 |
 |
Hi Klaus, There is some advantage in seeing several different worlds of theory: 1. Theory as a communication between individuals with the focus on meaning and content. For example, the meanings of the equation y = ax**2 + bx +c 2. Theory as the written down formula y = ax**2 + bx +c, i.e with the focus on the 'written down' symbolic representation. 3. Theory qua theory, i.e the essential conceptual forms that underpin the possibility to use y = ax**2 + bx +c as a symbolic logic and in communication. 4. Theory as real world entities, aspects of whose behavior we might apply theory represented by y = ax**2 + bx +c (i.e real world theory instances) 5. Theory as imagined entities in which aspects of whose behavior we might apply theory represented by y = ax**2 + bx +c (i.e abstract world theory instances) 6. Theory as individual subjective understandings of types of theory 1 to 5 7. Theory as represented as 'mind' constructs of types of theory 1- 6 8. Biological/ethological representations of types of theory 1- 7. There are others... In each of these, many aspects can be most usefully understood by a range of perspectives. A problem is that because all of them have an aspect of discourse, it is tempting (if one is obsessed by discourse) to view all as being completely represented by a view of life in which discourse is placed central (i.e that discourse presents all necessary and sufficient conditions of explanation). Simialrly, for those involved in words, it can be tempting to make the false claim that 'thinking only occurs with words (or in language)' or for those who draw to claim that all is visual, or for those who mathematically model to claim that all can be represented by mathematics, for those that design to claim 'design is everything' etc These all involve machine ways of looking. For those obsessively habituated to using a particular machine, life is seen as that which is seen within the machine - shades of the Matrix. Best wishes, Terry -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2008 3:40 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: design as discourse thanks, gavin, for suggesting these distinctions. they are very much along my reading of the literature. a related concept which should be reflected on as well is terry's notion of design theory, which he contrasts with design discourse. to me, theory is a special kind of discursive form in which the speaker or theoretician takes the position of a spectator, describing a reality in terms of propositions. unless design theory embraces some propositions, it is an empty phrase. discourse allows for any stance (as in scientific discourse, psychiatric discourse, and design discourse). coming from the tradition of wittgenstein, i have characterized discourse as a systematically (perhaps also institutionally and purposively) constrained conversation. there are always multiple participants in interaction. to me design discourse produces objects, challenges existing realities, intervenes. klaus -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gavin Melles Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:43 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: design as discourse Hello listers It may pay in all this talk about design as discourse to separate out the different ways in which discourse might be used in relation to design rather than simply pulling in an admitteldy slippery term (discourse) and using it in all sorts of relations with design. Some ideas: Foucauldian discourse and the archaeology of knowledge uses a sense of discourse, e.g. medical discourse, psychaitric discourse, always in relation to insitutions, power ideology), and objects (which are formed and made available in certina ways to people). It is always helpful I've found to keep in mind this historical and insitutional dimension of discourse in Foucault's work. this is also tru in a differnt way for Bourdieu's work on habitus, field, etc, concepts which have value where insitutions are being examiend for the ways they work. Keeping this institutional and ideological sense in mind will limit the applications discourse might have to discussion design but it mght, for example, be used (as in cultural studies and other general fields inspired by Foucault's wrk) to look at the ideolgical function of designed objects in society and how they contribute to fashioning certain identities and exlcsing others etc. This as been developed some what by the Open University crowd (Stuart Hall etc) who use a very useful visual 'metaphor' of the circuit of culture to examine the role of designers, objects, etc. And see Guy Julier's bok on the culture of design. So this is one area where discourse in one sense might prove useful for exmaining how design works. There is a more linguistic sense of discourse, which has recently embraced the visual, which looks at the production and reproduction of society, objects, etc., on the basis of micro-analysis of text and image. This kind of discourse analysis can be useful for looking a how talk and representation of design is 'done' so to speak on a day to day basis. This micro analysis of discourse (text + image) is then used to connect to broader social and ideological contexts in different ways by people like James Gee, Norman Fairclough (the Lancaster crowd), etc., But the beginning of wisdom is the micro-analysis. So this is another sense of discourse which could prove useful (or not) to understanding how design functions. Some of the recent posts which talk about design as discourse appear to be proposing something like design being merely rhetorical - somewhat close the perhaps Derridean notion that the text is everything. While this kind of notion of design as discourse might pay off for cultural studies and for certain kinds of investigation of the power of style, design etc., it will exclude taking into consideration the material domain of design - and something like the social construction of technology seems to do a better job of keeping both the material, historical and discursive in play when looking at designed/engineered objects. Again, what I'm proposing is to consider again what we want from this notion of discourse in relation to design. What kind of work do we want it to do. There are different ways of scoping discourse as I suggest above) and some f these will have pay off for what design s rying to achieve. There is then no question of design as discourse being wrong or right or miscontrued - it is rater a question of clarifying what sens of discourse we are using and then looking at what we want to clarify if anything) in relation to design and then using the appropriate hammer, wrench or spanner (to paraphrase Witgenstein) to clarify the games that are played in the particualr form of life we want to know more about ----- Swinburne University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment. Please consider the environment before printing this email.