RENEGOTIATING
ENTANGLEMENTS //
decentering anthropocene
In order to tackle human parasitic behavior, exceptionalism, and dualism by exploiting non-humans, this project tries to approach those issues on a paradigm level. Other levels are highly intertwined and therefore approached also. The question was formulated:
During the term, MA students from "Climate Emergency Studies" and "Innovation through Business, Engineering and Design" joined the "Design+Change" MA program in order to work together while being supervised by different represented academic traditions.
Click on arrow to follow a reflective dialogue discussing the report and to see the public intervention and design research statement.
DESTABILIZING ANTHROPOCENTRISM THROUGH A HUMAN- CENTERED APPROACH
ABSTRACT.
While increasingly facing the effects of climate and ecological emergency (CEE) and being in a state of urgency and emergency, this project aims to move away from anthropocentrism, dualism and resulting extractivism of planetary resources by stating the following breakthrough question: “How can the symbiosis of humans and nature be renegotiated using technology as a mediator?”. We open up the notion of technology using American indigenous logic as we view technology as animate/inanimate, meaning nature- or human-made, because we also identified “technology” as one driver of human essentialism. Although humans are bodily and planetary entangled with non-humans, we tend to see ourselves separate from them. Therefore, we identified an emotional disconnect as a causal and symptomatic driving force which we conceptually situate in the logics of using a human-centered approach in order to decenter the human (or decenter design as it will be later discussed). Also situating the project in theory and practice, we reveal the interesting contrast of how the project is informed through a posthuman theoretical framework and how the project is manifested in the inanimate and urban which can be seen as contradictory. By highlighting the existing entanglement, making the relationship more intimate or flipping the entanglement, we progressively respond to the breakthrough question and emotional disconnect. We physically situated the project in the urban area as a stronghold of extractivism and human essentialism as well as bus stops as intriguing “spacetimes” for reflection as our preferred option of intervention. The discussion also explores how the project is situated within the urban context as a physical entity.
We conclude that our project manifests in the effort of decentering the human through a human-centered approach. We arrived there by using our build framework as a tool for orientation and experimentation.
INTRODUCTION.
The 21st century is drastically and increasingly noticing the effects of climate and ecological crisis, with us humans and our behavior as the primary driver of these effects on a geological scale. This is known as the Anthropocene. While 2022 has been the 30th anniversary of the “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” we are still facing a 40% increase in global greenhouse gas emission since then[1]. However, while being in a state of urgency and emergency, it is important to distinguish what humans are in the positions of power that have the agency to exert their actions on a global scale. A simplified and perhaps crude distinction is the global north and south, where the North is the site where the majority of agency is located due to its concentration of financial wealth and technology and the South is the site where the population is most likely to suffer from poverty due to the lack of concentrated wealth and technology. An important elaboration on this point is that positions of power, whether that be in the north or south are reserved for the top permilles of the top percents. The relation between the Anthropocene and CEE is clear if we look at the most recent period of the era, dubbed the Great Acceleration. This period, beginning after the Second World War, is characterized by the rapid rate of increased socioeconomic growth, predominantly within the wealthy countries (global north). This growth is paired with the rise in the Earth System indicators, such as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gasses, ocean acidification and more[2]. This growth logic, and emphasis on development with the use of technology as a driving force is the basis for continued extractivist practices, be it mining for minerals or mono-agricultural practices. This extractivist culture could be considered the basis for the current divided relationship between humans and nature or using the biological concept of symbiosis it could be considered a parasitic culture towards nature. Viewing ourselves as separate from our environment and seeing nature as something to serve us, the worldview of human exceptionalism can be stated as one of the driving forces for extractivism and dualism.
[1] Ripple, William J, Christopher Wolf, Jillian W Gregg, Kelly Levin, Johan Rockström, Thomas M Newsome, Matthew G Betts, et al. 2022. “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2022.” BioScience 72 (12). https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac083.
[2] W. Steffen et al., “Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet,” Science 347, no. 6223 (January 15, 2015): 1259855–55, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.
1.
BREAKTHROUGH QUESTION.
2.
The design research project explores possibilities to break apart the dualism between humans and non-humans/nature which we see as one of the driving forces of planetary exploitation and the state of climate and ecological emergency (CEE). As a multi-cultural and -lingual team, creative linguistic methods were used for moving forward with the project and to arrive at and understand the breakthrough question. Below follows a breakdown of the question as we understand it in three sub-questions.
HOW CAN...BE RENEGOTIATED..
2.1
Asking a question starting with the word “How” [3] directly underlines that it is not a question of whether a change has to take place or not but gets straight into the fact that it is a necessity. The very first word directly favors a positioning towards the fact that what follows is demanded of the questioner. Asking such a question without denying it (starting with “how not”) automatically reveals the position and worldview of the group, that the symbiosis of humans and non-humans has to be renegotiated. However, renegotiation also means that there is a relation, but it has to be redefined and transformed. If it is asked how this can happen, it could also be asked how this must happen in any case especially in a state of CEE.
By asking how something can be renegotiated, it also has to be taken into consideration who or what can implement changes. To be able to renegotiate things oftenly means having the power, the wealth, but also the responsibility to do so as soon as possible, to do it now. In terms of acknowledging that power structures and different responsibilities exist on every scale, we want to emphasize the fact that we as the authors are situated in the global north in an urban context.
...THE SYMBIOSIS OF HUMANS AND NATURE...
2.2
Calling for renegotiating the symbiosis of humans and nature, we want to highlight the struggle of the term “humans and nature” itself. Having us humans in mind, we tend to think of nature as something external and separate from us. In addition, “nature” can not be defined properly and therefore we prefer to use terms like “non- human” and/or “more-than-human”[4]. Talking about humans and non-humans and asking how we can renegotiate the symbiosis, supports the divide and dualistic approach of us not being part of our surroundings. The breakthrough question itself mirrors the struggle, which calls to be renegotiated and later on will be discussed. By inviting more than-two entities, we want to take dualism apart and try to find balance in pluralism.
