Transgression refers to a breach, and is commonly applied to breach of law. A lot of the current business model transformations happen against regulation, or use some existing loopholes (refer to our post “How Regulation is Used to Defend old Institutions“). Going further, we should ask ourselves if true transformations do not generally require some form of transgression.
Regulations and laws tend to defend the status-quo and therefore, need to evolve to be adapted to the new reality of society. In general, these changes lag the actual changes that happen in the world, placing the innovators in the uncomfortable situation of transgression of the established order.
This is a very serious issue that can stop many in their tracks, as law-enforcement can tend to be quite intimidating. At the same time, a lot of real, noticeable changes have required transgression as catalyst. Good examples include racial discrimination fights in the US and elsewhere, and even more recently, the fights of Uber and Airbnb against the establishment and existing institutions. The story of Edward Snowden and his comrades is a clear transgression that brought forth in a useful manner the issue of data surveillance by democratic states.
At the same time all transgressions are not precursors of change; many – probably most of them- are crime-related or individual expressions with no interest to change society. A transgression cannot be seen systematically as a precursor of a beneficial change.
Yet transgression needs to happen for any major change – either full or border line – and we will see more of it as the Fourth Revolution develops. We need to find a way to identify and treat generously those transgressions that are signs of change, compared to all the others that are real attacks against society. That distinction will not be easy, be prepared for a lot of debate!
