Issue #6, Exploring design. Part 2 of the AIGA design. How do we design responsibly?

This is a continuation from Part 1. To summarize what’s discussed in the previous issue, the cultural appreciation or appropriation in the design provides no clear-cut solutions; instead, we do our best to be mindful of our cultural sensitivity and learn from our mistakes.

Designing Responsibility

The “Lightning Talks series” workshop from the AIGA conference focused on the topic, “Designing Responsibility”. It was fascinating to see how its main statement, “Design can change the world”, becomes true. The lecturer for this presentation is a university professor specialized in the intersection of brand and innovation. When the lecturer illuminated how a CEO, also a designer, changed the world without considering their design’s possible consequences that can have a major cascading effect.

I won’t mention the company’s name being used as an example, but rather, I want to share some thoughts, especially on the bolder statement, “we should design for everyone” after we establish the fact, “we can’t design for everyone”. It’s counterintuitive to think about this statement because it is almost impossible to please everyone. But. It makes sense. If we look at the big picture, it is true that we can’t please everyone as much as we can’t design for everyone. However, when we design for ourselves and people we want to share with, we can design for “everyone” because we hold the power to influence people’s choices, opinions, bias, and more. These factors can change how we perceive ourselves in the process of designing responsibly.

As mentioned earlier in the previous section, the dilemma does apply to this concept of “designing responsibility”. If cultural outsiders[1] have an opportunity to appreciate the culture in their ways, then how do they design responsibly? It’s the same for cultural insiders[1] to carry the weight of design responsibility - how do they support their community in a safe space and celebrate their culture openly? These questions are good problems to ponder for a long time and they are good opportunities to start the dialogues, especially if the community is willing to be open-minded.

In answering all of the questions above, again, I don’t have better answers either. In fact, I once posted a graphic picture containing a quote[2] that seemed offensive to a specific group.

I did not have enough knowledge about the specific group and their response was challenging because of a particular sentence, “I, along with the [specific group] community…”[3]. While this sentence did not sit well with me, I understood their perspective within the layers of their concerns that can hurt the community’s identity. What helped me understand was when I reached out to my colleagues and discussed the retrospection of our privileges. Understanding our privileges are important, but having a cultural insider can bring in more clarity and a better sense of the responsibility weight.

In that process, the graphic picture was taken down and I took full responsibility for it because the quote can change the narrative approach of what my work represents since I am the one who designed it, after all. Just taking it down was not enough for me as a cultural outsider. I needed more than just that.

I moved forward by exploring the resources and planning to reach out to them for their cultural consultation. Taking an extra step in clarifying with the quote provider and reviewing for a cultural sensitivity is my new focus to improve in the future. Along the road, I might make more mistakes to learn from - that’s part of our learning process, right?

“We should design for everyone” statement resonates with what’s described above to recognize our privileges as either cultural outsider or insider. Not just privileges, the factor can be accessibility, accountability, resource availability, or anything that sets the tone of the relationship between us and people who will see our works. I’d like to close with the same question to ponder more about ourselves: How do we design responsibility?

Now what’s next?

As I mentioned about my background and my current progress with the OSE hack, my first step is to decide who I should reach to. It may take me a while to get out of my comfort zone and take a jab at my OSE hack since it’s an “unconventional” way of thinking about how martial arts would be defined with the abstract concept of combat. Who knows, I’m still in the experimental phase to figure out all the processes behind the design and inclusive culture.

If you feel this post is worthwhile sharing, feel free to do so while keeping an open mind to understand the nuances of the design responsibility. After all, it’s not an “one-for-all” concept to be content with.

[1] Sources (courtesy of Root (Dice Stew)). Kersen, T. M. (2016). Insider/Outsider: The Unique Nature of the Sociological Perspective and Practice. Journal of Applied Social Science, 10(2), 104-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724415626961, Suwankhong, D., & Liamputtong, P. (2015). Cultural Insiders and Research Fieldwork: Case Examples From Cross-Cultural Research With Thai People. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621404

[2] The quote was provided by my client along with the biography. I read and interpreted it in my design process. I won’t mention the full sentence of the quote because I am not confident to share it as a cultural outsider with a lack of understanding.

[3] This sentence contains the tone of saviorship when there are multiple layers of specific identity that we don’t know if the fact applies to the whole community or only to the individual, in my opinion. I may be inclined to believe if there’s a consensus behind the statement because it is a dangerous line to declare.