Calling for renegotiating the symbiosis of humans and nature, we want to highlight the struggle of the term “humans and nature” itself. Having us humans in mind, we tend to think of nature as something external and separate from us. In addition, “nature” can not be defined properly and therefore we prefer to use terms like “non- human” and/or “more-than-human”[4]. Talking about humans and non-humans and asking how we can renegotiate the symbiosis, supports the divide and dualistic approach of us not being part of our surroundings. The breakthrough question itself mirrors the struggle, which calls to be renegotiated and later on will be discussed. By inviting more than-two entities, we want to take dualism apart and try to find balance in pluralism.
Symbiosis (living together) is based on reciprocity, three-fold on a continuous scale. A mutualistic symbiosis is a relationship that is mutually beneficial, and a parasitic symbiosis is a relationship that is defined by the benefit of one part at the expense of the other. These two exist at opposite ends on the scale of reciprocity. The middle ground is commensalism, where the benefit of one part does not impact the other. It is neither reciprocal nor harmful. The symbiosis between humans and non-humans exists on different scales (bodily, planetary etc), but we understand the disconnect as emotional as both a causal and symptomatic driving force. This means that the emotional disconnect is both causing and amplifying the notion of human essentialism. Which in turn is the foundation for the current logic today, be it a logic of growth and extractivism or techno-solutionism, that is the root cause of the climate and ecological emergency.
Calling for pluralism and the ontological turn by moving away from anthropocentrism and dualism[5], we also support the notion of making the relationship more intimate. While being entangled with and existing as part of non-humans, the emotional way of knowing is still detached as we might know, but not feel, that we are part[6]. By renegotiating the symbiosis we also mean that there is an existing entanglement of humans within their surroundings and through highlighting this entanglement we might shift the parasitic relationship humans have with non-humans/their surroundings[7].
[5] Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman, Material Feminisms (Bloomington, Ind.: Combined Academic [Distributor, 2008).
...USING TECHNOLOGY AS A MEDIATOR?
2.3
By asking how to renegotiate by using technology, the term itself has to be taken into account.
Moving away from a dualistic approach towards a pluralistic and holistic perspective on nature, we also want to open up and make an effort to redefine the notion of technology [8]. The term itself is often associated with the use of devices, systems, structures and the techno-solutionist belief that humans can make use of technology to take control over the natural world[9]. This modernist view on technology will be discarded by us as we also make use of Native American indigenous logic, in which all things beside those which are man-made are considered animate[10].
We consider the notion of technology as a reason for the disconnect between humans and non-humans as technology has supported and allowed human to assume a dominant position on the planet, but it is also defined as an open concept as for us it acts as a mediating object to support and provide the change from dualism to pluralism - the ontological turn[11].
In order to renegotiate the symbiosis and emotional disconnect which so far is causing and amplifying the notion of human essentialism by mediating through the open concept of technology, we want to conceptualize possibilities of approaching the dual and extractivist status quo. By mediating through technology we mean using the open concept of technology “physically and materially as an object, event, or process in the world, impacting humans and nonhumans alike.”[12]. In addition mediating through technology does not mean it being external and neutral, but being included in what is mediated.
[9] Clive Hamilton, “TOWARDS a FIFTH ONTOLOGY for the ANTHROPOCENE,” Angelaki 25, no. 4 (July 3, 2020): 110–19, https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725x.2020.1790839.
[10] Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Milkweed Editions, 2013).
[11] Stacy Alaimo and Susan Hekman, Material Feminisms (Bloomington, Ind.: Combined Academic [Distributor, 2008).
[12] Richard Grusin, “Radical Mediation,” Critical Inquiry 42, no. 1 (September 2015): 124–48, https://doi.org/10.1086/682998.
[3] [Enes]: The use of how not only positions the question as a necessity, connected to our thoughts of CEE as an em-/urgency. It also orients the question as asking for several alternatives. The notion of how invites ideation and explorations and fortifies the idea of not having a predetermined solution in mind. An emergency is an immediate threat in the now, an urgency is a threat in the near future which can be useful to think about in terms of proposing alternatives on a temporal axis. We can intervene now, tomorrow, next year and so on and since every effort is required it can also lead us to understanding the continuous effort needed in response to CEE.
[4] [Natalie]: “Even if in this course the term “nature” was often discussed and criticized, I have the feeling that it still is a term that should be taken into account. Trying to work with our own glossary and meaning for this term, we succeeded in communicating our thoughts within the echo chamber of our course, but I am unsure how this could work with a larger audience outside of our institution. I have the feeling that a term like “nature” is deeply rooted in our language and as it is with a lot of words, I am unsure if a new word should be implemented or the used word should be opened up. By practicing languaging and working with the project, I personally opened up the term for myself involving a new worldview. Nevertheless I am wondering how to transfer this process of giving insights into a new worldview by either putting effort in rethinking terms or simply giving it a new name. How can we communicate our project/ worldview (to the public) by still using the most used terms. Is it about creating new words, exploring and deconstructing terms or using the known words in a context that represents our understanding of the term the best?”
[6] [Natalie]: When I listened to the podcast “The Intelligence of Plants” hosted by on being studios (last updated 2022), Wall Kimmerer tells a story about when she asked students if they love earth and they affirm. But after asking if earth loves them back, they become quiet. The love being shown by earth can be found by looking into gardening, harvesting etc as she says. Kimmerer is maybe not mainly referring to highlighting the existing entanglement, but to become aware of “where nature/earth loves us” which is also touching on our identified emotional disconnect.
