JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  July 2015

PHD-DESIGN July 2015

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

FW: About old and new ideas

From:

Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:14:04 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (46 lines)

Dear colleagues, I got a message that my recent email has been blocked by some censoring systems. I deleted old reference mails and post the message again.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lubomir Savov Popov 
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 11:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: About old and new ideas

Hi Don,

Keith's post instigated a new reading of your previous post. At first, I took your text at face value and completely agreed with it. Citing something 30 years old? No way. Ten years max. However, Keith has a point. In philosophy, they go back a century and still cannot find anything better. We got too much influenced by the computer fields where six months might be a long time. And in architectural design, three years might be the limit for sifting through trade magazines.

The age of ideas is important. There are always newer developments, new findings, new kinds of discourses. All that accumulates and makes us richer. But does it? Does it accumulate? Many new development ignore previous achievements in order to boost bigger contributions. Everyone wants to be the first, to make something new, and to start a new line of thought. 

In some cases, the old stuff is subpar; wrong, and even abusive. But in many cases, the new stuff is ridiculous; or just repackaging of the "old" staff. In many cases large groups of people suddenly change direction and rush into new thematic areas, embrace new discourses and paradigmatic developments, and engage in research that is the fad of the day. Many old thematic circles remain in their infancy, disregarded, and underdeveloped. And actually, those ideas might have much higher heuristic potential than the new ones. But the fad is taking the upper hand; people want to talk the new discourse, and the funding agencies fuel this as well. 

It is really sad to see new ideas that are compromised, illogical, trivial, and political. It is sad because that is a step back or a step away. I fully support experimentation with new discourses and epistemologies; I am patiently waiting to see their development, to test their heuristic potential. In some cases I enjoy the new developments; in other cases I am frustrated by scholarly liberties that are tantamount to incompetence and scam. 

Some research domains emerge with fanfares, grow for a decade, then stale, and finally remain undeveloped monuments of past enthusiasm. In my humble opinion, this is the situation with "Environment and Behavior Studies." The field started in the 1960s with great expectations. It was the fad of the day. Everyone hoped that this is the panacea for a better and user-friendly architecture. The field started developing its own theories and methods. There were interesting achievements in the 1970s. Then came a stalemate. No more theory. Just field research on various topics, data collection, and joggling with statistics. At the end of 1980s the community put together a handbook with theoretical developments that were just elaborations of the 1970s ideas. And after that things started subsiding, changing, going in many different directions. New paradigms and discourses were adopted. They brought new topics and thematic circles, pushing the initial ideas away. The new fads bring new information, but not the information needed to develop the theory of the field. The new scholars were influenced by developments in other fields that had a very different logic and way of thinking. In this situation, citing theoretical treatise from the 1970s is unavoidable. However, it is also sad because this is an indication for the failure of the field.

So, the new is not always the best, nor even the better. History of philosophy shows that very clearly. Not everything new in philosophy is better than the old. It is just like in architectural design. There are thousands of attempts to create new architecture, but only a handful actually make it and influence architectural designers around the world. And the old Modernism is still alive and kicking, long after the architectural demise of Postmodernism. This is a good example how one new development (Postmodernism) was celebrated as exceptional, only to go away after 15 years on the architectural stage. 

So, I would not mind 40 years old references if they are advancing great ideas that were not developed at their time and that were forgotten for some reason. There is value in such ideas. There is value in resurrecting such ideas and comparing them to the competing ideas. Tell me in what way the rhizome is better than the system? Is it helping us understand complexity and change better than the system? Does it have a better developed conceptual apparatus? Does it have a better operationalization for application in practical matters (design and engineering of any kind)? Does it overcome the shortcomings of system thinking? Or we just compare one new idea with (assumed) great potential to the worst examples of an old idea (the system)? 

Systems thinking can be very mechanical and linear, but it can also take the shape of a multilayered, multifaceted, multidirectional, self-learning and flexible conceptual structure. What is the advantage of the rhizome? That if promises more -- a more agile way of thinking, more flexibility, and better response to high dynamic situations. And have we seen the rhizomatic thinking in action? What will happen when it is concretized to the level of practice thinking? I am eagerly waiting to see that. I am not rejecting the rhizome concept, but also, I am not putting time to develop it. And, I am not sure how it is better than the system, at least at this time. Just claiming that everything is connected to everything is not enough. Besides, it is an old systems talk adapted for humanitarians. That is the truth. In some way, it is interesting to see how communities that cannot stand each other learn from each other and borrow from each other. But, in either cases, they would not acknowledge that and will vehemently critics the very ideas they have used to develop their new beliefs. 

The rhizome idea comes from a completely different paradigm than the systems idea. The two paradigms produce very different discourses that do not interface, do not communicate with each other, and do not respect each other. People schooled in systems thinking would not like to read deconstructivist philosophy that makes the foundation for understanding the concept of rhizome. And the humanitarians hate to think about systems because this is far from the humanitarian rationality, way of conceptualization, and preferred lexicology. 

I appreciate one initiative about five years ago, started by Erik Stolterman. He was looking at the history of system thinking. It is important to go back and trace the evolution of systems thinking from its mechanistic beginnings to its post-positivist evolution. I don't reject Deconstruction. I just want to make a case that during the time we work to concretize Deconstructivist ideas, we need something else to use in practice. This might be something old that was not developed to its full potential. Something old that might help us work in the transitional period. Or, like the story of modernism in architecture, neosystems thinking might resurrect and function as a respected parallel methodology. This time somewhat different, accounting for previous mistakes, adapted much better to the new changing world. We should not forget that systems thinking was created when the world become too complex to be handled with previous methods. Systems thinking was a response to change, complexity, and multidirectionality. However, some people simplified it to the point of mechanistic calculations. And the systems community didn't do enough to adapt it to an even more complex and dynamic world that emerged in the 1960s. 

Just a few thoughts about the old and the new in science. Let's remember the adage that everything new is something old that was well forgotten and now resurrected in a new form. I do not support this adage, but very often, when I hear claims for new ways of thinking, I think about it. It is all about thinking and the phenomenon of thinking.

Best wishes,

Lubomir

Lubomir Popov, PhD, FDRS, IDEC, CSP
Professor, School of Family and Consumer Sciences, Bowling Green State University American Culture Studies affiliated faculty


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager