And it got me thinking about the idea of extractive design. Although we might not know exactly what it means, I bet we all know this kind of design when we see it–structures, places and objects that close down or take away our human potential, that deter engagement or interaction, that sap our emotional and physical energy rather than catalyze it.

Here are some examples:

optimization for cars

sidewalk to nowhere

suburban housing. Photo Copyright 2007-2011 by Mark Zoetrope (MarkZoetrope.com), all rights reserved.

The road to big box retail. Photo Will Weaver, 2010

looking at these pictures makes one wonder if cars are the greatest extractive mechanisms of the current system. Ah, but that would be far too simple…

On the one hand, extractive design might be seen simply as the physical manifestations of our capitalist system. In this view designers have very little influence. On the other hand, the concept of extractive design perhaps provides a strong counterpoint to design activism. Surely one of the core tasks that cuts across much design activism is the tackling of extractive design, the process of using design to “give” rather than to “take”?

[note: many thanks for comments so far--updates from me are in the comments]

1930s and 1940s

housing and furniture
- Bauhaus and the social potential of design
- Buckminster Fuller dymaxion car and house
- Schindler’s shelters: low cost, pre fabricated housing

1950s

Housing
Buckminster Fuller geodesic domes
Walter Segal self build system

Accessibility
“barrier free” movement (forerunner to universal design) in response to disabled veterans

1960s

Counterculture
1960s design groups: Situationists International, Superstudio, etc.
1966 Drop City community founded
1968 publication: Whole Earth Catalog, Stewart Brand

Environment
1969 Design with Nature by Ian McHarg

Community design & appropriate technology
1965 Intermediate Technology Development Group (Appropriate Technology) founded
1968-69 Community Design Center of Minnesota founded 1969, Los Angeles Community Design Center founded 1968

1970s

Enviroment
1970s Co-evolution Quarterly
1973 AIA Energy committee, founded
1970  Cosanti Foundation began building Arcosanti, an experimental town (ongoing)
1975 Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems
1977  Soft Energy Paths by Amory Lovins
1977 A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction by Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa and Murray Silverstein
1979 Passive Solar Energy Book by Ed Mazria

Design for development/consumer safety
1971 Design for the Real World by Victor Papanek

Diversity: religion
1977 Aga Khan award established for architecture recognizing good design in Islamic contexts (ongoing)

1980s

Social responsibility
1981 Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility, 1981

Environment
1981 Structural failure at a major US hotel prompts the conversion of Bob Berkibile to one of the first sustainable design champions in architecture
1982 Founding of the Rocky Mountain Institute by Amory and Hunter Lovins

Feminism
1984 Redesigning the American Dream: Gender, Housing, and Family Life, by Dolores Hayden

1990s

Environment
1990 formation of the AIA Committee on the Environment
1993 founding of the US Green Building Council
1993 Design for Society, critiques of consumerist design by Nigel Whitely
1996 Ecological Design by Sim van Der Ryn and Stewart Cowan
1997 formalization of eco design with publications such as John Gertsakis, Helen Lewis, and Chris Ryan A Guide to EcoReDesign and Han Brezet and C. van Hemel Ecodesign: A Promising Approach to Sustainable Production and Consumption
1996-97 exhibitions of recycled material such as “Re- Materialize” and “Hello Again”

Feminism
1993 Women in Design section founded at IDSA (Industrial Designers Society of America)
1999 Design and Feminism Joan Rothschild, ed
1996 Architecture and Feminism, Debra Coleman, Elizabeth Danze and Carol Henderson, eds,

Affordability/accessibility
1993 Rural studio, University of Arkansas design build studio focusing on poor local communities
1993 Congress for the New Urbanism
1999 Design Corps, US community focus, often rural or migrant groups
1999 The Glass-House Trust begins evolving into The Glass-House Community Led Design in 2006, UK

Humanitarian
1999 Architecture for Humanity
1999 Architects without Frontiers

Alternative education
1998 Ecosa Institute, 1998

2000s

Humanitarian (becoming Social Design or Design for Social Impact)
2001 Designers without Borders
2003 Design that Matters
2004 Article 25 (formerly architects for aid)
2008 Project H Design
2008 Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio conference on design for social impact
2008 Change Observer blog (funded by Rockefeller for initial two years)
2010 IDEO.org, social design offshoot from IDEO