[7] [Natalie]: “We want to focus on plurality and more-than-human, but how to do so while being its own species always stuck in the human brain? We want to renegotiate the existing (mostly) parasitic symbiosis, but what kind of symbiosis do we want to achieve? While Kimmerer (Braiding sweetgrass,2013) is talking about reciprocity, I have the feeling that it embodies an idealistic image that is worth striving for in the long term. But how radically do we have to renegotiate the symbiosis now, today to achieve the change we urgently need? We discussed that we would also like to call for a symbiosis, where humans have to “just give back” from now on - a re-parasitic relationship (or 4th symbiosis in Enes´words) to earn a reciprocal relationship in the future.”
[8] [Enes]: The use of how not only positions the question as a necessity, connected to our thoughts of CEE as an em-/urgency. It also orients the question as asking for several alternatives. The notion of how invites ideation and explorations and fortifies the idea of not having a predetermined solution in mind. An emergency is an immediate threat in the now, an urgency is a threat in the near future which can be useful to think about in terms of proposing alternatives on a temporal axis. We can intervene now, tomorrow, next year and so on and since every effort is required it can also lead us to understanding the continuous effort needed in response to CEE.
SITUATING THE PROJECT IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
3.
As mentioned above, our aim was to intervene in the logics which have and continue to push the planet beyond its boundaries[13]whilst recognizing that these logics belong exclusively to humans (specifically a Western hegemony). These logics are our intervention point, following Meadows' notion of the paradigm or mindset as the set of ideas or beliefs about how the world works such as growth is good or nature is a stock of resources to be converted to human purposes[14]. Meadows acknowledges that paradigms are difficult to change, but argues that changing a worldview does not necessarily rely on a physical or costly effort since all that it takes is a ‘click in the mind’ for an individual to change their worldview. As we identify this set of beliefs as deeply anthropocentric, and that the CEE is an anthropogenic issue, we reason that our approach to the project should be a counter to these logics. This counter is found in posthumanist critical theory.
[13] Johan Rockström, “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity,” Ecology and Society 14, no. 2 (2009), https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03180-140232.
[14] Donella Meadows, “Leverage Points Places to Intervene in a System,” 1999, https://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf.
POSTHUMAN IN TERMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE
3.1
The understanding of posthuman critical theory being a multifaceted position, holding at its core a change of paradigm away from anthropocentrism[15]or posthumanism as a response to humanism[16] is central to our project. These facets include efforts across disciplines such as philosophy and anthropology, also emerging in design. When mapping out patterns within posthuman studies, Braidotti explains the posthuman turn as the convergence of post-humanism and post-anthropocentrism. Post-humanism is the critique of man as the universal representation of humankind and post-anthropocentrism is the critique of species hierarchy and promotion of ecological justice. She also lifts the tactical method of defamiliarization as a paramount criteria in a posthumanist effort, meaning a disconnection of the subject from the familiar and habitual in order to evolve toward a posthuman frame of reference[17]. In their exploration of the emerging landscape of posthumanist design, Laurien and others use a broad definition of design and the designer, discussing the narrow frameworks which often reduce complexities in order to produce solutions[18]. Design has been a part of making and maintaining a certain human subject, one who acts on desires and dreams through consumption, a posthumanist design position explores alternatives to this human subject and Braidotti calls for experimentation of this subjectivity. In terms of design and this relation to human dreams and desires, we think of Maturana’s inquiry about whether we humans want to be responsible for our desires[19].
[15] Rosi Braidotti, “Posthuman Critical Theory,” Journal of Posthuman Studies 1, no. 1 (2017): 9, https://doi.org/10.5325/jpoststud.1.1.0009.
[16] Thomas Laurien et al., “An Emerging Posthumanist Design Landscape,” Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism, October 15, 2022, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_42-2.
[17] Rosi Braidotti, “Posthuman Critical Theory,” Journal of Posthuman Studies 1, no. 1 (2017): 9, https://doi.org/10.5325/jpoststud.1.1.0009.
[18] Thomas Laurien et al., “An Emerging Posthumanist Design Landscape,” Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism, October 15, 2022, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_42-2.
[19] Humberto Maturana, “Human Beings versus Machines, or Machines as Instruments of Human Designs?,” September 1, 1997, https://www.pangaro.com/hciiseminar2019/Maturana_Metadesign.pdf.
UNDERSTANDING TECHNOLOGY
3.1.1
As we have mentioned technology in our breakthrough question, it is important to consider how posthumanism relates to technology and how it informs our worldview. We are informed by Lewis’s[20] statement that relationality is a key concept of a posthuman approach and that technology mediates how humans experience the world. Postphenomenology understands humans and technologies as inseparable[21] and humans as beings in entanglement, humans as always in a relation or a co-constitution of I - technology - world. This connects to our breakthrough question, specifically the reasoning behind ‘using technology as a mediator?’. Historically tracing the term of technology, today's modern understanding of technology as relating to mechanics and industrial arts appeared in the 19th century. Prior to this understanding, the term technology appeared in the 1600’s with the emergence of modern science and then related to a discourse on the arts. An etymological exploration of the term positions us in ancient Greece, with techne meaning art and the way something is acquired or brought into being, and logos meaning saying or expression. Techne has mythological origins in the story of Prometheus gifting humanity with fire and technical wisdom stolen from the Greek gods, so that humans, inferior to animals as natural beings could survive. In this context humans are positioned as more than animals or something in between gods and animals, with the techne of language separating them.
Heidegger explores the relation humans have with modern technology[22] and positions the essence of technology as both instrumental (as a means to an end, as tools or equipment) and anthropological (as a human activity, used for our own purposes). He uses the example of mining coal as an example of extractivism and the domination of nature, and the view of nature as a standing reserve which serves only the purpose of being available for extraction when needed by humankind. This is the basis for Heidegger’s[23] notion of ‘enframing’, which is the ordering of the world for dominion instead of the world having autonomy. This enframing and the essence of technology[24] impacts how humans understand not only nature but also ‘challenges’ that everything that is a part of a standing reserve is to be a resource for technical application. The coal is challenged to become heat which is challenged to become steam which is challenged to fulfill its purpose. This sets an unending process of challenging and extraction in motion. We liken this to the notion of technosphere[25], a complex system comprised of technology and humans. If we follow Heidegger’s logic then this system also encompasses non-humans and all matter, animate and inanimate, since everything is set in order as a standing reserve for extraction and dominion.
[20] Richard S Lewis, Technology, Media Literacy, and the Human Subject (Open Book Publishers, 2021), https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwio0ZWX5cH8AhXBS_EDHSdEDEkQFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Flibrary.oapen.org%2Fbitstream%2F20.500.12657%2F49437%2F1%2F9781800641846.pdf&usg=AOvVaw32JFeUPu-9NfLMcAyQn03d.
[21] Joakim Vindenes and Barbara Wasson, “A Postphenomenological Framework for Studying User Experience of Immersive Virtual Reality,” Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (April 29, 2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/frvir.2021.656423.
[22] Martin Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays,” 1977, https://monoskop.org/images/4/44/Heidegger_Martin_The_Question_Concerning_Technology_and_Other_Essays.pdf[24] Mark Blitz, “Understanding Heidegger on Technology,” The New Atlantis 41, no. 41 (2014): 63–80, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43152781.
[25] Jan Zalasiewicz, “The Unbearable Burden of the Technosphere,” UNESCO, March 27, 2018, https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-2/unbearable-burden-technosphere.
[21] Enes: This challenging and unlocking of nature, is according to Heidegger an expediting that drives towards the maximum yield at the minimum expense. Economy starts to dictate our experience of the world and nature.
METADESIGN
3.2
Using the analogy of a ball of yarn[26], metadesign is the art and craft of finding love, systems literacy and agency to make change. A central concept is the notion of care (from-the-inside perspective on tending to relationships, an intimate and healing practice), as care can decentralize sustainability because it is something everybody can do to maintain relationships with other humans and non-humans. Making use of these principles, the team used a range of methods that formed a methodological framework. In addition to metadesign and language as the main creative methods used by the group to progress the project, the framework also contains a number of exploratory methods that were applied.
[26] D. Haraway, “A Game of Cat’s Cradle: Science Studies, Feminist Theory, Cultural Studies,” Configurations, 1994, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Game-of-Cat%27s-Cradle%3A-Science-Studies%2C-Feminist-Haraway/cc8ac29f29770c6cbf69898be9b8a2d6cd4d1895.
MOVING IMAGE
3.2.1
The project in between was anchored in the term "Cyber Forest" and explored through sound. It was played with in/animate sounds that either stayed separate or became intertwined, inseparable. All explorations build an orchestra of sounds beings played together in a space.
DECENTERING THE HUMAN WITH A HUMAN-CENTERED APPROACH.
4.
After the project has been situated in theory and practice, the following will elaborate on the project being conceptually situated and approached by decentering the human with and through a human centered approach.
Being stuck in our own skin, we find ourselves building and looking at our worldview through a human and therefore anthropocentric and dualistic coloured lens. As we humans and our behavior are the primary driver of the CEE, we also find ourselves in the position to address, tackle, have the agency to (differently distributed globally) and be responsible for it. The entanglement of humans and non-humans exists on different scales and we identified the emotional disconnect of humans towards their entanglement, their lost or overseen intimate relationship with the non-human, as one of the causal and symptomatic driving forces of human exceptionalism and the CEE. Therefore we respond to the breakthrough question by following the logic of intervening in the (emotional) human through a human-centered approach in order to decenter the human[35]. In order to renegotiate the symbiosis of humans and non-humans using technology as the mediator, we see ourselves in the position to intervene in humans by formulating the following sub approaches.
HIGHLIGHTING THE EXISTING ENTANGLEMENT
4.1
[35] [Natalie]: “While talking about decentering the human we have to take into consideration which human or how many we want to decenter. While working within a paradigm level, we remain vague and want to intervene in Anthropocentrism in order to destabilize it in general. This would mean that we want to decenter and change all of humanity. Although this is accurate, it is also highly idealistic and the question still arises with which individuals the greatest impact can be achieved by decentering them. In the introduction we discuss the important point of positions of power, whether that be in the global north or south as they are reserved for the *top permilles of the top percents*. To have an urgent impact, we might have to apply our approach to positions of power first - top-down. How can we apply our approach of intervening in the human(e.g. politicians in position of power) in order to decenter them? And how would our approaches develop? Since our approaches nevertheless largely support a future harmony, the question is how much more radical they would have to become in order to reach people in positions of power. A next step in the project could be to be more responsive to politics and positions of power, even though these individuals are presumably aware of the entanglement of human and non-human, and yet (not or not really) act . What happens when we throw our conceptual and idealistic approaches into the rough seas of politics and economics?”
Human beings understand the environment as a resource and something external which serves them. While non-humans have always existed together with human beings, most of the time they have been dominated by humans. In order to decenter the human and renegotiate the relationship of humans and non-humans, we want to highlight the existing entanglement of humans and non-humans and focus on “what was”[36], but still need to be discovered . Therefore, one step to decenter the human is to highlight and discover the human entanglement with the non-human on different scales. On this basis, bringing attention to and understanding the entanglement through discovering the nonhuman in the environment is one approach to create an equal or at least renegotiated symbiotic relationship.
[36] Thomas Laurien et al., “An Emerging Posthumanist Design Landscape,” Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism, October 15, 2022, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_42-2.
