Dear all,
The recent issue of Design Research News (May 2017) contains an open letter—‘Stand Up for Democracy’—in which Ezio Manzini and Victor Margolin maintain that the design community should stand up, speak out and act to resist on-going de-democratization. I have included a copy the letter after this post and I am writing to support this initiative.
Democracy is more than a political method and in my opinion one way to resist forces of de-democratization is to articulate an inclusive and open view of democratic society. I agree with Mackie’s (2003, pp. 418-419) argument that democracy includes but is not limited to the following components. First, democracy implements what free and equal people will the public good to be based on wide suffrage and contested elections. Second, a democrat may recommend institutions that neutrally inform and enlarge the will of the people through public deliberation within multiple overlapping forums and sites. Third, a democrat may maintain that direct democracy may be impractical in a large territorial state and that it is necessary to implement a system of representatives who are capable to professionalize and depoliticize political conflicts. Fourth, a democrat may insist that there are essential preconditions to democracy such as fundamental rights to life, liberty and personal property, regular elections, equal voting rights, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. Fifth, a democrat may propose independent standards of justice and propose consent to constitutional arrangements that approximate such independent standards. In my view, democratic society embraces all these notions.
In addition to the normative aspects of democratic society, there are good reasons to believe that democracy produces reliable decisions due to its tendency to maximize the cognitive diversity of the people involved in public deliberation (Landemore, 2013; Landemore & Page, 2014; Mercier & Sperber, 2011, 2017). Consequently, a necessary condition for a flourishing democracy is equal capability for people to associate and deliberate in formal and informal public spheres (Anderson, 2006, pp. 15-17; Bohman, 1997, pp. 325-326).
Finally, in my opinion designers can help to confront forces of de-democratization by creating diverse and accessible infrastructures that correct inequalities in the capability for people to initiate public deliberation on their interests, to participate in collaborative projects together, and to publicly express dissent.
Best regards,
Luke
Luke Feast, PhD | Postdoctoral Researcher | Department of Design | School of Arts, Design and Architecture | Aalto University | Finland
-snip-
Open Letter to the Design Community:
Stand Up for Democracy
1. There is no need to point out that we are now in difficult and dangerous times. For many years we were living in a world that, despite its problems, has been nevertheless engaged in a democratization process whereby human rights, fundamental freedoms and opportunities for personal development were increasing. Today, this whole picture has changed. Attacks on democracy are active in several countries, including the ones where democracy seemed to be unshakable.
2. In these new times, the design community (practitioners, researchers, theorists, students, journalists, publishers and curators who are professionally involved in design- related activities) should stand up, speak out and act. To do that we do not have to share the same idea of what democracy is. It is enough to recognize the strong convergence between democracy and design. This convergence can be characterized in four ways: (1) design of democracy, improving democratic processes and the institutions on which democracy is built; (2) design for democracy, involving issues of access and transparency, allowing more people, especially using technology, to participate in the democratic process; (3) design in democracy, including projects that help to bring about conditions of equality and justice; (4) design as democracy, whereby the equitable and inclusive principles of participatory design set a stage on which diverse actors can come together to share constitutive power in shaping the present and future world we live in. Design has always been instrumental as a tool for democratization, in the four ways described above, either directly or indirectly. Today, these multiple commitments should continue, and designers need to support and increase democratic practices in their respective communities and countries. But now "normal" ways of designing are not enough. At this time it is essential that the design community takes a strong stand against the on-going de-democratization process and supports broader and richer opportunities for democracy and well being. In practical terms, this can be defined by as conceiving, developing and connecting multiple actions of resistance and proposals of new possibilities. It means using every possible arena where design has a voice, to stand up against de-democratization. It means conceiving of and enhancing highly visible and effective actions of resistance. It also means proposing and developing projects that address both crucial short-term problems such as job creation and welfare reform and long-term issues such as environmental and economic sustainability. These two threads of action should interact and support each other, resulting in a dynamic proactive resistance.
3. Beyond expressing and sharing our concern, this letter aspires to help catalyze discussions and initiatives that we know are already happening in the design community. We believe that it is important that these discussions and initiatives have more visibility and state clearly how the design community, with its richness and diversity, is standing up and taking a stance in these troubled times.
To contribute to this effort, we are sending this letter to friends and colleagues who play different, relevant roles in the design community including design associations, design schools, research centers, design publications and media, and design-related cultural institutions. Our proposal to the community is that its members consider our open letter, and if they agree with its spirit, act in three ways:
- write a personal statement of less than 500 words
- make it public and circulate it in their networks
- organize an event in the next few months
The two of us are committed to collecting these statements and the information related to these events and to trying to find a way to give them visibility. How this last step will happen is still an open question. It will depend on how this letter is received and what new energies it generates. We hope that it will stimulate designers to stand up and fight for democratization in their own communities and throughout the world.
Ezio Manzini and Victor Margolin
Chicago, 5 March 2017
Please, send your feedback to: [log in to unmask]
-end snip-
Anderson, E. (2006). The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1), 8-22.
Bohman, J. (1997). Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources, and Opportunities. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics: MIT Press.
Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many: Princeton University Press.
Landemore, H., & Page, S. E. (2014). Deliberation and disagreement: Problem solving, prediction, and positive dissensus. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 14(3), 229-254.
Mackie, G. (2003). Democracy Defended: Cambridge University Press.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(02), 57-74.
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason: Harvard University Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|