recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : intent   6

Why “I’m not racist” is only half the story | Robin DiAngelo - YouTube
"All systems of oppression are highly adaptive, and they can adapt to challenges and incorporate them. They can allow for exceptions. And I think the most powerful adaptation of the system of racism to the challenges of the civil rights movement was to reduce a racist to a very simple formula. A racist is an individual—always an individual, not a system—who consciously does not like people based on race—must be conscious—and who intentionally seeks to be mean to them. Individual, conscious, intent. And if that is MY definition of a racist, then your suggestion that anything I’ve said or done is racist or has a racist impact, I’m going to hear that as: you just said I was a bad person. You just put me over there in that category. And most of my bias anyway is unconscious. So I’m not intending, I’m not aware. So now I’m going to need to defend my moral character, and I will, and we’ve all seen it. It seems to be virtually impossible based on that definition for the average white person to look deeply at their socialization, to look at the inevitability of internalizing racist biases, developing racist patterns, and having investments in the system of racism—which is pretty comfortable for us and serves us really well. I think that definition of a racist, that either/or, what I call the good/bad binary is the root of virtually all white defensiveness on this topic because it makes it virtually impossible to talk to the average white person about the inevitable absorption of a racist world-view that we get by being literally swimming in racist water.

White fragility is meant to capture the defensiveness that so many white people display when our world views, our identities or our racial positions are challenged. And it’s a very familiar dynamic. I think there’s a reason that term resonated for so many people. I mean even if you yourself are to explain white fragility it’s fairly recognizable that in general white people are really defensive when the topic is racism and when they are challenged racially or cross racially.

So the fragility part is meant to capture how easy it is to trigger that defensiveness. For many white people the mere suggestion that being white has meaning will set us off. Another thing that will set us off is generalizing about white people. Right now I’m generalizing about white people, and that questions a very precious ideology, which is: most white people are raised to see ourselves as individuals. We don’t like being generalized about. And yet social life is patterned and observable and predictable in describable ways. And while we are, of course, all unique individuals, we are also members of social groups. And that membership is profound. That membership matters.

We can literally predict whether my mother and I were going to survive my birth and how long I’m going to live based on my race. We need to be willing to grapple with the collective experiences we have as a result of being members of a particular group that has profound meaning for our lives. We live in a society that is deeply separate and unequal by race. I think we all know that. How we would explain why that is might vary, but that it’s separate and unequal is very, very clear.

While we who are white tend to be fragile in that it doesn’t take much to upset us around race, the impact of our response is not fragile at all. It’s a kind of weaponized defensiveness, weaponized hurt feelings. And it functions really, really effectively to repel the challenge. As a white person I move through the world racially comfortable virtually 24/7. It is exceptional for me to be outside of my racial comfort zone, and most of my life I’ve been warned not to go outside my racial comfort zone.

And so on the rare occasion when I am uncomfortable racially it’s a kind of throwing off of my racial equilibrium, and I need to get back into that. And so I will do whatever it takes to repel the challenge and get back into it. And in that way I think white fragility functions as a kind of white racial bullying, to be frank. We make it so miserable for people of color to talk to us about our inevitable and often unaware racist patterns that we cannot help develop from being socialized into a culture in which racism is the bedrock and the foundation. We make it so miserable for them to talk to us about it that most of the time they don’t, right? We just have to understand that most people of color that are working or living in primarily white environments take home way more daily slights and hurts and insults than they bother talking to us about."
racism  oppression  robindiangelo  whitesupremacy  civilrights  race  2018  intent  consciousness  unconscious  morality  whiteness  socialization  society  bias  ideology  fragility  defensiveness  comfort  comfortzone 
november 2018 by robertogreco
A Practice of Ethics — Medium
"A few months ago, I spent a Saturday afternoon chewing on all this with my friend Boris Anthony. Boris was taking a month in Japan to digest and reflect, coming off a few years of strategic design and experience architecture at HERE, Nokia’s mapping and navigation services division, where he worked several “powers of ten” beyond what most of us might identify as design: preparing the patterns and sewing the seams between systems of systems, each teeming with the digital breadcrumb trails of billions of human beings. This responsibility had made Boris acutely aware of the lack of ethical rigor in the practice of design. Never one to leave a good conversation to rest, AQ invited him to host a discussion of ethics in design for a special edition of our talk series Ride The Lightning on April 16th.