MAKING THE RELATIONSHIP MORE INTIMATE
4.2
The mode of thinking that humans place themselves above the environment and therefore the non-human by also dividing the non-human into subject and object, also places themselves outside of the non-human world. The second approach is to make the relationship more intimate as we hope to make people feel that humans are a part of the environment through focusing on “what is”[37], but might be yet unseen. While tackling the emotional disconnect of humans towards non-humans, non-humans also become more apparent in human daily life. Approaching the dual relationship and thinking about how to make the relationship more intimate is an important step in renegotiating the symbiosis of humans and nonhumans in order to decenter the human.
[37] Thomas Laurien et al., “An Emerging Posthumanist Design Landscape,” Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism, October 15, 2022, 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_42-2.
FLIPPING THE ENTANGLEMENT
4.3
As the relationship between humans and non-humans needs to be renegotiated because humans place themselves at the center of the world and unilaterally make use of the environment, we also tackle this through a speculative approach dealing with the question of “what if”[38]. This speculative approach creates scenarios in which the relationship or entanglement of humans and non-human will be flipped upside down in order to decenter the human. Therefore we believe that changing perspective and reversing the relationship will motivate thinking about the symbiosis of humans and non-humans and make them truly feel its dominance over non-humans. We aim to motivate humans to reflect about how they feel after exchanging their own and the non-human position in the present in order to build a harmonious and symbiotic relationship in the future.
[38] ibid.
SITUATING IN THE PHYSICAL SPACE.
5.
After situating the project in theory and practice and conceptualizing approaching in response to the breakthrough question, it will also be physically situated in space.
URBAN
5.1
Urban areas are the preferred environment we chose to intervene in, research and study. We believe that urban areas are strongholds of dualism and extractivism and on top of that, compared with other regions, urban areas have more and more (cultural) diverse populations, which also might affect the relationship of humans and non-humans. This could help us understand people's different views of non-humans from a more culturally diverse perspective. In addition, urban areas are a melting pot for different forms of (economic, political, social, cultural etc) power[39]. Therefore according to our breakthrough question, urban areas integrate four important facts: science and technology, humans and non-humans. In conclusion, the urban area is the preferred option for implementing (inter)actions in response to climate emergencies in order to intervene in the human.
[39] Bašová, Silvia. 2016. ‘CULTURAL AND URBAN IMPORTANCE OF MEETING POINTS’. In . https://doi.org/10.1000/9788024839400.
Romain Goldberg, “Nature in Urban Regions,” 2021, http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1519899/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
BUS STOPS AS OBJECTS AND SYSTEMS
5.2
In the urban area, the bus stop is a public area with a high concentration and fluctuation of people who stop and wait. Therefore, the bus stop becomes the ideal " spacetimes" for reflection and intervention. Broken down a bus stop provides a sign, which marks the point where the bus will stop. Additionally to the sign, it provides space for more comfortable waiting. The bus stop itself also has the function of publicizing and providing information, as well as serving as a shelter. They are objects, technology, sites, galleries and multiplied they build a connected system through buses. The bus stop is a public facility especially built to provide entry points to bus routes and urban mobility. Due to the increasingly developed urban public transport, bus stops have become an indispensable and important part of the city, and become a landmark facility that reflects the city's style. They are connecting part of the (urban) technosphere[40].
The bus stop not only provides a place for reflections for humans, but also is a convenient place for information and transmission, for highlighting the entanglement of humans and non-humans and a starting point to intervene in the anthropocentric. Therefore, the bus stop is a good facility to gather human and non-humans under one roof and an intriguing place to apply our approaches to.
[40] [Natalie]: They are part of the (urban) technosphere ,but also drivers of the enlargement and spread of its sphere of action. As the public transport infrastructure grows, so does the urban space and vice versa.
DISCUSSION.
6.
In terms of discussing our work, we have identified three areas of interest. These are related to how the project is situated, firstly in the physical as an intervention, secondly in the theoretical scaffolding we use and lastly the contradiction of acting anthropocentric in a post-anthropocentric effort. Firstly, situating the project in an urban context which we view as a stronghold of extractivism and human essentialism. Not to be omitted, we consider the urban context also as a socio-material assembly and a technological milieu. This discussion mainly explores how the project is situated within the urban context as a physical entity. Secondly, how the project is situated in a theoretical scaffolding mainly consisting of posthumanism. This scaffolding, which could be interchangeably named as our worldview or piecemeal of pluralistic logics, is inherently de/non-anthropocentric. Here we recognize an interesting contrast, how the project is informed through a posthuman theoretical framework and how the project is manifested in the inanimate and urban. We identified the approach of intervening in the human to de-center the human as the guiding principles for our design efforts were also rooted in a theoretical scaffolding of posthumanism and plurality.
PHYSICALLY SITUATING
6.1
Since the project was manifested with a focus on primarily projecting our worldview through a series of questions and statements situated in the urban and public engagement being secondary, it is difficult to attempt to answer whether we were successful in negotiating the entanglement between humans and non-humans. Perhaps this is not important as we viewed this experiment as a prototype to explore languaging in terms of destabilizing the prevailing logics of extractivism and human essentialism . There were aspects of the intervention that allowed for public feedback, yet we did not receive ample material suitable for deeper exploration. We recognize several factors for this shortcoming, such as low temperatures that caused the pens to freeze, unclear instructions and more. Not to dwell too long on this shortcoming, we accept it. The base logic for allowing public feedback was not to create a means for us as designers to gather data, but more so to provide a public platform where different ideas and thoughts could be heard (more accurately, read) and perhaps some kind of discussion be held. In this sense, us projecting our worldview through different questions and statements could be likened to scribbling the first cheeky message in a bathroom stall and hoping for future restroom visitors to continue the story.
