The Scottish Historian Niall Ferguson amongst others has tried to outline the root cause for the domination of the west over the rest over the past 5 centuries. In his latest book, Civilization, Professor Ferguson puts down the reasons for Western domination to '6 killer apps', summarized as below:
1. Competition: a decentralisation of political and economic life, which created the launch pad for both nation states and capitalism.
2. Science: a way of understanding and ultimately changing the natural world, which gave the West (among other things) a major military advantage over the Rest.
3. Property rights: the rule of law as a means of protecting private owners and peacefully resolving disputes between them, which formed the basis for the most stable form of representative government.
4. Medicine: a branch of science that allowed a major improvement in health and life expectancy, beginning in Western societies, but also in their colonies.
5. The consumer society: a mode of material living in which the production and purchase of clothing and other consumer goods play a central economic role, and without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable.
6. The work ethic: a moral framework and mode of activity derivable from (among other sources) Protestant Christianity, which provides the glue for the dynamic and potentially unstable society created by apps 1 to 5.
I haven't read the book yet, but instinctively I do not feel these causes could possibly represent the root. Typically you've arrived at the root cause once you have eliminated "all the 'Why's" - and the above 'apps' still beg the question - Why were they developed in the west and not the east? Also, for analyzing human behavior over a period of time - History may provide the data points, but they need to be analyzed by historians, anthropologists, genetic experts (for want of a better word) etc. The real root would probably arise through the juxtaposition of multiple views. And most importantly, the causal would need to lie on both sides that are being compared.
But I should really save the questions for - After I have read the book.
Detour Ahead -
Personally, All Literature seems to lead to Rome these days, after thoroughly enjoying a 'first' listen of Mike Duncan's wonderful podcast series - The History of Rome - I chanced upon National Geographic's series on - When Rome Ruled - and as is the norm broke my self imposed 2 year curfew for buying books or DVDs.
The first episode was on - The Colosseum - that historical and engineering marvel of Roman and Western history. Sanctioned by Vespasian and completed by Titus who presided over the inaugural games, they marked the beginning of sports entertainment as we know it today.
Back on main street -
And, this colossus of a monument probably offers a few clues for the west vs. rest debate
The Colosseum was constructed for the sole purpose of holding a spectacle for the people. Not just a spectacle, but a "what the friggin hey" spectacle..
But Why? Partly because the Romans could, partly to differentiate themselves from the rest of the world but mostly because the emperors needed to garner the support of the public
But why a spectacle? They figured, What better way to capture the collective imagination of the populace at large than giving them a show that literally and metaphorically blew them away, at it's core stimulated their primal instinct and offered them their escape from their dreary life. Bread and Circuses was the Television of the Roman world.
Cool, so how did this reflect the roman society in general? :
The Romans sought this escape and their emperors were more than inclined to give it to them. But, rather strangely - This demand and supply fueled advances in engineering and even science. To quote an example - The trap doors of the Roman stadiums that magically lead gladiators and wild animals onto the grounds were probably the ancestors of the 'modern lifts'.
The Law of Unintended consequences operates in weird ways!
Turns out that, Ayn Rand does not offer the greatest substantiation for the vested interest of man, history does!
Further, the masses wanted to be entertained and entertainment was costly which meant money needed to be raised and so Vespasian looted Spain. In other words, Another consequence of bread and circuses were conquests. The only way the Romans could sustain their kind of life was by looting others.
All of these activities : Power/Legacy Seekers->Bread & Circus->Money->Conquests->Empire Growth->More Power Seekers->....
repeated over centuries generating scientific and technological progress almost as a byproduct.
In contrast, progress in the east seems to have centered around religion and spirituality. Which explains our own beautiful structures all being temples other places of worship.The likes of these would have required as high an engineering acumen as any other monument out there. But the onus was firmly on conformity, on the sanctity of the sanctum sanctorum. Philosophy and literature prescribed a way of life as opposed to let it evolve organically.
That being said - I don't necessarily look at how things have played out in the east as regressing and bad.
If I were to honestly answer the question - How would the world have shaped up if the east had dwelt on the west ? - I would say that we would have been a few centuries (atleast) behind the current levels of progress.
But the jury would still be out when it came to the question of - Would we all be leading more fulfilling lives ?
Having a choice shouldn't necessarily mean either-or, the more appropriate solution is probably in the mix.
PS 1: The Romans were deeply religious people too. As Mike Duncan surmises - They started out off as Latin Speaking Pagans and thanks largely to Constantine ended up being Greek speaking Christians. Numerous temples for Apollo and Jupiter and churches like the famous St. Paul's cathedral were all constructed by them.
The fundamental difference probably was that it was not as central to their life as it was to our own ancestors or that they had multiple drivers..
