ArticlePDF Available

The Decolonising Design Manifesto

The Decolonising Design Manifesto
By Decolonising Design // Originally published 27 June 2016
(updated on 15.11.2017: edited and slightly re-structured for clarity; corrected spelling and grammar.)
Much of the academic and professional discourse within the design disciplines over the last century has been bereft of a critical
reflection on the politics of design practice, and on the politics of the artifacts, systems and practices that designerly activity
produces. Our premise is that notwithstanding important and valued exceptionsdesign theory, practice, and pedagogy as a
whole are not geared towards delivering the kinds of knowledge and understanding that are adequate to addressing longstanding
systemic issues of power.
These issues are products of modernity and its ideologies, regimes, and institutions reiterating, producing and exerting continued
colonial power upon the lives of oppressed, marginalized, and subaltern peoples in both the ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ world.
This planet, shared and co-inhabited by a plurality of peoples, each inhabiting different worlds, each orienting themselves within
and towards their environments in different ways, and with different civilizational histories, is being undermined by a globalized
system of power that threatens to flatten and eradicate ontological and epistemological difference, rewriting histories and advance
visions of a future for a privileged few at the expense of their human and nonhuman others.
To date, mainstream design discourse has been dominated by a focus on Anglocentric/Eurocentric ways of seeing, knowing, and
acting in the world, with little attention being paid to alternative and marginalized discourses from the non Anglo-European
sphere, or the nature and consequences of design-as-politics today. This narrowness of horizons and deficiency in criticality is a
reflection of the limitations of the institutions within which design is studied and practiced, as well as of the larger socio-political
systems that design is institutionally integrated into.
We believe that a sharper lens needs to be brought to bear on non-western ways of thinking and being, and on the way that class,
gender, race, etc,. issues are designed today. We understand the highlighting of these issues through practices and acts of design,
and the (re)design of institutions, design practices and design studies (efforts that always occur under conditions of contested
political interests) to be a pivotal challenge in the process of decolonisation. We also want to move beyond academic discourse to
critique and think around the ideas and practices that circulate through the work of professional designers embedded in the
various sectors of production that stimulate and sustain the modern/colonial world economy.
Our goal is ontological rather than additive change. It is not sufficient for design institutions to simply include a greater diversity
of actors or perspectives. This only goes to serve a delaying and offsetting demands for radical systemic change. While we
support and defend measures to include marginalized subjects and our/their concerns in spaces from which we/they have been
excluded or remain precarious, we also believe there is little point to diversifying institutions, practices, and processes that
ultimately sustain colonial imperatives. Our aim is not to direct our efforts to prop up existing power structures, or to sustaining
them through ameliorative measures. Rather, our aim should be nothing less than to seek the radical transfiguration of these
structures through the critical eye of the programmatic imagination that dares to identify the possibilities and conditions that will
give us alternatives to the now.
Our objectiveas design scholars and practitionersis to transform the very terms of present day design studies and research.
Designers can put to task their skills, techniques, and mentalities to designing futures aimed at advancing ecological, social, and
technological conditions where multiple worlds and knowledges, involving both humans and nonhumans, can flourish in
mutually enhancing ways. For us, decolonisation is not simply one more option or approach among others within design
discourse. Rather, it is a fundamental imperative to which all design endeavors must be oriented.
It is with the aim of providing an outlet for voices from the fringes, the voices of the marginal and the suppressed in design
discourse, that we have opened this platform. We welcome all of those who work silently and surely on the edges and outskirts of
the discipline to join and contribute to conversations that question and critique the politics of design practice today, where we can
discuss strategies and tactics through which to engage with more mainstream discourse, and where we can collectively
experiment with alternatives and reformulations of contemporary practice.
We encourage and seek decentralized dialogues, in which different voices can coexist in their difference rather than in an
assimilated narrative. In this platform we welcome:
Contributions from designers working at the intersections of materiality and culture, postcoloniality, decoloniality,
gender studies, race studies, and other areas of human thought and action which seek to analyze, question and
challenge the relations of power in the world today;
New curatorial practices of designerly knowledge, that seek to challenge and disrupt colonial understandings in the
field and develop knowledge and understanding of how designs for decolonisation might be presented, discussed,
published, disseminated, and so on;
Reviews, interviews, debates, podcasts and other forms of discussion and debate beyond the confines of academic
language. We also invite formats that are generally devalued within academic contexts such as visual essays, audio
papers, performance works, etc.
Possibilities for the dissemination of critical thinking in design well beyond the canons of the discipline (e.g. design
studies and/as epistemic disobedience);
Critical pieces written originally in languages other than English; as well as potential translations into languages other
than English;
Critical pieces written by researchers, practitioners, independent scholars, and students in the process of completing
their degrees and/or who feel they are marginalised or poorly supported by academic institutions. In other words, we
welcome incomplete ideas, work-in-progress, and other forms of dealing with the questions above outlined, thus
amplifying discourses outside the remit of institutes, which may or may not be projects enfolded in academic work.
Moreover, we seek to connect with already existing endeavors within and beyond the design field for a decolonisation of not only
academia, but all professional practices and pedagogies, to connect and foster exchanges of knowledge that speak from, cross,
and remain in the borderlands of design and coloniality. Through this platform, and in collaboration with like minded others, we
hope that we can make a substantial commitment to contributing to the continued existence, vitality and diversity of human
presence on this planet.
Ahmed Ansari
Danah Abdulla
Ece Canli
Luiza Prado
Mahmoud Keshavarz
Matthew Kiem
Pedro Oliveira
Tristan Schultz
... This principle builds on the history of social design as a critique of the mainstream and proposes social design as an ongoing critical practice (Mazé, 2008). This means understanding the problematic histories of both the mainstream and social design itself, recognizing the epistemic regimes within which they have arisen and excavating the complex power dynamics inherent in designing and designs (Abdulla et al., 2019;Schultz et al., 2018). ...
Full-text available
The term 'social design' is used in a variety of contexts, but - or maybe because of this - it is far from clear what it means. The starting point for this paper is that there is a need for stronger and more critical community discourse to understand and clarify what social design is and what it does. By analyzing key texts, the paper identifies commonalities, disagreements and unresolved questions in relation to social design. Drawing on the example of citizen science, the paper argues for a need to develop principles for social design for further inquiry and discipline-building for social design. The paper offers twelve principles that focus on the notion of the social in social design, its methods and practices and its normative intent, as well as its critical reflexivity. These principles are intended as a 'potluck' boundary object to kickstart a stronger social design community. The paper reports feedback from two workshops where these principles were discussed and tested with design academics suggesting how the principles can be applied.
... Critical intent might be directed 'inward' toward the practice itself (Laranjo, 2015), or outward towards the conditions of production (Martin, 2005). There are of course critical approaches within design practice (see for example Elfline, 2016;Papanek, 1971;Fry, 2010;Irwin, 2015;Dunne, 1999;Ericson & Mazé, 2011;DiSalvo, 2012;Costanza-Chock, 2018;Lobenstine, et al., 2020), and criticisms of design from within academia (Julier & Kimbell, 2019;Stern & Siegelbaum, 2019;Seitz, 2019;Abdulla, et al., 2019;Schultz, et al., 2018;Sloane, 2019). What I meant by critical was none of the above. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper articulates a critical approach to researching design as a contemporary phenomenon that was developed through my doctoral research. The approach-critical anthropology of design-is a combination of anthropology of design, critical strategies borrowed from other fields, and a 'Foucauldian' theoretical toolkit, which together allow us to see design as a complex disciplinary apparatus. I advocate for such an approach-a switching of the disciplinary lens when studying design, and a more sceptical engagement between social disciplines and design-as essential for both robust critique and original insight. Such an approach is productive and necessary specifically where one's intent is investigating how power is operant in and through design. The argument for criticality is followed by a discussion of the practicalities both methodological and ethical of implementing such an approach.
... Designing can be seen as a process by which ideas and norms (or ideologies) are translated into material form, so we might expect that the design of the material environment is complicit in making life easier for some and harder for others. Whilst the need to design 'inclusively' for all abilities has been recognised in practice for some time -most notably in architecture and the built environment -it is only relatively recently that debates about how to 'decolonise' design have gained prominence (Abdulla, et al., 2019;Schultz, et al., 2018) along with discussions about inequalities re-produced through design, including 'social' design and calls for design justice (e.g. Sloane, 2019;Maze, 2019;Costanza-Chock, 2020). ...
Full-text available
Introduction to a series of 6 papers articulating a methodology for assessing the impact and value of design in the UK including design's economic, social and environmental value
... (...) there is little point to diversifying institutions, practices, and processes that ultimately sustain colonial imperatives." (Abdulla et al., 2019) There are different paths to systemic change; this paper discusses the type of change enabled and supported by self-organization as a means to create islands of order or as John Takara describe citing Ilya Prigogine "small islands of coherence" (Croci, 2018). We believe in the possibility of impacting a system by applying force on in specific areas of intervention. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In the design classroom, students should be invited to represent the culture they aspire to encounter in the workplace and by extension in society. The classroom is a participatory space that each student contributes to defining. We believe that within the institution, the classroom can become an act of resistance if we implement strategies that counterbalance the forces that build systems of dominance. Which strategies can render the classroom as a place to reclaim social agency for those who have been excluded by lack of privileges, access, or estrangement toward apparatuses of power? How can we, as teachers, encourage a culture of agency? And inspire a culture of critical reflection and responsibility? This paper presents a series of approaches accompanied by a micro-strategy, a procedure designed to enable small moments of change and agency within a larger system; here, the classroom is recognized as a leverage point within the larger system, where smaller everyday actions build towards movement. The micro-strategies presented are: (1) Teacher as Participant, discussing authority in the classroom; (2) Knowledge of Power, discussing structures of power and privilege as they manifest in design and society.
... Indeed, design as a discipline has historically been tied to the systems, structures, processes, and thought-style of the Western world. As authors from the Decolonising Design Collective (Abdulla et al., 2019) note, ...
Full-text available
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a relatively new diagnosis that describes the grey area between ‘normal’ age-related decline and dementia. Following increased interest in the developmental stages of Alzheimer’s Disease in the 1980s, MCI was first proposed as a concept in 1988 before becoming an official diagnosis in 2004. While some clinicians and researchers argue that the MCI concept helps identify the earliest symptoms of dementia, others have pointed out that it does not guarantee further cognitive decline and arguably redefines ‘normal’ ageing. Although its definition, clinical use, assessment, treatment, and relationship to dementia remain topics of heated debate and controversy, MCI has recently become a topic of interest in the emerging field of ‘design for health’. This thesis is based on a four-year website design project called ‘Living Well with MCI’, in which I participated in as a researcher between 2015 and 2019. In this project, I worked on an interdisciplinary team alongside a User Experience (UX) designer to develop an online resource for people with MCI and their families. The purpose of this PhD was to embed ‘design anthropology’ into the co-design process to develop insights into the MCI category in real time. In doing so, the research aimed to promote critical reflection on the ways in which design, as both a future-making activity and field of research, might shape and give form to new medical constructs in contemporary society. Drawing inspiration from a ‘new materialist’ philosophy, science and technology studies (STS), and combining these with recent work in design anthropology, this research considers what happens when we conceptualise MCI as a socio-material ‘assemblage’. An assemblage in this research refers to the interconnected web of practices, processes, materials, and systems that produce MCI as a ‘matter of concern’ for individuals and society. The thesis therefore explores how designing for people with MCI intersects with developments in neuroscience and pharmacology, dementia research, geriatric care, design, and broader cultural anxieties about ageing and cognitive decline. To do this embedded research, I carried out ethnographic fieldwork across a range different sites and contexts, including memory clinics and dementia research centres, while working on the design project. The research found that older adults tend to internalise the ideas and thought-style of Western biomedicine as they attempt to negotiate what it means to age ‘normally’. In the Living Well with MCI project, biomedical discourses shaped user ‘wants’ and ‘needs’ in specific ways, making it difficult to frame the experience associated with the MCI category in non-medical terms on the web resource. Therefore, in meeting these wants and needs, the website ultimately gave physical form to the beliefs and assumptions that underpin the Western biomedical model of ageing. The research also highlighted that conventional design tools and methods, which help designers ‘empathise’ with users and their experience, failed to support a critical orientation towards the deeper historical, social, cultural, and political processes that made MCI a ‘thing’ to design for in the first place. The unique contribution of this PhD lies in demonstrating the complex ways in which designers participate in the formation of emerging (and contested) medical realities, highlighting the particular relevance of this to the field of design for health. Furthermore, it argues that design for health practitioners have a responsibility to contribute to debates about the use, validity, and ethics of new diagnostic constructs in society.
