You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
NewLiving Diary Index
|
item0060A 900, 901 900 29 December 2003
Innovation?
Recent surveys report that British businessmen are “disappointed” with the failure of Government measures to promote “innovation”.
That is absurd. Simplistic. Naive. It must be self-evident that the promotion of “innovation” cannot be a matter for Government. For the truth is none of us really understands the processes of innovation at all. The term “innovation” refers obliquely to nothing less than creativity itself – and who understands that? What is distinctive about the creative drive? Do we all possess it? Or merely geniuses? Conventional educational theory is woefully weak at cultivating creativity. There is no credible “theory of creativity”, however successful Edward De Bono may have been with “The Power of Lateral Thinking”. Schools are more likely to crush their pupils’ creativity than to foster it. I believe that we are all creative, each carrying the spark of originality. I believe too that creativity is seamless – it is the same phenomenon wherever it is found, the same in personal relations as in business or diplomacy, the same in military strategy as in sculpture or in pottery, the same in science as in mediaeval history or in poetry or in sailing uncharted waters.The problem is that most people lack the confidence to convert a new idea into practical reality. Let me be more brutal: for most people, the confidence to create has been crushed out of them by repressive social conventions, "tradition", family conformity and - most tragically - rote learning in school. Societies have progressed, indisputably, by enforcing patterns of conduct upon their members - discipline, loyalty, conformity are valued, and that means that creativity is systematically discouraged. While individual exceptions of course arise, we have as a society found no reliable ways of conveying to our children the possibilities of creativity, of developing new ideas and new formats in everything that they do, in every experience of life. It is no accident that the United States, lacking the trappings and rigidities of "tradition", has proved an innovative and responsive form of society. 
I do not mean to restrict these observations to material inventions: indeed, the role of the potting-shed "inventor" is probably the only example of a positive social phenomenon in this field - yet even he (always male, you notice) is too often described as "mad" or "eccentric" or simply "potty". I seek to isolate the ability to escape the constraints on convention, in any sphere, and give form to something new. The key is the understanding that every individual can make a difference to the future, by creative initiatives undertaken - in research, in creating all forms of the written word and aesthetic form, in taking political intiatives, in making people laugh, in writing letters, in music, in calligraphy, in starting new businesses and inspiring old ones, in developing the voluntary sector. All the creativities remount to the same origins, and critically require the confidence to believe in ones own effectiveness. Artistic creativity is of this nature, and I regret that the creative arts have moved so far down the School curriculum: the confidence to address a blank sheet of paper, pencil in hand, is critical to the cultivation of creativity.
The challenge to our society is not to generate creativity. Creativity itself has something of the divine about it, I do not pretend to define it. But I am convinced that social and educational forms are achievable which cultivate, encourage and celebrate, creativity - innovation, inventiveness. They will form part of the greater individualism of future social systems, with far higher incidences of self-employment, a greater understanding of individual (human) rights, less oppressive militaristic collectivism. I do not blame "the Government", or the DTI, for "failing" the business community - for this is a matter far bigger than business. Indeed, creativity is needed far more urgently in the political sphere - local, national, international.
If you want to be in at very beginning of a new international campaign, keep track on the Company Reform Coalition, which will be assembling in London at Easter 2004 - we're gonna change the world! What are your thoughts about the elusiveness of creativity? Drop me a line
901 1 January 2004 Dangers of the "Membership State"
What is the scope and character of "the State"? Let's deconstruct a little, because the very concept of "State" is very un-English, too much of an abstraction for the pragmatic British. We prefer to speak in terms of "Government" or "monarch" or "sovereign", and remain uncomfortable with the Continental abstraction of "the State" (French: l'Etat, German: Der Staat). Most "State" statements can be translated into "Government" statements. And the term "State" does have its own grammatical convenience. I have always favoured the concept of a " Territorial State", reflecting the principle that a "Government" is responsible for the organisation of society within a specifically-defined territory, owing duties to those physically thereon and having a claim upon their allegiance and compliance. In the 18th century, that was the only idea on offer: a resident owed allegiance to the Monarch if he had made his principal residence here, i.e. was "domiciled" here. There were no other administrative procedures. The concept of domicile still lives on in tax law, long after it has disappeared from citizenship law. I believe that it provides the best guide to the future organisation of the world community.But during the 19th century, the phenomenon of nationalism had started to change the political scene. States emerged which claimed to be based on the common ethnic or cultural or "national" characteristics of their members - mere territoriality was not enough: Italians and Germans were considered to be automatically members of the Italian and German "states" - German citizenship law still bears the indelible marks of that alternative principle. The Membership State was born.And the Membership State has been powerfully reinforced by the "Welfare State". The majority of our fellow-citizens now think of the State as a form of mammoth friendly society, which collects members' contributions, and provides benefits and services when they are needed. "Membership" of UK Friendly Society is perceived as being defined in terms of UK citizenship - and that means that "outsiders" or non-Members have no entitlement to the benefits. That is why the immigration debate has taken such a nasty turn: immigrants, asylum-seekers, refugees are all seen as claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, and public resentment therefore rises. And the Membership State itself generates some very nasty political consequences: one of David Blunkett's arguments for Identity Cards is that they are "entitlement cards", and have become necessary for the management of the Membership State.For politicians, this poses a serious problem. There is no doubt that the Membership State has become powerfully entrenched in popular thinking. Indeed, it is so deeply entrenched that democratic politicians much take account of it, as a socio-psychological reality. My personal view is that we should strive to minimise the incidence of the Membership State, shifting towards a looser international system of Territorial States, permitting greater personal freedom. But I recognise that, in a democratic electoral system, political leaders are constrained to acknowledge the strength of Membership State concepts.
And while the Membership State commands popular perceptions, it is inevitable that democratic politicians should take it into account. Let me clarify my own position, as a lay politician: I do not condone Reid's nastiness to "failed" asylum-seekers with children, to whom I believe that special considerations should apply. Nor do I favour his insistence upon the payment of fees in advance. But otherwise, I would myself take some action against "health tourism" myself, even if its incidence is small. My reason? The belief that "the incidence of health tourism is high" itself contributes to prevailing xenophobia, and it is worth taking that card out of that poisonous pack.
What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
| Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
|
A telling spat has developed, over John Reid's plans to charge foreign
visitors for their use of NHS services, except in the case of infection
or emergency. For it highlights the tensions between two great
constitutional ideas - the "