When we talk about change...
(An english version can be found after the Chinese... Notion helped me with translation and I corrected a few places too.)
在昨天Dorst的keynote speech裡，Dorst用哥白尼提出日心說（as in Copernican Turn)來舉例變革之難。哥白尼的理論得以被大眾接受，卻是得益於“拜日教”的Kepler出於信仰的研究。在評論這種“三觀不合但的確有用”的幫忙時，Dorst說了下面這句整個speech裡面讓我印象最深的一段話。
“If it works, it works. Doesn’t matter why people actually make the jump, as long as they make the jump. The good design always gets what are people actually thinking now, how can you understand that and how can you help them make that jump to think about these things.”
這種實用性體現在Dorst演講和點評的方方面面。比如他提到荷蘭項目中非常複雜的nature vs. farming的尖銳矛盾，以及在空間、社會、政治上多層次的複雜性。這樣的問題如何給出“解決方案”？Prof Dorst給出的答案是在矛盾各方的價值層面尋找共同點，最後落在一個詞“Vitality”上，然後圍繞這個詞建立”學習循環“ learning cycle, 看起來更像是一個institutionalised action research mechanism，把professional world和society通過doing and reflection連接起來。這能解決政府提出的nature vs. farming的問題嗎？未必。但這個過程同時也會提供更多對這個問題的理解、讓決策者自主發現問題的不切實際、或者提供更多的frame問題的方式。
從某個角度來說，Dorst還沒出版的新書的題目Creating space for deep change，跟我的human nature encounter是有一點相似的。有contact zone，才有機會暴露系統之間不同的邏輯和假設。這些假設不僅是看待和理解（make sense）世界不同的方式，他們也在這個世界以某種方式共存。就好像農業耕作以及架構其上的農民的時間分配、村莊的娛樂活動與祭祀、供應鏈的活躍程度及匹配，都會與這個時間線所匹配（coupling），不同價值的理解並不是要尋求consensus甚至homogentization，而是在boundary的negotiation和translation（這一點又想起了Anna Tsing在mushroom和friction兩本書裡精彩的詮釋）。
對這個講座的欣賞，很多可能來自於很少會有人這麼深入理解變革的難度，各個機構和系統從政府公司到自然界不同的時間維度，人行為和思維模式改變的不受控性和非理性。從某個角度說，“解決問題”本身常常可能是一種不切實際的期望。紙面上的解決方式，“因為”-“所以”不難做到。但現實生活常常在看不到的地方要麼打臉，要麼以其他看不到的方式展現，導致更大的不公。
如果用兩個詞總結Dorst的中心思想，我會說是halfway（借用Barad的Meeting the universe halfway)和condition.
Halfway代表的是不同角度之間的common ground，好像boundary object這個概念一樣，能夠讓不同的人哪怕以不同的詮釋都能夠找到感興趣的角度並展開討論。在farming的案例裡，vitality這個詞在雙方之間構建了基本的信任。能夠找到這個halfway point並把它用“誘人的”方式呈現出來，是需要對雙方深入的理解和一點天份的。這並不只是創造一個buzz word，而是能夠獲得雙方信任、開啟對話的基礎。在反思我自己的研究的時候，覺得雖然做了很多思考，但在這個“向下”或者向外延伸的動作還是做的遠遠不夠。if it works, it works。任何好的intention都需要解決現實的問題和關注才能被接受，在學術界也是一樣的道理。
而condition，更像是一種允許兩種系統展開長期structural coupling的架構，可能是某種流程和循環（比如前面講到的learning cycle，或者某種committee；以及Dorst對於設計學院“Lab-Academy-Podium-Temple“的設想），物理的空間，多元化、藝術化的形式(比如他提到了一個項目利用theatre作為雙方溝通的方式)，也可能是跨越系統的個體(比如在nature vs farming的項目中，他們挖掘了幾個從非務農進入農業的個體案例；在演講裡也用到了Amar Bose貫通學術和實踐/商業的案例）。
但最後我還是有幾個待解決的疑問，有待繼續思考和探索
關於theory和practice的關係，決定了學院的基本定位。（在這裏深深的感受到古典哲學底子太差）如果考慮可能的幾個選項，
選項A：transcendental，理論才是世界的實質 (abstract but true) （哲學家）
選項B：representational，理論是世界的抽象模型幫助我們解釋和理解（科學家）
選項C：理論和實踐是平等的對話夥伴，intellectual和practical/material各司其職，互相交流。現實為理論添磚加瓦甚至更迭朝代（Thomas Kuhn），而理論為現實提供想像和可能性。
提出reflexive methodology的mat alvesson一定屬於C，但更偏重於前一半即現實對理論的challenge與創新貢獻。而Dorst的想法似乎更偏向後者，即理論為現實提供想像和可能性，這些可能性的實驗會引導現實提出新的問題。
當我們講到theory的時候，我們到底在說什麼theory？是科學理論(基於empiricism，但也有對世界的物化及objectivity等各種假設），還是humanities的理論，他們所基於的假設又是什麼？這一點似乎在討論相關問題時引起相當大的誤會。
我自己研究方向，在好幾個Dorst提到的framework中都可以找到自己的位置。比如
在他提出的Academic discussion <→ model <→ practice中，我自己應該也是在從academic discussion發現想法，構建model，供practitioner用新的方式去實踐（這個實踐者是誰在我的情況下也需要仔細考慮，是entrepreneur, CEO還是designer)
在deframe-framing experiment - strategic intervention/the studio的流程中，可以看做我是在deframe and reframe sustainability，然後通過experiment的方式提議新的intervention。如果從這個角度往下想，下一步的intervention不能只停留在walk，而要把movement、process的概念放入其他設計中，比如spatial design，sound design，interaction design，graphic design，或者甚至可以重新想像sustainability的項目，以不同的視角會怎樣？這個方面需要再看一些more than human design的具體內容。
講座後的Critic幫助我理出了在現在這個階段我對研究最簡短的總結，也就是multiplicity of nature, and the non-linear consequences of this understanding in living and organizing. Professor McWhinnie所謂的clarity。但每次達到這樣的clarity又會有一種自我懷疑——這是不是太簡單了？以及在這個簡短介紹中，我關於practice在change project中的重要性似乎又被淡化甚至排除了。。。
During yesterday's keynote speech by Dorst, he used the example of Copernicus proposing the heliocentric theory to illustrate the difficulty of change. The acceptance of Copernicus' theory by the public was thanks to Kepler's research out of faith in "Sun Worship". When commenting on this kind of "disagreeable but indeed useful" help, Dorst said the following sentence in his speech that impressed me the most.
"If it works, it works. Doesn’t matter why people actually make the jump, as long as they make the jump. Good design always gets what people are actually thinking now, how can you understand that and how can you help them make that jump to think about these things.”
This practicality is reflected in every aspect of Dorst's speech and comments. For example, he mentioned the very complex “nature vs. farming” issue in the Dutch project, as well as the multi-layered complexity in physical space, society, and politics. How to give a "solution" to such a problem? Prof Dorst's answer is to find common ground in the values of the conflicting parties, finally falling on the word "Vitality", and then building a "learning cycle" around this word, which looks more like an institutionalised action research mechanism, connecting the professional world and society through doing and reflection. Can this solve the nature vs. farming problem proposed by the government? Not necessarily. But this process will also provide more details and nuanced understanding of this problem, allowing decision-makers to discover on their own the impracticality of the problem, or provide more ways to frame the problem.
From a certain perspective, the title of Dorst's unpublished new book, Creating Space for Deep Change, is somewhat similar to my human nature encounter. With contact zones, there is a chance to expose different logics and assumptions between systems. These assumptions are not only different ways of viewing and understanding (making sense) the world that abstractly and intellectually exist, they also co-exist - sharing the same time and space - in the world in some way. Just like seasons in nature corresponds to the time allocation of farmers, village recreational activities and rituals, as well as seasonality of supply chains, thinks in different worlds can adjust to match in their rhythms (coupling). The goal is not to seek consensus or even homogenization, but to facilitate in the boundary zone negotiation and adjustment, a work of translation (which reminds me of Anna Tsing's brilliant interpretation in the two books, mushroom and friction).
The appreciation for this lecture may come from the fact that few people understand the difficulty of change so deeply, the different time dimensions of various institutions and systems from government companies to nature, and the uncontrollability and irrationality of changes in human behavior and thinking patterns. From a certain perspective, "solving the problem" itself is often an unrealistic expectation. The solution on paper, from "facts" (as represented and reductive) to "therefore" (the implications and actions) is easy to achieve. But real life often slaps you in the face , backlases in unseen places, leading to greater injustice.
If I were to summarize Dorst's central idea in two words, I would say they are halfway (borrowing Barad's Meeting the universe halfway) and condition.
Halfway represents the common ground between different perspectives, like the concept of boundary object, which allows different people to find interesting perspectives and start discussions even with different interpretations. In the farming case, the word vitality builds basic trust between the two parties. Finding this halfway point, an intersection, requires carefully exploring the complexity of the problem, each party's standpoint and their multiplicity of each party (farmers are not only farmers, they are sons and daughters, fathers, hobbyists, etc...) and presenting it in an "enticing" way requires a deep understanding of both sides and a bit of genius. This is not just about creating a buzz word, but about gaining the trust of both sides and opening up the basis for dialogue. In reflecting on my own research, I feel that although I have done a lot of thinking, this "downward" or "outward" reach, extension of a two-way dialogue is far from enough. If it works, it works. Any good intention needs to solve real problems and concerns to be accepted, and the same holds in academia.
On the other hand, condition is more like a framework that allows two systems to carry out long-term structural coupling, it may be some process and cycle (such as the aforementioned learning cycle, or some committee; as well as Dorst's vision for the design academy "Lab-Academy-Podium-Temple"), physical space, diversified, artistic forms (for example, he mentioned a project using theatre as a way of communication between the two parties), or even individuals who cross systems (for example, in the nature vs farming project, they unearthed several individual cases of non-farming entry into agriculture; in the lecture, he also used Amar Bose's case of bridging academia and practice/business).
But in the end, I still have a few unresolved questions that need further thinking and exploration:
On the relationship between theory and practice, which determines the basic positioning of the academy. (I deeply feel that my classical philosophy foundation is too bad here) If we consider possible options,
Option A: transcendental, theory is the essence of the world (abstract but true) (philosopher)
Option B: representational, theory is an abstract model of the world to help us explain and understand (scientist)
Option C: theory and practice are equal dialogue partners, intellectual and practical/material each have their own responsibilities, and they exchange with each other. Reality adds bricks and tiles to theory and even changes dynasties (Thomas Kuhn), and theory provides imagination and possibilities for reality.
Matt Alvesson, who proposed a reflexive methodology, certainly belongs to C, but he emphasizes more the first half, that is, the challenge and innovative contribution from the empirical to the theory. Dorst's idea seems to lean more towards the latter, that is, theory provides imagination and possibilities for reality, and these possible experiments will guide reality to propose new questions to theory to solve.
When we talk about theory, what theory are we talking about? Is it scientific theory or humanities theory, and what are their assumptions? This seems to cause quite a bit of misunderstanding when discussing related issues.
Considering own research direction, I can find my own position in several frameworks mentioned by Dorst. For example,
In his model of university of Academic discussion <→ model <→ practice, my research seems to be also discovering ideas from academic discussion, building models, and providing practitioners with new ways to practice (who is this practitioner in my case also needs careful consideration, is it an entrepreneur, CEO or designer)
In the process of deframe-framing experiment - strategic intervention/the studio, it can be seen that I am deframing and reframing sustainability, and then proposing new interventions through experimental methods. If you think from this angle, the next step of intervention should not only stay on walking, but put the concept of movement, process into other designs, such as spatial design, sound design, interaction design, graphic design, or even can re-imagine sustainability projects, how would it be from different perspectives? This aspect needs to look at some more than human design specific content.
After the lecture, the Critic helped me sort out the shortest summary of my research at this stage, which is multiplicity of nature, and the non-linear consequences of this understanding in living and organizing. Professor McWhinnie's so-called clarity. But every time I reach such clarity, there is a sense of self-doubt - is this too simple? And in this brief introduction, my emphasis on practice in the change project seems to be diluted or even excluded..
