Figure 7 A manifesto for sustainable slow designers

Further evolution of thinking around slow design was provided by an unpublished study at UNITEC in Auckland, New Zealand (Fuad-Luke, 2003b).  This study revealed that the term ‘slow design’ is multi-layered and can refer to the process of design, the outcomes of design and the overall philosophical approach. Several definitions emerge.

The guiding philosophical principle of slow design is to re-position the focus of design on the trinity of individual, socio-cultural and environmental well-being (Figure 8). Slower human, economic and resource flow metabolisms are integral to the principle of well-being.  This encourages those engaged in design to:  take a long view; envisage slower rates of production and consumption; stimulate a renewed joy in design (and its outputs); offer new scenarios for the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual durability of design outputs; celebrate diversity and pluralism; envisage slow as a positive socio-cultural value; and, focus on the present rather than trying to design the future.

Figure 8 The spheres of well-being of slow design

The process of slow design is comprehensive, holistic, inclusive, reflective, considered, and permits evolution and development of the design outcomes.

Slow design outcomes encourage a reduction in economic, industrial and urban metabolisms, and hence consumption, by: serving basic human needs; creating moments to savour and enjoy the (human) senses; designing for space to think, react, dream, and muse; designing for people first, commercialisation second; balancing the local with the global and the social with the environmental; demystifying and democratising design by re-awakening individual’s own design potential; and catalysing social transformation towards a less materialistic way of living.

There are several key premises for slow design:

The first premise is that human well-being relies on the well-being of the earth’s ecosystems. Slow design recognises and embraces concepts such as Design for Sustainability (DfS), sustainable development, biodiversity, ecological footprints, resource management and pollution control.  Slow design differs from many historical design movements in that it is not anthropocentric but recognises humankind as part of larger biotic (living) systems whose own development agenda’s don’t necessarily co-incide with those of humans! However, slow design appreciates the subtleties of the human condition and strives for human development of individuals and socio-cultural communities.  In this context the United Nations Development Programme says ‘Human development is about much more that the rise or fall of national economies.  It is about creating an enironment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests’ (UNDP, 2003).  Mahbub ul Haq’s definition of human development goes further: “The basic purpose of development is to enlarge people’s choices.  In principle, these choices can be infinite and can change over time.  People often value achievements that do not show up at all, or not immediately, in income or growth figures: greater access to knowledge, better nutrition and health services, more secure livelihoods, security against crime and physical violence, satisfying leisure hours, political and cultural freedoms and sense of participation in community activities.  The objective of development is to create an enabling environment for people to enjoy long, healthy and creative lives.”  Slow design co-joins human development with the development of the natural world.  Slow design therefore considers a meta-environment, a combination of the man-made and the natural, for future sustainable development. The key foci of well-being for slow design are therefore the well-being of the (man-made and natural) environment, of socio-cultural communities and of the individual.  Needs typologies (Fig 8) assist in encouraging designers to ask the right questions to meet identified anthropological needs.  It will also be necessary to develop a typology of needs for living ecosystems in order to be truly inclusive in the slow design paradigm.

The second premise is that slow design must decouple itself from the drivers of existing economic, technological and political thinking if it is to deliver a new paradigm for design.  It is entirely logical to predict that appropriate economic models, technology and political models will follow slow design outcomes since real needs will be met, rather than those of the free market  (often these market driven needs are economically, politically, culturally and socially manipulated ‘wants’).

The third premise is that ‘slow design’ operates as an antidote to the existing ‘fast design’ paradigm, a key aim being to slow down the metabolism of anthropocentric activities that are damaging to mankind and the environment.  Manzini noted at Doors of Perception 7: Flow, that, ‘The regeneration of the context of life, a relatively new phrase, connects with the mainstream of our idea about what is well-being.  The mainstream of thinking has been that in order to live better, we have to consume more.  The problem being that, in consuming more, we destroy our context of life.’ (Manzini, 2002).  Slowing down the metabolism of production and consumption challenges the dominant political doctrine of economic growth being the prime mover of the modern capitalist economy.  But metabolism goes beyond money, resources, goods and services.  This metabolism includes ‘cognitive overload’ a term used by Bonsieppe (1997) and a phenomenon described as as early as 1881 as ‘neuraesthenia’ by George Beard in his book, American Nervousness, originating from the increasing tempo of life caused by the telegraph, railways and steampower (Kern, 1996).

The fourth premise is that decoupling the current models of the industrial/consumer/information economies from design presents an opportunity to explore ‘endurability’ and design. ‘Endurability’ is the ability of designed objects, spaces and images that have persistent, long-term socio-cultural relevance, which endure physically, spiritually, mentally and emotionally.  Balancing the physical with the spiritual, mental and emotional has its roots in holistic eastern philosophies including Buddism, Hinduism and Taoism.