Eindhoven designs / volume two 21 Chapter 2 Social and societal transformation through intelligent systems
22 Intertwining of design with society Designing intelligent systems, products and services has social consequences, because they are inextricably intertwined with society. Their adaptive behaviour is based on the situation, context of use, and users’ needs and desires, and the opportunities offered are of benefit to individuals, societies and different cultures worldwide. They will have a social impact as soon as they enter society. Products arise in a social context and, consequently, are a reflection of that society. Moreover, a product is a vehicle to steer society implicitly as well as explicitly, it influences the behaviour and experiences of users (Hummels, 2000; Verbeek, 2006). Open office layout and furnishing, which originated in the 1920s, enabled the ideas of scientific management, such as efficiency, introduced by Frederick Taylor (Forty, 1986). Present-day computers support our market economy and management system, where time is money and knowledge is power. One can say that technologies have intentions; they can transform what we perceive (Idhe, 1990). For example, a microscope can enable us to see the smallest bacteria, Google Earth influences our perception of the earth, and Skype gives a different perception of social relationships at long distances. The influence and intention of technological artefacts is not unilateral and univocal, but reciprocal and dynamic. When a technological artefact is used, it facilitates people’s involvement with reality, and in doing so it co-shapes how humans can be present in the world and how their world can be present for them. The context influences the intention and interpretation of technology. For example, the telephone was originally designed as a hearing aid and consequently is differently interpreted and has a different meaning for the hard of hearing than it has for us as a communication device. Don Idhe calls this phenomenon ‘multistability’ (Verbeek, 2006). One can see a similar contextdependency with the concept of ‘affordance’. James Gibson, the founder of the ecological theory of direct perception, thought up this noun to complement the verb to afford. ‘The affordances of the environment are what it offers animals, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill’ (Gibson, 1986). At its simplest, one could say that an affordance is what the environment means to a specific animal in terms of action. So a chair affords sitting to an adult person, and it affords stability to a small child who wants to stand up.