There was a particular part of the Devearaux reading that especially troubled/interested me;
“One of the most remarkable facts about Triumph of the Will is that the reality it records is a reality it helped to create…Riefenstahl other words, helped to set up the spectacle her film was designed to document.” (239).
We talked a lot in class about how design is always political, but it’s frightening to me that a design I could possibly be involved in could create or support some morally questionable ideal. You can never know how your design is going to function in the world, but are there ways to protect against this? The more I think about this, the more paralyzing it seems.
On a lighter note, this quote also reminded me of a History Channel show I saw called, “How Williams Shatner Changed the World.” The premise of the show was how the technology that existed in original Star Trek was the basis for some of the technology we enjoy today such as the flip cellphone and the personal computer. Many of the people who loved Star Trek in the 60’s were the ones who entered fields that were responsible for developing these visions. What I really took from this was as designer we are not only designing for the future, we are in a way creating the way people envision the future. Almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Interaction Culture: The Class Blog 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 16, 2010 at 1:52 pm
robertjbegley
I think this is a great post 🙂 and an even better question. I think, in reality, there are certain things that may not necessarily “protect” against it, but by limiting functionality or a feature within a design that will not allow users to do something.. well it seems that in itself is a way of protecting designs against this.
On the other hand that sounds totally controlling.
I think I would encourage users of my own design to re-purpose, reuse, and reshape the design however they see fit. It is fascinating to see what users actually do with a product even if it was designed with a specific purpose in mind and would be very interesting in our reflections of that design.
This post may not answer your question of “are there ways to protect against this?”. However, if somehow we closed the door to our users to protect our designs, *would* we really want to do that?
September 16, 2010 at 2:51 pm
gopikann
Anna, this is one of *those* questions that I personally face almost every single day. I completely agree with you about the situation of “analysis paralysis”. At the same time, I find “don’t think too much” to be a cop out. IMO, feeling scared that what I am putting out there might turn out to be a monster is not a bad thing. In fact, I think I belong to the camp which believes that as a designer one should need this kind of critical, reflective thinking that shows taking up responsibility.
Having said that, it is so easy to fall into the trap of chasing the perfect design. Secondly, we as designers have been criticised, rightly so, for assuming that we sometimes tend to think that we are the creators (aka the God complex). As a designer, I design something, put it out there and it affects peoples lives. This is not the complete picture since it denies user agency. Binaebi’s capstone, last year, was all about how the process of design does not stop after the designer. The designer is definitely has an important stake in the process of design but zhe is not the sole authority. One of the thing that critical approaches encourage us to do is to question everything. This questioning does not stop at why we as designers make certain choices but also extends to ask whether we are the only ones involved in making this choice and its impact. I would like to clarify one thing here. A critical approach is not about encouraging or discouraging any particular belief or value system. In fact it is the exact opposite of that. To question everything irrespective of what it seems to be. The aim of such questioning is not to find one universal answer but to develop a critical sensibility.
At the end of the day, the way I tackle this question is by asking “Have I done everything that I could?”. And that is a question only I can answer for myself. 🙂
September 17, 2010 at 1:40 am
jeffreybardzell
Excellent post, Anna. You are definitely drawing the conclusions that I think we should be from a reading like this.
September 17, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Binaebi
Anna, this is something that is brought up in Erik’s design theory class, the ideas and questions behind Good and Evil design. It’s not something we can prevent, but certainly something we ought to think about. It isn’t enough to say “Well, I didn’t design it to do that,” and be done with it. Rather, it is important that we, as designers, take responsibility for this design we have brought into the world. Sometimes I liken it to parenting, without having the benefit of being a parent to make the analogy accurate.
Go with me here. I bring a child into the world, let’s say, and I have hopes and dreams for who this child will be and what they will accomplish. Ultimately, however, who the child becomes and what the child decides to do is out of my control. As a responsible parent, I can only hope and plan for the best while preparing for the worst.
Gopi is completely right by referencing my capstone. Design doesn’t stop after the designer leaves the design process… but that shouldn’t paralyze us as designers. We can be paralyzed and afraid, or we can acknowledge we are not the Genius Designer; we are not omnipotent. Whatever happens, we can and must take responsibility for what we’ve brought into the world.
September 19, 2010 at 3:43 pm
londontowngame
This is a really interesting question and I think that perhaps we can see this type of thing on a scale. Let’s call it the “moral persuasion scale”. Let’s say you’re designing a chair. It is unlikely that this object is going to influence someone’s moral / political thought. You’re probably not going to bring any political parties into power with this chair. Now lets consider a website aimed at bringing together members of a certain group that has very questionable moral opinions. In this case, I think we can safely say that the object of your design is having a high impact on our “moral persuasion scale” because it is allowing those of a particular line of thought to join together.
While those examples are pretty simplistic, I hope that they sort of get my point across. Which is that I hope most of the time it’s somewhat straightforward to see whether the impact that a design will have falls heavily into morals and politics. And if it does, I think it’s the responsibility of the designer to make sure they support or at least don’t object to the moral/political statements that the design will end up making or supporting. Riefenstahl didn’t accidentally make a movie that supported Hitler, she made that movie because she supported that cause with all of her heart. I understand that the uncertain future of a design can feel paralyzing (it’s something I’ve personally come across when designing games in large groups – virtual worlds always end up with annoyingly scantily clad women) but I guess what I’m trying to say is as designers we have to trust ourselves. Trust that the morals we put forth in our design work are good ones. And continue being reflective and critical because I think that’s the best way to ensure that outcome.
PS I ❤ William Shatner!
September 19, 2010 at 3:45 pm
jennahoffstein
Gah, sorry, I have multiple wordpress accounts and I always forget to log into the proper one to leave comments. If you see any comments left from “londontowngame” it’s me!