Why You Should (care about) Design for Sustainability?
This is the first post in a series of four articles on Design for Sustainability. Each can be read independently.
“…designers have become a dangerous breed.”
Victor Papanek, 1971
Papanek also said that pretty much everything in society is designed and most of us design most of the time whether we are aware of it or not. If it is not evident to you just why designers have become a dangerous breed; we will return to this and make it clear at the end of this post. We will start by doing something hubristic and jump right into it by attempting some kind of broad sweep overview of where we are; and how we ended up here (skipping only a few steps); and how it is all connected; and how it relates to design of course. Let´s go!…
The state of the world — a pixie version of how it all hangs together in the broadest sense…
Through the evolutionary journey of human beings, we have arrived at a point where we have established a global civilization in which we are constantly creating and recreating our cultures; more or less intentionally and often through a messy complex process of negotiation, debate and strife leading to unforeseen and often unintended consequences that where not actually the vision or interest of any of the conflicting parties. We can do better and should do better because we are the animals who have the unique skill of imagination. We can actually think up futures and alternatives to current reality and think in terms of causality and probability. That allows us to be intentional about the future we want. To act proactively and creatively.
Lately in the history of human kind we have gone through intense industrialization leading us through the era of modernity in which we come to develop material and social technologies so advanced that we have come to master the elements and our surroundings in hitherto unseen ways. To the point where our things, our designs and our surroundings now master us. We have become fully dependent on the designed habitat for our survivial. We are no longer fully animal, but have removed ourselves from nature. From our nature. We have for long been part of a dialectic with nature, where we have increasingly abstracted us from the rest of the living world in an attempt to master our environment and develop our culture and well-being. But in the Anthropocene this dialectic is spinning out of control, to the point where it comes back to bite us at increasing rates with increasing impact. The dialectic have become unbalanced to a degree where our incessant recreation of civilization is literally destroying the environment upon which we rely for our very creations and existance. Making it clear that we cannot simply go on reshaping and diminishing the environment as we build and grow civilization. Future society must be designed to operate in a way that stands in a different relationship with nature.
During the modern era we have been obsessed with growing the economy. To such an extent that we have exploited the natural world and its resources and eco-systems functions to the point where we are now facing environmental collapse. This will be a biodiversity loss for sure, but it will also be a loss to us, as we lose vital eco-systems functions that we rely upon. We are still animals afterall. In that way we are so to speak cutting the branch we are sitting on. Meanwhile we have also subjugated ourselves and each other to a total work culture where we have become slaves to the growing economy and our own carrier-related ambitions and mutual expectations to keep it up. The wheels going. The show running. The whole thing. The economy. We have obviously made a category mistake here in making the means the end. We have flipped the natural order of things on its head.
“…the economy is a good servant, but a bad master.”
Roberto Mangabeira Unger
Let me explain why this should be obvious. In a systems science perspective the world can be looked at in terms of three major systems — The Environment, The Society and The Economy. These could be and have been called other things such as the biosphere, the sociosphere and the technospehere. It refers to the same major delineations.
What you should take away from this model is the intrinsic natural hierarchy of the systems — the way they are nested — thus part of each other and influencing each other up and down the hierarchy — but also how the systems are different in kind and in causality structure.
· The environment is a natural system — Natural systems are characterized by being subject to prescribed natural laws inherent to the order of the universe. Thus the natural system can not be entirely re-designed, because the premises of the system can not be altered. We can only alter the system within the constrains of natural laws. Thus whatever we do is subject to natural laws. And if we push the natural systems too far they will push back in unforeseen ways. The natural system is not a social construct, though it is influenced by and increasingly shaped by society.
· Society is a social system — Social systems are characterized by being different in that they are governed largely by psychology and information. They are to a large extend socially constructed. Rarely are they designed top down. They tend to emerge bottom up through local negotiations that connects outwards and manifest upwards. Social systems can not be fully designed, because they are made up of living beings (in the case of society — human beings) who are (partially) biology and thus (at least partially) subject to natural law. In addition, the individual living beings making up the social system have a degree of autonomy that makes strict top down design impossible. The social system is part of the natural system and therefore it is not completely a social construct.
· The economy is a technical system — technical systems are inherently designed because they have been fully created by human beings. They would not be here through natural evolution alone. They are a product of human cultural evolution and innovation coupled with and intention to create something of specific utility. Thus they are both socially constructed and fully designed. They are human inventions. This means they are not a given. They could have been made differently or not been at all. Another example of a technical system is the internet, which can be thought of as an information exchange system, while the economic system can be thought of as a financial or more specifically monetary capital exchange system. We might not be able to imagine living without either of these two systems, but fact is that neither of them are vital or necessary for our survival in a biological sense. The economy as a phenomenon of exchange of resources is a phenomenon also found in the natural system outside of human influence. But the economy as a monetary financial system and “the market” as a phenomenon are all together human creations. These can be re-imagined and recreated to serve that which we value most. That which we choose. Be it equality, well-being, sustainability etc.
