Reading this book called The Geography of Thought. About how thought processes are different in the East (China and those civilisations influenced by China – Korea, Japan mainly) and the West (the US. Why, is there any other West?). And why.
Nisbett uses Aristotle and Confucius as the two ends of the ‘thought’ spectrum to analyse and understand the differences in the way their descendants make sense of the world around them.
From the blurb:
– Why did the ancient Chinese excel at algebra and arithmetic, but not geometry, the brilliant achievement of such Greeks as Euclid?
– Why do East Asians find it so difficult to disentangle an object from its surroundings?
– Why do Western infants learn nouns more rapidly than verbs, when it is the other way around in East Asia?
– What are the implications of these cognitive differences for the future of international politics? Do they support a Fukuyamaesque “end of history” scenario or a Huntingtonian “clash of civilizations”?
On this note, one random thought :
West – Unilever, Ford, Proctor & Gamble, JWalter Thompson, Leo Burnett, Dun & Bradstreet, ACNielsen – who we are
India – Reliance, Bombay Dyeing, Parle, IMRB, Mudra – what we do
Why are Indian companies rarely named after their founder / promoter (s) – the Tata, Godrej, RKSwamy kinds being an aberration rather than the norm
After all, India as a cultutre, worships what one is rather than what one does – dignity of labour? No way.
Any explanations?
About the names thing. I don’t think that’s correct. I can rattle off lots and lots of Indian companies named after their founders. Birlas, Muruggappa, Kirloskars, etc. I think the answer is more likely to be found in:
1) Fashion – Sometimes naming after yourself is “in”. Sometimes it is not.
2) How they grew. If a company grew slowly from a partnership, then they’ll most probably retain the name.
3) How they grew – If they start off with a brand that’s successful, they might end up naming the entire company and industrial house after it.
It is a research topic by itself, but my best guess is that the results will turn out to have very little to do with cultural differences.
Second Ravikiran.
Most of India’s better organizations have been named after the founders.
TVS, Hinduja, Birla, Parry’s (not essentially different from the murugappa group, but still lots of brand equity)
Then there are the law firms and Chartered Accountant firms – Kutty and Sankaran, and so on.
The book probably forgot to mention that Indian excelled to a very good degree in both Algebra and Geometry (you only have to look at our temples and structures to find out). Indian mathematics and science was pretty advanced, and probably on par with the greek. Only, we didn’t develop it seperately as a science, more as a means to religion and god. I think that’s were we lost out.
why this defensiveness? it is not about We against Them – neither the book nor this post.
One can always give a list of Indian companies names after their founders and US companies not so named. my point here was about the general tendency… and surely, a lot of US companies retain the name of their original ‘founding fathers’ long after they have passed into the public realm – P & G is still named after Mr. Proctor and Mr. Gamble for instance…. and the Lever Brothers live on… Leo Burnett, DDB Needham, JWT, O&M…
whereas in India, even a person / individual driven business, like say, qualitative research, is never named after the person – take any MR agency – they always advertise what they “offer” – even though the sole strength of the agency is the ‘proprietor’
this should have been a post in itself 🙂