One of the most challenging and fundamental elements in any design research project or endeavour is this frequently overlooked component: the question. While one might expect to encounter the frustration of client relationship or the demands for fast turnarounds, one can easily forget that the undertaking of those processes is often in response to the question itself. As much as how the rationale behind each question can vary from being rhetorical to theoretical and practical, the definitions and functions of design research are still changing and constantly being reshaped along with the evolution of the design discourse.
Michel Foucault in his study. Source: Unknown.
Taking the role of a design researcher, I am not only interested in approaching the design discourse as an object of study, but also questioning the building blocks that contribute to the knowledge of design discourse we know today as well as the subjects whose power decides where and how each block was installed. In his paper titled ‘What is a “history of the present”? On Foucault’s genealogies and their critical preconditions’, David Garland, a professor of Law and Sociology at New York University, revealed that ‘[…] historical record yields up its secrets only to those who know precisely how to ask’ (2014, p. 379). Being new to the works of Michel Foucault, I set out to explore his method of historization: first to achieve a basic understanding of Foucauldian approach and secondly, to identify the possibilities in which it can be beneficial to the study of design.
Ultimately, the paper will ask if Foucauldian way of historical inquiry can provide an alternative framework for a design research student to contribute and furthermore, start questioning the design discourse regarding its fundamental theories and practices.
Going through all of the textual works of Michel Foucault is a daunting task, being able to comprehend them is even a more challenging one. In order to prove Foucauldian method relevant to the study of design, this paper will first specify the categorizations of design research as identified in Trygve Faste and Haakon Faste’s paper titled ‘Demystifying “Design Research”: Design is not research, research is design’ (2012). Then, it will elaborate on Michel Foucault’s approach to discourse analysis and lastly, it will make an effort to synthesize the framework of historization that Foucault used to address his object of study by focusing on his ‘diagnosis’ and ‘problematisation’ (Garland, 2014).
The 3rd Category of Design Research
Trygve Faste – Head of Product Design department at the School of Art and Design, University of Oregon and Haakon Faste – Associate Professor of the Interaction Design program at the California College of the Arts, state that the term ‘design research’ is a combination of practice, research and design (2012). According to them, there are four categories: 1) Design through research (studious design research), 2) Design of research (formative design research), 3) Research on design (diagnostic design research) and 4) Research through design (embedded design research) (Faste and Faste, 2012). Each of these categories has its own intention that will result in a ‘seemingly meaningful merger roughly equivalent to the investigation of knowledge through purposeful design’ (ibid). This paper will employ the third category of design research – Research on design or Diagnosis design research – as a canvas on which it maps out the similarities and investigates how Michel Foucault’s method of historization can be beneficial to the study of design in general and to design research students in particular. Research on design, as identified by the authors, is the act of diagnosing areas of improvement in order to improve and enhance the ‘effectiveness and efficiency of a given design method or process’ (ibid).
Essentially, it begins with the questions that arise from field observation and design activities analysis. However, the specification accompanying categorisation also means it must leave out certain aspects. In this case, as the authors lay out, there is a limitation regarding the quality of each analysis and whether it adds value to those who are already well aware of their own practices (ibid). To address this issue, I would like to extend the scope of diagnostic design research by considering theoretical knowledge and ethics as additional elements of the design practice. Not only are they often neglected in the creative industry but also arguably areas where Foucauldian method might be able to make clear and intelligible.
Foucauldian Diagnosis and Problematisation
In an interview with John, K. Simon for the Partisan Review, Michel Foucault shared his motivation to study his subject through the lens of history:
“It is true, though, that I have dealt especially with phenomena of the past: the system of exclusion and the confinement of the insane in European civilization from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, the establishment of medical science and practice at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the organization of sciences of man in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But I was interested in them-in fact, profoundly interested-because I saw in them ways of thinking and behaving that are still with us” (Foucault, 1971).
