Exploring Nature Inclusive Design Principles

Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess admonished those who viewed Earth’s natural systems as resources that exist solely for human exploitation as proponents of a shallow ecology. Naess proposed a deep ecology; one that viewed humankind as a single species among many that exists not at the top of any imagined hierarchy, but as an equally interdependent one within a networked holarchy. The goal of the deep ecology movement since has been to shift society’s values, attitudes, and lifestyles toward celebrating and safeguarding this vibrant diversity for its intrinsic value, and to instill “a profound awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.”

The concepts that shaped deep ecology are not new. Naess’ philosophical perspective was informed by everything from Buddhism and Taoism to Christian theology, from Gandhi to Spinoza, and from philosophical anthropology to gestalt psychology. But deep ecology’s emergence as a direct response to the environmental destruction of industrialized society make it an explicit counterpoint to the dominant narrative of our times.

This honoring of the interdependent web of life advanced by Naess and others has provided endless opportunities for designers to reimagine their worldviews and their practice over the last half century. Designers, in the meantime, looked elsewhere. Western design paradigms that situate the human experience as unambiguously embedded in and co-dependent on networks of odd kin have rarely moved beyond fringe movements. That has thankfully been changing more rapidly over the last decade, and a new design attitude toward nature is gaining a foothold. For evidence of this we can look at recent efforts to amplify traditional ecological knowledge, indigenizing design, non-human design, environment-centered design, nature-centric design, Earth-centered design and, to a lesser degree, humanity centered design.

From Philosophy to Ecosophy ?

Our personal behavior is guided by beliefs derived from various familial, religious, social and cultural worldviews. These beliefs shape principles that hold power over our actions even when we don’t explicitly acknowledge them. Do we have similar principles that inform how, what and why we design as professional designers? If so, are they ever made explicit? Are they consistent with the principles that guide our personal lives? Are they holistic or are they merely convenient? And do they form a cohesive set of beliefs about our relationships with the entirety of the biosphere that sustains us?

Along with defining the theoretical framework for deep ecology, Naess encouraged the development of a personal ethos guided by a reverence for the natural world. In Naess’ view, a philosophical examination of one’s life that lacked such an acknowledgment is insufficient. He called this “wide identification with the ecological self” an ecosophy, and encouraged individuals to define a personal ecosophy to guide their daily actions. To illustrate this, he named his own ecosophy Ecosophy T, in reference to the name of his cabin in Norway’s Hallingskarvet mountains (Tvergastein). In describing Ecosophy T, Naess applied the phrase “live and let live,” declaring his intention to live in a way that reduced negative impacts on all living and non-living things.

Ecosophy T extolls the maximization of long range, universal diversity, and claims that higher levels of Self-realization are dependent on higher levels of Self-realizations within all other life forms. Naess considered the Self (uppercase) a holistic and connected ‘one’ more akin to eastern spiritual traditions than to a small and wholly independent self (lowercase) that we exalt in western traditions, and described Self-realization as the ability to maximize manifestations of all life. The individual self is isolated in its smallness, while a connected Self is so much larger than any single being. With this realization, it becomes clear that when we diminish life in any form we diminish our Self. Naess further observed that maximizing diversity was a pre-condition for maximizing symbiosis, and vice versa. ?

Ecosophy T, Design Principles, and the Capabilities Approach

As a co-author of the SCAD’s Design for Sustainability program 15 years ago, and a designer with over 45 years of professional experience in various design and non-design arenas, I’ve routinely articulated ethical principles to guide my own work, and I’ve helped many students do the same. And for those interested in building a design career that broadens their human-centered design scope to encompass all of nature, crafting a personal ecosophy that guides your professional work could be a good first step.

As a part of a broader discussion on design as a practice of facilitating social innovation, my book Designing with Society explores how Ecosophy T can be translated into a set of actionable design principles that are shared here. The illustration at the top of this article is a visualization of seven principles that emerged from my personal meditations on Naess’ Ecosophy T as explored in a 1986 essay in Philosophical Inquiry. ?

This effort to direct my own design actions toward contributing to the vitality and wellbeing of all living beings informs the core principles of what I’ve called capability design in my book, in direct reference to Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach. While the capabilities approach is a theoretical framework for social arrangements between humans that doesn’t articulate an ecosophy, it does provide a sense of how we might better understand our relationships with the non-human world. Nussbaum, in fact, explicitly identifies affiliation with other species as one of her ten central capabilities. As a form of defining personal freedoms that enhance the agency of the least advantaged among us, Sen and Nussbaum’s capabilities provide a pathway to Self-realization for every human. And Self-realization as defined through an ecosophical lens identifies the wellbeing of all beings as central to its own attainment.

Naess does not dismiss the centrality of human relationships in arriving at his personal ecosophy. Nor does he suggest that our ethical relationships with nature compete directly with those between fellow humans. His ecosophical provocation is instead an encouragement to adopt a nature-inclusive mindfulness that broadens our sense of personal responsibility. When translated into design language, the seven principles I derived from Naess’ Ecosophy T can be phrased as ‘How Might We’ questions that help guide design efforts to contribute to an equitable and regenerative future. This is one of many potential translations of Naess’ Ecosophy T. I invite you to examine your own interconnectedness with the natural world and generate a personally-derived ecosophy along with a set of design principles that help you live up to the highest aspirations of that ecosophy.

?

How Might We:

1: Reveal and enhance patterns of interdependence?

2: Help groups of individuals overcome inequality and address its root causes?

3: Explicitly and collaboratively address power asymmetries?

4: Create capacities for holistic and mutually beneficial collaborations?

5: Improve awareness of and access to the richness of life’s abundance?

6: Enhance people’s interaction with diverse social partners and all of nature?

7: Empower individuals to shape their futures in harmony with the futures of all others?

?

?