As such it should be clear that the purpose of society is not to grow the economy. The economy should be a means to our common ends. It is an instrument and a process that should be designed and constructed to serve society. And it should do so in a way that does not violate natural laws or exploit the environment and undermine the carrying capacity of the natural system. And when I say “serve society”, I mean the human beings that make up society — not the state. The state is but a subsystem of society (though an elaborate one) that should be designed to serve the well-being of human beings as a collective.
OK, with these distinctions out of the way, let´s return to the state of the world in the post-modern Anthropocene. Take a look at this disturbing News Paper cut out from The Guardian last week:
Just let the facts presented here sink in for a moment. And then try to fathom that this calculation is excluding the waste that human civilization produces. This is “merely” the extend of functional/valued elements of civilization. This is obscene. We have as a civilization obviously become bloated. Materially we are growing, producing and consuming out of control. The point here is not to shame human kind, though that would probably be appropriate. The point here is that through industrialization and technological innovation driven forth by a certain economic growth and consumer logic we have created a civilization that is now a vast world within the world — such a vast world that in fact what should be a sub-system (merely a social species population) of The Earth is now taking over the entire Biosphere. This is not only a problem in terms of eco-system sustainability. It is also a problem in terms of social-system sustainability. Civilization and our culture and our minds have become so infested by technology that we have become blind to how it shapes and determines us, society and our lives. And more importantly to what extend we have become dependent on our very technologies, insitutions, infrastructures and economic systems — not only for our thriving, but also increasingly for our very survival. We are no doubt at the point where our survival as a species depends on how we manage to redesign the major elements and sub-systems of society.
“as technology expands the reach of mind, a comprehension of what it actually is and ontologically designs diminishes.”
Tony Fry, 2015
What Tony Fry is pointing to here is that design is omnipresent throughout civilization. It is even internalized and expressed in our behaviour and thinking. It is all-pervasive. And it is so integrated in our very being that it has become “natural” to us and we have become blind to how it changes the world, changes us and changes our relationship to the world. Even our relationship to ourselves. As an example, the way we use our smartphones is rapidly turning us into cyborgs. Obviously then design must be part of the answer to how we improve society and in doing so improve ourselves; as individual human beings and as a species. Design really is an approach and a thinking of and for our time. Design is about being intentional about what functions and values we want to emphasize through the shapes and structures and systems we create. To create the world that we want and need we must first imagine possible alternatives to current realities. We must go right up against the false doctrine of TINA to set free our collective imagination. There is always at least one alternative. This is the practice of social constructionism. Admitting to the idea that things could be radically different than they are. This is true for the technical system of the economy and for the social system of society. And we need to grasp this opportunity to make society and the economy fit for a sustainable future. This is an ethical choice that all designers need to face head on in our time. What am I designing for? — What is my intent? — How can I leverage the power of design for good? — because that is indeed the promise of design thinking. It is about finding solutions to needs and when done right solving real and pressing problems with intent.
“…design is a manifestation of intention…”
William McDonough
Innovation for the sake of innovation is meaningless. Just like innovation design is a process that can be formulated as a method and developed into a craft. Like any other craft or tool or technology it can be used for good or for bad. It all comes down to the intention, execution and the designers systemic awareness of causality/consequences surrounding the production and use of the design. When designing for sustainability we need to design in accordance with how nature works. This means understanding natural law of the environmental system and use that knowledge and insight to make smarter designs that operate on the already optimized principles of nature. It also means designing for synergies between society and the environment to bridge the gap and break down the unnecessary and false disconnect we have installed between the natural world and the human world. This will require a whole-system circular approach to design, which alters what is designed and what is designed for. Increasingly we will have to design for shared value creation and the ongoing collective functions of circular flows rather than individual addiction in a linear take-make-waste consumption pattern.
The need for a systemic approach to design
The way to succeed with this is to admit to the systemic nature of nature. What does this mean? — it means that nature is fully interconnected. Systemic thinking is the discipline of thinking in relationships, connections and the exchanges of information, resources and energy that makes a difference. As Alex Ryan says; “design is the idea of intention” and “systemics is the idea of interdependence”. If we connect these two ideas we open up a new and interesting and promising field of Systemic Design that is not restricted, but all-encompassing and thus holds endless potential. As a systemic designer you can design for sustainable transitions. You can have a larger systems level impact by moving your focus of design from the product level to the systems level through a focus on enabling circular delivery of vital services and critical functions. To become systemic designers we must expand our conceptualization of the arena of design as we expand our circles of concern (who and what do we design for) through time and space.
