3658925934

aspects of invention and, at some points, its “essentially deductive character.” 35 Inventions derive
largely from conscious volition of the inventor, and occasionally may even follow, he suggested, from
a syllogistic sort of reasoning: (1) the inventor recognizes a particular goal as desirable; (2) he seeks
to achieve the goal with existing means, but if these are for some reason insufficient, he (3) affirms
the necessity for such action as can generate a new means by which the goal can be attained. To
generate sufficient means, he seeks to create an appropriate invention.
But while this conscious, goal-seeking model offered a partial explanation of invention, Tarde was
quick to assert the necessity of additional factors, for example, the creative inspiration of various
emotions and moods which an inventor would experience at different times. And in contrast to the
more rational bent of certain late nineteenth-century sociologists like Weber or Durkheim (here, once
again, his indebtedness to the tradition of Spontaneity was apparent), he felt that the unconscious part
of the mind, or the “sub-self,” could break through into consciousness as a source of creative
inspiration.
Bordering on the physiological, Tarde further pointed out an apparent overlap between the ages of
greatest intellectual as well as sexual creativity: the years from about twenty-five to thirty-five. Many
of his examples supporting this generalization were drawn from the natural sciences, and, indeed,
subsequent more systematic studies have shown these years to be the period of greatest creativity for
many of the natural sciences—although this is not the case for all fields. 36
While stressing the “external” factors producing invention, Tarde nevertheless was more careful
than many social scientists of his time in calling attention to the “internal” factors of intellectual
development. 37 He formulated two basic principles in this area. The first, the principle of
accumulation, emphasized the essentially cumulative character of all knowledge: new discoveries do
not simply replace older ones (although they may in terms of technological use, they do not from the
standpoint of intellectual development); there is continual addition to the legacy of la connaissance
humaine. Knowledge may grow at different rates in varying periods and societies, but the overall
tendency is toward progressive accumulation of knowledge in virtually all areas. Related to the
principle of accumulation is that of irreversibility. The growth of some types of knowledge may take
place in essentially random order; there is no logical necessity, for example, to explore one part of an
uncharted territory before other parts. But in other cases, certain inventions presuppose certain
others: a cart, for example, can be created only after wheels are available. Knowledge, Tarde
stressed, advances in small increments, and even the most creative discoveries are heavily dependent
on antecedent ideas. The most outstanding inventions are those which recombine already acquired
bits of knowledge into highly original syntheses. But although the general lines of intellectual
development are governed by the dual principles of accumulation and irreversibility, the specific
directions as well as the rate of advance are heavily dependent on psychological and social factors.
Social stratification, in Tarde’s eyes, was functional to invention because it produced greater
leisure time for the upper classes, thereby allowing greater communication and social interaction
within the elite; and with this increasing density of stimulating contacts and increasing exchange of
ideas, correspondingly greater numbers of creative discoveries would emerge. A certain minimal
rigidity of class lines also insulates the elite from the inhibiting ideas of the populace; if leaders are
forced to submit to opinions of the majority at every turn—and here Tarde cited the dysfunctional
consequences of democracy as detailed by de Tocqueville—they will not be free to invent. Social
stratification can thus favor discovery in the same way that university structures guarantee a certain
minimum of academic freedom for those working inside them.
In addition to class differences, national differences in inventiveness are also evident, Tarde