[bjd-responsive-iframe src="http://videos.liftconference.com/v.ihtml/player.html?source=share&photo%5fid=1168919"]

Ben Hammersley It’s been a fan­tas­tic set­up, the pre­vi­ous three speak­ers. We’ve seen, real­ly, the shock that is run­ning through soci­ety at the moment. The mas­sive changes that’ve been hap­pen­ing. This year is the 21st year of the World Wide Web. It was turned on on Christmas Day twen­ty years ago, just down the road.

In those 20, 21 years, the Web has been part of a major rev­o­lu­tion which has real­ly ripped apart Western civ­i­liza­tion. And this has cre­at­ed a bizarre sit­u­a­tion that we have now, which is a split­ting of the gen­er­a­tions and a chang­ing con­cept of coun­tries and orga­ni­za­tions. More to the point a change in the con­cept of the psy­cho­log­i­cal make­up of Western civ­i­liza­tion, and that’s what I want to talk to you about today.

Over the past few days, you’ll have seen the same bewil­dered look on lots of old peo­ples’s faces. If you were watch­ing tele­vi­sion last night, you’ll have seen it on Hosni Mubarak’s face. He had the look on his face which is the same look that you’d get from say, a Swiss indus­tri­al­ist who’s just met the Internet, or a media mogul who’s just real­ized that their news­pa­per’s gone bank­rupt. It’s the look of What the hell just hap­pened there?”

So I’ve been very inter­est­ed the past year or so in look­ing at the psy­cho­log­i­cal effects of what we will be talk­ing about here in this room for the next cou­ple of days. Because those psy­cho­log­i­cal effects are hap­pen­ing very very strong­ly in the group of peo­ple who hap­pen to be run­ning the world. The peo­ple over about the age of 55 or 60 who are the elites, the polit­i­cal and indus­tri­al and intel­lec­tu­al elites, who were meant to be run­ning the future and yet are extra­or­di­nar­i­ly con­fused by the present.

Of course, the peo­ple younger than the peo­ple in this room, the dig­i­tal natives,” Generation D, what­ev­er you want to call them. The kids. They don’t have a prob­lem with this. They don’t talk about inno­va­tion. They don’t talk about the future, it’s just the thing that they do. The only peo­ple who talk about inno­va­tion are the peo­ple our age, the buffer gen­er­a­tion, the dirty half-breeds that we are. And the old guys who’re a lit­tle bit freaked out.

So I want­ed to find out pre­cise­ly what is it, psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly, that’s mak­ing these old­er guys freaked out, because I have to deal with these peo­ple on a dai­ly basis. I have to put projects through and get them to agree to it, as do every­body here. So that’s what we’re going to talk about.

In the begin­ning was distance

Let’s talk about what defined a coun­try. A cou­ple of thou­sand years ago when we had democ­ra­cy. A cou­ple thou­sand years ago, coun­tries were defined by the dis­tance between us and them. We knew we were us because we’re here, and we know they’re them because they’re over there. They’re the oth­er peo­ple who are far away. And we’re us cause we’re close. That pret­ty much defined a coun­try. And over time, dif­fer­ent cul­tures, dif­fer­ent lan­guages, dif­fer­ent lit­er­a­tures, dif­fer­ent reli­gions, dif­fer­ent forms of gov­ern­ment, dif­fer­ent creeds, all of these things devel­oped sim­ply as a mat­ter of dis­tance between groups of peo­ple. The rea­son why the Swiss are Swiss and not the French is because the French are over there, and the Swiss are here. All the oth­er stuff came afterwards.

The dis­tance defined us, it defined exact­ly where we were. It was only after­wards, as a mat­ter of con­ve­nience, that we start­ed draw­ing lines on maps. We defined our­selves by being us and the oth­er a them. This is the same soci­etal­ly. You knew where you are in the struc­ture of your soci­ety. There’s peo­ple above you, and there are peo­ple below you.

So these coor­di­nates, this sys­tem of know­ing where you were and who you were as a per­son, was very hier­ar­chi­cal and very ingrained into all of civ­i­liza­tion. You are British and middle-class. We know where we are. There’s peo­ple above us, peo­ple below us. And these hier­ar­chies aren’t just soci­etal. They’re in our fam­i­lies; dad­dy at the top. They’re in our com­pa­nies; there’s the CEO at the top. They’re in our aca­d­e­m­ic insti­tu­tions; the pro­fes­sors and the chan­cel­lors at the top. The pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als at the top. The mod­els at the top. The foot­ballers. Whatever it is. Whatever indus­try you’re in, there will be a hier­ar­chy with the peo­ple at the top, you know­ing your place, and peo­ple below you, hopefully.


So at the end of the 19th cen­tu­ry, begin­ning of the 20th cen­tu­ry, Freud came along and he kind of wrote this down. And he cod­i­fied the soci­ety based on these hier­ar­chi­cal rela­tion­ships. He gave two things to Western civ­i­liza­tion: he gave us an expla­na­tion of a lot of this stuff, and he tracked it way back to the Enlightenment when the Pope was at the top. And he also gave us a cog­ni­tive toolk­it, the abil­i­ty to under­stand sys­tems. Not just the abil­i­ty to see there was a hier­ar­chy in cer­tain places, but the abil­i­ty to under­stand that hierarchy.

