The Ideas Leaders
Chris Thomson considers the potential and conditions needed for a new Scottish Enlightenment
There was a time when Scotland led the world in some significant respects; shipbuilding, medicine, engineering and education immediately spring to mind. Without necessarily knowing it at the time, Scotland was a global thought leader. This took two forms – inventions and philosophy. For a long time, Scotland punched well above her weight in inventiveness. The list is long – television, telephone, refrigerator, microwave ovens, tarred roads, pneumatic tyres, golf, steam engine, radar, modern banks, antisepsis, antibiotics, quinine, fax machine, logarithms, iron bridges....the list just goes on. Few other countries can lay claim to such inventiveness. There must have been a reason, or reasons, for this extraordinary creativity.
As if this were not enough, the philosophical foundations for modernism and for the market economy were also laid in Scotland, during the Scottish Enlightenment (roughly 1740-90). Many of the ideas emerging in Scotland during that heady period are now at the heart of most modern economies and at the heart of the programmes of most political parties. Of the personalities involved, Adam Smith and David Hume are perhaps the best known, but there were others who made significant contributions, such as Thomas Reid, Adam Ferguson and John Millar. It is difficult today to appreciate just how influential Scotland was during that period. Scotland’s thought leadership was so powerful that Voltaire was moved to write: “...we look to Scotland for all our ideas of civilisation”. Coming from one of the leading thinkers of his age, that was praise indeed.
That was over two hundred years ago. Much has changed since then. If Voltaire were alive today, he would be unlikely to say what he said then. For a variety of reasons, which could be argued for a year and a day, Scotland is no longer a global thought leader in the ways that it was during the Enlightenment or during the heyday of its inventiveness. There is no doubt in my mind that Scotland needs something big to boost its confidence. It needs a world-class project. Much as it pains me to admit it, Scotland no longer leads the world in any significant respect. Yes, it is true that we are still the home of golf, tartan and whisky and that we produced Dolly the Sheep, but, although important, these pale beside the influence of the Enlightenment. The question I keep asking myself is; can Scotland become a global thought leader again? If we could, that would put Scotland on the world map again, and it would do wonders for the self-esteem and confidence of the Scottish people.
Thought leadership is consciously revolutionary and, in the nature of things, often subversive. It would not be thought leadership otherwise. It is often uncomfortable for those in power or in secure positions because it cannot help questioning the status quo. Indeed, if the status quo cannot be questioned, how do we expect to move forward? It is all very well for us to look back to the Scottish Enlightenment with pride, but we would do well to remember that these thinkers were revolutionary. And it was precisely because the culture in Scotland in the 18th Century encouraged original thinking and questioning of the status quo that the Enlightenment was able to take place. We need to remind ourselves that what we regard today as the self-evident truths of modernism and market economics were seen as revolutionary ideas two hundred years ago. Although we might not like to admit it, we have modernism and market economics largely because Scotland used to support revolutionary, subversive thinking. If we are to make genuine progress towards whatever is going to replace modernism and market economics – one thing is certain, these will not be with us forever – then we have to encourage revolutionary, subversive thinking. If we do not, we are unlikely to move forward in any fundamental sense. One thing is clear: if Scotland does not take the lead in this, some other country will.
There is absolutely nothing, in principle, to prevent Scotland from becoming a thought leader once again. The personalities are here and they are world class. My only question is whether Scotland is willing to encourage and support thought leadership? Does Scotland currently encourage and facilitate revolutionary, subversive thinking or does it discourage this kind of thinking? If the former, then we have the possibility of becoming a global thought leader once again. If the latter, then we really have to decide whether we ever want to lead the world again in some significant respect.
A culture of encouragement would mean, for example, that the Scottish Executive and Scottish business actively encourage and support thinking, ideas and activities that challenge them and make them feel uncomfortable. But it would have to mean more than this. It would also have to mean that Scotland’s people and organisations adopt a much more positive attitude towards change and uncertainty. Rather than seeing change and uncertainty as threats to be resisted, they need to learn to see them as exciting opportunities to do something new and different. The healthiest attitude to change is that you lead the change. The unhealthiest attitude is that you resist the change. Which of those two attitudes best describes Scotland today? The simple fact is that no nation can be a thought leader unless it is able to welcome change and uncertainty. Of all the culture changes needed in Scotland, this is the most important. Scotland is unlikely to take its place among the confident nations of the world until the culture changes. Our leaders can, if they are willing, help to lead this change by encouraging radical, original thinking that questions deep-seated beliefs and the status quo.
