Besides Designing to Interact: Interacting to Design

Thomas Fischer Ranulph Glanville

Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University CybernEthics Research
No.111 Ren'ai Road 52 Lawrence Road, Southsea
215123 Suzhou, China Hampshire PO5 1NY, United Kingdom
(+086) 512-88161783 (+44) 23 92 73 77 79
Thomas.Fischer@xjtlu.edu.cn ranulph@glanville.co.uk

ABSTRACT
Thispaperaimstofillagapinthehistoricselfawarenessofcontemporaryinteraction
designbyreintroducingthecyberneticnotionofinteractionasoriginallydevelopedby
GordonPaskintheearly1950s,andarticulatedsincethe1970sintheformof
ConversationTheoryandInteractionofActorsTheory.Forthispurpose,weintroduce
firstandsecondordercyberneticswithreferencetocircularcausalityandtoRoss
Ashby'sLawofRequisiteVariety,whichareexplainedingenerallyaccessibleterms.We
showthatfromthecyberneticperspective,interactionisnotviewedasapropertyof
somedesignoutcomes,butasaprerequisiteofanydesign.Wearguethatthecybernetic
notionofinteractionoffersapossibleenrichmentofthethinking,theoryandeducation
towardsinteractionasitiscommonlyviewedincontemporaryinteractiondesignand
concludewithsomeremarksregardingtheethicaldimensionsimpliedintheconference
theme"Delight&Responsibility".

Conference theme: Delight & Responsibility

Keywords:cybernetics, circular causality, design process, interaction, novelty-generation

1
1. INTRODUCTION
Addressingtheusabilityofsoftwareinterfaces,theflowofservicetransactionsorthe
stimulativeandresponsivecharacteristicsof"behaving"artpieces(tonamesome
examples),thefieldofinteractiondesignisgenerallyconcernedwithinteractionasa
propertyof,oraprocessfacilitatedby,designoutcomes.Thefielddatesitsownorigins
backtothe1980sandpointstoBillMoggridgescoiningofthefieldsnameand
pioneeringresearcheffortstowardsinteractiondesignasitisdescribedabove.Herewe
offeranargumentfor,andanecessaryreminderof,anearlierandinsomewaysmore
fundamentalconnectionthathasbeenproposedbetweeninteractionanddesign,inthe
fieldofcybernetics:Interactionnotastheoutcomebutastheprocess,theessential
conditionandoriginofdesign.Thecontemporaryunderstandingofinteractioninthe
interactiondesignfieldandtheoriginalunderstandingofinteractiondevelopedin
cyberneticsdonotcontradictorprecludeoneanother.Interactiondesigncanbe
regardedasaparticularareawithincyberneticthinking,whereascyberneticthinking
canberegardedasapowerfulenrichmentofthinking,theoryandeducationwithin
interactiondesign.

2. CYBERNETICS
Althoughitscontemporaneousoriginsareinthecircularitiesofsocialandbiological
systems(atthefamousMaryConferences;seeHeims,1991),initsearlyyearsduringthe
middleofthe20thcentury,cyberneticsfocuseditsattentiononcontrolinregulatory
systemsacrossabroadrangeofdisciplinesandonprimarilytechnicalapplicationareas.
Later,around1970,thefieldwasextendedtorecognizeandtoaccommodatetheroleof
theobservertoaddressalsolesstechnicalphenomenaoflearning,creativity,therapy
andsoforth.Cyberneticsisthusdescribedashavingtwodistinctflavors:Socalledfirst
ordercybernetics,or"thecyberneticsofobservedsystems",whichisoftenencountered
intechnicalandengineeringcontexts;aswellassocalledsecondordercybernetics,or
"thecyberneticsofobservingsystems"(vonFoerster,1974)whichisencounteredin
speculativeepistemologicalandphilosophicalcontexts.(Ithasbeenpointedoutthat
thesetwoflavorsarenotstrictlydistinguishableandthatfirstordercyberneticsismore
appropriatelyportrayedasaspecialcaseofthemoregeneralsecondordercybernetics,
somewhatinthewayinwhichNewtonianmechanicsisnotdistinctfrombutaspecial
caseofthemoregeneralEinsteinianmechanicsseeGlanville2007b,p.1182).

