# data[].attributes.headline
Escobar, Arturo. Designs for the Pluriverse. Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. New Ecologies for the Twenty-First Century. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2018, pp. xxx–xxx.

# data[].attributes.subject
Escobar, Arturo. Designs for the Pluriverse. Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. New Ecologies for the Twenty-First Century. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2018, pp. xxx–xxx.

# data[].attributes.body
Upload/Write your thoughts here.

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar tackles the question of top-down design approaches and how they are also rooted with political and cultural behaviour. Especially products nowadays follow a universal design approach and ignore local behaviours. The normal consumer just buys what’s available on the shelf and doesn’t really question the result. Through market pressure company’s follow the most promising model.

In architecture we can see a similar problem, whereas the competition is driven by designs which have worked out in the past. Of course there is a progress happening - but rather slowly.

How can we make design more inclusive and diverse in our capitalistic driven system?

# data[].attributes.body
Both architecture and design are political instruments that influenced  our society over time. In García Márquez's Macondo, we see how emerging technologies have and still are transforming daily life—and, in turn, the very places people and communities inhabit. For example: the presence of the banana company impacted not just the economy but also urban development, as industrialization and globalization continue to shape our cities.

While design impacts our daily lives through the objects we use, architecture provides the physical spaces we inhabit. Both fields reflect the social values of their time: in the 20th century, functionality was the mainstream, but today, the design process orients itself more on to participation, sustainability and collective community design.

Design and architecture both grapple with the same pressing question: how do we build a future worth living in? Or like mentioned in the text „What world do we want to build?“ Economic interests and capitalism failed us. We need innovative ideas that prioritize social and environmental factors— this makes architecture and design the defining tools of our era.

# data[].attributes.body
Can a new (social) design proposal be implemented in a capitalist system without it failing?

The capitalist system is controlling and entrenched in the minds of the elites. It also helps the power-hungry to expand their power and the money-hungry to generate more money.

Furthermore, we see that this system is also firmly entrenched in the minds of many ordinary people, who protect the elites.

So how can a benevolent, non-charitable design be implemented across the board and how can it hold its own against the aggressive, competitive capitalist system?

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar's text highlights how design is not just a technical or aesthetic issue, but something to do with the way we live. Escobar talks about design leaving the studio and entering real life as well as social, cultural and natural contexts and asks what kind of world we want to build, inviting us to think about how each choice influences cultures, the environment and people's ways of living.

This made me think about the role of architecture today: even when we think that a project is only technical or functional, in reality it always carries with it a certain idea of society and how people should live together. I think it is crucial to contribute to a design that is truly sensitive to social and cultural contexts, finding alternative ways of designing that avoid the standardisation imposed by the economic system.

I ask myself: how can design become a tool to promote social and cultural justice?

# data[].attributes.body
Design has always been an integral part of our realities, especially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Much more than ever, trends are shifting as fast as the speed of light, reflecting our ever-changing society fueled by the growing accessibility we as humans have towards knowledge.

"In a world in rapid and profound transformation, we are all designers. . . . The more tradition is weakened, the more subjects must learn to design their own
lives and shift from a prevalence of activities carried out in a traditional way to one in which choices are mainly of design."

Arturo Escobar also makes this point in his text, stating that design is present in every aspect in our lives. Through globalization and technological advances, we have the whole world at our fingertips. Why then, is design still a matter of experts, when everyone has the ability to participate in it? The urge to reorientate from the functionalist, rationalistic approach towards an ontological approach on all domains is urgent.

As we begin to think design towards our field in urban design and architecture, this also applies towards our practice. The rapid growth of urban areas urges us even more to take an alternative approach, breaking free from our cookie-cutter problem solving way of thinking shifting towards a problem-acknowledging and critical user-friendly approach.

Escobar states, that contemporary design, which is moving towards this reorientation, does indeed exist and is talked about more. However, it is not moving at the needed pace for today’s rapid transformations within out society.

To this, the question poses itself: How can we as the experts in the field be the mediator to provide the ontological approach of design unrestrained grounds to unfold, while still being situated in the territory of patriarchal capitalist modernity, to fulfill the urgent needs of the global to be decelerated towards a more thinkering society?

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar’s discussion highlights how design is deeply interwoven with societal structures, shaping not only material environments but also the way we relate to one another. His critique of dominant design practices suggests that existing power structures limit the potential for truly transformative and community-driven design approaches. If design is always entangled with cultural, political, and economic forces, then any shift towards alternative methodologies must address these systemic barriers.

One key challenge is that even well-intentioned design interventions risk being co-opted by the very forces they seek to challenge. Participatory and community-led design approaches, for example, can be absorbed into corporate strategies or policy frameworks that maintain the status quo.

Given these dynamics, how can designers create spaces and objects that not only resist but actively subvert the dominant economic and political forces shaping our world?

# data[].attributes.body
The text argues that design has gone from being something marginal to a central topic. It criticises the idea that design should be based on technology and the capitalist economic system. Instead, it suggests that we should focus on the idea that things are connected to each other. Ontological design is about being, knowledge and action. It asks whether design can support marginalised groups who are trying to make broad cultural and ecological transitions. The book says that design should be about people, society and the environment, not just experts and markets. It asks how design can help people live better lives that are better for the environment. With design being increasingly understood as a practice that is situated and interactive, focusing on place and community.

But is it realistic to expect a change like this in design under capitalism?

How can local autonomy and global transitions be combined in a way that makes sense?

And can this approach also be relevant and effective outside of Latin America?

# data[].attributes.body
García Márquez's story about Macondo thus serves as a metaphor for the challenges of modernity: technological progress promises miracles, but also brings with it disillusionment and social upheaval. The question remains: What design of the future do we want to create?

I am thinking that society/market will have a say in determining which designs/developments/progress will be accepted. So I wonder what progress, what examples there are where the consumer has resisted progress.

And with today's discussion of AI, we are back at a point, as with the invention of the pocket calculator, of how we deal with this progress.

# data[].attributes.body
The capitalist framework supports market-driven, profit-oriented design, leading to power dynamics where corporations and privileged individuals dominate while non-humans, marginalized communities, and the environment are excluded. To build resilience against this system, i agree with Escobar’s critiques that design must emphasize community-based approaches, sustainability, inclusivity beyond human beings and through that free itself from profitability and efficiency. However, grassroots or ‚bottom up’ initiatives often struggle within capitalist economies and global market demands are still dominant, so these often don’t last for long and therefore have a temporary character. So how can a truly inclusive, non-profit design proposal thrive and foster social change without capitalist entanglement? Or is design inevitably shaped by economic interests and therefore needs to somehow challenge the capitalist framework while working within it’s norms? At least in architectural education, i see the potential to challenge and dismantle dominant narratives and frameworks, incorporate diverse voices into the design process and to foster social change, but how does this then get translated into the reality of architectural practice?

# data[].attributes.body
Design has become a highly rationalized endeavor in modernity, subjected to expert discourses and explicit calculation. We have reached a point where we design design itself, leading to an exhaustion of critical thought. This self-awareness, combined with the high frequency of novel discoveries and the fast cycle of innovation, has dulled our sense of wonder and left us desensitized to the extraordinary. [Could be linked to Amereida and the gift that is the misleading hope.]

Our contemporary crisis is not just a collection of problems but a fundamental issue in how society is structured; as patriarchal, Western, capitalistic modernity. Ironically, we attempt to tackle modernity with more modernity and are thus reinforcing the very structures we aim to change. Design, however, is fundamental to shaping ways of being, knowing, and doing. The tools we create in turn shape us, revealing the practical potential of design to to contribute to profound societal transformations.

I would like to argue that all thought is already an act of design, since every conclusion is calculated and decided. But then how do we navigate such a complex world and move beyond these systems? A radical shift is needed, one that moves beyond consumerist and capitalistic constraints to re-engage with fundamental needs and rethinks our thinking. This requires a more intuitive and relational approach to design; an ontological shift that embraces both interdependence and autonomy. A coexistence of multiple realities and perspectives, as suggested by Escobar through the pluriverse, would offer a promising approach. It fosters broad participation and empowers individuals and communities to shape diverse possibilities rather than conforming to a one-size-fits-all model. [Could be linked to Sopandi.]

How can we ensure that this approach is not co-opted by dominant systems but remains a genuine space for alternative ways of designing and living?

How can we balance urgency with intentionality and keep the right degree of purposefulness?

# data[].attributes.body
The key concept revolves around ontological design. This concept emphasizes that design is not just about creating objects or services but about shaping ways of being, knowing, and doing in the world.

The urban issue at stake here is the impact of modern design practices on social and ecological systems. Escobar critiques the dominant design paradigms that often prioritize commercial and modernizing goals, which can lead to the marginalization of local communities and the degradation of natural environments. He advocates for a more autonomous and place-based approach to design that respects and integrates the knowledge and practices of indigenous and local communities.

“The old technologies were once new” , this made me wonder how we can continue to make architecture that makes sense in a forever marginalizing and changing world? Are we continuously going to run after technology, only to always come to the conclusion that our designs are outdated? I really liked the phrase “From mindless development to design mindfulness”, could a people-centered approach be the answer to this discord in society?

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar describes how design has contributed to the politicization and commercialization of society. Since industrialization, more and more products have entered the market to simplify life. However, many of these inventions led to disappointment, as Gabriel García Márquez illustrates in One Hundred Years of Solitude: they fulfilled their purpose but remained an illusion of reality and therefore simplified life in a banal way. As production increased, people bought more to keep up with modernization. Ownership became and remains a status symbol.

At the same time, consumption weakens social practices such as sharing or borrowing. In cities, for example, urban sprawl replaced the commons, and private gardens with fences now mark ownership. However, climate change and resource scarcity are prompting a shift in thinking: concepts like community-supported agriculture are reviving the commons.

How can spaces be created to benefit the community? How can they turn people into co-creators? Who takes responsibility, and how is ownership regulated?

# data[].attributes.body
One of the ideas that really stood out to me is Escobar’s concept of ontological design. The idea that design isn’t just about creating objects but actually shapes the way we live and experience the world. Escobar challenges the assumption that design is neutral or purely functional, and instead, he argues that it reflects deeper power structures, often reinforcing colonialism and capitalism.

