Skip to content

Making sense and meaning

Reflections on Class

I liked the overall approach of the class that involved discussions around important topics in a rather casual manner, while still emphasizing critical thinking which is essential for designers and change makers.

I will share some highlights I took away from the sessions here, with the hope to retain these learnings longer: - In the opening session, I liked the comment the problems “a single world view” is creating and reflected on the fact that we don’t have enough diversity in the systems we’ve built; economically and socially we have converged into a capitalist society where financial outcomes drive social, economical and political ecosystems. It’s a huge issue not only due to the practical implications it has but also due to the fact that it prevents most people from imagining other alternatives, and our lives become bound to the same system of thought.

  • The other note I took from that session was about the hard work required to build and make real the transition that we can all imagine and find meaning in. It was well articulated in the quote: “It’s easy to imagine what’s the right thing to do, but difficult to build the transition toward that.“
  • In the second week, when we had Beno Juarez as a guest, I was inspired by the analogy he made on where the tree grows. Upwards towards the sky, or downwards towards the gravity. The response was both, but essentially that the tree is to its center, similarly to us, as we’re trying to grow outwards and reach further, we are actually growing in ourselves, in our core.
  • I found quite some value in the last session on facilitation and working with communities personally. As a service designer, I need to play the facilitator role in many occasions and I enjoyed the practical tips that Sudebi & Felencia shared.
    • Aligning on a shared understanding of the intention initially. What my intention is, may not be perceived the same way by those who participate.
    • Discussing how will everyone know if what we do is successful: Coming up with the measure of success and sharing it with others is the colonial way of thinking: “This is how we think success will be measured!”. This made me reflect on the fact that many habits I might have acquired as a designer working in the west may have its roots in colonial way of thinking. I deeply appreciated the comment from Sudebi where she said: “The worst is to have your imagination colonised. You’re thinking you’re Imagining but actually you’re not.”
    • I also appreciated Marielle’s contribution on the topic where she suggested asking the community explicitly: “I’m here for this amount of time, what do you need from me? How can I help you with these skills I have? How can I transfer this knowledge to you?”
  • Finally I must mention that I really appreciated the selection of the readings of the class. Although I couldn’t read Gregory Bateson’s book yet, I found a lot of value in the “Design as participation” article and the introduction of the book “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things”. Both were fundamental in consolidating some of the learnings I’ve had in the master and led me towards a change in my worldview.

All images in this article are generated by https://dream.ai/create

Assignment

For the class assignment, I welcome the challenge to try generating the article using ChatGPT. Here’s the prompt I used:

Write a blog entry of between 1500-2500 words and design a vignette to illustrate the (some) following questions. 1. How design can reconfigure systems of extraction? 2. Which worlds can we design with the power of today’s tools? 3. How can we design the transition towards these worlds?

Use the following resources for inspiration and reference: * Design as participation article from Kevin Slavin (https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/design-as-participation/release/1)
* A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things by Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore * Steps to an ecology of mind by Gregory Bateson

ChatGPT´s Response

Designing a Better World: Reconfiguring Systems of Extraction

The world is facing unprecedented challenges, from climate change to social inequality, and many of these problems are rooted in the very systems that underpin our society. These systems are often designed for efficiency and profit, rather than sustainability and equity, leading to a pattern of extraction that harms people and the planet. But what if we could reconfigure these systems of extraction? What if we could design a better world, using the power of today’s tools?

In his article “Design as Participation,” Kevin Slavin argues that design is no longer just about creating objects or interfaces, but about designing systems that shape our world. He writes, “Design is not a noun, but a verb. It is not an object, but a process. It is not something that is done to us, but something that we do.” In other words, design is a participatory act, and we all have a role to play in shaping the world around us.

To understand how design can reconfigure systems of extraction, we must first examine the roots of this extraction. In their book “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things,” Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore argue that capitalism is built on the exploitation of seven key things: nature, money, work, care, food, energy, and lives. These seven things are extracted from the earth, from people, and from communities, and turned into commodities that can be bought and sold for profit. This system of extraction is unsustainable, and it leads to social and environmental injustices that harm people and the planet.

So how can design help us move away from this system of extraction? One way is to design for sustainability and equity, rather than efficiency and profit. This means taking into account the needs of people and the planet, and designing systems that work in harmony with them. For example, designers can create products that are made from sustainable materials, use renewable energy sources, and are designed to last longer and be repaired rather than discarded. This approach is known as “circular design,” and it aims to create a closed loop system where resources are reused and recycled, rather than extracted and discarded.

Another way to reconfigure systems of extraction is to design for social justice. This means designing systems that are equitable and inclusive, and that prioritize the needs of marginalized communities. For example, designers can create products and services that are accessible to people with disabilities, that address the needs of low-income communities, and that promote cultural diversity and inclusion. This approach is known as “social design,” and it aims to create systems that are just and equitable for all.

But how do we design these new systems? How do we transition from a system of extraction to a system of sustainability and equity? According to Gregory Bateson in his book “Steps to an Ecology of Mind,” we must first change our mindset. Bateson argues that our current way of thinking is rooted in a Cartesian worldview, which sees the world as a collection of separate, disconnected parts. This way of thinking leads to a reductionist approach, where we try to solve problems by breaking them down into smaller pieces. But this approach is not sufficient for the complex problems we face today.

Instead, Bateson suggests that we need to adopt a new mindset, one that sees the world as a complex, interconnected system. He calls this the “ecological worldview,” and it sees the world as a web of relationships, where everything is connected and interdependent. This new mindset requires us to think in terms of systems, rather than parts, and to design for the whole, rather than just the individual components.

Once we have adopted this new mindset, we can begin to design the transition towards these new systems. This transition will require a participatory approach, where all stakeholders are involved in.

Observations

  • I tried to run the prompt 3 times, and the response was different every time. I felt like the first response was the best one from a quality of writing and articulation of ideas.

  • ChatGPT came up with this quote from Kevin Slavin “Design is not a noun, but a verb. It is not an object, but a process. It is not something that is done to us, but something that we do.” but actually there´s no such quote in the article. I provided ChatGPT with the actual link that I want it to refer to but it came up with this data that I couldn´t find a trace of that quote to Kevin Slavin. Seems like you need to be careful about what it brings up, this is straight up false reference.

  • It was able to refer back to the ¨History of the World in Seven Cheap Things¨, which makes me think that it might be a useful tool to summarise large amounts of information in a short time.

    • I liked how it elaborated on this book, by higligting that we need to understand the roots of extraction and marking it as unsustainable.

  • When it comes to proposing solutions, I assume the algorithm works in a way that it optimises for making sense for the maximum amount of people. In a general sense it makes sense, but it doesn´t put forward any original ideas. And brings up some buzzwords like circular design into the mix; so I feel like it writes as the average view of the society, so popular design trends appear in its writing, but unpopular ones like “degrowth” doesn’t.

    • This makes me think that we should question all the narratives that are thrown at us. It seems ChatGPT is on top of the sustainability issue, and is able to clearly express the problems we have today. This shows that it became common knowledge that average member of the society is aware of. My reflection on that is, as designers we need to find alternative narratives and interventions on sustainability issues that can create alternative approaches to inspire people. Once something has become common knowledge, it doesn’t help repeating same stories, they don’t move things anymore

  • I asked ChatGPT to rewrite the same article by adding some original ideas, but funnily enough it rewrote the exact same text, without changing anything. Either I came across a bug or ChatGPT has no original ideas.

What I’d add to what ChatGPT wrote

  • The issue of colonialism is conspicuously absent from the text of the tool, likely because it was created by colonizers. However, I find it crucial to recognize that the paradigm of extraction is deeply rooted in colonialism and still persists today, even taking on the form of cultural colonialism. As a result of cultural colonialism, I find it especially dangerous that a single world view and single world culture is emerging, due to heavy globalisation of mass ideas through massive consumption opf digital and physical tools of today.

  • “Design as participation” is an important framework that emphasizes the involvement of all actors within a system, not just human beings, in the design process. Nonetheless, it is challenging to consider all aspects of the outcomes we seek to achieve.

    • There’s huge complexity in that and in practice there’ll be times where we as designers have to come up with designs without being able to consider all aspects of our outcomes. I wonder what could be the minimum viable framework we could use in order to not hurt any parties involved ethically, socially and physically. This is a huge undertaking on its own.

  • Connected with that, I strongly believe that the tools we create end up shaping us in return. In the last few decades, the tools we designed have considerably influenced us and, in some instances, had adverse effects. It is critical that we re-evaluate our design approach, refrain from creating systems of extraction, and develop economic opportunities for alternative models before it is too late.

    • ChatGPT is an example for this exact question: While it has the potential to be an exceptional tool if used appropriately, it can quickly become a tool for extraction, manipulation, and exploitation if used inappropriately. It’s time to pause, reflect and learn from our past mistakes and not repeat the same ones with higher technology. It is time to pause, reflect, and learn from our past mistakes, ensuring that we do not repeat the same errors with even more advanced technology.

Last update: June 14, 2023