The Rhetorical Chain

Rhetorical Chain: a string of arguments that pass through and connect people and organizations

Design as Rhetoric

A lot of people see design as the bastard child of rhetoric. If you think about it, it makes sense. The five “canons” of rhetoric, brought forth by Cicero or somebody, consists of:

  • Invention and Discover
  • Arrangement
  • Style
  • Memory
  • Delivery

These phases all have corollaries in design. I won’t go into that, but it should be pretty obvious to most designers. In addition to the phases of Rhetoric, there are three devices of Rhetoric to appeal to an audience:

  • logos - logical appeals
  • pathos - emotional appeals
  • ethos - ethical or moral appeals

So when thinking about the development of any iconic design object, such as the iPhone, it’s easy to see these aspects of rhetoric play out. Designer’s at Apple wondered what people wanted in a phone, and invented or discovered needs. Those needs were probably logical (“I need to check email all day”), emotional (“I want to see the face of the person I’m calling”), etc.

In addition to design projects relating to rhetoric, lately, I’ve noticed the business process that surrounds design to be full of applications of rhetoric. When working on a project for GSK, my design firm made an argument to GSK as to why we should be chosen for the project. This included a presentation that made logical and emotional appeals to the members of the GSK group.

When working for GSK, we realized that not only did our client contact need to believe in the work we were all doing, but also GSK at large, which meant the creation of more presentations, this time to a different audience with different appeals.

The final product was a B2B solution, so we needed GSK to make a strong argument to its business customers, and then those business customers needed to make a strong case to their employees who were the final customers. So the arguments made looked something like this:

>My Design Firm -> GSK Client -> GSK as a whole -> Corporations -> Employees

And so was born my concept of the Rhetorical Chain. This came up again when I was asked to make a pamphlet for a funeral I was attending. I took all the information, put it into inDesign and kept it tasteful. I simply got rid of some formatting that made the schedule difficult to read (the original word document had the funeral content text flush against the left margin, speaker information flush again the right margin, and occasionally a column centered with a song to be performed). And I changed the type, reduced line length in a few places, and formatted all the images to make sense. When showing what I did, there was an overwhelming response of dissatisfaction. “why can’t it look like the other pamphlets?” was the prevailing question. I responded with appeals to efficiency, readability, aesthetic pleasantries, but none of it worked, and eventually what was printed was the Microsoft Word version. This was another instance where convincing was part of the job, and in this instance I failed.

The life of a designer is a life of fight. Fight against the ugliness. Just like a doctor fights against disease. For us, the visual disease is what we have around, and what we try to do is cure it somehow with design.

–Massimo Vignelli

Another win for ugliness.

The Shift

The concept of rhetoric as I’ve laid it out has been very much about persuasion and control, and one definition is such. But instead of marking the control definition of rhetoric with an author, I am going to label it the modernist definition of rhetoric. In a modern world, where designers bend and flex metal to make precision objects, and where consumer products can be seen as arguments for how we should live our lives, rhetoric becomes a tool for persuasion, the iPhone is a statement by Apple saying “You should have internet in your pocket”. The shift is a subtle one–one that I am seeing not just in design, but in art, poetry, and business. The shift is from modernity to post-modernity, which I think I technically missed, and which I no nothing about, but will speak on anyway. There should be a whole post on post-modernity and Dreu and Second Road, but that’s another story.

Design as Dialectic

So the subtle shift in design from rhetoric to dialectic, or even ore subtle from modernist rhetoric to a post modernist rhetoric, is mirrored by the shift from societal modernity to post modernity. In the modern world, I think there was a fetishization of not only the new, but the precise. In the modern world, there was the invention of the assembly line that analyzed human movements and reduced them to almost mechanical precision. The question to be answered was always “How can we control people as precisely as machines?” In Christianity, the modern God controls Jesus, the world, us, in a mechanical and absolute manner, and this same era brought on the Tailorist Movement and mechanical ways of controlling and running businesses, moving to the use of spreadsheets and reporting systems to understand groups of people.

However, I think that era has ended. I have no interest in making arguments and I have no interest in working on design projects and having them turned down by clients. I want to move from rhetoric, the creation of arguments, to dialectics, or the creation of conversations where one does not overcome the other, rather one uses the other to grow, change, and develop something completely new. I think design objects are going to move from arguments of how we live our lives, to manifestations of our desires and values, and designers will no longer be controllers, but rather facilitators between groups.

The Generalist's Job is to Have Many Known Unknowns

The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.

–Donald Rumsfeld

I’ve been spending a great deal of time thinking of what makes designers, liberal artists, generalists, different. The specialists always want to argue that we lack any domain of knowledge, but now I’m starting to think that the lack of domain knowledge is ok. The small set of “Known Knowns” is ok, what we lack in knowns, we make up for in an insatiable hunger to know, and the more we know, the more we know we don’t know, you know? As Shunryu Suzuki would call it, we continue to persist with our “Beginner’s Mind.”

The Four Orders of Design

With the surge of new concepts in design revolving around Design Management, Organizational Design, Systems Design, and the like, and the seemingly lost articulation of that domain set forth by Richard Buchanan, I thought this would be a good time to revisit the concept of Fourth Order Design, and lay out the orders and their origin in one coherent text.

Four Orders of Design

Dick was the first to describe design disciplines in four domains of activity: symbolic and visual communication or graphic design, material or industrial design, activities and organized services or interaction and service design, and complex systems or organizational design. A detailed description of these domains is in Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. The four orders are meant to describe design as a whole that expand beyond what we normally consider design, and move it into a new liberal art. By that, Dick meant “a discipline of thinking that may be shared to some degree by all men and women in their daily lives and is, in turn, mastered by a few people who practice the discipline with distinctive insight and sometimes advance it to new areas of innovative application.” By expanding beyond our concepts of traditional design disciplines we can see that all people design, from laying out the seating arrangement in a classroom, to preparing a holiday dinner with all the logistics and associated prep work. Everyone designs, only some do it well and do it well enough to make a career out of it. Design is everywhere as it is used whenever a person creates something that didn’t exist previously in this world, and so with that definition, it becomes more important to understand this fundamental aspect of human existence. As Herbert Simon mentioned in The Sciences of the Artificial, “The proper study of mankind is the science of design, not only as the professional component of a technical education but as a core discipline for every liberally educated man.”

The power in the Four Orders of design, lie not only in their clear articulation of design disciplines but also in their malleable nature. The Four Orders are places of innovation and not merely categories. Categories are used to describe what is, but places are used to create new concepts through the repositioning of problems. This concept of a place was described, to my knowledge, first by Richard McKeon in Creativity and the Commonplace, and was explained to me in Grad Seminar 1 at Carnegie Mellon by Richard Buchanan. A simple example of repositioning a design problem would be to take an architectural problem and then shift it into a communication design problem. This allows the architect to ask a different set of questions. Instead of merely describing spaces and routes to those spaces, an architect can ask “how does this space communicate its purpose?” and a project that was originally about material can be shifted into a rhetorical problem, having objects make arguments for their purposes. A more detailed example exists in Tony Golsby-Smith’s article, Fourth Order Design: a Practical Perspective where he takes a simple documentation problem and asks himself how he can ask larger questions that effect the systems that reside in support and creation of those documents.

Fourth Order of Design

When designers shift their problems into problems of systems rather than posters and toasters, they seem to move out of the typical designer described fields, and step into what is now being called Systems Design, Organizational Design, or Design Thinking, where the object of design is much larger than previously, and which is much more elusive to describe and display. Unfortunately because of this elusive nature of the object of design, terms such as Design Thinking have arisen being seemingly devoid of an object of design. Currently, Business Design seems to be the new meat for both the Management field and Design. For Management, it is a new process for the creation of business models and organizations, for designers this new field provides a new object of design to apply their process. Designers understand the process of creation and have gotten much attention through Harvard Business Review and its interest in innovation. Businesses realize that in the current economy, the old solutions offered by management consultants revolving around issues of efficiency are no longer keeping companies competitive. In the current fast passed world, the creation of new value for customers is king, and businesses are turning to designers for those innovative solutions and for their process of design thinking to foster innovation within larger corporations. So now we have designers working outside of the first three orders and moving towards the fourth, and business is getting interested. It’s unfortunate that designers could not rally behind one name for this field, but when designers can barely agree on definitions for Interaction Design and Interactive Design and who constantly argue about their inane differences, it makes sense that a discipline such as business would be the first to coin an appropriate term and stick with it.

