#article #2023/ For centuries, Western architecture and design have used the human as a perfect reference point, an object, and a model. Throughout *Western modernity*, the idea of a hierarchy of beings where a human is placed above other animals and plants has been prevalent. The Greek philosopher *Protagoras* constructed the hierarchy of beings from plants to humans according to their anthropocentric possession of a [“Man”]((https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868318782848)) as [“the measure of all things”]((https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088868318782848)). This thinking was later renewed in *Leonardo da Vinci’s Renaissance Vitruvian Man* design. An ideal of bodily perfection that underpins a very specific vision of what is human. Moreover, it unequivocally affirms that humans have a nearly unlimited capacity to strive for both individual and social perfection. ![[VITRUVIAN MAN.JPG]] This iconic image is the emblem of Humanism as a doctrine that combines the discursive and moral expansion of human capacities into an idea of ordered and rational progress. This belief in the unique, self-regulating and intrinsically moral power of human reason forms an integral part of the thinking that essentially influenced the ideals of the *Italian Renaissance.* This model set standards for both individuals and their cultures. *Humanism* was the engine of a model of civilisation, which shaped a particular idea of a universal and hegemonic Europe. This view assumes that Europe is not just a geopolitical location, but a universal attribute of the human mind that can lend its quality to any suitable object. This has made *Eurocentrism* more than just a matter of attitude; a structural element of our cultural practice, which is embedded in theory and institutional and pedagogical practices. As a civilisational ideal, *Humanism* fuelled ["the imperial destinies of nineteenth-century Germany, France and, supremely, Britain"](https://www.routledge.com/Humanism/Davies/p/book/9780415420655). This *Eurocentric paradigm* has grown the dialectic of self and other, and the notion that we are [“right and all others wrong”](https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/). Insofar as difference signifies inferiority, it acquires essentialist and lethal connotations for people who are labelled as *others*. Usually [“sexualised, racialised, and naturalised”]((https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/)), are reduced to [“the less than human”]((https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/)) and [“disposable bodies”]((https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/)). [Tony Davies]((https://www.routledge.com/Humanism/Davies/p/book/9780415420655)) expresses these ideas clearly: “All Humanisms so far have been imperial. They speak of the human in the accents and interests of a class, a gender, a race, a genome. Its embrace stifles those it does not ignore. It is almost impossible to think of a crime that has not been committed in the name of humanity”. A humanism in the shape of a universal Man, implicitly assumed to be male, white, urbanised, speaking a standard language and heterosexual. This constant white male model was part of the 20th century, influencing architecture and design. It was first described by *Adolf Loos* in his 1908 essay[ *Ornament and Crime* ](https://books.google.pt/books/about/Ornament_and_Crime.html?id=-SxEbXFg7ZEC&redir_esc=y)where, with a colonialist and racist discourse, he portrayed the history of design as a great Darwinian march of progress that begins in the “desire for ornament” of tribal cultures and ends in contemporary industrial society with its “lack of ornament”. He considered “the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of everyday use”, adding “we have overcome ornament, we strive to reach a state without ornament”. Some years later, Le Corbusier used Loos’ thought in a system of proportions elaborated for his 1951 work *Le Modulor*. ![[Figura-4-Modulor-Le-Corbusier-1948-Corbusier-1998_W640.jpg]] *Modulor’s* measurements reflect those of a Caucasian man of 1.83 metres. It marks the history of architecture because it built an understanding of the disconnection of the body caused by industry and its constant attempts to standardise the human. Architect *Le Corbusier* is considered one of the founders of modern aesthetics, bringing together many design ideologies in his influential modernist grand narrative. *Le Corbusier’s* central premise, which served as the foundation for his conception of the modernist revolution, was that during the industrial revolution, people no longer appreciate colour and decoration, as they are [“of a sensory and elemental order (...) suited to simple races, peasants and savages”](https://archive.org/details/towardsnewarchit00leco_0) and prefer harmony and proportion which [“incite the intellectual faculties and arrest the man of culture”](https://archive.org/details/towardsnewarchit00leco_0). Following *Loos’* argument for removing the decorative element from design, *Le Corbusier* believed that the modern surface thus created is more suited to the more civilised modern man, and that it is a superior and universal aesthetic for which we should strive. The architect incorporated this new modern aesthetic centred on an athletic, but not universal, man of the future in his design for *the Unité d’Habitation in Marseille.