Designing for Plurality in Democracy by Building Reflexivity
Josina Vink
Abstract
Classical Pragmatism, Particularly The Work of John Dewey, has been foundational to the development of design as a discipline, although rarely directly acknowledged within the literature on design (Dixon 6–7). Recognizing the ways in which the dominant design paradigm reproduces coloniality and modernity (Akama et al. 60–62), I argue that going back to design's roots in pragmatism can aid in building a more embodied, situated, and pluralistic design practice. In an attempt to counter the epistemic and ontological injustices perpetuated by design, I support the effort of redesigning design by drawing on pragmatist thinking to present alternative design practices aimed at building reflexivity. In doing so, I bring forward demonstrations of how design practice might act as “engaged philosophy,” practically addressing issues in their social context (Hamington and Bardwell-Jones 1–6), with the aim of supporting intentional adaptation within a pluralistic, democratic society.Before I begin, it is important for me to position that I am writing this from Oslo, Norway, the city with the largest urban population of Sámi people, an Indigenous people that inhabit and have been stewarding the land across large northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia for thousands of years. I grew up as a settler of Dutch ancestry on the land of the Anishinabewaki and Mississauga First Nations on Turtle Island, or what is now commonly known as Ontario, Canada. I am grateful for the opportunity to work and learn on these lands and thankful to all of the generations of people who have taken care of this land. I also want to acknowledge the historic and present-day injustices faced by Indigenous peoples, which require our collective responsibility and commitment to challenge and address. Recognizing the ways in which our democracies are entangled in coloniality, working intentionally toward decolonizing our societal structures is fundamental to respecting plurality with democracies.The design practice and research that I present here has taken place within the context of health and care systems in Canada, Sweden, and Norway. This work is positioned in relation to institutionalized Western medical systems that continue to perpetuate epistemic and ontological injustice, justifying the exclusion of divergent ways of knowing and being. Health care systems are recognized as carriers of modernity, perpetuating social structures that reflect care as a commodifiable resource (Gallagher 65–67). Design is entangled within these systems both implicitly, through the intentional actions of a wide variety of health care stakeholders, and explicitly in the work of a growing number of professional designers hired within Western health care systems (Mager 9; Molloy 16–18). Take, for example, Bardwell-Jones's study of placental ethics within hospital settings in Hawai‘i. She illustrates how the universal health policies associated with “modern” biomedical approaches can actively undermine local knowledges, in this case, of Indigenous Hawaiians (103). Here, I position this research in response to Bardwell-Jones's call for health care administrators to cultivate epistemic humility and resistant imaginations (108). I bring forward design practices that may aid in integrating the incommensurability of a perplexing situation (Addams 20) and support people's ability to stay curious about other ways of being within and across diverse communities.I enter into this dialogue by first opening up the conversation about the role of the dominant design paradigm in advancing “the modernity project” and highlighting the need to decolonize design. I move into explorations of how we might redesign design by focusing on building reflexivity and sharing stories of alternative design approaches that draw on the thinking of both classic and feminist pragmatists. Finally, I end with a discussion of the role of design as an everyday world-making practice that can aid in resisting epistemic injustice and ontological occupation to nurture plurality amid democracy.Design is an intentional world-making practice in which people shape their environment and, in turn, the environment shapes people (Willis, “Ontological Designing” 70). The dominant Eurocentric design practice emphasizes commercialized, standardized, and disembodied practices of designing, inadvertently, and sometimes even overtly, contributing to the erosion of democratic life. As highlighted by Willis (Design Philosophy Reader 2), “when a question of a philosophical character is posed, such as ‘what is design?’ the answer is mostly already over-determined by the model of professional design as the model of all designing.” In this way, globally dominant Eurocentric professional design practice has become synonymous with what is understood as being within the boundaries of the design discipline (Fry, “Design for/by ‘The Global South’” 25). This dominant understanding of design undermines the domestic design work that women have been doing in the home for centuries (Weltge 58) and relegates traditional forms of design in Indigenous communities and the Global South to the distinct label of “craft” (Tunstall 235).Increasingly, the design profession has adopted common frameworks to guide design practice, such as the double diamond (popularized by the UK Design Council), which presents a universal approach to problem solving, and a variety of human-centered design toolkits that tout the applicability of design methods to support problem solving across contexts (Akama et al. 60–62). Through these frameworks and toolkits, the designer convinces “non-design experts,” from other professions to grassroots communities, that following their structured, universal process can get the desired results (Ansari, “Politics and Method”). In this way, design methods are seen as something that can be separated from the practicing designer, exported and commodified for repeatability (Akama and Prendiville 32). The portability of methods within human-centered design has the potential to undermine the deep cultural differences within local contexts (Duan et al. 272; Lee 21). For example, the application of a common design method, often referred to as the “user journey,” where a person maps the steps of a “user” as they move through the use of a product or service, emphasizes the individual experience and may inadvertently undermine the importance of relations, which are central in cultures that emphasize collectivity.Popular practices of superficial empathy within these design methods often promote single-mindedness, projection, and otherness (Vink and Oertzen 473). In addition, some popularized methods associated with “design thinking,” such as the use of Post-it Notes to brainstorm ideas, emphasize the Cartesian divide between mind and body, furthering a cognitivist perspective that inadvertently downplays the role of the body (Wetter-Edman et al. 5). While the common narrative is that these methods allow for creative participation, there is growing acknowledgment that many design methods act as effective tools of coloniality, disciplining participants’ perception of the world (Tlostanova 53). Design tools are not value-neutral, as is often claimed, but are rather created through the politics of their makers (Ansari, “Politics and Method”). These methods often suppress the mess and multiplicity of realities, directing participants toward a predefined understanding of what is good [Vink et al., “Designing Good(s)?” 967]. Such tools often perpetuate imperialism by reinforcing the hierarchy of Western design companies and undermining local ways of designing (Tunstall 236). This dominant practice of design, honed in the Global North, is a product of colonialism working to further Eurocentric notions of progress and modernity (Fry, “Design for/by ‘The Global South’” 7).To exemplify the ways in which dominant design practice can to the of coloniality and modernity, I draw from experience as a I to work on the design of a for in the The First and between the of and in Ontario, Canada. The I for hired by the as to a that recognized a growing number of the of that many and the of cultural between the of local and the care of these been from their they and in in to cultural and into the dominant of of many design how professional design practice can to the erosion of other ways of of supporting local and approaches to we the dominant design practice, by the institutionalized approaches of design that I been in it as the forward to for this Through our we up in settler communities, such as While we to local in the design of the I now that the methods such as to perpetuated a on In doing so, our approach to learn from the ways of designing that generations of been on this land in with for thousands of it not these to me by and that I to the ways in which I a model of design communities, even amid design practice. I working at a hospital in I our first to an to the local health across in for this and actively in the up to the to participants from across and cultural to that the of the within this and the what at the of that many the that through the of mostly about the in the model of design that I and that being by and into Western health care Through this and the work of design I to the of dominant design and the need to decolonize design practice. use of the I to that undermines the of people (Tunstall The for decolonizing design to a that a redesigning of the dominant of design practice et al. Such and through a of how the of the into being through design, to through colonialism et al. As a world-making practice, which often to and there is a need for a more between design and societal such as for the This work into how design can support the of dominant ways of and more in world-making in all of their and for the an to this of redesigning design, I the ways in which pragmatist might be to and design practice. While the design discipline has been a professional practice that progress toward modernity, or what is often the common the of designing is more and has been even as the and use of tools of the of the (Fry, the to the of designing is intentional or and but this can on many While all and communities design, “the problem is that although design is a to be it be This not or it in an In within diverse the challenge not how to the tools of dominant design to the furthering coloniality through design, but rather how to cultivate the design of these and communities that they might up a more role in their in their Here, the where the for communities to their from within for the This is with the of in which all who are or are by a social are of redesigning it for the design discipline to toward such an is here that I the central of from pragmatist can some into how design might be the design process or I as a process of an of the multiplicity of social structures by and that reflexivity is the by which are to and through a social As reflexivity is the for the more of designing as intentional For the of can about through a social process of on the role of the other by a conversation of also that the is a of the social structures of and that through they shape social the of social progress being a in which all a which to their actions and their process of John process of that are by the experience of an situation where the context not with and the experience a process of and that experience is by rather the of social structures toward it is the experience of and the that up for the of intentional a understanding of in which people intentionally their their are This can to a more and understanding of designing amid social In pragmatist how building reflexivity a for the designing of the of reflexivity and that I as design, which within an process of more et al., this even the and actions of feminist become to the development of alternative design practices that actively the of modernity and up for divergent ways of designing amid a approach to philosophical and an “engaged that the local of toward social and (Hamington and Bardwell-Jones This work how pragmatist can to social such as advancing the understanding of and but also the ways in which pragmatism to more