0 Chua Designers: Thinking Meta’s Through, Shaping Signs that Comfort CHUA, Soo Meng Jude PhD FRHistS FCOT FCollT judechua@nie.edu.sg Associate Professor of Philosophy, Policy and Leadership Studies, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Author Vita: Jude Chua PhD is an Associate Professor of philosophy at Policy and Leadership Studies, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and is on occasion Visiting Research Scholar at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford. He lectures for the Dual Award EdD offered with Institute of Education, London, where he is occasionally Visiting Academic. He was a president’s graduate fellow at the National University of Singapore, and won a visiting graduate fellowship at the Center for Philosophy of Religion, University of Notre Dame, Indiana USA (2003), and worked with the eminent natural law theorist John Finnis. He won the Novak Award and serves on the editorial advisory board of the Journal of Markets and Morality. His work has appeared in Semiotica, Design Studies, London Review of Education, Angelicum and The Modern Schoolman, amongst others. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (FRHistS), an elected Fellow of the College of Teachers and holds its Fellowship qualification (FCOT FCollT). His latest project involves being “new natural law theory” section editor for the Handbook of Virtue Ethics in Business and Management (Springer), edited by Alejo Sison. Abstract “Design thinking” is currently the fashion. But what exactly is ‘design thinking’, and what are the opportunities that design thinking can open up for human civilization? I argue that ‘design’ must be articulated from the fully moral and robustly metaphysical viewpoint so that it can be related conceptually with what matters. Such a notion of ‘design’, and relatedly, ‘designing’ and ‘designers’ interrogates and diagnoses the eschewing of the critical in the design profession, and that also opens up other radical trajectories for design, such as the design of beings qua signs, so that they point to God’s comforting presence. Such design thinking will not be welcomed by the design profession but is nevertheless also an instantiation of the semio-ethical stance that seeks to translate signs of what truly matters, including God’s presence and its meaning for supererogatory fortitude in professionals. This paper retrieves Aquinas’ metaphysics for current trends in both design and semiotic thinking, hence pushes the interpretation of what semio-ethics is or can be even further. Keywords: market, design, semioethics, metaphysics, Aquinas 0 1 Chua Designers: Thinking Meta’s Through, Shaping Signs that Comfort “…I have nothing but admiration for the moral tradition that frowns upon idleness where it means lack of purposeful occupation. But not working to earn an income does not necessarily mean idleness; nor is there any reason why an occupation that does not bring a material return should not be regarded as honorable. The fact that most of our needs can be supplied by the market and that this at the same time gives most men the opportunity of earning a living should not mean that no man ought to be allowed to devote all his energy to ends which bring no financial return…” F A Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty “What we need is a catechism of heresy…” James G. March, Explorations in Organizations 1. Introduction Design has recently gathered intellectual momentum, [particularly in Singapore]. Stanford based design consultancy IDEO and its brand of ‘Design Thinking’ which draws on what enterprisingly successful designers do and encourages empathy for the needs of clients may, according to its CEO Tim Brown in Harvard Business Review, help firms compete better in the neo-liberal, globalized future (Brown, 2008); [this version of design thinking is taught in its flagship educational leadership programme at the National Institute of Education (Singapore) Ng, 2013)]. New institutions in Asia, such as the Singapore University of Technology and Design in partnership with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), have sprung up and admissions began 2013, and there is little doubt this is part of the nationstate’s economic planning, motivated by the hopes that design can give its students a competitive edge. [With Singapore’s education system celebrated (alongside Finland and England) as instances of an exemplary “Global Fourth Way” of innovation and improvement, with “a forward looking, integrated planning system that connects education to future economic needs” (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012:89, reporting OECD’s assessment), design and design education should draw even more attention.] But what really might be the opportunities that ‘design’ can open up for human civilization, if we grasp ‘design’ thoughtfully, and reflectively? Rather than merely and narrowly service neoliberal economic agendas, can design or more broadly design theory also further develop new cultures of thinking? In this paper, I want to explore how design theory has the potential 1 2 Chua to further what in recent semiotic scholarship is called “semio-ethics”, viz., research and theorizing focused on relating signs with values, and which is a research focus that comes with the strong recommendation of no less than two Sebeok Fellows, John Deely and Susan Petrilli (see Deely, 2010). Just to be clear, I understand design theory to mean, amongst other things, the theorizing about what “design” is or is not, and this is what is at times called “design research”. Such design research may, in order to be complete, adjudicate methodological approaches related to such research, and identify preferred methodological approaches towards design-relevant conceptual signs that entail discussions of how and under what conditions something fails to be “design”. In this respect, design research, I explain, is a kind of semio-ethic and hence, diagnostic analysis. This I show in Part 1 of this paper. But insofar as design theory qua design research successfully works out a rigorous account of “design”, then it also theorizes about how designers ought to design, and the things designers can or should design. I.e., it works out an account of designers who shape particular design artifacts. In this way, designers, I also argue, ought to instantiate through their designing, the ‘semio-ethical’ stance, whose “special vocation is to evidence sign networks where it seemed there were none” (Petrilli & Ponzio, 2010: 162). This semio-ethical stance, I demonstrate below under Part 2, thinks hard about ways to design so that important meanings are retrieved and re-discovered, not least ways of designing all beings so that they can sign and recall God’s comforting presence. With its argument, this paper also retrieves Aquinas’ metaphysics for furthering both current design theory and semiotics, whilst it locates the places where design theory and semiotics converge and mutually inform each other, and so pushes the interpretation of what both design and semio-ethics is or can be even further. 1. ‘Design’ Research as Semio-ethic Analysis 1.1 Theorising ‘Design’: Central and Peripheral Cases Let us start with fundamentals. Designers design. But what is ‘design’? Herbert Simon’s classic The Sciences of the Artificial (1996) points out that design, which in its broadest interpretation means the shaping of states of affairs or artifacts into preferred ones, is the core of all professional activity. Methodologically however, The Sciences of the Artificial (Simon, 1996) had sought to develop a theory of design through detailing not any professional’s epistemology, but only those who reason carefully—i.e., those who according to Simon are good designers. Here one selects for oneself only that which is worth studying, from amongst the things one can study. Essentially this means selectively identifying under a conceptual sign (in this case, ‘design’) what is significant in the theoretical field, and focusing on those significant things (Chua, forthcoming 2014). [Rather than succumb to the naivety of “Bedford Way” philosophical essentialism (See Halpin, 2007: 123) which ignores the plausibility that some concepts have no univocal, permanent core traits but simply capture meanings related one with the other through what Wittgenstein calls “family resemblance”, or adopt the unwarranted nominalism of a socialhistorical approach which supposes that all meanings of a concept are socially constructed and can therefore be equivocally valid, and that therefore all one can do is to describe their 2 3 Chua use or employment or constructed meaning in their social or historical context without normative judgment, Simon’s approach accepts that amongst the varieties of analogous meanings of ‘design’ more or less univocal or equivocal, there are some in that pool of meanings that are more focal and others more peripheral. (Chua, 2012a; 2013b; forthcoming 2014)] The point therefore is to arrive at the “focal meaning” or the “central case”, which captures those meanings that are significant in that field (Finnis, 1980, chapter 1). Yet the ‘significant in that field’ or focal meaning should be discerned by those who are practically reflective (critical, considered, mature…). Because: judgments and evaluations about what are significant in that field are in turn shaped by what one judges, rightly or wrongly, to be significant in itself (also see Finnis, 1980: 15-18). Such focal accounts of ‘design’ hence presupposes an inclusive, perspectival access to the moral viewpoint, which is in turn discerned by a studied grasp of what is truly valuable. This means accessing insights available from the work of moral philosophers in the first instance, who may not at all be designers, and where some of the descriptions to such a viewpoint have been developed (Chua, forthcoming 2014). Consider: design theorist Clive Dilnot’s (2008) quest to uncover ‘design’ as a criticality – ‘not just as an occasional moment, but as that which defines the very state of being of a practice’ – in contrast with design that has become the “handmaid of consumption and the cheer-leader for inequality.” (p. 182) Dilnot’s approach to unpacking ‘design’ is precisely the one we recommend: notice here in Dilnot the selective, evaluative choices regarding which kind of ‘design’ is more significant and worth writing about, amongst a plurality of possible accounts. After all, as he himself admits, design is in fact typically positioned in such a way that its critical potential is repressed: “…the dominant stance that design should efface itself as critical knowledge, in favour of translating the tasks assigned to it into operational or instrumental procedures, already eschews, from the beginning, a critical perspective. The critical is no less difficult for research. The ‘selfoblivious’ instrumentality that still governs the research ethic (and which design research has largely taken over without question) tends to balk at such concerns – operational finesse sits uncertainly with critical viewpoints; certainty is not vouchsafed for in the speculations of critical thought or practice (which aim, of course, at a different kind of truth)” (p. 3) Yet Dilnot’s choice notion of design is precisely of one that is a criticality, however infrequently it occurs in the real world of design, as he suggests. Dilnot’s own approach to design research is hence also inclusivist (Chua, forthcoming 2014), just as he fully adopts the ethicist’s moral viewpoint, rather than that of the typical designer who, as he says, eschews the critical perspective. From the standpoint of one who is normatively concerned, he wishes us to take note of and grasp that account of design that is ethically critical of social inequality, rather than those which contribute to market structures leading to inequality – in his words: “those permitted by the market”. To this end, Dilnot (2008) himself writes approvingly of Herbert Simon’s (1996) “famous definition of design…the ‘devising of courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones’ ”, hints at its critical possibilities, and draws our attention to the latter: “….[Yet n]o motivation for setting in train the ‘devising of courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones’ happens 3 4 Chua without an initial apperception that what-is is in some manner deficient vis-a-vis what could be…[A] critical apperception [opens the game]. (Dilnot, 2008: 178-179; also see Chua 2009a)” 1.2 Semio-Ethical Diagnosis through ‘Design’ Research Enter semio-ethics, which seeks to relate the study of signs with values in various ways, and which has received much attention in the semiotic research community (Petrilli, 2010). Indeed Susan Petrilli points to semio-ethics as “part of the answer to the question regarding the future of semiosis, the destiny of semiosis” (Petrilli, 2010: 25). Petrilli’s election as the Seventh Sebeok Fellow is premised on her contributions to semioethics, her “signature issue” (Deely, 2010: vii), and hence an endorsement of that view in the semiotic scholarly community. Petrilli and Ponzio (2010: 150) have both intimated that a semio-ethical study of conceptual signs and their axiological and practical dimensions is inevitably diagnostic and akin to symptomatology (semeiotics) (ibid.). Elsewhere, with examples in ‘law’ and ‘education’ (Chua, 2006; 2012b; also see Finnis 1980), I have explained how the development of focal meanings – a strategy that I have labeled ‘significal’ or semio-ethical designing/translations (Chua 2012b) to gesture its affinity with the semio-ethical stance – reveals simultaneously the peripheral and defective meanings, often with analytic disclosures of the natures of such defects. Evidently then, (design) research aimed at developing focal meanings (of ‘design’), one should say, are semio-ethical studies, and, one can infer, would have diagnostic qualities. Indeed, Dilnot’s – if I may, significal or semio-ethical – writing about ‘design’ as a criticality is not just an inclusively researched account of how ‘design’s’ epistemology ought to be critical of the deficiencies in the current economy, which is then consequently problematized as something to be solved through ‘design’. It is simultaneously an account of the ‘designer’, whose ethically critical epistemology should have framed his design problems. In that case, Dilnot’s (2008) description of what it means to ‘design’ is at once a study of what it means to be a ‘designer’ and how one can fail to be a ‘designer’, by failing to embody criticality “as a state of being”, which as Dilnot explained is eschewed because hard to come into view both in research and in professional practice. Meaning then, Dilnot’s account of what ‘design’ is at the same time offers explanatory insights into how and why such professional designers fail to be ‘designers’ and how they end up in the periphery, servicing an unjust capital. It says to such a designer who seeks to solve his client’s problems: physician, first heal thyself. This said, I think his diagnosis of the design profession is incomplete, and would like to press for a more comprehensive explanation of the symptomatic lack of critical designers in the profession. If the economic milieu in which we are situated seems so amoral, and yet designers so eschew criticality but instead unreflectively placate consumer wants signaled by the market, this is not necessarily simply because their moral critical viewpoint is difficult to come into view in design, but rather also because such a moral, critical viewpoint is thought of as that which should not come into view. Meaning, it is not just that the critical is less 4 5 Chua attractive and thus displaced, but that it is completely discredited. There are at least two reasons for this. Firstly, certain meta-ethical commitments deny ethically robust normative claims any veritability; in the case of Herbert Simon for instance, even with the renunciation of an earlier adherence to positivism which makes nonsense of ought-claims, his affirmation of the naturalistic fallacy led him to suggest that there is no way to derive ethical norms (see Chua, forthcoming 2014). Fortunately, such philosophical meta-ethical theses may be overcome, for instance, with moral theories like new natural law theory (ibid.), articulated representatively in John Finnis’ Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980), which makes a case for putatively normative precepts pointing to basic goods worth seeking for their own sakes, whilst affirming the naturalistic fallacy and accepting that robust, non-instrumental normative claims cannot logically be derived from merely descriptive ones. Secondly, and less often mentioned, but no less a challenge: the critical consciousness is conceptually undermined by theological (or metaphysical) shifts in history and in the current. Historically a voluntarist theology exalted the autonomous secular. This came by way of the late medieval post-Scotistic, Occamist man, made after the image of God – specifically, the capricious individual imaged after a capricious God and His factum. Such a man has to be given full dominium over his private space and property (Milbank, 2006; Gillispie, 2008; also Coleman, 2012: 87-88), and as the latter progressively enlarged, it displaced even the otherwise bindingly natural moral law prescribing his duty to aid others in need. Indeed according to John Milbank’s (ibid) historical analysis in his Theology and Social Theory (2006), neo-liberal secularism, which is manifested by an adherence to the violent pressures of wants signaled by the market without moral guidance, is rooted precisely in this voluntarist theology. If this historical-sociological observation leads to a charge of the genetic fallacy and the objection is made that what in the past displaced the critical may no longer do so in the present (and perhaps rightly so), then note also that in the current, the secular or atheistic non-affirmation or denial of an embarrassing theist metaphysics or theist natural theology continues philosophically to undermine any substantively ethical or normative theory, which derives its normative stability only through the concomitant defense of a non-capricious God who is responsible for the intelligent design of man’s morally relevant epistemic capacities (Chua, 2006b; 2008; in press; also see Rea, 2002). Therefore, the concept of “public” responsibilities (c.f. Dilnot, 2008) still is being undermined when confronted with the defense of private spheres, only that warrants for a secular autonomy now take the form of a cultural atheism which subjects ‘moral obligations’ to derision.1 In this respect, ‘design’ that is ethically critical ends up incoherent for the designer so long as the respect for the autonomous secular trumps and displaces the bindingly moral, whether this autonomous secularism continues to find warrant in a past heretical voluntarist theology even if trimmed down for contemporary audiences, which James March’s 1 In this paper I understand cultural atheism or naturalism as a thesis, and thus as having implications that can be refuted, or shown, modus tollens, to be self-refuting; compare Michael Rea (2002; 2007) who takes naturalism to be a ‘stance’ or ‘research programme’ with no specific refutable thesis but which can be shown to be at dissonance. 5 6 Chua Quixotesque romantic logics of appropriateness seems dangerously to have re-incarnated (see Chua, in press); or whether it currently thrives because the ethically critical is undermined precisely by the refusal to affirm a natural theology of a non-capricious God, as the militant atheism of a Richard Dawkins makes so clear, in spite of his hopes for human morality which are unfortunately ultimately nothing but pie-in-the-sky wishes on behalf of good morals without theoretical backbone (Chua, 2008). Conversely, a focal ‘designer’ epistemology for which an ethical criticality is not in vain is one which will reject the respect for the autonomous secular. But this can be rejected only if these (as Milbank calls them) “heretical” theologies (of God or without God) and their implied anthropologies and implications for morality are opposed, or else an alternative to these offered (see Chua, in press), in the context of an inclusive design research programme, drawing inter-disciplinarily on results of theological or metaphysical research (also see DeHart, 189-194; like him I disagree with Milbank’s dismissal of metaphysics or natural law theory). Hence, amonsgt ‘designers’, one further differentiation is required: for there are ‘designers’ who whist initially critical are meta-ethically and metaphysically or theologically ill-informed and therefore whose ‘meta’ commitments dismantle their purported criticality, versus, those ‘designers’ whose meta-ethical and metaphysical (theological) world-view harmonize well with their ethical criticality or else critically reject metaphysical commitments that undermine the robustly moral. It is the latter ‘designer’ that better fits the notion of a ‘designer’ in its focal meaning, and whose ‘design’ epistemology enables him to engage, with a coherence and cogent criticality, the tendency of any design-profession to serve any unjust pressures of the market. 2. ‘Designers’ as Semio-Ethic Agents 2.1 Design’s New Core: Other than the Market Let us take stock. I have explained how design research, when understood as the quest to uncover focal meanings of ‘design’ and ‘designers’, converges with diagnostic semio-ethics. But apart from the research of design, designing itself, and the thinking in such designing – specifically the design thinking identified as focal through design research – can also be understood as a semio-ethic activity. Similarly, designers (and not just design theorists or researchers) focally understood can be semio-ethic agents. The tightening of the focal meaning of a “designer” by specifying his metaphysical commitments sets some designers in the periphery and shifts some others towards the center, where what we usually mean by ‘poor’ and ‘good’ designers respectively are to be found. I would venture in broad strokes to flesh out some of his design thinking and trajectories that have now relocated and become instantiations of designing in its central case, and hence, of what is ‘good’ (praiseworthy, important, critical, exemplary…) design for professional or vocational designers, as well as professionals who design and hence are designers broadly taken in the sense Simon (1996) meant it. 6 7 Chua Put another way: if the desired criticality in design is opposed to the instrumentalist form of design thinking geared towards the satisfaction of market agendas driven by consumer preferences, then the alternatively labelled “criticality” in design in its focal sense is simply the “other-than” such an instrumentalist and mercantile form of logic, and by implication, the “critical designer” is just one who is open to all these alternative forms of design logics, trajectories and design subjects unrelated to market agendas, made available by these metaphysical reflections. What would such “central”, “good”, “other” or “critical”…forms of design look like, and what kinds of metaphysical reflections specifically are we referring to? Rather than rehearse detailed metaphysical arguments already articulated elsewhere, I will briefly summarize these. Each design trajectory below within the focal sense of design has a trace of semio-ethics, through semiotically designing interpretative translations of signs anew and relating these signs to values for informing practice, although it is the third that I wish in this paper to highlight as especially interesting a semio-ethic activity. Firstly, clearly belonging to the focal design epistemology, as can be inferred from the discussion above, is: a metaphysics which defends the existence of a non-capricious God responsible for the intelligent guided evolution of human epistemic capacities relevant to the designer’s grasp of moral (first) principles. As has been demonstrated, such a theistic metaphysics is necessary in order to save moral claims from the charge of arbitrariness (Chua, 2006; 2008; 2012b: 395-397) or to save morality from being confused with the entitlement to arbitrariness (Chua, in press). Only such a metaphysical worldview would not be at dissonance with the critical in design. With these metaphysical commitments, design can coherently be an ethical activity, which with normative authority shapes both end-goals as well as means, critically – i.e., justly – engaging private whims or responding to market signals, employing sound practical reasons (sometimes called the natural law) to interrogate rather than placate share-holder preferences in Hume-an fashion (see