THEORETICALLY SITUATING
6.2
Regarding the theoretical situating of the project and how it relates to our languaging practice and conceptualization, we think about how the three approaches to projecting our worldview relate to the scaffolding. The three approaches (highlight existing, making intimate and flipping) are products and openings of collective ideation processes which are rooted in our views on symbiosis, negotiation, technology and more. We deployed these approaches as a progression through the bus stops that could exist as standalone units whilst being a part of a larger whole. We see this as a slide from anthropocentric to posthuman, starting with (1.) inquiring what is at the bus stop (2.) stating what is at the bus stop and inquiring how the public feels about it to (3.) stating that human bodies are objects for non-humans to use. However, once again, this intervention served mainly a disseminating function with the intent of possibly galvanizing a discussion beyond our participation.
Braidotti explains the posthuman turn as the convergence of post-humanism and post-anthropocentrism. Post-humanism is the critique of human as the universal representation of humankind and post-anthropocentrism is the critique of species hierarchy and promotion of ecological justice. She also lifts the tactical method of defamiliarization as a paramount criteria in a posthumanist effort, meaning a disconnection of the subject from the familiar and habitual in order to evolve toward a posthuman frame of reference.
CONCEPT SITUATING APPROACH
6.3
This part will be discussed by presenting a reflective dialogue of two of the authors. The informal style arises through the method for experimental reflective languaging as each author was writing for a couple of minutes, responding to each other. The responses are based on reflections throughout the project.
As our identified 3rd area of interest, we recognize an interesting contrast, how the project is informed through a posthuman theoretical framework and how the project is manifested in the inanimate and urban. That contrast mirrors a contradiction in terms of acting anthropocentrically in a post-anthropocentric effort. We identified the approach of intervening in the human to de-center the human. The guiding principles for our design efforts were rooted in a theoretical scaffolding of posthumanism and plurality.
[Enes]: It all feels a bit metadesign:y, doesn’t it? Redesign the human through designing for the human, me to you to us to … post-we?
[Natalie]: Circulating around the human again. Is it just a loop or a spiral down? While intervening in the human in order to decenter the human,
Intervening in anthropocentrism while being part of it, turning
a system upside down from within, is a highly idealistic, but intriguing approach.
I have the feeling that this is also the main idea in (design) activism.
Interventions in the human to decenter the human as activism … yeah, in a sense. But activism (I’m thinking of these modern notions of activism like glueing your hand to old paintings and laying down on runways) feels like its goal is to disrupt at a level of systems and products. We were talking about paradigms and beliefs and not creating something new as designers, is it the same or is it something different? Let me know if I’m making any sense….
I see where it is going, definitely. But I am still wondering, if humans are even able to do so as we are (maybe even unnoticed) highly influenced by those dualistic, essentialistic notions and I can mainly think about activism tackling this. What about design? In addition, intervening in order to change the human might also be associated with pedagogy and participatory approaches.
Well, yeah. Worldviews and beliefs are (maybe not always) concepts that are tacit or latent right? Not explicit always, both to ourselves and to people. Like when we were talking about how that person in our class seems to be a supporter of that right wing politician based on some of their comments. We were surprised, and I wanted to explore this a bit further. Or, I mean make it a bit more explicit. That was a designerly effort I feel. Definitely some ethical implications here, but this is a conversation in confidence right? In terms of design and its role here, I think design has a prescriptive role here… like design tells the user/observer what the world should be like or look like. For better or for worse. Who decides that?
So because humans and design are highly intertwined, this would imply also that we not only intervene in the human through decentering, but also design. We discussed that before, we both know. But when design gets decentered also through design, the designer also gets decentered. Domino-effect!
I guess, but what is being decentered? Doesn’t the act of decentering mean finding a new center? So when me and you talk about decentering ourselves as designers, we talk about two things at the same time. First, we decenter ourselves from what we were taught design is and what design should do, since we’re *trained* product designers. Secondly, we center ourselves in something new. For this project it was posthumanism and plurality as responses to CEE. Next project it will maybe be the color green or chairs, I don’t know.. Probably not… It's about what agency we want to perform right? Like when Martin said, agency is noticed in the absence of an actor. So if we were to disappear, what would change if we continued being product designers? Nothing, right?
Of course we definitely decenter ourselves from what we were taught as designers, but that was also one of our guiding principles to unlearn our disciplines, even if I am not sure if we succeed in doing so..but as you also mentioned it, also being a human then means that we have to unlearn what it means to be a human in this world. And that also means intervening in the emotional disconnect that we identified in us as a designer, but also a regular member of humankind. If we were to continue being product designers, maybe no change would happen for sure, but we would contribute to “the system” (badaaam).
I’m not sure we can talk about decentering and success in the same breath, I think of this as an ongoing process of constantly moving and finding new centers and new worldviews. Both as a designer and member of humankind. When we stop moving is when we sink.
The system, the capitalist logics of growth and consumption. And all of the waste left in its wake. Remember when we talked about whether humans can solve human-made problems? Maybe the question is, can designers solve designed problems?
Maybe the struggle is the thing! To stay with the trouble of unlearning. To not fall back into old patterns and to recognize both responsibility and (required) response-ability. I just read an article about how Exxon (the oil giant) knew already in the 70s that fossil fuels would lead to extreme weather events before 2050. How do we respond to this?
If the framework makes sense or not, I also don’t know. We did something, at least we can find comfort in that right? We also have some insights, like how we approached it based on what was/is/if on the level of beliefs and worldviews. I consider this to be similar to the notion of “strange enough”(Dunne & Raby right?), as the goal is to find the balance of destabilizing current logics without being dismissed as an artistic effort without real life implications (there is something about this also in Dunne & Raby…). The design work becomes something similar to a litmus test, where we are testing the pH-levels of a certain design approach or logic with the public, to determine what is a viable alternative moving forward when breaking with ‘business as usual’-logics. Can we use that for something?
