Escobar emphasizes the need for design to reorientate towards its ‘relational dimension’. To do so, he introduces the ‘ontological design’ approach. Ontology is the philosophy of being. Escobar’s idea of ontological design derives from the insight that all design creates ways of being. “[W]e design our world and our world designs us back - in short, design designs.” (Escobar, Designs for the Pluriverse, 4) He sees ontological design as a way to enable the transition towards ‘designs for the pluriverse’. Thereby design’s role is the creation of a more livable world though redefining it as ‘autonomous design’. This thesis is based on the human intention to thrive for autonomy and self-actualization. It aims to manifest design’s relations to politics and life and is based on an ethical responsible practice. Summarized, ontological design raises understanding for “the profound relationally and interconnectedness of all that is (…).” (Escobar, Designs for the Pluriverse, 4) This requires being concerned about our ways of living and engaging with each other as well as with the earth.
Due to its holistic interconnectedness, I consider Pluriversal Design as an important part of the Relational Design area. Also Holmes acknowledges that design shapes our society which will in turn effect us. She explains that this cycle defines exclusion since the effects of our designs will inform the next issues that design aims to solve. Holmes claims that the challenge of designing for human diversity lies within the undeniable truth that no single design solution fits everyone. Complexity cannot be met by trying to please everyone. “Inclusion is imperfect and requires humility. It’s an opportunity to be curious and approach challenges with a desire to learn. It teaches us new ways to adapt our solutions to what people need (…).” (Holmes, Mismatch, 9) When designing solutions, it is especially helpful to embed new perspectives. Inclusion becomes embodied by being critical towards the status-quo.
Also Escobar emphasizes perspective taking as an effective design method. He describes his own work as design thinking and pays attention to both logical thinking and feelings, emotions, and intentions. What I find especially interesting is that he claims for designers “intellectual work is about making.” (Escobar, Designs for the Pluriverse, xiv-xv) Escobar refers to Paola Antonelli, curator at the MOMA, and her understanding of design as ‘thinkering’, meaning ‘thinking with your hands’ and ‘doing hands on conceptual work’.
“[C]ontemporary design approaches (…) are critical, activist, organic, and political; they are about thinkering (…), about problem finding and problem framing more than problem solving (…); they are guided by ethics more than by user-friendliness. Design has developed a new sensitivity to the environment and to human predicaments, and is more attuned to its ability to contribute to creating a better world; it becomes a medium in the service of society rather than solution-making expertise in the service of industry.” (Escobar, Designs for the Pluriverse, 34)
Also Empathic Design aims to meet people’s needs based on their realities and experiences. Empathic design solutions address not only functional but also emotional needs and are therefore both usable and enjoyable.
As a designer, I often thought about the fact that despite in other professions, we are not presented with problems but rather have to consciously look out for them. It is easy to see this as a burden on the way to problem solving, as if solving the problem wasn’t hard enough. Antonelli’s point of view allows me to become aware of a focus shift towards valuing ‘problem framing‘ and my own capacities as a designer. Through my education in observing the world and its happenings from unusual and invigorating perspectives, I am able to look behind the obvious. Curiosity, positivity, and an open mind allow me to express my innate desire for change. Paired with my own sensitivity and empathy, I can identify access points and possible design solutions in a world far from measurable dualism. By saying design is rather about ‘problem framing’ than ‘problem solving’ Antonelli supports the designer in her role of being an authentic, critical mediator of change, a creator of meaningful experiences, who is first and foremost driven by her deep belief in a future of equality.
In that sense, I support the idea of design as being ontological. Escobar describes Ontological Design as “a conversation about possibilities” and as a contribution “to shaping what it is to be human”. (Escobar, Designs for the Pluriverse, 110) By thriving for the better, the designer aims to change the ways humans are interacting with the world. This includes a desire for sustainability in all areas, including social relationships as well as how to treat the nature in all its living forms. Triggering ‘conversations about possibilities’ is thereby, in my opinion, an honorable approach as it provides space for discussion - space for differences and the pluriverse. Which is why I am sceptic towards his second understanding of ‘shaping what it is to be human’. Escobar himself raises the question of “What is real?” and argues for a non-dualistic way of designing and living. Hence, if the designer puts herself in the position to decide about what it means to be human, the worst opposite would come true. My own project makes a statement towards appreciating diversity and empathy as a base for human interaction. But in the desire towards equality, towards multifaceted scopes of ontology, I think the designer has to apply the same standards in her own work by putting equality not only at the end but also at the front of the process. Throughout the whole process, empathy did not only define my desired design outcome but also my way of working towards that aim.