TwokeyfiguresintheearlydevelopmentofcyberneticswereArturoRosenbluethand
NorbertWiener,whostudiedteleologicalfeedbackmechanismssuchasthose
underlyinghomeostasis.Followinganearliermeetingonthesetopicsthatwas
conductedbeforeWorldWarIIreachedtheU.S.,theJosiahMacy,Jr.Foundation
organizedaseriesofconferencesbetween1946and1953(Pias,2003)onthetopic
whichwaseventuallynamedCyberneticsafterthetitleofabookwrittenbyWiener
(1948).Theparticipantsattheseconferencesrealizedthattheywerelookingatsimilar
phenomenaandpatternswithintheirrespectivedisciplines,usingtheirowndistinct
disciplinaryterminologies.Acentraloutcomeofthemeetingswastheparticipants'
abilityeventuallytotalktoeachotherusingasharedterminologydescribingacommon
setofconceptsandmechanisms,andaburgeoningawarenessthatcyberneticsisameta
disciplinewiththepotentialtoinformmanyareasofinquiry.Duringthewar,Wiener
workedonradarguidedantiaircraftguns,whichembodiedsomecyberneticideas:
Sincefiredprojectilesrequiredsignificanttimetoreachtargetedaircraft,theapparatus

2
hadtoanalyzeandpredictaircrafttrajectoriesand,inordertoachieveahit,toaim
aheadoftheaircraftatthemomentoffiring.Thisbeingacommonsensicalandworkable
approach,theapparatusineffecttranscendedthedomainofnaturalscience:Bridging
thenaturalsciences'domainofanalysisanddescription("becauseof"i.e.thedomainof
efficientcausesinAristotle'sterms)andthenormativedomainofprescriptionand
desire("inorderto",i.e.thedomainofAristotle'sfinalcauses)theapparatusaswellas
cyberneticsasawholeventuredtodistanceitselfalittlefromclassicalscientificmethod.
Otherfieldssuchasmanagement,therapy,economics,designandthesocialsciences,all
beingconcernedlargelywithwhatshouldberatherthanjustwhatis,didthesame.
Design,beingayoungacademicfieldandnotoverlydependentonrigorousformalism,
boremostofthebruntforthisventure,beingexpectedtocleanitselfupandtobecome
properlyscientific(Glanville,1999).Cyberneticsventuredmuchfurther.Inparticularits
secondordervariant,despitebeingcommonsensicalandworkable,hasoftengenerated
wrathanddisdainintheorthodoxscientificcommunity.

Oneofthekeyfiguresinthetransitionfromfirstordertosecondordercyberneticswas
GordonPask,whotaughtattheArchitecturalAssociationinLondonandwhowasoneof
thefirsttoapplycyberneticstodesign(aswellastolearning).Theoutcomesofthis
applicationarepractical,intheformofPask'sinstallationsandartpiecessuchasthe
earlyMusicolourdatingfromtheearly1950s,andColloquyofMobiles,createdforthe
CyberneticSerendipityExhibitionin1968(Reichhardt,1971,pp.76ff.);andtheoretical,
intheformofPask'sConversationTheory(Pask,1976).ConversationTheoryisa
relativist,constructivistbodyofideas"builtonthepremisethateachindividual's
conceptandmeaningwillbedifferentfromtheconceptualizationsandmeaningsof
otherindividuals,eveniftheconcepttheydiscusshasthesametag"(Barnes,2007,p.
76).Inotherwords:participantsinaconversationcannotknowwhethertheytalkabout
thesamethings,andcanthereforeassumenomorethantotalkasiftheytalkaboutthe
samethings.Fromthisfollowstherequirementforparticipantsinaconversationto
strivetowardsworkablematchesofpersonalconceptsthroughaprocessofnegotiating
whatistalkedabout,ratherthanjusttalkingaboutit.Experienceshowsthatthisisnot
particularlydifficultinmanycaseswhereconversationpartnerssharecommon
historiesincommonenvironments.Outsidesuchconditions,matchingconceptscanbe
muchmorechallenging.AccordingtoConversationTheory,noparticipanthasformal
controlofanygivenconversation,whichisthuscharacterizedbygenerosityandby
conversationpartnersmeetingasequalsand"ateyelevel".Throughthemechanismsof
conversation,eachparticipanthasthepotentialandresponsibilitytosee,recognizeand
accommodatewhat(s)hedidnotsee,recognizeandaccommodatebefore:Newviews
andideas.ConversationTheorycanthusreadilybeusedtodescribeandinform
epistemologicalpractices,suchaslearninganddesigning.Itledcyberneticstoexpandits
ownscopebeyondtechnicalcontrolsystemstowardsanappreciationofbeingoutof
controlandofignorancenecessaryconditionsforcomingtosee,toknoworto
appreciatesomethingnew.Conversationiscontrastedwithencountersinwhichone
partydominatesandrestrictstheother(i.e."Hitlertypecontrol";Glanville,2004).