This argument really stuck with me because it shows how design isn’t just about aesthetics or convenience, it also influences power structures and identities. Take urban planning, for example: the way cities are designed determines who has access to resources, how communities interact, and who gets left out. If design is inherently political, then it can be a force for justice as much as for oppression. However, the challenge for us remains: How can designers trained in Western institutions truly embrace pluriversal and decolonial approaches without replicating the very systems we try to avoid?

# data[].attributes.body
There is no doubt that changes in the way we (we also as architects and planners) design, argued for by Escobar are reasonable and urgent. A change towards inclusive, collaborative, and contextual approaches seem to be solutions which could counter a market driven and profit oriented design language rooted in the rise of capitalistic globalization and technocratic rule of expert knowledge. Yet these approaches are often tied to longer periods of development and in general need more time for decision finding and cannot be reproduced, if highly contextualized. The text calls for a rapid change, yet different design processes need more time, especially when they are rooted in communities which are still part of capitalist socio-economic structures. How can we mediate in this dichotomy, also within and from out the given socio-economic structures and reach a faster pace which we need as the change becomes more urgent than ever?

# data[].attributes.body
As Escobar demonstrates in his text, modern design is rooted in a need to showcase the technological « development » of the West, especially since the beginning of industrialization. This creates an environment of hierarchy which « legitimizes » the hegemonic West to colonize cultures that are perceived as « inferior » (coloniality). How can we, as Western scholars, come back to a notion of design that is not steeped in economic and technological principles that serve to ensure that capitalism flourishes? A notion that also gets away from theorization and expertise in order to be oriented towards human experience?

# data[].attributes.body
The capitalist system often shapes design practices with a focus on profit and efficiency, resulting in power dynamics that benefit corporations and privileged individuals while sidelining non-human entities, marginalized communities, and the environment. In response, Escobar advocates for a shift towards community-centered design that prioritizes sustainability, inclusivity, and social impact over financial gain. However, grassroots initiatives, though promising, face significant challenges within capitalist economies and may struggle to survive under the pressure of global market forces. This leads me to question: How can non-profit, inclusive design proposals succeed and drive social change without falling into the grip of capitalist systems?

Escobar also critiques how societal structures—such as political, economic, and cultural forces—shape design. He argues that existing power structures constrain the potential for truly transformative, community-led design. Even well-meaning participatory approaches are vulnerable to being absorbed by corporate interests or political systems that reinforce the status quo. This leads me to my final question: How can designers create spaces and objects that actively resist and challenge the dominant forces controlling our world?

# data[].attributes.body
The text argues that the current global crisis is not just about capitalism but about an entire civilisational model- one rooted in patriarchal Western modernity. It suggests that real change requires a fundamental shift in the way people live, think, and relate to the world. Design, including architecture, is deeply implicated in this transformation. The book explores how design can move beyond its industrial, rationalist traditions and instead support grassroots struggles for autonomy, particularly those of indigenous and peasant communities in Latin America. These communities fight not just for land and resources but for entire ways of being. The text proposes that design is not just about objects or spaces but about shaping relationships and ways of life. It calls for an ontological shift- one that values relations over extraction, communal knowledge over imposed systems. For architects, this raises crucial questions. How can architecture contribute to these transitions rather than reinforce dominant power structures? If architecture is always shaped by its time, what elements should remain constant to preserve a meaningful connection between past, present, and future? These questions challenge architects to rethink their role, not as neutral creators, but as active participants in a larger struggle for justice and sustainability.

# data[].attributes.body
When reading "Designs of the Pluriverse" by Arturo Escobar one essential question comes to mind: How can we still build in a truly social manner within a capitalist framework? It is a question which many have asked (themselves) but none (to my knowledge) have found a solid answer for. Clearly going back into times before modern technology is neither possible, nor wanted but I ask myself if this notion of a "once pure social society" really ever existed. There are many theories on human behavior in the earlier stages of human development. When I personally look at the human history which I am familiar with, humans always seemed to have egoistical tendencies. This is visible in extremes such as Hannah Arendt described some people acting out of own comfort and not cruelty within the Nazi regime and the Holocaust within but also can be pointed to the failures of communist systems to truly create an equal society. Within this idea of humans as egoistical beings but simultaneously social beings (as there was also push for equality and social agency all through history) building truly socially in general is a challenge. Furthermore, capitalism makes that the powerful (=the rich) decide what is being build and so most things build are done so with profit and not social principles in mind. There is some exceptions, such as cooperatives (popular here in Zürich) but even they became a middle class housing principle with a "petite bourgeois" mindset. Similarly big housing blocks seem to work much less in the capitalist west then they used to in the communist east of European, as they lacked diversity of use, comfort and a newer idea of a family unit (such as women working). Is care and social mindset possible in our capitalist society? And this poses an even bigger question: what of not?

# data[].attributes.body
The text highlights how design has become deeply intertwined with capitalism, often perpetuating a cycle of production and consumption that fails to address the underlying social and ecological crises we face today.

One of the central critiques presented is that design, rather than being a neutral practice, is fundamentally linked to the decisions that shape our lives and environments. This perspective challenges the notion of "design as usual," urging us to confront normative questions about the kind of world we wish to create. The critical inquiry should focus on what we want to happen to us, rather than merely on knowledge or progress. This shift in questioning is essential for understanding how design can either reinforce or challenge capitalist ideologies.

The text also discusses the pervasive nature of capitalism within design, noting that many design practices remain technocratic and market-centered, failing to critically engage with capitalism's implications. Contemporary design contributes to a "pan-capitalist present", where the commodification of design leads to a homogenization of experiences and a lack of genuine critique. That is why the design community must move beyond mere celebration of design's potential and confront its complicity in capitalist structures.

The concept of emotional capital is introduced as a means of understanding how personal and communal investments can be transformed into social and economic benefits. The narratives of individuals like Fato Sakina illustrate how emotional capital can foster community resilience and challenge capitalist norms by prioritizing care and relational ties over profit. This perspective invites a re-evaluation of how design can serve marginalized communities, emphasizing the need for inclusive practices that empower rather than exploit.

Recognizing the role of design in shaping societal values, questioning the normative assumptions underlying design practices, and exploring alternative frameworks that prioritize community well-being and ecological sustainability should be the center of our practice in my opinion. By addressing these issues we can begin to envision a more equitable and responsible approach to design that transcends the limitations of capitalist ideologies.

Some questions regarding this future also came to my mind:

What strategies can be employed to ensure that marginalized voices are included in the architectural decision-making process? How feasible is that actually with all the political, economical etc. structures? In what ways can design be utilized to address the ecological and social crises faced by communities, particularly in the context of displacement and loss of land? How much can we do there and what means do we need to move something forward? How can architects collaborate with local activists and community leaders to create spaces that support collective autonomy and well-being? Without being complete outsiders and invading the space of such communities? There I actually think the last reading and lecture on Nablus and the Yalla Project would be a great step but is that kind of work applicable on other structures?

# data[].attributes.body
Design is a paradox. It promises change, progress, and improvement, yet too often serves capitalist forces more than the human experience. Technology as an illusion. Prioritizing efficiency over empathy. Innovation does not mean progress. Dazzled by sleek things and streamlined spaces, we overlook the social inequalities embedded in both the design and its processes. Design claims to focus on people over objects, but without addressing the underlying systems, it remains a superficial gesture. It reflects consumption rather than fostering authentic connection.

Design has the potential for social change, but often it mirrors the economic priorities of the moment. Profit-driven transformations obscure the lived realities of these spaces. The question isn’t whether design can drive change, but whether it can escape the grip of profit. Until it does, it will only reinforce the status quo.

# data[].attributes.body
Design has always influenced both material objects and the ways people live, intertwining with politics, culture, and technology. Initially dominated by functionalism, design evolved to address social and environmental concerns, with a growing emphasis on sustainability, ethics, and participatory processes. Today, designers challenge the limitations of “business-as-usual” approaches, shifting from object-centered to human- and earth-centered design. Digital technologies are being reimagined to prioritize community, place, and ecological awareness over speed and efficiency. As design moves beyond industry-driven solutions, it emerges as a tool for social transformation, fostering more just, sustainable, and meaningful ways of living.

# data[].attributes.body
The text highlights some ways in which design shapes societies. The author’s call for a pluriversal approach resonates with broader decolonial and ecological movements. It emphasizes the need for context sensitive and community driven alternatives.

However, one challenge could be how designers, who are often embedded in capitalist institutions, truly detach from dominant power structures? Additionally, could there also be a risk that "pluriversal design" could be co-opted by mainstream industries in superficial ways, diluting its radical potential?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text Arturo Escobar talks about changing times due to globalization, digitalization, climate change, consumerism, individualism and many other present-day phenomenons.

Instead of following traditions like people did for many centuries, today many people in the western world face the challenge of having to shape and design their own ways of life. There seems to be a big confusion and mingling of options, were people increasingly get lost in. Also design - for example city planning - seems to be a wild compilation of thousands of design choices that are mainly made according to factors like profit and money.

The author claims that design should go back to the knowledge that exists within communities, cultures and places, instead of being opposed from forces in a top-down kind of way. Design should include more aspects of everyday-life like the ways of doing things, culture, social practices, tradition and the specific nature surrounding the place.

But how much of this internal and local knowledge of communities is still preserved and available, or did most of it get lost due to globalization and colonial practices?

If this resource was still available, could a life that is based on traditions, rituals and culture bring back some of the stability that we lost?

And how to ensure to not fall in the trap of strong nationalism and conservatism that ultimately very often leads to exclusion?

Can every individual find a local community were they feel like they belong into and can those communities live peacefully next to each other?

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar questions the way design operates within capitalist modernity, arguing that it reinforces existing power structures rather than fostering real alternatives. He challenges the idea that design is neutral, emphasizing that every design choice actively shapes the world. Instead of a universal, market-driven approach, he advocates for ontological design, which acknowledges diverse ways of being and knowing.A central critique is that contemporary design often imposes solutions rather than responding to local needs. Even participatory design risks being absorbed into corporate and neoliberal agendas, limiting its transformative potential. Escobar introduces the pluriverse, a vision where multiple realities coexist, calling for design to support community-driven, relational, and place-based practices rather than reinforcing dominant economic and cultural systems. In architecture and urbanism, this raises urgent questions: How can we resist the homogenizing forces of globalization? Can design break free from profit-driven constraints and genuinely serve diverse communities? If capitalist structures continuously absorb and neutralize alternative approaches, is true systemic change through design even possible?

# data[].attributes.body
Design is never neutral.

Design is a key element in who we become.