And that was the dom­i­nant intel­lec­tu­al frame­work for the 20th cen­tu­ry. The dom­i­nant intel­lec­tu­al frame­work for the time of mass indus­tri­al­iza­tion. The dom­i­nant intel­lec­tu­al frame­work for the build­ing of mod­ern Europe. The dom­i­nant intel­lec­tu­al frame­work for the Industrial Revolution, for moder­ni­ty, for post-modernity even.

Now, because of these hier­ar­chies and because of these sys­tems and these dis­tances, we start to judge our­selves by num­bers. Our economies are based on num­bers, obvi­ous­ly. And our posi­tion in our com­pa­nies, or our pop­u­lar­i­ty on Twitter, are based on num­bers. And those num­bers have to be count­ed in some way. You have to set boundaries. 

And we’ve inher­it­ed real­ly old bound­aries. It makes no sense what­so­ev­er eco­nom­i­cal­ly to count say, the French econ­o­my as every­thing inside the French bor­ders. Because there’s bits of France which are real­ly rich and there are bits of of France which are real­ly poor. And they’re only all French because a thou­sand years ago it was hard to get on a horse and go fur­ther than that. These are arbi­trary bor­ders and arbi­trary things, but still these are very ingrained in Western civilization.

The wrong cog­ni­tive toolkits

So we find our­selves now in the 21st cen­tu­ry, in the sec­ond decade of the 21st cen­tu­ry, and the third decade of the Web, with the wrong cog­ni­tive toolk­its. What do I mean by this? Well, think back. Pretend you are 60 years old. If you think back, you grew up dur­ing the Cold War, and you grew up dur­ing a com­plete­ly hier­ar­chi­cal sys­tem. You knew who the ene­mies were because they were those guys over there. You know where you were in soci­ety. You knew where you were in your busi­ness. You knew that you had to go that way. [points upwards] This was all under­stood as part of the intel­lec­tu­al frame­work of your soci­ety because that was based on Freudian thought, and it was all very sim­ple and all very easy.

And in 1989 the Berlin Wall falls, and sud­den­ly the them over there don’t exist any­more. A year lat­er, the first Web serv­er is turned on, and these net­works start to form. First it’s just nerds, geeks, peo­ple talk­ing about social net­works in 1993. But slow­ly and sure­ly, this thing starts to hap­pen. And you start read­ing about it in the newspapers.

In 1999, 2000, the dot-com boom hap­pens, the rules of eco­nom­ics seem to be rewrit­ten. 2001, the dot-com crash hap­pens, and the new rules are ripped up again. Suddenly we’re left with no rules at all. 

And then September 11th hap­pens, and even the type of ene­my we have is changed completely.

If you are old­er than mid­dle age at that point, it’s per­fect­ly rea­son­able for you to be com­plete­ly con­fused. Thoroughly, thor­ough­ly weird­ed out by mod­ern times. The tragedy is, is you are about to be in charge.

Future shock

So no won­der you’re a lit­tle bit freaked out. And no won­der for the past decade or so, we’ve had con­fer­ence after con­fer­ence after con­fer­ence talk­ing about inno­va­tion. We’ve got to be inno­v­a­tive, we’ve got to think in a new way, we’ve got to think out­side the box. 

Telling some­body to be inno­v­a­tive is like telling some­body to be fun­ny. It’s real­ly hard. Doesn’t kin­da work. But this is one way of get­ting out of it. It’s one way to sort of self-therapy. Instead of start­ing drink­ing, you start read­ing self-help books. And you start to be innovative.

So we now find our­selves in a sit­u­a­tion which is per­fect­ly nat­ur­al for peo­ple under the age of peo­ple here at Lift, where all of those hier­ar­chies, and the fun­da­men­tal basis of those hier­ar­chies, have fall­en away. The dis­tance that made us cre­ate those coun­tries, which then built those soci­etal hierarchies…that no longer makes any sense. As you know, right? You can send an email any­where in the world, it’ll get there in the same time. And for the inter­na­tion­al elite that we have in the room here today, you all have, undoubt­ed­ly, friends in New York and San Francisco and Berlin and Tokyo and Australia or what­ev­er, all of whom you have much more in com­mon with than you do with your neighbor.

You’ve cre­at­ed dias­po­ras of inter­est. The death of dis­tance has cre­at­ed many dif­fer­ent new forms of coun­try. Countries which aren’t based on how far it is from us to those guys over there, but new coun­tries based on what you’re inter­est­ed in. On your cul­ture. On your beliefs. On your principles.

These new cul­tures might be reli­gious. They might be based on a love of vam­pire nov­els. They might be based on being inno­v­a­tive or being open source pro­gram­mers, or what­ev­er it is. But you have stronger ties now I would say, to peo­ple of your inter­ests around the world, than you do with your neigh­bors. And almost undoubt­ed­ly than with your fam­i­ly. Think if it’s pos­si­ble for you to explain your job to your par­ents. I bet most of the peo­ple in this room can’t. 