When Boris joined Nokia, he found himself enveloped by Finnish design philosophy and was struck by the strong sense of societal responsibility evident in the execution of everyday products. He understood that this approach had its roots deep in humanism and the socio-economic transitions Finland experienced in the wake of industrialization. There was an urgent need and desire to modernize society, to provide affordable, hygienic and delightful instruments of higher living standards. Designers were a central part of this project and strived to meet these ideals, whether they were working on houses, dinner plates or children’s clothing.

Boris is worried that the critical thought necessary for this level of follow-through is too often lost in the pursuit of such things as “seamlessness” and “scalability”, in the name of user experience.

Good ethical practice, inseparable from good design, begins with investigation, with questions. What follows are a few questions we should ask ourselves to clarify the stakes as we design, pulled from the conversation with Boris and our guests. These questions are not easy to answer: in fact, some of them could take a lifetime to unravel. But the more effort we put into understanding the answers, the better prepared we are to fulfill our commitment to ensure our impact on people’s lives is a positive one.

1. Who are the parties?



2. What is being exchanged?



3. Who else might this impact?



4. How is the exchange being communicated?



5. How might this change with scale?



"We often start a project with the best intentions, only for them to be gradually warped by decisions so incremental we barely notice how far we’ve strayed from the starting line. As Mike Monteiro put it, “bad design makes it into the world not through malicious intent, but through no intent at all.”

I believe most designers are motivated by a desire to make people’s lives better. But it’s not enough to remember this motivation only at critical junctures: when switching jobs, reading an effusive review of something we designed, or seeing our client on the morning news. Design is a daily practice, and if we are to transform this motivation into a commitment, we need to consider the motivations and ethical implications of even our smallest decisions."
ethics  design  economics  philosophy  chrispalmieri  borisanthony  mikemonteiro  morality  socialgood  scale  communication  intentions  motivation  intent 
june 2015 by robertogreco
[this is aaronland] signs of life [These quotes are only from the beginning. I recommend reading the whole thing.]
"I've been thinking a lot about motive & intent for the last few years. How we recognize motive &… how we measure its consequence.

This is hardly uncharted territory. You can argue easily enough that it remains the core issue that all religion, philosophy & politics struggle with. Motive or trust within a community of individuals.

…Bruce Schneier…writes:

"In today's complex society, we often trust systems more than people. It's not so much that I trusted the plumber at my door as that I trusted the systems that produced him & protect me."

I often find myself thinking about motive & consequence in the form of a very specific question: Who is allowed to speak on behalf of an organization?

To whom do we give not simply the latitude of interpretation, but the luxury of association, with the thing they are talking about …

Institutionalizing or formalizing consequence is often a way to guarantee an investment but that often plows head-first in to the subtlies of real-life."

[Video here: https://vimeo.com/51515289 ]
dunbartribes  schrodinger'sbox  scale  francisfukuyama  capitalism  industrialrevolution  technology  rules  control  algorithms  creepiness  siri  drones  robots  cameras  sensors  robotreadableworld  humans  patterns  patternrecognition  patternmatching  gerhardrichter  robotics  johnpowers  dia:beacon  jonathanwallace  portugal  lisbon  brandjacking  branding  culturalheritage  culture  joannemcneil  jamesbridle  future  politics  philosophy  religion  image  collections  interpretation  representation  complexity  consequences  cooper-hewitt  photography  filters  instagram  flickr  museums  systemsthinking  systems  newaesthetic  voice  risk  bruceschneier  2012  aaronstraupcope  aaron  intent  motive  storiesfromthenewaesthetic  canon 
october 2012 by robertogreco
Designing for Slow Technology: Intent and Interaction [.pdf]
"I argue in this paper for the value of adopting some specific design approaches when creating slow technology, how to create long lasting relationships with technology, and how to design reflective or slow digital interactions. The problem I have addressed is how to design for long lasting technologies with changing users. My approach is informed by activity theory, which provides a theoretical and methodological perspective while design principles inform ideas of process, structure and interaction. The contribution to HCI is in the view of slow technology as demanding a unique set of design skills.

Slow technology is concerned with time and with speed, primarily with relation to how humans interact with technological artefacts. Slow technology is a way of thinking about human artefacts that emphasises speed of operation, pace of consumption and the length of time taken to obtain results. As a knowledge domain, slow technology has engaged with many different areas of technology…"

[via: http://johnfass.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/inuit-genealogy/ ]
interaction  attitude  intent  modularity  interactiondesign  2012  johnfass  slow  technology  slowtechnology 
september 2012 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read