Towards a philosophy of products?

I read an interesting article yesterday (26th April 2013) on Google Glass, in the MIT Technology Review (thanks to David Barlex and Torben Stegg). The author (John Pavius) discusses some of the, potential, technical and social issues with the user interface with Google Glass. However, the most interesting part was a reference to the 20th Century German philosopher Martin Heidegger, who is possibly best know for his writing on tool use.

Pavius takes a slightly dystopian view of the implications of the Google Glass user interface with future ‘technological’ products in the future, which somewhat reflects Heideggar’s leanings. Having said that, I think that he (Heideggar) can teach us something about products. He wrote within a the school of phenomenology, which (very crudely speaking) is concerned with the observation and experience of phenomena (things that occur/happen in human experience).

Taken from: http://www.flickr.com/

Heideggar was interested in objects, or more accurately ‘things’: he actually was not particularly keen of objects as a term, inferring a distance, whereas ‘things’ are experienced and meaningful (think that I’ve got that right!?). Two key concepts regarding tools, in heidegarrian philosophy are readiness to hand and presence at hand. These terms describe human beings relationship to and use of tools. Heideggar used the example of the hammer. When a hammer is in use, it becomes an extension of the arm and withdraws from consciousness: this is readiness to hand. Conversely, if the hammer does not function or functions inefficiently, it comes into consciousness and become less effective as a tool (Heideggar takes about ‘broken’ tools): this is presence at hand.

This got me thinking that often when I have read people explaining this concept, it is in terms of tools being one or the other. But what if tools move between the two states? We experience (use) tools (products and/or technologies) in two different ways (or from two different perspectives). Sometimes products are used instinctively and unconsciously, such as spectacles, and they become an extension to our body (readiness to hand). Many technologies are like this when they become ubiquitous and part of how we live and act within our society/culture. On the other extreme, there are products that are very much in our consciousness, but not necessarily because they are ‘broken’. Take, for example, the iPhone: much loved by many despite its perceived flaws. So appears to be a disruptive element in the design of much-loved products that pulls them into consciousness (presence at hand).

This line of argument suggests that products might be ‘positioned’ at a point along a continuum between readiness at hand and presence to hand. This positioning might be contingent on the technology maturity of or adoption of specific technologies by the local culture (and individual), but complex products, such as smart phones, cars and buildings, move in and out of consciousness; so the ‘position’ is not fixed. When I feel the hardness (resistance, even mild discomfort) of my iPhone in my hand and against my ear, I am reminded that it is not part of me, it remains in my consciousness (presence at hand); at the same time functioning as an extension being used unconsciously (readiness to hand).

Readiness to hand / presence at hand product continuum

So what are the implications for a philosophy of products or product design? Are disruptive ‘imperfections’ part of people’s emotional attachment to products? Can complex products be simultaneously ready to hand and present at hand? Or do they move in and out of consciousness? Does Heideggar suggest a way to avoid the dystopian view of technology and technological determinism?… [to be continued]

The complex nature of products in design and technology: elaborate or expand?

During the relatively short history of Design and Technology (D&T) education in England, the role of products has been central. The practical nature of the subject emerging from a making (craft) culture in the 80s and 90s towards designing and making. I say ‘towards’ designing and making, recognising that the effects of craft pedagogical paradigms (model) has lingered in the practice in some schools.

In the first National Curriculum (NC) programme of study (PoS) for Technology (NCC, 1990) the terms “artefacts, systems and environments” were introduced: in addition to “objects”. These terms were in many ways problematic in their meanings and common usage. For example, whilst being technically appropriate to describe objects made by human being, ‘artefact’ conjures up images of archeology and antiquity. Similarly, the public were becoming used to talking and hearing about the environment as something that they interacted with or had an impact on, but possibly not something that they designed. By 1990 the NC PoS for D&T[1. replacing Craft Design and Technology (CDT and Home Economics (HE) under the original Technology banner.] the terms “artefact” and “environment” were replaced by the more tangible and user friendly “product” (DFE, 1995). Systems remained as a term, but almost in a separate category to products (systems and control).

Image taken from Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery (England, UK) at www.flickr.com

In many ways this simplification could be seen as a positive thing in the short term. It identifies a tangible and physical object that is understood as being designed. However, I would argue that the focus (may be even fixation) on products in D&T has hindered the development of pedagogical models. The Focus Practical Task (FPT) and Design and Make Activity (DMA) work toward a product, and the strong motivator in D&T in may schools has been to have a ‘take home product’ that appeals to learners and parents. This is a laudable aim and engages many learners, where interesting products are being made.

‘Glowjar’ project – reusing glass jars with a ‘joule thief’ circuit to use ‘spent’ batteries.

The problem comes when the product becomes central and design contexts are overlooked, not to mention the learning objectives, experiences and/or outcomes. What happens to open ended activities that are not restricted by materials, tools and equipment available in school workshops, studios and kitchens? So called blue-sky thinking and designing. Also, what happens when you work through a considered and thoughtful design process and decide that the best solution is not to have a product? A difficult question for us in D&T!

This blog post comes from a discussion around the reform of the the National Curriculum currently underway. last week. The meaning of ‘product’ was identified a problematic and possibly restricting. It was discussed whether to define ‘product’ or to extend it to ‘products, systems and services’: services being ‘products that aren’t products’ (i.e. intangible products). The suggestion was also made to re-include “environments”. Both of these arguments (elaborate or expand) have merit, but it got me thinking (and possibly understanding a bit better) some aspects of Pragmatism[2. The philosophical movement, rather than just being or acting pragmatically.] proposed by Richard Rorty. Rorty talks about language as an imprecise tool, and philosophy concerning itself with redescription of meaning (Rorty, 1979). There is a risk that the debate could get lost in an endless redescription, but it is an important question.

So should we elaborate or expand? In short, I don’t know, but it is clear (to me) that a designed object (or artefact[3. I quite like artefact as a technical and academic term, but wouldn’t suggest it as a description to be used in curriculum documents!]) in D&T could be:

  • a product
  • a system
  • a service
  • an environment

We do products quite extensively (possibly exclusively) and to some extent systems (in schools where electronics or systems and control is taught), so maybe the new frontiers for D&T is services (non-tangible products) and/or possibly a revisiting of designed environments…

“But if we could ever become reconciled to the idea that most of reality is indifferent to our descriptions of it and that the human self is created by the use of a vocabulary rather that being adequately or inadequately expressed in a vocabulary, then we should at last have assimilated what was true in the Romantic idea that truth is made rather than found. What is true about this claim is just that languages are made rather than found, and that truth is a property of linguistic entities, or sentences.” (Rorty, 1989: 7)

References:

DfE (1995). Design and Technology in the National Curriculum. London: Department for Education.

NCC (1990). Technology in the National Curriculum. London: Department for Education and Science and the Welsh Office.

Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. USA: Princeton University Press.