Innovation requires risk. Risk requires courage. Courage responds to fear. The twenty-first century possesses a fear-based, ambivalent posture towards innovation. Only 4% of businesses have not defined innovation as a strategic priority, yet only 10% are satisfied with their current innovative endeavors. Meanwhile, a culture of fear has hamstrung courageous risk taking – from the removal of \u201cunsafe\u201d playground equipment to the ubiquitous reminder, \u201cbetter safe than sorry.\u201d<\/p>\n
Understanding the twenty-first century ethos around fear is essential for the global leader. British sociologist, Frank Furedi, provides a helpful background and framework in his work How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the Twenty-First Century. <\/i>He examines the West\u2019s understanding of fear in its historical context, places the locus of fear in morality, and offers a way forward from a current fatalistic worldview. He locates the fount of healthy fear in moral values, and points to current relativism\u2019s lack of consistent moral worldview as the cause of instability which leads to paralyzing fear.<\/p>\n
Furedi\u2019s work is wanting in a couple of areas. First, his lack of nuance between concern and fear is problematic. Based on his own assessment, couldn\u2019t his concern for a culture of fear be labeled a fear of fear itself? Is his overarching outlook on the future of fear itself a doomsday call? Furthermore, he offers a rational solution to an emotional problem. In his conclusion Furedi remarks, \u201cIf we understand how fear works in the twenty-first century then we can actually do something effective to neutralize its toxic effects\u201d (237). To his defense, perhaps his \u201cdo something\u201d would encompass emotional solutions, but I find his closing remarks leaning too heavily towards the cerebral. An emotional impulse must include more of an emotional solution.<\/p>\n
Furedi intersects with my work in the context of risk and the emotional processes inherent in innovation. He writes, \u201cEven the application of the most rigorous techniques of risk assessment cannot transform the emotion of fear and the forms of behavior it encourages into an instrument of rationality\u201d (22). Whether on the banks of Jordan or the base of Golgotha, neophobia – fear of the new – can paralyze. The answer isn\u2019t a new way of thinking, but a revitalization of historical fear in a community of practice.<\/p>\n
First a revitalization of historical fear and risk. The classical version of fear included \u201cblvd, daring; adventurous\u201d while the current definition of risk does not \u201cpossess any redeeming qualities\u201d (156). This fear, rooted in morality is epitomized in the Judeo-Christian value of fearing the Lord. This reverential awe allows for bold innovation.<\/p>\n
Neither is this is a single hero\u2019s journey, but is best lived in a community of practice. \u201cGood friends turn good intentions into good reality,\u201d a friend of mine is known for saying. A community or network of practitioners act as a mutual encouragement towards appropriate risk and act as a safeguard against all kinds of paralyzing fear. Tongue in cheek to the overly cautious \u201csafety first\u201d mentality, our international missions arm unofficially lauds \u201csafety third\u201d as a mantra. It\u2019s this collective ethos that propels us towards further horizons.<\/p>\n
Creating something new requires traversing the unknown. The unknown entices fear, and always has. Not only does Furedi highlight the historical approach to fear, he also does the same with courage, especially as it finds its locus in classical morality:<\/p>\n
The contemporary version of courage negates its classical equivalent. The classical virtue of courage rooted it within moral norms that emphasized responsibility, altruism and wisdom.The twenty-first-century therapeutic version is not based on unshakable normative foundation; it has become disassociated from moral norms and is adopted instrumentally as a medium for achieving wellness. (182)<\/p>\n
When I talk about providing a theology, attitudes, and methodology for innovation, theology (or more broadly worldview) is essential. Questions like 1)Will the future resemble the present? 2) Is the future comprehensible? and 3) Can humankind influence the future? (82) are all questions of worldview, questions of philosophy, and questions of theology. While innovation seeks to progress in an untethered, relativistic culture, its no wonder why ethics take a back seat. Innovation theory must admit these essential questions are not driven by desirability, feasibility and viability, but are inherently philosophical questions that no market can answer.<\/p>\n
Perhaps more than anything else, Christian innovators can offer hope to the teleology of doom. One essential attitude of innovation is that overwhelming belief that tomorrow can be better than today. Anti-fatalistic, anti-nihilistic hope. Someone who can look into the void of the unknown and see light, redemption and shalom. Someone who can shepherd beyond neophobia, past the fear of the unknown, and even through the fear of fear itself. Someone of courage. Someone who can risk. Someone who can innovate.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
Frank Furedi, How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the Twenty-First Century <\/i>(London, Bloomsbury Continuim: 2018).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Innovation requires risk. Risk requires courage. Courage responds to fear. The twenty-first century possesses a fear-based, ambivalent posture towards innovation. Only 4% of businesses have not defined innovation as a strategic priority, yet only 10% are satisfied with their current innovative endeavors. Meanwhile, a culture of fear has hamstrung courageous risk taking – from the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":131,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1890,1579],"class_list":["post-26795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-furedi","tag-innovation","cohort-lgp10"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26795","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/131"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26795"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26795\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26797,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26795\/revisions\/26797"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}