these in In what I present design practices by the thinking of feminist pragmatists. These practices to cultivate reflexivity health care administrators and designers they might the of dominant social structures that perpetuate coloniality and I practices that the of reflexivity at the of and as as at of and the I on how this might to at the within alternative design approach that building reflexivity at the of and is the act of intentionally experience or through their a process of (Wetter-Edman et al. This process has the potential to individual and, in doing so, cultivate reflexivity and the intentional of social In we have also how this through and ways of can on and that guide and of their environment and institutionalized social structures (Vink et al., “Designing for et al., In this way, such an act to the between mind and body often perpetuated through design and the ways in which the mind is with the experience of the body and approach of can be to the experience of the that something not or is of in with As by this process can to the of by feminist is alternative design practice that dominant and up frameworks for Such an approach aid in the development of resistant imaginations that the of frameworks by from diverse social In this way, design practice aid health care in building humility toward “the of and also to become curious of other ways of of health and in a diverse the act of I an of a local by designer in work with in The that this with an of this attempt at in act of through with the double on the dominant of professional medical practice and the of the and within our health care This situation medical with a of where they are to acknowledge the ways in which their actions are undermining the diverse ways of knowing of In this way, this local design practice as a of to reflect on their and ways of knowing within the The embodied, social act of working with the double to cultivate reflexivity on their everyday and the opportunity for redesigning their ways of and Through how such a process is ontological as and are and in an process of being being with the double and working through the of how it can be in the between this experience health care in on the ways in which their are of on and Through of the to the ways in which and are in this experience to reflect on the ways in which they are in that their with their environment with the what they As they to the ways in which are in that ways of being and are with and by that of the and their The act of this process of between that are both and The reflexivity it for a of the and of what in medical This reflexivity and from the actions that the dominant social structures of “modern” universal health care through more intentional is of a design practice that might support building reflexivity through and is important to that such practices are not for designers to support the of but that there is also a need for practices that support people, in and have been with a number of other approaches (Vink et al., approach we have is in where are to draw a of their and it with a the other some of the social structures at within their and further approach we have been is what we call social This approach doing in a context with to the social structures and the that understood to a role in social For example, doing social in the context of an we in the and the a as they important in social structures to These design approaches are to some of the social structures our to the that we are in and our role in individual reflexivity is an important opening for amid dominant social feminist that collective reflexivity In the foundational work of how can as a of rather a by and between social a model for how can work at the in an way, and across and to and exclusion created through boundaries Lee is of a feminist pragmatist who a commitment to dialogue across work the importance of dialogue and between that through of and creative is across the of feminist is and that toward situated, and the of redesigning design, the model by feminist the need to that collective reflexivity amid with this I further from the of the by and which is in The the of the world as and that people amid an process of ontological as is in the of the the that the of the there are cultural but The is a of where can place toward a that and This is with of the in that it the and amid the but also of how the design approach of the might I an of the work that I have been doing with as of the for in Norway. the is on supporting the from a model of health where to the hospital for toward a model where health care are being and to care in This that is place has been the in response to the this on an that there is a or that it the common we a design the in project” that diverse hospital and health care designers and and from health supporting and as as and divergent ways of knowing and being. This these into dialogue in which they their this has the through and by and we have to the ways in which this toward care that is highlighted as “the common the of “modern” universal health care diverse communities with ways of and health and have seen through how within this are being through practices in health and Here, of and by cultures from the dominant are often perpetuating a that emphasizes and this these move of and to act as not in to this toward care but to being and by these systems to become of and challenge the social structures this Through this collective these and communities can work to the ontological occupation within this designing through dialogue across we have to the ways that we might work to ways of such as through the development of to support or working to more and approaches for care in people's this we have been to in our the that highlighted as a response to working across such as the a and a how their practices in relation to care a be to in what has been as such as through the these are more by designing this of across we are to cultivate collective reflexivity that can support intentional adaptation that is more of the of on the diverse epistemic and ontological frameworks at within the systems of health and care in Norway. we