Social Innovation Network

= Austrian initiative

Discussion: From Strategic Niches to Phase Transition

Andreas Exner:

"The Social Innovation Network was founded originally by a couple of friends working together on the issue of economic growth. Discussion on how to conceive a radical critique of growth started about five years ago. At this time, we were still a working group within Attac, an anti-globalisation NGO that actively promoted growth (and still does). We wanted to shift Attacs political program by showing how growth entails ecological destruction and does not contribute to human well-being. Attac did not show much interest in our work. So we quit.

Background: Limits to Capital

Yet as a result of our encounter, a book with the title “Limits to Capital. How we fail on Growth” was produced and published in German as “Die Grenzen des Kapitalismus. Wie wir am Wachstum scheitern“ in 2008 (Exner/Lauk/Kultuerer, at Ueberreuter). The book was a moderate success, in terms of sales, reception in social movements and media coverage. It quite effectively linked a radical view on capitalist society with a popular approach and mainstream-compatible wording that can be understood by nearly anyone interested in an ecological and social perspective. Theoretically, it made three contributions where we can claim some originality, at least within the German-speaking world. We showed that 1. resource constraints not only push capital in an inevitable crisis, but also limit the material perspectives of a renewable resource system (due to its dependence on non-renewable resources during construction); 2. that the demise of the capitalist system does not necessarily result in a better society (but rather in a worse one if emancipation fails), and 3. that economic growth as a pattern of development is deeply rooted in (a) war-making and competition between states and (b) a separation of production and consumption. We briefly summarised our main arguments in English here. Our overall approach is similar to the one of Minqi Li, whose admirable book on “The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World-economy” was published shortly after “Limits to Capital”. (We discovered it by chance surfing in the internet.)

Taking our arguments together, we concluded, that a socio-ecological transformation must not rely on big investments, wether financially or materially, and that a change of the mode of production to an “association of free individuals” will enhance well-being much more than any growth in consumption could ever do. So despite an “objectivist” approach to the question of how capital accumulation dynamics relate to resource supply, we strongly promoted a “subjectivist” approach to the question of “social innovation”. The world will change because capital changes the world in a way that will impede its further expansion. Yet the world will only change to the better, if we really want it.

Of course, this was as much a theoretical analysis as it was a discoursive intervention targeting an anti-globalisation and “green” social movement that largely ignored both the possibility and the necessity of putting an end to the capitalist mode of production: profit-driven, commodifying the world and human labour, reducing social relations to the exchange of equivalents on markets, subordinating social development to the requirements of domination as embodied by the state.

Background: Social Innovation

Concerning social innovation, we used the term until now as a mere headline, compatible to mainstream talk, yet open to our radical approach. Under this headline, we wrote regularly about solidarity economy, the commons, basic income, and social movements, ranging from the students protests which exploded in 2009 in Austria to Transition Towns. We were actively involved in the foundation of the “Solidarity University (KriSU)” that emerged in the course of the struggles at the University of Vienna (and in the meanwhile produced a mapping project called “vivir bien”) and took part in founding the platform “transitionaustria.ning.com” as well as the related platform “SOLCOM” (on solidarity economy). Due to our personal engagement in social movements, where we put an emphasis on creating synergies, catalysing processes and introducing pioneer ideas into wider social currents (of the German-speaking “alternative scene”, until now), our writing and thinking is not a limited academic or critical exercise, but integral part of transformative action as we understand it.

Although we originally adopted the social innovation wording simply in a subversive manner, instrumentalizing it as a vehicle for a radical, marxist and anarchist-inspired critique of contemporary society, the social innovation debate as it enfolds in bourgeois science should indeed more seriously be screened and reflected: both as a possible field of intervention and a potentially fruitful pool of insights, ideas and concepts.

Compared to marxist theoretical debates (at least in the German-speaking world), which follow clear lines of arguments, often develop in closed circles and produce quite strictly defined schools of thought (much to the detriment of flexible intellectual frameworks, but with the advantage of intellectual rigour), social innovation theory rather resembles a topsy-turvy of empirical studies, rough conceptual frameworks and quite superficial theoretical approaches (much to the detriment of intellectual rigour, but with the advantage of presenting a rich source of empirical material and flexible attempts of organizing it conceptually in a sometimes quite refreshing ad hoc-style of thought).

Three conceptual frameworks appear to be most rewarding for a closer inquiry: strategic niche management, multi-level perspective and transition management, with the concept of the strategic niche at the core of all three. Originally developed in order to understand technological innovations on the path to “sustainability”, the strategic niche approach was enlarged to incorporate innovation dynamics with strong social components (as compared to the development of technical know-how). Recently, a strategic niche approach was applied to “cultural” (rock n’ roll music) and “conceptual” innovations (alternative burying practices in the UK). Parallel to the widening of the scope of innovation to be investigated (from technical to socio-technical, cultural and conceptual), the strategic niche, which was conceived in a rather isolated manner as an “island of innovation” at the beginning, was began to be seen more and more in a “multi-level perspective”, i.e. in relation to “regimes” and “landscapes” of socio-technical patterns that determine the niches contours, its degrees of freedom and its limitations.

