What do you think?
Rate this book
Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice
Sustainability is now a buzzword both among professionals and scholars. However, though climate change and resource depletion are now widely recognized by business as major challenges, and while new practices like "green design" have emerged, efforts towards change remain weak and fragmented. Exposing these limitations, Design Futuring systematically presents ideas and methods for Design as an expanded ethical and professional practice. Design Futuring argues that responding to ethical, political, social and ecological concerns now requires a new type of practice which recognizes design’s importance in overcoming a world made unsustainable. Illustrated throughout with international case material, Design Futuring presents the author’s ground-breaking ideas in a coherent framework, focusing specifically on the ways in which concerns for ethics and sustainability can change the practice of Design for the twenty-first century. Design Futuring --a pathfinding text for the new era--extends far beyond Design courses and professional practice and will be invaluable also to students and practitioners of Architecture, the Creative Arts, Business and Management.
256 pages, Paperback
First published December 9, 2008
6 people are currently reading
155 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 19, 2013
As part of a course on Sustainable Cities I did a book review of Fry's Design Futuring. I have inserted the review here:
In his book Design Futuring Tony Fry “demands design but design rethought and remade” to secure the future survival of humanity. Through rethinking design, it is possible to tread on a different path not filled with destructive and annihilating conducts. But how can new design practice alone solve current environmental crises? This essay first situates Fry in the debate of sustainable development, and next presents and discusses the main ideas presented in Design Futuring. Then relating them to other debates about sustainable development and, finally, assessing the contributions of the book towards the concepts of sustainability.
Sustainable development
Fry’s definition of sustainability disregards the notion of saving the planet, and only desires to “save humanity by saving what we collectively depend upon” (Fry 2008: 44). While he is very critical of the Brundtland Report’s understanding of sustainability (WCED 1987), he nevertheless defines sustainability as “a means to secure and maintain a qualitative condition of being over time” (Fry 2008: 43) which is quite similar to the Brundtland Report’s definition. In Fry’s view the Brundtland definition of sustainability accepts the logic of capitalism with continual growth in both general economic activities and global energy supply, which is deemed incompatible with a sustainable future by Fry and on the same grounds, he dismisses a “salvation” from technology (Fry 2008). ‘Sustainable Development’ will at best make economic growth less environmental damaging, and at worst greenwash a continuing business-as-usual.
If Fry was to be placed in the broadcloth of debates about sustainable development Hopwood et al.’s (2005) map of the debate is useful. It characterises the different views and categories them into Status quo, Reform and Transformation with different emphasis on the social or environmental aspect of sustainability. As reformists believe change can happen within the current economic structures (Hopwood et al. 2005), Fry clearly is not part of this group as he refuses both the logic of capitalism and continual economic growth which would place him with transformationists. However he does not fit perfectly into the categories as he insist on a simpler society, but does not agree with the Earth First!-movement’s priority of non-human species over humanity, which is usually associated with deep green transformation. Nevertheless he can be categorised as a transformationist as he describes himself as “more radical than reform but less disruptive than revolution” (Fry 2008: 47).
Fry’s ideas
According to Fry (2008) current designers are too involved in design of style and appearance, not taking responsibility for the consequences of their design. Many existing products are unsustainable, both in their production and their long term consequences. This can only change with a transformation in design, where sustainability is to be prioritised over the current market needs, illustrated as a “dictatorship of sustainment” (Fry 2008: 57).
The author introduces ‘futuring’ as an interesting concept when examining design, describing it as “giving the self a future” (Fry 2008: 113). The current way of designing is unsustainable, thus reducing the chance of human survival in the future. Therefore the existing design form is ‘de-futuring’. When damaging the soil or emitting greenhouse gasses, it endangers the future of human existents. By looking at the futuring-capacity of a design, Fry forces the reader to include time in the design process, which is a core contribution of Fry.