Pask(1969)pointedoutthearchitecturalrelevanceofcyberneticsinthelate1960s.
Sincethen,variouswritersdescribedesignerlyinquiryalongsimilarlines,forexample
asan"argumentative""conspiracy",characterizedbya"symmetryofignorance"(Rittel,
1984,pp.320,325,327),as"discursive"(Goel,1995,p.166),asa"dialogue"(Medawar,
1979,p.85;Schn,1983,p.68)andasa"conversation"(Jones,1992,p.73;Glanville,
1999,p.88).

3
3. CIRCULAR CAUSALITY
PaskexpandedConversationTheorytoamoregeneraltheoryhecalledInteractionof
ActorsTheory.Inhisunderstandingofinteraction,Paskdescribesmoreexplicitlywhat
wasalreadyimplicitinConversationTheory:circular(ormutual)causality:AchangesB,
andBalsochangesA.Ormoresimply:AchangesA.Suchcircularcausalityis,weinsist,
notonlycommonsensicalandworkable,butalsointimatelyfamiliarandcritically
importanttodesigners.Considertheconversationdesignershavewithpenciland
sketchpaper:"IdrawsomethingbecauseofsomethingIdiscoveredinasketch,whichI
drewafterdiscoveringsomethinginaprevioussketch,..."(seeGlanville,1999,p.88;
Fischer,2009;Fischer,2010).Similar,mutualinteractionbetweenselfandotheroccurs
betweendesignersandothers,designersandimaginedothers,designersandphysical
objectssuchasmodelsanddesignersandtools,inparticularwhereaccidents,
coincidences,andsurprisescomeintoplayandwherethemindissufficientlyopenand
opportunistictotakethemonboard.Circularcausalityis(weclaim)intuitivelyobvious
whereverdynamicstabilityoccurs.Consider,forexample,theinteractionbetweenthe
courseofaship,itsanglerelativetoafixedstar,andthemovementsoftheship'srudder,
performedbytheship'ssteersman,whohappenstohavegivencyberneticsitsname:
Theangleatwhichthestarappearsrelativetotheship'sbowhasaneffectonthe
steersman,whoadjuststheangleoftherudder.Butconversely,theangleoftherudder
alsohasaneffectontheangleatwhichthestarappears!

Consideranotherclassicexampleofdynamicstability:thethermostat.Asimple
thermostatsetupconsists,inessence,ofaheatsensitiveswitchandafurnace.Theheat
sensitiveswitchisconstructedsothat(inprinciple)itclosesacontactwhenthe
temperaturedropsbelowacertainpoint,openingitwhenthetemperaturerisesabove
thatsamepoint.Thefurnaceisconnectedtoanelectricalpowersourceviatheswitch.If
theapparatusisinaspacewithatemperaturebelowtheswitchingpointtheswitchis
"on"andthefurnacewillheatupthespaceuntilthetemperaturerisesabovethispoint,
whentheswitchgoesintoits"off"position,thefurnacestopsheating,andthe
temperatureslowlydropsagainuntilitmovesbelowtheswitchingpointandthe
processstartsanew.Booksandcoursesinengineeringwillnormallydescribethe
relationshipbetweenswitchandfurnacesuchthattheswitchcontrolsthefurnace,i.e.
thatthereisasimplelinearcauseandeffectrelationshipbetweenswitchandfurnace.
Thisnarrativefitswellintorationalscientificlogic,which,sincethetimeofAristotle,has
avoidedcircularrelationshipsincludingselfcontradictionandparadox.Workingonthe
PrincipiaMathematica,BertrandRussellspentfiveyearstryingtoaccommodate
paradoxinformallogiconlytogiveupeventuallyandtodeclareitillegal(Segal,1986)
inamovethatisontheonehanddesignerlyandontheotherhandilluminating
regardingtheauthorityofscientificdoctrine.Designers,incontrast,arewillingandable
toworkonparadoxicalgrounds:Lessismore.Yet,weshouldnotdenythatthefurnace
controlstheswitchasmuchastheswitchcontrolsthefurnace:Theswitchopeningor
closingtheelectricalcircuittogglesthestateofthefurnacewhilethefurnaceheatingthe
spaceorallowingittocooltogglestheswitch.Intermsofcontrol,thesystemiscircular
andsymmetrical,justasinthefixedstarandrudderintheaboveexample.

Thecyberneticacknowledgementofcircularcausality(alongwithotherlessorthodox
ideas;seeSegal,1986)poseschallengeswherecyberneticthinkingmeetsconventional
scientificthinking,whichislargelybasedonthislinear,syllogisticAristoteliancausality
andlogic(considerhowacademicscommonlyavoidcirculararguments).Hence,the

4
acknowledgementofcircularlycausalrelationshipsindesignprocesses(suchasDorst
andCross,2001)remainsirritatinglyrareinmainstreamdesignresearch.

4. THE OBSERVER
Ourtendencytolinearizecircularlycausalphenomenacanbeillustratedbythe
constraintsimposedbythelinearstructuresofrationalscientificlogic.Butonestillmust
askwhy,ifcirclesarebrokenup,andifonlypartialcirclesareconsideredatanygiven
time,dowechoosethehalveswechoose?Whydowefocusontheswitchcontrollingthe
furnaceandnotontheoppositehalfofthecirclewherethefurnacecontrolstheswitch?
Thereasonwewouldliketoofferisthesamereasonthatmakesitsoobviously
agreeablethat"aneggisameansbywhichachickenproducesanotherchicken",whileit
seemsstrangetostatethat"achickenisameansbywhichaneggproducesanotheregg".
Bothstatementsareequallyaccurate,butweseemtogravitatetowardstheonethatwe
identifywithbecauseitalignswithourownambitionsanddesires(ourown"inorder
to")!Itseemsweareusuallymoreawareofourdesiretohavebabiestomakemoreof
ourselvesthanweareofourownnecessitytoallowbabiestogeneratemorebabies.
Similarly,therelationshipoftheswitchandthefurnaceiscommonlylinearizedand
directedaccordingtoourdesires:Wecarethatthefurnaceison(becauseitgivesus
comfortablewarmth,forexample)whereastheswitchdoesnotgiveusanything.

Thus,theobserverentersthepictureinsecondordercybernetics,violatinganother
tenetofthenaturalsciences:Therequirementthatobservationhastooccurasifno
observerwaspresentastrategywhichsupportsrepeatability.Theneutralandisolated
locusobservandithescientificinvestigatorisexpectedtoassume(alongwith
quantitativemethodsandcriteria)isindeedtoensureobjectivity,butisrejectedto
varyingdegreesingeneralsystemstheory,designandcybernetics.Thisisevidentinthe
definitionsof"system",byWeinberg(2001,pp.51ff.)as"awayoflookingattheworld"
andbyRittel(1992,p.59)as"reflectingsomeone'sunderstandingofsomething"("Ein
SystemreflektiertjemandesVerstndinsvonetwas"ourtranslationfromGerman)as
wellasinvonGlasersfeld's(1992)statementthatobjectivityis"...asubjectsdelusion
thatobservingcanbedonewithouthim".

5. REQUISITE VARIETY
TheLawofRequisiteVariety(Ashby,1956,pp.206ff.)statesthatsystemscanachieve
controlwhenthevarietyinthecontrollerisatleastasgreatasthevarietyinthe
controlled,wherevarietyisameasureofthenumberofstatesasystemcan,ormight,
take.Situationsinwhichvarietyinthecontrollerisgreaterthanthevarietyinthe
controlledcanbedescribedasenablingcontrol,asforexamplewhenoneperson
teachesanotherpersonaforeignlanguage.

RequisiteVarietywasredefinedmorepreciselybyGlanville(1998)fromasecondorder
cyberneticperspective,statingthatinordertoachievecontrolinasystem,thevarietyin
thecontrollermustexactlymatchthevarietyinthecontrolled.Thisisbecausethe
controllerisalsocontrolledbywhatitcontrols.Forexample:Theswitchhavingtwo
states("on"and"off")issuitabletocontrolafurnacewithtwostates("on"and"off")
whereasintheotherhalfofthecontrolloop,thefurnacegeneratestwostates
(temperatureaboveorbelow),whichissuitabletocontrolaswitchwithtwostates
("on"and"off").Whenthestatesintheswitchandinthefurnacearemappedontoeach

5
otherinanunambiguousfashionvarietyineachofthetwoisequalandeachbecomes
thecontroller(andthecontrolled)oftheother.

