Moving wardrobes – Introducing a new project

 

I'm currently looking for German users of the second-hand online marketplace Kleiderkreisel.de that are interested in participating in my fieldwork on the circulation of second-hand clothes and its implications for questions of sustainability. Here you can read a project description in German.

Some thoughts on sustainable design

“We are responsible for the world in which we live not because it is an arbitrary construction of our choosing, but because it is sedimented out of particular practices that we have a role in shaping” (Barad 2007:203)

In the last blog post I dealt with the question 'What is design and does it make a difference?'   Today I want to take those ideas to look at the design of sustainable products.

In no way should this be a comprehensive discussion on the state of sustainable design, but more of a first attempt to link the ideas on the agency of humans and non-humans with contemporary practices in that field. The ideas I put forth in the previous post suggest that design plays a fundamental role in shaping our actions. This is the first consequence for designers, for as Barad’s quote above makes clear, through their work, designers make themselves accountable for the products they design and the actions they enable. Designers have used this realization of the importance of their work to promote the development of sustainable products and thus make human lifestyles a little bit more sustainable. Design, as informed by the Actor-Network-Theory, has the capacity to promote sustainability precisely because configurations of humans and non-humans can be changed “in such a way that we can intra-act responsibly” (Suchman 2007).

Environmental questions have been linked to design since the 1970s. Since then, design theory and practice concerned with environmental issues has been reinterpreted and broadened, taking the field from “green” design, to “ecodesign”, to “sustainable” design. Behind this transition lies the realization that environmental issues touch on all aspects of our daily lives and that the “global model of development” is in itself structurally unsustainable (Manzini 2010). This is similar to what Fry (2011) suggests. For the field of sustainable design this transition means that when designers were concerned with “Green Design” in the 1980s, the aim was to design artifacts that were considered less harmful for the environment. This could mean making changes to clothing fabrics and garments by using low-chemical organic materials instead of synthetic ones that are more polluting.

With the advent of the term ‘ecodesign’ in the late 1980s, the focus shifts to a systems approach, concerned not only with the redesign of single products, but often entire systems of products or even entire industries. One approach developed within that phase is the Lifecycle Assessment or Lifecycle Analysis (LCA). The aim of a lifecycle assessment is to quantify and balance a product’s environmental impact. This is done for all stages of its lifecycle: production, use and disposal. Recently, there has been a wave of critique on this type of approach, suggesting not only that its methodology lacks transparency and that the way the impact data is acquired heavily varies from one model to another, but also that the design proposals resulting from lifecycle analysis are insufficient to solve environmental problems.

In their article “The things that matter”, Verbeek and Kockelkoren present the work of a group of Dutch industrial designers called “Eternally Yours” who propose ways of making sustainable products that go beyond the “technical” solutions that Lifecycle Assessments offer. “Eternally Yours” sees the fundamental problem of making sustainable products as lying in a culture that throws away products before they start being unusable. With this we move from a focus on ‘ecodesign’ to the present stage: ‘sustainable design’. For designers, this move implies a shift away from the design of artifacts or systems of artifacts, to the design of ‘culture’. For “Eternally Yours” this shift means that instead of focusing on technical improvements regarding materials or fabrication processes, the most important work of sustainable design is to make products that people will not want to discard and replace at a high speed. They seek to increase the psychological lifespan of products.

From an anthropological perspective that regards things as important actors in shaping our actions, the reconsideration of design from the unit of the single product, to compromising users, their bond with things and modes of usage, is without a doubt a productive improvement in the creation of sustainable design. However, this shift in vision has also brought with it a change in focus from the material to the symbolic. In their article, Verbeek and Kockelkoren examine the work of “Eternally Yours” critically, concluding that trying to extend the ‘psychological lifespan’ of a product does little to solve the problems of sustainability. “Eternally Yours” tries to create and maintain the bond between a user and a product by making them appreciate the object, for example through choosing materials that seem more attractive with age, strengthening the relationship to companies and their services, or creating stories that “give products more “character””.

These ideas, Verbeek and Kockelkoren argue, “show a certain one-sidedness” as they do not work with material qualities of objects, but with nonmaterial signs. Even when looking at aged leather, “Eternally Yours” does not look at the material and what it does but at what it stands for: high attractiveness. In the end, a product like this could, and will probably be replaced with another one that has the same sign-value.

So?

From an anthropological perspective that recognizes things as what they are, sustainable design seems to benefit from its broadening of scope and from understanding sustainability in more integrated ways, an understanding that encompasses all aspects of culture. However, culture here must mean the relationship between people and material things, and not between people and signs.

The Actor-Network Theory helps understand the role of design in shaping our actions and thus brings forward a view in which design can (to a certain extent) change and improve environmental problems. As Manzini notes: “design can "give form" to a changing world, and "offer opportunities" for new types of behavior”. But since design is concerned with the intimate bond between people and things, the redesign of a world that is sustainable might be more complicated than contemporary design ‘solutions’ assume. After all, Fry’s quest for a redesign of design might be on the right track.

