Participation – when people make things together

Transcription of an interstellar phone call between Evil and Finnish Raccoons

The idea of a participatory design is quite old. It indeed had a huge boost after WWII. Architectural field appropriated it quite early thanks to figures like Giancarlo De Carlo and other team X’s members. In this sense they have all been pioneers in the engagement of all the stakeholders in the design process.

As participatory design and all collaborative practices aim to respond better to needs of users, it could be considered as an approach more focused on processes and procedures of design and not the design (result) itself.

Today collaborative practices in design have evolved from architecture and urban planning scopes; people tend to be included in every decision making process (from civic related issues to companies product development, from public to private, everything is participated).

This can be seen as a new approach to participation: is it a design practice or a natural state of our condition (life-style — way of live – living – society)?

May we say that participation is a right of everyone instead of a way to approach only some issues? Is there a civic meaning in participatory design?

Participation is about being active and conscious agents in society rather than being included in certain controlled processes. Moreover participation is a basic civic fiction we cannot avoid to perform.

Problem is that maybe the word of participation is tricky. Indeed to participate means to exercise a power and it implies that someone decides who can participate and till which extent. In this sense participating could be considered as a concession, an act of superiority of a leading group over other people; participating refers to a colonialist vision of society.

So, what is really participation?

It’s the act of enabling people to be active. Including people that usually remain out in respect to the object, contributing to design.

This vision brings different results than previous as it implies a group of communities which are collaborative itself. We can talk about geographical communities (district unions, etc…) or practice communities (fan groups, etc…). The aim of participatory design lies just in the implementations of processes (tools, protocols) which activate people, putting them on the same plane, cooperating with each other and creating the own designed product.

As we said before it is more about process than product. Participation is a precondition and we can’t use the term of “participative design”. Isn’t it more about inclusion? Inclusive design?

References: Relational Art – Chicago, public art — social engaged practices.

As a conceptual device we can differentiate among three derivatives of participatory processes: civic engagement, social innovation and sharing economy.

1. Civic engagement:

When groups of citizens show interest in public affairs management and take part to decision processes. Promoting civic participation practices means to rebuild people confidence in administrative institutions and other political organisms. This vision seems to lead to the constitution of a real collaboration between State and its citizens. It could vouch for more transparency in actions of decision making and support culture of legality among people at the first time. Reference: Wikicrazia

2. Social Innovation:

“Social innovation is actually society taking into delegation the provision of certain services that welfare cannot anymore provide or haven’t provided yet”

Social innovation happens when welfare is inefficient or insufficient and it implies that citizens privately organize to provide missing services to society.

Causes: crises related problem (mostly financial) or new demand.

Thanks to social innovations we are changing our welfare structure: all kind of benefits won’t be provided vertically (State à people) but horizontally (peer to peer practices). As governments crisis and their inefficiency are unfortunately certified, social innovations represent today an efficient and sustainable reality for the future of society.

In other words, question is if institutions will save us or not. If future relies in collaborative practices what role State is going to play? If it won’t be the guarantor of basic needs and rights in society because people are going to manage them, why we should keep talking about institutions and governments? What is their role in the society of social innovations?

Actually some troubles rely on social innovation: since everyone is moved by individuality and private interest, pursuing common good through private initiatives results utopian.

Even if I want to spend few words in praise of personal interests: we’ve been taught they are negative as they are negatively affecting collective or individual needs. On the contrary they represent a positive amount of creative energy in society waiting in the need for activation.

On the other hand here comes the role of civic institutions: leading and redirecting private actions to contribute to commons. Indeed, according to this vision, public authorities seem to be “the only subjects having it in their mission”.

3. Sharing economy:

Socio-economic system built around inefficient [and widespread] resources. It consists in activating resources instead of controlling them.

In this way sharing economy is able to create value inside society, enhancing its efficiency and capitalizing on unused resources.

Internet plays an essential role and supports all sharing economy practices: for instance internet allows to manage globally diffused resources, which is one of the most important aspect of sharing economy phenomenon. (think to Airbnb or energy market).

Conclusion

Even if collaborative practices seem to have positive impacts on society, some tricky aspects need to be even analysed. For example despite the sharing movement, why social orders seem to be even more polarized? Why private is clearly opposed to commons and we keep consuming massively?Even with the implementation of inclusive protocols and social platforms, why people keep not taking part to participative processes? Does segregation still exist in collaborative practices?