 |
I thought the workshop yielded pretty nice results, especially during the mind mapping session. The group was a mix of people both familiar and unfamiliar with the ideas presented in Sustainability by Design with different degrees of interest in the field of sustainability. The workshop got participants thinking about a wider and more positive vision of sustainability than the visions often offered by mainstream media. It was nice to have people ("experts") from DfS and people from the new research portfolio to put their heads together in thinking how to deploy these ideas in the design world. I especially liked the ideas about curriculum changes that could be impemented at the TU to get students out there to work with real people in real on real problems. I also liked the idea that the edges and boundaries between groups/places are where positive change can start. Finally, we had a discussion and question answer session with Prof. Ehrenfeld. This weekend I finally typed up the results. Here they are, plus notes from his lecture. I will just copy and paste...
--
0. Content
1. Introduction Prof. John Ehrenfeld
2. Mindmap Activity: What should/can be the response of designers and the design profession in the face of sustainability issues?
3. Discussion
4. Reading List
--
1. Introduction Prof. John Ehrenfeld
We began the meeting with a short introductory talk by Prof. John Ehrenfeld. In his introduction he commented on the fact that the human condition is certainly not wonderful and is getting worse; it is also abundantly clear that the non-human world is threatened by these developments. He indicated that these problems are rooted in modern, cultural concepts, and that a new way of viewing the world is needed to create a “flourishing” and sustainable world.
An alternate vision to our current societal concept is the notion of sustainability as flourishing. Flourishing demands change, not improvements on (that would be eco-efficiency) our modern culture. Eco-efficiency, the focus of sustainability in the past, subscribes to the same types of services and beliefs as the current system; a system that is not working.
Our current culture is one about having, about never being satisfied. Flourishing doesn’t depend on material wealth but on wholeness, relationships, and a different belief in self. It is about being (he references Heidegger). In this model of flourishing, humans are focused on being and experiencing instead of having.
Instead of viewing the world with a reductionist eye, and instead of learning to analyze through deconstruction, the world should be seen as a technically complex, unpredictable, system that behaves in strange and unexpected ways. This kind of world view leads to a different conclusion on how things should be governed (so that they don’t ultimately collapse).
Historic theories of change fall into different classes, i.e. Marxist dialectic or Revolutionary Theory. These are all examples of top down guidance, and don’t help if we want to avoid crisis. We need another theory of change…a subversive theory. Introducing change through everyday products is subversive. Products can have values and messages coded in them.
“Solutions” to our problems come in two pieces:
- Through the redesign of institutional structures that carry new values (cautionary principles that reflect a complex world).
- Through the design of everyday artifacts that carry new kinds of values.
The two button toilet was a revelation for Prof. Ehrenfeld when he first visited the
Ehrenfeld explains that his model of human behavior is a sociological one, not a rational one. In his opinion, people collect knowledge from an accumulation of experiences which are constantly shaping them. Most actions of a human in the world are intrinsic and executed without consciousness. When everything works seamlessly, nothing changes. Change in behavior means breaking down this transparency; Nature does this all the time, by being unexpected. Designers have had the wrong directions for a long time. They have been asked to make transparent products that fit the functions and are user friendly. These kind of products don’t instigate thought or reflection. Products like the two button flush or speed bumps ask people to stop, slowdown, and wakeup while subversively reprogramming ingrained habits.
The world can be changed through design. Product designers can instruct people on whom they are and what they should do, with a different set of values in mind. Small, subversive notions can sneak in and replace old values without frightening or threatening the people. This is a problem that the main movement has been facing, because it is built on notions of fear and scarcity. The notion of sustainability is about the positive image of flourishing, a concept based on nature.
--
2. Mindmap Activity (What should/can be the response of designers and the design profession in the face of sustainability issues?)
Map 1
- There is a theory from psychological treatment (Carl Rogers), which is aimed at helping people with mental problems to get back on the right path. The method tries to bring out qualities of: authenticity, respect, acceptance, and understanding in patients. These qualities are considered already inside every person.
- Based on this thought, how can we reach this care for self, others and the world?
- Designers think for others which is moralistic in a way. Thus, do we want to steer people and if so, who are we to decide if this is right?
- Using this theory, the right thing is already in everyone, wanting to be expressed; an attitude which is more positive than current one of direction and steering.
- Through products and product engagement, designers can enable to bring out the best in people through enabling versus steering.
- To bring this about, designers have to have much more interaction with people.
Map 2
- There could be instructive and interruptive tools, i.e. two search choices, a windmill or oil powered search on Google.
- It’s about awareness of human values and also about questioning technology.
- Instead of starting from something like the iPhone, another starting point from the other side could be to start from an activity or value, i.e. encouraging walks.
Map 3
- How might we address design practice and designers so that we shift from making things people want to have to things which help people express their being?
- If this is to happen, design practice has to change, and first of all, designers have to change to be able to make these products.
- How could this goal be implemented at the TU Delft in both architecture and ID to make the transition from the present to this vision?
- Look at the nice things already happening in society where people are already experimenting with how to go from having to being.
- The picture sums it up (mindmap3). It shows places with common people with common consumption patterns, and the edges between them. Where they come together is where the most interesting things can happen.
