In this episode of Commoning Design & Designing Commons, Giacomo and Joanna host a conversation with Marisa Morán Jahn and Rafi Segal, authors and editors of “Design and Solidarity – Conversation on collective futures” (Columbia University Press, 2023).
Marisa (https://www.marisajahn.com/) is an artist, filmmaker, and Sundance Fellow who has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University, and Parsons/The New School, where she is the director of integrated design. Artforum has praised her work as “exemplifying the possibilities of art as social practice.”
Rafi (https://rafisegal.com/) is an architect and associate professor of architecture and urbanism at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His current work focuses on how emerging forms of sharing and collectivity affect the design of buildings and cities.
| Speaker | Text |
| GI | Hi, and welcome to this new episode of the Commoning Design & Designing Commons podcast. Today, we are in a special occasion for this conversation, since we have two guests, whom we will come to in a second. I am Giacomo hosting today, as well, with, as usual, Joanna. |
| And as I said, we have two guests today for this episode, Marisa Morán Jahn, and Rafi Segal. Marisa is an artist and filmmaker, currently Associate Director of Integrated Design at the Parsons School. And Rafi Sagal, he is an architect and Associate Professor of Architecture and Urbanism at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. | |
| Today, we’re going to talk about the interesting book that they have curated and published, recently, with Columbia University Press. Design and Solidarity: Conversations on Collective Futures. Published earlier this year, 2023, February. So, we are very happy to have them here because this is a topic that… The topic of the book is central and very relevant to our podcast. | |
| JO | Yes, and hi, from me, I’m Joanna. As Giacomo just said, we are really very happy to have Marisa and Rafi with us today, so wonderful to have you both. In this book, Design and Solidarity, Marisa and Rafi present a series of conversations with seven authors around topics related to design and solidarity. |
| And also, using such concepts like mutualism, commons, and common. And they also present three essays that they have written, so one having written each of them, and one written jointly, on their own projects, in architecture and the arts. Maybe can start with the question that is why solidarity, Marisa, and Rafi? | |
| It’s not a concept that’s necessarily found in Western design discourse, so strongly, so why did you choose it? | |
| RA | Go ahead, yes. You can go ahead. I can see you, so I was nodding. But yes. |
| MA | Well, I think for both of us, solidarity has been a principle concept, informing the work that we do. In our collaboration, we found that we needed to sharpen the vocabulary about solidarity and its relationship with design. |
| So, for us, the book is very much about a way of thinking through… Which for us, involves reaching out to thought leaders and thinkers, and precedents, and using that dialogue as a way to hone how it is that we are engendering, fostering, and strengthening solidarity through our work. | |
| RA | Yes, from the perspective of architecture and urbanism, as an architect, us, as designers, we see the weakening of the public sphere, of public institutions. And we feel there is a void that can be filled by new collectives, or new kinds of collectivity. Solidarity is essential, an essential concept, an essential force, to enable these collectives to emerge and stabilise. |
| GI | Yes, thank you, Rafi, that’s interesting, also, so… Thanks, Marisa. What we, also, were wondering is how… You come from rather different disciplinary backgrounds, but also, professional practices that differ. |
| And also, a previous guest from our podcast had different backgrounds and they do perform different takes on design from their own background. And yes, the question is, probably, how do an architect and an artist see? Where do you see design to take shape and influence solidarity? And also, how was it, for you, the experience to work together on this topic in the book? What were the challenges, what were generative, or interesting to do? What did you learn from each other, basically, is also what is, perhaps, interesting here. | |
| MA | I think, for us, it’s productive for… In the work that we do, it has been productive to come from different disciplines because we share broader sets of expertise, of course, and also, different assumptions, and cultural assumptions about a shared topic. |
| Say, privatisation, or public space, and what that means, in terms of history. | |
| So, I think that already expands the work that we need to do to expand the vocabulary and make sure it’s precise. | |
| RA | I think there’s also a question of the different timespans that we work in. Marisa, as an artist, when, and we talk about this in the book, can work in more immediate and quicker timespans or pop-up public spaces, and ways to more immediately engage and express through her art. |