Chua, 2005; 2012a; compare Simon, 1996), or conversely, to recognize as valuable what seems initially merely attractive preferences (see Chua, 2009a; 2009b; Simon 2006). This design trajectory designs morally informed meanings of whatever tangible and transitive ‘goods and services’ one can design. A second focal design epistemology is: design which shapes not merely transitive things, but also the intransitive “self”, and not for market or performative purposes, but for spiritual ends. A metaphysically informed design epistemology, as has been shown elsewhere (Chua, 2012a; 2013; in press), can help us shape our professional selves aesthetically: by ordering our designerly lives and discreet design projects (which arguably are ultimately always playfully free) towards an overarching transcendent goal viz. the eutrapelian participation of God’s play and hence, His friendship (ibid). Such a transcendent design trajectory is also made available through reflection on the putative normativity in designerly knowing in its focal – and hence, critically ethical - sense. Specifically, by tracing the conceptually implicit transcendental presuppositions of putatively normative first principles of practical reasons which feature so centrally in design thinking in its central case (above), one grasps as a corollary the need to believe as true the existence of a God at creative play in His ongoingly undetermined gift of existence; participating in such a God’s play becomes a 7 8 Chua possible goal for which all designerly plays are ultimately played, as a kind of ultimate end of professional and designerly activity (Chua, 2012a; 2012b; in press).This stands in stark critical contrast to the consequentialist-utilitarian types of professional selves ordered only towards clever money-making promoted by dominant business school curriculums and corporate cultures (see Chua, in press; also relevant, Chua, 2013b: 397-401). Finally, there is a third design epistemology that also belongs to the central case. It is this third trajectory that I hope to detail. The same metaphysical reflections mentioned above can be pressed for ways they can be employed by designers to re-shape each and every being in the world meaningfully without remainder, radically exhausting even the existential principle constitutive of each and every being. The result of this is that new meanings of all beings are uncovered, signs of what is only gifted (rather than of what can be bought and sold) are recovered, with important implications for practice. It is this design trajectory that can most radically further our interpretation of what semio-ethics can mean. 2.2 Thinking Design Meta’s Through: Thomistic Retrievals Let me put the point across in another way, by differentiating more sharply this new domain of (or: aspect of) things that can be designed. The key to appreciating this new domain for design is to grasp that we are now looking beyond the porphyrean confines of all those principles which determine what-each-thing-is and modifying each of them essentially (whether substantially or accidentally). Typically, design focuses on shaping the essence of things – either by changing a thing’s substantial form or else by refining its accidents. This much is easily visible to designers, and understandably so. But ‘what a thing is’ is not all that there is to design. Instead, we are now also interested to modify the principles that determine that-such-a-thing-is. All this may seem rather opaque at this stage, but the general idea is as follows. The deliverances of metaphysical reflection supply the resources for reshaping what any being’s existence (esse: is-ness) means. It allows us to re-design what each being’s reality qua sign can point to. As has been shown (Chua 2008: 820-826; 2012a: 570-573), the transcendental presuppositions of the putative normativity of first principles of practical reasons, and hence of ethical criticality, also imply as a corollary what is traditionally defended by the thomistic tradition as “the real distinction between essence and existence.” (Chua, 2008: 823-824; 2012a: 573) As early as in the medieval text De Ente et Essentia (1968 [13th Century]), Aquinas argued that all beings (ens) were in fact composed of two principles: essence (essentia) and existence (esse). Each being’s essence determines what the being is, whereas the existence the being had accounted for the fact that the being is, rather than not, and so stood out of nothingness. This he further demonstrated was not merely a conceptual separation, but a real one: meaning, that as things really are, there are really two principles really distinct in each being (Aquinas, 1968, Chua, 2000a; 2000b; 2008: 823-824; 2012a; Wippel, 1984:115). The existential principle, existence (esse), was further shown to be something which was received from an infinite source of existence, and hence all beings participate or have a share of this Existence, which must of necessity exist. This infinite Existence was clearly identified with God, since nothing except God was unlimited in this 8 9 Chua manner. These metaphysical claims are fully entailed by the affirmation of putatively robust, normative practical reasons, which in turn ground ethical criticality in ‘design’ focally understood and significally translated (Chua, 2008: 820-826; 2012a). If we look at such a metaphysics, and what they show, we might see nothing more than a hair-splitting, scholastic account of God’s existence, the onto-theological structure of beings, and the close relationship between God and beings by way of each being’s participatory sharing (participatio) in Infnite Existence, or God. But this latter immediately implies another affordance of beings: that beings point to God by way of their existence (esse). In other words, a metaphysics like this is not merely an account of God and beings, but also of each being’s signing, by virtue of its existence, of the God Who Is Existence (Esse), and Who is deeply part of the world of beings which He ongoingly holds in existence (also Gully, 1961:42-43). For: metaphysics establishes the close relation-ship between God and created beings, and therefore also leads semiosically from beings to