Search results

The history of design shows countless examples in which design has caused harm on an individual, social, political, or ecological level – even things that are identified as nature, depending on the cultural and geographical context, have already been interfered with by design. All these actions are, of course, anthropocentric – because design is always an anthropocentric activity and practically no processes exist that seriously exclude humans as stakeholders (this problem is intensified by the fact that design is also dominated by a WEIRD – western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic – view that lacks the methods and vocabulary to understand needs and requirements in a global context). Established design processes can thus quickly cease to function since they cannot reflect all interests (between different people; and the "interest" of nature and its plant and animal representatives – whatever that may mean). So we need a post-eurocentric and then a post-anthropocentric understanding of design – and one that functions pluralistically and above all also future-oriented. Instead of using established processes to deal with interdependence, this tension between humans and nature formulates the need for new design processes and a serious design ethic.

Algorithms are not to be regarded as a technical structure but as a social phenomenon - they embed themselves, currently still very subtle, into our political and social system. Algorithms shape human behavior on various levels: they influence not only the aesthetic reception of the world but also the well-being and social interaction of their users. They act and intervene in a political and social context. As algorithms influence individual behavior in these social and political situations, their power should be the subject of critical discourse - or even lead to active disobedience and to the need for appropriate tools and methods which can be used to break the algorithmic power.

Algorithms are not to be regarded as a technical structure but as a social phenomenon - they embed themselves, currently still very subtle, into our political and social system. Algorithms shape human behavior on various levels: they influence not only the aesthetic reception of the world but also the well-being and social interaction of their users. They act and intervene in a political and social context. As algorithms influence individual behavior in these social and political situations, their power should be the subject of critical discourse - or even lead to active disobedience and to the need for appropriate tools and methods which can be used to break the algorithmic power.

Algorithms are not to be regarded as a technical structure but as a social phenomenon – they embed themselves, currently still very subtle, into our political and social system. Algorithms shape human behavior on various levels: they influence not only the aesthetic reception of the world but also the well-being and social interaction of their users. They act and intervene in a political and social context. As algorithms influence individual behavior in these social and political situations, their power should be the subject of critical discourse – or even lead to active disobedience and to the need for appropriate tools and methods which can be used to break the algorithmic power.