Whilst the anonymity of an object is often considered proportional to that of its designer, it is easy to start wondering why we would have to consider a clay brick anonymous, when we probably know it better than most objects found in a design museum. The discordant link that has been created between an object’s identity and the one of its designer has undeniably changed our perception of the designed world, of our interactions with it, and of our consumption of it.
This brief written exploration aims to make use of sociological theories on human identity to try to reassess the relationship we have with objects, their roles, and their identities.
part 1
There is often a level of incongruence and ambiguity in the common definition of “anonymous object” or “anonymous design”, a somehow discordant association between objects we all know and the idea that in fact, we do not.
It is not uncommon for many of the objects falling within this definition to be very familiar to all of us, objects of daily use, objects we even have names for, but that lack what we have convened to be the determining factor in establishing an object’s identity or lack of it: the name of their designer.
The reduction of an object’s identity to that of its designer, in part a symptom of the contemporary obsession with individual recognition and glorification, is problematic in its failure to acknowledge an object’s own identities in relation to the varied functional, social and cultural practices it participates in. A collection of experiences that has often very little to do with our knowledge of its designer’s name, but that occurs as a product of our interaction with the object itself.
This short article attempts to make use of sociological theories on human identity to further explore the reasoning behind our perception of objects, their identities, and their roles; providing an invitation to start discussing why we do not allow objects to transcend their relation to their creator and instead form an identity on the basis of their meaningful interaction with a social context.
part 2
As we start analysing with more attention the concept of anonymity and the reasons behind its superficial ambiguity, the question on what can actually be considered anonymous, or of unknown identity, quickly shifts our focus from the observed to the observer (or potential observer), naturally leading us to an understanding of anonymity as a product of the interaction of the object and the subject, as opposed to an intrinsic property of the object itself.
To make a simple example: any individual, even though well-known and recognised (or even famous) in a particular social context, can be (and in most cases still is) completely anonymous to the vast majority of the global population. This phenomenon does not rely on the intrinsic property of that individual to be known or unknown, visible or invisible, but on the social intera0ctions and social relations that the individual participates in, which can affect the perception an external observer has of them, and as a result, shape the perception and self-awareness they have of themself.
Unsurprisingly this way to interpret anonymity (non-identity) as a product of social experience, is nothing new in the formulation of theories regarding identity itself. In fact, we can see in much of the sociological and philosophical research of the last several decades the conception of an identity that responds to the increasingly complex social structure by becoming more differentiated and dynamic, in constant reciprocal exchange with other identities and as varied as it is composite.
It is not in the scope of this short article, however, to thoroughly examine the concept of human anonymity, identity, and self. But it is in some of these concepts and the sociological theories associated with them that we will find a base to develop an argument on objects’ identities and roles. For this reason, an introduction and overview of the aforementioned theories on human identity is needed but will be kept short for the expositive economy and, more importantly, my lack of expertise in this field of study.
In his 2005 book, Memoria e conoscenza, Tomás Maldonado very clearly justifies the reasons (that we share in this text) for referring to and utilising the more contemporary idea of a differentiated identity, rather than the surpassed concept of a unique one:
“These philosophers start from the assumption that personal identity, like memory, is also a ‘unique entity’. Declinable in the singular, and only in the singular. At the origin of this lies an attitude that is careless of the influence of socio-cultural factors in the formation of personal identity. In other words, a strange, and difficult to explain, indifference towards the contributions of the sociological theory of roles to the issue in question.”
The theory of roles we see mentioned here, or role theory, is in reference to the quite abundant branch of sociological and philosophical studies that has emerged from the basis of the symbolic interactionist theories of George Herbert Mead (mostly collected in the book Mind, Self and Society, 1934).
The common denominator of this varied branch is the concept of a ‘self’ which is differentiated and distributed across multiple identities; identities that are generated to address and respond to specific social practices and that are formed by the social interactions that individuals have as part of these practices. In the complexity of contemporary social life, these varied, and at times contrasting, identities are a product of our natural/primary, cultural, and social roles.
The concept is that, surrounding the shallow base of our anagraphic identity (the personal data you may find on someone’s passport), which has the purpose of expressing a way in which we can be approximately and crudely recorded, we develop a series of identities which respond to societal roles we have, we think we have, and we are perceived to have. As many identities as we have roles. (For example an individual’s roles could include, all at once or intermittently, being a mother, a daughter, a teacher, a student, a friend, a factory worker, a buddhist, a european, a member of a political party, a director of a sports club, a singer, a blood donor, a car driver, a caretaker, etc.)
These identities remain in constant construction through a process of inter-contamination with each other, a construct of the dialogical exchange we have with one another. Identities cannot, therefore, be considered autonomous, as they are reflexive, a product of social interaction and activity. Their stability/instability depends on the relationships people form between each other and, therefore, with a particular socio-cultural framework and our roles within it.
part 3
As we understand identity as a reciprocal exchange between the individual (the self) and society and its constructs, we can attempt to see what a preliminary application of these theories to an object (which replaces the individual) would reveal in the way its identities and roles are influenced and influence its relation to society.
An obvious obstacle to this attempt is the perception, widely spread in design discourses and publications, that the anonymity of an object is determined by the lack of knowledge we have of its designer’s name.
This, at times, inexplicable obsession with the ‘signature’, the ‘brand’, suggests anonymity (and therefore identity) as a static intrinsic property of the object, a mere product of its creator, a symbol of the user’s interaction with the designer and not the designed. A profoundly different and hardly justifiable view in complete contrast with the concept of identity we outlined in the previous section of this text.
So why do we define the anonymity of an object on the basis of our unawareness of its designer’s name? Why has this become the prioritised factor in the establishment of an object’s identity? And why do we fail to recognise an object’s identities as a product of the functional, social, and cultural roles, which it undeniably participates in? (For example, even a simple object such as a ceramic cup can participate in a variety of roles, including: being a container, a means for socialisation, an advertising space, a part of a religious ceremony, something to drink from, a measuring tool, something to transport things into, a memory of a friend, a currency, a piece of art, a part of a set of objects, a replacement for other objects, a scientific experiment, an example of an ancient craft, the symbol of a specific culture, etc.)
There are of course many ways to respond to these questions, too many for the limited space of this article, but in our intent of opening a dialogue, we would at least start by suggesting two of the possible answers.
One possible explanation is to justify this as a failure to acknowledge objects as direct participants in reciprocal social practices. This can easily redirect the search for this interaction towards the non-inanimate individual that is most responsible for the way said object interacts with us and our social context, which would often be its designer/s.
In this scenario, the interaction with the object sees it as a mere symbol of the exchange we have with its designer, an indirect social interaction that contributes to constructing the identity of said designer and, at the same time, anonymising the true identity of the object by merging it to an unreasonable extend to the one of a person we often know nothing about, but a name.
This is of course favourable to the establishment of what has regrettably become the image of success in the world of design, the one of design ‘stars’ and of powerful brands. Icons generated by our misunderstanding of the value of objects’ identities and our resulting contributions to the ones of their creators. This does not only feed the problematic idea of design ‘stars’, but also the concept that it is through the establishment of these icons that owning or interacting with the object in question can itself feed our own identity in the contemporary blind search for individual recognition.
A similar result is seen in our second possible explanation, in which we do in fact perceive the object as owner of its own identities, but fail to establish which identity to focus on in our interaction with it.
Here, in part because of the different communicative properties of an object over a person, and in part for the widely spread contemporary obsession with self-serving quests, we can notice a tendency to over-focus on the role of the object as an active symbol of our indirect relation to the designer. In prioritising this particular role, we risk diminishing our perception of the importance of the other roles and practices the object is associated with, some of which have more reciprocal interactions with us than others.
part 4
So how can the focus be shifted towards roles and therefore identities that better represent the object in our interactions with it?
It is undeniably hard to change the deeply rooted systems of recognition and perception that have been established in our cultural and social development. Nevertheless, the difficulty of the task cannot discourage us from trying to suggest a new perspective, one that sees the object transcend the identity we associate to its designer’s name.
Maybe it is our knowledge of this name, the most obvious culprit, the factor that seems to regularly be at the centre of this text’s critique, that is after all responsible for this deep problem and therefore the basis for its resolution.
Maybe it is through removing the designer’s name from the equation that determines an object’s identity to the eyes of its user that we could see a change in our interactions with the designed world. A renewed focus towards those roles and identities that until now were too often squished by the predominant label of individual’s celebration.
It is in our understanding of objects’ identities, in relation to the roles they participate in through their interaction with us, that we can create an appreciation of objects’ quality and value. A more relevant, and therefore meaningful, perception of identity as reciprocal exchange with people but also with objects. Objects that are not something to consume, ignore, and throw away, but an active part of the network of relations that constructs our identities and the ones of those (objects and people) directly or indirectly interacting with us.
It is time for us designers to start realising the deeper meanings and consequences of identity in our field, realising that change is not always achieved by unashamedly screaming our name through our work, but sometimes by omitting it.
There are of course those that are going to find in a hidden name the perfect excuse to avoid responsibility, those who think it is good practice to always find the easier way out. It is to those that I would like to make a promise which echoes the one of projektado, through the words of Fabrizio De André:
“verremo ancora alle vostre porte
e grideremo ancora più forte:
per quanto voi vi crediate assolti
siete per sempre coinvolti,
per quanto voi vi crediate assolti
siete per sempre coinvolti.”
“we’ll come to your doors again
and we’ll shout even louder:
however much you think you’ve been absolved
you will always be involved,
however much you think you’ve been absolved
you will always be involved.”
references
Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J. and White, K.M., 1995. A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, pp.255-269.
Maldonado, T., 1997. Critica della ragione informatica. 1st ed. Milan: Feltrinelli Editore.
Maldonado, T., 2006. Memoria e conoscenza. 2nd ed. Milan: Feltrinelli Editore.
Mead, George. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, edited and with an introduction by C.W. Morris, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stryker, S. and Burke, P.J., 2000. The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social psychology quarterly, pp.284-297.
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
