Innovation vs. Tradition
Ancient societies consist of collections of individuals grouped for specific purposes; in numbers that were resource supportable by and as could peacefully cohabitate. When divergent goals emerged the larger group would either repress or include the new goals. In this goals should be taken to include ends, means, and processes; for the process designer his goal is now to see his modified process accepted by the larger group to his benefit. The degree to which a society would welcome new goals could also be seen as the importance they placed upon innovation, whereas, groups more governed by previously set down guidelines would place higher value on tradition.
In the innovative society the collectively conceived society ideal would forever be changing though the inclusion and contact by other groups (more on this later) and the compounding of invention through cultivated centers and cultures of innovation (schools, libraries, theatre competitions, etc..). Societies based on tradition would be focused on past events with ancestor worship and strict codes of social mores tied to idealized historical behavior. Socrates and Plato both held this view, that a society was to be designed in perfect harmony and then forever fixed, with the anointed foreign artists barred from the city’s entry.
A perfect example of these different worldviews was played out between the Greek city states of Athens and Sparta. Athens commitment to innovation can be clearly seen through the annual Dionysia, which gave playwrights a venue for 3 tragic (summarizing/interpreting past events) and one satyr play, which dealt with the mythological in a comedic manner.
Here is a culture encouraging its visionaries to reevaluate and lay out lessons to be learned from the past as well as to explain how we fit into the world with the divine. In addition, by having the writers compete for the prize innovation is encouraged, as the stories themselves would be common knowledge, the entertainment would have to come in how they were told. Especially for the comedy, much of comedy’s power comes through novelty, or the viewer’s surprise, so a successful comedic play would be full of novel, surprising, and innovative events.
Sparta, on the other hand, was all about tradition. An example of this would be that if a child was born that did not meet the pre-set qualifications; it would be left out to die from exposure. This molding of a population, to so overrule a citizen’s natural instincts of individual linage advancement in favor of group cohesion, is quite impressive.
Brief History of Sparta &/vs Athens
Sparta ruled their region starting from 546, in 510 they assisted Athens in overthrowing the dictatorship set up by Hippias, leaving the Athenians to institute a democratic system. Sparta was one of the largest powers when invasions came from Persia but did not participate in the first conflict (Dorias), leaving the fight to be won by Athens in 490. The second time around was with Xerxes and Sparta didn’t have the same luxury, the option was there for Athens to side with Persia if coerced and Sparta did not want another competitor in the region (or for Athens to grow stronger). Didn’t happen though, as the second campaign was won it was undecided what to do with the cities that had been under Persian rule during the invasions. Sparta wished to rule them as little Spartas and import Anatolians who would spread and enforce Spartan culture. Athens, on the other hand, offered them self-rule and membership in the Delian League, a counterbalance to the Hellenic alliance, a cooperative city state group headed by Sparta, who had denied Athens membership. Following this came a time of instability as a support city of Sparta revolted in 472, and then in 464 with an earthquake devastating Sparta and their slave population revolting at the opportunity. Athens was persuaded to send troops but dismayed to discover fellow Greeks as the revolting slaves (their own slaves were foreign captured war booty and offspring). Sparta, upon sensing this sentiment, sent the Athenians home, worrying that they would end up supporting the rebel slaves. The resulting resource conflicts and regional leadership decisions blossomed into the Peloponnesian Wars which pitted the Hellenistic alliance vs. the Delian League which Athens lost in 404. However, in 378 Athens started another anti-Spartan confederacy, the Second Athenian Empire and in 403 they regained self-control as Spartan military needs were felt elsewhere. Thebes was a member of the Second Athenian Empire, ill-disposed after Sparta invaded ten years prior, and it was the Thebians who conclusively defeated Sparta in 371. Following this the Thebians grew in power but were ousted by Athens and other Delian League members as the primary power in 362. Note that Athens displaced Thebes only after Sparta was safely out of the picture.
Funnily enough, the Spartans had previously backed Thebes as a regional power against Athens in 457, and the Thebians planned to completely destroy Athens in 403, following Sparta’s victory, but allowed them to rebuild in 404 to act as an ally against Sparta. Thebes also paved the way to the end of Greek self-rule by inviting aid from Philip of Macedon, who then stuck around to have a say in the area in 338, and whose son burned Thebes to the ground when they revolted against Alexander in 335.
The main point to draw here is that the sheer number of alliances and changing political conditions will end up favoring innovation. Resources can be collected and power centralized but as world conditions are forever changing, the populations promoting new solutions will be able to better accommodate a much larger and more diverse group than populations promoting tradition.
