The heart of Popova’s critique rests on the language framing this issue and “humanitarian design” as a whole. This is no small claim, because “language shapes culture and cognition in a powerful way.” She points to all the ways these articles have categorized the places in which this designs are aimed at: third world, global south, developing countries, bottom billion. These are dehumanizing and generalizing terms that are outdated Popova argues. In order to design “systems, not stuff” as Emily Pilloton says, we must immerse the projects and the conversation in the complexity of the situations we are working within. Popova beautifully sums this up towards the end of the article by writing “we need to invent new ways of writing, talking and thinking about concepts of "humanitarian design"; we need new language that doesn't homogenize entire cultures, new vocabulary that better reflects the intricate lace of the world's biocultural and psychosocial diversity as a drawing board for design.” As I explore and write about design, I have grappled for the right words. It always feels potentially offensive (“in country”) and generally inept. I think that the charge of creating a new language around these issues and not using outdated jargon steeped in connotation is arguably the first step. Popova concludes by saying “Let's invent a new language that allows us to better think, talk and care about indigenous cultures and microcommunities before we try to retrofit them to our projects and our preconceptions. Language that is just, because this is not just semantics. Above all, let's welcome voices and viewpoints from other disciplines, other parts of the world and other paradigms.”
DK Osseo-Asare: Humanitarian and Humility
(DSGN AGNC, August 8, 2010)
DK Osseo-Asare believes that the design field is becoming increasingly glocal (his word, definitely not mine) where “we receive commissions in places we may not live and have never seen; we collaborate with project teams that do not necessarily collocate; we fold a digital stream of content – sourced from everywhere in the world – into our design process.” I think this is true and my interpretation of Osseo-Asare’s piece is that this trend of seeing the world increasingly local might be a dangerous proposition. Because we have access to places that were once foreign, doesn’t mean we understand or are locals. There must be recognition of the different spaces we occupy and a respect for what we don’t know and need to learn. This is the notion of humility he references in his title. Design because imperialism when there is “unidirectional flow.” Osseo-Asare classifies the problem as “when humanitarian design efforts work locally without local fabrication and design partners. When a solution – even if derived from inspired analysis of reality on the ground – is introduced from “outside” and is not sufficiently grafted to the social, cultural and productive capacity within a given system, it becomes by definition imperialist: the imposition of the (foreign) design solution forces (local) adopters to buy into a system of production that they do not control.” I think that the notion of “control” is very important and hasn’t yet been articulated in these terms. Not only do locals need to feel respected and heard in the design process, but ultimately they need control over the solutions. I think control helps enable sustainability of projects. Control enables the ability to change it with time or if a systems is not working. Especially if the designers are not all local, they will eventually move on and the ability to evolve the systems and projects are necessary. Beyond control, Osseo-Asare argues for glocaboration (again him not me) where designers from all over, including I presume where the project exists, collaborate together. This is where “local fabrication and design partners” comes in. Simply being on the ground and consulting those living there is not enough. We must find ways to work with and learn from designers and other necessary experts that are local.
David Stairs: Why Design Won’t Save The World
(Design Observer 8.20.07)
I’m deviating a little in this last summary. David Stairs did write a response to Bruce Nussbaum’s article, but it was general and brief. I went on to read other articles of his and came across this piece which is a response to the Design for The Other 90% exhibit and thought it spoke more to the issues that have been discussed thus far.
Bruce Stairs left the now famous Cooper Hewitt Exhibit disappointed for many reasons, which are worth noting. Some on the part of the exhibition, but mostly on the themes he identified in the exhibited projects.The most immediate issue he highlighted was that the exhibitions presented were mainly “previously favored exhibitors” despite the claim that this exhibition was documenting “a sea-change in both method and practice.” There is a need to look beyond the usual suspects in order to get a picture of what is going on and the potential for new approaches.
Though he didn’t offer an outright solution, he identified Remote Experience as another main issue that this exhibition raised. Stairs wrote: “Too often design solutions are remote solutions, even by those with years' work in the developing world (myself very much included).” I think what he is arguing is that we are designing before we understand the issues and the context. From the other articles, the solution likely is two fold—spend more time being immersed in the complexity and work with people who are well versed in the context and issues.
Stairs went on to identify another problematic theme: Instrumentalization “or the notion that technology can, more often than not, provide the solution.” He cited many failed designs such as the Hippo water roller. He argues the low (or no) design jerrycan headload would be the most effective solution to transporting water. This point calls into question what design is. Is it about beauty and function? Is it design if it is not aesthetically appealing but functional? When does it become a tool not design? Isn’t the goal of design to be a solution, however humble? What really is good design?
His final issue was with Gargantuan Thinking, which he framed as “the need to house the world's population, eliminate disease, and reverse global warming.” Our goals are too large and becoming increasingly unrealistic. Thinking small can be liberating and encourage new modes of thinking and designing that are not as possible when have to think on such a massive scale.
