Читать книгу Innovation Economics, Engineering and Management Handbook 2 - Группа авторов - Страница 15

The PSI approach is a philosophical approach to action based on “political heuristics”. It is not intended to be an overarching and moralizing discourse that would consist of making an ex post value judgment on this or that innovation. More modestly, it aims to reconnect, through the innovation project, with debates relating to the society we conceive and within which we evolve. In this way, innovation is not, in the words of Benoit Godin, just a political concept, or, to put it another way, the servant of politics, it is also a political project.

Nor does the PSI approach aim to integrate fear as part of the innovation process. Indeed, we live in an era marked by an ambient catastrophism of which collapsology is the archetype. The fatalistic conception of collapsology breaks, however, with the words of Jean-Pierre Dupuy who, in his book Pour un catastrophisme éclairé, proposed that the image of a future sufficiently catastrophic was repulsive and sufficiently credible to trigger the actions that would prevent its realization (Dupuy 2002) because this “heuristic of fear” (Jonas 1990) acts as a revealing indicator, in sync with the photographic sense of the term “developer”, of what has incomparable value for us¹⁶ and, contrary to the precautionary principle, avoids sticking to a probabilistic management of risks where it would be necessary to anticipate the catastrophe (Dupuy 2002). Political heuristics aspires, through reflection on action, to bring the designer closer to an action that makes sense for society and questions the values we wish to defend. The political heuristic underlying the PSI approach thus appears to be a positive heuristic because it is not a question, contrary to Hans Jonas’ heuristic of fear, of identifying the undesirable in order to lead to prudence and responsibility¹⁷, but of exploring the meanings of the different possible directions, which allows for innovation in consciousness. In doing so, the PSI approach is also a philosophy for action.

Indeed, the PSI approach claims a practical sense that invites us to think about the meaning of what we conceive during the very process of innovation and has an active scope turned towards the future. The horizon targeted is the same as that of Hans Jonas’ heuristic of fear, for which we need to emancipate ourselves from the concept of responsibility conceived ex post with regard to effective action (of what has been done) in favor of a conception of responsibility that proceeds from the future (from the power to do). However, while the scope of the heuristic of fear is turned towards the question of preserving our humanity (“Act in such a way that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of an authentically human life on earth” (Jonas 1990. p. 30), “never must the existence or the essence of man as a whole be put at stake in the gamble of acting” (Jonas 1990, p. 62). The PSI approach invites us to question in each innovation the values we wish to defend, whether they are directly linked to our survival or not¹⁸. This means, for example, questioning ourselves on the tension between the right to privacy and the right to security when designing a video surveillance system or questioning ourselves on the contemporary trend of rewards. Some stores, for example, give discount coupons to customers who bring back their plastic bottles. If this seems effective at first in inciting virtuous practices, what kind of society are we building by moving in this direction? Isn’t the implementation of such a system in opposition to altruism, which seems to be a key element of living together?

It is clear that the PSI approach is not an apology for innovation geared towards economic growth¹⁹, but an approach that invites us to think of a society in which innovation cannot be seen as a producer of gadget innovations linked to an unbridled and unreasonable consumer society, barely created and already outdated, while basic needs remain poorly met. What about inequalities in access to water – one in three people in the world do not have access to safe water and 40% of the world’s population (i.e. 3 billion people) do not have facilities for washing their hands with soap and water at home – at a time when the WHO is reminding us that handwashing is an essential preventive measure in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic we are experiencing? What about the obligation to stay indoors when some people, including in developed countries such as France, do not have access to housing? Or what about the inequality of access to healthcare, which is reflected in the over-representation of black Americans among COVID patients in the United States?

