A Theory for Technology Design that Empowers

Posted: August 23, 2024 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , | 3 Comments

In the discussion of technology, we often find a refrain at least among the more sensible scholars: “Technology is neutral, it is what we do with it that matters.” This makes sense as it stands in contrast to the marching chants of techno-defeatists: “Technology progresses on, as if it has a mind of its own and will continue to persevere, survive and grow like other sentient beings, evolving to finally achieve its personhood like humans – the pinnacle of evolution.” Both claims are deficient. Technology is designed and technological solutions are designed with a designer’s framing that colors the personality of a tech even if it never achieves personhood; this framing determines its relationship to us as humans.

Let me grossly simplify, generalize and state that designers think of the humans who they design tech for in one of two ways:

  1. Humans are flawed, technology aims to overcome, or
  2. Humans are potent, technology aims to empower.

These diametrically opposing perceptions of humans by designers may appear subtle with respect to a technological solution but they are not. Technology interacts with humans in amplifying, self-fulfilling loops: a technology rooted in a human flaw will only amplify the flaw, sap us of our potential and leave us weaker and more dependent on the technology itself. A technology rooted in a human potential will only amplify our power, leaving us stronger and self-fulfilled. Designers in the first camp are in essence self-haters1 : they see weakness in us, hate it and aim to eradicate it. Those in the second camp are empowerers: they celebrate human potential, see our strengths and aim to grow them. As a designer, I can attest that it is easier to design from within the self-hating camp. After all, weaknesses are problems and we enjoy solving problems. Whether what was identified is indeed a weakness or a problem rather than a feature is beside the point, once the design process begins.

Two examples ought to make concrete my arguments. A majority of technology is borne out of self-hate, so let’s start with one technology that isn’t.

The Bicycle as Empowering Technology

Riding a bicycle brings me an immense joy. A bicycle cannot be borne out of a perception of humans as flawed2. It celebrates our keen sense of balance — who would have thought it wise to stay upright on less than one inch of rolling tyres; It celebrates our capacity to grasp our surroundings as we dart around potholes, pedestrians, or car doors that suddenly open; It celebrates the physical strength of our quads and hams as we climb up hills and travel longer distances. A bicycle empowers us to go further because we can. In the self-fulfilling form of any technology: the more you bike, the better you balance, the more acute your reflexes get and the stronger you become. Bicycles bring joy because they let us lead, they extend our powers rather than replace.

The Gamified Exhibit as Self-Hating Technology

My husband and I recently took our boys (6 & 4) to a children’s exhibit. The beautiful exhibit had juxtaposed art works of stars, planets and galaxies, along with historical and contemporary artefacts that allowed humans to peer ever more deeply into the skies and space. Naturally curious and interested in space, the exhibit was bound to leave an everlasting impression of wonder in any child. Except for the self-hater in every designer who couldn’t trust that the heavens, space, art and history alone can excite a child to wander in awe and learn about the cosmos. Starting with a human flaw — children lack motivation — a technological solution is proposed: Let’s gamify this experience! And so begins the design process of complex technology layering that created the following:

On entering the exhibit, two avatars construct a narrative to enlist the children’s help. There has been a system glitch and the databases holding key information about humans and the cosmos are corrupted. Don’t lose hope! if you complete a series of exercises, you can fix the databases.

Accepting the mission earns each child a barcode bracelet that tracks their progress towards fixing the glitches: a jumbled up digital copy of a centuries old painting, a disordered compass, mislabeled planetary objects, etc. Our children are ecstatic. As we follow along through the 15 stations or so, we find ourselves explaining one tech glitch after another. There is no time to experience the beauty of any artefact, appreciate its perseverance through time, or consider its meaning. We trudge along: scan, fix, collect points. Hooray, a badge! Then things take a darker turn: competition creeps in. “Mom, let’s do this faster! Dad is already two stations ahead.” “Dad, they have more points! Do it right!” Now we are not only moving through a repair factory line, we are fighting off intensifying feelings of injustice. We are one step away from full catastrophic meltdowns.

Technology did overcome! We completed all the tasks. In order. Two email certificates attest to that. Problem solved.

The self-fulfilling, amplifying effects do not end on exiting the exhibit. The self-hating design is analytically confirmed to be superior: “look all the tracking data shows success, the kids are going through all the stations; they saw all the things we wanted them to see.” Our kids were robbed of their potential to just enjoy wandering around aimlessly through broken clay pots, metal spears, historical gadgets, art and depictions of the cosmos. Now, a gamified interest-production layer is required because museums need to be covered and completed. Aimless wandering and just resting at one or two things that spiritually speak to one can only be a flaw that ought to be technologically eradicated.

As I prepare for my Spring course on Techruption, I find myself dwelling on these two design mindsets. Perhaps every now and then I’ll post about a technology that I find emanating from one design camp or the other and perhaps I can make my arguments more nuanced. I would appreciate a conversation on this, so feel free to comment or reach out.

  1. A benefit of a blog post is the ability to state things a bit more controversially and strongly 😉 ↩ī¸Ž
  2. We can’t really go back to the psyche of the first person who designed a bicycle so we are going to engage in a bit of logical fallacy and affirm the consequent. ↩ī¸Ž