The positioning cards: on affect, public design, and the common

Abstract

In this paper, we present a design tool, the positioning cards that we have developed, validated, and used in different projects. These cards are built to allow CI4CG and Participatory Design researchers to discuss the political alignment of design projects, in iterative processes of design involving people in the definition of the technological features to be implemented. The background of the cards is the conceptualization of contemporary participatory design as public design, engaging with societally relevant phenomena outside the traditional environment of the workplace. To engage with such an extended dimension of participatory design, we frame our contribution in the contemporary form of capitalism, stressing how contemporary capitalism dispossess the wealth created by social production. In this context, we argue, CI4CG designers need to engage deeply with the theoretical implications of their work. To support this effort, we built the cards combining a political perspective oriented toward nourishing the common—the ensemble of the material and symbolic elements tieing together human beings—with the “affect turn” in the social sciences—therefore including affective dimensions like joy, sadness, and desire in the design of CI4CG technologies. In the final part of the article we discuss how we have used the cards in four different projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    Autonomous Marxism, or post-workerism, is a stream of Marxism that developed after the ‘70s social movement’. It distinguishes itself through the stress on Marx’s Fragment on the machines (1857–1861, trans. 1973), that constitute the way through which the autonomists have rethought Marx theory in the light of the transformation of contemporary capitalism, stressing the importance of cognitive work (Vercellone 2007).

  2. 2.

    The common distinguished itself from the commons, a well known concept brought to the attention of contemporary by the work of Elinor Ostrom (1990). Indeed, the commons are (mainly localistic) forms of institutional arrangements, including social norms and values, while the common is the ensemble of diverse resources looked at as an entirety. Specific commons can indeed be part of a common perspective (e.g., Hakken et al. 2015; Teli et al. 2015).

  3. 3.

    3 Autonomous Marxism, or post-workerism, is a stream of Marxism that developed after the ‘70s social movement’. It distinguishes itself through the stress on Marx’s Fragment on the machines (1857–1861, trans. 1973), that constitute the way through which the autonomists have rethought Marx theory in the light of the transformation of contemporary capitalism, stressing the importance of cognitive work (Vercellone 2007).

  4. 4.

    In fact, Massumi in his book reports studies in neurosciences in which scientist point to half a second of difference between a bodily stimulous and a cognitive reaction. It is this “half a second” that, according to him, shows the temporal priority of affect over cognition, as philosophically theorized by Spinoza centuries before the emergence of neurosciences. Equally, affective neurosciences emerged that agree on the bodily priority of affect in relation to cognition (e.g., Berridge and Kringelbach 2013; Posner et al. 2005). From this point of view, when looking at the interaction with technologies, affect refers to the first immediate reaction to the technology, for example what people verbalize as a “beautiful app” or a “terrible site”.

  5. 5.

    In this paper, we base a progressive political perspective on affect, in line with other scholars, like Deleuze, Hardt and Negri, and the same Massumi. Nevertheless, we are aware that even conservative and regressive political perspective can grow out of an affect perspective, especially if based on negative affect as described by Spinoza, as sadness, anger, fear, etc… The actual knowledge on affect makes it a dimension to be considered as part of being human and our proposal is a progressive one based on such premise.

  6. 6.

    It should be clarified that desires here are taken as characterizing human life and not a necessarily positive or progressive characteristics. The reference is to recognize the centrality of desires, as done by Deleuze and Guattari when considering contemporary humans and social fabric as full of “desire-machine”, social mechanisms and practices that perpetuate their desiring status (Deleuze and Guattari 1972, trans. 1977).

  7. 7.

    We are aware that this list is not exhaustive of the full spectrum of positions on the considered relations. For example, Bob Dick “Dialectic approach” (2002) is excluded. Nevertheless, we relied on Dahlberg extensive literature review and his understanding of the four listed positions as the most widely adopted among social scientists focusing on digital democracy. Moreover, three of these political positions can be considered progressive in their intents, the deliberative one based on Habermas philosophy, the counter-public in Chantal Mouffe philosophy, and the autonomist in the Italian political thinking of the ‘70s. Nevertheless, they differ on what they consider the means and goals of political conflicts (rational debate, emergence of marginalized identities, and autonomy from capital accumulation).

  8. 8.

    More information on the project are available at http://garciaproject.eu/.

  9. 9.

    More information on the project are available at http://pienews.eu/.

  10. 10.

    Available athttp://www.spaziod.org/.

