The Empathetic Object
Can an inanimate object really empathize with you?
The Longman dictionary defines empathy as…”the capacity for imaginatively sharing in another’s feelings or ideas.”
Objects of course don’t have imagination but what they can do is carry the imagination of those who created them. They cannot feel or have ideas but they can certainly capture the feelings, ideas and further to that — values — of those who designed and made them.
Lister Sinclair, a prominent Canadian broadcaster spoke at a design conference in Toronto many years ago and began with the statement, that everything you say sends a message, whether you intend it to or not…so be careful what you say. At a design conference this was a little provocative — essentially giving objects the power to speak. Of course objects cannot have imagination, but they can be carriers of imagination and intent. They can be ‘read’ and they can speak.
Ilse Crawford says design is a tool to enhance our humanity.
When it comes to designed objects having empathy they certainly enhance our humanity, particularly when they are accessible, intuitive to use, robust enough to be repaired, non-toxic in material and production and have a clear end of life plan either recycled or composted.
It’s easy to see echoes of what Dieter Rams defines in his 10 Principles for Good Design. It does however add nuance to Rams principles, it captures an element of the ‘reaching out’, the lending of an ear, the experience of answering a question before you’ve asked it and also impact beyond the user to the planet and the people making it in a more direct way.
We have all experienced these kinds of products. My first experiences of Apple Computers were a bit like that. Vitra’s Meda chair is like that as is Barber Osgerby’s TipTon Re chair (shown above), the Shimano drive train on my mountain bike is like that. All these things are there when you need them, possess great clarity in how they are to be used and then do what you expect clearly and with ease. They possess that quality that makes you think, “well of course it’s that way!” In the case of the TipTon Re, its use of recycled material, single colour availability and end of life strategy really starts to make visible the potential empathy this product embodies.
These objects put all their effort into thinking beyond themselves and this is particularly relevant due to the production volumes these products are made in. In low volumes these choices a good, but in large volumes their impact is of another order. In the instances cited the focus is on the user, which admittedly is where almost all design thinking is centred. But to fully understand the empathetic object, thought must be applied to those making, shipping and assembling the thing. These are people connected to the object as well. A client of ours shifted the making of mesh backs for task chairs from a manual process that required significant physical strength and posed real risks of personal injury to the person assembling the part, to a mesh made with an intelligent yarn that shrinks when heated allowing the part to be installed with very little strength and the tension coming in a secondary process. A beautiful part is then made with no risk to the people making it. They also strive to create foam parts to be upholstered only in convex forms not concave eliminating the need for glue.
In addition to the most obvious application of empathy — to people, empathy for the planet is also deeply relevant. So how can an object imaginatively share in the planets feelings or ideas? Perhaps feelings or ideas are a little abstract, but less abstract would be to say that its want for survival is real and also perhaps, its want to partner with us to make the things we need in terms of shelter, etc. in a much better way So to do these things with empathy will allow us to see things more readily from the planets perspective, and help us in making choices that can have far reaching impact.
So what does this mean when designing a thing?
In order to empathize with anything, you need to understand it and the circumstances surrounding it. This understanding comes through research, consideration and time spent with those involved with the project and those the object is intended for. It involves listening deeply and this all ultimately forms the foundation for validating the project — its reason for being. Once that is validated, a series of requirements become clear and then are set out in the form a design brief and clearly defined goals.
In terms of the narrative, this is the plot and also the characters involved coupled with their role in the story.
Human Centred Design (HCD) has become integral to any design process in recent years, and interestingly, it has taken some time to get here. In 1955 Henry Dreyfuss wrote Designing For People. In 1976 the Royal College of Art hosted a symposium on Design for Need and in 2009 IDEO published their HCD guide. All of these efforts centre on the higher goal of Industrial Design, the goal beyond the financial to the human, and the social; that along with the financial case for a product, the focus can include other aspects, the triple bottom line — is it good for people and is it good for the planet?
These are not new goals, they are a given, what manufacturer would ever say today that these are not part of their business plan? But I do fear that in some ways they have become so commonplace to have lost some of their impact and perhaps led to complacency in some areas slowing their progress and also not always connected to the larger context they exist in. They may also be potentially perceived as so grand in scale that any work toward them can feel futile. A recent indicator of this is the IDS Toronto Spring 2021 virtual conference on Resiliency focussed on Sustainability and Designing for the Future. Events like this encourage us all to look at the broader context of our work and remind us, we’re just not there yet.
We have made great strides, but as with many things, there is still distance to cover. This new venture seeks empathy in objects.