Finally, integrating the strategic niche and multi-level perspectives, the transition management approach aims to deliver both a policy tool and an analytical framework concerned with initiating, supporting and steering a transition to “sustainability” (by the way with several similarities with the Transition Town “model”, when it comes to practical “policy advice”), involving a transformation of socio-technical regimes and landscapes by support of strategic niches.

Fundamental to this “family of concepts” (termed “innovation theory” in the following) is the concept of strategic niche. A strategic niche is conceived as a site of innovation, seen as necessary on the assumption that innovations are blocked by regimes, both structurally as well as by the interests of dominant groups profiteering from a regime (which is, in turn, supported by a wider socio-technical landscape). The strategic niche is a place of socio-technical experiments, which are partially protected from the regime (and market forces) by social, material and/or financial resources. Within the niche, three processes take place: (1) the convergence of expectations (resulting in a willingness to experiment and further develop the innovation), (2) social networking (strengthening the niche as a social network and creating support by linking the niche to wider social networks with more social power, e.g. to change regimes), (3) education and learning (supporting the construction of know-how and adapting the niche to new experiences). Taking the strategic niche concept as a start, the multi-level perspective introduces an awareness of the structural constraints impeding the profileration of niches and their diffusion into society due to regimes and landscapes of socio-technical patterns. The multi-level perspective stresses the point, that an innovation can only diffuse from the niche into society in case of a crisis on the level of the socio-technical landscape. Otherwise, the forces of inertia acting on the level of the regime (and the landscape) will determine the scope of innovations and limit their possible diffusion.

Agenda: Research for Transformative Action

From both a marxist point of view and a perspective interested in radical social movements such as the Transition Towns, two elements appear to be of immediate interest: (1) the niche processes described (convergence/willingness, networking/power, learning/adapting), (2) the general view on social innovation, its development (niche profileration, diffusion) and contextual requirements (landscape-level crisis, transition management). Obviously, the strategic niche management-family of concepts closely resembles the “Keimform-approach” (see www.keimform.de, compare also the P2P-idea), which states that germs of social innovation appear in an outdated mode of production and will be taken over as the old mode declines and is outcompeted by the new one. Furthermore, the multi-level perspective has some (distant) similarities with the regulation school, which differentiates between accumulation regimes and modes of regulation in its conception of capitalist society. Finally, the hypothesis that landscape-level crisis are crucial for social innovations to be adopted on a regime (and landscape) level of course is in a (very rough) line with the classical marxist emphasis of crisis as the strategic point in time where radical change is possible.

I will conclude this brief account of the Social Innovation Networks short history and the excursion into the world of social innovation theory and its possible relations to a more radical view on society and change with a sketch on a possible research agenda. This agenda might be of relevance for transformative action, in as much as such an endeavour is in need of self-reflection when it comes to formulate strategic orientations and learn from past success and failures.

First of all, we must engage into a serious discussion, what should be regarded as socially innovative. This discussion has to start from a theory of the basic structures of the capitalist mode of production and the society dominated by this mode, i.e.: wage labour, market exchange and statehood. When it comes to social innovation in a deeper sense, i.e. with the potential to challenge the “landscape-level” of society, it is crucial to clearly conceptualize the landscape features and subordinated “regimes” (if the multi-level terminology shall be adopted). Otherwise we do not have a criterion at hand, for which kind of social practice we should watch out in our search for innovation and its niches.

Maybe the second most important issue of such an agenda would be a deepened understanding of the social processes in a strategic niche being crucial to niche stabilization, proliferation and the diffusion of its innovation(s). This implies a more precise concept of the niche – is it to be understood mainly as a place (geographical site of innovation), as a social space, or as some kind of intersection? Only after the first and second point are clarified, we can look for potential sites of innovation and assess their features (of course, we will already have some candidates at hand…)

