In Politics of the Everyday, celebrated design theorist Ezio Manzini advocates for the creation of flexible communities which are open and inclusive, and therefore resilient and socially sustainable. He proposes a radical overhaul in how we as individuals spend our time, and in what we value. By choosing different 'policies' for our own lives in this way, Manzini demonstrates that we can reverse negative current trends such as living in connected solitude; often working, travelling and relaxing alone, yet feeling misleadingly sociable by means of technology.
The book draws on precedents of various innovative projects which have successfully used design thinking to address social challenges, like carpooling in California, participatory politics at Milan's City Council and research into 'meaningful encounters' at the University of the Arts London. Manzini argues that the success of these examples indicates the real possibility of changing society, not by making demands, but by putting into practice new ways of doing things as individuals.
A really tired, and confused polemic and part time manifesto about how the world is and how it might change through design for social innovation. There is nothing new here for those who have read Manzini's other works. He uses the same examples he normally does, not even coming at them from new angles, and he makes the same points he has many times before, but this time I'm not sure there is real conviction behind them. It reads like someone going through the motions, reading a script they're not quite sure they believe anymore.
Coupled with some misreading of other people's work to support his weak and confused points and it's a troubling work bereft of any real direction, like a record stuck in the same groove. It also contains some worryingly off analysis of the origins and original motivations of platform capitalism, which is either to blame for his misunderstandings of the current version of neoliberal capitalism we are enduring, or more troublingly he's deliberately misread these things to support his arguments and beliefs.
So in summing up it is not his finest work, but there are the odd sentences here or there that contain some salient points and interesting insight... I'm just not sure it's worth investing the time to dredge them up from the malaise which surrounds them.
Fantastic, especially first half really resonated with me and gave me words for an idea that I agree with. This was about self-realisation. The second part was more about communities and how individual policy making (through action) can have an effect on large scale policy making. For example through communities.
Could have been written, or at least edited better. Lot of things feel awkward as they seem to be caught in the translation gap. As for the content - yeah, it's all swell, but it feels like a familiar yet failing mantra.