Abstract
In the 1990s, historians argued the necessity to rethink the word ‘progress’, as they thought that there was a breakdown of belief in the idea of progress. Twenty years later, many countries rely on the concept of ‘innovation’ both as an instrument and as a value to be pursued by society, while the use of ‘progress’ as a socio-political ideal has faded away in most public discourses. In this regard, this paper argues that the concept of innovation is an adaptation of the idea of progress to our age. First, it examines the exact meaning of progress in previous eras and its role, which is similar to today’s concept of innovation for elite policymakers and intellectuals in the 19th and 20th centuries, with reference to European and non-European authors. Second, it examines how ‘progress’ was gradually replaced by the term ‘innovation’ to express socio-political value in socio-political discourses during the late 20th century. The concept of innovation differs from that of progress, particularly in that the former is based on discontinuity and diversity. On one hand, it obliges us to bet on abrupt and unpredictable changes as the only way to secure a better future. On the other hand, thanks to its principle of diversity, it is capable of liberating many non-Western societies from one-dimensional measures of civilisation, as West European countries and North America were once depicted as a model for everyone to follow. Despite these differences, innovation can be considered a legitimate heir of the social values from the Enlightenment, as was the case for progress in the past, especially after the decline of Marxist theory. Its remnants can be seen in some of today’s expressions related to innovation, such as social inclusion and co-creation. However, innovation has inherited another troublesome aspect of the modern notion of progress, mostly derived from the 19th century: evolution through fierce competition. We need to find methods to integrate a more ethical and social perspective in the innovation process and develop a sense of social responsibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See also Koizumi (2019).
- 2.
George Washington signed the bill that laid the foundation of the modern American patent system on 10 April 1790. Vaidhyanathan also cites this in his discussion.
- 3.
Precisely speaking, this ‘Fragment’ is one of the manuscripts prepared by Condorcet for his unfinished work Tableau historique du progrès de l’Espreit humain, of which the Esquisse is just a summary. From the first edition of the Esquisse in 1804, this manuscript continued to be published and well known. As to the details, see the explanation in Condorcet (2004).
- 4.
See also Mclean et al. (2012), pp. xxvi–xlviii. J. C. Borda preceded him in analyzing the paradox of voting of group. Condorcet examined it more systematically and expressed the theory named by Duncan Black as jury theorem.
- 5.
For example, see Rendall (1982), pp. 43–69.
- 6.
As Mark Francis puts it, Spencer has never accepted the idea that modern individuals and societies would continue to make progress through struggle for survival, contrary to popular belief prevailed even in historical discourses in the 20th century. The author suggests that Darwin himself is not free of historical culpability of Social Darwinism (Francis 2014, pp. 2–3).
- 7.
It is also to be noted that the 19th century used ‘progress’ and ‘evolution’ interchangeably (Nisbet 2009, p. 172).
- 8.
During the 1880s, social Darwinist discourses and the name of Spencer attracted more attention of Japanese intellectuals than Darwin’s biological evolutionary theory itself; however, the trend was reversed at the beginning of the 20th century. In that period, biological Darwinism came to attract socialists and to be used for denying the divinity of the imperial family theory, a political invention in the 1890s, and then that kind of discourse was severely censored by the government (有田 2009, Chap. 1).
- 9.
For example, Yan Fu, who translated Huxley in China and studied in the UK.
- 10.
See also the discussion of Laugier and Lechevalier (2019).
- 11.
Bossuet forgets the controversy on innovation in the England of his age, where the bishops accused the Protestant church of innovations in discipline and doctrine because they believed that the innovations brought it towards the superstitious and ‘innovating’ Catholic Church (Godin 2015, p. 246).
- 12.
The Google Ngram database has incomplete information on publications in the 1950 s, which include the phrase ‘technological innovation’. Many errors were noted in the publication years. The number of publications was insufficient to draw a generalised conclusion. Nevertheless, we were able to observe that both the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and Japan, a developing country, have presence among miscellaneous titles.
- 13.
For the contents of the Budapest Declaration, Tateo Arimoto and Satoru Ohtake gave me advice.
- 14.
Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge.
- 15.
The Oslo Manual states that ‘the definition of innovation is expanded to include two additional types of innovations: organisational innovation and marketing innovation. […] The definitions of these types of innovations are still under development and are less well established than the definitions of product and process innovation’ (OECD 2005, pp. 11–12).
