Artefacts And Power: Exploring The Political Nature Of Designed Objects

The concept of do artefacts have politics challenges the notion that technology is neutral, arguing instead that technological objects and systems inherently embody political values, biases, and power structures. Coined by Langdon Winner in his influential essay, this idea explores how the design, implementation, and use of artefacts—ranging from bridges to software—reflect and reinforce societal norms, inequalities, and ideologies. By examining the political dimensions of technology, this framework encourages critical analysis of how artefacts shape human behavior, distribute resources, and influence power dynamics, ultimately revealing that even seemingly mundane objects are not apolitical but rather active participants in shaping the social and political landscape.

Explore related products

Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life

$13.65 $19.95

Design for a Better World: Meaningful, Sustainable, Humanity Centered

$19.11 $24.95

Bundle: Practicing Texas Politics, 2015-2016, 16th + LMS Integrated MindTap Political Science, 1 term (6 months) Printed Access Card

$149.99

101 Things I Learned® in Urban Design School

$13.13 $18.99

The Everyday Artefacts of World Politics (Routledge Focus)

$68.99

Who Owns Objects?: The Ethics and Politics of Collecting Cultural Artefacts

$49.99

Design embeds values: Artifacts reflect creators' beliefs, shaping user behavior and societal norms subtly

Design is never neutral. Every artifact, from the smartphone in your pocket to the layout of your city, carries the imprint of its creator's values and assumptions. Consider the QWERTY keyboard, a design born from the mechanical limitations of 19th-century typewriters. Its layout, optimized to prevent jams, persists today despite more efficient alternatives, shaping how billions type and think about language. This example illustrates how design choices, often rooted in specific historical contexts, become invisible constraints that guide user behavior long after their original rationale fades.

To understand how artifacts embed values, examine the design process itself. Designers make countless decisions—about materials, ergonomics, aesthetics, and functionality—that reflect their beliefs about what matters. A water bottle designed with a built-in filter signals a concern for health and sustainability, while a car with a high-horsepower engine prioritizes speed and individual freedom. These choices aren't accidental; they're deliberate expressions of the designer's worldview. Users, often unconsciously, absorb these values as they interact with the artifact, reinforcing or challenging societal norms in the process.

Take the example of urban planning. The design of a city's streets, parks, and public spaces can either foster community or reinforce isolation. Wide, car-centric roads prioritize efficiency and individual mobility, subtly discouraging pedestrian interaction and public life. In contrast, walkable neighborhoods with ample green spaces encourage social interaction and a sense of shared responsibility. These design decisions don't just shape how people move; they influence how they relate to one another and their environment, embedding values about community, accessibility, and sustainability into the fabric of daily life.

To embed values intentionally, designers must ask critical questions: Who is this artifact for? What behaviors do I want to encourage? What impact will it have on society and the environment? For instance, a designer creating a children's toy might prioritize durability and non-toxic materials, reflecting values of safety and environmental stewardship. By making these choices explicit, designers can ensure their artifacts align with positive societal goals rather than perpetuating harmful norms. Users, too, can become more discerning, questioning the values embedded in the objects they use and demanding designs that reflect their own beliefs.

Ultimately, recognizing that design embeds values empowers both creators and users to shape a more intentional world. Artifacts are not passive tools; they are active participants in the construction of culture and behavior. By acknowledging this, we can move beyond mere functionality and aesthetics, using design as a force for positive change. Whether it's a smartphone, a city, or a water bottle, every artifact tells a story—one that reflects its creator's beliefs and shapes the world in subtle yet profound ways.

Technological determinism: Tools influence culture, but users also adapt technology to their needs

The relationship between technology and society is often portrayed as a one-way street, with tools dictating cultural shifts. However, this view oversimplifies a dynamic interplay. While it’s true that technologies like the printing press reshaped communication and the automobile transformed urban landscapes, users consistently adapt these tools to their unique needs, subverting intended purposes. For instance, social media platforms designed for connection are repurposed for political organizing, activism, or even misinformation campaigns, demonstrating that technology’s impact is neither linear nor predetermined.

