In the dissertation, the philosophical conceptualization of the phenomenon of the innovative society of “East Asian type” in the subject field of social philosophy is carried out. It was possible to demonstrate that the development and functioning of an innovative society have three functional levels. In particular, the first of them is objective self-regulation, which includes the innovation-oriented type of social relations, the presence of freedom as a value, including free choice of political, economic, and spiritual existence of society, a variety of forms of its representation. The second level is to regulate the development of an innovative society by its institutions, which are its main structures, particularly the state and branches of government. The third level is the conscious self-regulation of one’s innovative potential, self-realization, and self-presentation. All three levels are not hierarchically subordinated but are in dialectical interaction.
The analysis of the genesis of the content of the concept of “innovation” shows how it is permanently transformed from the political connotation in Antiquity, the negative meaning of the Reformation, to the economic and scientific-technological elements of today. Among the main types of innovations are the following: product, process, organization, marketing. Besides, there are social (aimed at social goals and well-being), political (implementation of the ideas of various theories of democracy), philosophical (change of worldview and axiological orientations of humankind) innovations. Building a new hierarchy of the latter will be a driving force in shaping global strategic innovation.
Methodological approaches to the study of innovative societies are determined. In particular, the author’s typology of innovation is proposed: 1) innovation as an ideal (in this sense, innovations can be both represented in social practice and be its promising phenomena); 2) innovation as a norm (pragmatic implementation of innovative ideas in the field of scientific, technological and social practice, in the dominant type of culture, in the economic consciousness, in the predominant way of doing business, etc.); 3) innovation as the individual quality of personality (focus on the new in public and political affairs, in public life, etc.).
Having studied the features of innovative societies in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Malaysia, it is proved that these traditional societies, having chosen the path of renewal, an articulated man at the heart of change. Thus, in South Korea, an important prerequisite for a new innovative architecture of society was Protestantism’s ethical doctrine, which legitimizes the innovative and entrepreneurial thinking in society. Significant changes in adaptive practices in life practices indicate the spread of the need for innovation in the public consciousness. Due to the state’s purposeful policy in the population’s mentality and the matrix of social practices, the concept of “innovation” has lost the pejorative meaning that it had in traditional society. Innovative society in this region’s countries is formed due to its systemic policy to increase the nation’s intellectual capital through education and professional training. However, there are also national differences in these countries. While South Korea has focused on multicultural organizational capital and Japan on social capital, Malaysia and Taiwan have relied on consumer capital. As for Singapore, this country prioritizes investment in human and intellectual capital development.
The peculiarities of the possibility of applying the experience of East Asian countries to build an innovative society in Ukraine are shown. It was also demonstrated the heuristic potential of the ideas of coevolution of science, state, and business, the idea of social equality, the desire for the absence of significant property stratification, which is not observed in Ukraine. It is shown that the transfer of experience of innovative societies of different countries and cultures should be balanced, based on specific cultural studies because innovation is primarily determined by axiological factors that are different in different cultures.
