What we need is a territory and a language. Perhaps those can even be the same thing. Design already has a language and the reason that critical design works is it uses the same language of the things it's critiquing. The design language is a finely honed and perfected communication tool. And here we have seen examples of how technology can give us a territory. So I come to my question to which these ideas seem to lead to:
Can the next iteration of critical (or other forms of) design be used to create platforms or territories for ideological conflicts to occur?
To me this seems to be the 'then what' after the 'what if?' We don't want to be in a position where we become solutions peddlars, but it's important to move beyond provocation and into how this young but established toolkit can potentially be used to enact real change. The form that these platforms or territories might take is unknown to me as yet.
The project perhaps serves to propose and answer three central questions through collaborative work and conversation:
1. Can critical design move from provoking debate to enabling change?
2. With securitisation and internalisation of commons, what are the new kinds of territories required for conflict?
3. How can design facilitate conflict that doesn't harm anyone?
This project openly invites feedback, collaboration and submissions.
Outcomes
The original essay that began the project.
The Designed Conflict Territories tumblr is an ongoing blog, hosting most activity.
26-02-14 - Open Democracy essay on Designed Conflict Territories.
02-04-14 - 'Technological Territories' in Noon Magazine.
01-05-14 - The Monopoly of Legitimate Use films made to question network power.
22-05-14 - The Ongoing Collapse website, an holistic collection of narrative data.
13-06-14 - Lecture on Designed Conflict Territories at IMAL, Brussels.
13-01-14 - Continuous Monuments and Imaginable Alternatives in Amatuer Cities