The sociology of creativity: PART II: Applications: The socio-cultural contexts and conditions of the production of novelty

Independent innovator or entrepreneur (“Free-lancers”)

Individuals in their socio-cultural contexts are typically embedded in a rich legacy with links to ideas, problems, possible solutions, and possibly key resources (including free or leisure time to devote to creative work).

An individual may have access to a field’s cultural and technical legacy.⁵ For instance, individuals in mathematics, literature, music, art, theoretical scientists where the concepts, symbols, and materials are ready at hand, as in the cases of the conceptual and mathematical creations of quantum physics or modern economics and many other fields. Increasingly, some work in contemporary mathematics and theoretical science also requires access to powerful computers (and even entire batteries of computers).

A particularly far outlier is the case of the Russian Mathematician Grigori Perelman working alone on revolutionary creations and living as a recluse with his mother in St. Petersburg, although he has been associated with several major institutions in Russia and the USA.⁶ He is recognized for providing proof of the Poincare conjecture in 2002, one of the most important accomplishments of 20th and 21st Century mathematics. Perelman’s work did not appear “out of the blue.” Poincaire’s conjecture had existed as a mathematical challenge since 1904. There had been a number of attempts to prove it, all failed. Richard Hamilton provided a partial proof (1982) which Perelman was able to extend to create a satisfactory solution.⁷ Three teams of mathematicians took on the task to verify the proof given by Perelman (verified in 2006). He was awarded the Field Medal in 2006 (considered by many as the equivalent of the “Nobel Prize” in Mathematics), and in 2010 he also received the Clay Millennium Prize of a million dollars, and the European Mathematical Society Prize, but refused to take any of them.

Numerous artists and other innovators – many working entirely on their own – require however their materials and technologies, access to particular infrastructures in the field, for instance, in the case of artists, opportunities to exhibit in galleries and museums [7]. These are the infrastructures of the innovators’ productions and performances. In addition, they draw on educational opportunities, the teaching of techniques and skills which are part and parcel of any established field. The mathematicians, Benoit Mandelbrot, the creator of fractals, required access to computers to produce the complex patterns of many of his fractals. He was able to exploit the powerful computers available at IBM where he was employed in the creation and development of fractals; he had a long career working to a great extent on his own.

In general, there is a social, cultural, institutional infrastructure – a social context for creativity – not simply a psychological state of mind, although individuals engage in psychological processes making use of socially derived elements. At a minimum, individuals who are creative are embedded in a cultural and social field which provides the symbolic elements, angles of approach, strategies, partial solutions, established procedures and principles [23]. Also, essential to their creative efforts may be access to special technologies such as laboratories, experimental equipment, and powerful computers, opportunities to communicate their ideas and exhibit/demonstrate their creations, and obtain feedback for corrections and ultimately acceptance. The key is that the capable, self-confident agent(s) are in touch with the major issues, questions, and also possible solutions or pieces of solution that are circulating in relevant networks of the field F.⁸

Networks (professional and occupational)

In many instances, innovators are involved in networks (and quasi-groups). Typically, these may provide access to information, knowledge, critique, potential social support and connections, for example, to professional associations as well as access to essential materials, technologies, and sources of financing and other resources.⁹

Consider the following illustrations.

A. The Norwegian Nils Henrik Abel (1802–1829), one of Europe’s greatest mathematicians, had a short career but benefitted greatly from involvement in European networks of mathematicians. His mathematical talents were recognized early and led to educational and funding support from teachers and others in Norway. He was able to make use of all the latest mathematical literature in the University Library in Oslo (the University of Christiana at that time), a period of mathematical flourishing in Europe. After graduation and with support from his professors and a state fellowship, he travelled widely in Europe (Berlin, Leipzig, Basel, Prague, Vienna, Paris, among others cities) meeting mathematicians and editors of mathematical journals and presenting his early mathematical concepts, categories, theorems including his highly original work on group theory, abelian groups, and abelian functions, an extraordinary cascade of mathematical creativity, all generated before he died of tuberculosis in 1829 (27 years old) and much of it well-received.¹⁰

The functioning of scientific networks is also illustrated in the case of Albert Einstein (1879–1955), among thousands of other creative scientists.¹¹

Although he worked to a great extent on his own, he was not a recluse (compared to the mathematician Grigori Perelman discussed above), but participated in physics conferences and maintained exchanges with colleagues in Physics as well as collaborated with a number of others in his European network (Leopold Infeld, Nathan Rosen, Leo Sziliard, Boris Podolsky, among others). Some of his best early work was submitted to the Annalen der Physik, one of the most recognized physics journals. In 1905, while working in a patent office he published his dissertation in Annalen along with papers on the “photoelectric effect,” “special relativity,” “the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2),” and “Brownian motion,” all cutting edge contributions (Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for the work on the photoelectric effect). This research was at first ignored but by 1908 began to be acknowledged, and Einstein received academic appointments and lectured widely in Europe and the US. He had drawn conceptually and professionally from – and contributed significantly to the highly developed, rich fields of physics established in Europe at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s. Interestingly, he made major contributions to quantum physics but rejected the basic conception claiming over many decades that it was incomplete, and that a more complete theory would eventually emerge to replace it. He also worked until his last days to develop a theory unifying the fundamental forces of nature. In spite of these deviant but highly creative paths he choose in the latter part of his career – which isolated him from many of his colleagues – he had more than proved himself with his revolutionary ideas in the first half of the 20th century.¹²

Small organically formed groups

Many creative actions involve (even require) partners (of varying qualities and capabilities) such as in the collaboration between composers and lyricists, or in science, a physicist and mathematician (as in Albert Einstein’s work with the mathematician Marcel Grossman on the general theory of relativity), or Crick & Watson in conceptualizing DNA; or Farrell’s diverse creative groups [29] science groups [46], and Corte’s creative sports group [22].