Ancient societies consist of collections of individuals grouped for specific purposes; in numbers that were resource supportable by and as could peacefully cohabitate. When divergent goals emerged the larger group would either repress or include the new goals. In this goals should be taken to include ends, means, and processes; for the process designer his goal is now to see his modified process accepted by the larger group to his benefit. The degree to which a society would welcome new goals could also be seen as the importance they placed upon innovation, whereas, groups more governed by previously set down guidelines would place higher value on tradition.
In the innovative society the collectively conceived society ideal would forever be changing though the inclusion and contact by other groups (more on this later) and the compounding of invention through cultivated centers and cultures of innovation (schools, libraries, theatre competitions, etc..). Societies based on tradition would be focused on past events with ancestor worship and strict codes of social mores tied to idealized historical behavior. Socrates and Plato both held this view, that a society was to be designed in perfect harmony and then forever fixed, with the anointed foreign artists barred from the city’s entry.
A perfect example of these different worldviews was played out between the Greek city states of Athens and Sparta. Athens commitment to innovation can be clearly seen through the annual Dionysia, which gave playwrights a venue for 3 tragic (summarizing/interpreting past events) and one satyr play, which dealt with the mythological in a comedic manner.
Here is a culture encouraging its visionaries to reevaluate and lay out lessons to be learned from the past as well as to explain how we fit into the world with the divine. In addition, by having the writers compete for the prize innovation is encouraged, as the stories themselves would be common knowledge, the entertainment would have to come in how they were told. Especially for the comedy, much of comedy’s power comes through novelty, or the viewer’s surprise, so a successful comedic play would be full of novel, surprising, and innovative events.
Sparta, on the other hand, was all about tradition. An example of this would be that if a child was born that did not meet the pre-set qualifications; it would be left out to die from exposure. This molding of a population, to so overrule a citizen’s natural instincts of individual linage advancement in favor of group cohesion, is quite impressive.
Brief History of Sparta &/vs Athens
Sparta ruled their region starting from 546, in 510 they assisted Athens in overthrowing the dictatorship set up by Hippias, leaving the Athenians to institute a democratic system. Sparta was one of the largest powers when invasions came from Persia but did not participate in the first conflict (Dorias), leaving the fight to be won by Athens in 490. The second time around was with Xerxes and Sparta didn’t have the same luxury, the option was there for Athens to side with Persia if coerced and Sparta did not want another competitor in the region (or for Athens to grow stronger). Didn’t happen though, as the second campaign was won it was undecided what to do with the cities that had been under Persian rule during the invasions. Sparta wished to rule them as little Spartas and import Anatolians who would spread and enforce Spartan culture. Athens, on the other hand, offered them self-rule and membership in the Delian League, a counterbalance to the Hellenic alliance, a cooperative city state group headed by Sparta, who had denied Athens membership. Following this came a time of instability as a support city of Sparta revolted in 472, and then in 464 with an earthquake devastating Sparta and their slave population revolting at the opportunity. Athens was persuaded to send troops but dismayed to discover fellow Greeks as the revolting slaves (their own slaves were foreign captured war booty and offspring). Sparta, upon sensing this sentiment, sent the Athenians home, worrying that they would end up supporting the rebel slaves. The resulting resource conflicts and regional leadership decisions blossomed into the Peloponnesian Wars which pitted the Hellenistic alliance vs. the Delian League which Athens lost in 404. However, in 378 Athens started another anti-Spartan confederacy, the Second Athenian Empire and in 403 they regained self-control as Spartan military needs were felt elsewhere. Thebes was a member of the Second Athenian Empire, ill-disposed after Sparta invaded ten years prior, and it was the Thebians who conclusively defeated Sparta in 371. Following this the Thebians grew in power but were ousted by Athens and other Delian League members as the primary power in 362. Note that Athens displaced Thebes only after Sparta was safely out of the picture.
Funnily enough, the Spartans had previously backed Thebes as a regional power against Athens in 457, and the Thebians planned to completely destroy Athens in 403, following Sparta’s victory, but allowed them to rebuild in 404 to act as an ally against Sparta. Thebes also paved the way to the end of Greek self-rule by inviting aid from Philip of Macedon, who then stuck around to have a say in the area in 338, and whose son burned Thebes to the ground when they revolted against Alexander in 335.
The main point to draw here is that the sheer number of alliances and changing political conditions will end up favoring innovation. Resources can be collected and power centralized but as world conditions are forever changing, the populations promoting new solutions will be able to better accommodate a much larger and more diverse group than populations promoting tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment