Anonymity, as the state of unknown identity, while certainly a question of pertinence, needs to wait out a prior layer of reflection. Beyond the narratives of the autonomous individual which design has become completely saturated by, lies the question of control, determinism and choice. This essay probes these notions through one of the most iconic works of fictions, the matrix.
Who has written this piece?
A harmless question it seems. Yet, beyond the obvious irony of “asking a masked man who he is” (v for vendetta, 2005)1, this simple question speaks of a suggestion that might be unsettling to most. Is this piece solely the result of the agency of the person writing it, or does it stem from some larger, less tangible structure at play?
The classical dichotomy of social sciences; structure or agency as the source of action in society. While not quite along the same frontiers, it cannot escape the heritage of millennials old debate on determinism, free will and moral responsibility.
Structures are everywhere.
They are written down, page after page, in the laws we follow, the codes of conduct we uphold and the standards we abide to. They’re stacked up in hierarchical organizations: governments, religions, academic institutions and corporations. They’re carved in every corner of our collective understanding: our norms, values, and expectations. The roles we are assigned, the pressure of our peers and our visions for the future.
Structures exert a significant influence over our actions. They’re the ones that limit our alternatives, they furnish us with reasons to act in certain ways or even obstruct or disable our process of deliberation. All to get us where we’re supposed to go.
While it may seem easy to disregard these expressions under the label of “conspiracy theory”, whose unfailing success in relieving us of any ideas that might upset our notions of how the world works can only be marvelled at, what is meant by structures here are various forms of influence that have been largely disregarded under the banner of neoliberal freedom since the 1980s. The advent of the new “individual”; free and autonomous. Untouched by a single trace of coercion, force or tyranny. Making “rational decisions”, and doing nothing less than whatever they fuck they want!
Yet, if this mythical creature doesn’t exist, or not in the sense we have come to believe it does, who are the designers of our worlds? Of the city you dwell in, the building where you live, the chair supporting your weight, the clothes on your back, the screen you’re staring at, and the software you’re browsing through? And who… who has written this piece?
If anonymity describes an entity whose identity is unknown, should the question regard the hidden face behind a designed object? Or has there ever been any to begin with? Does the designed world around us have anything to do with the agency of the designers?
The context in which each of us is embedded, affects our actions considerably. Your whereabouts, horizontally and (of course) vertically, the social and political landscape surrounding you, and the time period in which you happen to exist. Yet past the inevitability of context in general, there is the solid, inescapable reality of the structures entrenched within the field of design. Consider the power exerted by the academic institutions, the corporations leading each industry, the awards, the exhibitions and the channels of communication within the profession, in setting the definition of the practice that is design, the contours of possibilities within the field, the image and the role of the designer in society. They shape what we perceive as necessary or worth designing, how we define problems in different areas, how we develop solutions, evaluate them and learn from our practices. They tell us who we are, what is expected of us and where the range of possibilities end for us.
What the field of design is, determines what the field of design shall be, occupied by structures that grow ever more complex, omnipresent and unyielding. Then the designer, stripped of any agency, is merely a function of this field. A mere cog in this perpetual machinery, marking its way through history by irreversible scars on every form of life.
But wait.
If that’s the case, how can we, projektado, ever claim to have escaped such absolute rein of the structures? That’s a bit hypocritical, to say the least.
The question has been laid out with a sublimity far beyond the capacity of this essay to match by the Wachowskis’ masterpiece, the Matrix2. There, the opposing sides of this debate are captured in the brief exchange between Neo and (ironically enough) the Architect. The inevitability of control is portrayed by the white old man in a suit, who uses the following words to describe the rebellion:
“While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control”
So… How can we be trusted?
Might we not be just another one among the thousand faces of control? Willingly assisting the rigid structure of the field to retain hegemony over younger generations of designers. A means to identify, account for and channel unavoidable yet expected initiatives that might threaten the status quo. Those wanting to go beyond the limits, asking questions that better remain unanswered. To tame, persuade or stifle them in time. Alternatively, might we not be contributing to the hegemony of the structures unknowingly? just a cog in the machine, in its accounted place, acting out anticipated, predictable and by no means novel acts of noncompliance.
Or worse. What if we’re fighting ourselves across time? What if the old guy in the white suit recognizes in us what they used to be once? Is it inevitable that we should replace the senile, patronizing figures we disclaim today so that wheel can turn undisturbed in perpetuity? With an accumulating source of know-how, becoming “exceedingly efficient” at stifling forces of change with each lap?
No.
We have a choice.
No matter how deep it is buried, under layers and layers of limitations, expectations and pressure, all of us have a choice.
The structures are there. That cannot be denied. Neither can the consistency, reach and depth of their influence be overestimated.Yet, holding out for an impossible notion of agency, freedom and autonomy, one without any trace of influence, serves only to ease evasion of responsibility.
The structures, in all their might and impunity, rely on us to survive. On all of us, on our actions or rather inaction. Their sustainability depends on us to reproduce and reinforce them every time we comply with the norms and accept what design is supposed to be and supposed to do. We cannot prevent structures from forming. That is not the point. They are the fabric of our collective understanding and what we share with others. But that doesn’t mean we cannot dismantle and rebuild them when they grow senile and obscene. Through our actions and by our collective agency, we can and should continually challenge and transform the structures we draw on as the practitioners of this field.
That is the choice we, as projektado, have made, and continue to make.
We chose to lay bare the vulgarities of our field – the pain and suffering imposed on all life by the orientation of the design profession. At the same time, to find and spread alternative narratives within it, what it could be, what it could achieve.
We have made a conscious choice to come together and start conversations, to engage with each other and with as many others who will listen, participate and eventually take the reigns. To contribute to the ongoing movement that actively seeks to re-calibrate the ever mis-guided moral compass of the design profession.
That said, the Oracle begs quotation:
“The bad news is there’s no way if you can really know whether I’m here to help you or not. So it’s really up to you. You just have to make up your own damn mind…”
But remember. No one can change anything. Only many ones can.
footnotes
1/ v for vendetta (2005), James McTeigue
2/ the matrix trilogy (1999-2003), Lana and Lilly Wachowski
author
This is a contribution by a projektado member, supported by open collective discussions and feedback from the rest of the projektado collective. The decision to not individually name the authors is to take clear distance from the overwhelming presence of individualistic and self- serving practices in design today, and instead focus on the role of collective action and shared values.
Whilst we maintain at times contrasting individual and personal opinions, styles and approaches, we all understand that our production is part of a discussion we share and that is motivated by a collective goal, and that therefore, we all feel represented by.
first published for projektado magazine issue 1: anonymity in design / may 2021
