1 Introduction: the fact of Society 5.0 is cold treatment in China

In 2016, the Japanese government proposed "Society 5.0," which sparked extensive discussions in the international academic community. What does Society 5.0 entail? From the early 1990s to 2010, Japan experienced a period of economic stagnation lasting for two decades. The underlying cause was the demographic crisis characterized by an aging population and declining birth rates, which resulted in a significant decrease in productivity and posed a serious threat to the industrial ecology within Japan (Zhu, 2016). In 2012, during the second term of the Abe administration, measures were sought to effectively address economic stagnation, population aging, and other social issues, in order to alleviate the growing social conflicts in Japan. It was against this backdrop that "Abenomics" was introduced, aiming to stimulate the domestic economy in the short term and achieve positive results. However, the effectiveness of Abenomics waned over time, prompting the Japanese government to seek new breakthroughs as a replacement. Meanwhile, starting from the mid-1990s, artificial intelligence experienced a third wave of profound development. Driven by pressing social problems and the wave of technological advancements, the Japanese government suggested in their January 2016 report "Fifth Science and Technology Basic Plan" that a society called Society 5.0, characterized by human superintelligence, could be achieved through the revolution of artificial intelligence (Jin, 2020). Based on this, the concept of "Society 5.0 - Super Smart Society" was formally proposed, which aims to build a new societal system where virtual space and physical space are highly integrated. It transcends differences such as age, gender, region, and language, creating necessary conditions for diverse and potential needs in terms of material goods and public services. It enables people to experience a pleasant and vibrant high-quality urban life, thus constructing a new society that is human-centered, adaptive to economic development, and effectively addresses social issues.

This study conducted a search on existing domestic and international research on "Society 5.0" to observe the trends in academic discussions both domestically and overseas. Firstly, using the Web of Science core dataset, a search was performed using the keyword "Society 5.0." The search period was set from 2016 to 2022, resulting in approximately 2935 English-language papers being screened. The study utilized the CNKI database to compare the research interest disparity in the selected field across different regions. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) is a comprehensive academic database service in China. It is one of the largest and most authoritative online resources for Chinese academic journals, conference papers, dissertations, and other types of academic literature. CNKI covers a wide range of subjects including science, technology, social sciences, humanities, medicine, and more. Simultaneously, a search was conducted on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) using the keyword "Society 5.0", resulting in only 27 Chinese-language papers being screened. Comparing the number and timing of publications between domestic and international literature reveals that the international publication volume on the topic of "Society 5.0" has shown a linear increase since 2016 (Fig. 1). Over the past five years, there has been a significant rise in international academic interest in "Society 5.0." On the other hand, the level of discussion on "Society 5.0" in China has remained consistently low. This basic fact raises the question: What are the fundamental reasons behind this observation?

Fig. 1
figure 1

Comparison of research interest in "Society 5.0" between domestic and international contexts, the data came from web of science core database and China national knowledge infrastructure. Source: author

Full size image

The purpose of this study is to answer the fundamental reasons for the observation described. The research methodology employed in this article is a "critical evaluation of literature review," which investigates the understanding and perception of "Society 5.0" within the academic community and society in China through critical literature review, analyzing the underlying reasons and limiting factors for the identified gaps. The study establishes a "Critical Three Arrays of Society 5.0," including the Reverse Array, Forward Array, and Practice Array. The Reverse Critical Array aims to examine and evaluate the limitations and deficiencies in the literature, employing a critical analysis to question existing viewpoints or propose alternative explanations. The Forward Critical Array aims to explore innovative and forward-thinking critical viewpoints in the literature, helping to identify new research areas and explore future development trends. The Practice Critical Array aims to link theory with practice, identifying failure cases in practical implementation and summarizing lessons learned. These matrices facilitate a systematic analysis and evaluation of the literature, offering different perspectives to explore and interpret relevant viewpoints and evidence, revealing limitations, deficiencies, or theoretical shortcomings, and aiming to propose more comprehensive, accurate, or future-oriented viewpoints for the further development of "Society 5.0," potentially referred to as "Civilization 5.0."

2 Three critical arrays of Society 5.0

2.1 Reverse critical array

In recent years, international literature on Society 5.0 has been characterized by mixed opinions, with many scholars who endorse the concept delving into the concepts and theories of a smart society. The findings of previous research needs to be reviewed carefully or through critical lens. The following sections critically examine existing research on Society 5.0 from four perspectives: dynamics, concepts, elements, and goals.

  1. 1.

