Our Nation: Culture and Change (part 1 of 2)
Culture.
What does that word do for you? I hear it thrown around a lot when talking about change. And change, unless maybe you’ve been living in a Thai jungle for the last 2 years or so, seems to at least be a hot topic on many people’s minds lately.
(No offense intended if you have in fact been living in a Thai jungle and feel this image unfitting.)
How important is culture to a country’s ability to change? Is change an inherent characteristic of our nation’s culture?
President-elect Obama, in his acceptance speech on election night, said, “For that is the true genius of America- that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”
I bring this up first as a topic on a national level because I think it’s important to understand change in the context of our nation’s character, regardless of political stance, before getting down to how NASA fits in. Given the potential for some big changes happening in the country and the space program in the near future, it may help to better understand yesterday’s and today’s cultures as we strive to create the changes of tomorrow.
(Feel free to comment on NASA culture here if you want, but part 2 will be “Our NASA: Culture and Change”.)
6 Responses to “Our Nation: Culture and Change (part 1 of 2)”
Leave a Reply
BD on December 19th, 2008
Cultures are inherently dynamic. While specific ideas (memes), technologies, or images might define and hold them together for decades or centuries, eventually they will lose their power or come to mean different things. Consider what “freedom” or “honor” meant to the American founders compared to how Americans might define them today. Do we even discuss honor?
Otherwise, I find the notion of “perfecting” a culture somewhat implausible and, quite frankly, distasteful. If a society or person feels they’re “perfect,” they believe they’ve reached a state where they no longer need to change. If you’re not changing (as a culture or a person), you’re dead.
So, what’s the point of the above? First, change is inevitable, and second, attempts to arrest change at some “ideal state” will cause a culture to stagnate. That said, there are still elements of a culture worth keeping and perpetuating (otherwise, they wouldn’t have lasted X number of years). Running forward toward the future without any regard for tradition leaves you rootless. Looking back to the past can leave you stuck in old habits. The trick, as always, is knowing how to apply the old to the new, and when to head out in new directions completely.
Rivers on December 21st, 2008
I just wrote an article on OpenGoddard on a new effort to change the NASA culture that is relevant to this conversation. Check out http://opengoddard.com/discuss.....ment-team/
ahoppin on December 22nd, 2008
I talk a good bit about the NASA culture I’ve experienced, and efforts to shift it, in this video of a talk I gave at PSFK in Singapore in October:
http://globehoppin.wordpress.c.....asia-2008/
Michael Mealling on December 22nd, 2008
A couple of things:
1) There is such a thing as good and bad culture. PC relativism may feel good but accepting certain cultures (Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Los Angeles’ gangs, or NASA’s worship of the Apollo era) as somehow being morally equivalent of your own because you feel squeamish about criticizing someone doesn’t do anyone any good. When you see bad aspects of a culture comment on them and call them such.
2) That said, I have great respect for multiculturalism. I just prefer having multiple functioning cultural systems that respect human rights (note: IMHO there is no such thing as a positive right, but that’s a discussion for another forum). That’s something I believe the country (and NASA) needs to embrace if we are to survive and thrive.
These two points lead me to a couple of conclusions. Allowing multiple cultural systems to co-exist requires all cultures to learn how to leave each other alone. For the country that means the LGBT community needs to stop trying to redefine the cultural/religious concept of marriage and the right needs to stop creating laws that create privileges/responsibilities that depend on that same cultural/religious concept.
As someone who considers himself right-libertarian (and agnostic-anarcho-capitalist Singulatarian/extropian after a drink or two), the word “change” bothers the hell out of me when its coming from a politician (especially one with both houses belonging to his party). Mr. Obama’s change rhetoric struck me as suggesting that those of us on the right were not just different, but so wrong as to be intolerable and in need of “re-education”. And the rhetoric around what we are going to “change” to suggests that the future state has no place at all for small government adherents like myself. While the new Administration’s appointees may be interesting, several of them suggest we are going to be a carbon copy of Europe before 2010. Multiculturalism at the national/geopolitical level doesn’t mean turning the United States into Europe-with-a-Texas-accent.
So, now that I’ve ranted, what does this mean to NASA? I think it means that NASA needs to embrace multiple cultures while getting rid of those that simply don’t work. I think it means embracing multiple paths to getting places (multi-vendor cislunar infrastructure, not single NASA-built Apollo-redux). It means understanding that science is not the end-all-be-all of NASA. And it means that NASA does not have a monopoly on space.
Fitzpatrick on December 26th, 2008
@BD, Good thoughts. I think you’re right that a component of culture is dynamic, yet I don’t think change is inherent of all cultures. The other side of culture is built around the exact opposite- that in the face of change, there are aspects of these institutions that reliably DON’T change. Culture, as it relates to values, traditions, ideologies and philosophies- can be built to rigid standards, almost stubborn to any and all changes, or it can have the flexibility to change as an integral aspect of its makeup.
In the case of our nation, I think our forefathers envisioned a system that embraces change but is based on principles that would be universal regardless of the dynamic influences taking place in the world.
When it comes to ‘perfecting’ I think the intent was never to actually imagine an all-perfect union but that in the process of striving for perfection, the union would continuously look to improve itself, instead of falling into a habit of complacently accepting “good enough”.
(The line “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…” is the opening sentence of the Constitution).
Jen on February 5th, 2009
After some searching, I found your Powerpoint presentation. I am fascinated by the question of culture at NASA, and hope to study it more, and I appreciate your posts, and the development of this website. Keep up the good work, and working on things you believe in.
Regarding the slide on what influences Gen Y vs the Baby Boomers, a question that comes to mind. What do you suppose the impact of the financial meltdown will be on the attitudes, values, or culture of Gen Y? Maybe this is a topic for another blog, and will be purely speculative, but I think Gen Y ought to think about it.
As for NASA, we ARE Risk Averse. And you can’t make global change toward innovation without seriously changing the structure that supports the behavior. It appears some look to industry (possibly with some jealousy at their resources and flexibility) as the answer, but it is important to remember that in the end, for industry, it comes down to who’s getting rich. Without a strong scientific backbone resident at NASA, the government will never be an informed buyer, and WE THE PEOPLE will not be served.
I hate to tell the Gen Y’ers that industry is about money, and government is about politics. But regardless, I’m a tail end BB who still believes I can make change happen. I’m glad to see Gen Y’ers who still believe too.