Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? · PDF fileIs Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Does our desire to help do more harm than good? By Bruce Nussbaum

Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Does our desire to help do more harm than good? By Bruce Nussbaum http://www.fastcodesign.com/1661859/is-humanitarian-design-the-new-imperialism 44 Comments Emily Pilloton's Design Revolution Road Show, the physical embodiment of her non-profit Project H Design rolled into New York a few weeks ago stopping at Metropolis, the Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum and ICFF. Yes, Project H is hot in U.S. and European design circles, almost as sizzling as IDEO, the Acumen Fund, and One Laptop Per Child. And why not? Emily’s Project H is a pure play in using design to do good. It doesn’t get better than this mission statement: Project H Design connects the power of design to the people who need it most, and the places where it can make a real and lasting difference. We are a team of designers, architects, and builders engaging locally through partnerships with social service organizations, communities, and schools to improve the quality of life for the socially overlooked. Our five-tenet design process (There is no design without action; We design WITH, not FOR; We document, share and measure; We start locally and scale globally, We design systems, not stuff) results in simple and effective design solutions for those without access to creative capital. Our scalable long-term initiatives focus on improving environments, services, products, and experiences for youth and K-12 education institutions in the U.S. through systems-level design thinking and deep community engagements. WE BELIEVE DESIGN CAN CHANGE THE WORLD. So do I. But whose design? Which solutions? What problems?

One of Project H's initiatives was to redesign the Hippo Roller, a water transportation device.

Let me explain. The last time I saw Emily was in Singapore in the fall at the ICSID World Design Congress where she was receiving a roaring applause from the European and American designers on stage after giving a speech about Project H. I loved that speech because it linked the power of design to the obligation to do good. In a world awash in consumption, with many designers complicit in designing that consumption, Emily’s message was right on. But not to the mostly Asian designer audience. Of course there was polite applause but, to my surprise, there was also a lot of loud grumbling against Emily along the lines of "What makes her think she can just come in and solve our problems?” This was a challenge of presumption that just stopped me cold--and sent me back to my Peace Corps days when I heard a lot about Western cultural imperialism from my Filipino friends. Are designers helping the "Little Brown Brothers?" Are designers the new anthropologists or missionaries, come to poke into village life, "understand" it and make it better--their "modern" way? Naw. I dismissed the rumblings in the audience against Emily and Project H as insignificant. After all, what were those Asian designers doing for their own poor people in villages and towns in India, the Philippines, and China? Then, some months later at Parsons School for Design, the same thing happened. I went to a talk by IDIOM Design, one of India’s top design consultancies. Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers? At the end of a great presentation, a 20-something woman from the Acumen Fund rushed to the front and said in the proudest, most optimistic, breathless way that Acumen was teaming up with IDEO and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to design better ways of delivering safe drinking water to Indian villagers. She said this to the Indian businessman Kishoreji Biyani, who is the key investor in IDIOM, and to my stunned surprise--and hers--he groused that there was a better, Indian way of solving the problem. She didn't know what to say. And I didn't either. I know the Acumen and IDEO people and they, like Emily, are the very best. I know the IDIOM folks and they, too, are the very best. And I have met Mr. Biyani in India and he is an amazing businessman. But he, too, like many in the Asian audience in Singapore, took offense at Western design intervention in his country. So what’s going on? Did what I see in these two occasions represent something wider and deeper? Is the new humanitarian design coming out of the U.S. and Europe being perceived through post-colonial eyes as colonialism? Are the American and European designers presuming too much in their attempt to do good? As I pondered this, I remembered the contretemps over One Laptop Per Child, an incredibly ambitious project sponsored by all the good guys--the MIT Media Lab, Pentagram, Continuum, fuseproject.

The OLPC XO-3, a touchscreen pad device, is planned to debut in 2012. Again, I know most of the players and they are good souls. The laptop itself is wonderful, with a beautiful shape and unique interface. Yet, OLPC failed in its initial plan to drop millions of inexpensive computers into villages, to hook kids directly to the Web and, in effect, get them to educate themselves. The Indian establishment locked OLPC out precisely because it perceived the effort as inappropriate technological colonialism that cut out those responsible for education in the country—policymakers, teachers, curriculum builders, parents. OLPC never got into China either. Or most of the large nations it had originally targeted. So where are we with humanitarian design? I know almost all of my Gen Y students want to do it because their value system is into doing good globally. Young designers in consultancies and corporations want to do humanitarian design for the same reason. But should we take a moment now that the movement is gathering speed to ask whether or not American and European designers are collaborating with the right partners, learning from the best local people, and being as sensitive as they might to the colonial legacies of the countries they want to do good in. Do designers need to better see themselves through the eyes of the local professional and business classes who believe their countries are rising as the U.S. and Europe fall and wonder who, in the end, has the right answers? Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers? And finally, one last question: why are we only doing humanitarian design in Asia and Africa and not Native American reservations or rural areas, where standards of education, water and health match the very worst overseas? Notes

• http://disqus.com/fastcompany‐a682ba8ac4dca1895bf66ab05b2b63a9/ Bryan Bell 03/14/2011 08:09 AM There are several fallacies in this article. It is a serious topic and deserves more than the level of rumors and innuendo that are the basis for his points: 1. B. Nussbaum presumes to speak for the Indians at the conference but only give us “grousing and grumblings.” Don’t edit for them -- give us sources and quotes.

2. B. Nussbaum argues that design participation means participation of local designers. It does not, it means participation of local users. Design is a cultural act, but given that many areas of need are under-educated, waiting for designers to emerge from their own under-resourced community necessitates that other designers need to be involved, as sensitively as possible, working with local residents to address their challenges 3. Is everything foreign imperialist? Francis Kéré is from Burkina Faso where literacy is 60%. He received his design education in Germany and returned to build schools. Should he be discredited because his education is “imperialist?” 4. B. Nussbaum gives one example of failure -- one computer one child -- but gives not credible metric for what this accomplished or not. Do we have to take B Nussbaum's word that this did not work and did no good? As far as I know, neither local designers nor the sixties Peace Corps solved all the challenges in thwe world. There are not one or two left that we need to fight over. In this work, there is plenty for many to do. But we do need serious debate, not simplistic positions.

o Flag o | Respond o o

• • http://disqus.com/guest/88b12593ac238c1f6d37371278e6b76a/

MC 08/03/2012 09:23 PM Great indirect follow-up by Evgeny Morozov in The New Republic, when he touches upon design and techno-humanitarianism in the last few paragraphs: http://www.tnr.com/article/boo...

o Flag o | Respond o

• • http://disqus.com/openid‐140935/

EchoDelta 07/11/2012 08:44 PM I am surprised that what tends to work the best - in my tiny experience so far - hasn't come up. I realized long ago that technology and design can change the world. But good design is contextual, and the more fundamental the issues the more context matters. The more remote -culturally, geographically, lingusitically, generationally; the harder it is to comprehend; until it becomes almost impossible to do honest to goodness design work. So I decided to have results I could be proud of I had to cut myself out from the loop, and help create new, local loops of design; with people already on the other side of those barriers. Thats prefer it when all that effort goes to help teach design - at all levels, of all shapes - to those who can then **use those design skills to improve their own communities**.

If you think you are great at design, or that design can change the tough issues in the world, prove it by helping find & shape those who are closest to the problems you find vexing. Be a mentor to that brilliant person or team that will have an Aha! moment that may forever be occluded from you as an individual, but that you may help others discovers. See if our iLabs are a good venue for that; we'd love to have you - at http://instedd.org


• • http://disqus.com/fastcompany‐248729/

[email protected] 01/05/2011 02:48 AM This is the most stupid way of engaging people people to converse. I want to see what users are commenting. A few pixels at a time?? when there are 70 lines of comments.. then how many clicks. Do better design of comments first before preaching others.


• • http://disqus.com/fastcompany‐296610a7126a03860a7692377835f6db/

John Winslow 01/04/2011 07:06 PM In the 1960s, legions of young Americans, operating under the aegis of the Peace Corps or the Church, thought of themselves as making a sacrifice as they flocked to Latin America and Africa to “help” those whom they perceived as “under-developed.” Sure, a few wells got dug, some schools were built, but as the great social critic Ivan Illich pointed out, the main legacy of these many do-gooders was to get millions more dreaming the American dream - a dream of endless consumption and of professionally defined goods and services - and millions more convinced that only engineers and social workers trained at great cost truly know how to get things done. Today, it’s "humanitarian designers" who consciously make the sacrifice, foisting their clever ideas on others in the name of “changing the world.” Fortunately, they may not enjoy the same level of power that simply being an American gave their predecessors 40 years ago, but today’s designers believe just as wholeheartedly that they are “doing good.” And their main interaction in foreign lands still will be mainly with a few elites - those able to appreciate a Harvard degrees or an internship at Apple Computer. Let’s face it: Even with rigorous systems analysis backed by massive computer simulation, design efforts rarely fulfill their promises. Experts and professionals tend to design things and places not with the goal of encouraging friendship or helping people to creatively accept and suffer the human condition - to live convivially, as Illich put it. Too often, their efforts lead to further dehumanization and dependence. In other words, even a car designed to use water as its fuel, release zero pollutants, and sell for $1,000 would still push walkers and cyclists off the road

and destroy communities willy-nilly. Design is not the issue - rather, it’s that other word, humanitarian.



Edward Church 10/08/2010 07:18 PM Great discussion



Adrienne Downing 10/07/2010 04:31 PM It seems as though humanitarian design may be a field of work that socially aware Western youngsters see as an alternative career path to working for corporations that do harm over seas and encourage over-indulgent consumption. Creating products that people have a need for seems more meaningful and rewarding than adding to the already excessive product consumption we have here in the States. I believe that those who get involved in humanitarian design have a genuine interest in providing other nations with tools to succeed, survive, and live comfortably, sharing our excess with those who would better appreciate it. However, this article points out that the Western ideals of success and survival may be different from those in other countries. Our idealism and eagerness to provide products and solutions to other nations may be considered a slap in the face, as well as a an invasion of culture. In accepting help from the United States, another nation may be seen as giving up responsibility for itself and becoming more dependent, which I believe none of the leaders want. Perhaps they don’t want to adopt our same habits. Globalization has already diluted many cultures and values of smaller countries that have a hard time competing. A country has a right to provide for itself and keep its individuality. This is something we should respect, but I don’t think that we should discourage the humanitarian instinct within our own citizens. We have many complicated issues here at home to overcome. It would seem hypocritical to fix others’ problems before fixing our own, which seems to be a point of criticism as well. There are circumstances however, where I believe Project H has made a difference in helping others to provide for themselves. The redesign of the Hippo Roller seems to be essential in the well-being of those who need them while not impeding on their cultural habits. Project H did not eliminate their process of retrieving water, it just made it much easier. This was also a problem that seemed like common sense to fix. Some of the problems we have to fix in the States might seem a little more complicated and daunting, some we might not even be willing to admit to. I suppose it may be easier to make judgements elsewhere than it is to judge ourselves. It was brought up that our Native American and rural areas are somewhat ignored in this design process. Perhaps it is thought that we

need to be more self-critical rather than noticing the faults in others. So all in all, I think that the humanitarian effort is a good initiative towards a meaningful design career so long as we are sensitive to the identities of those we are trying to help. Helping at home seems like a good place to start, which is precisely what project H is going from the Bertie County School District in North Carolina. Its main focus is rethinking the curricula for K-12 school systems, and it branches out from there. It emphasizes designing WITH, not FOR. Plowman’s “Ethnography and Critical Design Practice” states that designers have mere days or weeks to do immersive research with their subjects. Perhaps more time should be taken to become more culturally aware of those who would resist our help and to co-design with them, not for them. If our help is resisted still, then we should not force it and know when to stop.



Billy Fore 10/07/2010 01:18 PM Excellent insight! It is not a point of view I see very often when I read about or hear about Humanitarian Design. I see some of these devices and inventions and cannot help but be happy to see some excellent design solutions to real world problems; on the other hand, what does it mean to truly be humanitarian? Are feelings and sentiments important or just the actual results producing better living? It is a tough one to mull over, really. I have always been one to want to help someone before I know all the information. I think this is really reflective of a guilty conscience more than an altruistic spirit. The moral obligations that many people carry around are like albatrosses that they wish to let go through many well-placed, well-intentioned acts of social kindness. Considering the recipient is a way of humanizing and pragmatically engineering the social problems of the world today. My mother grew up on a Chippewa reservation up in North Dakota. She has described to me, over the years, some of the terrible conditions she endured while living there. Today, she is a physical-therapist assistant and stays in contact with many of her elderly patients in her spare time -- giving them extra care and being a friend to their often lonely situations. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that my mom had a rough childhood and has a heart for service to others. She is a constant inspiration to me -- especially when I am deeply entrenched in a misanthropic mood. But I think there is really one point I glean from all of my mother’s history: Growing up in want gives you a much different perspective on service than if you grow up with all the expected amenities. I constantly go to my mom when I need a wider perspective because, simply, I grew up with everything and had little hardship with which to contend. My experiences touching this topic have not amply prepared me to have a legitimate opinion on this subject. More work is required on my part.

The problem seems to be driven from a conflict in perception. This is sort of the problem of Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden.” The verse is strikingly xenophobic, but at the same time, the narrator really does think he is doing incredibly beneficent things for which he is expected great gratitude. But this is not a new issue. An opposing view to the Imperialism argument might be that this is just an issue of pearls before swine. If people are forced into a toilsome daily experience, wouldn’t it just be easier to take the burden-saving device and be appreciative? But even that is coming from a point of view of privilege. I am not sure what it is like to live in a situation where charity organizations try to help you out of your hardship. And my two cents is hardly worth much. But at the end of the day, the important thing is to continue this conversation with those we hope to be helping and further explore the philosophical implications of what humanitarianism means.



