An Exercise on Scalar Framing for Complexity in Humanitarian Design
Posted by Veronica Uribe D. on November 28, 2014Humanitarian design problems could be better framed, and in that sense more effectively addressed, if they are better understood. For example, if we understand poverty as political, social, and economic exclusion (as the 1997 UNDP Human Development Report does), then to include communities in the decision making regarding design project’s implementation and goals becomes as important as the project goals. This post presents a problematization of poverty condition and some thoughts on how to use Jamer Hunt’s scalar framing tool to approach its true scope.
The Condition of Poverty
Poverty is a phenomenon that has to do with social, political and economic exclusion. It has to do with rights and access to those rights. Furthermore, as Amartya Sen explains it has to do with freedom. He states: “Development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states”. All these sources of unfreedom are linked to each other and many times they and their consequences overlap. Regarding to “poverty” Pierre Sané, former UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences states:
Poverty is not just economic; it is social, political and cultural. It undermines human rights –economic (the right to work and have an adequate income), social (access to health care and education), political (freedom of thought, expression and association) and cultural (the right to maintain one’s cultural identity and be involved in a community’s cultural life). Poverty results from the violation of these rights, rights that must be respected to ensure the dignity of all.
Furthermore in 1997, UNDP Human Development Report states that, three perspectives are relevant when addressing human poverty: 1) Income perspective, which define poverty in terms of sufficient incomes for a specified amount of food, 2) the basic needs perspective, that “goes beyond the income perspective to include the need for the provision by a community of the basic social services necessary to prevent individuals from falling into poverty”; and 3) the capability perspective, which assumes poverty as the lack or inability to develop capabilities to live and lead one’s life and not only survive. It is also important to keep in mind that, the first perspective includes the other two, and the second possibly includes the third one.
After Jamer’s last class, I had an idea for an exercise that could help framing humanitarian problems better. Hunt points out that as the scale changes new “properties come into play”. So I thought: What would happen if I apply this idea to the three perspective of poverty? This is what I came up with:
Each dimension has a different set of actors and involved (family, individual, communities, minorities, government) and a different group of freedoms affected (unfreedoms). These need to be determined for each situation and context. In that sense, each problem demands a particular approach. However a general protocol could be established for each dimension. The first perspective (income perspective) asks for fast and short-term actions because the consequences of poverty are imminent. The second (basic needs perspective), which, pays attention to threat of falling into poverty defined in the first perspective, understands instability as poverty. The design then should address a problem while it prevents that others happen in the future. Moreover, it needs to have some kind of following up. Finally, the third perspective (capability or empowerment perspective) refers poverty as the inability to lead one’s life, which implies take personal decision about one’s future and be part on collective decisions i.e. political participation. This perspective demands to pay attention to unfair power relationships such as imperialism. Designs addressing situation from this perspective, necessarily need collaboration and participation from the community,and other groups or institution in society.
Each lens enhances one aspect or perspective of poverty. The three of them have to be use together to reach a proper understanding of any problem related to poverty; however, each of them could be used individually when designing. Furthermore, they can also be used progressively to implement designs that address more than a perspective and to measure gradual effects of a design in each perspective.
If it is truth that in order to improve lives and foster well being, designers need to address one problem at a time or one aspect of the problem at a time; while keeping in mind all those aspects that are not being addressed by them; then they need to constantly enhance or decrease the frame of the situation addressed in order to grasp its real dimension. The previous exercise was my first attempt to problematize poverty in order to provide a tool for framing problem, and design projects that seeks to alleviate this condition.
Bibliography
- Latour, Bruno. “Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts.” In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992.
- Hunt, Jamer. “Scalar Framing for Complexity.” Lecture, Creative Mornings from Galapagos Art Space, New York, September 1, 2011.
- Sané, Pierre. “The Role of the Social and Human Sciences in the Fight Against Poverty.”, In MOST-Newsletter, n° 10, 2001.
- Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf, 1999.
- UNDP Poverty Report, 1997: Overcoming Human Poverty. New York: UNDP, 1997.