04.18 // Module IV: Race, Ethnicity, Culture Discussion
We began class by analyzing two case studies through the lenses of cultural and cosmological differences. The first one was regarding humanitarian efforts in hygene and sanitation in the Indian subcontinent. The second one was about the concept of the gift from a Western philosophy vs South East Asia.
The humanitarian project was about implementing telemedicine capabilities into small remote villages in India with no near access to medical doctors and facilities. Design researchers visited 8–10 villages to investigate how do they manage health related issues and care and found out a series of mechanisms they employ. For instance, villages sometimes quarantine themselves, or people travel 100 miles to the nearest city with a physician. They also found out that most of these villages do not have reliable access to a stable internet connection. Through their research they realized that the technological solution that the company that hired them was trying to implement did not account the complexity of the context they were trying to target.
Beyond the absence of physical insfrastructure, there were also cultural differences such as the ways in which people conceived health, cleanness and hygene. In India hygene is related to purity and impurity which is people’s way to make sense of health. This example allowed us to reflect on the need for epistemic humility, to allow us as designers and design researchers to encounter conceptual models and frameworks, values and associations diametrically different to our own in a way that it ignites a sense of wonder to understand where those differences are coming from.
In the second example regarding the different conceptions of the gift, Ahmed referenced the essay written by Clive Dilnot in which he describes the designed artifact as a type of gift — based on Marcel Mauss. Then Ahmed briefly touched on a few examples of alternative conceptions of the gift, such as the potlatch, a gift-giving ceremony practiced by indigenous people from the Pacific coast of the US and Canada and the Southeast Asian concept of the gift which is non-reciprocal and it is more a form of expiation of sin.
Discussion
As every Thursday, we divided into 8 teams, each being led by a provocateur. Each team leader brough a ‘designed thing’ (product, system, message, etc.) which was the center of the discussion, along with a series of questions to prompt the rest of the members of the team to reflect on the topics of race, ethnicity and cultural difference in relation to the ‘designed thing.’ The provocateur is in charge of capturing main insights out of the discussion for a share out and debrief for the last part of the session.
Sharing back
During the share back team 1 talked us through an analysis they made of different chairs from around the world and how their design has been influenced or inspired by culture not only in terms of aesthetics but in the use of materials and the practices associated to each culture. They also shared an analysis of service efforts that failed because they were not in tune with the communities’ culture.
Team 2 talked about advertisement and race & culture, and how sometime it has been a way for challenging social norms or sensitizing people to difference. Team 3 had conversations about sensitivity and ecological consciousness in relationship with a more nomad generation that do not stay in the same place for their whole lives the way our parents used to, analyzing the interplay of global and local. On their end, team 4 discussed the flatenning of some cultures in the global discourse (e.g. Asia and Africa), and the nuanced way of describing other (e.g. France and Spain) and the difference between cultural appropriation vs cultural appreciation.
Team 5 discussed the phenomena of tiny houses in Japan, Hong Kong, and the USa, and how the design in local firms using local materials creates a divergence of configurations and uses based on the natural environment and the local culture. Team 6, further explored the concept of cultures evolving according to their environment from Watsuji Tetsuro, and how cities like Dubai which is mostly climate controlled are in a sense challenging this concept, and hypothesized in way that it could affecting culture and broadening societal gaps. They discussed whether or not controlling the biome would equate to controlling culture and whether or not Dubai is designing with nature or around it and how that could affect different worldviews.
Team 7 tackled the topic of humanitarian design analyzing cases like Toms shoes. The conversation evolved in reflecting on the connection among nations and the potential for a pluriverse to exist, as well as how the pluriverse could arise again through the reconception of humans relationship with nature. In the same vein, Team 8 did an analysis of one laptop per child, and our preconceptions that the abscense of things or technology equals to ‘underdevelopment’ which introduces our own preconceptions of what a ‘modern society’ is.
Highlights
- Becoming culturally sensitive to do research and gain awareness of alternative forms of culture
- The concept of design as immunization from nature
- Epistemic humility as a way of openness for understanding people with alternative worldviews
- Our perspectives(epistemologies) as humans are shaped by our culture (cosmology) and concepts (ontologies) associated with it
