 |
 |
Hi Juris, This is interesting to me. > Shore and Wright speak of "discourses as > configurations of ideas which provide the threads from which > ideologies are woven". So then what are the ideologies being woven by > or through the idea of design? One ideology seems to reflect design as implied "good" (a problem that I think Gunnar points out when he asks if design is always innovative -- " I find it particularly troublesome when any group tries to define its field as an honorific". 6.13.2008) But I wonder, do you think that ideologies are inescapable arenas through which designers and others act, or can they be filters that must be explicitly acknowledged so that we are not trapped in those perspectives? Personally, I wonder if the human condition ultimately traps us in ideological perspectives even as we protest that we are not. Thanks, Susan On 6/15/08 1:12 PM, "Juris Milestone" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > It may be useful to think of "design" as a "mobilizing metaphor" - > here I borrow from Shore and Wright's book, Anthropology of Policy and > their discussion of language in governance and power. "Mobilizing > metaphors become the centre of a cluster of keywords whose meaning > extend and shift while previous associations with other words are > dropped. Their mobilizing effect lies in their capacity to connect > with, and appropriate, the positive meanings and legitimacy derived > from other key symbols..." (p.20) > > So the idea of design draws from a history of changing meanings (many > of which come from outside the professions that lay official claim to > the idea), and they'll continue to change, even though certain > clusters of meaning will gain dominance and acceptance (at least > momentarily!). Design currently is associated with positive elements > of commerce (those that generally invoke a positive valence on > "progress"), like "innovation", "creativity", "services", "improving > the human condition" , "development", "planning", "production", > "engineering", "insight", "thoughtful", "synthesis", "realization", > "wicked problems" (which presumably in their best case produce wicked > solutions, or more wicked problems, or at least "learning"), > "adaptive", "functional", "inter_multi_trans_meta_and so on", and this > list is already annoyingly long for an email, but painfully short of > being an adequate list. > > I think Bourdieu's "field of practice" and Foucault's "discourses" are > very appropriate here. It is the "politics of discursive > practices" (Grillo), and who has the power to define, that becomes > most important. The notion of the "democratization of design" also > becomes interesting here. Does the definition accepted by the masses > bear upon the "real" definition of design? Ultimately, perhaps, the > power of the idea of design rests in it's ability to escape > definition. Rather, it's mission is to coalesce elements of many > different positive notions or ideas, or discourses, into a technology > of organization and change. Shore and Wright speak of "discourses as > configurations of ideas which provide the threads from which > ideologies are woven". So then what are the ideologies being woven by > or through the idea of design? > > Juris Milestone > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Susan M. Hagan Ph.D., MDes Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213