Design shapes being and identity.

Given the evolution of design described in the text, from a more object-oriented approach towards a more context-aware and human-centered way of thinking, what specific strategies would be most crucial for contemporary designers to effectively integrate this approach into their practical work?

# data[].attributes.body
The text of Arturo Escobar examines key global urban design theories, highlighting their impact and limitations. Modernist urban design focuses on order, efficiency, and large-scale planning, often resulting in rigid zoning and uniform structures. While this approach aims for functionality, it frequently disregards social dynamics, leading to lifeless urban spaces.

Postmodernism emerged as a response, advocating for diversity, historical continuity, and mixed-use spaces. This theory values cultural identity and complexity, but it sometimes lacks a coherent structure, creating fragmented urban environments. A more recent approach, sustainable urbanism, seeks to balance growth with environmental responsibility. It promotes green infrastructure, public participation, and adaptable designs. However, its implementation is often hindered by political and financial constraints.

A central issue discussed in the text is the gap between theoretical ideals and real-world challenges. Cities are shaped not only by planners but also by economic pressures, governance, and social needs. The document suggests that no single theory can address all urban issues and that successful urban design requires flexibility.

In my view, the future of urban design lies in a pragmatic combination of these theories. Rigid frameworks should give way to adaptable strategies that respond to local conditions. Instead of imposing predefined models, urban planners must integrate community-driven solutions, ensuring that cities remain both functional and livable in a rapidly changing world.

# data[].attributes.body
What kind of world do we want to build? This question is especially pertinent when considering the growing environmental and social crises we face today. It challenges the traditional, functionalist view of design as merely a tool for improving the efficiency of products or systems. Instead, it calls for a more reflective and purposeful approach, one that acknowledges the power design has in influencing societal values and outcomes.

The inclusion of thinkers like Humberto Maturana and Adolfo Albán points to the idea that the problems we face are not simply technical or knowledge-based, but deeply rooted in the very conditions of our existence. This perspective shifts the focus from solving isolated problems to addressing the larger, interconnected issues of sustainability, social justice, and community well-being. It’s a call for designers to take a normative stance asking not just how to make things work, but how things ought to be in a world that increasingly demands social, political, and ecological responsibility.

As design becomes a tool for envisioning alternative futures, this question prompts designers to reconsider their role in shaping not just products or services, but the very world in which those products exist. It invites designers to be part of a broader, more inclusive process of social transformation.

# data[].attributes.body
The text "Designs for the Pluriverse" discusses the relationship between design and our society. Historically and still today, design is a reflection of our society, politics, and technological evolution. It represents a response to the innovations andchanges in the world. By analyzing design, we can deduce a lot of information about the world we live in. What I wonder is how architects can use the awareness of this connection between society and design. Where do we position ourselves within this system? To make this question more clear, I will provide some examples: Is our role to shape the connection between society and design, to influence society in a way that creates new design, or is it our task to act on design itself to initiate a societal change?  These questions touch on the heart of the designer’s role in contemporary times. It challenges us to consider whether our work is simply responding to external forces or whether it plays an active role in shaping the future of both design and society.

# data[].attributes.body
How can design move away from a purely functionalist/ market-driven approach to become a tool that actively supports marginalized communities and ecological transitions? If ontological design is about fostering interconnectedness, knowledge, and action, is there a specific approach that designers/ urban planners can implement to ensure that this philosophy translates into tangible changes in cities and communities? As we’ve already discussed, capitalism and existing power structures are giving major constraints, and are there some realistic steps that can be taken to integrate these principles into mainstream urban planning without losing their transformative potential?

# data[].attributes.body
The chapter shows that if we plan without considering local traditions and people’s feelings, it can lead to a sense of disconnection and a loss of identity. Although we as architects are often emotionally motivated and inspired, these emotions are often ignored in the planning process. When our own feelings and those of the people affected by the design are left out, we overlook important parts of their culture. In my opinion, this approach should be the basis for all our design work. This way, we ensure that we not only create functional solutions but also respect and strengthen identity and community.

# data[].attributes.body
The text «Designs for the Pluriverse” by Arturo Escobar was written in 2018. Design is seen as a tool that promotes social justice and environmental sustainability by incorporating plural perspectives. These designs should recognize diverse ways of life and knowledge systems and respect the functioning of people and ecosystems. They should be developed with a far-sighted view, not just from the angle of the western, capitalist world. “Design for transitions” promotes social, cultural and ecological transformations and strives for coexistence in harmony with nature and different cultures. In this pluriverse, different cultures, worldviews and types of knowledge coexist without one dominating the other.

When planning a new climate park in Copenhagen, design was used as a driving force for social change. The interdisciplinary collaboration of different professional groups on an equal footing enabled new, innovative approaches that a specialist expert alone would not have been able to develop. Different stakeholders were involved, which is important in the development of urban planning or architectural projects. Designers have the role of facilitators and mediators, not technical experts. Design should be user-centered, participative, collaborative and contextual. I believe that this alternative approach should definitely be pursued further.

To what extent can digital technologies be used as supporting media in changing design processes? In response to the questions from the text “Does it matter whether we engage in activities collectively in the neighborhood or in the solitude of our individual rooms in nuclear homes? Whether we dance and make music with others or listen to it in silence through our earphones?” I would answer with a clear yes, especially with regard to our mental health, as social contacts strengthen our well-being. We should ask ourselves: How do we want to shape our world and what kind of future do we want as human beings?

# data[].attributes.body
The shift in the approach to design, it becoming more sensitive to the environment and to human needs, it becoming more participatory and collaborative sounds like a better standpoint. I question if we must continue designing endlessly, as we are therefore contributing to the capitalist system and correlating problematic, or if there is a way not to do this. Does design always have to mean production and consumption?

# data[].attributes.body
Reading Arturo Escobar's text made me think directly of the artist Grace Ndiritu, whose practice I have been exploring in the design studio this semester.

Both Arturo Escobar in Design for the Pluriverse and Grace Ndiritu in Healing the Museum deal with the question of how existing systems - be it design or the museum - can be made more human-centered. Both criticize the fact that Western institutions often create abstract, technocratic or elitist structures that have little to do with people's real needs and experiences.

Escobar calls for a design that is not just functional or market-oriented, but is socially embedded and adapted to local contexts. Instead of a universal, often Eurocentric design logic, he advocates a pluriversal approach in which different forms of knowledge and ways of life are taken into account.

Ndiritu pursues a similar idea in the field of museums. She criticizes the fact that museums are often distanced, static places that force the public into a passive role. With Healing the Museum, she is trying to turn museums back into spaces of experience and interaction through performative, participatory and spiritual practices. In doing so, she calls for a more people-friendly museum that not only preserves knowledge but also actively engages with its visitors.

To what extent is a genuine transformation of design possible within Western institutions? Or do pluriversal approaches and spiritual practices end up being merely superficial “additions” to existing structures without really changing them?

As an architect, how do you ensure that the design is intelligible and understandable and that you do not project your own views and perspectives onto the project?

# data[].attributes.body
The author achieves to capture the reader’s attention by introducing his notions through various extracts from “One Hundred Years of Solitude”. His initial description of our current situation was inspiring to read, arguing how certain aspects of our practice and academic discourse have been heavily influenced by neoliberal models and our incapacity of imagining anything else as an alternative. It reminded me of “Capitalism Realism” by Mark Fisher – a (definitely provoking and controversial) book that explores how an alternative to the current economic system is basically unconceivable by our society, feeling like there is “no alternative” to our eyes, ultimately blocking development.

While reading this extract, I’ve tried to connect Arturo Escobar’s arguments with our current academic subjects. The dire need to change the perspective of design, by shifting from a purely technocratic mindset to a participatory, mediating approach, has been debated and (probably) settled in the field (or theory) of urban design. Planning models have already been criticized heavily: the dominant “rational model” from the 50s, who relied on a technocratic and purely scientific approach, has been described as too positivistic, ignoring fundamental societal, historical and political aspects. Not only has the definition of urban design changed, but also the role of the planner itself – From a quantitative, all-knowing scientist, to a political “lawyer” defending the weaker actors, to the mediator of a public debate without expert knowledge.

Arturo Escobar’s points aren’t new to a contemporary practitioner – So another question arises. Have his aspects been applied in our architectonical field? Participatory processes are being organised in some fairly sized competitions for public works, but have the underlying conditions mentioned in the text been challenged by the existing mechanisms and our current comprehension of these problems? I would argue against it. We are all aware of it, but this movement is restricted to a purely theoretical basis. Therefore, my thoughts are directed towards how to actually implement these notions into our every-day practice with greater effect – And for that to work, we need an extremely precise discussion about the underlying economical, societal and political conditions of every case study, avoiding generalization and simplicity.

# data[].attributes.body
The reading takes a critical look at how urban design today is mainly driven by capitalist interests. Design isn’t seen as a tool for social change anymore; it’s just used to maintain the existing power structures. What’s especially troubling is how design no longer encourages critical thinking and has become part of consumer culture. The text calls for design to return to its roots as a transformative force, challenging societal norms and actually creating real change, instead of just serving the economic goals of the wealthy.

So can design, as long as it's stuck in this system, ever really drive change, or is it always just going to be a tool for keeping the same power structures in place?

# data[].attributes.body
Expert-driven designs are a clear top-down imposition of certain ways of seeing and doing, led by the designers’ own biases through the contextual development of their formation and practice, which at the same time tend to be self-overlooked.

However, participatory design also needs from the presence of a large variety of positions—or expertise—in other to reach a way of doing that reflects plurality. What is then the role of the diverse experts, not necessarily meaning ‘people that have different educational degrees’, in participatory design? Until which degree does certain ‘expert knowledge’ weight more than other opinions when talking about specific topics in the design process?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text by Arturo Escobar, the author explores the concept of design and the ways in which the thinking and practices of design are changing in theoretical discourse and in practice. The text examines the effects of rapid global transformation and after a review of literature on the place of design in this world, it continues to question its social and societal role as well as its transformative power. In equal measure it is also a broadening of the term design to include, beyond the “functionalist, rationalistic, and industrial traditions from which it emerged, and within which it still functions, (…) a type of rationality and set of practices attuned to the relational dimension of life.” This, of course, I would agree is an essential and often neglected part of design as a concept, sometimes even as a practice. However, at the same time this seems a broad treatment of the question—how can one define the relational in such a context of constant transformation? How can design as a practice position itself in a space of constant motion?

