“Capitalism Made your iPhone” and Other Innovative Hidden Gems from Critical Theory
Stuart Sim and Borin Van Loon’s graphic book, Critical Theory, gave me an incredible opportunity this week to practice some of the most important innovative principles: postponing judgment and embracing being a beginner. Critical Theory and Decrustivism are blaring weak spots in my educational background, so this provided perfect grounds for training in these two areas. As I deferred judgement and embraced being a beginner, I was surprised to find some innovative principles hidden in the field of Critical Theory – I think they were hidden somewhere in Karl Marxy’s beard. Consider the following takeaways:
Question Everything
Frankfurt School admittedly challenged every known assumption and questioned everything. One graphic has Herbert Marcus saying, “Our approach was based in Marxism, but was just as willing to criticize the failings of the Soviet Union as those of Western society” (Sim, 39). To the praise of Marxist thinkers, if one has new wine, there needs to be new wineskins, and the old need to be dismantled. That was accomplished in spades with the Frankfurt School and others. We have a rule on our Innovation Team of “no sacred cows,” and we mean that every previous topic, decision, project, program or decision is always available to be revisited. Questions in their essence are benign, but powerful learning opportunities. One method for discerning underlying problems is to ask the question “Why?” five times. For (a semi-hypothetical) example: We had to cancel a summer mission trip with students. Why? Because we didn’t have enough men to round out the group and make a safe environment (travelling to the Middle East). Why? Because last year was a very low year for sending men overseas. Why? Because men didn’t hear about the opportunity Why? Because over 80% of those searching for missions online are women. Why? Because…. Because…. Well, this needs some thought, but we have found a problem worth addressing.
Wearing New Lenses to see EVERYTHING
As kingdom innovators (and by this I mean people seeking to bring fresh thinking to add kingdom value) we must wear new lenses to see the world. We are called as Christians to have the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5) who saw the world completely differently. It is our imperative to see situations in a way that brings shalom for the common good – to imagine what it might look like for the kingdom to come, for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. We could call these, “Thy kingdom come” glasses. We don’t just rethink religious services, but every theory and field are under the gaze with these glasses. Critical Theorists have modeled this near perfectly by using critical theory “to cover the entire scope of other theories” (Sim, 39). Like the all-seeing Eye of Sauron, there wasn’t a single field that escaped their targeting.
The Power of Narrative and the Arts
While Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition attacked grand narratives and championed marginalized “little narratives” (Sim, 98), no one I’ve come across has challenged the power of narratives themselves. This image by Sim has an old man playing cards commenting, “Narrative itself is a basic human construction. It needs no more foundation or justification on that” (98). The arts capture our imagination like propositional truths never will. The arts are not summaries or distillation of propositional truths, but are a spot of primacy from which the propositional truths flow. Sim depicts the artist Arnold Schoenberg in one of his graphics saying, “A new political paradigm requires a new art to go along with it” (46). Innovations with lasting power tap into a narrative and capture our imagination for an alternate possible future.
All play
Marxist thought is built on the value of the lower class who are inherently full of dignity and potential energy. Innovation has a paradoxical reality. Everett Rogers, the guru of innovation diffusion, traces the empirical proof therin:
The individuals or other units in a system who most need the benefits of a new idea… are generally the last to adopt an innovation. The units in a system who adopt first generally least need the benefits of the innovation. This paradoxical relationship between innovativeness and need for the benefits of an innovation tends to widen socioeconomic gaps between the higher and lower socioeconomic individuals in a system. (Rogers, 295)
I concede one strength of Marxism lies in the desire for the contribution of the lower class, not just the elite. I’m intrigued in the issue of social justice in innovation and how the process itself can be more fair and just. You can expect more on this from me in the coming weeks.
Innovation under Socialism
Sim’s text was a launching point for my interest in how innovation might differ in systems other than capitalism. I quickly stumbled on this picture (please excuse the vulgarity):
I was eager to get some context and commentary on this photo from an outside voice like Vanessa A. Bee’s article, “Innovation under Socialism: What the ‘Capitalism Built your iPhone’ Ignores.” Bee identifies four ingredients to innovation: 1) problems to solve, 2) capital and resources available to innovate, 3) human capital, 4) individual opportunities to create and it’s proper motivation. She moves on to argue that these four ingredients are best actualized under the core principles of socialism. Her strongest point centers around the hampering effects profit can bring as the lead motivation for innovating. She warns:
But prioritizing profit is a double-edged sword that can hamper innovation. Owning the proprietary rights allows private firms to block workers… who put labor into the innovation process from applying the extensive technical expertise and intimate understanding of the product to improve the innovation substantially.
As I consider the training ground of deferring judgment and embracing being a beginner, I offer my own graphic a la Sim:
__
Bee, Veronica A. “Innovation Under Socialism: What the ‘Capitalism Built your iPhone’ Ignores.” Current Affairs. October 24, 2018. Accessed October 28, 2019. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/innovation-under-socialism
Robers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. (New York: Free Press, 2003)
Sim, Stuart and Borin Van Loon. Introducing Critical Theory. (UK: Icon Books, 2012)
About the Author
Shawn Cramer
14 responses to ““Capitalism Made your iPhone” and Other Innovative Hidden Gems from Critical Theory”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Shawn, someone said that there is no racism whit out capitalism. Technology is just one factor, our modern food system has co-evolved with 30 years of neoliberal globalization, which has privatized public goods and deregulated all forms of corporate capital in the world. This has caused the highest levels of global inequality in history. The shocking social and environmental costs of this transition have hit black people harder, which is reflected in the record levels of hunger and mass migrations of impoverished farmers in the Global South, and the horrifying levels of food insecurity, disease related to food, unemployment, imprisonment and violence in the neglected black communities of the Global North.
Are you saying you agree with that person? I think stratifying people based on outside identity markers is part of the sin nature, not a byproduct of an economic system. We see racism in the Bible and other cultures long before capitalism. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on this.
Hey look, another Lord of the Rings reference 😉
I dig the notion of continuing to ask “why” when trying to discern underlying problems. Doing so allows you to follow the trail and to get a deeper understanding of the issue. We have an activity at my school called an “English Passport” where students have to talk to me or the other native English teachers about a given topic. Unprompted, they will only give a basic surface level answer. But I always keep pushing them with, “Why?” (the amount of whys they get depends on their proficiency and confidence in English). The amount of depth you can get to with such a simple question is astounding.
Great application of that concept – especially for a culture that might be more prone to collectivism.
Out Standing! Critical Theory is the weak link in my chain of education as well. I do see the benefits of many of these theories especially when they get us off our backsides as believers and force us to understand the influencing factors in our culture.
I would tend to question Vanessa Bee’s socialist view of innovation. Though the bottom line and profit margins can hamper innovation in a capitalistic society in some ways. The competition and motivation that capitalism brings provides for others to achieve and allows for creative genius. In order for socialism to work someone has to be held back so others can be brought up pushing aside the power of personal achievement. I do believe it is possible to bring those up who need it while allowing others to excel at their own pace and reap the benefits of their genius.
If you were to look at Critical Theory and its many facets what red flags do you see?
The biggest red flag for me is summed up in the closing line of “Animal Farm”: “All animals are equal, some animals are just more equal than others.”
At the heart of Marxism and critical theory is power and issues of class domination. Yet, at any level of the social spectrum, principles of innovation are applied. In fact, those who have little are often masters of innovation. I appreciated what you said about this, but I’m still wondering aloud about the difference between innovation for necessity’s sake or innovation for the purpose of upward mobility. Does Marxism imply that innovation for those in the working class only exists to meet needs and not change one’s station?
Challenging question, John. I could imagine innovation being used in the class struggle – to accelerate the power dynamics. I would guess that an altruistic socialist would say that innovation is for the collective good.
I like that term, kingdom innovators!
I read a couple books lately on innovation I thought I’d bring one out at this point. I think you will enjoy it Shawn.
https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Social-Innovation-Renewing-Wesleyan-ebook/dp/B01ACCNRM8
Thanks, Steve. Most of my sources are from more of a reformed tradition, so I welcome this book. Do any others come to mind?
Shawn,
Congratulations on being able to suspend judgment and learn something new! It is hard to do when you bump up against something that makes every part of your soul want to run away.
“This paradoxical relationship between innovativeness and need for the benefits of an innovation tends to widen socioeconomic gaps between the higher and lower socioeconomic individuals in a system…” The first thing I thought of as I read this was the mantra of my Econ 101 class which was, “Supply and Demand.” Do you think there is a connection?
Absolutely. I think that part of the point is that the supply is more easily accessed by the rich (and empirically proven to be more receptive to innovations) and perpetuates the economic divide.
Hi Shawn, you’re a blessing!
I’m wondering if ‘Descrustivism’ has to do with toast? Cutting away that hard outer nature (sometimes burnt and crumbly anyways) and focusing on the soft, doughy inside core of matters.
Yes, to the importance of the question, ‘Why’ (?).Most likely you’ve seen Simon Sinek’s TedTalk on ‘How Great Leaders Inspire Action’? Why (?), 5 times is next level 🙂
This has been a focus question for us at times on teams; the Why (?), though not 5 times over. Unfortunately, there has not been a consistency to the questioning (which could be a good idea too), so that there could be a leaning back on past learning.
This week gone-by I had a neat meeting that dialled into the ‘How’ (?) of who we are and what we are doing. We were using this guiding line, ‘nurturing faith, hope and love’. I appreciate answering the Why (?) to this, while the How (?) causes deep consideration with regards to the relative/practical/physical impact of the Why (?). We applied all of this to our lives personally and then we started to look at programming. How (?) is faith, hope and love being nurtured in us and ‘this-that and the-next-thing’?
Yes, bro. Thankfulness!
Good addition, Chris. There is certainly an order of the questions – What? (are the observations), Why? (is this the case – root issue), and How? (do we address it). I see people rush to the How? far too quickly.
Thanks also for putting Sinek’s TED Talk back on my radar. I saw that years ago, but I’ll give it a fresh pass this week.