Abstract
The history of design shows countless examples in which design has caused harm on an individual, social, political, or ecological level – even things that are identified as nature, depending on the cultural and geographical context, have already been interfered with by design. All these actions are, of course, anthropocentric – because design is always an anthropocentric activity and practically no processes exist that seriously exclude humans as stakeholders (this problem is intensified by the fact that design is also dominated by a WEIRD – western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic – view that lacks the methods and vocabulary to understand needs and requirements in a global context). Established design processes can thus quickly cease to function since they cannot reflect all interests (between different people; and the “interest” of nature and its plant and animal representatives – whatever that may mean). So we need a post-eurocentric and then a post-anthropocentric understanding of design – and one that functions pluralistically and above all also future-oriented. Instead of using established processes to deal with interdependence, this tension between humans and nature formulates the need for new design processes and a serious design ethic.
Keywords
Social Design; Post-anthropocentric design; Transformation Design; Design Ethic
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/pluriversal.2021.0020
Citation
Quadflieg, S.(2021) Post-anthropocentric Design: The problem of optimizing the relationship between humans and nature, in Leitão, R.M., Men, I., Noel, L-A., Lima, J., Meninato, T. (eds.), Pivot 2021: Dismantling/Reassembling, 22-23 July, Toronto, Canada. https://doi.org/10.21606/pluriversal.2021.0020
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Included in
Post-anthropocentric Design: The problem of optimizing the relationship between humans and nature
The history of design shows countless examples in which design has caused harm on an individual, social, political, or ecological level – even things that are identified as nature, depending on the cultural and geographical context, have already been interfered with by design. All these actions are, of course, anthropocentric – because design is always an anthropocentric activity and practically no processes exist that seriously exclude humans as stakeholders (this problem is intensified by the fact that design is also dominated by a WEIRD – western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic – view that lacks the methods and vocabulary to understand needs and requirements in a global context). Established design processes can thus quickly cease to function since they cannot reflect all interests (between different people; and the “interest” of nature and its plant and animal representatives – whatever that may mean). So we need a post-eurocentric and then a post-anthropocentric understanding of design – and one that functions pluralistically and above all also future-oriented. Instead of using established processes to deal with interdependence, this tension between humans and nature formulates the need for new design processes and a serious design ethic.