Book note: "Design for the Pluriverse - Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds" by Arturo Escobar
There are many different kinds of books about design and designing. The way they differ is diverse. It is fascinating to see the breadth and scope of books trying to describe, prescribe, define, advocate, or change design.
A simple list (far from comprehensive) would include design-related books that engage with:
-- "how to" practical aspects of the design process (approaches, methods, tools, skills, etc),
-- how to relate design to other approaches, such as art or science,
-- the history of design,
-- designed artifacts and systems in a particular field (buildings, chairs, systems, pens, etc.)
-- philosophical and theoretical thoughts on design
-- ___________
There are of course others too. For instance, there is a category of design books that engage with design and designing form the perspective of what to achieve with design. These treatments of design are usually a bit more philosophical and definitely more ideological and political. In this kind of books, design is almost seen as a "tool", as a way to achieve a particular goal.
One such book is recently published and written by Arturo Escobar with the title "Design for the Pluriverse - Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds".
This is a book that "presents a new vision of design theory and practice aimed at channeling design's world-making capacity towards ways of being and doing that are deeply attuned to justice and the Earth." (from the book cover).
In the description, we can see how design is seen as a "tool" as the author wants to use "design's world-making capacity" to achieve "being and doing that are deeply attuned to justice and the Earth". Escobar does this by relying on certain philosophical foundations and what he calls 'ontological design'. It is an interesting book and an ambitious project that Escobar is involved in.
To me, maybe the most interesting aspect of the book is not the proposed "new vision" but a question that Escobar asks. He writes "Here again we confront one of the key issues of this book: can design be extricated from its embeddedness in modernist unsustainable and defuturing practices and redirected toward other ontological commitments, practices, narratives, and performances? Moreover, could design become part of the tool kit for transitions toward the pluriverse?" (p 15)
This type of question is similar to what is often asked in science and art. Each approach is often accused to be the instrument for certain goals and disinterested in others. They are accused to have some 'built in' bias that leads the approach/tool to only support certain outcomes. Escobar is arguing that designing has a built-in bias in its "embeddedness in modernist unsustainable and defuturing practices". Escobar's ambition is to reveal that bias and to explore and develop a possible alternative 'bias'. As a project, I find this highly interesting.
To me, maybe the most interesting observation stimulated by this book is the question about the nature of the core of design as a human approach to change. Escobar must see that the built-in bias in design is not an intrinsic quality, not part of the core. If it were, then the project would be futile. Instead, the alternative 'bias' seems to be something that can be added on to or infused in the approach. So, is there in Escobar's view a design approach that is not biased, that is the pure approach? Or is it always the case that any use of the 'tool' design is instilled with some bias?
(Of course, we can see how this question relates to the old discussion in the philosophy of science about the question of science as unbiased or not.)
A simple list (far from comprehensive) would include design-related books that engage with:
-- "how to" practical aspects of the design process (approaches, methods, tools, skills, etc),
-- how to relate design to other approaches, such as art or science,
-- the history of design,
-- designed artifacts and systems in a particular field (buildings, chairs, systems, pens, etc.)
-- philosophical and theoretical thoughts on design
-- ___________
There are of course others too. For instance, there is a category of design books that engage with design and designing form the perspective of what to achieve with design. These treatments of design are usually a bit more philosophical and definitely more ideological and political. In this kind of books, design is almost seen as a "tool", as a way to achieve a particular goal.One such book is recently published and written by Arturo Escobar with the title "Design for the Pluriverse - Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds".
This is a book that "presents a new vision of design theory and practice aimed at channeling design's world-making capacity towards ways of being and doing that are deeply attuned to justice and the Earth." (from the book cover).
In the description, we can see how design is seen as a "tool" as the author wants to use "design's world-making capacity" to achieve "being and doing that are deeply attuned to justice and the Earth". Escobar does this by relying on certain philosophical foundations and what he calls 'ontological design'. It is an interesting book and an ambitious project that Escobar is involved in.
To me, maybe the most interesting aspect of the book is not the proposed "new vision" but a question that Escobar asks. He writes "Here again we confront one of the key issues of this book: can design be extricated from its embeddedness in modernist unsustainable and defuturing practices and redirected toward other ontological commitments, practices, narratives, and performances? Moreover, could design become part of the tool kit for transitions toward the pluriverse?" (p 15)
This type of question is similar to what is often asked in science and art. Each approach is often accused to be the instrument for certain goals and disinterested in others. They are accused to have some 'built in' bias that leads the approach/tool to only support certain outcomes. Escobar is arguing that designing has a built-in bias in its "embeddedness in modernist unsustainable and defuturing practices". Escobar's ambition is to reveal that bias and to explore and develop a possible alternative 'bias'. As a project, I find this highly interesting.
To me, maybe the most interesting observation stimulated by this book is the question about the nature of the core of design as a human approach to change. Escobar must see that the built-in bias in design is not an intrinsic quality, not part of the core. If it were, then the project would be futile. Instead, the alternative 'bias' seems to be something that can be added on to or infused in the approach. So, is there in Escobar's view a design approach that is not biased, that is the pure approach? Or is it always the case that any use of the 'tool' design is instilled with some bias?
(Of course, we can see how this question relates to the old discussion in the philosophy of science about the question of science as unbiased or not.)
Comments