How design falls short of revolutionizing society on its own
An opinion
“Fairness does not mean everyone gets the same.
Fairness means everyone gets what they need.”
― Rick Riordan
The society has forever worked on the principle of survival of the fittest, or the inherited privileges have shielded some from the competition; the latter of which stems somewhat from the belief of passing down the genetic qualities biologically (and hence avoiding the unnecessary hassle of choosing the best?) and majorly from the human trait of greed — providing the best for one’s own. There was no concept of inclusion of the people who were at physical /mental disadvantages. With time the weaknesses also became that of economic, social, and gender. There was no moral obligation of equity, and people lived without its consideration. Not until the 20th century did the ideas of justice and fairness started shaping political (economics is still deprived of the thought ) structures in the majority of the nations.
Look around you. Do you say that two individuals have in any way the same resources and social identity?
In a country like India, the answer is definitely, No. There are the rich and the poor, there are the upper castes and the lower caste people, there are Hindus, and there are Muslims, there are men and women, and the genderqueer people, the abled and specially-abled, and the categorizations go on and on.
Will providing an equal platform be enough to ensure fairness in our case?
In a scenario where not everyone is on the same page, is it fair to start with the same resources?
Here we need the concept of equity -
Equity is about each of us getting what we need to survive or succeed — access to opportunity, networks, resources, and support — based on where we are and where we want to go. [01] Equity applied to design starts with looking at systems that unfairly privilege some over others and asks questions about what can be done to level the playing field. Say, a specially-abled student is competing with the normally abled students. To make the competition fair, the disadvantaged student needs a head start. In short, EQUITY brings EQUALITY.
How does design come into the picture, and what IS it in the first place?
A design, in layman’s terms, is the plan to achieve a goal or an idea. The goal can be set through the perspective of the producers or the users, depending on the design approach.
Design can be architectural, an art statement, engineering design, automobile design, and so and so. Design has been an integral part of our lives from the beginning of society. It has shaped civilizations, upheld the values and ideals of the rulers and cultural majorities of times.
In ancient Mesopotamia, there was the fortification of their palaces and different levels, and based on the status of the citizen, they were allowed to enter any level. The same practice is seen in Egyptian temples, where “commoners” can’t enter the main prayer chamber. The ancient Greeks and Islam followers throughout the medieval strictly separated the men and women through the architectural design of their dwellings. In these cases, the design was devised, not keeping in mind the user, but rather the stakeholders to ensure their beliefs. These are cases where design has actually upheld inequity rather than equity. [02]
The more recent industrial revolution has seen the empowerment of design — from just enforcing values, the design has transformed the way we live. The rise of automobile design, product design, and the latest — web design changed the way people interact (as well as shifted the industrial focus on to the user) [03]. The user-centered design (i.e. the user is the main subject) approach has gained momentum since the 1970s, making design exclusive for a certain set of people.[04] The design usually has to satisfy certain constraints and may take into account aesthetic, functional, economic, or socio-political considerations, and is expected to interact with a certain environment.[05]
However, in the process, the outcome is mostly tailored for the majority — and the disadvantaged groups are excluded from the product. The design has been a necessity of the majority, and not for equity. The designers are mostly individuals who design for a living — the paychecks and corporate incentives drive them. Morality and equity take a back seat. There are individuals who are capable of (financially, politically stable?) making a positive statement, doing their part in social work. But social work can never be the end of inequity in this nation of grim differences.
The stark contrast in the spatial distribution is clearly visible below, between a part of the densely populated city of Mumbai occupied by the poor section as compared to the rich on the right.
If we talk about slum-dwellings, they are not designed professionally. The ones who use the place with time mold it accordingly but what about ventilation, natural lighting, waterproof ceilings, etc which are some of the necessities in the equitable design?
Now one may argue, why doesn’t the government enforce laws strictly? Why doesn’t the government make sure that there is proper spatial planning and elevators and windows for all the houses, so they’re habitable by all?
We know of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs-
While most of the privileged people look for their psychological and self-fulfillment needs in their products, the underprivileged ones are left struggling for basic needs. The design today mostly caters to the privileged (since they are the ones who run the market; can afford the designers). Enforcing the ideology of fairness or equity (which stems from the point of view of the privileged) often ends in a conflicting scenario that is not in the interest of the underprivileged.
