seeking refs on how artifacts (buildings/power) mediate power

[A.B.Thorpe]

Hello All,

I’m looking for references on the topic of how artifacts (buildings, products) mediate power. It seems that across both buildings and products there are perhaps three strands in the literature.  The first strand concerns how those in power use artifacts to mediate power (for example the Winner, “Do artifacts have politics” debate, Dovey, and Leach). A second strand, perhaps emerging from the usability/accessibility/participatory side, concerns how objects or buildings “empower” or enable users. For products, this strand materializes in “usability” discourse (eg Donald Norman’s work) and in recent “behavior steering design” research that aims to increase energy and environmental efficiency in product use (for example Bhamra et. al. and Lockton et. al.).

On the architecture side I’m less familiar with a literature on empowerment through architecture. Empowerment is in the margins of many discussions and projects, but I’d like to get a few references that deal with “power/empowerment” issues head-on with some connection to underlying theory. I imagine this strand of literature is tied to participatory design (eg design/build?), universal design (for disability, age) but may also be tied to operability (eg openable windows) and flexibility in building program and user adaptation (along the lines of Brand’s “How Buildings Learn”).

Across both buildings and products I think there is a third strand in which users adapt (“hack” or “transgress” if you like) artifacts to protest existing power relations. Here Otto von Busch’s “self passages” (http://www.selfpassage.org/) comes to mind and I welcome references that look at this issue more explicitly and perhaps theoretically.

I welcome other thoughts on references in any of the above areas. Here are a few longer cites for mentions above:

Bhamra, T. A., D. Lilley, and T. Tang. 2008. Sustainable Use: Changing consumer behavior through product desgin. In Changing the Change. Turin, Italy: Umberto Allemandi & Co.
Lockton, Dan, David Harrison, and Neville Stanton. 2008. Making the user more efficient: Design for sustainable behavior. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering preprint April 2008.
Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. Edited by T. A. Markus and A. D. King, The Architext Series. London: Routledge.
Winner, Langdon. 1980. Do Artefacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109:121-136. [also various rebuttals]
Brand, Stewart.  1994. How Buildings Learn. New York: Viking.
Norman, Donald. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Leach, Neil. 1999. "Architecture or Revolution" in Architecture and Revolution, edited by Neil Leach. London, Routledge.

Regards,
Ann


Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom

ann@...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
& blog: http://designactivism.net
discussion list: SUSDESIGNTEACH

---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

[Keith Russell]

Dear Ann

Thanks for the references you have provided.

While it is a little to the side of your focus, perhaps, I'd like to raise the concept of artifacts as Affect Machines - and point to a little piece of my own that looks at specific buildings in terms of power/affect.


Keith Russell, Keith. (2001) "On Displacement, Blind Immediacy, and the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness: Review of Design (plus) Research Conference, Politecnico di Milano, May, 2000", Design Issues, Winter 2001, Vol. 17, No. 1, Pages 85-90.


hope this is of use.

keith russell
OZ Newcastle

[Gavin Melles]

Anne
I think it is important whatever you find not to confuse the now cliched empowerment discourse with power. Action research of certain persuasions fell into the empowerment cliché some time ago. I would have thought that foucault concept of power as relationsl and productive will figure in there somewhere. So I suppose ilm saying theorize power first. Is it retational and produced or do you think some pepele or institutions have it like having the flu.this will affect how you proceed
-----Original Message-----
From: "A.B.Thorpe" <A.B.Thorpe@...>
To:  <PHD-DESIGN@...>
To: A.B.Thorpe <A.B.Thorpe@...>

Sent: 29/06/2009 5:46:09 PM
Subject: seeking refs on how artifacts (buildings/power) mediate power

Hello All,

I’m looking for references on the topic of how artifacts (buildings, products) mediate power. It seems that across both buildings and products there are perhaps three strands in the literature.  The first strand concerns how those in power use artifacts to mediate power (for example the Winner, “Do artifacts have politics” debate, Dovey, and Leach). A second strand, perhaps emerging from the usability/accessibility/participatory side, concerns how objects or buildings “empower” or enable users. For products, this strand materializes in “usability” discourse (eg Donald Norman’s work) and in recent “behavior steering design” research that aims to increase energy and environmental efficiency in product use (for example Bhamra et. al. and Lockton et. al.).

