\

Magic by Design: Technology Transformed

Southwell, Dr. Mirjam works and writes on design education in the United Kingdom.

This paper was presented at the 1997 Third International Conference on Design Education in Developing Countries, Technikon Pretoria, South Africa and published in Image & Text: Journal for Design (1997), Vol. 7, pp.3-8. It is reproduced here with the permission of the author.

BRIEF SKETCH
Technology is often associated with the "magic and miracles of the glittering industrialized world" (Maathai, 1995). It is often seen as unattainable for the majority living in developing countries and the fact that it impacts directly or indirectly on every ones' lives is rarely acknowledged…. The producers of ethnic 'knick-knacks' in the South are caught in the developed / not developed "dualistic structure"(Plumwood: 43) so beloved by development theorists and practitioners…. This paper discusses the current situation with regard to design, technology and development and the potential role for design of transforming technology from the unattainable and miraculous to the 'everyday'. The paper argues that the creativity of design can be used to perform magic that results in pleasurable and empowering technology.

The status quo has to be challenged because as Plumwood continues to assert "once the process of domination forms culture and constructs identity, the inferiorised group ..[..].. Must internalise this inferiorisation in its identity and collude in this low valuation.."

[I]t has to be recognised that 'universalism' and 'naturalism' can not be used to justify the status quo with regards to products designed and manufactured in the South. I am not suggesting that the production of handmade crafts be abandoned completely, or that it is in some way bad. Like technology, it exists in a globalised social structure and is only negative when seen as the 'other'. I am arguing for a pluralistic and creative approach to technology, one, or rather several, which may involve handmade artifacts, batch production, mass production etc running in parallel and occasionally converging. An approach which gives the producer and user control over what is being produced. As a designer, I perhaps not surprisingly believe product design practice has much to offer the transformation of technology. Not transforming through unattainable "magic and miracles" but by 'spilling' the secrets of the magic circle.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Oxfam Catalogue Syndrome: 'The Third World crafts achieve a brief "Oh this is pretty and would make a nice gift for…. " (fill in a relative for whom present buying is difficult) or "this must have taken a long time to carve, it's a bit expensive". In comparison the Innovations catalogue is poured over in detail with exclamations of "look what you can get now, clever isn't it" and even the extremes of technological irrelevance are grudgingly admired for the technical expertise, miniaturisation etc. The cost of the products is commented on but the expense is justifiable because of the amount of technology contained within.'

    As a consequence of these catalogues, the perception in the UK of what it is possible to design and manufacture in developing countries is tied to the Western ethnic 'knick-knack' market. I would suggest that the continued emphasis on producing artefacts for this market reinforces the "sense of inferiority" discussed by the South Commission because technology is largely absent in the production methods and completely absent in the products being offered for sale. The emphasis is on technology-free artefacts that are decorative first, useful second and devoid of moving parts be they cogs or 'chips'.

  • '[A]s Brett (1986) asserts this is the "commodification of aesthetic feeling and the imperialist assumption that the whole world is available". There is evidence of this in the introduction to the Autumn/Winter 1996 Oxfam catalogue. As a customer you are invited to:

    "choose from our exclusive range of hand-made products and food from around the world. Many of the products we have chosen for you reflect designs and materials that have been passed down from generation to generation, helping to preserve skills and age old traditions. Each of the hand-made items are unique, reflecting the touch of the individual craftperson."

  • This begins to read like an introduction to a heritage theme park where tradition and culture are preserved and experienced through 'living' history. Both the romanticism of ethnicity and cultural imperialism become overwhelming.

  • 'Designers have a significant part to play in how technology is used for development. ' 'Design makes implicit and explicit decisions about how to use the technological component and if, as Deforge argues technology has always avoided ethical questions, it follows that designers have too.'

  • '…I would suggest [that] design in many developing (and some industrialized) countries is only associated with craft production when it is considered at all. A vicious circle is beginning to become clear, one where the OCS can not be escaped from. OCS does not promote cultural diversity as it might first appear but initiates and sustains the dualism of tradition and modernity.