In music, for example, composers, collaborate with songwriters (as in the case of Richard Rogers (1902–1979) and Oscar Hammerstein (1895–1960), George Gershwin (1898–1937) and Buddy DeSylva (1895–1950); but the composer may also take a given text and write the music for it, as Beethoven did for his ninth symphony without any direct collaboration.

A. Freestyle BMX (bicycle MotoCross) circle

Corte [22] describes a BMX circle that emerged in Greenville, North Carolina beginning in 1995. It consisted of professional riders of circles from various distant towns and cities who migrated to Greenville because they found there a dense network of people who shared their identities and interests in a setting which was conducive to their goals. By congregating in Greenville and attracting one another (some were already friends or acquainted with one another from competitions), members maximized homogeneity in cultural backgrounds, stages of career, and ages of the members all of which facilitated collaboration. Crucial to their creative initiatives was an available skate-park and moral support from the local community that afforded the group the space and time it needed to unite, articulate a common vision, and produce dramatic innovations in their sport that advanced it technically, aesthetically, and professionally.

These riders were motivated by similar professional goals, possessed similar capabilities, and were familiar with each other from having met at various competitions over the years. Collectively, their accomplishments attracted national attention. In March 2001,Ride BMX Magazine, a niche publication dedicated to BMX riding, dubbed Greenville “Pro Town USA.” Inspired by the success of the Greenville pros, a large number of professional and amateur BMXers began relocating to Greenville in the early 2000s. Many riders who did not move permanently still visited for extended periods of time (often more than once and sometimes regularly), as it became an important destination in the field of BMX for the goal of pushing the limits of their activity. Corte maps the way in which a core membership of “pros” was built up and functioned [22]. Together, the core became a collaborative circle [29]. The group developed a common rule regime, leadership, and a resource base, in particular, values and norms concerning performances, competition, and group behavior, the idea of technical progression, professionalism, the importance of participating in major competitions, and norms of access to and use of the ramp park. The key factors related to the resource base of the group revolved around the free access of the group to the first, public, ramp park (which was quite singular of this specific location on a number of respects), the possibility of riding in private— with an almost total exclusion of outsiders, and the opportunity of riders to live very close to one another and participate in many spontaneous interactions which also contributed to forging their friendships.

B. Crick & Watson and the discovery of DNA’s structure

A much publicized collaboration involved Frank Crick and James D. Watson in the “discovery” or formulation of the DNA model.¹⁴ Not only did they discover one another, but they were linked to a number of collaborative and competitive groups, which they were able to draw upon and exploit in the development of their revolutionary model (in particular, key researchers in the area such as Linus Pauling, Jerry Donohue, Erwin Chargaff, Maurice Wilkins, and Rosalind Franklin).¹⁵ While Crick and Watson used more conventional methods of investigating DNA, Maurice Wilkins and Rosalin Franklin utilized advanced X-ray diffraction methods to investigate and understand the physical structure of the DNA molecule.

It was a complex structure: the molecule was a double helix. It was also important to figure out that the two strands run in opposite directions and that the molecule had a specific base pairing. Others were engaged in resolving some of these issues – a number of scientific breakthroughs occurred that prepared the backdrop/context of the ultimate DNA formulation: the technical progress and development of skills achieved by X-ray crystallographers in studying organic macromolecules; the growing evidence supplied by geneticists that DNA was not a simple protein, and that the chromosomes were responsible for heredity; Linus Pauling’s discovery that the molecules of some proteins have helical shapes— he arrived at this through the use of atomic modeling. While Pauling made the mistake of formulating a triple helix shape, which Crick and Watson had already judged as unsuitable, the ultimate key to solving the puzzle in this highly competitive field was that they gained access to Rosalind Franklins X-ray photographs without her permission. In particular, “photo-51” revealed a helical structure – double helix, not triple!; She hesitated in presenting her results, while Crick and Watson rushed to publish their famous article in Nature, April 25, 1953. Ultimately, they received the Nobel Prize with Maurice Wilkins, leaving Rosalin Franklin out.¹⁶ Clearly, the large networks of researchers extended over time and space provide a better understanding of the processes in back of the “discovery” of DNA than the notion that two “geniuses” Crick and Watson managed this discovery on their own (not to detract from their important contributions).

The conceptualization of DNA entailing a long history and hundreds (probably thousands) of researchers is a great scientific accomplishment. Almost all organisms – bacteria, plants, yeast and animals – carry genetic information encapsulated as DNA. The DNA concept and the array of tools and methods mobilized toinvestigate it, continue to play a powerful driving force in the diffusion and cascading of innovations and creative developments (see Part I on cascading) through networks of users and potential users of the ideas, methods, etc. and including scientific associations, conferences, and journals.

Large numbers of groups behave in the creative ways described above not only in the process of formation – with the mobilization of people and resources and the construction or adoption of a rule regime – but in their functioning and development (or possible demise).

