Kevin, et al --
I note with interest a current trend toward embracing ambiguity in the
U.S. It is limited, but definitely there, even if it seems (as usual)
most pronounced in the youngest generation.
Ambiguity in some things is still clearly a threat or cause for
display and comment of the "freak show" variety (see Josh Gamson, for
instance, "Freaks Talk Back" on gender, sexual orientation and trash
talk shows in the U.S.)
Yet Metrosexuals and others (including plastic-surgery befriended
older people whose ages defy prediction) seem to be countering this
trend.
Our preferred fashion models, for instance, are what some have
called "ethnically ambiguous" as is the individual who is the subject
of enormous buzz and deep speculation as a potential Democratic
Presidential candidate (a neighbor, in fact): Barack Obama.
As Eviatar Zerubavel writes in The Fine Line, "the rigid mind" eschews
categorical ambiguity and finds threat in things that are not
immediately categorized as "either/or." Religious orthodoxy, political
conservatism, but often also the Praxis of political radicals -- these
traditionally depend on categorical rigidity.
"The flexible mind," however, allows things to be both this and that,
to change over time, and to take time to sort out. Ambiguity is not a
threat so much as a challenge or invitation to engage and understand.
For anyone else who loves thinking about ambiguity (well, at least
some of the time) Don Levine's often-missed classic "Flight From
Ambiguity" is a must-read.
A number of my design students have found these works quite
provocative and stimulating for their work.
Best,
Chris
Christena Nippert-Eng, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
Illinois Institute of Technology
312-567-6812 (office)
312-567-6821 (fax)
http://www.iit.edu/~socsci/faculty/nippert-eng.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Hilton <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, November 20, 2006 3:34 am
Subject: Re: Gender 101 and design
> Dear Gunnar and All
>
> I believe the gender issue, specifically in terms of purchases and
> interactions, is very much led by social beliefs/anxieties over
gender
> ambiguity.
...> This comes back to a point I was trying to make in an earlier
post
> thatgendering seems to be an implicit form of sexism, which is a
> non-intuitive
> nonsense, feeding perceptions of ambiguity when labels are not
> clear. And
> yet for some individuals these labels clearly have value in defining
> identity and reducing anxieties (Douglas, 1966) within many
> cultures, but
> maybe not in Finland.
>
> Regards
>
> Kev
>
>
> Dr. Kev Hilton
> Director of Research
> The Centre for Design Research
> School of Design
> Squires Building
> Northumbria University
> Newcastle upon Tyne
> NE1 8ST
|