Anti Dogmatic Design
A report about the dogma Incest and a design to decrease the surrounding taboos
Student:
Chris Tomassen, s137472
Assignment:
DG413 Anti dogmatic design
sociocultural awareness
Assignor:
Matthias Rauterberg
Assignment dates:
12 November untill 7 Januari
Table of content
1. Description of chosen dogma and taboos
2. Description of the reasons why this dogma and related taboos exist
2.1 The inbreeding theory
2.2 The indifference or revulsion theory
3. Risk analysis
3.1 Individual risks
3.2 Societal risks
4. Conceptual design idea to break the dogma
5. Design guidelines for a product/service design that could break the dogma
6. Users/stakeholders’ reactions
7. Reflection on emotional experiences throughout the design process
References
1. Description of chosen dogma and taboos
The term incest taboo is defined as the prohibition of sexual relations between immediate
relatives, usually between parents and children, and between siblings. The prohibition usually extends to persons adopted into or marrying into any of these primary relationships,
and is thus attributed to a need to limit sexual activity to a single generation within the
nuclear family group.
2. Description of the reasons why this dogma and
related taboos exist
2.1 The inbreeding theory
The term incest taboo is defined as the prohibition of sexual relations between immediate
relatives, usually between parents and children, and between siblings. The prohibition usually extends to persons adopted into or marrying into any of these primary relationships,
and is thus attributed to a need to limit sexual activity to a single generation within the
nuclear family group.
2.2 The indifference or revulsion theory
This theory states that incest is considered a taboo because many people at the psychological level find the idea of sexual relationships with close relatives repulsive. This degree
of repulsion has been reported in a number of surveys and supports the proposal that this
is an adaptive psychological mechanism to avoid birth defects. It is important to note,
however, that this repulsion tends to extend not to just biological relatives but any person
that was around consistently during a person’s childhood. Similarly, biological siblings who
were separated at birth and didn’t meet until adulthood tend to report some degree of sexual attraction. Therefore, it is likely that the brain decides who is repulsive based on who
was deeply involved in your upbringing rather than who you are biologically related to.
3. Risk analysis
3.1 Individual risks
Because of the possible romantic or sexual fulfillment by family members, there might be
less willingness to seek fulfillment of these needs in other people. This might cause a bigger isolation concerning privacy or opening up to strangers. It also affects the way we look
at family, and the way we interact with family members.
Awkward situations may occur as attraction between family members grow to a new level, and interacting with family might be for a new purpose. Family relations might also be
destroyed, as people aren’t able to hold their thoughts for themselves. Technology exposes the attraction levels which possibly have a great impact on someone’s life, while the 2
members involved might not have been aware of the fact.
3.2 Societal risks
As having a sexual relationship with family members will possibly occur more, there will
also be more children that are born with physical or mental deviations. A declining repulsion about incest can affect the way we think about having intimate relations with
strangers, but also affect the prostitution sector. Family relations can increase in importance as social isolation might be a cause of a strong decline in the dogma.
Because of the advanced way of gathering data by the google glass module, hackers or
other institutes might be interested in using that data for other purposes. This can be a big
danger in the willingness to wear the glass or module. If this module will be accepted in
society, other technologies concerning unconscious thoughts will also arise. This will boost
the overall knowledge available from people, which is interesting for commercial purposes. An area in which privacy will decrease will be started this trend might possibly take on
extreme ways in the future. Is this desired?
4. Conceptual design idea to break the dogma
One way of decreasing the dogma is opening up the public debate concerning the relevance of the dogma. The most common origins that have given the dogma of incest the
massive weight are outdated nowadays because of anti-conception and laws which protect
(young) children from parent abuse.
Feeling attracted in a different way to family isn’t a choice in most cases, but the people
that want to pursue are in a difficult situation because of the repulsion which is currently
present among most people. Exposing the vulnerability of general attraction and the impotence of having these feelings among people might cause an increasing compassion in the
case of family members that experience the same feelings in a different context.
5. Design guidelines for a product/service design
that could break the dogma
The general design is a module implemented in the google glass which exposes (unconscious) attraction levels in both a romantic or sexual way. By displaying these feelings, the
impotence of feeling attraction is more aware in society as everyone (with a google glass)
is able to experience this surprising fact. When the glasses light up between two family
members, the same level of impotence is more easily understand because of everyone’s
own experiences with the module.
The idea to implement this module in the google glass is because a separate product will
be less likely bought by individuals. The concept works most effectively if it reaches an
overall use compared to the smartphone. Since the focus of the google glass will not be on
the module itself, a larger audience will be reached. While interacting with the google glass
for all kinds of different purposes, the module is active in the background.
The module aims to open up the discussion about incest and its relevance. As these connections are exposed in the same way of ‘normal’ attraction levels, the difference between
the two might decrease, as there is an irrational difference interpreted in current society.
6. Users/stakeholders’ reactions
It’s clear that people are currently still repulsed by the idea of having a relationship or
feeling attracted to a family member. When asked why however, no valid arguments are
given. The long-existing image of the topic generates uncomfortable feelings when people
are asked to think about the topic in a different way.
When discussing the google glass module, more diverse reactions arise. While some are
optimistic about the overall working because the effect also involves ‘normal’ attraction
levels, others strongly indicate that such delicate topics shouldn’t involve technology that
exposes unconscious feelings. Making the lighting up of the glasses only visible for the two
people involved is advised by some, but this goes against the general foundation of the
concept of general exposure. During the interviews, most people relate the idea first in the
most general case of attraction levels, for which most of the users will use the product.
When related with family attraction, people wouldn’t wear the glasses.
Before the concept is able to work, the google glass has to be implemented on a large
scale in society. People doubt whether this will be the case. The extent to which other people use the glasses has a big impact on the willingness for themselves to wear the glasses.
If the vast majority wears one, most people admit they won’t make an exception. When
asked if they would want to use the module as pioneers, most are scared by the idea.
7. Reflection on emotional experiences throughout the design process
When starting at this assignment, I was highly motivated to go beyond my own barriers. I
see myself as an open-minded person and hardly ever experience feelings such as disgust.
Therefore, I was curious challenge the boundaries of my own frame of reference, hoping to
cross them.
During the first group assignments, my energy slowly decreased as some group members
had a harder time with ‘accepting’ drastic concepts. I asked myself many times whether
the lack of feeling ashamed was a shortcoming of myself. This made me feel somewhat
insecure, which made me accept to go along with other ‘more safe’ concepts sooner.
When I was only working with Xenia, I loved the awkwardness to talk about sexual relationships. I sometimes intended to make the atmosphere as uncomfortable as possible by
speaking about hypothetical cases in which Xenia and I were brother and sister. I highly
doubt whether this was appreciated, but it did make me realize I’m not easily ashamed.
This was confirmed (for myself at least) during the moments I had to talk about sex or
answer questions in the assignment meetings.
The most dominant feeling I experienced was disappointment however. Not in the assignment, but in myself. I normally strive for maximal results in my learning activities, which
sometimes cause social isolation or a visible shortcoming of sleep. Because of the futuristic
concept however, I felt I couldn’t fully apply the expected deliverables or design process in
a way which is acceptable. When Matthias confronted me with this by asking what I would
do next, I was frustrated that I couldn’t formulate an answer. The lack of a physical prototype or some kind of probe which stimulates interaction was peak of these negative feelings.
Despite the fact that I’m aware of not having performed that great in my own design process, I am convinced that I have understood the intentions and deeper message of the
assignment. The most clear example of this was when we had to admit our most current
lie in front of everyone. It was easy to notice discussion was experienced as uncomfortable, especially because of the way Matthias asked questions: “Why?”. When people had to
continue explaining why they lied, why they felt they had to or wanted to prevent another
outcome, it became more uncomfortable by each question. My father however had explained me in the past, that if you want to get to the ‘core’ of everything, you only have to
ask yourself “Why” for 4-5 times.
Because I do feel I have understood the message of the assignment, I am able to put my
unsatisfying feelings to the background. When I receive the feedback of the assignment,
the more negative emotions will return without question, and of course I would have done
things differently if I could go back, but I wouldn’t trade this experience for another assignment in which I would probably have performed better.
References
http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/incest-taboo-definition-lesson-quiz.html#lesson
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Incest_taboo.html
http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0072832258/student_view0/chapter13/chapter_
outline.html
http://www.drabruzzi.com/selected_state_incest_laws.htm
https://www.google.com/glass/start/
http://www.vitalinnovators.nl/blog/je-hersenen-als-afstandsbediening