Escobar treats this question by examining design as an ontological practice through areas of change and intersection with a special focus on the Global South and the ways in which design can increase communal autarky, out of the traditional market-focus.

In the first chapter, Escobar traces the understanding of design and its anthropological role. The striking quote “design is a key element in who we become because of the kinds of practices designed objects and tools call on us to perform,” summarises his stance on the significance on design. The author draws upon historical developments to highlight how this has been true and also how the tendency of design was to move with modernity more to the professional field and away from being a more horizontal social function. In this he sees a loss but also a simultaneous expansion of design through all the spheres of life. Escobar advocates for a more inclusive approach and understanding. He examines “a shift to people-centered” design. This is naturally creditable, however the question is how does one practically apply such concepts? How can one make the design of the city more people-centred? What can one do to create a city that would be designed to be in a constant negotiation between its inhabitants and their experiences?

# data[].attributes.body
As I read the story of Macondo, I couldn’t help but wonder: What happens when the world begins to change faster than we can make sense of it? When inventions arrive not quietly, but with spectacle, lightbulbs glowing through the night, films where the dead return in new roles, voices speaking from strange machines?

The people of Macondo aren’t naïve. Their reactions, bewilderment, anger, rejection, are deeply human. They sense that these machines are not just tools, but symbols of a new order. And as the mayor declares the cinema a “machine of illusions,” we see how quickly wonder becomes something to be governed.

Today, we find ourselves again in Macondo only now with artificial intelligence. Machines no longer just projiect stories they write them. They compose, draw, speak.

Much like when the first camera arrived and painters feared the end of art, we now ask: Will AI replace us? Or will it force us to redefine what it means to create?

Still, unease lingers. Who controls these systems? Who decides what truth they simulate? And what happens to human expression when illusion is no longer imposed, but personalized?

And maybe that’s what the people of Macondo remind us of: that what overwhelms us is not the invention itself, but what it demands from us. They stayed up all night staring at the lightbulbs, not because of what they did, but because of what they meant. A sense of something larger arriving. Of the world shifting under their feet.

Just like them, we too are standing in that in-between space between disbelief and desire, between control and awe. Our machines grow more powerful, but perhaps we haven’t changed all that much. We still project, still fear, still long for something we can’t quite name.

So the question remains: If the people of Macondo once broke the cinema seats out of protest against illusion, what will we break, when the illusions come from within us, wearing our own voice?

# data[].attributes.body
The problem with Design influencing both objects and the ways people live, is in my opinion rooted in its contract like nature. On one side in practice, work is mostly commisioned, on the other hand users/consumers get in cont(r)act with an object through usage. The text is clear about the interesst in human-centered, context-aware design. Alltough i regard the claims as highly valid and important in contemorary context, i‘m criticizing the argumentative structure of the text and the lack of defining the Term of Design in its definition.

# data[].attributes.body
The relation between social status and technology - on a global level, but also in one country, one society, one neighborhood, ... - stands exemplary for bigger, social questions of marginalization, which is one part of the age of crisis, that is also mentioned in the text.

While more technology was desirable for a long time, we now have reached a point where we need to ask ourselves: Is more technology always better? Is sometimes the lack of technology, but the human/ social/ environmental surplus, the better option after all? What is progress in this age of global crisis? And then, how can we as designers shape and implement these ideas in todays world?

# data[].attributes.body
In his text, Arturo Escobar highlights several critical issues, raising questions about marginality, capitalism, and design. While he engages with ontology in philosophical terms, he does not specify which ontological traits are most relevant to his reflection. His discussion touches on well-being and the pursuit of mutually enhancing relationships, both among people and with the Earth, a concept that deserves to be at the heart of this discourse.

Design is here critiqued as an all-powerful tool, yet in reality, it reflects existing ways of living. What the text lacks, however, is a shift in perspective, from the systemic to the individual. Change in design cannot occur without first transforming how we engage with it. For an ontologically grounded design to emerge, users must cultivate a deeper, more intimate relationship with the built environment, taking responsibility for its form, maintenance, and use.

One notable shortcoming in this text, and in many intellectual circles, is the absence of a human-scale perspective. Grand visions for systemic change remain insufficient without a corresponding shift in individual behavior. The real transformation must begin with how we relate to our surroundings, rejecting the notion of built spaces as static, impersonal backdrops for which we bear no accountability. The same applies to how we engage with our communities.

At the end of this text, I am asking myself two questions:

What specific ontological traits, such as relationality, interdependence, or care, should inform a design philosophy that prioritizes mutual well-being between humans and the Earth?

And more importantly:

How can design foster a sense of shared responsibility and agency among users, shifting from passive consumption to active participation in shaping the built environment?

# data[].attributes.body
Who we are and who we become and the ways we establish relationships with the people, places, and objects around us are results of design. Escobar suggests in Designs for the Pluriverse that relational modes of knowing, being and doing are increasingly important as the world becomes more complex with the pervasion of new technologies, materials and capitalism into many aspects of our lives. He explains that designers should develop new collaborative and participatory methods to support the autonomy of communities, especially those under struggle. Are there ways that we can adopt existing relational methods practiced by these communities while still working within the very systems that created disparities in the first place? Thinking in terms of relationality also necessitates thinking in terms of reciprocity; if we take or adapt these design methods, how can we ensure we give something in return and how can this giving be incorporated into the design practice?

# data[].attributes.body
The perspective of understanding design as a driving force for social and ecological change challenges us as architects to think beyond the purely functional aspect. Escobar's critique of design's role in capitalist and colonial structures encourages us to view design as a tool for transformative change – not merely for problem-solving, but as an active process of reshaping societies and their values.

The question of how design can contribute to the cultural and political autonomy of marginalized communities challenges us to make design more inclusive and participatory. It's not just about designing physical spaces but also about fostering social processes that can integrate both social responsibility and ecological sustainability. How can we, as architects, develop a practice that not only provides functional solutions but also balances the social, cultural, and ecological dimensions, while catalyzing genuine change?

# data[].attributes.body
When I read the text, the first thing that brings me joy is the introduction with Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the descriptions of Macondo, and the way book quotes make a topic feel so much more tangible and relatable—allowing it to decay right in the middle of life.

As I continue reading, I find myself reflecting on the question of good or bad in technology. I can relate to many examples in the text, such as the feeling of disappointment when the initial hype around a new device fades and it suddenly feels somewhat dull or the example when digital music cannot capture the real feeling of live music. However, I wonder whether romanticizing the past risks overlooking the positive aspects of progress—whether in technology or capitalism - and thereby becomes untrustworthy. Today, we can access knowledge from all over the world, virtually walk through Lagos in seconds (via Maps), stay in touch with friends in Paris (while still visiting them in person from time to time, which is crucial), or tap into Wikipedia’s vast knowledge.

Of course, there are counterarguments—it's a problem to constantly reach for our phones, skim through everything, and never truly retain information—but there are advantages too, and I feel they are sometimes overlooked. In a way, isn't IKEA also a form of democratizing design?

Another point I find interesting is the relationship between experts and laypeople.

Naturally, designing in a user-centered way is the right approach—really understanding what is needed and what isn’t, focusing on problem-finding rather than problem-solving. But it gets interesting when we consider the role of experts —how valuable is their experience and education in contributing to solutions compared to someone with no prior knowledge in the field?

I feel that, at its core, it is about asking more questions, understanding what people truly need (maybe even helping them to find out), and critically assessing assignments rather than blindly producing. Not explaining, but understanding as the driving force of insight. Still, I believe experts should continue to play a crucial role in finding solutions. The word "facilitator" captures this well—someone who understands what others need and then applies their skills to meet those needs.

# data[].attributes.body
When I read the text, the first thing that brings me joy is the introduction with Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the descriptions of Macondo, and the way book quotes make a topic feel so much more tangible and relatable—allowing it to decay right in the middle of life.

As I continue reading, I find myself reflecting on the question of good or bad in technology. I can relate to many examples in the text, such as the feeling of disappointment when the initial hype around a new device fades and it suddenly feels somewhat dull or the example when digital music cannot capture the real feeling of live music. However, I wonder whether romanticizing the past risks overlooking the positive aspects of progress—whether in technology or capitalism - and thereby becomes untrustworthy. Today, we can access knowledge from all over the world, virtually walk through Lagos in seconds (via Maps), stay in touch with friends in Paris (while still visiting them in person from time to time, which is crucial), or tap into Wikipedia’s vast knowledge.

Of course, there are counterarguments—it's a problem to constantly reach for our phones, skim through everything, and never truly retain information—but there are advantages too, and I feel they are sometimes overlooked. In a way, isn't IKEA also a form of democratizing design?

Another point I find interesting is the relationship between experts and laypeople.

Naturally, designing in a user-centered way is the right approach—really understanding what is needed and what isn’t, focusing on problem-finding rather than problem-solving. But it gets interesting when we consider the role of experts —how valuable is their experience and education in contributing to solutions compared to someone with no prior knowledge in the field?

I feel that, at its core, it is about asking more questions, understanding what people truly need (maybe even helping them to find out), and critically assessing assignments rather than blindly producing. Not explaining, but understanding as the driving force of insight. Still, I believe experts should continue to play a crucial role in finding solutions. The word "facilitator" captures this well—someone who understands what others need and then applies their skills to meet those needs.

# data[].attributes.body
The text in question refers to a - personal - approach to understanding design as the materialization of the dominant political and economic power structures. In this perspective, one can speak of archidictature, a semantic combination of architecture and dictatorship.

An ontological approach to design implies a deep understanding of the status quo and the way our existential environment influences and manipulates our sociocultural constructs. Only with this awareness can we free ourselves from archidictature, the product of the current neoliberal Eurocentric capitalist system, as criticized by Escobar.

To free ourselves from this condition means recognizing the diversity and interdependence that shape the complexity of our existential space. It means accepting that, although we, as architects, are trained to understand this complexity and thus orient it, we do not have the right to manipulate it as a whole. I believe it is our duty to acknowledge its autonomy and allow space for the spontaneous appropriation and co-formation of this environment, overcoming a dictatorial and disconnected vision of spatial configuration.

