I follow with interest the discussion emerging from Anne Marie's announcement of the new Design Futures masters course. Having taught on these myself (MA Sustainable Design and BA Product Design Sustainable Futures at University College for the Creative Arts in the UK) I appreciate both its challenges and opportunities.
I agree with what I sense others are implying--that 'sustainability' as a frame appears to offer design the platform from which to make these very links into systems thinking and social science theories and methods. As mentioned (or implied?) by others, tackling sustainability points to both planetary ecological systems and, in cultural sustainability terms, social systems that are typically understood through the disciplines of economics, psychology, sociology or anthropology and in terms such as production and consumption, identity, networks, social movements and so on.
As for the lack of institutional means for exploring sustainability (or 'futures') relations between design and social sciences (Clive's lament as I understand it) I would agree that few exist explicitly in design terms. But there are several factors to consider here:
- the area is hugely interdisciplinary.
- futures/transformative societal solutions are unlikely to emerge in forms that we initially recognize, indeed despite a few 'neat-o' physical prototypes, solutions are likely to involve some political and economic shifts that will be seen as threatening or risky --in other words they'll involve struggle.
- designers in practice are (stereotypically) politics-averse, client-led problem solvers who accept as a given their role dedicated to the private sector.
-although some transformative solutions will surely emerge from within the private sector, the scope for these solutions is typically limited to profit making requirements, meaning that many crucial sustainability objectives won't be well-addressed (if addressed at all) in the private sector.
In this case, is a design-centered institution the best institutional means? Or should designers look to other institutions that excel in some of the areas of 'struggle' or social sciences of interest, and join forces with them? I have not resolved it in my own mind. How does design reconcile its role as servant to commercial clients and their users with its potential role as transformative change agent and societal leader (read public service/not-for-profit sectors of the economy)? Does it have to? Will it remain primarily a 'change agent for hire'?
Returning to the new course in Design Futures and others like it, how we answer these questions has tremendous implications for how we instruct our MA students -- Do they put into practice their fantastic futurizing capabilities if and only if someone hires them to (the conventional hired problem solver model)? Or are they equipped with a strategy not just for 'futures design' but also for how to position themselves within the economy so that they can actually apply it? I see few if any courses addressing this latter problem realistically. In my own research the broader issues as well as the course-specific ones concern the shape and dimensions of design activism.
Regards,
Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
Contact: Dept. of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
+44 (0) 1908 653568
Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London,
Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, UK
see also my book : The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (Island Press, 2007) http://www.designers-atlas.net & blog http://designactivism.net
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|