    Conceptual array

    In their conclusion of the bibliometric analysis, Roblek et al. (Roblek et al., 2020) mentioned that a transition from Society 4.0 to Society 5.0 can be achieved by implementing knowledge and technology in the fields of the Internet of Things, robotics, and big data. However, it is worth noting that Japan's initial proposal of Society 5.0 was not based on Society 4.0 but rather on Germany's Industry 4.0. The concept of Industry 4.0 was first introduced by German industrial enterprises and technological associations, gaining official recognition and eventually becoming a national-level economic policy in Germany (Kang, 2019). It was officially mentioned by the government in the "High-Tech Strategy 2020," published in Germany in 2010, making Germany's Industry 4.0 concept six years older than Japan's Society 5.0 (Jin, 2020). Both concepts were proposed based on the same historical backdrop. Japan's Society 5.0 builds upon the production paradigm of Germany's Industry 4.0 while expanding into the realms of smart living and governance. However, it does not address the ecological dimension of future society. The ecological dimension refers to the aspect of a system or concept that relates to its interaction and impact on the natural environment. It signifies the consideration of ecological factors, including the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable resource management, and minimizing negative environmental effects, in decision-making processes and practices. The ecological dimension emphasizes the importance of maintaining a harmonious relationship between human activities and the ecosystem for long-term sustainability. A future society should be built upon intelligent interconnection and sharing, encompassing comprehensive improvements and intelligent development in various aspects such as production, life, ecology, and governance throughout society (Zhang, et al., 2020).

  2. 2.

    Dynamic array

    According to Deguchi et al. (Deguchi et al., 2020), the main driving forces behind the emergence of Society 5.0 are both technological advancements and changes in social forms. However, it should be noted that changes in social forms themselves cannot be regarded as the cause. Essentially, changes in productive forces and relations lead to changes in social forms, which serve as more direct causes. In comparison to the information society, Society 5.0 does not fundamentally alter productive forces and relations.While there are some differences in name and concept, Society 5.0 shares similar goals and principles with the Information Society, aiming to drive technological innovation, promote sustainable development, and enhance human well-being.

    Different countries have different definitions of the driving forces behind the iteration of social forms, with the defined criteria tending to reflect their own contributions in the process of transformation (Fig. 2). It is widely accepted that the transition from an agricultural society to an industrial society and then to an information society is driven by mechanization, electrification, automation, and information and communication technologies (Jin, 2020). Aldabbas et al. argue that the development of productive forces brought about by the Fourth Industrial Revolution has also resulted in significant changes in the human social structure and form. The dominant force behind Society 5.0 is the digital transformation of society based on electronic sensor technology and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) (Mavrodieva & Shaw, 2020). Although the concept of Society 5.0 claims to be based on AI development, the core enabling technologies are still based on the theory of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) and involve shared information and communication technologies, which are fundamentally similar to the information society.CPS refers to the virtual space and physical space integrated system. Klaus Schwab also highlighted this concept as the core idea in the new model of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which he discussed during the World Economic Forum from January 20th to 23rd, 2016 (Jin, 2020).

    Fig. 2
    figure 2

    Division of driving forces for social iteration. Source: adapted from references (Jin, 2020)

    Full size image

    The oft-discussed concept of "integration of virtual and real worlds" in Society 5.0 is merely a form of data collection and representation. The core of Society 5.0 still lies in the social innovation triggered by extensive collaboration among institutions, companies, and individuals (Mavrodieva & Shaw, 2020). The fundamental characteristics that distinguish Society 5.0 from other social forms remain unchanged, such as the composition of social members, social organizational structures, and the modes of element flow. Therefore, Society 5.0 does not transcend the framework of the information society; rather, it represents a stage of intelligence achieved through the gradual development of the information society.

  3. 3.

    Element array

    Deguchi A. and his colleagues argue that the core elements of a smart society are data, information, and knowledge (Deguchi et al., 2020). Aldabbas suggests that a smart society is a socio-technical system and should not be solely defined based on digital technologies. In addition to financial and economic frameworks, it requires political frameworks and responsible cross-sector actions to establish interdepartmental links that ensure information security and data flow (Aldabbas et al., 2020). Ruben Foresti emphasizes the importance of big data and AI decision-making, considering them as the core and driving factors for the development of Society 5.0. He has constructed a data-driven decision-making system tailored for industrial production enterprises (Rfa et al., 2020). However, these viewpoints fail to recognize the central role of humans in future societies. While big data and AI decision-making are important, they are not the primary reasons. The key factor lies in the aspirations and nature of human beings, which remain constant in the future society.

