be considered from the point of view of the user and society. Indeed, an innovation that makes sense for the user must also be “good” or “useful” from a society-wide perspective.
1.3.2. The P.S.I. approach: a philosophy of and for action
Reintegrating the political innovation issue is precisely what distinguishes the P.S.I. approach from Design Thinking39.
Although Herbert Simon, by defining design as “a way of thinking”, was no stranger to the advent of Design Thinking, it was not until 1987 that the concept appeared for the first time in Peter Rowe’s book Design Thinking [ROW 87], and the design agency IDEO formalized Design Thinking as an innovation process with specific steps, methodology and tools at the beginning of the 1990s. As Tim Brown, designer and IDEO president for 19 years, points out, “IDEO did not invent design thinking, but we have become known for practicing it and applying it to solving problems small and large” [BRO, no date]40.
Defined as a “methodology that imbues the full spectrum of innovation activities with a human centered design ethos” [BRO 08, p. 86], Design Thinking aims to match the user’s expectations with technical feasibility and economic viability and proposes a reversal of perspective: “rather than asking designers to make an already developed idea more attractive to consumers, companies are asking them to create ideas that better meet consumers’ needs and desires” [BRO 08, p. 86].
However, because Design Thinking is user-centered, this leaves the question of meaning for society in the shadows, contrary to the P.S.I. approach, which obliges us to think about meanings for the user and for society. The P.S.I. approach takes into account the fact that the designer’s action is not neutral. On this basis, it aims to make the designer aware of the solutions he/she is planning and to question the meaning of the society he/she is helping to create41.
In other words, it means breaking with a concept inherited from Greek thought of a split between the “man who thinks” and the homo faber (the one who makes), a conception that is no doubt related to the fact that we have gradually forgotten that the world of the artificial [SIM 69] is a bearer of meaning and values and that designers, in bringing about innovations, participate in the design of our future world. In our opinion, it is precisely this question that must be reintegrated into the design process if we wish to avoid the profusion of gadget innovations (barely created and already obsolete), avoid false good ideas42 and reduce planned obsolescence, and provide answers that are not only technical and/or technocratic to the great challenges of our time.
Let us make no mistake about what we are discussing now. The P.S.I. approach is not intended to be an overbearing and moralizing discourse that would consist of making an ex post value judgment on such and such an innovation. To put it another way, the P.S.I. approach does not oppose authority to this or that innovation, it aims more modestly to reconnect, through the innovation project, with debates relating to the society we conceive and within which we are evolving. Thus, the P.S.I. approach appears as a philosophy of action43, because action is the fact of acting, of doing something that makes sense and that goes in one direction, and a philosophy for action to innovate – philosophy for action because it engages the question of meaning in the very process of design that allows us to innovate with consciousness.
The P.S.I. approach is also not aimed at integrating fear as part of the design process to innovate with consciousness. Indeed, we live in an era marked by an ambient catastrophism based on the production of a narrative of danger. The latter is largely imbued with hyperbolic discourse (“catastrophes”, “threats”, “plagues”, etc.) and a dramatic tension staging an apocalyptic scenario in the absence of action, following the example of the collapsology theory. The latter, which is defined as the study of the collapse of industrial civilization, in fact mobilizes the narrative of danger to emphasize that the dynamics of our society are inevitably leading to a collapse for which we must prepare ourselves, and that utopia lies in the minds of those who believe that everything can continue as before. The fatalistic conception of collapsology breaks, however, with the words of Jean-Pierre Dupuy who, in his book Pour un catastrophisme éclairé, proposed to give credence to the image of a future sufficiently catastrophic to be repulsive and sufficiently credible to trigger the actions that would prevent its realization [DUP 02] because this “heuristic of fear” (Jonas) acts as the developing bath (in the photographic meaning of the term) of what is of incomparable value to us44 and avoids, contrary to the precautionary principle, sticking to probabilistic risk management where disaster should be anticipated [DUP 02].
The P.S.I. approach is not based on this ambient catastrophism which, apart from the fact that it is likely to have a paralyzing effect and lead to immobility45, would lead, according to Dominique Lecourt and Jean-Claude Seys, to
a low morale of sobriety and frugality which is nothing but a fearful retreat in the face of an opportunity to be seized. Is it not now time when “aware of the risks […] we are fortunate enough to be able and obliged to restore the meaning to progress? It is an opportunity, because without a sense of progress there is no humanity worthwhile.” [LEC 10]
The P.S.I. approach is based on a political heuristic that invites us to think about the meaning of what we conceive and, through it, the meaning of our humanity. It thus has an active scope and is oriented towards the future46. However, while the scope of the heuristic of fear is turned towards the question of the preservation of our humanity47, the P.S.I. approach invites us to question in each innovation the values we wish to defend, whether they are directly linked to our survival48 or not. This allows us, for example, to ask ourselves what a truly human life is and, to return to the example mentioned above, to accept the flaws of not being perfect. It also means questioning the modern trend of awards. To encourage users to sort their recyclables, some stores give discount coupons to customers who bring back their plastic bottles. What kind of society are we building by going in that direction? Is not the implementation of such a system in opposition to altruism, which seems to be a key element of living together? In the same vein, what about the gamification of the world and nudges that consist of inciting action not through education but through play and reward? Is not there a risk of infantilizing people or even making them anxious by setting goals they may not be able to achieve?
Instead of being paralyzing, the P.S.I. approach invites debate on the world we are designing49. But this debate is not merely the prerogative of politicians and scientists who are considered the only ones with intellectual resources for debate. Because it takes place during the design process itself, the question of the meaning of innovation engages designers and all stakeholders in the design process. In so doing, it participates in the advent of a “technical democracy” [CHO 15; LEQ 15] that shapes our world instead of being condemned to live in a world we were never asked if we wanted. Therefore, it contributes to emancipating itself from the paradigm of social acceptability which too often leads to considering users as “deviant” actors who need to be controlled, rather than as bearers of another rationality whose meaning needs to be understood50.
Figure 1.8. Putting the P.S.I.