Thirdly, we have to acquire a deeper understanding of the social forces limiting innovation niches. Quite obviously, social innovation theory underplays the importance of conflict and ignores class antagonism, let alone the social forms which distinguish the capitalist mode of production historically (the value form and its empirical “derivations”, i.e. money, price, wage, profit, interest, ground-rent etc.). Yet innovation theory performs better than the Transition Town discourse in terms of at least partially recognising powerful social forces and agents acting as a considerable obstacle to change. Both innovation theory and the germ theory approach (“Keimform-Theorie”) share the flaw of not satisfactorily answering the question, how diffusion precisely occurs. In bourgeois innovation theory, a regime (e.g. the food system) comes into trouble due to landscape-level crisis and subsequently takes up innovations that have already developed in niches because it becomes dysfunctional as long as the traditional pattern of handling things prevails. The story is quite similar in germ theory, where social innovation in the sense of non-capitalist modes of production is developed in a niche, from which it spreads on to the regime and landscape level that are already in crisis. According to germ theory, free software production is the niche for non-capitalist modes of production, that will be taken up by capitalist actors due to a “competitive advantage” that is provided by a hybrid construction of the innovation and the dominant regime and landscape logic. In the course and as a result of increasing hybridization, the innovative mode of production shall outcompete the old one in the longer run completely. Both bourgeois innovation theory and germ theory assume – at least implicitely – that (1) dominant regimes and agents have an inherent interest in adopting innovations (that run per definition contrary to their logic and interests), and (2) that in this way, a landscape-level change will be occur. This – again at least implicitely – supposes that production takes place in order to satisfy a concrete human need (such as the need to eat, to stay warm etc.). Otherwise, a social innovation that runs counter to the dominant logic (of, for instance, prolonging the life of fossil fuel infrastructures, or, to take an example which fits into the germ theory perspective, to prolong wage labour as the dominant mode of producing) could not be taken up by those representing the status quo (without serious and enduring conflict); which includes not only capitalists, but probably also the majority of wage labourers in the world. While it takes little wonder that bourgeois innovation theory supposes that the ultimate end of production (and a regime) is to satisfy a concrete need (such as hunger in case of the food regime), such an assumption constitutes an obvious deficit of a marxist-inspired approach such as germ theory.

Fourthly, we have to develop a much deeper understanding of crisis and state. Both are interlinked, since crisis of the capitalist mode of production can only be (temporarily) be solved by an apparatus which puts the masses under control and makes strategic action of the capitalist class possible: the state.

Finally, and perhaps most interestingly from a “philosophical” angle, we must interrogate each other more seriously on the question of crisis. Interestingly enough, both the classical marxist line of thought (to which the germ theory approach / “Keimform-Theorie” in my view belongs when it comes to the role crisis plays in social innovation) and bourgeois innovation theory converge on the point, that crisis is a necessary ingredient or context of fundamental change. This assumption implies a strictly objectivist view on crisis – it is not the result of innovation, but its prerequisite. Its causes are not the cumulative disobedience and anti-systemic behaviour of individuals (including new social practices, developed in niches or beyond), but the other way round: the crisis enables disobedience, deviant behaviour and technologies that do not fit into the dominant regimes to spread. As far as “systemic innovations” in a social sense are concerned, innovation theory must of course ignore almost per definition the question how the capitalist mode of production came into being and how it might be superseded by another mode. Germ theory targets this question, yet in a quite traditional manner. The shift from the feudal to the capitalist mode is understood mainly as a peaceful take up of “social innovation” (the capital relation, in this case) by an emerging new group of agents (entrepreneurs) due to its “competitive advantage”. The innovation in this case was protected by the pre-modern (absolutist) state. The “social innovations” experimented with and developed within this “strategic niche” subsequently proliferated to the point that a new “socio-technical landscape” and related “regimes” emerged. Free software production is proposed to be an analogous “niche” of “innovation”, with a seemingly “objective” crisis of the capitalist system (analogous to the crisis of the feudal system) as a framework for “niche proliferation” and “innovation diffusion”. I will conclude by raising the question if crisis is really adequately understood as an objective process, as opposed to a view, that crisis is in fact the “alienated” representation of massive disobedience and deviance from the functional necessities of the dominant regimes and socio-technical landscape. Concerning the specific interest of germ theory to explain “social systems innovation” along the “model” of the transition from the feudal to the capitalist mode of production, a renewed inquiry into the causes of this transition might prove fruitful, i.e. in discussing the precise role that power and objective factors (such as climate change) played in the course of the crisis of feudalism.

I would argue in a first attempt to open up a different project of inquiry, that capitalist society is not to be understood as the outcome of a “progressive” uptake of “social innovation” by emerging agents of the new society, but rather as an unresolved struggle between dominators and dominated, that could only be processed by specific historical forms, namely wage labour, market exchange and abstract law. Those forms were flexible enough to incorporate the aspirations for freedom which were the root cause of the feudal crisis by making them productive for the prolonging of social domination. The social forms of capitalism (including technologies) were experimentally developed in “niches” (the army, the poor houses etc.) and spread mainly because of a functional relation to war-making (which was in its turn necessary to stabilize those “niches”)." (http://www.social-innovation.org/?p=1770)