“The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think.”
Gregory Bateson
It really is that simple. This is the gap we need to close throughout society. And we need to do so by design.
The problem is that most of us (even to some degree science as an institution) are still infants with regards to fully understanding how eco-systems function. Especially when it comes the complex networks and causal structures of interactions between agents and substances. This should instil some humility in us and make us respect the precautionary principle as we endeavour into designing and creating what we believe are good solutions for society. It should also make us strive to know more about the natural world and sustainability science. If we do not do so we risk designing for the future in a way that does not actually lead to the future we want. Design as usual (unintentional design or design that is not for sustainability) will result in us being the cause of our own demise and suffering. And currently that is what we are largely doing. Because we are designing the wrong things for the wrong reasons in the wrong ways. We are currently largely designing for novelty, addiction and ultimately profit; often through precarious, ubscure, manipulatory and exploitative means such as nudging, attention-grabbing and data-mining. We are so to speak abusing the power of design. And that will only lead us towards an inevitable decline of human civilization. This is what we need to reverse.
”There are professions more harmful than industrial design, but only a very few of them….Today, industrial design has put murder on a mass-production basis.”
Victor Papanek, 1971
This is a radical claim, and while some production of our designed goods has been improved upon (in terms of working conditions) since 1971, the scale of mass-production and degree of outsourcing has only increased since. And there are still so many unacceptable and unsustainable practices that is being hid away from the consumer. Often behind a veil of greenwashing. There are also plenty of concrete cases of socio-ecological misconduct within (but not restricted to) the industrial design and fashion sector that have been exposed to the public eye. Such as this example from Bangladesh where the Dhaka Garment Factory (a sweatshop — bad enough as it were) collapsed 2013 (likely due to poor construction, overuse and lacking maintenance) harming the already underpaid and overworked employees. Around 2500 people were harmed and 1134 people died. Most of those that were fortunate enough to continue their work in the garment industry are likely still exposed to toxic chemicals and poor working conditions on a daily basis, while their local water systems get polluted etc.
Clearly we need to design both better buildings, better employee contracts, better workplaces, better supply chains, better production systems, better materials and better products. Even better costumer experiences and end of use options. It all goes together in a circular economy. And it is important to stress that design for sustainability is in no way a discipline whos relevance is restricted to the industrial design and fashion sector. It is relevant and necessary in all sectors.
Climate Justice, Economic Inequality & Change
What we know about climate change is that it hits different people differently and often hits those hardest who are most vulnerable and exposed. Often these are poor people living closer to equator where living conditions are often poor due to scarcity of clean drinking water, erosion of soils and corruption etc. — this people are often individuals with a very low ecological footprint, low consumption and little wealth. These are not the people who have caused climate change. Yet these are the very people who are suffering the most from the consequences already and who will be hit hardest from the changes that will come. There is so to speak a “injustice-squared” when it comes to climate change and the sustainability challenge. The evil reinforcing dynamics are shown in this model:
On top of this we have an economic system that inherently does not serve the masses. It is not designed to limit suffering or promote justice. The capitalistic system as currently constructed tends to work like this — If you got a really good deal, you can be quite sure someone else prior in the supply chain got shorthanded — probably even had to accept a rough deal. This is evident from the global wealth distribution pyramid:
While the middle-class has grown a bit, the gap between the richest and the poorest has only widened in the past decade. The top 11% resides over 97% of the wealth in the world. This warped reality surely is evidence that the current economic system has some inherent flaws. As it is promoting segregation and polarization fueled by a justified unsatisfaction amongst those who does not benefit from this system. A lot of whom are even being supressed and epxploited. This system produces a great amount of suffering for the masses. The price of running this system is also carried by the environment where the eco-systems and eco-systems functions are shutting down along with declining biodiversity. The system is clearly not designed for either social nor environemtal sustainability. Can we change the system? — yes we can — remember; the economy is a socially constructed (negotiated) and (more or less intentionally) designed technical system. But the economic system is entrenched and complex and vested interests at the top of pyramid will fight any change with the vast power they have. I am not saying all rich people are bad. I am just talking about probabilities and overwelming tendencies based on history and human inclination towards protecting their privileges.