Garrett Campagna 10/06/2010 05:33 PM In my opinion, which is educated in this area by Frascara and reading through a few different blogs, I would not say that humanitarian design is, or should be, imperialist. We need to examine these issues in context, as Frascara suggests we always should. In the last century, the United States has tried to get involved in issues in which we are not exactly welcome. Examples of this include the Politics of Iraq, religious issues, Vietnam, and our current focus: designing products for nations that theoretically need them. While those people in Africa, Asia, and India may need our design in theory, and the citizens will likely be grateful for them, the leadership of those areas doesn’t feel the same way. Many foreign leaders likely view the US as a super power that is trying to turn everyone democratic and influencing those that don’t need our influence. As the Asian audience member said in your writing, “‘what makes her think she can just come in and solve our problems?”’ I could definitely see where this attitude comes from. If I were to sign up for a race and then trip and fall halfway through, I would not want every bystander and competitor coming to my aid. I signed up for the race and I can handle myself! While that isn’t necessarily a good analogy because no developing nation signed up for poverty and struggle, the message is the same. The pride in most people wants to solve one’s own problems because that speaks to the strength of that person: an injured football player receives applause when he gets himself up, not when the coach comes out on the field. A nation would be seen as stronger if they were to be able to solve their own problems. Therefore, if a developing nation doesn’t want the United States’ help, then they need not receive it- there are domestic issues to consider as well. (The fact that we should stabilize our own economy and solve our own problems before helping others’ is a different issue entirely.) We shouldn’t be trying to shove our own design solutions down others’ throats.

Now, if another nation were to suddenly come to us for help, we should definitely give it. There should be no hard feelings when someone doesn’t want someone else’s help. An analogy for this would be, if my roommate to ask if I needed help on my physics homework. If I were to say, “I think I can handle it myself tonight,” he would probably be ok with me asking for help the next day. The point I’m trying to make, is that being humanitarian does not mean being imperialist. We simply need to be ok with it when others don’t want our help, and be willing to help others when they both need it and want it. It isn’t the job of the United States to determine who is in need and meet those needs. Every country needs to be responsible for themselves, but still be willing to help. All these problems could be avoided if we simply asked others if they needed help before trying to help them. Really, humanitarianism is not something that should be forced, by nature. If we were truly considering the interests of others we would be polite with how we presented our solutions, and others would be more polite in accepting our solutions.



Eduardo Jezierski 08/20/2010 11:45 PM Designers from high-income countries need to let go of the assumption that context and culture is transferrable. I recommend they let go of the (egoist?) attachment to solve problems themselves, and focus on teaching interaction design, rapid prototyping, and other skills needed to designers of lower income countries - and stick to helping connect with others and giving that 'naivete' in a constructive way - in which they are contributors not owners. Constrained environments are a pressure cooker for innovation and design skills in the hands of those who really get it are essential to materializing it. For example, see the work of designers in Cambodia's innovation lab, in phnom penh to help track diseases. (eg http://www.scribd.com/doc/2613...



Fabricio Dore 08/11/2010 03:40 PM Being a Brazilian designer and working in Europe for a North-american design consultancy I have some pretty strong opinions about it. I came to this post following a discussion on a design community website from Brazil. The thread has just started there and I hope it will be quite interesting - considering that it comes from 'within'. A few comments to add to the conversation here: (1) Being close to some issue or problem can make you think that they are insoluble. Sometimes it's just because you have too much information. An outsider can enjoy a 'positive ignorance'...

(2) "I do good because it feels good to me": The fascination that those with more feel when helping those with less, the feeling of doing the 'good', happens also within those countries. For more than 10 years, there's a movement within the more well-off Brazilian designers to go visit poor artisan communities, form partnerships and bring their craft on well design objects to the market. For fame or for some spiritual reason, what matters is that it happens. (3) If I was going to be really sensitive about all this, even the fact that the discussion puts together "Indian, Brazilian and African designers" is infused by imperialistic language. India is a country with more than 20 different languages; Brazil is a Western country colonized by European nations with African and Middle Eastern immigrants, that speaks 1 language but has very different socioeconomic realities (the city of Rio de Janeiro has a GDP per capita similar to Japan*, for instance, whereas some areas in the far north are as poor as African nations); and, lastly, Africa is a continent with so many unique problems that is almost impossible to compare it with anything else... Well, what I learned on my Anthropology classes during my degree in Industrial Design, is that no matter what, we should avoid generalizations because they rarely match reality. Instead, if you, European or African designer, want to do good, move your ass from your desk and go see it there, first hand. You will learn that what might seem 'bad' to you, might not really bother the others. You might also learn some things about your own culture, when you come back to your country of origin - and realize that some things you grew up with and thought were good can be pretty nasty. There's never one right answer for these issues but keeping the eyes open and sincerely doing good, not for the picture, but because you really care, are requirements that will automatically prevent any sort of new colonialism and provide an open environment for cultural interchange and development. *CIA Factbook and IBGE (Insituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística)



Luis Arnal 08/09/2010 08:20 AM Late post but here it is for the record... I believe reactions to design interventions are isolated and spontaneous behaviors, fueled by pride and desire to stand out--natural human reactions. Viewing things in perspective I don´t think that the Asian designers or Mr. Biyani would oppose to implementing design solutions to social problems as sometimes it is better to do solve a problem half way than not solving it at all ("Satisficing" as H. Simon wrote). In fact, I think that many designers from developing nations would prefer to have design interventions from developed nations than not having them at all. There is a Polish proverb that says “A guest sees more in an hour than the host in a year.” and I think this is precisely the great benefit of foreign interventions and a phenomena I see in my company, in/situm almost everyday when for example, a designer from Brazil is involved in a project for US Hispanics. In this case, the

Brazilian questions more, and is less used to the situation we are trying to solve than the local one. However, in order to reduce misperceptions about developed-nation solutions for emerging-country problems, the ideal process would be to partner with local designers/researchers. That way, the resulting solution would be co-created and as a side benefit there will be relationships and knowledge transfer to be made. So, bring them in (but let us know beforehand)


• • http://disqus.com/charlesbezerra/

charlesbezerra 08/03/2010 09:33 AM My two cents… I believe this is a very broad topic, and I would like to bring Popper’s ideas to the discussion. According to him, there are verbal problems and real problems: “we shouldn’t let ourselves be goaded into taking seriously problems about words and their meaning” which for him was the “surest path for intellectual perdition”; and there are the real problems, which for him, includes: “reducing misery, violence, ignorance and increasing freedom.” So, I believe any attempt to act on real problems should be respected. For Popper we should be intellectually humble (meaning we should be looking for critical debate for testing our ideas instead of defending them) and also optimistic, which for him was a moral duty. Definably designers can learn a lot from others in different contexts and we should be doing this more often, for the real problems are increasing in complexity and scale. There is no ‘us’ and ‘them…’ there is only ‘We…’ because, WE have a lot to do.



Paula Thornton 08/02/2010 09:53 AM It's not design imperialism, it's just bad design: focusing on the product and not the context/system.



Alberto Villarreal 07/26/2010 12:00 AM I really think it is about time designers and professionals of any field (no matter where they are located or where they come from) start working on solutions to try to reduce the gap between the more privileged and the ones with unsolved basic needs. If more Gen Y folks are interested in philanthropic design is because there is clearly a rising notion and urgency in search for social balance that the younger generations are more aware of (I see because every time I give a talk about social

design the younger folks are usually the ones interested in DOING something and participating in social design projects). I'm a former member of the Project H Design San Francisco chapter and currently lead the Mexico City-based group Razon Social. We work with local communities and sometimes encounter the same issue: certain resistance to the receiver community to accept help from the more economically privileged ones. As Emily says, it is messy, wonderful and difficult, but once you put your hands on the work and get to the community you see it with different eyes. Again, I think it is about time professionals of ALL fields start working towards a more equal world and less focused on making a profit. A good exercise for everyone is to look at the UN Millennium Goals and start thinking what YOU can do. -Alberto


• • http://disqus.com/invisibledesigner/

Bruno Ferreira 07/17/2010 09:06 AM , Design, Society, Digital Media The last paragraph of this post is for me what summarises THE big problem. 'Humanitarian design' was born in the wrong countries. The difficulty that some designers are experiencing implementing their help projects in the developing world is coming from governments, suspicious of westerners intentions. We can all understand that if we are not showing that we are looking in to our problems with the same eyes that we use in Africa that India might refuse help. I think things are changing. I write about htat change here (http://bit.ly/95b5uT).



Michelle Boucher 07/15/2010 06:34 PM I might add to your last paragraph. We don't need to look as far as the reservation to find poor living condiditions--they exist in the marginalized populations in every city. Even in my town of 12,000 in the "idyllic" midwest, children (mostly white) go to bed hungry, live in substandard conditions, and are doomed to repeat the cylcle of poverty and despair without intervention. Why is it so much easier to care for starving children in a third world country?



Viren Brahmbhatt 07/13/2010 03:35 PM There is a paradigm shift in response to the changed world and the social/economic divide that some of us acknowledge and are working towards

bridging; however, the 'change-mongers' and the so-call...ed 'design-thinkers' exploiting the opportunities for personal gain has been giving those well-meaning folks a bad rap. -Viren [de.Sign | New York]



