Ezio Manzini - WDC Valencia 2022, Design Policy Conference
Summary
TLDREl discurso aborda la necesidad de redefinir el diseño para abordar el cambio social en tiempos de crisis ambiental, social y política. El orador enfatiza la importancia de la colaboración y el cuidado en lugar de la competencia, y propone que el diseño debe generar condiciones que fomenten la proximidad y el cuidado mutuo, siendo esenciales para una sociedad sostenible y resiliente. Plantea que el diseño debe ser una co-diseño en la que todos participan y que, frente a la complejidad, el diseñador debe tomar decisiones éticas y navegar en el sistema.
Takeaways
- 🕒 El discurso se centra en el tiempo y la importancia de adaptarse a las circunstancias cambiantes.
- 🔄 La crítica a la visión simplista del cambio, enfatizando la complejidad de la realidad actual en contraste con el pasado.
- 🌱 La necesidad de un cambio social y técnico, más allá de la innovación tecnológica pura.
- 🌍 La percepción de una crisis múltiple ambiental, social, política y de guerra que demanda un cambio de modelo.
- 🧭 La importancia de definir una dirección para el cambio, que no es un problema técnico sino una elección humana.
- 🤝 La promoción de la colaboración y el cuidado como pilar de un sistema sostenible y resiliente.
- 👥 La visión de la sociedad como una red de interrelaciones, donde el diseño busca fomentar la proximidad y el cuidado mutuo.
- 🌐 La crítica a la idea de que el sistema es inmutable y que solo podemos adaptarnos a él, en lugar de buscar activamente cambiarlo.
- 🛠 La afirmación de que el diseño no es la creación de un producto fijo, sino la generación de condiciones que permitan la transformación.
- 🌟 La necesidad de aceptar y promover la complejidad, en lugar de intentar reducirla o controlarla.
- 🚀 La llamada a la acción para los diseñadores, quienes deben ser agentes activos en la co-diseño de soluciones, aceptando su rol en la sociedad.
Q & A
¿Cuál es el título original del discurso y cómo se adapta el orador para su presentación?
-El título original es 'Rethinking Design for Social Change', pero el orador lo adapta a 'Rethinking Social Change to Decide What Design Can Do', enfocándose en cómo el diseño puede contribuir al cambio social en lugar de simplemente hablar de un cambio en el diseño.
¿Por qué el orador insiste en la importancia de mirar más allá de nosotros mismos para entender el cambio social?
-El orador cree que el cambio social crítico no es solo una discusión interna, sino más bien lo que sucede fuera de nosotros y lo que formamos parte, destacando que la comprensión del contexto más amplio es crucial para el cambio efectivo.
¿Cómo describe el orador la relación entre el diseño y la innovación en el pasado?
-Según el orador, el diseño surgió hace un siglo con el propósito de innovar, donde la innovación era principalmente tecnológica y el progreso parecía ser una línea clara y directa hacia sociedades más avanzadas.
¿Qué crisis múltiples enfrenta la sociedad actual según el discurso?
-El orador menciona crisis ambiental, social, política y la reciente crisis de guerra, destacando que estas crisis reflejan la necesidad urgente de un cambio en el modelo existente.
¿Qué tipo de cambio es necesario según el orador para abordar las crisis actuales?
-El orador sugiere que se necesita un cambio social-técnico, que va más allá de la tecnología y abarca cambios sociales significativos, incluyendo la creación de una sociedad sostenible y resiliente.
¿Por qué el orador considera que la dirección del cambio no es un problema de ingeniería, sino una elección?
-Porque el orador cree que la dirección del cambio no puede ser determinada por un algoritmo o un proceso técnico, sino que es una decisión consciente y emocional que cada individuo debe tomar.
¿Qué papel desempeña la idea de 'cuidado' en la visión del orador para un cambio social?
-El 'cuidado' es un concepto central para el orador, quien lo ve como una forma de reconectar con los demás y el entorno, sugiriendo que una sociedad que se ocupa de sus miembros y del medio ambiente es fundamental para la sostenibilidad y resiliencia.
¿Qué es la 'proximidad' y por qué es importante para el orador en el contexto del diseño y el cambio social?
-La 'proximidad' se refiere a la cercanía física y relacional, y es crucial para el orador porque permite el cuidado y la conexión humana, lo que es esencial para una sociedad sostenible y resiliente.
¿Cómo ve el orador el papel del diseñador en el proceso de cambio social en el contexto de sistemas complejos?
-El orador considera que los diseñadores no diseñan el futuro, sino que perturban el sistema con intervenciones que pueden generar transformaciones inesperadas, enfocándose en el co-diseño y la aceptación de la complejidad.
¿Qué desafíos identifica el orador para el diseño en la era de la complejidad y la co-diseño?
-El orador identifica el desafío de aceptar y navegar en la complejidad, tomar decisiones éticas en un contexto de incertidumbre y encontrar su posición en el co-diseño, donde todos participan en el proceso de cambio.
¿Cómo concluye el orador sobre la necesidad de los diseñadores en el mundo actual?
-El orador concluye que los diseñadores son desesperadamente necesarios, no porque todos puedan diseñar, sino porque su entrenamiento, metodología y experiencia son valiosos para enriquecer el co-diseño y aportar ideas y enfoques innovadores.
Outlines
🌏 Redefiniendo el Diseño para el Cambio Social
El orador inicia agradeciendo la invitación y enfatiza la importancia de abordar el cambio social desde una perspectiva más amplia, que incluye factores externos al diseño. Explica que el diseño tradicional se centraba en la innovación tecnológica para humanizar la tecnología y guiar la transición de sociedades tradicionales a sociedades industriales modernas. Sin embargo, en el contexto actual de crisis ambiental, social y política, se hace necesario replantear el papel del diseño para abordar estos desafíos. El orador destaca la necesidad de una reflexión más profunda sobre el cambio social y cómo el diseño puede contribuir a ello, más allá de la mera innovación tecnológica.
🔄 Cambio Social y Técnico: Una Transformación Necesaria
El orador aborda la urgencia de un cambio social y técnico, argumentando que cualquier transformación social implica la utilización de tecnología y que, por ende, el diseño debe ser un proceso de co-diseño que involucre a todas las partes interesadas. Se hace un llamado a la acción para que el diseño no solo busque soluciones técnicas, sino que defina la dirección que se desea tomar, reconociendo que el camino a seguir no es un proceso lineal y predecible, sino que requiere la toma de decisiones éticas y la consideración de la complejidad inherente a los sistemas sociales y naturales.
🌱 La Importancia de la Proximidad y el Cuidado en el Diseño
En este párrafo, el orador enfatiza la importancia de la proximidad y el cuidado en el diseño, argumentando que la sociedad actual es descuidada y que el diseño debe fomentar la creación de contextos que favorezcan el cuidado por uno mismo y por el medio ambiente. Se menciona que el cuidado es una relación humana que no puede ser diseñada directamente, pero que se puede crear un entorno propicio para que surja. El orador sugiere que la proximidad, tanto física como relacional, es fundamental para fomentar el cuidado y, por lo tanto, para imaginar una sociedad sostenible y resiliente.
🌐 Manejando la Complejidad del Cambio de Sistemas
El orador discute la naturaleza compleja de los sistemas y cómo el diseño puede influir en su cambio. Rechaza la idea de que los sistemas son máquinas que pueden ser controlados y dirigidos, y en su lugar, aboga por la aceptación de la complejidad y la promoción de la diversidad como valores positivos. Se argumenta que el diseño debe ser un proceso de co-diseño que involucre a todas las partes interesadas y que, al introducir perturbaciones en el sistema, se pueden generar condiciones que favorezcan el cambio deseado.
🤔 Reflexión Final: El Diseño y la Transformación
En la conclusión, el orador subraya la necesidad de que el diseño y los diseñadores se enfrenten a la complejidad y la incertidumbre, aprendiendo a navegar en un entorno donde nadie tiene el control total. Se hace un llamado a la responsabilidad ética de los diseñadores al tomar decisiones en un sistema complejo y a la importancia de intervenir en sub-sistemas específicos para generar cambios positivos. El orador enfatiza la importancia de los diseñadores en la sociedad actual y cómo su papel es esencial en la promoción de la complejidad y la diversidad como caminos hacia un futuro sostenible.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Cambio social
💡Crisis múltiple
💡Diseño
💡Innovación
💡Sostenibilidad
💡Resiliencia
💡Co-diseño
💡Compromiso
💡Colaboración
💡Cuidado
Highlights
The speaker emphasizes the importance of time management during presentations by using a mobile phone to track time.
A shift in design philosophy is proposed, moving from 'rethinking design for social change' to 'rethinking social change to decide what design can do'.
The critical discussion is not just about us, but about what is happening outside us and what we are part of, suggesting a larger systemic view.
A historical perspective on design's role in humanizing technology and aiding the transition from pre-modern to modern industrial society.
The acknowledgment of multiple crises—environmental, social, political, and war—that necessitate a rethinking of design and social change.
A call for a change in direction towards a sustainable and resilient society, acknowledging the current catastrophes and the need for a new model.
