The idea of 'becoming ' is essential. We need to open up the meaning of the identity concept towards relations with a multiplicity, with others. Through opposition to the idea of identity as something completely closed, already formed, and static. We are subjects under construction; we are always becoming something. Rosy Braidotti, 2019, CCCBLAB (Dossier, Post-humanism)
Design is a political endeavour. It impacts how the world is seen, perceived, and experienced. It excludes and includes. It illuminates some issues and obliterates others. While design can support the lived experience of some communities, it may harm the lived experience of others. And typically, the communities seen as “other,” those at the margin, are subjects of design choices with little voice. We must resist current narratives and imaginaries, engage in practices to nurture more-than-human belonging, and collectively define what we want to become and what we are capable of becoming. However, the societal, political, and economic impact of design is still underviewed by designers and poorly understood by people subjected to design or stakeholders in design projects.
Every year, “designers to be,” aka students in my courses, are surprised and somewhat disturbed when they learn how simple design choices impact matters of social justice. For example, when I explain that a robot's colour or voice can encapsulate a set of personal and societal values, worldviews, and power structures, it can be perceived as gendered or racialized, perpetuating the stereotypes and dehumanization we observe between humans. At the same time, students are adamant about maintaining the current status quo. They hope to develop what is “right” to solve “problems”; they operate from a way of designing tied to the industrial era aimed to achieve “progress,” i.e., the technological advance of capitalism. I'm always excited when, in class, we together have an “aha” moment, collectively realizing that there's no univocal “future” that brings “progress.” They become aware that there's not one timeline from the “now” to the “future” but many narratives, perspectives, timelines, and points of view that should be examined and materialized while critically considering power structures.
Similarly, the many stakeholders I work with in transdisciplinary projects are happy to collaborate in a participatory manner, but they're quite reluctant to openly address power asymmetries. They lack the words and frames to engage in the discussion, and they're afraid of unravelling political tensions. At the same time, participatory practices might become extractivist, “using” communities to address design issues under the converted goal of “empowering.” Paradoxically, participatory design often strengthens the power imbalance between designers and communities with the false expectation that this process and its outcomes will be mutually beneficial.
The projects showcased this year are fantastic starting points for a Dutch wave of designing for social justice (see editorial). They are great examples of principles derived from critical theories such as feminism and critical race theory, or methodologies such as participatory action research.
Still, we have a long way to go.
Social justice projects and ethical approaches often stem from the privileged few and are tainted by ethics washing.
While many approaches are trying to counteract injustice, design has been structurally defined by a minority of voices from West European cultures, and societal participation in design is limited. This raises the question of “epistemic control” and “epistemic justice” tied to colonization, capitalism, and slavery.
Inclusive and just practices should prioritize understanding the historically complex and untangled relations between power and oppression, resist established narratives, and support the politics of belonging and becoming. The pressing question for who wants to engage in design for social justice is: Who decides what justice is? Are we perpetuating a system of oppression with our designs? Who are we othering in our communities and our design work? Who belongs, and who doesn’t?
Who benefits from the research and designs? What about those humans who are not considered as such? How do we integrate the dehumanized perspectives and set them at the margins? How do we deal with Western values and categories often used to describe and understand people constructed as “others?” What is my role as a designer and my responsibility?
We need to nurture our position as reflective practitioners, that is we need to become researchers who embrace iterative reflection about action and role in research, and who reflect iteratively through the generation of artefacts and engagement with materiality; researchers who generate new language, materialities, and boundary objects to joyfully resist the current status quo and developing politics of belonging.
We must rethink how we practice design, be open to socially engaged knowledge production like transdisciplinarity, and be mindful of epistemic justice. Assessing, critiquing, and transforming our practice has become imperative to designing the futures and communities we want to become.