1x6 — Gabriele Chiari. A journey through the forge of experiential knowledge
Despite this topic is very delicate due to the various interpretations and studies which are still ongoing, constructivism concerning design practice seems to be a foundational part, especially by the view of the incremental way designers manipulate information, knowledge and culture. In very short, it represents a really interesting epistemological stance if we think about the establishment of design theories and ethics.
Therefore DT Column proposes to pass through a few “classics” of design practice by that specific worldview, and does that thanks to the availability of Doctor Gabriele Chiari. He is a psychotherapist engaged into several fronts of research and teaching. Doctor Chiari was a teacher of Clinical Psychology and Psychodiagnostics at the faculty of Psychology of the University of Florence. Since 1993 he is co-director of the Specialization School in constructivist psychotherapy namely the CESIPc of Florence, where he teaches narrative-hermeneutic psychotherapy, a specific branch of the personal construct psychotherapy from G.A. Kelly.
Moreover, he is President of the Associazione Italiana di Psicologia e Psicoterapia Costruttivista (AIPPC), Steering committee member of the George Kelly Society and finally editorial board member of several academic journals such as Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Personal Construct Theory & Practice, and the e-journal Costruttivismi.
As usual, the answers of Doctor Chiari were recorded and synthesized. Good talk!
Dear Doctor Chiari, let us start from desire. A depth dimension that seems to be not fully “rationalizable”, free energy that triggers design attitudes. Now, what has been highlighted in constructivist psychology? And thus, how it can be explained?
“To answer your question, we can help us taking into account another psychology for comparison, for instance, cognitivism (due to its global diffusion by now) which starts from the assumption that it is possible to “represent” the reality in a way that is more or less right, thus recognized as independent from people. From such stance, the phenomena of interest in psychology are considered as “things”, as entities which are observable and measurable: intelligence, self-esteem, emotions, as well as the desire. Constructivism, instead, assumes that the reality can not be independent by the observer because we can not “quit from ourselves” and to observe the world from outside. Our knowledge then can be only a personal interpretation of our experience of the world that surrounds us, and it cannot be less or more right but at most, less or more in accord with other people because we cannot confront it with a reality that we don’t get to know. Therefore, the interest shifts from the psychological entities seen as matters of psychology, to people who, interpreting their experiences, populate the world of such “entities”.
Following that approach, the experience we communicate with the name of “desire” refers to the expectation that engaging in a specific activity can give the person the sensation of being “effective”, of being able to modify the lived world thus filling a lack and making it more aligned with his or her aspirations. The desire could regard “objects” different from person to person, and from time to time. Among that, we can consider also the Human-centered approach that appears as the aiming of designing something that fits the ideas of others: let’s say, a really sophisticated design because inserted in a social process, in a relational field.”
Remaining in this sensorial dimension and making a step higher, the need emerges: a much more pragmatic feeling, where an individual relates to an object possibly more discrete. According to your view, what is the ideal way to understand its nature?
“Thanks to your question, you are allowing me to highlight further the distinctive aspects of the constructivist psychologies: people do not relate with an objective reality, but with a reality that they constructed themselves and populated by objects (including other people), in respect to which they can perceive the “need”, namely, a particularly intense desire perceived as essential for their identity or life preservation. That is the characteristic we communicate to ourselves and to other by using the term “need” rather than “desire”: a desire can remain unsatisfied (so is often), while a need requires a fulfilment, else a severe suffering or even the loss of life or identity.
Now, concerning the “ideal way to understand its nature”, your question already contains the answer. “Understanding” is the keyword. If the interest of psychology shifts from the study of entities accounted as inherently psychological to the exploration of the ways people construct their realities, the understanding of those “ways” become the access key, and the dialogue, the conversation, become the most effective tool of investigation. All the problems have a personal nature, and only by understanding a person one can understand also what are his or her needs. What goes by the name of “primary needs” can be traced back to what, in a shared manner, we consider as necessary for survival, while a wider variability characterizes the so-called “secondary needs”.
Next to the dialogue, we could consider also the use of qualitative methods, such as the conversation or the text analysis, which pursue the same mean: the understanding of the personal worlds with the opportunities they open up, the constraints they place, the changes they allow or prevent.”
Hence, the interpretation is the real background to our discourse. In your experience, what are today the forces which act in favour or disfavour to that capacity? How do you think it possible to enhance it?
“That’s the point: interpretation is the background. As Nietzsche says, putting himself against the positivistic thesis according to which knowledge should arise from pure facts, “there are no facts, only interpretations”. This issue, as I am trying to explain, is exactly the constructivist view of knowledge. By means of interpretive processes we give a sense to our experience of our relationship with the environment. The alternative would be the chaos, the total lack of order and invariance in the world. Now, I would not talk about that in terms of “capacity”: the interpretive act is inherent to human nature. Therefore, I would not talk of “forces which act in favour or disfavour” to that process. The interpretation qualities regard if anything their major or minor susceptibility to a re-interpretation, at the basis of personal change, and its originality, that traces back to creativity. A process, this latter, that is crucial for design thinking, I guess.”
Let us move now to languages, devices through which we express our interpretive capital. In design, semantics and syntax often are manipulated and transformed to give sense of new experiences. Constructively speaking, how to evolve such a powerful and necessary tool?
“I agree, interpretation is expressed by language as long as we account that as a form of communication not necessarily or not only verbal. Hence, here we are totally into the creative process. In the extent that language gives voice (and body) to the interpretive process, its “transformation” is the outcome of the attempt to communicate several, original, and innovative ways to make sense of an experience. An example of this is design indeed, as well as poetry when it tries to express concepts and feelings through the choice and the combination of words according to metrics non-existing within prose, or the schizophrenic thought when it struggles to “stretch” interpretations in order to adapt them to a fleeting experience. But creativity can also pose a problem, precisely due to the understanding of the meanings that the “creative” tries to communicate, because they are outlandish meanings, far from being based on a wide shared criterion. Let’s say, far from the “common sense”.
That issue embeds complex issues though, let us try to conclude with aesthetic pleasure. Because of the shapes of products and services, one could establish that dialogic sense to find out ways of life. According to your view, what “your” psychology suggests us here? And what is the process that can alter it?
“This is a really challenging question, but I think that an attempt at an answer can be found within the tight borderland between understandability and creativity. People experience anxiety or frustration, when they are in front of “objects”, natural or artificial, or of “shapes of products and services” as you specifically said, that do not fit their system of meanings and from which they distance themselves categorizing them as bad or ugly. Vice versa, an object which easily gives in to our search for meaning appears to us “trivial” and, almost paradoxically, insignificant. In this respect, the enjoyment of the “beautiful” could be tied to a semantic challenge: to the perception of the possibility to go beyond the reassuring definiteness of our immediate interpretation, to venture deep into the search for further meanings, towards possibilities still uncertain but which we feel within our reach. That may be the disposition you say “alter” our psychology. Actually, to the extent that we succeed in this deed, we transform ourselves acquiring new possible ways of making sense of our experience.”
