Hello All,
David I wanted to thank you for the implicit permission not to have to read the earlier thread. I apologize in advance for what I might have missed that will make this text part of the problem instead of a part of the discussion. I wouldn't be able to write otherwise.
Keith, I'm intrigued by your "windy" contribution concerning accusative versus ergative language. Not only does it take the actor out of the situation, but for me, by doing so, it potentially changes the context under which we consider the problem. Aitchson (2012) points out that when words change their meanings in new contexts, children (and others as I recall) find the change easy to accept. I'd say that scales out in situations like these. If we stay within the context of good and bad we might not get far. But if we change the context to "the kettle boiled—what do we do with it now"... well I wonder. (To be clear, this is not to say that perpetrators should just be forgiven or ignored. It's a different part of the conversation that I'm not focused on because I think that what Vicky said is the main point.)
But to finish Keith's post, I often wonder if a new pronoun is called for. Where I teach, the assumption is that a man wrote it. Maybe a gender neutral pronoun, would reinforce that, but maybe it would increase the potential for reflection.
Vicky, I think that what Keith writes links to your welcome notes on both understanding and dismantling by "calling out the discrepancies in experiences, followed by reflecting on these differences, and then finally determining how those reflections will help us to move forward."
Related to a pragmatic design example, one of those ways of calling out discrepancies in experience as well as reflecting and determining how to move forward that comes to mind for me is Lupton and Miller 's (1996) "White on Black on Grey" where the authors take a close look at examples of advertising from the 1960's to the mid '90's, focused on African Americans. One aspect of their argument that encourages me to reflect, relates to work that is done with the intention of addressing racism, but actually reinforces racist touch points.
Specifically, good intentions still failed to change the context when Herb Lubalin, whose work I admire about as much as one can, shows an African American in white face for an Ebony ad in the New York Times (1968). It says, "some American advertisers are color-blind." I thought of it as sharp and thought provoking—something I love about Lubalin. But that example also shows that he's forgotten the discrepancies in experience. This clever use of "color" ignores that the man in white face is being made to contribute to something that hurt so many people—and still does. I saw the clever in the re-appropriated history. I failed to see that he hadn't really changed the context.
Does that mean that we shouldn't use sarcasm to get a point across in situations of oppression? I honestly don't know. Perhaps we should be careful. When this kind of kettle is boiling, maybe reflection comes first?
All the best,
Susan
Susan M. Hagan Ph.D. MDes | Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|