Stories for Designing in Emergency Management

Design for Emergency Management With Narrative as a Substrate. The Butcher, the World, and the Symphony. A NoiseBox Publication.

Introduction

I was delivering my annual talk at the Colorado Emergency Management Conference in February of 2020. At this time, COVID-19 was located in the Pacific Northwest, and there seemed to be a sense of safety given its location. Or, there was no perceived imminent threat to Colorado, at least there was not in the conversations I participated in. The talk I delivered was titled “Design Thinking for the End of the World.” It revolved around a few key points, the central of which was the stories we tell are how we make sense of the world so that we may design for it. Typically, I share the design process with emergency managers by componentizing it into two interrelated phases: Crafting a desirable and foreseeable end and acting intentionally to bring it into being. They can be broken down much further, as needed. During this talk, the design process was broken down into three components.

1. The Problem: What are the contents of the present, and why are they an issue for us?

2. The Future: (formerly “the solution”) How would we like the contents of the present to be different in the future?

3. The Thing: What will we create, or how will we act to bring about the desired future?

I cannot remember when I initially gave the talk, whether each component was supported by its own story, or if each element was placed within a single coherent story. Within three days, COVID-19 was a national problem, and Design Thinking for the End of the World was all but forgotten. Until now.

Accelerating & Decelerating

There is a need for a slight delay between the change taking place in the world and solidifying it as part of the running story to be used as a foundation for design. As the elements of the story designers are writing about accelerate, multiply, or become more complex, designers must decelerate their forming of the story, which is vital to creating a valuable narrative. Inserting a delay between the observations a story is about and making them a part of the story is likely to reveal larger-scale patterns and possibilities for intervention, help draw a distinction between noise/not noise, make sure the wrong events or relationships are not codified, see what takes shape and settles down before solidifying it and attaching it as a new part of the substrate story in the design process. The observer’s goal is to avoid becoming entangled in the subjectivity of the emerging world stories are written about. There is much to gain from getting close to or inside a problem and seeing how the complex system it exists in operates. The value of subjective experience is enhanced if it is connected with detached, objective observations. When the world is moving fast, story writers must move slowly to have a broad view, get the bigger picture, and avoid noise or valueless tangents.

A Line Drawn

Lines drawn are both defining and compelling and are at the heart of this post’s handling of the development of stories on a primordial level. Stories contain any number of elements or “things.” The interaction pattern of things, their disposition, qualities, quantities, form, materials, style, personality, histories, tendencies, goals, strategies, futures, imaginaries, and so on make a story worth telling and provide needed information for designers.

Lines are drawn through fundamental acts of distinction, also known as operations of distinction. Operations of distinction appear are most frequently associated with the work Spencer-Brown’s important book Laws of Form, which presents and discusses the notion of a distinction at length and in many different applications (Mingers, 1995; Schultz, 2019; Spencer-Brown, 1973). Laws of form’s relationship with mathematics that deal with linguistic statements require “going beneath the level of language to uncover that on which language itself rests” (Mingers, 1995, p.50). Spencer-Brown, like Maturana, finds language not to be exclusively concerned but operational and practical and considers distinctions to be the most fundamental linguistic act that can be performed (Mingers, 1995).

When we draw a distinction (for example, a line), it cannot be neglected; it has affected the space in which it is written, and we are, as such, “in” the form. The first distinction literally is a first judgment, an Ur-teil, which determines everything coming after it. Once the distinction has been drawn, a “universe” is there, and the gates to return to a state of nothingness are closed(Schultz, 2019)

Ur-teil can mean judgment, opinion, decree, reasoning, and decision. The distinction has an inside or “marked state.” The outside of the distinction “is a nameless residual, and unmarked leftover, from which the marked side is delineated” (Schultz, 2019, p.161). Mingers (1995) provides another perspective on the first distinction and its impact. Whereas Schultz (2019) takes the perspective of drawing distinctions, Mingers takes the linguistic angle. Critical to constructing a story that serves as the basis for design is recognizing the first distinction made, which sets the stage for everything to follow. If the first distinction contains an error, it will be found in all the following distinctions. Using the same logic, if any distinction contains an error during the story's writing, the narrative will contain an error, resulting in a flawed design process and outcome.

Mingers (1995) explains the drawing of a distinction must be motivated by “ some reason (intention or motive) for doing so” (p.51). The operation must produce differences in value between the outside and inside of the distinction for the person who drew it (Mingers, 1995; Schultz, 2019). Things that have been distinguished can be given a name that signifies their value.

Before counting things we must be able to distinguish between them, and before distinguishing several different things, we must be able to distinguish something. This is the foundation of all language: to be able to create from nothing (one thing, or state, or space that is distinct” (Mingers, 1995, p.50).

While Mingers (1995) regards operations of distinction as the most fundamental linguistic act, they do not necessarily need to take place out loud. Whether said silently to oneself or out loud, or maybe to someone else, distinctions perform the same function, as described by Varela (1979) below.

A distinction splits the world into two parts, 'that' and 'this', or 'environment' and 'system', or 'us' and 'them', etc. One of the most fundamental of all human activities is the making of distinctions. Certainly, it is the most fundamental act of system theory, the very act of defining the system presently of interest, of distinguishing it from its environment (p. 79).

Mingers (1995) states that distinctions are the most fundamental linguistic act. However, it is important to recognize that the linguistic function is part of a larger embodied process. To draw a distinction, something must first be sensed. Sensing involves sensorimotor activity and correlations, including touch, sight, hearing, smell, and taste. Once something is sensed, it can be distinguished as the most fundamental linguistic act that can occur, though it remains embodied. The thing that is sensed and distinguished does not necessarily need to be present. While walking up a friend’s driveway, one might smell meat cooking on a grill. They cannot see it to distinguish the grill from its surroundings, but they can distinguish the anticipated presence of a grill they will see later and one that is actively in use in the present.

