DESIGN AS DEMOCRACY: THE DEMOCRATIC POTENTIAL OF DESIGN
Luiz Izidio2019, DESIGNING SUSTAINABILITY FOR ALL
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
The present article proposes to investigate possible futures for the design through a proximal and dialogical ap- proach between design and democracy. In this way, we begin with the letter “Stand Up for Democracy”, written by Manzini and Margolin. Thus we seek to understand the foundations of the concept of Design as Democracy, pro- posed by the mentioned authors. We seek a relationship between the structures of democratic models and design practices. For these reasons, we have opened up a dialogue on codesign as a possible methodological alternative for a democratic design, more comprehensive, horizontal and open for all. Providing a fertile ground where collective creativity can be used as a form of collaboration and solving common problems is mirrored in design as democracy. For this resonates with the creation of a more inclusive and sustainable world for the future generation.
Key takeaways
- From the relationship and articulation of these structures with the design we open a dialogue on codesign as a methodological alternative, for a design as democracy, so that it is more democratic, horizontal and open.
- In this text, the authors emphasize that the development of democratic forms and processes has always involved design and must continue to do so, being a moment of construction of possible futures, through design, able to conceive, develop and connect new possibilities for democracy and well-being, resisting the growth of negative forces that have attacked democratic processes.
- Mouffe (2005) proposes the idea of the agonistic model, based on the acceptance of dissent within the democratic process, a point that is opposed in the democratic model as we know it, would be a deliberative democracy.The democratic process of the deliberative type requires that the participants not only be free and equal, but also "reasonable", because democracy is understood as a system of social and political arrangements, capable of connecting the exercise of power to the free exercise of reason between equals.By "reasonable" it is understood that the participants in democracy seek to defend and criticize institutions and programs in terms of considerations that others, as free and equal, are right to accept, given the fact of reasonable pluralism.
- The democratic process of codesign places the design within a set of actions involving the individual and society in order to find solutions to diverse problems.
- With regard to democracy, the act of inclusion, even dissent, as part of the democratic process strengthens its structures and makes them more comprehensive.
Related papers
THE ROLE OF DESIGNERS IN A DEMOCRACY
There's been a recent call for designers around the world to take more than a cursory interest in democratic discourses and political happenings in their domains; although, this is aimed at strengthening democratic practices, the intricacies and dynamics of contemporary political systems currently makes this, antithetical to the traditional role of the designer in a society. Thus, this paper highlights the conflicts surrounding the characterizations and practicality of contemporary democracy and the challenges of associating it with design and designers. It further argues that the design community as an entity lacks the requisite credibility to lead a pro-democracy campaign in view of its own questionable democratic credentials. The paper concludes that rather than join the populist bandwagon of slogan-chanting pro-democracy activists, the design community as an entity should become politically agnostic, but more socially-conscious – focusing solely on the social welfare of the people in every community it serves – whether in democracies, monarchies or communist states.
Participatory design and "democratizing innovation
Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference on - PDC '10, 2010
The field of Strategic Design supports designers in researching and designing for the complexity of today's cities by embracing the idea of strategic dialogue, in which designers align with different actors and their interests. In this article, we discuss how democratic dialogues-foregrounded in the Participatory Design (PD) tradition-play a role in complex urban design processes (i.e. 'infrastructuring') and entail different types of dialogues of which strategic dialogue is merely one. After framing Strategic Design and PD, we describe five designer roles and their associated dialogues. This description forms the basis of an exploratory typology of democratic dialogues that was applied and exemplified in a case study about a Living Lab in the neighbourhood of Genk. The Lab attempts to design alternative futures for work in the city together with citizens, public and private organisations. We claim that engaging with this typology allows designers to understand and design infrastructuring processes in the urban context and to open up different design dialogues and roles for discussion.
Introduction to Democratic Design
Democratic Design (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2021
The chapter introduces and frames the argument of the book Democratic Design.
The Politics of Design, Design as Politics (in The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography)
The Routledge Companion to Digital Ethnography, 2017
Design is on the march. Terms and practices that once circulated primarily within the fairly circumscribed worlds of professional designers— " charrettes, " " prototyping, " " brainstorm-ing, " and so forth—have permeated worlds as diverse as business management, statecraft, and public education. Ethnographers have not been immune from this extension, and, if anything, some of our most esteemed practitioners have helped to promote it. For Bruno Latour (2008), the spread of the word design attests to the collapse of faith in modernist narratives while also signaling more humble, democratic, and open-ended ways to make collective futures. For Paul Rabinow, George Marcus, James Faubion, and Tobias Rees (2008), the practices of professional designers offer promising ways for rethinking contemporary modes of anthropo-logical inquiry and textual production, and the design studio represents an exciting model for teaching and learning ethnographic practices. For Alberto Corsín Jiménez (2013), " prototyp-ing " is not only a term of art among select communities of practice; it is also a more general model for how a polity might mutually prefigure configurations of objects and sociality. While ethnographers who have recently advocated for design have done so in different ways, they tend to share a desire to not just interpret the world but also to try to change it. Put differently, many ethnographers' recent interest in partnering with designers can be seen in part as an interest in exploring new modes of doing a material politics. 1 Given this renewed interest in the political possibilities of design, this short chapter explores some of the ways that design does and can do political work. After offering a brief rationale for why ethnographers should examine design as a mode of doing politics, I primarily focus on three, often intra-related, political processes in which design might play a part: prescribing, publicizing, and proposing. 2 The chapter ends with a brief exercise in, and argument for, attending to the unevenly situated character of design-ethnography as a mode of doing politics.
FROM THE TECHNICAL TO THE POLITICAL: DEMOCRATIZING DESIGN THINKING
Design thinking has recently garnered widespread recognition across a variety of sectors including education, business, and development, in the non-profit, private, and public spheres alike. In contrast to some other areas of design, advocates of design thinking focus on human needs, aka those of the end-user, as a space for increased empathy and potential social impact. Innovation of this type is then implicitly (and oftentimes explicitly) linked to social progress. In this paper, we will explore the ironies around the use of design thinking for social impact in its contemporary market-friendly iterations. Namely, mainstream design thinking methodologies are limited by their myopic focus on technological innovation and failure to address political power dynamics. After identifying a need to reformat design thinking for the social good, we present a curricular framework that integrates design thinking with social justice to transcend these flaws and address complex social problems.
'Design' in Principle and Practice: A Reconsideration of the Terms of Design Engagement
This paper reflects on the principles and practices of design in a time of great social change. Its narrative begins with a reflection on the structural reasons why design practices and professions are acquiring even greater social significance than they have had in the past. After a context-setting examination of notions of 'creative economy' and 'knowledge society', the paper moves on to explore the subtly shifting semantics of 'design', tracing key aspects of the changing contexts and practices of design. The paper introduces the notion of a 'shift in the balance of agency', which affects the roles and relationships of designers and users and which increasingly demands design interdisciplinarity.
Design and Politics: Metadesign for social change
Strategic Design Research Journal, 2017
In recent years, a collaborative approach to solving socio-urban problems has become common. In some cases, organizational changes have been worked out in enterprises and governments to accommodate the collaborative process, and people started recognizing the already present collaborative aspect of the creative process. Nevertheless, a rigorous theoretical/conceptual background that can sustain continuous social innovation based on accountable experimentation is still majorly lacking in these contexts. The specific approach elaborated for Metadesign by the author can provide a bridge between these innovative intentions and a new epistemological framework that has emerged from contemporary philosophy, anthropology, and complexity theory. In the context of the so-called "Smart City", Metadesign could serve as an accessible approach to the democratic organization of communities so they can perform qualified and consequential creative work, including rethinking their own role in urban planning (meta-action). This approach is based on a new social interaction repertoire, partially derived from the popularization of digital interaction, but also from a new epistemic: complexity theory involves extreme shifts in the prevailing epistemological outlook, requiring new cognitive tools to cope with the increasing cognitive load in social interaction needed in collaborative creative work. This new epistemic also involves changing the way we frame objects of knowledge, recognizing new "objects of design", of particular interest to the Metadesign action, that can mediate social change in a concerted and conscious manner.
Design-for-empowerment-for-design : computational structures for design democratization
2012
The vision to engage non-architects in the design of their habitat through the mediation of computer aids, dates back to the early computational era (1960s-1970s) and is currently being recast under cyber-cultural and technological influences. The computational tools enabling this architectural do-it-yourself-ism have been traditionally conceptualized as mediating “infrastructures:” neutral and non-defining control systems, which ensure the validity of the designs produced by the nonexpert users without distorting their personal hypotheses. Through a critical comparative analysis of two basal computational systems for design “democratization,” as discussed in Yona Friedman’s and Nicholas Negroponte’s early 1970s writings, this thesis illustrates that the “infrastructure” metaphor was engendered and still resides in a positivist paradigm of design, allowing for little freedom or intuition on behalf of the user. Rather than denouncing the internal contradictions of the “structure for ...
Related papers
Democratic Considerations of Design in Complex Systems and Public Sector
2017
As designers venture deeper into government institutions and attempt to partake in solving the monumental problems facing global society, it is appropriate to question how the designers and the design community relate to the democratic implications of these engagements. This article attempts to frame this question by looking at historical and political aspects of design, as well as the practices used by designers operating in complex systems. The implementation of design and design related practices in government is reviewed, as is some literature in the field of design relating to democracy and design. The theory is discussed, and reflections on opportunities related to democratic participation are made.
