Innovation can be counter-hegemomic

But what if innovation can be underpinned by different values and purposes? In this context, we generally build on theoretical propositions developed by STS, including critical and social constructivist views on technology. However, following Walsh’s (2021) call for Marxist perspectives, we shall complement this with Gramscian concepts of hegemony and counter-hegemony. Through this lens it becomes possible to describe different modes of innovation underpinned by hegemonic and counter-hegemonic sets of societal values. We argue that current views on innovation are underlined by the hegemony’s common senses of valorisation logics explaining its depoliticisation and the general perception of innovation as apolitical. With the aforementioned lens we hope to speak to STS scholarship and more classic innovation scholars by using a Gramscian influenced perspective that makes it possible to unfold paradoxes around innovation which might otherwise be tough to observe (see Walsh, 2021).

As this special issue suggests, innovation management has traditionally focused on innovation generation, process management, and diffusion, with relatively little emphasis on sustainability and societal aspects. The argument in the above paragraphs opens up the idea that this ‘classic’ innovation management is not a natural or an a-historic construction. It can be viewed as a socially constructed ideology emerging from the imperative of valorisation and thus, not the only possible underpinning principle of innovation. Our main hypothesis is that if innovation is not underpinned by hegemonic pressures of valorisation, it can open the door to a variety of alternative social possibilities that have the potential to address social justice and environmental issues. In line with this special issues’ call for papers we interpret our task as researchers to normatively present alternative purposes for innovation. Following recent debates about post-growth and degrowth (Pansera and Fressoli, 2021), we argue that the fundamental purpose of innovation should not be to increase productivity to foster economic growth. Instead the purpose of innovation should shift towards the aim of use-value creation. By use-value creation we mean socially useful production that seeks to fulfil societal needs.1 Use-value should be understood in contrast to exchange-value (Marx, 1969 [1867]). According to Marx (1969 [1867]), use-value is subsumed under the pursuit for exchange-value generation in the capitalist mode of production. Exchange-value defines value by the potential financial gain that can be achieved through a goods exchange; meaning that under this definition value can only be generated through financial gain in market exchange. However, this does not mean that under a focus on use-value that no exchange is possible or no markets would exist. Very much to the contrary, exchange and markets still have an important role to play in a society focusing on use-value creation, that is goods and services can and should still be exchanged and traded to help fulfil societal needs. Hence, under the focus on use-value creation, exchange and the market do not become the end goal in value creation (as for exchange-value) but rather a means to an end, which is fulfilling societal needs.

We offer a tentative window to a counter-hegemonic vision of innovation through commons-based peer production (CBPP). Benkler (2007, 2002) first documented early forms of massive online collaboration as a(n) (re-)emerging mode of production that is radically different from conventional industrial production. The success of free and open-source software projects and Wikipedia brought CBPP into the spotlight. They demonstrated how the aggregated contributions of volunteers, pooling resources with no predefined structure and roles can yield better results than rigid hierarchies and market rationality (Bauwens et al., 2019). They also reified the relevance of the commons in economic discourse and life. Starting from the digital commons of knowledge, software, and design, and moving to the relational commons of the social web, CBPP eventually casts new light on the natural and social commons that capitalism takes for granted and exploits. A counter-hegemonic perception of innovation informed by CBPP can provide the grounds for innovation that (a) caters for the commons upon which it rests; and (b) creates the conditions for positive social and ecological impact. In this paper, we borrow from empirical perspectives of participatory research we conducted elsewhere to demonstrate this potential by presenting two illustrative cases of CBPP organisations.