Accessible/public interest
2002 Public Architecture
2003 UK Design Council begins work on design-led solutions to social problems
2004 [Re]design, UK
2005 the 1%, Public Architecture’s initiative to professionalize pro bono work
2005 SEED (Social Economic Environmental Design), US
2008 SEED Foundation social enterprise and design, UK
2009 Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for Sustainable World by Alistair Fuad-Luke published by Earthscan

Prizes and conferences
2000, Conference: Structures for Inclusion 1 organized by Design Corps
2006 “ecodesign” category added to IDSA / BusinessWeek IDEA awards program
2007 The Buckminster Fuller Challenge for $100,000
2008 Curry Stone Prize, for design emphasizing social good, reaching wider segments of society, for $100,000
2008 Conference: A better world by design

Environment
2002 Architecture 2030: getting to zero carbon emission buildings by 2030
2002 Cradle to Cradle By William McDonough & Michael Braungart, North Point Press
2006 EcoLabs (developed ecoliteracy teach-in for designers in London 2009)
2007 Designers Accord originally climate driven, now expanded
2009 Living Building Challenge launched by Cascadia Chapter of US Green Building Council

Alternative education models and Politics in design education and research
2005 Biomimicry Institute, US
2005 Goldsmiths, University of London: Center for Architectural Research–design and politics/spatial politics focus
2006 Manchester Architecture Research Center, University of Manchester–design and politics/spatial politics focus
2008 Leeds School of Architecture, Landscape and Design Leeds Metropolitan University hosts “Mapping Design Activism” followed by Leeds Festival of Design Activism in 2009
2009 TU Delft Chair in Politics and Design
2009 academic network DESIS: Design for Social Innovation towards Sustainability.
2010 Austin Center for Design, educating designers for social enterprise

the consumerist scenario — what are elements
of the post consumerist scenario for designers and architects?

The first speaker, Ed van Hinte from NL, will talk about “Harmless Housing” — consumerism, “lightweighted” housing, and a bearable consumerist society with respect to architecture and housing. Ed hails from Lightness Stduios. The second speaker, Steve Broome, will talk about the RSA connected communities project, including the characteristics of social networks and social ties, and preliminary findings about the connection between social networks and physical places. Details for the talk are here, it’s at 6:30 at the Univ of Westminster in London — if you come along introduce yourself!

This paper about how we might define design as activism has been submitted to the Journal of Architectural Education, although I am allowed to share it here on my website with you, my colleagues. Find the paper here: Thorpe-definingdesignactivism (PDF 1.1MB)

Here’s the abstract:

In this article I argue that current conceptualizations of design as activism are often weak or narrow, and don’t stretch to the broader landscape of social movements from which most activism is born. Drawing on concepts of activism from social movement research and conventional activist practice, we can formulate a more useful, robust characterization of design as activism. Such a definition helps designers and social movement actors gain a better understanding of the spatial and material possibilities of design’s role in activism. It makes design activism more accessible within the field of design, and also to wider constituencies

I welcome comments and discussion on the paper’s arguments and examples.

More results

One of my fellow design activism bloggers (at Social Design Notes) asked if I would share more details of the survey results. Good Idea. I’ve created a list of the sources that people suggested for learning more about design activism. The responses are anonymized in this downloadable file (PDF) which serves as a holiday gift from all of us, to all of us. Enjoy and please comment below if you’d like to suggest additional sources. (A few of the responses in this file mention Worldchanging, but sadly I have to report that Worldchanging is now closing its doors, with hopes of finding a place to archive their past years’ articles.)

Winner

Congratulations to Amanda Bill, winner of the gift certificate drawing for the design activism survey. She teaches fashion and textile design studies at the Institute of Design for Industry and Environment in the College of Creative Arts at Massey University in New Zealand. Amanda says, “what a terrific surprise … I hardly ever win anything!”

