TransDesign: From Chaos to Shifting Mindsets
Posted by Aya Jaffar on October 31, 2014When I was in finishing my undergraduate Design degree in Toronto, I wrote a manifesto to encapsulate my experience as a perplexed young designer. I was perplexed because I saw a clear schism between what I learned in design history courses and what we produced in the actual studio. I was fascinated by the propagandist, modernist, secessionist, futurist, dadaist, and all the other “-ists” because of their seeming ability to influence behavior change, start dialogues, and shift mindsets. Looking back at them, I saw their influence on my world today. My studio courses, however, asked me to design packaging solutions and posters that were purely for aesthetic pleasure and clearly intended for feeding today’s consumer culture.
Today, design’s agency has been limited to what the art critic Hal Foster calls pluralism; “The fundamental principle of pluralism asks not in what style we should design, but rather that we design stylishly”. With a culture that is obsessed with the new (think of those endless cues of people waiting to get their hands on the newest iPhone), students of today’s design programs graduate with a hefty weight on their shoulders pressuring them to create the next “new” thing. I felt that pressure and everyone around me did as well. When I practiced in the workplace, I was expected to compete against my colleagues as we each created a design hoping that the client would pick itover the others. Not only was this practice a waste of time (the designs that did not win were trashed), but it also placed a strain on our team dynamic.
I have trouble accepting that banal cycle of aimless creation as my role in the world. I have an unshakeable belief that critical design improves human life through solving social, cultural, and economical problems. I knew I was not unreasonable in my belief. Jamer Hunt, in Prototyping the Social, reminds us that “We can no longer be content with anthropology’s ‘hands off’ sensibility and design’s ‘more is more’ mentality. There are simply too many complex, large-scale problems that now pressure our very existence”. It has been two months since I began my journey in this program. At first, I struggled with the ambiguity, intangibility, and broadness of what I thrust myself into. Shifting my mindset to that of a facilitator, interpreter, and strategist does not come easily. Two months in, I am just starting to take latch on the periphery of what being a transdisciplinary designer might look like. The more I learn, the more natural this way of designing seems, and the more empowered I feel.
Some of my beliefs that shifted in those two months are summarized below:
Innovation should be a process, not a result
The problem with our current notion of innovation is that it treats the act of innovating as a result, or outcome, rather than a process. Social innovation in particular – that is, innovation that meets social needs to our society- will inevitably fail if our focus is on the result. Social innovation is a process; and a slow one too. It includes shifting paradigms, understanding cause and effect, interpreting deeply, finding gaps in systems, and co-creating normS. Social innovation happens simultaneously while the slow and miniscule shifts in our society are happening, therefore, it is a process, not an observable result.
Design should be light, not heavy
Eighty percent of the environmental impact of the products, services, and infrastructures is determined at the design stage (John Thackara, In the Bubble, 2005). Both Thackara and Victor Papanek place a hefty weight on the designer as preparator of the wasteful economy we live in. I agree. We should stop filling this world with stuff, and instead fill it with experiences and interactions. The role I was trained to fill in design school was one of a producer of “things”. The question would always be whether they are digital, 3D, or printed- It didn’t matter as long as it was a “thing”. Why keep adding “things” to this anthropocene when it is already overflowing with faulty systems and oversaturated minds? They’re heavy- they have heavy footprints, and they make us feel heavy. Social Innovation requires a lightness in the design of experiences and services. And if true lightness is impossible in this anthropocene we’ve created, then we should aim for lighter rather than giving up. Lightness requires an understanding of the systems your design comes from, interacts with, and ends up in. What resources and infrastructures are you using? how is your experience or object designed in relation to the user? where will it end up when its purpose is fulfilled?
We should look at the present, not the future
Working towards social innovation, you cannot ignore the present and only dream of the future. Ignoring the present prevents us from seeing the underlying problems. To understand our present, we need to look into our past to understand the causes of a given problem, to give it context. Only then will we be able to work through the gaps in the system to change it towards the envisioned future. Alternative futures are not an option, because we can’t live in alternative presents. We have this present, and it will lead to a specific future. Changing the future requires dealing with the present. Additionally, understanding the present absolutely requires the designer to take a look at the past. In other words, the causes for any given situation are in the past, they live in the present, and they will affect the future.
The Italian writer, Italo Calvino once said “Whenever humanity seems condemned to heaviness… it has to change its approach, look at the world from a different perspective, with a different logic, and with fresh methods of cognition and verification”. Two months in, and my entire operating system has shifted focus. I know there is much more to be learned and I look forward to it.