Design History. Understanding Theory and Method.

Fallan, Kjetil. 2010. Design History. Understanding Theory and Method. Berg, Oxford. Chapter 2. Part 1 & Part 2.

Note & Quotes:

Fallan speaks about the seamless web of sociodesign in which design is seen as a phenomenon, process and result – based on the concept of sociotechnological development whereby society and technology change together.  He argues for closer links between the history of design, and the history and sociology of technology – as the two fields are closely connected.

Page 55

“The point is that technology is not formed in isolation from society-technology and society are formed and transformed simultaneously and in correlation.”

Page 56

“As phenomenon, proce and resulr, design has as little autonomy as technology does. Therefore, one should consider the relation between society and design as a seamless web of sociodesign.

“…design historians may find that the sociology and history of technology can provide a very appropriate theoretical framework and methodological repertoire for studying design.

Page 57

“…the study of design can be deepened by an exposure to the more deeply rooted history of technology, and the study of technology invigorated by new tendencies in the history and theory of design.’6 There is much to gain from accepting this challenge and exploring the potential of a closer integration and interaction between the history of technology and design history.

Page 59

“Through its concern for the complexity and multi-dimensionality of technological development, the history of technology has provided good models for understanding design processes beyond the mystique of artistic creation.

The major merit of design history is its ability to analyse and critically reflect on the seemingly erratic and less palpable aspects of the material culture.”

…design history is not just about the way things look and work, in other words, how technology is given form. The aesthetics, ethics, symbolism, authority and emotivity of artefacts take on a whole new level of meaning and significance when inscribed in ideological, political, SOCial, cultural and consumption contexts.

Page 60

“American historian of technology, Ruth Schwartz Cowan, is the author of the one book from this discipline that probably has had the most profound influence on design history.

Page 61

A social history of technology, in short, assumes a mutual relationship between society and technology: it also assumes that changes in one can, and have, induced changes in the other.” – Cowan

“Cowan stresses that innovation-both invention, development and diffusion-is fundamentally collaborative (Just as design is, one might add).

Technological and design developments can be viewed as systems – collectives creating innovation (people and objects).

“Cowan stresses that innovation – both invention, development and diffusion – is fundamentally collaborative (just as design is, one might add).” (61)

Page 62

The ideas of Hard and Jamison who speak of cultural appropriation: ‘a process by which novelty is brought under human control’ for them ‘it is a matter of re-creating our societies and ourselves so that new products and concepts make sense’.

“By way of cultural appropriation, the authors strive to tell ‘dialectical stories of hybridization, of combination, both in terms of practice and identities, institutions and organizations, and discourses and disciplines’.24

Fallan explores social construction of technology (SCOT), science and technology studies (STS) and in greater depth; actor network theory (ANT)

Page 66

“…the dismantling of the axiomatic distinction between human and non-human actors is one of the core issues of actor-network theory (ANT).

“technology and society are mutually constitutive. ANT can be seen as an attempt to create a theoretical framework better suited to articulate this acknowledgement. (67)

“… at the heart of ANT lies the ambition to treat ‘entities and materialities as enacted and relational effects’ and to ‘explore the configuration and reconfiguration of those relations’.

ANT uses the metaphor of network to highlight the relational aspect between the nodes, or entities.

As Latour defines it: ‘Network is a concept, not a thing out there. It is a tool to help describe something,

the point is that facts and artefacts develop as a result of negotiations between the various actors involved applying strategies preconditioned by their different interpretations, agendas, needs and desires.

Actor network theory – ANT

(page 69)

Latour sees the network’s extent and momentum as shaping which facts and objects persist over time.

“…thinking about design in terms of ANT may help structure analysis in a different way and thus provide a fresh view on design processes.”

‘First principle The fate of facts and machines is in later users’ hands; their qualities are thus a consequence, not a cause, of a collective action.’51

This principle calls for a design history more attentive to consumption, appropriation, domestication and use. The meanings of ideas and products are not inherent, but are formed through negotiations carried out in networks.

‘Third principle We are never confronted with sCience, technology and society, but with a gamut of weaker and stronger associations; thus understanding what facts and machines are is the same task as understanding who the people are.’52 This principle insists that the ontological categories of

Page 71

ideologies, artefacts and society are constructions, and not very helpful ones.

“In design history ANT is probably better conceived of as a theoretical framework facilitating new and dynamic ways of thinking about design.

Page 71

“In design history ANT is probably better conceived of as a theoretical framework facilitating new and dynamic ways of thinking about design.”

