Repair

Abstract

W e are surrounded by broken things and environments: 1 designed objects, spaces and systems in need of repair. Repair is a commonsense but partial answer to overconsumption and landfill crisis. It is conservative yet progressive. But as a concept and a material reality, repair can also overwhelm. With increasing technological complexity, and decreasing time, resources, and skill, the ethical and logistical questions around repair abound: What shall we care for, why, and how? 2 Where to begin? In this context, we begin with design: linking the value of repair to design is central to developing an ethics of care in the environmental humanities. In doing so, we acknowledge that design, in its current form, is deeply complicit in environmental destruction. Dominant definitions of design since European modernism have tended to emphasize the creative capacity of humans to make something new by manipulating material resources, organizing information, or delineating space. To be fair, critical design history has worked hard to add complexity to this understanding of design, extending analysis far beyond the new product to incorporate a plethora of practices and account for production, consumption, use, and social meaning. 3 Mainstream social understandings of design, however, still tend to gravitate toward the fresh, crisp assurance afforded by the latest new thing. The most celebrated professional designers tend to be those who envision new products. Other material practices, such as repair (as well as disassembly and maintenance) are not generally considered design, even though such practices shape the form, operation, appearance, and perceptions of the material world we occupy (fig.