Communication,Persuasion,

Activity & Ignorance A discussion of ethics, metaethics and

morality in the communication industry.

P. J. Hanson EastlandBA (Hons) Graphic DesignFalmouth UniversityFebruary 2016

Communication,Persuasion,

Activity & Ignorance

This discourse contains seven thousand and twenty-nine words.

(Some may be repeated)

Contents

An Introduction to the Discourse

Chapter One: The Philosophers

Understanding Ethics in Graphic Design

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

The Moral Philosophy of David Hume

Understanding Marxist Criticism

Chapter Two: A Discussion of Ethical Frameworks

The First Things First Manifesto

Ten Footnotes on a Manifesto

Milton Glaser’s Road to Hell

Chapter Three: Ethics in Practice

Mai ‘68 and the Atelier Populaire

The Practice of Grapus

In Conclusion

1

An Introduction to the Discourse

Graphic design is a very broad subject that includes and relates to many other fields and professions. In this analysis, I will mainly refer to graphic design as part of the advertising and marketing industry. Of course, this industry incorporates many professions, and graphic design does not sit solely in this industry. But, there is an intrinsic link between graphic design and the western consumerist industry. With this understanding, it is subsequently important for the designer to evaluate the industry they contribute to. A fundamental ethical question then stems from this circumstance: in what way is the designer responsible for ethical conduct?

In its most simple form, consumerism is a relationship between three very broad parties. At one end, you have the corporations, the companies, the providers of services - for the purposes of this discourse; I’ll call them the producers. At the opposite end, there is the wider public. The consumers. The producers produce something, and the consumers consume it. There is third party between the two that includes creative advertisers, marketing strategists and of course - graphic designers. This third party exists to facilitate the consumerist dynamic by communicating the ideas of the producers to the consumers. For this reason, I will refer to them as communicators. Of course, this is an extremely simplified explanation of a very complex system - but in essence this is the archetype of the consumerist model.

To assess the role of ethics in graphic design as a profession, and the wider industry in which it sits; I will start by considering ethics in a broader sense. As a standard of moral philosophy, I will look towards Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and David Hume (1711-1776). I will use the thoughts of Kant and Hume as a means to assess and criticise ethical theory and conduct in graphic design. I will also consider the thoughts of Karl Marx (1818-1883). His critical view of capitalism will help the assessment of the ethical values of the communication industry itself.

In terms of academic thought, there have been many vocal advocates of a more ethical approach to graphic design. It is my hope that their consideration might offer the basis for a framework that new designers can adopt. The American designer, Milton Glaser (b. 1929) discusses ethics in his essay Ambiguity & Truth. Glaser goes some way to standardise levels of unethical conduct in what he calls the ‘Road to Hell’. Ken Garland (b. 1929), renowned for his work with CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), was similarly aware of how easy it was for designers to overlook ethics when he published the first iteration of the First Things First manifesto (1964) - the most widespread document concerning the subject of ethics in the design community. Michael Bierut (b. 1957) offers a contrasting view to Milton Glaser, and Ken Garland. Bierut epitomises the view that a designer’s first and foremost responsibilities are professional and commercial rather than ethical

For examples of the ethical practice of designers I will consider the events of Paris, May 1968. The Atelier Populaire (Popular Workshop) was a collective of art students pivotal in illustrating the events of Mai ’68. From the events and the Atelier Populaire came Grapus; a design collective that attempted to maintain the spirit of the Atelier, while working professionally. Both are significant as cases as they espoused truly radical political ideologies.

It is my hope that these sources, along with some informed critical analysis can offer some means to begin putting together a formalised view of the ethical responsibilities of this communication profession. Of course, no single framework of ethics can apply to such a diverse group of professions – but I do believe that with thought and consideration this discourse could offer communicators the means to make informed decisions regarding their practice.

2

A more familiar form of this principle would be the golden rule; do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The Kantian view of morality relies distinctly on rationality. Kant held that the morally just action of any situation could be discerned by simply using the categorical imperative as a standard. In short, morality is guided by the sense of duty. This view of morality occupies an odd middle ground between socially conscientious, and potentially insensitive. The social benefits of behaving how you wish everyone to behave are clear to everyone capable of understanding the premise. However, the universal adherence to the categorical imperative could be thought of as having faults. If the categorical imperative is considered in the context of honesty: lying – under all circumstances – is immoral. The hypothetical implications of this can be anything, from a wife being upset after being told she does in fact have a fat arse – to the death of person after a would-be murderer asks for the location of their victim. While both, and everything in between, are certainly undesirable – Kant maintained that consequence should have no bearing on moral judgement. For Kant, virtue is:

the moral strength of a human being’s will in fulfilling his duty”

Chapter One: The Philosophers

Understanding Ethics in Graphic Design

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

The terms morality and ethics are often interchanged. While they do share similar meanings – they are distinct from one another. Morality is defined as person’s subjective judgment on right and wrong. Ethics differ by being principles of conduct originating externally, from society at large. (Sheraton, 2012). In effect, morality concerns personal judgment, whereas ethics concerns social conduct. For example, a lawyer as an autonomous agent would think of murder as immoral, and would act according to that moral judgment. However, should that same lawyer defend a murder suspect in court, they would have an ethical responsibility to defend, regardless of the suspect’s guilt. (Diffen, 2015).

