Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John A. Sweeney
“This class is a graduate level introductory course in governance design. Students will work in teams to
design new forms of governance at different "levels" according to one of four "generic alternative futures".
Each class period will include a general discussion of the day's topics and of several design challenges and
options. Then each design group will discuss and decide tentatively and in principle its preferred solution
to the design challenges of the day. During the last sessions of the semester, each group will finalize and
then present to the rest of the class its governance design for its future.”
Using the course description from the syllabus as a guide for my comments on the
POLS673 2.0 experience, I would also like to use this paper as an opportunity to reflect a bit
more sharply on the distinction between programming versus design, as I see it, especially with
regard to futures-based governance innovation and my group's project. It strikes me that there
exists a handoff, even if unconsciously, at some point in the innovation process where one moves
away from creation (design) and instead focuses on the pragmatics and logistics of how the
design operates (programming). In the parlance of computer programming, this turn in the
creative process is what Jaron Lanier calls “lock-in.” He notes, “The process of lock-in is like a
wave gradually washing over the rulebook of life, culling the ambiguities of flexible thoughts as
more and more thought structures are solidified into effectively permanent reality” (Lanier 2010,
9). While I would like to situate this claim within the specific contexts of futures work a bit later
in this exposition, I do want the reader to keep this in mind while working through the text as a
Lock-in, perhaps best conceived of as a design challenge itself, was a particularly sizable
concern for my group as we sought to demonstrate the inextricable link between the socio-
economic and the political within the context of our scenario and in futures-based governance
design in general, which forced us to find novel ways to address how we might integrate futures
thinking/un-thinking across both spheres. As we were the only group not to produce a preferred
governance design, I think this decision, regardless of outcome, encapsulates our affirmation of
Dator's maxim that governance is “how things get done” while government is something else
Sweeney 2
entirely, and our design was meant to bridge the two as I felt strongly that design
inevitably becomes programming—as The Who put it: “meet the new boss, same as the
old boss.” With that said, governance design was our primary charge in the course, as the
syllabus dutifully explains, but after taking some more time to think about the three
“designs” and how they orient bodies in space-time, it would seem that class participants
focused their efforts on the formation of government, which remains mired in the murky
milieu of actually preventing things from changing, not as it relates to getting things done
endogenously but rather in relation to the adaptability and evolvability of the design itself
—were all the designs delivered d.o.a? This, however, might have more to do with
contemporary notions of design and the creative process more than a mere failure to
implement dynamic and innovative projects, which I found all three to be in various ways.
From my perspective, the current fashionability of “design thinking” has its roots
transnational capital. Noting the place and function of designers, Brown and Wyatt
explain, “Design thinkers look for work-arounds and improvise solutions—like the
shrimps, crabs, and snails—and they find ways to incorporate those into the offerings they
create. They consider what we call the edges, the places where 'extreme' people live
differently, think differently, and consume differently” (Brown and Wyatt 2010). Why the
arthropods—as their compatriots in design is beyond me, but this likening provides an apt
metaphor that sheds some light on the state of design today, which locks its recalcitrant
gaze squarely focused upon either furthering or merely tinkering with the economic
Sweeney 3
Present concerns over sustainability, of which I have previously been a vocal advocate,
remain ensconced within the tacit assumption that we need only summon the ability to
sustain what we have rather than radically reconsidering the nature of merit of what it is
everything except the tenets of the market whether it is local, global, and/or simply a
farmer's stand. Terms such as evolvability and/or futurability grant more significant
weight to the original ethos of sustainability, but as they are not incumbent to the
machinations of capitalism, they are rendered insensible, which affirms the postulate that
sustainability has been co-opted and now operates merely as a facet of capitalism—a rabid
and voracious wolf clad in all organic, grass-fed sheep's clothing. As such, the purpose of
inclusion of such outliers into the all-encompassing norm, which can only affirm one's
individuality through choice as nothing more than selection—will you be having Coke or
Pepsi this evening, Dr. Dator? The movement to absorb the periphery into the
mainstream, as with sustainability, has done nothing more than inculcate another
beginning to sound a bit like a Marxist and as any such association will severely hinder my
chances at gainful employment in the future(s), I think it is best to simply cut to the chase:
much, if not most, of contemporary design thinking relegates itself to a singular vision of
the future where one projects a spatio-temporal unity of the world and one's experience of
Sweeney 4
it so that design itself becomes an all-consuming totality where the line between subject
and object breaks down. This, as it were, makes it far more similar, both in content and
form, to programming as the process is solely dependent upon parameters drawn around it
—lock-in indeed. To learn to be a designer one must break out of the bounds of the
present, and immersion into the future(s) as a spatial configuration more than a temporal
one.
