stats- now isn’t that something that would provide the basis of some great small gatherings about all sorts of useful topics? Let’s have TED for the People!
Hey Murfomurf, thanks for stopping by! I love your idea of organizing informal gatherings with TEDsters! I think you should pursue it.
I don’t think TED is irrelevant, or that there’s anything wrong with its current model. I think the problem is ascribing any degree of truth to its revolutionary rhetoric, or assuming that the self-congratulatory humanitarian technological liberal academic utopianism that’s on display is in any way sufficient to meet the challenges the world faces.
I think the problem is in allowing TED to become the single major brand name for gatherings of intelligent people to discuss important issues and ideas. TED is DESIGNED to be a propaganda tool of the elite. It is a counter-revolutionary force, through and through, at best useful for beating back the onrushing idiocy of the American right wing. The emptiness you feel watching it, the air of smug classism, that’s the natural result of desiring something that TED can never be. TED has reach that no other conferences have because it is elite, because it is expensive, because they can afford to spend real money on fancy sets and good camerawork to make sure that the videos that come out of the conference look slick and professional, because their speakers usually have the practiced confidence of the intellectual elite. The fact is that TED is relevant because its speakers and attendees have meaningful power; it is irrelevant because it fails to include those that WILL have power. It misses the boat on the future, because it is a conference of the present.
TED doesn’t need to be fixed or made relevant. It can never be what you want it to be. What you need, what we all need, is something else entirely. And sadly, without the elitism, without the celebrity guest list, without the gobs of money, it will likely remain something done piecemeal, here and there, with a different name and format in every city, with struggles to get the best speakers, without the production values that give it reach, and with a much smaller audience. Want a conference to really change the world? Find some funding.
Uriah,
Thanks for taking the time to comment! You make some sharp observations, though I don’t completely share your cynicism about TED as a vehicle for propaganda. I also still believe TED can become relevant. Otherwise I wouldn’t have written this post!
I am very critical of TED, but I also see so much potential for the conference. Unfortunately, that potential is all locked up in elitism and exclusivity, so the key for TED will be finding a way to bring its potential out into the world where it can actualize. I’ll be writing more about some ways TED might do this soon.
I suppose the question is whether you believe that those in power are likely to want to invest energy towards building or enabling serious challenges to the institutions they benefit from. Where are the challenges to modern capitalism among the TED talks? There are talks about reducing the harm that is currently being caused, but can you think of a single talk proposing a serious and credible alternative to our current economy, or even proposing any sort of major systemic changes more profound than ‘don’t be evil’? Because that seems to be the most profound message they’ll allow on stage, though nearly every speaker is pushing that ‘don’t be evil’ message. So sure, there is no shortage of inspiring talks by people attempting to do good for those harmed by our current system, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s no analysis of the underlying causes whatsoever, and no analysis of the meaningful alternatives to corporate rule. Where are the talks about Mondragon, or about Argentinean workers taking over abandoned factories and reopening in opposition to the banks?
What I’m getting at is that their status quo agenda is revealed by the messages that they lack, just as much as the messages they actually transmit. Theirs is a world without meaningful challenges to the fundamental legitimacy of our economic system. That fact will not be changed willingly, because they lack the vision to relax their control, both over their organization and over the institutions that their members run. And that is simply not good enough– nothing less than massive changes to our economy can save the world from itself. And the world demands to be saved, as we see with demonstrations and revolutions, all united in rejecting the autocracy of the elite. What part of the TED organization, their conferences, or their messages would indicate to you that this is a group of people that genuinely values the intellectual input of the masses? The franchising of TED is as much an effort to retain control as it is a democratization of the event. It’s a means of avoiding being replaced by a more open forum as the demand for public intellectual discourse increases. Suggesting that TED be more open is like telling Facebook to respect your privacy– the organization is fundamentally corrupted by the process of seeking after its own interests. The only way that TED would become a tool of the people is if they decided it would expand their reach without jeopardizing their income or prestige, which are the lifeblood of the organization. And unless you can make a strong argument for a massive expanse in openness doing exactly that, I don’t see it happening. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I just don’t think it’s at all likely.
And I really do like a lot of TED talks. I watch them regularly, and I was very thrilled to see them back when they first started putting them online. They filled an important hole. But TED cannot be all things to all people. It cannot be the vehicle for the future. Fundamentally, it cannot be trusted. Trust is not baked into its DNA, so to speak. It’s an organization of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. If it is humanitarian, it is with the condescending tone of charity, given to those harmed by the system that enables rich white people to spend their lives giving handouts. Thinking that TED is gonna change on that score is like thinking that Obama is gonna go out on a limb and do something meaningful for the working and middle class– wishful and misguided. And the reasons are the same– both utterly depend on the good graces and financial support of the elite, and are themselves important members of that elite. TED is a way for the elite to get together and push the message that everything will be okay, we’ve got smart people thinking about the problems we’re facing. It is a message to the middle class liberals of the world that the rule of the elite is acceptable, even inevitable. And that is a lie, plain and simple.
TED is not one of us. If we’re going to have a revolution of the small overtaking the mighty in this country, of democracy finally making real inroads into our economic system, we’ll need something that isn’t TED to spread the message.
Hi Robin, I completely agree with you. But i have a ‘but’.
In today’s media landscape, digital technology allows any idea worth spreading to be spread. However in vivo, what we find is that rather than the type of material seen at TED, we get news about Charlie sheen making yet another ROFL video or we see up-skirt photos of Emma Watson. These are bits of content (the vehicle for any idea) which, for whatever reason, naturally bubble to the surface of our conversations. We look on in horror that this mindless fuzz is what is dominating the social web, knowing that its potential is so much more; but nevertheless this doesn’t change the reality. When given infinite choice, people will still naturally talk about ‘water cooler’ like events on a broader scale than anything else – mainly because mainstream media still has a huge impact on our culture.
The seemingly perfect platform for good ideas to spread (the Internet) is of course, in part, being used for this very purpose in countless numbers of ways. But typically they’re in discrete pockets of the web and for the most part, will never find the way out of it.
Despite TED’s hypocrisy and self gratifying nature – it works. It is a brand with a distinct power to attract people looking for good ideas. Ideas that are already freely available for the most part in many areas of the web. It acts as a filter, ensuring that only the most inspiring / interesting / creative messages survive. How the filter works is fundamentally related to some level of elitism. Without this, it would just be another video site with some people who talk at you about whatever they feel like. The balance of the filter is surely sensitive and could be adjusted a few points either way – but if it did, there would always be people not happy with the fact that it wasn’t 100% inclusive (and we’ve already been through what happens if you do make it 100% inclusive… you just get noise).
I love TED for what it is and does. I agree that it can come across as unsavoury because of all the reasons you discussed and I would love to see a more inclusive brand and platform for ideas to spread that has a different set of values. But I don’t want that to be TED. I want TED to keep doing what it’s doing because it simply works and it’s not worth risking ‘breaking’ it. I’d rather see an alternative from scratch. A different brand and platform, run by someone like yourself perhaps with a passion to interpret “Ideas Worth Spreading” in a more inclusive way. There’s nothing stopping anyone with a better idea and product to succeed other than themselves.
I’d like to sign of with an uber wanky slogan, which you’d probably here in the kind of elitist talk you’d see at TED: “Be the change you want to see”.
Cheers, Ramzi
Ramzi,
Thanks for such a thoughtful comment. You’ve hit on one of the great inherent tensions in modern technology – that the very qualities that can make it so powerful and enlightening, also risk leading us into noise, triviality and close-mindedness.
By its nature, TED finds itself at the heart of this tension – so full of potential, but failing to actualize that potential effectively. Perhaps an alternative is the answer, perhaps a plethora of alternatives (I’d like to think this blog is the very small beginning of one)! But I’m not giving up on TED yet. I believe there is a way to unleash TED’s potential on the world without destroying the characteristics from which that potential derives. I have a few thoughts on that – coming later this week.
I look forward to the follow up post ^_^
Keep on truckin’ etc
If man’s ingenuity were a phallus, #TED would be the handjob.
Pingback: A Challenge to TED: Become Relevant, Part 2 — robinoula.com
Personally, I don’t believe that attending TED in person will make as much difference as watching the talks online, especially with subtitles, attention span issues (I can rewind and watch), and I can immediately change to the next talk when I happen upon (inevitably) some of the talks that sound like bullshit. I mean really, how info can you ingest within a day? So having the chance to be selective, to rewind, to watch at leisure, these definitely give the talks more value as online content. Having been a TEDxTaipei talk volunteer, where I could have watched the talks for free (despite standing and not being allowed to eat the cocktail foods), this comes from experience.
So I find it incredible courage for these TED people to take something exclusive and put it online so that those who can’t pay to be there can still see the talks. Of course you can’t say that the people who get to physically attend the conference don’t really get much more out of it (except food, atmosphere, possible chance of talking to speakers…etc), because then who would pay for it? So I am grateful for those who have the means to pay for going there so that TED can continue to be funded and share these talks online.
and if it is about the people that TED defines as exceptional. Yes, it does seem a pretty narrow range of people, but that is why TED has opened itself up to having local events hosted: TEDx events. Where entrance prices are often very cheap (or even free! check out this promotion tactic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzmlUNTblvo ) depending upon prerogative of the local organizers. Where the local organizers decide who might be exceptional enough to give a speech – and these people are often not the people that TED itself might notice!
And let’s face it, the selection at TED is not snobbery, it’s quality control. In this age of crowd-sourcing and modern art, the value of the regular man has definitely been overblown. Anyone can upload a rant onto youtube and blog about an issue they care about. Whether their rant has value is another issue altogether (this blog post included). The notion of having a woman who has escaped an abusive relationship talking is nice. But nice doesn’t cut it. If anything, this woman would deserve to talk on TED and use up 18 minutes of my time because she has done something about it – for other people, and scaled the operation up so that it has cultural and family changing ability. I can read about people who’ve come out of abusive relationships anytime. I’ve come to the TED website to hear something exceptional. The guy who can’t fund his college has gone on to change the system and help other people fund their college. The public defender for inner-city youth would have something to share when his advocacy has had tangible results. Let’s face it – there are a lot of brilliant,well-meaning, brave people in the world who have been unable to become successful in their ventures, not because their ventures are important and good, but that they either don’t know how to manage it, market it, or had simple bad luck. Their stories can only be considered half told. And if they need a venue to talk there are definitely many others. TED does not have a monopoly on good ideas. Try hosting a TEDx event yourself (which is what a group of my friends are doing in Kaohsiung) if you want to get these exceptional regular people onstage! Or find/found another venue where people’s voices can be heard.
I agree with Uriah, who said that TED cannot be everything to everyone. And I believe the model it’s working on right now is successful, as Ramzi mentioned.