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. So when scientists working
for the tobacco industry work out a higher level of addictive substances in
cigarettes, or add chemicals which they can pretty easily identify as toxic,
they could say, it is just scientific research and they are not making the
decision of application or use; or they can advocate for what is not toxic, and
not work on projects which can be detrimental to people or societies. Now that
is easy to say when it is not your job or livelihood on the line, or when no
one is threatening you. Harder to deal with ethics when there is pressure to
avoid it. And it is very easy to avoid it if you don't think about it at all.
Also most ethical issues are not very simplistic at all.

All these things become much more difficult as well in a society which pays no
particular attention to the human need (may I be so bold as to call it a need)
for meditation, self examination, consultation with elders, and growing up in a
way in which it is clear to yourself who and what you are - your weaknesses and
your strengths.
Jan
Jan Coker
C3-10 Underdale Campus
University of South Australia
Underdale, South Australia 5032
Phone +61 8 8302 6919
fax        +61 8 8302 6239
[log in to unmask]

"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.


> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
>
> Social -                  because designing is a human
> activity, undertaken
> by humans and for humans
> Environmental -     because the primary purpose of all
> designs is to change
> human environments
> Ethical -                 because planning to change human
> environments
> is essentially an ethical process
>
> 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.
>
> Ken has given examples of designed outcomes that have
> impacted strongly
> on society. There are many other examples of designed
> artefacts, systems,
> technologies etc  that have more subtle effects - some large,
> some small
> and many unintended. The story of technology transfer and third world
> development is rich with examples. 'The Greening of Africa' springs to
> mind.
>
> At a local scale, there are those working in traditional and
> contemporary
> communities that undertake a sort of 'hidden' designing,
> whose acts shape
> local social functioning, and combined across a more or less
> homogenous
> culture (a la pattern language) shape society in the large.
>
> There are also the professional middle-scale designers whose
> job is 'designing
> to change society' These include urban planners, policy
> makers, elected
> government officials and their support staff. These forms of designing
> are interesting in research terms becasue they are often very
> well documented
> and (for the problematic ones) sometimes accompanied by sophisticated
> critiques by a range of stakeholders.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Terry
>
> _________________________
>
> Dr Terence Love
> Love Design & Research
> GPO Box 226
> Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> Tel & Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> www.love.com.au
> ABN:  75 335 207 165
> _________________________
> ========================================
>
> From: Nicola Morelli <[log in to unmask]>
> To:  Internet Mail::[[log in to unmask]]
>
> Subject: Re: Design and future needs
> Date: 1/25/02 9:38 AM
>
> I'm re-posting a message I accidentally sent only to Lubomir
>
>
> HI all,
> I didn't quite understand whether jean's request is about examples in
> which someone (designer or not) DELIBERATELY managed to change society
> or examples in which products shaped societies and cultural systems. I
> understand that some of those who answered to Jean's request refer to
> the second interpretation (technology shaping society), while
> I was trying
> to think of a possible answer to the first interpretatino
> (designers deliberate
> ly shaping society through technology). I can't find, at the
> moment examples
> in this direction, while the debate of technology shaping
> society (I mean
> unintentionally or quasi-unintentionally) is long and complex
> and would
> probably include questions about society shaping technology (on which
> several books have been written, especially in the area of the social
> construction of technology).
> I can add an example of technology shaping society (and
> viceversa): how
> many products and technological innovations have contributed
> to the development
>  of new ways of working? A deliberate trial to use
> information technology
> to shape the way we work was based on telework. Although the
> prediction
> about a widespread diffusion of telework in western countries did not
> eventuate, there are several new work arrangement that are based on an
> intense use of information technology. For instance a lot of
> people can
> now work from any location, using the Internet to create
> connection with
> their original workplace. In this case was technology shaping society?
> or, on the contrary it was society shaping technology (because people
> did not like telework, but they did like to work while
> travelling, therefore
> the demand for laptop and other related facilities increased)?
> Cheers
> Nicola
>
>
>
> Dr Nicola Morelli
> Centre for Design at RMIT University
> GPOBox 2476V Melbourne Victoria 3001
>
> Web: http://users.tce.rmit.edu.au/e07643
>