resistance within the scenario itself. This was what led our group to design-in three
the HIGOV project; 2) extremist Baha'i protester caught between ROTADCORP and the
parameters of the HIGOV privacy policy; and 3) the seemingly invisible HIGOV4.2 cabal
who was present only through their absence. As the only tangible artifact of our actual
governance design, the privacy policy aims to outline the conditions of inclusion within
the governing bodies present on Oahu, and as our scenario crafted a future filled with a
litany of ownership and privacy issues, we saw this as key to organizing a novel
governance design with challenges centered on one's embodied experience of life within
unsuccessfully, the divide between governance and government in that the HIGOV4.2
project is an ongoing endeavor, but this required us to pick and choose challenges as we
saw fit, and I do not think our group was alone in struggling with this concern. In other
words, instead of crafting “our preferred solution to design challenges” it feels a bit like
Sweeney 5
As these challenges were not directly tasked for us to address even though we
methodically progressed through the major concerns of governance, this clearly weighed
diversity in the designs, which I found to be the most interesting and rewarding aspect of
the class as a whole, it also clearly impacted their efficacy and tangibility. It seemed to me
that even though we were given considerably relevant and thoughtful scenarios that the
distinction between macro- and micro-futures was lost on a portion of the class, and while
I certainly think that the attempt to frame the myriad “levels” of governance was fruitful,
finding a creative way of integrating them, as the designs demonstrate or perhaps do not
demonstrate, remains the crucial and final challenge. It is one thing to envision a totalizing
governance design where structure is all that matters, but it is another thing entirely to
context—a governance design for a living, breathing futures scenario. As my group chose
to pursue the latter, both in content and form, I am certainly partial to this methodology—
if that is even what it is—but I think it also allows for a critical point of entry to think
about governance design as a far less positivist process than our tidy historical lens
typically grants us; futures is not, as it were, history in reverse, and I felt a bit like this
If the primary task of the futurist is to see, smell, hear, taste, and touch things that
escape sensation in the present, then it is crucial that one's imag(in)ing of the future(s) is
itself sensational—in every sense of the term. Offering a way of ameliorating this
Sweeney 6
distinction, Tunstall outlines the difference between Design and design in her work on
design thinking and governance, which is based at the School of Art and Design at the
In summary, I approach Design, with an uppercase D, as the processes of abstract, strategic, ideal
creation that is open to everyone. In the context of government, it is often the intellectual domain
of the political science, management, and policy fields. I approach design, with lowercase d, as in
many ways its complement – tangible, improvisational, reality creations that is the mostly
professionalized and within the intellectual domains of design, communication, and usability
(Tunstall 2007, 3).