| In architecture, obviously, things take longer. So that’s one component, here. The other component is, really, the idea that we’re covering, as an architect and an artist, we’re addressing design in a more comprehensive way, which is needed when the, I would say, the user or the client, or the group that we’re designing for is not yet clear. | |
| And what we are designing is yet to be revealed or decided on. | |
| JO | The book is, of course, very much the project of both of you, but at the same time, also, reaching out to others. You asked for these different conversations from different people. At the same time, also, you have your personal thinking that comes through the essays. |
| So, we were a bit curious about the book format, how did you decide on that? Why this made sense, specifically, for the topic of the book? | |
| RA | Yes, well, there are multiple answers to that question. The first answer is, really, we were working towards a contribution to the previous Venice Biennale. |
| The contribution was called Open Collectives. And part of that work involved conversations with colleagues. But on the other hand… And that reflected work that we were already engaged in. In a way, maybe, the better explanation is in the beginning of the book, when we say solidarity for, with, or design for, with, as solidarity. | |
| So, there are many readings here. But the main thing that we realised that, actually, the influence on design is that design becomes a form of dialogue. And that dialogue, we jump-started through conversations with other people who are not designers. | |
| But share a certain value system, and belief system, and worldview on the importance of solidarity. | |
| MA | The book is almost like a section of a broader and ongoing dialogue that we have with these thinkers, and practitioners, and collaborators about I’m this… Pluriverse, which is Arturo Escobar’s idea of a world where many worlds fit. To economists, to design art and architecture. |
| As one example, one of the terms that Rafi and I introduced in the book, and that we use in our work, is this idea of Pluri-economies. There are many economies I which we already participate, and how do we visiblize that and use the tools of art, architecture, and design to fully appraise these many worlds? | |
| Moving out of the role of ontology in world-building, and into economic, and transactions, and the role of design in that. | |
| So, in many of these conversations about this nexus, we see that it’s very word and log centric, and really orientated around discourse, and speaking, which is really linguistic. We’re really interested in how design does all of that in a different way, and is, necessarily, a counterpart to the discursive ways of thinking through these questions. | |
| JO | So, you think that this is particularly needed for design right now, in the state of the world, and how things are going? |
| RA | Absolutely, essential, really. We envision that when you talk about, let’s say, architecture, or architects, who do they work for? Some would say it’s a service profession, you work for a private client or a company. |
| Or the state, maybe, in some countries, where the state still commissions architecture work. But we’re saying that the social structure is changing, and for various reasons that we go through, that there are new groups that emerge that we should not only work for but work with. I’m moving into the role of the designer, here, is really to work with a group that, sometimes, is yet undefined. | |
| And to use design, like Marisa was saying, not only the terminology, or the words, but to use the visual language of design, to help that group stabilise itself, emerge, and also, through a visible project. A visible and, let’s say, spatial project. | |
| The design of space stabilises and anchors a certain social structure, but that social structure is emerging. And that’s where designers can play a role in helping that structure emerge with the visual, spatial language. | |
| MA | To use that, to share that through a specific example. |
| Rafi and I are working on a project called Carehaus, which is the US’s first care-based cohousing project, which emerges from my 14-year-long collaboration with the National Domestic Workers Alliance, which is a movement in the United States of 10 thousand nannies, housekeepers, and caregivers. | |
| And in my collaboration, we have done digital works, films, artwork. We had these two mobile studios. And really, at a certain point, I started wondering about the role of architecture in visiblizing on an urban civic scale the role of care, and how powerful architecture is in shifting these questions about what we value, and the centrality of care in that. | |
| And what I was seeing is that in the language about caregiving in the United States, it is framed in transactional terms. It’s always about the, quote, care consumers, and is never solving for the very problem that is endemic to the high turnover and low wages of caregiving in the United States. If you can solve for that problem by providing good wages, by providing quality housing for caregivers and their families, then you have solved a lot of the problem. | |