    Dautaj Marco suggests that Society 5.0 can be defined as an interconnected environment where the central perspective is human-centric (Dautaj & Rossi, 2022). To investigate whether Society 5.0 maintains a continuous focus on the primacy of humans, a study was conducted using the Web of Science database. The core dataset was selected, including the Current Chemical Reactions (CCR-EXPANDED) and Index Chemicus (IC) databases. CCR-EXPANDED and IC are both sub-databases within the Web of Science platform. CCR-EXPANDED primarily covers reaction and synthesis information related to chemical synthesis and natural product chemistry, while IC focuses on indexing chemical literature. These databases provide retrieval functions for various types of chemical information, aiding in the acquisition of desired chemical literature and data. The search was performed using the keyword "Smart Society" within the time range from 2018 to 2022. After screening, approximately 2000 relevant articles were analyzed. The Cite Space software was employed for co-occurrence analysis of keywords, followed by cluster analysis (Fig. 3). The analysis revealed that Society 5.0 predominantly focuses on elements such as data, technology, decision-making, and knowledge management. There is relatively less attention given to elements like human-centered healthcare, intelligent healthcare, participation, food safety, integration, corporate social responsibility, behavior, services, comfort, trust, and sustainability.

    Fig. 3
    figure 3

    Timeline of keyword co-occurrence in Smart Society research, the data came from web of science core database. Source: author

    Full size image
  4. 4.

    Target array

    In 2015, the United Nations, consisting of 193 member states, jointly formulated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to effectively address social issues, provide a good standard of living, promote stable economic development, and create a sustainable human community. The guiding principles of these goals are to achieve peace and prosperity for all humanity and the planet through inclusive and "leave no one behind" approaches (Shiroishi et al., 2019). Society 5.0 is a complex social system that aims to develop in a sustainable manner towards the best interests of humanity, based on the handling of "big data" outcomes. Scholars like Foresti R. argue that a digitalized and knowledge-based society must be committed to the sustainability of the social, environmental, and economic aspects (Rfa et al., 2020). From a visionary perspective, the goals of Society 5.0 align with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. However, based on research conducted by scholars such as Yunus Zengin, who evaluated the effectiveness of Society 5.0 against the standards of UN SDGs (Zengin et al., 2021), experimental results indicate that while infrastructure is considered closely related to Society 5.0, the impact of industrial, technological innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), inequality reduction (SDG 10), sustainable urban communities (SDG 11), production and consumption (SDG 12), climate action (SDG 13), and underwater life (SDG 14) on the application of Society 5.0 is relatively small.

2.2 Forward critical array

There is not much literature against Society 5.0, a number of sharp and accurate criticism toward this concept has been found by this study, the criticisms presented are sharp and precise. The following text systematically summarizes existing arguments against Society 5.0 from four perspectives: theory, motivation, elements, and consequences.

  1. 1.

    Theoretical array

    Arran Gare argues that Society 5.0 utilizes formal logic to generalize and abstract dynamic processes, simplifying them into static processes. This excessive simplification will hide the complexity of real society (Gare, 2013). When individuals navigate through the traps and temptations of the virtual world, they become trapped between social reality and virtual reality (Bağcı, 2016).

    Some scholars argue that concepts such as "network society," "post-industrial society," and "cyber society" have provided different descriptions of the future form and characteristics of an information society. However, they have not systematically integrated information and communication technologies with social systems. Society 5.0 addresses this oversight by exploring the development and governance of society, seeking a balance between individualism and collectivism while incorporating social elements (Calzada & Cobo, 2015; Anderson, 2014). However, can we find an acceptable balance between collective interests and individual interests? The goals mentioned in Society 5.0 of meeting the needs of every individual are contradictory in nature.

    A "high-quality life filled with comfort and vitality" has many different definitions and measurement standards. Unlike room temperature, it is often challenging to quantify (The University of Tokyo, 2020).

    Overall, the theoretical framework of Society 5.0 presents a definite existence of contradictions.

  2. 2.

    Motivation array

    Glenn McLaren mentions that Society 5.0 fantasizes a story where autonomy and agency are handed over to artificial intelligence, expecting AI to solve all the problems that humans can no longer solve (McLaren, 2021). Fantasizing and publicly sharing this story signifies a loss of confidence in humanity and provides excuses for ourselves. There are many uncertainties surrounding the possibility and specific workings of Society 5.0.

    Process philosopher Steve Taylor argues that free will is real, emergent, and dialectically related to determinism. The danger of applying deterministic approaches to change human behavior lies in not reflecting deterministic reality but in generating deterministic beliefs and then attempting to shape humans according to that logic. Society 5.0 will not enhance the reality of free will but rather implement a form of brainwashing to generate more deterministic behavior (Taylor, 2019).

