Surreptitious Communication Design Tad Hirsch Introduction From a social change perspective, the “design for good” (D4G) movement is surprisingly bloodless.1 As sociologists have long observed, changes in social organization—including institutional, cultural, economic, and technological innovation—largely arise from the “clash of values and interests, the tension between what is and what some groups feel ought to be, the conflict between vested interests and new strata and groups demanding their share of power, wealth, and status.”2 Social change seldom involves smooth transitions; rather, it proceeds in fits and starts, often with significant opposition by those who have a vested interest in main- taining the status quo. And yet, the D4G literature barely mentions conflict or opposition. Even when we acknowledge the role that designers can play in adversarial political struggles, we pay remarkably little attention to those on the other side.3 Perhaps this silence results from the tendency of social designers to choose seemingly uncontroversial subjects for their 1 While “design for good” suggests an projects. After all, who would oppose efforts to “improve health,” affiliation with AIGA, I intend the term “transform education,” or “encourage social responsibility”4—other here as a catchall for recent design initiatives with an explicit social change than, perhaps, pharmaceutical companies, teachers’ unions, the intent. I do not make a meaningful consumer electronics industry, and many of our elected leaders? distinction between “design for good,” Or perhaps the tendency of D4G proponents to eschew “design activism,” “design for social mention of opposition reflects something deeper about design change,” “socially engaged design,” practice. Adversaries are notably absent from design discourse or other similar terms. 2 Lewis A. Coser, “Social Conflict and more generally. Although we (and our clients) are often deeply the Theory of Social Change,” The concerned with competition, we generally imagine ourselves rac- British Journal of Sociology 8, no. 3 ing along-side in parallel lanes. We understand that others strive to (1957): 197–207. get the gig, to make the sale, to reach the finish line before we do. 3 The allusion to DiSalvo’s recent book But we generally assume that they aren’t actively trying to trip us is intentional; for all of its merits, up, and that we are entitled to legal recourse if they do. This logic the work is remarkably silent on the issue of opposition. See Carl DiSalvo, makes sense in the marketplace, where competition is carefully Adversarial Design (Cambridge, MA: regulated and policed by the State. It is less clear that the same MIT Press, 2012). assumptions apply to social change work—particularly for projects 4 To borrow a few of the more popular involving contentious social issues. formulations for D4G projects. For a comprehensive list, see http://www. aiga.org/designforgood-get-involved/ (accesed July 24, 2015). © 2016 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 64 DesignIssues: Volume 32, Number 2 Spring 2016 doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00383 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DESI_a_00383 by guest on 02 October 2021 Failing to contend with contention limits our ability to effectively participate in social change. I am not suggesting that D4G hasn’t produced anything meaningful; it clearly has. How- ever, most initiatives seem to fit within a small number of arche- typal forms (like awareness campaigns, educational programs, and design competitions) many of which seem like mirror images of established commercial design practice. In contrast I would sug- gest that the unique nature of social change work, including the essential fact of opposition, necessitates designing in ways that ultimately may look quite different from what goes on in commer- cial practice. In this paper, I explore “surreptitious communication design” (SCD), a framework for designing communication sys- tems and campaigns that address contentious political contexts. SCD seeks to create messages that are meaningful for intended recipients, but illegible and/or inaccessible for adversaries. SCD takes as its departure point the recognition that designers who challenge power relations or address contentious political issues must contend with adversaries—actors who seek to under- mine projects or harm participants. Borrowing concepts from cryptography and information theory, I discuss how an SCD perspective extends the Shannon/Weaver model of communica- tion that underpins much of traditional design practice. Drawing on real-world examples, I describe the unique challenges that surreptitious communication designers face, and the tactics they use. I then illustrate how an SCD framework shapes design activity by comparing two recent anti-human trafficking projects—one developed from an SCD perspective, the other from a traditional mass communications approach.” Surreptitious Communication Design Vulnerable social groups, including ethnic and sexual minorities and those involved in subversive or criminal activity, often face opposition by powerful adversaries who seek to disrupt or under- mine them. Such groups are under constant surveillance and contin- ual threat of public humiliation and incarceration, and are socially ostracized. Accordingly, such groups often take countermea- sures to defeat surveillance and interdiction programs. Such measures might include the use of coded messages, untraceable communications equipment, and powerful encryption software. These techniques can be effective ways of securing communica- tions between known individuals. However, members of vulnera- ble social groups also need to communicate with sympathetic DesignIssues: Volume 32, Number 2 Spring 2016 65 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DESI_a_00383 by guest on 02 October 2021 audiences whose members are not known. They broadcast (or, 5 J.C.R. Licklider, “Televistas: Looking more precisely, to “narrowcast”5) messages to unknown but well- Ahead Through Side Windows,” in Social Speculations: Visions for our defined audiences of fellow travelers—for example, to organize Time, ed. Richard Kostelanetz (New demonstrations or publicize illicit services. These communications York: Morrow, 1971). are surreptitious, rather than secure. 6 DiSalvo and Faud-Luke provide good Many technically oriented encryption strategies are inap- examples. Although both chronicle propriate for surreptitious communications because they require the emergence of new kinds of design that parties already be known to one another. Instead, surrepti- activism, they are largely concerned with designers who operate in mainstream tious communications often rely on cultural approaches to secrecy, cultural and academic institutions and are employing schemes that are accessible and legible to the like- therefore insulated from the oppositions minded by virtue of their participation in a social group but that faced by socially vulnerable groups. See are out of reach or inscrutable to adversaries. DiSalvo, Adversarial Design and Alastair Faud-Luke, Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World Models of Communication (London: Earthscan, 2009). SCD is predicated on the idea of opposition—the belief that power- 7 Meredith Davis, Graphic Design Theory: ful adversaries seek to disrupt or undermine message flows. This Graphic Design in Context (London: is new territory for design theory, which has largely developed Thames and Hudson, 2012). Despite alongside commercial contexts where legal and institutional its familiarity, the Shannon/Weaver model frameworks protect communications from tampering or disrup- is in some ways an odd proxy for interper- sonal communication. As Craig points out, tion. Even recent design scholarship that examine design as a par- the emphasis on message fidelity doesn’t tisan political activity are notably silent on the issue of opposition.6 necessarily jive with lived experience, in As Davis observes, visual communication design is which meaning is co-produced by partici- largely based on Claude Shannon and Norbert Weaver’s mathe- pants. (See Robert T. Craig, “Communica- matical model of communication.7 This model posits messages that tion Theory as a Field,” Communication Theory 9, no. 2 [1999]: 119–61.) Consider are transmitted between senders and receivers through some sort 8 the theory’s provenance: The Shannon/ of (typically electronic) channel. According to the model, the Weaver model was developed to describe designer’s primary concerns are reducing noise and ensuring the flow of information between accurate message conveyance. machines, particularly across telephone, Subsequent theorists have enhanced Shannon and Weaver’s radio, and television networks; see model. For example, Emmert and Donaghy introduce the notion of Claude Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” Bell System Technical “context” to describe the influence that environmental factors play Journal 27 (1948). For better or worse, it in determining how messages are sent, received, and interpreted.9 has sub-sequently been adopted by many However, “context” here is largely understood within the signal/ in the visual communication design com- noise framework; Emmert and Donaghy cite examples such as munity as an accurate depiction of human noisy rooms and postal regulations as factors that impede the flow communication. In so doing, designers have perhaps unwittingly conflated peo- of clear communications. For our purposes,