| So, when I turned to Rafi to begin collaborating on this project, it was always with this question of how do we centre the needs of caregivers. So, when we say that it’s an emerging group, who may not see themselves, we’re reversing the equation in the United States of how we understand care, and we’re anchoring them as the centre part of the project. | |
| And then the needs of older and disabled adults come after that. So, this is an example of how we are designing for different kinds of dynamics. | |
| RA | Right. So, the design and the work around Carehaus is, at the same time, the creation of a new kind of group, which has elders, older and disabled adults, living in the same building with a group of caregivers. |
| And the design, obviously, here, the way that the spaces are designed, is intrinsically tied to the way that the social interactions and the way that this group will form and function. One is really intrinsically tied. This is a completely new type of building that does not exist. | |
| MA | It goes to the question of how, of course, you necessarily… From our perspective, you necessarily need the input of caregivers and advocates in design. So, we have ongoing and multiple iterative conversations with caregivers and those in the care and medical spectrum. |
| Which is how this reversal of power dynamics gets translated through design and how you think about design as dialogue. | |
| RA | Exactly. Now, to give another example, a historical example, from the last century, or whatever time where, let’s say, state or public institutions were involved in deciding how we should live. In the time that the states commissioned housing, for example. |
| And then they had an idea, or government had an idea, of what kind of citizen it wanted, and we build buildings for that. So, the modernist concept of designing and just having it land somewhere, and then just use it, this is completely different, what we’re talking about. | |
| And it’s not about top-down or bottom-up, but it’s a completely different way to think of how design can actually be a process to identify and secure, in a way, and formulate, help formulate, a group, and allow it to anchor and develop itself through space. | |
| MA | Take, for example, in the 1950s, we have this proliferation in the United States of the single-family nuclear home, with 2.5 children, in the suburbs. This was an idea that represents top-down planning, where it was created by the government working with real estate developers. |
| As well as the oil industry, who served to benefit from people buying cars and moving out to the suburbs. This housing typology of the single-family nuclear home still exists and contributes to many of the problems of the housing crisis and care crisis that we have today. Housing isolation, which contributes to health challenges, especially acute for older and disabled adults. | |
| The shortage of caregivers, etc. And really, this movement, this suburbanisation destroyed these very proliferating examples of housing and care and domestic labour combined, in which women were driving many of these changes. | |
| But the destruction of urban density and these women to organise, as well as designers, put a seal on that. Also, looking to history, in the United States, public housing was very much engineered for the heteronuclear family, not for those who may have been needing it most, i.e., single women with children. So, really, in this decade and century, we’re playing catchup with this legacy of these structures. | |
| And we need new models that are observing actual trends today. | |
| GI | Yes, thank you, that was a very interesting input from things that is written [?] in the book. But one thing that, maybe, I want to come back is, also, this issue of language, that we touched, already, here and there, a few times. But in your book, you also make the point when, basically, inviting these conversations for these other authors, activists, and practitioners. |
| To focus, somehow, on one or two key terms, or key concepts that they work with or that they, yes, bring forward. But if I might ask you to what extent… You talk about multiplicity, Redes, Pluriverse, which we already mentioned, how do we make use of this language in practice? | |
| Is it something that gives us more knowledge? Is it a tool that we can employ in an everyday practice? So, how do you see this language of and for design solidarity to be used in practice, or be helpful in practice, for those who read your book, but also, try to do something afterwards? | |
| RA | I can start, and Marisa probably will complement. I think they’re both short-term and long-term tools. Really, the idea is through dialogue and conversations to articulate the tools, and the concepts, and the terms, and the language, verbal and visual that we have, in order to expand our ability to operate through this approach. |
| Concepts and words help mitigate this gap of imagination, which is always a problem because people get used to the way things are as a given. If you want to break the mould, and if you want to develop a new concept or a new type of building, let’s say, the best would be, probably, build it, and let people see that. | |