I can think of two big subjects in which Scotland could be a thought leader. They are sustainable development and health. Why? Partly because there are historical precedents, but mainly because these are, in my opinion, the two areas that most urgently need global thought leadership. The historical precedents are striking. For example, Scotland’s inventiveness in public health and medicine helped to pave the way for what has become the modern medical model of health and healthcare, and there is no doubt that this has been immensely useful. However, there is a growing sense, in and beyond Scotland, that we need to fundamentally rethink what we mean by ‘health’ and ‘healthcare’ because, however hard we try, we are hardly making a dent in some important health statistics. Modern medicine is undoubtedly good at some things, particularly mechanical repair, emergency intervention, pain relief and vaccination. But it is less good at other things, such as mental and emotional illness, as well as the so-called ‘diseases of civilisation’. And it is ill-equipped to deal with some of the deeper, root causes of ill health, such as the pressures and values of modern living. There is a growing sense that we need to develop and adopt a new model of health and healthcare. Scotland could, if she wished, lead the way on this, just as she led the way in the past.
There is another important historical precedent. Scotland played a large role in developing what has become modern market economics. Although, like modern medicine, this economics has been very useful in many respects, there is a growing body of opinion that thinks that it may have outlived its usefulness, in the sense that the benefits it brings are increasingly outweighed by its negative effects, be they social, environmental, cultural, or in health. Although the current model of economics clearly brings more money and material things for many people, it does not seem to bring the ‘higher things’ of life, such as happiness, fulfilment, health, peace and wisdom. If it does not bring these things, then we have to wonder what model of economics would bring them. I strongly suspect the answer would be a model of economics that had sustainable development at its heart.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not talking here about sustainable development as it seems to be understood in most business and government circles – who interpret the concept to mean ‘economic growth as usual, while trying to do as little damage as possible to the natural environment’. I am talking about something quite different. I am talking about the original meaning of sustainable development, which goes right back to the Sixties. It differs from the current interpretation in two important respects. First, it does not assume that ‘development’ means economic growth. It assumes that ‘development’ means development, and we really need to decide what it is that we wish to develop, in social and human terms. Do we want, for example, to develop people as people and communities as communities? If so, what does this mean in practice?
The second difference is that the original meaning was not restricted to the sustainability of the natural environment. It went beyond that, to embrace the other vital systems that we need to sustain and enhance if we are to survive and move forward. So, while it is undoubtedly true that we must wisely care for nature and the planet if we are to survive, we must also wisely care for ourselves – as individuals and societies. If we do not, we will decline as individuals and societies. That is clearly unsustainable. When I speak with thought leaders in Scotland, I am left in no doubt that the health of individuals and society is under just as much threat as the natural environment, and that we urgently need to redefine ‘sustainable development’ to include the sustainability of individuals and societies.
Scotland was eminently able to develop a powerful model of economics in the past. It was a model appropriate for the conditions of its time. I see no reason why Scotland cannot develop a new model of economics appropriate to the very different conditions of today. However, this will happen only if Scotland’s brightest thinkers are actively encouraged to question current beliefs and assumptions and the status quo. If Scotland wishes to become a significant world leader again, the field is wide open for us to lead the way in developing new models of health and economics, and in applying these models in practice. We already have two of the three necessary components in place – original thinkers, and the global need for this thinking. All that remains is to put the third component in place – a culture that encourages and supports original thinking and original action even when, at the time, it seems to be revolutionary and subversive.
If anyone doubts the need for a fundamental re-think of health and economics, perhaps because they feel the current models are ‘correct’ and ‘true’, it is well worth reminding ourselves that nothing is constant. Much of what we are convinced is true today will be replaced by broader, deeper, more accurate knowledge in the future. This should help to put our current knowledge into perspective. We are all familiar with the amused astonishment we feel when we look back and recollect how limited our understanding of something was in the past compared to our current understanding of the same thing. We would do well to recognise that the same process operates forward in time as well as backwards. Our current understanding, which we may well feel to be adequate if not complete today, will almost certainly come to be regarded in time with the same amused astonishment with which we regard our past efforts. Humility is in order as well as excitement when considering our achievements!
Chris Thomson is Director of Central Purpose