The assertion that social change implies technological change, advocating for a 'social technical change'.
The idea that the direction of progress is no longer clear, and that choosing a direction is a conscious and emotional decision.
The notion that design is about defining what we want to do, not just how we want to do it, highlighting the importance of meaning over solutions.
A personal position on the need for a system based on collaboration and caring, as opposed to competition and carelessness.
The concept of 'proximity' as essential for care, suggesting that physical and relational closeness is necessary for a sustainable society.
The speaker's belief that creating conditions for care involves designing contexts that encourage human interaction and environmental concern.
A critique of the belief in hyper-artifacts like financial markets driving the future, suggesting that this perspective limits human agency.
The rejection of the 'no alternative' ideology, advocating for the possibility of systemic change through design.
The idea that complex systems cannot be driven like machines, and the need to embrace and navigate within this complexity.
A call for designers to disturb the system by introducing elements that could generate transformation, rather than designing the future itself.
The assertion that every design is now a co-design, requiring designers to find their position in a participatory design process.
The importance of designers' training and experience in bringing new ideas and methodologies to co-design conversations.
The need for designers to accept complexity, promote diversity, and learn how to navigate and intervene within complex systems.
Transcripts
okay thank you so much and it's a
pleasure and honor obviously to be
invited here
we agreed to speak for 20 minutes so I
have here if you look you see me looking
to the mobile phone is not because I'm
looking my email but because I'm looking
to the time that is passing
so I I try to give my interpretation of
this title that is of course Very near
to what I try to do and what I try to
think but even if I really want to
answer to this question I must change it
a little bit because I want to move from
rethinking design for social change
toward the rethinking social change to
decide what design can do
because it may view the most critical
part is not so much a discussion about
us
the most critical path is what is
happening outside us or what we are part
of
so I think that it's good to arrive to
say something about us moving from
something that is
outside Earth or in any case we are part
of a larger system
so why are we talking about social
change
um as designer we are totally accustomed
to talk about change and Innovation so
in some way we can say that from the
beginning one century ago a design was
there to innovate
but at that point Innovation was
incredibly simpler than today because at
least in the perception of the people it
was a line there was a line of progress
and the change which kind of changes to
be done it was obvious we had to move
from a traditional Society
pre-modern Society pre-industrial
Society pre and urban Society towards a
society that was supposed to be more
Progressive
the progress of the previous one
and also the way to do it was clear that
the main driver was technology
so the role of the designer was in some
way to humanize technology so there was
so many new technologies and we have to
try to make in a way that people could
appreciate it and why because this was
the way to help to move from prey
industrial pray modern toward the modern
industrial society
now this is not the time to make the
overall story that has been complex and
contradictory
but let's jump to today
it's not me but you open a newspaper
and everybody knows state that we are in
a multiple crisis
and the multiple crisis is
the environmental one that now we are
talking about environmental issues since
40 years now but now everybody touches
in a very practical way
there is a social crisis because that
progress has not generated a more equal
Society but it's a society that is more
and more Diversified in terms of
opportunities for people
and
there is also in Subway a political
crisis because
we can have different opinion but
something is happening that is in some
way weakening our democracy the one in
which we believe so much but we have to
say democracy is not in such a good
shape in this moment so we have to see
what does it mean to reinforce democracy
and finally War
I committed myself to not to do any
conference in this last month without
stopping for a while and saying look we
are here we talk we are safe we are
happy we we eat and it's correct to do
it but we are in the middle of a
catastrophe and nowadays the catasoff is
also the war and the war is a kind of
summary of all the other catastrophs so
when we say why we have to change
it's clear that something has to change
because we are sitting in a condition
that is going very fastly toward a
catastrophic and
really and because now we also talk
about atomic war that was a kind of
taboo for a certain number of years was
impossible to talk about the atomic
weapons and now there is a discussion
about what will be the implication of
using atomic bombs
so this is to say that if we had good
reason to talk about design and change
years ago if at that time was designed
and changed through Innovation That was
supposed to be mainly a technological
innovation
towards we have to talk about design and
change because we desperately need to
change the model
but this change is not only
technological even though it is also
technological but it's also very much
Social
and therefore we need to have a social
change that to be more correct should
always be social technical change
because there is no social change they
do not imply some technology
so here we are but in the moment in
which we said we had to change one
century ago it was relatively clear the
arrow of the
progress what was the direction
toward to today the question is okay we
have to change but in which direction
where are we supposed to go
and of course it has been said everybody
say we have to go towards sustainable
society and nowadays with all the
disaster because we are already in the
catastrophe we add normally also the
resilient Society