Mailing lists with guns

This cre­ates all sorts of inter­est­ing sit­u­a­tions. We talked about 911 ear­li­er. Al Qaeda is a mail­ing list with a weapons bud­get. It’s a Facebook page with explo­sives. They’re not a coun­try. They don’t have an address. You can’t go there and vis­it them and give them a nasty let­ter. You can’t vis­it them and com­plain loud­ly. You can’t bomb them. They’re a new cul­tur­al form that’s cre­at­ed as a dias­po­ra of inter­est across this net­work. This is a fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent type of thing than we had before with the Russians, because the Russians, you know where they live. You could call them up. You can send them piz­za. Same thing hap­pens in Tunisia and Egypt. It’s very very dif­fi­cult to shoot a hashtag.

Pyramids and Sheets

So now we have our­selves split into two types of gen­er­a­tion. You have the old­er guys, much old­er than peo­ple in this room, who lived in and were brought up in a world of pyra­mids, or hier­ar­chies. And you have a younger gen­er­a­tion, much younger than the peo­ple in this room, who’ve lived in a world of sheets, of net­works, where there are no hierarchies.

And we’re in the middle.

We have a very dif­fi­cult job. Because the peo­ple who did­n’t grow up with hier­ar­chies have absolute­ly no con­cept of what a hier­ar­chy is. And the peo­ple old­er than us, who grew up sole­ly with hier­ar­chies have no con­cept of how a net­work could pos­si­bly work. Every time you try and explain what’s hap­pen­ing with these net­work things, they try and fit them onto a men­tal lens of hierarchies. 

You can see this again in anti-terrorism activ­i­ties: Shoot the leader and every­body else will go away.” Whereas the gen­er­a­tion younger than ours will go, That does­n’t make sense at all. What’s a leader?”

They can’t under­stand that they can’t under­stand what they can’t understand.

I apol­o­gize to the trans­la­tors for this fol­low­ing sen­tence. The prob­lem we have is the peo­ple run­ning the world right now, the elites at Davos, the peo­ple advis­ing Mubarak, the heads of the cor­po­ra­tions, the peo­ple in charge of the edu­ca­tion­al syl­labus­es, pos­si­bly your boss­es, not only don’t under­stand this non-hierarchical world, and not only do they not under­stand how to under­stand it, but they don’t under­stand that they could nev­er pos­si­bly under­stand how to under­stand it.

They lack the intel­lec­tu­al frame­work on which to base this new form of busi­ness, this new form of think­ing. The prob­lem is that we kind of can’t kill them. We can’t get rid of these peo­ple. Demographically speak­ing, in Europe they’re in the major­i­ty. Which is why it’s thrilling to go to Brazil, or China. Because it’s native there. But here in Europe, old-style gov­ern­ment and old-style cap­i­tal­ism is still going to be around for a bit, at least. Unless there’s a real­ly real­ly cold win­ter, we’re kin­da stuck with these people.

So what can we do? This real­ly is your mis­sion for the rest of the week. Your mis­sion for the rest of the week is to look at all of the things that we talk about here, look at all the new inno­va­tions, look at all the new ideas, look at the new ways of doing busi­ness, new ways of think­ing, the new ways of run­ning your coun­tries, the new ways of run­ning your cor­po­ra­tions, your orga­ni­za­tions, your per­son­al lives, and start to think about them in a way that you can explain to the old guys.

Because for the past ten or fif­teen years, we’ve talked con­tin­u­ous­ly, over and over and over again about inno­va­tion and dis­rup­tive tech­nolo­gies, and rev­o­lu­tions. And the rea­son that you’ve had prob­lems, the rea­son that your boss­es don’t let you do that project, the rea­son that the rev­o­lu­tion has­n’t come unless peo­ple take to the streets, is because the peo­ple we’re talk­ing to lack the cog­ni­tive toolk­it to under­stand what the hell we’re talk­ing about.

Explain, not complain

So our mis­sion, our pri­ma­ry prob­lem isn’t to encour­age inno­va­tion, because peo­ple are going to inno­vate any­way. Because it’s fun. It’s why you get up in the morn­ing. Our pri­ma­ry prob­lem isn’t to encour­age inno­va­tion. Our pri­ma­ry prob­lem is to trans­late it.

And there’s a gen­er­a­tion between the old guys who don’t get it at all, and the young guys who don’t even see it as inno­va­tion. There’s a gen­er­a­tion between those whose job it is to do that trans­la­tion. Our job is to clear the path to allow the young peo­ple to come through with this revolution.

So that’s what your job is for the next cou­ple of days. It’s to look at every­thing that hap­pens on this stage and work out How can I explain that to my moth­er?” And when you come up with that answer (explain it to your moth­er or your chair­man or your pres­i­dent or your par­lia­men­tary mem­ber or what­ev­er it is), then your respon­si­bil­i­ty for the future is to do just that. It’s going to be a real­ly real­ly dif­fi­cult job. But it is much more nec­es­sary than encour­ag­ing peo­ple to innovate.

Thank you very much.

Further Reference

Presentation descrip­tion [Wayback] at the Lift con­fer­ence site, and at their video archive.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.