Design 21: Social Design Network

Just a minor typo (very common amongst non-Indians): it is not "Ghandi" (typically pronounced as rhyming with "shandy") but "Gandhi" (pronounced "gahn-thee").

The more I visit and meet rural people, the higher my respect for their knowledge rises. It amazes me that we from the cities and academies regard them as uneducated, illiterate and "subjects" for our "expert" inputs. Much of their knowledge and expertise is not in the form that we would recognize (as in "notice") or recognize (as in "award"), because it is embodied. However, they are masters at being resourceful, innovative, living light and being content—what else could one ask for? And isn't it ironic that despite our high knowledge and technical expertise, we are struggling to achieve precisely the same ends?

In recent times, I have been reflecting on the extent of dominance of modernist thought and ideas in design, and its still-pervasive influence. One of the most serious flaws perpetuated by modernism was its decisive rejection of (anything from) the past. Perhaps that was justified at the time of modernism's emergence, but looking back nearly a century later, we can certainly see how dumping all forms of traditional knowledge, wisdom and practices and privileging scientific positivism and an industrial aesthetic has led to so many of the crises we face as a planet today.

I would like to hear from you: what are your ingrained attitudes (not your informed and reflective opinion, mind you) towards: (a) tradition/ the past? (b) physical labour? (c) a basic, close-to-nature lifestyle? (d) prioritising spiritual and shared human values over material & sensory gratification and individualism?

In any given situation, there is invariably a dominant perspective—the norm, and alternative perspectives—that must be given distinctive and often trivial labels—to classify them visibly as ab-norms. "Activist" design is one such. In my conversations with people on the ideal of "simple living, high thinking", I often get responses like, "What? You want to take us back in time, to living like cavemen?" This is an instance of a non-dominant future scenario being labelled as a return to backwardness and the past. So regardless of what name we or others give it, let us be true to our beliefs and values in a spirit of genuine humility and non-antagonism.

In every design school I've been to, designers are exhorted as the solution to most of the world's problems. Creativity and innovation is held up as the saviour of humanity. And each student is given to believe that she or he is the chosen one. How can this sustain? How many new ideas would actually succeed? How many unsuccessful ideas would it take for one successful idea? How much junk, clutter and waste do we contribute to creating? No one, bar the odd Victor Papanek, bothers to ask these questions. No one tries to contextualize the world to students in a realistic way, telling them: "Not every one of us is a genius. Designers aren't the only ones with ideas, nor even the best-qualified ones. We all must do what we have to do, but let us keep the greater good of the planet and all its people always in view."

Design, as a discipline, lags way behind many others in terms of contemporary critical thinking and theoretical rigour. In other fields, "understanding" the communities you want to "help" is an obsolete idea. This is not to dispute Mr. Sachs' well-meant advice, but to caution designers from interpreting it loosely or casually. Western designers, in particular, need to realize that communities in developing societies cannot be "understood" through typical social research methods or worse still, second-hand data.