THINGS

When you look up in a thesaurus you might find the words "thing" and "object" as a synonym of one another. However, they are slightly different when it comes to the contemporary theory of humans and nonhumans. Objects are associated with 'physicality', whereas things are used to express 'value'. Like when we used the word "something" as an expression because you cannot find words to describe nor explain what you are trying to say, so the word some-thing becomes a "translation" of the feelings or values you hold for the particular object that is being described.

Human Evolution and Things - Alternative to Charles Darwin's Theory

We, humans are defined by the nonhumans that exist around us. The evolution of humans is actually parallel to the evolution of things, and are associated with one another. Although "things" might not seem like a word that concerns any social interactions or interpretation it does so without anyone's notice. Though it shouldn't be a surprise since its the humans that invented those things themselves. Things are intimately involved in our everyday lives. If I were to ask you to make a list of things you cannot live without, we'd be here forever. They are not just required for their functionality but because everyone has the things they are attached to, things also become signifiers, of how two individuals are associated to one another. For example, a cage (thing) shows the relationship/status/hierarchy of the person inside the cage compared to the person outside. It translates or delegates the "effort" in which one needs to point out, i.e. how they are related to the person next to them. In the same way, things signify its owner, the things we possess tells people who we are because of our relationship to that thing. A clear example is fashion, an interpretation of what style of clothing one wears tells more about the wearer than one might realize, it could tell if the wearer is rich or poor, what is their social background, what lifestyle they might pursue, and where they stand in comparison to you. Again, those "things" give us "value" for judgement, as it delegates the effort in need for other people to get to know you by giving them an impression through things you possess.

In "Objectifier" designers put this theory to practice. They go by 'a general descriptive rule' Jim Johnson mentioned in his text Mixing Humans and Non Humans together that "every time you want to know what a human does, simply imagine what other humans or other non humans would have to do were this character not present". By this rule of "imaginary substitution" it sums up for designers what functions they need to put into the character they are designing. Like if they were to design a chair they would list the things we need to do to find a sitting position and come up with a design that delegates that list of efforts, only then will you get a successful design.

Systems and Deep Ecology

What does it mean by deep ecology? When we think of ecology, of course what comes to our mind is organisms and the natural environment. It is in fact the relations between the two, and in contemporary theory it is their "holistic" relations that makes up the word 'deep ecology', it is a deeper phenomenon once looked as a bigger whole than the meaning of each separate parts.

Nothing is orthogonal because nothing is created independently. Every form comes from a system and as a relation of another, i.e. its surrounding context. Take Frank Lloyd Wright for example, in his works like the Prairie House, is a reflection of its context. One interesting detail is the stained glass that projects the trees outside, on the opposite side of the window, in geometrical simplification. The stained glass then becomes a symbol of transition between the outside and inside that is smoothly put together. The house is trying to relate to and communicate to its natural surrounding, which results in a wonderful continuity in the aesthetics.

Stained glass with tree-like pattern in Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie House

Deep ecology can also be applied to other matters as well because everything is created in relation of something, there is always something, a reason, that influence our thinking and consequently the product of our thinking, which is what makes the world we live in now and it is bound to change over the course of time. It is not only applicable to physical implications but also theoretical and ideological concepts like the topic of topos and the variations; utopia, heterotopia, and dystopia. Each variation doesn't and couldn't just exist on itself. Like Michel Foucault has mentioned in his text, he chose to explain the relations of the different types of places and no-places as a relationship of an object, its reflection and the mirror in which the reflection is reflected upon. Obviously, all three things have to exist as a whole system, a reflection couldn't exist if there's no mirror or object. So in the same manner, the idea of a utopia wouldn't exist without the perception of the actual place and hence a heteropic ideal. The idea of dystopia, a bad-no-place, is not so clear and understandable if there is no clarification of what is a good-no-place or utopia, therefore dystopias cannot exist independently without a utopic vision well because they are created in relation of one another.

Man, reflection, mirror protrays the idea of topos, utopia, heterotopia respectively

TOPOS

"Topos" means place. Everyone of us live in a "place", which exist by relationships of space. A place in this case is not locational, but a set of relations. Like Galileo has said 'everything is relational'.
Topos has many variations to it, the utopias, dystopias and heterotopias. These topos or places are not physical but can be viewed as more of an ideology. Utopia meaning 'no-place' says for itself that it does not exist physically, it is a reflection of a place, often interpreted as a 'good-no-place'. But as Michel Foucoult has mentioned in his text that in fact 'our lives are still ruled by a certain number of unrelenting opposites', meaning we don't just live in a type of topos but a mixture. Not only are there utopias but there are dystopias, the opposite of utopia, translating to a 'bad-no-place'. Moreover there is also a heterotopia, a different place, is utopia is the reflection of the mirror heterotopia can be seen as the mirror itself.

The movie Hunger Games is an exploration of topos and its variations. In the movie there are two different ranks of people, the rich which lives in the Capitol, and the poor who lives in the twelve districts, a heterotopic existence. Though as an overview Panem might seem like a dystopia, but if you put yourselves in the characters shoes, the Capitol of the rich to the rich it's a utopia because they are of the highest rank in their world, even though they are torturing the people of the poor districts.