Ken, Dori, Prof. Ranjan et. al.
Well, I'm glad I asked -- an informative and thought-provoking
discussion, revealing quite a few frames of reference. I agree with the
notion that government practices and policies can benefit from and in
many cases are in need of good design. I had not really considered the
general notion of "national design policies" and those for developing
countries. I'm mainly interested in this national design policy in this
country at this time. Here are a few more thoughts from my frame of
reference--social movements/activism.
Many commentators accepted that limiting the participation and the scope
had to be done out of pragmatism. And Jean hypothesizes that centering
design policy on the economy gains better buy-in from politicians. But
I'm not sure of these two points. With so many competing concerns facing
government, any effort to change policy needs some sort of strategic
mechanism working for it. While such mechanisms could possibly be
structural (e.g. the "fashion" for national innovation policies), I tend
to see them more in terms of agency.
At the risk of oversimplifying, in America we seem to have several main
mechanisms for policy change, including industry lobbying, formal
"collective action" through voting, and informal social sector
collective action, where individuals and organizations form social
movements on issues such as civil rights, environmental protection or
affordable housing. When I look at the National Design Policy I'm not
sure I see any of these mechanisms in place yet. I also wonder if the
policy group may have overlooked opportunities to reinterpret existing
policy.
Historically within architectural design there has been another
mechanism for policy change by the name of Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, who worked his own convictions about design into policy that
later became the GSA's design excellence program. But I don't know of
any contemporary Senator Moynihans.
The problem of aligning design policy proposals with a mechanism for
attaining policy change confronts members of a policy group with the
following questions... are they working on behalf of the greater good as
activists who should form a broad social movement that extends beyond
the design professions? Or are they furthering opportunities for design
by acting as an industry lobby that should form industry associations
and hire lobbyists. Can these two very different agendas be reconciled
in some sort of hybrid "social movement/industry lobby"? Jean's comments
also seem to raise this question. Design is sometimes compared with the
parallel service professions in medicine and law, and one wonders if
policy efforts in those arenas would shed light on this question.
Social movement politics constitute a sort of organic process and
typically take a lot of low budget tactical work and time because the
objective is to build power within the movement to demand and win the
desired change. As activist Michael Gecan has noted, power typically
arises either from organized people or organized money. Industry
lobbying seems expensive and streamlined, but perhaps, when built on
relationships, isn't that much more rapid. In terms of this national
design policy in this country at this time, perhaps what is missing is a
conceptual model of the mechanism for getting from A (proposals) to B
(policy changes). Similar problems of getting from A to B plague many
other causes that go through efforts for policy change. In addition to
looking to the lessons of other design policies, it might also be useful
to look to the lessons of other "movement" efforts to bring about policy
change.
On the other hand, do we need new policy or can we reinterpret existing
policy? This is where a hybrid social movement/industry lobby could
work. Having spent three years working in local government (Washington
state) in a "design facing" position, I was frequently involved in
interpreting policy to create programs that would accomplish policy
goals--around solid waste and recycling in my case. Although the policy
didn't say anything about "design," in the hands of me and my colleagues
it had a distinct design dimension, particularly the transformative
power of design with respect to "waste."
Proactive and creative interpretation at the local level can influence
state level approaches, and in large states like California, state
actions have driven national policy, for example on appliance efficiency
standards and procurement policies. So another approach would be to work
strategically with state and local governments to develop some
innovative policy interpretations that are then "scaled up".
How would a design policy group pursue movement politics, build a broad
movement? (I assume here that willing designers alone do not constitute
the numbers for a movement.) As Jean suggests, one would invite other
stakeholders into the process, for example by identifying design
elements as located in specific social sectors, such as:
- public health: there's evidence that many "medical" problems, such as
obesity, hypertension and depression, could actually be well addressed
by improving the design of the built environment.
- aging: for western societies to successfully support their aging
populations, there's evidence that design, from robotics to smart houses
to pill bottles, will play a major role.
- education: although design's role is potentially transformative, its
role is undervalued because most educators don't see design of space as
a variable in learning, and to date there is little data.
- security: the struggle to preserve the open, "democratic" quality of
public life while defending against potential terrorism has prompted
useful design responses, from emergency response equipment to landscape
and building design.
These are just a few areas where a great deal of government policy and
funding activities exist. In all of these cases, great design is
necessary but not sufficient. So working with these existing movements
could help them recognize and articulate the value of design and
formulate more actionable policy directions.
On my blog Katherine Hepworth suggested that the National Design Policy
proposals "appear to be introducing design to members of the senate in a
fundamental way." This suggests the idea of a policy briefing about the
wide-ranging benefits of design, with respect to improving the practices
of government as well as achieving policy goals in ways that government
might not have anticipated. Presented to members of congress in person
by a wide range of stakeholders, would it potentially create some new
Senator Moynihans? Would it, through broadly placed open calls for
projects, be a starting point from which to form a movement?
From my social movement perspective I don't agree with Dori that if the
effort to create an American design council fails, "then all efforts for
a US design policy will fail as well." If anything I perhaps see the
opposite, if efforts (policy and otherwise) to improve the role of
design in governance and society succeed, the culmination might be a
hard-earned US design council. But without considering some mechanisms
for change, we risk not being able to improve the role for design in the
civic realm.
However, the challenges are certainly big no matter what your frame of
reference.
Best,
Ann
Ann Thorpe
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
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
my book : The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (Island Press, 2007)
www.designers-atlas.net
& blog http://designactivism.net
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
|