Constructed or “legislated” groups and organizations aimed at creative undertakings

Such initiatives are taken in the context of, for instance, large companies, government agencies, and universities. Many innovative efforts require many collaborators (specialists and experts of different types) and substantial resources which are very difficult to mobilize organically (“spontaneously”) but rather require the initiative and investment on the part of large-scale or wealthy organizations:

A. The Manhattan project (1939–47) was established by the U.S. government to produce the first nuclear weapon – leading to the massive destruction from the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Other major highly organized initiatives are exemplified by Disney cartoons and film productions, PARC (at Xerox) to develop an early PC (all discussed by Bennis and Biederman [8]) who emphasize the strong commitment in these systems to task-oriented norms, intense involvement, and readiness to trespass boundaries and also accept critique (see below). Resources for the Manhattan project come from the U.S. Government, for the Disney system from within/outside Disney, and in the case of PARC from inside Xerox for the development of an early PC.¹⁷

In such large, complex systems as the Manhattan Project, there are multi-interrelated roles: the director was not a scientist, but a U.S. Army officer, General Ledslie Groves of the U.S. Army. He played a key role in protecting the project, helping to obtain the resources necessary, supporting recruitment of some of the best people available, resolving misunderstandings and conflicts, managing the large community of odd balls and intellectual divas who participated in the project. The project grew to employing 130,000 at 30 sites across the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. (It cost 26 billion (in 2015 collars)).¹⁸

B. Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) and the Development of the First Personal Computer [8].¹⁹ PARC, a research and development adjunct (from 1970) of the Xerox Corporation, was established with about 50 persons to create a personal computer. From their networks, two key people at Xeros (Alan Kay and Bob Taylor) recruited in a meticulous way people with demonstrated intelligence and creativity – but the recruiters also believed that collaborative skills were especially important for the type of systems-oriented research such as PARC would be undertaking.

The group was designed to be non-hierarchical at the same time that the management of the group developed and applied a strategy to deal with conflict among members and predispositions to become prima donnas. Norms were “legislated” by the leadership, insisting on sharing information, and on a regular basis; open weekly meetings were mandated for the group. At the same time, people participating in PARC experienced a great deal of emotional excitement (collective effervescence [27]), and became highly devoted to the group and to the task, sensing that they were involved in a major cause for humanity.

Management worked to assure that the group had the right tools for their work – and allowed them to create these for themselves if they were not available elsewhere. It managed on a sustained basis to persuade the top management decision-makers of the urgency of the PARC group initiative and its performance needs and to obtain financing and other resources for the group.

The group succeeded with its challenging task, creating the first PC, the “Alto,” which had many of the features that are standard to PC and MAC users: bit mapping, a graphical user interface (and Ethernet),pop-up menus, and the mouse. In addition, the group developed the first easy-to-learn word processing program, and the first laser printer. As it turned out, XEROX decided not to develop the Alto PC commercially, and variants of it came to be developed by Apple and other companies including IBM.

Formally organizing or constructing groups – even those engaged in creative activities – is an established part of the contemporary world. From uncertain beginnings such as Thomas Edison’s Menlo Park laboratory, such organizing of creativity groups has been applied in almost every field of human endeavor.²⁰

Large numbers of groups behave in the creative ways described above not only in their initiating phase – with the mobilization of people and resources and the construction or adoption of a rule regime – but in their functioning and further development.

Macro-societal initiatives: The modernizing state as a creative force.

A. Early Swedish Development of Public Health (1700–1800s): Structural Innovation and the Successful Regulation of Death through Social Organization [41]. This progressive development was particularly noteworthy in the 1800s, which saw an “epidemiological revolution” in the area of public health [41]. The driver was the central state which mobilized a small group of medical professionals (there were very few physicians in Sweden in this period of very substantial poverty) together with mid-wives and the Lutheran priesthood (which was closely associated with the Swedish state). The ‘rustic’ style of sickness and dying in the Swedish town and villages was changed by the mid-1800s as a result of systematic state intervention.

The Swedish state early on (1500s) took responsibility for dealing with sickness and death and improving the health of the entire population. In the course of two hundred years, it developed a new and unique social organization, the elements of which were later to be characteristic of “The Swedish Model” of governance [17]. Although roots go back much earlier, the state developed during the 18th and 19th centuries a multi-level governance system which facilitated communication and negotiation between the center and local society and also engaged key stakeholders such as priests and midwives in issues of health, illness, and death.

At the top of the governance system was the Crown and a group of medical professionals organized in the Collegium Medicum (a Royal Expert Panel of advisors, earlier the Collegium Medicum). In 1813 the latter was transformed into the Health Collegium, a formal state agency). Locally there were 2000 parishes (socken) (with their priests and local organizations such as parish assemblies (sockenst ä mman)),²¹ midwives (eventually there was at least one in every parish), and initially a number of “district medical officers” appointed by the state.²²

In general, although there were major resource limitations in Sweden until industrialization in the 1800s,²³ a number of highly innovative instruments were established and developed: campaigns for healthy behavior, laws and regulation concerning public health and the regulation of disease and death, vaccination campaigns, protection against contagious diseases, infrastructure improvements, high levels of public participation in improving hygiene and healthy living.

