> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.kevinrichard.ch/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Politics is a design, which designs
- URL: https://www.kevinrichard.ch/design-and-politics/
- Published: 2022-10-07T15:00:22.000Z
- Updated: 2022-10-25T08:15:33.000Z
- Author: Kevin Richard
- Tags: Critical Thinking, Design, Philosophy

> Design is relational, not isolated.

Hi, Kevin here.

Today I wanted to share some thoughts on an interesting topic that popped up in my feeds, a “speculative design workshop” on the topic of *“Imagine a world where design has replaced politics”.*

Mind the necessary assumptions I have to make in order to explore what the prompt elicits in my mind. I cannot avoid wondering why the prompt seems so weird in its framing, which plays an almost forced opposition, a potential false dilemma if you ask me.

Indeed, the whole question lies in the definitions given to the terms ***design*** and ***politics***. 

- First, assuming the definition of ***design*** (with a small *“d”*) is broad and involves *“a \[indeterminate\] process of conception to produce a means/medium in order to change an existing state to a desired state”* and is therefore not limited to a practice such as “Design” (with capital *“D”*) nor to a group of practitioners such as "Designers".
- Second, assuming that the use of ***politics*** (with a small *“p”*) here is as well broad and relates to *“a \[indeterminate\] process of decision-making as a group and/or a collective”* and includes *“\[some\] forms of governance”* (if one wishes to extend it), and therefore is not limited to a practice such as *“Politics”* (with capital *“P”*) nor to a group of practitioners such as "Politicians".
- **Then, one can argue that design is by necessity an inseparable function of politics as a social practice.**

> Politics are designed means, which designs \[us\], and which designs back politics.

The question is therefore not so much to imagine that one could replace the other, since a relationship of interdependence implies a form of reciprocity (a co-evolution), but instead to discuss mutations or changes in the nature of the interactions between these parts, according to the existing context conditions/constraints.

Then the question(s) would be: *what are the "adjacent possibles" (those that require the least energy) that can emerge? How can they in turn influence the landscape that allows them to exist? Etc.*

Note that I'm not dismissing entirely the utility of the prompt here, as it arguably triggered this whole reflection. However, I am sceptical of the boundaries set by the prompt, as it makes as much sense as asking *“Imagine a world where sitting has replaced the chair”* to take an obvious product analogy.

Concerns are, despite the workshop being targeted at designers, not so many will necessarily challenge or even reframe it. *“Careful what you wish for”* is the tale of the *curious meta-designer*.

Thanks for reading!

Cheers,  
Kevin