- 16.
Notably, they did not try to replace ‘kakushin’ (reform) with ‘gijutsu-kakushin’. At this point, I am unaware of the exact reason, but I believe it is noteworthy that ‘kakushin’ is mostly used to refer to political or social reform rather than being associated with economic issues or business.
- 17.
I am grateful to Pierre-Benoît Joly for suggesting this title.
- 18.
See the argument by Joly (2019).
- 19.
References
Amin, A. (Ed.). (1994). Post-fordism. Oxford and Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Ariga, N., & Kamei, S. [有賀暢迪・亀井修].(2014). 「科学技術白書に見る『技術革新』の意味合いの変遷」. Bulletin of the National Museum of Nature and Science, Series E (Physical Sciences & Engineering), (Vol. 37, pp. 25–41).
Bengt-Åke, L. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
Block, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.) Responsible innovation 2, concepts, approaches, and applications, Ch. 2. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.
Brewer, A. (2008, March). Adam Smith’s stages of history. Bristol Economics Discussion Papers No. 08/601, Department of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
Burgen, A., McLaughlin, P., & Mittelstraß, J. (Eds.) (1997). The idea of progress. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Condorcet. (1976). Selected Writings (K. M. Baker, Ed.). Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.
Condorcet. (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris.
Condorcet. (1988). Esquisse d’un tableau historique des progrès de l’esprit humain. Fragment sur l’Atlantide. Paris: GF-Flammarion.
Condorcet. (2004). Tableau historique du progrès de l’Espreit humain (J.-P. Schandeler & P. Crépel, Eds.). Paris: INED.
d’Alembert, J. L. R. (1787). Eloge de l’Abbé François Régnier Desmarais. Histoire des membres de l’Académie Française, morts depuis 1700 jusqu’en 1771, pour servir de suite aux éloges imprimés et lus dans les séances publiques de cette Compagnie. Paris, t. III Democratic Societies: An Introduction. Minerva, 47, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9126-2.
Dupont, B. (2017). The history of economic ideas: economic thought in contemporary context. London, New York.
European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Horizon 2020—The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Retrieved April 4, 2019 from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0808&from=EN.
Fagerberg, J., Martin, B. R., & Andersen, E. S. (Eds.). (2013). Innovation studies: Evolution & future challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Francis, M. (2014). Herbert spencer and the invention of modern life. London, New York: Routledge.
Freeman, C. (1974). The economics of industrial innovation (1st edn.). Penguin Books.
Freeman, C. (1995). The “National System of Innovation” in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1995(19), 5–24.
Fujigaki, Y. (2019). Lessons from Fukushima for responsible innovation: How to construct a new relationship between science and society? In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 223–239). Berlin: Springer.
Girel, M. (2015). Innovation, Progress and Acceleration, talk given in Engaging Society in Innovation and Creativity, International Workshop organized by the CNRS, the Foundation France-Japon de l’EHESS and the JST/RISTEX, 2 June 2015, Paris.
Godin, B. (2015). Innovation contested—The idea of innovation over the centuries. London: Routledge.
Google. (2019). Google Books Ngram Viewer. [Search result]. Retrieved April 5, 2019 from https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=Technological+innovation&year_start=1900&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=1&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CTechnological%20innovation%3B%2Cc0.
Herman, R., Avram, R. (2011). The contribution of the Neo-Schumpeterian approach to the development of the economic theory: Emphasis on the meso-economic level. Theoretical and Applied Economics, XVIII, 7(560), 111–132.
Hiroi, Y. (2019). Science as care: Science and innovation in post-growth society. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 301–324). Berlin: Springer.
Jiang, J. [姜 娟].(2008).「『イノベーション政策』の概念変化に関する考.察—OECDの政策議論を中心とする—」『研究 技術 計画』Vol. 23(3), 267–287.
Joly, P. B. (2019). Reimagining innovation. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 25–45). Berlin: Springer.
Kato, H. [加藤弘之].(1882).『人権新説』谷山楼.
K’ang, Y. (1958). Ta t’ung shu: The one-world philosophy (L. G. Thompson, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin.
Koizumi, S. (2019). The light and shadow of the fourth industrial revolution. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 63–86). Berlin: Springer.