Graphic design as a profession, and the broader communication industry in which graphic design resides, is a very public. Not only does graphic design exist in a public forum, its purpose is to communicate to one or many sections of society. As such, the concerns of this creative industry are largely ethical ones. (Roberts, 2006). The role morality has in this communication industry is a consequence of a lack of critical analysis of its social responsibility. There certainly are both official and unofficial examples of ethical codes for Graphic Design, notably from the American Institute of Graphic Arts and the Chartered Society of Designers (among others). But these documents are quite vague, have a focus on professional responsibilities, and lack real proliferation. (Ethics of Design, 2013). This lack of even partially accepted ethical guidelines for these communicators could be intentional; the industry may collectively be of the opinion that professional and creative responsibilities take priority over social responsibilities. However, it seems more likely that these professionals are either oblivious to the potentially detrimental social impact of their industry, or simply feel powerless to affect meaningful change. (Poynor, 1998).

The nature of philosophy as a discipline means that there is no consensus when talking about moral philosophy. However, the thoughts and theories of some of these philosophers can shed some light on the application of morality in the context of graphic design.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was an iconic German philosopher, and is often regarded as one of the most influential figures on moral philosophy. The first aspect of Kant’s moral philosophy we need to address is the idea of autonomous moral agents. For a moral agent to be autonomous, Kant believed that there were two requirements: the first is that the moral agent subscribes to a moral code, the second is that the moral agent can choose to abide by that moral code when it conflicts with a personal impulse or desire. Kant believed an autonomous moral agent’s supreme moral principle is a concept called the categorical imperative:

Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”( Johnston, 2004)

(Kant, 1998: 161)

“

“

3

Understanding Marxist Criticism

The Moral Philosophy of David HumeThe Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) is often compared to Kant. They were both integral to moral philosophy as a subject, offered drastically different philosophies on morality, and were contemporaries. Hume believed that sentiment was the guide of moral judgement, and that morality could be recognised through a sense of moral approval or disapproval. For Hume, in short, taste was the source of moral virtue. According to Hume, what made morality broadly shared is that our capacity for sympathy is fundamental to the idea of taste. Hume stated that man is:

This empirical view of morality contrasts Kant’s because it does not attempt to prescribe a moral principle; rather it describes a subjective morality. Hume’s moral philosophy was very interpretive, and consequently Hume did not consider isolated moral judgement inherently virtuous. Rather, moral virtue was product of feelings and desires, and was therefore intrinsically related to personal character. (Homiak, 2015)

Though it seems doubtful many will be familiar with Hume’s philosophy; this idea of sentiment guiding moral judgement is likely to be held by the majority of us. It is a fair assertion to say that by and large, people act in such a way that meets the general approval of individuals and society at large. It also seems generally agreed that moral virtue has more to do with personal character than isolated moral judgements. Of course, particularly immoral judgements are a different case – but many would agree that an agent could have a lapse in moral judgement and remain a good person. The reason that Hume’s philosophy is so accurate and relatable is also the reason it may not be particularly useful. Hume’s philosophy was descriptive – he did not offer a goal or a moral standard, but rather attempted to articulate how people do act. (Hume, 2001). His view of morality was very flexible and adaptive, and was arguably more universal than a Kantian perspective. Hume’s moral philosophy is very nuanced, and the limitations of this discourse dictate that moral assessments with Hume as a standard be covered in broad strokes. This may in turn limit the validity of Hume’s moral philosophy as it is presented here.

Kant and Hume are both tremendously respected figures on moral philosophy. While they are certainly at odds with one another, elements of their differing philosophies can be observed in everyday life. While some people are uninformed of the work of Kant and Hume, they will likely apply basic versions of their respective philosophies to moral dilemmas. Few would apply exclusively one of the philosophies; rather they’d use their discretion to assess whether a decision should be made on a sentimental level, or with an eye on the greater social implications of that decision. (Halberstam, 2006)

influenced in his measures by taste and sentiment”(Hume, 2001: 1)

“

“

Karl Marx (1818-1883) began his professional life as a philosopher, though is best known as a revolutionary communist. While the majority of his work concerns economics and politics, he wrote and theorised with a distinctly philosophical scope. (Wolff, 2015).

It is important to note that while Marx was critical of capitalism, his official position was never that capitalism was unjust, nor that communism was just. It seems clear that Marx was careful not to apply these labels to either system. This is partly because Marx seemed to occupy view of the capitalist/communist development being as more of a socio-political prediction than an explicit political goal. Even the Communist Manifesto gives the sense of Marx’s role as an observer. (Marx, 1848). However, his abstention largely comes from Marx’s view of morality: that because the ruling class rule, it is by that class’ standard that moral judgements are made. As such, the system the ruling class implement is inherently moral, because it is the ruling class that defines morality. (Wood, 2004). This position resembles an infant form of Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony. (Stillo, 1999).