# data[].attributes.body
The text emphasizes the evolving role of design in shaping not only products but also societal structures, human experiences, and environmental sustainability. This concept of ontological design is particularly striking, highlighting that design influences ways of being and living, reflecting deeper power dynamics. Design under capitalism often reinforces inequality and environmental harm, with Escobar suggesting a need for design to prioritize inclusivity, community, and sustainability over profitability.Key ideas of pluriversal design include the shift from consumer-driven to socially responsible and sustainable design, and the emergence of participatory practices that challenge traditional capitalist frameworks.

How feasible is it, within neoliberal capitalism, to include marginalized voices in decision-making and design processes, especially in large-scale spatial design and planning? How could pluriversal design be applied on a large scale by those in power without diluting its radical potential? This question connects to the last session's Yalla project and the reading of bell hooks.

# data[].attributes.body
Design is something that has continuously evolved over time, shaped not only by creativity but also by the society and system in which it exists, particularly capitalism. Both production and consumption strongly influence how we design, and how we are taught to design. As the text illustrates, technology plays a major role in shaping our practices, identities, and ways of being, something as simple as the arrival of a TV can transform social life.

Limitations often lead to innovation. When existing solutions no longer work, or when we are constrained by certain conditions, we are pushed to reflect and seek out new ways of thinking and creating.

The text presents four emerging frameworks that push us to rethink design more deeply: ontological design, transition design, social innovation, and autonomous design. These approaches emphasize that design is not just about objects, but about how those objects shape human behavior, culture, and social systems. There is a transformative potential in design that calls for more inclusive, reflective, and context-sensitive practices.

While reading the text, it made me wonder:

As societies become increasingly cosmopolitan, with a diversity of communities and ways of living, is it possible for us as architects and designers to truly include every community in our work or is it more respectful and effective to allow some communities to remain culturally distinct and design differently for every community?

# data[].attributes.body
The use and definition of design has been influenced by the period of industrialization, which gave rise to Western modernity, and led to capital-centered development and globalization. In today's context of multiple crises, a social and political transformation is needed, which can be achieved by using this tool, this time centered on the user and shifting from the definition of the designer as the expert, according to the anthropologist Arturo Escobar. The universalism of modernity gives rise to the erasure of diversity, which can be modified by the redefinition and use of more inclusive and autonomous design. How can we detach ourselves from our capitalist society leading to standardization through pluriversal and more contextual design and how to apply this strategy in a larger-urban scale? This approach leading to diversity of solutions, how to establish a methodology of the application of the pluriversal strategy in order to guide without controlling?

# data[].attributes.body
The world we live in is globalised and full of contradictions. The market, the quest for profits, speed - these are the concepts that guide the world and are detached from the global challenges we face today. The various crises we are going through - climatic, social, economic - are of major interest, but don't seem to be the priority.

Design is all around us, everything that surrounds us is the fruit of human reflection. Thanks to its central position, design could be a key element in a societal transition. Arturo Escobar's text, Design for the Pluriverse, questions the place that design should take. Could it be more responsive to today's global challenges?

Re-questioning design means re-questioning society as a whole, because of course design should evolve and adapt better to social and environmental needs, but this requires a more global questioning of our way of life and political interventions. So my question is this: Through design, could we initiate a transition? Or is it through politics that this is played out?

# data[].attributes.body
the text talks about how design in a capitalistic and modernistic system is done and how it thus influences our behaviour. the author demands a different ontological approach for design that should correspond more on the humans and the people that actually get affected by it. For me however it is kind of unclear what exactly he is proposing. On one hand he’s advocating for a kind of design that is not service based and profit driven but I question if this is even possible in the existing economic and political environment. On the other hand it seems really easy to demand a more bottom up solution where everybody should design what is best for them and taking responsibility for it when not advocating for a systemic change. For me this argument follows exactly this political system that leads to the kind of design that is that, service based and profit driven. I agree that design practices should shift towards a more ontological and locality based approach but I don’t see a real solution proposal or a convincing way how to do it in this text.

# data[].attributes.body
Transformation is on the horizon, one that moves toward inclusivity, collaboration and contextualization, creating a way for autonomy and social justice. Unfortunately, changing is a long process, capitalist structures makes it difficult to integrate new approaches in « traditional » urban planification. Nowadays, design serves the economic goals of the wealthy. I’m wondering how we could use ontological design to reshape the system and put in motion this change for communities.

If design remains trapped in this system, can it truly change ? How can it become a tool for different power structures ?

# data[].attributes.body
As Escobar writes, design fully integrated into the neoliberal model of capitalism. He also mentions that the political economy of technology and design are the main driving force for the whirlwind of modernity.

Could technologies designed in and for market forces be used to create communal forms of autonomy, reimagining or reinventing the human for a post-capitalist system and post-capitalist human relations?

# data[].attributes.body
The capitalist system is based on a design approach that is driven by market forces and profit. This often leads to power imbalances where corporations and a small group of people have a lot of control. It doesn't consider the needs of non-humans, marginalized groups, and the environment. Escobar's ideas are interesting because he says that design should focus on the community, sustainability, and inclusivity. This is different from the current focus on profit and efficiency.

But grassroots efforts and bottom-up initiatives face significant hurdles within capitalist economies, where global market forces continue to reign supreme. As a result, many of these initiatives are short-lived and struggle to create lasting change. This raises an important question: How can inclusive, non-profit design proposals flourish and contribute to social transformation without being influenced by capitalism? Or is design always affected by the economy, meaning we have to deal with capitalism while still trying to change it? In architectural education, I see a special chance to question and break free from the most common stories, make marginalized voices louder, and encourage social change. But the real challenge is how to apply these ideas in real architectural projects.

# data[].attributes.body
Inclusivity in design goes beyond simply making spaces accessible. It’s about creating environments that reflect and serve the diverse needs of all people. As Escobar argues, design must engage with social, cultural, and environmental contexts to be truly inclusive. This means shifting away from the one-size-fits-all approach often dictated by capitalist systems, which prioritize profit over people, to one that centers community, equity, and participation. In architecture, inclusivity requires designing spaces that are not only accessible but also empowering for marginalized groups, offering them agency and voice in the design process. It calls for recognizing the value of local knowledge and cultural diversity, ensuring that designs do not impose external norms but celebrate and uplift the unique identities and needs of communities. However, I believe true inclusivity also involves confronting the power structures that shape design raising the question: How can designers and architects create spaces and objects that actively resist these systems and promote genuine inclusivity, where everyone, regardless of background, can thrive?

# data[].attributes.body
The author wants us to change how we design things. Instead of one design for everyone, he suggests "design for the pluriverse." This means designing for many different ways of life and respecting how different cultures see the world. He says we need to stop thinking humans are the center of everything and design with nature and all living things in mind. We should create designs that help different groups of people, and nature, live together better. Essentially, he wants design to help build many worlds, not just one.

"How can we design things that work well for everyone, even when people have very different ideas about what's important?"

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar places design at the heart of social and political transformation. In his view, design practices are not neutral: they reflect and reproduce power relations and social structures. From this perspective, design should encourage practices of resistance to colonial, capitalist and extractivist logics.

Who has access to design?

A parallel can be drawn between the two practices of architecture and design. These two fields are interested in the same concepts and have an impact on their environments, on two different scales. However, unlike architecture, the practice of design as we know it remains a privileged discipline that is out of everyone's reach, and owes its success to capitalism and consumerism.

Escobar argues that design must be reoriented to serve the goals of sustainability, collective well-being and environmental justice. This includes design practices that take account of long-term ecological and social impact, and that promote more balanced lifestyles that respect the planet. How can we unravel this superior position it now embodies in order to have a positive impact and evolve freely, integrating values of social justice, sustainability and respect for ontological diversity?

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar’s text raises critical questions about the way design operates within broader political, economic, and cultural structures. He challenges the dominance of universal, top-down approaches that often disregard local needs, traditions, and ways of living. This is particularly relevant in both product design and architecture, where standardization and market-driven models tend to override more context-sensitive, inclusive approaches.

One of the key takeaways is that design is never neutral. It always reflects underlying power structures and societal values. Architecture, in particular, has historically been shaped by economic pressures and dominant ideologies, often reinforcing existing inequalities rather than addressing them. While discussions around participatory and sustainable design have gained traction, the real challenge lies in translating these ideas into practice. The question remains: how can architecture and design actively resist standardization and become tools for meaningful social and cultural transformation rather than simply adapting to market demands?

To move forward, it is necessary to critically examine the systems that shape design processes and explore alternative models that prioritize local knowledge, collaboration, and environmental responsibility. However, this requires not just theoretical reflection but concrete strategies for implementation: how can these ideas be integrated into architectural practice on a larger scale without being reduced to mere tokenism?

# data[].attributes.body
Previously taken-for granted practices, from child rearing to eating to self development and of course the economy, became the object of this explicit calculation and theorisation, opening the door to their designing.

In short, with the development of expert knowledge and modern institutions, social norms were sundered from the life-world and defined heteronomously through expert-driven processes; they were no longer generated by communities from within (ontonomy) nor through open political processes at the local level (autonomy).

The quote by Arturo Escobar describes the increasing functionalisation of architecture starting from the time of industrialisation with it reaching it’s peak in modernism. The theorising of the components of life and their transformation into efficient layouts and plans reminds me strongly of Susan Henderson's text "A Revolution in the Woman's Sphere: Grete Lihotzky and the Frankfurt Kitchen" (1966). She thematises the fact that the Frankfurt Kitchen made household processes easier, but led to a double burden for the woman, as she now had more time to pursue a job.  Important elements such as having a relationship with the family while cooking were not taken into account in the extremely limited kitchen space. Instead of asking the future users what was important to them, calculations and theoretical dimensions were used to determine the size and work platforms.

Today, I notice that less of our lifestyles are theorised and packed into floor plans as efficiently as possible in order to optimise our time. The driving factor in most building projects seems to be economic efficiency. It is no longer a question of whether a tap is easy to use, but whether it is the cheapest. To put it bluntly our ways of life and the built environment are no longer controlled by experts, but by money. I recognise Escobar's argument that a change is needed that goes beyond capitalism, but for me many of the other problems are also linked to money. The homes of the modern age were designed to be as efficient as possible for capitalist reasons, for example, to enable more working hours.

Now the question is how design can facilitate this radical change. I certainly see potential in Escobar's statement that the architect must become a mediator. However, I think that the concept of mediator needs to be broadened at this point and can be applied not only in relation to society, but must also mediate between the economy, the experts and nature.

