Joy, Transformation, and Design as Creative Liberation with Sahibzada Mayed - DT101 E141

Speaker A: Welcome to the Design Thinking 101 podcast. We help people think and solve like a designer. Our guests share stories, lessons, ideas, experience and insights developed while practicing, leading and teaching design thinking. They come to design thinking 101 from business, social innovation, education, design, government, uh, healthcare and other fields to offer you what they've discovered about thinking and solving like a designer. I'm Dejuan Stanford, your Design Thinking 101 host, Saab's out of Mayatt is a creative alchemist who uses design and storytelling to cultivate joy and imagination as tools of liberation. Mayat serves as the co lead for strategy and research at Pause and Effect, a liberation focused imagination and design collective based on Coast Salish territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil Waututh nations. Beyond that, Mied leads a small scale startup, Naranji that focuses on gender justice and decolonization in fashion. Their work has been prominently featured during New York and Chicago Fashion Weeks and highlighted in several publications across the United States, Pakistan, Thailand and Japan. Mied's identity is shaped by their background as a Muslim immigrant of Persian, Afghan, Indian and Pakistani heritage, as well as lived experiences of queerness, disability and neurodivergence. Today on the Design Thinking 101 podcast, my guest is Saab Zahra Maed Mayed. Welcome to the show.

Speaker B: Hello. Thanks for having me. Looking forward to our conversation.

Speaker A: Me too. I would like to uh, talk about how you've walked the path you have into design. It is a game, a conversation that I have with pretty much everyone who comes onto the show because I want. Part of. One of the things I want the show to do is to help people see multiple paths into the multiple ways of being uh, and living and acting as a designer. So let's talk a little bit about your path.

Speaker B: Yeah, um, no, I absolutely love that question. And I would say I've had a very, very like non linear, non traditional, unconventional path when it comes to design. So um, I guess when I started my academic journey it was. I was really heavily coming from a STEM background and I started college actually for material science and engineering and eventually that led me to manufacturing and design. And from there I was like actually what I really enjoy doing is like working with people. So I started getting more on the social sciences side and like communication studies and like learning sciences and exploring some of the like more uh m some more subjects and content areas around like cultural anthropology and um, just like understanding social systems. So I would say my background actually draws both heavily from engineering and social Sciences. So I sort of exist in this like dual space all the time. And um. Yeah, so that's what really brings me to design is having the like technical analytical pieces from engineering but then also having some of the um, cultural um, social components, um, especially in ethnography work, qualitative research and just systems thinking. So um, yeah, I think that's what really merges together.

Speaker A: And can you tell me a little bit about how that blend of uh, ways of knowing um, and creating has served you in your projects and explorations?

Speaker B: Yeah, um, I think personally one thing that I wanted for myself was I feel like I just wanted the toolkit to be able to communicate with different people. And I really value working on cross disciplinary teams in like highly collaborative ways. So where it's like now like even though on the day to day I'm not actually doing quote unquote um, engineering work, but it's still like I understand say the manufacturing process, I can understand like prototyping techniques. So I'm able to better and more effectively communicate with different segments of a cross disciplinary team. So I think that's one thing that I've really found useful within my practice. I think the other piece I would say say is um, just bringing a very relatively unique and niche lens on engineering and design and technology where it's really truly deriving from both disciplines around like engineering and social sciences. And then also just being able to like um, critically analyze systems from the perspective of like equity and like oppression and, and what it means to center voices and experiences of folks that have experienced those forms of oppression.

Speaker A: As you think about some of the uh, projects where you've been able to ah, um, pull in all of your experiences, talents, ways of seeing um, what are some of the things that come to mind?

