Dear Colleagues
In my post of last June 10, I hinted that I am currently reading about
Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's work. In the *magnum opus* of this “scholar’s
scholar - and - economist’s economist”, "The Entropy Law and the Economic
Process" (1), particularly at pp.306-315, Professor Georgescu-Roegen dwells
more extensively on the concept of the "*exosomatic instruments*" (borrowed
from the Biologist, Alfred Lotka).(2) However, this author's development
is, obviously, in the perspective of (Bio) Economics, the domaine of his
expertise. I hereby propose that a Design perspective be developed as well
on the same concept.
The emphasis in Georgescu-Roegen's few pages above is that the human
biological development of "*exosomatic instruments*" led, among many other
effects, to social chasm in the human community. On one side remained the
production workers, and on the other side emerged, as of necessity, an
organizing elite for such production. I also hinted at this situation when,
in my post on June 5th, I evoked Matthieu Calame's (and others) thought on *
mystification* by the clerical elite, both medieval and current
techno-scientific.(3) And one among many organization services provided by
the techno-scientific elite happened to be the Designers' service.
Beyond the many idiosyncratic considerations of the Design field and the
particular views that we each hold on what we do, let's for a moment agree
that the service we all provide essentially is, in the sense recently
highlighted by Terry, to devise instructions on what to do as material
artefacts needed in society ("*exosomatic instruments*"), and/or
instructions on how to make these. We, Designers, are usually not the
direct leaders of society, we do not ultimately decide on what kinds of
artefacts society *needs* (unraveled by psychologists and marketeers) nor
on which kinds are more *worth* being made (decided by politicians of all
sorts). When asked, we merely provide instructions in the line of our
personal convictions or inclinations, and to the best of our knowledge and
of our technical capacity.
The Designer thus is at the same time part of the experts elite group, and
also one who tells workers/producers what to do and how to do it. A sort of
an intermediary, a liaison between two often antagonistic social groups
(according to Georgescu-Roegen account). Would this be one of the major
reasons our profession is so vaguely viewed?
One fundamental (one would say professionally ethical) question that often
arises, we all have been confronted with it in a way or in another and at
different time along our career is the following: whom Designers' first
allegiance as or should be directed to? First to our fellow elite members
who hire and pay us for our expertise? Or first to the 'worker' who is
going to execute - and or benefit from - our expert instructions? (By
'worker' I here mean both the person who makes the designed artefact, as
well as the person who uses the artefact made) Would it be conceivable,
desirable, and comfortable enough, paying allegiance (surely not at the
same time) to both groups, the elite and the 'worker'?
I am very interested to learn what views are actually held by the younger
generations of Designers.
Francois
Montreal
(1) GEORGESCU-ROEGEN, Nicholas. The Entropy Law and he Economic Process.
Harvard University Press (1971,1999). ISBN: 1-58348-600-3, 457pages.
(2) Alfred J. Lotka, "The Law of Evolution as a Maximal Principle," *Human
Biology,* XVII (1945), 188. In *op cit*., p. 307.
(3)CALAME, Matthieu. LETTRE OUVERTE AUX SCIENTISTES. Alternatives
démocratiques à une idéologie
cléricale. Editions CL Mayer, 2011. ISBN 978 2 84377 160 6 , 149 pages
|