On the architecture side I’m less familiar with a literature on empowerment through architecture. Empowerment is in the margins of many discussions and projects, but I’d like to get a few references that deal with “power/empowerment” issues head-on with some connection to underlying theory. I imagine this strand of literature is tied to participatory design (eg design/build?), universal design (for disability, age) but may also be tied to operability (eg openable windows) and flexibility in building program and user adaptation (along the lines of Brand’s “How Buildings Learn”).

Across both buildings and products I think there is a third strand in which users adapt (“hack” or “transgress” if you like) artifacts to protest existing power relations. Here Otto von Busch’s “self passages” (http://www.selfpassage.org/) comes to mind and I welcome references that look at this issue more explicitly and perhaps theoretically.

I welcome other thoughts on references in any of the above areas. Here are a few longer cites for mentions above:

Bhamra, T. A., D. Lilley, and T. Tang. 2008. Sustainable Use: Changing consumer behavior through product desgin. In Changing the Change. Turin, Italy: Umberto Allemandi & Co.
Lockton, Dan, David Harrison, and Neville Stanton. 2008. Making the user more efficient: Design for sustainable behavior. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering preprint April 2008.
Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. Edited by T. A. Markus and A. D. King, The Architext Series. London: Routledge.
Winner, Langdon. 1980. Do Artefacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109:121-136. [also various rebuttals]
Brand, Stewart.  1994. How Buildings Learn. New York: Viking.
Norman, Donald. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Leach, Neil. 1999. "Architecture or Revolution" in Architecture and Revolution, edited by Neil Leach. London, Routledge.

Regards,
Ann


Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom

ann@...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
& blog: http://designactivism.net
discussion list: SUSDESIGNTEACH

---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

[Erik Stolterman-2]

Hi Ann

Thanks for your post and your interesting question. I think this
relationship is not examined enough in design, we definitely need more of
it.

I have personally found a lot of inspiration on the topic of the role and
"power" of artifacts in the field of the philosophy of technology. Even
though these thinkers ideas might not always be "userfriendly" and not
necessarily design oriented they do provide some deep insights and ask
difficult questions  essential in this debate.

My own favorites are Borgmann, Feenberg, Mitcham, and the newest addition
Verbeek (see refs below). Of course, Winner (that you mention) belongs to
this list. And also the "first mover" in this field, Heidegger.

I would also add two other thinkers, not really in the field, but authors of
books that have had serious impact on my way of thinking about the role and
power of artifacts and that is Latour and Marcuse.

If you get a list later on, I would like to see it :-)

Best
Erik Stolterman

    Borgmann, A. (1984) *Technology and the Character of Contemporary
Life:*A Philosophical Inquiry. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.

    Feenberg, A. (1999) *Questioning Technology*. London: Routledge.

    Heidegger, M. (1977) *The Question concerning Technology and other
Essays*, New York: Harper & Row

Latour, B. (1993) *We have never been modern*. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press

    Marcuse, H. (1964)* One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of
Advanced Industrial Society*. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology : the path between
engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Verbeek, P-P. (2005) *What Things Do: Philosophical Reflections on
Technology, Agency and Design.* University Park: Pennsylvania University
Press.

[Jeremy Hunsinger]

not all of these are on the same center, but they all relate mostly through
the intermedia concept of boundary-object

Stewart Brand's 'How Buildings Learn'    you can usually find it online.Gieryn.
What buildings do. Theory and Society (2002)
Orlikowski. Material knowing: the scaffolding of human knowledgeability.
European Journal of Information Systems (2006) vol. 15 (5) pp. 460-466
Ribes and Baker. Modes of Social Science Engagement in Community
Infrastructure Design. Proceedings of Third International Conference on
Communities … (2007)
Schmidt and Wagner. Coordinative artifacts in architectural practice.
Cooperative Systems Design. A Challenge of the Mobility Age (2002) pp.
257-274
Woolgar and Cooper. Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses' Bridges, Winner's
Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science (1999)
vol. 29 (3) pp. 433-449

[Lars Albinsson-2]

The Gothic cathedrals was built to serve not only pious but also (perhaps
even more) political and commercial interests.
The classic work I think is Gimpel. Svanberg is giving an excellent account
on the process and motives around these mega projects. (Few building
projects today can rival the ambitions of the cathedrals; for instance how
many modern arenas can house the entire city's population?)
(This would be in your first strand.)

Gimpel, J. (1983). The cathedral builders. London: Cresset Library, 1988.
Svanberg, J. (1983). Master masons. Sweden: Carmina.

For the third strain I would suggest looking for studies in re-habitation of
old industrial buildings and areas, for instance the Isle of dogs in London.
Even if I don't have any good references, these developments should offer
fertile ground for research on the significance of certain buildings and how
these develop over time: from top-modern to backwater industry, to squatting
and on to top-modern up-market dwelling.

/Lars


**************************************
Lars Albinsson
lars.albinsson@...
+ 46 (0) 70 592 70 45

Affiliations:
Maestro Management AB www.maestro.se
Calistoga Springs Research Institute www.calistoga.se 
School of Business and Informatics
University of Borås www.hb.se
Linköping University www.liu.se
**************************************




-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] För A.B.Thorpe
Skickat: den 29 juni 2009 09:46
Till: PHD-DESIGN@...
Ämne: seeking refs on how artifacts (buildings/power) mediate power

Hello All,

I’m looking for references on the topic of how artifacts (buildings,
products) mediate power. It seems that across both buildings and products
there are perhaps three strands in the literature.  The first strand
concerns how those in power use artifacts to mediate power (for example the
Winner, “Do artifacts have politics” debate, Dovey, and Leach). A second
strand, perhaps emerging from the usability/accessibility/participatory
side, concerns how objects or buildings “empower” or enable users. For
products, this strand materializes in “usability” discourse (eg Donald
Norman’s work) and in recent “behavior steering design” research that aims
to increase energy and environmental efficiency in product use (for example
Bhamra et. al. and Lockton et. al.).

On the architecture side I’m less familiar with a literature on empowerment
through architecture. Empowerment is in the margins of many discussions and
projects, but I’d like to get a few references that deal with
“power/empowerment” issues head-on with some connection to underlying
theory. I imagine this strand of literature is tied to participatory design
(eg design/build?), universal design (for disability, age) but may also be
tied to operability (eg openable windows) and flexibility in building
program and user adaptation (along the lines of Brand’s “How Buildings
Learn”).

Across both buildings and products I think there is a third strand in which
users adapt (“hack” or “transgress” if you like) artifacts to protest
existing power relations. Here Otto von Busch’s “self passages”
(http://www.selfpassage.org/) comes to mind and I welcome references that
look at this issue more explicitly and perhaps theoretically.

I welcome other thoughts on references in any of the above areas. Here are a
few longer cites for mentions above:

Bhamra, T. A., D. Lilley, and T. Tang. 2008. Sustainable Use: Changing
consumer behavior through product desgin. In Changing the Change. Turin,
Italy: Umberto Allemandi & Co.
Lockton, Dan, David Harrison, and Neville Stanton. 2008. Making the user
more efficient: Design for sustainable behavior. International Journal of
Sustainable Engineering preprint April 2008.
Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. Edited by
T. A. Markus and A. D. King, The Architext Series. London: Routledge.
Winner, Langdon. 1980. Do Artefacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109:121-136.
[also various rebuttals]
Brand, Stewart.  1994. How Buildings Learn. New York: Viking.
Norman, Donald. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.
Leach, Neil. 1999. "Architecture or Revolution" in Architecture and
Revolution, edited by Neil Leach. London, Routledge.

Regards,
Ann


Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom

ann@...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
& blog: http://designactivism.net
discussion list: SUSDESIGNTEACH

---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt
charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

[A ( Katerina ) Alexiou]

Hi Ann,

The first thing that comes to mind when you put architecture and power
together is Mitterand's grand projects in Paris! I don't know of a
particular reference but I am sure there is a lot written on this.

You may also like to look at a book by Lisa Findley which discusses the
relationship between power, space and architecture, particularly through 4
case studies (Findley, L. (2005) Building Change: Architecture, Politics
and Cultural Agency, Routledge: London and New York)

From a more participatory perspective, it may be relevant to see Blundell
Jones, P., Petrescu, D. and Till, J. eds (2005) Architecture and
Participation, Spon Press - the first part is about the 'politics of
participation'.

Best,
Katerina

> Hello All,
>
> I’m looking for references on the topic of how artifacts (buildings,
> products) mediate power. It seems that across both buildings and products
> there are perhaps three strands in the literature.  The first strand
> concerns how those in power use artifacts to mediate power (for example
> the Winner, “Do artifacts have politics” debate, Dovey, and Leach). A
> second strand, perhaps emerging from the
> usability/accessibility/participatory side, concerns how objects or
> buildings “empower” or enable users. For products, this strand
> materializes in “usability” discourse (eg Donald Norman’s work) and in
> recent “behavior steering design” research that aims to increase energy
> and environmental efficiency in product use (for example Bhamra et. al.
> and Lockton et. al.).
>
> On the architecture side I’m less familiar with a literature on
> empowerment through architecture. Empowerment is in the margins of many
> discussions and projects, but I’d like to get a few references that deal
> with “power/empowerment” issues head-on with some connection to underlying
> theory. I imagine this strand of literature is tied to participatory
> design (eg design/build?), universal design (for disability, age) but may
> also be tied to operability (eg openable windows) and flexibility in
> building program and user adaptation (along the lines of Brand’s “How
> Buildings Learn”).
>
> Across both buildings and products I think there is a third strand in
> which users adapt (“hack” or “transgress” if you like) artifacts to
> protest existing power relations. Here Otto von Busch’s “self passages”
> (http://www.selfpassage.org/) comes to mind and I welcome references that
> look at this issue more explicitly and perhaps theoretically.
>
> I welcome other thoughts on references in any of the above areas. Here are
> a few longer cites for mentions above:
>
> Bhamra, T. A., D. Lilley, and T. Tang. 2008. Sustainable Use: Changing
> consumer behavior through product desgin. In Changing the Change. Turin,
> Italy: Umberto Allemandi & Co.
> Lockton, Dan, David Harrison, and Neville Stanton. 2008. Making the user
> more efficient: Design for sustainable behavior. International Journal of
> Sustainable Engineering preprint April 2008.
> Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. Edited by
> T. A. Markus and A. D. King, The Architext Series. London: Routledge.
> Winner, Langdon. 1980. Do Artefacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109:121-136.
> [also various rebuttals]
> Brand, Stewart.  1994. How Buildings Learn. New York: Viking.
> Norman, Donald. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic
> Books.
> Leach, Neil. 1999. "Architecture or Revolution" in Architecture and
> Revolution, edited by Neil Leach. London, Routledge.
>
> Regards,
> Ann
>
>
> Ann Thorpe
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
> Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
>
> Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
> Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom
>
> ann@...
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
> & blog: http://designactivism.net
> discussion list: SUSDESIGNTEACH
>
> ---------------------------------
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC
> 038302).
>

------------------------------------------------------
Katerina Alexiou
RCUK Academic Research Fellow
Design Group, DDEM, MCT
The Open University
Milton Keynes MK7 6AA

Email: a.k.alexiou@...
Web: http://design.open.ac.uk/alexiou/index.htm

[A.B.Thorpe]

Hi Gavin,

Thanks for your comment re the discourse on power, and to others who have commented and/or are interested in the list of references that might come out of this query. I'll compile what I get back and post it.

I have indeed spent a fair amount of time "theorizing power first" in the Power discourses of political science, sociology and even cognition. I didn't mention this because it goes a bit off topic for the list. Some of my overview sources for the broader power literature have included these, with Boulding (the stick, the carrot and the hug) and Scott (force, manipulation, legitimation and signification) proving particularly useful:

- Boulding, Kenneth. 1989. Three Faces of Power. London: Sage.
- Clegg, Stewart R. 1989. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage Publications.
- Lukes, Steven. 2005. Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Scott, John. 2001. Power, Key Concepts. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.
- Poggi, Gianfranco. 2001. Forms of power. Cambridge : Polity Press ; Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishers.

Overview sources situate the major thinkers (such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Weber, Dahl, Lukes, Giddens, Foucault, Arendt, Habermas, Parsons, among many others) in power into the major strands of power research/discourse.

Since my research concerns activism and social movements, I've also been looking at the theoretical framework on that side (sometimes called "counteraction), a region represented well by these overview works:

- Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. Contentious Politics. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
- Traugott, Mark, ed. 1995. Repertoires & Cycles of Collective Action. Durham: Duke University Press.
- Tarrow, Sydney. 1994. Power in movement : social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
- Rucht, Dieter, Ruud Koopmans, and Friedhalm Neidhardt, eds. 1999. Acts of Dissent: New Developments in the Study of Protest. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- Jordan, Tim. 2002. Activism!: Direct Action, Hacktivism and the Future of Society. London: Reaktion Books.


Interdisciplinary research certainly challenges one's literature review capacity...

Best,
Ann

Ann Thorpe
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dept of Design, Development, Environment & Materials
Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London
Wates House, 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom

ann@...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
book: The Designer's Atlas of Sustainability (www.designers-atlas.net)
& blog: http://designactivism.net
discussion list: SUSDESIGNTEACH

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Melles [mailto:GMelles@...]
Sent: Mon 6/29/2009 10:20 AM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...; A.B.Thorpe@...
Subject: Re: seeking refs on how artifacts (buildings/power) mediate power
 
Anne
I think it is important whatever you find not to confuse the now cliched empowerment discourse with power. Action research of certain persuasions fell into the empowerment cliché some time ago. I would have thought that foucault concept of power as relationsl and productive will figure in there somewhere. So I suppose ilm saying theorize power first. Is it retational and produced or do you think some pepele or institutions have it like having the flu.this will affect how you proceed
-----Original Message-----
From: "A.B.Thorpe" <A.B.Thorpe@...>
To:  <PHD-DESIGN@...>
To: A.B.Thorpe <A.B.Thorpe@...>




---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

[Terence Love-2]

Dear Ann,

Please would  you say a bit more about your interests and how the study of
power and buildings fits into them?

Best regards,
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of
A.B.Thorpe
Sent: Monday, 29 June 2009 7:37 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: Re: seeking refs on how artifacts (buildings/power) mediate power

Hi Gavin,

Thanks for your comment re the discourse on power, and to others who have
commented and/or are interested in the list of references that might come
out of this query. I'll compile what I get back and post it.

I have indeed spent a fair amount of time "theorizing power first" in the
Power discourses of political science, sociology and even cognition. I
didn't mention this because it goes a bit off topic for the list. Some of my
overview sources for the broader power literature have included these, with
Boulding (the stick, the carrot and the hug) and Scott (force, manipulation,
legitimation and signification) proving particularly useful:

- Boulding, Kenneth. 1989. Three Faces of Power. London: Sage.
- Clegg, Stewart R. 1989. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage Publications.
- Lukes, Steven. 2005. Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
- Scott, John. 2001. Power, Key Concepts. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.
- Poggi, Gianfranco. 2001. Forms of power. Cambridge : Polity Press ;
Malden, MA : Blackwell Publishers.

Overview sources situate the major thinkers (such as Machiavelli, Hobbes,
Weber, Dahl, Lukes, Giddens, Foucault, Arendt, Habermas, Parsons, among many
others) in power into the major strands of power research/discourse.

Since my research concerns activism and social movements, I've also been
looking at the theoretical framework on that side (sometimes called
"counteraction), a region represented well by these overview works:

- Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. Contentious Politics. Boulder:
Paradigm Publishers.
- Traugott, Mark, ed. 1995. Repertoires & Cycles of Collective Action.
Durham: Duke University Press.
- Tarrow, Sydney. 1994. Power in movement : social movements, collective
action and politics. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
- Rucht, Dieter, Ruud Koopmans, and Friedhalm Neidhardt, eds. 1999. Acts of
Dissent: New Developments in the Study of Protest. Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
- Jordan, Tim. 2002. Activism!: Direct Action, Hacktivism and the Future of
Society. London: Reaktion Books.


Interdisciplinary research certainly challenges one's literature review
capacity...

