# 62: The Liberal Arts and Innovation
Story behind the Passage
Hardly any day passes without me thinking about education. It is not like I get up saying: “Hey, let’s think about education today.” It is just that I encounter so many dumbheads that I simply cannot escape thinking about the reasons for this lack of knowledge and context — EDUCATION. For those people who have forgotten what it is all about. The activity is called LEARNING.
The problem is, however, that education systems make mistakes. Of course, systems themselves are abstract or rather collective entities. They cannot make decisions. But people can. And right now, I am afraid of the people steering education. I am not actually talking about politicians or officials. Yes, there were mistakes in the past which led to the situation that education seems to have become so overly theoretical that students hate it and/or cannot follow. The lack of Pragmatist philosophy in Germany certainly plays a role in this. But the people I am really worried about right now who already have influence on the education system are those opposing any ‘traditional’ education.
I know, this still sounds very vague. What I am saying is that all this talk about “we need to change education… make it more practical… make it less abstract…” certainly has much truth in it. The problem is: People who DID NOT get a proper education are saying this! But since they are very pragmatic — and I value this, no doubt — they do not leave it at the talking part. They do stuff; like founding alternative private education institutions and running lots of YouTube tutorials. And these offers draw many customers who are willing to pay. And that is a major reason why there are so many dumbheads in the end who think they know a lot.
Of course, what I am describing here is what others would call the commodification of education and neo-liberal takeover. Sure, I am just trying to boil it down to what I see. And this is how I came to pick Nussbaum’s Not for Profit today. Even though, when I first read it several years ago, I had a very critical stance towards some of the things she argues (e.g, she leaves out some economics philosophy), I still very much value many of her points and her defense of the liberal arts. And the reason is in fact economic in the end: We need brilliant thinkers if we want to be innovative as a society.
My Learnings
“A second issue in business is innovation, and there are reasons to suppose that a liberal arts education strengthens the skills of imagining and independent thinking that are crucial to maintaining a successful culture of innovation.” There is not more to add from my side than the simple confirmation that my own life has proven this, no matter how much I also argue for application orientation. I would not be able to do what I do without my education in at least three fields: the humanities, the social sciences, and business practice and theory. We have already lost this in Germany, unfortunately.
“… [I]t does seem that one of the distinctive features of American economic strength is the fact that we have relied on a general liberal arts education and, in the sciences, on basic scientific education and research, rather than focusing narrowly on applied skills.” This sentence is mind-blowing for me and I just decided that I am going to write a research paper about this (not right now, no worries…). I had completely forgotten that Nussbaum says this in the book. But, again, you only see what you want to see in books (at least partly) and back when I read it I was not that deeply into innovation studies yet. From my perspective now, however, this is so TRUE. And I just cannot stop thinking that this correlation between the liberal arts and innovation that she brings up does exist.
The reason why I think so is because my interaction with startups in Germany has taught me one thing: There are hardly any humanities THINKERS running the startups. And if they did study the humanities at some point, they do not really connect it with their business (social startups are a different cup of coffee). What this leads to is that, from my perspective, startup hubs and co-working facilities have taken over the role of higher education — at least partially. Above all, this refers to two major components of startup culture: 1) diversity of people and disciplinary backgrounds, 2) discussion and feedback culture.
You might think these two are not that special — but they are. As I described in some of my other posts already, these features are still not the rule in large corporates and this cultural component is a major factor why people like working in the innovative startup environment so much. The problem is: Just having a nice culture and cool communication spirit might make people creative but it cannot make up for the fact that you need some solid training in some field. And business studies, which is the background of most people working in the tech scene, does NOT create value in the sense of actual innovations. This requires technological, engineering, and design knowledge, to only name a few.
My point is: the humanities are a necessary ingredient to turn people with this solid knowledge into real inventors. It is like the salt in the soup. And you can find plenty of evidence for this when looking at all the great U.S. innovators — ranging from Benjamin Franklin to Elon Musk. The old philosophers as well as the contemporary tech disruptors were/are polymaths with significant humanities knowledge, including literature and philosophy. Yes, I repeat myself when I mention these names as examples but really, why is it so hard to get for some people that Germany in the present era is lacking these outstanding innovators when it comes to startups, at least? And why do people not get that education has a lot to do with this?
Just like Nussbaum underlines, all these thoughts are not based on some “controlled experiment.” But I am pretty sure that, with the decline of the liberal arts in post-Bologna Europe, this trend of “stupid is the new smart” is going to continue. Social media are such a welcome tool to get these empty messages across to people who are so excited about every tiny brain fart that they end up liking and following those who now appear as the new “public educators.” And yes, I sometimes envy people who are able to smile every day and live a seemingly happy life because the following motto drives them:
“I am stupid enough to not know how stupid I am — therefore I am happy.”
“These issues deserve a full exploration, and it seems likely that, once fully investigated, they will yield further strong support for my recommendations.” Now you are getting mad at me because I am not clearly defining what kind of knowledge I think makes people smart. Well, that is o.k. I simply leave it to your personal interpretation what knowledge means to you. After all, in the humanities, everything is about interpretation. I will simply finish with Nussbaum today because I will definitely write about this issue in a different outlet with more scholarly brain food in it to offer “further strong support for my recommendations.” What are they about?
BACK TO THE ROOTS OF EDUCATION
Reflection Questions
1) Do you believe in the relationship between the liberal arts and innovation? Why/not?
2) Name three leading thinkers in your country — based on your personal ranking. What connects them?
3) French, Comparative Literature, Linguistics — Choose the subject that you know the least about, google universities where one can study them and visit the departmental websites to check out the titles of seminars and lectures. What do you notice?