Creative Class, Creative Economy, and the Wisdom Society as a Solution to their Controversy
The paper briefly introduces the notion of creativity, linking the concepts of creative class and the related creative economy that are considered by Florida (2002) and his followers as the driving force of the current social and economic development. The concept of creative economy and its quantification in form of the Creative Class Index 3T or the Euro-Creativity Index were submitted to strong critique.
The critics overturn some key issues of the concept of creative class with an indication that the creative people give priority in choosing the work from the place; and there is no or almost nil correlation of a perceptual representation of the persons of homosexual orientation and the high-tech growth which confirms the opinion that the assertion about higher creativity of homosexual persons is a myth only. The purpose of the article is the examination of propriety of the concept of creative class and its quantification at one hand, and the rightfulness of their critique at the other. The analysis of the axiology of the concept of creative class is the method of examination. From point of view of axiology probably the most significant characteristic of the creative class is its accompanying destruction of thee social capital of creative people and it substitution of the creative capital. The rise of creative class takes place in parallel with the implosion of values at which basis our Jewish-Christian civilization is established. To this Florida expresses rather vague attitude by a statement that all socio-cultural changes that accompany the rise of the creative class will have no favorable impact on society.
Florida (2009) labeled creativity as a basic human law, furthermore, he announced the need for a new live style in which the quality of life will increase and people become better men. The concept of creativity as an instrument of urban planning evolved into a left-liberal ideology with elements of social engineering that is the most important finding of the axiological analysis. The second finding is the need to accept the meaning of creativity. By implication of the two findings there arises a proposal for wisdom as a new driving force of social and economic development. The conclusion is the contribution is a requirement for formulation of the concept of wisdom society that is currently likely absent in the academic world, and the statement that if the West will not create the wisdom society, it will lose the raison d'être of its existence.
The conceptualization of quality of life in terms of geography is based on two assumptions. The first assumption is that the quality of life consists of two dimensions: subjective and objective. The subjective is known as ‘well-being’, while the objective is the proposed term ‘quality of place’. The second assumption is based on the recognition that quality of life is always a spatial dimension. The concept of quality of life is closely linked with the concept of a good life; geographers enriched this concept by using the term ‘good place’ as a place in which the conditions are created for a good life. The quality of life for individuals in terms of a good place overlaps with the quality of life in society, namely the societal quality of life. The geographical conceptualisation of quality of life is applied to settlements within the city of Liberec.
A Geographical Approach for Measuring the Creative Capital. Case Study: Creative Capital Index of Slovakia
Calculation of creativity index is a part of a modern quantification wave, in some cases also formulation of the spatial differentiation of social and economic phenomena required from the academic sphere by the decisive sphere. Policy makers have interest by this means to help themselves in obtaining public for their objectives. The creative capital as a sum of quantifiable creativity indicators is in this contribution operationalized including the social capital, which is out of accord with a traditional understanding of creativity following the Florida's concept of the creative class. Methods for creativity index formation are introduced at the global level of states as well as at the regional level of a given state. There are substantial differences among both indexes results and statistical data on export of creative goods (UNCTAD) that are well documented on example of USA and China. Terminological chaos associated with the concepts of creative class and economy is thus extended with a chaos in the interpretation of findings, what contributes to the critique of the Florida's concept of creative class. There arise doubts that the quantification of creativity indexes with correlation quantification with other economic and social factors as GDP, entrepreneurship, inequality, Index HDI1) (Florida 2011); is maybe right in terms of mathematics, but it does not reveal the casual connections. The research purpose of the contribution is a geographical approach to the creative capital. The case study incorporates the Slovak regions, creativity index calculation and its spatial differentiation in form of map expression. The scientific goal lies in a confirmation of hypothesis about a dominant position of Bratislava region, and thus the capital of Slovakia. A limit of calculation is the choice of indicators which were strongly determined by the accessibility of statistical data.
Sustainability is part of the scientific mainstream; in the following paper we connect it with the phenomenon of happiness, which is becoming a discussed concept not only among researchers but also amongst public. This is due to the fact that today’s society has become a consumer society. This knowledge has provoked criticism of the prevailing lifestyle. The unprecedented growth of prosperity in the second half of the last century and at the beginning of the 21st century was achieved at the cost of environmental devastation. This presented the urgent question of how to improve the quality of life or bring happiness to a growing number of people. At the same time, efforts to replace GDP as a general measure of development with quality of life began to grow. In connection with happiness, it is important that it is defined in two ways: hedonic or eudaimonic. The aim of the paper is to find out which form of happiness is sustainable on the basis of the analysis of relevant works. Happiness is understood as part of the subjective dimension of quality of life, it represents the highest level of well-being. The combination of sustainability and quality of life or happiness is not new, some authors consider quality of life as the fourth pillar of sustainability. A key criterion for assessing which happiness is sustainable and which is not is the following assumption: The happiness of us – contemporaries − cannot be achieved at the expense of future generations. The knowledge-which of the forms is sustainable - is the result of the analysis of both forms of happiness.
An important methodological question in the general discourses concerning the quality of life is scale and mutual relationship of its two dimensions. In this article, the subjective dimension is understood as well-being; data from its spatial differentiation in districts of the Czech Republic were obtained from a face-to-face interview. The objective dimension is understood from the geographical aspect as quality of a place; it is quantified by the indicators of the golden standard of quality of life. Data from its spatial differentiation in districts of the Czech Republic are secondary. The article aims to compare the data of well-being and quality of a place for all the districts, with a premise of a higher level of well-being in the districts with a higher quality of a place, and vice-versa. This would answer the question of whether the quality of a place affects well-being.
Quality of life research responds to the growth of urbanization in the world by increasing the focus on the quality of urban life; however, the dominant applied research tends to be without conceptualization of the quality of urban life. The aim of this paper is to answer the question whether the quality of urban life exists as an original, separate part of the concept of quality of life, or whether only the quality of life or the well-being of a certain city exists. The authors argue that the quality of urban life exists as an original category of quality of life and their beliefs are based on the fact that it can be measured separately. The quality of urban life is holistic, co-existing with the quality of life. The city from the point of view of quality of life research is a place, and the quality of urban life is the satisfaction with life in a city and the quality of place in it. This approach is applied to the quality of urban life and its measurement in the city of Liberec. The results are implications for policy-makers and urbanists.