• darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It was an interesting video to watch and I can see similarities in user interface design in other parts of the world. I will likely be watching the other videos in the channel. Thank you for sharing.

    However, it still feels like a liberal understanding; maybe the youtuber was trying to avoid using the word socialist or aiming for brevity but if that is the case the analysis still feels incomplete.

    For example, the idea of user interface design because individuals in China are inherently “collectivist” but why? Saying indviduals choosing design principles that are “collectivist” in their environment and therefore choose this in their phone UIs is a lack of an explanation; this just amounts to a type of a circular logic. What has happened over the past century to promote this “culture” (even if we pretend the presumption is true that design principle aesthetics is homegenised across china)? It appears ironically an individualised take on collectivist culture.

    I do agree there are collectivised cultures in socialist nations but if you look at say the special economic zones - there are plenty of chinese liberals in these centres and their preferences for western individualised aesthetics. However what is, let’s say the culture-system, that promotes collectivism? (Answer: socialism)

    It appears that a large portion of analysis from the west considers collectivism as some sort of inherent individual trait belonging to come exotica of peoples rather than maybe a phenonemon borne out of political economic systems and their interactions with other politicsl economies. There is an idealism it is an individual trait that is more inherent in some ethnicities than others. For example, does India have “collectivised” cultures? And where they do not, why not? I put collectivised in quotes not because it is not real but because it feels like a western explanation for hordes of others acting in a borg-like manner. We are individual but they are a collective.

    Another area that the video explored; the idea that chinese people preferred leapfrogging technology to mobile over desktop. Again, why? What was going on in their material conditions that they could not afford the desktop/laptop to begin with? Again the answer purported is an individualised take; indvidual preferences backed up by a supply-demand explanation.

    This is not a comment on the technology provided, in a socialist country all-in-one apps are amazing (in a capitalist country this would just be another monopoly for rentier extraction).

    A more dialectical approach would do wonders. My critique is essentially a criticism of orientalism. It should be noted the youtuber concludes that designers watching this should be more empathetic in their design choices for their audience/clients.

    • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      I stopped watching when she said collectivism. I don’t know if it’s her or she is trying to speak the average westerner but they always talk about other cultures like one would about lab rats in cages.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think it’s just phrasing, but I do think she makes the point that collectivism is a cultural aspect. So while she doesn’t use Marxist analysis, I do think it’s close enough to get an average person to at least consider how the culture and environment shapes the way people think and behave. I do think a more materialist analysis would be interesting for sure though.

      • darkernations@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It was something you said a while ago that led me to write this; regarding the societal/cultural pressures of socialism (I think it was in relation how the same politicians would be progressive under socialism but become reactionary in capitalism). Here these would potentially emphasise the collectivist aspects of various chinese cultures while de-emphasising potentially more destructive individualised and reactionary parts; socialism acting as a sort of cultural sieve.