Making Sense and Meaning¶
Transitions in the capitalistic cultural heritage of design
A few months ago, a really good friend of mine, Tommi, came visit me in Barcelona. It was a lazy and cold Thursday night and we planned a cozy movie night at home: he proposed to watch “Sorry we missed you” by Ken Loach.
A few months ago, Tomas asked us to read the intro of “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things” by Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore. I started reading and I couldn’t but make obvious connection between the intro of the book and Loach’s movie.
“Sorry We Missed You” is a drama film that narrates the life of a working-class family living in Newcastle, England. Ricky, the father and main character of the movie, decides to become a self-employed delivery driver in order to provide for his family. He works long hours, delivering packages for a delivery company, while his wife, Abbie, works as a home care nurse. As the movie progresses, the pressures of work begin to take a toll on the family. The film depicts his experiences working in the gig economy, where he is a self-employed contractor for a delivery company. The movie delves into the realities of modern-day working-class struggles. Through its authentic portrayal of a family’s daily challenges, Loach shines a light on the exploitative nature of the system and the toll it takes on individuals and families. It’s a wake-up call for society to address the urgent need for fair and just working conditions. Overall, the film paints a stark picture of the realities of working in the capitalistic world, where workers are often left vulnerable to exploitation and insecurity, and highlights the urgent need for reform to ensure fair and just working conditions.
The book “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things” by Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore explores the interconnectedness of nature, capitalism, and society. The authors argue that capitalism is not just an economic system, but a way of organising nature and society that has profound implications for the environment and human well-being. The authors use seven cheap things (food, nature, energy, work, care, money, and lives) to trace the history of capitalism from the early days of European colonialism to the present day. They argue that each of these things has been made cheap through the exploitation of people and nature, and that this has enabled capitalism to expand and dominate the world. “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things” by Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore provides an analysis of the historical and social factors that have led to the current state of global capitalism, while “Sorry We Missed You” by Ken Loach offers a specific look at the experiences of working-class individuals in the gig economy. Despite different focuses, both share a common critique of the exploitative nature of capitalism and its impact on workers and the environment. Both works also point to the need for systemic change to address these issues. “A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things” suggests that a transition to a more sustainable and equitable economic system is necessary, while “Sorry We Missed You” highlights the need for regulations and protections for workers in the gig economy.
Besides pointing out similarities and common points between the book and the movie, there’s a potential criticism that I feel like doing: both works do not offer enough solutions or strategies for how to carry on with these changes. While they provide a powerful critique of the current system, they may not provide concrete actions for individuals or organisations to take in order to create change. They don’t narrate the transition in order to make this change happening in broader societal goals.
But let’s take a step back: what is a transition and why it is difficult to design them in the modern capitalistic world?
By meaning, the transition is a slow and incremental process focused on creating a more sustainable and equitable reality, involving a significant social, economic, and political change. It requires a sustained effort over time to change societal norms and practices, and it may take years or even decades to see tangible results. In order not to cause disruption or confusion, the transition has to be slow. Here’s the issue: capitalism works on the opposite scale, it is based on the pursuit of profit and the maximisation value. This means that businesses are primarily focused on generating profits and may be hesitant to invest in new technologies or systems that could disrupt their existing streams. Also, transitions are not necessarily based on competition, they are focused on creating a more responsible economy that is based on cooperation and collaboration, where the emphasis is on working together to identify and address societal challenges, rather than competing with each other to maximise profits or market share. Cooperation and collaboration are key. And here’s the issue number two: capitalism is characterised by intense competition, it is actually a key feature in the system, which can make it difficult for companies to invest in transitions that may be more expensive or time-consuming than their competitors.
But why transitions are not immediately visible or apparent in the modern capitalistic cultural heritage? With this question, the statement I’m about to say, the opinions I’m about to share and the answers I’m about to give, I’m not saying that society doesn’t have cultural products that talk about social and ecological sustainability and so on, it is quite the opposite actually. My point is that usually the transition from one world to another tends to be hidden: both utopian and dystopian realities usually tend to show mostly the result, the output, but never the process, the way to get there. Seems that showing, writing, filming, imagining and designing the transition is harder than ever. Many movies and books are created to promote social change but don’t provide a realistic portrayal of societal and ecological transitions.