    'Through the OCS indigenous designers are being sold a model of design that is fossilised and can make no use of technological innovation. Production methods might be incrementally improved but the artefacts produced remain firmly situated in the tradition and decoration department and continue to be for export. Southwell (1995) has suggested that design could take a participatory approach, using and adapting a development model in order to improve the process of design. It could also help make those involved in development aware of what design has to offer.'

  • Another layer of inferiority is added by the remarkably globalised "cultural stereotype of women as technologically incapable" (Wajcman, 1994). The technical empowerment of women is vital to effective development efforts but whilst technology remains gendered so will it's inherent power (Stamp, 1989).

SECTION TITLES OF THE COMPLETE PAPER

INTRODUCTION

GENDER, TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN

"OXFAM CATALOGUE SYNDROME"

CONCLUSION

PRODUCTION FOR MODERNISATION

REFERENCES

DESIGN AND DESIGNERS


INTRODUCTION

Technology is often associated with the "magic and miracles of the glittering industrialized world" (Maathai, 1995). It is often seen as unattainable for the majority living in developing countries and the fact that it impacts directly or indirectly on every ones' lives is rarely acknowledged. The observation that "common people and policy-makers alike [view modern technology] with a respect and wonder, usually associated with the occult", is also true for designers, (Saha, 1990). The South Commission (1990) suggests that countries of the South have consistently under valued the role technology plays in development and that a "sense of inferiority in the field of science and technology" is a fundamental problem. Here design has a critical role to play in making technology accessible at all levels. This paper discusses the current situation with regard to design, technology and development and the potential role for design of transforming technology from the unattainable and miraculous to the 'everyday'. The paper argues that the creativity of design can be used to perform magic that results in pleasurable and empowering technology.


"OXFAM CATALOGUE SYNDROME"

A number of non governmental organisations (NGOs) notably Oxfam, Traidcraft and others work internationally in the area of craft production for development as do several other organisations based nationally. These organisations produce catalogues to both promote their development work and sell the products manufactured by their projects. Oxfam is probably the best known organisation currently working in this field and I have therefore opted to describe the syndrome as the "OXFAM Catalogue Syndrome". However, the term is used generically throughout the paper. I would argue that design in countries in the South has been and continues to be trapped by the "OXFAM Catalogue Syndrome" (OCS). This syndrome has been derived from an observation made in the UK where several different catalogues promoting and selling articles from thermal silk long johns to microwaveable hot water bottles are received, usually unsolicited through the post or contained in the folds of the Sunday newspapers. In particular the Oxfam catalogue (or Traidcraft etc) arrives alongside the Innovations catalogue. The Innovations catalogue is packed with natty if often absurd technological gizmos for example electronic nasal hair removers, which are marketed along the lines of "transform your life! Indispensable! Time-saving!", which can be ordered through the post. The contrast between the two is highlighted by the difference in the running commentary each catalogue elicits. The Third World crafts achieve a brief "Oh this is pretty and would make a nice gift for…. " (fill in a relative for whom present buying is difficult) or "this must have taken a long time to carve, it's a bit expensive". In comparison the Innovations catalogue is poured over in detail with exclamations of "look what you can get now, clever isn't it" and even the extremes of technological irrelevance are grudgingly admired for the technical expertise, miniaturisation etc. The cost of the products is commented on but the expense is justifiable because of the amount of technology contained within.

As a consequence of these catalogues, the perception in the UK of what it is possible to design and manufacture in developing countries is tied to the Western ethnic 'knick-knack' market. I would suggest that the continued emphasis on producing artifacts for this market reinforces the "sense of inferiority" discussed by the South Commission because technology is largely absent in the production methods and completely absent in the products being offered for sale. The emphasis is on technology-free artifacts that are decorative first, useful second and devoid of moving parts be they cogs or 'chips'.

It is argued that the observer can be made aware of the culture of the producer through a hand-made artefact or a visual image. However, with OCS, there is an inequality in consciousness between consumer and producer, a transformation of an artefact from meaningful object to one devoid of symbolism, (Brett, 1986; Sardar, 1993). Also present is the uneasy feeling of superiority on the part of the viewer. The impression of the 'other' is controlled and manipulated (Chowdry, 1995: 26). As we leisurely peruse the catalogue in the damp, grey UK, we imagine the exotic batik bedspread in our bedroom, the exquisitely carved coasters in our dining room and the expertly woven magazine rack at our feet in the lounge. And to cap it all we can supply our children with 'politically correct' wall hangings and t-shirts to counteract the effect of Barbie dolls and Game-Boys. Arguably this accessabilty to difference and the 'other' can result in greater understanding between cultures but what is being understood and where is the equality of understanding? Rather as Brett (1986) asserts this is the "commodification of aesthetic feeling and the imperialist assumption that the whole world is available". There is evidence of this in the introduction to the Autumn/Winter 1996 Oxfam catalogue. As a customer you are invited to:

"choose from our exclusive range of hand-made products and food from around the world. Many of the products we have chosen for you reflect designs and materials that have been passed down from generation to generation, helping to preserve skills and age old traditions. Each of the hand-made items are unique, reflecting the touch of the individual craftperson."

This begins to read like an introduction to a heritage theme park where tradition and culture are preserved and experienced through 'living' history. Both the romanticism of ethnicity and cultural imperialism become overwhelming.

The relationship between the consumers and producers can be described further as a dualism, where as Plumwood (1993: 47), says it "is an intense, established and developed cultural expression of such hierarchical relationship, constructing central cultural concepts and identities so as to make equality and mutuality literally unthinkable". This is perhaps a harsh and shocking analysis of the relationship but the status quo has to be challenged because as Plumwood continues to assert "once the process of domination forms culture and constructs identity, the inferiorised group ..[..].. Must internalise this inferiorisation in its identity and collude in this low valuation..". Being technologically incapable, receiving the most patronising forms of 'appropriate' technology is the lot of the inferiorised. The emphasis on craft production for income generation and development is also part of this process of domination.

Designers have a significant part to play in how technology is used for development. Noorgard (1995: 56) argues that "Societies, rather than picking and molding technology according to their values, are being shaped by technology". Countries in the South are being shaped by technologies the North deigns to allow them to have. This is not to suggest that given the choice the South would rush to adopt high-tech over and above the so called appropriate technologies but having the power to choose could optimistically lead to progress. I would suggest that it is here that design needs to be mobilised. Aesthetic, ergonomic and environmental considerations are all part of a designer's approach to technology (or should be!). Design is the interface between technology and people, and is therefore in some part responsible for the creation of identities and influencing cultural change . Design can be carried out in a participatory way again offering a bridge between people and technology, giving control over, rather than being controlled by technology. As Noorgaard (57) says "control [over technology] can only be exercised by each society developing a collective sense of self, defining its objectives, and thereby determining what progress is…".


PRODUCTION FOR MODERNISATIONM

At the same time as design is caught by OCS, there is the paradox of production for modernisation through the manufacture of 'tradition'. Those who are producing the ethnic 'knick-knacks' are advised to do so to achieve development and ultimately, modernity. Whatever the liberality of cause espoused by the development / trade agencies involved in this production, they exist in and at least implicitly promote, capitalist market economies: the "goal of modernization theory" (Chowdhry, 1995: 28). Industrialised nations have not become so through the mass production of ethnic knick-knacks, but through the continued development of technology and products which utilise these technologies. Even where industrialisation has not been the goal innovation and design have been evident historically in the survival of the human race from agriculture to architecture, communication to travel. Products have not remained static so why in developing countries should they apparently come to a standstill in the name of 'development'? Buchanan & Margolin (1995: xii) argue that "design exists as the central feature of culture and everyday life in many parts of the world". However, the concentration on and promotion of ethnic artifacts has to large extent resulted in the tacit knowledge of design being lost through the "sense of inferiority" remarked on by the South Commission. The producers of ethnic 'knick-knacks' in the South are caught in the developed / not developed "dualistic structure"(Plumwood: 43) so beloved by development theorists and practitioners. The cultural imperialism discussed above is also implicated in the control of technology and design. This is evident by the desire expressed in the North that "the Third World …avoid the wasteful and socially divisive path of marketing-led design in favour of socially useful products". As Whiteley (1993: 119) continues:

"The logic ought to be in favour of responsible design: Third World countries - almost by definition - are characterized by scarcity rather than surplus and merely owning a product ought, therefore, to matter more to people that its particular make or styling."

The questions this raises are why are responsible design and market-led design seen as incompatible? And why should they be presented, as they usually are, as a dualism? I would suggest that this has been the result of the implicit cultural imperialism which continues in design for development. As we have seen above, the North perceives design in the South to be dominated by tradition and ethnicity. Design carried out in the North for the South is dominated by the image of 'appropriate' technology where this means solar power, fuel efficiency, basic needs etc. There are very few images of design being executed for the South by the South. The Ugandan design teacher, Pido (1995: 35) recognises that "There is a need to fit indigenous design to the cash economy" and suggests that "Design could blend skilled hand-production and domestic economic interest ….[to].. Produce consumer goods for ourselves." The key here is the production of consumer goods for the home market.


DESIGN AND DESIGNERS

Writers and practitioners from the South acknowledge that design is an "ancient activity" (Ghose, 1995: 193), and "an instrument of everyday life" (Pido, 1995: 35) but this 'everydayness' has resulted in both its invisibility and paradoxically its professionalization. The professionals live in the industrialized countries because I would suggest, design in many developing (and some industrialized) countries is only associated with craft production when it is considered at all. A vicious circle is beginning to become clear, one where the OCS can not be escaped from. OCS does not promote cultural diversity as it might first appear but initiates and sustains the dualism of tradition and modernity. The UNESCO paper (1988) on Human Resources Development, National Policies, Global Strategies and International Cooperation asks how "indigenous spiritual and cultural creativity [can be transformed] into initiatives and entrepreneurship" (in Cole, 1990: 374). This question needs to be asked of the development agencies and designers in the South should be the ones to do the answering. Ghose (1995) argues that governments will have to:

"introduce national design policies that will dovetail with developmental policies, thereby making design an agent of the visual manifestation of the ideologies of development. Thus, if the fundamental aim of the developmentalist is to provide national confidence and self-reliance and bring some sense of equity, visible symbols of this confidence will have to be shown not only in the styles of architecture adopted, but also in the materials and processes adopted, the manner of advertising undertaken, the styles of clothing exhibited, the nature of products manufactured, and the skill in converting modern imported technology into products distinctive for the specific needs of the people."

Ghose (1995: 188) suggests that indigenous design can not be separated from technology transfers, foreign aid and trade.." and obviously the reality for many governments of developing countries is that their hands are tied by 'tied aid', structural adjustment, loan repayments etc. As Ghose (2001) says "design and development is a quest for non-standardized answers in an age of standardization" .

Deforge (1995: 21) argues that technological objects have two functions, "utilitarian and sign". The technological component of an object gives it another dimension, often concealed and unconsidered. Design makes implicit and explicit decisions about how to use the technological component and if, as Deforge argues technology has always avoided ethical questions, it follows that designers have too. Responsibility is required of designers to ensure technology is put to honest, open use and not used to conceal inadequacies. Technology is too frequently proclaimed as a cure all; from clean and easy housework to clean and easy war, from solar powered stoves to smart bombers. The emphasis on technological developments, has suggests Eisler (1990: xx), been on destruction and domination and that it is this emphasis "rather than technology per se, that today threatens all life on our globe." Walsh, et al (1992: 49) point out that it is "very easy to ignore the wider consequences of design". This is pertinent to both the negative and positive aspects of design: It is easy to ignore the environmental consequences of the 'throw-away society' and equally easy to ignore the potential in design for creating positive change. Both require the designer to accept a degree of responsibility, move beyond their own personalised fantasies and seek the views of the potential users/customers. This is not to devalue the tacit knowledge which is "regarded as an essential component of the skills and quality of designers", but to suggest that design involves the potential users in the "product development process" (Walsh, et al: 50; 243). Walsh, et al (52) identify four "common features" in design practice which may provide a useful guide to understanding the role of design in the product development process. The authors refer to the following as "the '4 Cs' of design":

"Creativity: design requires the creation of something that has not existed before (ranging from a variation on an existing design to a completely new concept).

Complexity: design involves decisions on large numbers of parameters and variables (ranging from overall configuration and performance to components, materials, appearance and method of manufacture).

Compromise: design requires balancing multiple and sometimes conflicting requirements (such as performance and cost; appearance and ease of use: materials and durability).

Choice: design requires making choices between many possible solutions to a problem at all levels from basic concept to the smallest detail of colour or form."

I would suggest that the four words; creativity, complexity, compromise and choice, have similar meanings in development where situations are often complex and require a creative approach to choice and usually result in compromise. The "4 Cs of design" could be used to emphasis the importance of the design process and the potential of technology.


GENDER, TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN

Another layer of inferiority is added by the remarkably globalised "cultural stereotype of women as technologically incapable" (Wajcman, 1994). The technical empowerment of women is vital to effective development efforts but whilst technology remains gendered so will it's inherent power (Stamp, 1989). Too many technological advances have resulted in women's lives deteriorating despite the "potential to transform lives…in a positive way." (Ng Choon Sim & Hensman, 1994). The role of designers is to package technology to make it accessible, desirable and usable to the people who live with and employ it (Dormer, 1991). Unfortunately, technology remains "both the social property and one of the formative processes of men" (Cockburn, 1994: 56) and designers are predominantly male. Consequently the people for whom technology is made accessible are usually men. As an inanimate object technology can cross international and cultural boundaries but as it does so it remains the "social property" of men and in many instances comes to represent "…the strongest force of male dominance [in] the public sphere…" (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1994: 22). This is evident in military hardware, the electronics industry (where women are employed for their 'nimble fingers'), and water pumps (where men are trained to service them) amongst many others.

One of the guiding precepts of design as it is taught and practised (certainly in the North), is that people buy particular artifacts in order to express and/or confirm their identity. If this the case then designers have a considerable part to play in defining the cultural system. However, unless cultural systems are redefined in relation to women, women will continue to be disempowered by technology. Technology will further entrench cultural "taboos" rather than negate them. Both men and women will be the poorer. Buchanan (1989: 98) highlights the problem of "technological reasoning, where beliefs and values always condition products, whether they are recognized explicitly, are implicitly assumed, or ignored completely". The belief that women are technologically inept is so ingrained that it is invisible never mind ignored. Once again this is apparent in the dualistic structures: culture/nature, modernity/tradition and developed/undeveloped. These dualisms provide a key to understanding the complexity of the relationships between gender, technology, design and development and how the OCS is involved in sustaining these relationships:

Design Technology Handicraft OCS
Developed Undeveloped
Modernity Tradition
Culture Nature
Male Female

For a dualism to exist there has to be a relationship of dominance, one is seen in the terms of the other. The relationship of dominance implicit in the OCS is there both for women and men.

There is an urgency to move towards 'multicultural' designers as Balaram (1995: 137) asserts "for designers to be convincing they too have to become involved with the object of design …. Only then can they expect to produce artifacts that are meaningful in the sense of reflecting the very mythology that guides users.." Equally there is an urgency to involve women in design, or rather recognise and validate the invisible design already being carried out by women (this is also the case in industrialised countries). Design carried out cross-culturally can add a layer of obscuration to technology for men and an additional layer is often applied for women. If, as Krippendorf (1995: 157) argues so eloquently product semantics goes further than "industry's immediate concern with production and consumption [because it is concerned with the] celebration of wholeness …the respect for mythology and archetypes that are rooted deep in the collective unconscious…", then the absence of cultural and gender diversity amongst global / international designers is an anathema. At the very practical level, the absence of women designers results in the "application of 'tacit knowledge' about women users' needs happen[ing] only rarely in product design" (Walsh et al, 1992: 244).

