In reality, there are both more or less virtuous technical environments and more or less wise human decisions. The evolution of technology, unlike the evolution of living species, is supposed to remain subject to human will, which raises the question of collective decision-making by humanity. Since humanity consists of groups and individuals in disagreement, the issue of controlling technology ultimately comes down to a political problem. However, our current modes of governance and decision-making do not seem to allow for such control.
The thesis we
wish to defend here is that design can provide solutions to help reorganize our
technical and social systems in this regard. More specifically, we must turn to
a particular type of design, which we will refer to as “democratic” design. To
present this thesis, we will first recall the existing links between design,
technological progress, and social progress, emphasizing democratic forms of
design. Then, we will demonstrate why democracy must play a central role in the
future evolution of social organization.
I. Design and
progress
To highlight the
relationship between design and technological and social progress, we will
trace some key stages of its development from the Industrial Revolution to the
present day. First, let us mention the Arts and Crafts movement and
its critique of the emerging industrial model. On the one hand, it opposed this
model with the medieval craft guild system as a symbol of workers’ autonomy. On
the other hand, it borrowed from the labor movement its ideals of equality,
social progress, and emancipation inherited from the Enlightenment (William
Morris). This tendency persists in design through its concern for social
progress and its caution toward an industrial society that could become
dehumanizing.
In the first
half of the twentieth century, the absorption of form by function, and of
aesthetics and style by efficiency, reflected the dominance of instrumental
reason. The version of progress proposed at the time was marked by an elitist
and paternalistic stance (Adolf Loos, Le Corbusier). This technocratic attitude
aligns with certain positivist (Auguste Comte) and utilitarian (Jeremy Bentham)
philosophies. While the Bauhaus also had
a functionalist dimension, its vision of progress also included a desire to
connect art, craftsmanship, and life, and to promote experimentation and
collaboration between students and teachers. The pragmatist philosopher Charles
Morris taught there from 1937 to 1945.
In the second
half of the twentieth century, radical design (Superstudio, Archizoom) and anti-design
(Ettore Sottsass, Archigram) emerged, inheriting the rebellious tendencies of Surrealism
and inspiring critical design (Fiona Raby, Anthony Dunne). Against the
seriousness of functionalism, they introduced playfulness and individuality,
alongside a critique of massification brought about by consumer society. This
type of design seems to encourage a democratic approach, counteracting a
standardized form of social engineering that fosters passive hedonism. In
philosophy, Critical theory in Germany and post-structuralism in France
defended similar ideas.
Sustainable
design also emerged, responding to alarming diagnoses of the threats industrial
production poses to ecosystems. It aims to invent new ways of producing and
consuming and to move away from the dominant productivist and consumerist model
(Victor Papanek). Likewise, what we now call inclusive design represents
another facet of social progress in design. Its goal is to rethink our
environments to accommodate people in situations of exclusion by adapting
spaces and objects.
II. Democratic
design
Although design
has contributed to the development of industrial society, it strives to
mitigate its adverse effects. Among these is the elitist approach to social
progress, in which the social structure is designed for the people
rather than by the people, by “exceptional men” rather than through
collaboration among various actors. This is why we now turn our attention to
what we call “democratic design.”
A first example
of democratic design is the Norwegian case of Utopia, in the context of
developing computer tools for printing, hospitals, and offices in the 1980s,
aiming to adapt design to users (Kristen Nygaard). This requires interactive
methods and tools to foster mutual learning. In this way, users could express
their needs and explain their difficulties, while designers could present the
functioning and possibilities of their systems, each being both a novice and an
expert in relation to the other.
There is a
resemblance in principles between Scandinavian participatory design and design
thinking (Rolf Faste), although their contexts are different. We find
the idea of an iterative process, with corrections and improvements, the
combination of various skills in an interdisciplinary network, field
experimentation, a pragmatic approach that goes beyond theoretical
anticipations, and the development of methods and tools that facilitate
collective reflection.
Participatory
approaches are often criticized for being time-consuming due to their
iterative, exploratory, and deliberative nature. However, in some cases, local
collective initiatives can be faster than decisions moving through a
hierarchical chain. It is also important to consider the future time lost in
correcting poor decisions made without input from the field. Finally, one way
to compensate for the extended duration of deliberation is to promote physical
proximity. This can take the form of shared spaces such as community gardens or
fab labs, which facilitate knowledge exchange, tool and cost sharing, and the
shortening of logistical pathways to sustainable scales.
The use of
cyberspace also allows for time savings and the sharing of informational and
technical resources (peer-to-peer, open source). A contributive economy
based on mutual aid, gifting, and reciprocity is developing in this space.
These islands of informal economy integrate into the dominant market model
while aiming to expand their influence. They operate according to the principle
of collective management of common goods (Elinor Ostrom).
The production
and sharing of information and analyses enable collective intelligence to
develop online knowledge (encyclopedias, tutorials, courses, etc.). The way
interactions produce beliefs and knowledge is a subject of social epistemology
(Alvin Goldman, Philip Kitcher, Helen Longino). More generally, the way groups
form through representations and actions can be analyzed through social
ontology (John Searle, Margaret Gilbert, Ruth Millikan). It is possible to
study the more or less centralized communication structures that act as binding
forces for human collectives. We have illustrated our understanding of
democratic design through examples of Scandinavian participatory design, design
thinking, and shared spaces. Now, we will explore the role of democracy in
technological and social progress from a more philosophical perspective.
III. Democracy
and progress
Participatory
democracy differs from representative democracy in that it deepens its
democratic dimension (Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pierre Rosanvallon, Bernard
Manin). Representative democracy is often seen as superficially democratic and
is sometimes reclassified as an elective aristocracy, since decision-making is
delegated to elected officials from the elite rather than allowing citizens to
participate directly. Among the various theories of participatory
democracy, we will focus on Dewey’s pragmatist version. A common objection to
this type of democracy is the claim that ordinary citizens are incompetent,
biased, and unable to make informed decisions (Gabriel Almond, Walter
Lippmann). Dewey’s response is to reverse this argument: competence requires
access to deliberation. In other words, a favorable democratic environment must
be created by improving access to information, fostering citizen education, and
encouraging participation. Furthermore, participatory democracy does not
exclude differences in levels of expertise but rather promotes the
complementarity of knowledge. For example, Empowered Participatory Governance
enables the integration of local professional and lay knowledge into
decision-making with the help of expert facilitators (Archon Fung, Erik
Wright).
Let us clarify
the characteristics of a democratic and pragmatic social ontology. In the works
of Herbert Mead and John Dewey, we find the idea of “psychic and collective
individuation” (to use Gilbert Simondon’s term), which suggests that
individuals can only fulfill themselves as members of society by engaging in
cooperative processes. This is not merely about integrating into and adjusting
to society but about self-realization through participation in social
development. This includes the socialization of intelligence through the
confrontation of experiences and the search for intersubjective understanding.
Problem-solving must incorporate the multiple perspectives of different
stakeholders.
This principle
is also upheld by Actor-Network Theory (Madeleine Akrich, Michel Callon,
Bruno Latour). This theory emerged from the study of science in action - rather
than science as a finished product - by examining controversies among various
social actors. According to this perspective, objectivity does not stem from a
single dominant viewpoint but from the complementary interplay of different
frames of reference. It is kaleidoscopic rather than telescopic. An interesting
aspect of Actor-Network Theory for design is its understanding of natural and
technical entities as actors in social life. They express themselves through
the spokespersons of different social groups engaged in specific relationships
with instruments or natural entities (workers, farmers, fishers, breeders,
scientists, environmentalists, etc.). Human and non-human actants, usually
invisible when they function as intermediaries in a network, become visible
mediators in controversies that arise in exceptional situations (research,
crises, breakdowns, conflicts, etc.).
Andrew Feenberg’s
theory of democratic rationalization belongs to the same constructivist
and pragmatic family as Actor-Network Theory. According to this view,
technological choices are not determined solely by intrinsic technical
efficiency but rather by the interests of various social groups. The choice between
different bicycle wheel sizes (John Starley, 1884) or the height of overpasses
on New York highways (Robert Moses, 1922) is linked to the types of actors and
activities that are prioritized. This observation highlights the importance of
controversies surrounding technological developments, such as demands from
women regarding childbirth methods, HIV patients advocating for experimental
treatments, workers seeking better labor conditions, or environmentalists
influencing land use planning. We can also cite cases of technological
appropriation by users, where people adapt devices designed by engineers to
better suit their needs (Michel de Certeau, Roger Silverstone, Eric Von Hippel,
Pierre Rabardel). Andrew Feenberg thus advocates for an inclusive approach to
technological development that encourages alliances among actors across design,
production, and user networks.
