An Exploration by Way of Introduction: Design and the Having of Designs in Ireland
Adam Drazin and Pauline Garvey
Nearly three hundred years ago Edmund Burke, from manufacturing and white-collar manage- one of our famous Irish writers, said ‘a state ment into design. This is widely understood as without the means of some change is without the the building of a ‘knowledge economy’. At the means of its conservation’. Today that means of time of writing, in the wake of a global bank- change is technology. ing collapse, Ireland has been confirmed as (Bertie Ahern, Taoiseach of the Republic of being even more exposed to global economic Ireland 2003) shifts than are most countries, and its rebuild- ing exercise is being put to the test.1 Ireland, both North and South, has gained It may be unclear exactly how design will international prominence in recent years for achieve a transformation to a knowledge the startling economic transformations it has economy in Ireland, but it is impossible to achieved. Many governments study the exam- dispute the aim. In the Irish national context, ple of the Republic of Ireland and attempt to there is no way ‘back’, only debates about learn the recipe of the ‘Irish Model’ in which, ways ‘forward’. The idea of ‘translation’ (as as implied in the quote above, technology and opposed to ‘transfer’) is one widely used design play a part. Key elements in the narra- metaphor for making technology more per- tive of Irish national transformation are manu- sonable – products, social effects, money facturing and processing plants, established or innovation. In the translation paradigm, by companies whose names evoke the feeling technology is never studied or developed of a contemporary hi-tech global zeitgeist. for its own sake; it is always self-consciously Microsoft, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Rank Xerox socially functional, bound up in a hegemony and others, all have major plants for their core of aggressive modernisation. Bertie Ahern products, which can roll off a production line commented on the opening of a technology but are intricately engineered. Several of these research centre at a Dublin University: ‘It companies have also established head offices will enable groundbreaking research to be in Ireland, overseeing European operations. translated into the innovation that is needed Dublin has therefore become an international to drive Ireland’s development as a leading leader in hi-tech components, software engi- knowledge economy’ (Bertie Ahern 2005). neering and pharmaceuticals. Anthropology is playing an active role in In the wake of these developments, Ireland this field. In interdisciplinary environments, also symbolically represents the next stage anthropological research is famously capable of in the contemporary mythical trajectory of making hi-tech innovation more effective. The national socio-economic success. To maintain most widely known examples are the involve- success, government policy in Ireland has been ment of anthropologists in conceptualising the attempting to move the technological sector PC, e-mail and the Windows-style operating
Anthropology in Action,Action, 14,16, 31 (2000):(2009): ?–?4–17 © © Berghahn Berghahn Books Books and and the the Association Association for for Anthropology Anthropology in inAction Action doi:10.3167/aia.2009.160102doi:10.3167/aia.2007.150200 An Exploration by Way of Introduction | AiA
system. All the companies mentioned above This special joint issue between Anthropol- employ anthropologists and ethnographers as ogy in Action and the Irish Journal of Anthro- a part of their design process. Only in one case, pology aims to stimulate the framing of those however, does Intel have a team of ethnogra- questions that anthropologists should be ask- phers based in Ireland in close proximity to the ing about design around technology. It does head office and manufacturing plant. Anthro- so by presenting a spectrum of papers from pologists are not employed in large numbers, Ireland, ranging from studies on the everyday but in small, high-impact teams; yet it is a consumption of technological objects, to in- good bet that as Ireland moves further down stances in which anthropologists are working the road in its knowledge economy project, on hi-tech design. At one end of the spectrum some anthropologists will be playing a part in are cultural interpretations that stand back this journey. It is also likely that the discipline from their field, and at the other end, inter- of anthropology will increasingly experience pretations become more engaged, such that moments of self-reflection as its members do critique aims to both influence design and use more anthropological work within a design- design methods to further anthropological oriented environment (Cefkin 2009). understandings. This is not to say that anthropology is As a subject for anthropology, design must leading the design agenda. Bannon (2000) necessarily be treated as a fluid field, different makes the point that ethnography has raised in every cultural circumstance and with im- consciousness within design of the most im- precisely defined borders. Yet we have already portant issues – meaning social rather than identified it as a fit topic of study; hence what technical issues – but has not yet had an im- socio-cultural characteristics can we hypoth- pact on the ‘subjects’ of design, or on general esise that might typify design? If design is a design practice, which it ought to. group of people, then who? If it is an object, These phenomena are more than economic, then what? If it is a set of practices, then how but conjointly cultural. There is a bringing-to- does it happen? Most importantly, in what prominence of the notion of design as a self- ways might we expect people, things and prac- conscious field of practice in many contexts. In tices to interact in ways that we could identify, a sense, design becomes viewed as a national with some confidence, as design? cultural resource,2 and as ‘innovation’ democ- Before we discuss these questions with re- ratised. As Attfield (1999) observes, profes- gard to the papers in this volume, and then sional design always aspires to set itself apart with the wider literature, let us clarify the from the everyday world of things, and yet de- problem better with two hypothetical exam- sign pervades the everyday, and anthropology ples that illustrate designed objects in relation in particular should recognise this. Instances to technology and art. We suggest that design increase wherein people are not ‘consumers’ or is potentially distinguishable – ‘one type of ‘users’ of technology, but ‘designers’. “thing” among other “things” that make up the summation of the material world’ (Attfield 1999: 11) (Figure 1). This issue How is a car a manifestation of technology and design? Evidently, it can be either or both. Design is a tricky word. Like “technology”, … We suggest that most drivers would see their or like “Art”, it sets off all sorts of alarm bells in car’s engine as technology, while the car form different people. and interior are more likely to be described as ‘design’. One major difference is in perceptions (Batchelor 2005: 142) of the object as something one can engage
| AiA | Adam Drazin and Pauline Garvey
Figure 1: Design and technology. A driver may see a car engine as ‘technology’, while the interior and dashboard is ‘design’. A mechanic conversely may talk about the engine as ‘design’.
with. For most people, the engine, which is the about the consumption of technological objects cause of movement, does not invite meddling, (Hynes, O’Brien), which produce sociologi- but actually discourages it. It is like an impen- cal or anthropological reflections and cultural etrable black box. Conversely, we suggest that critiques. In these instances, design is simply the person who is able to dive into an engine the object of study, or rather the relations and and fiddle with the parts, such as a mechanic, meanings around the object provide a subject is more likely to describe it as a design. of study and critique. Second, there are anthro- As a second example, consider clothes as pological studies about technological projects art. Many artists work with textiles or with in workplaces (Komito; Stan and Toma). These clothing forms. Susan Cross, for example, pro- are instances in which technology is adopted duced a piece entitled ‘Gloves’, which is a pair explicitly with the intention of achieving so- of gloves in delicate chain mail, a meditation cial changes. The fieldworker is working with on the expectation of softness and pliability people who explicitly have designs for change. against hard rigidity (Stoker 1993: 45). Art ob- Thus, there is a more complicated politics of jects of this type would not seem out of place design at play here, in which the perspectives of on a fashion catwalk; yet there is a significant, professional designers engage with the perspec- if delicate, difference between clothes as art tives of users-as-designers. There is also a more or as design. While in an art exhibition, they explicit two-fold conception of design, design as evoke the possibility of being worn only as a material object and design as cerebral intention, thought experiment, on a catwalk, their wear- a distinction we can make by talking about ability by the audience is a distinct possibility. the ‘designed object’ as against the ‘having of They may be barely obtainable, they may look designs’. Finally, there is an article regarding physically improbable, but nonetheless, on the employment of anthropological methods a catwalk, the possibility of ownership and explicitly with design in mind, and the field- even wearing becomes possible. ‘Whereas art worker is conducting work within a context enchants the ordinary object and makes it that ‘has designs’ in the longer term (Roberts special, design disenchants it,’ argues Attfield and Drazin). In this instance, there is an even (1999: 4). more complicated politics of design at play, as The following papers all address in different anthropologists themselves are drawn into the ways this issue of characterising the who, what question of having designs, how the discipline and how of design, through their treatment of of anthropology may acceptably have designs technology. All are in some sense based in Ire- and the effort it must make in doing so to align land, either the fieldwork or the researcher. There the anthropological project with the projects of are three kinds of papers. First, there are papers its informants.
| An Exploration by Way of Introduction | AiA
Hynes and O’Brien discuss two areas, each of seeming obedient while actually having of which presents particular research issues alternative designs, and being able to act upon – use of the internet and use of the mobile them. A mainstream consumer object is thus phone. In each case, the methodological issues situated as subversive counter-culture. of access, witnessing use and talking with peo- In the second section, on technology in ple, bear testimony to the intimacy of the me- workplaces, Komito, and Stan and Toma throw dia. The technological object manifests itself more light on the social politics of design and as socially self-sufficient, both aim and means technology. They are working on instances in of socialisation, and researchers must proceed which technological reform is being imple- carefully to gain a sense of perspective. These mented. It is this ‘implementation’, and the papers fill a general gap in the literature, since fitting of technology to the workplace, that studies of technology consumption in Ireland may be called design. In these cases, there are are comparatively rare. at least three principal parties involved, such In much of the technological design, there that the fragmentation of perspectives around is a notion that the user is ‘built in’ to the technology is very clear. The user of the object, design, such that the artefact will anticipate the social scientist and the authorities pushing through the notion of ‘scripts’, the ways it will to implement the technology, all possess differ- be employed. Hynes, by contrast, develops an ent points of view. understanding of the social context in Dublin Stan and Toma outline the implementation homes, and argues that ‘individuals design of a digitalised patient records system in a their own socio-technic relationship’. Design Romanian hospital. While there are many di- is instead paralleled here with appropria- mensions to this implementation, the system tion and domestication, and is attuned with functions to maximise value in the movement practices of consumption (Miller 1987, 2001). of information and patients through the hospi- There are notions of self-improvement, keep- tal, rather than make them more efficient. On ing-up with neighbours and, beyond this, the the one hand, the sense of value around medi- social redemption of self and family: ‘good’ cal treatment is palpable, and patients may parents get the internet. Family members are now be offered a wider range of possibilities themselves active in design through their for how ‘officially’ they are treated. Thus, the attention to ways-of-relating. The paper dis- system does not erode formal/informal rela- mantles the conceit that whereas professionals tions within the hospital, but supports them. design, users simply consume. At the same time, there are more points for O’Brien is also engaged in a project of the transfer of information from one form to revealing how people with mobile phones another, maximising possibilities for encoun- have their own designs in mind. The main ters and exchanges. The possibilities are mul- contribution of the paper is in stripping away tiplied for personal contacts and exchanges, the complexity of political dimensions to the and for the controversial gifts and payments mobile phone. This technological communica- that produce confidence in treatment, support tion tool is seen as a threat to the social order adequate staff incomes and are blamed for in schools. Pupils have the capacity to indi- clogging up the system. vidually engage in social connections, which Komito presents a closely argued compara- create a networking-based sense of sociality ble piece, investigating the development of a conducted under-the-desk while in the public paperless system in a section of the Irish civil eye. Through the mobile, the intentionality of service. By contrast with Stan and Toma, a lot pupils is rendered significant within the poli- of attention is given in the Irish civil service tics of the school: it opens up a new possibility to the specific work areas and functions that
| AiA | Adam Drazin and Pauline Garvey
a new paperless technology is supposed to Working within the design-oriented envi- address, rather than seeing as self-evident the ronment of a commercial company, this last need for an unspecified transformation of so- paper is much more explicit about the notion cial relations by technology. Resistance to the of design and where anthropology stands in scheme and persistence of paper may not be relation to it. Informant, professional designer of great surprise, as moves to paperlessness and anthropologist are here all situated within flounder in many types of workplaces. More the project of design. There is in this instance interesting is the rooted culture of face-to-face no ‘designed’ object in current existence – the contact and speech. An average of 2.5 e-mails designed thing or service is a future possibil- per worker per week indicates extreme resist- ity. Thus, design appears as a set of practices, ance to writing, even in an informal mode, which includes, at a certain stage, anthropo- when personal contact or telephoning is possi- logical practices. ble. Komito also suggests an actual aversion to Taken together, these papers demonstrate digitalising information, the control of which the enormous imperative drive towards design, is too precious to relinquish. and how it is socially distributed. In Ireland These two studies of workplaces, like the and elsewhere, people in homes, workplaces preceding articles on consumption, demon- and within anthropology are all harnessed into strate the appropriation of technology. People the journey of design. At the same time, all of form their own relationships, identities and de- the papers reveal design as a highly contested signs around technology. In addition, however, field, and take critical stances to the subject. both Komito, and Stan and Toma question sim- If there is an imperative for anthropology, it plistic assumptions about sociality. The types is not doing design, but determining in what of relationships and meanings constructed are ways design and the designed object may be not necessarily altruistic nor even beneficial, fit and distinct subjects for study. We can begin in contrast to the presumptions about sociality this process by examining approaches to tech- that are sometimes made in professional circles nology and to agency. outside anthropology. Here, partial access and control of information and resources appear to be the rule, not the exception. The anthropology of technology Drazin and Roberts present an example of anthropological work conducted on material The list of authors who have written about the culture, to inform product design. Impor- anthropology of technology is long, impres- tantly, such work aims first to gain under- sive, eminent and impossible to adequately standings of socio-cultural relationships, and reproduce in a short introduction such as this. second to develop this for a design audience. The study of technology calls for both an ap- At the heart of the work is the suggestion preciation of the consumption and use of the that any such project should be realised as a technological object (Silverstone and Hirsch potentially critical exercise, rather than as an 1992; Garsten and Wulff 2002), and of percep- exercise in discovering the ‘unmet needs’ of tions of social modernity and progress around informants. In order to achieve this dialogue, objects. The unqualified assertion that ‘tech- a two-stage research method is used. A more nology = social progress’ (implied by some open-ended fieldwork approach is succeeded Irish politicians) is long past its sell-by date later by discussion of the design notions in- in anthropology. Eglas calls this the ‘impact’ volved, intending to enable critique within (2007: 330) school of studying technology, and the contexts of informants’ own physical and it has long been superseded by approaches cultural worlds. influenced by social constructivist thinking,
| An Exploration by Way of Introduction | AiA
which look at meanings, relationships and xiii) describes the type of agency that accrues knowledge (e.g., Bijker et al. 1987; Lemonnier to the consumer of technology as ‘processor’, 2002). A parallel set of approaches draws its an agent only in as much as they are ‘author roots from early anthropology (Mauss 1990, of how things will be consumed’ (ibid.). While Malinowski 1978) to deconstruct person– people may channel the effects of technology, object dualities, such that persons are seen, in technology itself will appear as the source of some sense, as technological (e.g., Haraway change. Latour (2000: 113) reminds us how 1991). technology actually structures social organisa- The most prominent arguments to address tion, and does not merely reflect it. Miller (2002: the links between agency and technology have 7) meanwhile suggests that this objectification been around an actor-network theory (ANT; is itself commonly problematic, because the Latour 1987, among others). The personalisa- object that resists appropriation attempts to tion of the technological object is central to impose new, unrealistic practices of use: ‘the these debates. Grint and Woolgar (1997) draw problematic reification of ideals of new technol- on the metaphor of the deus ex machina to re- ogy separated out from its practice’. flect on the cultural conceptions of what an ‘idealised’ machine is.3 The deus ex machina is a theatrical device, both plot device and physical Design as culture: designed objects machine: ‘an unexpected saviour, or … an im- and the having of designs probable event that brings order out of chaos’ (1997: 3). At the key climactic moment, when The anthropology of design remains less the characters are bound up in apparently defined than the anthropology of technology unresolvable complications, the machina may or art, although work has begun to snowball appear on stage. The machine generally lowers in recent years. Since the 1980s, there has a deity or spirit from above, perhaps wreathed been a move to ‘acculturise’ design: authors in clouds of smoke or dazzling light effects, began looking at relationships between design who then neatly resolves all the difficulties. and culture (e.g., Sparke 1986; Pye 1982), and The machine and the spirit are one, intensely have come to discuss design as an element of moralised, embodying either the Divine or the culture (e.g., Attfield 1999; Shove et al. 2007; Satanic. Julier 2007). The study of design has been a What the idealised machine enables us to part of the redirection of attention towards conceive is the appearance of unity in tech- popular culture, the everyday and commercial nology, of the technical as knowledge (techne culture. By contrast, both technology and art – know-how or a rational process) and as object have inspired relatively clear theories of the (Crabtree 2003; Button 1993). In dwelling on manifestation of subject–object relations and the ‘unexpectedness’ of the machine, Grint and meanings (specifically Gell (1998) on art and Woolgar are drawing attention to the way in agency, Latour (1987) on technology). which technology is itself seen as causal, the The example of Ireland moving ‘into design’ originator of effects, and while it is perhaps like demonstrates the expectation that the field of a person, it is not one. The quality of efficacy, design effects certain kinds of social or cultural generally linked with agency, is strongly ob- work that cannot be carried out by artistic jectified. Consequently, the maker or inventor or technological fields. To explore this, let us of a piece of technology is, with some notable return to the theme of the idealised designed exceptions, forgotten or ‘left behind’ when the object. Consider the sense of talking about ‘a machine is working, and the object itself takes design’. In popular discourse, the subject of credit for effects. In this vein, Strathern (1992: a design is not as reified as technology or art;
| AiA | Adam Drazin and Pauline Garvey
instead, ‘a design’ implies explicitly and con- secondary for art or technology. Art’s effects sciously a compound of a thought and a thing are generally considered to concern cognition together. In talking about ‘design’, people and ways of knowing, of an almost magi- are able to talk, not about material things per cal kind (Gell 1998), while technology mostly se, but about the relation between thing and shapes practice and knowing ‘how’, with par- thought. In effect, design is one way in which ticular emphasis on production. Attfield’s list people can consider subject–object relations at is primarily about effecting change in the socio- an everyday level. cultural field directly, not secondarily. Design is Representations of design in the public do- socialising, and is seen as good in the same way main in Ireland make a number of distinctions. that society is generally a good thing. It has a First, there is a relationship being expressed to redeeming function, by which people are taken time and causality. Like technology, design is account of and the material world is rendered seen as progressive and directly involved with ‘appropriate’. Negative effects of an object are social change. However, the ideal technology more likely to be ascribed to its ‘technological’ (Grint and Woolgar 1997) causes change itself. than ‘designed’ qualities. It is without social precedent, and is an origin of The argument, then, is broadly that design change. Design discourses meanwhile are more merits anthropological study in its own terms. about engagement, how we can engage with, The point of comparing design with technol- and in, processes of change. ogy and art is not to define design in some Convergent with this conception of design concrete manner – the terms of comparison are is the way that the designed object is of- arbitrary – it is merely to illustrate that design ten more personalised, a manifestation of the is not merely a space in which art and technol- thoughts of the designer. Technologies have ogy overlap, but a cultural field with distinc- inventors, but live their own lives. Often there tive characteristics. is popular ignorance regarding who invented a technology; and if people know, there is still • The idealised technological object or ma- no need or social pressure to know. In this chine is seen as a source and originator of sense, meaning the way in which it is reified, change, pre-existent to social effects, and design is more like art than technology. The strongly reified. The effects of technol- agency manifested in the designed object is ogy are seen as ‘real’, existing first in the indisputably pre-figured by persons. world of praxis and materials. Representations of design also illustrate par- • The art object manifests human agency, ticular conceptions of the efficacy of objects. its causality attributed to the artist and Both an innovative painting and a new form of their prior thinking. The effects achieved mobile phone have social effects, but of differ- are also generally cognitive first. ent kinds, and the differences lie not only in the • The idealised designed object exists as attribution of causality but in the type of effect. a compound of creator and object, like Attfield (1999: 12) lists examples of what design art. It is bound up within processes of exercises or objects can be intended to do – change, seen as progressive, like tech- ‘fulfil a particular task, to make a statement, nology, but not as a fount of change. Its to objectify moral values, or to express indi- efficacy can be about praxis and cogni- vidual or group identity, to denote status or tion, but is primarily social. demonstrate technological prowess, to exercise social control or flaunt political power’. This In negotiating the balance between inten- list seems general, but is interesting in that it tionality and efficacy, design is one way in places first the kinds of effects that are generally which the qualities of agency in objects are
10 | An Exploration by Way of Introduction | AiA
negotiated. Ahern (2003: 109) defines agency the Ministry of Health and American software as ‘the socio-culturally mediated capacity to companies. From neither perspective does the act’, while other approaches place emphasis question arise of appropriateness for hospital on the materialisation of the mind (e.g., Gell staff and tasks, but staff and patients are none- 1998), and on the presence of persons. The theless concerned with the social effects of the exact way in which agency is compounded system, such as its capacity to negotiate being varies: Strathern (1999: 17) points out how in treated ‘officially’ or ‘legitimately’. Euro-American societies, intentionality and The internet-linked computers that Hynes will are often elided. Intending or planning to discusses fall most clearly in the category do something does not necessarily imply that of design, because of the way in which they one wants or wills it, but they can be culturally are used to achieve social functionality. The seen to be coincident. internet becomes an explicit manifestation of The culture of design thus places emphasis the good intentions of parents to fulfil respon- on the negotiation between the design (the sibilities for their families. Likewise, O’Brien object or manifestation) and the having of is interested not in the technical capacities of designs (the thinking), and this is reflected in mobile ‘phones (to call or text from anywhere), different ways in the articles in this issue. For but in the implementation and the intention to Komito, ‘design’ is about the appropriateness use them. Even if unused, mobiles capacitate or fitness of technology for particular civil a sense of social commonality. In conclusion, service tasks, and references to design coincide O’Brien notes that even without ‘conscious with mentions of management approaches to designs’ at an individual level, pupils come to the organisation. In the event of implement- share a common set of ‘dispositions’. There are ing a paperless technology, a parallel set of thus subtle distinctions being made about the concerns emerge, which find their focus in the origination of socially mediated intentionality paper files. The staff are interested in ways of around technology and of that in the mind. denoting responsibility, and in reading ‘behind’ For Drazin and Roberts, design is a con- a set of information for the personal intentions tested and conflictual field, in which the way of colleagues. The cases they work with have forward comprises in trying to reconcile the personal biographies, they are not only caches designs different actors have. In addition to of information, and paper artefacts suit these the involvement of professional designers, purposes better than do digital screens. While some informants have explicitly ‘designed’ in an official sense, it is only questions of ap- their lives, while for others it is a day-to-day propriateness around the ‘technological’ ob- process. The technology here is hypothetical, a ject that are sanctioned as ‘design’, Komito is future possibility, and the entry point into the concerned with expanding these questions to designs people have is instead artistic. This wider networks of personalisation and inten- changes the scope of the research somewhat. tion around paper. The artistic collages are specific and point-like For Stan and Toma, the implementation of in their social and methodological remit, cov- an IT system is at one level much more like the ering the designs of an individual or family at Deus Ex Machina. It is purportedly about effect- a moment in time; it is through their transla- ing a purifying ‘messianic vision’ of change tion into technological design that they may in Romanian hospitals, their practices, their have wider impact. relationships and their institutional culture. As we discussed at the outset, design is not a Hospital staff regard the system a bit differ- universally distinct field or thing, but nonethe- ently, as a manifestation of personal relation- less it is recognisable in situ. We recognise de- ships in various ways: for example, between sign in the interior of a car (Brenna et al. 1998),
| 11 AiA | Adam Drazin and Pauline Garvey
in its surfaces (Ingold 2000), inviting touch in Design is strongly concerned therefore with ways which the engine does not. There is an issues of social legitimacy: how what is done act of ‘reaching out’ by the clothes on a catwalk socially may be intended, and how what is or shop window, which is not present in the intended may be wanted. clothes in a glass case in a museum or gallery. Fashion offers the possibility of engagement and actually being physically worn, and in this The encounter with design and way aspires to having popular social effects. directions for research There are thus recognisable and recurring themes in these articles, and to discuss them, The articles in this journal illustrate the ubiq- the most apt term we can use is ‘design’, uity of anthropological encounters with de- with a consciousness of its plurality of ref- sign issues in their workplaces and field sites. erents. Design exists in the space between At the extreme, every time you open a web the designer and the user, mutually bound page you engage with design. What does this together. While the creation of art or inven- spiralling encounter with design mean for an- tion of technology can potentially be a wholly thropology as a discipline? The most intense self-absorbed activity, in design, the pressure engagement is in professional design projects, is always on transcending this problematic by anthropologists working with the disci- state of individualised self-ness. Design moves pline of design alongside design professionals. to achieve compounded agent-like unities Blomberg (2009) observes that anthropologists that are much larger than the individual in corporations tend to write more self-reflec- person, and which negotiate the boundaries tive material than those in university settings, of inclusivity and exclusivity in a fluid sense. proportionately speaking. Engagement with Many designed objects appear as exclusive, this design seems to be provoking anthropologists is undeniable, but in that exclusivity is also to think in new ways about what anthropology contained an invitation to belong. Some de- constitutes. These debates are being conducted signs are populist, and more overtly demo- in the literature (Frascara 2002; Cefkin 2009), at cratic in their inclusivity. There is an attention conferences such as EPIC (Ethnographic Praxis to surfaces and form in design, and a conse- in Industry), in many blogs and in journals quent tension between the inconsequentiality such as Pervasive Computing, CSCW (Compu- of thought and the substantiality of effect. ter-Supported Cooperative Work) and Anthro- An encounter with a designed object is not pology in Action among others. necessarily problematic in the confrontational, Bringing a design project forward fre- out-of-control colliding sense of technology quently necessitates a multi-disciplinary team or art - for which Gell (1998: 20–21) famously that draws on different skills, either accord- used the metaphor of the landmine, reminis- ing to a plan or pragmatically (Suchman et cent of debates over the agency of a soldier al. 1993). This means that at times the team is and/or gun (Latour 1996; Lemmonnier 1996). doing anthropological work (e.g., ethnogra- Designs are not quite ‘without precedent’ phy), including non-anthropologists such as like technology. Aiming at being un-magical, engineers, photographers or psychologists. At graspable, comprehensible, admired without other times, anthropologists are doing work being mysterious and engaging without being such as lab-testing of prototypes or creating enchanting (Attfield 1999), the designed object storyboards. At times, consultancy is required, is one that can stand beside you rather than a commentary from an anthropological per- before you. In a sense, an elision of will and spective, rather than fieldwork. This experi- intention is attempted in the agency of design. ence, project by project and year after year,
12 | An Exploration by Way of Introduction | AiA
scrutinises anthropology, clarifying when an- method for many purposes, conceived by psy- thropology is praxis, when it is epistemology chologists (Imms 1999) to exclude all the data and when it is expertise. on everyday life that anthropology normally Through experience, the anthropologist in thrives on. design may realise that this situation is not nec- There are also opportunities in corporate essarily a problem. You can be an anthropolo- design anthropology for the contestation of gist without, right now, doing anthropology. specific ideas and arguments. Recent critical The value of well-practised, well-promulgated work on context (Dilley 1999), for example, anthropology in the hi-tech field is relatively is scrutinized in terms of its communication established (though levels of ignorance about in spheres such as ‘context-aware computing’ what anthropology is, remain astounding), (Dourish 2004; Räsänen and Nyce 2006), in and it becomes clear during an early career which the notion of context has consciously what an anthropologist can and cannot do pragmatic and embodied resonances. Design well: we are trained in cultural commentary, offers tools for cultural critique, possessing not in actually designing. Core anthropologi- a critical tradition that has grown in recent cal competencies thus emerge, perhaps after a years (Dunne 2008; Dunne and Raby 2001; steep learning curve. Much of the work emerg- McDonough and Braungart 2008). We may ing from this field is not afraid to be work- find valuable tools in design for anthropologi- ing on the borders and in grey areas (Drazin cal purposes. and Roberts, this issue), negotiating how the There are a range of areas therefore where specific things being done are anthropologi- design anthropology is offering significant cal, and how they are not. The result is some- contributions to the discipline, beyond simply times a surprisingly purist attitude to what being ‘an application’ of anthropology and a anthropology is. The experience of working subject of significant ethnographic work (e.g., ‘on the borders’ results in a sense of control, Garsten 1994). It is probably in the field of which few postgraduates gain during training. anthropology-as-praxis that there is most scope Rather than answering other disciplines’ ques- for producing major self-critiques. tions, design anthropologists often begin to There are significant debates on ethics and pose anthropological questions for designers politics that can arise from working in this area. and engineers to answer. In one way, the issue is who we work for, but it There are valuable opportunities for intra- is not the only one: anthropologists are working disciplinary critique in this situation, especially on design in the public sector, private sector, with regard to praxis. It can be difficult for charities, hospitals, academia and elsewhere. academics to gain a perspective on their own Making employment possibilities explicit is work, when the definition of work conducted here an essential first step to making ethical in an anthropology department verges on the debates more explicit. Many anthropologists tautologous. An anthropologist in a company, training in development are probably unaware fighting their corner daily with many people that some of them will be furthering their hu- who do not (yet) know nor appreciate what manitarian aspirations in private profit-making anthropology is, may feel a degree of concern companies or, for example, in the military. These to get the details correct. It is not a problem, are valid careers, but not ones to sleepwalk into. we suggest, if an anthropologist uses meth- The lively design anthropology forum on the web ods devised for historical, psychological or is one of the places where such possibilities are sociological research purposes. However, to seriously debated. This is how anthropologists be unaware of it, is unforgivable. An example can become equipped to make career decisions, might be discussion groups, a worthwhile and to say ‘no’ or ‘yes’.
| 13 AiA | Adam Drazin and Pauline Garvey
More fundamentally, design itself has reso- produced is itself the demonstration of social nances for political philosophy. While design understanding. shares with policy and development fields The materialist reasoning also means that a humanitarian project of personal and so- design anthropology may be particularly suit- cial amelioration, it goes about its work in able for working with certain informants: spe- particular ways. Taking design seriously im- cifically, those who mistrust the idea of being plies a materialist conception of the world. the subject of policy-based approaches. This By this, we mean it is about restoring the is a complicated issue, one which also needs balance identified by Christina Toren when much deeper specification and debate in the commenting that ‘The ideal and the mate- discipline. The anthropologist’s commitment, rial are mutually specifying’ (Toren 2006: often a ‘lifetime commitment’ (Bernard 1995: 207). The anthropological product has tended 164), is primarily to informants. The problem to lie more on the ‘ideal’ side of this equa- is that many of those whose lives might be best tion – an idea, critique, interpretation or ameliorated by changes stimulated by either way of thinking. Design anthropology by policy or design are exactly those who may contrast aims to gain its leverage through shun involvement with policy bodies. Anthro- material change (albeit usually after many pology has debated this issue at length and years of ideas, critiques and conceptualisa- with pragmatism in development circles: it is tions). As Cross (2006: 1) put it, ‘the central a truism that those most at risk of state per- concern of design is “the conception and secution can be most dependent on the state. realisation of new things”. This materialist It is likewise a truism that those at most risk trajectory is probably what best distinguishes of being profited from through commodities design anthropology, rather than where it can seem most dependent on them, but until is practised or with what aim. Frequently, relatively recently anthropological attention to the design exercise is problematic and even the corporate point of view (often critical) was damaging: Miller (1984) has given a damning divorced from understanding the perspectives critique of elitism around modernist architec- of the people who purchase and use goods. tural design from the simple observation that Many progressive approaches have in this area those doing the designing did not physically unfortunately forgotten the mutuality between live in their own designs. An engaged anthro- material and ideal, which Toren reminds us of, pology has a role in attempting to improve and even some traditions with materialistic this kind of exercise. roots would now see analysis of abstracted The political implications of this materialist social structure as their only engaged anthro- orientation demand debate and evaluation, pological contribution. An over-specification which will only happen in the long term. First, of social structure and class can seem problem- a specific and fine-grained focus can be more atic to some informants, particularly if not ac- useful for design than a broad investigation companied by material and praxis referents. In of culture or society. Traditionally, policy- short, in some instances, a materialist-oriented oriented anthropology draws on research into design anthropology is the most apt approach, the specific, but finds it useful to draw out but we need to better discriminate when. from individual instances to broad categories of class and social structure. Many design- oriented approaches by contrast find inspi- Conclusion: making design manifest ration in the particularities of a situation, but find no material inspiration in the social The exercise of this introduction has been structure. In effect, any product or service speculative. We have scratched the surface
14 | An Exploration by Way of Introduction | AiA
of the literature, moving from the socio-cul- Adam Drazin is an anthropologist who lectures tural background of Ireland to indicating the in the Department of Sociology, Trinity College, broader implications of an anthropological Dublin. He also conducts a course on anthropology engagement with design and technology. We and design, jointly between the National College of hope we have provoked readers into an admis- Art and Design and the Department of Anthropol- sion that a lot of work remains to be done in ogy at Maynooth. His prime interest is in material terms of these subjects. In particular, we hope culture and social uncertainty, with a dual focus on we have shown that the ‘designed object’ is a applied design, and on Romanian domestic material particularly interesting and distinctive thing culture in different countries. He has worked as a for anthropology to investigate. design anthropologist for Hewlett-Packard Labs, for Design often concerns different ways of Intel and for the University of Eindhoven, and has culturally negotiating explicit dichotomies of his own consultancy business. He has published in form and intention, of movement between journals including Ethnos and Home Cultures, and what is done and what is intended. The dis- is working on a book on Irish-Romanian Homes tinction between design as object and the and cultures of openness. having of designs needs further elaboration, exploration and critique. Pauline Garvey completed a PhD in Anthropol- There are reasons for distinguishing design ogy from University College London in 2002. from technology and art, although they fre- Since then she has published several works on quently coincide. Design displays a primary consumption and domesticity in Norway. She is concern with effects in the social or cultural a lecturer in anthropology at the National field: such as making or breaking relationships, University of Ireland, Maynooth. She is cur- including or excluding people, legitimising, or rently conducting research on Swedish design, redeeming in a social sense, concerns that are, social democracy and IKEA consumption in for technology, secondary to shaping practice, Stockholm and Dublin. and for art, secondary to shaping cognition. An encounter with a designed object is like an invitation for inclusion. While Gell (1996) Notes compares art to traps, intriguing and cogni- tively ‘sticky’, yet potentially overwhelming 1. Ireland’s stated aims have only gradually been matched by government funding. Only of its audience, design is not unconquerable in in 2007 did spending on R&D reach OECD av- the same way. It excludes while inviting mem- erage levels, and the 2006 Strategy for Scientific bership; it offers the potential for possession Technology and Innovation stated an aim of while, in many cases, being hard to obtain. increasing funding from 1.6% of GDP to 2.5% Design negotiates this interface of exclusivity by 2010 (Sources: Forfas 2008; SSTI 2006). and inclusivity, and offers the capacity to act 2. As, for example, in some Scandinavian coun- tries, known internationally for ‘design’ upon it. first, and second for ‘technology’ or ‘art’. The articles in this journal all focus on directly links Scandinavian Design tradi- technological design, but in a particular man- tions to local forms of industrial relations and ner. They all describe movements to develop democracy. wider senses of participation, and conscious 3. What makes an object ‘technology’ clearly varies attempts to create forms of social agency that – ipods, leggings, telephones, gas lights, win- dows, stone axes, all of these have at some time are both augmented and distributed. Every pa- been typical technological objects. So we can per makes manifest and explicit certain prob- think about this through ‘idealized conceptions lems and sites of contestation, which invite the of the nature of technology’ (Grint and Woolgar engagement and application of anthropology. 1997: 3).
| 15 AiA | Adam Drazin and Pauline Garvey
References Cross, N. (2006), Designerly Ways of Knowing. (Key paper first published in 1982) (London: Ahern, B. (2003), ‘Statement by the Taoiseach, Springer-Verlag). Mr. Bertie Ahern T.D., Prime Minister of Ireland Dilley, R. (ed.) (1999), The Problem of Context at the Plenary Session, United Nations World (Oxford: Berghahn). Summit on the Information Society, Geneva, Dourish, P. (2004), ‘What we talk about when we Thursday, 11 December 2003’,
16 | An Exploration by Way of Introduction | AiA
Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to (ed.) C. Garsten and H. Wulff (Oxford: Berg), Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society 7−24. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Pye, D. (1982), ’Six Requirements for Design’, in ———. (1996), ‘Lettre à mon ami Pierre sur Material Culture Studies in America, (ed.) l’anthropologie symétrique Culture materielle T. Schlereth (Nashville: American Association et modernité’, Ethnologie Française 26, no. 1: for State and Local History), 153−161. 32−37. Räsänen, M. and Nyce, J. (2006), ’A New Role ———. (2000), ’When Things Strike Back: A Pos- for Anthropology?: Rewriting “Context” and sible Contribution of “Science Studies” to the “Analysis” in HCI Research’, NordCHI 2006: Social Scientists’, British Journal of Sociology 51, 175−184. no. 1: 107−123. Shove, E., Wilson, M., Hand, M. and Ingram, J. Lemmonnier, P. (1996), ’Et pourtant ça vole! (2007), The Design of Everyday Life (Oxford: L’ethnologie des techniques et les objets Berg). industriels Culture materielle et modernité’, Silverstone, D. and Hirsch, E. (eds.) (1992), Con- Ethnologie Française 26, no. 1: 17−31. suming Technologies (London: Routledge). ———. (ed.) (2002), Technological Choices: Transfor- Sparke, P. (1986), An Introduction to Design and Cul- mation in Material Cultures Since the ture in the Twentieth Century (London: Routledge). Neolithic (London: Routledge). Stoker, R. (1993), ’Designer Makers UK’, in Malinowski, B. (1978), Argonauts of the Western Curators and Collections, (ed.) N. Wegner and Pacific (London: Routledge). S. Batiste (London: Cv Publications), 44−47. Mauss, M. (1990), The Gift (London: Routledge). SSTI. (2006), Strategy for Science, Technology and McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2008), Cradle Innovation 2006-2013 (Ireland: Government of to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things Ireland). (London: Jonathan Cape). Strathern, M. (1992), Reproducing the Future: Essays Miller, D. (1984), ’Modernism and suburbia as on Anthropology, Kinship, and the New Reproduc- material ideology’, in Ideology, Power and tive Technologies (London: Routledge). Prehistory, (ed.) C. Tilley and D. Miller ———. (1999), Property, Substance and (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Effect: Anthropological Essays on Persons ———. (1987), Material Culture and Mass and Things (London: Athlone). Consumption (London: Routledge). Suchman, L., Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (1993), ———. (ed.) (2001), Home Possessions: Participatory Design: Principles and Practices Material Culture Behind Closed Doors (Oxford: (Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). Berg). Toren, C. (2006), ’Introduction to Mind, Materiality ———. (2002), ’Introduction: from people of the and History’, in Anthropology in Theory: Issues in book to people of the screen’, in New Technolo- Epistemology, (ed.) H. Moore and T. Sanders gies at Work: People, Screens and Social Virtuality, (Oxford: Blackwell), 204−219.
| 17