have been to some philosophical at the to question who is being by the dominant care and who is being such as from diverse cultures in who might not be with the social structures of work that of the health care have also been humility as we the incommensurability of our epistemic and ontological as there are common to what is a good for this As a designer in the I have also to the ontological of to and approaches or methods that we bring For example, within our design we the of the we to and how thinking about what is and undermining that not While our alternative design approaches to up on ways of knowing and they inadvertently perpetuated modernity through the and of the Recognizing the of modernity designing, designers at all to the that their design are and in of and In that way, with the approach by this design approach be in relation to it to be by also attempt at building the an for humility and reflexivity across the has and continue to in the years. is by of “design but rather a attempt to within and across in the health care This has been to a for the and by the between and that are through our of In many this is an attempt at working with modernity on the to and As highlighted by this work is as and more for in I be that such an and to redesign design are not about a toward or settler but rather the need to a of and a in to for other ways of knowing and this work of the is of many design approaches that I have been with to cultivate collective reflexivity. approach has been the of the in what we call the of social with diverse communities to the as and within a and to the more of social structures as and within that Through this the can more which social structures they to and and can work to through their approach for collective reflexivity that we have been has been the process of where stories that have been on experience are to a large The to the social structures at within this and how these social structures be intentionally to the While these methods are all in their to of dominant ways of knowing and they ways of is by building reflexivity and that creative is I have up the approach of as design practice that can be in context to reflexivity at the in to and reflexivity there is also a need for that to promote reflexivity within and across and communities the Here, I the approach of building the as attempt at a of amid individual and collective an opening for intentional within Such in context is on and within the (Vink et al., While the are not reflexivity a for intentionally social structures within While the work amid the in is I have seen how design practices aimed at collective reflexivity can to the context of the health care I have how the design work of across communities has the for the development of ways of care and local and (Vink et al., This entangled process of building reflexivity to intentional is in perpetuate the design of systems toward modernity, feminist pragmatist to a design practice that approaches and for resisting epistemic injustice and ontological The pragmatist of highlighted explicitly by and the many ways that reflexivity across has been to by feminist the redesign of design toward a more and pluralistic of people and their in I that a within design practice on individual and collective reflexivity can to a for adaptation in diverse This is not the work that to be within the of redesigning design, but I reflexivity and humility in working across as a of responsibility as a designer and In the incommensurability of and to and for people to in ways that are work has on the of health and care as a of the modernity within I that there may be some to other I have positioned work within and at the boundaries of these systems I that in the and contexts that I have been a it is not for me to work of these As within and these I have understood that these dominant epistemic and ontological frameworks need to be their and to for across and of the between systems is fundamental to building of the multiplicity of social structures our understood as more of this and the is for diverse people to the structures that their there is a need to the of dominant and medical knowledges, and to these be by the of the everyday in by the of communities that have been by these systems from and I that for in what is rather what is common across these In that way, dialogue across is for building a for a more democratic designing of there is a need to be that can also be are to to the of dominant 53). As our design approaches and need to be about who the of and to acknowledge that may be in some and be that the design approaches and that I have here are the of is not an within a but fundamental in the of the world and individual and collective reflexivity that a of epistemic injustice and ontological occupation is and as it in people from actions that social that they may more intentional creative The actions that from reflexivity are not but reflexivity a for the of cultivate the potential for I a for further across pragmatist and design research to continue to ways of the that is within our which are on colonialism and perpetuate notions of a foundational understanding of and how reflexivity design ways of and approaches to reflexivity in practice. The between and and the process of how to cultivate reflexivity within a local context can be by integrating design and of these is in relation to and we continue to our ideas, and approaches to that diverse of reflexivity can be In there is a that a rather Western understanding of reflexivity by is that cultures support distinct ways of being many that colonialism is to in that it an that and systems where the and ontological frameworks is it can be that of and are often up in practices In many it is through the social structures of coloniality that our democracies have been In that way, we also cultivate reflexivity the structures of amid rather as our design that the The work of our democracies is I that pragmatism and design have but that can aid in a deep of In doing so, their can a opening for a more pluralistic design practice in which communities can continue to shape their in to