Agonism and the False Dichotomy of Adversarial and Positive Sum Design
In a recent conversation with a mentor on Positive Sum Design, the subject of the book Adversarial Design, a bite-sized and powerfully written piece by Carl DiSalvo, arose. The book advocates and describes a deliberately adversarial approach to design, challenging norms and, according to DiSalvo, challenging dominant political opinions and hegemonies. So the question arises: are adversarial design, which supports conflict, and Positive Sum Design, which supports cooperation, at odds with each other? My answer, developed with some philosophical guidance from Ian Gonsher, is a simple, yet honest, “no.” In fact, I argue that the two approaches work hand in hand.
The thesis of Adversarial Design is in fact dependent on political theories of Agonism and Agonistic Pluralism. To truly understand the thrust of DiSalvo’s work, we must therefore first seek to describe and understand Agonism as a theory of political philosophy. From DiSalvo:
Agonism is a condition of forever looping contestation. The ongoing disagreement and confrontation… are productive of the democratic condition. -Carl DiSalvo
As the name suggests, however, it is quite different from an antagonistic approach to discussion. As described by Political Theorist Samuel A. Chambers:
Agonism implies a deep respect and concern for the other; indeed, the Greek “agon” refers most directly to an athletic contest oriented not merely toward victory or defeat, but emphasizing the importance of the struggle itself — a struggle that cannot exist without the opponent. -Samuel A. Chambers
We are left with a concept of Agonism not only as an ongoing, relentless confrontation but also a respectful, thoughtful, even open-minded one. It is the sort of debate one hopes to find echoing through the halls of academic institutions and underlying scientific literature. For my own part, Agonism has played a huge role in my best relationships and social groups, where disagreement always existed and would be discussed with vigor, but such discussion would be in the service of developing our mutual understanding of the world and each other instead of “being right.” It is fairly easy to see how Agonism might be considered central to a democratic society: as individuals and groups coalesce around a view of the world, they may disagree. For a successful democracy, such disagreement must serve to better inform each group and build a greater social system agonistically, instead of tearing the state apart in an antagonistic schism.
So, why does Adversarial Design work hand in hand with Positive Sum Design? Adversarial Design suggests that design can, and perhaps should, be made to produce and support agonistic conflict and contest. Positive Sum Design positions itself to argue that design should foster the sort of cooperation that utilizes largely non-rival or anti-rival goods, leading to situations that are more than the sum of their parts. It turns out that the apparent friction between these two postures is an illusion because, while it relies on the presence of conflict, Agonism actually is a positive-sum game: by bringing two or more parties together in debate or conflict where the point is to learn and struggle together instead of win or lose, the two parties are cooperating to create greater value than either could alone. Adversarial Design, by suggesting that design should support and inspire agonism, therefore suggests that design should create positive-sum situations. These positive-sum situations involve struggle and competition, to be sure. But it’s still Positive Sum Design.
References:
“Agonism.” In Wikipedia, March 6, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agonism&oldid=1010669130.
DiSalvo, Carl. Adversarial Design. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012.