In order to bring about radical change, large-scale projects are required, big top-down interventions as well as bottom-up initiatives. -> All these things have to be negotiated and the architect/designer has the responsibility to lead this negotiation between the different parties and interests.

# data[].attributes.body
We are at a critical point where design and architecture must evolve beyond mere functionality or aesthetics. As Escobar points out, an ontological shift is needed—one that views design not as creating objects but as reshaping relationships between people, communities, and the environment. This shift requires moving away from industrial, rationalist approaches and embracing sustainability, inclusivity, and justice.

In architecture, this means designing spaces that foster community and connection, rather than reinforcing the extractive dynamics of capitalism. The challenge is how to design for social change while operating within capitalist systems that commodify our built environment. Architects and designers must not only create but also act as catalysts for transformation, ensuring that designs are rooted in care, collaboration, and the collective good.

The ontological shift in design is not just a theoretical ideal but a practical challenge: How can we move from profit-driven models to ones that prioritize justice and human flourishing?

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar redefines design as an ontological and political practice, one that goes beyond aesthetics or function to shape ways of being and relating in the world. He critiques Western, capitalist paradigms of design and draws inspiration from the struggles of Indigenous and marginalized communities in Latin America. For Escobar, “design for transitions” centers on autonomy, relationality, and care. Design becomes a tool for imagining and constructing alternative futures grounded in local knowledge and collective life projects.

But can such transformative design truly resist being co-opted by the very systems it seeks to change?

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar argues that a transformation is needed in our society. design is primarily understood as a practice that prescribes how things should be in order to optimally fulfill their function. At the same time, he describes design as a practice that cannot be viewed in isolation but is closely intertwined with technology, science, capitalism, and (the western) culture. On a meta level, design is not only a symbol of progress but also a symbol of colonialism.

The darker side of design becomes evident when one considers that it carries with it certain values, hierarchies, and polarities. This implies that the concept of design must be fundamentally questioned and a new methodology developed - one in which the focus is no longer on the object, but on the person behind it: “it becomes a medium in the service of society.”

Although this approach makes sense in principle, it remains questionable whether it is realistic. Even today, there are certain efforts to make design more inclusive. However, when trying to please everyone, what works for one group may represent a deficit for another.

Can design change society or wouldn't it require radical changes in our society before we can rethink design? Or do both go hand in hand?

# data[].attributes.body
How did design move so far away from its origins in craftsmanship, knowledge of how to do things, and practices connected to a specific place? The current dominant design ideas - often abstract, universal, and standardised - did not come from a shared global experience, but from a small part of history that started in Western European elite institutions. This meant that knowledge about how to make things by hand was ignored, as was the importance of communities and places. Theory was given more importance than understanding how things are made in the tangible world. Design knowledge became disconnected from the practical world - from the hands, materials, and contexts that once defined it.

What knowledge was left out when design became a discipline? Whose worldviews shaped its foundations, and whose were ignored or erased? Can we still call it a global practice if it evolved through such a narrow perspective? What does "Western-centric" really mean, when even within the "West" it reflects a small group of elite, academic, and cultural gatekeepers? How can we change this so that design is about many different cultures and ways of knowing and making things?

This text asks how such a narrow history came to define what we think of as "good design" today, and how we can move away from this by focusing again on relationships, local ways of designing the world, and the many different ways of doing things.

# data[].attributes.body
An ontological approach to design necessitates a profound understanding of the existing socio-political order and the ways in which our built environment shapes and reinforces cultural and societal structures. Only through this awareness can we move beyond what Escobar critiques as "architecturalism"—a manifestation of the current neoliberal, Eurocentric capitalist system.

To challenge this condition, it is essential to acknowledge the diversity and interdependence that define the complexity of our lived spaces. This requires accepting that, while architects are trained to comprehend and navigate these complexities, we do not possess the authority to fully control them. Instead, we bear the responsibility of recognizing the autonomy of spatial environments and fostering conditions that allow for spontaneous occupation and collective formation. In doing so, we can move away from authoritarian and disconnected approaches to spatial configuration.

How can urban design strategies promote greater inclusivity and adaptability, resisting the imposition of rigid power structures? In what ways can architects balance the necessity of planning with the unpredictability and organic evolution of urban spaces?

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar claims that the “civilizational model of patriarchal Western capitalist modernity” must be fundamentally revised and advocates for radical change. Design should play a role in facilitating the transition from a “functional, rationalistic, and industrial tradition” toward a practice more in tune with a “relational” dimension. He criticizes a purely “technocratic” and “market-oriented” design approach and questions our ability to enable a transition to a “fulfilling and environmentally responsible life” within the capitalist neoliberal logic that, in his eyes, is responsible for the problems we are facing in the first place. Instead of a top-down, “expert-driven” practice that focuses only on the production of objects, he pleads for a “participatory, socially oriented, [and] open-ended” process.

The way I interpret this text, the author is advocating for a more activist and generalist understanding of design practice—a facilitator that can assemble all concerned parties around the table and mediate between different interests. How should the educational preparation of designers change to achieve this shift in perspective?

Escobar also acknowledges that the shift toward an alternative “civilizational model” that is no longer ruled by neoliberal logic is a transitional process rather than an abrupt change. How is it possible to change the design approach toward this more holistic and activist understanding if, at the beginning of this transitional process, designers will still be operating within a market-driven environment? Will there be a “first generation” of designers who must make some sort of sacrifice to set this transitional process into motion?

# data[].attributes.body
The text argues that design is more than just creating objects it shapes how we live and interact with the world. It challenges the old, market-driven way of thinking about design and instead suggests that we adopt a more relational and community-focused approach. Drawing on Arturo Escobar’s idea of “designs for the pluriverse,” the reading encourages us to see design as a tool that can support diverse ways of living and thinking. In this view, every design choice is not merely technical but also affects our culture, social relationships, and connection to nature.

How can designers take Escobar’s idea of the pluriverse and use it to create everyday practices that build stronger community ties and respect for the social environment?

# data[].attributes.body
In Designs for the Pluriverse by Arturo Escobar, it is written that “...modern design articulated a new view of the intersection of art, materials, and technology at the same time that it instilled in working people new ways of living through the design of lived environments and the functionality of objects.” Today, discussions and concerns surrounding technology seem to far outweigh those about art and materials. This once intertwined, spiralling relationship appears to have been disrupted. We are living in an age of reproduction – yet this reproduction, once generated by humans, now seems increasingly likely to be taken over by technology. It is a kind of neutral, simplified reality, an era where everything can seemingly be explained in a single sentence. Language begins to replace the thing itself. What does this imbalance between art, materials, and technology mean for us?

# data[].attributes.body
Design has been deeply intertwined with capitalism and politics, shaping and being shaped by the economic and political structures. The rise of industrial design in the 20th century, particularly through movements such as modernism and functionalism, reflected a vision of progress centered on mass production and economic growth. However, this alignment with capitalism has also led to significant ethical concerns, particularly with regard to environmental sustainability, social inequality, and cultural homogenization.

One could argue that conventional sustainable design often operates within the same capitalist framework (that tends to be only green-washing) that created the environmental and social problems it seeks to address. This approach fails to address the root causes of unsustainable practices, resulting in superficial solutions rather than systemic change. As a result, some scholars and designers are calling for a radical redefinition of design, emphasizing participatory, human-centered, and regenerative approaches that prioritize social and environmental well-being over profit.

If design is to truly contribute to a better future, how can it break free from the constraints of capitalism and promote true sustainability?

# data[].attributes.body
Design dictates our daily lives, be it products, media, or even architecture. Since the dawn of humanity, tools have shaped our very human existence. However, as the text points out, at one moment in history, design crossed the threshold from innovation to capitalist pursuit. Ultimately, the text calls for a more bottom-up approach that focuses on social and environmental sensitivity rather than pure economic calculation.

Can a completely bottom-up design process, without the involvement of experts, work in today's world, which is irrevocably dependent on technology? As mentioned in the text, the goal of modernization was to create a more efficient way of producing in order to spread technology throughout society. Could this type of design also be interpreted as a way to make technology accessible to everyone, regardless of socio-economic background? Without sacrificing the current level of technology, how can society and experts work together to design according to people's needs rather than economics?

# data[].attributes.body
Design and architecture are deeply political, shaping our societies and built environments. From García Márquez's Macondo to contemporary cities, industrialization and globalization continuously redefine urban landscapes. While past design approaches prioritized functionality, today's focus has shifted toward participation, sustainability, and collective community design. However, this raises fundamental questions about design's role within a capitalist system.

Escobar argues that design is not neutral; it reflects values, hierarchies, and power structures, making it both a tool of progress and a symbol of colonialism. The challenge is how to create socially responsible design within a framework that prioritizes profit. Efforts toward inclusivity exist, but true equity is difficult to achieve when different groups have conflicting needs.

A shift away from consumerist and capitalistic constraints is necessary, emphasizing relational and ontological approaches to design. Escobar’s vision of a pluriverse suggests a way forward: embracing multiple realities and perspectives to foster broad participation and diverse possibilities, rather than imposing a singular model. However, ensuring that these ideas are not co-opted by dominant systems remains a challenge.

Moreover, history shows that human societies have always balanced egoism with social agency. If capitalism inherently favors profit-driven decision-making, is a truly social design approach even possible within it? Cooperative housing and alternative models exist, yet they often become exclusive rather than transformative. How can architecture and urban planning navigate these tensions to create spaces that serve collective well-being rather than perpetuate inequality?

Can architecture and urban planning genuinely foster social and environmental justice within a capitalist framework, or does meaningful change require a fundamental restructuring of economic and political systems?

# data[].attributes.body
Design is political, cultural and relational. It’s not just about aesthetics or products. It’s about shaping how we live and relate to the world.

The idea that design is ontological and therefore shapes being struck me. That means the designs we create aren’t neutral, but they carry assumptions in what way we want to live. If we design for efficiency, growth and profit we reinforce a system that privileges certain values. How would the world look like if we designed for care, community and slowness far from our ways of living hyper fast that is obsessed with efficiency?

This can be linked to the marginalized communities in Latin America who try to defend their “life projects” against global forces. How can these alternative forms of design and knowledge survive global capitalism? Will they just become “trendy” design tools?

Escobar hopes that we might move from mindless development to mindfulness, from expert-driven design to collective, autonomous processes. Is this happening? Who gets to design the world and who gets to live in it? Can we architects design “with” instead of “for”? How does this way of designing look like? Participatory workshops? What might be some cons and difficulties? How can this method be implemented in practice and education? Maybe this course is an example that raises awareness in this contemporary way of thinking about design.