This is also the
model developed by theorists of democratic planning. To those who argue that
the economy is too complex to be democratically planned, Pat Devine and Fikret
Adaman counter that access to the knowledge of producers and consumers actually
facilitates complex decision-making processes. With the “democracy of those
concerned,” greater weight can be given to the decisions of people directly
affected by certain situations. The redistribution of social power would allow
everyone to take on both executive and decision-making tasks while ensuring a
fairer distribution of undesirable tasks in order to better allocate those that
foster individual development. Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel propose
repurposing advertising and marketing to provide clear, accurate, and useful
information, so that committees can use it to correct the flaws of social
organization. Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell envision democratic planning
models based on computing. These speculative proposals -including negotiated
coordination, participatory economics, bottom-up planning, and community-based
economies - are conceived through an analysis of the issues in existing society
(Audrey-Laurin Lamothe, Frederic Legault, Simon Tremblay Pépin).
However,
historical precedents reflecting the spirit of these projects can be found in
the cooperative movement, which offers numerous examples of shared
decision-making, data, and resources (Anne Catherine Wagner). Its history dates
back to the nineteenth century, with initiatives such as Robert Owen’s
cooperative store in New Lanark, Scotland; Michel-Marie Derrion’s social
grocery store in Lyon; the Equitable Pioneers’ weaving society in England; and
Raiffeisen’s cooperative bakery in Germany. As of 2024, there were 4,140
cooperatives in France, according to the Confédération générale des SCOP.
The cooperative principles declared by the International Cooperative Alliance
in 1885 and revised in 1995 include voluntary and non-discriminatory
membership, democratic power exercised by members through elected
representatives, economic participation with equitable contribution to and
control over capital, cooperative independence from agreements with other
organizations or governments, development of education, training, and public
information, cooperation among cooperatives, and contributions to sustainable
development.
Axel Honneth emphasizes
the importance of developing democratic practices in the workplace. First, they
help resolve problems inherent to labor itself, such as exhaustion,
unemployment, powerlessness, and lack of recognition. Beyond transforming
working conditions, engagement in social cooperation also strengthens citizens’
dispositions toward democratic action. The goal is to reduce the gap between
the sphere of work and democratic practice. For this reason, Axel Honneth is
critical of the idea of a guaranteed basic income, arguing that civic
engagement depends on integration into the social division of labor, which
ensures our collective existence.
However,
idealization should be avoided. Honneth acknowledges that in the current
conditions of the global economy, cooperatives risk bankruptcy or dilution of
their foundational principles if they do not receive state support.
Furthermore, the empirical reality of cooperatives is far from perfect, with
instances of frustration, overwork, and power imbalances occurring just as in
traditional workplaces. Additionally, careful attention must be given to
defining the level of participation (Sherry Arnstein). Three common pitfalls
should be avoided: simulated participation, where consultation occurs
without meaningful responses; diversion, which shifts participants’ focus
away from major issues to secondary matters; and co-optation, which Luc
Boltanski and Eve Chiapello analyze in the context of how the post-1968
“artistic critique” was absorbed into the new spirit of capitalism. They
describe the post-Fordist transformation of the 1970s, which replaced rigid
hierarchies with a network-based model that encouraged initiative and relative
autonomy among employees - at the cost of material and psychological security.
Johann Chapoutot
provides another example of distorted and manipulated participation in his
analysis of management under the Third Reich. In the military, mission-oriented
tactics involved assigning a goal to a soldier while leaving them free to
determine the means to achieve it. This delegation of competence transferred
responsibility for potential failure to the individual worker without
necessarily providing them with the necessary resources. This management-by-objectives
approach increased flexibility and efficiency by bypassing bureaucratic
constraints. However, while this structured freedom may temporarily give
workers a sense of autonomy, it ultimately leads to anxiety, exhaustion,
boredom, or guilt. Convinced they are co-managing the enterprise, workers no
longer feel the need to contest their hierarchy.