Through these governance arrangements, each and every one of the 2000 Parishes in Sweden could be reached by the decrees, information circulars,²⁴ medical handbooks, and supervisory visits. There emerged an organized capability to monitor and deal with everyday praxis concerning water, food, birth and nursing praxis, and a variety of other health conditions.²⁵ Also, the governance system had the ability to respond in organized, systematic ways to, for instance, cholera epidemics in the 1800s (there were 9 epidemics between 1834–1873). The District Medical Officers and priests (organizing statistics and participating in treatment and preventive measures) reported to the Health Collegium: letters were sent with accounts and statisticsabout local developments, health issues, level of health, and birth and death “statistics” (in the form of tables (tabellverket): priests had the responsibility for the yearly Parish-wise reports [41] providing data on births, infant mortality, deaths (distinguished by sex and age); the “death cause” tables were filled in – each row indicating a cause of death, and columns indicating age and gender.²⁶

There was a rapid decline in the incidence and mortality of smallpox as a result of organized mass vaccination; infant mortality was also rapidly reduced. There was institutionalized communication about urgent matters (whether quality of water, quality and preparation of food, and issues of sewage, abuse of alcohol, inappropriate or inadequate places of living and types of clothing, failure to nurse infants (rather than start them on local food), insufficient attention to (or response in) situations of sickness and epidemics) Guidelines were prepared for responding to epidemics and the spread of contagious diseases.

In sum, state authorities initiated and developed from the 1700s a valuable channel between the state together with the Collegium Medicum, on the one side, and district medical officers, the clergy, midwives and general public, on the other side.²⁷ Death, dying and diseasewere taken out of the realm of the supernatural, and became medicalized and bureaucratized through professionalization, administration, and central regulation – ironically perhaps for some observers, Swedish priests played a key role in this development. Modern ideological discourses were circulated: “Sickness can be cured,” “death can be avoided,” “disease can be prevented.” And the state along with major professional groups had (and still do have) the responsibility to hinder and prevent death and disease, and to care for and heal the sick.

The Swedish governance arrangements for early public health programs was the cornerstone for the successful policies and the substantial reduction of sickness and morality (including infant mortality) during the 1800s (from average longevity of around 35 years to 55 years by 1900 (and about 80 years now). These accomplishments were in large part the result of the creative and collective meta-powering and transformations carried out by the central government in collaboration with midwives, priests, and local parishes.

B. EU Meta-power Mobilization and Radical Legislation: The Case of EU Chemical Regulation [20].²⁸ REACH (that is, registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals, in effect since June, 2007) was one of the most radical and contentious legislative initiatives of the EU, involving almost 10 years of debate, mobilization, struggle, and negotiations between the Commission, the Council of the European Union, the Parliament, and industry, labor unions, environmental, consumer and animal rights NGOs, among others.²⁹ The context for the initiative was the growing international attention and regulatory efforts from the early 1970s (for instance, the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, 1972). The EU initiative started with an informal meeting in Chester, UK, in March, 1998 engaging several members of the Environmental Council with representatives from Austria, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands and Sweden (Austria, Finland and Sweden had become new EU members in 1995). They determined that something major needed to be done to realize a more effective regulation of chemicals; there were tens of thousands of them whose risks to human health and environment were unknown – or in some cases known but without adequate regulation. The first half of 1998 was the period of the UK’s EU Presidency and it selected “chemicals in the environment” as one of the Presidency themes. The Chester group prepared a joint position paper which set in motion new ways of thinking among key environmentally interested agents in the EU about chemical regulation. The initial formulation of a new policy paradigm began to take shape in the legislative bill.

The proposal was designed to cover a major part of all chemicals (substances of either high concern or manufactured or imported over 1000 tones). The legislation would replace about 40 legislative instruments in force at the time. An entirely new European Chemical Agency (ECHA) was to be established (as it was in 2007). Thousands of substances (approximately 30,000 expected) already on the market would have to be assessed and would have to be subject to authorization. New chemicals would have to be tested for safety before being release on the market. The burden of proof of chemical safety was put on the producers, not with consumers or with the regulator as had been the case earlier. Under the new regime chemicals could be banned – or if their value to society was judged to be very high they could be allowed but under very tight controls – and with a demand that alternatives bediscovered.

There were substantial struggles within EU institutions over supporting or rejecting this highly innovative legislation to regulate chemicals: in Parliament (between, for instance, the Committee on Environment and Committees versus Industry and Legal Affairs); in the Commission (between DG Environment and DG Enterprise), and in the Council itself between the countries (in particular Germany, France, UK) fighting to defend the old paradigm of a privileged position for and limited regulation of the chemical industry and those states pushing for a new, much tougher regime of chemical regulation (in particular, Sweden, Austria, Finland, and Denmark). The US Government and US companies were also key players in these struggles. Arguably, never has a public policy process in the EU involved so many players with such intensity over such an extended period of time. The exercise of multiple powers and the array of struggles characterized Europe’s most important industry during the long period 1998–2007 and resulted in major innovations in conceptualizing regulation of chemicals, its institutional arrangements, and array of policies.³⁰

Community and society self-transformations³¹

“Hothouse community contexts” entail creative settings: a special atmosphere, networks, groups and organizations immersed in an atmosphere of problems/challenges, ideas, conceptions, values, and resources – typically attracting people and resources and providing for rapidly cumulative and expanding creative developments (a positive feedback loop). There are many examples [4]: Florence in the 1400s, Vienna during the period 1800–1936 in which networks of Jews played a key role in multiple creative developments (ended by the Nazi takeover of Austria), Silicon Valley, among others. Two cases which we have examined are the early industrial revolution in England and the ongoing, global “sustainability revolution” [10]. These are briefly sketched below.

A. Early Industrial Revolution

The early Industrial Revolution (toward the end of the eighteenth Century) entailed many small and medium innovative initiatives in the emergence and transformation of technologies, institutional arrangements, social relations, and values such as those relating to the formation of factories, built environments, and entire industries. Such transformations could occur without any single agent or group of agents planning or even negotiating the overall development pattern.

The early industrial revolution involved multiple agents initiating and developing a variety of innovations including new technologies and socio-technical systems. The transformations encompassed not only major innovations in technologies and technical systems, e.g., the great increase in the use of fossil fuel energy (with the industrial use of goal), the invention of the steam engine, the development of mining, textile manufacturing, metal tools, optics, revolutionary advances in transport (with the establishment of railroads and the making of larger and faster ships), among other developments, and, of course, the shift from human/animal power to water and to coal. But crucial to all these engineering and technical advances was the development of innovative organizational and institutional means (including governance arrangements) to utilize and exploit the varying technical possibilities: the rule regimes of factory systems, methods to coordinate and control large numbers of workers, new ownership arrangements, regulatory agencies, legal innovations, the ideas – and realizations of the ideas – of mechanization and of standardized mass production, and new research and educational organizations, among other innovative constructions. The revolution encompassed also to a high degree new governance arrangements in diverse sectors combined with machines to make use of, for example coal, iron ore, and cotton – on a scale and with a rapidity never achieved (or imaginable) before. In other words, there were not just machines and material technologies but organizational, legal, conceptual and normative innovations. Almost all aspects of everyday life came to be affected, but with minimum direct or central coordination (although later variants of industrialization (for instance, in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union) entailed more a top-down development guided by an overall design or blueprint).³²

Inventors, innovators, entrepreneurs, scientists and engineers, business leaders, and government officials took a multitude of creative initiatives not only to make money, but to gain fame and respect, to experience the power of developing and transforming themselves and the world around them, and to advance the national power of in this case Great Britain. Tens of thousands were involved in these developments over the decades during which industrialization emerged and took off. The revolutions in mining, manufacturing, transport, chemicals, and agriculture were followed by those in electricity, electronics, and communications as well as in law, administration, science and education. The development of the industrial social order – with its technologies, experts, and forms of governance and regulatory systems – spread from England to North America and the rest of Europe and eventually to most corners of the globe.³³

Nevertheless, historically there was substantial opposition to many aspects of industrialization: In a number of countries, for instance, in Europe and North America, concerns about urbanization, pollution, water and air quality, and deforestation, and resource depletion generally led to powerful opposition movements. NGOs were founded to promote environmental protection, conservation and wildlife protection— a whole battery of policies, programs, and parks were established as a result. For workers, socialist and trade union movements emerged to fight for social protection, welfare, and justice. These movements and the governance and regulatory developments that they helped bring about operated on many levels and with varying degrees of effectiveness in the course of industrialization.

B. Emergence of a potential sustainability revolution. Today we may be witnessing the early stages of a new societal revolution comparable in scale and import to the industrial revolution [5, 10, 11, 28]. This “sustainability revolution” – sustainalization – implies a new type of society – or family of societies. It is being forged, piece by piece “organically,” so to speak. Innumerable “sustainability” designs, plans, and initiatives at different levels have been developed as people try to forge new orders (local, meso-, and macro-) as occurred in the case of industrialization. Another way of thinking about this transformation is that a “green” or sustainalization world is emerging – just as an industrial world perspective emerged in and through the industrializing process. Already, there are emerging new concepts, scientific efforts, policy schemes, a new language, an organic transformation of our ways of thinking, judging, and acting, etc. [10]. A societal paradigm shift appears to be taking place.

From the 1960s there has been rapidly increasing global awareness and concern about damage to the environment – Rachel Carson’s book (The Silent Spring, [19]), the UN Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment (1972), the 1987 Brundtland report (The World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future), the 1992 Rio de Janeiro “Earth Summit” (UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)), and so on. The “Stockholm Declaration” was formulated at the 1972 Conference – a number of guiding principles for the protection of the environment was adopted. These have been critical in the successive development of other instruments.³⁴

Increasingly, processes of defining threatening environmental realities, mobilizing agencies, enterprises, and citizens have been taking place.³⁵ These processes relate to a cascade of private and public initiatives, movements, and accomplishments in addressing environmental issues and challenges. The UN, environmental agencies, many enterprises, public “intellectuals,” researchers, NGOS, environmental movements, and media have succeeded to a greater or lesser extent in convincing themselves and multitudes of others that the environment and human life as well as life generally are threatened on planet earth and that action is necessary.³⁶. This is occurring not only in developed countries but also in developing ones such as China, India, and Brazil.³⁷ (This is not to overlook the deniers and opposers who make for formidable resistance (see below)).

In the sustainability revolution we see re-development of the electric car, emergence of hybrid cars, solar energy innovations and other renewable energy developments, “smart electric switches,” recycling systems, banning or tighter regulation of chemicals, increased controls of many pollutants, movements to protect forests and threatened species. These changes take place more in some parts of the world than others, but there is a powerful and sustained thrust, involving tens of thousands of initiatives and innovations. The emerging social trend is manifested in the plans and actions of many international regimes, international bureaucracies, national agencies, local and transnational activist groups and expert networks. At the same time, “earth system governance” can be understood as a political project that engages more and more actors who seek to change the current architecture of institutions and networks at local-, meso-, and global-levels in order to advance the cause of sustainability.

In sum, a revolution is taking place – not without conflict and struggle, and possibly not rapidly enough to save the planet (see below).³⁸ The “green revolution” represents multiple paradigm shifts, not only in production, technologies, consumables, and lifestyles, etc. but in governance, science and education, and practical ethics and related normative developments. The new paradigm (or family of paradigms) is spreading readily – horizontally – as manifested in new knowledge, values, and practices. “Green modernization” entails “green re-industrialization,” “green capitalism,” “green governance,” “green thinking and lifestyles.”³⁹

Some of the drivers and facilitators of the sustainability revolution are: (1) the normative ethos and related collective pressures relating to environmental issues; (2) opportunities to make gains in fame and fortune; (3) opportunities for engaging with creative challenges; the excitement of innovating, experiencing the new, its opportunities as well as exhilarating uncertainties and risks; the paradigm shifts themselves entail new ways to frame, think, judge, and act that are challenges to be mastered and developed; (4) the availability of open, new sectors able to develop quickly on green dimensions by utilizing new ideas, models, methods, technologies and techniques – in these sectors, there is often less resistance from established, resilient arrangements; (5) diffusion and imitation mechanisms through diverse social networks; (6) some strategic powerful sectors – such as energy and chemicals – are subject to particular attention and pressures to transform them, because energy forms such as fossil fuels are becoming increasingly scarce and also because they contribute significantly to pollution, GHGs, and climate change.⁴⁰

The pressures of the sustainability revolution are likely to continue and even to accelerate because of continuing environmental crises (that will not go away) and expanding outpouring of critical analyses and prognoses about the current damages, threats and hazards. While “sustainability” initiatives continue to grow and spread, the ongoing transformation will be no walkover. Rather, it is a development in the context of established social structures and power configurations (capitalist, socialist, Saudi Arabian and other Middle East oil producing monarchies) and powerful vested interests in what has been in many ways an historically successful industrialization/modernization paradigm. There is a formidable opposition (including deniers and opposers) among powerful interests, for instance, many in the established industrial-commercial-banking complexes and their allies. The struggle will be long and difficult. Particularly troublesome are efforts to deal with climate change, GHG emissions, the mammoth auto and related industries and the continuing use and sustained extraction (including new forms of risky extraction) of fossil fuels (the point of this paragraph relates to the discussion and illustrations in Part III).

Whether the sustainability revolution will be fast enough or comprehensive enough to save the earth-planet remains to be seen. History provides numerous examples of great societies that collapsed, and visions that failed or were never realized.⁴⁰

In spite of the complexity and the many institutional and cultural as well as power constraints, sustainalization is likely to proceed much more rapidly than industrialization did in large part: (1) because of the vast resources and capabilities of modern science and technology; (2) because of the availability of more rapid and widespread advanced communications (scientific and technical associations, the WWW, twitter, Facebook, blogs linking people concerned about environment and sustainability and facilitating the spread of sustainability ideas and accelerating rates of innovation and application); (3) because of the large numbers of people and collective agents already mobilized and acting to drive sustainability innovations and transformations.

In sum, the transformation of entire societies (complex social systems made up of multiple institutions) entails processes in which society changes not only in many of its functions but more profoundly in terms of its structures, social relations, normative-cognitive frameworks, and institutional arrangements.⁴¹

To conclude, creativity is observable in individuals acting ostensibly on their own, and in networks, groups, organizations, and societies providing continuous access to key information, technical and aesthetic knowledge, critical judgments, materials, social support. In general, cultural, material, and agential infrastructures condition creative activities and developments.

A. Contextual factors⁴²

We have emphasized the context(s) of creativity, in particular, the social organizational context (and more generally, the rule regime(s)), resources, and agential base(s) on which it is largely based.

Principle 1. The Multi-factor Contextuality of Innovation. An agent or agents launching innovative initiatives are shaped and influenced by multiple contexts (see Fig. 3A and 3B). Contexts are differentiated in terms of being with or without adequate networks of information and knowledge sources, resources (materials, technologies), people with or without relevant capabilities, motivation, and self-confidence able to participate in such initiatives as well as people in positions (economic or regulatory “authorities,” “powerbrokers,” “gatekeepers”) able to facilitate the innovation initiatives as well as those having the power to reject or block the introduction of novelties (see Part III).⁴³

Principle 2. Particularities of the Local Context F. The most immediate context is the field F where actors are engaged in innovative activities in a concrete situation involving particular types of resources (materials and technologies), particular types of knowledgeable agents (including inventors, entrepreneurs and technicians as well as power-brokers), particular types of social organization (and more generally rule regimes), and particular types of production processes and outputs. The local particularities are F-particularities, the special purpose technologies and processes as well as possibly the particular organizational arrangements and populations of knowledgeable, capable agents in the given field F.

One can think of any given context as providing an infrastructure for potential creative activity. While much of our discussion has been focused on social organization/rule regimes, resources, and agents, we have systematically referred to normative regulation which may facilitate or constrain innovation and creative development. Thus, a global culture (with its norms and values) of exploration, experimentation, and ultimately creativity helped drive the several industrial revolutions – in the 19th century in Britain and the USA and later Germany and France [49:26]. As Phelps [49] points out, “Even people with few and modest talents ...   were given the experience of using their minds: to seize an opportunity, to solve a problem, and think of a new way or a new thing.” Democratic culture played a role in the spread of such opportunities and developments (see footnote 2 and Principle 20).

B. General systemic factors

Principle 3. Multi-factor Pattern of Successful Innovative Initiatives and Creative Developments.⁴⁴ An innovative initiative is likely to be successful under the following conditions: (a) there are sufficient quantities and qualities of inputs essential to the particular innovative initiative (including possible substitutes of sufficient quantities and qualities in case of deficencies); (b) the inputs have – or have been made to have compatible interfaces or correspondences – making it possible to integrate them into functional entities with particular structural properties and performance patterns. (c) The goals (functions), designs and performance characteristics fit with (or at least are not contradictory to) nature’s laws and conditions at the same time that they are acceptable (consistent with) powerful social norms, institutional arrangements, and interests of powerful agents engaged in F and related contexts. The innovation is deemed initially “successful” if the constructed/entity (including new processes and institutional arrangements) is judged by the creator(s) to adequately perform the expected or designated function(s) and has appropriate properties (efficiency, reliability, etc.) at designated levels (see Part III).