  3. 3.

    Element array

    Many scholars believe that technological advancements drive the evolution of human society (Veblen, 1963). In the context of Society 5.0, Langdon Winner argues against technological determinism, stating that specific technologies are only specific drivers of social change, not the sole driving force. Technologies need to be combined with human self-awareness, which stems from complex natural processes (Winner, 2014).

    In the relationship between humans and technology, Hancock mentions that when humans evolve into a dependent and passive state, it signifies that humans are no longer seen as the dominant species. The economic and technological conditions depicted in Society 5.0 seem to create conditions for human enslavement (Bauchspies et al., 2019). Technology, as an external force, is increasingly controlling humans (Bruno, 2018). Romele A., Gallino F. and Emmenegger C. argue that this sporadic progress centered around technology generates a vast amount of unnecessary information that can never touch the soul and leads us in the opposite direction. The triumph of technology plants seeds of spiritual unrest and suffocation in the hearts of humans (Romele et al., 2017). At the same time, Balta, E. mentions that in Society 5.0, the highly abstract nature of technology blurs the distinction between reality and fantasy, inhibiting humans' ability to create critical distance (Balta, 2019).

  4. 4.

    Consequence array

    With the development of artificial intelligence technology, many jobs that require basic skills are being replaced by robots. Artificial intelligence and algorithms, as part of advanced technology, can also be seen as passive robots, replacing individuals with lower skills in low-income households, leading to a significant increase in unemployment rates in human society (Tai, 2019; Beese, 2018). At the same time, the monopolistic power of related companies is strengthened under the protection of Society 5.0 (McLaren, 2021), to some extent stifling the mechanism of free competition between enterprises. Harari is concerned about the transfer of power from humans to algorithms, which could even destroy remnants of belief in the liberal narrative and pave the way for digital tyranny (Handajani, 2018). Additionally, Broadbent, E. argues that algorithms contain human biases, racial prejudices, and cultural biases influenced by Japanese culture, and therefore cannot provide the most equitable outcomes (Broadbent et al., 2017). Real-world problems such as monopolies, dictatorship, and growing wealth gaps will exacerbate social inequality, intensify class conflicts, and increase the difficulty of constructing social order in future societies (Graber, 2018).

    Furthermore, some scholars have mentioned that the development of human intelligence and morality can only be achieved through facing and overcoming various obstacles and challenges. However, the frictionless world advocated by Society 5.0 erases the possibility of intellectual and moral development (McLaren, 2021).

2.3 Practical critical array

  1. 1.

    Toronto waterfront project in Canada

    The Toronto Waterfront project in Canada is a failed case of a smart city initiative. It was launched in 2017 by Sidewalk Labs and the non-profit developer Waterfront Toronto. However, on May 7, 2020, this highly anticipated smart city project came to an end. Ann Cavoukian, the project's chief advisor, wrote in her resignation letter, "We want to create a smart privacy city, not a smart surveillance city" (Wang, 2018). The infrastructure that was meant to make this community smart consisted of ubiquitous cameras, detectors, sensors, and fiber optics. The massive amount of public data that pertains to people's daily lives would have been controlled and operated by a company focused on profiting from data and intellectual property rights. How could residents and the government be convinced under such circumstances? Unless Society 5.0 can obtain this access right from its subjects, it cannot operate (McLaren, 2021). Balta, E. believes that regardless of the country, Society 5.0 is an unprecedented electronic surveillance society in history (Balta, 2019).

  2. 2.

    Songdo New Town Project in South Korea

    The Songdo New City project in South Korea was originally planned to be a unique smart city, utilizing various high-tech technologies. The ideal was ambitious, but the reality turned out to be harsh. The cost of living in the completed new city became excessively expensive, and the comprehensive smart infrastructure gradually became a collection of devices for showcasing new technologies. Static and simplistic data were used to replace the complex and dynamic needs of residents, neglecting the human emotions and experiences. This inevitably led to the failure of the smart practice in Songdo. Many scholars believe that smart city projects around the world face similar challenges.

