At 02:39 -0500 6.12.2001, Rosan Chow wrote:
>And what happens if designers DON'T want to "manifest, challenge, defend, and
>possibly change..."?

Designers are individuals, or even individualists. Some will, and
most will not. The market is not asking for responsibility - it wants
profit.

Unfortunately, profit is - according to current laws and the designs
of the economy - most of the time incompatible with responsibility in
the deep sense, in the short term. (but responsibility to direct
customers, to society as in following existing regulations,... yes.)

In the long term, responsibility will become accommodated, because
things like environmental etc. damage, which result from
irresponsibility, must begin to be included in the system, because
people will want that, and that happens through new rules and costs
that make it uneconomic to produce more of them - at least here
(wherever here is).

But in this phase, a LOT of profit has already been made, and those
who did it got away with it, and those who tried to be responsible,
got bitter because they were beat in the competition. And,
unfortunately, the production of profit then moves to a new place
which does not have those new rules yet. But eventually, there are
less and less of those places.

While this process takes place, the profit keeps accumulating
somewhere, and most likely not around those designers who not only
think responsible but also act so. So there is not a very strong
demand for this stuff until we can show that the long term is really
a short term, and we'll all be better off if we (people in general)
start being responsible already today and design the rules of the
economy accordingly - because then we could have all that profit that
we otherwise will see going to irresponsible design, be invested into
responsible design.

So in the end, it's all about the beliefs people have. Science is
still arguing whether there is global warming going on, as if that
discussion would somehow be significant. Everyone who thinks about it
seriously can see that we live in a completely unsustainable way.
What is significant is not how soon we should be at 1990 levels of
carbon blah blah, but instead that we need a complete redesign of the
economic system to move out of subsidizing pollution into encouraging
sustainable processes. Then we would get an "invisible hand" to take
us into a better future. For starters.

This kind of stuff is not what science deals with very well. Design
could get into this, but designers are not used to designing economic
systems, nor do they play roles in places where they are designed
today.



>Are these challenges/responsibilities considered imposing?

So what to do, if I am a designer considering my role in society, and
the challenges, and the extent of my sense of responsibilty, and what
I should do with my life?

Well...I understand that everyone can't get into the "change the
world" project. To push for that would be imposing.

But it is important to try to establish a personal view in order to
put things in perspective. Designers (all people, but designers
probably need to be more sensitive to this) should be exposed to the
idea that they must consider their responsibility in a large sense,
but then they simply need to do their best, and they can't be
expected to do more.

There is light in the end of the tunnel, but more people need to get
beyond the paralysis and see that their individual contributions in
their own field can be helpful. If one has a better sense of what is
going on, one can at least avoid supporting the destruction, and give
as much of one's contribution to increasing the success of the
construction. (How important is money and wealth for our designer? It
will be easier to make money if she thinks that she can't really
influence the world anyway.)

The challenges and demand for responsibility is hard because the
system is very much against you. I do not advocate the idea that
people should live against the system and make their lives even
harder, but instead that they would try to change the system wherever
possible and most efficient. At the same time they need to, and have
a right to, live satisfying lives.

There are many ways how the system makes it hard. I am not talking
about profit because there would be something wrong with profit, or
because I believe that designers decide what to do based on profit. I
want to use that as a simplified indicator of what the system is
seeking. As the economy is configured to focus on maximizing very
short term profit, this has consequences everywhere, which affect the
decisions designers must make about their professional opportunities
and directions.

Designs for good stuff well done often can't be financed and most
people can't afford it. On the other hand, most of the stuff designed
and produced probably shouldn't be; but as it is, someone is offered
a job to design it. It is easier to make profit from marketing stuff
that people do not need than from making the world a better place for
all of us. A lot of responsibility feelings are channeled into making
the ride to a hot place more enjoyable. Even more than material
design, this applies to media. Unfortunately, they distract most
people so that they merely complain about the seats and service in
the train but do not realize that they actually don't want to reach
the destination.


>And what may happen to the field of design if these babies are not
>wanted? I mean may the babies be adopted by some other fields or may
>the babies be abandoned?

The field of design can grow into a significant force in society,
much beyond its current impact. But if the designers and the design
institutions do not decide to have such babies, the pressure will
find a way to channel the energy somewhere else.

I believe that if we (humankind) does not find the ways soon in a
good way, evolution will push us against the wall. Eventually, the
solutions out of the current and growing mess will be based on
responsible, smart, fair, diversity respecting design, as opposed to
laissez faire. These babies are conceived in loving relationships,
and appreciated by society*.

The most influential designs will be in fields which are quite new
for old institutions of design, but the design expertise - and the
ability to educate people in it - will be worth its embodied (in
sensemaking, responsibility conscious, multidisciplined designers)
weight in gold also in those fields.

Kari-Hans

(*In that society, babies are not abandoned. We all "know" and
"believe" that children are our future, but still we act in many ways
against their well being and interests, because society, and
especially the economy, is serving exclusively the short term. Our
children will have many unpleasant things to say to us about this 30
years from now.)