Full-text available
Over the last 15 or so years, design – as a practice – has become something one does in the public sector, a methodology one might deploy in pursuing the aims of the state. This thesis is an investigation of how and why design has become relevant to, and enmeshed within, government. I identify a rapidly emerging ‘apparatus’ (an assemblage of discourse, practices, knowledge, institutions, subjects, and objects) of design for government, and dissect it to see how it works, and what it functions to achieve. To do this, the thesis makes use of data accumulated during several years of professional practice in this field in the UK from 2008 to 2017 (from the point at which I entered the field, to the point at which I temporarily left in order to focus on research), and with a particular focus on design projects undertaken from 2015-2017 while working for a design agency. This insider perspective is contrasted with a discourse analysis of the dominant narratives accounting for the development of the field. The methodology thus combines auto-ethnography with a ‘Foucauldian’ theoretical toolkit of discourse, technologies, practices and objects/ subjects. Building on studies that critically examine the construction of discursive formations, epistemic communities, disciplinary apparatuses, and regimes of practices, the thesis breaks away from an instrumental mode of researching and conceptualising design. The original contribution of the thesis is, first, in treating design as a contingent, mobile, and discursively constructed idea through methodologically blending an insider ethnography of design with a theoretical account based in governmentality. And, second, through investigating and countering many of the existing claims made in design research for this practice and its instrumental value to the public sector. The study finds that ‘design’ in such a context has been discursively and practically re-modelled and deployed to respond to, and align with, a dominant political dogma about the necessity of reforming the machinery of state to become more innovative. The popular claims made for the value and effectiveness of ‘design for government’ do not adequately capture its observable mechanisms and effects: ‘performances of change’ divert attention from the lack of it, users are not understood but invented, and, far from being innovative, the technologies of ‘design for government’ mainly reproduce the logics and ideologies coursing through its environment. Its most substantive achievement is the production of itself as a field of knowledge and practice, through the continual recruitment of new acolytes. In this way, the apparatus of ‘design for government’ can be said to have profound governmental effects. Not only – or even primarily – on the ‘end user’, but on the designers and civil servants re-modelling their professional selves in its image, and it does this predominantly via a positive strategy of seduction. Overall, the apparatus functions to achieve an embodiment of the political-managerial critique of bureaucracy, an ever-expanding market for design and those calling themselves designers, and the colonisation of yet another domain by the contemporary mythology that is design.
Full-text available
Much of design teaching, learning and research in Australia is determined by Eurocentric traditions and the ongoing colonial project. In this context Indigenous Peoples continue to experience erasure, silencing and appropriation of practices and knowledges. The Visual Communication Design Program, situated in the School of Design at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), is committed to disrupting this trajectory. In this article we describe an immersive model that seeks to challenge the role of the design educator, creative practitioner and researcher on unceded Gadigal Lands in the city of Sydney, Australia. We reflect on the challenges of facilitating Visual Communication Design and Emergent Practices, for a third iteration as an online studio experience, during COVID-19 in the context of the climate crisis, bushfires and Black Lives Matter. This iteration is the result of four years of deep collaboration with local First Nation Elders, Indigenous scholars and practitioners. The research-focused studio for 180 final-year visual communication design students is led by Local Elders, cultural and research advisers with the support of studio leaders. The consideration of design-led research methods through a process that infuses Indigenous research principles builds on the longitudinal research into the role of the emplaced designer in Indigenous-led projects on Country. Our studio, titled ‘In Our Own Backyard’, provides students with strength-based design capabilities and understandings of the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples Rights (UNDRIP), Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights (ICIP) and the Australian Indigenous Design Charter. As a studio experience, the aim is to create conditions which spark possibilities for re-orientation towards relational and respectful negotiation of difference, and the capacity to action Indigenous self-determination in complex practitioner scenarios.
This study investigates how fashion practitioners have approached sustainability in Brazil. Through the lens of culture—a recently emerging pillar of sustainability—we look into practices that hint at plural approaches in the dominant western perspectives, especially in terms of their symbolic dimension and value systems. We will briefly present and explore cases of agroforestry, clothing upcycling, alternative leather production, and collaborative spaces and workshops. The notions of ‘trust-based relationship’ and ‘affect’ emerge as key elements in the development of more sustainable practices in the field of fashion. This chapter contributes to the sustainability discussion by presenting Brazilian cases from a cultural perspective. It further expands the discussion on decolonizing design and proposes a possible direction for decolonizing fashion. It concludes with reflections on how western and non-western societies can benefit from the addition of these dimensions to the sustainability discourse.
Full-text available
This editorial introduction invites a decolonial dialogue between peace education and human rights education so as to recognize and re-envision radical praxes. It begins by framing the similarities between the two subfields and discussing the effects of the critical turn, with special emphasis on critiques of the colonial entanglements of West-enforced peace and hegemonic rights discourses. Underscoring the imperative of decolonization, it concludes with a call for pluriversal rights education as a decolonial successor to peace and human rights education. It also offers a brief overview of the articles included in this special issue and how they each contribute to an ongoing decolonial dialogue.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.