Artifacts And Power: Exploring The Political Implications Of Design

The concept of artifacts having politics challenges the notion that technology and design are neutral, arguing instead that they inherently embody values, biases, and power structures. Coined by Langdon Winner in his influential essay, this idea explores how the design and implementation of artifacts—ranging from bridges to software—reflect and reinforce societal norms, often invisibly shaping human behavior and opportunities. By examining the political dimensions of artifacts, we uncover how they can either perpetuate inequality or foster inclusivity, prompting critical questions about responsibility, intentionality, and the ethical implications of technological innovation in shaping our world.

Explore related products

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

$25 $25

Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display

$24.95

Artifacts of Revolution: Architecture, Society, and Politics in Mexico City, 1920–1940 (Latin American Silhouettes)

$40.38 $136

Design and Political Dissent: Spaces, Visuals, Materialities (Routledge Research in Design Studies)

$40.6 $56.99

The Mobility of People and Things in the Early Modern Mediterranean: The Art of Travel (Routledge Research in Art History)

$52.99 $52.99

The Politics of Collecting: Race and the Aestheticization of Property

$28.95 $28.95

Design reflects values: Artifacts embody societal norms, beliefs, and power structures through their design choices

The design of everyday objects is never neutral. Consider the height of a doorknob. Placed at 36 inches, it accommodates the average adult but excludes children and wheelchair users. This seemingly mundane choice encodes assumptions about who belongs in a space and who does not, reflecting societal norms about ability and access.

Design choices, from the ergonomic grip of a tool to the color palette of a website, are imbued with values. They prioritize certain users, reinforce cultural aesthetics, and perpetuate power dynamics. A smartphone interface designed primarily for right-handed users marginalizes left-handed individuals, demonstrating how even subtle design decisions can have exclusionary effects.

To illustrate, examine the evolution of kitchen appliances. Early 20th-century designs often featured complex controls and heavy materials, reflecting a societal expectation that women, the primary users, would dedicate significant time and effort to domestic tasks. Modern appliances, with their streamlined interfaces and lightweight construction, mirror shifting gender roles and a growing emphasis on convenience. This example highlights how design not only reflects but also reinforces societal norms and power structures.

Analyzing design through this lens requires a critical eye. Ask: Who benefits from this design? Whose needs are prioritized? What assumptions about users are embedded in its form and function? By interrogating these questions, we can uncover the hidden politics of everyday objects and advocate for designs that are more inclusive and equitable.

Technological determinism: Technology shapes society, but society also shapes technology in a feedback loop

The relationship between technology and society is often portrayed as a one-way street, with technology driving societal change. However, this perspective oversimplifies a complex dynamic. Technological determinism, the idea that technology shapes society, is only half the story. In reality, society also shapes technology, creating a feedback loop where both influence each other in a continuous cycle. Consider the smartphone: initially designed for communication, it has evolved into a tool for social media, banking, and health monitoring, reflecting societal needs and desires. This evolution wasn’t predetermined by the technology itself but by how society chose to use and adapt it.

To understand this feedback loop, examine the development of the automobile. Early cars were luxury items, but societal demands for accessibility and affordability led to mass production techniques like those pioneered by Henry Ford. This shift not only made cars more widespread but also transformed urban planning, labor patterns, and environmental policies. Conversely, the rise of environmental concerns in the late 20th century spurred the development of electric vehicles, demonstrating how societal values can drive technological innovation. This interplay highlights that technology doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it is both a product and a producer of societal norms.

Practical steps to engage with this feedback loop include critically evaluating how technologies are designed and implemented. For instance, when adopting new tools in education, ask: Does this technology reinforce existing inequalities, or does it create opportunities for inclusivity? Similarly, policymakers must consider how societal values—such as privacy or sustainability—can guide the development of emerging technologies like AI. By actively participating in this process, individuals and institutions can ensure that technology aligns with societal goals rather than dictating them.

A cautionary tale lies in the unintended consequences of this feedback loop. The rise of social media, for example, was shaped by societal desires for connection but has also amplified issues like misinformation and mental health challenges. This underscores the importance of foresight and ethical considerations in technological development. Society must remain vigilant, ensuring that the technologies it shapes do not inadvertently undermine its own well-being.

In conclusion, the interplay between technology and society is a dynamic, reciprocal process. By recognizing this feedback loop, we can move beyond passive consumption of technology and actively shape its trajectory. Whether through individual choices, policy interventions, or collective advocacy, the power to influence this relationship lies within our hands. The question is not whether artifacts have politics, but how we choose to engage with them to build a better future.

Hidden biases in tech: Artifacts can perpetuate discrimination through embedded biases in their creation

Artifacts, from algorithms to everyday tools, often carry the invisible fingerprints of their creators. Consider facial recognition technology, a prime example of how embedded biases can perpetuate discrimination. Studies show that certain systems misidentify darker-skinned individuals at rates up to 34% higher than lighter-skinned individuals. This isn’t a neutral glitch—it’s a reflection of biased training data, where datasets disproportionately feature lighter skin tones. The takeaway? Biases in creation don’t just exist; they actively shape outcomes, often reinforcing systemic inequalities.

To uncover hidden biases in tech, start by examining the data. Biased datasets are the foundation of flawed systems. For instance, a hiring algorithm trained on historical data may penalize resumes with female names or non-white-sounding surnames, mirroring past discrimination. Practical tip: Audit datasets for diversity and representation. Tools like fairness metrics (e.g., disparate impact analysis) can quantify bias, but human judgment remains essential. Without this step, even well-intentioned artifacts can become tools of exclusion.

Next, scrutinize the design process itself. Who is creating these artifacts? Homogeneous teams often overlook blind spots. For example, voice recognition systems struggle with non-native accents, a bias rooted in the dominance of standard American or British English in training data. Comparative analysis reveals that diverse teams produce more inclusive outcomes. A study by McKinsey found companies with diverse leadership are 45% more likely to report growth in market share. Caution: Diversity alone isn’t enough—ensure inclusive practices are embedded in every stage of development.

Finally, consider the broader societal impact. Artifacts don’t operate in a vacuum; they interact with existing power structures. Predictive policing algorithms, for instance, often target marginalized communities due to biased crime data, creating a feedback loop of over-policing. Persuasive argument: Addressing bias requires not just technical fixes but systemic change. Advocate for transparency, regulation, and accountability in tech development. Without these, artifacts will continue to encode and amplify discrimination, regardless of intent.

Explore related products

Government of Paper: The Materiality of Bureaucracy in Urban Pakistan

$22.99 $29.95

ARTIFACT THIEVES: THE DARK HISTORY OF LOOTING AND SMUGGLING

$3.99

Egypt’s Most Terrifying Discoveries: Uncovered Mysteries, Forbidden Artifacts, and Hidden Depths Inside the Osirion, Saqqara, and the Great Pyramid

$5

Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: The Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts

$35.53

Calendar 2026

$14.01

The Vatican Return: How Sacred Indigenous Artifacts Returned After a Century in the Vatican

$8.99

Power and control: Artifacts can enforce or challenge authority, influencing social hierarchies

Artifacts, from the design of city streets to the algorithms of social media, are not neutral. They embed and project power, often in ways that go unnoticed. Consider the layout of a government building: high ceilings, marble floors, and imposing architecture. These features are not accidental. They are deliberate choices meant to awe and intimidate, reinforcing the authority of the institution they house. Similarly, the design of a prison, with its stark walls and limited visibility, exerts control by restricting movement and fostering isolation. Such artifacts do not merely exist; they actively shape the balance of power, often tilting it toward those who commissioned their creation.

To challenge authority, however, artifacts can also be repurposed or redesigned. Graffiti on a government wall, for instance, transforms a symbol of control into a canvas for dissent. The very act of defacing such a structure reclaims power, turning it into a statement of resistance. Similarly, the smartphone, initially a tool for communication, has become a weapon for social change. Activists use it to document abuses, organize protests, and amplify marginalized voices, thereby disrupting established hierarchies. These examples illustrate how artifacts can be both instruments of control and catalysts for liberation, depending on who wields them and for what purpose.

When designing or interacting with artifacts, it’s crucial to ask: Whose power does this serve? A surveillance camera in a public space, for example, may deter crime but also raises questions about privacy and state control. To mitigate such risks, designers and policymakers should adopt a framework of "participatory design," involving the communities affected by the artifact in its creation. This approach ensures that the artifact reflects diverse needs and values, rather than reinforcing the dominance of a single group. Practical steps include holding public consultations, conducting impact assessments, and incorporating feedback loops into the design process.

Finally, the political nature of artifacts extends beyond their physical form to their accessibility. A wheelchair ramp, for instance, challenges the authority of ableist design by making spaces inclusive. Conversely, the absence of such features reinforces exclusion. By prioritizing universal design principles—such as ensuring products and environments are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation—we can create artifacts that dismantle rather than uphold social hierarchies. This requires a shift in mindset, from viewing design as a technical exercise to recognizing it as a political act with far-reaching consequences.

Intended vs. unintended uses: Artifacts often serve purposes beyond their original design, revealing societal needs

Artifacts, once unleashed into the world, often take on lives of their own, diverging from their original purposes in ways that reveal hidden societal needs and desires. Consider the humble paper clip, designed for the singular task of holding sheets of paper together. Yet, it has been co-opted for tasks ranging from makeshift zippers to DIY jewelry, even serving as a tool for resetting iPhones. These unintended uses are not mere quirks; they are symptoms of a deeper phenomenon. When an artifact’s design is flexible enough to accommodate new functions, it becomes a canvas for human ingenuity, reflecting the resourcefulness of users and the gaps in existing solutions. This adaptability highlights how artifacts, far from being neutral tools, become embedded in the fabric of daily life, shaped by the contexts in which they are used.

To understand this dynamic, examine the case of the contraceptive pill, originally intended to regulate menstruation and prevent pregnancy. Its unintended consequence—empowering women to control their reproductive choices—sparked a societal shift far beyond its medical purpose. This example illustrates how artifacts can become catalysts for cultural change, even when their designers never foresaw such outcomes. The pill’s dual role as a medical tool and a symbol of liberation underscores how artifacts can transcend their intended use, becoming instruments of societal transformation. This duality forces us to ask: Who controls the narrative of an artifact’s purpose—its creators or its users?

Practical insights emerge when we consider how to anticipate and harness unintended uses. Designers and policymakers can adopt a proactive approach by studying user behavior and incorporating flexibility into artifact design. For instance, open-source hardware encourages users to modify and repurpose technology, fostering innovation while addressing local needs. A cautionary note, however: unintended uses can also have negative consequences, as seen with opioids, originally designed for pain management but later fueling a public health crisis. Balancing flexibility with safeguards is crucial. For example, pharmaceutical companies could implement stricter dosage guidelines (e.g., limiting initial prescriptions to 3–5 days for acute pain) to mitigate misuse while preserving the drug’s intended benefits.

Comparing artifacts across cultures further illuminates this tension. In rural India, mobile phones, designed primarily for communication, have been repurposed as educational tools, with farmers using them to access weather forecasts and market prices. In contrast, in Western societies, the same devices often serve as status symbols or sources of distraction. These divergent uses reflect differing societal priorities and resource constraints. By studying such variations, we can identify patterns in how artifacts are adapted, offering lessons for designing tools that better align with diverse needs.

Ultimately, the interplay between intended and unintended uses reveals artifacts as mirrors of society, reflecting its creativity, inequalities, and aspirations. Rather than viewing unintended uses as failures, we should see them as opportunities to learn and adapt. For instance, urban planners could observe how public spaces are repurposed (e.g., skateparks emerging in abandoned lots) to inform more inclusive design strategies. By embracing this dynamic, we can create artifacts that not only fulfill their original purpose but also evolve to meet the ever-changing demands of their users. This approach transforms artifacts from static objects into dynamic participants in the ongoing story of human progress.

Frequently asked questions