Ifvarietyinthecontrollerissmallerthan,andthereforecannotmatchthevarietyinthe
controlled,andifthereforethecontrollercannotofferenablingcontrol,perhapsthe
controllershouldnottryto.Ifthecontrollerinsistsondoingit,thecontrolwillbe
restrictive("Hitlertypecontrol"asdiscussedinsection2above).Thecontroller's
alternativeisnottotrytocontrol,buttoenjoythegiftoftheunexpected,i.e.,thatwhich
iswhatisinthevarietyoftheother.Inotherwords:tobeoutofcontrol,or
unmanageable.Thuswefindthenew,andareseenascreative.

WiththeseexpansionsbuiltupontheLawofRequisiteVariety,thefieldofcybernetics
transcendeditsoriginalfocusonstrictmechanisticcontrolanddevelopedcompetence
andlegitimacyinaddressingissuesotherthantechnicalones,includingutterlyhuman
onessuchasdesign.

6. DESIGN
Nowletusconsiderdesignerlybeingoutofcontrol.ImaginedesignerXtryingto
conveyanidearegardingasittingdevicetodesignerYbywayofsketching.Xputslines
onapieceofpaper,showsittoYandexplainsit.Ythentakesalookatthesketch,turns
itsidewaysandarguesthatitmightbemorecomfortablethatway.Xthinksaboutit,is
convincedandbothdesignersmoveondevelopingthesittingdeviceaccordingly.Inthe
continuingprocessXmaybeabletochangesomeofY'sconceptsanalogously.

NotethatXcameintothisdesigninteractionbeingoblivioustotheideaproposedbyY.
AlbeitinspiredbyX'ssketch,thisideacameoutofthebluefromX'sperspective,
unexpectedlyandpossiblyquitealien.ItwasnotamongsttheresponsesXwas
expectingfromY.Y'sresponse"itcouldbemorecomfortablesideways"canthusbesaid
totranscendthevarietyofresponsesXexpectedwhenputtingforwardthesketch.Ifwe
considerstatementsandexpectedresponsesoftheinteractingdesignersinanalogyto
thestatesofentitiesinafeedbackloop,theninthisinstanceRequisiteVarietyisnot
satisfied.Now,havingtheoptiontorejectY'sresponse,Xdoessomethingquite
wonderful:Insteadofrejectingtheunexpectedresponse(thestandardtechnicaland
bureaucraticmoveinsuchsituations),Xhasgenerouslyopeneyesandanopenmind
andexpandsherownvarietyof"states"toaccommodatetheunexpected.Thisisthe
essentialmoveofanyepistemologicalpractice,ofanyinstanceofcomingtoknow.Xnot
onlyputsomethingnewintotheworld(thesketch),buttheworld(includingY)getsa
chancetoputsomethingnewintothemindofXinreturn.Xcan,ofcoursehavesimilar
effectsonYastheymovealongaffecting,butnotdominatingeachother.Quite
appropriately,theetymologicalrootof"conversation"istheLatinphrase"toturn
together",i.e.todance.Likedance,conversationscanpropeltheirparticipantson
unplannedtrajectories.Suchprocessesaredescribedmoregenerallywiththeterm
interaction,asusedincybernetics,referringtoprocesseswhose(humanornothuman)
participantsexercisethepossibilitytoaffecteachothers'vocabulariesofpossible
expressionsandeachothers'rangesofexpectedresponses.Fromeachparticipantinan
interaction,thisrequiresthegenerositytoallowotherstochangeone'sownvarietyof
"states".Thiskindofgenerosityisgenerallyinshortsupply.Oneplacewhereitcanbe
encounteredratherconsistentlyisbetweengooddesigners.

6
Inthisparticularscenariotherearethreeinteractingentities:designersXandYanda
sketch.Interactions,conversations,controlorfeedbackloops;i.e.systemsare,as
WeinbergandRittelquotedabovestate,intheeyeoftheobserver.Accordingtowhatan
observerdeemstobeinvolvedwithinacommonprocess,systemscaninvolvemore
entitiesthanthecommonlydiscussedtwo(controllerandcontrolledordesignerXand
designerY).Ourtendencytoexemplifysystemsasencountersoftwoentitiesisdueto
theappreciationscientistsanddesignersshareforsimplicity(Occam'sRazor).Twois
theminimumnumberfor,forinstance,aconversation.Itmakesformorestraight
forwardthinkingandlearning.Therecanofcoursebemoreentities(takenbyan
observertobe)involvedinacommonprocess.

7. "INTERACTIVE" TECHNOLOGY
Itisprobablyfairtosaythattheonlypredictablethinginouruniverseisthatanything
predictablewillsoonerorlaterbehaveinanunpredictablemanner.Wedesireandwe
fearboththepredictableandtheunpredictable,sincetheybothhavetheirupsidesand
theirdownsides.Thetendencytowardsunpredictabilityleadsmanytoaninabilityto
appreciatethepoetryandthewonderoftheunexpectedandtostrivetoturnasmany
unpredictablesintopredictablesaspossible:Hitlertypecontrol.Thewholeofdigital
technologycanbeinterpretedastheculminationofthisart.Surprisinglyfewpeople
(amongstthemareartisticallyinclinedinteractiondesigners)seemtobebotheredby
thedevastatingeffectdigitaltechnologyhasonwonder,poetryandaccommodatingthe
new.

Digitaltechnologyis(atleastinitsbasicformsandinitstypicalapplications)theexact
oppositeofinteractive.Thereasonofitsexistenceandofmostofitsapplicationsisthe
abovedescribeddesireforreliablypredictableperformance,i.e.thedesiretomake
somesmallpartofanunpredictableuniversepredictableforawhile.Thisappliesto
virtuallyalldigitalcircuitry,computerhardwareandsoftware.Itthusappliestomuch
thatisadvertisedas"interactive"technology,whichis,fromthecyberneticperspective,
notinteractivebutratherpredictablypushbuttonresponsive(Glanville,2007a,pp.124,
126;Glanville,2009,p.82).Itcanfurtherbearguedthatlargeportionsofinteraction
designarenotinteractive,butmerelyreactive:Actionsarepassedbackandforthwithin
clearlyspecifiedrangesofvarietywhiletherespectiverangesofvarietythemselves
remainunchallengedandunchanged.

Computerinterfaceelementsare,oncetheirfunctionsareunderstood,predictably
reliableintheirfunctions.Theyofferutilityinexecutinginstructedcommandsina
linearlycausalfashion.Buttheydonotpromotedesigning,whichwouldinvolve
interaction.Interactionconcernssharingandtheinbetween,andinvolvesshared
responsibility.Inthisview,theinteractivityandthenovelcomefromthepresenceof
both;andneitheroneownsit.

Thisisnottosaythattechnologycannotbeusedinteractively(inthecyberneticsense)
inprinciple.Beforethemenuitemsarewellunderstoodbyagivenuser,selectingan
unknownfilterinPhotoshopmaygiveanunexpectedresult,whichmaybetakenon
boardinthegiveninstanceofimageprocessing.Wepreviouslydescribedawayofusing
thecorrectionfunctionofthespellcheckersinvarioustextprocessingpackagesto
inspirepoetryinteractively:Typeblindlyintoatextprocessor;thenchooseyour
favoritesfromthecorrectionsforeach"misspelled"wordsuggestedbythespellchecker
(Glanville,1994,pp.100,102;HerrandFischer,2010,pp.4950).Suchinteractiveuses

7
ofsoftwarerequiresomemeasureofabuse(Glanville1992;FischerandHerr,2007)in
thesensethatsoftwareisnotusedasintendedbyitsproducers.However,inthevast
majorityofcases,softwareisneitherproducedwithcyberneticallyinteractiveusesin
mind,evenifmarketedas"interactive"oras"designsoftware",norisitused
interactively.

8. SUMMARY AND COMMENTS

Interaction,fromthecyberneticperspective,involvescircularcausality.Thiswayof
lookingatcausalrelationshipsisacceptedinandessentialtovariousEastAsian
traditionsofthought,toGeneralSystemsTheory(Macy,1991)and,asdescribedabove,
toitssisterdisciplinecybernetics(vonFoerster,1950).Butitisusuallyeitheravoided
entirelyordistortedbyreductionandlinearizationintosyllogisticrelationshipsin
conventionalscienceforpragmaticpurposes(itiseasiertopublishanarrativeabout
thesyllogisticeffectofanindependentvariableenteringsomeexperimentthanitisto
reportonanobservedinterdependencyoftwoormorevariables).Thebasicelementsof
formallogic,digitalcircuitryandofcomputerprogramming,essentialsubstratesof
appliedInteractionDesign,arelikewisebasedonlinearlycausalrelationshipsbetween
inputandoutputconditions,andessentiallyfollowsyllogisticstructures.Itisthusnot
surprisingthatinteractiondesignfindsitchallengingtoacknowledgecircular
interactionasithasbeendescribedbyGordonPaskandothersinthefieldof
cyberneticssincethe1950s.

Whencomputertechnologyproliferatedandbegantobemarketedformass
consumptionintheyearsfollowingPask'skeycontributions,theterminteraction(not
unlikemultimedia)wasreappropriatedtodescribetechnologies,whichwere(and
largelyremain)pushbuttonreactiveandbestcharacterizedintermsofpredictable
controlandlinearcausality.

Whilethecyberneticoriginsoftheterminteractivitywerefocusedontheunpredicted
andthenew,technologiestoutedas"interactive"todayfitthelinearlycausalscientific
narrative,andmayconverseinadesignerlyfashion(i.e.inspire)onlywherecontrolis
abandonedandtechnologyisabusedwithopeneyes(Glanville,1992).Muchof
interactiveartanddesign,likewise,remainsfarbehindtheinteractivecapabilitiesofthe
systemsconceivedandimplementedbyPask(andbyothercyberneticiansincluding
RossAshbyandHeinzvonFoerster).Inmanyinstances,digitaltechnologycanevenbe
observedtolimitcreativityandnovelty,justbecauseitscapabilitiesarepowerfuland
becauseitspossibilitiesarevastandusersareintenttocontrol.Considerelectronic
music,forexample.Kraftwerk'searlywork,madeusingrelativelybasicandanalogtools
wasarguablymoreinnovativeatitstimeandhasarguablymorecharacterthanthe
group'slaterworkthatwasmadewithmuchmoreadvanceddigitalequipment.Alan
Wilder(exDepecheMode)oncedescribedhisband'suseofasamplingkeyboard,which
issouniversallycapablethatitbecomestransparentinthecreativeprocessandleads
thebandtolookforcreativeopportunitieselsewhere,forexamplebysamplingfire
extinguishers.Inthepresenceofanartistwhoisintenttocontrol,highresolutiondigital
toolscaneasilyposeacreativeproblemakintothatoftheblankcanvas(Herrand
Fischer,2010,p.48).

Beinghuman,we(includingdesigners)havetheabilitynotonlytoengageinsystems
thatremainincontrol(thinkforexampleofcommandandobedienceinmilitary).We
havethecapabilitytotranscendthevarietyofwhateverweengagewith(others,sketch

8
paper,technologyetc.)andtherebygetoutofcontrol.Wecansee,recognizeand
accommodatewhatwehavenotseen,recognizedandaccommodatedbefore:Newviews
andideas.Circularlycausalprocessescharacterizedbythisabilityarewherelearning
anddesigningoccurs:Interactioninthecyberneticsense,whichhappensinbetween.
Noveltycomesfromtheparticipationofbothandinteractionemergesasaprerequisite
ofdesigning.

Wheredesignisrecognizedasdependentonhumanqualities,suchaschoiceand
curiosity,andoncircularinterdependence,therational/technologicalcriterionofutility
("inorderto")isreplacedbythecriterionofdelight("justbecause").Andwherehumans,
thusliberated,arenotinbutoutof(orbeyond)control,theirchoicesarenot
predeterminedbythetermsofengagementwhichensurethesatisfactionofAshby's
Law.Now(asdesignersknowverywell),onlythehumancanchooseandmustaccept
responsibilityforthechoicesmade(Glanville,2007c;HerrandFischer,2010).While
muchofinteractiondesignfocusesfirmlyoncontrolsystems,wearguethatitis
preciselyintheabsenceofcontrolwheredelightisfoundandwhereresponsibilityis
thinkable.

REFERENCES

[1] Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall.

[2] Barnes, G. (2007). Education in Mind - Mind in Education. In R. Glanville and K. H. Mller (Eds.),
Gordon Pask, Philosopher Mechanic. An Introduction to the Cybernetician's Cybernetician. Vienna:
edition echoraum, 65-95.
[3] Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem-
Solution, Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437.
[4] Fischer, T and Herr, C. M. (2007). The Designer as Toolbreaker? Probing Tool Use in
Applied Generative Design. In: Gang, Y. et al. (eds.): Proceedings of CAADRIA 2007. Nanjing:
Southeast University Press, 367-375.
[5] Fischer, T. (2009). Reassessing Rigour, Re-Cycling Research. Towards a Conversation on the
Form of Enquiry. In: Chang, T.W. et al. (Eds.). CAADRIA 2009. The Proceedings of the 14th
International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia. Douliou:
National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, 791-795.
[6] Fischer, T. (2010). When is Analog? When is Digital? Kybernetes, 40(7/8), 1004-1014.
[7] Glanville, R. (1992). CAD Abusing Computing. In Martens, B. et al. (Eds.) CAAD Instruction:
The New Teaching of an Architect? eCAADe Proceedings, Barcelona, 213-224.
[8] Glanville, R. (1994). Variety in Design. Systems Research, 11(3), 95-103.
[9] Glanville, R. (1998). A (Cybernetic) Musing: Varieties of Variety? Cybernetics and Human
Knowing, 5(1), 57-62.
[10] Glanville, R. (1999). Re-Searching Design and Designing Research. Design Issues, 15(2), 80-91.
[12] Glanville, R. (2004). A (Cybernetic) Musing: Control, Variety and Addiction. Cybernetics and
Human Knowing, 11(4), 85-92.

9
[13] Glanville, R. (2007a). And He was Magic. In R. Glanville and K. H. Mller (Eds.), Gordon Pask,
Philosopher Mechanic. An Introduction to the Cybernetician's Cybernetician. Vienna: edition
echoraum, 119-141.
[14] Glanville, R. (2007b). Try Again. Fail Again. Fail Better: The Cybernetics in Design and the
Design in Cybernetics. Kybernetes 36(9/10), 1173-1206.
[15] Glanville, R. (2007c). Designing Complexity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 7596.
[16] Glanville, R. (2009). The Black Boox Vol. III. 39 Steps. Vienna: edition echoraum.
[17] Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[18] Heims, S. J. (1991). The Cybernetics Group. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[19] Herr, C. and Fischer, T. (2010). Digital Drifting: Minimally Instructive Education for Tool-Based
Creativity in Asia. In Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 17(1/2), 3757.
[20] Jones, C. (1992). Design Methods. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
[21] Macy, J. (1995). Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
[22] Medawar, P. B. (1979). Advice to a Young Scientist. New York: Basic Books.
[23] Pask, G. (1969). The Architectural Relevance of Cybernetics, Architectural Design. 09/1969,
494-496.
[24] Pask, G. (1976). Conversation Theory. Applications in Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
[25] Pias, C. (Ed.) (2003). Cybernetics Kybernetik. The Macy-Conferences 1946-1953. Zrich and
Berlin: diaphanes.
[26] Reichardt, J. (1971). Cybernetics, Art and Ideas. Greenwich: New York Graphic Society.
[27] Rittel, H. (1984). Second-Generation Design Methods. In Cross, N. (Ed.), Developments in
Design Methodology. Chichester: Wiley, 317-328.
[28] Rittel, H. (1992). Planen Entwerfen Design. Ausgewhlte Schriften zu Theorie und Methodik.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
[29] Schn, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York:
Basic Books.
[30] Segal, L. (1986). The Dream of Reality. New York: Norton.
[31] Von Foerster, H. (Ed.) (1950). Cybernetics: Circular Causal and Feedback Mechanisms in
Biological and Social Systems. New York: Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation.
[32] Von Foerster, H. (1974). Cybernetics of Cybernetics. Urbana Illinois: University of Illinois.
[33] Von Glasersfeld E. (1992). Declaration of the American Society for Cybernetics. In: Negoita C.V.
(Ed.), Cybernetics and Applied Systems. New York: Marcel Decker, 1-5. Originally published as: Von
Glasersfeld E. (1981). Declaration of the American Society for Cybernetics. ASC Newsletter.
Available at http://www.vonglasersfeld.com/065 (accessed 1st of September 2011).

10
[34] Weinberg, G. M. (2001). An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. New York: Dorset House
Publishing.
[35] Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine.
Paris: Hermann & Cie Editeurs.

11