God. Meaning, metaphysics makes beings signs of God, and functions as the relating interpretant which connects beings to God semiosically. Thanks to (thomistic) metaphysics, beings are no more merely beings, but are also now transformed into signs of a God Who Is present. They have been designed qua signs. Indeed, for the metaphysically informed, all beings, insofar as they exist and participate of existence from God, can now be designed into signs of an ever present God. In other words, such metaphysical truths retrieved from Aquinas’ thought imply opportunities for designing, viz. the practical transformation of all beings as signs. Knowing how to analyze beings as existents (ens) participating in the God Who Is Existence (Esse) means that one also knows how to shape, at once, any and every being into signs of God and his creative presence in the world. Unlike Aquinas our task is not theological speculation – or perhaps we should say that our primary design goal is not that. Rather it is to design critically, wherever that leads us, and one consequent trajectory of such critical design thinking is precisely the semiotic shaping of the existence (esse) of beings. Furthermore, this task to design the existence (esse) of beings and by implication beings (ens) semiotically is not just an optional “clever idea”. Instead it is the fulfillment of the “criticality” in each “designer” that must find expression in a designerly semiosic transubstantiation (Chua, 2013c; also Kress, 2000: 15) that seeks to write out and to exhaust the designs of beings without remainder, so that nothing is wasted. Particularly, if design “criticality” is to be a constant state of being of a designer and not just a one-off act, then such designing will not rest until it has fully explored all design projects other than those design projects which any corrupted logic of the market allows. Hence after designing the essence of beings (constituted by each being’s substance and accidents), a “designer” must therefore also think of ways to design the existence (esse) of beings. For such designers, design unevitably includes and welcomes the project of metaphysical writing about ‘beings’, retrieved from its medieval uses for contemporary design (c.f. Kress, ibid.) of signs. I.e., for the good designer and good designing that seeks to promote and realize, fully and exhaustively what ought to be, the design of signs in metaphysical writing is not an option. It is however and again, first and foremost a project in design, and not primarily one on ontotheology although it employs the latter’s insights. Specifically, such thomistic, 9 10 Chua metaphysically informed shaping of new signs and new meanings of beings is a semioticdesign project. (see Chua 2012b) I.e., this is a design of what beings can afford to point to in semiosis, and hence, mean. 2.3 Thomistic, Semio-ethic Design: A New Semiotics This thomistic, semiotic-design project is nevertheless a very radical departure from design conceived by a design profession that eschews criticality (Dilnot, 2008) when enslaved either by the totalizing etsi Deus non daretur of the secular, neoliberal market (Milbank 2006) or a cultural atheism, and, is bound to be rejected as pointless and unintelligible a design project by those within the profession – “How can we sell this? And who will want to buy such designs? There’s no market for this today!” To design orthodoxy, it would be curious heresy. Equally unpalatable for some in the academic design research community is the fact that metaphysical concepts, besides ethical ideas, now informs the articulation of what design is and what designers are and do. No doubt Nigel Cross (2006) has welcomed the articulation of a ‘science of design’ that is rigorous but distinguished from a “design science” that is in his view corrupted by positivist or scientistic cultures of thought, and so one might think – and rightly so – this would imply an inclusive design research strategy that draws on disciplinary contributions outside of design, including (thomistic) metaphysics; still, his own positing of a category of thinking called “designerly ways of knowing” (ibid.) to be researched by designers and designers only in fact shuns disciplinary contributions outside of design, and so leads, wrong-headedly in my opinion, to an exclusive and specialized research field for designers only (Chua, forthcoming 2014). Such semiotic designers are therefore a curious category at the cutting-edge, even if fully legitimate and anticipated by Gunther Kress’ (2000:15) argument for a “Design” that shapes words and signs and his plea on behalf of a new semiotics that acknowledges that signs are not merely used but Designed (Chua, 2013c). Yet this design thinking is what must make up the new semiotics. Meaning, and more importantly (at this point pushing the perimeters in semiotics once more) I suggest that the metaphysically informed design of beings is recognizably also as an instantiation of the semio-ethical stance, although it is clearly beyond what Petrilli and Ponzio have thus far imagined semio-ethics to look like. For Petrilli and Ponzio, semio-ethics’ “special vocation is to evidence sign networks where it seemed there were none” (Petrilli & Ponzio, 2010: 162) This includes those signs that are of the gifted in critical opposition to the merely exchangeable (Petrilli & Ponzio, 2001: 37). In this respect, our designerly semiosic remembrance through beings who have existence (habens esse) recalls the reality of God’s intimate presence that had already been freely given by the sheer fact of our existence, and from the fact that God, who is infinite Being, needs nothing else for his own perfection, and hence gives existence freely without need for something else in exchange. With Petrilli and Ponzio (2001), we could hence say that while “in today’s world the logic of production and the rules that govern the market allowing all to be exchanged and commodified threaten to render humanity ever more insensible [and] humans increasingly pay little or no attention to the signs of all that which cannot be measured or purchased but are received as a gift,” this radically critical design thinking which finds its expression as a 10 11 Chua semio-ethical design project retrieves “those signs of life that today we cannot or do not wish to read, or those signs that we do not know how to read, [so that they] may recover one day their importance and relevance for humanity.” (pp. 36-37) Yet, going beyond what Petrilli and Ponzio have said, we must now say and invite them to say with us that: semio-ethics incorporates into itself such a radical thomistic design thinking which designs the meaning of all beings without remainder into signs pointing anew at God’s gifting, intimate presence. 