Kusago, T. (2019). Post-disaster community recovery and community-based collaborative action research—A case of process evaluation method for community life improvement. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 195–221). Berlin: Springer.
Lechevalier, S., Laugier, S. (2019). Innovation Beyond Technology—Introduction. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 1–21). Berlin: Springer.
Mazlish, B. (1996). Progress: A historical and critical perspective. In L. Marx & B. Mazlish (Eds.) Progress: Fact or illusion? Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Mclean, I. S., McMillan, A., & Monroe, B. L. (Eds.). (2012). The theory of committees and elections by Duncan Black and committee decisions with contemporary valuation by Duncan Black and R. A. Newing (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
Migita, H. [右田裕規]. (2009).『天皇制と進化論』青弓社.
Ministry of Education. (1958). White paper on science and technology. Retrieved April 4, 2019 from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpaa195801/index.html.
Miyake, M. [三宅正樹]. (1999).「ヨーロッパとアジアにおける進歩の理念の比較文明論的考察」『明治大学社会科学研究所紀要』第37号.
Niedzviecki, H. (2015). Trees on mars: Our obsession with the future. Seven Stories Press.
Nisbet, R. (2009). History of the idea of progress (Fourth edn.). New Brunswish, London.
OECD. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation Data (3rd Edn.).
Pauchant, T. C. (2016). Adam Smith’s four-stages theory of socio-cultural evolution. The Adam Smith Review, 9, 49–74.
People’s Daily Online. (2007). Full text of Hu Jintao’s report at 17th Party Congress [News report]. Press center of the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. Retrieved May 29, 2015 from http://english.cpc.people.com.cn/66102/6290205.html.
Pestre, D. (2009). Understanding the forms of government in today’s liberal and democratic societies: An introduction. Minerva, 47(3), 243–260.
Pestre, D. (2010). Des sciences et des productions techniques depuis trente ans. Chronique d’une mutation. Le Débat, 3(160), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.3917/deba.160.0115.
Pestre, D. (2019). Environment and social innovation: Why technology never was the solution. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 175–194). Berlin: Springer.
Picon, A., (2003). Utopian socialism and social science. Cambridge history of science (Vol. 7, pp. 71–82). The Modern Social Sciences (Th. M. Porter & D. Ross, Eds.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Rendall, J. (1982). Scottish orientalism: From Robertson to James Mill. The Historical Journal, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0018246x00009857.
Ruphy, S. (2019). Public participation in the setting of research and innovation agenda: Virtues and challenges from a philosophical perspective. In S. Lechevalier (Ed.), Innovation beyond technology (pp. 243–261). Berlin: Springer.
Schot, J., & Steinmuller, E. (2016). Framing innovation policy for transformative change: Innovation policy 3.0. Brighton: SPRU, Draft, 4/9/2016.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Allen & Unwin.
Shigeru Nakayama, S. (1997). Chinese ‘cyclic’ view of history vs Japanese ‘progress’. The Idea of Progress, 65–76.
Smith, A. (1978). Lectures on jurisprudence (R. Meek, D. Raphael, & P. Stein, Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Takeda, T. [武田時昌]. (2003). 「加藤弘之の新科学事始」『変異するダーウィニズム』阪上孝編、京都大学学術出版会 U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2015). Why has innovation supplanted the idea of progress. [Discussion board post]. Retrieved December 12, 2017 from https://aeon.co/conversations/why-has-innovation-supplanted-the-idea-of-progress.
Von Wright, G. H. (1997). Progress: Fact and fiction. The Idea of Progress, 1–18.
Walter Vermeulen, W., Kok, M. et al. (2002). Global warming and social innovation: The challenge of a climate-neutral society. Routledge.
Watanabe, M. [渡部正雄]. (1976). 『日本人と近代科学——西洋への対応と課題——』岩波新書.
World Conference on Science. (1999). Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. Text adopted by the World Conference on Science. Definitive version in 1999. Retrieved April, 5 2019 from http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.htm.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Oki, S. (2019). ‘Innovation’ as an Adaptation of ‘Progress’: Revisiting the Epistemological and Historical Contexts of These Terms. In: Lechevalier, S. (eds) Innovation Beyond Technology. Creative Economy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9053-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9053-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9052-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9053-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)