Speaker B: Yes, yeah. I think on the day to day I feel like on some projects there's like different skill sets required and on others it might be more technical, more engineering focused. But I would say like as of present a lot of my work focuses in design research and strategy, particularly in the spaces of uh, like I guess when people are really trying to critically understand the impact of design both as a colonial way and trying to really dismantle that as well as trying to center equity and um, approaches that like move us towards liberation. So I would say like a lot of the projects that I've worked on within the past two years are sort of like really critically wrestling with interlocking systems of oppression. So like just to sort of contextualize that through examples, it's just like um, one project I was working on um, last year was really looking at um, just mental health for undergraduate students at uh two year and four year institutions throughout the United States and really trying to understand how can we create um, pathways for students to reach, really have their experiences centered within the context of institutional transformation and recognizing that especially students who experience marginalization, students who experience different forms of oppression, their voices are being heard and acted upon within decision making. So I think within that context it was really looking at the lens of service design in the context of higher education, but also thinking broadly from a systems perspective and co design or participatory design where it's just like oftentimes uh, I find there's a tension when we're sort of trying to collaborate with like the impacted communities, but there's still existing power differentials that haven't necessarily been addressed. So oftentimes that collaboration can still feel very one sided because we're not really including those voices or the people with those experiences when it comes to decision making. So we sort of engage with them in this passive way of like oh come share more about your experiences with us. And once they've done that they're sort of sidelined, uh, and neglected and at uh, the end of the day the status quo is still maintained. Yeah. So I feel like a lot of the times the work that I guess I'm even asked to be a part of is really wrestling with those aspects around like coloniality, around power, around race equity, um, and bringing in those lenses, um, of critical thinking, critical social analysis,

Speaker A: opportunities for designers to uh, I think shift is not necessarily the right word in relation to power but to um, open power to greater influence and lived experience and expertise. Um, what are some of the emerging uh, opportunities you see, um, based on the work you've done?

Speaker B: Yeah, I really appreciate that question. I think my go to response to that is first we really need to understand and unpack what power really is and how it shows up within the context of uh, our uh, practice as well as the impact that we're having. Because I think there's different power to me is a very multilayered and multidimensional concept. Like there's different aspects of power. Like someone as a designer might hold institutional power but um, they might not hold as much social power which is tied to like their identity and privilege and their experiences. Um, so I think that's just one example of like sort of wrestling with where I like, I work with a lot of racialized, queer, disabled designers as well that then feel this tension of they're actually implicated and harmed within these systems themselves. So it creates a very different positionality. And I think the opportunity to sort of, as you said, like, uh, expanding access to communities that are impacted by our work is. It's something that has to be very relational and it has to be something that is done with a lot of trust building and really centering the experiences of those who are disproportionately harmed or impacted. And I think it's never perfect like. And I think that's really important to state because I don't think we can ever get rid of the power differential. But rather as the designers or the researchers, sometimes we have a, uh, responsibility to create experiences, to create the conditions for said community members to collaborate with us in ways because there is a power differential and we can try to I guess, lessen the impact of how that differential is felt. But at the end of the day, there is someone who is coming in with this lens of like, I am doing design in service of this purpose, right? And I think that's really important to be aware of with like, with power comes responsibility, and power is inherently tied to privilege as well in a lot of different contexts. So I think that's like the piece that sticks out to me. Um, one thing that I'll share is through work that I've done, I feel like I've sort of identified and also experienced this spectrum of what happens when you're doing design work and you are so proximal to the community that you're trying to design for, and with that you're actually a part of it, versus on the other end of the spectrum when you're like completely removed from this context or this community and you're coming in as someone who's external and bringing in your perspective. And I think having worked across both ends of those spectrum, like in, across a variety of projects, I think I've actually learned that there's no right approach. Like in some projects it's actually helpful to have someone who's proximal to the community and is able to like, understand the nuances, the cultural sensitivities. But then also there is greater potential for them being harmed through the process themselves, even as a designer. But on the other hand, when you have someone who's completely alienated and isolated, while they can bring a fresh perspective and a different lens, they might also cause potential harm when they don't understand some of the like, subtle nuances of how, um, just a community building orientation, people's lifestyles and um, the context that they live in and they use the products or services that are being designed for them.

Speaker A: And within everything you just said. I'm so glad you brought, brought up like the can't be done perfectly part. Um, because there's so much that goes into that perfection piece that masks other. I was going to say intents and I will say other intents and um, other fears, other biases. And so for example, we've probably all heard like, well, like we have to get this right, so we're not going to do anything in haste. We're going to really get this right. And uh, it's like, oh, okay, now we're doing the go slow, eventually go nowhere approach. And I think part of it is the. Somewhat like the fear of the relational, the fear of the um, of the organic. Um, in terms of if we can mechanize this and sort of like do the fully rational approach, which we know doesn't work, doesn't exist, um, then okay, then we can do these things. But that part of the relational piece within that you um, can't enter into a relationship without openness to being changed. And uh, I think that sometimes uh, the perfection shield or the rigor shield is used to avoid the vatis comfort, which is more of a symptom. And uh, what it's ultimately around is to limit that change or that possibility, uh, for change. And there can be lots of things that support that. Um, that's just what came to mind as I was um, thinking through the connections.

