Governmentality, Technologies, & Truth Effects in Communication Design

  • Katherine Hepworth
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


This chapter argues that communication design knowledge and artifacts are inherently governmental. As a means of communication that combines aesthetics and function, communication design knowledge is a product and producer of a uniquely pervasive form of governance that has seldom been studied. While several researchers and philosophers have expressed interest in the relationship between power, communication design knowledge and communication design artifacts, the governance inherent in communication design has yet to be seriously investigated. Building on the author’s PhD research, this chapter extends Foucault’s theories of discursive technologies, truth effects, and governmentality to account for how communication design artifacts and practitioners participate in the discourses surrounding them. Embodied discourse is proposed as the mechanism for this participation. From this perspective, all artifacts are seen as enmeshed in discursive entanglements, continually being imbued with regulatory meaning, and in turn, regulating their viewers and users. Finally, a framework for investigating the technologies implicit in communication design is presented, along with a discussion of the regulatory qualities of communication design artifacts, and of specific processes within communication design practice.


Communication design Discourse Foucault Truth effects 


  1. Ambrose, G., & Harris, P. (2011). The fundamentals of creative design (2nd ed.). Lausanne: AVA Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Ambrose, G., & Harris, P. (2015). Design thinking for visual communication. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, new edition. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Barton, B. F., & Barton, M. S. (1993). Modes of power in technical and professional visuals. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(1), 138–162. Scholar
  5. Blair, J. A. (2004). The rhetoric of visual arguments. In C. A. Hill & M. H. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual Rhetorics (pp. 41–62). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Blauvelt, A. (1994). An opening: Graphic Design’s discursive spaces. Visible. Language, 28(3), 205–216.Google Scholar
  7. Bowers, J. (1999). Introduction to two-dimensional design: Understanding form and function. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  8. Bush, A. (1994). Through the looking glass: Territories of Historiographic gaze. Visible Language, 28(3), 219–231.Google Scholar
  9. Carnegie, T. (2013). Design as problem-solving. In E. R. Brumberger & K. M. Northcut (Eds.), Designing texts: Teaching visual communication. Amityville: Baywood Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  10. Colberg, S. (2006). Reading minds: The book as a communicational space. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Designing effective communications: Creating contexts for clarity and meaning (pp. 229–234). New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cooter, R., & Stein, C. (2007). Coming into focus: Posters, power, and visual culture in the history of medicine / die Macht des Plakats: Visuelle Kultur in der Medizingeschichte. Medizinhistorisches Journal, 42(2), 180–209.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, J. (2008). Towards an Anarcho-design practise. Imminent Rebellion: An irregular anarchist journal from deep in the South Pacific, 9, 85–90.Google Scholar
  13. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Dean, M. (2015). Foucault Must Not Be Defended. History and Theory, 54(3), 389–403. Scholar
  15. Eskilon, L. (2007). Graphic design: A new history. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd..Google Scholar
  16. Fallan, K. (2010). Design history: Understanding theory and method. Oxford: Berg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forlizzi, J., & Lebbon, C. (2002). From formalism to social significance in communication design. Design Issues, 18(4), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1967/1998). On the ways of writing history. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 Volume 2: Aesthetics (pp. 279–295). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. (1968/1991). Politics and the study of discourse. In G. Burchell & C. Gordon (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in Governmentality, with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 53–72). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1971/1997). On popular justice: A discussion with Maoists. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 Volume 3: Power (pp. 1–36). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1976). The history of sexuality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1977a). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (pp. 109–133). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1977b). The eye of power. In The impossible prison: A Foucault reader (pp. 9–15). Nottingham: Nottingham Contemporary.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1977c). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1978a). Governmentality. In Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 Volume 3: Power (pp. 201–222). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  27. Foucault, M. (1978b). The history of sexuality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  28. Foucault, M. (1980a). In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  29. Foucault, M. (1980b). The history of sexuality, Volume I: An introduction. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  30. Foucault, M. (1981a). The order of discourse. In Untying the text: A post-Structuralist reader (pp. 51–78). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Foucault, M. (1981b). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (pp. 78–108). New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  32. Foucault, M. (1982a). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Foucault, M. (1982b). Technologies of the Self. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 volume 1: Ethics, subjectivity and truth (pp. 223–251). New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  34. Foucault, M. (1997a). In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984 Volume 3: Power. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  35. Foucault, M. (1997b). In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984 Volume 1: Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  36. Frascara, J. (2004). Communication design: Principles, methods, and practice. Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  37. Frascara, J., Meurer, B., van Toorn, J., & Winkler, D. (1997). User-centred graphic design: Mass communication and social change. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gallagher, V. J., Martin, K. N., & Ma, M. (2011). Visual wellbeing: Intersections of rhetorical theory and design. Design Issues, 27(2), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. George, J. L. (2002). The Functions of Graphic Design: Sociologies, History, and the International Design Conference in Aspen (Ph.D.). State University of New York at Binghamton, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Goodall, P. (1983/1996). Design and Gender. In J. Bird, B. Curtis, M. Mash, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, L. Tickner, & S. Stafford (Eds.), The block reader in visual culture (pp. 187–208). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Goodall, P. (1990). Design and gender: Where is the heart of the home? Built. Environment, 16(4), 269–278.Google Scholar
