Innovation for Society. Joëlle Forest
Читать онлайн книгу.
to thinking about the meaning of innovation for the company seems to go hand in hand with the idea that everything that is new would necessarily be profitable for us!
1.2.2.2. The paradox of happiness
The illusion of the meaning of innovation is also noticeable on the consumer side. The consumption of innovation has now become a routine. Indeed, while innovation used to be exceptional, it is now expected and has become a “mass product”. The MediaCom study of September 10, 2015 reveals that 73% of French people make innovation a real purchasing criterion [MED 15]10, and underlines that innovation is desired by more than one target group11. Innovation attracts the vast majority of French people, regardless of their age (16–24 years: 91%, 50–65 years: 76%), sex (men: 82%, women: 81%) or socio-professional (CSP) status (inactive: 78%, CSP+: 85%).
This appetite for innovation is related to the fact that innovation is spontaneously associated with expected benefits, whether these benefits are
– functional: the innovation simplifies daily life, saves time, etc.;
– hedonistic: the innovation contributes to immediate satisfaction; it gives new magic to daily life by giving us new personal experiences;
– symbolic: the innovation contributes to making visible my identity, my belonging to communities, etc.
But more fundamentally, the idea that the increase in the consumption of innovations goes hand in hand with the increase in our well-being12, as if our happiness depends solely on the quantity of objects we possess or experiences we have had, is behind the innovation addiction13.
However, the correlation established between innovation and happiness is an illusion. The richest people, who, technically speaking, are able to consume the most innovations, are not necessarily the happiest. There are several reasons for this:
– the first acknowledges the ephemeral nature of the feeling of happiness associated with possession. Once acquired, the object quickly becomes ordinary and the bubble of happiness bursts;
– the second is our inability to be satisfied with what we have (we often behave like spoiled children and always want more);
– the third is related to the comparison effect. The rapid diffusion of innovations contributes to their democratization and thus reduces the conspicuous character attributed to them by wealthier consumers. Conversely, innovation produces frustration among the most disadvantaged who cannot access this new standard;
– finally, happiness cannot be reduced to the number of assets acquired; “it includes such intangible and subjective elements as feelings of belonging, justice, physical and social security, family development …” [BLO 10, p. 320].
Taking into account the unsustainable nature of the happiness offered by the consumption of innovations, coupled with the fact that a consumer society is now more concerned with stimulating the desire to buy than with providing individuals with “useful” consumption14, in a context increasingly marked by the question of the growing pressure on our environment, updates the question of the meaning of innovation.
1.2.2.3. In search of lost meaning
It will be understood that, with the era of the consumer society, innovation has become dissociated from the idea of Progress, and thus from the reflection on the meaning of society that these innovations help to conceive. This dissociation was made all the easier by the fact that the massification of the production and consumption of innovations seemed to generate meaning, meaning that led to obscuring the eminently political question of which innovations we want for which society15.
Fortunately, since the end of the 20th Century, more and more voices have been raised to denounce this lack of meaning and plead for a new way forward. Indeed, do we need to own one or even two private cars per family when a car is stationary on average 92% of the time? Is it really necessary for American homes to have more televisions than there are people [USA 06]16?
To put it another way, our society does not expect innovation but progress; it does not always demand more innovation but wants well-being17. This idea is clearly perceptible in the study Innology, baromètre de l’innovation carried out by the Iligo Agency and the Reload Consulting and Training Firm in 2017. According to the latter, the ideal function of an innovation is the preservation of natural resources (63%) [ILI 17]18.
However, we must be wary of reducing the question of the meaning of innovation solely to the concerns arising from the advent of ecological awareness. It is a matter of acknowledging that the question of the meaning of innovation is much broader and concerns all innovations designed by humans. Because, as Tristan Harris, Google’s former “product philosopher”, deplores, in referring to the relationship we have with our smartphone, Silicon Valley companies push us to spend as much time as possible on their interfaces (what he calls “captology”), and paradoxically “millions of hours are just stolen from people’s lives and there is not a single public debate about it”19.
It should also be stressed that, while we can only welcome the dissemination of the precepts of sustainable development within our society20, it is nevertheless necessary to think about the meaning of the proposed directions. The production of solar, wind or any “renewable” energy requires the use of rare minerals found in electric car batteries, X-ray machines or smartphone chips, which, in addition to being rare, are non-renewable, so that an innovation deemed responsible in its purpose may have a catastrophic ecological footprint or be carried out under deplorable working conditions [PAV 18, p. 167]. Similarly, it is necessary to question the tendency of our societies to think about the environment through the prism of recycling.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the meaning of what we are saying; it is neither a question of minimizing the ecological emergency situation in which our societies find themselves, nor of denying the benefits of this reflection, as they are palpable as evidenced by the reduction in the use of materials per unit manufactured and in the consumption of energy when using products, the replacement of polluting raw materials, etc. More modestly, it is a question of collectively questioning the meaning of this direction21. Does it not lead to maintaining, if not reinforcing, the process of massification of the production and consumption of innovations mentioned above? As Romain Debref points out, based on the work of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen:
Innovations that are considered environmental may well belong to, and reinforce, the era of Prometheus II rather than providing a transition to another form of development. Some projects based on a circular economic logic reflect this situation [DEB 16].
Similarly, we know that the sustainable urban factory does not benefit everyone equally, as it generally leads to higher land prices, which can contribute to socio-spatial segregation. Therefore, the P.S.I. approach invites us to make the sustainable city a political question: what do we decide to do with eco-neighborhoods or in order to reduce socio-spatial segregation?
In short, it must be stressed that the environmental question cannot replace the question of the meaning of innovation and that it is urgent to reintegrate the question of the political meaning of innovation (understood in the primary meaning of “what concerns the citizen”), which is too often hidden behind a purely technical conception of the problems [FOR 15, p. 15].
1.3. The P.S.I. approach (Penser