Hi Klaus,

There is some advantage in seeing several different worlds of theory:

1. Theory as a communication between individuals  with the focus on meaning
and content. For  example, the meanings of  the equation y = ax**2 + bx +c

2. Theory as the written down formula y = ax**2 + bx +c, i.e with the focus
on the 'written down' symbolic representation.

3. Theory qua theory, i.e the essential conceptual forms that underpin the
possibility to use  y = ax**2 + bx +c as a symbolic logic  and in
communication.

4. Theory as real world entities,  aspects of whose behavior we might apply
theory represented by y = ax**2 + bx +c (i.e real world theory instances)

5. Theory as imagined entities in which  aspects of whose behavior we might
apply theory represented by y = ax**2 + bx +c (i.e abstract world theory
instances)

6. Theory as individual subjective understandings of types of theory 1 to 5

7. Theory as represented as 'mind' constructs of types of theory 1- 6

8. Biological/ethological representations of types of theory 1- 7.

There are others...

In each of these, many aspects can be most usefully understood by a range of
perspectives. 

A problem is that because all of them have an aspect of discourse, it is
tempting (if one is obsessed by discourse) to view all as being completely
represented by a view of life in which discourse is placed central (i.e that
discourse presents all necessary and sufficient conditions of explanation).

Simialrly, for those involved in words, it can be tempting to make the false
claim that 'thinking only occurs with words (or in language)' or for those
who draw to claim that all is visual, or for those who mathematically model
to claim that all can be represented by mathematics, for those that design
to claim 'design is everything' etc

These all involve machine ways of looking. For those obsessively habituated
to using a particular machine, life is seen as that which is seen within the
machine - shades of the Matrix. 

Best wishes,

Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus
Krippendorff
Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2008 3:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design as discourse

thanks,
gavin,
for suggesting these distinctions.  they are very much along my reading of
the literature.

a related concept which should be reflected on as well is terry's notion of
design theory, which he contrasts with design discourse.  

to me, theory is a special kind of discursive form in which the speaker or
theoretician takes the position of a spectator, describing a reality in
terms of propositions.  unless design theory embraces some propositions, it
is an empty phrase.  

discourse allows for any stance (as in scientific discourse, psychiatric
discourse, and design discourse).  coming from the tradition of
wittgenstein, i have characterized discourse as a systematically (perhaps
also institutionally and purposively) constrained conversation.  there are
always multiple participants in interaction.  to me design discourse
produces objects, challenges existing realities, intervenes.

klaus 

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gavin
Melles
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design as discourse

Hello listers

It may pay in all this talk about design as discourse to separate out the
different ways in which discourse might be used in relation to design rather
than simply pulling in an admitteldy slippery term (discourse) and using it
in all sorts of relations with design. Some ideas:

Foucauldian discourse and the archaeology of knowledge uses a sense of
discourse, e.g. medical discourse, psychaitric discourse, always in relation
to insitutions, power ideology), and objects (which are formed and made
available in certina ways to people). It is always helpful I've found to
keep in mind this historical and insitutional dimension of discourse in
Foucault's work. this is also tru in a differnt way for Bourdieu's work on
habitus, field, etc, concepts which have value where insitutions are being
examiend for the ways they work. Keeping this institutional and ideological
sense in mind will limit the applications discourse might have to discussion
design but it mght, for example, be used (as in cultural studies and other
general fields inspired by Foucault's wrk) to look at the ideolgical
function of designed objects in society and how they contribute to
fashioning certain identities and exlcsing others etc. This as been
developed some what by the Open University crowd (Stuart Hall etc) who use a
very useful visual 'metaphor' of the circuit of culture to examine the role
of designers, objects, etc. And see Guy Julier's bok on the culture of
design. So this is one area where discourse in one sense might prove useful
for exmaining how design works.

There is a more linguistic sense of discourse, which has recently embraced
the visual, which looks at the production and reproduction of society,
objects, etc., on the basis of micro-analysis of text and image. This kind
of discourse analysis can be useful for looking a how talk and
representation of design is 'done' so to speak on a day to day basis. This
micro analysis of discourse (text + image) is then used to connect to
broader social and ideological contexts in different ways by people like
James Gee, Norman Fairclough (the Lancaster crowd), etc., But the beginning
of wisdom is the micro-analysis. So this is another sense of discourse which
could prove useful (or not) to understanding how design functions. 

Some of the recent posts which talk about design as discourse appear to be
proposing something like design being merely rhetorical - somewhat close the
perhaps Derridean notion that the text is everything. While this kind of
notion of design as discourse might pay off for cultural studies and for
certain kinds of investigation of the power of style, design etc., it will
exclude taking into consideration the material domain of design - and
something like the social construction of technology seems to do a better
job of keeping both the material, historical and discursive in play when
looking at designed/engineered objects. Again, what I'm proposing is to
consider again what we want from this notion of discourse in relation to
design. What kind of work do we want it to do. There are different ways of
scoping discourse as I suggest above) and some f these will have pay off for
what design s rying to achieve. There is then no question of design as
discourse being wrong or right or miscontrued - it is rater a question of
clarifying what sens of discourse we are using and then looking at what we
want to clarify if anything) in relation to design and then using the
appropriate hammer, wrench or spanner (to paraphrase Witgenstein) to clarify
the games that are played in the particualr form of life we want to know
more about
-----
Swinburne University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D

NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the
use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or
protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly
prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any
attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in
transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses
or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in
error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from
your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.