Dear François and Christena,
my perspective, based on standpoint theory is that we are not only
born into a set of social relations, but continue to contribute to
the maintenance of these social relations throughout our lives. The
theory suggests that each set of social relations include specific
relations of power, which produce inequities between groups, and are
based on gender, age, ability, etc. As such, we 'identify' as
subjects within society as belonging to the group into which we were
born, or through our attempts to self-determine our social location,
but we can't escape social relations altogether. This theory is
interested in discourse, and through discourse (language) we
RE-produce those sets of relations, and hence relations of power, and
regardless of whether language assigns 'feminine' or 'masculine' to
specific artefacts, power is inherently PRODUCED each time it is
thought, spoken, or written (in language). And to take up François's
point, as a result, we can never put 'Linguistic features and "Human
- equal -Rights" considerations aside', ever, when we design
artefacts or information because every time we do, consciously or
unconsciously, we RE-produce the inequalities that result from
relations of power where groups are subordinate and others dominant.
Which is why I think designers are in a fantastic position to
reconsider how what they do in their work may affect positively or
otherwise, '"Human - equal -Rights" considerations'. But that is my
perspective.
I support Christena's comments -
'A number of people have argued that the social-psychological and
institution/structural importance of gender runs so deep it MUST
influence nearly everything we create.
I also think that even if designed objects aren't created in this way,
they may certainly function this way, as they ellicit gendered
responses from the people using them.'
As a result, I think it is a bit of a smoke screen to look at
'feminine' or 'masculine' products or artefacts that are either
assigned characteristics in the design stage, given names to suggest
these, or which take them on through usage, as the assumption is that
as social beings, we are already located within a set of social
relations that have 'assigned' us a number roles, including gender
roles, and we continue to re-produce these through our work. As a
small example, if we conduct research into what colours or names
attract women or men in order to produce 'gendered' products, then we
are simply RE-producing the social relations (with its inherent set
of power relations), not challenging them, and as such, we contribute
to the social inequities just by doing our work, and more so if we do
it well.
I think this contemporary period with its pressing concerns with
growing poverty, disease and unsustainable practices represents a
great opportunity for us, as designers and educators, to discuss,
research and debate how design and design institutions might consider
their practice in the light of this theory, as we are role models for
the designers who come after us, those that we teach, and those whose
lives we affect through our artefacts and information.
Sadly, I have no references that relate standpoint theory to design,
but can provide others related to sociology or education if anyone
wishes.
cheers, teena
>"Even thinking about objects as things that can be more and less
>successful in inviting humans into different kinds of (non)/gendered
>relationships with each other is just grand."
>
>Dear Christena and others,
>
>Linguistic features and "Human - equal -Rights" considerations
>aside, have any of you already worked, or have bibliographic
>references, on gendered artifacts, both immaterial and material, as
>purposely designed - or not - to induce gendered relationships among
>humans?
>
>Regards!
>
>François
>Montréal
--
Teena Clerke
PO Box 1090
Strawberry Hills NSW 2012
0414 502 648
|