The current way of design is unsustainable and defuturing due to the habitus (Fry 2008), theorised by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. The habitus is social structures imbedded in the human body, which affects who the individual is and how he/she acts (Järvinen 2007). Human actions are an expression of their history and socialisation. Habitus can therefore be thought of as cognitive schemas (Järvinen 2007). These thought patterns, thinking in unsustainable paths, are shaping the world since they limit the habitus into thinking that the existing system is natural and cannot be changed (Fry 2008). However, according to Fry, the world really is a product of human design. Cities, infrastructures, political institutions and homes are all designed by humans and are not natural occurrences. Designers cannot escape the designed structures, which is why they inevitable become part of their habitus (Fry 2008). If the design practice has to change, it needs to undergo a paradigm shift (Fry 2008). But it is however unclear how Fry sees all designers’ habitus undergoing a shift of paradigm. It is only described that it should happen, but not how, which is a general critique of the book that later will be elaborated.
To change the current design practise for the individual designer Fry introduces ‘redirection’, which is a new way of designing products that entails “restructuring of habitus by design” (Fry 2008: 47). One of the proposed strategies of redirection by the author is an ‘elimination perspective’ where short-lifetime products should not be produced and other high-impact products should be replaced by low-impact products (Fry 2008). Fry mentions as an example eliminating motorised lawnmowers with push mowers. Following a Marxist thought of false consciousness (Månson 2007), the author argues that the ‘need’ for high-impact products are created in the habitus, e.g. how people ‘need’ a big house, big car, jewellery etc., but in Fry’s definition of sustainability ‘needs’ should be separated from ‘wants’. Fry suggests prohibiting the high-impact products in line with ‘dictatorship of sustainment’. Nevertheless it is not assessed whether it is possible to prohibit all high-impact products, who would decide what constitute high-impact or how it should be enforced. Furthermore redirection entails a change of the products’ cultural value, the branding, and thereby the ‘want’ of the high-impact product. The same critique can be applied again as Fry omits a concrete explanation. Does it involve a ban on product branding or state advertisement for the proper products?
The last concept highlighted in this essay is ‘Designing-in-Time’, which is “designing from the future to the present” (Fry 2008: 62). Humans lack the capacity to project action in time, realising their consequences, how they will affect future society and whether they will meet future challenges. To circumvent this Fry proposes ‘Futuring Scenarios’, which establish what in the present is future determinant and how to change it. He gives an example when designing an Australian town, where the town is placed a suitable distance from the ocean and surrounding vegetation to prevent flooding from future sea rise and forest fires caused by climate change. Fry acknowledges working with time as a design concept and predicting the future carries some uncertainties. However, this does not eliminate the responsibility to “identify possibilities that beg precautionary action” (Fry 2008: 147). Without knowing in detail existing design procedures and methods, it is to the understanding of this author that some designers do design to accommodate future challenges, but often fail as foreseeing the future is not an easy task. While it is quite certain that the sea levels will rise, the question is when, where and how much. Fry underestimates the challenges of risk analysis and the complexity predicting the future.
Contrasts and similarities
Fry’s ideas are to some extent similar to “Cradle to cradle” by Braungart and McDonough (2009) in the focus on redesign of products in a more sustainable way. In short, Cradle to cradle is the idea of an autopoietic closed economy, where products are either design by biological nutrient-materials which can enter an organic decomposing cycle or by synthetic technical nutrients-materials that can be reused endlessly in a technical cycle (Braungart and McDonough 2009). Thereby a cradle to cradle-economy would be waste free, more efficient and not defuturing. Likewise, Fry argues for better design of products that “need either to have an extremely long life or to be easy to remanufacture, fully cycle or be disposed of without environmental costs” (Fry 2008: 219). Yet Fry is rather critical towards cradle to cradle as it can support a capitalist growth economy and it does not question the production of short-life products, where Fry proposes prohibiting them. Fry does however not demonstrate an alternative to his critique of a capitalist economy.
The ideas can also be compared to New Urbanism in its trust in design to be a solution in itself. New urbanism believes certain social processes such as a sense of community can grow through the architectural design of a neighbourhood (Harvey 2001), much similar to Fry arguing that sustainability “can only occur with a change in design” (Fry 2008: 45). However Fry to some degree dismisses the deterministic power of design as he argues “people can make a green product unsustainable by the way they use it” (Fry 2008: 188) and aligns himself with critiques of new urbanism who argues that the power of physical space has been vastly overplayed (Talen 1999). This makes Fry a bit ambivalent as he believes that new design is the only solution, but does not believe in deterministic power of design, which leaves the reader lacking other answers.
Advances to sustainability
With some of his ideas Fry challenges the reader and wants a different line of thought. By applying the theory of Bourdieu’s habitus to design and sustainability, he contributes to the discussion of why the transition to sustainability has been lingering. The current design pattern will be deterministic as they keep reinforcing themselves. The existing design creates the false impression that it is the norm and natural, thereby limiting designers’ imagination and creativity. But one of Fry’s key advancements is the idea of futuring, and how unsustainable practices limit humanity’s time on earth. In this author’s view the debate of sustainability can at times be muddy and diffuse towards the consequences of unsustainability. Fry, however, very clearly describes that it essentially just shortens the time of humanity. Another contribution is the emphasis on time as a crucial design element. Sustainable design can at times be low-impact long-life products made of ‘green’ materials without any thought to future challenges or future use.
Lack of direction
Yet, it is still unclear how he wishes to achieve sustainability. In addition to his unelaborated idea of prohibition of high-impact products and elimination of branding, he presents three ideas which should foster innovation: free time for employees to develop new ideas (Platforming), a brief detailing more sustainable solutions for a client (Redirective Return Brief); and putting designer from different disciplinary fields together (New Design Teams) (Fry 2008). Although these strategies might foster creative solutions on the micro level, Fry does not explain how he imagines them working for the entire society to achieve sustainability or how to ensure that all designers follow these practices. Additionally, whether grouping designers different together or given them extra time to think will actually achieve any substantial change is questionable.
Furthermore, Fry rather superficially critiques democracy as insufficient in changing the current unsustainable ways, as sustainment cannot happen within the current political system (Fry 2008). This parallels with e.g. Brown’s (2009) critique of the speed of the transitions to a more sustainable world. But unlike Brown’s alternative of wartime speed to sustainable production similar to the quick transition from oil to hydrogen during World War II, Fry does not present an alternative to the current transition speed. This is the main critique of Fry as his ideas are not elaborate or leaves to many unanswered questions. Essentially, it is difficult to critique ideas, when the implementation of them is not described.
Conclusion
This essay has debated the ideas and theories in Design Futuring by Tony Fry. It has been assessed that Fry argues for a fundamental shift of paradigm in design and sustainability going beyond the reform views of sustainable development. He introduces ideas of futuring and how designers are limited in their creativity by existing design. Yet it is unclear how he concretely sees this coming into existence or whether sustainability can be achieved only by prohibiting certain products, Platforming, Redirective Return Brief and Design teams. Moreover, Fry also neglects defining an alternative when critiquing the Brundtland definition and Cradle to Cradle for following logic of capitalism. In the end the unanswered questions and lack of alternatives leaves Design Futuring incomplete.
Reference list:
• Braungart, M. and McDonough W. (2009) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, Vintage: London
• Brown, L. (2009), Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, W. W. Norton & Co.: New York
• Fry, T. (2008), Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, Berg: London.
• Harvey, D. (2001), The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap, MIT Press.
• Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., and O’Brien, G. (2005), Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches, Sustainable Development, vol. 13, 38-52
• Järvinen, M. (2007), Pierre Bourdieu, in: Andersen, H. and Kaspersen, L. B. eds. (2007), Klassisk og moderne samfundsteori [Classical and modern social theory], Hans Reitzels Forlag: Copenhagen, 350-371
• Månson, P. (2007), Karl Marx, in: Andersen, H. and Kaspersen, L. B. eds. (2007), Klassisk og moderne samfundsteori [Classical and modern social theory], Hans Reitzels Forlag: Copenhagen, 29-46
• Talen, E. (1999), ‘Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of the New Urbanism’, Urban Studies vol. 36, 8, 1361-1379.
• World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
In his book Design Futuring Tony Fry “demands design but design rethought and remade” to secure the future survival of humanity. Through rethinking design, it is possible to tread on a different path not filled with destructive and annihilating conducts. But how can new design practice alone solve current environmental crises? This essay first situates Fry in the debate of sustainable development, and next presents and discusses the main ideas presented in Design Futuring. Then relating them to other debates about sustainable development and, finally, assessing the contributions of the book towards the concepts of sustainability.
Sustainable development
Fry’s definition of sustainability disregards the notion of saving the planet, and only desires to “save humanity by saving what we collectively depend upon” (Fry 2008: 44). While he is very critical of the Brundtland Report’s understanding of sustainability (WCED 1987), he nevertheless defines sustainability as “a means to secure and maintain a qualitative condition of being over time” (Fry 2008: 43) which is quite similar to the Brundtland Report’s definition. In Fry’s view the Brundtland definition of sustainability accepts the logic of capitalism with continual growth in both general economic activities and global energy supply, which is deemed incompatible with a sustainable future by Fry and on the same grounds, he dismisses a “salvation” from technology (Fry 2008). ‘Sustainable Development’ will at best make economic growth less environmental damaging, and at worst greenwash a continuing business-as-usual.
If Fry was to be placed in the broadcloth of debates about sustainable development Hopwood et al.’s (2005) map of the debate is useful. It characterises the different views and categories them into Status quo, Reform and Transformation with different emphasis on the social or environmental aspect of sustainability. As reformists believe change can happen within the current economic structures (Hopwood et al. 2005), Fry clearly is not part of this group as he refuses both the logic of capitalism and continual economic growth which would place him with transformationists. However he does not fit perfectly into the categories as he insist on a simpler society, but does not agree with the Earth First!-movement’s priority of non-human species over humanity, which is usually associated with deep green transformation. Nevertheless he can be categorised as a transformationist as he describes himself as “more radical than reform but less disruptive than revolution” (Fry 2008: 47).
Fry’s ideas
According to Fry (2008) current designers are too involved in design of style and appearance, not taking responsibility for the consequences of their design. Many existing products are unsustainable, both in their production and their long term consequences. This can only change with a transformation in design, where sustainability is to be prioritised over the current market needs, illustrated as a “dictatorship of sustainment” (Fry 2008: 57).
The author introduces ‘futuring’ as an interesting concept when examining design, describing it as “giving the self a future” (Fry 2008: 113). The current way of designing is unsustainable, thus reducing the chance of human survival in the future. Therefore the existing design form is ‘de-futuring’. When damaging the soil or emitting greenhouse gasses, it endangers the future of human existents. By looking at the futuring-capacity of a design, Fry forces the reader to include time in the design process, which is a core contribution of Fry.
The current way of design is unsustainable and defuturing due to the habitus (Fry 2008), theorised by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. The habitus is social structures imbedded in the human body, which affects who the individual is and how he/she acts (Järvinen 2007). Human actions are an expression of their history and socialisation. Habitus can therefore be thought of as cognitive schemas (Järvinen 2007). These thought patterns, thinking in unsustainable paths, are shaping the world since they limit the habitus into thinking that the existing system is natural and cannot be changed (Fry 2008). However, according to Fry, the world really is a product of human design. Cities, infrastructures, political institutions and homes are all designed by humans and are not natural occurrences. Designers cannot escape the designed structures, which is why they inevitable become part of their habitus (Fry 2008). If the design practice has to change, it needs to undergo a paradigm shift (Fry 2008). But it is however unclear how Fry sees all designers’ habitus undergoing a shift of paradigm. It is only described that it should happen, but not how, which is a general critique of the book that later will be elaborated.