Oh no I completely agree. I just meant that I am unsure if we really unlearned our disciplines - during this module, year, the time the whole program takes. As I am stuck in my human skin, I might also be stuck in my designerly mindset. Definitely willing to unlearn, but struggling.
When we asked if designers can solve designed problems, we also discussed if the whole post-human framework we build makes any sense in terms of tackling anthropocentrism. And I of course still do not know. But I would argue that, especially in times of CEE every approach is worth being explored. We can not tackle complexity itself, but we can and will state and conclude one or our way of approaching it. Intervening in the human by having a
human-centered approach in mind, in order to decenter the human itself, approaches the emotional disconnect and for us identified causal and symptomatic driving force of the CEE. By doing so, we present an effort to intervene in
the anthropocentric.While formulating an anthropocentric approach to destabilize anthropocentrism, we have to take the agency of humans in times of urgency and emergency into account. The formulated progressing sub approaches present a set of possibilities in terms of relatability.
Well, we still could apply the three sub approaches
to different contexts, physical sites, and scenarios by zooming in and zooming out. We discussed revisiting them maybe in terms of scale. We mainly worked on a paradigm level trying to influence the other levels top-down If we apply it there, what happens with the service or product level? The approaches could also manifest bottom-up. What happens if e.g. a graphic designer applies one of these approaches (or all of them) to their work? How does this intervene in the paradigm level if oftenly repeated for example?
Not sure, are we sure that it can be applied to designing products or services? I think that we would need to rethink the foundations of how products and services are distributed. Right now they exist in a capitalist context, right? You pay me so and so much, and you get this and that. Sure, we can talk of alternative economic models, like sharing or bartering, but it all builds on the principle of exchange. Exchange between humans and humans, based on labor and that which is extracted from nature/earth/nonhumans. We would still need to intervene at the cause of these behaviors and patterns, which comes back to the issue of paradigm. For our project it was how do we renegotiate the symbiosis …. We wrote that maybe we weren’t as centered in our project and its approach. Should we redesign the question as well?
True, that is something we should take into account. I am not sure either, but maybe that is something intriguing also and could have been a next step if we would continue with the project. Nevertheless I have the impression that our approaches are also kind of idealistic and therefore we would need to see how this unfolds in reality. As kind of every project which also wants to act as a change-making practice.
In regards to the question: let's do it! We also repeat a dualistic thought by separating humans and non-human by already asking about A&B…humans and non-humans. We could or should have changed that. Finally, How would the question for you sound like now?
Hmm… I was hoping you would answer that. Thinking about how we thought of our intervention as a project, perhaps we should apply the same logic to the question. It isn’t inquisitive, but prescriptive. A statement!
Instead of how can we negotiate … it should be ….
Hmmm…
… ‘In order to renegotiate the relation between humans and non-humans, the human must first be decentered.’
Thoughts?
Yes. But maybe we can avoid repeating “humans and non-humans” as something separate already in the question, we could maybe ask about how we can make clear that the human is entangled and part of its environment using technology as a mediator…something like that?
Yeah, the division of human and non-human is problematic. But also perhaps necessary, as we know that the issues facing the planet are human-made. I mean our hands are dirty, I’m not even sure that non-humans would like to hold hands with us. Technology is also problematic, as this modern view of it is constantly reproducing the issues we’re facing. And Heidegger was a nazi, so I don’t know why we even brought him into this in the first place…
CONCLUSIONS
7.
(NOT AS FINDINGS BUT MORE SO AS OPENINGS)
As a final languaging exercise, we play with the notion of conclusions. Traditionally understood within the context of a writing effort as the final paragraphs where the question is finally answered. We argue that it is impossible to provide an answer to how we as designers should approach the climate and ecological crisis, and that in fact there are several ways in how we can renegotiate our entanglement with the non-human. Working with an abstract but simultaneously highly intersected topic makes it difficult to narrow down and navigate in without getting lost. Using Haraways words, to stay with the trouble (trouble being the abstract, complex, entangled, etc) means perhaps to abandon the idea of conclusion as having a sense of finality. For us, conclusions then become not findings but openings.
The ambition to intervene in the human in order to decenter the human as an effort in response to the climate and ecological crisis is still a logic that holds true for us. As discussed, since the manifestation of our project served mainly a disseminating function we cannot speculate whether we were successful in decentering an anthropocentric worldview. This being said, we also believe that approaching the CEE through exploring the relationality of humans and non-humans is a direction worthy of further exploration. What we have realized is that the project did achieve a decentering, which was thought of as a guiding principle at the start of our design efforts, namely the notion of unlearning our disciplines and staying with the trouble as designers. This de-centering, a designerly de-centering that is, could be an interesting direction moving forward for design and design education as we consider design and its manifestations to be complicit in the creation and re-creation of the climate and ecological crisis.
We could surely discuss how we as designers (not philosophers) have utilized how this project has been situated in terms of theory, practice and site. The argument that we have displayed an unforgivable irreverence towards posthumanism could be made. Another side of that same coin is that we treated our frameworks as tools for orientation and experimentation. We accept the latter, as our response to the climate and ecological eme-/urgency was guided by action over perfection.
bibliography:
PUBLIC INTERVENTION AS ONE PARTICIPATORY MANIFESTATION IN RESPONSE TO CEE
A public (inter)action is one possible approach in response to DR in times of C.E.E now. While engaging with the public an experimental, transdisciplinary and participatory space can be created to rethink, reflect and re-picture the status quo. Prompts and prototypes at a specific site can provoke bodily and sensorial engagement and thinking also through asking questions and making statements. They can give insights into anthropocentric viewpoints, but also plant seeds of thoughts through bringing attention to the unknown - through thinking what was, what is and what if[9]. Interacting with the public also means intervening within the anthropocentric in order to make a change within. Acting in the participatory frame also means staying within it, but possibly breaking with anthropocentric paradigms in the future.
