Methods

Postphenomenology can itself be construed as “after-modern” because it “is a modest and tentative activity, not a high-handed enterprise for steering human behaviour”

(Verbeek, 2011, p. 118). Whilst Verbeek’s postphenomenology is design-focused, the methods he advocates may prove counterproductive to “after-modern” design because they are largely based in modern premises. For example, augmented Constructive

Technology Analysis requires stakeholders to anticipate moral mediations but does so from within the late-modern worldview (see p.45). Similarly, augmented Scenario-Based Product Design anticipates moral mediations whilst retaining the late-modern focus on optimal functionality (see p. 46). These proposals appear to place high expectations on the designers and stakeholders involved, not least due to one of the central and most significant insights from the field of the philosophy of technology, which is that technological artefacts tend to

51

conceal their true non-neutral nature. Paradoxically, whilst material culture possesses a strong, forthright presence, it has “. . . a quite remarkable capacity for fading from view, and becoming naturalized, taken for granted, the background or frame to our behaviour. Indeed stuff retains its mastery over us precisely because we fail to notice what it does” (Miller, 2013, p. 155). Moreover, how designers and stakeholders decide upon what is moral and what is not in late-modernity is subject to the late-modern context. This is further

compounded by the fact that the ethical nature of design is largely unaddressed and patchy in design education (Fry, 2009, p. 3; Walker, 2012, p. 99).

The method of conducting a mediation analysis by imagination (see p.45) appears to hold the most potential for informing “after-modern” design because it emphasises the imagination. This focus is potentially fruitful for overcoming the modern propensity to develop rationalistic methods for design practice (see p.26). As with augmented

Constructive Technology Analysis and Scenario-Based Product Design however, Verbeek does not suggest how designers can conduct a mediation analysis by imagination other than to say that they attempt to anticipate potential mediations (see p.45) There are therefore few established tools that support designers to bring postphenomenological insights into their practice and those that do are rooted in existing rationalistic methods. Consequently, these tools do not harness the “right hemisphere”, which the basis for “after-modern” advocates will be fruitful for overcoming the instrumentally rational nature of the modern worldview.

3.10 Chapter conclusion

This chapter has addressed the research objective: To identify insights from the philosophy of technology that could support product design education to address sustainability in a more substantive manner than the modern worldview permits. The chapter chronologically explored phenomenological and postphenomenological perspectives of technologies via some key thinkers in the field; namely, Heidegger (see p.34), Borgmann (see p. 37), Ihde (see p.42) and Verbeek (see p. 44). These perspectives are insightful for “after-modern” design because they challenge the prevailing modern

52

understanding that technologies are neutral, which conceals their true worldbuilding nature. Moreover, these perspectives offer design students the opportunity to incorporate potentially transformative philosophical insights into the products they design. The insights from the philosophy of technology that are relevant to “after-modern” design are

summarised as follows:

• The phenomenological perspectives of Heidegger and Borgmann are important for “after-modern” design as they illuminate how instrumental rationality can be challenged through uniting means with ends. The distinction these philosophers make between “things/focal things” and “objects/devices” is especially important as it reveals that technologies serve “ultimate ends” that lie beyond the device itself. This challenges the tendency of modernity to view devices as ends-in-themselves. Moreover, the distinction between “things/focal things” and “objects/devices” offers “after-modern” design a means of evaluating how a proposed technological artefact and/or system might compare with each.

• Heidegger’s philosophy is especially relevant for its identification of the “technological enframing” (see p.52). This concept invites consideration of the world as being “a giant gasoline station” in which everything is a potential resource for human use. This is an important insight for informing “after-modern” design because it draws attention to the relationship between instrumental rationality and unsustainability.

• The phenomenological dismantling of the modernist subject/object dichotomy is especially important for “after-modern” design – particularly as it has been appropriated by postphenomenology. The postphenomenological emphasis upon technological mediation being the source from which subjectivity and objectivity emerges allows subject and object (person and technological artefact) to be viewed as mutually co-shaping. This understanding invites the “after-modern” designer to conceptualise the outputs of their practice not merely as something that people will use but as something that co-shapes––and changes––both the user and the world. For example, a contemporary smartphone might engender habitual actions that

53

co-shape a person who is not meaningfully engaged with their immediate

environment or the people in it. A smartphone might also co-shape a person who engages uncritically in the unsustainable cycle of upgrade and disposal that is associated with such devices.

• The postphenomenological insight that human-technology relations mediate human- world relations is critical to the development of “after-modern” design as it invites designers not only to view the outputs of their practice as mediating potential human-world relations but also to anticipate and evaluate the “quality” of these mediations. Designers can do this by accounting for the magnification and reduction structure of technologies, by considering the “ends” that a technological artefact and/or system might serve, and by attempting to evaluate how technologies might co-shape a person’s sense of moral responsibility. Whilst anticipating the quality of mediations is evidently a fruitful direction for “after-modern” design,

postphenomenology appears to offer no guidance on what “quality” might mean. Furthermore, the methods that postphenomenology advocate will potentially impede “after-modern” design due to their rationalistic emphasis.

The phenomenological and postphenomenological perspectives of technology explored in this chapter challenge the prevailing values of modernity that emphasise instrumental rationality, technological advancement, economic growth, etc. – values that are proving detrimental to developing more sustainable ways of living. The philosophical insights identified are important for “after-modern” design for their emphasis on the non-neutral nature of technologies, which de-emphasise instrumentally rationality. Whilst these insights challenge the values of the modern worldview, they do not address the “ultimate ends” that “after-modern” design ought to pursue. To this end, the following chapter reviews human values literature to identify alternative values that represent appropriate “ultimate ends” for “after-modern” design to pursue.

54

4

Investigating Values for “After-Modern” Design

4.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses the research objective: To identify values that are compatible with developing more sustainable ways of living, and to consider how design currently engages with these values. This objective is addressed by conducting a literature review and reflecting upon it to draw out key points for “after-modern” design. The purpose of this objective is to identify appropriate values for product design education to pursue as “ultimate ends” that would allow the discipline to move beyond the confines of modernity and into “after-modern” design practice. The reason for exploring human values lies in Kluckhohn’s (1951, p. 395) influential definition of values as being “a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable, which influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of action”. This is relevant to this thesis because, as previously discussed, modernity has emphasised the instrumental selection from “available modes, means, and ends of action” which is detrimental to

developing more sustainable ways of living (see p. 15). Moreover, instrumentalism pervades the dominant design approaches to sustainability and consequently, the environment is valued extrinsically – the world therefore remains, in Heidegger’s terms, “a giant gasoline station” (Heidegger, 1966, p. 50; see p.35).

The first part of this chapter explores Schwartz’s (2012) influential theory of basic values. This theory was selected for its potential to contribute to the development of deeper understandings about the “having” values that modernity has emphasised and moreover, for its potential to contribute to the development of deeper understandings about “being” values, which point to more sustainable ways of living (see. p.13). The second part of the chapter identifies three design approaches that critique the values of modernity and point

55

to alternate designed futures. These approaches are critical design, propositional design and critical making. The literature reviewed in this chapter is then reflected upon to draw out its implications for “after-modern” design. Because this chapter brings the contextual review to a close, the chapter concludes by briefly summarising the three contextual chapters. Based on the contextual review, a working definition of “after-modern” design is articulated, which represents a gap in the literature. Finally, two research questions are posed, which are to be addressed via primary research.