Keller Easterling, an architect, designer, and author, explores a multitude of environments through her work. As someone captivated by complex systems, I found Easterling's insights particularly compelling; she has been examining these themes for years as a professor of architecture at Yale. Her publications span diverse topics, from the Appalachian Trail in Organization Space to the demilitarized zone in North Korea in Enduring Innocence, and address economic zones and digital infrastructure in Extrastatecraft.

Her latest book, Medium Design, serves as a complement to her earlier works. For instance, while Extrastatecraft meticulously details the sprawling, technology-driven systems that support capitalism and their adverse effects, it lacks concrete guidance on how to address these issues. Many books critique capitalism, often focusing on its flaws rather than offering viable solutions. Given the interconnected crises of climate change, political turmoil, algorithm-driven extremism, increasing income disparity, and the fallout from the pandemic, there is an urgent need for practical solutions.

Easterling, however, avoids oversimplified solutions. Instead, Medium Design counters society's craving for straightforward answers. By advocating for a broad understanding of “design,” she introduces systemic innovations like community land trusts and alternative market practices such as social capital credits. The term "medium" refers more to being engaged in the complexities of situations and drawing unexpected connections rather than suggesting a design scale.

Technology often acts as a companion to grand narratives, with new concepts (like blockchain or autonomous vehicles) presented as panaceas for existing challenges. Easterling argues that it is more effective to integrate new technologies with existing infrastructures—such as creating multimodal transit hubs that utilize autonomous vehicles, high-speed trains, and buses—rather than pursuing idealistic visions like infinite hyperloops. Her intention is less about rallying readers around her proposals and more about fostering a mindset focused on creative collaboration and reconfiguration rather than delivering an inspirational TED Talk.

Navigating oppressive systems while being part of them is challenging. Design, particularly when aimed at making a positive impact, frequently ends up masking deeper systemic issues. Discussing hacks and workarounds can lead to charges of complicity. Easterling does not shy away from this complexity: one chapter underscores how even the best-intentioned systems can become corrupted. Yet, she remains committed to engaging with the messy realities of the world.

I interviewed Easterling in late January, and this conversation has been condensed for clarity.

In *Medium Design*, you mention that ideas only gain traction when framed as singular, leading concepts. This seems at odds with the book’s message of rejecting the notion of a single great idea. What are your thoughts?

Keller Easterling: The book seeks to challenge the prevailing mindset that favors a singular, radical idea that replaces all others. Even when authors don’t intend to do so, they often find themselves framed this way, with the term “radical” applied to their ideas. I aim to escape this binary thinking—seeking out the one argument, the one evil, or the singular enemy. Instead, I propose a broader range of political assessments to enhance the potential for change, considering not just the left-right spectrum but also various political temperaments.

I often find myself questioning the book due to my conditioned response to phrases like “neither left nor right,” which I associate with centrist compromises.

I do not identify as centrist; my roots are in leftist, anti-capitalist thought. However, labeling capital as the sole evil is dangerous given the multitude of other harms—racism, sectarian strife, and authoritarianism, to name a few. Capital can be a factor, but it is not the only one. We must also consider other dynamics, such as temperament, to fully grasp the complexities of leadership and oppression.

Discussing market dynamics doesn't equate to colluding with the system; it's about manipulating it. How do you view this?

Reverse engineering market dynamics is about finding ways to counteract its excesses. The urgency of the situation doesn’t allow for waiting for perfect solutions. The examples I present in the book highlight mutualistic practices that reframe financial concepts into spatial and environmental considerations, transforming liabilities into assets through their interaction.

Given the current volatility in the markets, how do you perceive the desire for a simple narrative?

While I observe the market fluctuations, I’m cautious about oversimplifying the narrative. The exposure of market manipulation is enlightening, yet it still operates within the confines of abstract market language, which can perpetuate confusion.

Your book critiques techno-solutionism while still advocating for technology. Could you elaborate on this balance?

The modern mindset often favors obsolescence and outright replacement, which is a flawed approach. The book argues for a more integrated method that does not view technological innovations as singular solutions but as components of a larger ecosystem.

Did any unconventional innovation examples not make it into the book that you wish you could have included?

I recently reflected on mutualism and mutual aid as powerful forms of innovation that could have been more thoroughly explored. Simple legal adjustments could greatly enhance these practices, particularly in the context of combating gentrification. There are many case studies that would have enriched the discussion, particularly those addressing community land trusts.

In your book, you reference Shakespeare’s *Richard III* to illustrate the concept of “political superbugs.” Can you explain this analogy?

Having performed Lady Anne in a theatrical context, I’ve always been intrigued by how figures like Richard III and Trump manipulate their surroundings to achieve their ends. The ability to read situations and potential actions gives them an edge, allowing them to control narratives and people effortlessly.

The book seems to advocate for a collaborative, improvisational approach. How can we adopt effective strategies without becoming manipulative ourselves?

We can harness mutualism as a constructive way to interact with potentialities without resorting to manipulation. Communities that trade problems as currency exemplify this mindset, transforming challenges into assets through cooperation.

Would you describe the book as optimistic or pessimistic?

I would characterize it as scrappy optimism—acknowledging the need for action and believing that something can be achieved is more productive than focusing solely on the likelihood of failure. The book aims to uncover overlooked potentials in design, encouraging designers to engage more broadly and creatively.