The Democratization of Design: If We’re All Now Designers, What of Design?
AIA Dallas, Columns Magazine
This article briefly examines the changing role of design proper as it copes with and responds to a world with the knowledge, skills and tools that were once claimed exclusively by the disciplines are now controlled by increasingly empowered self-designers. Emblematic changes to architectural studio practice are highlighted.
The designer as agent of community
2018
A “changing paradigm” with a focus on design for social innovation (SI) has emerged over the last decade. (DESIS, 2012) The title of this article refers to a perception of design schools and design students as potential “agents of sustainable change” adding new designdomains to the existing traditional design domains. (Chick, 2012, Emilson, 2010, Manzini, 2008, 2012, 2014). The study finds it is hard for the design-students to establish their “roles” as designers and have a natural “authority” working in complex and time-limited process’. The paper produces recommendations for other educators in terms of preparing, planning and doing a SD for SI course and discusses the critics views on future requirements for Designeducations. (Bason, 2013, Mulgan, 2014, Norman, 2010) The empirical basis for the article is a case used as part of the collaboration between VIA Design; Design for Change (DFC) in 2014-18 and four external partners; Teknologi i Praksis (TiP), the City of Aarhus, BorgerD...
Creative Democracy: an Anthropology of and by means of Design
Doctor of Philosophy - Thesis, 2020
This is a theory-based research which I intend to be a contribution to all practice of design that are, in one way or another, concerned with the question of democracy. Building on the critical accounts raised by scholars within the field of design for ‘making publics’ I propose, in this work, a departure from the thinking of John Dewey and an exploration into another strand of thought, that also investigates the link between democracy and social creativity, and which is based on the work of Cornelius Castoriadis. Dewey and Castoriadis moved from very similar concerns but the two thinkers also differed on key points, and the main difference between their two strands of thought could be found in the fact that whilst Dewey attempted to ‘socialise the political’, Castoriadis aim was rather to ‘politicise the social’. I open this monograph articulating the reasons for design practitioners and scholars to look into the work of Cornelius Castoriadis and I continue in my writing to describe what I have learnt by exploring how and if design has a role to play - through its repertoire of creative tactics – in order to advance creative democracy as an everyday practice. I will describe the issues I encountered in my two field-works within the area of design for mental health and I will articulate what I discovered about the limitations of current conceptions of creativity, as elaborated and practiced within neo-liberal modes of design practices. Through this work I will advance as my main contribution to knowledge a proposal for a renovated mode of design, which I have called ‘Design for the Radical Imagination’ and which has - as its main ambition - the creation and the nurturing of a collective subject that can interpret and change the world politically.
Design and Dissensus: Framing and Staging Participation in Design Research
Design Philosophy Papers, 2013
A range of alternative formulations of design, such as ‘social’, ‘activist’, ‘critical’, ‘relational’, ‘humanitarian’ design, are amassing.[1] Instead of focusing on form and function, such formulations typically focus on what design produces. At stake in the social turn within design is reconsideration of what design is about – not in terms of its objects but, and perhaps even more fundamentally, its subjects. Further, contemporary design oriented toward the public realm in multiple contexts involves a diversity of possible subjects and political subjectivities. ‘Participation’ has been an approach to addressing social questions in design. Participation has been linked, for example, to “a mindset and attitude about people” [2] and a kind of ‘design humanism’ aimed at reducing domination,[3] which meets the human ideal of mutual support for altruism, a ‘collective instinct of humanity’.[4] In a range of associated projects and practices in recent years, methodologies have been applied to involve more or different people directly in product development processes. Indeed, participation may itself be seen as the objective of design processes.[5] Concern, however, often tends towards methods for improving design objects, with certain questions about its subjects left under-examined or posed in overly general and loaded terms that might be further interrogated. In this paper, we query participation in design in order to discuss some of the problematics of relating to ‘others’ in practices of design and design research. We argue, as do other design thinkers, for practices involving “micro-political participation in the production of space”,[6] in which design frames and stages the (re)production of social as well as spatial relations. We argue for increased reflexivity about how others participate in design and the political implications. Here, ‘the political’ refers to the issue of who is identified and represented as a subject in studies and practices of design. Concerned with the social organization of everyday life, the design role is always engaged with “confrontation of power relations and influence by the identification of new terms and themes for contestation and new trajectories for action”.[7]
Participatory Design and the Collective Designer
2002
Is and should there be a place for the Aristotelian virtue of phronesis in contemporary participatory design practice and for design as an act of anxious love? In this paper we take a critical look at participatory design and reflect upon the virtues of the collective designer. Towards a background of the dreams and lost utopias of some related collective designers of the past: the Bauhaus, Nordic design and Scandinavian collective systems design, we suggest that our attention should not be on the great espoused design ideals but on the politics-in-practice of the collective designer. The really interesting collective designer in practice might very well be much more of a "machiavellian" reflective practitioner than an objective scientist or politically correct utopist.
Redesigning design; an invitation to a responsible future
1995
This essay proposes new contours for design as a profession in a world whose industrial products have become more and more language-like and incommensurate discourses compete with one another for hegemony-the design discourse being merely one of many. It takes design to be constituted (that is, defined with)in processes of languaging. It calls on us to recognize and act in the awareness of how our discursive practices identify us as the experts we are, create the objects of our concerns, and provide us with a vocabulary to communicate or coordinate our actions relative to each other. 1 The motivation for this essay stems from the far too common experience that whenever designers do work with their counterparts from the so-called 'harder' disciplines, professionals who can argue with statistics, with experimental findings, with calculations or from positions of administrative authority, they most often lose out. Examples are abound. 2 I conclude from them that, first, designers often are preoccupied with products when what matters is how their ideas occur in talk, in clear presentations, in hard evidence, and in compelling arguments. It is communication that makes a difference and gets results. Second, design is foremost conceptual and creative of future conditions. Dwelling on existing facts often inhibits and is generally less important than the ability to bring a multiplicity of people to recognize the benefits of collaborating in the realization of new ideas. Designers are bound to fail when they do not act on the premise that their conceptualizations must make sense to those that matter. Third, the success of famous designers is based primarily on carefully nourished publicity, personal connections, or longtime working relationships with clients. The visual qualities and functionalities in terms of which 1 The insight that we humans, whether as ordinary people, as professionals or as scientists of one kind or another, are living in language is the starting point of several philosophers such as Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Richard Rorty. I can not review their ground and must go on here. 2 The version of this essay which was presented to the conference included five examples, among them Robert Blaich's account of how Philips' well known Roller Radio almost didn't come to be. See Robert Blaich (1990), Forms of Design, pp. d1-d14 in Seppo Väkevä (Ed.
Gaspar, M. (2011) "F(r)ictions: Design as Dissent" in papers of the Design Activism and Social Change. DHS Design History Society Conference, Barcelona 8th -10th September, 2011.
This paper aims to provide a theoretical frame, where the practice of design can be understood as political. It aims to raise a cross-disciplinary debate around the redefinition of the design profession and also around the practices of curating and reflecting on design. Main theoretical reference has been The practice of Everyday Life by the sociologist Michel de Certeau. Certeau's work has influenced the thinking of the philosopher Jacques Rancière, who I will refer to in order to explore his notion of fiction and dissent as forms of political subjectivity that can create new modes of sensing. The paper suggests how activism in design can play a critical role in society, by setting up micro-situations of dissent (disagreement), and in doing so generate new forms of sensing and making sense in contemporary living. Conclusions will point at the potential of design fictions (understood as projections) and frictions (considered as irritations) in order to re-fabulate the commonplace.
Visions that change. Articulating the politics of participatory design
CoDesign, 2020
In this paper we draw upon the articles included in this special issue to question how to re-politicise co-design and participatory design (PD). Many authors in these fields have recently made a plea to reengage with 'big issues' as a way to address this concern. At the same time, there is an increased attention into the micro-politics of the relations that are built-in co-design and PD. These two approaches are sometimes presented as working against each other with a depoliticising dynamic as a result. The editorial hypothesis of this issue is that designing visions can turn the tension between addressing the big issues and close attention to the particularity of relations into a motor for re-politicising design. Through engaging with literature, the articles presented in this issue, and two fieldwork cases that explore this dynamic, we discovered that paying careful attention to the activity of designing visions can support re-politicisation. While visions enable us to develop relations with close attention to their politics, building relations supports a more political approach to designing visions on issues. We argue that vision-making can particularly support re-politicisation when it enables the articulation of the political by relating its situated reality to how it unfolds in space and time.
Design for Life: The Struggle for Utopia?
Filozofski vestnik, 2017
The objective of this paper is to identify the structural impossibility within the potential for designing our everyday life. In other words, the goal is to make a case – through a discussion of active citizenship during the era of globalised capitalism – for the necessity of the existence of unregulated islands of design activity. The paper tries to show why focusing on everyday design – design for life – should be of much greater importance than it is now. It also shows that in order to achieve this goal, design needs thinking individuals. It needs all those whose ordinary acts are overlooked today but are already happening in everyday life and are free from market domination. The task of design lies in recognising and empowering each of us. Consequently, the role of design – as one of the key builders of our environment – lies not only in redesigning the environment in order for it to ensure the requisite empowerment of individuals, but also in establishing the conditions for creating and encouraging new functions, new ways of thinking.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.