Conclusion
Before
concluding, let us review the ground covered in this text. We first
highlighted the important role of design in the technological and social
improvement of our environment during the industrial era, discussing movements
such as Arts and Crafts, Functionalism, the Bauhaus, Radical Design, Critical
Design, Sustainable Design, and Inclusive Design. We then defined
democratic design, as opposed to an elitist and paternalistic vision of
progress, by exploring examples such as Scandinavian participatory design,
design thinking, shared gardens, fab labs, open source, and peer-to-peer
networks. Next, we examined in greater depth the democratic social
interactions and their effects on knowledge and action, drawing on pragmatist
theories of participation and refining this perspective in relation to
technology and design through Actor-Network Theory and Democratic
Rationalization. We also introduced the prospective field of democratic
planning, which aligns with these approaches. Finally, we found in the cooperative
movement a concrete foundation for these theories, allowing us to better
understand the connection between economic democracy in labor and political
democracy in the public sphere. Along the way, we also identified a series of
pitfalls that threaten democratic practices.
To conclude, we
will clarify the relationship we establish between democratic design and
economic democracy. The core principle is to infuse both the design process and
its outcomes with democratic values. The design process should integrate tools
for inquiry, observation, and user participation. The
outcomes should provide the necessary conditions for information exchange,
accessibility, continuous adaptability to needs, and interaction among users.
This approach applies to urban planning,
architecture, and all branches of design. For example, if we apply this
democratic logic to artificial intelligence in digital design, AI should be
developed to facilitate access to information and be well-adapted to individual
users; enable interactions, analysis, clarification, prioritization, and
verification of data, while promoting co-decision-making; be continuously
refined to protect users against disinformation, manipulation, oversimplified
ideological polarization, harassment, malice, and privacy intrusions. Finally, AI should not merely assist or replace humans
but also educate and train them so that they can develop their own critical
thinking and the skills needed to “open the black boxes” of the technologies
that surround them, ensuring democratic control over them.
I would like to
thank Laurent Neyssensas, Head of the Innovation Unit at the Nantes Atlantique
School of Design, for his expertise and relevant suggestions (Raphaël Edelman, 02/02/2025,
Nantes).
Bibliography
Bauwens, Michael & Lienvens,
Jean, Sauver le monde, Les liens qui libèrent, 2015
Boltansky, Luc & Chiapello, Eve,
Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme, 2011
Chapoutot, Johann, Libres d'obéir,
Gallimard, 2020
Comte, Auguste, Cours de
philosophie positive, Garnier, 2021
de Certeau, Michel, L'invention
du quotidien, Folio, 1990
Feenberg, Andrew, Repenser la
technique, La découverte, 2004
Lauria, Mickey & Schively Slotterback, Carissa, Learning
from Arnstein's ladder, Routledge, 2020
Laurin-Lamothe, Audrey, Legault,
Frederic & Tremblay-Pépin, Simon, Construire l'économie postcapitaliste,
Lux, 2023
Le Goff, Alice, Pragmatisme et
démocratie radicale, CNRS Edition, 2019
Le Corbusier, Vers une
architecture, Flammarion, 2008
Levy, Pierre, L'Intelligence
collective, La découverte, 2013
Longino, Helen, Science as Social Knowledge,
Princeton University Press, 2020
Loos, Adolf, Ornement et crime, Rivages,
2015
Manin, Bernard, Principes du
gouvernement représentatif, Flammarion, 2019
Menichinelli, Massimo, Fab Lab, Niggli Verlag,
2017
Morris, William, L’âge de
l'ersatz, L'Encyclopédie des nuisances, 1996
Morris, William, L'art et
l'artisanat, Rivage, 2015
Nef, Frederic & Berlioz, Sophie,
La nature du social, Edition le bord de l'eau, 2021
Ostrom, Elinor, Governing the Commons,
Cambridge University Press, 2015
Papanek, Victor, Design pour un
monde réel, Les presses du réel, 2021
Richard, Lionel, Comprendre le
Bauhaus, Infolio, 2009
Silverstone, Roger & Hirsh, Eric, Consuming
Technologies, Routledge, 1992
Wagner, Anne Catherine, Coopérer,
CNRS édition, 2022
Wizinsky, Matthew, Design After Capitalism, The
Mitt Press, 2022
Honneth, Axel, Le souverain
laborieux, Gallimard, 2024
Latour, Bruno, Changer de société,
La découverte, 2007
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire