Redefining the human: What is the value of design research beyond humanity?
The nature of design
Why Man Creates is a title of an animated short documentary film from 1968 directed by Saul Bass, and at the same time, the timeless existential question without a clear answer. For Bass, different forms of human expression are a method of introspection exploring the very existence of human species: ‘an urge to look into oneself and out of the world saying: this is what I am; I’m unique, I’m here. I am.’ It is a process of scale characterised by its dual nature - a man looks inwards and outwards making a statement of one’s own existence and simultaneously, questioning the very same existence through observation and reflection. An outcome emerges, either in a material or immaterial state. Both the process as well as the outcome of that process, is otherwise called design.
Most of us associate design with tangible artefacts: a car, a book, a building, a piece of clothing. Design is commonly perceived as a certain form, aesthetics that elevate a competitive advantage of goods and services. Its function and value, however, is much bigger than that.
Despite its industrial use, design manifests itself in so much as a global technological infrastructure, an economic system, climate change or racism. Design as an intrinsic human capability is both a verb and a noun; And it’s everywhere. From rock paintings, first tools and fire, to social organisation, religions and artificial intelligence, all of these creations are man-made and mirror the state of our species in a certain space and time. As Beatriz Colomina and Mark Wigley framed it in their book Are We Human on the archaeology of design:
If the human is a question mark, design is the way that question is engaged. An archaeology of design is an archaeology of curiosity.
The human species is modulated by its environment: the biological and material realm as well as the immaterial layers of social worlds. Therefore, our creation, expression, design - however we call it - does never happen in isolation. It is by nature embedded in a certain context. The context is nothing else than a multitude of interconnected factors that form a dominant thought collective, in other words, a status quo. Saul Bass in the film distinguishes a pattern in his interpretation of a creative process, during which disruptive ideas become successively a status quo and result later in a search for alternate thinking. It is somehow a closed loop system where again, citing Colomina and Wigley, ‘The human is permanently suspended between being the cause and the effect, between designing living systems and being designed by them.’ We design a certain reality but we are also designed by our very own creation.
In academic terms, the period marking human impact on the Earth is referred to as Anthropocene - a proposed geological epoch characterised by a set of patterns, behaviours and values, materialised and manifested in all aspects of life.
More Than Human-Centred Futures: Website Prototype, 2020 © Magdalena Obmalko
The Anthropocene is a human-centric view on the planet dominated by extractive practices and driven by continuous growth. It is important to note that such understanding of the world is not inclusive to, for example, indigenous communities, with their own ways of knowing and living in this world. It does, however, refer to the Western civilisation that has been dictating the norms over the past centuries.
The human-centeredness of things, allowed us to grow food, build civilisations and, simply, create conditions to survive. Due to scientific and technological advancements, our growth accelerated at an unimaginable scale. We designed cities, led industrial revolutions and globalised the whole planet. On the other hand, we extracted the Earth to the point where we are constantly threatened by its extinction, we designed racial politics in the aftermath of imperialism and began dehumanising ourselves by omnipresent automation and mechanisation. It is almost impossible not to notice the correlation between the scientific research at that time, the system of slavery and the progression of capitalism.
Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution by natural selection formed in the 19th century, was one of the most impactful theories that has been defining our anthropocentric understanding of the world to the present day. The way we see ourselves in relation to each other as well as towards nature - as individualised beings functioning within the capital market fueled by competition - is a cause-effect relationship with the imperial past. The accelerating expansion brought us to the point, where the world we have built became so complex that, what we call now, wicked issues of climate change or the social injustice are considered almost impossible to solve. The prevailing economic and cultural paradigms simply do not align with a sustainable vision of the future.
Development based on a continuous growth and exclusively serving the human at the expense of nature, marginalises the rest of the planet whereas it is the wellbeing of that planet that is at stake. What we academically call Anthropocene is in fact a system that we designed but we are also designed by it. If design is our mirror, what does the present state say about being human?
The most recent academic studies from natural science to humanities, have been attempting to address the question of, ‘What is human?’. One of the disruptive theories in evolutionary science that brought in a completely groundbreaking perspective was the symbiogenesis, vigorously promoted by Lynn Margulis, an American microbiologist and evolutionary scientist. In contrast to neo-Darwinian view on evolution, as a process powered by natural selection and random mutations, referred to as a scientific truth ever since, she claimed that it is the phenomenon of symbiosis that drives it. Margulis argued that microorganisms were the major evolutionary forces in the origins of species and by merging with each other, gave life to new cells. In other words, bacteria are our ancestors that created conditions for living and still maintain our biosphere.
In fact, bacteria, viruses and fungi are everywhere, and in our bodies we have 10 times more bacterial cells than we have human cells. Reductionism of single organisms and mechanisation of life defining the science as we had known it, has been challenged by a systemic approach where every single element is mutually dependent on one another and forms a greater whole. Margulis saw the Earth as, ‘a physiological system made up of ecosystems themselves, made out of communities where a minimum unit is a cell’. This revolutionary symbiogenetic perspective into the logics of biological processes so vigorously promoted by Lynn Margulis, not only shakes the world of science but, first and foremost, confronts our understanding of life and ourselves. Just as Darwin’s theory informed epistemic thinking over the centuries, such a discovery begs the question of how does adopting a new paradigm of knowing changes the way we behave and exist in this world?
With my graduate project More than Human-Centred Futures (2020), I aimed to explore ways in which design could be utilised amongst non-designer professions as a tool for critical practice. Inspired by the symbiogenesis studies as well as its derivatives nested in systems thinking of biomimicry and circular economy, and motivated to move beyond anthropocentric discourse exclusive to academic theory, my goal was to challenge the prevalent design principle of human-centredness to propose instead a novel approach to problem-solving beyond the anthropocentric lens. In order to get off the human-centred path, a regime of inherent unsustainability, technological solutions are not enough. We need new narratives, methodologies, tools to reconstruct the underpinning extractive cultural values and behaviours. Considering the fact that Anthropocene is a designed system, therefore multidimensional and refers to all the aspects of human existence from material and immaterial, to biological and social, design could become a facilitator to rethink all the above-mentioned spheres.
Adopting new thinking paradigm in a design practice
Design as a distinct field of study and a profession emerged within the first Industrial Revolution, paving the way from industrial-oriented to a research-based problem-solving tool. It’s strategic value used as design thinking, has become an example of democratised knowledge, applied outside the design discipline, specifically in a business context. The concept of design thinking visualised in a double diamond diagram has been vastly promoted by design agencies with a global reach, such as IDEO or Frog Design; Formulated in a body of alternative toolkits and methods, that when implemented, are believed to facilitate a successful social innovation. Design thinking defined through principles of human-centred research, systemic approach, co-design and multidisciplinary collaboration has been presented as a way of addressing problem-solving processes across various professional disciplines to determine the underlying compound issues at any scale.
More Than Human-Centred Futures: Co-Design Workshop; Designer’s diagram, 2020 © Magdalena Obmalko
New applicability of design, otherwise called design thinking, has positioned design as a strategic element towards instigating change that re-invents ways of knowledge creation through more intuitive and creative explorations. One of the well-known design research projects embedded in such thinking is, for example, the Value Pursuit (2015) by Karianne Rygh who experimented with design as a facilitator of value creation across multidisciplinary teams. Despite the ambivalent opinions on the actual applicability of design thinking, very often criticised for its generalised exploitation by a non-designer audience to deliver fast solutions, it created new possibilities for extended design practice beyond industrial design or visual communication.
More Than Human-Centred Futures took the form of a design thinking research; an investigation into underpinning values, structures and processes embedded within the interdisciplinary practices of social science, natural science, design and engineering. The invited practitioners were encouraged to take part in a series of online-based workshops and co-design sessions, aimed at identifying opportunities for utilising systems thinking through design and its tools.
More Than Human-Centred Futures: Co-Design Workshop; Policymaker’s diagram, 2020 © Magdalena Obmalko
The process resulted in a developed prototype, the first iteration of an open-source holistic framework for professionals and decision-makers to facilitate regenerative systems innovation and cultural change through the more-than-human lens.
Organised into a web of interconnections between different material and immaterial elements, it could be used to re-think, improve or set up a new vision for existing products, services or systems to arrive with more ethical and sustainable solutions. The framework connects various dimensions and allows for mapping a human system at any scale. The interconnected components provoke a question of how certain elements within that system are related to one another and how to optimise the system as a whole. The structural factor of time horizons is intended to bring an awareness of how certain decisions would evolve in different future scenarios.
More Than Human-Centred Futures: Website Prototype, 2020 © Magdalena Obmalko
The diagram illustrates that human social worlds are always more-than-human social worlds as they comprise a web of micro- and macro-relationships between humans, other living organisms and nonliving matter, for example objects, spirits or even technology. Such a hybrid nature of reality indicates the diversity of interactions and forces that inform the landscape reaching far beyond human epistemic limitations. The role of design here is the one of a facilitator: to instigate systems thinking by exploring the wider context through story-telling, provoke new connections and simplify complex matters. The transition towards systemic understanding of the world will create more spaces for interdisciplinary teams with designers, scientists, anthropologists or economists working alongside each other. Therefore, the novel approach to problem-solving will require (if not already) a new design paradigm that informs the more than human-centred collective identity.
If you are interested in knowing more about the project, please visit the UAL digital showcase.
Project Lead
Magdalena Obmalko
Design Research Assistant
Nathalie Combes
Graphic Designer (prototype)
Patricia Núñez & Zhu Yura
Interaction Designer (prototype)
Roxy Zeiher
Research Participants
Helene Combes
Judea Faith
Febe van Maldegen
Giacomo Turco