Rhianna Bowen
! ! ! ! ! !
an ecological manifesto for designers
!
1
Rhianna Bowen
In this manifesto, I will outline the damaging effect the media, major corporations, and the government have on peoples’ attitudes towards the phenomenon of global warming, and the ways in which it perpetuates ecological denial in the public psyche. This will lead to me identifying key ideas about how we as a design community could prevent or at least lessen the effect of this. The problem of ecological denial is primarily social and cultural. The ways in which ecological issues are presented to the public eye are often either sensational and overwrought (when related by environmental sympathisers); or underplayed and trivialised (when shown in the mainstream media, or by the government). These two extremes cause apathy and disassociation amongst the general public, and this needs to change. We, as designers, can change this, through the power of visual and idealistic communication.
! !
Fig 1: This somewhat accusatory government advert perpetuates the idea of “paranoid politics”; turning sections of society against one another in order to keep order.
PARANOID POLITICS There is a problem inherent in the minds of the public due to the influence of both the media, and the government. This stems from the idea that, as a society, we “find scapegoats rather than confront problems directly” (David W. Orr, 2004, page 88). (See Fig. 1 for evidence of this, in the form of a supposedly ‘sustainable’ solution to the problem of supermarket shopping bags being put into landfill.) This provides difficulty in confronting the problem of our ecological downfall, as the human race as a whole has responsibilities to fulfil in regards to this issue. This has led corporations, and the government, to put pressure on the general public as individuals to ‘do their bit’ for ‘sustainability’ and ‘green-ness’ (two terms of indefinite meaning which seem to dominate ecology’s press); yet this blaming is surely backwards. It doesn’t take a lot of thinking to work out that the actions of a large corporation will have more impact on the environment than those of an individual; and the decisions of a government to enforce a new policy carries far more weight than, say, someone deciding to pay attention to what goes into their recycling bin. In light of this, corporations must cease guilt-tripping their customers into what passes for an effort to be ‘greener’. Evidently it is in corporations’ best financial interests to practice this; but something needs to be done in order to counteract the negative effects produced by companies both guilt-tripping
Fig. 2: While jute is undoubtedly an environmentally sound material to use, as it is plant matter and biodegrades naturally, its plasticised interior makes the bag a composite material, meaning its only method of disposal is landfill.
!
2
Rhianna Bowen consumers into buying so-called ‘green’ solutions, and falsely alleviating their guilt once they have done so. (See Fig. 2.) Conversely, companies or organisations which are actually environmental advocates are often intimidatingly academic, or non-specific about their goals, effectively proving that there is denial on both sides of the argument. While we must accept that massive changes to lifestyle and industry must be made, environmental sympathisers have to realise this will be an upsetting and uprooting process, and that there is no ‘quick fix’. Responsibility lies with those who already sympathise, particularly those within the design community, to better inform the general public through interaction and communication. A way to deal with the confusion and disorganisation currently rife in the void between sympathisers and the general public would be to set up a design think-tank; members would contribute their ideas on how to solve such problems as: • How to integrate and involve consumers in the important debates and questions occurring in the scientific community about environmental issues, in a way which is not threateningly difficult to understand to the average consumer. • Ensuring that the information presented to the public is clear, and not in any way biased. • Appealing to people’s personal needs and making the problems seem ‘human’; there is always the problem that ecological problems are not ‘immediate’; they are easy to ignore, unlike something such as illness. • How to alleviate the current image amongst those in ecological denial of environmental sympathisers as pessimistic doom-mongers
Fig. 3a: Proof that the internet is an essential tool in spreading information, particularly about such an important issue as the environment.
!
Essentially, the public must be presented with balanced, clear explanations- they cannot be too opinionated or part of the audience will be alienated or disassociated; or try and guilt trip people— it also can’t allow people to practice ecological denial or perpetuate guilt alleviation.
!
! THE MEDIA MONSTER
It’s clear that the media plays a huge part in how the public perceives many things; largely through advertising. This presents an ideal platform for campaigns regarding such an important issue. Mass media “flow overwhelmingly one-way from the broadcaster to the consumer audience” (Ann Thorpe, 2007, page 124); the general public are passive viewers being endlessly fed information.
Fig. 3b
3
Rhianna Bowen The internet has a particularly huge impact on the majority of peoples’ everyday lives; data I have collected in a survey regarding this shows that the majority of respondents use the internet for a total of more than five hours per day, compared to the majority of respondents spending less than three hours watching television. (See Figs. 3a & 3b.) It has also been proven through survey that on average, people in Westernised cultures spend approximately eleven hours per day exposed to the mass media (source: Ann Thorpe, 2007, page 124). Statistics such as this prove that the media is essentially the key to informing and motivating the public about the issues of global warming and ecological vandalism by the human race. Evidence of the media’s impact on peoples’ knowledge of ecological troubles specifically can be seen in Fig. 4. However; it is essential that the way in which information is presented does not constitute propaganda of any kind. This is a fault with much of the issue’s current representation in the media. As an example, the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is primarily unhelpful to the cause of making the public aware of the problems- it sensationalises the issue, and uses shock tactics to engage viewers. (Fig. 5.) While Al Gore argues for a worthy cause, he does it in the wrong way. Sensationalisation will cause one of two effects in the general public; either shocking them into disassociation; “There’s nothing I can do, I’m only one person”, or making them defiant and oppositional; Gore bombards the viewer too heavily with guilt and other complex emotions people just don’t want to feel. My solution to this is to present the facts clearly, but in a human, relatable fashion. We as designers can achieve this through assessing what the general public will respond to, and deciding how best to present this information; and finding new ways of communicating ecological problems to the majority of society.
! !
Fig. 4: The information in this graph was sourced from the academic journal “Twenty Years Of Public Opinion About Global Warming”. It is stated in the journal that the noticeable increase in public awareness of the issues during the years of 2001, 2006 and then 2007, are due to an increased amount of coverage in the mass media; “a combined 63 percent of Americans in 2004 and 72 percent of Americans in 2005 reported hearing either a great deal or some about global warming” (NisbetMyers, 2007).
SO BE HUMAN
An essential factor in how to present ecological troubles in the mass media is to make it accessible and relatable- and most of all, human. Always remember that it is the main body of the public who need to be made aware of the issues at hand. As I previously stated, the current representation of ecological troubles in the media is often either underplayed and sensationalised in an attempt to shock, or very dry and academic, causing it to be inaccessible. A recent project made me consider and engage with the human side of design; I made a zine designed to provoke and confront an individual with their phobia of ugliness in nature. (Fig. 6.) The
Fig. 5: An example of the “shock tactics” used by Gore in his documentary. The image shows a glacier as it was in 1932, followed by the same one in 1988; this use of visuals aims to provoke a reaction in viewers, though the lack of human element makes it somewhat unlikely to do so. (www.cinemablend.com/images/reviews/1523/An_Inconvenient_Truth_)
4
Rhianna Bowen aim of this was to allow the reader to be in a comfortable environment of their choice while opting to confront their fear. I included encouraging and comforting text on many of the pages, rationalising the images the reader was seeing. I feel this approach could translate well into the public arena on the subject of ecological troubles; an up-front and clear, yet simultaneously human, form of communication. The question we must ask ourselves as designers is; how can the issues be made to seem more personal, human and close to home for the general public? Here are some ideas:
!
!
• Think about how organisations such as the NHS, and charities such as Macmillan, use individual case studies and human elements to evoke reactions using their advertisements and information methods • Focus on solutions rather than problems; this is generally the downfall of propaganda-like campaigns such as that of Al Gore for “An Inconvenient Truth”. Texts such as “ReNewTown”, a case study of potentially renovating a modern town into an ecologically sound one, focus on the positive concept of a “golden age of retrofitting” (Andrew Scott & Eran Ben-Joseph, 2012, page 2), in which we would come to accept solutions as a world-wide community. • Localise issues; how would certain phenomena likely to happen due to ecological problems affect different areas of the UK, or even the world?
In conclusion, the ways in which ecological troubles are currently presented to the public are often imbalanced and alienating, causing disassociation and disinterest about a topic which is possibly the most important issue ever discussed to date. My solution to this is for a body separate from the government or any major corporation, made up of designers and other creatives, to band together in taking responsibility for finding a way to revolutionise the flow of information to the public, and its visual impact. In this way, it will hopefully be possible to put an end to ecological denial once and for all; only then will it be possible to tackle the problem of ecological vandalism as a coherent society.
! ! ! ! ! ! !
Fig. 6: A double page spread from my simultaneously confrontational and comforting ‘zine for Cacophobes (specifically for a fear of ugliness in nature). The raw yet human appearance of this is something I feel could inspire and cohere with idea of presenting ecological troubles as very human problems which are close to home.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5
Rhianna Bowen
A NOTE ON THE TEXT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The term “Ecological vandalism” is borrowed from “The Nature Of Design” (David W. Orr, 2004, page 86). It refers to the human race essentially disrespecting the planet with no regard for consequence.
QUOTE SOURCES
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
“find scapegoats rather than confront problems directly”: David W. Orr, 2004, “The Nature Of Design”, New York, Oxford University Press
!
“flow overwhelmingly one-way from the broadcaster to the consumer audience”: Ann Thorpe, 2007, “The Designer’s Atlas Of Sustainability”, Washington D.C., Island Press
!
“a golden age of retrofitting”: Andrew Scott & Eran Ben-Joseph, 2012, “ReNewTown”, Oxon, Routledge
! !
INFORMATION/ DEFINITION SOURCES
!
On average, people spend eleven hours per day exposed to the media in its many forms. This was sourced from “studies reveal that people spend an average of eleven hours per day with the media”: Ann Thorpe, 2007, “The Designer’s Atlas Of Sustainability”, Washington D.C., Island Press
!
Fig. 4 : NisbetMyers, 2007, “Twenty Years Of Public Opinion About Global Warming”, Oxford Journals, Public Opinion Quarterly
! ! !! ! !
Fig. 5 : www.cinemablend.com/images/reviews/1523/An_Inconvenient_Truth_ “ecological vandals”: David W. Orr, 2004, “The Nature Of Design”, New York, Oxford University Press
6
!
Rhianna Bowen
7