Changing the change

There are different interpretations of the expression “social design”, for instance the Victor Margolin’s and the Josephine Green’s ones. I think that, in principle, both them are acceptable. But, not to create misunderstandings, we should find different names and arrive to commonly recognised definitions. However, independently from the names, considering the intersection between design and social issues, it seems to me that different kinds of design activities appear and should be promoted.

One of them is a design with an explicit social agenda: a new design field where some designers specialises in collaborating with social workers to solve specific, acute social problems. The other one is more general and refers to the whole design community. In this second perspective, all the designers, whatever their specialisation can be, have to redefine their aims, and re-orient them towards the new emerging social demands.

Even is both these actions are important, for me, the biggest challenge today is on the second one: to develop the design knowledge that is needed to improve the welfare of the whole society, while we move towards sustainability. That is, while we have all to learn how to succeed in living better consuming less. And improving the quality of our social fabric.

I agree with Victor Margolin that the word innovation has lost its power and its purpose. Innovation has become the latest buzz word and hype and has become increasingly meaningless and empty. It is not innovation in itself, but what we innovate, how we innovate and who innovates that is the issue, after all Hitler innovated! When, however, social is used in connection with innovation then, as Ezio comments, things change. I believe the amount to which things change depends on how narrowly or broadly we define the concept. A strict definition of social innovation refers to new ideas (products, services, models) developed to fulfil unmet social needs. But then in this changing world what is a social need? Is a better relationship between what is produced and what is consumed a social need? Is more community a social need? Is a richer relationship with the biosphere a social need? Like innovation, sustainability has lost much of its more transformative potential given that it is also a buzzed and hyped word. Also, as we know, it is too often commonly understood in its more limited definition of the environment.

But let’s forget semantics for a moment and actually look at what needs doing. Most of us would agree that society needs to re-address and re-invent much of its industrial legacy, including new patterns of production and consumption, new social ‘industries’ such as health, care, education, new individual and collective lifestyles, new relationships with nature and new organizational and cultural models. Furthermore it needs to do this through a greater individual and collective empowerment and responsibility. Is this about social innovation, is it about sustainability, does it matter?

Rather what is important is not what separates or distinguishes them (always inherent in labels and definitions) but what unites them, and what they have in common. I believe that what unites all three concepts is firstly the vision and purpose to improve the quality of life and to be ‘accountable for positive social results’ (Victor Margolin). In this purpose they also share the same territory, namely the need to re-address and re-invent much of our industrial legacy and to shift the emphasis from the economic and the market to the social and people, which leads me to the subject of social design. In all honesty, I did not know, until reading Victor’s pieces, the accepted definition of social design, related to a more social work and social workers reference. Rather for me design was suffering from the same fate as innovation and that just as innovation has lost meaning so has design.

Yet what to use? Design on its own is too broad and can be too easily co-opted to the old, and Industrial Design reflects the past not the future. By putting social before design things change, things open up. Social Design offers vistas of social change and transformation and emphasizes its relevancy and meaningfulness for the 21st century. Put simply a broader meaning to social innovation/sustainability equals and is complimented by the broader meaning of social design. A design for the next era.

I believe that the theme of the conference Round Table on Design, Social Innovation and Sustainability is increasingly associated in the collective imaginary with a more structural and systemic change and transformation. To limit them or to spend too much time on semantics and definitions will only play to the old game and will reduce their transformative qualities. At a time when everything is negotiable and everything can be changed I believe it is counter productive to narrow down definitions too precisely. I am looking forward to understand the synergies, where and how they fit together and most importantly the role of design and the implications for design in terms of design research, new design competencies and capabilites and new design frontiers.

I would like to add a few words to the discussion about what terms might be most appropriate to express the social orientation that we would like Changing the Change to address. I have been using the term “social design” quite a lot and am more or less satisfied with it. In English, it has a reference to the profession of social work and suggests design with an explicit social agenda. It also relates to the term “social action,” which in the United States suggests social concern. On the other hand, it is evident that from a semantic view, all design is social, a point that should not be overlooked.

I have problems with the term “innovation,” which has now been adopted as a corporate buzzword and some folks are even interested in substituting it for the word “design.” “Innovation” is also related to the industrialized cultures and with its corporate connotations may not be appropriate for discussing design in developing country situations or design for a small scale. As many know, there is a movement which argues that bringing capitalism and entrepreneurship to poor people is the best way to lift them out of poverty. I don’t disagree with that possibility but am against making it the principal model of development as some wish to do. In a paper on social design that I wrote with my wife, we distinguished the terms “market design” and “social design,” saying that social design could be design for the means.

We also wrote about design for special needs such as old age, disabled people, and really poor people. but that is too limited in the sense we are considering Changing the Change. I think we do need to indicate that the kind of design that will be discussed at the Changing the Change conference is design directed specifically at improving the quality of life. It is accountable to social results and not simply to successful market exchange. We should understand these results to be environmental, economic, and cultural.
I am still satisfied with the term “social design” which is growing in use and interest. If we choose another term, it should have the same connotation of “improving social welfare”.

The term “social design” is relatively new in the design vocabulary. Of course, one could say that all design is social in one way or another since its products are introduced into society. But the term “social” as in “social work”, “social welfare”, or “social responsibility” also carries the connotation of serving a social good. Today, we understand “social good” to be a concept that is larger than the satisfaction of each member of society. In material terms, we now realize that it is not possible to satisfy everyone by providing the same level of goods and material consumption that is currently enjoyed by those in the most economically developed countries. We also know that consumption has its side effects. It pollutes the atmosphere and contributes to climate change; it produces waste material that is difficult to dispose of; and it absorbs resources that might be otherwise used for more beneficial purposes.

Thus, we can recognize social design as design that contributes to the social good. Recently, Archeworks, a one-year school in Chicago that focuses on social design projects, published a book called Design Denied. The book states that design which addresses social needs should be available to everyone though we know this not to be the case. So one aim of social design is to reach people who are currently not receiving the benefits of design. Another is to produce goods and services that avoid the negative effects of much that we currently produce.

Fortunately, the need to change our social habits has become more evident. Thoughtful people accept the reality of climate change. They also understand that the gap between wealthy and poor people is growing and needs to be narrowed. And they know that we cannot create infinite landfills. Many people are already addressing these problems, designers among them. The purpose of Changing the Change is to bring together people who are working in new directions that are intended to improve social wellbeing. Last June a group of designers and design educators met in Brighton, England, to discuss the future of design. The main point of their manifesto, Brighton 05/06/07, was that design’s principal purpose is human wellbeing. This is a fundamental shift from the traditional aim of putting market success first. It demands more thought about what should be designed and how. Listening to presentations of projects that are focused on these questions is a good start. From gatherings of people with shared objectives come social networks, new projects, and increased effects. That is what the organizers of Changing the Change are hoping for.