Abstract
This article elaborates on the relationship between structuralism (and to some extent post-structuralism), hermeneutics and pragmatism, starting from what I comprehend as the inherent dilemma articulated in the policy documents concerning the emerging knowledge economy: the tension between innovation and adaptation. In the first section, I delineate a horizon of understanding for my presentation by defining the particular societal transformations in the historical context where the question of creativity and innovation has become of strategic importance. Then, in the second section, I suggest a diagnosis of the new and predominant flexible organization of knowledge within the context of the new creative economy. The third section is a short interlude, where the philosophical implications of these societal transformations are being disclosed, together with the challenges that influence the agenda for a discussion about a constructive philosophical contribution. In the last two sections, I introduce a particular kind of hermeneutical perspective into the discussion by a close reading of one of Paul Ricoeur’s major works from the mid 1970s, here distinctively interpreted as a profound investigation into the micro-mechanisms of the epistemology of creativity. Thus, by the configuration of a hermeneutics of creativity and innovation from these philosophical resources, my intention is to disclose the ontological implications of innovation as well as the anthropological prerequisites for a conception of creativity “with a human face.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cf: “The connotations associated with this highly controversial concept – as well as the efforts to identify the engines and driving forces behind this process of transformation – extend from a neo-liberal conspiracy in connection with the Washington Consensus to a vague internationalism framed by mutual understanding and peaceful co-existence. From my point of view, I find neither a supposed conspiracy nor an experience of a general interdependency around the globe to be sufficient as a foundation for a more profound understanding. I prefer the more specific definition of globalization, in accordance with Manuel Castells and others, which refers to the synergic and centrifugal effects of a de-regulated world economy with increasing trans-national features and the rise of a new networked, digital convergent information system operating in real time. A de-regulated world economy is, of cause, not something new in history – the world economy was even more liberal before World War I – but today, this trans-national economy is operated by a new information system and it is this that makes a difference. Here, it might clarify matters if a distinction is made between a world economy, which has existed for many centuries (as has been described by Immanuel Wallerstein and others), and global economy, dependent of prerequisites emerging in the last decades (according to Castells). Acknowledged together as mutually related driving forces, the economical and technological “engines” have created an extremely successful – and fragile – economic development, probably without comparison in the history of human kind. The economical crisis emerging in 2008–09 has revealed the internal complexity of this process, the immaturity of the actors as well as the need for better regulations within this new world order. However, globalization has only existed as a reality in the last three decades, so it is perhaps not surprising that we do not know exactly how to cope with the situation. Today, for the first time in human history, we experience and conduct our lives according to a global simultaneity – with all its unpredictable consequences.” (Kristensson Uggla 2010, p. 40f).
I am elaborating on these four knowledge paradigm in a forthcoming book titled När samhället talar tillbaka. Agenda för kunskapssamhället: kompetens, evidens, innovation, bildning (Stockholm: Santérus 2018).
Cf “The dictionary contains no metaphors; they exist only in discourse.” (Ricoeur 1975a, 1977 p.97). Perhaps one should add that dictionaries contain only dead metaphors, where the internal tension is almost eliminated due to a process of normalization.
Cf “la métaphore est. une méprise categorial calculée” (Ricoeur 1975a, p.250).
Cf “le ‘même’ opere en dépit du ‘different’” (Ricoeur 1975a, p. 250).
Cf. “the category-mistake is the de-constructive intermediary phase between description and re-description” (Ricoeur 1975a/1977, p. 22).
References
Beardsley, M. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism. Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company.
Beck, U. 1986/1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. Translated by M. Ritter.
Boltanski, L. & Chiapello, E. 1999/2005. The new Spirit of capitalism. London/New York: Verso. Translated by Gregory Elliott.
Castells, M. 1996/1997/1998. The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture I-III. Oxford: Blackwell.
Catasús, B., and B. Kristensson Uggla. 2007. Reinventing the university as driving force of intellectual Capital. In Intellectual Capital revisited. Paradoxes in the knowledge intensive organization, ed. Cristina Chaminade and Bino Catasús, 61–77. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edgar Elgar.
Dosse, F. 1991/1997. History of structuralism I-II. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press. Translated by D. Glassman.
Dosse, F. 1995/1999. Empire of meaning: The humanization of the social sciences. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press. Translated by H. Melehy.
Dosse, F. 1997. Paul Ricœur. Le sens d’une vie. Paris: La Découverte.
European Commission. 2001. Communication from the Commission: Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality. http://viaa.gov.lv/files/free/48/748/pol_10_com_en.pdf.
Friedman, T. 2005. The world is flat: A brief history of the globalized world in the 21st century. London: Allen Lane.
Kristensson Uggla, B. 1994. Kommunikation på bristningsgränsen: En studie i Paul Ricoeurs projekt. Stockholm/Stehag: Symposion.
Kristensson, Uggla, and B. 2007. Reclaiming homo Capax—Paul Ricoeur in memoriam. In Revue Internationale de Philosophie Moderne, Acta Institutionis Philosophiae et Aestheticae. Vol. 23. Eco-ethica in XXI Saeclo 2005: 237–243.
Kristensson Uggla, B. 2010. Ricoeur, hermeneutics, and globalization. London/New York: Continuum Books. Studies in Continental Philosophy.
Peters, M.A., and E. Bulut. 2011. Cognitive capitalism: Education and digital labor. New York: Peter Lang.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Maiden: Polity Press.
Ricoeur, P. 1960/1967. The symbolism of evil. Boston: Beacon Press. Translated by Emerson Buchanan.
Ricoeur, P. 1975a. La métaphore vive. Paris: Seuil.
Ricoeur, P. 1975b/1977. The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning in language. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Translated by Robert Czerny with Kathleen McLaughlin and John Costello, SJ.
Ricoeur, P. 1983–85/1984–88. Time and Narrative I-III. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer.
Ricoeur, P. 1991. A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination, ed. J Valdès. New York/London/Toronto: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Sennett, R. 1998. The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of the new capitalism. New York: Norton.
Toulmin, S. 1990. Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludvig. 1953/1968. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe.
von Wright, G.H. 1971. Explanation and understanding. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Uggla, B.K. The Hermeneutics of Creativity and Innovation in Knowledge Society – between Structuralism and Pragmatism. Philosophy of Management 16, 253–264 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0069-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0069-7