I am very happy of this exchange. It is great that the term ethics is
springing up in various fora, but why is it that when the
professionals and academics involved in development and design talk
about ethics, they speak more about the ethical concerns of the small
(but undeniably important) details of their work, such as this or
that research method, and speak (think? do?) so little about the
ethical concerns that have societal, even global, dimensions?
Is it that 1) it is difficult to grasp what they are, or is it that
2) people have resigned and given up an aspiration to consider them
in their work, or is it that 3) they are seen as somehow being out of
bounds, or do people 4) have to avoid bringing them up in order to
avoid being seen as political and risky in their
organizations/collaborations?
I definitely agree with Terence and Jan (and I am sure with many of
you) that these issues are very much at the core of design, but they
do not seem to practically and explicitly (= more than rhetorically)
included in too many design processes. It would be a good thing for
designers to try to be maybe more vocal about this, and maybe even
carry a little more responsibility than others, because of their
general responsibility to deal with larger wholes.
Unfortunately, it seems that the alternative 4 above is probably one
of the most influential reasons for this lack of noise - and this at
a time when society is more design intensive than ever, and when
really big global changes, designed by very few undemocratic actors,
take place within a few years, so that once the consequences hit us,
the process has already completed and can't be reversed.
Many have been active for decades, but many others have learned in
the past that politics etc. societal influencing is something they
want to keep out. However, now is a good time to look again into that
area, because the situation and the urgency of influencing has
changed in many crucial ways.
kari-hans
...
At 10:50 +1030 1.2.2002, Jan Coker wrote:
>Terry,
>What you say is what I would agree with. Implications around this view means,
>to me, that there is a serious connection between the ethics/integrity of the
>designer and the impact of what they do, in the following way. If someone is
>unclear on the issues which are important to them, if they have not thought
>through the arguments which have meaning for them - pro and con a particular
>action, then they are probably highly susceptible to manipulation and
>confusion. Also if one sees no connection between what they create and the
>impact of it on the rest of humanity, ecology, etc. then it is relatively easy
>to 'make a buck any way you can'. I don't think that it is particularly
>important to worry about how big or small the impact will be, just looking at
>what something can potentially do or mean is enough.
...
>"We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a
>single garment
>of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." Martin
>Luther King, Jnr.
...
> > From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Friday, 25 January 2002 1:09 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: HIGH PRIORITY: Re: Design and future needs
>>
>>
>> Dear Nicola, Jean and others,
>>
>> Am I missing something?
>>
>> For me, social, environmental and ethical considerations form the core
>> of designing, the reasons for undertaking designing, and the
>> explanation
> > of individual activities of designing and of designs.
...
> > From this perspective, issues of technology and form are
>> entirely secondary
>> and contingent. All designing is intended to have social effects. All
>> designs will have social effects - i.e. change society in some way.
>>
>> Looking at Jean's request in this light suggests that the
>> main clarification
>> that is needed is of scale. To answer Jeans question its necessary to
> > know 'how big' an intended or actual social impact.
|