and it's not this at least for me the
moment to to explain all this kind of
story but
each one of us has to
in some way consciously or unconsciously
in a rational way of emotionally choose
a Direction
so the direction is not an engineering
issue it's not given by some algorithm
the direction that we have to choose
is a choice the direction that we want
to have is a choice and this is why we
can say that there is a lot of design
because design is
defining what we want to do not only how
we want to do so in an issue about the
meaning not only an issue about
Solutions
and therefore we have to choose where we
want to go
and I do not develop this too much I
only declare my position but without
explaining it too much because I don't
have the time now
and it's for me at the end of the story
we have to move toward a system
that has to
be based on the idea of collaboration
because the system in which we are have
been based on the idea of competing
individuals
I'll be based on the idea of caring
so be capable to be near each other and
near to the environment and I think that
at the core of the disaster both social
and environmental is that we are a
careless society as somebody wrote
already many some decades ago so this
lust of care and try to substitute care
with some kind of other more technical
service
do not create any society
do not create create this yes it creates
the non-society The Madame toucher said
there is no Society there are all
individuals but we see the disaster of
imagining a society that is only done by
individuals when we lose
the social fabric
therefore there is an issue about how to
relieve the social Fabric and we can
open a discussion for me one of the Core
Concepts is caring
and finally for me again these are a
number of statements that should be
discussed and also in any case they are
personal
I arrived to this ideal proximity
that again I cannot explain it now but
for me proximity is a very designingly
world because
in reality we cannot design care
is a human relationship so there is no
way to say you have to care for the
other you are not way to create
something that oblige people to be
careful
but what we can do is to create a
context
in which is more possible and probable
in which is possible and more probable
that people take care
for themselves and for the environment
and I think that to have the possibility
to take care
for each other and for the environment
you need proximity
because care as has been written very
well by a lady that is Maria Puig De La
Bella Casa is touching you cannot care
in distance you have care only if you
are in a tactile mood
so if we don't create condition of
proximity
both physical and relational we will not
have possibility to imagine a
sustainable resilient Society
therefore this the strategy to create
opportunity of care that cannot be
designed
pass through the possibility to create
condition of physical proximity they
generate the opportunities for people to
start to exchange something and for this
reason to care
and
the final issue that has to be discussed
for me about the change that we have to
do
that is very controversial also this one
so it's my personal position
is the how
because I just to give you an idea where
I am I told you what are my ideas about
some core keywords of the direction that
we should follow
but after there is how we can do it
and we have a
diff so we should have and we have
implicitly even if we don't declare a
model of change of systemic change
so if we talk about change it means that
we imagine that the systems can change
because otherwise we could not talk
about change so how the system change
and the system we discovered that are
hyper complex
and therefore what does it mean to
change the hyper complex system
and again we can work without having all
the theory about complexity but many
people do it very well without knowing
anything that I'm talking about because
intuitively they do the right thing but
it's at this in this moment it's called
useful at least to name some element
looking here
many people says if the system is so
complex it means that there are some
hyper artifacts
that generate what will be the future
and this hyper artifact is the financial
movement the market so something that is
impossible to really manage
and so the only thing that we have to do
is to adapt ourself to some change that
are already going on done by some
machines that are so bigger than us that
cannot be changed
I will say that also for the war they
are creating a condition in which it
appears that is impossible not to make
the world and many people say okay but
if it is like this what we have to do we
cannot do anything so every time and all
the new liberalism ideology was when
they say there is no alternative
there is no alternative means there are
some machines that are working in a
certain direction and the only thing
that we can do is to adapt ourselves
of course this is not my position and I
hope that is not the position of many
others
the second one is the most traditional
for the modern culture and design has
been born inside modernity so in our DNA
there is a lot of idea that okay again
consciously or not we use
and the idea of modernity was yes maybe
the system is complex but we can
simplify it
and we can act on the reality as it was
a machine
and if it is a machine you know the
metaphor of the spaceship earth so the
Earth has a big machine
it accepts the limited resources it
accepts everything but
a spaceship is a machine
and in this spaceship can be driven
and we are at the same time the people
that are in this machine in the
spaceship and also the driver and we can
adjust we can do something upgrade as it
can happen for every machine
this is the Heritage that we have from a
super
anthropocentric attitude
so around us there is a world that can
be simplified in order to do what we
want and we are at the center
and design is born in this kind of
cultural framework
but as you know this cultural framework
now is challenged
first of all because we discover that
the complexity
you can have a different attitude but
cannot be reduced
and for somebody as me complexity is a
value so not only it cannot be reduced
but it does be to be recognized and we
have to learn how to be into the
complexity
but the complex system by definition
cannot be driven