Marx, and his collaborator, Fredrich Engels, also saw a problem with the sale of commodities;

It is possible due to what Marx and Engels call surplus value. Surplus value is created by workers when the value of their output exceeds the cost of their employment in addition to the cost of machines and materials. The fact wage labour, by its very nature, does not economically reflect the value of

how is it possible constantly to sell dearer than one has bought?”(Engels, 2016)

4

what the worker produces, effectively means that workers are paid for their time, not their labour. Because the bourgeoisie owns the means of production, the workers role is dictated as a single part of a larger production line. This means that s/he is alienated from the products of their labour. These points, together with the understanding that workers have little influence over the conditions of their labour are the bases of Marx’s theory of alienation. According to Marx, the alienated worker cannot be fulfilled because their role fails to accommodate the human need for creativity and expression. Judy Cox summarised Marx’ view succinctly in the journal of the Socialist Workers Party:

The essential principle of trade is demand and supply. A commodity is needed, and so a person or in the case of modern capitalism, a company, provides that commodity. In earlier epochs, when workers had a craft of one form or another, supply had always been hindered by inefficient production. The modern age has seen production prosper, and consequently we live unlike any other previous society: in an age of surplus. (Livingston, 1994) We have the means to combat poverty, famine and disease to the degree previous societies could not have dreamt. In an age of such prosperity, demand simply does not exist in the same way, unless that too, is manufactured. This is the very essence of consumerism. The success of the capitalist model has, for the western world, essentially solved the most intrinsic dangers of the past. In solving these problems, the logical benefit would be contentedness. But whether this capitalist idea of development is simply human nature, or the bourgeoisie successfully perpetuating their model by manufacturing demand: capitalism remains, largely unabated. (The Story of Bottled Water, 2010).

Graphic designers, and other communicators, do not constitute an exploited workforce in the same way factory workers might. Communicators are usually allowed relative creative freedom, and the conditions in which they work may be high-pressure, but they are usually quite fulfilling. For these reasons, a Marxist view of capitalism may not benefit communicators as professionals. However as the role of the communicator in the capitalist model is to maintain the interests of these companies, it is important that one makes an informed choice about their role in this system.

“labour was [sic] now a commodity, sold on the market.”(Cox, 2016)

5

6

Chapter Two: A Discussion of Ethical Frameworks

The First Things First Manifesto

It has been mentioned in this document that there is a lack of a meaningful and established set of ethical guidelines for the graphic designer, or indeed the commercial communicator. However, while none are established, there are two that stand head and shoulders above the rest in terms of prominence. The first, and the wider known of the two, is the First Things First manifesto. Originally, the manifesto was published in 1964 by Ken Garland (b. 1929) and signed by a further 21 professionals. Rick Poynor (b. 1957) led a second group of creative professionals to revisit and republish the manifesto as the First Things First Manifesto 2000. The essences of both editions are the same, as is the basic structure – however the specific language is quite different. For the sake of consistency, I will refer to and quote the 2000 edition, though much of the analysis will be universal.

The manifesto begins by identifying the problem at hand:

The authors continue:

The authors offer suggestions of more fulfilling pursuits:

The manifesto concludes by advocating a reassessment of the communicator’s priorities:

…the techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative, effective and desirable use of our [commercial communicators] talents.”

The profession’s time and energy is used up manufacturing demand for things that are inessential at best. Many of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable with this view of design. Designers who devote their efforts primarily to advertising, marketing and brand development are supporting, and implicitly endorsing, a mental environment so saturated with commercial messages that it is changing the very way citizen-consumers speak, think, feel, respond and interact. To some extent we are all helping draft a reductive and immeasurably harmful code of public discourse.”

“

“

“

“

““

“

“

Unprecedented environmental, social and cultural crises demand our attention. Many cultural interventions, social marketing campaigns, books, magazines, exhibitions, educational tools, television programmes, films, charitable causes and other information design projects urgently require our expertise and help.”

(Poynor, 2000)

(Poynor, 2000)

(Poynor, 2000)

(Poynor, 2000)

(Poynor, 2000)

(Poynor, 2000)

We propose a reversal of priorities in favour of more useful, lasting and democratic forms of communication – a mindshift away from product marketing and toward the exploration and production of a new kind of meaning.”

The origins of the 2000 edition were a product of a conversation between the Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn (b. 1942) and Hungarian Graphic Designer Tibor Kalman (1949-1999). (Poynor, 2000). Adbusters is an organisation devoted to anti-consumerist rhetoric and intervention, while Kalman was outspoken in his criticism of the traditional commercial model. The original manifesto is certainly unapologetic in its criticism of the advertising industry, however the language of the 2000 revision contains phrases reminiscent of Marxist rhetoric. With phrases like:

presented to us”,manufacturing demand”, andharmful code of public discourse”

the manifesto eludes to a contention between producers and communicators. The authors’ assertion is that the communicator has the means to do social good; but is squandering their skill if they choose to use it to sell:

things that are inessential at best”

7

Ten Footnotes on a Manifesto

If we compare First Things First to the moral philosophies, it sits closer a Kantian view than it does to Hume’s philosophy. The phrase:

Many of us have grown increasingly uncomfortable”(Poynor, 2000)

“

suggests an element of sentimental disapproval, however the overwhelming impression the text gives is one of prescriptive moral imperatives. The authors have identified a problem that they consider to be at the very least potentially harmful to society at large, and they propose a philanthropic solution that they believe satisfies society and fulfils the professional. The signatories believed in communication over persuasion; and aimed to proliferate that maxim.

