Polyphonic Co-Creation
Tadashi Yagi is Professor of Economics at Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan, where he explores research areas ranging from cultural economics to public economics, human resources management and income distribution. Tadashi is President of the Japan Association for Cultural Economics and Director of the Centre for the Study of Creative Economy. Together with Stomu Yamash’ta and Stephen Hill, he is co-editor of the ‘Kyoto Manifesto for Global Economics: The Platform of Community, Humanity and Spirituality’.
Hi Tadashi, I’m delighted to host you here for a conversation. A central theme in your works is the process of co-creation, so I thought we could co-create this conversation together...
I’d like to talk about polyphonic co-creation. It’s a musical expression and a concept proposed by the world-famous Japanese artist Stomu Yamash’ta. As I have been working with him, I’d like to use this opportunity to explain the details and implications of the concept.
Great idea, where to start from?
We need to start from the competitiveness of an economy. In the 20th century, efficiency was regarded as a key source of competitiveness, but in the 21st century creativity will be the most important source. When efficiency is the source of competitiveness, competition becomes very important. But if the goal is to promote creativity, competition is not a good method.
“If the goal is to promote creativity, competition is not a good method”
It’s here that co-creation becomes crucial, and two main sources of it are trust and sympathy. Trust, in fact, is a crucial factor for efficient cooperation and transactions. In this context, culture and science should come together to create new concepts and opportunities for co-creation. Technology will not produce value by itself, but by bringing together culture with science, it will play an important role for co-creation.
With these premises, the important questions become: who can co-create? Who could be a partner for co-creation?
Exactly, who could be a good partner for co-creation if we look at the private sector?
In the 20th century, business competitiveness was based on economies of scale, technology and efficiency. In that kind of world, collaboration between major corporates was a common partnership pattern. In the 21st century, however, creating new concepts is the most important goal. And, for creating new concepts, there is no guarantee a partnership between major corporates would be successful. Due to similar habits, processes and culture, this type of collaboration will not produce any new idea.
Smaller companies—such as startups—working on very specific technologies can create new value by collaborating with bigger companies. In the 21st century, the importance we give to the concept of minority will be weakened - there will be no minority in the world. Each minority has its own values and the question becomes what type of matching will be successful. If a small company has a very original and unconventional idea, then a major corporate would like to collaborate with that company.
Interesting to see you stressing the value of corporate-startup collaboration, something which has been highlighted also in the Expert Series. And a promising vision, ‘there will be no minority in the world’…
Maybe in the 21st century also the difference between developing and developed countries would be shrinked. Developing countries have their own specific resources, cultures, values and have a lot of new ideas. Developed countries are stagnating because they are not being able to produce new value. This is why companies in developed countries are looking for partners in developing countries, to meet and mix the two cultures and co-create new value together. It is important for us to recognize that creating new values will come from various types of collaboration and co-creation processes. Diversity of companies in collaboration will be a great source of value creation.
In the process of co-creation, you mention the crucial role of diversity and the involvement of minority groups. What conditions should be in place to maximize the value of co-creation including minorities?
Recently people have begun to examine the role that diversity plays in the process of creation. When we talk about diversity, we need to see that just accepting differences is not enough. Incentives are a very important part of proceeding towards a diverse society. But, what kind of incentives could be given to individuals? If one finds out that co-creation with very different people would produce very good value, then he or she would not only accept the difference but positively co-work with them. This is more than accepting differences - it’s creating new value based on that difference.
“This is more than accepting differences - it’s creating new value based on that difference”
Sexual minorities are a very good example. In the apparel industry, many talented people belong to sexual minorities. They are deeply valued, because they are artistically inclined and with a special sensitivity. By collaborating with them, companies can create new values for fashion. In this case, people don’t care about diversity - for them it is better to collaborate with minorities.
In your writings, you also focus on the process of cultural fusion. How does it relate to the one of co-creation?
The process of cultural fusion is an important source of cultural diversity. It is a complicated and profound process because the power structure between the ruler and the ruled affects how different cultures are incorporated. Fusion is a kind of co-creation. When one culture enters another type of culture, usually a conflict occurs in such a situation. In this case, we don’t talk about fusion, but about a culture conquering another one and prevailing on it. This is a story more prevalent in the Western world, I believe. On the other hand, Japanese culture has developed through a process of co-creation.
Any example to make it more tangible?
Buddhism was born in India, transmitted through China and South Korea and reached Japan over a long period of time. In the 7th century, people accepted Buddhism based on Shinto religion. People accepted Buddhism, even though Shinto was prevailing at that time. In this way, they tried to create a new culture, a new religion by mixing good points of Shinto and good points of Buddhism. This is an example of fusion. Technologies were also transported from China and Korea into Japan along with Buddhism. Most importantly, new knowledge from China and Korea were mixed with the knowledge base existing in Japan, which created new and different knowledge.
The Japanese culture is renowned for its trusting and collaborative character. From a historical viewpoint, why do you think this is the case?
Japanese people regard trust and cooperation as the most important factors in economic activities, and economic competition is controlled so that the trust within the community and society is not harmed. Since trust is regarded as the most important factor in economic activities, Japanese people don’t find it necessary to enter into contracts.
Historically, Japanese society has been based on agriculture, rather than hunting. The process of agricultural production was based on cooperation within communities, people working and harvesting the products together. This type of society needed strong ties among community members and cooperation was necessary. In Japan, nature is a dominating presence and the task of humans is to live and work with nature, not to conquer it. This is our basic philosophy and trust is very important in order to sustain this kind of society.
“In Japan, nature is a dominating presence and the task of humans is to live and work with nature, not to conquer it”
Let’s come to the Kyoto Manifesto for Global Economics, a manifesto that wishes to radically change the way we look at our economy and society. As an introduction, what is the aim of the Kyoto Manifesto? What are its foundations?
First of all, the Kyoto Manifesto describes the limitations of the global economy, which have been creating fragmented societies and isolated people because of competition. Competition harmed people in various ways, causing the isolation of people. And it’s because people got isolated that poverty became a very serious issue.
The ties inside communities have been weakened, and isolation becomes a more serious issue when there is no mutual assistance system in place. This is why inequality has become so relevant, and it’s not about income. If people are on low-income but they are part of a mutual assistance system, they will still find some happiness. But if they are isolated, they will be unhappy.
With the Kyoto Manifesto, our end goal is to build a new concept, a new economy based on co-creation and trust, a new paradigm for economic-oriented action. Demand for change is urgent and crucial and the current system will doom us to serious failure as a world society. We need to move into a creative economy based on trust and where economic activities promote the process of co-creation, based on principles of collaboration among people, non-isolation and mutual assistance.
“We need to move into a creative economy based on trust”
That’s a clear and attractive goal. In the Manifesto, you also stress the importance of harmony among humans and between human beings and nature.
Yes, the ultimate goal of the book is to build a future based on the harmony of humanity. Harmony can be seen as a central concept for realising a good society. In a broader perspective, we need to talk about the fragmentation of science. Science is segregated into very small parts and each professional studies in depth, but in quite a narrow manner. A holistic approach is not applied. People focus on local optima, which are partial because they are, indeed, just local.
People focus on a local part of science, on a local part of the issues in society. Professionals are working narrowly; artists don’t care about science and society, and scientists don’t care about social issues and arts. They see a partial story and they think it’s optimal. When we take a holistic view, we see that they wouldn’t be consistent with global optima. Harmony means that each optimal behaviour should be assessed from a holistic viewpoint. The concept of harmony as a movement towards a holistic approach and global optimisation.
A holistic—or systemic—approach is certainly part of the circular economy story. What’s the relation of the circular economy to the broader picture you have been depicting?
The concept of circular economy is a departure from linear thinking. Circular implies that people should work together in a relationship that is flat rather than hierarchical. Cooperation, co-creation and trust should be the essence of the new economy. We need to recognize the importance of forming decentralised organisations capable of responding swiftly to a range of environmental changes, rather than hierarchical ones that issue orders and regulations in a centralised manner.
“Cooperation, co-creation and trust should be the essence of the new economy”
In my understanding, circular economy is very important as it shows several new values and concepts. It demonstrates that new value creation is circular and not linear. When we talk about reduction of waste for recycling and efficient energy use, processes should be made as effective as possible. But it’s more difficult to tell what system makes the economy operate in a fully circular manner.
