Ken and list.
As my colleagues know, I enjoy a good debate, so thanks for taking the time to state your position, and thanks to Jurgen for the original question. It's difficult to put complex ideas into a short post. So - trying for clarity - Ken, would it have been more acceptable if I'd said...
.....Some well-known social science positions, for example those attributed to actor-network theory, take the view that economic analyses maintain their 'claims to truth' by treating all the problematic bits as externalities - they 'decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle'. This process is necessary to make anything into a marketable commodity. As Michel Callon points out, in order to a conceive of a market, its necessary to first 'frame' agents and goods as distinct from one another.
"What economists say when they study externalities is precisely that this work of cleansing, of disconnection, in short of framing, is never over and that in reality it is impossible to take it to a conclusion. There are always relations which defy framing. It is for these relations which remain outside the frame that economists reserve the term externalities" (Callon 1999, 188).
It may be that Bagwell's chapter exemplifies this process, although I couldn't say, not having read it. However, from the abstract it appears to me to supply a very useful pro-forma for constructing an economic rationale by framing the relations necessary to an advertising market (for which we could substitute 'product design'). If we want to construct a market for product design, then we need to follow the laws of the market......
Callon, M, "Actor-network theory - the market test" in John Law and John Hassard (eds), Actor Network Theory and After, Blackwell, 1999 p 181-195.
I hope this is an improvement. Now I must go off to a meeting with a PhD student. In Visual and Material Culture, not Design :)
Best wishes
Amanda
On 22/07/11 1:10 AM, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Andrew and Amanda,
Andrew Jackson wrote, "Good heaven's Ken, this is supposed to be a
PhD discussion group. Regardless of the merits of this particular
exchange, nobody's going to post anything, especially PhD students, if
they risk being comprehensively shot down in flames when they venture an
opinion!"
Amanda made strong claims in rejecting Kyle Bagwell's article on the
basis of an abstract and stating that Jurgen seemed to be asking for the
kinds of analysis she rejected in Bagwell.
In responding to a strong, harsh critique, I wrote a straightforward
post. It may have been blunt, but I argued the case: I criticized
Amanda's claims, and the method she used in reaching them.
Amanda is a senior lecturer. She has her PhD and I assume she is
tutoring doctoral students. When people we look to for tutorial advice
offer these kinds of unsubstantiated opinion, others may respond. Even
so, I did not shoot Amanda down in flames. I offered a sharp rebuttal,
the kind of thing one expects in debates among professors. This is a
discussion list about doctoral education in design, and it is a research
list. There is a difference between venturing a speculative idea that
one specifically states IS speculative, and offering an opinion
seemingly based on fact when the facts are incorrect.
Read the salient part of Amanda's post again. She criticized
Bagwell's analysis in harsh terms and stated that Jurgen seemed to
be asking for the kind of analysis she criticized in Bagwell.
Amanda, your rejoinder to Jurgen is not accurate. In your earlier post,
you did not state that Bagwell's article is worthwhile. Your post
stated that the "whole point" of economic analyses such as
Bagwell's article is to "maintain their 'claims to truth' by
treating all the problematic bits as externalities - they
'decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle'." You
stated that the goal of this process this is to "make anything into a
marketable commodity," and then you stated that this is what Jurgen
seemed to be asking for.
Perhaps your chose your words poorly, but you did write it:
"I think that's the whole point about economic analyses like
Bagwell's (though I admit I haven't read that one). They seem to
maintain their 'claims to truth' by treating all the problematic
bits as externalities - they 'decontextualize, dissociate, detach and
disentangle'. This process is necessary to make anything into a
marketable commodity. Which is what Jurgen seemed to be asking for."
If you meant to state that Bagwell's chapter is worthwhile, your
words did not do so.
Amanda, Andrew, life at university is sometimes about getting things
clear. This has not been the tradition at art and design schools, but it
is how universities work. If I have characterized Amanda's post
incorrectly, please explain the error.
To suggest that Bagwell maintains "'claims to truth' by treating
all the problematic bits as externalities - they 'decontextualize,
dissociate, detach and disentangle'," is an inflammatory accusation.
So is the accusation that this is done to "make anything into a
marketable commodity." That is what Amanda's post said Jurgen seemed
to be asking for.
If Amanda meant to say that Bagwell's article is excellent, she did
not do so. Neither did she thank Jurgen for asking an important
question. Whatever the intentions behind the post, I responded to what
appeared on this list.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia
|