The design experiment is an attempt to intervene at a site that is ubiquitous and ambiguous, a site that is a socio-material assembly that embodies or frames a worldview. A worldview which we wish to intervene in, to rattle. Too soon to tell whether efficient or not, but our logic follows Meadow’s notion of points of intervention. The paradigm or, as we interpret it, the worldview level. The climate and ecological emergency is a (hu)man-made disaster, an anthropogenic phenomenon that is manifested through a myriad of events and structures. This project had the goal of intervening at the causal site and not the symptomatic one, meaning our goal was to affect the logics that have, and still are reproducing this emergency rather than intervening in the consequences of these logics.
[9] Laurien, Thomas, Li Jönsson, Petra Lilja, Kristina Lindström, Erik Sandelin, and Åsa Ståhl. 2022. “An Emerging Posthumanist Design Landscape.” Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism, October, 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_42-2.
PUBLIC INTERVENTION
Projecting the groups worldview into the "spacetimes" for reflection at a bus stop. The bus stops were approached by provoking engagement through stating questions and statements regarding the three approaches we identified: highlighting the existing entanglement, making the relationship more intimate and flipping the entanglement. Public intervention as one possible participatory manifestation in response to the climate and ecological emergency.
DESIGN WORK IN TIMES OF CEE
Thus far, our work has been oriented towards collecting and creating the above mentioned scaffolding, attempting to synthesize our collection into a worldview that could inform our design work. Furthermore, our design work as embracing the existing more-than-human, highlighting the entanglement and/or flipping the relationship is necessary at a time in which ecosystems are almost irreversibly at a loss and the entanglements required for a planetary future are damaged[1]. Certainly we have operated in a designerly way, especially in the tail end of this process in our ideation and prototyping activities. However, the eleventh hour is nigh and we must engage with the entanglements outside of the echo chambers of our institution. This meaning, we must shift our mode from research into design to research through design[2]. We understand research through design as a transdisciplinary[3] effort, using design methodology for creating new knowledge/insights that has the potential to change both the field of design and the public or phenomena being explored. The approach is no longer think in order to design, it is think through designing. We proceed as designers, developing a public intervention that we use as a research method, inspired by design things [4] and design events[5] which are design approaches that are congruent with our scaffolding. Currently, these approaches are understood as collective prototyping activities with the public as a vehicle for inquiry[6].
Guiding principles for the design work are colored by the logic of action over perfection, as the C.E.E is understood as not only an emergency but also an urgency, and the notion of staying with the trouble[7], as we are attempting to unlearn our disciplines as industrial and product designers. Also as design researchers with a focus on change, we can speculate about new/different ways of being and embracing the complexity of design work, action and being response-able, we have the power to say “yes” to certain futures[8]. We are empowered to renegotiate and redesign relationships, entanglements and think the unthinkable. While dealing with the complexity of the C.E.E., the notion of time in different scales has to be taken into account. The possibly overarching idea of manifesting a paradigm shift has to be thought through in terms of possible changes in the present. Breaking with the anthropocentric paradigm in the long run can mean intervening within the anthropocentric frame in the present.
[1]Laurien, Thomas, Li Jönsson, Petra Lilja, Kristina Lindström, Erik Sandelin, and Åsa Ståhl. 2022. “An Emerging Posthumanist Design Landscape.” Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism, October, 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_42-2.
[2]Christopher Frayling, Research in Art and Design (London: Royal College of Art, 1993).
[4]Pelle Ehn, “Participation in Design Things,” Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference On …, January 1, 2008, https://www.academia.edu/17086207/Participation_in_design_things.
[5]Li Jönsson, “Design Events: On Explorations of a Non-Anthropocentric Framework in Design,” Www.academia.edu, 2014, https://www.academia.edu/11481605/Design_events_on_explorations_of_a_non_anthropocentric_framework_in_design.
[6]S. Wensveen and Ben Matthews, “Prototypes and Prototyping in Design Research,” www.semanticscholar.org, 2015, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Prototypes-and-prototyping-in-design-research-Wensveen-Matthews/e15af89d310ffb5e666f006c834b2e8ee87e2047.
[7]Donna Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham: Duke University Press, 2016).
[8] Laurien, Thomas, Li Jönsson, Petra Lilja, Kristina Lindström, Erik Sandelin, and Åsa Ståhl. 2022. “An Emerging Posthumanist Design Landscape.” Palgrave Handbook of Critical Posthumanism, October, 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_42-2.
whole statement
[3][Enes]: Perhaps instead of debating whether one acts as a trans-, inter- or intra-disciplinary designer, and all that these entail, it is more relevant to redefine what these words mean and how we relate to them. It could be argued that the designerly is inherently transdisciplinary. Designers are afforded a certain irreverence to how we approach different domains of knowledge, how we piecemeal together frameworks that inform our processes, how we synthesize data into findings into briefs and outcomes. In an age where we are aware of the consequences of our designerly actions, to align oneself with practices that are attempting to curb this disaster or to at least adapt to these new man-made conditions, means to veer away from what we have been taught throughout life. How to do this is unknown, although I am convinced there are a multitude of ways. I would argue that for designers, this means to unlearn our practice, or at least adopt other models and worldviews as the departure points for our processes. Intuitively, is this a transdisciplinary act? To go beyond the training and established methodologies and logics of design (for these reflections, as it is taught in a Scandinavian context), to see through the both written and unwritten rules of design industry and academy. Some consequences are clear, unemployment – undesirability – ethics hearings – critique – conflicts – threats – prosecution – and so on. How does one prepare for these consequences, and yet unknown externalities? Is it done on an individual scale or is it an organized collective effort?