Escobar’s vision of ‘design for the pluriverse’ is build upon his main concern about nurturing and appreciating differences instead of normalising or detesting them. He describes the pluriverse as “a world where many worlds fit” and as about “living fearlessly with and within differences”. (Escobar, Designs for the Pluriverse, xvi) To enable this shift in design, but as I see it also in mindset and behaviour, he elucidates some forms of Transition Design. He emphasizes the importance of participation and that meaning is always created though interaction. Therefore the designer should distance herself from encountering the world with a mindset of only one existing reality. It implies “going beyond the commonly held idea that the world functions in terms of individual mental representations of a problem, toward a social perspective of patterned, embedded interaction - that is, a perspective that highlights our active participation in domains of mutual concern.” (Escobar, Designs for the Pluriverse, 113)
Seemingly, this stands against Kat Holmes theory of starting with designing for one individual and then broadening out to many. It is not clear to me, where Escobar intends to start the process. But in my understanding, he would do it the other way around: starting with the whole and then pint-pointing it down to the individual. Interestingly, both claim ‘valuing differences’ as their main reason. So which approach is more efficient in creating accessibility for the pluriverse? When I think about my own design process, it usually starts with an experience. An interactive situation of a defined group of people. Very soon it turns into a conscious observation of both the individual and the whole. The underlying relationships and dynamics are vital for ‘framing the problem’. As a designer I see it as my responsibility to acknowledge both the individual and the whole.
Escobar names critical design studies as crucial when questioning the status-quo and allowing new perspectives. He exemplifies this by referring to feminist disability scholars and their approach of Universal Design. Holmes does as well talk about the concept of ableism as an effective way to explain human diversity and suggests Inclusive and Universal Design should mutually inform the designer. To read about Universal Design as a positive example for Critical Design that supports the author’s and the books intention for ‘design for the plusiverse’ was, to be honest, surprising.
The Cambridge dictionary defines ‘universal’ as “existing everywhere or involving everyone” as in “a universal truth”. This definition ties on the idea of one reality that is true for all - the idea that Escobar deliberately wants to replace. Pluralism is defined as “the existence of different types of people who have different beliefs and opinions, within the same society”. Looking at the first part of this definition, “the existence of different types of people why have different beliefs and opinions”, one can reasonably argue that this is the opposite of “a universal truth” - which explains my initial surprise. Looking at the second part, “within the same society”, makes me think about the commonalities of universal and pluralism. Society is defined as “a large group of people who live together in an organized way, making decisions about how to do things and sharing work that needs to be done. All the people in a country, or in several countries, can be referred to as a society.” Doesn’t that mean that a society ‘exists everywhere and involves everyone’ within? If the world is now being encountered with the knowledge about ‘the existence of different types of people who have different beliefs and opinions’, couldn’t that be the ‘universal truth’ that the ‘society‘ defines ‘how to life together’ and ‘how to make decisions’? And isn’t that what the designer and every change maker are working towards? I see empathy as the vital link that is able to establish this kind of mindset in design and in social interactions. For me, Escobar provides a moral framework, whereas Holmes describes practical ways of applying it. In the end they might complement each other, which is the core of both Inclusive Design and design for the pluriverse. I consider empathy as both inclusive and pluriversal as it sees and hears different perspectives and manages to meet individual needs.
“Being a transition designer means adopting different values and perspectives. It is therefore a process of learning, but, for the same reason, a challenge. It requires designers to acknowledge the hypocrisy that comes from being a change agent toward a new system from within the old system.” (Tonkinwise, Design’s (Dis)Orders and Transition Design, 12)
References:
Escobar, Arturo. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of the Worlds. Durham and London: Duke University Press Books, 2017.
Holmes, Kat. Mismatch: How inclusion shapes design, Cambridge, The MIT Press, 2018.
“pluralism”. dictionary.cambridge.org. Accessed April 7, 2021. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pluralism.
“society”. dictionary.cambridge.org. Accessed April 7, 2021. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/society.
Tonkinwise, Cameron. “Design’s (Dis)Orders and Transition Design”, University of Technology Sydney, 2014. https://www.academia.edu/11791137/Design_Dis_Orders_Transition_Design_as_Postindustrial_Design.
“universal”. dictionary.cambridge.org. Accessed April 7, 2021. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/universal.