Consider the smartphone, a device initially marketed for convenience and communication. Users have repurposed it as a tool for education, healthcare, and economic empowerment, particularly in underserved communities. In rural Kenya, mobile money platforms like M-Pesa have revolutionized financial transactions, bypassing traditional banking systems. This example illustrates how cultural contexts shape technology’s role, challenging the notion that tools unilaterally dictate societal outcomes. Adaptation is not just a response but a form of resistance, as users reclaim technology to serve their priorities.

To understand this duality, examine the bicycle. Originally a symbol of individual mobility, it has been adapted globally for cargo transport, rickshaw services, and even as a platform for political protest. In Amsterdam, bicycles define urban planning, while in rural India, they are modified to carry goods. This versatility highlights how users negotiate technology’s influence, embedding it within existing cultural frameworks. The takeaway? Tools are not neutral; their politics emerge from the tension between design intent and user adaptation.

When implementing technology, organizations must recognize this interplay. For instance, introducing AI in workplaces requires understanding how employees will adapt it, potentially uncovering unintended uses or ethical dilemmas. A practical tip: involve end-users in design processes to anticipate adaptations and align technology with cultural needs. Similarly, policymakers should avoid prescriptive approaches, instead fostering environments where users can creatively repurpose tools. By acknowledging both technology’s influence and users’ agency, we move beyond determinism toward a more nuanced understanding of how artifacts shape—and are shaped by—society.

Bias in technology: Artifacts can perpetuate inequality, favoring certain groups over others

Technologies are not neutral. Embedded within their design are assumptions, values, and biases that reflect the priorities and perspectives of their creators. Consider facial recognition software, a seemingly objective tool. Studies show it misidentifies darker-skinned individuals at rates up to 100 times higher than lighter-skinned individuals. This isn't a bug; it's a feature of biased training data, where the algorithms are fed predominantly white faces. The result? A technology that perpetuates racial profiling and surveillance, disproportionately harming marginalized communities.

This example illustrates how artifacts, far from being politically inert, actively shape social realities. They encode power structures, privileging certain groups while marginalizing others.

Let's break down the mechanism. Bias creeps in at every stage of technological development. From the initial problem definition to data collection, algorithm design, and deployment, choices are made that reflect societal prejudices. A fitness tracker, for instance, might be designed with default settings based on the average male body, rendering it less accurate for women or individuals with different body compositions. This seemingly innocuous design decision reinforces gendered norms and excludes a significant portion of potential users.

Recognizing this bias is crucial. It's not about demonizing technology but about understanding its limitations and potential for harm. We must ask: Who benefits from this technology? Who is excluded? Whose voices are absent in its development?

Addressing bias in technology requires a multi-pronged approach. Firstly, diverse teams are essential. Including individuals from various backgrounds in the design process can help identify blind spots and challenge assumptions. Secondly, transparent and ethical data collection practices are vital. Datasets must be representative and free from discriminatory biases. Finally, ongoing audits and evaluations are necessary to identify and mitigate bias throughout a technology's lifecycle.

Explore related products

Imperial China (DK Classic History)

$40.6 $50

Images of Rule: Art and Politics in the English Renaissance, 1485-1649

$67.95

Popular Culture, Social Media, and the Politics of Identity (Popular Culture and World Politics)

$56.99 $180

How Artifacts Afford: The Power and Politics of Everyday Things (Design Thinking, Design Theory)

$25 $25

The World behind the World: Intercultural Processes in the Prehistory of European Civilization (Geschichte – Erinnerung – Politik. Studies in History, Memory and Politics Book 30)

$64.27 $64.6

Towards a New Pacific Historiography: Re-imagining 'History' as a Literary Artefact

$76.22 $90

Intended vs. actual use: Users often repurpose artifacts, revealing unintended political consequences

Artifacts, once unleashed into the world, often take on lives of their own, diverging sharply from their intended purposes. This phenomenon, where users repurpose objects in ways designers never envisioned, can expose latent political dimensions. Consider the case of the AK-47, designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov as a reliable weapon for Soviet soldiers. Its simplicity and durability, however, made it a tool of choice for revolutionaries, insurgents, and child soldiers across the globe. What was meant to symbolize state power became a symbol of resistance, chaos, and the erosion of centralized authority. This unintended consequence underscores how an artifact’s political meaning shifts when it moves from the hands of its creators to those who reinterpret its use.

