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 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”.