sustainism

Sustainism: A Designer’s Cultural Revolution

By: Category: Opinions

The world spins on the law of supply and demand. What the people of our various societies want and need, the businesses and governments of the world work to provide, whether it be material, commercial or social provisions. But what do you call it when our needs become so large that they require a change of thought processes, priorities and goals? And what happens when those changes need to be made in different ways, sequentially, by many industries, simultaneously?

Such a turn in lifestyle doesn’t happen overnight, but a change in the way we think and live, provoked by the rising needs of the people can be described as a revolution. The revolution described here is a cultural revolution of sorts as it requires a change of how we think and act and is no doubt supplemented by innovations in design and technology, mediums which have continually spurred human progress forward over the centuries.

So, when is our next cultural revolution coming? The history of mankind tells us that humans are only willing to make major changes when they are on the brink of extinction; when we are on the very precipice of doom are we yet willing to evolve. It is at this point that we accomplish the most. And with the Internet, smartphones and other new technology, our world has become larger, but more close-knit and therefore able to learn, adapt and evolve faster. Global consciousness promulgated by new media is now the stem of what our revolutions are based on and will likely dictate what the next cultural revolution is based on.

As the year of 2012 has come to a close, many of us recall the crises of the past couple of decades which were broadcasted and dissected around the world and engraved in the permanent wall of history that is the Internet. And with the most recent sensational doomsday panic, the end of the Mayan calendar cycle (which obviously passed without incident), some of us may inevitably find ourselves scoffing at these events in retrospect and say to ourselves, “The world will keep turning, no matter what.” Sure, it will. But it’s also up to us how we want to live out the rest of our days on this great blue ball.

With climate change becoming more than just an inflated talking point, but also a global matter of life and death, and energy becoming an increasingly hostile factor in this issue for major world powers, there is surely not much time to reconcile these two before we discover it’s too late to act.

 Sustainism: A Designers Cultural Revolution

What does any of this have to do with design? Design is a core part of our lives. Nearly everything we endeavor to create in any industry requires a designer’s consideration. As our needs become more specific, so too does our capacity to provide expand and, subsequently, the design industry grows as well. Cultural thinker Michiel Schwartz and designer Joost Ellfers recognized the substantial role design plays in the cultural revolution necessary for progress, which they dubbed, Sustainism.

 Sustainism: A Designers Cultural Revolution

Now, you may be wondering, “What exactly is he talking about and what is ‘Sustainism’?” Simply put, in their words, Sustainism is “a worldwide twenty-first century cultural movement and cultural era in design, technology, lifestyles, visual arts, architecture, media, business, development, learning, etc.”

 Sustainism: A Designers Cultural Revolution

In a book titled, Sustainism Is The New Modernism: A Cultural Manifesto for the Sustainist Erathe book isn’t traditional literature, but is laden with graphics and snippets of text describing the ideology of what they believe needs to be adopted by citizens of the world in order to move forward as an environmentally conscious, socially flexible and industrially sensible society.

 Sustainism: A Designers Cultural Revolution

1c593cc976a729f4feea9f7d483884f8 699x600 Sustainism: A Designers Cultural Revolution

This manifesto uses design to showcase the beginning of a solution to a host of many of social, economic and environmental issues our societies faces, from childhood obesity to climate change and clean energy.

The main point of what Michiel Schwartz and Joost Elffers had in mind when they created this manifesto was not to create a solid Bible-like piece of literature dictating what, how and why we need to change our ways in order to survive in the long-term, but to provide a context for that debate itself. It’s up to us to figure out what works for us and what doesn’t. Now, more than ever, we have the capacity to discover that for ourselves. To use our talents in our industry to reach this goal of sustainability through sustainism.

In an age when one app can heavily influence one’s life from health, daily habits and a person’s very environment, in general, surely we have the capability to continue to use technology in ways which revolutionize our society to a sustainable one for future generations. Michiel Schwartz and Joost Elffers tapped into a huge idea from a few perspectives using graphic design as the medium, which is no doubt interesting from a philosophical standpoint.

 Sustainism: A Designers Cultural Revolution

So, designers, let us know what you think about this “cultural revolution.” Is it a brilliant undertaking we should all work together toward? Is it already underway? Are we far from being able to implement Sustainism as described here? Comment below, we would love to hear your thoughts. Happy New Year!


  • Iconoclasm

    “Sustainism”, in the same way as environmentalism, targets symptoms ie. waste, degradation of the environment, artificial scarcity etc. These symptoms are all part of the greater disease which is the economic system itself.

    Those pushing for “Sustainism” claim to want a “cultural revolution”, however honestly they are simply trying to take future credit for what already exists in the form of green-washed (and notably designed) environmental Corporate Social Responsibility. At the same time, the Sustainists attempt to individualize the problem of the environment by blaming low level technicians and professionals [designers] for the results of policies and systems drafted and enforced by politico-economic actors.

    If the Sustainists [environmentalists] are genuine about their wishes for a healthier environment, their prospective movement cannot honestly prescribe a solution that is anything but superficial. In order to provide an effective solution, those who encourage the degradation of the environment in the interest of stockholder profits must have incentive not to do so. The moralizing position of Sustainism does not provide an adequate solution to this problem. Instead it advocates self-flagellating and self congratulatory ego gratification.

    This book is part of a pattern of well intentioned, but opportunistic designers elevating the field of design to a sort of technocratic ideal-class that should take responsibility for all the ills and take credit for all the gains in society. Pure hubris.

  • http://twitter.com/TheCeeJayLouis CeeJayLouis™

    I partly agree with you, however, this article is more about the creation and not the creator. I want designers who aren’t necessarily aware of sustainability and the need for its integration in society to ponder the relevance of it and how it can influence their work as well as their lifestyle. I don’t find you equating environmentalists to be sustainists as accurate at all, by the way. The book presents new terms that you should be wary of using at all, much less susbstituting for other terms which are more sensible and better known.

    Secondly, perhaps the authors and some other other academics are greenwashing the public and using capitalism as a means to pervert sustainability and sustainism is that love child, but by no means does that imply that we are all controlled by these malcontents. Designers and others have the power to implement sustainability as it works for their specific communities. It is for this reason that a year ago, I wrote a lengthy letter to Dr. Schwartz lambasting his decision to call Sustainism “new modernism” when clearly its postmodern. Sustainism, as you pointed out, is not the end all be all solution by nature and no one should claim it is; that’s postmodernism by definition. Also, I don’t see your point is made when you claim sustainists are blaming technicians and designers; in fact, it is the opposite. The creation of these designs aren’t, in my opinion, a slight to designers anywhere nor is the text.

    Lastly, the cultural revolution comes with people realizing within their own unique communities that sustainability is relative, in my opinion. Until then, skeptics like yourself will be able to easily dismiss the idealist monoculturist ideas presented here because of the unavoidable hubris/inherent optimism of the designer-philosopher authors. Unlike most cases, the medium is not the message here, friend. What should be taken away is the idea that it isn’t a universal solution, but a thought spark for how sustainability can be implemented in postmodern capitalist societies, i.e. design. In another society or different economic class, design is all but relevant. So, as you can clearly see, Sustainism is not as bad as you criticize it to be when analyzed within context.

  • Iconoclasm

    Wow, what a thoughtful response that was! (I probably shouldn’t be surprised given the attention to detail in your article.) I learned several great terms reading through your response.

    There are three reasons I find sustainability and/or any individualizing of the horrors of capitalism to be unjustified.

    The first reason, argued from a capitalist perspective, is that sustainability is inherently antithetical to the short term aims of profitable firms, medium and large (the worst environmental offenders). Temporary regulation won’t change the fact that capitalist firms are inherently opposed to taking these responsibilities for their externalities. However, there are several ways capitalist firms could implement such practices. They may do it if they already have a distinct competitive advantage, or they can implement the sustainable measures in conjunction with a marketing campaign. The only small businesses capable of doing so are those already successful boutique shops with steady income streams. If these qualifiers are not met, businesses large and small will soon find themselves out of business.

    The second reason that it is not justifiable to implement these practices is because it is futile for the individual [lifestylist], small firm or rare large firm to do so in the face of the non-sustainable practices of the military as well as unregulated firms that travel to different countries for their manufacturing as is necessary to continue their cost-cutting strategies. It will not take a cultural, or social, but a political revolution to make even a slight change in the environmental trajectory.

    Third, sustainability as a strategy on a small scale is but a distraction from the root causes of the destruction of the environment. Sustainability, like charity, is ineffective at the larger humanistic goals that we likely share because it obscures and distracts those who take part in it as to the origins of the societal dysfunctions they wish to cure.

    Oscar Wilde said it best:

    “the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good”

    This is not to say that the solution is to just sit and watch as the world burns, however it is to say that the conventional routes of action are counterproductive to building movements towards the larger changes that must be made.

  • http://twitter.com/TheCeeJayLouis CeeJayLouis™

    I agree with you entirely. That’s why I decided to write about Sustainism, despite healthy critiques on this manifesto and its authors. I believe that the best ideas that can be captured from this, is a means for a capitalist society to implement its own form of sustainability and, subsequently, a template for other economies. Much can be adapted from Western societies and have been. Ironically, the authors may not necessarily have intended to brand Sustainism as an elitist eco term/monoculture for Capitalist societies themselves, or maybe they did, but aren’t willing to blatantly admit it. Nevertheless, to claim your new term “Sustainism” is beyond Modernism and Postmodernism and is a new era unto itself yet on the same token call it “New Modernism” is contradictory and revealing.

    Modernism is what fueled the Industrial Era and allegedly what got us into this mess, so a rational person would think that these self-described Sustainists would be wary to associate with it. They are not because what they are prescribing is the beginning of another kind of modernism; a thought revolution where corporations find sustainability to be profitable and a practice beyond greenwashing and CSR, but as a part of their functional business models. Contrary to what it may seem like, the authors don’t propose Sustainism outside of a capitalistic perspective at all; as I stated previously, design is almost completely irrelevant outside of a capitalist society. They likely anticipate Governments to eventually make policies which will support such an environment.

    That’s why within the book, Michiel Schwarz and Joost Elffers came up with designs for labels which designate the amount of CO2 expelled for each product. Once a way of finding sustainable practices to be economic is discovered, the next phase is implementation and therefore design. By extension, small businesses will eventually have the means/no choice but to salute this new business antic because by then it will be ingrained in the populace. Not anyone will find a bottle of Coke as desirable if the label design doesn’t state it took less than 20kg of CO2 per bottle to deliver to their convenience store. A crazy conception, but that is the point. That’s why they use strong terms like “revolution” and “manifesto.”

    Lastly, I can see how Sustainism is not seen as conventional or remotely possible as things are. In fact, the authors are merely speculating on human behavior, the most irrational of all. For them to anticipate such a revolution out loud and not have made any real assertions as to how it will happen, but only conclude that it’s already on the way is, frankly, absurdly optimistic. Then again, Sustainists have to be inherently optimistic. There is no point in trying to save the world if you don’t believe in it.

  • Guest

    Thanks for this thoughtful discussion! I appreciate your thoughts on this topic, it was a great dialogue.

  • Guest

    Here’s the other design for Carbon Emissions they envision will be used on commercial products within a a capitalist society.

  • Guest

    CO2

  • Iconoclasm

    Well said! Looking forward to your next article :)