design offers a useful heuristic for re-thinking the process of futures-based governance
innovation as a process where both d's must receive rigorous attention. Linking this dual
functionality of Design/design with the task of the futurist, as I conceive of it, Tunstall
continues, “They are the formation and implementation of the thought behind the
is an important area of design research because Design/design mediates the trust people
hold in the practices of government by making them tangible (i.e. able to be seen,
smelled, tasted, heard, felt, and experienced)” (Tunstall 2007, 5). Dividing the two
concepts a bit more clearly, I would like to apply this formulation to Futures Studies and
framework, I felt like there were two Futures (Beginnings, Growth) and one futures
(Transformation) presentations, and while I'm certainly partial to the latter for obvious
reasons, I consider the question of value and meaning between the two more a matter of
qualitative rather taste than objectively quantifiable criteria—if anything, the true
Sweeney 7
new about his link between sense and politics. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
professes that the constitution serves as “a certain ordering of the inhabitants of the city-
state” and is tantamount to a “way of life” (Anon. 2011). Dator's integral maxim—
one's experience and creation of reality matter just as much as one's actual engagement
with material phenomena. It is worth noting the conditions of possibility present within
our historical moment that drive this renaissance of sense, and it is not coincidental that
as we have become inundated with sensory media across various fronts that sensation,
which has become a form of information itself, should return to the forefront of our
thoughts on politics and governance. Again, there is nothing new about this formula,
which Alvin Toffler noted in The Third Wave, many moons ago. He observes, “It is
difficult to make sense of this swirling phantasmagoria, to understand exactly how the
image-manufacturing process is changing. For the Third Wave does more than simply
accelerate our information flows: it transforms the deep structure of information on which
our daily actions depend” (Toffler 1981, 159). Toffler's concern for making sense is
exactly what is at stake in the Futures/futures divide as it affirms the decidedly and
exercise to de-stabilize and problematize the present. This overlooked facet of futures is
particular sense of the present, and this concession is of particular importance if one aims
Sweeney 8
to utilize the four-futures Manoa School methodology. As this relates to the proposed
Futures/futures divide, it is simply not enough to provide a lens from which others might
think differently concerning “images of the future.” Rather, one must find novel and
critical passage—one that is worth quoting in full—from his doctoral dissertation, Candy
of politics grounded in, what I would like to term, affective agency—or the centrality of
The design of novel governance systems, then, is a challenging and noteworthy thought
experiment, but it is all but bound to remain just that. Politics, meanwhile, operates full-time,
permeating the very fabric of our lives, every meal we eat, every day at work and every night in
bed asleep. When we regard politics as incorporating usually invisible operations of power, the
meaning-making and habitus-shaping incentives or constraints that extend well beyond the ballot
box and the party platform; when we take to heart the by now long-established insistence on the
part of the feminist movement that ‘the personal is political’, and the Foucauldian revelation of the
dispositifs (apparatuses) of power at the minute, ‘capillary’ scale; at this point we may begin to see
the need for quite a different mode of engagement with the ‘politics of aesthetics’ (different from
that called for in light of the politics of the obvious). We must elaborate engagements with culture
directly, yet on a manageably tactical, rather than grandly strategic, scale” (Candy 2010, 125).
Candy's call for imaginative engagements with the entirety of one's governance sensorum
is a call to arms for futuring—with a lowercase f—as both a content and form of design
not preclude the equal and, at times even more, compelling place of futuring; in other
words, how one says something is as equally important as what one is saying, and this
Pulling from Dator's 2nd Law, which affirms that any useful idea about the future
should evoke a sensory and somatic response, the framework for sensation within futures
design, especially governance projects, is ripe for ridicule, and I feel that this concern
was expressed in earnest by a classmate who professed his desire to focus on the how of
futuring in a future seminar. During my short time as a college educator, I have found the
simple maxim—if you can get them laughing, you can get them learning—to be true, and
neuroscience, and education interweave. Working to alleviate the design challenge at the
root of all design challenges, this nascent methodological framework, which I think I
would like to call affective futuring, presents a unique and innovative lens with which to
Anon. 2011. Aristotle’s Political Theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. January 26.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/#PolView.
Brown, Tim, and Jocelyn Wyatt. 2010. “Design Thinking for Social Innovation : Center for
Social Innovation.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/design-
thinking-social-innovation.
Candy, Stuart. 2010. The Futures of Everyday Life: Politics and the Design of Experiential
Scenarios. PhD Dissertation. University of Hawaii at Manoa, August.
Lanier, Jaron. 2010. You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. 1st ed. Knopf, January 12.
Tunstall, Elizabeth. 2007. “In Design We Trust: Democratic Values, Design, and Civic
Experience” presented at the International Association of Societies of Design Research
Conference, Hong Kong.