Parpart & Marchand (1995: 17) highlight the role of the "analyst/expert" which they say "reminds us of the close connection between control over discourse/knowledge and assertions of power". The Northern design discourse is rarely 'bothered' by or with discourse from the South. Equally it is rarely concerned with women and/or gender, occaisionally chapters are written by women from a feminist perspective or feminism/women and design is mentioned by the male author (Walker, 1989; Attfield, 1989: Buckley, 1989; Whitely, 1993). In product design practice, design is only gender aware in so far as giving products masculine and feminine attributes for the differentiated markets. Of course what it is to be feminine is decided by male designers and as Eisler (1990: xviii) says "in male-dominated societies anything associated with women or femininity is automatically viewed as secondary …. To be addressed, if at all, only after the 'more important' problems have been resolved". I suggest that if design addressed gender seriously it would be able to fully understand that although professional designers have "long argued that..[they] represent the human being and the human dimension of product development" they no longer have to struggle to come to terms with the fact they do not "possess special knowledge about what people want and need.." (Buchanan & Margolin, 1995: xiv). Designs' creative energies could then be applied to possibly revolutionary ideas for development, both in the North and South.


CONCLUSION

Design treats women in much the same way as development is addressed, there is the patriarchal assumption that 'we' know best and as a consequence we rarely look at alternatives. Development agencies are adopting participatory approaches and dealing with issues of empowerment but design has a long way to go. At present design models are largely incompatible with those of development and consequently there is a lack of awareness of the issues by both parties. Through the OCS indigenous designers are being sold a model of design that is fossilised and can make no use of technological innovation. Production methods might be incrementally improved but the artifacts produced remain firmly situated in the tradition and decoration department and continue to be for export. Southwell (1995) has suggested that design could take a participatory approach, using and adapting a development model in order to improve the process of design. It could also help make those involved in development aware of what design has to offer. Also attention to the "4 Cs" discussed earlier could provide an accessible design discourse which, if used along side participatory methods, could help bring design and development together. A discourse that can be mutually understood is necessary if the work of designers is to "contribute more concretely and effectively toward a more humane existence in the future" (Rams, 1989: 113).

Design is critical for the integration of technology into social structures, for making technology accessible and creating identities and consequently culture. Obviously technological progress has to be approached with caution to avoid the linear model highlighted by Norgaard (1995: 55), where "better science leads to better technology and more rational social organization and thereby to more material well-being through more effective control of nature". However unless technological progress is allowed to play a part in the products being designed and manufactured the current state of stasis will remain. It is also important to remember that tacit knowledge has to be allowed to develop or it too will stagnate. I would suggest that imagination is needed to explore the possibilities of technological integration, to break down the barriers built by the "OXFAM Catalogue Syndrome". Design could provide the method to do this.

There has to be a recognition that technology is not a 'universalism' and that 'naturalism' can not be used to explain the status quo with regard to women's involvement with technology. Equally, it has to be recognised that 'universalism' and 'naturalism' can not be used to justify the status quo with regards to products designed and manufactured in the South. I am not suggesting that the production of handmade crafts be abandoned completely, or that it is in some way bad. Like technology, it exists in a globalised social structure and is only negative when seen as the 'other'. I am arguing for a pluralistic and creative approach to technology, one, or rather several, which may involve handmade artifacts, batch production, mass production etc running in parallel and occasionally converging. An approach which gives the producer and user control over what is being produced. As a designer, I perhaps not surprisingly believe product design practice has much to offer the transformation of technology. Not transforming through unattainable "magic and miracles" but by 'spilling' the secrets of the magic circle.


REFERENCES

  • Attfield, J. (1989) FORM/female FOLLOWS FUNCTION/male: Feminist critiques of design, in J.Walker, Design history and the history of design. Pluto Press, London & Colarado.

  • Balaram, S. (1995) Product symbolism of Gandhi and its connection with Indian mythology, in V.Margolin & R.Buchanan (Eds) The idea of design: A Design Issues Reader, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.

  • Brett, G. (1986) Through our own eyes: Popular art and modern history. Heretic, UK.

  • Buchanan, R. (1989) Declaration by design: Rhetoric, argument, and demonstration in design practice, in V.Margolin (Ed), Design discourse: History, theory, criticism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

  • Buchanan, R. & Margolin, V. (Eds)(1995) Discovering design: Explorations in design studies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

  • Buckley,V. (1989) Made in patriarchy: Toward a feminist critique of women and design, in V.Margolin (Ed), Design discourse: History, theory, criticism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

  • Chowdry, G. (1995) Engendering development? Women in development (WID) in international development regime, in M.Marchand & J.Parpart (Eds), Feminism, postmodernism, development. Rouledge, London and New York.

  • Cockburn, C. (1994) The material of male power, in D.MacKenzie & J.Wajcman (Eds), The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes and Philadelphia.

  • Cole, S. (1990) Cultural technological futures. Alternatives, 15, 373-400.

  • Deforge, Y. (1995) Avatars of design: Design before design, in V.Margolin & R.Buchanan (Eds) The idea of design: A Design Issues Reader, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.

  • Dormer, P. (1991) The meanings of modern design: Towards the twenty first century, Thames & Hudson, London.

  • Eisler, R. (1990) The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. Pandora, London.

  • Ghose, R. (1995) Design, development, culture, and cultural legacies in Asia, in V.Margolin & R.Buchanan (Eds), The idea of design: A Design Issues Reader, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.

  • Krippendorf, K. (1995) On the essential context of artifacts or on the proposition that "Design is Making Sense (of Things), in V.Margolin & R.Buchanan (Eds), The idea of design: A Design Issues Reader, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.

  • Maathai, W. (1995) A view from the grassroots, in T.Wakeford & M.Walters (Eds), Science for the earth: Can science make the world a better place? Wiley, UK.

  • MacKenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (Eds)(1994) The social shaping of technology. Open University Press, Milton Keynes and Philadelphia.

  • Marchand, M. & Parpart, J. (Eds)(1995) Feminism, postmodernism, development. Rouledge, London and New York.

  • Ng Choon Sim, C. & Hensman, R. (1994) Science and technology: Friends or enemies of women? Journal of Gender Studies, 3, 3, 277-287.

  • Norgaard, R. (1995) Development betrayed: The end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future. Routledge, London & New York.

  • Oxfam FairTrade Company catalogue, Autumn-Winter 1996
  • Pido, O. (1995) Made in Africa. Design Review, 4, 15, 30-35.

  • Plumwood, V. (1993) Feminism and the mastery of nature. Routledge, London & New York.

  • Rams, D. (1989) Omit the unimportant, in V.Margolin (Ed), Design discourse: History, theory, criticism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

  • Saha, A. (1990) Cultural impediments to technological development in India. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 10, 8, 25-53.

  • Sardar, Z. (1993) Do not adjust your mind: Post-modernism, reality and the other. Futures, October, 877-892.

  • South Commission (1990) The Challenge to the South: The report of the South Commission. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

  • Stamp, P. (1989) Technology, gender, and power in Africa. International Development Research Centre, Canada.

  • Wajcman, J. (1994) Technology as masculine culture, in The Polity Reader in Gender Studies. Polity Press, Cambridge.

  • Walker, J. (1989) Design history and the history of design. Pluto Press, London & Colarado.

  • Walsh, V., Roy, R., Bruce, M.,& Potter, S. (1992) Winning by design: Technology, product design and international competitiveness. Blackwell, Oxford.

  • Whiteley, N. (1993) Design for society. Reaktion Books, London.


CATEGORIES: Technology & Craft, Design & Technology, Women & Technology

KEYWORDS: Craft, Design, Technology, Cultural Imperialism, Oxfam, North (Consumer)-South(Producer) Divide, Women



     Share on Facebook


ADDRESS LISTING
NOW available addresses of over 60,000 weavers & craftspeople working in more than 1000 crafts categories across India

Updated Weekly

SUBSCRIBE NOW


ARCHIVE

The Asia Inch Encyclopedia is building a permanent, long-term archive of writings that have enduring cultural, historic and evidentiary value. Read the collected writings of -
Ashoke Chatterjee,
Judy Frater,
Paula Manfredi,
Uzramma,
Carolyn Jongeward,

And others

READ MORE




Bookmark and Share
Sign up
to join the
Asia InCH mailing list

 


PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA

-

These publications and CD’s are available only on the CRT Online Shop


CARDS FOR CORRESPONDENCE

-

Rediscover the art of writing with these beautiful and wide ranging correspondence cards.


GAMES & HOBBIES

-

The Ganjifa playing cards, the wire brain teasers and Board Games are all collectibles besides providing hours of fun.

GIFTS

-

Original handcrafted products for someone who has everything.


STATIONARY

-

Original handcrafted products for someone who has everything.