The PSI approach is also the way to question the priorities we define. Let us take the water crisis as an illustration. A lack of water is no longer the prerogative of poor countries and now affects rich countries. In this context, is it not anecdotal to plan to create a device that allows the first two liters of water that arrive cold in the shower and are, most of the time, wasted to be recouped, when we know that, in London, losses and leaks caused by a dilapidated distribution network are estimated to be the equivalent of 300 Olympic swimming pools per day, or that 20% of water is wasted before it even reaches homes (Carrington 2017)? Let us also take the example of masks. Their use has become widespread as part of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this is not a good thing; because of their single use, they have a negative impact on the environment, whether we consider their footprint from the point of view of the consumption of materials they represent or the pollution they cause, as deplored by activists from the NGO Oceans Asia in Hong Kong. If the disposable mask materializes the choice of a device that prioritizes access to health for all over environmental preservation, other directions are possible, such as Le Mask français (the French Mask), which has a reusable part that reduces waste but which may have a slightly higher cost. We can see through this example how the PSI approach leads to a reflection on the values that we wish to have, a reflection that allows us to innovate consciously. We can finally make the hypothesis that the PSI approach is a vector for asking ourselves about the problems we are dealing with. We join Navi Radjou for whom “brainstorming to solve problems that do not exist is over. We need to go to the field to solve the real problems around energy, health and education” (Radjou 2020). In the same way, the PSI approach seems capable of leading us to question the current trend that tends to establish a hierarchy between social issues, as if the ecological question were more important and deserved priority treatment over the issues of equity, freedom, the aging population or the inclusion of people with disabilities. Finally, the PSI approach is a way to avoid false good ideas, such as the creation of reusable straws. These straws were born of the realization that every day 1 billion non-recyclable straws are thrown away worldwide, including nearly 9 million in France in fast food restaurants alone. But shouldn’t a real sensitivity to environmental issues invite us to stop drinking from straws in order to stop wasting straws rather than creating recyclable straws? Similarly, the management of the plastic waste that invades our soil, our rivers and our oceans is currently viewed through the prism of recycling, presented as the miracle solution. But as Nathalie Gontard points out, “this mirage overshadows the only real solution: reducing plastic production” (2018).

Finally, it should be pointed out that while the PSI approach invites debate on the world we are shaping, this debate is not the prerogative of politicians and scientists, a sort of “republic of experts”, who would be the only ones with the intellectual bases required for debate. Because it takes place during the design process itself, the question of meaning engages the designer and all stakeholders in the design process and cannot be restricted to so-called “responsible” or “social” innovations (Chouteau et al. 2020).

Table 1.1. Putting the PSI and Jonas approaches into perspective (according to Forest 2020)

PSI approach	Criteria	Jonas concept
Innovating with awareness	Basis for action	Principle of responsibility
Political heuristics	Underlying heuristics	Heuristics of fear
Thinking about the meaning of what we create and, through it, our humanity.	Function of heuristics	Ensuring the survival of humanity
During the design process	Questioning time	Ex post observation: the fact that a technique is potentially dangerous must lead to its suspension because the irreversible nature of the consequences “forbids rolling the dice”.
Strength of proposals	Nature of the prescriptions	Force of restrictions or even prohibitions
Technical democracy (designers, users, institutions, etc.)	Key player	An elitism in favor of committees of wise men (a benevolent dictatorship)

It is clear from the above that the PSI approach implies thinking about innovation beyond the mere question of the potential value for the user by integrating, from the outset, the relationship that the innovation in question has with our society. This approach implies the use of critical thinking, i.e. it invites us to develop a state of mind and practices that allow us to emancipate ourselves from the register of the promises of innovation in the making and to think about the meaning of each projected direction²⁰. It is on this condition that it is possible for us to question ourselves collectively about the choices we make and the directions we favor and thus to innovate consciously. We know, for example, that the construction of a tramway line leads to higher land prices, which can result in socio-spatial segregation. In the Sustainable City Factory project, the PSI approach thus rehabilitates the eminently political question of what we decide to do (building eco-neighborhoods or reducing socio-spatial segregation?) and the place of the human and social sciences in thinking about tomorrow’s innovation.