Article
Article
Freedom without diversity is empty; plurality without dialogue remains blind. This makes it all the more remarkable how much energy is currently devoted to understanding reality solely through the lens of specialised disciplines. One of the greatest weaknesses of today’s universities is therefore not a lack of knowledge, but its fragmentation. We know more and more about less and less; we examine the tiniest hair on the elephant’s left knee without even considering the creature as a whole.
Specialisation will, of course, remain indispensable. Yet how necessary, how enlightening, how enriching dialogue remains – transcending disciplinary and cultural boundaries, as well as methodological silos. The historian recognises developments that remain hidden from the management scientist. The anthropologist sheds light on cultural assumptions that others do not even notice. Younger colleagues see opportunities where older ones primarily recognise risks. Older colleagues, in turn, possess a broader comparative perspective that younger colleagues naturally lack. The interplay of different perspectives yields better – because less distorted – pictures.
Furthermore, engaging with other viewpoints guards against an attitude that spreads nowhere more rapidly than in fragmented worlds of knowledge. By this, we mean the certainty that one already possesses the right questions and concepts. Those who speak with like-minded people find confirmation but rarely surprise. These observations and experiences form the basis of the newly founded St.Gallen Collegium at HSG. For one year, researchers and thinkers from a wide range of disciplines come together there to examine key issues of our time from a fresh, solution-oriented perspective. From insight to impact.
It was therefore only fitting that the first annual theme of this newly established think tank was "Re-interpreting Freedom". After all, any keen observer can sense how the fundamental assumptions of liberal modernity – which have shaped the development of our societies for a good 250 years – are currently being challenged anew. Be it from a political perspective on the ideal of a liberal constitutional state; from an economic perspective on the liberal link between growth, prosperity and freedom; or, culturally, on the state of our education systems and their ideal of self-acquired maturity in the age of artificial intelligence. Freedom as a fundamental concept of our expansive modernity: how might it be redefined, on the basis of which insights and experiences, and with what consequences for action?
Experiments worthy of the name are characterised by the possibility of failure. Their outcome is inherently open-ended, their course risky, and their very starting point already controversial. Anyone who has seriously embarked on the adventure of interdisciplinary dialogue is aware of the associated hurdles, perils and unreasonable demands. Before one even gets round to tackling a problem together, there is a risk of becoming divided over the very question of what the problem in question might consist of. Indeed, does it even exist as such?
The experiences of the research group were no exception in this regard. Looking back, it was primarily three interrelated themes that shaped and drove the discussions: the question of the benefits and drawbacks of the economic growth paradigm in particular; the question of any pathologies at the root — best understood in anthropological and philosophical terms—of our Western, modern conception of freedom; and the question of how to articulate horizons of hope for the continued existence of liberal societies within a planetary context.
It is, above all, the question of (assumed infinite) economic growth in a world of (assumed finite) resources that has sparked such controversial and far-reaching discussions across disciplinary boundaries that it did not seem promising to attempt to centre them on a common position. Activist scepticism towards growth clashed with emphatic support for growth – and thus for the system itself. Meanwhile, a third faction recognised that the discourse’s fixation on the so-called "growth question" – which has persisted for either 50 or 500 years, depending on one’s perspective – is in fact the evil of our time that must be overcome.
Even with regard to the question of what the prevailing misinterpretations of freedom consisted of and at what point they had become culturally dominant, a panorama unfolded so vast and expansive that it remained beyond the grasp of any single central perspective. While some traced the root errors—which continue to guide us to this day—to the transition from the Palaeolithic (approx. 2.5 million years to 10,000 years BC) to the Mesolithic (9500–5500 years BC), others identified the origins of contemporary failures of freedom in the 15th century Venetian Republic, or in the colonialism of exploitation and oppression of other continents—particularly Africa—that began from that point onwards. In these discussions, knowledgeable individual voices persistently disputed that such "pathologies of origin" could even be considered. When viewed in the light of reason, is not everything in the best, most sustainable and worthy-of-continuation order?
In the absence of a single, unified diagnosis, the proposed treatments also vary widely. Should we really wish for things to be any different? Or is the experiment of humanity’s quest for freedom and knowledge not characterised by the constant multiplication of plausible perspectives on what is revealed to us – and thereby also by an increase in the complexity of action? If this were the case, however, the question would still remain as to the reasonably attainable limits of such diversity: Are there, or would there be, societies that, in the name of freedom, suffer from, fail because of, or even despair at such self-created complexity? Are we currently living through such a phase of mounting despair over complexity – and thus hopelessness? And with all the foreseeable consequences, not least political and demographic ones: from populism to fundamentalism; from the maximisation of utility to the destruction of self and nature; from an ageing society to the manifest rejection of the future reflected in the persistent decline in birth rates. If progress is tied to growth and must always be conceived in geographical terms, what new frontiers remain open to our present-day modernity, which is as weary as it is overheated?
It was these very constellations of questions that led the Collegium to seek a form of diversity that would illustrate the breadth of existing perspectives and, at the same time, narrate possible futures. The chosen format was a magazine, with its central focus on an island state in the year 2050 called Toiva, where renewed conceptions of freedom would be politically implemented. Not a utopia, then, but a collectively conceived "best-practice" setting for a future full of hope.
In other words, the first year at the St.Gallen Collegium has wonderfully demonstrated the value of spaces for collective thinking and exploration. Whilst their productivity cannot be planned, they reliably eliminate a myriad of blind spots. They foster intellectual humility and lead to an understanding of the conditional nature of one’s own assumptions and arguments. Historians and anthropologists, business and economics scholars bring not only their own bodies of knowledge and methods, but also different life experiences, cultural influences, and political intuitions. This gives rise to a great deal of friction, and at times also irritation and productive contradiction.
Even within the group, freedom ultimately appeared in a new light. No man is an island. Maturity grows through dialogue. Insight is gained in new contexts. Those who open themselves up to new perspectives broaden the horizons of what is conceivable. One does not become less free when others disagree; rather, one becomes freer by exploring new possibilities. The most exciting insights were never predetermined. They emerged through conversation. Herein perhaps lies the most rewarding experience of working together: that in the end, not only has our understanding of the world grown, but so too has the freedom to navigate it.