In ANT humans / social and non-humans (objects etc) / science & technology are considered as actors in the network. (75)

Page 76

Action is seen as something that takes place inthe relations between these different actants, and this view might explain why the quality of intentionality/will seems subordinate to Latour.

Page 78

…ANT is ‘better considered as a sensibility to materiality, relationality and process.

Whereas ANT is probably best considered a conceptual framework in design history, the affiliated notion of a product script is more of a methodological tool.

(78)

that the construction of meanings of design and design ideology is not necessarily a smooth operation. No matter how well-intended the designers’ inscriptions and programs are, more or less convincing anti-programs are likely to be formed.

Page 79

Yet the inscription of meaning in an artefact is not limited to its technical content-which is Akrich‘s main interest-but is equally the case regarding its design in general.

Script analysis can thus be a highly valuable tool in the quest for better understanding of how a product’s utilitarian functions, aesthetic expressions, social meanings and cultural identities are constructed.

The script concept can also be said to reveal design’s empowerment to affect behaviour and meaning. As such, it verifies the maxim that design matters…

Page 82

“The materialization of the designer’s more or less informed presumptions/ visions/predictions about the relations between the artefact and the human actors surrounding it thus becomes an effort at ordaining the users’ understanding of the product’s use and meaning”

“The script is thus a key to understanding how producers/designers, products and users negotiate and construct a sphere of action and meaning.”

As discussed earlier, the tendency to focus on either the sphere of production or the sphere of consumption has been criticized in the history of technology and in design history,

84

In short; mediation and translation should be core concerns, and script analysis can be an appropriate methodological tool in such an approach.

85

Introducing such a common methodological vocabulary might also make it easier to locate and analyse the intricate relations that make up the seamless web of sociodesign.

“The socio-technical script has more to do with the transportation and transformation of a product’s symbolic, emotional, social and cultural meanings.

86

It involves all kinds of communication that surrounds and accompanies the product…

Social and technical links are important to understanding design as

” ‘it is extremely difficult to disentangle the use-related function from the symbolic meanings in even the most practical objects.'”

“In real life-and hence in empirical case studies-the physical script and the socio-technical script will be entangled and reciprocal.

May be key to why we hold onto old objects/ design and resist new..

The physical script is seeking to exercise direct influence over users, as it is promoting the product’s physical properties and utilitarian function. The socio-technical script, On the other hand, is seeking to exercise influence by way of indirect attraction. This attraction can be more or less related to utilitarian, symbolic and emotional arguments. (87)

Marketing and advertizing is a major part of the socio-technical script.

Page 89

“…script analysis can help bridge the gap between the sphere of production and the sphere of consumption

“….the script analysis will be an important instrument in understanding the interaction between product and user.

Page 90

“…Both ANT and script analysis aim at moving back and forth between the sphere of production and the sphere of consumption/use in order to understand the co-production of meaning.”

Not easy to do…

“…much due to pragmatic limitations in resources and research methods as well as the availability of empirical evidence, users often remain projected users or represented users.”

Page 91

“Pierre Bourdieu and Jean Baudrillard and others argued that consumption could be seen as symbolic and creative acts.l12 Later positions include Zygmunt Bauman’s notion of an aesthetic consumption and Daniel Miller’s conception of consumption as identity formation. ll3 Common to all these otherwise different outlooks is that they attribute greater competencies and greater responsibilities to the consumer/user.

“This reciprocal relationship between people and things is what the British sociologist Roger Silverstone and colleagues characterize as the result of a process of domestication.

“‘Domestication … has wider implications than a socialization of technology: it is a co-production of the social and the technical.'”

The metaphorical term ‘domestication’ is used to describe how people tame the technology and artefacts that surround them. An essential point, though, is that the taming process is characterized by mutual change and adaptation.

Users modify the artefacts so they suit their needs and desires in the best possible way (utilitarian, emotional  and symbolic), but at the same time, users’ behaviours, feelings, and attitudes are transformed by the products.  Artefacts are adapted to patterns of use, but they also create new patterns of use.

Page 92

Domestication is thus neither a harmonious nor a linear process-it is normally conflict-ridden and dynamic. Thus, the concept does not imply a stable consolidation of an artefact’s meaning and use.

page 93

The concept of domestication can be seen as complementing Akrich’s script metaphor. This combination could have great potential for design history in analysing the relation between intention and understanding in the design and use of products.

In most cases, though, some kind of intermediate position arise, where parts of the script is subscribed to and other parts rejected or misunderstood (de-inSCribed), and a process of negotiation commences where both product and user are adapted and transformed until a satisfactory degree of domestication is achieved.