The Designer Fallacy and Technological Imagination
Most literary critics have abandoned the notion that the meaning of a text lies in the intention of the author and have called this the “intentional fallacy.” I hold that there is a parallel found in many interpretations of technology design and call it the “designer fallacy.” This chapter, through examining a wide series of historical technology designs, deconstructs the utility of a simple designer-plastic material-ultimate use model and suggests that one must take into account unintended uses and consequences, the constraints and potentials of materiality, and cultural contexts, which often are complex and multistable. I outline a complex, interactive account of design interpretation.
KeywordsDesigner Intent Technological Imagination Double Decker Individualistic Notion Swiss Army Knife
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- DeLanda, M., 1991, War in the Age of Intelligent Machines, Swerve Editions, Zone Press, New York, pp. 12-14.Google Scholar
- Kittler, F., 1990, The mechanized philosopher, in: Looking after Nietzsche, L. A. Rickels, ed., SUNY Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
- Latour, B., 1987, Science in Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Nyre, L., 2003, Fidelity Matters: Sound Media and Realism in the 20th Century, Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Media Studies, University of Bergen, Volda University College, Norway.Google Scholar
- Pickering, A., 1995, The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 102.Google Scholar
- Tenner, E., 1996, Why things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences, Alfred Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
- Toffler, A., 1970, Future Shock, Bantam, New York.Google Scholar
- White, Jr., L., 1971, Cultural climates and technological advance in the Middle Ages, Viator 2:171-201.Google Scholar
- Winner, L., 1986, Do artifacts have politics?, in: The Whale and the Reactor, L. Winner, ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 19-39.Google Scholar