Origins

In the current form of the four orders of design, there are four subject matters that designers focus on: signs, objects, interactions, and systems. These are the places where designers do their work. Richard Buchanan has often made a 4x4 array placing these subject matters across the left axis and those same subject matters across the top as well. This involuted formation always perplexed me until I dug a little into the history of the form, in class it was never clearly explained. These four areas can be seen as subject matters, but also as specific perspectives. As described earlier, if Tony Golsby-Smith were thinking of a document design problem as a systems problem, his subject matter would be signs and his perspective would be from a systems point of view. So placing his project in the array, it would be in the first row and the fourth column.

The following section tries to outline a few major contributors into this theory of the four orders of design, but i’m quite sure it’s incomplete and hopefully I will fill in more as I come across more information about this topic. This short history is also meant to be a list of pointers, a starting point for investigation rather than an expansive explanation, as that would be a lengthy set of posts and would most likely shift too far away from design anyway.

Aristotle

If you know Richard Buchanan, you would know that much starts with Aristotle. In this case, it begins with Aristotle’s Metaphysics among many other places. It seems as though philosophers, like designers, create frameworks/heuristics/sets of terms in order to explain and order this world just like us. Plato’s Sophist describes name-definition-thing, Kant describes knower-known-knowledge-knowable, Dewey had expression-communication, and probably from Aristotle, there is things-ideas-words. A whole list can be found here which is also where I learned most of this stuff.

Richard Mckeon

Mckeon, to my knowledge, seems to be the main contributor to the four orders of design. He wanted to create a system of philosophy where instead of arguing on topics or terms or perspectives, each would be related to the others in a systemic manner and would be based on a set of variables or starting points and from each starting point, a philosopher could explain all other philosophies through his own eyes and his own system. Instead of arguing over sets that philosophers previously used, there needed to be a way to connect all those sets and show that each are valid from each perspective. The first variable McKeon noticed was a re-occurring focus from being to knowing to meaning in philosophic epochs. You could imagine Aristotle’s list being derived because of his focus on being rather than having a semantic or epistemic focus.

With the realization that each of the philosophic epochs could be considered a philosophic approach and also a subject matter, McKeon started teaching a 3x3 array in his classes around 1938 and Plochmann and other gifted students luckily wrote this down as I can’t find much in McKeon’s original texts about the origins and mutations of these thoughts.

So now we have a 3x3 array describing philosophic variables of approach and subject matter by dividing each into things, thoughts, words. I would say that even though McKeon wanted to connect all philosophies, he certainly had a love for Aristotle which describes why his ordering set looks more similar to Aristotle’s than any other.

John Dewey

There seems to be a nice lineage from John Dewey to Richard McKeon to Richard Buchanan. McKeon was a student and huge admirer of Dewey (and Buchanan of McKeon), and because of that admiration possibly, McKeon noted Dewey as being the first in four thousand years of philosophy to introduce a new epoch of focus: action. The act of one thought/object/word on another could be a starting point to see the world, and so McKeon added that to his ordering set, so we know have words, things, actions, thought. Following that addition, a 3x3 turns into a 4x4.

Richard Buchanan

Changing Philosophic Approach to perspective and subject matter to domain of design, and we have the four orders of design as explained currently.

The genius is not in this one instance, but in that Richard Buchanan brought philosophy to design. He connected not only this system of pluralism of thought with a pluralistic approach to design thinking, but also connected rhetoric as the father of current design practice, and taught the tools used to craft well defined thoughts from philosophy to interaction design. And it is this same set of tools of thought that has propelled designers from posters and toasters into the world of business. It is the rigorous philosophic thinking that is at the heart of design thinking and it is that noble heritage that has encouraged many designers to fight for a seat at the table amongst CEOs and the like.