Jeffery, Michael and Johann in particular:

I strongly support the idea that deconstruction is a useful prelude to
synthesizing a new understanding as it explores the particulars of what has
been expressed. But I particularly agree with Johann that theory is
essential to critical thinking (and therefore to purposeful deconstruction).
After all there is a need for criteria in critical thinking and though
"languaging" (to use Klaus Krippendorff's term) can help to surface
understandings, critical thinking ultimately depends on a point of view.
Deconstruction does not really espouse a theory but rather a disposition or
critical attitude that must call on a theory (knowledge based
understandings) to make sense of its ruminations. In a larger sense,
deconstuction is barren without theory which is ultimately a matter of
coherant reflection on what has been experienced either as an intellectual
deconstruction or as lived events. We need to imbue our students both with a
critical stance and a point of view. Enter philosophy, morals, ethics as
well as exemplary praxis.

Chuck Burnette



On 11/18/04 1:10 AM, "JohannV Van Der Merwe" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Jeffrey Bardzell wrote:
> For what it's worth, I'l like to see deconstruction used more in design
> research--not dogmatically, of course, but rather as one strategic
> source among many. It is a powerful form of criticism, which focuses on
> the constructedness of things from a technical and interdisciplinary
> perspective. As such, I think it is an appropriate approach to design
> research.
>
> and Michael Pearson replied:
> Jeffrey - I absolutely agree with you - I firmly believe that we
> should
> become more critical in our approach to design ... we need ... to
> introduce
> critical thinking as a precursor to the manifestation of artefact .
> Oh - and being critically minded of course we must also interrogate
> the
> concept of being critical..
>
> I can only agree with both, and if deconstruction is to be used in
> design research, let's use it in the way that Derrida originally meant
> it: not as a plan for physical action / appearance / a design style, but
> as a critical way of seeing and (re)thinking. Seen in this light it is,
> of course, not a new idea, but perhaps a new vantage point from which to
> "unscramble" what we are confronted with "in the world" - and
> immediately the importance of (a knowledge of) language comes back into
> design education, and of course people like Wittgenstein and language
> games. Design is social communication, but not mere acceptance of what
> already is. Michael is right in emphasizing critical thinking - that is
> what deconstruction stands for, but it does not stand for an approach to
> design that blows things apart and reassembles the shattered pieces (or
> a building that looks like an explosion in a fish canning factory - said
> one critic once upon a time).
> Derrida even came to an understanding with Gadamer in that both agreed
> to recognize the existence of social protective guardrails (very similar
> to Kelly's personal constructs), and the crucial point is not to explode
> these ways of knowing as nonsense or as "wrong" - but to respect these
> "barriers" to further knowledge / growth / other interpretations, and to
> find ways to overcome them: not by force ("you just listen to me because
> I am right") but by allowing another viewpoint to emerge in a
> non-threatening way. We all construct meaning in our own way, that is
> known to us, and we cannot leave this protective circle without help
> (even if that help only comes from an interesting story that I have
> read, but one that made me think). The idea is for design students to
> move beyond themselves (from where and what they are, now) to that
> position, in the future (next week, next year?) where they will
> recognize the new person (designer) in themselves. This is done not by
> filling their heads (just) with critical theory or any other bits of
> knowledge (which by the way is such a rubbish and poorly understood
> modernist way of seeing education, because by the time my "knowledge"
> gets to you, it has turned back into mere information - the Cinders
> coach turned back into a mere pumpkin), but by opening up to them the
> wonderful world of critical thought - i.e. any form of deconstructive
> reading, which should in all honesty be so close to hermeneutical
> interpretation as to make no difference (cf. Ricoeur). This does not
> negate in any way the value of theory (I teach students that without
> using some form of theory, however trivial, you are probably dead), but
> theory can only be "discovered" (the use/fulness and application of
> theory) by each individual, and for that you need critical thinking - a
> deconstructive way of looking, a research approach that says "prove it
> to me - what for - why?"
>
>  Michael also wrote: learning and practicing strategies that enables
> one
> to think critically is a more powerful skill than knowledge of
> critical
> theory - this is exactly what we are doing, Michael, in our so-called
> History and Theory of Design course, and I was very glad to read this
> post of yours, as I was with the previous one which I handed on to my
> staff for discussion. I can almost echo your sentiment of crying in
> one's sleep for the lost opportunities for students, but luckily there
> are enough of my 3rd years who actually do become critical thinkers to
> spare me the worst of educational nightmares.
>
> Johann
>
> PS: I used this 2002 article by Jan Michl,  "On seeing design as
> redesign", Scandinavian Journal of Design History 12, as the basis of a
> "test" of design thinking - you cannot design without someone else's
> input, without design solution precedents, i.e. without moving outside
> your safe and known circle / comfort zone.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer
> This e-mail transmission contains confidential information,
> which is the property of the sender.
> The information in this e-mail or attachments thereto is
> intended for the attention and use only of the addressee.
> Should you have received this e-mail in error, please delete
> and destroy it and any attachments thereto immediately.
> Under no circumstances will the Cape Technikon or the sender
> of this e-mail be liable to any party for any direct, indirect,
> special or other consequential damages for any use of this e-mail.
> For the detailed e-mail disclaimer please refer to
> http://www.ctech.ac.za/polic or call +27 (0)21 460 3911