Last week, I had the opportunity to attend Professor Male’s talk on service design and transition design as a part of my end-to-end user research training from Labtek Indie. Walking in, I had happily expected to hear more about the service design and participatory design approach, a terminology that I first encountered in January 2023 (yes, I remember it very vividly; Kak Prananda’s 26-slides presentation, I was blown away). However, by the end of the talk, I was rendered speechless. Too many things were going through my mind, trying to connect the newly introduced subjects to the concepts I have been learning since starting my education in product design 3 years ago.

One particular topic resonated deeply: the inherent connection between design and humanity. Design, in this context, is no longer defined merely as a tangible object, but rather as a multifaceted concept — including as a system. John Hesket, a prominent figure in industrial design, captures this essence in the famous quotes;

“Design is to design a design to produce a design”

John Hesket

To further understand the multifaceted concept of design beyond tangible objects, Professor Male then explained design from its etymology; a Latin word “Designare,” which is compounded of 2 words “De” meaning derivation, deduction, or inference — and “Signare” meaning to signal, to mark, to signify. Combined, we have the word “Design” meaning to make sense, to mark marks, to appoint — and finally — to fashion, to draw, to sketch. When diving into the etymology of design, we can deduce that design is about choosing the best option from a sea of many options; whether the output is tangible or intangible is no longer relevant. Design is a process of choosing, iterating, and eventually finding the best possible option.

---

Design and Humanity

“Design is the mark of humanity, since the beginning of time,” said Male, on the screen showing an ancient ceramic, a designed object from early civilization.

Designed objects like this serve as historical windows, revealing the power dynamics of their time. They show those who had the resources to create such things and the groups whose voices were represented.

Male further expands on this concept, demonstrating how design can show who holds power through various designed concepts with political systems and social classes as examples. When put into this perspective, we can see how design can grant or restrict power; and its impact on shaping the power structures. Take colonialism for example, it is mind-boggling to discern that hundreds of years ago, someone or a group of people succeeded in designing a system that serves as an instrument of terror and oppression of other groups of people. Brian Klaas in his book “Corruptible: Who Gets Power and How it Changes Us” — my current read and my favorite book !! — explains the many factors power-hungry and corrupted people can rise into power, one major aspect being the system; and how flawed systems can pave the way for corrupt individuals. He argues that by iterating and redesigning a better system, we can minimize the chance of allowing corrupt people to rise to power. Reading Brian Klaas’ take on the topic highlights the major role that the system plays in our lives. I bring up this topic because Professor Male’s discussion brings to my attention the power of design as a system. In a system, the things that we have and desire, are all designed.

Male’s insights led me to consider the concept of “decolonizing design,” a term introduced by, again, Ka Prananda. Decolonizing design, taken from design anthropology course by Ka Prananda back in 2022 is defined as “the active resistance against colonial powers, and a shifting of power towards political, economic, educational, cultural, psychic independence and power that originates from a colonized nation’s own indigenous culture.” However, over time, I tend to use the term “decolonizing design” more loosely; I define the term as using design as a platform to give voice to the indigenous, often marginalized culture.

This concept resonated with a project I collaborated on earlier this year with my friends Hilwa and Sarah (you guys were really bright!). Our submission to the Shape of Thoughts publication, titled “Sense,” aimed to answer the question, “Why do we care so much about aesthetics in design?”

Pulang Kampung: Revisiting native aesthetics and identity.

Batik and wayang, rice and cotton. Those images come to mind when we discuss Indonesia, but whose identity does it represent?

When we talk about aesthetics, we’re not just concerned about the surface level appearance; we’re preserving symbols and representations that act as an extension of ourselves. That’s why designers mustn’t focus solely on instilled imagery when designing for a diverse group of people, but rather try to empathize with existing cultures and context. Because when a little girl somewhere in the eastern shoreline of Indonesia sees those aesthetics and wonders : Why don’t I look like that? Where did we go wrong?

Serving as a universal language, we express ourselves with the help of aesthetics; symbols, visual cues, and artifacts. Surely, those elements alone don’t define our identity as a whole. Our beliefs, rituals, and practices also contribute to it. However, visual artifacts can serve as the paramount medium for the preservation of our identity, as they can withstand time and be easily documented.

In this essay, we will explore the quieter voice of those we have yet to represent when we talk about Indonesia.

We aimed to explain how aesthetics is related to our identity — thereby emphasizing their significance in discussing designed objects. It is a mark of our identity and representation, a similar point Profesor Male made by showing the ancient ceramic.

Professor Male further explored the inherently political nature of collaboration in design. She argued that collaboration is a transaction of power, where gains for one party can lead to shifts in power for another. However, Professor Male’s work suggests that this political nature can be harnessed for positive impact; giving power to those whose power has been taken away from them.

To achieve this, Professor Male advocates for a co-design approach, similar to participatory design, where the individuals or communities for whom we are designing actively participate in the process. In this approach, the role of the designer often shifts to that of a facilitator, supporting the design subjects, who are frequently marginalized individuals.

Reflecting on all this new knowledge, I am taking note of how the need for assistance does not stem from helplessness or inability. Rather, it arises from a system that fails to acknowledge and accommodate their capabilities. This is where designers and the transition design approach play a crucial role. Their purpose is either to bridge existing gaps within the system or, when necessary, create entirely new systems that integrate with their culture and compound knowledge of thousands of years as a traditional community.

---