* The restricted definition of humanism, which limits the concept of humanity to a specific type of human, significantly impacted design practice and is integral to understanding how we got to the current climate and social crisis. What remains is to question anthropocentrism as such. After all, the word anthropocentric indicates: [“interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences”](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropocentric). This *anthropocentrism* is problematic because it focuses on a hegemonic perception of a particular human being, as explained above, and argues for the separation of the human and non-human experience. The disconnection results in the domination of one over the other, which is one of the primary reasons why the current climate crisis has arisen. To understand the history of separation, between human and nature, it is necessary to go back to the 17th century when *René Descartes* argued that there was a unique dichotomy between mind and matter. Human beings are unique among all creatures in having minds. Plants and animals have no spirit or agency, no intention or motivation. The continuum between human beings and the rest of the living world was cut off in this clear dichotomy. [Latour ](https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674948396)notes that this predisposition to classify and dichotomise, is a fundamental characteristic of the “modern critical position,” which creates “two entirely distinct ontological zones: that of human beings, on the one hand, and that of nonhumans, on the other” and establishes “a division between a natural world” and “society”. This view became known as cartesian dualism and was a central theory to the culture of capitalism. Dualism established a desire for deviation between human beings and nature, between subject and object. It is a form of relationalism but one that, at the heart of our *Eurocentric and capitalist culture*, assumes the [“preexistence of distinct entities whose respective essences”](https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/2433/Designs-for-the-PluriverseRadical-Interdependence) are not seen as [“dependent on their relation to other entities”](https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/2433/Designs-for-the-PluriverseRadical-Interdependence) but rather as existing [“in themselves”](https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/2433/Designs-for-the-PluriverseRadical-Interdependence) . *Bruno Latour* addresses the impact of cartesian dualism on modern design in *[A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design](http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL-GB.pdf)*. In this article, he argues that by separating mind from matter and subject from object, designers have been trained to see themselves as objective observers rather than active agents who engage in co-creation with design materials. This attitude leads to a disconnect between the designer, the user[^1] and the context, as the designer focuses primarily on the form of the object. *Latour* suggests that this has promoted a division between the design and the remaining process, as the designer is seen as the creative force behind the object while, for instance, the manufacturer is merely responsible for producing it. This vision is frequently associated with star designers who have achieved fame and success through their work in the design industry. They are often regarded as trendsetters, and their work is sought after as a way to boost business. The influence of *Cartesian thinking* is evident as it emphasises the importance of the individual mind and its ability to reason and create. This focus on individualism has led to the notion that specific individuals possess a unique talent or genius that distinguishes them from others. This belief has been applied to the design world, where some individuals, such as *Phillipe Starck*, are seen as having an innate ability to create innovative and appealing designs. According to *Latour* this emancipation of the subject has led to a number of problems, including the neglect of the social and ethical dimensions of design, the lack of attention to the ecological impact of design, and the failure to recognise the complex interdependencies between humans and non-humans. As we can see in the United States of America, around a [billion birds are killed due to collisions with buildings](https://www.dezeen.com/2022/03/09/glass-collisions-bird-deaths/). Simply because birds can't see through glass windows. This fact helps prove the inability to recognise non-human entities as a fundamental element of the design process. ![[Pasted image 20250307103941.jpg]] Finally, in a broader social perspective, with the rise of dualistic modalities, *Descartes* influenced the hegemony of a subject who saw liberation as the individual liberty to realise oneself as a legitimate authority of a free subject. A mentality and practice supported by economic liberalism based on the rise of free trade and free market that was used as a [“justification for colonisation, war and the subordination of other values, and the people who held them”](https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/defuturing-9781350089570/). These philosophical and political manifestations comprised modern individualism and the dominant capitalist economy that has profoundly shaped design, reinforcing a narrow, hierarchical, and exclusionary perspective of what it means to be human. The consequences of this worldview have contributed to the marginalization of diverse perspectives, the alienation of non-human entities, and the disregard for ecological interdependencies. As we face important environmental and social challenges, it is imperative to question these inherited frameworks and embrace a more inclusive, relational, and ecologically conscious approach to design. [^1]: Here I cover the wide range of human, non-human and more-than human users