- The edges are where things are not well organized, and unclear, like squatters, i.e. non-monetary exchange systems (LETS). All kinds of things happening at the edges.
- We could have something like that at our faculty, like explore labs or free experimentation for people to develop their own ideas.
- People out of HS are very internet minded. That is where they try to find their information. Instead, we should try to encourage them to go into real life. In the curriculum, we could take them by hand through excursions/lectures to work with real people and neighborhoods, to solve real problems.
- We have this kind of bias towards the Unilevers and Philips. Most students want to work there, but some actually want to solve nice projects. How can we foster that?
--
3. Discussion
Prof. Ehrenfeld liked the results of the mindmapping exercise, especially the idea that positive aspects of "being" are already inherent within everyone waiting to be expressed. However, he commented that it didn't make the problem any easier. Implementing these ideas are both intellectually challenging and challenging to implement in practice.
Paraphrased questions/answers/discussions:
Q: What about cultural dependencies? In
To be a lead user you have to be credible in what you are espousing. Small movements are where it is happening in a real way.
Q: What kind of suggestions would you give ID staff, in terms of education? Should sustainability be taught like religion?
If it’s something religious, it would be the kiss of death. It has to be something more universal than religion. It has to do more with spirituality, which is lacking right now. Religion and spirituality are disconnected, at least in the
Q: TU Delft is not that interdisciplinary yet. How can ID work together with other disciplines?
There is not necessarily an interface between every discipline, nor is it necessarily needed. Design is a deliberate action to bring some vision into being or solve some problem; this is not engineering. Engineering is about making more efficient products; these ideas don’t fit into the framework of engineering. Similarly, life science looks at human beings as machines with which to tinker. It would be nice to see those faculties go beyond that model of what the world is all about and espouse these ideas, but don’t count on it. Designers thus, have a unique opportunity.
Q: As opposed to engineering which is about solving problems, is it maybe about emergence?
Sustainability is an emergent quality. It only comes out when a system is working. No rules can be written for complex systems and the emergent qualities are often qualitative in nature. The current financial systems create money. Money can be made back. Emergent qualities like confidence, trust, and security are less easy to gain back. Thus, flourishing can only come forth if the system of life is working.
In design there are now two things missing:
1. The notion of complexity (don’t ever really know what is going to happen when a product is deployed), there are always unexpected consequences.
2. The model of human being. The context is basically for companies that want to sell things to people to have. This is a historic barrier that will have to be overcome. Engineers are making things bigger and better but not different, in design there is a chance to make something different.
Q: Will we have enough time? You say we have to do it in small changes. I read all the time about peak oil, peak gas…
Maybe, maybe not. We’ll know when we get there. There is some urgency, but you do what you do. Most people are not positive when looking at the trends. The dominant theory is mitigation, when it’s broken we’ll fix it, but will we have technology at hand when it happens? The picture is pretty bleak: income distribution becoming worse, social breakdowns are increasing…we are running out of time, but the future is unpredictable. You can only do the best you can. This attitude is not pessimistic or optimistic.
Q: How was your own transition into this way of thinking?
It was a gradual transition from chemical engineering to industrial ecology to today; small steps were taken into world of philosophy and sociology, all the while becoming more basically satisfied.
Q: What about green washing? Is it destructive to the good things?
Sustainability has become a buzzword and there is a great danger in this. It diminishes criticality of the word, but it is something real, and will happen for a long time to come. However, a lot of people who see through this
There is also the self fulfilling prophesy, where the NGOs come along and say no, your company isn’t green, and companies have to become more sustainable.
In the beginning my attitude was, if I can’t measure it, I can’t handle it. There is more clarity developing, ideas of flourishing are happening. Again, reducing unsustainability does not create sustainability. Almost everything green has to do with reducing unsustainability. That’s what’s dangerous about using words carelessly, it fuzzes the socks.
Q: What about Cradle to Cradle?
C2C is not a new idea, but about branding and egos. The ideas behind C2C have aready been known in industrial ecology for a long time. It is critically important, but again has to do with reducing unsustainability. I don’t think there are that many institutions that have this kind of context that accepts these ideas as okay propositions and questions the underpinnings.
Q: We are not really skilled about knowing how people are. If we want to know how to get the best out of people, or stimulate “being,” who can we cooperate with?
Cooperate with colleagues who have the same ideas. The idea of engagement is very important. Care is a manifestation of being.
Q: What do you think of ambient intelligent and smart products?
They are seeing comfort as a commodity. But again, it’s never either just “being” or just “having.” It’s not to be or to have, it’s to get back some being. “Having” is bad when it’s all there is. Being efficient, nothing’s wrong as long as it’s not the end, as long as it’s the means.
Conclusions…
It’s about the mundane and small… sneak these things in. Design is about everyday life! Devices always talk according to Bruno Latour. Messages are coded into devices. One example is of the European hotel key chain, which is so heavy that it says, “leave me at the desk.”
--
4. Reading list
- Abraham Maslow
- Erich Fromm
- Albert Borgmann (how technology produces either a fullness of being or the opposite, i.e. furnace versus fireplace, same commodity of heat)
- Bruno Latour
- Martin Heidegger
