Between Dissent and Consensus, Resistance and Counter-Resistance: Design Practice as a Common Project-Process for Plural Possibilities of Being and Becoming

Abstract

This paper is a contribution to the discussion on the ethical and political limitations of institutionalised, dominant design practices and on the need to rethink the ways in which they operate. It points out that institutionalised design processes act as a dispositive of power that not only capture and colonise forms of life, but that also shape territories, bodies and languages through normative models that are exogenous to them. This discussion is crucial when thinking about the role that design has played in nurturing current crises. This paper is an inquiry into the possibility of design practice that is not institutionalised either by sovereign designing designers or by subordinated designed users, but that constitutes itself according to dynamics where design emerges as a common project-process of creative possibilities of being and becoming. Crucial aspects for a non-institutionalised design practice are identified through the analysis of a design experience with communities in Rio de Janeiro favelas. This paper shows how this design experience is based on a design approach that, through discursive structures, dynamically supports and is informed by dissent and consensus, and by the interplay between resistance and counter-resistance.

Unmaking the user journey. Fostering alternative Service Design futures

“…The constitution of Dominant Design has been possible through the process of institutionalization of Design -meaning the process of constitution of Design as a discipline, and a recognized practice and knowledge (Del Gaudio et al, 2021). This process has established what was defined as the proper way of designing, which can also be understood as a normative way of designing.…”

Counteracting Dominant Design Through Intersectional Feminist Thought

“…This has affirmed and strengthened dominant design practices as the accepted way of practicing design over alternatives or localized knowledge (Del Gaudio et al, 2021). People (future designers) are then only exposed to and experience institutionalized design practices which shape their reality of design and prevents them from knowing or acting differently (Del Gaudio et al, 2021). In this regard, some scholars express their concerns about how universities may act as sites which legitimize and circulate particular design knowledge to students, the academic community, and other universities worldwide thereby maintaining dominance over knowledge production from positions of power (Noel, 2020;Schultz et al, 2018).…”

“…Historically, institutionalizing design as a practice and discipline enables some design methods, tools, and knowledge, to dominate over others and to then be widely recognized as best practice. This has affirmed and strengthened dominant design practices as the accepted way of practicing design over alternatives or localized knowledge (Del Gaudio et al, 2021). People (future designers) are then only exposed to and experience institutionalized design practices which shape their reality of design and prevents them from knowing or acting differently (Del Gaudio et al, 2021).…”

“…Dominant design discourse is produced and maintained through a process of institutionalization. The process of the institutionalization of design works to recognize design knowledge and establish design as a discipline and accepted practice (Del Gaudio et al, 2021). Therefore, the process of institutionalization inherently engages with relations of power by continuously producing and disseminating certain realities over others.…”

“…Therefore, the process of institutionalization inherently engages with relations of power by continuously producing and disseminating certain realities over others. That is, the process of institutionalization defines all behaviours that will be learnt and imposes certain ways of being (Del Gaudio et al, 2021). As certain discourse is established by "expert" knowledge and institutions, they are assumed to be universal, impersonal, and standardized (Escobar, 2018).…”