If we describe the First Things First manifesto, its criticism of the advertising industry, and its call for social action distinctly left wing; then Michael Bierut (b. 1957) and his view of communication design certainly occupies the right wing. In his essay Ten Footnotes on a Manifesto, Bierut addresses his concerns about First Things First. It is difficult to summarise Bierut’s position because he criticises many parts of the manifesto without a huge amount of consistency, however the broad strokes of his position can be discerned.

The earlier portion of the text is effectively a criticism of the signatories:

As Bierut concludes his fourth footnote, he condemns Tibor Kalman as a hypocrite, citing his social view being at odds with some of his work being:

“

“

it’s likely your mom’s probably never seen anything ever designed by these people”,they’ve resisted manipulating the proles…for the simple reason that they haven’t been invited to”(Bierut, 2007: 55)

“(Bierut, 2007: 55)unabashedly commercial”

Bierut then seems to take serious issue with the idea of manufacturing demand:“

(Bierut, 2007: 56)

They [consumers] embrace the products of Disney, GM, Calvin Klein and Philip Morris not because they like them or because the products have any intrinsic merit, but because their designer puppetmasters have hypnotised them with things like colors and typefaces”

The assertion here seems to be that it is arrogant to believe that communicators have the means to influence or persuade the public in any great way. The sense that this fifth footnote, and the general tone of the essay itself, gives - is one of professional responsibility alone. That no brief is inherently better than another:

“

(Bierut, 2007: 56)

Don’t dachshund owners deserve the same measure if beauty, wit, or intelligence in their lives?”

There are two levels of modesty to Bierut’s position. The first level of modesty is that he does not believe that design is this powerful instrument of persuasion – that the designer lacks significant influence. There are definite issues with this first level, but will be addressed in due course. The second level is that it is not the place of communicators to decide what should and should not be promoted. While there is a certain appeal to this humility: there is real danger in this line of thinking.

Michael Bierut’s reluctance to make a moral judgement on a given client or brief indicates a willing suspension of morality. Lawyers defending clients or doctors treating convicted criminals typically practice amorality in this form. In these cases of inalienable rights, not suspending morality is actively unethical. (Pepper, 1986) In more common situations, a person behaving amorally is precisely that: amoral. And while there are a number of positions to be held on the metaethics of amorality, (Epps, 2016) it is reasonable to believe the layperson would usually regard amorality as unethical. It should be mentioned that communicators have a responsibility, like all professionals, to fulfil the clients needs best of their abilities. That responsibility however does not, and cannot extend to the decision to accept a client.

8

Milton Glaser’s Road to Hell

It could be that Bierut subscribes to Hume’s view of morality, though it should also be considered that this resemblance may be merely coincidental. If Bierut’s view of the designer is indeed that they are passive communicators between the producers and the consumers, then it is equally possible he has no source of moral guidance. The truth is likely to be somewhere between the two. Professional and commercial obligations obviously rank highest to Bierut, but he is undoubtedly guided to some degree by a vaguely Hume-ist sense of society’s approval.

First Things First and Ten Footnotes are at odds for a simple reason; they are based on different assessments of the social impact of commercial communication. From these different assessments grow very different views of the industry. Bierut downplays the power of the designer, and consequently passes the ethical responsibility to either the producers; to make their commodity ethical, or to the consumers; to not support unethical producers. Garland, Poynor and the other signatories take the view that communicators are in a position of power, and therefore have a responsibility of ethical conduct. Bierut’s view is quite simply wrong. Good design is by no means central to commerce, and its influence is very difficult to quantify – but if Bierut’s assertions are correct; that designers exercise very little influence - then he, and the agency of which he is principle, Pentagram, is certainly one of the most brazen and successful syndicates of confidence artists ever known. (Litt, 2016)

This does not, however, make the assertions of the First Things First authors’ correct by default. Many have written on the social impact and implications of graphic design, and it is a subject vast enough to warrant its own discourse. But, suffice it to say, the general consensus is that graphic design is a powerful tool. (Heller, 2014) If this consensus is correct, then there is the potential for tremendous social damage in abstaining from moral agency. Conversely, there is little to be lost from practicing ethical conduct if communicators do in fact overstate their influence.

The charm of First Things First comes from its sentiment. It is very critical of the advertising industry, but the general tone is positive and arguably hopeful. Its essence is let’s all try and do good. It is that notion that seems to be central to the overall benefit of the document, to inspire designers to be informed and aware of the potential impact their work may have. The Footnotes respond to the charm with vitriol veiled as humour, for little more reason, it seems, than Bierut’s aversion to reassessing his own world view.