so we cannot bring a complex system as
we want it cannot be a kind of machine
that can be disassembled
so what we can do and this is the third
position that somebody tried to have is
and is also my one very modestly
that the change of the complex system
happens
because we have seen in the history
the complex system change
but the change is not designed in the
way that there is a group of people that
design the future and that is the future
so a production or the future system
but to use a term of a person that is
very important in my life and maybe in
the life of many people that is gone
away if you we months ago that is Bruno
latur
we can engender transformation
so we as designer Collective designers
we are not designing something that can
be done because whatever we do is such
included in such a complex networks of
other elements living or not living so
actors and actants using the latur
terminologies that what we can do and we
arrive to the the final point is
disturb the system introducing the
system something that hopefully will
generate something else that nobody
really knows but if we have operated in
the good way maybe we can create
conditions
to make something happens
to be I understand that I could be very
abstract now but I give you one example
if we work on services
I use Services because the complexity in
Services is much more evident than in
products
because
I have to run a little bit because in
the services you have a human being
inside in the process or not so you can
imagine the process relatively simpler
in the service you cannot because you
cannot reduce the complexity that is
introduced in the system by the fact
that the service is mainly the service
encounter in between people they do
something together
well many people now is using design the
term design for services and not design
of services because you cannot design
the service you can create an
environment
that generate a certain conditions in
which is possible that the people behave
in a certain way
but the maximum that we can say is
possible and if it is well done maybe
also probable but in any case the people
that is intrinsically part of the
service
will be free to behave also in a totally
different way from the one that the
designer has designed it so I have two
minutes now to go
to what the designer can do
but I think that having said what is
the change that we would like to do it's
a not so difficult and I can stay in my
time
so rethinking design is my view asks for
rethinking the very deep philosophy of
what we do and what we are as human
being and as the special kind of human
being so if we say who are we the
designers
the answer and the merge also by many of
the presentations today is whoever
because whoever not because people like
to design
because if the things work very well if
I can go on with the business as usual
and the businesses use are all as the
tradition tell you to do if you do like
that why you should change if it works
well
you are pushing to change when tradition
do not tell you what to do and so before
there was a question between the
difference between policy
politicians and designer of course there
are a lot of differences but the
politicians are obliged
to make to take some design choice
because they cannot simply repeat what
they have already done facing the
transformation that we have in front of
us
the fact that we said and that being
said not only by me but practical by
everybody that the the this human
capability of Designing is forced
to exist
do the design expert that is us are
needed or not in my view are desperately
needed so it's a supposed idea that
because everybody designed what is our
role so maybe not a I think
even no exactly because everybody
designs
it's very important to have somebody
that has been trained that has been
grown more in depth in some methodology
that have some ideas that spend their
life making experience they can bring
the co-design conversation with the new
idea with ideas and with methodology
so for me the first step is to imagine
that today every design is a co-design
to accept that everybody
is participating to a design co-design
and to find our position
in relation to the other
that of course ask us to change
something in relation to what has been
the egoic uh way of Designing in a
certain moment that was very coherent
with the certain idea of modernity
and how we can do it
we can I think
well I'm running out of time so I say
only some titles so what we we had to
accept complexity
and not only for me to accept but to be
very convinced that in the same way that
when we talk about an ecosystem the
ecosystem is more healthy where it's
Diversified when it's very rich where
there are so many different elements
inside well this is a metaphor of
everything so we should be promoters
or complexity especially in the moment
in which there are stronger power that
try to reduce complexity and reducing
complexity means desertification
so how we should we would in some way
enter in this complexity
but we should learn how to navigate into
this complexity
because navigating the complexity means
for instance as I said before assuming
that nobody has the control of the
situation nobody has the control of the
result you can never collect so many
information to be sure that you have all
the impossible information because the
complexity of the system could not be
reduced to any information even if you
stay ears collecting information so it
asks you really to be designer because
being designed to be
somebody to make an ethical choice so
you face complexity at a certain point
you have to decide so what what we have
to do we have to learn how to navigate
and how to navigate what does it means
not to be overwhelmed because if you are
overwhelmed we don't do anything and if
you don't do anything we don't learn if
we don't learn we cannot move in the
transition but to take our
responsibility to cut
in the overall big system some soup
systems
knowing that they are part of a larger
system and to intervene in the smaller
system that is possible
as a kind of plugin so we introduce in
the larger system something
thinking that maybe and probably this
could generate conditions that are near
to the one that we wanted thank you
[Applause]
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)