  42. Hall, S. (1996). Introduction. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert, & K. Thompson (Eds.), Modernity: An introduction to modern societies (pp. 1–19). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Hayward, S. (1998). “Good design is largely a matter of common sense”: Questioning the meaning and ownership of a twentieth-century orthodoxy. Journal of Design History, 11(3), 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Heller, S. (2008). Iron fists: Branding the twentieth century totalitarian state. London: Phaidon Press.Google Scholar
  45. Hepworth, K. (2012). Government emblems, embodied discourse and ideology: An artefact-led history of governance in Victoria, Australia. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology.Google Scholar
  46. Hepworth, K. (2014). History, power and visual communication artefacts. Rethinking History, 0(0), 1–22. Scholar
  47. Hodder, I. (1992). Theory and practice in archaeology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Julier, G. (2008). The culture of design. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Keedy, J. (1995). Zombie Modernism. In R. Vanderlans (Ed.), Emigre: The look back issue (pp. 171–175). Berkeley: Ginko Press.Google Scholar
  50. Kostelnick, C. (2004). Melting-pot ideology, modernist aesthetics, and the emergence of graphical conventions: The statistical atlases of the United States, 1874–1925. In Defining Visual Rhetorics. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates..Google Scholar
  51. Kostelnick, C., & Hassett, M. (2003). Shaping information: The rhetoric of visual conventions. Carbondale: SIU Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lavin, M. (2001). Clean new world: Culture, politics, and graphic design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Lupton, E. (1993). Mechanical brides: Women and machines from home to office. New York: Cooper-Hewitt National Museum of Design.Google Scholar
  54. Lupton, E., & Phillips, J. C. (2011). Graphic design thinking (1st ed.). New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  55. McCoy, K. (2003). Good citizenship: Design as a social and political force. In S. Heller & V. Vienne (Eds.), Citizen designer: Perspectives on design responsibility (pp. 2–8). New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  56. McCoy, K. (2005). Maximize the message: Tailoring designs for your audience in a multicultural era. In S. Heller (Ed.), The education of a graphic designer (pp. 279–283). New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  57. Meggs, P. B. (1989). Type and image: The language of graphic design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  58. Meggs, P. B., & Purvis, A. W. (2006). Meggs’ History of Graphic Design (Fourth.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  59. Milestone, J. (2007). Design as power: Paul Virilio and the Governmentality of design expertise. Culture, Theory and Critique, 48(2), 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Poynor, R., Crowley, D., & Gallery, B. A. (2004). Communicate: Independent British graphic design since the sixties. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics: The distribution of the sensible. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  62. Reiner, M. (2009). Sensory cues, visualization and physics learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 343–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Riles, A. (2006). Documents: Artifacts of modern knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rose, N. (1996). Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne, & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government (pp. 37–64). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Rose, N. (2008). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2(1), 83–104. Scholar
  67. Sanders, E. (2006). Scaffolds for building everyday creativity. In J. Frascara (Ed.), Designing effective communications: Creating contexts for clarity and meaning (pp. 65–77). New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Sartwell, C. (2005). Aesthetics of the everyday. In J. Levinson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (pp. 761–770). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sartwell, C. (2010). Political Aesthetics. Ithaca. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Seago, A., & Dunne, A. (1999). New methodologies in art and design research: The object as discourse. Design Issues, 15(2), 11–17. Scholar
  72. Simmons, S. (2000). “Hand to the friend, fist to the foe”: The struggle of signs in the Weimar Republic. Journal of Design History, 13(4), 319–339. Scholar
  73. Soar, M. A. (2002). Graphic Design/Graphic Dissent: Towards a Cultural Economy of an Insular Profession (Ph.D.). University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States – Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  74. Sontag, S. (1970/1999). Posters: Advertisement, art, political Artifact, commodity. In M. Beirut (Ed.), Looking closer three (pp. 197–218). New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  75. Stanley, E. H. (1989). The lively poster arts of Rockwell Kent. The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts, 12, 6–31. Scholar
  76. Stoler, A. L. (1995). Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the colonial order of things. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Taffe, S. (2015). The hybrid designer/end-user: Revealing paradoxes in co-design. Design Studies, 40, 39–59. Scholar
  79. Tunstall, D. (2007). In Design we trust: Design, Governmentality and the tangibility of governance. In Proceedings of the International Association Of Societies Of Design Research, Emerging Trends in Design Research, Hong Kong, 12-15 November 2007. Google Scholar
  80. Warde, B. (1930/2009). The crystal goblet, or why type should be invisible. In H. Armstrong (Ed.), Graphic design theory: Readings from the field (pp. 39–44). New York: Princeton Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  81. Witkin, R. (1990). The aesthetic imperative of a rational-technical machinery: A study in organizational control through the design of artifacts. In Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape (pp. 169–184). New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  82. Young, A. S. (2009). Design as discourse: A Foucauldian approach. In F. Hackney, J. Glynne, & V. I. V. Minton (Eds.), Networks of design: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual International Conference of the design history society (UK) University College Falmouth, 3–6 September (pp. 124–129). Boca Raton: Universal-Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NevadaNevadaUSA

Personalised recommendations