This has got to be the best article I’ve read in recent memory. Now, I manage to get in a fair amount of web-surfing as I wait for centrifuges to spin and reactions to run, so that’s saying something.
It’s a piece by Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek, about the state of the World and, more specifically, America’s place in it. It’s pretty impressive in its comprehensibility, scope, and depth – definitely a good read.
A few things in particular jumped out at me. Zakaria compares America in modern times to Britain of the late 19th century: on top of the world, but (possibly) on the verge of a downward slope. But he notes that America’s slide is not inevitable:
“Consider the industries of the future. Nanotechnology (applied science dealing with the control of matter at the atomic or molecular scale) is likely to lead to fundamental breakthroughs over the next 50 years, and the United States dominates the field. It has more dedicated “nanocenters” than the next three nations (Germany, Britain, and China) combined and has issued more patents for nanotechnology than the rest of the world combined, highlighting its unusual strength in turning abstract theory into practical products. Biotechnology (a broad category that describes the use of biological systems to create medical, agricultural, and industrial products) is also dominated by the United States. Biotech revenues in the United States approached $50 billion in 2005, five times as large as the amount in Europe and representing 76 percent of global biotech revenues.”
In other words, much of his argument about the United States’ continued potential derives from science, or, more precisely, the transfer of science (through business) to products that benefit society. He also praises the American system of higher education:
“Indeed, higher education is the United States’ best industry. In no other field is the United States’ advantage so overwhelming. A 2006 report from the London-based Center for European Reform points out that the United States invests 2.6 percent of its GDP in higher education, compared with 1.2 percent in Europe and 1.1 percent in Japan. Depending on which study you look at, the United States, with five percent of the world’s population, has either seven or eight of the world’s top ten universities and either 48 percent or 68 percent of the top 50. The situation in the sciences is particularly striking. In India, universities graduate between 35 and 50 Ph.D.’s in computer science each year; in the United States, the figure is 1,000. A list of where the world’s 1,000 best computer scientists were educated shows that the top ten schools are all American. The United States also remains by far the most attractive destination for students, taking in 30 percent of the total number of foreign students globally, and its collaborations between business and educational institutions are unmatched anywhere in the world. All these advantages will not be erased easily, because the structure of European and Japanese universities—mostly state-run bureaucracies—is unlikely to change. And although China and India are opening new institutions, it is not that easy to create a world-class university out of whole cloth in a few decades.”
Having experienced both American and British higher education first-hand, I find this particularly interesting. Unfortunately, it’s apples and oranges (undergrad vs graduate school), so I can’t add anything particularly profound. Also, Imperial is more of a technical institution created perhaps more on the American model. It’s certainly not an Oxford or a Cambridge in terms of the emphasis on tradition, but I’m sure others could speak more knowledgeably about that.
Some further thoughts from Zakaria on the intangibles:
“The U.S. system may be too lax when it comes to rigor and memorization, but it is very good at developing the critical faculties of the mind. It is surely this quality that goes some way in explaining why the United States produces so many entrepreneurs, inventors, and risk takers. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, until recently Singapore’s minister of education, explains the difference between his country’s system and that of the United States: “We both have meritocracies,” Shanmugaratnam says. “Yours is a talent meritocracy, ours is an exam meritocracy. We know how to train people to take exams. You know how to use people’s talents to the fullest. Both are important, but there are some parts of the intellect that we are not able to test well—like creativity, curiosity, a sense of adventure, ambition. Most of all, America has a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom, even if it means challenging authority.” This is one reason that Singaporean officials recently visited U.S. schools to learn how to create a system that nurtures and rewards ingenuity, quick thinking, and problem solving. “Just by watching, you can see students are more engaged, instead of being spoon-fed all day,” one Singaporean visitor told The Washington Post. While the United States marvels at Asia’s test-taking skills, Asian governments come to the United States to figure out how to get their children to think.”
Having been through the system that “rewards ingenuity, quick thinking, and problem solving,” I certainly wouldn’t want to see the inside of a school in Singapore! I must have somehow mistaken this dynamism for apathy. I think those statements are true, but perhaps not representative of the whole truth. Those places promoting ingenuity do exist, but so do other, less inspiring classrooms. It’s a system of the “have”s and the “have-not”s, and this alarming trend shows no signs of stopping. A similar tension seems to pervade British higher education, with the halls of Oxbridge being filled with more privileged students than ever before.
Best of all, perhaps, this article is able to prevent a coherent, crystallized world view in a way emphasizing a “systems” approach. Economic prosperity relies heavily on science, which depends in large part on education. Science and education (and indeed science education) are enormous drivers in the economic and political landscapes of successful societies, and I think it’s important to be mindful of this power and responsibility.
It’s a fascinating article, but the conclusion—
“The United States has a window of opportunity to shape and master the changing global landscape, but only if it first recognizes that the post-American world is a reality—and embraces and celebrates that fact.”
—is as underwhelming as it is vacuous. Have you read Niall Ferguson’s Empire followed by Colossus? The first is a detailed history of the British Empire that matches Zakaria’s view. The second book discusses America as Zakaria does – as a kind of Empire. There he differs strongly from Zakaria and says that although America has the biggest armed force on the planet, it is afraid to deploy it in the ‘Imperial’ manner that it could, and (as Feguson maintains, unashamedly), it should.
I am trying to tie together the points that Jeff found interesting about the article, and Henry’s comments about Ferguson’s views, and not doing a very good job of it.
If Zakaria thinks a downhill slide is not inevitable if America slathers science and ingenuity on the world, that seems like a naive view leaving out the rest of the big picture i.e. how America uses other instruments of national power.
Then there’s Ferguson thinking that America should make use of its military in an Imperial manner, and I think a lot of people right now would say that it is. How is that working out? Not very well so far. So Henry, could you discuss a little further what point you wanted to make about Ferguson’s views? I have not read the books.
Hi Betsy – given your expertise I hesitate to offer any opinion more than that of an Interested Reader of Books.
Empire makes the case (contra much current fashion) that the British Empire was a Good Thing. Sure, it had its faults, but it was on the whole a lot better than the alternatives (e.g. Japan, Germany) and served to reduce conflict.
Ferguson makes the point that when the British arrived, they usually came with the long haul in mind. In Colossus, Ferguson shows (as Zakaria oes) that America bows to none in termed of armed might. But when it acts as World Policeman its strategy is always scuppered by political short-termism (which is sort of what Zakaria says, too). Ferguson’s argument is that when the US makes its mind up to (say) invade Iraq, it should be in the habit of projecting a long-term occupation rather than an unsustainable in-and-out job. Ferguson also makes the point that imperialism is not always an evil. Many countries in Africa, for example, worked better as part of an empire than they have since done on their own. Ferguson cites the specific case of Liberia.
Now, I should say that this is (my interpretation of what) Ferguson says, not necessarily my own view, which I am not really qualified to parade on this forum.
Go ahead and parade your views, there’s no harm in having an opinion! Anyway, thanks. I’m probably partially in agreement with Ferguson (I agree about the faulty short-termism on the part of our politicians) but having been in the military I don’t consider it a faceless entity to be used easily or often. I’m not particularly interested in using it as a world cop precisely because of the need for a long term commitment for a very uncertain gain. But I’m sure the book would be interesting food for thought if I ever find time.
I’d certainly recommend Ferguson’s two books. Empire is one of the most lucidly argued books I’ve ever read, right up there with Jared Diamond’s Collapse (which I think is pretty much a work of genius). Take Empire with you on a beach holiday – it’s entertaining as well as informative.
One of the things I learned was that the whole of British India was governed by a cadre of civil servants numbering in the low thousands – as many as you’d need to staff a moderate local authority in Britain today. But the men who made that corps (yes, they were all men) were practically superhuman – to pass the Indian Civil Service exam they had to be experts in Indian languages as well as Latin and Greek (naturally) and had to show that they’d be able to govern a remote district as absolute ruler, alone, without any other English company of any kind, for years at a time.
Colossus is less good in terms of being a great read, partly because some of it started out as high-level articles, and the rest as a book for the lay reader, so its tone is rather uneven. But the message is clear enough.
Thanks for the book recommendations Henry. Your mention of British India reminds me of one of my current reads, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, which looks at the American occupation in Iraq just after the invasion. Enormous contrast to the highly capable British civil servants you mention – many were hired with absolutely no relevant experience, given the job because of their political views. The people trying to restore Iraq’s economy were often recent college grads who had worked on Bush’s campaign. Not sure Latin or Greek would have done much, but understanding something about Iraq and the region would have gone a long way.
Not sure Latin or Greek would have done much, but understanding something about Iraq and the region would have gone a long way.
Quite. Learning some Arabic rather than just shouting at people in English might have helped.
Another book I’ve found most revealing is The Closed Circle: An Interpretation Of The Arabs by David Pryce-Jones, an Arabist. Pryce-Jones is unpopular among the modish intelligentsia because of what are perceived as his right-wing views. But to dismiss him on those rounds is to ignore a lot of common sense. In The Closed Circle Pryce-Jones argues that unless one is prepared to use a degree of force that would be unacceptable to the folks back home, one should not engage in adventures in the Arab World at all. The Closed Circle was published in 1987 since when we’ve had two intifadas and two Gulf Wars. It seems that not enough people were taking notes.