| And make work, and let people see that it is possible. But along the way, obviously, these concepts help articulate and expand the ability to think through ideas and communicate them. In addition, there’s a longer-term project here that seeks, really, to establish more and more of this language. | |
| I wouldn’t say alternative, but as a way to expand our understanding of economy is what social structure is, what a family unit is, what a household is, what a residential space is. What sharing means, what care means. And it’s much needed because you can’t really change anything without changing the language and the words that we use. | |
| MA | Yes, I think that for me in my daily life, I lived in the United States, this is my backyard, where I primarily operate. Most of the individual and publics that I encounter are still using this very outdated language that is, to us Gibson-Graham’s words, Capitalocentric. |
| When we are talking about anything else other than capitalism, the default rhetoric and counterpoint is that it’s either capitalism or communism, which is very binaristic and not representative of how we actually live. | |
| What I think is helpful is to always affirm to the individuals which I’m speaking with, whether that’s my son and his friends, he’s ten years old, to just someone on the street, that there’s many economies in which we already participate. It’s a beautiful thing when someone hears those being confirmed as an actual viable economy. That can be my neighbour down the street, we either barter apples for eggs, people who are swapping care. | |
| GI | What would you say is a change in the role of the designer who tries to embrace this vision? |
| What kind of different challenges would he or she face in work if he or she has to try to, I don’t know, bring this concept or this vision to public institutions who do a different way of urban planning, or even, real estates, or other actors on one end? But also, on the other end, communities who do not see, yet the potential of doing things collectively? | |
| So, how would a designer be changed by approaching this work in what you try to suggest in the book? | |
| RA | I would give two responses to that, or two different ways in which this can be addressed by designers, architects. One is to ask who are we designing for. |
| Not to ask that in a passive way, but to understand that question is an opportunity to identify and create a new kind of user, which exists, but maybe the design can help that user emerge, to say think outside of the conventional kind of client, let’s say, that we would imagine to be for an architectural project. | |
| And that could be an entrepreneur kind of project, as well, but it does make the designer even more proactive, in a sense. That has to do with the way that we… Who engage and the way that we engage with that group. | |
| Or, in short, to say that a group of different members can become a user for a project. The other component is more practical on the architectural scale, or on the building scale, and the way we understand architectural space. There are a few principles, but I would explain one, perhaps, that has to do with the binary divide between private and public. | |
| Which finds its way into architecture very easily, since a wall is a very clear divide between outside, inside, between who is allowed, who is not allowed between private and public. So, rather than working through that binary and trying to be very specific about where that line is as a line, as a threshold, to think of that condition as a space of multiple states. | |
| Or as a gradient between the private, let’s say, or between, what we understand, the public, there are in-between design stages that could cater to different degrees of collectivity. Or different degrees of sharing. Through that, create gradients or sequences or diverse conditions and not an architecture that’s either you’re in this side or you’re on that side. | |
| MA | Yes, I think Rafi, in his work, what interests me about the way that he works is that it is always affirming people who may not see themselves as input providers or decision-makers and involve them in a design process that is affirming the expertise of everybody involved. |
| I will share the example that in Carehaus, similar co-design workshops involve doctors, nurses, disability advocates, caregivers, art lovers, to local residents. And even within those groups are certain differences. | |
| So, for example, we involved caregivers from California to Miami, to Baltimore, Maryland, where we are, where Carehaus is, and within that micro-group and a larger disciplinary group, people start to understand that what they might have thought as universal positions or opinions, are in fact, either regional or culturally, or ethnically specific. | |
| Or disciplinary and vocationally honed. And so, for everybody involved, it’s both affirming and humbling, but also, empowering to understand how everyone can bring together their expertise on a project that is looking at something new and creating something new. | |
| And is just one stop on a larger trajectory. | |
| JO | So, maybe, to start wrapping up, I have a question, still. When you were just saying that you work a lot with different communities, with collectives, and you were saying that it’s important to find that space, also, throwing in the different expertise. |
| I take it that, as an artist, and as an architect, you are, indeed, also bringing your own expertise, as you were saying in the beginning, with everything that’s also visual, beyond just the spoken language, etc. But do you think that in these contexts, in this situation, do you need to, also, become members of these communities, or these collectives? | |
| I’m asking this because we have been wondering about that question with many workshop participants, with the people we invited to the podcast, does, for example, a designer working with, for, through the commons, needs to also be a commoner at the same time? So, l would like to hear your perspective on that. | |
| RA | We might have a different answer for that. |
| JO | That’s good, also. |
| RA | Yes, not the same. I think we are, even without knowing it, if it’s not within this, a member, if it’s not within this community, it’s within another community. |
| We are all members of multiple communities. I think we’re all experiencing similar situations. If we work on Carehaus, and we work on the issues of care, every one of us experienced the problems of care, if it’s caring for a child or caring for a parent, or a grandparent. It’s something that everyone experienced. | |
| This is something that I’m talking about now because it touches my own life now. So, we can relate to it, and we’re relating to solidarity, going back to that term, it’s such a fundamental condition for our existence, that we can relate to it on so many levels, and we are part of these experiences. It doesn’t, necessarily, have to be this exact experience, but we have experienced being part of a collective or a community in another regard. | |
| So, I think we are always, in a way, part of something. And this is, maybe, the message, just to end with that, or to clarify that, for designers and for architects not to be in their bubble, in their creative bubble, but to engage as much as possible. | |
| And to engage in dialogue with people, with the world, with the environment. And it’s through dialogue that we become participants, and we become engaged, and we could maximise our skills, or in our contribution. | |
| MA | Yes, agreed. For us, solidarity contains an element of difference. |
| It’s the issues and the things that we have in common that should be bringing people together. I want to footnote here that in the United States, in some communities, and sometimes, encroachingly, in academic communities, there is this complete stultifying fixation, through identitarian politics, that is really fixed on the question of authenticity and who can speak. | |
| This is an essential part of the conversation, and we also need those differences. For so many years, domestic workers, and the movement for domestic workers’ rights, which is also for fair and quality care for those who need it, was impossible to move forward without having domestic employers and those who need care at that some conversation, and discussion, and decision-making table. | |
| So, it really is through divergent points of view that we’re able to move forward. I think, also, I want to introduce the point, or underscore what Rafi said, through different terms, that identity-forming… Not identity formation because that implies a fixed ontological state that you are one thing or another thing. | |
| But identity-forming, which is ongoing and evolving, where people may not see themselves as a stakeholder or part of a constituency, but it does not mean they’re not. What comes to mind is there’s many times when I had these vibrant and very colourful mobile studios. | |
| The Nanny Van was the first one. It was a huge orange van, and it parks on the street, it pops out and it invites conversations and sharing resources and stories with nannies and domestic workers, and also, parents, and librarians, and schoolteachers, and people in the community. I can’t tell you how many conversations I had, where a nanny came up and said I have been working as a nanny for the past 15 years, and I haven’t proudly identified as such until I saw the Nanny Van. I feel like this artwork is for me, and I’m able to now identify. | |
| Another worker came up to the CareForce One, which was a station wagon, and said I did not see myself as a leader until I saw the CareForce One, and saw this whole community here, and now I’m ready to be a leader. So, for us, the question is what can art, and design, and architecture do to catalyse how people identify and how people find new alliances and create new forms of solidarity. | |
| RA | Yes. |
| GI | Thank you, Marisa. Thank you, Rafi. I think this was a nice wrapping-up of the conversation. We had the chance to go through your background story behind the book, and inform our listeners of what they can find, but also, what inspired this book, and what kind of vision and suggestion you make for, yes, making design for solidarity happening. So, thank you for joining us today. We were very glad to have you here. |
| With that, we just say goodbye to all. To all of you. | |
| RA | Thank you. Thank you. |
| MA | Thank you. And thank you for the work that you do. |
| JO | Thanks, bye. |
| GI | Bye-bye. |