When asked to say a few more words, she added, “I love getting students to think about designing for social and economic change especially since fashion is one of the biggest industries in the world, with huge inequities in the value chain, massively complex sustainability issues, not to mention the gendered power relations involved. I’m really pleased that these topics are finally becoming legitimate in designers’ education.” Nice to meet you, Amanda.

See you in 2011. Interesting news is brewing…

About You

I asked you to tick all the categories that applied to you in terms of your relationship to design. About 90% of you work within the field of design, either as practitioner, manager, scholar, researcher or student. Less than 10% of respondents were interested in design activism from outside the field of design. The bar chart looks like this:

Design Disciplines of Interest

Another question asked you to tick the two design disciplines that most interested you. I was surprised that the highest interest was in product design (about 64%) and new media (39%), followed by urban design (30%) and architecture and graphics (both at about 28%). [In response to a comment on the Social Design Notes blog--I think the higher interest from product design (and the disciplines showings in general) say more about who's reading this blog than about how the disciplines are engaging with activism].  Behold the bar chart:

Topics in Design Activism

I asked you to indicate three aspects of design activism that you were interested in learning about. More than 60% were interested in gaining an understanding of how design activism works (where its power comes from, how to leverage it). Also of high interest, at about 50% each, were a catalog of case studies, an understanding of what “design activism” is, and new/emerging areas. More info on the bar chart:

How You Act on Information

And what do respondents do with the information they get about design activism? Respondents chose their top three uses and about 68% of you said you use it in research, while about 50% use it in professional practice. Nearly 50% will teach with it, and 30% will apply it as an individual citizen. About 28% want simply to learn more about it and 22% will use it in studies.

Top Sources of information

I asked what two sources on design activism you would recommend to a friend or colleague. There were 83 individual responses, with only about 10 people saying they weren’t sure what sources to recommend. But 73 responses is still too many to list individually so I can summarize by listing sources that were mentioned more than once. What is perhaps striking is that out of 73 informative responses, only a few of the sources (mostly books) were listed more than twice. So there’s quite a diversity of information out there.

Books mentioned more than once (book links are to Amazon)

Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World By Alastair Fuad-Luke (I reviewed Alastair’s book here)

Design For The Real World: HUMAN ECOLOGY AND SOCIAL CHANGE by Victor Papanek

Eternally Yours: Visions on Product Design edited by Lisebeth Bonekamp, Henk Muis, Ed van Hinte, and Arnoud Odding

The Designer’s Atlas of Sustainability: Charting the Conceptual Landscape through Economy, Ecology, and Culture
(perhaps not surprising since it’s my survey, and this is my book, but thanks!)

Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice
by Tony Fry

Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility edited by Steven Heller and Veronique Vienne

Do Good Design: How Designers Can Change the World by David Berman

Magazines mentioned more than once

Good

Adbusters

Organizations mentioned more than once

Architecture for Humanity

IDEO design for social impact

Project H

Doors of Perception

TED

Thinkpublic

Urban/Act a handbook resulting from the European Platform for Alternative Practice and Research on the City (PEPRAV)

Online sources mentioned more than once

Designactivism.net (again, perhaps not surprising since it’s my survey, thanks!)

Social design notes

Design observer

Core77

Worldchanging

Treehugger

Designboom

socialdesignsite

There were a few interesting comments about sources. For example, one person suggested, “Any design blog should do. Design is being used in an activist fashion even by designers who are unaware they are doing so.” In a similar vein, more than one person suggested online searches, for example typing the term “design activism” into a search engine, into Wikipedia, or Amazon. Perhaps these are a good reminder that the field is evolving and new sources are emerging.

How you would describe it

I also asked how you would describe “design activism” to someone who isn’t familiar with the concept. There were over 100 individual responses to this question, with only about 7 people unsure how to describe it. Here again I’ll have to summarize some of the trends in these many very thoughtful responses.

Most of the responses centered on the idea of design having a role in positive change, but there was an amazing variety of interpretations of these ideas. Some people focused on the idea of raising awareness and communicating about beliefs and values, whereas others concentrated on an explicit political role. For example, contrast the idea of “drawing attention to societal issues” with the idea of taking “a more explicit political stance.” A few respondents seemed to interpret design activism as activism on behalf of better use of design.

There was also a lot of variety in terms of how people characterized “positive change.” For some respondents it was simply a question of “making the world a better place” and for others it had more specific elements such as “advocating for under represented groups” and specific causes such as peace, civil rights, poverty, and the environment. A number of respondents emphasized positive change as requiring a substantial movement away from the goals of commerce and the economic growth agenda.

Formats

I asked about what format would be most useful for new resources on design activism. While more than 70% were interested in some kind of ebook, nearly 50% were interested in conferences or workshops. About 45% were interested in an online video and only about 40% were interested in a traditional book.

Thanks again to all who participated.

In the US licensing varies by state, but one can get a sense of the code of ethics from the AIA’s (American Institute of Architects) code of ethics. Rena Klein has a useful article outlining recent amendments to the code. The code, which had five broad principles of conduct (known as “cannons”) was amended in 2007 when a new cannon, “obligations to the environment” was added. The other cannons deal largely with business conduct and legal compliance, however another amendment encourages architects to offer pro bono work.

AIA members can be suspended for not upholding many of the business and legal aspects of the code, but most of the social and environmental components are purely aspirational. New contract requirements that form part of the code, however, do require architects to discuss sustainable design options with clients in the schematic design phase. “These contract sections are legally binding to architects who sign the 2007 B101 Agreement. This means that failure to discuss “environmentally responsible design approaches” and “consider environmentally responsible design alternatives” could be deemed a breach of contract by the architect.”

Should a hippocratic oath for architecture focus on the health of the city?

Another take on the architect’s hippocratic suggest it is the health of the city that should be addressed, rather than the health of individuals, as suggested by this excerpt on curative building:

“Curative building: in favour of an architecture which soothes and alleviates

Art heightens perception and represents the world. Perhaps it is because of this that many give architecture the artistic mission of delving into the cracks and probing the wounds, representing the fragmentation of society and territory through fractured forms. Perhaps architecture is a medicinal art, and as such, aims to heal rather than describe suffering; or a useful art which is therefore more involved in repairing the world than evoking it.

If this activity were bound by a Hippocratic oath, surely the health of the city, the welfare of its inhabitants and the technical and economic consistency of its factories would be part of it. It happens only too frequently that buildings are an affront to the urban environment or landscape, to the comfort and convenience of the users or to constructive logic and economy. It is reasonable to assume that architecture would blend in more successfully with its service dimension if the shamans were replaced by doctors.

This curative building is exempt from heroic profiles; it assuages the conscience by alleviating suffering; it prefers efficiency to excellence and carefully avoids adventure and risk. An architecture like this will hardly be able to explore the chasms of art; but what it loses in emotion it will make up for in responsibility. Few look to the surgeon for inspiration, yet nevertheless everyone expects him to be skilled and competent. Perhaps the architect should also be judged more for his skill than for his genius; neither the fabric of the city nor the flow of life will be weakened by this.”

[Do you know the source of this passage? If so, please let me know]

Finally, practitioner Sergio Palleroni suggests that a hippocratic oath has “shock value” to some of his architecture students, “Our studio labs have a lot of medical students, because their idea of health is so fundamental to them. The Hippocratic oath is a much more hardcore set of values about how to serve communities. It’s always good to present architecture students with that.” But he also notes that “having students collaborate across disciplines now will lead to a society where disciplines will not be divided along these boundaries but instead will join forces to solve problems.” This reinforces the idea from the previous post that designers probably need a different kind of ethical oath, and that by bringing practices and their oaths together we find deeper, longer lasting solutions.

Don’t forget the survey — its running until the end of November and I’ll announce the prize drawing winner in early December, along with the results.

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/353304/your-interest-in-design-activism

Several practitioners and design observers have pondered the idea of an oath for product designers.

Contributors to Core77

Over on Core77, aimed at product design Emily Pilloton, of Project H and the recent book, Design Revolution: 100 Products that Empower People, mentions the idea of a hippocratic oath for product designers. The book includes a “designer’s handshake” which she describes as a version of the hippocratic oath. Hers includes items such as:
- go beyond doing no harm
- measure, share, and teach
- serve the underserved
- don’t reinvent the wheel
- put the user first
- be part of a greater whole
Her idea is that people sign this oath and send it back to her, and that taking this action helps people feel the weight of the commitment more.

