Want to really change the world? Start with these four words (and one piece of punctuation).
After everything of the last few years, how does one make sense of the world? Or perhaps a more useful formulation in these days of apocalyptic hand-wringing and late-capital failed neoliberalism: what sort of questions does one need to ask to discern the shape of the contemporary?
There are the classic philosophical approaches, classic religious approaches, traditional aesthetic, ethical, and systemic approaches, new versions of those, as well as new fantasies of AI, biosynthetic hybridization, post-rational assertion games, and so on. But none seem to honor sufficiently—at least as usually employed—the combined power of ambiguity, hopefulness, curiosity, and collective effort that is the story of humanity.
How, also, does any understanding of the world derived through this sort of question-asking contribute to making that world a better place? As a species we know we’re way better at action than we are at contemplation and investigation. But of course to do the one thing right, we really do need to do the other thing right.
And, since the work we do, and the work of many fellow designers and thinkers is geared towards making an impact (preferably a good impact) on the world, this is an important question. Towards an answer, we’ve been developing a rubric, a sort of game (albeit one with high stakes), to structure our thinking about the contemporary and how we—as designers (and really, and importantly, anyone else so inclined)—can do the sort of work we want to do.
It begins with four words and a single, sole piece of punctuation: so much / too much
What comes next is deeply individual, an illuminating insight into how we see the world, and our place in it. But it is also a field of profoundly fertile soil for polyphonic discussion, debate, negotiation, insight, and experimentation.
For instance, one could follow so much / too much with other bits of punctuation. A period, perhaps, making it a statement, an obvious observation about the power of things and our acquisition and use of them. A question mark, is also possible. An invitation to a discussion where the truth of that period might be explored. An ellipsis, giving rise to a further opportunity to add-on.
In this line, other additions, are also possible of course:
· So much / too much / not enough
· So much / too much / too soon
· So much / too much / too late
· So much / too much / too many
· So much/ too much/ for whom
· So much / too much / for what purpose
And so on. Each new addition giving rise to additional lines of inquiry and discussion.
So much / too much is not the only sort of pairing that one could imagine yielding interesting results. And, indeed, any provocative pairing can work—be it two images, two pieces of poetry, two musical compositions, two words, whatever opens up the possibility to engage directly and passionately with the underlying idea or ideas (remember, a large part of the value of this approach is the foundational ambiguity). There is no preference in the initial statement, although it may—as in the case of so much / too much—appear as such, depending on one’s predilections.
As we continue to sit with collaborators—clients, colleagues, conspirators, friends, partners, and each other—to explore so much / too much, we’ll do what we can to share those results with everyone else. If you’d like to take part, let us know. We’d love to hear about what comes next for your world.
—Peter
