The Tension Between Tradition and Innovation

It could be argued that, while time gives a society the opportunity to mature, to develop itself and to formulate more intelligent institutions, it often happens that a people express their greatest innovative powers in an early burst of creativity – think of Periclean Athens or the Founding Fathers authoring the Constitution – which is followed by a long twilight of stagnation and decline. There is the possibility of improving institutions over time, but there is also the possibility of institutions deteriorating over time, that is to say, the possibility of decadence. In other words, societies often allow themselves to become stupid. (1)

There is a tendency on the part of a society to allow its social arrangements to ossify over time.  A socio-economic class defines and identifies itself by its symbols, which represent the dominant myths by which the class lives, and these symbols are often contested economically. Vested interests become powerful, and each social group digs in its heels and tries to keep what it has. The over-arching rule is to surrender nothing. And in tough economic times, everything is contested, and the smallest privileges are defended as symbols more than for their practical value.

Today we face tough economic times again. While the business cycle has not been absent the past quarter century, it has been remarkably mild. The past two recessions did not cut very deeply for most people. This time around, we are probably facing a longer and deeper downturn. This downturn was triggered in the financial sector of the US, but there are contributing factors that will likely exacerbate the severity of economic slowdown.

For example, despite the constant talk of the continued relevance of Moore’s Law, it is obvious to the ordinary computer user that computer technology has pretty much stalled for the past several years. There are minor changes, and minor improvements, but no qualitative changes such as we all experienced when we bought our first computers and then had to buy a new one every year or two in order to keep up. I am typing this paragraph on a laptop I bought in the spring of 2006. It remains perfectly functional and adequate to my needs. No “killer app” has been released (at least, none that I know of) that would encourage me to buy a new computer at this time. And I assume my computer will be good for some years now.

There are still plenty of technological breakthroughs that would precipitate significant economic and social re-organization. We have no reason to believe otherwise, and many examples of breakthroughs waiting to happen can be given. Imagine the impact of a truly superior battery technology. The number of mobile devices in the world is increasing exponentially, but battery technology is little better than ten or twenty years ago.

A revolutionary battery technology could give the Energizer Bunny seven league boots.

Radical improvements in green energy technologies could have a powerful effect on the entire world industrial and financial system. A technology that successfully makes a permanent reduction in energy demand causes what economists call “demand destruction”. Such demand destruction on a large scale would have the potential to change the way the world functions, in terms of finance, economics, industry, and social structures.

There is a tension between innovation and tradition. Innovation seeks change; tradition seeks the status quo. A breakthrough technology would revitalize business and industry, but it would also shake up the settled arrangements of society. There is great resistance to social change, not least because it affects individuals on a deeply personal level. Technological change is relatively easy to accept compared to a change in one’s socio-economic status. Thus technological changes are often introduced with reassurances that mere technological innovations will not change anything essential in human nature, presumably leaving society intact. But it was, after all, the technological innovations (both social technologies and engineering technologies, it should be observed) of the Age of Steam that ushered in the Industrial Revolution, which in turn utterly transformed the world.

Happy thinking,

Geopolicraticus

Note (1) Yesterday, in It takes all kinds to make a world, I suggested that a superior nation-state would have to cultivate intelligent institutions, but if devolution, deterioration, decadence, and decline are the rule rather than the exception, it would seem that the prospects for the nation-state are not so hopeful after all.