Repurposing artifacts isn’t always violent or overtly political; sometimes, it’s subtle yet equally revealing. Take the shopping cart, designed for grocery stores to facilitate consumerism. When homeless individuals began using them to transport belongings, the cart became a stark symbol of inequality and systemic failure. This repurposing forced society to confront the political realities of homelessness and access to resources. Designers rarely anticipate such uses, yet these adaptations highlight the artifact’s role in amplifying societal issues. Practical tip: When designing or using artifacts, consider their potential for symbolic reinterpretation in contexts beyond their intended environment.

A comparative analysis of social media platforms further illustrates this dynamic. Facebook, for instance, was designed to connect friends and family, but it has been repurposed as a tool for political mobilization, misinformation campaigns, and even ethnic violence in countries like Myanmar. Similarly, Twitter, initially a microblogging platform, became a battleground for political discourse and a megaphone for marginalized voices. These examples show how artifacts, when repurposed, can either challenge or entrench power structures, depending on who wields them and for what purpose. Caution: Underestimating users’ creativity in repurposing artifacts can lead to unintended political backlash or exploitation.

To mitigate these risks, designers and policymakers must adopt a proactive approach. Scenario planning can help anticipate alternative uses by considering diverse user groups and contexts. For instance, when introducing a new technology like facial recognition, stakeholders should model how it might be repurposed for surveillance, discrimination, or resistance. Additionally, embedding ethical guidelines into design processes can foster artifacts that are more resilient to harmful repurposing. Takeaway: Artifacts are not neutral; their politics emerge in the gap between intended and actual use, making foresight and adaptability essential in their creation and deployment.

Ethics of design: Designers must consider how artifacts impact power dynamics and justice

Designers often overlook the political implications of their creations, assuming artifacts are neutral tools. Yet, every object—from a smartphone to a city layout—embeds values, reinforces power structures, and shapes access to resources. For instance, a facial recognition system designed without diverse datasets disproportionately misidentifies people of color, amplifying racial biases. This isn’t a flaw; it’s a reflection of the system’s inherent politics, prioritizing certain groups over others. Recognizing this, designers must ask: Whose interests does this artifact serve? Whose voices are excluded? Ignoring these questions perpetuates injustice under the guise of technological progress.

Consider the design of public spaces. A park with open, well-lit pathways fosters inclusivity, while one with fragmented, dimly lit areas can marginalize vulnerable populations. Similarly, a bus route optimized for suburban commuters but neglecting low-income neighborhoods reinforces economic inequality. These examples illustrate how design choices aren’t merely aesthetic or functional—they are political acts. Designers must adopt a justice-centered approach, critically examining how their work distributes power, opportunity, and risk. This requires moving beyond user-centered design to a framework that prioritizes equity and accountability.

To integrate ethics into design, start by mapping stakeholders—not just end-users, but all groups affected by the artifact. For a healthcare app, this includes patients, providers, insurers, and even those without access to smartphones. Next, conduct a power analysis: Who gains control? Who loses autonomy? For example, a workplace surveillance tool might increase productivity but erode employee privacy and trust. Mitigate harm by building in safeguards, such as anonymizing data or limiting monitoring hours. Finally, adopt a lifecycle perspective, anticipating long-term consequences. A plastic product might solve an immediate need but contribute to environmental injustice in communities near landfills.

Critics argue that embedding ethics in design slows innovation or limits creativity. However, this perspective misunderstands the role of constraints. Just as accessibility standards enhance products for all users, ethical considerations can drive innovation by uncovering overlooked needs. For instance, designing a wheelchair-accessible building often results in spaces that are easier to navigate for parents with strollers or delivery workers. Far from being restrictive, ethical design expands possibilities by centering humanity’s diversity. It transforms designers from passive creators into active agents of justice, ensuring artifacts serve the common good rather than entrenched power.

Ultimately, the ethics of design demand a shift from asking “Can we build this?” to “Should we build this?” and “For whom?” This requires humility, interdisciplinary collaboration, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. Designers must embrace their role as stewards of societal impact, recognizing that every artifact is a political statement. By doing so, they can create not just functional objects, but tools that dismantle oppression, foster equity, and reimagine a more just world. The question isn’t whether artifacts have politics—it’s whether designers will shape those politics intentionally.

Frequently asked questions