What we as designers can do however, is design products, services and sub-systems of the economy that alters it from within over time. More of a Trojan Horse approach. We are going to have to aim for reaching a tipping point bottom up rather than expecting the system to be re-designed top down. That starts with more of us designing real solutions for real needs while we inspire others to do the same. The good news is that a tipping point might occur through contagion effects when about 15% of the participants of the system has adopted a sustainable mind-set and approach. Designers are influencers and creators — through their designs. Designs change the world as they introduce new shapes, new functions and new possibilities to the lived environment. But those new possibilities also change minds as they show that alternative functions and realities are possible — not only to imagine, but to make real. In that way changing designs and approaches to design is a major leverage point for human civilization to reach socio-ecological sustainability. And since it is now a well-developed methodology we can effectively leverage design for sustainability.
Tying it up
If you are into sustainability you should care about design and if you are into design you should care about sustainability. A meaningful future depend on the succesful marriage of the two concepts and disciplines.
In order to move your design practice closer to having a positive impact for sustainability, you need to start by making two major moves in mind-set and approach:
· Embrace and discover systemic thinking: This includes developing commons thinking and futures thinking. By that I mean adopting a mission of designing for the common good and long term. This means starting with the end in mind. It also means increasing your circles of concern through time and space and understand how literally everything is connected and how we are interdependent. From this perspective, you must design entire systems according to the appropriate and desired system functions that we need to survive and thrive as humanity.
· Design based in real needs; make sure that those functions that your designs deliver works as solutions that address real human needs. How to properly think about a needs-based approach to design, and how to make it operational we will explore further in part 3 of this article series.
So why are designers dangerous? — well obviously because design is powerful. As such designers hold the key to contribute to do good or do bad. Designers are also dangerous because a lot of us are designing without realizing that that is what we are doing. Thus not doing so methodologically and purposefully. If you design, but a) neglect to take sustainability and a systemic awareness into account or b) neglect to design with clear intent of addressing real needs you risk creating designs that contribute to perpetuating a dangerous and unsustainable system of overproduction and overconsumption of unnecessary goods and services. This will be harmful to someone. We can no longer afford to go in the wrong direction. We are running out of time and ressources. And doing less bad is not good enough. Incremental innovation and relative improvements will not do. The myth of the small steps might lead us in the right direction, but it will not bring us all the way to where we need to be in time. We must strive to only do good. We must all become part of the solution. The most promising way of doing that is to take a systemic and cross-disciplinary approach to design and redesign that gets to the roots of the systemic issues across the board.
So, what actually is good design for sustainability and how do we do it?
We will answer this in the coming articles. In Part 2 we wil attempt a definition of what can be thought of as sustainable design — how we can ensure that our designs are indeed sustainable. We will also establish criteria for what can qualify as good design for sustainability. In Part 3 we will look at the importance of a needs-based approach to sustainability and explore a language and framework for that. There are many different approaches to DfS. We will explore these in the final (Part 4) of this article series. So stay with me and let´s continue the exploration of this emergent field together.
For now — take a moment to consider:
- Do you agree that appropriate systemic design is an imperative to succeed with sustainable development?
- Do you agree that it is an imperative for any designer in our time to be practicing for sustainability?
- Where are you currently on that journey in your design thinking?
- Is there a gap between your design thinking and your design practice?
- Where do you want your design practice to be?
- Where does those who you care about need you to position yourself as a designer?
I am curious to know your answers to these questions, so please throw me a comment or message if you feel like it. If you do not agree with my premise and conclusion of this article I am particularly curious to hear your argument(s) and perspectives from another position.
I am currently working on methods and concepts that couples Systemic Thinking with Design Thinking (along the double diamond process of divergence and convergence) and couples systemic design with the scientific sustainability principles of the FSSD and various other tactics of DfS.
If you are interested in learning more about how to work with these approaches appropriately and if you want to cultivate them in your design and/or change praxis to succeed with your purpose and benefit your stakeholders — then you are most welcome to contact me via:
mikkel@consult-pilgaard.com
Also, you may want to pay attention to the courses offered on an ongoing basis through my partnering educational institutions. Right now, you can enrol on this short online course offered together with the KAOSPILOT school of enterprising leadership and design:
https://www.kaospilot.dk/product/design-for-sustainability/
Sources
Papanek, Victor. 2019 (first published 1971). Design for The Real World - Human Ecology and Social Change. Third edition. Thames & Hudson Ltd. London; UK.
Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. 1998. Democracy Realized — The Progressive Alternative. Verso; NY, US.
Bateson, Gregory. 2000. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. University of Chicago Press. IL; US.
Braungart, Michael & William McDonough. 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; NY, US.
Fry, Tony; Clive Dilnot & Susan C. Stewart. 2015. Design and the Question of History. Bloomsbury Academic; London, UK.
Ryan, Alex. 2016. What is Systemic Design?. Medium. https://medium.com/the-overlap/what-is-systemic-design-f1cb07d3d837
