of each direction at the level of the user, on the one hand, and of society, on the other hand, because, while it is now commonly accepted that an innovation is always the translation of compromises made during the design process (compromises between functions to be in sync with specifications, and compromises between stakeholders), we cannot forget that it is meaningful to the society it helps to design.
Figure 1.1. Innovation meaning tree (according to Forest 2020)
Rehabilitating the question of the political meaning of innovation is therefore what differentiates the PSI approach from that of design thinking. The latter, precisely because it is user-centered, leaves the question of meaning for society in the shadows, whereas the PSI approach forces the designer to think about the meanings for the user AND society, leading the designer to become aware of the solutions they project and to question the meaning of the society they are helping to create. This leads us to Anthony Masure, who asserts that design thinking has removed design from all political thinking (Masure 2015). However, make no mistake about what we are saying: this is not a question of rejecting any interest in design thinking, but more modestly of emphasizing that the PSI approach is more an extension of design thinking than an opposition to it.
Re-emphasizing the question of the political meaning of innovation also allows us to distinguish the PSI approach from the “Design-driven innovation” that Roberto Verganti promotes. According to him, individuals do not only buy products and services but also meanings. He advocates moving from a focus on the “what” to a focus on the “why”. The objective is to design an innovation that proposes a new reason for the question of why people use a device, which requires interpreters to collaborate (Dell’Era et al. 2018, p. 388). While Roberto Verganti’s approach puts the question of meaning at the forefront, the fact remains that we are still dealing with the user and not with the question of whether any innovation that makes sense for the user is necessarily “good” or “desirable” for society.
The controversy over the French StopCovid application, designed by the National Institute for Research in Digital Science and Technology (Inria), and inspired by the TraceTogether system implemented in Singapore, is emblematic of the issue. In an interview given to the newspaper Le Monde on April 8, 2020, Health Minister Olivier Véran revealed that the government considered the development of the application, with a view to limiting the spread of the virus by identifying chains of transmission and people who have been in contact with a patient who has tested positive. This project generated, from the very next day, a significant amount of opposition. If this application can make sense:
– for the user, promising to increase their safety and security,
– for many epidemiology and health specialists, who consider the application an indispensable tool to avoid a second health crisis15,
– it can question the society that we contribute to design using it.
Indeed, beyond the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of this application (according to expert estimates, at least 60% of French people would have to download it for its relevance. Bluetooth technology can produce false positives, and, in an open letter on April 19, 2020, 300 international researchers asked states not to abuse digital tracking technologies, pointing out the security flaws in applications such as StopCovid, etc.), we cannot hide the fact that it raises legitimate questions in terms of respect for individual liberties and privacy protection, and that we must be wary, as indicated by the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister Marlène Schiappa, of letting our anxiety in the face of the crisis lead us to endorse a clear retreat from our rights. These are questions that the PSI approach invites us to ask ourselves, beyond the search for a “why” directed to the user.
1.5. The PSI approach: a philosophy of, and for, action
The PSI approach is a philosophical approach to action based on “political heuristics”. It is not intended to be an overarching and moralizing discourse that would consist of making an ex post value judgment on this or that innovation. More modestly, it aims to reconnect, through the innovation project, with debates relating to the society we conceive and within which we evolve. In this way, innovation is not, in the words of Benoit Godin, just a political concept, or, to put it another way, the servant of politics, it is also a political project.
Nor does the PSI approach aim to integrate fear as part of the innovation process. Indeed, we live in an era marked by an ambient catastrophism of which collapsology is the archetype. The fatalistic conception of collapsology breaks, however, with the words of Jean-Pierre Dupuy who, in his book Pour un catastrophisme éclairé, proposed that the image of a future sufficiently catastrophic was repulsive and sufficiently credible to trigger the actions that would prevent its realization (Dupuy 2002) because this “heuristic of fear” (Jonas 1990) acts as a revealing indicator, in sync with the photographic sense of the term “developer”, of what has incomparable value for us16 and, contrary to the precautionary principle, avoids sticking to a probabilistic management of risks where it would be necessary to anticipate the catastrophe (Dupuy 2002). Political heuristics aspires, through reflection on action, to bring the designer closer to an action that makes sense for society and questions the values we wish to defend. The political heuristic underlying the PSI approach thus appears to be a positive heuristic because it is not a question, contrary to Hans Jonas’ heuristic of fear, of identifying the undesirable in order to lead to prudence and responsibility17, but of exploring the meanings of the different possible directions, which allows for innovation in consciousness. In doing so, the PSI approach is also a philosophy for action.
Indeed, the PSI approach claims a practical sense that invites us to think about the meaning of what we conceive during the very process of innovation and has an active scope turned towards the future. The horizon targeted is the same as that of Hans Jonas’ heuristic of fear, for which we need to emancipate ourselves from the concept of responsibility conceived ex post with regard to effective action (of what has been done) in favor of a conception of responsibility that proceeds from the future (from the power to do). However, while the scope of the heuristic of fear is turned towards the question of preserving our humanity (“Act in such a way that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of an authentically human life on earth” (Jonas 1990. p. 30), “never must the existence or the essence of man as a whole be put at stake in the gamble of acting” (Jonas 1990, p. 62). The PSI approach invites us to question in each innovation the values we wish to defend, whether they are directly linked to our survival or not18. This means, for example, questioning ourselves on the tension between the right to privacy and the right to security when designing a video surveillance system or questioning ourselves on the contemporary trend of rewards. Some stores, for example, give discount coupons to customers who bring back their plastic bottles. If this seems effective at first in inciting virtuous practices, what kind of society are we building by moving in this direction? Isn’t the implementation of such a system in opposition to altruism, which seems to be a key element of living together?
It is clear that the PSI approach is not an apology for innovation geared towards economic growth19, but an approach that invites us to think of a society in which innovation cannot be seen as a producer of gadget innovations linked to an unbridled and unreasonable consumer society, barely created and already outdated, while basic needs remain poorly met. What about inequalities in access to water – one in three people in the world do not have access to safe water and 40% of the world’s population (i.e. 3 billion people) do not have facilities for washing their hands with soap and water at home – at a time when the WHO is reminding us that handwashing is an essential preventive measure in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic we are experiencing? What about the obligation to stay indoors when some people, including in developed countries such as France, do not have access to housing? Or what about the inequality of access to healthcare, which is reflected