Best,
Ann

[Cameron Tonkinwise-2]

Milestone, Juris (2007) 'Design as Power: Paul Virilio and the
Governmentality of Design Expertise', Culture, Theory and Critique, 48:2,
175 - 198
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735780701723264

A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps
Toward a Philosophy of Design
(with Special Attention to Peter
Sloterdijk)
Keynote lecture for the Networks of Design*
meeting of the Design History Society
Falmouth, Cornwall, 3rd September 2008
Bruno Latour, Sciences-Po
www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL.pdf

Cameron



On 6/29/09 3:46 AM, "A.B.Thorpe" <A.B.Thorpe@...> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I¹m looking for references on the topic of how artifacts (buildings, products)
> mediate power.

[Terence Love-2]

Hi  Ann,

With Dr Trudi Cooper, I've developed a dozen or so extensions to Ashby's Law
of Requisite Variety that look at how buildings (and other situations) act
as part of socio-technological systems to change power dynamics. We've also
been exploring how activists might use this approach to change policy
outcomes .

Looking at how socio-technical power outcomes relate to the time and space
dynamic behaviour of variety in complex multi-constituency systems  is a
relatively new approach and I suspect we may be the only people doing it. If
there is anyone anyone out there with references to other similar work, I'd
love to receive them!

If you are interested, there are some preprints on www.love.com.au (mainly
2007) - perhaps the most accessible is a powerpoint for a talk at the
Architecture and Design Dept at the University of Portland 2009. I've been a
bit lax in uploading papers and I'll  upload more soon.

Best wishes,
Terry

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of
A.B.Thorpe
Sent: Monday, 29 June 2009 3:46 PM
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Subject: seeking refs on how artifacts (buildings/power) mediate power

Hello All,

I'm looking for references on the topic of how artifacts (buildings,
products) mediate power.

[Katherine Hepworth-2]

Hi Ann and others

The 'behavior steering design' strand of the literature you mentioned
reminds me of the quote from Block contributor Philippa Goodall: 'design
for use is design of use.' Block was a journal that took a
Marxist-inspired structuralist approach to studying design artefacts.
They approached the study of artefacts within the context of the
economic, social and production processes they were created by and were
a part of. Many of the articles are re-published in the Block Reader in
Visual Culture.

Another relevant contributor to Block is Necdet Teymur. He emphasises
the roles these contextual economic influences play in constructing
artefacts over that of the designer. He writes from an architecture
perspective.

Foucault's concept of governmentality is also relevant to your search.
Dori Tunstall is the only author I know of applying this theory to the
study of design artefacts.

These authors constitute a fourth strand in the literature: how
artefacts communicate discourses.

To the first strand you identify, 'how those in power use artifacts to
mediate power,' you could add studies in visual rhetoric. This is
perhaps more relevant in relation to graphic design artefacts. Some
people working in this field seek to demonstrate how visual artefacts
have been used as a governmental strategy (akin to other governmental
strategies such as public policy and social welfare) for the purposes of
manipulating public opinion and national identity. Olson and Kostelnick
are two examples I can think of. Wally Olins is also illuminating on
this subject, although his business is to work as an agent for
governments on this point, rather than to theorise or critique the
activity.

Let us know the list you end up with.

Best

Katherine Hepworth


References
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality. London: Sage.

Goodall, P. (1996). Design and Gender. In G. Robertson & J. Bird (Eds.),
The Block Reader in Visual Culture. London: Routledge. p. 202.

Kostelnick, C. (2004). Melting-Pot Ideology, Modernist Aesthetics, and
the Emergence of Graphical Conventions: The Statistical Atlases of the
United States, 1874–1925. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining
Visual Rhetorics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Olins, W. (2003). Branding the Nation. In On Brand (pp. 150-169).
London: Thames and Hudson.

Olson, L. C. (2004). Benjamin Franklin's Vision of American Community: A
study in rhetorical iconology. Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press.

Teymur, N. (1996). The Materiality of Design. In G. Robertson & J. Bird
(Eds.), The Block Reader in Visual Culture. London: Routledge. p. 158.

Tunstall, D. (2007). In Design We Trust: Design, Governmentality and the
Tangibility of Governance. Paper presented at the IASDR07.


---
Katherine Hepworth
Research Assistant
National Institute of Design Research
Swinburne University of Technology

144 High Street Prahran
Victoria 3181 Australia

Telephone [phone]
Facsimilie [phone]

www.swinburne.edu.au/design