The second prominent ethical document is The Road to Hell, and the essay in which it sits: Ambiguity & Truth by the popular designer and First Things First signatory Milton Glaser (b. 1929). Towards the end of the essay, Glaser references Dante’s Divine Comedy (1320) and explains the difference between hell and purgatory, being that those in hell are unaware of their sins whereas those in purgatory are, and can therefore be redeemed. Glaser then lists twelve steps of increasingly dubious moral integrity as a figurative slippery slope leading to immorality. As Glaser continues, the commercial communication industry is brought up:

The mental images Milton Glaser paints with these topics are not of evil, but rather of ignorance. He identifies that dehumanising consumers as markets makes its easier for producers and communicators to justify persuading or manipulating them. (Tate, 2015). He details the slow progression of a harmless indiscretion into a fundamentally unethical action. Glaser creates this sense of understanding; that it is easy to become increasingly ignorant and ultimately operate in an unethical way. It then becomes clear the Divine Comedy reference is a metaphor, and that only in acknowledging and addressing their conduct can communicators avoid immorality. Glaser does fail to suggest more moral opportunities, but it is likely that is intentional. Beirut made a point of questioning why the First Things First

While marketing is obsessed with the way groups behave it doesn’t generally conceive of those groups as being our fathers, mothers, sisters or friends, this would make the job far too complex. Rather, these groups are thought of as ‘markets’ with generalized characteristics that make manipulating them seem ethically acceptable.”

“

(Glaser, n.d.)

This idea of pleasure or pain, when it returns upon the soul, produces the new impressions of desire and aversion”(Hume, 2009: 11)

“

This suggests vividly the principles of sentiment and approval. For that reason it might be considered that Bierut inclines toward Hume’s descriptive moral philosophy:

Bierut espouses the view that good design could be:“(Bierut, 2007: 56)used as a tool to ennoble the activities of everyday life”

9

signatories’ thought of some practices more worthy than others. While Beirut’s point is a somewhat juvenile, it does illustrate that prescribing decisions is not always met positively. ( Jacobs, 2013).It seems that Glaser is attempting to empower the reader to become active and observant in their attitude to their practice and their ethics. He offers some reasonable criticism of the industry, and offers an account of how it is made very easy for communicators to overlook ethics. He even takes the role of a sympathetic mentor who understands why those mistakes were made. Glaser offers in a neat package all the information, and invites the reader to be aware and conscious of the profession and its implications.

In terms of ethics Ambiguity & Truth is almost beyond assessment because it does not prescribe a decision. Glaser is highlighting what he (and many others) sees as a problem. (Howard, 1971). Any conclusions or modifications of practice come from the reader. In essence, Glaser is inviting his audience to be critical and to morally assess for themselves. A sentiment few could argue is not moral. This sentiment also bears a great resemblance to that of First Things First. Though First Things First is more concise, and more prescriptive, the basic premise of promoting an awareness of the issues inherent in the communication industry features in both.

10

Chapter Three: Ethics in Practice

Mai ’68 and the Atelier Populaire In 1968, Paris saw one of the most significant periods of civil unrest of the last century. Not only was Mai ’68 politically monumental, its influence on French culture remains to this day. (Lichfield, 2008). The dissatisfaction felt by workers and students also manifested in one of the most interesting specimens of communication design of the last century. The Atelier Populaire (Popular Workshop) was a large group of students working collectively designing, printing and distributing posters that would become illustrations of Mai ’68. The Atelier Populaire is important in itself not simply as a historical and cultural exemplar, but also because of its influence on design culture, and the communication industry. (Poynor, 2013).

To preface this third chapter, it must be noted that its subjects, the Atelier Populaire and Grapus were both supporters of the French Communist Party, and a wider Marxist ideology. While this radical political ideology can be assessed, it is beyond the limitations of this discourse. As such, there will be an abstention of moral and ethical judgement of their politics. It is also important to understand France’s rich history of opposition, counter culture, and satire: particularly political cartoons. Publications like Le Canard enchaîné, Hara-Kiri and Charlie Hebdo were, and remain prime illustrations of France’s anit- tendencies. (Douglas, 2002). This aspect of French culture forged an outspoken, yet succinct voice for those involved in the events.

On the subject of ethics within communication design, the Atelier Populaire differ from the First Things First signatories, Michael Bierut and Milton Glaser for a number of reasons, most pivotal among them was their complete lack of professional responsibility. So far in this discourse, the discussion of the ethical obligation of the communicator has regarded the balance between professional and social responsibility. For the Atelier Populaire, there was no obligation to a client, no requirement to abide by rules or guidelines – not even financial incentive. In the truest sense, they were free agents to express and communicate the guiding principles of the Mai ’68 movement. (Poynor, 2013).

Assessing the action of the Atelier Populaire on ethical grounds is simple in its components, but is complicated by the context. At this point, there should be a clear abstention from judging the ethicacy of a particular political ideology; rather, the actions guided by that ideology are what need to be assessed. The events, by its very nature was adversarial. Consequently, by definition, there is no unified societal sense of approval or disapproval. On a personal level, parties on either side likely operated morally, respective to their views. The clear social divide of approval and disapproval seriously impedes how the events of Mai ’68 are assessed on an ethical level, without also assessing the opposing political ideologies.