2.4 Signs of Consolation: “Take Courage!” Design seeks to produce a preferred state of affairs; equally, semioethics analyzes signs to emerge practical implications. Their convergence in this new, thomistic, semioethic design of the signs of God ought therefore to entail, one would expect, practical implications that are beneficial: indeed for many, as it is for Augustine and Aquinas, such signs of a real powerful presence, to whom the whole of creation bends in obediental potency by the sheer duress of its contingently gifted existence, may well be signs of consolation (Barron, 1996; also Gully, 1961: 47-48), precisely if in one’s quest to realize his friendship in accord with practical right reason (recta ratio) as prescribed by the natural law (see above, Chua, 2012a), one’s professional and hence design choices and logics (including administrative, managerial and leadership decisions) in their focal senses (see above; ibid.) are barely appreciated, or are at other times contradicted and misunderstood, and then passed on and derided, or test our courage and the security of those we love and care for. Thus Robert Barron (1996: 86) who teases out the consoling significance of Aquinas’ metaphysics of being writes: “God [for Aquinas] is not incidentally or provisionally present to the things of the world; nor is God present only to some and not to others, as some philosophies hold. No, God is, in the most startling way, in the things that [he] continually makes…Thomas is echoing in more sober language Augustine’s magnificent assertion that God is intimior intimo meo (closer to me than I am to myself, nearer to me than that which is nearest to me).” In other words, these thomistic signs, once semio-ethically designed, point to truths that help us confront positively the problem of apparent unmerited evil, holding back despair and debilitating confusion and sadness, even though the consolation of such signs is very far from the hope of a complete solution that fully quickens, but which now gathers greater plausibility. For professionals who design (c.f. Simon, 1996), dealing on a daily basis with ill-defined, wicked problems (see Chua 2008), with little supportive consensus from colleagues, such semio-ethic sources of fortitude will matter greatly, especially during those dark nights of the professional’s soul (c.f. Ball 2003; see also Chua 2009b) when struggling with speech-discourses laden with vocational values (oratio: see Chua 2009b:164; also March, 1982) to exorcise the terrors of performative pressures to compromise the good, the just and the beautiful, and the temptation to call it a day. Such thomistic signs are even more pertinent, perhaps, for the professional under employment, whose courage on behalf of the good and just must be supererogatory. For: without the comfortable luxury of being what Frederic Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty calls the “man of independent means”, a “private owner of substantial property” (Hayek, 2011: 190), he is not free from the duress of being subject, economically, to another’s 11 12 Chua coercion (Hayek, 1944, 2011) and hence the courageous defense of the good and right cannot be expected to be easily forthcoming. Even more so, if David Harvey’s erroneous prescriptions in his The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of Capitalism (2010) on behalf of Marxism see light. His incoherent pretensions of critical morality commends his readers to confront Hayek’s defense of private property “head-on” in order to effectively challenge “capital accumulation and the reproduction of class power” (p. 233), but ironically portends the social and political conditions under central planning that will stifle the promotion of the good and the just, as much as concentrations of economic powers in the name of redistribution subject all others to coercive duress, and thus leaves these semio-ethical signs of comfort and their design with even greater responsibility for nurturing heroic bravery. 3. Conclusion: Balancing Semiotics At the round table on ‘Translation’ of the 11th World Congress of Semiotics on Global Semiotics, held in 2012 at Nanjing, China, a charge was made that semiotics had been long on discourse but short on application and practice. To which the chair, Susan Petrilli, responded by pointing out that semio-ethics, which she and Augusto Ponzio encouraged through their publications, has and would continue to correct that imbalance. In this paper, I have made the case that design theory, which implies the design of thomistic signs of consolation and which leads to some rather significant practical implications and applications, should enjoy a welcome intellectual reception by semio-ethics as scholarly expressions of the same. Such reception of design theory by semio-ethics would then mean that, true to what Petrilli said, semiotics can, through semio-ethical studies qua design theory, address the said imbalance, and answer that charge somewhat. Acknowledgements Aspects of this paper were presented at the Word Congress of Semiotics on Global Semiotics (Round Table on Translation) in October 2012 in Nanjing, China. I am thankful to my panel members, esp. Susan Petrilli and Augusto Ponzio, for their comments and encouragement. A later version was read at the “Quodlibetal Questions on Education: Design in/as/and Education” Colloquium at IOE London in June 2013, where I was a Visiting Academic. References Aquinas, T, (1968) Thomas Aquinas on Being and Essence, Maurer, A (trans.), Ontario, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. (Original text published circa. 1250.), Ball, S. J., (2003) The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Performativity, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 18 (2), 215-228 Barron, R., (1996) Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master, New York: Crossroad Publishing, Brown, T., (2008) Design Thinking, Harvard Business Review, 84-92 12 13 Chua Chua, J., (2000a) Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange OP on Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and the Limitation of Act by Potency, The Modern Schoolman, LXXVIII, 71-87 Chua, J., (2000b) What Limits? A comparison of recent positions on the limitation of existence by essence in Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Instituut te Utrecht Jaarboek, 42-61 Chua, J. (2005) “What Profits for a Man to Gain”, Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol 8, No. 1, 7-26 (Calihan Lecture, University of Notre Dame, USA) Chua, J (2006a), What Is A School?: An Answer Consistent with Human Rights. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, Vol. 5 (3) 234-255 Chua, J., (2006b) The Reason of God: Practical Reasoning and Its Anti-Naturalistic Implications, Angelicum, 83, 21-42 Chua, J., (2008) God and the Taming of Wicked Problems: Some Philosophically Required Frames in Policy Design, Angelicum, 85, 815-831 Chua, J., (2009a) Donald Schön, Herbert Simon and the Sciences of the Artificial, Design Studies, Vol. 30 (1), 60-68 Chua, J., (2009b) Saving the Teachers' Soul: Exorcising Performativity, London Review of Education, Vol. 7,(2), 159-167 the Terrors of Chua, J., (2012a) Things to do on the Play-Ground: Topics for a Catholic Science of Design, Angelicum, 88, 557-578 Chua, J., (2012b) Schools as Social Enterprises: The Las Casas Report, EvidenceBased, and Neoliberal Policy Discourse, Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol 15, No. 2, 391-413 Chua, J., (2013a) Reorganizing Schools as Social Enterprises: Play Schools and Gifted Education, Aquinas, Education and the East, Netherlands: Springer, Mooney, B T & Nowacki, M (ed.), 163-177 Chua, J., (in press 2013b) Significal Design: Translating for Meanings that Truly Matter, Semiotica.. Chua, J., (in press 2013c) Designing the “camera”: photo-semio-ethical studies, in Writing, Voice, Undertaking, Petrilli, S (ed), Toronto: Legas, 199-202 Chua, J., (In press) Education, Relevance and Beauty: The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, Orthodoxy and the Business School Debate, Journal of Markets and Morality. 13 14 Chua Chua, J., (forthcoming, scheduled 2014), “What is Design Research?” in The Routledge Companion to Design Research, Rodgers, P & Yee, J (eds.), Colman, J., (2012) Negotiating the Medieval in the Modern: European Citizenship and Statecraft, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. 22, 75-93 Cross, N., (2007) Designerly Ways of Knowing, Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser, Deely, J (2010), Preface: In Her Own Voice, in John Deely (ed.), Sign crossroads in global perspective: semioethics and responsibility. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers DeHart, P. J., (2012) Aquinas and Radical Orthodoxy: A Critical Inquiry, New York: Routledge, Dilnot, C., (2008) The Critical in Design (Part One), Journal of writing in Creative Practice, 1 (2), 177-189 Finnis, J. (1980) Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gully, A. D., (1961) The Educational Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas, New York: Pageant Press, 1961 Gillespie, M A, (2008) The Theological Origins of Modernity, London: Chicago University Press, 2008 Hargreaves, A & Shirley, D, (2012) The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence, California: Corwin Harvey, D., (2010) The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of Capitalism, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010 Hayek, F. A., (1944) The Road to Serfdom, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Hayek, F A, (2011) The Constitution of Liberty, Hamowy, R (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press [1960] Kress, G. Design and Transformation: New Theories of Meaning. (2000) Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, NY: Routledge, Cope, B & Kalantzis, M (eds.), 153-161. March J G, (1982) The Technology of Foolishness, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, 2nd Universitetsforlaget, Norway, March, J G and Olsen, J P (ed.), 69-81 14 15 Chua Milbank, J. (2006) Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason, 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell. Ng, P T. (2013) Developing Singapore school leaders to handle complexity in times of uncertainty, Asia Pacific Educational Review, Vol. 14, 67-73 Petrilli, S., (2007) Abduction, Medical Semeiotics and Semioethics, Studies in computational intelligence (model based reasoning in science, technology and medicine) Lorenzo Magnimi & Li Ping (eds.) 64, 117-130 Petrilli, S., (2009) Signifying and understanding: reading the works of Victoria Welby and the signific movement. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. Petrilli, S., (2010) Sign crossroads in global perspective: semioethics and responsibility. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, John Deely (ed.). Petrilli, S & Ponzio, A, (2001) Thomas Sebeok and the Signs of Life, Cambridge, UK: Icon Books. Petrilli, S & Ponzio, A, Semioethics, (2010) The Routledge Companion to Semiotics, Oxon, UK: Routledge, Cobley, P (ed.), 150-161 Ponzio, A. (1990) Symbol, alterity and abduction, Man As Sign: Essays On the Philosophy of Language., Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer. Petrilli, S (trans. & ed.). Rea, M. C., (2002) World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rea, M. C., (2007) How Successful is Naturalism? In How Successful is Naturalism? Frankfurt, Germany: Ontos-Verlag, George Gasser (ed.), 105-116 Simon, H. A., (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press, 3rd Ed. Simon, H. A., (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization, 4th Ed., New York: Free Press. Wippel, J. F., (1984) Essence and Existence in the De Ente, ch. 4, Metaphysical Themes in Thomas Aquinas, Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 107-132. 15