The design as a force for change.

The role of the designer in modern society

“Every choice we make as designers, from the projects we accept to the tools and materials we use, carries with it a share of responsibility.” This reflection, which came to me one morning, seemed at first simple, obvious, almost banal. I realized my mistake. Many questions followed: can one truly be engaged as a designer? What does this concretely imply? Is it a moral obligation in the face of current issues? And how can a designer genuinely go about making a difference?

These questions led me to think about the place of the designer in modern society and the impact we can or should have. Are we, consciously or not, agents of change? It is from these personal reflections, enriched by those of influential figures and research conducted on the subject, that I wish today to share with you an exploration not so much deeper on this subject, not having that pretension, but more accessible, for the reader interested in this question.

Can one be an engaged designer?

So can one be an engaged designer? When I asked this question to those around me, the natural answer I was given was yes, quite simply. After all, like any citizen, a designer has the option, if they wish, to mobilise for causes, defend values, and impact society through their work. That’s true, nothing seems to prevent a designer from engaging. But what makes this question so complex is that it goes beyond a simple ability to act; it also questions the conditions that allow or limit this engagement.

This includes the designer's ability to truly engage depending on their circumstances, skills and the tools at their disposal, but also their freedom of action in the face of constraints such as commercial expectations or market pressures. It is therefore not just about wanting to engage, but about knowing if and how that engagement can be concretely realised. Distinguishing what is possible from what is achievable.

“To be able” to be an engaged designer, therefore, is not only about having the capability to be an agent of change, but it is also about asking to what extent this is desirable or necessary.

So the question transforms: Can a designer really afford to remain neutral in the face of current environmental and social issues, or does this ability to influence the world imply a form of implicit responsibility?

Clearly more complex, isn't it?

The dilemma of the power of influence: how far can one go?

To the question of whether design can have a significant impact on society, my answer is a resounding yes, but it must be nuanced. Design goes far beyond aesthetics; it shapes our daily environment and influences our behaviours, interactions, and perceptions. Inclusive architectural projects, for instance, have demonstrated their ability to transform public spaces into genuine meeting places, thus promoting dialogue and exchange among different communities. At the same time, sustainable design is emerging as an essential alternative to consumption models that pollute our planet. Companies such as Patagonia and IKEA integrate responsible practices into their design processes, offering products designed to last, repairable and recyclable. One may question the actual reach of these actions, but nevertheless, they illustrate the manner in which design can not only encourage more ethical choices but also effectively raise public awareness of the crucial issues that concern us all.

However, even if design has an incredible transformative potential, which is often underestimated (we will discuss this further), it faces limits that deserve to be stated. Sometimes, solutions designed with good intentions can be hampered by systemic factors, such as a lack of financial resources or institutional support. Moreover, some projects may encounter cultural and political resistance, making their acceptance or implementation more difficult. Take, for example, activist design campaigns which, although impactful in terms of visual, strategic, and logistical aspects, risk not translating into concrete actions without collective engagement and strong political will.

Thus, while design undeniably has the power to influence our societies and catalyse positive changes, it is essential to recognise that its ability to do so sustainably is often limited by complex social, economic, and political dynamics. In summary, design can offer powerful tools for change, but its real effectiveness will depend on how it fits into a broader and global context.

Activism in design: personal choice or moral duty?

When I confronted this subject and what it encompasses, I realised that practically all the terms related to it are complex to pinpoint and define. Let’s start with the definition of activism, which seems to me the most relevant.

“The activist designer is above all a thinker, who observes, analyses and reacts through design. Their reaction is a confrontation with society, be it a product, a service or a political, social, or cultural action, through a specific influence.” Maziar Rezai & Mitra Khazaei.

Activism refers itself to another term, particularly important for our subject, responsibility.

“To sum up, assuming our quality as responsible beings means recognizing that every problematic situation, which requires a moral choice, puts us in front of a diversity of possible outcomes. Being responsible or acting with responsibility is to accept both the process of deliberation prior to our choices and the consequences related to the selected outcome.” André Compte-Sponville.

I could not say better.

Some argue that due to the pressing societal and environmental issues, every professional, including designers, should actively engage in militant actions to defend just causes and positively influence the world around them. On the other hand, there are those who argue that activism is not an obligation, but rather a personal choice that can be influenced by various factors, such as professional situation, individual values, and personal constraints. From this perspective, not being an activist should not be perceived as a weakness, but rather as a recognition of the multiple ways to contribute, however minimal, whether through design itself or other forms of engagement.

