19 minute read
Power, Influence and Culture Change
Sarah Drinkwater and Torange Khonsari
Introduction
The joy of the Design for Planet fellowship is that it brings together leaders from very different backgrounds to build collective intelligence, find common ground and report back to our specific spheres of influence. Our workshop was framed as culture change, where values and norms can be interrupted and questioned. Culture change requires a shift in ritual or perspective at both an individual and a collective level. As well as where both interrelate and allow us to reimagine the collective in a way that creates space for individualism.
We took a different approach to the previous sessions, which were focused on regenerative design and ecology. This session was to systemically look at how values are created and the ways in which structures of power that go unnoticed can become obstacles to climate action.
Sarah comes from the world of technology, with a background in community-building and investing in early stage startups. To Sarah, “designer” often means the individual who is charged with creating the look and feel of a product. That sounds very simple but, of course, it isn’t. Not only does every choice have implications for the participant in or user of the product, but decisions taken at an individual product level can also have influence more broadly. Think of ‘dark patterns’ - a user interface designed to subtly trick the user into doing something they might not wish to do, such as to share more information than they initially wanted. And outside of the specific function of design, the technology industry so often works to design for and not with people.
For the last few years, Sarah has been interested in helping technologists make better choices. That’s why she led Ethical Explorer, a set of playing cards designed to help people learn and consider challenges such as AI bias, surveillance, monopoly power and more.
Torange has spent her career working one-toone with residents and communities in mostly deprived neighbourhoods up and down the UK. Her recent work has culminated in the introduction of her community engaged art, architecture and design projects into the field of the commons. She articulates the commons as the sphere of citizens whose logic is different to the sphere of the public (the state) and certainly the private (financial markets) with forms of practice that are ground up, self-determined, autonomous and care based (fig 1).
Design permeates every element of Torange’s work, ranging from system design, design interventions, designing artefacts, institutional design and event design. In these design elements the functionality is not measured by pragmatic use but by the capacity to make change and shift hegemonic power. Power is pervasive and controls human action. Its use and abuse is normalised as the way our civilisation operates and behaves. It plays a great role in decisions around climate action. Torange has developed the professional course Design for Cultural Commons that is designed as a laboratory to deliver system change (fig 2). It maps systems of power as obstacles that need re-inventing. These reinventions provide shifts in cultural value as we use and work with them every day - a process called socialisation in social sciences.
We were brought together by our shared interest in the commons (specific communities) and public good (open to all). The commons are both the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a community, and the social practice of governing these resources, not by market or state but by a community of users. An emerging case study in how commons can be scaled up is in the rise of controversial Decentralised Autonomous Communities (DAOs), a term coined by Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ethereum blockchain. DAOs have distinct goals, from funding public good to creating learning programs. But, at heart, they work to build the muscle in selfgovernance. Through building this muscle, we can create more resilient and regenerative systems. These systems are a fascinating technology in experimenting with relations of power more constructively.
In the workshop we wanted to explore ways to sustain the planetary commons and methods to scale them up. As described by Robert Mesle in his chapter “Relational Power, Personhood and Organisation”, power is usually conceived as unilateralthe ability to affect without being affected. Relational power oscillates power, with those who hold it creating an environment where everyone at one point has power and is powerless, including themselves. Centralised power is seen in most public and private sectors where relations of hierarchy can block power oscillation and democratic systems. Centralised power relationships put the right to decide on systemically fundamental values in the hands of the few, and this in turn sustains cultural values. The values that enable the top down power positions to be possible ultimately set the agenda. By visualising power relationships we can bear witness to both power’s destructive and constructive nature.
Spheres of influence
We observed that we sometimes used different words to mean the same thing in our different disciplines. So, before even getting into the core of our workshop, we wanted to help everyone to articulate both individually and as a group, our sphere of influence for culture change.
We asked all the fellows to look at fig 3, which is a diagram created from Kate Raworth’s 21st century priorities in “Doughnut Economics”, with an especial focus on the golden triangle of “the market — the commons — the state”. Here, the market represents those who work in the private sector, and the state those who work in the public sector . The commons represents the civic and community sphere. We asked all the fellows to articulate the sphere they primarily contribute to. This is an interesting exercise in becoming aware of how and where we contribute to society and the planet. The initial difficulty in trying to locate oneself in one or the other sphere was followed by responses that showed we cannot be purist about one sphere or another but are required to manoeuvre consciously across all three, with particular commitment to one in most cases. The question of what and who we are in service of and to was interesting, as it determines the culture and values we contribute to. If we are working in the service of the planet then extraction of its resources is in complete opposition to the value of our service. Being conscious and critical of the sphere of value we are committed to, enables us to be less rhetorical about our actions. discipline and different contexts took years to bear fruit. You have to be persistent, patient and know that shifts in culture take time which can be framed as design practice.
One of the fellows talked about education not being on the list and yet it is one of the most important aspects of culture change. By broadening education to learning, we open up environments for culture change to places that we frequent every day such as projects we are part of, working environments, friendships we chose, neighbourhoods we live in, etc. In sociology, socialisation is the process of internalising the norms and ideologies of society. Socialisation encompasses both learning and teaching and essentially represents the whole process of learning throughout one’s life. It is a central influence on the behaviour, beliefs, and actions of adults and children. The diagram (fig 4) drawn during the session tries to capture where we felt culture change could happen.
One fellow used the word “pollinator or slime mould” as a facilitator of relationships between people across the three spheres. Another fellow, who also saw herself as a pollinator, talked about working with people in the private sector who are trapped on the capitalist, patriarchal hamster wheel where wealth accumulation is the only paradigm. She talked about placing them in other contexts to help them remember why they are here and connect them back to themselves, in order to break the framework we are socialised to believe as reality.
Relational power as transformative tool
For the second exercise, we asked the fellows to think about instances of power relationships where a culture shifted or a power position was reversed.
Theories on relational power posit that you are more likely to build empathy in situations where power is agile and in flow than those where power is accumulated in the hands of a single individual or group. In the commons everyone, human and non-human, is high and low in terms of their position and power.
Getting people out of their familiar cultural environments, and into places that had managed to activate change, is powerful. One fellow described how by taking people to different places, from cities to farms, with a carefully curated participant mix of eco activists, farmers, artists and scientists created the cross pollination to imagine new realities. He said that the intersection of
The biggest challenge here is the use of the rhetoric of power-sharing for societal validation, rather than the practice of powersharing. The practice of relational power, like care, is embodied. Like a craft, it needs daily practice, development and designing. It is very hard to flex these new muscles and re-learn the value of being powerful through distribution of power when our society is dominated by centralised, hierarchical institutions and organisations. The design of systems where personal empowerment has a direct impact on collective empowerment enables healthy environments where the barometer of success is not individual power accumulation but a drive to heal the planet. If one practices both care and relational power every day in the home, with friends, at work and in the way we design the systems of future then nature cannot be seen outside those relationships. Nature does not become a detached problem, but the responsibility of us all as empowered carers whose motivation is not purely climbing ladders. Justice based ethics, as opposed to care based ethics, promotes the individual rights of those who have a voice and have the resources to legally obtain one (where power is accumulated) and thus shifts our focus from caring to fighting. We would suggest every designer keep a daily diary of their power relationships and thinks about how to nurture or redesign them. We currently don’t have a blueprint for how this looks and need to share best practices with each other.
The mapping did not seek evidence or data but rather to visualise inequalities and the problems they pose to the non-human. One fellow talked about her frustration at having to spend time negotiating power with decision makers about the centrality of ecology in a climate emergency. Power is context related, so as an educator she resists overt power (although by holding the knowledge, you cannot avoid holding power). Students’ agency is paramount to ensure they gain the confidence to change the world in relation to our climate emergency. We need to equip them with the knowledge and power to become agents for change.
Another fellow talked about someone who held community values yet was unaware of inequality in power relationships. There was a conflict of power relations between this individual and the community of practice the fellow had nurtured in co-producing projects. The fellow created a bubble for the community to have a voice and decision-making power. This bubble allowed them to imagine different forms of living, doing and holding power. Through the exercise she realised that she had become a carer of collective power, protecting the group from imposed power.
Designers as empowered creators of such bubbles can allow others to think and dream alternatives and not be told what is reality.
Another fellow’s story was about working with Extinction Rebellion and the power of direct action, even through small Promethean acts such as holding up posters outside 10 Downing Street. The location brought home how the government dictates policies that respond to the climate crisis, which then trickle down to local government, agencies and business to be implemented. The people at the bottom are told how these policies should be implemented . They have no opportunity to engage, even when the policy is obviously flawed, creating complete powerlessness. This top down structure is not getting us anywhere in addressing the climate crisis.
Extinction Rebellion uses people’s assemblies, which are now being used at local government level. Individuals are randomly selected from a full cross section of society and brought into a room to make decisions. Given the most up-to-date science and statistics on the crisis as it stands, they then have to make decisions in an emergency scenario, which are then mandated into law. We’re going to see these structures unfolding in different ways in different countries over the coming decades. We need new systems, skills and ethical practices that empower grassroots communities to make the changes that are necessary, without the pressure from invested interests such as industry.
Sarah gave an example of culture change within big tech companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon. People within these industries began to talk to unions and other community organising bodies about how to stand up to injustice. There were moments such as Google walk outs and the recognition of Amazon’s first union. Funds were raised to support whistle blowers of bad practice. Amazingly tech workers started to see themselves as employees with rights similar to the labour movement.
Again we return to the power of solidarity, community organisation and naming and shaming. The whistle blowing that shamed bosses in the media was a form of power that played against the enormous power of corporations and offered accountability within the private sector. It took employees years to recognise the difference between the publicly expressed values held up by tech companies, and the reality on the ground. Sarah saw employees begin to speak up internally and then externally to express their misgivings. This led to newspaper headlines, Congress hearings and, in more than one case, positive change and action within the company. The shift is still ongoing but, certainly, tech workers are less naive about their employers now than they were five years ago.
Lastly, another fellow whose work is principally in policy-making talked about how power and culture change are intrinsically linked. Her role as an environmental strategist means she needs to comment on policies before they are ratified. She described how a policy was sent to her organisation to critique but by the time it had got to her it was a done deal and there was an acceptance that there would be limited challenge. Her power here was her expertise on the subject of the policy, but this was not enough on its own. She had to persuade her colleagues to look at the policy in detail to assess its flaws and collectively agree that it needed challenging. It was a huge undertaking for them to go back to a powerful client and admit this. However they collectively presented the challenges at the board meeting with success. As a result the client used them over and over again because they trusted their expertise and ability to challenge.
Interventions
We wanted to leave the workshop with a deeper sense of our collective power to act within the spheres of influence. This lead to the question of how we should intervene. Design interventions are both enquiry — the process of asking, listening and responding — and also activism. All of us are intervening in everyday experiences, whether at work, through cultural programs from museums to education, or through campaigning, policies, commissions and projects.
The more people who have power, the more we can scale up the impact. Culture change requires understanding what is possible and jolting people out of the familiar. We can’t think of power in a generic sense. We need to think about power in relation to those we interact with.
Top tips to support system change in our everyday practices:
Possess self-awareness of one’s power and power relations engaged in every day
Critically interrogate rhetoric from action and impact
Engage in workshops, training and programmes that support system change design
Build in criticality in design, using care ethics and relational power
Produce the future new commons to strengthen citizen voice and protect our public goods
Support an economy that is holistic and for the common good
Act with agility when there is a fracture that offers the opportunity to make change
Become transformative practitioners
Build ecology, societal and climate care into the national curriculum
Become connected, outward organisations (solidarity movements) rather than inward enclosures (selfinterested)
Conclusion
These examples, collectively, reminded the group how a collective can bring about powerful change even if they are small Promethean acts. The latter exercise helped an interdisciplinary team to speak more explicitly about power — a word and topic that had been less present during the fellowship. Power should be seen as a shared resource and a creative or transformative tool, rather than a weapon to be wielded. Ultimately, culture change is about understanding human behaviours; how we can more effectively align and collaborate and how we operate in the commons that is our planet. We chose to bring the workshop back to an individual level at first so that we could see the overlapping communities we live and work in. The realisation of our incredible spread and reach heartened us, and made the notion of designing for planet seem a little less impossible. Each fellow works between worlds, acting as a translator or communicator across distinct fields. While the topic at hand seems more urgent than ever, we believe that to go far, it’s critical we first spend time building the muscle of collective understanding in order to unlock collective intelligence.
Case Study: Public Works
This relational power case study, Public Works, is a not-for-profit critical design practice working across architecture, art and performance, and has been an institutional design project itself. The below description includes reflections from a collaborator Rakan Buderi who described Public Works in 2015.
Public Works is a cultural practice embedded within the relational theories of French art critic Nicholas Bourriaud who, in the mid-1990s, was involved in the aesthetic of social relations and spatial contexts within the public arena, rather than those of private and individual space. In contrast to object orientated art or architecture, the relational practice of Public Works encourages models of alternative sociability and the production of social spaces where the space is a social product. Participation is elementary to relational art and architecture and defines its political nature, with citizens invited to form a responsive community in relation to the practices carried out. By attempting to create relational architecture involving people from the outset, Public Works cannot frame their practice as a service and thus move away from traditional power relationships. The collaborative nature of Public Works with external practitioners and communities means they need to be flexible and reactive, tailoring projects to fit into what is happening around them, rather than imposing ideas on situations. This moves into action-centric design methods, rather than the conventional linear ones found in traditional practice. Architects are normally aligned with top down power, being bound up in a restrictive system due to financial pressures. However, the shift to incorporating other disciplines with architectural practice (not in service of) within a network of collaborators, provides the support and financial ability for the practitioners to take increasingly ethical decisions. The practice’s methods revolve around models of participation, listening and openness which is in opposition to the capitalist system of competition and metrics. The methods focus on models of common space and its empowerment through selfmanagement. Sometimes this takes the form of permanent or temporary interventions in a space but also includes discussion forums, objects, one-to-one actions, zines, and participatory programmes and events, all of which enable engagement, collaboration, relational power and knowledge transfer along with providing platforms for dialogue and for the public to find common ground within the city. The practice’s projects act to demonstrate how physically separated sites are connected within larger social, emotional, ecological and economic networks. In collaborating across disciplines and civil society, Public Works has been able to engage art, design and architecture as part of a social process with political undertones. The processes have been experiments for rethinking ways that cities can be inhabited and civic life nurtured and formed, collectively.
From 2016 the practice became aware of its role as an outward looking organisation and applied the experience of building social relations to re-design its governance. Public Work’s organisational form intends to distribute power away from its founders and share it with internal members who also create value within it. Hence the decision by the founders to share the position of company director equally, giving equal rights and freedom to all its members to pursue individual interests, pitch for work they are interested in, build their client body, take holidays when needed and manage the budget to pay themselves as they see fit (within an agreed daily bracket), as long as 20% of all income is contributed to the collective pot. Whilst the collective pot becomes the common resource of Public Works, the individual members set their own budgets for their labour, based on the time they need to deliver the projects. This structure means a move away from accumulation of profit by the original founders to the re-direction of profit as investment into the commons. This model contributes to the characterisation of the work environment as a forum for exchange which does not focus on power and wealth accumulation. The culture this aims to set, and the incidental learning of all its members, become embedded in equality, trust, commitment and care whilst still maintaining the payroll structures of PAYE and pension contributions.
