In contemporary discussions about design and technology, two intriguing concepts—"undisciplinarity" and "undesign"—have emerged. Both challenge traditional approaches to creation and design, questioning not just how we create but why and what we choose to create or uncreate. Though these concepts share some common ground, they also possess distinct characteristics that make them unique in their applications and implications.
Undisciplinarity: Broadening the Scope
"Undisciplinarity" refers to an approach that transcends the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines. It emphasizes an interdisciplinary or even anti-disciplinary method that blurs the lines between established fields of study, encouraging a more fluid exchange of ideas and methods. The goal is to foster innovation and creativity by removing the constraints imposed by rigid disciplinary boundaries.
In this context, "undisciplinarity" is not merely about combining different fields; it is about questioning the very nature of disciplinary divisions and the knowledge they produce. By breaking down these barriers, undisciplinarity seeks to create a more holistic and inclusive way of thinking that can address complex, multifaceted problems in ways that traditional disciplines may not be able to.
For instance, in addressing environmental sustainability, an undisciplinary approach might involve integrating insights from ecology, sociology, economics, and technology, not just in parallel but in a way that fundamentally rethinks how these fields interact and inform one another. The result is a richer, more nuanced understanding that can lead to more effective and innovative solutions.
Undesign: The Negation of Design
On the other hand, "undesign" is a concept that directly engages with the idea of unmaking or negating design. It involves a conscious decision to either inhibit the creation of new technologies or to dismantle existing ones. This approach is often driven by concerns about the negative impacts of technology, such as environmental degradation, social inequality, or ethical issues.
Undesign challenges the assumption that technological progress is inherently positive. Instead, it proposes that sometimes the best course of action is to halt or reverse the process of design—whether by preventing the introduction of potentially harmful technologies or by actively removing technologies that have proven to be detrimental.
For example, undesign might involve the deactivation of systems that contribute to surveillance capitalism or the removal of technologies that exacerbate environmental harm. This approach is not about anti-technology per se but about being critically selective in what is designed, promoting a more thoughtful and responsible approach to technological development.
Where They Meet and Diverge
While both undisciplinarity and undesign share a critical stance towards traditional practices—be it in academic disciplines or in design—they do so in different ways. Undisciplinarity is concerned with breaking down barriers to create new forms of knowledge and understanding, while undesign is about the intentional restraint or removal of design to avoid negative consequences.
In a Venn Diagram, the intersection of undisciplinarity and undesign might represent a space where the boundaries of disciplines are dissolved to facilitate the negation or rethinking of design. This intersection could lead to innovative approaches that not only challenge the status quo but also actively seek to undo or prevent harm caused by technological advancements. For example, an undisciplinary approach might inform undesign by integrating ethical considerations from philosophy, environmental insights from ecology, and social impacts from sociology to guide decisions on what should or should not be designed.
Conclusion
In summary, undisciplinarity and undesign are two concepts that invite us to rethink how we approach the creation and management of knowledge and technology. While undisciplinarity broadens the scope by transcending traditional academic boundaries, undesign narrows it by focusing on the negation of potentially harmful design. Together, they offer a powerful critique of the status quo, encouraging more thoughtful, responsible, and innovative approaches to both knowledge creation and technological development.
