Sustainable Terminology

Posted on | September 17, 2008 |

Many discussions over the past three days here at Greengaged have questioned the validity of the word ’sustainability’. What does it really mean today? Do designers have differing perspectives of its definition and meaning? And possibly more importantly, do the public listen and how do they react when they hear such terminologies: green, eco, sustainable and so forth? Is the title sustainable, creating a market niche that offers only a ‘for’ or ‘against’ decision?

“I’d like to change the word sustainability. If you were to ask someone about their marriage and they say ‘its sustainable’, what would you think?!” - Sophie Thomas, thomas.matthews

If sustainability is to be embedded into all aspects of everyday living, why create a niche? Why have “eco” events at The London Design Festival if the future success of the entire creative sector is dependant on its recognition for good practice? As the Design Council recently pitched in The Good Design Plan, sustainability should be inherently built into our understanding of good design.

“We need to get away from the language that isn’t working for us?” - Sarah Johnson, [re]design

Is it therefore time for a revised umbrella of terms or descriptions? We’d like to hear how you introduce sustainability to your clients and how they react?

Category: Future, Greengaged, Sustainability

Comments

5 Responses to “Sustainable Terminology”

Ian Crawford
September 17th, 2008 @ 11:20 pm

Personally I feel that there has to be a very strong human element to the terminology as I have always found it rather amusing (and a little worrying) when people use the term “save the planet”. What a ridiculous notion! The aim is actually to keep the planet and its systems habitable for our species. Maybe it is linked to the arrogance we have in relation to the natural world, which we think we control and understand but we are merely a tiny moment in the history of this gigantic planet and the discussion is actually around making that a slightly longer moment.

I also feel that ’sustainability’ is the best choice of terminology that we have at the moment and we need to remember that the meanings of words change depending on how they are used. The word ‘awful’ used to mean deserving of awe for example. Over time, we can make ’sustainability’ mean whatever we want.
Nico Macdonald
September 18th, 2008 @ 9:31 am

I raised the issue of terminology, to which Sophie Thomas’s point is addressed, at the ‘Big bang breakfast for Greengaged’ at the Design Council. My point was that sustainability is a wholly unambitious concept and is pursued in an un-designerly fashion. Humanity has always _more than_ sustained: it has flourished. Designers, technologists and others _create more with less_, think laterally, find uses for things that have no use, and find new uses for things for which we thought we knew all the uses. There is confusion about the term sustainability as people, including designers, are understandably desperate to find something to believe in and inspire them. As sustainability and environmentalism are the only substantial ideas in play they become all things to all people.

Ian Crawford is right about the use of the phrase ’save the planet’: it is even more devoid of meaning than the term sustainability. This phrase used to be used ironically in a parody of spaced out hippies — think Neil in The Young Ones. Now it is used with a straight face. From those who want to ’save the planet’ I would like to know what it will look like when it has been ’saved’. And what they want to see happen after this? More generally, the idea that we need to ’save the planet’ from some impending catastrophe relativises the immediate and concrete problems that beset large numbers of our fellow planet-dwellers today: poverty, hunger, poor housing, lack of education, bad health and unhealthy environments. These problems could have been solved decades ago and should still be our highest priority today.
Mark Atkinson
September 18th, 2008 @ 10:44 am

The meaning of words does indeed evolve, sometimes rather quickly. I moved to San Francisco in 1994 thinking that “wired” meant having had too much caffeine. Now I wonder whether anybody even remembers that meaning.

While “sustainability” may be the best we’ve got, I think the dialogue around appropriate language is a good thing. Language is critical, and just as with the example of genocide given on day one of Greengaged, perhaps we need to invent some language that expresses the intention of holistic sustainability without all the baggage that term has acquired recently.
Sophie Thomas
September 18th, 2008 @ 10:32 pm

I refer to Michael Braungart’s interview with Michele Field when he talks about the term ’sustainability’. He comments that if you asked someone how their marriage was going and they said ‘it is sustainable’ then you would offer sympathy and say I am sorry to hear this.
I have the same confusion with another term- ‘consumption’. The origin of this phrase is surely from the wasting disease that ended in death. Now it has happy, wealthy connotations- to be a consumer. I think we should reinstate its original meaning.
Mark Atkinson
September 19th, 2008 @ 9:14 am

The example of consumption is as much social or cultural as it is linguistic. The meaning of any behaviour can be culturally (or historically) contingent. Witness smoking.