Tasos Calantzis 07/13/2010 02:49 PM Gee; I'm late to the party but here's my 10c worth: Bruce Nussbaum has taken a pasting for asking whether Western designers attempting humanitarian design are actually helping or not. He also asks “Might Indian, Brazilian and African designers have important design lessons to teach Western designers?” The answer to the second question is “of course, yes.” The very question has raised the ire of designers in those places. Most European and American designers who have passed through Terrestrial’s South African office, travelled to Uganda with David Stairs or spent time with Prof Ranjan at NID in India would also agree. However, respectful peer-to-peer collaboration with local designers, users and experts is often preached and seldom done. The answer to the first question takes a little longer. Design might change the world but not in the way most people think. The greatest changes in nations occur in the social, political and economic spheres. These are the areas that require the most radical redesign and designers wishing to do good should develop the skills for them. These are also contextual fields; failure to account for them in other projects results in unintended consequences and failure or mediocrity. This is the graveyard for most humanitarian design projects and the reason why many that succeed tend to be insignificant in scale. Humanitarian design initiatives should be applauded wherever they come from but they carry a large responsibility to the people whose lives they experiment with, for the resources and goodwill they consume and for the context in which they operate. Those organizations that actually do good at an effective scale (like Cameron Sinclair’s Architecture for Humanity) succeed because they both understand this and do it.



Viren Brahmbhatt 07/13/2010 08:19 AM There is too much fuss about 'Design Thinking' and "doing good through design" nonsense being exploited by designers for self-promotion. It would be fine, if they were only exploiting the dearth for good design to help for a cause, but they also seem to be exploiting the people and their predicament in such places - and that is tragic. On the other hand, there are others (particularly in Asian and African countries) who are quietly, selflessly and tirelessly working towards the same

goals without much pomp or attention; and bringing about quiet change - if not a revolution. -Viren [de.Sign | New York]



S H 07/11/2010 04:14 AM We should also be aware, on the flipside of this same coin, of whether western efforts to help are unfairly being categorized as imperialistic /because/ they are western. We should definitely ask whether a proposed improvement actually imposes western values or extends western hegemony, or genuinely addresses a universal concern and promotes self-sufficiency. For example, sending catholic missionaries into South Africa has probably done quite a lot of harm. Sending anti-malarial nets or digging wells on the other hand has probably saved a lot of lives. Lives that would not have been possible, given the amount of money and technological development available, for those countries to save on their own. And while some values are relative, others are more universal, like access to clean drinking water. The biggest issue I see western efforts failing to address is promoting self-sufficiency rather than independence and just resorting to 'more of the same' when it becomes clear a particular approach is ineffective or damaging. Relief aid to Somalia is a big example here, where it mostly has served to help local warlords buy guns and cement their power rather than feed anyone, and local industries have often had trouble competing with free goods flooding in from relief agencies. Its also important to note that westerners are not the only ones capable of behaving like imperialists - China's occupation of Tibet being a good example. The Chinese government often has spoken of this in the same kind of look-at-all-the-good-we've-done-for-these-poor-people way that Western imperialists have of other peoples. My gut feeling is that it is less a particular failing of western culture that leads to imperialistic attitudes, than access to the kind of power that having huge empires gave them for so long, and that as other nations rise to power, they too will grow increasingly corrupt in a similar fashion. The damages done by western imperialism should be seen as a warning to the whole human race about what we are all capable of.



Thomas Sturm 07/09/2010 01:53 PM To the last question: Humanitarian issues in far away countries always look easy since we don't know the details. Local humanitarian issues look impossible to solve because we do know the details. This is probably an old issue, but it is now surfacing much more prominently due to the ease of organizing grass-roots efforts via the web. So suddenly large,

youthful and moneyed groups with very lose organizational structures show up in the third world to "fix their problems"...



Kara Pecknold 07/09/2010 01:07 PM Clearly a hot topic! I've written some more thoughts on my own blog: http://gu.nu/eH For now, I'll quote Gui Bonsiepe on the topic as I think he has some profound things to say: "Design humanism is the exercise of design activities in order to interpret the needs of social groups, and to develop viable emancipative proposals in the form of material and semiotic artifacts. Why emancipative? Because humanism implies the reduction of domination. In the field of design, it also means to focus on the excluded, the discriminated, and economically less favored groups (as they are called in economist jargon), which amounts to the majority of the population of this planet. I want to make it clear that I don’t propagate a universalistic attitude according to the pattern of design for the world. Also, I don’t believe that this claim should be interpreted as the expression of a naive idealism, supposedly out of touch with reality. On the contrary, each profession should face this uncomfortable question, not only the profession of designers. It would be an error to take this claim as the expression of a normative request of how a designer —exposed to the pressure of the market and the antinomies between reality and what could be reality— should act today. The intention is more modest, that is to foster a critical consciousness when facing the enormous imbalance between the centers of power and the people submitted to these powers, because the imbalance is deeply undemocratic insofar as it negates participation. It treats human beings as mere instances in the process of objectivization (Verdinglichung) and commodification." For those of us attempting to work with those who are often found "on the margins," I can only affirm Emily Pilloton's assessment about this type of design: "...it is messy, wonderful, difficult, and a constant learning process for us as designers and the people we work with and for..." To only view this work from a distance doesn't explain it fully. Once you've been in the field with people and listened to their needs and aspirations, you realize this can't be reduced to a simple assessment of design (and shouldn't be articulate as an "us/them" issue).



