tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (01/09/86)
Although Jan Wasilewski is right in bringing out a non-absolutist
view of the Middle Ages -- caveat: I'd give less credit for the
improvement of serfs to loose rule than to the decimation of
population from plagues -- and his points about agricultural
innovation are also well taken, I'd part with him in making
conclusions from the relationship between loose rule and innovation
in the Middle Ages to a relationship between loose government and
innovation today.
Jan's right in pointing out that the deinstitutionalization (whew --
what a word!) of the state from antiquity to the Middle Ages was
a prod to local innovation. But the other prod to innovation in
the Middle Ages was the development of a highly institutionalized
Church which preserved the learning of antiquity and built an
educational system, with universities at its summit, to teach and
expand that learning.
Innovation, I think, should be divided into two "sites" of innovation:
less-institutionalized settings such as markets, localities, and
small businesses; and more-institutionalized settings such as
large universities and the research departments of large corporations.
Then the policy question is where does most innovation take place,
and when? I think the answer involves both more-institutionalized
settings and less-institutionalized settings.
Most innovative ideas are hatched in more-institutionalized settings where
intensive training, education, and interaction can take place and thrive.
But many innovative ideas, though hatched in big institutions, are
not "grown" or implemented there. More often, once an idea has
been developed, the author of the idea bypasses the bureaucracies
of big institutions by becoming an entrepreneur and thereby, in
a less-institutionalized setting, bringing the idea to fruition.
It's as if the person trained in a more institutional setting uses
that setting to exploit a less institutionalized market environment.
So innovation needs both. Now and in the Middle Ages.
I'd suggest that now, the big institutions are more important, because
the intensive skills training required before substantial innovation
can usually take place is only available today in big institutions,
whereas in the past less institutional means such as small business
apprenticeships and passed down family knowledge were more fruitful
and could often replace higher education.
Additionally, many innovations only become reported when the inventor
has accumulated the academic prestige to be able to gain the attention
of mass media communications as an expert of some sort. If this mass
media communications is not available, then the inventor still has
to have some academic prestige to collect capital from skeptical
investors. The only inventors who don't need academic prestige
are those who don't use big institutional knowledge or who have
their own money to invest.
The role of government today is that most large institutions which
nurture learning, training, and innovation cannot subsist without
substantial government funding and support, and they cannot attract
the most promising students without government financial aid for those
students. Maggie Thatcher's Britain is the saddest case today of
an established research nation that's been gutted by the withdrawal
of government funding.
That's very different from the Middle Ages.
Tony Wuersch
{amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonywjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (01/14/86)
> Jan's right in pointing out that the deinstitutionalization (whew -- > what a word!) of the state from antiquity to the Middle Ages was > a prod to local innovation. But the other prod to innovation in > the Middle Ages was the development of a highly institutionalized > Church which preserved the learning of antiquity and built an > educational system, with universities at its summit, to teach and > expand that learning. > Surely you can't be talking about the same church that burned the library of Alexandria and tried Galileo? Evidently not. Just what church *are* you talking about? > > Tony Wuersch -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/16/86)
> > Jan's right in pointing out that the deinstitutionalization (whew -- > > what a word!) of the state from antiquity to the Middle Ages was > > a prod to local innovation. But the other prod to innovation in > > the Middle Ages was the development of a highly institutionalized > > Church which preserved the learning of antiquity and built an > > educational system, with universities at its summit, to teach and > > expand that learning. > > > Surely you can't be talking about the same church that burned the > library of Alexandria and tried Galileo? Evidently not. Just what > church *are* you talking about? > > Tony Wuersch > Jeff Sonntag Reference to the library of Alexandria is unclear. Many people were crediting with burning a library there. Galileo was not tried during the Middle Ages, but during Renessaince, when the church was not the only center for learning anymore. However, the Latin could be forgotten if not the Irish monks, who were spared by the wars between barbarians. Then for several centuries the only education was provided by Church. Characteristically, Copernicus was a priest, and so were many logicians, matematicians, historians etc. Still, many innovations were made in a completely barbaric setting, and other were made within trade assotiations and alike. There was nothing like a doctor of industrial sciences who developed a windmill. Piotr Berman