Dear Francois
Yes, in common language we say that the knife cut my finger or the wall stopped my movement.
But common language Can be misleading, diverting the blame of untoward event to something that can’t be blamed for bad intentions.
When you cut you finger it is you who isn’t careful. Of course it is possible for a designer to invent something that makes cutting yourself unlikely. But this is another issue. However it is your actions that guided the knife to were you didn’t want it to be. you were not carful, not the knife.
Similarly, a wall has most likely been designed by an architect and constructed by a builder. Whatever their motivation you ran into it and hurt yourself.
When a designer is no longer around to be held accountable, you can blame the for something
You don’t like but no longer hold him or her accountable for what was realized. The designer is an agent but what is realized is not.
I think we should not confuse physical causality with human actions. A volcano can be the cause of mass destruction but this doesn’t make it an agent— unless you believe everything is God’s doing but if you do believe this, you can’t hold God accountable. He or she doesn’t answer your question of why this happened.
True, most designs, once realized, have unintended consequences. Designers ought to minimize harming users. But once a physical artifact is realized it works in a way physics describes. Once the bullet leaves the barrel of a gun it can no longer be manipulated by the shooter. It is no more mediated than an earthquake. People can wear bullet proof west’s, build a shelter, or move away.
Common language may confuse the distinction between agency and physical causality, but designers should not perpetuate this confusion.
Klaus
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 3, 2020, at 6:12 AM, Francois Nsenga <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Klaus
>
> You wrote:
>
> "As designers, we need to expand our discourse to cope with the ever more
> complex consequences of what we propose. To be able to be accountable for
> the consequences of our proposals is the biggest challenge we are facing."
>
> Again in my understanding of this issue of agency, no one contests at all
> the fact that agency is foremost a human phenomenon, implicating choice and
> accountability, primarily of designers, those who conceive those artifacts.
> Facts around make it that we all agree on this.
>
> However there are also other facts 'telling' us that there is another
> phenomenon, perhaps in need of a deeper understanding: the phenomenon of
> mediated agency, the designer(s) not being present, immediately accessible
> near her/his artifact. I was expecting to hear from you, also on this
> latter (half??? mid???) phenomenon.
>
> In common language, in addition to saying that so and so killed so and so
> with a bullet, we also say that (such a particular bullet, if we analyse
> deeper like in cases of forensic science) the bullet 'killed' so and so;
> this knife 'cut' my finger; she/he was 'hit' by a car; this wall would
> 'protect' better from cold; the road bump of such a hight will 'damage' the
> car, etc. etc. All these are 'actions', or effects as you so correctly say,
> in these examples DIRECTLY performed by artifacts, according to
> their...specifications, thought and embeded by designers, by
> delegation/procuration. There are many other examples where actions-effects
> are performed (re Barad's development of this concept of 'performance')
> also by other living entities, non-humans: birds, dogs, earthworms, etc. Or
> even, in certain several cases, actions performed by other humans (a
> toddler throwing a stone to a car, a stone given by an intentional grown up
> around...) but not these latter being the ones eventually accountable.
>
> Until a certain time when, if necessary, we'll find or mint another word to
> convey the concept of this factual phenomenon of mediated/instructed
> performance, a phenomenon that we - not yourself included, thus far!! -
> call "agency", for the time being, temporarily.
>
> On human 'instructions' or specifications, in daily reality things act,
> only par procuration. And responsibility and accountability remain and
> befalls to ONLY human agents. That is the rampant truth!
>
> I therefore invite you and all participants to this list to focus more on
> this issue of our concern: artifactual effects or...this kind of agency
> delegated by designers; or agency performed through artifacts. How shall we
> call it?? No question about it, with necessarily and inevitably input
> borrowed from psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists, who
> exclusively study the human being and human agency.
>
> Again, I understand and entirely agree with your point of view and
> development, but I do not agree with your only focus on humans. In the
> issue of our concern, that of artifacts 'embodying' or making, in order to
> 'perform' better, we humans delegate or expand our agency into those
> artifacts we make. Certain animals do the same, at a certain lower level.
> But this is not our concern here, neither we are biologists nor
> veterinarians!
>
> Also, as said in my previous post, the issue of animism is another topic
> for other exchange, in a non-designers forum.
> From this corner of the world, I can also elaborate on this!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> François
>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