Here some recommended readings:
Design Anthropology (2013)
edited by Wendy Gunn, Ton Otto and Rachel Charlotte Smith

Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys (2008)
by Kate Fletcher

Design as Politics (2011)
by Tony Fry

The Designed World: Images, Objects, Environments (2010)
edited by Richard Buchanan, Dennis P. Doordan, and Victor Margolin.

What is design and does it make a difference?

The way one answers the question “Does design make a difference?” subsequently shapes one’s definition of what ‘design’ is. And how one answers this question depends on one’s understanding of the relation between humans and material objects. In this rather long blog post, I want to put forth an understanding of humans and objects informed by the Actor- Network-Theory. At its heart, the Actor-Network-Theory mobilizes the notion of ‘agency’ to explain human and non-human relations. I will argue that because agency is relational, design has the capacity to create and define human agency.

Meaning over matter?

Let us start this inquiry by challenging the assumption that design as the process of giving an object a specific material form, has any broader, sociocultural implications – let us argue that design makes absolutely no sociocultural difference. Csikszentmihalyi’s psychological study on the meanings of household object might help to prove this point.

Csikszentmihalyi conducted 82 interviews with different families in the Chicago area to find out how art affected the consciousness of the viewer. He quickly noticed that his informants had little to say about the ‘art’ objects that they owned, but they had a lot to say about other artifacts in their houses, which were charged with meanings and towards which they felt very strong attachments. Although there were quite a few (graphic) art objects among the mentioned artifacts, Csikszentmihalyi makes this interesting observation:

Of the 537 reasons given for cherishing the 136 graphic works, only sixteen percent had anything to do with how the picture looked. The objects were special because they: conveyed memories (sixteen percent), or referred to family members (seventeen percent), or to friends (thirteen percent). Formal qualities alone almost never made a picture valuable to its owner.

What this observation suggests is that the way an object looks, that its material and visual qualities, are not acknowledged by whoever uses or consumes the artifact. Rather it is the symbolic relationship between a person and his personal belongings that we have to look at. This observation poses a problem: How can we claim that design has any significant impact if people seem to see and choose ideas, signs and meanings over the actual object? Does the way things look not matter at all, then?

We do not need to be designers to sense that this claim is extremely reductionist. Csikszentmihalyi argues that visual qualities do indeed matter, but that it is not in a “natural” way that we respond to color and form. Instead, he suggests, these are “responses to meanings attached to configurations of color and form“. These responses result from a process in which visual qualities are linked to values. This is a highly cultural process, as these values develop within groups of people and can be “unanimous or contested, elite or popular, strong or vulnerable, depending on the integration of the culture.”. An interesting thing has happened here. In trying to prove wrong the link between the material qualities of objects and sociocultural aspects, we have instead unveiled its complex and deep entanglement. But Csikszentmihalyi view is not unproblematic, as we will see. It still leaves us in the world of signs.

What the Digital entails: Some Misconceptions

Some helpful notes on common misconceptions that should be avoided (or at least reviewed) when talking about the use, implications, effects or consequences of digital technologies.

The virtual/real divide

In his ethnography of Second Life, Boellstorff has shown that the dichotomy between virtual and real is not very useful: Someone who is selling virtual clothes in the world of 'Second Life' and making a living out of it will tell you that his or her business does have real-life implications. In a similarly way, it would be wrong to assume that human communication through digital media is less 'social' or 'real'than face to face interaction.

What's more, anthropologists like Boellstorff are trying to show us that virtuality is inherent to human culture. He says:

'It is not only that virtual worlds borrow assumptions from real life; virtual worlds show us how, under our very noses, our “real” lives have been “virtual” all along. It is in being virtual that we are human: since it is human “nature” to experience life through the prism of culture, human being has always been virtual being (Boellstorff 2009: 5).

However, Boellstorff does recognize the usefulness of distinguishing between 'virtual' or 'digital' and 'actual' (as in 'physical'). Not only is the distinction meaningful to his informants in 'Second Life' (since participants would exclusively interact with other participants 'in-world') but also does the sole definition of 'digital' prohibit the assumption that those two categories could somehow fall together in the future (like Rogers 'The end of the virtual' suggests)

Read more: 'Digital Anthropology', by Daniel Miller and Heather Horst (2012)

Community/network paradigm

community or community of practice: it's more of a normative and cultural category ('folk notion') that is often used in public rhetoric. It doesn't seem to have an empiric referent so it's not an actual social group that we can study. Also, the notion of community (much like 'culture') sort of imagines a homogenous and bounded group. As Postill puts it 'community of practice proponents have played down questions of power and conflict'(Postill 2011: 13). Postill suggests using Bourdieus concept of 'field' instead.

networks: conceptualizing the internet or digital technologies as 'networks' is an incredibly popular idea (especially in Internet studies). Reviewing the value of this concept can lead to more productive approaches. For example, thinking about the social ties in a certain group as a network oversees all 'the constraints, tangles and disconnects that invariably accompany all human endeavour and should not be left out in a ethnography' (Postill 2011: 15).

Read more: Localizing the Internet, by John Postill (2011); Bringing Things Back to Life: Creative Entanglements in a World of Materials, by Tim Ingold (2010)

Global vs local

When turning to a defined, physical place (like Silicon Valley or a neighborhood in Kuala Lumpur) in order to look at local uses, understandings and effects of digital technologies like the Internet we need to avoid the idea that a 'seemingly stationary 'local community' is […]impacted upon by 'global' technologies'(Postill 2011: 11)

Rather, as anthropological scholars of Globalization teach us, not only is the 'global' produced within local structures but global structures themselves produce local ones!

Read more: The Internet, by Daniel Miller (2000); Modernity at large, by Arjun Appadurai (1996)

The digital experience is not universal

While we can not deny the ability of digital technologies to connect people globally and its potential of transforming society and culture as such, ethnographic work on the uses of digital technologies around the world show that there is no evidence of a universal digital experience. Instead, there are interesting approaches like Miller and Slaters concept of 'expansive realization' that triy to explain how digital media like the internet is 'appropiated' in different social and cultural contexts (with regard to the false opposition between global/local we should use the word 'appropriate' with caution)

An Ethnography of Reddit: Some thoughts

Here are some thought on a possible ethnography of Reddit. Some of these questions do not only relate to the specific case of Reddit but could also be asked more generally for other online ethnographies.

What is reddit and how does it work?

The idea of reddit is simple: Users (Redditors) can link to stuff they find on the web and share it with other redditors or simply write something and submit it . Others can give that post 'up' or 'down' votes, depending on whether they like it or not. Users can also comment the post and reply to comments already posted. This basic concept doesn't differ a lot from social networking sites like Facebook or internet forums. But there are some distinct features that make reddit stand out. First, the infrastructure allows for an open communication with all users (you don't have be 'friends' with someone and in most cases you don't have to be a formal member of the specific group to interact with them). Second, the up and down votes create lists of posts that are especially popular in the community. A very popular post raises to the top and will be highly visible for most of the users on the home page (front page). The Front Page itself is a selection of the most popular 'subreddit', which is probably the most distinct feature on reddit. A 'subreddit' is like a subtopic in a forum and there are hundreds of thousands of them. If you chose to post on reddit you would first have to decide which of these thematic sub forums to submit your post to. The subreddits are very diverse and defined by various characteristics like hobbies (r/music r/gaming') or by the type of media submitted (like videos in r/videos) or they can be designed to support and help others (r/personalfinance). 

Some thought on how to approach fieldwork on reddit.com:

Picking one subreddit and aspect of Reddit

Generally, any active subreddit could be the subject of an ethnography. However, the bigger subreddits like AskReddit where users ask very general questions about virtually anything would be more difficult to overview due to its high popularity and trying to argue for a single shared culture to exist in this space would be rather difficult. A very interesting but also highly problematic subreddit would be 'circle jerk'. In this subreddit redditors make fun of the stereotypical viewpoints and phrases of redditors and especially the fact that a lot of discussions on reddit could be described as 'preaching to the choir' and the same views are repeated over and over again by like-minded individuals. The fact that redditors in this subreddit interact exclusively in a satirical manner makes serious ethnographic work (like interviews) in this subreddit very difficult.

The research question

Although research questions are more likely to emerge after the first weeks or months of observing and participating in the community (or more precisely: for these questions to emerge the initial phase of observation is indispensable) there are nonetheless some interesting aspects one could focus on from the beginning:

Rules. For example, one could look at the underlying rules of the subreddit. What type of posts are allowed? What behavior is encouraged by the mods? In most subreddits these rules can be found in the sidebar but there are probably more rules that are not necessarily written out but become evident after spending some time on the subreddit.

Interaction. One should also focus on the different types of interaction: Replying, gifting gold, private messaging, up voting, down voting. When do users of the selected user group reach out to private messaging? What makes them up or down vote a post or give reddit gold?

Shared knowledge. An integral part of being a redditor is knowing the memes that are being used. It's important to look out for words, phrases or shared memories and the way they are being used and activated in discussions and the way they contribute to the forming of the community.

A potential problem: The Internet & Place.

The relationship between the on - and offline world.

In what way should Redditors offline lives be included in such an ethnography? Should participant observation extend to these offline worlds or stay in the limits of the online community? To what extend can we ignore offline 'worlds' and still have a representative image of these Redditors?

Some good examples: In his ethnography 'The Internet: an ethnographic approach' about Trinidadians and their use of the internet, Daniel Miller and Don Slater integrate the on-line and the off-line worlds. In fact, this entire ethnography is based on previous ethnographic work in Trinidad that focused solely on the off-line world. What's more, Miller and Slater argue against the notion of a placeless 'cyberspace' and suggest that to understand what the internet is as a whole in this specific ethnography you have to consider what 'being Trini' means  (Miller & Slater 2000: 1). On the contrary, in 'Coming of Age in Second Life' Boellstorff (2008) studies 'virtual worlds only 'in their own term'' because 'the vast majority [of participants] interact only in the virtual world'. Nevertheless, Boellstorff understands that these virtual lives have a great impact on the social life in the offline world.

More thoughts to follow.