The issue is that even a movie that exposes a capitalist reality no longer tolerable by humankind, like “Sorry We Missed You” is a capitalistic product, in a capitalistic system, fed by capitalistic dynamics. The current capitalist economic system is deeply ingrained in our societies, and it is often difficult to envision and implement fundamental changes to economic structures and institutions. In order to show the transition, the product must be part of the transition itself so running against profitable capitalistic parameters and growing slowly. Promoting social and sustainable transitions requires more than just cultural representations, it requires sustained effort, collaboration, and investment. In a nutshell, cultural heritage is often influenced by powerful vested interests that benefit from the current system and also tends to reflect and reinforce existing societal norms and values, rather than challenging them. The green and sustainable wave that is running all around the world it is to be considered a challenging value for the existing system, but is also different from the transition I’ve been talking about, that happens at the grassroots level, through the efforts of individuals, communities, and small businesses. These efforts may not receive as much attention as larger, high-profile initiatives and may therefore not be as visible in cultural heritage. Also as designers, we struggle to focus on long and slow processes, and we tend to aim to achievements. We are typically driven by a desire to see tangible results and achieve concrete goals. This can make it difficult to engage with slower, more incremental processes that may not deliver immediate results. More than ever now a days, designers are used to work on projects that have clear endpoints or deliverables, which can make it challenging to engage with transitions that may be ongoing and less easily defined. Happens the same in cultural heritage like books or movies for instance: there’s no writer or director that would start writing a novel or directing a new movie without endpoints. By this I mean that perhaps the results is not clear or well defined, maybe the writer doesn’t know how the novel is going to end, but he knows that is going to end, and if it doesn’t, he might perceive that attempt as a failure. We as individuals part of this society are educated to perceive non successful attempts as failures, we might struggle to grasp the positive out of it. I guess this can be due to a variety of factors, including societal pressure to succeed, fear of failure, and our own personal expectations and goals. Individuals, design, culture and society are all affected by this mindset.
The difficulty in designing transitions to a more sustainable and equitable reality in the modern capitalistic world is rooted in the very nature of capitalism itself. To overcome these challenges, it can be helpful for designers to shift their focus from just achieving results to also considering the process and journey involved in achieving those results. This may involve embracing slower and more incremental processes, such as prototyping and user testing, and being willing to iterate and refine designs over time. Additionally, designers may need to cultivate strong communication and collaboration skills to ensure that they can effectively coordinate with different teams and stakeholders during the transition process. Also, I truly believe that design should make a shift from human centred design to circular design and transition design can be a powerful tool in this shift. Human centred design is a design approach that focuses on creating products, services, or systems that meet the needs of users. It puts the user at the centre of the design process, using research, observation, and testing to ensure that the final design meets the user’s needs. Circular design, on the other hand, is a design approach that focuses on creating products, services, or systems that are regenerative and restorative by design. It considers the entire lifecycle of a product, so also the system the product itself lays in. The goal of circular design is to reduce, conserve, and create a more sustainable and regenerative economy. In essence, human centred design is focused on creating products that meet the needs of people, while circular design is focused on creating products that are sustainable and regenerative by design and look towards systemic change and collective action.
I believe this shift is needed because human centred design while has brought many benefits and advancements in the design industry, it also falls short in addressing the root causes of societal and environmental problems. It is ultimately limited by its focus on individual user needs and desires, and fails to consider the larger systemic issues that contribute to social and environmental challenges. By prioritising individual needs, human centred design often reinforces existing power structures and inequalities, rather than addressing them. Furthermore, it is not equipped to address complex, interconnected problems such as climate change and social justice. In order to effectively tackle these issues, a more systemic and holistic approach is needed. I’m not saying that human centred design is inherently bad or ineffective, but rather that it is not the tool to solve problem that design is facing. Transition design can play a crucial role in shifting from human centred design to circular design by taking a more systemic and long-term approach by offering an holistic and sustainable approach to design that can help shift the focus from short-term individual needs to long-term collective well-being and environmental health.