Creative Contexts: Culture as an Agent of Change Simone Griesmayr Abstract: When one speaks of innovation or changes, the way of interaction between people or how this works in groups or networks is usually a focus of interest. One can find numerous theories on this subject, be they anthropological, philosophical, mathematical, economical or sociological. However, what most of them shares in common is one influential variable, one that contributes a great deal to the functioning of milieus or networks, though appearing scarcely operational. In order to define this diffused "something," which appears to reject reconstruction, one needs to utilize concepts like culture, common values, synergy, etc. By the term “creative contexts,” I want to focus on the cultural dimension within the process of innovation and progress, terms that I understand as occupying mechanisms of knowledge production regimes. But the cultural influence is not per se progressive. Culture, in the sense of strong common values or high synergies can suppress innovation and changes. Such strong or traditions-oriented cultures use innovation to promote already well-established structures of power, a so-called innovation through tradition1. This antagonistic character of culture can be found, for example, in Pierre Bourdieu’s “cultural capital” 2 and his notion of culture as means of distinction, or implicitly in Clifford Geertz’s concept of “the orders of differences.” 3 From this perspective, culture is not a unifying unit. Action, from this cultural perspective, is characterised by manoeuvres between contrasts, competing sides, opposition and rivals. The basic motivation behind this inquiry is to understand the process of innovation as an intercultural one, as an interaction between diverse cultures and their differences. Keywords: Cultures, change, innovation, cultural capital, open and private sciences. 1.
Culture and Cultural Capital
From the perspective of culture as a means of new concepts, one assumes that different social fields develop distinctive mechanisms to necessitate innovations. New ideas are institutionalised, not only because of their “problem-solving capabilities,” but because they “fit” quite easily into an established narrative system. In this context, culture has less to do with the common values, but with differences. Clifford Geertz applies such an understanding of culture by criticizing primarily the over-emphasis of balanced systems, social “Homöostase” and timeless structural pictures4. For Geertz, it is important to represent “structures less hermetic, interconnectedness less deterministic, nets more fragile."5In his cultural-anthropological work, the examined groups should not be understood outside the context of their attachment to time and place. Consensus should not be at the centre of a cultural examination, rather it is the process of working out the “order of the differences.” Culture as a form of social difference is a notion similar to the field theory of Pierre Bourdieu. What Geertz represents as the “order of differences” can be seen as “distinction” in Bourdieu´s theory, meaning social superiority or eminence. What is regarded as distinctive is varies from field to field (politics, science, arts) and changes over time6. Distinction does not simply mean standing out from the mass, but also being able to exhibit such differences strategically. Distinction can be understood as a degree of freedom in action, in the way the degree of distinction correlates with the accumulation of capital. The term “capital” implies more than the term “financial resources;” it is a combination of various skills, social relationships, or symbols of reputation and power. For Randall Collins, “cultural capital” for example, is defined as: “What is passed on over chains of successful intellectuals is the consciousness about central questions: ´where the next action will be.’ ”7 “Cultural Capital” is less likely to be acquired through scientific literature, but with the help of other types of capital types like social capital or symbolic capital. “Cultural Capital“ stands for certain knowledge of prestigious solutions, promising research fields, etc. More than concrete knowledge, it is a kind of developed sensitivity. In other words, it focuses on ideas which fit easily into a field / system of distinction, and can be transformed in capital of any sort. “Cultural Capital” means a profound knowledge of the environment, a competence in which innovations adapt comfortably to the occupying mechanisms. This understanding of culture highlights a distinction between social and cultural processes. “There isn't any autonomous culture away from a social situation.”8 The emphasis on “differences” (Geertz9) and “distinction” (Bourdieu) points to a medium of culture, which has less the appearance of a cocoon surrounding everything, or a ubiquitous "red thread" or network that surrounds us. Common values, synergies etc., are relegated to feast speeches and represent merely a superficial connectedness. Actions in this medium is marked by manoeuvres between contrasts and conflicting parties, as well as strategic uses of resources/capitals and alliances. Rivalry and opposition at this stage are not personal, but also concern contrasting parties, competitive schools,10 lobbing or interest groups, etc.