Charlie Weiss 07/09/2010 12:34 PM Before I got to the end of your post, I was thinking maybe we should be demonstrating the life-changing power of design here at home first. As you said,

roughly, "Native American reservations [and] rural areas[']... standards of education, water and health match the very worst overseas"



Theodore Thomas 07/09/2010 11:23 AM Thanks Bruce for continuing to cover this issue. While the failed OLPC and the Project H Roadshow both were founded upon the best of intentions, I feel they both exhibited a fair amount of hubris (the kind formerly reserved for architects imposing their vision upon the landscape) that could be interpreted as colonial. I wrongly assumed that all designers take pride in their research and consideration before flooding the market with more product, Clearly, the CE business is about something else. Glad to see the roadshow pulling off to the side and embedding in a community here in the US, something that OLPC apparently didn't find necessary in their research.



Emily Pilloton 07/09/2010 10:51 AM As the primary example in this article, I'd like to clarify one point: Project H is based in rural North Carolina. I live in the poorest county in the state, Bertie County. My partner and I wrote and co-teach a design/build build curriculum in the public high school here, supported by the Kellogg Foundation, in which we are developing community design education models for rural public high schools. I spend most days in a shop/studio we are rebuilding ourselves, with our students. Our students are amazing, and we're teaching design and construction skills as a vehicle for community improvement owned and built by the students (first project: a farmer's market plaza/building downtown). The one Project H initiative mentioned here, the Hippo Roller redesign, is the ONLY project we have ever done that has not been local. To summarize Project H by our anomaly is misrepresentation. Our 20 current projects are based IN the U.S. and are collaborative endeavors between local designers and local clients. Mr. Nussbaum even quotes this in our mission statement: "We start locally...." Humanitarian design is messy, wonderful, difficult, and a constant learning process for us as designers and the people we work with and for. I hope that in reading this article, we can all remember that it is not so black and white, and that there are groups (like Project H and Catapult, among many others), trying to get it right, from the ground up, in places we know and are invested in (NOT worlds away, but in the rural fields of Bertie County, NC). Thanks to Alissa Walker, Sarah Rich, and JGL for your comments here. - Emily Pilloton Founder and Executive Director

Project H Design www.projecthdesign.org


• • http://disqus.com/gerwitz/

hans.gerwitz 07/09/2010 10:17 AM , geek Some of the locals are finding humor in the colonists while also making a point about their own ability: http://designforthefirstworld....



Udayan Banerjee 07/09/2010 12:28 AM Late Prof. C K Prahalad had made a similar point - http://setandbma.wordpress.com...



Meena Kadri 07/08/2010 05:07 PM I'd just like to highlight Anil Gupta's comment above. He's actually working on the ground in India with grassroots innovators so provides more than mere armchair commentary. You can check out more about his highly relevant work: http://bit.ly/bL0uT9



Gong Szeto 07/08/2010 04:20 PM No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well. Margaret Thatcher


• • http://disqus.com/AbdullahAhmed/

AbdullahAhmed 07/08/2010 02:21 PM As a Pakistani (currently residing in Canada) I can tell you that one of the big reasons why the genuine do-good attempts are met with disdain and skepticism is because they look hypocritical.

The efforts of Gen Y American and European do-gooders are overshadowed by actions of corporations, military and politicians of the same nations. So on one hand the Indian man see's things Bhopal Disaster and the lack of accountability by Union Carbide, or Monsanto's GM seeds driving farmers to suicide, and on the other hand he see's some people trying to provide him with a cleaner water supply. To most Asians and Africans it seems like the westerners cause destruction and at the same time some of them come bearing gifts. Its difficult to build trust in the face of such duplicity.


• • http://disqus.com/twitter‐142472618/

José Cardoso 02/24/2012 09:40 AM Touché.

o Flag o


anil gupta 07/08/2010 01:39 PM i dont think the issuer really is where from designers come so long as they are not surrounded by greedy or vulture funds and have genuine desire to learn and share. i would not mind involvement of designers from any where so long as they come with open mind, share their learning with/from grassroots learners and also give credit where it is due. the problem arises when some so called do gooders raise huge funds, pay fat salaries and use the partnership with local communities to legitimise their greed. we can do without that but we should not throw baby with bath water. if India designers shy away from engaging with creative knowledge rich economically poor people and some others are willing to have genuine involvement, they are most welcome.