PS 2: As is easy to gather, I am no historian. But I am inquisitive. I'd like to think of this post as one that raises questions as opposed to answering them
1. Competition: a decentralisation of political and economic life, which created the launch pad for both nation states and capitalism.
2. Science: a way of understanding and ultimately changing the natural world, which gave the West (among other things) a major military advantage over the Rest.
3. Property rights: the rule of law as a means of protecting private owners and peacefully resolving disputes between them, which formed the basis for the most stable form of representative government.
4. Medicine: a branch of science that allowed a major improvement in health and life expectancy, beginning in Western societies, but also in their colonies.
5. The consumer society: a mode of material living in which the production and purchase of clothing and other consumer goods play a central economic role, and without which the Industrial Revolution would have been unsustainable.
6. The work ethic: a moral framework and mode of activity derivable from (among other sources) Protestant Christianity, which provides the glue for the dynamic and potentially unstable society created by apps 1 to 5.
I haven't read the book yet, but instinctively I do not feel these causes could possibly represent the root. Typically you've arrived at the root cause once you have eliminated "all the 'Why's" - and the above 'apps' still beg the question - Why were they developed in the west and not the east? Also, for analyzing human behavior over a period of time - History may provide the data points, but they need to be analyzed by historians, anthropologists, genetic experts (for want of a better word) etc. The real root would probably arise through the juxtaposition of multiple views. And most importantly, the causal would need to lie on both sides that are being compared.
But I should really save the questions for - After I have read the book.
Detour Ahead -
Personally, All Literature seems to lead to Rome these days, after thoroughly enjoying a 'first' listen of Mike Duncan's wonderful podcast series - The History of Rome - I chanced upon National Geographic's series on - When Rome Ruled - and as is the norm broke my self imposed 2 year curfew for buying books or DVDs.
The first episode was on - The Colosseum - that historical and engineering marvel of Roman and Western history. Sanctioned by Vespasian and completed by Titus who presided over the inaugural games, they marked the beginning of sports entertainment as we know it today.
Back on main street -
And, this colossus of a monument probably offers a few clues for the west vs. rest debate
The Colosseum was constructed for the sole purpose of holding a spectacle for the people. Not just a spectacle, but a "what the friggin hey" spectacle..
But Why? Partly because the Romans could, partly to differentiate themselves from the rest of the world but mostly because the emperors needed to garner the support of the public
But why a spectacle? They figured, What better way to capture the collective imagination of the populace at large than giving them a show that literally and metaphorically blew them away, at it's core stimulated their primal instinct and offered them their escape from their dreary life. Bread and Circuses was the Television of the Roman world.
Cool, so how did this reflect the roman society in general? :
The Romans sought this escape and their emperors were more than inclined to give it to them. But, rather strangely - This demand and supply fueled advances in engineering and even science. To quote an example - The trap doors of the Roman stadiums that magically lead gladiators and wild animals onto the grounds were probably the ancestors of the 'modern lifts'.
The Law of Unintended consequences operates in weird ways!
Turns out that, Ayn Rand does not offer the greatest substantiation for the vested interest of man, history does!
Further, the masses wanted to be entertained and entertainment was costly which meant money needed to be raised and so Vespasian looted Spain. In other words, Another consequence of bread and circuses were conquests. The only way the Romans could sustain their kind of life was by looting others.
All of these activities : Power/Legacy Seekers->Bread & Circus->Money->Conquests->Empire Growth->More Power Seekers->....
repeated over centuries generating scientific and technological progress almost as a byproduct.
In contrast, progress in the east seems to have centered around religion and spirituality. Which explains our own beautiful structures all being temples other places of worship.The likes of these would have required as high an engineering acumen as any other monument out there. But the onus was firmly on conformity, on the sanctity of the sanctum sanctorum. Philosophy and literature prescribed a way of life as opposed to let it evolve organically.
That being said - I don't necessarily look at how things have played out in the east as regressing and bad.
If I were to honestly answer the question - How would the world have shaped up if the east had dwelt on the west ? - I would say that we would have been a few centuries (atleast) behind the current levels of progress.
But the jury would still be out when it came to the question of - Would we all be leading more fulfilling lives ?
Having a choice shouldn't necessarily mean either-or, the more appropriate solution is probably in the mix.
PS 1: The Romans were deeply religious people too. As Mike Duncan surmises - They started out off as Latin Speaking Pagans and thanks largely to Constantine ended up being Greek speaking Christians. Numerous temples for Apollo and Jupiter and churches like the famous St. Paul's cathedral were all constructed by them.
The fundamental difference probably was that it was not as central to their life as it was to our own ancestors or that they had multiple drivers..
PS 2: As is easy to gather, I am no historian. But I am inquisitive. I'd like to think of this post as one that raises questions as opposed to answering them
No comments:
Post a Comment