Interactions - March/April 2012

pure conditions for communication are almost impossible. For practical reasons it might be necessary to have someone be represented by someone else. Though hardly ideal, if we are to develop a practical set of conditions for designers and business people, we need to consider this possibility. Given more time here, we might begin to determine behaviors and procedures for those who are representing (speaking for) others. As we form a group, we need to decipher which individuals or groups are affected, positively or negatively, by the current situation. Who speaks for these constituents? Have we considered all the major players (those who are significantly affected)? Looking at the initial group, we can ask if any constituency has been overlooked. In this way, a more nuanced and inclusive group would be assembled to address the issues.

During this process of forming the group, we would need to be aware of our own biases that would tend to yield an overly like-minded group. (This is absolutely doable, but beyond the scope of this article.) In the process of gathering interested parties, we should pay particular attention to those who represent special interests on competing sides, and those who may be outside the dominant (often corporate) culture but who have clear reasons to be engaged with the vetting process.

The work of the group. For practi-
cal reasons, the group would need
a parliamentarian to keep order
and ensure that all were heard.
The discussion might begin by hav-
ing each person “situate herself or
himself” for the group. Next, the
leader should ask, “What do we have
here?” reminding the group that,
for the time being, no actions were
being proposed. As each person
spoke, the others would need to
listen without preparing a rebuttal to
what was being said while someone
else was talking [ 4]. Rather, par-
ticipants would attempt to under-
stand another’s concern about the
situation under investigation, but
in a way very different from their
own. A willingness to not auto-
matically allow profit alone to drive
outcomes must be established.

require keeping notes to decipher the nature of cases, the people at the table, and the ways in which the cases were resolved. In biomedical ethics, which often involve life-and-death cases, professional casuists conduct investigations and rely upon comparisons with existing paradigms to understand what a case is like. Since design doesn’t yet have such case histories, a data-base would have to be developed over time, using explicit criteria. Wrapping discourse ethics into a case-based method means that design can begin to establish its own history fairly efficiently. Most important, it would be inclusive and reflective. Although most contemporary problems beg for an answer to the question, “What should we do?” this question positions us to jump into action—to do rather than to reflect before acting. In conclusion, even though the speed of the electron that governs our daily lives doesn’t seem to be slowing down processes, whenever there appears to be an ethical conundrum, let’s first change the question to “What do we have here?” and not forget to consider carefully, “Who is the ‘we’ in our question?”

ENDNOTES:

1. Quote is from Immanuel Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.

2. These comments were part of O’Neill’s talk at a New Hall College, Cambridge University, UK, “Architecture and Its Ethical Dilemmas,” March 2004. 3. This situation is posed in M. Daisey’s “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” Berkeley Repertory Theatre, Berkeley, CA, Jan.11-Feb. 27, 2011. 4. See Jacob Needleman, fora.tv, April 2007.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Leslie Becker, Ph.D. is a professor
and former director of the Division
of Design, California College of
the Arts, San Francisco and an
AIGA Fellow. In addition to teach-
ing for the past 40 years, she is
also a design practitioner. She is currently turning
her Ph.D. dissertation, on methods of ethics for
design, into a book.