Really compeling take on how aesthetics preceed policy change. The Via Pulchritudinis framing is spot-on because I've watched cooperatives in my city struggle with messaging until they got the visual branding right. People need to see what a differnet economic model looks like before they'll take the leap, and that's exactly what makes places like Mondragon feel tangible rather than theoretical.
Exactly!!!! I actually think that's one of the main problems with the cooperative movement—it's not that the companies are small or unfeasible, but that so many of them have terrible websites. (Which makes the movement, as a whole, seem like a rinky dink group of do-gooders rather than adept business minds!)
Thanks for comments-- totally agree with you both!
Using design as a way to flag-wave for our own side and differentiate from a "corporate" look (for example) is limiting.
I think that the cognitive dissonance between "Wait-- is the new co-op thing being described here some kind of fringe-y, do-gooder thing?" and, "This looks totally mainstream, solid, non-controversial" can be constructive.
From there, you can then resolve the cognitive dissonance by expanding your view of where these ideas belong in the world, and whether you're comfortable with them for yourself.
I would love if Apple was just like, "actually we're a cooperative." It would change the whole game, and suddenly every company would try to become one. We just need a cool cooperative, with cool aesthetics, that is insanely successful.
Really compeling take on how aesthetics preceed policy change. The Via Pulchritudinis framing is spot-on because I've watched cooperatives in my city struggle with messaging until they got the visual branding right. People need to see what a differnet economic model looks like before they'll take the leap, and that's exactly what makes places like Mondragon feel tangible rather than theoretical.
Exactly!!!! I actually think that's one of the main problems with the cooperative movement—it's not that the companies are small or unfeasible, but that so many of them have terrible websites. (Which makes the movement, as a whole, seem like a rinky dink group of do-gooders rather than adept business minds!)
Thanks for comments-- totally agree with you both!
Using design as a way to flag-wave for our own side and differentiate from a "corporate" look (for example) is limiting.
I think that the cognitive dissonance between "Wait-- is the new co-op thing being described here some kind of fringe-y, do-gooder thing?" and, "This looks totally mainstream, solid, non-controversial" can be constructive.
From there, you can then resolve the cognitive dissonance by expanding your view of where these ideas belong in the world, and whether you're comfortable with them for yourself.
I would love if Apple was just like, "actually we're a cooperative." It would change the whole game, and suddenly every company would try to become one. We just need a cool cooperative, with cool aesthetics, that is insanely successful.