# data[].attributes.body
The text advocates an ontological approach to design: this refers to the idea that design not only creates external objects or products, but also influences the way people perceive the world, think, and act. But who determines these design decisions and based on what parameters? The author describes a global crisis (in all areas: economics, design, environment, etc.) and finds its origins in the patriarchal, Western, and capitalist model. The answer to this crisis: The book explores how design can contribute to the transformation of societies by promoting new forms of knowing, being, and acting. The ontological approach to design, which emphasizes relational knowledge and communal logics, is considered necessary to address current crises. Design must move away from rationalist, functionalist traditions and focus more on the relational dimensions of life present in indigenous and subaltern communities. In my opinion, however, there is no escape from this patriarchal, Western, and capitalist model: our "world system" will never be neutral; it will always have this background. What does it mean to shift design from a functionalist and rationalist perspective to an ontological, relational one? How would this directly impact design practice? Or rather, what behavior do we want to induce with an ontological design approach? Isn't this also a problematic approach?

# data[].attributes.body
What resonates is the call to reframe the purpose of design itself. From being a tool for object creation and service delivery to a vehicle for shaping collective well-being. How do we design for the complexity of life? Instead of simply pushing technical knowledge or market-driven progress, the text suggests that the real question is, “What do we want to happen to us?” This perspective should encourage participatory, open-ended strategies, that empower communities to co-create their futures rather than simply consume pre-packaged solutions, underlining the idea of displacing the traditional expert-driven process in favor of a design practice that centers on human context and community agency.

Instead of designing in a vacuum dictated by industry norms, the text urges us to consider how participatory, socially oriented strategies can lead to more environmentally responsible and meaningful outcomes. Challenging “business as usual,” and inviting us to reimagine design as a practice in the service of society. One that prizes human experience and interconnectedness over isolated technical advancement, shifting urban development from market-centric growth to prioritizing local identity and societal well-being.

How can urban designers meaningfully incorporate community voices into decision-making processes without tokenizing their participation?

# data[].attributes.body
"A key question becomes: how does one design for a complex world? Instead of keeping on filling the world with stuff, what design strategies will allow us— humans—to lead more meaningful and environmen-

tally responsible lives (Thackara 2004)?" really powerful sentence from chapter "Out of the Studio and into the Flow

of Socionatural Life". So I am thinking: How can Architecture schools free themselves of one design strategies? And maybe keep or gather studies of traditional building?

How can tradition be strengthened and passed on without showcasing it in world fairs - that is the symbol of colonism. How can tradition be strengthened in the global south without us western people telling them how to do so? Would a Foundation with money help and let them do what they want?

Could globalization (industrialization), technology development, capitalism and modernity not also be a chance for traditional and contemporary design? How could handcrafted jobs be promoted instead of the mass-produced gods?

# data[].attributes.body
"A key question becomes: how does one design for a complex world? Instead of keeping on filling the world with stuff, what design strategies will allow us— humans—to lead more meaningful and environmen-

tally responsible lives (Thackara 2004)?" really powerful sentence from chapter "Out of the Studio and into the Flow

of Socionatural Life". So I am thinking: How can Architecture schools free themselves of one design strategies? And maybe keep or gather studies of traditional building?

How can tradition be strengthened and passed on without showcasing it in world fairs - that is the symbol of colonism. How can tradition be strengthened in the global south without us western people telling them how to do so? Would a Foundation with money help and let them do what they want?

Could globalization (industrialization), technology development, capitalism and modernity not also be a chance for traditional and contemporary design? How could handcrafted jobs be promoted instead of the mass-produced gods?

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar's 'Designs for the Pluriverse' challenges us to fundamentally reimagine design, advocating for an approach to innovation that is powerful, effective, and broadly, universally accessible. Designs that foster a pluriverse, a world of many worlds starring diverse realities.

In a very basic, pure and critical perspective, we, humans, are inherently designers. Design is an integral aspect of human existence. Our very existence produces designs, which in turn shape our daily life experiences. It emerges from our innate desire to transform existing conditions and cultivate heightened sensitivities towards both environmental and human challenges.

However, the industrial era's interpretation of design has become excessively Western-centric, solidifying it as a central political tool to modernity. This model, often aligned with capitalist neoliberalism, has transformed design into a spectacle of development, characterized by high competitive cycles of excitement and disillusionment. Escobar critiques this trajectory, arguing that comparing past and present innovations is futile, as both serve as a kind of societal miraculous "drug" and problem solver.

In my opinion, is important the invitation Escobar does to see, believe and create a design away from the western, centric, neoliberal perspective. How ever, is somehow also romantizing it and not taking into account the negative impacts and 'bad designs'.

Considering the critique, how can we nowadays develop design methodologies, everyday experiences that genuinely embrace pluriversality, fostering diverse ontologies and respecting the autonomy of different cultural practices? How can we avoid the creation of forms of "bad designs" that perpetuate inequality or environmental harm?

# data[].attributes.body
Design has shifted from a peripheral concern to a central topic. The text challenges the notion that design should be driven by technology and capitalism, arguing instead for a perspective that recognizes the interconnectedness of things. Ontological design explores being, knowledge, and action, questioning how it can support marginalized communities in cultural and ecological transitions. Rather than serving only experts and markets, design should prioritize people, society, and the environment. It asks how design can foster better, more sustainable ways of living, emphasizing its role as a situated and interactive practice rooted in place and community.

# data[].attributes.body
The text critiques the functionalist, rationalistic, and industrial design traditions, advocating for a re-orientation toward a type of rationality attuned to the relational dimension of life. It posits that design is ontological, meaning that designed objects and services bring about particular ways of being, knowing, and doing. The text explores whether design's modernist tradition can be re-oriented from its dependence on the dualist ontology of patriarchal capitalist modernity toward relational modes of knowing, being, and doing.

How can designers make spaces and objects that go beyond resistance, actively reshaping and countering the dominant economic and political forces?

# data[].attributes.body
In architectural history, there are numerous examples of site-specific building techniques that respond to local materials, climatic conditions, and cultural needs. However, it seems that the focus of our studies still predominantly centers on a European or modernist perspective. While figures like Mies van der Rohe, the Bauhaus, and the Renaissance are explored in depth, engagement with non-Western architectural traditions often remains peripheral. Yet it is precisely these diverse approaches - often rooted in a deep understanding of materiality, atmosphere, and embodied experience- that could offer valuable insights for more sustainable and socially equitable architecture.

This also ties into the emotional and affective dimensions of architecture discussed in Design & the Emotional. If design is truly meant to resonate with people on a sensory and emotional level, it cannot be limited to a single cultural framework. Non-Western practices often emphasize different relationships between body, space, and environment - offering alternative models for how we might conceive emotionally meaningful architecture.

This brings us to an important question: Could there be a design studio at ETH that actively engages with architectural practices beyond the Western canon? Exploring such avenues might broaden our understanding of what architecture can be. Should architectural education place more emphasis on developing a truly global perspective? Is that even feasible within current institutional structures? Especially in the context of climate change and social inequality, traditional and often sustainable building practices from various cultures could provide crucial inspiration for the architecture of the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar presents Design as a powerful tool to help us address today’s social and ecological challenges. It criticizes traditional design methods that focus only on efficiency and profit, and calls for approaches that involve communities and consider nature as well. The text shows that design can help shape our world by promoting cultural diversity and sustainability. This means that design should be seen as a process that brings people together and helps them create solutions that are sensitive to both social needs and the natural environment.

Critical Question: In what ways can the design community apply Escobar’s framework to develop practices that are both inclusive of local voices and effective in addressing environmental issues?

# data[].attributes.body
How modernity is pervaded by expert discourse is a central concern. In the text by Arturo Escobar, I found it particularly interesting how he uses literature to illustrate the disappointment with new technologies.

He also introduces the concept of ontological design and reminds us of a forgotten, or perhaps never fully admitted, truth about design: that it is born through the intersection of capitalism, functionalism and modernity. This modernity is tied to expert and scientific discourse, which is itself linked to the state.

It’s pessimistic, even sad, to think of our world as a massive design failure. Yet perhaps this failure is necessary. Maybe humans must go through it in order to design their way out.

Placed in historical context, modernity, characterized by inventions and design, has indeed helped us a lot. Functionalist design, tied to practicality and efficiency, has been beneficial in many ways. Still, we often overlook how technology has also contributed to longer and healthier lives.

But even if we recognize the failure, can we really escape it? Or is there no way out, precisely because our entire society is so deeply rooted in capitalism and market-driven technologies?

# data[].attributes.body
What kind of world do we want to create? This question is especially urgent in the face of growing environmental and social crises. It challenges the traditional, functionalist view of design as merely a tool for optimizing products or systems. Instead, it calls for a more thoughtful and intentional approach—one that recognizes design’s power to shape societal values and outcomes.

The inclusion of thinkers like Humberto Maturana and Adolfo Albán highlights that the challenges we face are not just technical or knowledge-based but deeply embedded in the conditions of our existence. This perspective shifts the focus from solving isolated problems to addressing broader, interconnected issues of sustainability, social justice, and collective well-being. It urges designers to take a normative stance—not just asking how to make things work, but how things should be in a world that increasingly demands ethical, political, and ecological responsibility.

As design becomes a means of envisioning alternative futures, this question challenges designers to reconsider their role—not just as creators of products or services, but as active participants in shaping the world those products exist within. It calls for a more inclusive and transformative approach, where design is a catalyst for meaningful social change.

# data[].attributes.body
What really stood out to me in Escobar’s text is how much our design practices today are shaped by experts and numbers. Design seems to be ruled by technical knowledge and math, instead of by everyday life and real people. Escobar shows how this way of designing comes from—and still supports—a system shaped by capitalism and patriarchy. The result is a world that kind of designs itself into a cycle we can’t control anymore.

The phrase “design our way out” really stuck with me. It paints a strong picture: maybe the only way forward is to completely rethink how we design—and what we design for. But this makes me wonder: how can designers work for real change, when they’re still stuck inside the same systems they want to change? It’s a tricky situation, and I think facing this tension is one of the biggest challenges for designers today.

# data[].attributes.body
The text describes the fast-paced world that we have built and we inhabit.

The text makes comparison between two "realities".

