More than “more-than-human centered design”
Earlier this year when presenting in EASA 2024 with anthropologists and peer design researchers, I (after my presentation done and a drink in the kitchen at 11pm Hong Kong time) responded rather strongly to the idea of more-than-human design as “more-than-human centered” design. Example is to consider how wildboar moves around and create tunnel in urban spaces. At that time I cannot quite articulate where that sentiment is from. I still cannot today, but finds two reference helpful in explaining my opinion, that more-than-human design, or more accurately posthumanist design, is not just design for more-than-human.
One reference is Alex Wilkie’s co-authored paper on speculative design brief. Knowing his strong theoretical foothold in process theory gave me the confidence to read the paper in detail and multiple times. What I take away so far is that the design brief meant by Wilkie and authors is not only concerned with the outcome of design but also the process of design. This is key for understanding their concept of “design event”. This is under the premise that designers don’t start the design process knowing exactly what they want to design. Rather than “allowing drift” which is the idea of “design drift”, Wilkie takes a more radical position seeing this formulation of design brief as part of design process. This the design brief includes the intention of design and instructs processes for designers to map the network with existing and absent (more-than-human) actors. Theoretical conceptualization proceeds the forming of brief for articulation through design. In an other word, theory not only serves as providing the mechanism of design (as designers always go to psychology for ways to do something), but is the fundamental reason and drive for design articulation.
The next reference comes from a quick read of Annemarie Mol’s latest book Eating in Theory. I have yet to wade through the whole book. But based on the first chapter where Mol introduced the intention and structure of the book, it surprisingly shed some light on my research. In this new book the topic Mol explored is eating - an mundane, too ordinary experience that everyone cannot do without for every 12 hours they are alive on earth. Mol sets off to challenge the separation between survival and living, between labor and actualization which is very much in line with my idea of practice theory. What makes my eyes wide open with excitement is how she does that by reframing the not-worth-mentioning experience of eating. There is nothing new actively being done or designed, but this reframing is enlightening for us to take another look at all the everyday experience we have and see them in new, philosophical lights. In a nuanced way this reframing to me is connected to what Foucault and Braidotti always does, and according to (the amusingly mysterious) Barad, another way of spacetimemattering. If we call any intentional doing with a purpose as design, then Mol’s approach is also design with changed theoretical lens (from Hannah Arendt / Aristotelian) division of body and mind (labor, work and politics) to something else. A missing step if there is to call it design is to prove that such reframing gets to people’s mind, and make concrete, material change in their doing, even if it is just to feel how their throat is in touch with the other - plants and animals that we call food. I was definitely inspired by a talk by design researcher /to-be anthropologist Duan Zhipeng last week that what interests him more is not doing any form of intervention directly - like me he is no believer that the top-down approach would work, but to better “describe”. In this sense, the cosmetic work of design - I have graphic design in mind - can also be critical in forming new ways of thinking, and a lot of the top-down structures that we have relied so much in the past won’t be too helpful in achieving this vision of graphic design.
So design - I’ll use the term posthumanist design for now, is not about more-than-human centered. It is the reshuffling the conceptual construction of the world for everyone, from designers (in Wilkie’s case of attuning to MTH as part of design brief) to people who eats (which is everyone who is alive). If this can be done in the most mundane experience of eating, it can certainly be done for other groups - certain professions, certain geographies, certain practices. Finding the existing contact with MTH or stage such contact, reframe the experience as transformative learning opportunities (Mezirow) to prepare for the conditions of social change (Manzini).
ps. Some of the discussion on the relationship between theory and empirical in introductory chapter also reminds me of the many methodological books by Matz Alvesson where the empirical is not only for applying theory but for generating novel theories.
I hope I will get more thinking disturbed in reading Mol - I’m in discussion with peer PhD student to do a book club on Mol’s two books. I also am curious how other design students think of them.
References:
Wilkie, A. and M. Michael (2023). "The aesthetics of more-than-human design: speculative energy briefs for the Chthulucene." Human–Computer Interaction: 1-13.
Mol, A. (2021). "Eating in Theory."
Alvesson, M. and D. Kärreman (2011). Qualitative research and theory development : mystery as method. London, Sage.
Alvesson, M. and K. Sköldberg (2009). Reflexive methodology : new vistas for qualitative research. London ;, SAGE.