    Based on the three major critical arrays: the reverse critique array, the forward critique array, and the practical critique array, a comprehensive critique of Society 5.0 forms the Three Arrays of Critique for Society 5.0 (Fig. 4). Conceptually and theoretically, Society 5.0 only involves the dimensions of production and living within society, without addressing the ecological dimension. The excessively simplified theoretical framework of Society 5.0 conceals the complexity of real society, where it is difficult to balance individual and collective interests, making it impossible to meet the needs of everyone. Thus, its theory contains inherent contradictions. At the level of driving forces, Society 5.0 does not have any essential distinctions from the information society and fails to establish a new social form beyond the framework of the information society. From a motivational standpoint, Society 5.0 represents a pessimistic and weak cognition of humanity, and the promotion of its conceptual framework is a form of brainwashing for the public. At the element level, while Society 5.0 claims to be human-centric, it fails to genuinely prioritize the position of individuals. The operation of Society 5.0 exacerbates social inequality, hinders intellectual and moral development, and makes it difficult to achieve the goals of sustainable socio-economic development. Finally, through the observation of failed cases in social practice, it becomes evident that Society 5.0 fundamentally disregards the fundamental needs of individuals and instead becomes a surveillance-oriented society.

    Fig. 4
    figure 4

    The three critical arrays of Society 5.0. Source: author

    Full size image

3 The root cause of criticism in China

The criticism against Society 5.0 suggests that it is a false proposition. The introduction of Society 5.0 is the Japanese government's effort to address challenges such as population aging, declining birth rates, labor shortages, and regional development disparities through technology and innovation. However, the application of information technology to societal development is a complex process, and Society 5.0 only provides a vague goal without specific paths and strategies to overcome challenges in technology, law, ethics, and society. As a result, the actual progress in implementation has been slow. Although emerging technologies like AI and big data analytics have brought many conveniences and opportunities to society, they have also introduced a series of risks and issues such as privacy breaches, unemployment risks, and social inequality. Society 5.0 overlooks these challenges and fails to provide sufficient solutions.

In addition, does everyone have the right to propose an ideal social form? In her book "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword" published in 1946, the renowned American anthropologist Ruth Benedict revealed the duality of Japanese culture and the double standards of its moral values (Jin, 2020). Some domestic scholars argue that Japan, with its dual moral judgment criteria, is not qualified to propose a path towards the intellectualization of human society. If there were no historical issues between China and Japan, perhaps it would be easier to naturally accept a new concept. Over 80 years ago, Japan committed a grievous crime in China. However, for nearly 80 years after the end of World War II, Japan remained silent about the harm it inflicted upon China. It does not demonstrate the responsibility that a country should take for its wrongdoings. China always remembers this period of history and considers Japan to be despicable. Therefore, China would never accept Japan's proposal for a so-called ideal society.

As a result, there is a group of Chinese people who remain undecided about the new concept of "Society 5.0," despite the frequent occurrence of failed practices of intelligent societies internationally and the lack of comments on this topic in the domestic academic community. The reasons for this silence are varied. One reason is a sense of disgust towards the discourse world, which manifests as a silent resistance, a desire not to engage or pay attention. It is a form of invisible and voiceless criticism. This also explains the stark contrast between the academic enthusiasm domestically and internationally.

4 Conclusion

The process of human society becoming more intelligent involves utilizing the energy and resources provided by the earth and excluding things that are different from oneself. Society is the sum of the relationship between humans and the environment, and an ideal future society is a dynamic process of continuous renewal and cyclical intelligence, rather than a fixed outcome that can be predetermined (Cao et al., 2019). Only through observing society can planners determine at which stage a civilization is evolving. Only by observing the changes in society can planners predict whether a new civilization will emerge. Urban planners have recognized that the future ideal society is not Society 5.0, but Civilization 5.0, which includes three new changes: eco-lization, intellectualization and inclusiveness (Wu et al., 2022).

Since 2010, China's planning documents have widely adopted the term "ecological civilization," which represents a new civilization following agricultural and industrial civilizations. If we consider "ecological civilization" as a post-industrial society arising from the development of agriculture and industry, we would gladly affirm it. However, the question arises when we encounter large-scale digitization and the transformation of everyday life from the material world to the digital world (Wu, 2020): Does the meaning of "ecological civilization" include the cyberspace? Therefore, "ecological civilization" needs to incorporate the key concept of "intelligence" (Wu, 2021). Consequently, further questions emerge: Can we determine the intelligence of a society through its cyberspace and digitization?

The experiences of Shanghai and other cities in China over the past two months have provided us with a clear answer. Digitization itself cannot create a truly intelligent society. The society under the new civilization needs to possess a third element, which is "inclusiveness". Inclusiveness is not only the best approach for cities like Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, but also a key factor for achieving ecological and digital transformation in the future. People in society should not be treated as mere recipients of services; instead, they should be contributors to social life and the subjects of society.

Therefore, the society under the new civilization needs to possess Eco-lization, Intellectualization and Inclusiveness.