Cindy Jackson's superficially 'reasoned' explanation of why DPP's content
doesn't get discussed displays the kind of dumb literalism that DPP poses
itself against. Her characterisation of DPP's "narrowness", reveals a lack
of understanding of the nature of independent publishing and of the
intellectual politics that drives DPP. On the first point, DPP doesn't have
to be "broad" - it is not the official organ of a professional organisation
or the like; it has no institutional base, nor was it set up to serve an
existing or nascent 'discipline'. This is connected to the second point -
myself and other regular writers are more interested in what design does
in/on the world than in appropriating sundry philosophers to elborate
design narrowly conceived of as process and professional practice. In her
keen-ness to label DPP's writers as either Heideggerian or postmodern (I
haven't time to elaborate on the error of the 'or')she fails to see what
the writers share, more substantially, is a sense of urgency about seeking
to understand the nature of unsustainability, design's implication in this
and how thinking and design might be otherwise. My surprise is that a
large, international group of people, supposedly working at the higher end
of higher education (i.e. this list) show such little interest in such
substantial and pressing matters.
As to the point on the philosophers DPP doesn't give airplay to - firstly,
this is inaccurate (one example - current issue Carla Cipolla on Martin
Buber) and secondly, that's not because we're rejecting papers dealing with
them - if only we had the luxury!
Anne-Marie Willis, Editor, Design Philosophy Papers www.desphilosophy.com
|