The drama of design relations 

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER THREE: THE DRAMA OF DESIGN RELATIONS

In this chapter I aim to show how a meta-rhetorical investigation of design trends needs to look beyond design objects and arguments, to consider the socio-political dynamics surrounding the design scenario. This is an important perspective, since the meanings of stylistic trends are only partly contained in design factors.
As mentioned previously, design trend meanings are, to a large extent, socially constructed through highly mediated discursive practices. In other words, trends need to be understood as meta-cultural products, where symbolic, socio-cultural value is of greater significance than isolated functional use value. The dynamic or fluctuating nature of design trends means that this socio-cultural value is continuously negotiated and re-negotiated. From this perspective, design trend dynamics can be interpreted as an unfolding ‘drama’ between various design culture actors.
The legitimation and promotion of new aesthetic approaches in design take place between people with socio-political interests, even as they speak about design product parameters and aesthetics. It is possible to argue that a variety of non design-related or ‘softer’ human motives also have an influence on design and trend dynamics. For instance, a designer may need to present a certain kind of ethos, of professionalism and competence, in order to achieve client buy-in. In such scenarios, the projection of a desirable professional image could be considered a performative act, which takes place through rhetorical means. This projection of an ethos via a ‘rhetorical performance’ can be situated within the realms of both drama and rhetoric.
This chapter thus presents Burkes ideas regarding ‘the drama of human relations’,1 as it sheds light on sociopolitical aspects of design practice in general and trend dynamics in particular. Whereas the previous chapter explored the dialectical linguistic-symbolic foundations for rhetoric, this chapter considers the human context within which rhetorical communication takes place. In other words, this chapter considers the social and cultural context within which designers are required to ‘frame’ or justify their actions. As Burke points out, we are under the social obligation to justify – or at least position – both our past and future actions. We defend our actions when accounting to others, but also rationalise our decisions to ourselves. In other words, when we motivate, we assign motives to our acts. The selection of motives is, according to Burke, a thoroughly relational and socialised process. In simple terms, people motivate their actions by referring to what others want to hear; or perhaps more accurately, what they think others will accept as appropriate and legitimate.
In order to interrogate this performative process of motivation, this chapter introduces Burke’s dramatism as a method of “critical analysis of language and thence human relations generally, by the use of terms derived from the contemplation of drama” (Burke 1955:264).2 While I do not intend to use Burke’s dramatism as a rigid method for design discourse analysis, I believe it provides a valuable interpretive perspective, along with a set of terminologies, useful for the interrogation of design motives.
The first part of this chapter provides a brief contextual background on considering design practice and relations in terms of ‘drama’. This serves as basic point of connection between Burke’s ‘dramatistic’ angle and design. The second part of this chapter explores Burke’s notion of ‘symbolic action’ as a necessary approach to language when developing ‘dramatistic’ and rhetorical perspectives on communication. I consider here how both visual and verbal design practice can be framed in terms of ‘symbolic action’. The third part of the chapter frames the ‘design drama’ as a blend of cooperative and competitive motives. In other words, I explain how the design drama emerges from a situation in which designers collaborate with others (i.e. clients), while they also harbour their own individual motives. I then consider the drama of trend dynamics more specifically by referring to Burkean concepts surrounding dramatic cycles of change. I pay specific attention here to Burke’s ‘guilt-purification-redemption’ cycle, as offering insights on a general sociological process that may also drive design change. The last section of the chapter introduces Burke’s
dramatistic method of discourse analysis, via his dramatistic pentad, as a useful approach to examining discursive motivations.
Note that many of the concepts introduced in this chapter are expanded upon in Chapter Four, which deals with Burke’s rhetorical theory and criticism. Whereas this chapter deals with more general aspects of design action, as influenced by the sociological design drama,3 the following chapter considers the strategic potential or rhetorical power of visual and verbal design action, as utilised in the design drama.

