by Gusjer
Central Asia and the long view of innovation
[Via Andrew Hargadon]
Frederick Starr wrote a brilliant essay, Rediscovering Central Asia, which provides a perspective on the current quagmire in Afghanistan that predates, by several millenia, the post-9/11 version currently guiding public opinion (and policy). Starr has impeccable credentials as an expert in this region and its history, and I leave any policy disagreements to him and others equally qualified. This was one of those essays, however, that has as many implications for innovation and innovation policy as it does for statesmanship and central asian policy.
Central Asia is, in Starr’s words, the “vast region of irrigated deserts, mountains, and steppes between China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and the Caspian Sea,” with Afghanistan traditionally considered the heart of the region. Despite its backwards appearance in the press, with war correspondents standing in front of deserted plains or smoldering cities, Central Asia was once one of the most intellectually vibrant communities in world history.
<>From this region came “mathematics, astronomy, medicine, geology, linguistics, political science, poetry, architecture, and practical technology” that influenced the west and the east alike in both its logic, empiricism, aesthetics, and faith. As Starr argues,
Between 800 and 1100, this pleiad of Central Asian scientists, artists, and thinkers made their region the intellectual epicenter of the world. Their influence was felt from East Asia and India to Europe and the Middle East.
What makes this essay on Central Asian culture so vital to understanding innovation lies in Starr’s reasons for both why such an intellectual wellspring emerged and flourished and why it dried up.
[More]
New ideas that arise due to the ‘friction’ of different cultures has been a hallmark of innovation throughout history. Perhaps one reason the US has been a leader in innovation is because it is the first culture that is purely made up of immigrants. We may have more cultures represented than at any other time in history.
But, the rise of static, rigid, authoritarian orthodoxies is what destroys innovation. I=t has in the past and could happen here. The signs are there, at least for certain parts of our culture. central asia declined as an innovative center in large part to the loss of tolerance for other cultures, to the rise of conservative Islam: the religions that flourished in their early stages hardened into orthodoxy. The intellectual and cultural exploration that led growth becomes threatening to the stasis of orthodoxy: “the demands of a steadily rigidifying Muslim orthodoxy gradually narrowed the sphere in which free thought and humanism could be exercised.“
We are not immune to these pressures. America has tried to stifle the flow of new cultures and ideas before. If these approaches harden into dogma, then our ability to find solutions will become tremendously hampered. As this article ends:
Have we tapped out the confluence of ideas, technologies, and aesthetics that came from Europe and Asia over the prior centuries? Will the modern-day “trade routes” that placed us at the confluence (now most prominently financial) sustain further growth or are they in decay. Has the nexus of cultural growth shifted again? Finally, has our own orthodoxies hardened to the extent that the benefits of intellectual and cultural exploration are outweighed by their perceived threats to the stasis of orthodoxy?
We can talk all we want about corporate cultures, garage start-ups, and our legacy of innovation but if history tells us anything, it’s that nothing endures. Moving forward, our ability to innovate hinges on how we choose to tolerate, assimilate, and build on the ideas of others—and how we manage the intolerance of others threatened by this process.