One of the founders of core77, Alan Chochinov has also developed a version of an oath for designers, although he calls his a “manifesto for sustainable design” (I wrote about design manifestos before here). He starts off highlighting the point that industrial designers don’t just deal with one patient at a time, the way doctors do, rather, “We have to remember that industrial design equals mass production, and that every move, every decision, every curve we specify is multiplied—sometimes by the thousands and often by the millions. And that every one of those everys has a price.”
The points in his oath include items such as:
- stop making crap
- put systems before artefacts
- teach sustainability early
- ensure balance before catering to talents
- put metrics before magic
- put climates before primates
- context before all else

He’s purposefully kept this at 1000 words, which is perhaps a bit long for an oath, but as he says, it’s a manifesto.

Designers Accord

The Designers Accord is more than a “manifesto,” but it is also less than a binding oath. To sign up to the accord, one commits to five guidelines. The emphasis of the designers accord seems to be on institutional signatories, in the same way that institutions such as states or global businesses might sign on to international accords on trade. Interestingly, the commitment for individuals who sign the designers accord reads very differently than the commitment for institutions, and it highlights the difference—some might say the double standard—between what we expect of individuals and what we accept from larger institutions.

Designers Accord Logo

Under the category of individual adopters the accord says: “All adopters, supporters, and endorsers follow a basic code of conduct: Do no harm; Communicate and collaborate; Keep learning, keep teaching; Instigate meaningful change; Make theory action.”

However the five guidelines given for the institutional adopters don’t mention “do no harm,” instead they mention “reducing impact,” which we might read as “lessen harm.” On the one hand this is a very realistic and practical approach for Designers Accord to take. And it’s something I talk about in my book as one of the central debates of sustainable design. To what degree do we need sudden radical change–the kind of change that would require companies to “do no harm”- rather than “lessen harm”- and to what extent do we need to maintain some level of “system stability” to enable cohesive transformation? The book also examines broader implications of “time” for sustainable design.

I notice too that the Designers Accord is now “a five-year project started in 2007″ so one has to wonder what happens to people’s commitments after that period. It’s hard to believe that all practices will be transformed in that time period, so perhaps the commitments will be transferred to the main professional design organizations, or Designers Accord will launch phase 2. Again I don’t fault Designers Accord for setting a limit on their organizational lifetime. It’s an idea that probably should be considered by more groups. (The Dutch have used this model successfully to look at specific issues, particularly through the Eternally Yours project, which also lasted five years and left a lasting mark on the toolbox of sustainable design, with concepts such as design for durability, heirloom design, and graceful ageing of surfaces.)

John Thackara/Doors of Perception

This leads us to a final view on a hippocratic oath for designers that counters the guideline-y approach of Designers Accord. John Thackara (for this link see the post dated May 28, 2009) wisely argues for designers to take a view beyond human life, which is the focus of the medical hippocratic oath. Instead he notes, in his advice to the newly formed Finnish Aalto University, that it should stand for “an unconditional respect for life, and for the conditions that support life.” Thackara writes:
“Such a commitment would be stronger than the hippocratic oath sworn by doctors. Young doctors promise to ‘prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment – and never do harm to anyone.’ Unambiguous respect for human life here – but no mention of the rest of life!”

He traces this line of ethical thinking back to Aldo Leopold’s “land ethic.” Further, Thackara concludes by stressing the notion of an unconditional respect for life. He comments:

If a commitment is unconditional, it does not mean “take account of”; or “pay due respect to”; or “move steadily towards”. It does not mean “minimise adverse effects on nature”, as it says in that proposed scientific oath – it means a target of no adverse effects.

Unconditional does not mean generating “less waste than any of our competitors” – it means a commitment to zero waste, and zero emissions.

Neither does an unconditional commitment to the biosphere mean adding environment courses to a curriculum that otherwise remains untouched.

Aldo Leopold conducts field research in this 1946 photo. (Photo courtesy of the University of Wisconsin archives)

Where does this leave us?

So we have a variety of “oaths” and “commitments” described here. One thing I really like about all of them is the strong component of teaching and learning, just as in the older style hippocratic oath which states, “to consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.” This is watered down in the more contemporary version with the statement, “May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling.”

We can see a tension that makes a hippocratic-style oath for designers challenging. On the one hand we have the aspiration of “unconditional respect for life,” a sort of all encompassing “do no harm” that makes more sense for designers’ scope of work. On the other hand we have the practical reality of confronting the market place, where most designers work. The market place contains those large, powerful, monied organizations (like businesses that sign on to the Designers Accord) whose primary goal is to maximize financial return to shareholders, at any reasonable environmental or social costs. Design seems to require a hippocratic-type oath that somehow connects the practical end of the spectrum with the aspirational end of the spectrum, but is the tension between these two ultimately insurmountable? What are your thoughts? Are you familiar with other adapted ethical oaths for product/industrial designers?

Next week we conclude this series with a look at architecture.

Finally, quick reminder that I would like to get your input on design activism, through the short survey found here:

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/353304/your-interest-in-design-activism

(you can enter to win a drawing for an Amazon gift voucher).

Thanks

In this series of 3 posts, I explore the notion of a “Hippocratic oath” for designers. Recall that the Hippocratic oath requires medical doctors to practice ethically. I recently heard someone recite the Hippocratic oath and I wondered about adapting this sort of oath for designers. As I discussed previously in a series on ethics, activism turns on the notion of pursuing something morally better than what we have now.

It turns out many designers have rewritten the oath for designers, and for many disciplines of design. In this post I look at user experience design, landscape architecture, lighting design and graphic design. In the second post I look at product design, and in the third post, architecture.

First it may be useful to have a look at the contemporary version of the hippocratic oath. This one is from Nova’s (PBS) website:

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

(you can find more versions on wikipedia)

Let’s look at some of the adaptations for designers…

User Experience Design

Whitney Hess adapted it for User experience designers, and here’s an excerpt:

“I will remember that there is art to experience design as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the information architect’s taxonomies or the interaction designer’s wireframes…

I will remember that I do not treat a web form, a social networking site, but a vulnerable human being, whose one wrong click may affect the person’s friends and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the user.”

Landscape Architecture

The Garden Visit website offers up a version for landscape architects, although this adaptation is based on a more historic version of the oath. Because of that older version, the oath actually doesn’t change that much when updated for Landscape (the website holds both the original oath and the adaptation). Here’s an excerpt:

“I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my clients and the landscape, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. Into whatever places I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the landscape, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption.”

Lighting Design

The International Association of Lighting Designers just had a panel at their conference annual conference (Enlighten ’10) called “THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH FOR LIGHTING DESIGNERS” which is described on their website like this:

“First: do no harm. Should all lighting designers take the oath? Is that even possible in an industry whose practitioners struggle to keep up with emerging technologies, client wishes, deadlines and project budgets? What are the responsibilities of the lighting designer? Given environmental impacts and petro-politics, is there an intrinsic responsibility to society, the environment and future generations? These questions will be explored and will lead to a broader discussion on the larger roles of our industry.”

Visual Communication/Graphic Design

For visual communication designers, a blog called “The Hole in Graphic Design” offers an adapted version of the oath that mentions the “First things first manifesto” (I wrote about this manifesto and linked to it here) but urges a guide for governing the relationship between designer, client and user. The first three points in this oath read as follows:

- I swear by Schoeffer, the first art director, by Games, Tschichold, and Bass, and I take to witness all the great designers, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

- To hold the values of the society of designers and communicators to my heart, and to treat my fellow designers as my brothers and sisters.

- I will design for the users of my designs according to my best ability and my truest judgment and never create designs that knowingly brings harm to the world.

Next time…

The Hippocratic oath focuses on the interaction between individuals (doctor and patient), and most of these adaptations confront the fact that designers typically deal in one-to-many situations, rather than one-on-one settings. Yet for the most part these oaths stick to the general outlines of the Hippocratice oath, which, as we shall see in the next post, is perhaps not so well suited to the practice of design. Stay tuned, I’ll post the next in the series in a week’s time. Remember to respond to the design activism survey before the end of October.