To change the current design practise for the individual designer Fry introduces ‘redirection’, which is a new way of designing products that entails “restructuring of habitus by design” (Fry 2008: 47). One of the proposed strategies of redirection by the author is an ‘elimination perspective’ where short-lifetime products should not be produced and other high-impact products should be replaced by low-impact products (Fry 2008). Fry mentions as an example eliminating motorised lawnmowers with push mowers. Following a Marxist thought of false consciousness (Månson 2007), the author argues that the ‘need’ for high-impact products are created in the habitus, e.g. how people ‘need’ a big house, big car, jewellery etc., but in Fry’s definition of sustainability ‘needs’ should be separated from ‘wants’. Fry suggests prohibiting the high-impact products in line with ‘dictatorship of sustainment’. Nevertheless it is not assessed whether it is possible to prohibit all high-impact products, who would decide what constitute high-impact or how it should be enforced. Furthermore redirection entails a change of the products’ cultural value, the branding, and thereby the ‘want’ of the high-impact product. The same critique can be applied again as Fry omits a concrete explanation. Does it involve a ban on product branding or state advertisement for the proper products?
The last concept highlighted in this essay is ‘Designing-in-Time’, which is “designing from the future to the present” (Fry 2008: 62). Humans lack the capacity to project action in time, realising their consequences, how they will affect future society and whether they will meet future challenges. To circumvent this Fry proposes ‘Futuring Scenarios’, which establish what in the present is future determinant and how to change it. He gives an example when designing an Australian town, where the town is placed a suitable distance from the ocean and surrounding vegetation to prevent flooding from future sea rise and forest fires caused by climate change. Fry acknowledges working with time as a design concept and predicting the future carries some uncertainties. However, this does not eliminate the responsibility to “identify possibilities that beg precautionary action” (Fry 2008: 147). Without knowing in detail existing design procedures and methods, it is to the understanding of this author that some designers do design to accommodate future challenges, but often fail as foreseeing the future is not an easy task. While it is quite certain that the sea levels will rise, the question is when, where and how much. Fry underestimates the challenges of risk analysis and the complexity predicting the future.
Contrasts and similarities
Fry’s ideas are to some extent similar to “Cradle to cradle” by Braungart and McDonough (2009) in the focus on redesign of products in a more sustainable way. In short, Cradle to cradle is the idea of an autopoietic closed economy, where products are either design by biological nutrient-materials which can enter an organic decomposing cycle or by synthetic technical nutrients-materials that can be reused endlessly in a technical cycle (Braungart and McDonough 2009). Thereby a cradle to cradle-economy would be waste free, more efficient and not defuturing. Likewise, Fry argues for better design of products that “need either to have an extremely long life or to be easy to remanufacture, fully cycle or be disposed of without environmental costs” (Fry 2008: 219). Yet Fry is rather critical towards cradle to cradle as it can support a capitalist growth economy and it does not question the production of short-life products, where Fry proposes prohibiting them. Fry does however not demonstrate an alternative to his critique of a capitalist economy.
The ideas can also be compared to New Urbanism in its trust in design to be a solution in itself. New urbanism believes certain social processes such as a sense of community can grow through the architectural design of a neighbourhood (Harvey 2001), much similar to Fry arguing that sustainability “can only occur with a change in design” (Fry 2008: 45). However Fry to some degree dismisses the deterministic power of design as he argues “people can make a green product unsustainable by the way they use it” (Fry 2008: 188) and aligns himself with critiques of new urbanism who argues that the power of physical space has been vastly overplayed (Talen 1999). This makes Fry a bit ambivalent as he believes that new design is the only solution, but does not believe in deterministic power of design, which leaves the reader lacking other answers.
