|
Hello Everyone,
This next question came through conversation after I presented to a small gathering of experience designers. Someone asked me about the responsibility a designer has for participants once the experience has ended. It was a layered question with a few possible answers:
What if there is a backlash from the participants afterward? What do you do if they are having a hard time dealing with the transformation? How much is the designer responsible for?
Here's my initial response:
If the participants are so transformed by the experience that they are having a hard time reacclimatizing, then it’s possible that the magic circle wasn’t closed properly (see step 6). It’s a good idea for the designers to touch base and remain open to contact with participants afterword to help them fully step out of the magic circle (see step 7). Another helpful move is to encourage the participants to be in touch with each other to reconcile the experience. This is easier in smaller communities or persistent groups that have ongoing contact with each other before and after the experience. It’s harder in urban contexts or any other situations where groups might have limited social cohesion.
My answer wasn't cutting it. She shared a little more context:
But I was just going to have fun… It was a weekend getaway with strangers where we had no watches, no outside communication, and we couldn’t use our real names.
This changes things, doesn't it? I went on:
Now I see why the backlash was directed at the designers. This is a problem with how the magic circle was opened, not how it was closed. Without knowing anything about their intentions, I see two ways to look at the situation. In both, it is the responsibility of the designers to ensure the wellbeing of the participants.
Possibility 1: The designers underestimated the power of the magic circle they opened up.
The parameters of the experience (no outside contact, no orientation to time, no identities, multiple days together, minimal prior social connection) sound like a super powerful setup for people to open up in ways that they can’t in day-to-day life. It’s not dissimilar to a sex party where normal social mores are shifted so people can engage with repressed or taboo parts of themselves. Maybe the designers were trying to make a recreational experience and accidentally made a transformational experience, with ramifications they weren’t prepared for (see my definition of experience design). It sounds like as a participant, you went with the intention to enjoy something recreational rather than transformational. If I were you, I would be upset about the mismatched expectations, too! In this case, it's absolutely the designers’ responsibility to address the ramifications of their design. They can do this by being in touch with the participants to understand what happened and do what they can to help the participants get to a healthy place. Sometimes humbly admitting that things didn’t go as intended and acknowledging what did happen is enough. If real damage has been done, then more will be needed. It is too much to expect the participants to work this out among themselves if they were all blindsided by what they went through.
Possibility 2: The designers knew how powerful the magic circle they were opening up was and failed to inform participants.
The designers need to do their best to communicate the risk up front, either literally or in poetic but accurate terms if they want to preserve some mystery. (See the quote from the National Outdoor Leadership School's student agreement for an example of the literal approach.) That way, participants can assess for themselves if the experience is right for them. The designers can also use their skill and judgment to decide on a case by case basis if someone is right for the experience. This can feel exclusionary, but the participants may not be able to comprehend the risk they'll face if they have no point of reference for it. In this case, it’s the designer’s responsibility to create parameters that only allow people into the magic circle if, to the designer’s best knowledge, it’s going to be right for them.
Transformation can be traumatic rather than grounding if the power of the magic circle isn’t caringly and skillfully managed by the designer. The forces at play in transformational experiences often act like fire. You can work with it, but fire has a life and power of its own. Not taking responsibility for the fires you start is dangerous. In fields like medicine and law, neglecting the power and responsibility of your work constitutes malpractice. I expect experience designers trafficking in transformation to hold themselves to the same standards.
Read previous Q&As.
Recommended Reading
The topic of trigger warnings has been getting a lot of attention for the effects they have on education. All the hubbub looks to me like trouble with magic circles. I believe that how being triggered is handled within a magic circle is just as important as how trigger warnings are (or are not) used in opening a magic circle. Here are two articles on the topic:
The Big Uneasy by Nathan Heller in The New Yorker
Why I Stopped Giving Trigger Warnings in Class by Dyna Troisi published on Medium
If you have questions about Patterns of Transformation, write me an email or send a note through the forms on the site. If you’ve put any of the design tips into action, I’d love to hear how it went! And don't be shy about sharing this email or the Patterns of Transformation website with someone you think might find it useful.
Thanks so much,
Ida
|
