Dear Jean and Lubomir,

thanks for your comments.

Maybe we can try to go beyond the dualisms in 
this debate, which, in this rigidity, turns out 
to be rather unproductive and sometimes gives the 
impression of a "Wettpinkeln" (I will not 
translate this German term).

Maybe naive realism is the optimal 
epistemological position for productive design 
theory (Bruno Latour sometimes calls himself a 
naive realist)?

Just to take up another French line of thinking: 
It occurs to me that ANT (Actor-Network-Theory) 
could have a great potential for the further 
development (progress?) of design thinking. Bruno 
Latour distinguishes the "sociology of the 
social", which is not really helpful for 
clarifications of design activities, and the 
"sociology of associations", which re-integrates 
"things" into sociological thinking. He states 
that there is nothing essential like "the 
social", but that it is the actors (hybrid 
collectives of human and non-human entities, 
designed things) that create social forms...

My question: What do you think about the 
potential of ANT for the further development of 
design thinking? Any experiences with ANT?


Best wishes,

Jonas

---

Bruno Latour (2007) Eine neue Soziologie für eine 
neue Gesellschaft, Frankfurt/M., Suhrkamp

__________



At 9:22 Uhr -0500 24.01.2008, Lubomir S. Popov wrote:
>Dear Jean,
>
>I would like to second your post. I was also 
>contemplating to post similar concerns and even 
>came on the brink of posting. I might do that in 
>a few days.
>
>You are right that some people just cling to the 
>idea of epistemological relativism in order to 
>use it for political purposes and their own 
>empowerment. They do not base their claims on 
>philosophical traditions but rather on political 
>slogans. This concerns me a lot, because, as I 
>mentioned, and you mention in your post, this is 
>breading ground for populist ideologies like 
>national socialism and bolshevism. I already 
>mentioned the dangers and the consequences of 
>such subtle manipulations of the masses in the 
>last  century.
>
>I also agree with you that people misread 
>European philosophers and pick up words from 
>their writing so that they can substantiative 
>their own agendas. In most cases they simplify 
>complex ideas, and very often they pervert the 
>intent of philosophers. It is sad.
>
>The controversy between reality and fiction 
>should not be discussed within the framework of 
>a disciplinary discourse. It should be discuss 
>in the realm of competing philosophical 
>traditions: materialism and idealism. We can not 
>take it that easy for granted that the world is 
>a fiction. We know that this debate has a 3,000 
>year history and the discussion hasn't started 
>on the PHD-DESIGN list. I am sad that when 
>people start discussions on major philosophical 
>issues, they follow their own logic rather than 
>the a century old legacy of philosophy. Each one 
>of us knows that when starting a research 
>project, a person have to make literature review 
>in order to embed the study and to make the 
>best possible use of accumulated knowledge. (I 
>understand the situation is qualitative research 
>is different.) Starting a discussion on the 
>fictionality of the world and anchoring it in 
>the linguistic phenomena is simply not serious, 
>even from deconstructivist or hermeneutical 
>point of view.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>Lubomir
>
>
>At 08:11 AM 1/24/2008, Jean Schneider wrote:
>>Dear all,
>>
>>Two things that I find interesting :
>>- every now and then, the issue of gender comes up on the list. I had
>>started a long reply a few months ago, didn't post it, do that's how
>>I remember;
>>
>>- and very soon, the issue of writing, language and truth come up,
>>with post-modern vs. ? arguments
>>- and then, someone brings in Foucault or Derrida, and it goes on for
>>a while.
>>
>>I am (very slightly) at odds with the way the discussion regresses
>>rather than progresses. I think that (american) post-modernism makes
>>an interesting misuses of its French sources. Or, more strictly
>>speaking, it has been reduced to a "general relativism", which would
>>take its root in the mismatch of language(s) and reality (to make it
>>simple... the issue has always been a central concern of all
>>philosophies).
>>I do not see that Foucault (I think I know his work rather well in
>>their original language) or Derrida (I red him less) implied (or even
>>supported) the idea that there is no truth. What they have analysed
>>and what they propose is to track the connection between language and
>>power, and the construction of "truths" not in an ontological sense,
>>but as something that justifies a structure (of interpretation= a
>>frame; of power= a society...).
>>And this was also one of the key issues of rethorics since... since
>>its inception : how can you (use language to) convince people of
>>something that can be experienced in a different way.
>>
>>The general relativism that come out in the discussion makes me think
>>that there is little interest in changing things, and possibly, that
>>it even prevents change. My worry would even be that the "general
>>relativism" rather than being a radical challenge (in the
>>"revolutionary" connotation) could well end up in the most
>>conservative and fascist inertia (in the sense 
>>that "power" remains - not becomes, remains- 
>>the backbone of the social structure).
>>
>>And this is even a stronger paradox for design(ers) ?
>>When Fiona describes the fact that there are more female in the
>>textile dept of her university, and more male in the games dept., as
>>well as the perception she gets, what counts to me is not really the
>>exact reasons why... there are many that simply fall under common
>>sense. To me, the essential question is : 1/ is this desirable, from
>>my/faculty/society perspective(s) ? 2/ If not, 
>>how do I/the faculty/ the society change this. 
>>We can also have a discussion about why it
>>is desirable or not to have more male in textile and vice-versa, or
>>whether the females that are in games are feminine or not, or whether
>>the question(s) simply make sense. But, at the end of the day, true
>>or false, right or wrong, real or fiction, each of us has some power
>>to change or maintain the existing situation ;-)
>>
>>My 2 (euro)cts,
>>
>>Jean