Say, the government does introduce stringent laws for buildings — ventilation, elevators in multistorey buildings, building coverage, etc. Will it be possible for a poor person to take care of all the rules and build his house? Previously, a person could somehow make a two-room house for his family of four with limited funds (which was not comfortable, agreed, but was survivable). Now, due to the laws stating dimensions of rooms, mandatory inclusion, building coverage, etc. are enforced, the person might be able to make a single room house only. The house might be following the equity in the eyes of the government, but is it for the person? [06]
Beliefs, expectations, and practices assumed to be neutral can have outcomes that are disadvantageous to the marginalized. [07] Even if for a moment we totally exclude the economic disparity (which to be fair, is very unreasonable, in a country where the top 10% of the population holds 77% of the total national wealth [08]), even when design can include users from all backgrounds — An inclusive washroom design that can provide accessibility to women, older adults, children and men alike. The inclusive design may even succeed in improving the diversity ratio — For example, Google’s user-friendly design and accessible medium make it usable by everyone- people of any language, economic background — but is that equity? Just because it can be accessed and used by all, do people use it equally?
The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Race Equity and Inclusion Action Guide describes equity as distinct from “diversity,” which is a numerical representation of different types of people. It also distinguishes equity from “inclusion,” which the foundation defines as “the action or state of including or being included within a group or structure … [Unlike diversity,] inclusion involves an authentic and empowered participation and a true sense of belonging.” Under this thinking, inclusion may be a definite step toward equity — and many grantmakers are embracing it — but even those who feel included may not experience equity.” [09]
Diversity and inclusion are the processes that may bring equity as an outcome. Diversity is often used as a euphemism that brings people of different genders, communities, and races together and at the same time makes them feel inclusive of the society by providing a chance to grow, making them feel welcomed or valued.
However, when we try to be inclusive, new problems might arise. For example, what is the word “ethnic”? It’s an umbrella term for patterns, designs, motifs, and craftworks from non-industrialized cultures. Note the phrase “non-industrialized”, we have termed so many different continents, different countries, different cultures, ethnic groups under one umbrella term. We look at a new problem “GENERALISATION”. When we generalize, no one is going to feel included, and the purpose is lost in the whole process. [10]
A country is run on economics, social and cultural structure, and the constitution. The economic power in our country lies mainly in the hands of the business tycoons. It should be the collective responsibility of the major stakeholders (parties that have an interest in a company and can either affect or be affected by the business — investors, employees, customers, and suppliers) in the country’s economy to implement the equity promoting ideology. As a force, power is not inherently inequitable. But it has been historically harnessed to perpetuate the oppression of the marginalized — whether economic, gender, social or racial. [12] The prejudices are so deeply embedded in our identities that it is not possible to segregate one from the other solely through design. The design has the power to persuade and empower our decision-making process. But design is not a standalone entity, rather a medium to communicate, which is not necessarily available to people of all standings. The decision of what to communicate, who to communicate, and how to communicate lies in the hands of the stakeholders.
“If money is the bond binding me to human life, binding society to me with
nature and man, is not money the bond of all bonds?
Can it not dissolve and bind all ties?
Is it not, therefore, also the universal agent of separation?”
Karl Marx
“If we assume the worst about people, we will get the worst out of them.” as quoted by Ha-Joon Chang. So let’s believe in the good in us and hope for a future where everyone comes together for building the nation.
References
[1] What the Heck Does ‘Equity’ Mean? By Kris Putnam-Walkerly & Elizabeth Russell
[2] Banister Fletcher’s A History of Architecture
[3], [6], 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang
[4] Co-creation and the new landscapes of design by Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders & Pieter Jan Stappers
[5] Wikipedia Org
[7] Five Principles for Enacting Equity by Design By: Estela Mara Bensimon, Alicia C. Dowd, and Keith Witham
[8] India: extreme inequality in numbers by Oxfam Org
[9] Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Race Equity and Inclusion Action Guide
[10] Interior design casually borrows from cultures it finds aesthetically pleasing without hiring people from those backgrounds by Bhavin Taylor
[11] Definition: Investopedia
[12] Nothing says misogyny like defining feminism as equality for all by Marcie Bianco
This article was curated by then B Arch second-year students from IIT Roorkee — Soma Gorai, Janani R G, and Samyak Jain.
