non-progress dogma: speculative design as counter-constraint
Charles Eames once described design as ‘a plan for arranging elements to accomplish a particular purpose’. The power of this simple statement is that it operates across multiple scales, material complexities, and timeframes: from a piece of furniture to a city plan; from a length of wood to biological parts (now seen as designable through synthetic biology); or from the marketplace of tomorrow to a distant future world. But especially relevant for this post is the phrase ‘a particular purpose’. In general terms this is the arranging of available elements to create useful objects designed to exist and usually to be sold. Increasingly these elements are technological, and as such the designer can be seen as tasked with translating technological potential into useful, usable, desirable products. The familiar assumption is that these products make life better.
Speculative design borrows practical methods from its commercial counterparts like industrial and graphic design, but as a form of enquiry it de-couples this practice from direct market imperatives, in turn creating a space to:
- Arrange emerging (not yet available) technological ‘elements’ to hypothesise future products and artefacts, or
- Apply alternative plans, motivations, or ideologies to those currently driving technological development, in order to facilitate new arrangements of existing elements, and
- Develop new perspectives on big systems.
With the purpose of:
- Asking ‘What is a better future (or present)?’
- Generating a better understanding of the potential implications of a specific (disruptive) technology in various contexts and on multiple scales – with a particular focus on everyday life.
- Moving design ‘upstream’ – to not simply package technology at the end of the technological journey but to impact and influence that journey from its genesis.
Significant Others
Speculative design obviously has non-design antecedents or shares family resemblances with other approaches to future-formation and technological critique.
The simplest way to compare and contrast these is to clarify what precisely it is not.
Speculative designs are not ‘sociotechnical imaginaries’. Sociotechnical imaginaries use a similar starting point, such as an emerging technology, but are motivated by the selling of particular state or corporate agendas. One example (mentioned here) is Futurama - the classic example of progress dogma.
Speculative designs are also not ‘utopian imaginaries’. The starting points and motivations are similar - both are reactions to the here and now. The key differences are in scale and tone. Social utopias are often set in extreme other worlds, such as H. G. Wells’ A Modern Utopia (1905), or in far off futures, such as William Morris’s News from Nowhere (1890). Speculative designs usually focus on the human scale rather than big sociocultural systems, and aim not to describe perfect or desirable worlds but more nuanced or neutral possibilities.
‘Techno-dystopian imaginaries’, such as those commonly described in science fiction, share the same narrative origin as many speculative design projects, namely a contemporary disruptive technology, but are extrapolated through negative forces such as an out of control system. Examples include James Cameron’s Terminator (1984) or the egotistical scientist in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1819). These exist as cautionary tales and amplify the negative implications for cinematic effect or dramatic appeal. Like utopias they can be very far removed from the here and now. The key factor that differentiates speculative design from these approaches is its treatment of fiction, how this is mediated through design, and the relative neutrality of its outputs.
Remember The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema (2006)? In it the philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Žižek argues that ‘if something gets too traumatic, too violent, even too filled in with enjoyment, it shatters the coordinates of our reality – we have to fictionalise it.’ These ‘coordinates’ are defined by the individual, social, cultural, political, technological, and scientific dynamics of contemporary life. While these form the basis of all the approaches described above, they are commonly shattered, or at least broken, during the process of extrapolation. Speculative design aims to ‘stretch’ rather than ‘shatter’ the coordinates, ensuring plausibility and in turn eliciting a different level of audience reaction.
Alternatively, in the case of sociotechnical imaginaries like Futurama, the installations can be remarkably plausible and achievable but the motivations behind them favour very specific interests or agendas. So, while Futurama had an enormous impact on the shaping of the American landscape, was the new America genuinely a better place? And if so, for whom? In reality, technology, as it enters everyday life, is usually both good and bad – there are clear benefits but also unforeseen implications.
Speculative design aims not to spoon-feed audiences on how they should feel about a particular technology but rather to help people draw their own, hopefully better informed, conclusions. We have our opinions, of course, but we’re not selling anything – or trying to tear it down. Speculative design asks: What would life be like if we had such products? It can act as a cultural and behavioural litmus test, trying out applications before they happen and allowing for adjustments to be made. Its agenda is to facilitate a more democratic and considered approach to technological development.
An early example of this approach in practice is the Auger-Loizeau project Audio Tooth Implant. The original project brief was to examine the implications of implantable technology for human enhancement by proposing possible applications and access points for technology to enter the body. The resulting product was an implantable phone.
An associate professor at Stanford Medical School emailed in response to the project: ‘As a physician I believe the technology you describe in your press release has the potential for producing immense social harm. This social harm would include psychological trauma, and angry behaviour in both the workplace and the home.’ (He went on the explain exactly how this would happen over the next two pages.) Speculative design works as a counter-constraint to progress dogma because there is no intention to bring the product to market. Negative or critical responses are of equal value to positive ones.
As technologies become increasingly invasive, disruptive, and complex, there is a growing need to investigate their future implications with the same fervour that dogmatists bring to selling their application.
Image - James Whale, Frankenstein, 1931 (Universal Pictures Company, Inc).
- andthushefelt liked this
- not-cooper liked this
- macks-posts liked this
- jkemosabe liked this
- swampthang64 reblogged this from takesabeating
- asfaltics liked this
- edoras liked this
- activator-inhibitor liked this
- justinpickard liked this
- futurescope liked this
- crapfutures posted this