Dear Ken,
Thanks for your interesting contribution (and especially for the
reference to Ostrom’s 8 principles for managing commons, that very
correctly recall us that, at the end of the day, democracy, when we have
it, even though in a very messy way, is a common good).
I took the opportunity of this feedback to underline one point, that
maybe is clear, because it was on the background of the Victor’s and
mine open letter, but is worth to repeat.
I think that this discussion on design and democracy should be done on
two steps: (1) Do I think that democracy is important? (2) What can I
do, as member of the design community to support and implement it (in
general and in the present days, in particular)?
Of course, there is no reason to discus (2) if we don’t agree on (1).
Of course (1) is a discussion that, as you did in your text, must be
done as citizens and not as members of the design community. But if we
think that there is the urgency to discuss of the step (2), we should
deal with the discussion (1) in a pragmatic way. That, in my view,
means: to declare some points of the notion of democracy that appear to
who talks to be sufficiently clear and solid, and to immediately move to
the discussion (2) (leaving to other arenas the general debate on how
democracy could and should evolve in the XXI century).
When we move to the step (2) of course we can find somebody who thinks
that the answer is a simple: “nothing”. Intending that there is nothing
we, as designers, can do for democracy. In this case, the discussion
stops here. On my side, having co-written the open letter, it is clear
that I think that designer can (and must) do something. This statement,
for me, doesn’t mean to propose designers as a kind of heroes capable to
save democracy from the disaster. I simply intend that we, as everybody
else, can do something. And can do it not only as active citizens, but
also as active and reflective designers.
The open letter, states: “/We do not have to share exactly the same idea
of what democracy is: to defend it as a core value, it is enough to
recognize the strong convergence between democracy and design in four
respects: …/”. These are, in my view, four fields for design action and
reflection where democracy and design meet. And this reflection and,
most importantly, this reflection on actions, is what, in my view, the
PhD list should contribute to do.
Il 20/05/17 11:01, Ken Friedman ha scritto:
> Dear Luke — and Ezio, Victor, and All,
>
> This is an important and timely initiative. One of the several great issue of our times is whether democracy can survive. This is not the only great issue of our times, but it seems to me that the fate of democracy is one among the several issues that relates to the others.
>
> This issue has been on my mind for years. I don’t say this from a design perspective. The call from Ezio and Victor launches an initiative from the design perspective. My perspective has been that of a citizen and resident of several democracies.
>
> A few years ago, Eric X. Li wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times questioning the assumption that democracies serve human needs as the best model. While I don’t agree with him in all respects, he offers salient points, and relatively few of us consider these issues in the long term of history.
>
> Li points out that the first great experiment in democracy in ancient Greece lasted little longer than a century and a half. Democracy in the modern West is the second such experiment. Our current version of democracy as a system in which each citizen has one vote is less than a century old. Our experiment today faces great challenges. Nobel Laureate Michael Spence notes a shift in the way we understand the political structure of the great Western democracies, from “one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.”
>
> You can read Li’s viewpoint in the New York Times archives:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opinion/why-chinas-political-model-is-superior.html
>
> While respecting the multiplicity of systems, I nevertheless agree with Luke on the virtues and benefits of democracy.
>
> At the end of the twentieth century, the philosopher Richard Rorty (1998) gave a series of lectures published in a book titled Achieving Our Country. We can speak of the larger global challenge we face as achieving democracy. Rorty speaks of a tradition of what he calls “democratic intellectual labor.” Rorty takes Walt Whitman and John Dewey as exemplars.
>
> There is a long tradition of political scientists, political economists, and philosophers who have focused on different aspects of these issues. These include Mary Parker Follett, Michael Polanyi, and Amartya Sen, to name only three of the great twentieth-century thinkers from whose work we can still learn.
>
> One useful thinker is Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom. Her 1990 book on Governing the Commons shows ways forward. We face serious challenges in adopting these principles on a large scale. What works in a 16th century Swiss village doesn’t work in a world of seven billion people.
>
> Consider, for example, the simple and sensible proposal to “ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.” How can we do this in a world where several billion people cannot read, while others can’t get access to communications — and where many of these billions live in such extreme poverty that they lack access to clean water or steady food.
>
> I have a nice summary of Ostrom’s 8 Principles for Managing a Commons:
>
> 1. Define clear group boundaries.
> 2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.
> 3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.
> 4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.
> 5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.
> 6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.
> 7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.
> 8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up to the entire interconnected system.
>
> To see more, read Ostrom’s (1990) book.
>
> There is more, but one interesting aspect of Ostrom’s approach is that it is a large-scale design approach. Nevertheless, there are many steps from proposing this world to achieving it.
>
> I appreciate Ezio and Victor’s initiative. I’ve got to think carefully before attempting to write my 500 words. As in so many areas where designers struggle with complex issues in a social setting, it is one thing to aspire — another to develop the knowledge, information, and skills we require for effective action.
>
> Ken Friedman
>
> References
>
> Li, Eric X. 2012. Why China’s Political Model Is Superior. The New York Times, February
> 16. URL
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opinion/why-chinas-political-model-is-superior.html
> Accessed 2017 May 20
>
> Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>
> Rorty, Richard. 1998. Achieving Our Country. Cambridge, Massachusetts: 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|