Design & Society: 25 Years Later
Share
In 1999, I wrote my undergraduate dissertation: Design & Society: Relationships, Criticisms & Inaction. At the time, it felt like a student’s critique of the world of design — but looking back, it became the foundation of my design philosophy.
The themes I explored then — consumerism, ethics, responsibility — still feel urgent today. In fact, the questions are sharper now than they were a quarter of a century ago.
From “consumer-led” to “consumer-financed”
Back then, I challenged the idea that design was “consumer-led.” My argument was simple: design wasn’t led by consumers, it was financed by them.
Consumers didn’t dictate what was made. Shareholders did. Designers and manufacturers created products to keep profits flowing, then marketing told people what they “needed.” Shopping was the climax of design, where objects became cultural symbols.
Fast forward to today, and that cycle has accelerated. Social media algorithms drive desire faster than ever, feeding us new products, trends, and styles daily. Ephemerality has become normal — we live in Toffler’s Future Shock. But we’re also seeing pushback: slow fashion, circular economies, and traceable sourcing are growing.
The critics we dismissed
I wasn’t the first to notice these problems. I drew on thinkers like Buckminster Fuller, Victor Papanek, and Nigel Whiteley.
-
Fuller imagined designers as problem-solvers for humanity, not stylists for capitalism.
-
Papanek argued for “design for the real world”: meeting human needs, not fabricated wants.
-
Whiteley expanded responsibility to labour rights, politics, and global ethics.
In the 1990s, these ideas were dismissed as utopian or academic. Today, they feel like strategy. Renewable energy, universal design, and inclusive practices aren’t “nice to have” — they’re survival imperatives. What was critique has become necessity.
Conferences, pledges, and greenwashing
In 1993, the Design Renaissance conference tackled these ethical questions. Designers talked about responsibility and sustainability, but little changed.
We see the same pattern today. Conferences, certifications, and pledges abound — from B Corp to UN SDGs. But too often, these commitments remain symbolic. Greenwashing has replaced transformation. Without structural change, design still serves profit first.
So what has changed?
If my dissertation ended on a pessimistic note — that design would always be consumer-financed while capitalism dominated — I see more potential now.
Movements like ethical jewellery, regenerative design, and circular economies are proving that change is possible. They show that beauty and responsibility can coexist.
For me, this became aesethical design: the conviction that ethics and aesthetics are inseparable. Jewellery, for example, is never just decoration — it is memory, meaning, and material history. Every design decision is cultural and political.
The question that remains
The central question hasn’t changed: who does design serve?
If design continues to serve only shareholders, it will accelerate collapse. But if design can be redefined as a cultural, ethical, and problem-solving activity, then it has the power to help build a sustainable, humane future.
Design has always been more than style. It is responsibility, memory, and meaning cast into form. Twenty-five years on, that conviction remains the same — only now, the urgency is greater.