Background

Ellen Lupton (2009:6) explains how “[d]esign is a social activity. Rarely working alone or in private, designers respond to clients, audiences, publishers, institutions, and collaborators”. These relationships need to be managed in order to achieve successful design outcomes, and the ‘managing’ of these relations could be considered both performative and rhetorical.
There are many social, political and cultural demands and expectations that designers are confronted with as a routine part of their daily practice. This means that a variety of relational factors impact design decisions, as well as how these decisions are motivated or justified. Designers interact with various design stakeholders throughout the design process, and rhetorical factors inform these interactions in significant ways. For instance, designers need to convince clients not only of their competence, but also that their motives are well-aligned with those of their clients. Professional reputation or image, as well as respect or prestige amongst peers, could be considered some of the ‘softer’ human factors that impact rhetorical design practice. Throughout the design process, different stakeholder interests are continuously negotiated as a means to ensure cooperation. A ‘drama of design relations’ thus plays out around the management of various professional relationships (designer-client and designer-designer). According to Duncan Reyburn and Marno Kirstein (2015:73), ‘drama’ is a useful metaphor for grappling with design “in its totality, at its most fundamental ideological level”. They continue to explain how design […] is part and parcel of the rules of relationship. Put differently, while design may be referred to as singular, it always presupposes a multiplex of material and nonmaterial processes that are continuously interacting. It is drama replete with front-stage elements, actors, and narrative trajectories, as well as the wirework and production schemes that are hidden backstage. It also, very importantly, suggests an affected audience (Reyburn & Kirstein 2015:73).
In a general sense, both design and drama can be defined as ‘collaborative production towards collective reception’. In other words, drama (or design) is performed by various actors (or design producers), for audience (or user) reception. In reference to Kees Dorst’s description of the designer as ‘design actor’, Reyburn and Kirstein (2015:73) explain how the “designer as actor is located within the drama, rather than outside it, as one of its protagonists”. In other words, to consider the design scenario as an unfolding drama, is to emphasise narrative, performative and relational aspects of the design process, as enacted between various design actors.4
Various design theorists have argued for greater scholarly attention to socio-political aspects of design production; to expand design inquiry beyond the product and process and interrogate the broader humanistic design scenario. Humanistic approaches to design, such as those advocated by Richard Buchanan (1995), Jorge Frascara (1988), Klaus Krippendorff (2006) and Victor Margolin (2002) suggest that design should be studied as a social, cultural and political practice, as opposed to merely being thought of as a technological practice. Such humanistic approaches are closely linked with rhetorical perspectives on design insofar as design action is considered a meaning-making activity within discursive communities. As Richard Lanham (2016:139) points out, a ‘rhetorical view of life’ is based on the premise that the self is “a social fabrication, created by the many dramas we pass through in our lives”. I thus take the position that a rhetorical view of design trends may benefit from an exploration of the drama of design relations.
In order to develop a dramatistic perspective on human relations as expressed through discursive motivations, Burke believes one needs to adopt a view of language as ‘symbolic action’. As mentioned in the previous chapter, Burke chooses to frame language in terms of deliberate symbolic action, as opposed to motion. The following section explores Burke’s reasons for this emphasis and aims to show how the concept of ‘symbolic action’ is useful for interrogating meta rhetorical aspects of design practice and trend dynamics.