Note: Multiple judgments are involved concerning “sufficient quantities and qualities”, “qualified agents and experts,” “compatibility,” “correspondence,” “appropriate policies,” etc. Typically there is much uncertainty about these – except in cases where successes have already been realized, that is ex post (see Part III). (Under such conditions, the uncertainties have been in large part resolved). But, in general, there are multiple uncertainties to address and multiple problems to judge and resolve.

Principle 4. The Diversity of Creative Outputs: In our general framework, innovations and creative developments are generated in all areas of human affairs (see Part I, Table 1) with varying degrees of likelihood and effective functioning – in the diversity of contexts where initiatives are launched. This conception of innovation encompasses cases of self-construction where agent(s) innovate in creating or constructing new materials and technologies in a field F (and possibly more encompassing contexts): replacing some or many of the agents involved; or launching entirely new agents, new education and training in problem-solving and creativity; or, introducing a new social organization, a new type of network, group or organization; or new production processes including creativity modalities. Thus, there may be sequences if not cascades of innovations associated with creative initiatives [4] (see earlier discussions of industrial and sustainability revolutions).

Principle 5. Multiple Powers of Creativity. Creativity entails mobilizing and coordinating diverse powers and capabilities to produce an innovation: agential powers, structural and normative powers, resource “powers,” and the powers of creativity modalities performed by capable, motivated agents [17].⁴⁵

Principle 6. Compatibility Factor. For any given creative initiative, when the components more or less fit together – with at least minimum necessary compatibility and coherence – the initiative is more likely to be successful. We envision a matrix of interlinked compatible requisites and correspondences in successful innovation. For instance, essential knowledge and capabilities of the agents involved would relate appropriately – in at least a rough way – to the materials and technologies utilized; the agents would fit knowledge-wise and performance-wise more or less with key rule systems, including the creativity modalities, that is, they would have the motivation, self-confidence, knowledge and skills to execute the appropriate creativity modalities in relation to the desired innovation.⁴⁶

The more incompatibilities among essential inputs into an innovative initiative in context F, or between the goal and the inputs and outputs, the more likely the given initiative will fail with respect to its presumed goal or function. Because of environmental constraints (material, legal, regulative, technical), there may be multiple incompatibilities (critical restraining factors) to deal with before an innovation can be realized and made to function properly. And, conversely, the more the compatibility among ingredients and processes, the more likely that the innovative initiative will succeed, other things being equal. In general, the rule of minimum necessary compatibility and coherence applies; the components making up a promising innovation process must fit the goal(s) and one another to a greater or lesser extent.

C. Agential factors

Principle 7. Knowledgeable, Capable, and Self-confident Agents.⁴⁷ An agent (or agents) believing in themselves and in their methods and techniques) and embedded in rich knowledge and resource contexts in a field F (or complex of fields) are more likely to have – or be able to mobilize – the capacity to adapt create material culture and artifacts as well as rules, symbols, and cultural artefacts. Creativity is witnessed in the design and construction of new artifacts or entities, new ideas, symbols, theories, socio-technical systems, built environments, etc. Part of the knowledge relates of course to “problems-to-be-solved.”⁴⁸

Principle 8. Multiple Creativity Modalities and Powers. Agents initiating an innovation process (or involved in an ongoing creativity process) conduct one or more creativity modalities: assembling, combining, adapting, experimenting, transforming, etc. (see Part I), which may or may not end in success depending on resource availability, the knowledge and capabilities of the agents, whether individual, group, or organization. Among other activities, aspiring innovator(s) engages in integrative operations – actions to eliminate or overcome incongruencies or lack of correspondences (“reverse saliences” or critical constraining factors in Hughes perspective [34, 35]) that is, the innovator adapts or fits inputs to one another in relation to an emerging or constructed innovative entity; she fits agents/performers to the inputs and to the entity under construction. For instance, a human operator must properly interact or correspond with a machine or technical sub-system; the driver’s setting in an automobile is made to correspond or fit with the dashboard and its visible monitoring; or, an automobile transmission sub-system is made to properly interface with the motor system.

In addition, she typically has to adapt the innovation to fit the context (hopefully without compromising its performance potentialities); she may also try to change the context to fit the innovation (but this typically calls for special powers over the environment).⁴⁹

Principle 9. Cognitive Development and Learning. Those participating in an innovation initiative often acquire knowledge and skills over time, even as they may fail in early attempts. Hughes [34] stressed this in considering the development of American railroads and the Manhattan Project. The same pattern could be observed as the Wright brothers constructed the first airplane that flew successfully [42] and Edison and his “creativity factory” produced arguably the first effective incandescent bulb after two years of trying thousands of different materials and assessing the research of many others also trying.