Distinctions can be thought of as slides being quickly added to a carousel. While they remain entangled within our sensorimotor activity, inner and outer speech, and their spot in the running narrative, it is useful to consider distinctions materially. While this image arranges them circularly, it is more appropriate to think of them linearly. Slides are useful mental models for thinking about distinctions: Each slide contains a distinction, a line drawn with a particular motivation and intention that splits things in two and produces more value on the inside of the distinction than the outside for the individual who drew it and that which has been distinguished can be given a name (Mingers, 1995; Schultz, 2019).

The concept of granularity is not found in the distinction literature. Varela (1979) uses the example of system and environment as an example of a distinction. This critical distinction provides designers with key information relevant to the beginning of the design process. With the environment demarcated from the system, it is now possible to distinguish larger system elements and then become more granular. Thought of as slides, each distinction lines up after the primary distinction of system/environment. The contents of each slide then become increasingly granular, moving from the system’s emergent properties, constraints (designed versus emergent), patterns, pathways of interaction, relationship, information, dependencies, and actors in the system, distinguished by primary function (Morin, 1992).

In another context, emergency managers may distinguish an area within their community as particularly vulnerable to hazard events. The primary distinction is drawn, and though it may depart from the seminal literature, it will be amorphous rather than a linear line or a perfect circle. Subsequent distinctions seeking a more granular understanding will work from the coarse elements to the finest details, producing a thick stack of slides that can guide designers. The thick slide deck brings designers from the primary distinction marking the area of concern to the minimal attributes that make it vulnerable. While accompanying narrative forms of observation are also valuable, the distinctions represent the observer's experience and how they cut the world up to make meaning. It is a world that has been broken into pieces, but not in a reductionist way, but more of a puzzle made up of the most valued pieces that are reassembled to form the basis of design.

The Residual

With each distinction drawn, there is that which is valued inside the distinction and that which is outside the distinction and considered “residual” (Schultz, 2019). The residual may remain as such in perpetuity as it relates to the design project. Although considered the residual and located outside of the distinction, it still has a purpose. A distinction is drawn that “splits the world into two parts” (Varela, 1979, p.79). The drawing of this scission separates the valuable from what is left over, cutting the world up in two.

As emergency managers recognize whether in the ever c-8

What is considered outside

The example of distinguishing between system and environment is particularly relevant to the section below.

At the beginning of the story, upon which a design process is predicated, or at any point, something new enters into the storyline, it does so through “a distinction, i.e. the drawing of a boundary (p.51). A boundary “perfectly separates that which is one side of the boundary from that which is on the other” (p.51). Mingers, in studying Maturana, explains distinctions arise out of the void. Once a distinction is drawn, “that which is distinguished from everything else, and once it can be distinguished it can be indicated or identified” (p.51).

Producing the wrong design artifact likely has to do with a distinction being drawn improperly. The world was cut into this and that, valuable and not valuable and significant and significant, by drawing a boundary. Perhaps something not significant was actually significant, and all the distinctions that were built on top of it were, by default, wrong. The boundaries and distinctions draw lines around the things, places, people, experiences, sensations, services, customs, cultures, traditions, and practices that are important. At the same time, those who are drawing these distinctions are saying everything else is not important. One can see how quickly even distinguishing one element improperly could derail the design process by ending up with something needing redesign.

The Butcher, Distinctions, and Complex Thought

Morin (1992) contributes uniquely to the discussion of drawing distinctions through a craft-based profession. Two butchers with different skill levels are presented. The way they cut the meat in front of them leads to different outcomes. This can easily be translated to the cutting up of the world through operations of distinction.

“The systemic cutting up can be either a clumsy butchering of the phenomenal universe, which will flow out in arbitrary systems, or on the contrary the art of the skillful butcher who cuts up his beef by following the outline of the joints. The systemic sensibility will be like that of the musician's ear which perceives the competitions. symbioses, interferences, overlappings of themes in the same symphonic flow. Where the brutish mind will recognize only one theme surrounded by noise” –Edgar Morin

Morin (1992) suggests the brutish approach to cutting up beef results in “arbitrary systems” flowing out. Looking at the definitions of arbitrary, the mathematical one seems the most relatable as it indicates that the systems produced by cutting clumsily are of “unspecified value.” Carried over to drawing distinctions, if a style that could be labeled as “brutish” is followed performing these operations, value may not be produced where it is desired. On the contrary, the skillful butcher cuts up the beef by following the joints, informed by a systemic sensibility. The skillful butcher informed by systems is compared to a musician who senses the complexity of the symphony, including multiple themes. In contrast, the less skilled butcher only notices one theme with noise all around it. This seems to be the classic argument for complex thought (some might say systems thinking) over reductionism, which does not recognize systems. While distinguishing things, the skillful butcher sees systems and is sensitive to them as they perform these operations, particularly where the line or boundary is drawn. The edges of the distinction are how the world is cut up like the butcher’s beef. The butcher who has developed a systemic sensibility seeks to draw distinctions between systems and environment accurately handle the world before it ends up in the developing story. The thing of concern may be situated in a complex relational pattern, giving it its significance. When drawing a distinction, the boundary must be broad enough to encompass the other things that give it meaning. Doing so better informs the design process by drawing more valuable and accurate distinctions. As Morin (1992) calls it, the brutish mind may follow a reductionist path and focus on a singular thing without any context. Anything but the thing being paid attention to is considered to be noise.

Varela, F. J. (1979). Principles of biological autonomy. New York, NY: Elsevier North Holland.