Improving our improvement

The roots of capitalism go back to the late Middle Ages. A transformation-- whose full explanation remains mysterious-- came about, such that Europeans changed from a view of maintaining to a view of improving, growing, and deliberately altering their world. There are some fascinating books linking the origins of capitalism to the origins of measurement, and hence science. It is not an accident that the Renaissance simultaneously brought about growth-oriented economics, a technological boom, and a questioning of conservative religious ideas.

More of these ideas are captured in a new book called A Culture of Improvement. According to the book review,

[D]espite the long-held beliefs of many 20th-century historians, and the persistent conviction of many 21st-century global plutocrats, the wealth and reach of the West did not develop because of imperial plunder and domination of non-Western lands. There is always enough rapaciousness and greed to go around in history’s persistently growing roster of confrontations and dominations, but imperialism, even at its most gluttonous, was not the source of Western triumph. Just the opposite. Imperialism was the result of Western triumph, a reflection of powers that derived from other sources. It was only possible once other forms of mastery had been established.

[...] Consider, for example, the earliest examples of mechanical clocks in the 14th century. Somehow they had to use a continuous mechanical force — the pull of a suspended weight slowly falling — to measure discrete intervals of time. [...]

By the 16th century it was clear that this achievement was the reflection of certain beliefs about the world. The principles applied to the turning of a wheel in a clock were seen as mirroring, in some way, the workings of cosmic spheres. There was a faith that the world was governed by the same laws that governed the smallest of human inventions. This also reflected confidence in human ability to comprehend that world and replicate its organization. This is the faith of the scientific enterprise itself: Human ability is honored as much as universal principles.

At the same time the development of such mechanical clocks permitted the formation of certain kinds of organized human community. Mr. Friedel suggests the clocks may have evolved out of the need in monasteries to create reliable schedules for prayers. The clock created a standard for time keeping, a public accounting that could not be reliably achieved with hourglasses or sundials. Clocks created community.

The links between technology, culture, beliefs, values, and power are intricate and probably impossible to lay out exactly. But I find it interesting to see new ways of connecting these fundamental human activities. I haven't read this book, but it is of the ilk that has shaped some of my ideas about how we are creating the system we live in now, and how that system might be altered. (Ah hah, my mind has that "culture of improvement" embedded in it).

I think it is worth recognizing that the spirit of changing our surroundings for the better has not always been in operation. We have, for long stretches of history in various cultures, not actually believed that it was possible. And it's also worth recognizing that BOTH the dominant force in capitalism -- "more, better, faster" -- AND the forces of ecological entrepreneurship and social justice spring from this same source. Both require the belief that human agency is effective and collective results can be created. It is this source that is fundamental, not the particular form of action it takes. Hence, we can choose the form of the action.

Thus, I think it would be a mistake to claim that the transformative changes in the West over that past 500 years have been the only significant instance of harnessing "the culture of improvement." Many societies have accepted their own agency (i.e, taken responsibility) in ways that brought about less harm. Now that we are becoming aware of the difficulties with the European model, and its inappropriateness given the Earth's declining resources, perhaps we could tap into some other ideas about how to be active in the world.

I propose designing an improvement to our current way of expressing the culture of improvement. Meta-improvement, that is.

My own view is that a more internal focus would be helpful. Partly we are "changing the world," but mostly we are changing ourselves, from which changes to the world follow.