Bill Clem 07/08/2010 12:23 PM I think you're absolutely right. To me this reads like some sci-fi series. A group of 'travelers' from a far off place come to 'explore' the land and people. Of course they are welcomed because they are all powerful and knowledgable, after all, the locals could not dream of going to the place they are from. And their technology and wisdom is formidable. At first, there is trepidation with the 'off worlders' but it slowly grows to anger as nothing the locals seem to do is right. Suddenly they are children with new 'gods'. We've all seen this storyline and now we're living it. If Design is to truly change behavior and make a difference in the world the first change has to be our own. The very idea that a designer can go into a culture,

immerse themselves for any period of time whatsoever, and understand all of the idiosyncrasies of that society is immature and dangerous. Doing good might then mean that instead of solutionifying everything we see, we need to teach to fish, rather teach to design. If Design Thinking is a skill that can be taught and Design is a profession that can be mastered, then don't we owe it to others to teach and then collaborate instead of solve and hope something rubs off?



Lindus 07/08/2010 11:30 AM Ok, sometimes people get overexcited when they see a problem and solve it in a good but in the long run unpractical way. However, IF the solution is solid, using local resources and are easily reproducable then it should not matter who made the solution, be it a local person or a "westerner". All too often we see the attitude of "not invented here" and this is prevalent everywhere, be in companies or in countries. All these attitudes come at the expense of someone. More often than not this someone is a poor villager who would not like anything better than have the problem solved and cannot care for the world where the solution came from. So, in the end this kind of attitude is an example of jingoistic snobbery that can be afforded by the ones who already have and don't really care about the ones who have not. And frankly, if this intrusion of inventions from the west is seen as colonialism, one does start to wonder if a bit or re-colonialism is really so bad as these who turn up their noses at these non-native inventions claim it is.



Carlos Cepeda Danies 07/08/2010 11:27 AM I'd like to share an excelent video of Proyecto Tití. http://vimeo.com/13050356 a truly sustainable, conservationist, and community-involving project carried on in the colombian caribbean.



Carlos Cepeda Danies 07/08/2010 11:06 AM I'm from Colombia, and personally, as inhabitant of the colombian caribbean, I don't like anyone from outside my country, or even from the interior of Colombia, coming here to 'solve' our problems, it feels like if we weren't up to the task, and finally, things will continue to be the same, done at 'their-way' (foreign), and we will continue to 'depend' on anyone who came to 'help'. People way of thinking is just too proud.

Water access, education, amongst other issues, must be solved with effective political managements and eliminating corruption and harmful corporate interests. Most of any other solutions are nothing but warm cloths. However, around here there are some project examples and writers that propose how the cultural sensibility to external influences should be handled. As a first approach, the answer may be becoming local; involving the communities into a do-it-yourselves process, in which design and production became local, supervised by them, and the profit generated also returned to them. Check http://www.proyectotiti.com/ for instance.



chrish 07/08/2010 09:26 AM I don't believe that designers are aware that they are precieved in such a way. It is an awareness issue, and stems from "how you were raised is what's normal to you" There is not a intended emotion of "we can solve your problems better than you can", that emotion is articulated in the enthusiasm and willingness to help. But being aware of another cultures view of your own is a hard thing to grasp unless you exhibit your own humility by asking. Ignorance of local ideas or discussions of a local problem can only harm the sucess of your solution, actually involving the area you want to help will create success. There is no doubt that only help is intended, but are you sure the help is even wanted? Creating safe drinking water and stilling illness are noble, but do you respect the tradittions of the people you wish to help? You can not walk on an "indian" reservation and expect to solve an issue just because you say you have the solution. Do you even know how "Native Americans" refer to themselves? Or do you just accept the knowledge told you? Most of the known history of "Native Americans" that is learned by the "White Man" was recorded and created by said man. Without actual knowledge of the people and cultures, plus local beliefs and business practices, you are setting yourself up for exactly what was noticed by Bruce. You don't want folks coming into your yard and showing you how to BBQ just because they formed a committe of cooks, business folks, and experts do you? You may have some family traditions that mean more to you than bringing out that tast of ginger.


• • http://disqus.com/gelatobaby/

Alissa 07/07/2010 09:10 PM We covered Catapult/PopTech's project with the Navajo Nation here: http://www.fastcompany.com/blo... ; there's also Project M and the Rural Studio working in rural Alabama among many other groups; and Project H itself has

chapters across the U.S., with Emily relocating to North Carolina to head up their new initiative.



JGL 07/07/2010 08:41 PM As Sarah Rich mentioned - Project H has set up camp in rural North Carolina for the next five years working in the education arena. They actually focus the vast majority of their work in the locations immediately surrounding the cities in which they have chapter groups... and have been for the last two years. Take a look for yourself. http://projecthdesign.org/proj... Perhaps, Project H and Catapult are ahead of your own thinking in regards to this subject and are now seeing validation.

Documents

Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? · PDF fileIs Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Does our desire to help do more harm than good? By Bruce Nussbaum