What appeared to be problematic for Foucault was ‘essentially the definition of the implicit systems in which we find ourself prisoners’ (Foucault, 1971) and it was the process of historisation that allowed him to address hidden conflicts and re-evaluate the value of cultural phenomena of his modern times (Garland, 2014). Initially, Foucault presented his archaeological approach explicitly through The Order of Things in which he studied the history of thoughts (Foucault, 1966). Three years later, the publication of The Archaeology of Knowledge reified his methodological treatise as a method which was prominently employed in Madness and Civilization and The Birth of the Clinic (Foucault, 1961; Foucault, 196; Foucault, 1973). Though there was a major shift in Foucault works from archaeology to ‘genealogy’ with Punish and Discipline being considered as a turning page (Garland, 2014), this paper will argue that there is an exercise of ‘diagnosis’ and ‘problematisation’ that consistently runs across all of his oeuvres.
Gavin Kendall and Gary Wickham provided a demonstrative introductory to those who wish to practice Foucault’s method with an emphasis on Foucauldian ways of using historical inquiry as a means of investigating the present and expose the invisible agenda (1999). Michel Foucault confirmed this himself: ‘We must free ourselves from this cultural conservatism, as well as from political conservatism. We must uncover our rituals for what they are […] As far as I am concerned, that is what I try to do in my work’ (Foucault, 1971). It is crucial to mention that one should take extra caution while attempting to use history for Foucauldian history never stopped nor was it informed of the future happenings (Kendall and Wickham, 1999). With this in mind, one should ‘seek to use it, to deform it, to make it groan and protest’ (Foucault, 1980). These steps combined are essential to Foucauldian ‘problematisation’ process (Garland, 2014). History should be used not to make oneself comfortable, but rather to disturb the norms and practices that others take for granted. Foucault expressed his motivation for historical inquiry in a 1984 interview:
“I set out from a problem expressed in the terms current today and I try to work out its genealogy. Genealogy means that I begin my analysis from a question posed in the present.” (Foucault, 1984).
In order to illustrate a Foucauldian approach to historisation, particularly through diagnosis and problematisation, this paper will look at two examples drawn from Madness and Civilization and Discipline and Punish. In both cases, Foucault devoted the opening chapters to the task of identifying the problem through a series of analytical statements and theoretical interpretations. To some extent, one could argue that his initial clarification of the object in question is what determines the critical efficacy of his method. In Madness and Civilization, Foucault scrutinized the notion of ‘madness’ throughout history, from the Renaissance to the High Middle Ages and the end of the Crusades (Foucault, 1967). Though the way of treating madmen in modern society is often considered to be more humane, Foucault proved the opposite as history informed him a new attitude that relentlessly medicalised and institutionalised mentally ill people (ibid). Among the many problems of madness that Foucault diagnosed and categorized, one of them involved the concealment of madness being ‘the false punishment of a false solution’ (ibid, p.19). With a clear intention, Foucault explained how he would go about the study of madness from the very beginning: ‘To explore it we must renounce the convenience of terminal truths, and never let ourselves be guided by what we may know of madness’ (ibid, p.4).
Much in a similar manner, ten years later, Foucault set out to problematise the knowledge that we have known of the punishing system in modern society (1977). With Discipline and Punish, he pointed out that the mainstream view on carceral systems might seem to be kind and more humane then (Foucault, 1977). However, once again, it only served as a puzzlement that when being assembled, would offer a new perspective to look on his object of study. That alternative truth, in this case, would be criticism towards the questionable humane characteristics of prison and the punishing mechanism. While in Foucault’s current days, the penal system was not as cruel or publicly ‘violent’ in order to make use of the ‘bloody punishment’, it was essentially subjected to a certain ‘political economy’ of the body (ibid). Moreover, Foucault initiated a new constellation of thought with regard to the targeted subject of punishment: ‘Does the convicted person represent a danger to society? Is he susceptible to penal punishment? Is he curable or readjust able?’ (ibid, p.56). After all, the power now looks kind, but it is not – everything happens in private, one could no longer see and therefore, resist state power. The point of Foucauldian archaeological and genealogical analyses in these cases was not simply to make transparent what happened in the past, but instead, to show the result of contingent turns of history. It is important to realise that what was written by Foucault in the mid-1970s still relevant to us today – as we are moving into an era of increasing security and surveillance. There is a social and political resonance between the past and the present, in which, not only is one challenged to a new viewpoint but also motivated to question the unknown. Perhaps, this is how design researchers would become intrigued by Foucauldian method at first.
If Foucault was interested in Design Research
It is not difficult to come across questions in scientific research for it is one of the most important aspects of scholarly practice. Arriving at the right, or ‘productive’ questions, however, is not always an easy path. The initial question for this paper is rather naïve as it carries an assumption that there is an established Foucauldian model of discourse analysis. Clare O’Farrell, a senior lecturer in Education at the Queensland University of Technology, addressed a dilemma regarding this issue (2005). While one’s attempt to draw on a Foucauldian work can easily be captured in the pitfall of ‘unFoucauldian’, without an acknowledged framework, how would one access validity and correctness? Subsequently, she considers Foucauldian theory as obscure and inaccessible, particularly for researchers from a more practice-oriented field (O’Farrell, 2005). However, the natural requirement of knowledge and skills for one to become a design researcher suggests a proficiency in handling both practice and theory. In this case, would Foucauldian ways of diagnosis and problematisation be useful for design researchers who wish to improve their practice and essentially expand the scope of the design discourse? What if Michel Foucault was looking at the design as a subject for critical analysis? More specifically, what if he was interested in Design Research? This paper does not aim to arrive at a methodological plan in which it suggests how design researchers can employ Foucault’s approach to historisation, or how would Foucault himself go about the analysis of design history and culture. Instead, it introduces, explains and confirms the potential areas of the design discourse to which Foucauldian historical inquiry can add values: diagnosis as a means of defining and contextualising the design challenges or user needs, and problematic action as a way of questioning the discourse, particularly the way scholars and designers convey ethical issues in theoretical texts and practical design activities. Though I cannot determine the roles and purposes of others in this undertaking, as a design researcher in training, I do have two objectives in mind; first to aid my professional practice in curating methods and frameworks for ethical design practice and coaching; second, to bring to light the lack of ethical conversations within the pedagogy of design in higher education and motivate other design students to engage in the construction and evaluation of their own discourse. As a confirmation, while being asked whether he could study the university the way he did with other phenomena of the past, Michel Foucault clarified that:
“The university system, however, can be put into question by the students themselves. At that point criticism coming from the outside, from theoreticians, historians or archivists, is no longer enough. And the students become their own archivists.” (Foucault, 1971).
Conclusion
There are several things a design researcher can choose to write or talk about when mentioning Michel Foucault’s works: his archaeological and genealogical approaches to historical inquiry or the specific concepts he centred his works around such as power, knowledge and the history of sexualities. Given a limited amount of resources, this paper set out to address only one aspect of Foucauldian historisation that can be brought to bear on contemporary institutions in ways that are powerfully critical and revealing – his way of asking questions. In an attempt to introduce Michel Foucault to the design discourse, it laid out the specification of object of study – the theory and practice of design, subject positions of the design researcher and the conditions that might make this ambitious undertaking possible. This paper has deliberately left out the details of each aforementioned item, including their analysis techniques and the vital questions for their emergence simply because this is the kind of tasks that would require an in-depth analysis and perhaps, a more mature comprehension of Foucault’s works. Nevertheless, the paper managed to provide a sense of confirmation and possibility for design researchers to embark on a quest for a new way of engaging with the design discourse and questioning the subject of choice in a manner that is consistent and informed by Foucault’s works. Insofar as design researchers retain their intellectual curiosity, this is how they could learn from Michel Foucault and join his effort to make the ‘cultural unconscious apparent’ (Foucault, 1971).
References
Faste, T. and Faste, H. (2012). Demystifying ‘Design Research’: Design Is Not Research, Research Is Design. IDSA Education Symposium 2012.
Foucault, M. (1967). Madness and Civilization. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1971) ‘A conversation with Michel Foucault’. Interviewed by John, K. Simon for Partisan Review, Spring 1971, p.192-201.
Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1973). Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1980) ‘Two Lecture’, in Gordon, C. (ed.) Michel Foucault. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Brighton: Harvester.
Foucault, M. (1984) ‘Power and Sex: An Interview with Michel Foucault’, in Kritzman, L (ed.) Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other Writings 1977-1984. New York: Routledge.
Garland, D. (2014). What is a “history of the present”? On Foucault’s genealogies and their critical preconditions. Punishment & Society, 16(4), p.365-384.
Kendall, G & Wickham, G. (1999). Using Foucault’s methods. London: Sage Publications.
O’Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault. London: Sage Publications.
Parker, I. (1992). Discourse Dynamics: Critical Analysis for Social and Individual Psychology. London: Routledge.
Entangled Curiosity 