TOWARDS EXPLORING THE ONTOLOGICAL BONDS BETWEEN DESIGN MATERIALITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The perception of the world is totally dependent on the concepts or positions that subject and object takes and otherness is a very important outcome of these positions. And, apparently what is meant by otherness can only be appreciated or become possible by the way of communication. The bond with the material objects as artefacts and subjects as human beings is the most important part of the communication of constantly changing role of otherness. What we generally perceive as modernity imposes us in a sneaky way is the authority of Human over the Object or objectified world. In other words, Human is seen as the active part of this communication over the silent and passive objecthood. But is it actually so?

The paper tries to explore the interrelations of the positions of object and subject which is also the very problem of Human Rights, because it also applies to the most important source of problems in the Human Rights literature. However these concepts are not examined deeply in this literature, because the main focus of HR is the authority problems among people and state, not objects, or people and objects.

Because the artificial world of objects is very complex, and the language “they speak” is determined by the designers, after the processes of design, production and promotion, they became free and silent agents of this world, encounter with the people by the limited possibilities of their inscribed interface or mask. So it can be said that, it is the objects, not humans try to communicate with us.

Basing the main arguments from basic communication theories to some concepts borrowed from semiotics and critique of technology, the paper is projected to argue the problems of otherness, authority and obstacles and prejudgements in communication. The nomenclature of Human Rights is helpful to further the argument of the relationship of object and subject and help open a new field of Human Rights sensitive approach to design. 

Another extension of the paper is an introductory analysis of the cultural insights of the vis a vis encounter of human and artefact observed in different cultures, which is of course should be deeply scrutinized in another study.