The Politics of Nature. Designing for an Ontological Turn. DESIS Talk #7.2

Virginia Tassinari Arturo Escobar Department of Design, DESIS Lab University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Politecnico di Milano, Italy USA [email protected] [email protected]

Ezio Manzini Liesbeth Huybrechts ELISAVA Barcelona ArcK research group, School of Design and Engineering, Faculty of Architecture and Arts, Spain University of Hasselt, [email protected] Belgium [email protected]

Annalinda De Rosa Department of Design, Polimi DESIS Lab, Politecnico di Milano, Italy [email protected]

ABSTRACT - to develop non-anthropocentric, non-de-futuring re- Today’s environmental emergency requires specifc fective practices that might account for the radical in- eforts in terms of thinking/acting in designing. The terrelationship between people and the planet? Which consequences of anthropocentric ways of producing, kinds of transformative refective practices might the- consuming and living are painfully clear. se modes of thinking possibly nurture? Design played (and often still plays) a role in this, and therefore has in many ways contributed to feed this Author Keywords anthropocentric mindset, considering human interests Non-anthropocentric design; politics of nature; politi- separated from the ones of the planet’s. Design has a cal ; ontological design; radical interdependence shared responsibility in this – what Fry calls – “de-fu- turing process” (1) produced by anthropocentrism, and INTRODUCTION it is hence obliged to recognize the risks connected to We are currently dealing in many parts of the world this anthropocentric mindset and its consequences. In with the consequences of anthropocentric design prac- this regard, designers are currently, and increasingly, tices, that have not considered the interrelationship becoming aware that an ontological shift is needed. between human and non-human natural agents, as if What does it mean to take this “ontological turn” se- humans’ interests could be separated from the interests riously? Which thinking in contemporary philosophy of other natural actors. In other words: every time hu- and can help designers – and particular- mans solely pursue what they consider their own in- ly the ones dealing with subfelds of design such as terests (which are often, at the end of the day, just the Participatory Design and Design for Social Innovation interests of a small privileged group of people), they actually make a perspective error, as they do not ack- nowledge the fact that human interests cannot be seen as separated from the interests of the whole planet. This perspective error is suicidal, because humans in this way actually undermine their own interests. Ins-

Conversations / Proceedings Vol 3. FII19 - PDC 2020 243 tead, they made of our planet a place where life is be- and many others, dealing with the “more-than-human” coming more and more difcult, both for non-human from diverse perspectives. as well as for human actors. In some areas, the concern with the non-human has The environmental crisis we are facing is, at the led to important re-articulations of nondualism, or ra- end, frst and foremost, an anthropological crisis. De- dical interdependence. The large social theory feld sign played (and often still plays) a role in this state of where “the question of nature” has been posed over afairs. We designed (and still design) many products, the past fve decades is political ecology, an interdis- services and systems aimed to fulfl human interests ciplinary feld in which anthropology, geography, eco- only and often only for a small portion of mankind. logical economics, environmental philosophy, etc. all Thus, the blindness of this anthropocentric mindset in participate. An outgrowth of political ecology has been design research and practice has also contributed to the “Political Ontology” (PO) (4), a term coined by Argen- environmental crisis we are in. Fry refers to this outco- tinean anthropologist Mario Blaser about a decade ago, me as the de-futuring aspects of design (2). Designers and which has been further developed by, for instance, share a responsibility in this de-futuring process and, Marisol de la Cadena and Arturo Escobar (5). If an im- yet, they can also share the responsibility to undertake portant concept within political ontology is that of the new courses of action to counter it. This means that pluriverse, the entry point (and direct link with design) we. as designers, can step out from the anthropocentric of PO is yet the notion that often times environmental mindset and recognize the interrelationship between conficts (e.g. gold mining, the expansion of agrofuels humans and the planet, between human and non-hu- such as oil palm, large scale development projects) are man natural interests. In order to do so, we frst need indeed ontological conficts, that is, conficts over life to refect on what this ontological shift might mean itself and diverse modes of . A recent work for us: what does it imply for our practices? Which touching on these several matters is A World of Many theoretical frameworks can guide us in this complex Worlds (6), edited by de la Cadena and Blaser based endeavor? Which philosophical and anthropological on a year-long seminar at UCDavis, with contributions theories can guide design beyond the Western-, an- by Haraway, Stengers, Viveiros de Castro, Strathern, thropocentric mindset that, for many, is actually at the Hellen Verran, John Law, and a few others. This ought root of the global crisis of climate, energy, poverty and to be considered an up-to-date statement on the “philo- meaning? sophy and anthropology of the non-human” (7). The Philosophical and AnthropolOgical context All of the above takes place largely within the con- Although the critique of anthropocentrism and epis- fnes of modern social theory, particularly the An- temological and ontological dualism (from Cartesian glo-American and European academy. This leaves mind/body split to the separation of humans from out a huge discourse in non-Western, Latin American, non-humans, or the nature/ divide) has a long and indigenous approaches to nature and the non-hu- history in Western philosophy and anthropology, it has man. Some of these of course take place in conversa- experienced some sort of a revival over the past two tion with Western philosophy. The most well-known decades, often encompassed under the rubric of “the is probably Mexican environmental philosopher and ontological turn” (the return of questions of ontology political ecologist Enrique Lef. In his last book (8), besides, and beyond, the concern with , he advocates for a non-Eurocentric framework for which shaped social theory for a number of decades, understanding what he terms the “ontology of life” to particularly with post-structuralism) (3). really counter “the ontology of capital” (9). One of his Possibly the most prominent aspect of this “turn” main arguments is that the ecological crisis is a cri- has been to reopen in multiple ways the question of the sis of a particular model of thought, that of Western non-human, and particularly the human/non-human re- metaphysics with its dualist thought and logocentric lation. These debates have been heated in anthropolo- rationality; the Australian environmental feminist phi- gy, geography, and political philosophy, among others. losopher Val Plumwood also made the same argument Some of the main names here are, Haraway and La- in her Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis tour, but also Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Tim Ingold, of Reason (10). Anna Tsing, Marisol de la Cadena, Mario Blaser, Ma- There are also a whole set of debates in Latin Ame- ria Puig de la Bellacasa, Isabelle Stengers, Jane Bennet rica (even if some similar debates are also getting a

Conversations / Proceedings Vol 3. FII19 - PDC 2020 244 foothold in Asian and African contexts to talk about it may mean for local stakeholders to take their own the Global South, as well as among Indigenous Cana- responsibilities in the public realm seriously, engaging dians and Maori ones, etc.) that deal directly with the again in collaboratively discussing/acting with others need to re/articulate issues of relationality, radical in- about common matters of concerns (12, 13, 14). Yet, terdependence, and the non-human as part of a project what does it concretely mean to consider interests be- of revisioning society and social action. For instance, yond the human sphere? What if common human in- Canadian Native scholar and activist Leanne Simpson terests could frst be grounded in those of the planet? has a powerful set of works on these issues, the la- Within the Participatory Design community, we have test As We Have Always Done, where she out- been talking a lot during the past few years about “de- lines her “radical theory of resurgence,” centered on sign as politics” (15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) (included the the re/constitution of non-anthropocentric, relational last PDC2018). But what if design as politics should worlds. (11). Furthermore, indigenous (and to a les- include those other forms of agency? What about ex- ser extent Afro-descendant) activists in Latin America panding our understanding of concepts such as politics have spearheaded the concept of Buen Vivir (Sumak to include a “politics of nature” (by borrowing Bruno Kawsay in Quechua), a non-anthropocentric view of Latour’s words) (20)? life that is holistic, an alternative to the concept of de- This new series of DESIS Philosophy Talks “De- velopment (12). signing as politics (of nature)” will question what Relevance for the topic of the conference this ontological shift - from an anthropocentric to a Most of these works have profound implications for non-anthropocentric mindset - may possibly mean design theory and practice – for instance for the sub- for designing today. We discuss how this ontological felds of Participatory Design and Design for Social awareness may further shape our thinking/acting in de- Innovation – that largely still need to be explored. The signing, making it more eco-systemic by making tan- aim of the “DESIS Philosophy Talks 7#03 The Poli- gible the interrelationship between the interests of the tics of Nature” is precisely to elucidate such implica- planet and those of humans, thus ultimately also be- tions. What might, for instance, be the implications of tween social and ecological sustainability. What could notions such as Buen Vivir, radical interdependence, design as politics (of nature) concretely mean? We relationality, the “more-than-human” etc., for design? need both to imagine a theoretical frame of reference Can designing be reoriented to respond to the cultural/ by drawing, for instance, on those theories from phi- civilizational imperative to heal (mend, repair, recons- losophy and anthropology (as some of the aforemen- titute…) the web of life? tioned ones) that tackle this ontological shift, and dis- In this Conversation, we will question what design cuss how these frameworks can help us to re-think the can do to answer to the current need for non-anthropo- instruments we use in designing, questioning how far centric, post-dualist, post-capitalist and post-patriar- we are in really thinking in a radically relational and chal approaches to life and the world, in order to better eco-systemic way, when dealing with concepts such understand the possible relationship between design as participation and social innovation, and fnding in itself and these ontological needs. What world-making those theories the possibility to open new perspectives. practices centered on the politics of nature - some pos- For instance, how can design fnd ways to include in sibly unprecedented - (seen as a non-anthropocentric the political arenas of conversations for action natural ontological-political project) to be possibly enacted to non-human agents as essential for more organic, truly counter un-sustainability and de-futuring? How can eco-systemic cities? Which instruments are needed to these refections within design possibly lead to “con- give voice to those silent, and yet relevant, human and versations for action” based on an ontology and on a non-human voices and to their agencies? What does it politics of relationality, non-anthropocentricity, and mean to design from the perspective of radical interde- radical interdependence? How can they possibly lead pendence? How can design contribute to articulate a to transformative actions in the public realm? politics of nature, one that might place interdependen- Designing for a politics of nature: questioning the ce at the core of the political concern? role of participatory design Around the world designers are currently working “politically”, by prototyping in situated contexts what

Conversations / Proceedings Vol 3. FII19 - PDC 2020 245 Potential to draw participants and their active During the conference, the conversation will engage participation the participants in the form of an experimental semi- Before the conference, the organizers will launch a nar which starts with the discussion paper (that will be call on the PDC2020, DESIS Network, DESIS Phi- shared with the all participants on beforehand) that po- losophy Talks and Cumulus websites, where we will sitions and frames the topics at hand within the design communicate the theme and set-up and invite partici- practice. These topics will be accompanied by a phi- pants - both internationally and locally - to take part losophical framing of some key authors and concepts in the Conversation. Once registered, participants will chosen by the respondents along with the organizers, receive a position papers written by the organizers and included those of the philosophers/anthropologists as- will be invited to contribute to the conversation, and ked to contribute to the discussion remotely with the to bring a particular case (possibly coming from their video-statements. After the philosophical and anthro- own practices, but not necessarily) with their own de- pological framing, each of the invited Respondents fnition of ontological design; each participant would (max 5 min) will briefy present and frame her/his se- fll in a card with her or his own defnitions (the format lection of concepts, relate them when possible to ones will be developed by the organizers). Before the Talk, proposed at the beginning of the session, possible also we will use these cards to examine the various un- by presenting case studies related to those concepts, derstandings of ontology emerging from the practical bring them into relationship with the collaborative ma- aspects of the cases, arriving at a cognitive map that pping, and raising a series of questions for design that disentangles and problematizes the defnitions. This connect practice to more philosophical insights. The cognitive map will be the basis for the conversation. questions will be printed and will become the starting Two of the organizers will work on the map during the point for the open discussion with all the participants. conversation, and diferent cards will be developed to In the following open and interactive discussion, di- identify challenges and opportunities by marking ten- ferent questions for designing will be tackled. A larger sions/opportunities on the map (on the nodes, between number of attendees (max 80 people, registering befo- the nodes). re the conference) are invited to actively participate in the discussion. Arturo Escobar and Virginia Tassinari METHODOLOGY will wrap up the discussion, highlighting the concrete The Talk will open with a presentation of the co- outcomes of the discussion and their potential value llaborative mapping on ontological design, and with for PD research. a position paper that articulates the organizers’ pers- The session will end by asking all the participants pective on the matter of the politics of nature starting to make a small podcast (max 3 min) providing their from the collaborative map. The organizers will also own defnition of ontological design. These podcasts personally invite a few (from three to four) Participa- will be shared on the DESIS Network website and will tory Design researchers selected from the conference serve as a basis for putting together the proposal for a participants who are academically publishing on this Design Journal Special Issue. particular theme (such as those mentioned in the bi- After the conference, the results of the discussion bliography) to take part in the discussion as Respon- (together with the video-statements and the small pod- dents. The Respondents will be closely briefed by the casts) will be presented to the international community organizers before the Conversation will take place. in various ways through live streaming on the DESIS Also some key philosophers/anthropologists working Network website, and by means of the Design Journal on these issues (three of four scholars, such as for ins- Special Issue to which everybody actively participa- tance , Maria Puig de la Bellacasa, Ma- ting in the Tutorial is welcome to contribute. risol de la Cadena and Tim Ingold) will be asked to develop a short video-statement (max 5 minutes) in Proposed schedule: which they introduce some key concepts for the dis- 10:00 - 10:30 Welcome & Philosophical and anthro- cussion, and explain how they foresee a potential va- pological positioning (Arturo Escobar), and link with lue for their insights for design research/consider some design (Ezio Manzini) experiences coming from design research within their 10:30 - 10:50 Presentations given by the three res- theoretical refections. pondents

Conversations / Proceedings Vol 3. FII19 - PDC 2020 246 10:50 - 11:20 Open interactive discussion 17. Timothy Morton, Ecology Without Nature: Re- 11:20 - 11:30: Wrap up (Arturo Escobar and Ezio thinking Environmental Aesthetics (Harvard Uni- Manzini) versity Press, 2007). 18. Timothy Morton, Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Proposed location: the Botanical Garden Future Coexistence (Columbia University Press, 2016). Small proposed bibliography: 19. Papadopoulos, D., Puig de le Bellacasa, M. & 1. Jane Bennett. 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Myers, N., (eds.) Reactivating Elements. Subs- Ecology of Things. Duke University Press. tance, Process and Innovation between Chemis- 2. Jane Bennett, 2002.Thoreau’s Nature: Ethics, Po- try and Cosmology (Duke University Press, for- litics, and the Wild. Rowman & Littlefeld. thcoming 2019). 3. Andrea Botero et al. 2019. Infrastructuring and 20. Maria Puig De la Bellacasa, Matters of Care. Politics for Participatory Design. University of Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds Oulu. (Minnesota University Press, 2017) 4. Marisol de la Cadena, 2015. Earth : Eco- 21. Maria Puig de la Bellacasa, There-animation of logies of Practice Across Andean Worlds. Duke soil: transforming human-soil relations across University Press. science, culture and community. In Intimate En- 5. Marisol De la Cadena and Mario Blaser. 2018. A tanglements (Latimer, J. & Lopez D. eds), The World of Many Worlds. Duke University Press. Sociological Review (forthcoming 2019. 6. Déborah Danowski and Eduardo Viveiros de Cas- 22. Val Plumwood. 2002. Environmental Culture: tro. 2016. The Ends of the World. Polity Press. The Ecological Crisis of Reason. Routledge, 7. Arturo Escobar, Design for the Pluriverse (Duke 2002. University Press, 2018) 23. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson. 2017. As We 8. Tony Fry. 2020. Defuturing: A New Design Philo- Have Always Done. Indigenous Freedom throu- sophy (Radical Thinking in Design). Bloomsbury, gh Radical Resistance. University of Minnesota London. Press 9. Donna Haraway, Staying with the Trouble. Ma- 24. Eduardo Staszowski and Virginia Tassinari. king Kin in the Chthulucene (Duke University 2020. Lexicon for Designing in Dark Times. Press, 2016) Bloomsbury Press. 10. Tim Ingold. 2013. Making: Anthropology, Ar- 25. Isabelle Stengers. 2015. Catastrophic Times. Re- chaeology, Art and Architecture. Routledge. sisting the Coming Barbarism. Open Humanities 11. Bruno Latour, Down to Earth: Politics in the New Press. Climatic Regime (Polity Press, 2018) 26. Anna Tsing. 2017. Arts of Living on a Damaged 12. Bruno Latour, Facing Gaia. Eight Lectures on the Planet: Ghosts and Monsters of the Anthropoce- New Climatic Regime (Polity Press, 2017) ne. Minnesota University Press. 13. Bruno Latour, Politics of Nature. How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Harvard University REFERENCES Press, 2004). [27] Tony Fry. 2020. Defuturing. A New Design Philo- 14. Enrique Lef. 2018. El fuego de la vida: Heideg- sophy. Bloomsbury, London. ger ante la Cuestión Ambiental. Siglo XXI, Mexi- [28] Ibidem co. [29] Arturo Escobar. 2018. Designs for the Pluriverse. 15. Lien, Marianne Elisabeth. 2019. The Ghost at Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Ma- the Banquet: Ceremony, Community and Indus- king of Worlds. Duke University Press. trial Growth in West Norway., In Penny Harvey; [30] Mario Blaser. 2009. Political ontology: cultural Christian Krohn-Hansen & Knut Gunnar Nustad studies without ‘’? Cultural Studies 23, (ed.), Anthropos and the Material.Duke Univer- 5–6 (2009), 873–896. sity Press. [31] Marisol De la Cadena. 2015. Earth beings: Ecolo- 16. Ezio Manzini. 2015. Design when Everybody gies of practice across Andean worlds. Duke Uni- Designs. MIT Press. versity Press. and Arturo Escobar. 2018. Designs

Conversations / Proceedings Vol 3. FII19 - PDC 2020 247 for the Pluriverse. Radical Interdependence, Auto- nomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke University Press. [32] Marisol de la Cadena and Mario Blaser. 2018. A world of many worlds. Duke University Press [33] Ibidem [34] Enrique Lef. 2018. El fuego de la vida: Heidegger ante la cuestión ambiental. Siglo XXI, Mexico. [35] Ibidem. [36] Val Plumwood. 2002. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. Routledge. [37] Leanne Betasamosake Simpson. 2017. As We Have Always Done. Indigenous Freedom through Radi- cal Resistance. University of Minnesota Press. [38] Ezio Manzini. 2015. Design when Everybody De- signs. MIT Press. [39] Eduardo Staszowski and Virginia Tassinari. 2020. Lexicon for Designing in Dark Times. Bloomsbury Press. [40] Liesbeth Huybrechts, Virginia Tassinari, Barba- ra Roosen and Theodora Constantinescu. 2018. Work, labour and action: the role of participatory design in (re) activating the political dimension of work. Proceedings of the 15th Participatory De- sign Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1, 1. [41] Tony Fry. 2010. Design as Politics. Bloomsbury. [42] Thomas Binder, Eva Brandt, Pelle Ehn & Joachim Halse. 2015. Democratic Design Experiments: Be- tween Parliament and Laboratory. In CoDesign, 11:3-4, 152-165. [43] Eduardo Staszowski and Virginia Tassinari. 2020. Lexicon for Designing in Dark Times. Bloomsbury Press. [44] Carl di Salvo. 2010. Design, Democracy and Ago- nistic Pluralism. Carl di Salvo. Proceedings of the 2010 DRS Conference: 1-10 [45] Andrea Botero et al. 2019. Infrastructuring and Politics for Participatory Design. University of Oulu. [46] Bruno Latour. 1999. Politics of Nature. Harvard University Press.

Conversations / Proceedings Vol 3. FII19 - PDC 2020 248