Design as symbolic action

For Burke (LSA:44), a dramatistic approach to language essentially treats language as symbolic action.5 Burke believes that while all beings are capable of practical action, symbolic action is unique to humans and requires a particular kind of second-level reasoning. Through the concept of symbolic action, Burke encourages the consideration of linguistic products or utterences, not only in terms of what they say, but in terms of what they do.6 This perspective has much in common with the speech-act theory of JL Austin and Ludwig Wittgenstein, who support the position that “[w]ords are moves in a sequence of actions” (Sandywell 2011:26). This relates to the manner in which words are used for strategic (rhetorical) purposes. The notion of symbolic action also highlights the manner in which the reverse scenario is true: it is possible to say something by the manner in which one does something. In such instances a physical act can also be interpreted as a symbolic act. Burke (ATH:165) uses the example of mountain climbing. If a person climbs a mountain simply as a means to get from A to B, we do not need to look for symbolism. However, if climbing the mountain is meant to serve as an expression (of endurance, adventurousness, and so on), then the act can be read as symbolic. While some people do climb mountains as part of a journey, a mountaineer clearly climbs mountains for symbolic purposes.
As another example, more closely related to the study at hand, Burke (PLF:9) explains how there is often a “borderline area wherein many practical acts take on a symbolic ingredient, as one may buy a certain commodity not merely to use it, but also because its possession testifies to his enrollment in a certain stratum of society”. In such a scenario, the physical act of purchasing a product clearly contains a symbolic motive. This echoes Roland Barthes’ stance on how the fashion system is built upon the symbolic value of clothing. He explains how we dress ourselves “in order to carry out a signifying activity. The wearing of an item of clothing is fundamentally an act of meaning that goes beyond modesty, ornamentation and protection. It is an act of signification and therefore a profoundly social act” (Barthes 2013:90-1).
However, as also explained in the previous chapter, symbolic and utilitarian value cannot easily be separated. Symbolic acts may serve utilitarian purposes and utilitarian acts are frequently performed in ways that serve symbolic purposes. This symbolic relation, between saying and doing is highly significant in a design context, specifically in communication or information design, where what a product does is communicate.
Communication design aesthetics can be interpreted in terms of what it ‘says’ through what it ‘does’ and what it ‘does’ through what it ‘says’ (and how it says it). Furthermore, the formal, aesthetic quality of a design product can be considered symbolic action towards utilitarian purpose as well as utilitarian action towards symbolic purpose. Purposes may include to communicate effectively or authoritatively, to attract attention or stimulate consumption. All of these purposes can be considered both symbolic and utilitarian.
In considering the design process as social drama, another interpretation of design as ‘symbolic action’ becomes significant. This relates to the manner in which the process of designing is itself an extended process of communication, which consists of a series of symbolic acts. As part of the design process, a design or ‘image’ (of a tangible or intangible product) is developed,communicated and (usually) consummated.7 This ‘image’ is not only the visual representation of the proposed final product, but includes all symbolic communication of intention throughout the entire design process (Nelson & Stolterman 2012:130-1). It is for this reason that ‘design action’ should refer not only to the production of design artifacts (visual, material or immaterial), but also to the communicative (linguistic and visually symbolic) processes accompanying design creation. As Andy Dong (2006) highlights (also by referring to speech-act theory), a designer’s communicative actions are not separate from the design process, but constitute the entire design process.
Both visual and verbal design language can thus be approached in terms of Burke’s notion of ‘symbolic action’, which draws attention to the performative significance of symbols. To classify design as ‘symbolic action’ is a particular way of framing, within the dialectical positions outlined in the previous chapter, namely action versus motion and symbolic versus utilitarian function. It is nevertheless possible, as many design theorists have done, to frame design in other terms, for instance, as evolutionary process (emphasising motion), or to consider design only in terms of its utilitarian function.
However, Burke believes it is essential to frame communication in terms of symbolic action. He explains how “the social sphere is considered in terms of situations and acts, in contrast with the physical sphere, which is considered in mechanistic terms, idealized as a flat cause-and-effect or stimulus-and-response relationship” (PLF:103). As mentioned previously, “the difference between a thing and a person is that the one merely moves whereas the other acts” (LSA:53). For Burke, dramatism can be summarised as a broad approach to language and thought as basically “modes of action” rather than as merely a means of conveying information (GM:xxii). He thus situates his dramatistic approach to language in direct contrast to a scientistic approach (LSA:44).8 This choice, to emphasise the symbolic and performative nature of language use, is Burke’s response to the dominant communication theories of his time, which sought to emphasise the mechanistic processes surrounding information transfer. Burke (GM:505) explains how scientific views are concerned with processing and correlation, instead of action and motivation. He argues that “as soon as you move into the social realm, involving the relation of man to man, mere correlation is not enough. Human relationships must be substantial” (GM:505). Any attempt to describe human relations in purely naturalistic or scientistic terms is therefore a “reduction of some higher or more complex realm of being to the terms of a lower or less complex realm of being” (GM:506).
For Burke, behaviorist and materialist vocabularies (which emphasise correlation and motion) do not allow for ethical interrogation since these frameworks suggest a person does not have agency and is therefore not truly responsible for their actions. Ethical judgement relies on perceiving humans as capable of purposeful action; an act can only be classified as such if freedom of choice is involved. In other words, if an action is involuntary it equates to being moved, and is thus in the realm of motion9 (RR:188). It thus follows that an act, in the Burkean sense, would include the element of volition or intent. Therefore, since action involves choice (which in turn involves human character), it implies the ethical, whereas sheer motion can be considered non-ethical (LSA:11).10 While Burke acknowledges the material conditions of motion as an underlying prerequisite for action is inescapable, he wishes to emphasise the shortcomings of the purely materialist thinking which he identifies in behaviourist perspectives. Burke argues that we “cannot relate to one another sheerly as things in motion. Even the behaviourist, who studies man in terms of his laboratory experiments, must treat his colleagues as persons, rather than purely and simply as automata responding to stimuli” (LSA:53).
Any rhetorical investigation departs from the acceptance that actions (by rhetors and audiences) can indeed be taken. Quite simply, a ‘dramatistic’ approach to language is essential if we are to consider the question of motive in the first place. It is only if we accept that humans can act, or make decisions, that we would consider their motives. In other words, motivation is neither necessary nor possible without the ability to act. However, while Burke emphasises action, he acknowledges that it is possible to behave as if in motion, or to frame actions as motions. It is precisely this dynamic that lies at the heart of the mechanics of motivation.
As mentioned previously, the dramatic metaphor highlights design as relational (social, cultural, and political) practice, where the ideas and interests of various stakeholders are negotiated in space and time. In addition to the professional relations with various stakeholders, designers also become part of a broader “culture of design”, characterised by second-level, discursive and meta-design products. Guy Julier (2008:40) investigates this highly mediated “culture of design” whereby design operates in a reflexive mode to selfconsciously recognise design value and promote this value to a broader public. He continues to explain how [m]uch of the [institutionalised] history and criticism of design […] falls within a specific formal canon, thereby giving a refined language to legitimate itself and a self-perpetuating logic which identifies ‘good design’ as against ‘bad design’ or ‘kitsch’. It therefore conspires to maintain the highly reflexive, self-conscious nature of design (Julier 2008:41).

Declaration 
Summary and key terms 
Acknowledgements 
Table of Figures 
Abbreviations of books by Kenneth Burke 
Chapter One: Introduction 
Background
A Burkean meta-rhetorical approach
Study aim, objectives and research approach
Introducing Kenneth Burke
Outline of chapters
Chapter Two: Dialectical design conditions 
Background
Design and symbolic order
Dialectical order and hierarchy
Dialectical transition and change
Dialectical transformation and transcendence
Design dialectics
Chapter Three: The drama of design relations 
Background
Design as symbolic action
The cooperative/competitive design drama
Trend dynamics as drama
Dramatistic motivation of design action
Chapter Four: The rhetorical design situation 
Background
Visual and verbal design rhetoric
Identity and identification
Design mystification and trend magic
Motivational propriety (piety & sacrilege)
Terministic screens & design frames
Chapter Five: A critique of design (dis)orders 
Background
Hierarchic psychosis
Technological psychosis
Trained incapacity and occupational psychosis
Bureaucratization of the imaginative
Chapter Six: Meta-rhetorical design re-framing 
Rhetorical (self)consciousness
Burkean strategies for re-framing
Burkean neo-Stoic cosmopolitanism
Chapter Seven: Conclusion 
Summary of chapters
Contributions
Limitations
Suggestions for further research
Concluding remarks
Sources consulted
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT