 |
 |
Dear Susan You have brought an important aspect for discussion on the list and I agree with you that the work of Latour and that of Fry are deeply interesting if we are to understand the various dimensions of design. Latour in my view exhibits a profound understanding of design and I was hugely impressed by his paper "A Cautius Prometheus?" to the Design History congress in 2008 and I have since been following his writings and I discover more insights of great value as it draws me deeper.. <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.in/search/label/Bruno%20Latour> Design is complex and we need to look at it from many angles and perspectives as I have mentioned earlier and there can be many positions, all of which could be true and valuable. There is not one correct answer. Wicked indeed. With warm regards M P Ranjan from my iMac at home on the nID campus 16 August 2012 at 11.00 pm IST ------------------------------------------------------------- *Prof M P Ranjan* *Design Thinker and author of blog - www.Designforindia.com<http://design-for-india.blogspot.com/> * E8 Faculty Housing National Institute of Design Paldi Ahmedabad 380 007 India Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054 email: ranjanmp@g <[log in to unmask]>mail.com <[log in to unmask]>web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp <http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp>web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in <http://www.ranjanmp.in/>blog: <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com> education blog: <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com> education blog: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com <http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com/> ------------------------------------------------------------ On 15 August 2012 19:57, Susan Stewart <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Terry, Ken, MP and other list-dwellers, > > I seem to have touched a nerve! > > My suggestion was that a blurring of the distinction between agency and > intention is not helpful in discussing ANT. > > Agency and intention can be discussed separately. Wind and water are > agents of erosion. As agents, they effect change. > > The kind of agency that Latour is interested in, however, is not that of a > single actor (like wind or water or a person), but that of clusters of > actors that, together, give sufficient weight to a particular direction (or > disposition) to make that direction (or disposition) influential in some > way. Some of the actors that contribute to the establishment of a > disposition or direction may be human, but many will be non-human. These > latter will include the material and the immaterial, the animate and the > inanimate, the designed and the un-designed. To the extent that humans are > influential within a particular actor-network, intentions may play a role; > however a focus on intentions may lead us to discount the other actors that > are at play. It was for this reason I suggested that a blurring of the > distinction between agency and intention might not be helpful in discussing > Latour's work. This is not to suggest that it is not important that we be > well intentioned in what we do. > > Questions of ethics are important, and Latour's work is provocative in the > way it reconfigures such questions. > > Latour is often playful in tone, but the possibilities that he opens up > for reading the world in ways other than those that we have become used to, > are more than refreshing; they suggest completely new ways of thinking > about the relations between humans, technologies and nature. These > conversations are never closed. Every stimulating thinker provokes > discussions that move beyond his or her initial positions. > > It was not my intention to be either explaining or defending Latour (or, > for that matter, Fry - who I have a great respect for) to the list. There > are others whom I am sure are better placed to do that. Nor was it my > intention to conflate Latour and Fry - I hope that was clear in my initial > post. They are different voices within a complex terrain of post-humanist > thought. > > I hope there are some of you, who like me, find this territory to be of > interest in relation to design. > > Cheers, Susan > > > Susan Stewart B.Arch, PhD > Senior Lecturer in Design > School of Design, Faculty of DAB > University of Technology Sydney > Susan Stewart B.Arch, PhD > Senior Lecturer in Design > School of Design, Faculty of DAB > University of Technology Sydney > > ________________________________________ > From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related > research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ranjan MP [ > [log in to unmask]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:07 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Activity Theory and ANT and computers are capable of design? > > Dear Ken > > Your arguments are sound and well grounded in reason and scholarship. > > Designer, Design and the Designed objects or offerings as in services and > rules etc and the concept of "Agency" will all need to be seen in the > context of another concept that has been proposed by George Soros and that > is "Reflexivity" (as applied to financial and economic areas) and I tend to > think that this is perhaps what makes design such a powerful "political" > force after all. Here "Agency" would be from sociology, philosophy and > ethics – as we can see from the wiki definitions below > Sociology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(sociology)> > Philosophy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)> > Moral <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency> > and > Reflexivity a la Soros - from financial and economic fields > < > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Reflexivity.2C_financial_markets.2C_and_economic_theory > > > > It is other humans in the prevailing context who act on the design and the > designed thing and make it valuable or a disaster – beyond the imagination > and the intention of the designer – value bumps far beyond the intrinsic > value of the material and its various configurations – unpredictable but > real. Suddenly, there is a huge value bump that could soar far above > expectations as in a fashion movement or trend or in the runaway success of > a bestseller product, at least for the time being. Design is a human > activity that begins with intentions and the results of design are shaped > and acted upon by the prevailing context and new and unintended but perhaps > hoped for results may or may not ensue. Scarcity, inflation, and value all > follow from these relations. > > Now, what about computers? What about automated trading algorithms that can > make or break a market without any reference to the fundamentals of the > underlying asset? It is all getting very complicated at a very high speed > and we will need to look closely at some of these designed situations and > services to fathom the consequences of our designed offerings. Can we make > the mission of creating responsible designer in education something that > would include the processing and anticipation of these outcomes as part of > the design process? Perhaps this is why I called my course at NID "Design > Concepts and Concerns" - It is not just about design thinking – but also > about being sensitive to all forms of outcomes including climate change and > human conflicts that could ensue as a consequence of our expert actions. I > called it the Avalanche Effect, but not may takers for this concept it > seems. see this post on my blog Design for India for more about this. > < > > http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.in/2012/07/evolution-of-dcc-course-at-nid.html > > > > With warm regards > > M P Ranjan > from my iMac at home on the NID campus > 15 August 2012 at 3.35 pm IST > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > *Prof M P Ranjan* > *Design Thinker and author of blog - > www.Designforindia.com<http://design-for-india.blogspot.com/> > * > E8 Faculty Housing > National Institute of Design > Paldi > Ahmedabad 380 007 India > > Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054 > email: ranjanmp@g <[log in to unmask]>mail.com > > <[log in to unmask]>web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp > <http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp>web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in > <http://www.ranjanmp.in/>blog: <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com> > education blog: <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com> > education blog: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com > <http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com/> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 15 August 2012 13:22, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Dear Susan, > > > > The noun “agency” has within it a kind of ambiguity that is not always > > clear. It is one thing to speak of “agency” as the positive capacity of > > ethical responsibility in making decisions. It is another to speak of > > “agency” in the sense that agency is the embodied but not purposive > ability > > to act in carrying out decisions. > > > > While machines may well have agency in the second sense, they do not have > > agency in the first sense. > > > > In the second sense, Tony Fry is right to suggest that “that designed > > things have an agency in excess of the agency we intend them to have.” If > > that is what he means by agency, then it is possible to speak of “the > > agency of non-human (and, specifically, designed) things.” > > > > If, however, he means that designed things have ethical responsibility, > > I’d disagree. I understand the argument, but it seems to me incorrect. > > > > There are several ways to describe the problem. While “designed things > > have an agency in excess of the agency we intend them to have,” we can > also > > describe this as the unintended consequences of the designers who design > > those designed things. The designers remain responsible. > > > > To go beyond this, suggesting that designed things are themselves > > responsible seems to me an argument that does not bear discussion outside > > the frame of a thought experiment. > > > > If we can ascribe agency to designed things in the sense of ethical > > responsibility, then one could argue that the gas chambers and the > > railroads had as much responsibility for the Holocaust as the Nazis did. > > > > It is precisely this kind of argument around ANT that troubles me. I’m > > prepared to accept ANT arguments for how things work in systems. I’m > > troubled by the strong sense of the argument. To say that “post-humanist > > approaches to thinking about agency challenge the assumption that human > > agency is independent of non-human agencies.” > > > > Human beings may get things wrong and often do. Only ethically > responsible > > agents can take responsibility for improvements. Since designed things > > carry on as they are designed to do, they cannot take responsibility for > > improvements. The essence of design remains acting to create a preferred > > future state by solving problems, meeting needs, improving situations, or > > creating something new or useful. > > > > Yours, > > > > Ken > > > > Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished > > Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design |Swinburne University of Technology | > > Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto: > > [log in to unmask]> | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 | Faculty > > www.swinburne.edu.au/design<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> > > > > -- > > > > Susan Stewart wrote: > > > > —snip— > > > > Perhaps the difference between agency and intention is being blurred in > > what has been said about the insights that ANT can bring to thinking > about > > design. > > > > Post-humanist approaches to thinking about agency challenge the > assumption > > that human agency is independent of non-human agencies. The approach to > > understanding action and change that is forwardedwithin ANT is one that > > treats human and non-human actors as symmetrical (ieequally significant). > > Non-human actors not only have agency, but also act on us. Our intentions > > (among other things) are shaped by the agency of non-humans. > > > > Tony Fry’s conception of ‘ontological design’ similarly recognises the > > agency of non-human (and, specifically, designed) things. He emphasises > > that designed things have an agency in excess of the agency we intend > them > > to have. The unforseen ways in which the designed things that we bring > into > > the world re-shape that world, need to be recognised as being at least as > > significant (probably more significant) than the foreseen and intended > ways > > in which they re-shape the world. > > > > Fry and Latour belong to slightly different intellectual traditions, but > > both are heirs to the critique of the Cartesian distinction between > subject > > and object. This critique, which is central to Heidegger’s work, > underpins > > the diverse conversations of continental philosophy during the second > half > > of the 20th century. > > > > Personally, I find these insights to be of enormous importance in > relation > > to thinking about design. > > > > —snip— > > > > UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F > DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may > contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, > distribute or copy this message or > attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the > sender immediately and delete > this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the > individual sender, except where the > sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the > University of Technology Sydney. > Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. > > Think. Green. Do. > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > --