Rethinking Disruptive Innovation: Moving Beyond Hubris
Nowadays, claims of disruptive innovation within the realms of technology and design fail to impress me. These assertions often come across as hubristic, naive, and disconnected from the reality of how people make choices that impact their lives. Companies referring to people as users or consumers in a tone of hubris further underscore the issue. The truth is that neither tech innovators nor designers can effect change until people choose to incorporate their products into their lives, often modifying or adapting them to fit their unique needs. It’s crucial to recognize that the seeds of innovation and solutions to problems lie within the lived experiences of people, not solely in the brilliance of tech innovators and designers.
Throughout my 31 years of experience observing and listening to everyday people across the world, I’ve noticed that products brought into homes by these individuals have a higher success rate in meeting their needs compared to ideas pushed by self-proclaimed disruptive innovators. This observation has taught me that aspiring innovators should avoid being guided by their own hubris and instead learn to observe and listen to the very people whose lives they aim to improve.
In my previous article (Story Whispering: The Art of Inviting People as Co-Creators, 2024), I introduced the idea of ‘story whispering’ – a concept inspired by ‘horse whispering’ – which emphasizes fostering trust, empathy, and deep understanding with research participants. Building upon this idea, I will further delve into the importance of cultivating an environment of trust and connection in design research. By inviting participants to become co-creators and share their unique stories, researchers can uncover valuable insights that transcend the limitations of predefined questions, ultimately yielding richer and more profound results.
An essential aspect of being an effective researcher is mastering the art of observation, listening, and creating a safe space for participants to reveal their deeply rooted thoughts, beliefs, and emotions. By fostering genuine curiosity and encouraging imagination, researchers enable participants to engage in creative and insightful conversations, ultimately enriching the generative research process.
Over the past 31 years, I have dedicated myself to refining my abilities as a story whisperer. This process has also transformed my self-reflections, shifting my focus from what I know to what I am curious about. Similarly, when engaging in conversation with experts in their respective fields, I concentrate on their current thoughts and curiosities, rather than their past accomplishments and knowledge. This new approach to conversation is rooted in the belief that true knowledge manifests as wisdom in action, demonstrated by how one actively pursues their curiosity.
My curiosity for knowing people extends beyond benefiting from the knowledge and wisdom they possess. I have recently developed a keen interest in human consciousness.
Portuguese neuroscientist Antonio Damasio in his book ‘The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness (1999)’ proposed that consciousness arises from the brain the body and the environment. He refers to it as embodied body theory which suggests that emotions, bodily sensations and the cognitive processes contribute to our conscious experience.
Sigmond Freud proposed that human. psyche consists of the id (unconscious), the ego (conscious and preconscious) and the super ego (preconscious).
According to Freud, the id represents our primal drives and instincts, which operate on an unconscious level and are not directly accessible to our conscious awareness. The ego, on the other hand, is responsible for mediating between the demands of the id and the constraints of reality, operating on both a conscious and preconscious level. Finally, the superego, which functions primarily on a preconscious level, serves as our internalized moral compass, shaping our sense of right and wrong.
Freud’s distinction between the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious levels of mental activity had laid the groundwork for our modern understanding of the different levels of consciousness.
While freud’s levels of consciousness seem to refer to spatial metaphor Antonio Damasio seems to use temporal metaphor in referring to core consciousness (Here and now) and extended consciousness (beyond now: memories of the past and the imagination or latent nature of the future). Between them one can infer that consciousness can be understood both through spatial and temporal metaphors.
Now let’s turn to the collective aspect of consciousness, which neither Damasio’s embodied mind theory nor Freud’s psychoanalytic framework explicitly explore.
The concept of “collective consciousness” can be attributed to the work of Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist. Durkheim introduced this term in his 1893 book “The Division of Labor in Society.” According to Durkheim, collective consciousness refers to the shared beliefs, ideas, and moral values that a society or group collectively holds and expresses.
Durkheim’s collective consciousness is distinct from Damasio and Freud’s individualistic approaches to consciousness. While Damasio focuses on the individual’s physical and emotional experiences, and Freud explores the individual’s unconscious and conscious processes, Durkheim emphasizes the social nature of consciousness – how shared understanding, norms, and beliefs shape our consciousness and behavior in a social context.
Collective consciousness differs from individual consciousness in that it emphasizes the role of social and cultural forces in shaping our perceptions, thoughts, and actions. By exploring the intersection of the individual and the social, Durkheim’s concept of collective consciousness adds a crucial dimension to our understanding of human experience and behavior.
One maybwonder if collective consciousness is an aggregation of individual consciousness. The simple answer is- it is not. Collective consciousness, as Émile Durkheim conceptualized it, is not merely an aggregate of individual consciousnesses but rather an emergent property that arises from social interactions and shared experiences within a community or society. It emerges through the collective practices, beliefs, values, and knowledge that individuals in a society share and participate in.
While individual consciousnesses contribute to the formation and shaping of collective consciousness, the latter also has a reciprocal influence on individual consciousness. Collective consciousness shapes the context in which individuals develop their understanding of the world, their sense of identity, and their experiences. In this sense, collective consciousness is not just an outcome of individual consciousness but is intertwined with it in a dynamic and reciprocal relationship.
Moreover, collective consciousness can draw from broader causes beyond the individual level, such as historical events, cultural narratives, power dynamics, and societal structures. These factors contribute to the shared understandings, norms, and beliefs that characterize collective consciousness, further highlighting the interplay between individual and social dimensions of consciousness.
While Émile Durkheim’s original concept of collective consciousness focused primarily on human societies and their shared beliefs, values, and practices, there is a growing interest in expanding this idea to include non-human elements.
Some scholars argue that collective consciousness can also emerge from the interconnectedness of all living beings and the natural world. For instance, the Gaia hypothesis proposes that the Earth itself can be seen as a complex, self-regulating system that functions as a kind of collective consciousness, where all living organisms, including humans, contribute to maintaining the planet’s equilibrium.
Furthermore, studies on animal behavior and cognition have shown that many species exhibit complex social dynamics and communication, suggesting that they might also experience forms of collective consciousness. Examples include hive mind behavior in bees, ant colonies, and flocking in birds, where individuals coordinate their actions without a centralized control.
In summary, while collective consciousness is often discussed in the context of human societies, there is emerging research and philosophical thought that considers its broader applicability to the natural world and other species, emphasizing the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life forms.
As I explore various interpretations of consciousness, it becomes evident that consciousness neither belongs exclusively to a single individual nor ceases with the end of an individual’s life or the lives of a group. Consciousness can be viewed as a timeless well of embedded wisdom, from which individuals can draw knowledge and insight to satisfy their pursuit of understanding and enlightenment.
I propose that we look to collective consciousness as a source of sustainable innovation, rather than relying solely on disruptive approaches driven by hubris. To improve lives through our creative capacities, we must cultivate mindsets, methods, and tools to tap into the ever-evolving, enduring well of collective consciousness. This can only be achieved by being present in the lives of everyday people, engaging in continuous dialogue with them, and diligently seeking insights, epiphanies, and wisdom that surface through our interactions. These seeds of innovation, grounded in collective understanding, will pave the way for a more sustainable and impactful future.