One is the time where you have to wait and be patient to achieve something. It is the reality in which the collaborative and the shared moments are happening unplanned. The design creates a space for them.

The other reality is the one of efficiency. It is where the time goes faster. It doesn't leave room for "distractions". Thus the design doesn't correspond to the need of social rooms, shared spaces.

Today the tension between these two realities can be seen in many contemporary cities and is still to be resolved.

# data[].attributes.body
I understood the text of Arturo Escobar as a critique of top-down design approaches for being rooted in political and cultural systems that often ignore local contexts. In today’s global market, products follow universal design models shaped by consumerism, profit and standartisation, leaving little room for diversity or critical reflection. Architecture faces a similar issue: designs are often driven by market success and past competition winners, slowing true innovation.

To challenge this, we must see design not just as problem-solving, but as a transformative process that questions existing structures. Making design more inclusive means embracing local knowledge, cultural specificity, and participatory practices. As architects, how can we move beyond conventional models to develop approaches that balance functionality with ecological responsibility, cultural sensitivity, and social justice—within, and in spite of, a capitalist system?

# data[].attributes.body
What I found most intriguing was the part exemplifying One Hundred Years of Solitude. The naming and framing of objects in our modern society is underlying our perspective on the world since 2000 years, in which we human see ourselves as something better, different form the rest of the matter. this reminds me of Heideggers "Dasein", in this term he ephatizes that we should ontologically look at ourselves and trough that also at the world. Like that we would realize that we are no different and can not assume any more value to ourselves compared to any other matter and object. this perspective on the world would fundamentally change design, architecture and culture. a culture in which every matter, be it stone, phone or a tree, will be seen as equal to human existence. The superiority complex grant us a sense of purpose which then either has to be compensated by another narrative or maybe can be fully adopted by the sheer celebration of the absurdity of our existence.

# data[].attributes.body
Design isn’t merely about "things" or "places," but shapes our identities, relationships, and experiences. Design has the capacity to make change, but instead, design often continues to reinforce the systems it seeks to interrupt. Design often prioritises power and efficiency over compassion, inclusivity over innovation –design can be less about progress and more about profit. When aesthetics and convenience are prioritised, the more profound social and cultural implications of design decisions are regularly overlooked. That said, design isn't an isolated endeavor. Design is part of woven webs of people, communities, and histories. For design to be transformative it must contend with relationality, collaboration, and reciprocity– in other words, to "design" is to "co-design" with those who are affected and not simply apply a top-down model. Can design unlearn the economic structures that constrain it? Or, must design always re-inscribe the entrenchment of privilege, power, or profit?

# data[].attributes.body
The article by Arturo Escobar compels us to take a break from the conventional design mindset of ‘finding the problem and solving them’, forcing us to critically examine who actually gets to define those ‘problems’. He sharply points out that design is essentially a political practice of worldviews. Have our so-called site analyses and participatory workshops become a kind of formalism, where we unconsciously impose our modernist design thinking onto wild landscapes and indigenous wisdom— which is also a form of silent colonial violence in itself?

One of the most alarming things to me was his definition of our roles as designers: we should at least serve as mediators between ontology and capitalism, or even a voice standing on the side of the marginalized. The choice we made of each contour line, plant species, design material is no longer about design aesthetics—it's about which side of history we choose to stand on.

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar questions whether modernity’s version of reality is truly universal, urging designers to rethink in terms of "world-making" rather than just executing inside an existing system. He suggests design should challenge its own framework.

Writing from a Latin American decolonial perspective, he critiques modern design’s role in sustaining capitalist and colonial systems. He argues for a pluriverse —multiple coexisting realities shaped by diverse cultural and ecological knowledge.

Reading about revaluing ancestral knowledge, I can't help but wonder how much westerners must have lost of their own traditions as well. We can learn a lot from others; but seeing them tap back into what modernity had partly covered there, is also inspiring us to look for what it has covered here.

# data[].attributes.body
In Designs for the Pluriverse Escobar pushes to move beyond universalist, Western-centric frameworks and instead imagine architecture as a relational, place-based, and co-created practice. His call for ontological design—where architecture shapes and is shaped by diverse ways of being—feels urgent in the face of climate crisis and social injustice. It made me question the neutrality of design tools and ask: who do we design for, and what worlds are we making possible? The pluriverse offers both a critique and a powerful invitation.

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar’s call for “autonomous design” opens up the possibility of resisting the homogenizing forces of globalization by rooting design in local knowledges, communal values, and ecological interdependence. It also raises difficult questions: Can design break free from capitalism and genuinely serve diverse ways of being? Or is that space of freedom what we usually reserve for art? Maybe the real difference is not that design must always serve function or commerce, but that it can—when reimagined—become a practice of world-making, much like art. Escobar invites us to treat design not just as a means to improve the world we have, but to imagine and build worlds otherwise.

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar argues that we need a significant reorientation of design away from its traditional functionalist and rationalistic roots towards a focus on the relational dimension of life. This shift involves understanding design as ontological, meaning that design-led objects and services shape particular ways of being, knowing, and doing. How can design be reoriented from its traditional functionalist and market-driven approach toward relational and communal logics that support cultural, ecological, and civilizational transitions? Can ontologically-oriented design genuinely contribute to the autonomy and life projects of marginalized communities, or does it risk becoming another form of appropriation within the structures of capitalist modernity?

# data[].attributes.body
Arturo Escobar's “Designs for the Pluriverse” left a deep impression on me. Not just as a critique of established design practices, but as a radical invitation to rethink our relationship to the world. What particularly appealed to me was his consistent decoupling of design as a purely technical or functional discipline. Instead, he makes it clear that design is cultural, political and ontological and that it shapes the reality of our lives.

The text calls on designers not to place themselves above communities, but to work together with them on alternative futures. It is not about “design for”, but about “design with”. A co-creative, democratic process. I find this perspective particularly relevant for education and pedagogical contexts, where it is often about “serving” predetermined systems instead of developing one's own visions.

What remains is the realization that if design actually shapes our existence, then we have an enormous responsibility. Escobar's vision of a pluriverse may sound utopian, but that is precisely where its power lies. It shows that alternatives are possible. For me, this book is not a technical text in the classic sense, but much more.

One question that concerns me after reading it is: How can designers in Western contexts begin to work with pluriversal approaches without engaging in cultural appropriation or appropriating local struggles? How can we succeed in establishing these approaches in education at a technology-oriented institution like ETH? And how can we avoid other approaches to the world appearing merely as exotic “case studies” rather than as equally valid sources of knowledge and creative power?

# data[].attributes.body
What is design and what does it mean for our ways of living and our society at large? The text offers a brief history of design, tracing it to modernity and finding functionalism as the main concern of modernism. Very accurately, the problem with this attitude of design is its origin that is tied to a society shaped by patriarchal western capitalism.

The solution, argues the text, lies in design for transition, design that aims to change society at large. In order to enable this transition, the new main focus should lie on relational aspects of life. The consequent translation to design would be an emphasis on participatory, non-expert driven practices.

Those practices have to some extent already been implemented into architectural practices. An increasing number of projects invite participatory approaches, “Sondernutzungspläne” as results from inclusive workshops and similar tools. However, as architecture is limited by existing within a larger system of economy, laws and societal norms, architecture itself might not be sufficient to achieve transition by design. Usually, the first transition that needs to happen is in people’s minds and opinions. That makes me wonder how architecture might sensibilize people enough to facilitate a transition on a societal scale?

# data[].attributes.body
sogloor@student.ethz.ch

Can Architecture be part of a resistance and nurture community or is it only a tool for developer, the ruling class and repressive regimes?

Under capitalism, design is often driven by profit and efficiency, which reinforces power imbalances that favor corporations and the wealthy. As a result, marginalized communities, the environment, and non-human life are frequently overlooked or deprioritized in the design process.

Therefore Escobar calls for a redesign approach that puts communities at the center, emphasizing sustainability, inclusivity, and social impact rather than profit-driven motives. Capitalism is a very absorbing and fast adapting system that puts pressure on social projects. Can this kind of architecture withstand the capitalist pressure? And Is this enough? And in short it raises the question: Can architecture truly serve as a tool of resistance and community-building without being co-opted by the very systems it seeks to challenge?

Escobar points out, that even participatory approaches can be absorbed into corporate or governmental agendas, ultimately reinforcing the status quo or just appear as performative events without real consequences/further actions. How does an architecture of resistance look like? But how can architects and designers create spaces that actively resist repressive forces rather than becoming instruments of control?

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar says that design is never neutral — it shapes not only objects but entire ways of being. What we build reflects what we believe reality to be. Modern design is rooted in a one-world worldview: Revolutionary, western, capitalist, technocratic — roman, protestant, atheist. What stands out to me is that Escobar doesn’t just argue for including the margin, but for breaking the whole idea of a center. His pluriverse suggests multiple coexisting worlds, each valid in their own right—not just as resistance, but as alternatives.

But even good intentions risk being swallowed by the system they aim to change. So it’s not only about what we design, but where we design from, what worldview, what ground of meaning.

How do we distinguish truly transformative design from gestures that keep the same power structures in place?

# data[].attributes.body
The text critiques traditional approaches to design rooted in functionalism, rationalism, and industrial efficiency. It argues for a shift toward a different kind of rationality—one that is more in tune with the relational aspects of human life. Design, it suggests, is ontological: the things we design don’t just serve a purpose; they shape how we live, think, and interact with the world.

It raises the question of whether modernist design, often grounded in the dualistic thinking of patriarchal and capitalist systems, can be reimagined to support more relational ways of being, knowing, and doing.

Ultimately, it challenges designers to go beyond simply resisting dominant political and economic systems. Instead, it asks: how can design actively transform these systems by creating spaces and objects that foster new ways of living and relating?

# data[].attributes.body
Escobar emphasizes that design is more than just a technical or aesthetic discipline—it is deeply connected to the way we live. He discusses how design moves beyond the studio, engaging with real-life social, cultural, and environmental contexts. His work challenges us to consider the kind of world we want to create, highlighting how every design decision shapes cultures, ecosystems, and daily life.

This perspective makes me reflect on the role of architecture today. Even when a project appears purely technical or functional, it inevitably reflects a vision of society and how people should coexist. I believe it is essential to pursue a design approach that is truly responsive to social and cultural contexts, exploring alternatives that resist the standardization imposed by economic systems.

This leads me to question: how can design serve as a tool for advancing social and cultural justice?