Principle 10. Cognitive Diversity (based on social and intellectual mixes) is conductive to creativity. Diversity emerges in a natural way in urban type complexes, particularly trading and cosmopolitan cities. The mixing and movement of people makes for a spectrum of interacting perspectives and experiences and thereby contributes – as urban life has demonstrated over and over again – to creative developments.⁵⁰

Principle 11: The Role of Marginal Agents and others who are inclined to think outside the box tend to play a key role in innovative initiatives, when they are allowed to, and are able to mobilize and gain access to essential resources and support to realize their innovative visions and designs.⁵¹

Principle 12: Managing Diversity. While diversity is frequently conducive to innovation and creative development (Principles 10 and 11), it may also prove disruptive and disequilibrating, that is counter-productive in a potentially creative context.. Managing a diverse, creative group is, therefore, a major challenge: dealing with conflicts, misunderstandings, reluctance to collaborate – including even the sharing of data (this is discussed in Bennis and Bierdeman [8], particularly with respect to the Manhattan project but also in the case of PARC).

Principle 13. The Self-Confidence and Faith Factor. For purposes of an innovative initiative, it is essential for the innovating agent(s) to believe the innovation possible in a given time and place, and also to believe in one’s self and the creativity methods/modalities she/they have at hand. In addition, the belief can be important in convincing others (“persuasive rhetoric”) whose resources or support are necessary if the innovation is to be realized. (On the other hand, belief that an innovative initiative is not possible, or it will never succeed or will be rejected operates as a powerful constraint on creativity; see Part III).

Because self-confidence in one’s knowledge and performance capabilities and in the methods/technologies and social organization are crucial factors in facilitating innovation, agents aspiring to be innovative try to maintain such confidence (even in the face of initial setbacks or failures), using a variety of means and strategies: for instance acquiring badges of competence and achievement; joining or belonging to – or forming an alliance with – high status, self-confident groups. There are also social psychological and interaction strategies and methods used often: Cognitive dissonance reduction strategies (reinterpreting or redefining cases of “failure”), use of particular confidence building discourses and rituals, and leadership rhetoric and persuasion in groups and organizations.⁵²

Principle 14: Principle of Multiple Motivations. As indicated in Part I, innovators and entrepreneurs may be motivated in diverse ways, curiosity, fun-seeking, competition, their particular roles and group membership which stress creativity, and, of course, the pursuit of wealth and fame. In general, there are multiple motivations and drivers including unconscious forces, attraction among participations (the mutual affection and even love between some pairs and team members [29]).⁵³

D. Rule regime, social organization and normative factors

Principle 15. The Social Organizational Factors. Rule regimes and their realization in social organizational arrangements play a significant role in our descriptions and analyses of innovation and creative development [17, 18, 20]: ⁵⁴ whether networks, organic or constructed groups, or transformational communities. As indicated earlier, rule regimes encompassing roles, norms, production functions (in particular, creativity modalities), cultural formations, and institutional arrangements impose potential constraints on action and cognitive possibilities but also generate opportunities for actors to behave in ways that would otherwise be impossible, for instance, to coordinate with others, to mobilize and to gain systematic access to strategic resources, to command and allocate substantial human and physical resources, and to solve complex social problems by organizing collective exchange, deliberation, and decision-making.

Principle 16. Organic Formation of a Collaborative Circle (self-formation and sustainability) without powerful patrons and/or mentors (intellectual/academic, economic, political/administrative) in the field F – where the collaborative circle of members forms to develop/sustain creative work. The members generate in their group relations “self-confidence”, emotional support, exchange and dialectics of ideas – in order to challenge established cognitive/intellectual orthodoxies (for example, a mainstream paradigm) and create a new vision and paradigmatic framework. The group develops identity, group structure, concepts and methods (“practices”) that distinguish the group from other groups [14].

Principle 17: Administratively Organizing for Creativity [21, 33]. In the case of innovative groups engineered or legislated by an employer or authority, group members (individuals or collectives) may be expected to innovate by their employer or the group or organization in which they participate. Incentives are provided, norms and sanctions are applied. Already in 1876 Edison established the first industrial lab in Menlo Park to produce constant technological innovations with skilled workers coming from many part of the world. Edison’s “invention factory” was or became a prototype that spread in the US and Europe. In the USA by 1929 there were more than 1000 industrial labs designed to continually produce innovations, often in multiple areas. This organizational principle is obvious now to most who aim for systematic innovation in science, R&D, engineering, business, and politics (e.g. policy thinktanks, etc.) [8, 34].

Principle 18. Normative Order: In addition to the key arrangements of social organization, a normative order, as a part of a rule regime, is central in encouraging (or possibly discouraging) creative initiatives and developments, for instance, norms encouraging self-confidence, initiative, tolerance, and collaboration. On the other hand, some norms and situational conditions may support conformity and opposition to novelty and to creative initiatives and developments.

Principle 19. The Significance of Democratic culture. The association of democratic culture with innovativeness and creative development has been long recognized [49]. It facilitates and encourages innovation and creative development through norms of equality, mutuality, and tolerance of deviance and difference in general. At the same time, it also contributes to a dynamic, changing society and increased unpredictability (see Principle 20 and footnote 2).

Principle 20. Unintended and Unanticipated Consequences of Innovativeness. Innovations typically generate unintended and unanticipated consequences. Thus, while certain problems may be solved through innovative initiatives, new challenges and problems emerge. A “vicious circle” is generated: Creative development → new problems → problem-solving efforts → creative development → further problems, etc.

Our theory identifies, in general, likelihood patterns of success in producing desired or appropriate innovations in a field or fields as a function of levels of resource availability, levels of agent knowledgability, motivation and self-confidence and the capability of performing creativity modalities. Unless the innovation is simply a minor adaptation of an existing functioning entity, the initiative will entail multiple uncertainties. In general, some of the uncertainties can be reduced through trial and error, experimentation, learning by doing, finding out from others what does or does notwork.