And finally, please comment with any other adaptations of ethical oaths for designers that you’re aware of, and whether you think they’re useful.

I mentioned in my last post that I’ve been working on a big project to help designers understand and use design as activism. It’s harvest time for this project and I’m getting ready to share the juicy results, but I need your help. Would you answer seven questions for me? Your input could help make the project more useful to you. One lucky survey respondent (who chooses to register) will win a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.

You can find the survey here — it’s all on one page.

harvest time

The survey asks straightforward questions about your interests for example, in terms of:

- design disciplines (for example, more interested in architecture or graphics?)
- types of info (for example, prefer case studies or conceptual tools?),
- uses for the info (such as teaching or applying to design practice)

Go to the survey now and let me know what you think. I’ll be publishing the results here on the blog so the more people who respond, the more interesting the result will be–who’s in this online community? What portion of them are architects, versus fashion designers? What portion of them are practicing design, versus teaching or researching?

You can take the survey anonymously or you can register for a chance to win the gift certificate. At the end of the survey you can also sign on to hear from me when my project is ready for you.

Pass the link on to anyone else you know who’s interested in the topic of design as activism. The long form of the link looks like this:
http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/353304/your-interest-in-design-activism

And send me your responses before we get too far into October. (Yes, October starts on Friday…)

Thanks,
Ann

an image by Claire Manibog from her proposed SROI tool for design, read and see more at her blog

Meanwhile there’s an interview on Core77 with Mariana Amatullo of the Design Matters program at Art Center College , which is introducing a new concentration in art and design for social impact, whereas before they operated mainly by project. Core77 also carries a column by Cameron Tonkinwise at Parsons The New School for Design, about the political intricacy of design for social innovation. He’s spurred to address this question by his work with Desis (a project I’ve written about before here) and a Parsons’ Desis project called, “Amplifying Creative Communities.”

an image from the Amplifying Creative Communities project from their website, which contains information about their exhibition, interactive map, etc.

Tonkinwise makes the argument that designers might think they are avoiding politics by simply taking a “do good” ethical position, by creating positive social impact that works. But he makes a compelling argument that this type of apolitical ethical stance becomes a political one because without aiming to change broader systems, it accepts the status quo for everyone outside the scope of the project to hand. For example, he reasons that by using design to create social services (such as senior care) to replace shrinking government resources, then you are, by default, supporting “smaller government,” which may or may not have merits, but does constitute a political position. By not connecting to issues at the scale above the project, this kind of design work might enable the kind of status quo it aims to remedy with its project. He says, “In other words, being ethical, in order to avoid politics, is a political position.”

In this sense, designers working on social impact sometimes, and somewhat naturally, tend to focus on the project scale and see the users and clients as the targets, rather than thinking about their work in broader terms–for example, in terms of social movements for change. The field of design has adapted “change” and “social impact” agendas to fit within design’s traditional goals and orientations such as “human needs” or “usability.” This contrasts with conventional activist frameworks around rights, struggles, grievances and claims.

Activists are overtly political, and, as the term “activism” suggests, take public actions to call for broader change, typically targeting wide audiences and specific decisions makers. Effective activism occurs in ongoing campaigns that are strategically targeted and respond to countermoves by those maintaining the status quo (or worsening it).

So as Tonkinwise suggests, all design for social impact is political, and we might argue that whether consciously or not, it is activism. It calls for social change, but typically it is activism of a relatively weak or unstrategic kind. Tonkinwise suggests that design-based social innovation (read here design for social impact) should be connected to systems of lobbying for wider change, beyond just the project. In a sense he argues for the necessity of social impact designers becoming much more strategic activists, and I agree. I would add that designers would benefit from a closer study of how activism works, what tactics it uses and where its power comes from. We need a better understanding of design as activism.

This blog, DesignActivism.net, is part of a larger study where I’ve looked at this question of how design works as activism, as well as how conventional activists might understand design as a tool of activism. I’ve been sharing some of my insights with you through these posts, but soon I’ll be looking for some input from you on how you’d like me to share my “big picture” on how design works as activism. Look for this in the next post.