References

  1. Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2015) Humanistic HCI. Synth Lect Hum-Cent Inf 8(4):1–185

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berridge KC, Morten LK (2013) Neuroscience of affect: brain mechanisms of pleasure and displeasure. Curr Opin Neurobiol Soc Emot Neurosci 23(3):294–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bilandzic M, Venable J (2011) Towards participatory action design research: adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. J Community Inform 7(3). http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/786/804?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter. Accessed 29 Nov 2017

  4. Binder T, Brandt E, Ehn P, Halse J (2015) Democratic design experiments: between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign 11(3–4):152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bosio E, Girardi T, Stefanescu D, D’Andrea V, Teli M (2014) Understanding online deliberation: the dis-alignment between designers and users. The Internet, Policy and Politics Conference, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  6. Botto F, Teli M (2016) PIE news. A public design project toward commonfare, 13th Prato CIRN Conference. Monash Center, Prato

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bozzon R, Murgia A, Poggio B (eds) (2016) Supporting early career researchers through gender action plans. A design and methodological Toolkit, GARCIA working paper n. 9, University of Trento (ISBN 978–88-8443-682-5)

  8. Clough PT, Halley J (2007) The affective turn: theorizing the social. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dahlberg L (2011) Re-constructing digital democracy: an outline of four ‘positions’. New Media Soc 13(6):855–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dick B (2002) Building agreement from disagreement: the anatomy of dialectical processes. Interchange, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  11. DiSalvo C, Clement A, Pipek V (2012) Participatory design for, with, and by communities. In: Simonsen J, Robertson T (eds) International handbook of participatory design. Routledge, Oxford, pp 182–209

    Google Scholar 

  12. DiSalvo C, Lukens J, Lodato T, Jenkins T, Kim T (2014) Making public things: how HCI design can express matters of concern. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI’14. ACM, New York, pp 2397–2406. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557359

  13. Ehn P (2008) Participation in design things. In: Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008. Indiana University, Indianapolis, pp 92–101

  14. Foth M, Tomitsch M, Satchell C, Haeusler MH (2015) From users to citizens: some thoughts on designing for polity and civics. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Australian special interest group for computer human interaction, ACM, pp 623–633

  15. Guattari F, Deleuze G (1972) Anti-oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Trans. Mark Seem et al. Viking Press, New York (trans 1977)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hakken D, Teli M, Andrews B (2015) Beyond capital: values, commons, computing, and the search for a viable future. Routledge, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hardt M (2007) Foreword: what affects are good for. In: Clough PT, Halley J (eds) The affective turn: theorizing the social. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 12–13

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hardt M, Negri A (2009) Commonwealth, 1st edn. Belknap Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Harvey D (2014) Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience-a research agenda. Behav Inform Technol 25(2):91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kelty CM (2008) Two bits: the cultural significance of free software. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kuntz AM, Presnall MM (2012) Wandering the tactical from interview to intraview. Qual Inq 18(9):732–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412453016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Le Dantec CA, DiSalvo C (2013) Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Soc Stud Sci 43(2):241–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712471581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Marx K (1857–1861) Grundrisse. Foundations of the critique of political economy, last retrieved on October, 28th, 2016, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ (trans. 1973). Accessed 29 Nov 2017

  25. Massumi B (2002) Parables for the virtual. Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  26. Menendez-Blanco M, De Angeli A (2016) “Matters of Concern” as Design Opportunities. In: COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on the design of cooperative systems, 23–27 May 2016. Springer International Publishing, Trento, Italy, pp 277–293

  27. Menendez-Blanco M, Bjørn P, De Angeli A (2016) Critical design artefacts and cooperative activism. In: International conference on computer supported collaborative work and social computing (in press)

  28. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Posner J, Russell JA, Peterson BS (2005) The circumplex model of affect: an integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol 17(3):715–734. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schuler D (2013) Creating the world citizen parliament: seven challenges for interaction designers. Interactions 20(3):38–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/2451856.2451867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Spinoza B (1677) Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata, last retrieve on October, 28th, 2016, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm (trans. 1887). Accessed 29 Nov 2017

  32. Storni C (2014) The problem of de-sign as conjuring: empowerment-in-use and the politics of seams. In: Proceedings of the 13th participatory design conference: research papers, vol 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661436

  33. Teli M (2015) Computing and the common. Hints of a new utopia in participatory design. Aarhus Ser Hum Cent Comput 1(1):4. https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Teli M, Bordin S, Menéndez Blanco M, Orabona G, De Angeli A (2015) Public design of digital commons in urban places: a case study. Int J Hum Comput Stud 81:17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Teli M, Di Fiore A, D’Andrea V (2016) Computing and the common: an empirical case of participatory design today. In: Proceedings of the 14th participatory design conference: full papers, vol 1. ACM, pp 1–10

  36. Vercellone C (2007) From formal subsumption to general intellect: elements for a Marxist reading of the thesis of cognitive capitalism. Hist Mater 15(1):13–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Watkins M (2010) Desiring recognition, accumulating affect. In: Gregg M, Seigworth GJ (eds) The affect theory reader. Duke University Press, Durham, p 269

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurizio Teli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teli, M., De Angeli, A. & Menéndez-Blanco, M. The positioning cards: on affect, public design, and the common. AI & Soc 33, 125–132 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0779-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Participatory design
  • Public design
  • Common
  • Affect
  • Cards
  • Collective intelligence