If the events are then considered on Kantian terms, the labour is more fruitful. The visual communication in this case is an extension of the protest, and the basic ideology. As such, assessing the ethicacy of the design work is an assessment of the protest. Protest and civil opposition are absolutely categorical imperatives. Every democratic state espouses the fundamental right of its people to protest, strike and oppose, and while those states may try to suppress protests; the right to do so is largely considered inalienable. (UN, 1948). Kant, while he agreed that protest could be moral; rebellion and revolution were categorically immoral. Kant argued that revolution is an exercise of sovereign power. If that exercise is considered just, then the people would have sovereign power.

On these terms, Kant denied that there could be an inherent right to revolution. Kant did however concede that the right of civil disobedience and negative resistance were necessary. The distinction here seems to be between destructive and constructive intention. Protest and disobedience criticises the establishment with the hope that criticism influences a positive evolution of the establishment. Conversely, revolution seeks to dismantle the establishment in order to replace it with an improved model.

This is a contradiction. The nature of sovereignty is such that sovereign power cannot be shared.”(Rauscher, 2007)

“

11

The French population were almost equally divided supporting and opposing the revolution. (Dogan, 2005). The Atelier Populaire were far less divided. Applying Kant’s philosophy, this revolutionary intention would make the Atelier immoral. Kant’s conclusions on political violence rely on the premise that a head of state represents the united will of citizens. Undermining the state, thereby undermines the united will and is therefore immoral. (Rauscher, 2007). However, Kant’s view is regularly criticised. These criticisms argue that a head of state is open to the same fallibility and corruptibility as all humans, and consequently prescribing the notion that a head of state can represent the united will is erroneous. (Hill, 2000).

The question of the Atelier Populaire’s moral integrity as a whole is a very complex issue, too complex to find any insightful conclusion at this point. While conclusions cannot be drawn, the Atelier certainly considered their intentions just. So, if for argument’s sake the Atelier’s ideology and intention is labelled moral, then we can too label their action justified. The conclusion that can then be drawn is that, while the Atelier Populaire may have been misguided in their moral judgement, their operation in terms of communication was undoubtedly guided by a sense of duty. The Atelier should then be considered ethical on these terms. (Rohlf, 2010).

It was Mai ’68, and the Atelier Populaire that galvanised three young men, Pierre Bernard (b. 1942), Gérard Paris-Clavel (b. 1943), and François Miehe (b. 1942) to collaborate and in 1970 found the collective; Grapus. Grapus’ significance stemmed from its reconciliation of professional and social responsibilities. Their origins were the events, and its politics and agitation remained their guiding principles until Grapus’ separation in 1990. In its earliest days, Grapus subsidised themselves and their work for the French Communist Party with advertising work. However, they soon found their commitments irreconcilable. Consequently, Grapus severed ties with commercial work – and begin designing exclusively for social and political organisations. (Bernard, 1991).

Grapus and the Atelier Populaire are fundamentally connected. In the literal sense, the members of Grapus were members of the Atelier, but also ideologically. (Bernard, 1991). Their similarities were such that Grapus should be thought of as an evolution of the Atelier. The clearest distinction between the two is that Grapus had to survive outside the context of the events. Grapus could not be spokespeople of a revolution; there was no revolution. They instead contributed as outspoken opposition. (Poynor, 2013). Their roles as revolutionaries became roles as critics. This shift, while could have been considered a hurdle, did mean the members of Grapus stood on more morally sound ground, certainly from a Kantian perspective.

The success of the Atelier’s communication was their cohesion: their succinct, collective voice. (Poynor, 2013). Grapus, too, worked and owned collectively. Certainly not on the scale of the Atelier, but definitely with a singular message. This idea of collectivity prompts very interesting questions about the very nature of Grapus. The Atelier were responsible for promoting and advocating their own attitudes, and the attitudes of those active during Mai ’68. In becoming collective, the individual was transcended and personal will became a united will. This collectivity worked perfectly well during Mai ’68; the will they were communicating was their own. Grapus, as a professional organisation had to communicate the will of others. What granted the Atelier autonomy was a lack of external obligation. Grapus were not afforded the same autonomy. They would have to reconcile their radical politics with professionality.

An unflinching commitment to radical politics does impose limits on what a communicator can practice. Grapus were of course limited by their politics; they would never have created a logo for an oil conglomerate, or the packaging for a bottle of water. But it was this limitation that made their name. (Paris-Clavel, 1998). Grapus would not do business like a traditional design agency. They were irreverent; they would not unquestioningly follow client’s instructions. They refuted the traditional hierarchy of client and communicator:

The Practice of Grapus

Rather, we were like equal partners, working towards a common goal”(Bernard, 1991)

“

12

This is very much the core of the matter. Grapus’ name was made being obvious, open, and vocal. A client approaching them would have to understand Grapus’ nature, and by extension that their conduct would be unconventional. Similarly, it can be stated with confidence that Grapus would not accept a client if they did not understand that. It seems that any conflicts between the personal and professional responsibilities of Grapus were resolved at the outset.

It should be noted again that there is a lack a moral judgement of Grapus’ actual politics. If their Marxist views were found to be immoral or unethical, then different conclusions would have to be made. As it is, with abstention necessary, Grapus were comfortably ethical. They did not necessarily adhere to standard professional guidelines, but Grapus translated professionalism to their own ends, and clients entered into the relationship with the informal agreement that they would forego traditional expectations. Furthermore, the social obligation of a communicator to avoid active deception was exceeded by Grapus’ goal to do active good (as they saw it).

I think it’s because our attitude towards them excites them, but at the same time it makes them take risks.”(Bernard, 1991)

“

Operating in this way appears to fragrantly undermine the idea of professional responsibility. Though, Grapus were approached by clients precisely because of their idiosyncrasies. Pierre Bernard stated of their clients:

13

14

In Conclusion

Commerce, to some degree, influences every aspect of our lives. Whether it is doing a job that pays you a wage, using that wage to buy your food, or seeing an advertisement that explains that your food is the wrong food and that you should be buying this food. It is so much a part of the modern western world that it is difficult to imagine a realistic alternative.

The capitalist model, for better or worse, is established. Capitalism has produced many great things; basic needs are usually met, the western world generally lives in comfort, we are entertained, and have opportunity. (Maslow, 2000). For all the criticism and injustice, the capitalist model is not without its benefits. Additionally, as observant and accurate as Marx’s criticism of the capitalist model may be, the alternatives as presented in recent history are by no means an improvement. Discussions of the fundamental question of; ‘whether the capitalist model is morally just’ is completely academic. Those with any real influence over the consumerist model are largely invested in maintaining that model. In actuality communicators as individuals are essentially powerless, and as an organised group have limited means to effect meaningful change to the established system.

While communicators’ influence is limited, one of the more insidious products of the capitalist model should be addressed. The development of industry and technology has caused production to become exponentially more efficient. The means to produce far exceeds humankind’s need. Once humankind’s basic need is satisfied, the sole way for the capitalist model to continue is to create more need. It is this notion that is at the very heart of consumerism. It appears very Machiavellian, the idea of faceless organisations tricking the population into buying superfluous commodities – however it is not that simple. To begin with necessity is conditional; there is a whole spectrum of necessity for every individual. Also, the premise that everyone involved in the production of commodities thinks on these terms; that they are intentionally swindling the public by selling them needless items, is fallacious. Milton Glaser articulated the idea perfectly by illustrating that amorality or immorality is not necessarily and active choice, rather a product of ignorance, and an industry that is reluctant to self-criticise.

The First Things First manifesto advocates a shift in focus from commercial work to social and cultural areas. Michael Beirut embodies the several reservations some have had about the manifesto. Neither document offers any meaningful advice on the right path to take. First Things First hints at some more noble practices, while Beirut uses his platform to criticise and offer no alternatives. These two positions are illustrative of the two broad fundamental ideological positions professional communicators have. The first position is one of conservation, a position that supports the status quo because it benefits them. The second position is perhaps misguided or naïve, but holds that changes can be made for the general good at a small cost to the professional. Milton Glaser too espouses this second position.

While the politics of the Atelier Populaire and Grapus may have been radical, their practices, though challenging, were extremely ethical. What made the two organisations ethical were not their politics: rather their awareness of culture, society and politics and their informed decision to become active participants in a global dialogue.

The actual creation of an ethical framework for communication designers is far beyond the scope of this discourse. However, the cited sources have offered insights that could begin to discern the foundations of one. It is fundamental to remember that ethics is not a binary topic, and as such it is unreasonable to attempt to define explicitly what is and is not ethical. This is further complicated by the sheer variety of disciplines and specialisms within the design industry. The most feasible method to proliferate ethical conduct in the industry, as I see it, is to advocate awareness and consideration of ethics within communication design. Whether a designer’s practice is ethical or unethical by their standards or external ones, a conscious action is infinitely more responsible than an ignorant action. Even if an informed designers chooses to practice unethically; the risk is at least understood and assessed.

15

The consumerist model does little self-reflection, and even less self-criticism. This is a major contributing factor to the premise that communicators are not externally encouraged to think on ethical terms. The most obvious opportunity to encourage young designers to be aware of ethical practice is at an educational level. Specific modules, or an ethical component to certain modules would certainly raise questions for fledgling communicators. And even if those questions were left unanswered, it would promote the principles of the active assessment of ethical practice. A further opportunity to propagate ethical practice would be to establish an institution as a central regulative authority. This establishment would not only raise the issue of ethics, but would also require designers become active in their interaction with the subject.

Ultimately the biggest contributing factor to practice is money. The nature of the world in which we live means that capital and power perpetuate themselves. But as more consumers, communicators and producers critically reflect on the consumerist industry there is promise that the collective shift of thought toward ethical integrity could invoke meaningful and positive changes in this industry. Fundamentally, the active consideration of ethics in a communicators’ practice is likely the most effective means of constructing brighter future.