We need to change people’s behaviour. And, to do this, we need to show there is a new concept for society, not based on competition, but on trust, co-creating and co-existing. By making this concept penetrate in people’s minds, people can share common values and co-work for achieving the circular economy.
What’s the policy atmosphere around the circular economy in Japan?
Let me tell you an anecdote that will give you an idea.
Some time ago I was talking with a very important person working on Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) in Japan. I found out that his image of a circular economy is just a technical one: how to reduce waste, how to recycle, what types of technologies for efficient energy usage. He said that technology will play a role, but the message won’t be so strong for people in society, especially the ones that are not interested in technology.
I explained to him that new value creation based on the circular economy concept is not an issue of technology, but of creating a new narrative in society. To achieve this, technology, science, arts and culture should be brought together. Spirituality would be the basis of promoting the new concept.
“New value creation based on the circular economy concept is not an issue of technology, but of creating a new narrative in society”
Then he told me that if the concept of circular economy is like what I said, it would be very interesting and the message would penetrate into people. This is what we need to speak about.
In the Kyoto Manifesto, you also outline some policy recommendations for building a new economy. Broad lines, what should policies be targeted to?
Policies should be aimed at improving the problems of fragmentation and isolation in society. Co-creation is a very important keyword for improving the problem of isolation. The concept of Art Brut is new creative activities by various people, also minorities and people who have no specific arts education. Art Brut is very important for improving the issue of isolation, because minorities can collaborate with majority groups in creating arts and new value. Immigrants can co-work with people from a country, and by creating value together, the problem of isolation can be improved.
Policies should support such kinds of co-creative activities. For example, the public sector can provide opportunities for people to collaborate, by providing cheap studios. The public sector can also support people to distribute their products into the market by supporting exhibitions or purchasing for public spaces.
What’s an example of the co-creative activities you are referring to?
For example, in Japan, in the Nara prefecture, there is one house for people with disabilities, where they create their own artistic products. Recently, the house also started collaborating with the Arts University in Kyoto prefecture to co-create art together. One woman is responsible for promoting the art and selling it through various channels. Right now there are department stores selling their products for good prices. This shows that there are people who have interest in these new concepts created by people with disabilities.
When it comes to people with disabilities, you put great attention on the concept of accessibility. Accessibility of goods and services is also a topic that relates to frameworks like circular economy and sharing economy.
Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services or environments for persons with disabilities. By improving accessibility, the well-being of people with disabilities improves because they have a wider range of choices and freedom in life. Accessibility of resources is crucial for all persons, not only those with disabilities.
Accessibility is mostly improved by private organisations and NGOs, and the public sector should collaborate with them. The role of the public sector is to support the supporters for the circular economy. The public sector can contribute in some parts, but it’s the private sector that needs to bear the burden of transitioning to a circular economy. The public sector should collaborate effectively with these organisations and also the financial sector should collaborate, with measures such as discounts on interest rates for investments that are pro-social or related to circular economy. In this area, there are various policies necessary to implement a circular economy.
“It’s the private sector that needs to bear the burden of transitioning to a circular economy”
As a final question, you argue for the need to find a new humanity, with a sound spiritual base, as the building block of a new economy. In Western countries especially, there is a tendency to play down arguments that involve spirituality into economic matters. What’s your answer to that?
Since the end of 1990s, neuroscience and behavioural economics have been showing that people do not behave rationally, and we are mostly driven by our emotions. This is a very important scientific result, and now the issue becomes which emotions to hold and how to evaluate the quality of emotions. A good quality of emotions is very important for trust formation and sympathy, which are related with prosocial behaviour. We need to talk about the quality of emotions, and what makes the emotions to be better ones.
As an example, we currently see people in the IT industry, like in Silicon Valley, who have been paying attention to mindfulness and spirituality, and are trying to improve the quality of their emotions, which is directly linked with the quality of creation. In this sense, religion and spirituality should not be separated from science. Science needs to think about the role of religion and spirituality in holding good emotions, good values and, ultimately, creativity.
March 2020
A conversation between Tadashi Yagi & Emanuele Di Francesco
Useful links: