The connection of institution, design, and cultural imperialism

Low-tech materials

Data analysis

To begin with, this concept of the self refers to a culturally embedded self—one whose cultural embodiment is shaped through experiences of traveling, meeting people, and working in different environments. There is a contradiction here in understanding why culture feels so expansive, while the self remains the core that holds all these cultures together, interpreting them through its own lens. This self, in essence, is both biased and stereotyped, offering a bird’s-eye view that seeks to make sense of the world by unifying it in some way. This is my hypothesis, although I still need to gather more information to substantiate it.

As the self attempts to interpret cultural diversity, it simultaneously views itself as a collective of experiences, a kind of comfort zone. Cultures thus become expansive yet commodified by the self. This can be seen through educational services and non-educational services in this campus town: diverse student populations ask for a diversity of cuisine, languages, subjects, and bodies. When cultures are commodified by the communities they encounter, design plays a significant role, as it touches on branding and functions of these cultures. Culture, in this context, is not simply a product but an immersive space—a world in the making.

One intriguing aspect is how, in photos, this commodification of culture creates a sense of elitism in design. Diversity is understood not as a wide range of qualitative differences but as a collection of belongings to the power center that holds such diversity. That power center is the institution of inclusivity: as small as a community of shared space and as gigantic as nationality. Commodified cultures embody these institutions vividly, creating pride and sympathy among those the cultural consumers. As cultural commodification progresses, it inadvertently generates social segregation, reinforcing high and low cultural strata linked to power centers. Diversity of cultures in terms of quantity, oddly enough, becomes associated with quality, a point I need to explore further in my reading (Marx?).

Mary Louise Pratt analyzed the bird-eye view through the ability to travel and knowledge of the world that the colonizers or imperial eyes can grasp. This links to the issues of power and epistemic injustice: who have a say in certain matters - the social groups with bird-eye view or the ones actually living and struggling through the local system? Without being critical of the biases/intotality in knowledge and lived experiences, either group risks silencing the other. Global citizens in the postcolonial contexts are situated in the thirdspace (in between polarizing institutions) with hybrid positionality of both social groups, allowing ourselves to speak from our lived and observed experiences, while seeking for alter/nate structures to epistemic injustice and colonial consequences.

However, not every global citizen in this thirdspace is aware of this potential in countering hegemonic, oppressive systems that alienate and exploit themselves. Why? We’re running for recognitions from the systems that benefit us while exploiting us. The institution produces institutional diversity in branding, product, as well as service design to include, domesticate, and homogenize these differences. Imperial policy in the U.S. prioritizes STEM for economic and military developments, provide tremendous benefits for those enlisted in military (attracting a lot of legal immigrants for citizenship), sanction and demonize those with conflicting politics (ie Russia, Iran, Cuba). At the same time, in Florida, neoliberal university industries emphasizes high-tech, high-benefit majors, STEM, English language, Western epistemology centers - anything supporting capitalism and white supremacy is highly elevated. Critical studies are not allowed, academic freedom is attacked - diversity is just another naive inclusion in the fascist, colonial, capitalist structure.

In education of diversity, race and class struggles take place. The ghettos lean on each other as they at the marginal positions in between the institutions, development is the way to go for these struggles, even when it is used to justify systemic oppressions and colonial trap. In the trajectory to development, social segregation persist due to embodied cultural differences, existing systemic oppressions on certain social groups (BIPOC, LQBTQIA+ etc), as well as meritocratic system that hinder critical consciousness through individualism. Institutional diversity does not mean a co-existing and co-thriving of differences, but a suppressive management of differences through a competition for institutional recognition.

The more this bird’s-eye view can capture the world's complexities, more knowledge one is deemed of and the higher social status one can embody. , through the higher the standards it conveys, and these standards are disseminated through institutions and social classes. Thus, cultural commodification becomes intertwined with social class and intersects with concepts like nation, family, race, and gender, all contributing to what is perceived as “truth.” This truth, defined by higher culture and social class, dictates societal norms, linking back to themes of modernism, capitalism, and colonialism—though these are interconnected but distinct concepts. Here, diversity of experiences become a social class, which makes me question the role of international students (immigrant status) in higher education.

This links to institutions as the accumulation stations of diversity, in the context of neoliberal racist education regulated in Florida, the dominant narrative is high-tech, high-benefit, STEM, English language, and Western epistemology. This social segregation appears as a transformation from quantity to quality, which is mediated by human involvement, management, and the power of the overarching viewpoint.

However, due to the separation between high and low social classes, there is an ever-present dynamic of inclusivity, where high social classes become ruling classes, and lower classes and cultures are commodified and managed by those in such power. To maintain their status quo, this hierarchy results in a kind of dispossession, where diversity in quality is subordinated to quantity. This diversity, controlled by a broader force—the nation-state and its communities of shared culture—ultimately reinforces cultural imperialism. The dominant culture always seeks control, establishing a relationship of oppressor and oppressed.

So, what role do designers play in this process? Especially when designers are often limited to creating branding, product, or service designs, which inherently feed back into cultural imperialism. This process continuously embraces development and growth, even as it inadvertently fosters social segregation, no matter how much it aims for inclusivity.

AcknowledgementsThis is the transcripts of the data analysis in detective styles, conducted from photographs and visual diaries, as well as several toolkit testings to understand the contradictions of institutional diversity.

Post December 2024