Advances to sustainability
With some of his ideas Fry challenges the reader and wants a different line of thought. By applying the theory of Bourdieu’s habitus to design and sustainability, he contributes to the discussion of why the transition to sustainability has been lingering. The current design pattern will be deterministic as they keep reinforcing themselves. The existing design creates the false impression that it is the norm and natural, thereby limiting designers’ imagination and creativity. But one of Fry’s key advancements is the idea of futuring, and how unsustainable practices limit humanity’s time on earth. In this author’s view the debate of sustainability can at times be muddy and diffuse towards the consequences of unsustainability. Fry, however, very clearly describes that it essentially just shortens the time of humanity. Another contribution is the emphasis on time as a crucial design element. Sustainable design can at times be low-impact long-life products made of ‘green’ materials without any thought to future challenges or future use.
Lack of direction
Yet, it is still unclear how he wishes to achieve sustainability. In addition to his unelaborated idea of prohibition of high-impact products and elimination of branding, he presents three ideas which should foster innovation: free time for employees to develop new ideas (Platforming), a brief detailing more sustainable solutions for a client (Redirective Return Brief); and putting designer from different disciplinary fields together (New Design Teams) (Fry 2008). Although these strategies might foster creative solutions on the micro level, Fry does not explain how he imagines them working for the entire society to achieve sustainability or how to ensure that all designers follow these practices. Additionally, whether grouping designers different together or given them extra time to think will actually achieve any substantial change is questionable.
Furthermore, Fry rather superficially critiques democracy as insufficient in changing the current unsustainable ways, as sustainment cannot happen within the current political system (Fry 2008). This parallels with e.g. Brown’s (2009) critique of the speed of the transitions to a more sustainable world. But unlike Brown’s alternative of wartime speed to sustainable production similar to the quick transition from oil to hydrogen during World War II, Fry does not present an alternative to the current transition speed. This is the main critique of Fry as his ideas are not elaborate or leaves to many unanswered questions. Essentially, it is difficult to critique ideas, when the implementation of them is not described.
Conclusion
This essay has debated the ideas and theories in Design Futuring by Tony Fry. It has been assessed that Fry argues for a fundamental shift of paradigm in design and sustainability going beyond the reform views of sustainable development. He introduces ideas of futuring and how designers are limited in their creativity by existing design. Yet it is unclear how he concretely sees this coming into existence or whether sustainability can be achieved only by prohibiting certain products, Platforming, Redirective Return Brief and Design teams. Moreover, Fry also neglects defining an alternative when critiquing the Brundtland definition and Cradle to Cradle for following logic of capitalism. In the end the unanswered questions and lack of alternatives leaves Design Futuring incomplete.
Reference list:
• Braungart, M. and McDonough W. (2009) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, Vintage: London
• Brown, L. (2009), Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, W. W. Norton & Co.: New York
• Fry, T. (2008), Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice, Berg: London.
• Harvey, D. (2001), The New Urbanism and the Communitarian Trap, MIT Press.
• Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., and O’Brien, G. (2005), Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches, Sustainable Development, vol. 13, 38-52
• Järvinen, M. (2007), Pierre Bourdieu, in: Andersen, H. and Kaspersen, L. B. eds. (2007), Klassisk og moderne samfundsteori [Classical and modern social theory], Hans Reitzels Forlag: Copenhagen, 350-371
• Månson, P. (2007), Karl Marx, in: Andersen, H. and Kaspersen, L. B. eds. (2007), Klassisk og moderne samfundsteori [Classical and modern social theory], Hans Reitzels Forlag: Copenhagen, 29-46
• Talen, E. (1999), ‘Sense of Community and Neighbourhood Form: An Assessment of the Social Doctrine of the New Urbanism’, Urban Studies vol. 36, 8, 1361-1379.
• World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Displaying 1 of 1 review