16

Bernard, P. (1991). Eye Magazine | Feature | Reputations: Pierre Bernard. [online] Eyemagazine.com. Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/reputations-pierre-bernard [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Bierut, M. (2007). Seventy-nine short essays on design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Cox, J. (2016). An Introdution to Marx’s Theory of Alienation. [online] Pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk. Available at: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj79/cox.htm [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Denis, L. (2008). Kant and Hume on Morality. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-morality/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Diffen.com, (2016). Ethics vs Morals - Difference and Comparison | Diffen. [online] Available at: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Dogan, M. (2005). How Civil War Was Avoided in France. Comparative Sociology. 4, 1/2, pp. 207-244, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost. [Accessed 31 Jan 2016].

Douglas, A, (2002). War, Memory, and the Politics of Humor: The Canard Enchaine and World War I. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USA. Available from: ProQuest ebrary. [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Engels, F. (2016). 1877: Anti-Duhring - Capital and Surplus Value. [online] Marxists.org. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch19.htm [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Epps, H. (2016). Ethics Vol III. [online] Google Books. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MpvoAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Ethics of Design, (2013). Code of ethics. [online] Available at: https://ethicsofdesign.wordpress.com/code-of-ethics/code-of-ethics/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Glaser, M. (n.d.). Milton Glaser | Essays. [online] Milton Glaser | Essays. Available at: http://www.miltonglaser.com/milton/c:essays/#1 [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Halberstam, J. (2006). Right and Wrong in the Real World. [online] Greater Good. Available at: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/right_and_wrong_in_the_real_world [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Heller, S. (2014). Design Is One of the Most Powerful Forces in Our Lives. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/03/design-is-one-of-the-most-powerful-forces-in-our-lives/284388/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Bibliography

17

Hill, T. E. (2000). Respect, Pluralism, and Justice: Kantian Perspectives. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K. Available from: ProQuest ebrary. [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Homiak, M. (2003). Moral Character. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-character/#Hum [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Howard, J. & Tinkham, S. (1971). A Framework for Understanding Social Criticism of Advertising. Journal Of Marketing, 35, 4, pp. 2-7, Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost, [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Hume, D. (2001). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Infomotions, Inc., South Bend, IN, USA. Available from: ProQuest ebrary. [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Hume, D. and Norton, D. (2009). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press.

Jacobs, C. (2013). Don’t Read This. [online] Psychology Today. Available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/management-rewired/201305/dont-read [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Johnson, R. (2004). Kant’s Moral Philosophy. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Kant, I. and Gregor, M. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Lichfield, J. (2008). Egalité! Liberté! Sexualité!: Paris, May 1968. [online] The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/egalit-libert-sexualit-paris-may-1968-784703.html [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Litt, S. (2016). How Pentagram’s Michael Bierut journeyed from Garfield Heights to the apex of graphic design. [online] cleveland.com. Available at: http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2015/08/pentagrams_michael_bierut_jour.html [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Livingston, J. (1994). Pragmatism and the Political Economy of Cultural Evolution, 1850-1940. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Marx, K. (1948). The Communist manifesto. Middlesex, U.K.: Peguin Books Ltd

Maslow, A. (2000). Classics in the History of Psychology -- A. H. Maslow (1943). [online] Psychclassics.yorku.ca. Available at: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

18

Paris-Clavel, G. (1998). Eye Magazine | Feature | Reputations: Gérard Paris-Clavel. [online] Eyemagazine.com. Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/reputations-gerard-paris-clavel [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Pepper, S. (1986). The Lawyer’s Amoral Ethical Role: A Defense, A Problem, and Some Possibilities. Law & Social Inquiry, 11(4), pp.613-634.

Poynor, R. (1998). Eye Magazine | Feature | Design is advertising #2: Nomadic resistance. [online] Eyemagazine.com. Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/design-is-advertising-2-nomadic-resistance [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Poynor, R. (1999). Emigre Essays. [online] Emigre.com. Available at: http://www.emigre.com/Editorial.php?sect=1&id=13 [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].Poynor, R. (2000). Eye Magazine | Feature | First Things First Manifesto 2000. [online] Eyemagazine.com. Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/first-things-first-manifesto-2000 [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Poynor, R. (2013). Utopian Image: Politics and Posters. [online] Design Observer. Available at: http://designobserver.com/feature/utopian-image-politics-and-posters/37739/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Rauscher, F. (2007). Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/#RebRev [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Roberts, L. (2006). Good. Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA Academia.

Rohlf, M. (2010). Immanuel Kant. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Sheraton, L. (2012). Morals vs. Ethics | ethicsdefined.org | Ethics Defined. [online] Ethicsdefined.org. Available at: http://www.ethicsdefined.org/what-is-ethics/morals-vs-ethics/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Stillo, M. (1999). www.theory.org.uk Resources: Antonio Gramsci. [online] Theory.org.uk. Available at: http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-gram.htm#hege [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Tate, C. (2015). Conscious marketing. Milton Gld, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

The Story of Bottled Water. (2010). [video] Oakland, CA, USA: Annie Leonard.

UN.org, (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations. [online] Available at: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Wolff, J. (2003). Karl Marx. [online] Plato.stanford.edu. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx [Accessed 31 Jan. 2016].

Wood, A. (2004). Karl Marx. New York: Routledge.