I share neither of these two viewpoints. In my opinion, activism implies public, supported and resolute action, which can take very concrete and militant forms, such as awareness campaigns, protests, or community initiatives. From this point of view, I do not consider there to be an obligation for a designer to be an activist; however, I believe that we cannot close our eyes to the issues that are ours, and to the responsibility that lies on our shoulders. That every designer should be informed, or seek information themselves, to become aware of these issues. And ultimately, to make decisions and accept both the process of reflection prior to these choices and the consequences linked to the outcome they have chosen. In short, aspiring to become a responsible designer, and not necessarily to become an activist. Because in my eyes, activism implies responsibility, but responsibility does not necessarily imply activism.

This means we must act with integrity and ethics in our professional choices, even if we are not engaged in formal activism. In summary, it is essential to navigate the complexity of these issues with sensitivity and responsibility, recognising that the impact of a designer, no matter their field, can manifest in multiple ways, whether activist or not.

Ethical dilemmas and economic realities: the disengagement of designers.

Assuming political positions as a designer is far from easy, as these stances can potentially harm a career, especially in a professional context where economic factors prevail. As Chloë Augat points out in her thesis “Design activism as activism: a debate in the field of contemporary design”, designers tend to intentionally or unintentionally overlook the political dimension of their profession. The reasons for this disengagement are numerous: the risk of discredit, the importance of social status, but also a lack of interest in politics or, more simply, ignorance of the ethical responsibilities that accompany the role of the designer. Indeed, many see themselves as mere intermediaries, powerless in the face of the large economic and social systems they serve. This attitude leads to a general disengagement, in which some find complacency by ease, while others come to feel a profound sense of guilt or even helplessness.

Professional dilemmas illustrate this reality well. Working for companies benefiting from the capitalist system, which often pollutes or participates in social injustices, places designers in a difficult position. On one side, there is the need to earn a living, to stabilise a nascent career, or to maintain visibility in the sector. On the other, accepting such projects questions professional ethics: by collaborating with these companies, does the designer become complicit in these harmful practices? These dilemmas show the gap between the will to change things and the difficulty of applying these ideals without compromising one’s activity. The conclusion that seems to impose itself here is that, although design has the potential to positively influence society, the path is strewn with obstacles that are sometimes complicated to overcome. Designers must navigate between ethical engagement and economic realities, with a keen awareness of the choices they make and their real impact.

Design and responsibility: what to do?

Designers bear a series of responsibilities that go beyond mere aesthetic or functional creation. As creators of products, spaces, and systems, they directly influence society, which gives them significant social responsibility. Every design decision can affect user behaviour, consumption habits, and quality of life. For example, a designer creating a product needs to consider its accessibility for different audiences (people with disabilities, children, elderly) in order to ensure inclusion and equality. Similarly, in the fields of urban planning or architecture, the design of a space can either strengthen social cohesion or exacerbate inequalities in access to services or resources. Designers must therefore have an ethical vision, anticipate the social consequences of their creations, and act consciously.

On the environmental level, the responsibilities of designers are just as crucial. They play a key role in selecting materials, production processes, and guiding consumption choices. Sustainable design, centred on eco-responsible practices (such as the use of recyclable materials, product durability, or reduction of waste) can help minimise the ecological footprint of a project. Conversely, careless design can contribute to worsening environmental crises, particularly through the creation of disposable objects or products with programmed obsolescence. Finally, the role of the designer is also to raise awareness among consumers and businesses about ecological issues, by offering more sustainable alternatives and influencing mindsets towards more responsible behaviours.

“As a creator of models, prototypes, and proposals, the designer occupies a dialectical position between the world as it is and the world as it could be.” Victor Margolin

The boundaries of each person's responsibility seem almost impossible to distinguish or isolate, as we all confront diverse issues that simultaneously confront our desires, the demands of life, societal approval, and injustice.

My advice is to encourage you to pursue your own path, which must necessarily be marked by guidelines of responsibility that feed over the course of your life and career. Try, as much as possible, to understand your impact, not to minimise it, and to act accordingly, at your own level.

The world you reinvent is also yours.

References

“The graphic designer and the senses of responsibility: descriptive study of the moral modelling of the practitioner” Karen Brunel-Lafargue.

https://theses.hal.science/tel-02125943v1/file/BRUNEL-LAFARGUE.pdf

“Design activism as activism: A debate in the field of contemporary design.” Chloë Augat.

https://archipel.uqam.ca/12674/1/M16124.pdf