Critical design is a technique used by Anthony Dunne (cp. Dunne 2000) that should teach (interaction) designers to be aware of their impact on society and to be critical to the environment and effects of a design solution. Gaver and Martin use in their paper Alternatives (Gaver and Martin, 2000) a technique called value fiction to perform this task. There they present design solutions that would fit to a society with similar technology but different values as our society. These designs are intended for other (interaction) designers to cast a spotlight on problematic topics and provoke thoughts.
In my personal opinion, the use of critical design as a mean of communication is not an ideal one, since a clear description of problems combined with explanatory sketches seem clearer. However, it may be of use if criticism is not intended to be expressive because of reasons like bias, censorship or the difficulty of description of the problem. Still, I do believe that the act of considering the social effects of a design is an important one since everybody has to contribute one’s share to a well-functioning society. I do also believe that value fiction is not only useful to show problems of our society, but also its strengths compared to societies with other values. This means that not all proposals in this work show objects of questionable ethics, but objects with interesting concepts.
Let us assume a society similar to our very own. Its technological history and development was similar to our own. However was its social history totally different. The world and its species developed (we assume evolution not creationism for this imagination) just the same way as we did but instead of “survival of the fittest” was “survival of the most thriving population” the selecting rule. This selection was fuelled by gigantic unpredictable dangers that jeopardised the whole system since the beginning. Still, due to the altruistic nature of all living beings, the diverse population was able to develop into a world that can be compared to the one we currently live in. Obviously there was this basic omnipresent angst that something unprecedented could happen that would corrupt the thriving dynamic balance. This was why the individuals always had more fear of the unknown than the known and always had to assume that other’s problems were worse than the own ones. To help a stranger was more important than to help a friend. Only the other’s well-being would also mean that the whole system would be fine. Obviously, also in this world were conflicts of interest and so was the history of the last centuries similar to our own, mainly because the evolving creatures (humans) with reflective abilities had to learn to find a feasible balance between helping too much and too little. In fact, the life in that society looks more like ours than one would think, but the motives for many actions are different. There still exists undernourishment and poverty, but for the reason that everybody would want to support the others with more than there is possible. Suffering from stress by overloading oneself and self-imposed unhappiness would still be huge problems people have to handle. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is as much a concern as it is in our society, but this time the subject is others and the society instead of the individual. Such a society could be compared to the collective societies of bees, ants and similar life forms or also somehow to George Orwell’s vision of 1984.
… The full text with ideas can be found here
A. Dunne (2000). Hertzian Tales: Electronic Products, Aesthetic Experiences and Critical Design. Art Books, ISBN 1-874175-27-6.
B. Gaver and H. Martin (2000). Alternatives. Exploring Information Appliances through Conceptual Design Proposals. CHI Letters, Vol. 2, Issue 1.
No comments.