Speaker B: Totally. I think I really resonate with what you shared just now. And I think the piece that I'm really thinking about in that context is there's this fear of, and discomfort associated with taking responsibility when people cause harm. And I feel like this comes up a lot in just like unpacking harm and what it means to engage in restorative reparative work. Right. And um, I think that's the piece that I feel like we really need to focus on is because we always have this understanding of assume good intentions. Right. And we can get into the argument of intentions don't always equate or like translate directly to impact. Like someone could have really good intentions with the work that they're doing and what they're designing. But like the impact of it could still be detrimental and harmful. But I think the piece that like I've been really thinking about is this idea of how do we really actually think about our capacity to cause harm, the potential to actually impact someone in a way that is harmful or negative and if we come from that place, I actually think we can set us. Set ourselves up to show up more relationally as well. Because then we're sort of. And it's not like a pessimist view. I think I've encountered that narrative sometimes too, where it's like, if we're assuming, if we're just like, preparing or like, building capacity around this potential for harm, that means like, oh, we're just inherently pessimistic or expecting this to happen. No, I think it's actually quite the opposite, where it's like, we're actually showing up with a lot more care in the sense that we are almost like, creating the conditions where for accountability to exist. Take. We're creating the conditions for people to feel like they can sit with and reconcile with the discomfort that comes with being able to admit that, like, hey, like, I created this thing and even though it had good intentions behind it, it has caused harm, and now what responsibility do I have to help repair this? And also, reparative work has to happen with consent and agency. I think that's the piece sometimes where we expect. Where it's like, oh, once we've caused. If harm has been caused, then we can't assume that the people who have been harmed actually continuously want to engage with us. And I think that's when we can get into just, um, feelings around, like, saviorism as well, or just like this idea of, like, wanting to be perceived as a good person and not as a bad person, which is just this dichotomy that I think is actually quite false in how we just operate within the social spheres that we exist in.

Speaker A: Yeah, there are so many things that are happening in my head right now, as I think back on this week, a couple days ago, it was just yesterday, um, we did the, um, first design thinking 101 live. And so we had a live audience and the topic was design ethics. And George A. Gave a wonderful presentation about design ethics. And we had a conversation and then he led a short workshop. And one of the, um, things that I was thinking through and leading up to that, and it connects to harm and, uh, how we like the default mode of designers and harm. And often the default mode is, well, we're creating this thing, and, uh, it's not going to hurt anybody. And that is the assumption. And I was thinking about ethics for people who don't like ethics, um, or ethics for people who feel that, hey, that's not my job. Like, I get a problem, my job's to solve it. And, uh, that's what I do, um, other, like, other people figure out, make sure that it's okay in the world and all this stuff. It's like, not my job. And I was thinking about coming up with a set of assumptions that are in many ways part of how we design. So, for example, the assumption that, okay, I'm doing this community project about, um, access to, uh, um, urgent care clinics, um, and so sort of keeping people from going straight to the emergency room when they could go to urgent care. And like, maybe that's the challenge I'm working on. And maybe I start, you know, starting that off with. Instead of like, okay, let's go to that workload. Like, let's assume that how we're doing this is going to harm someone. Then you're like, oh, well, we have to think about, all right, well, who might that be and how might that happen and what might we do to avoid that? So the assumption of harm forces different kinds of thinking. Um, and there can be an assumption of bias. Um, assume that, um, we are bringing bias to the work that is going to get in the way of doing this. Well, like, oh, how do we go. How do we go looking for that? Where might it be? Might it be here? Looking for that? And other assumptions I can imagine, like, oh, assume we're going to have to consume our externalities. Like, oh, oh, wait a minute. All right, let's talk about that. Because I kind of like the part where other people are. That's a lot of businesses are built on, oh, you're going to pick up those externalities.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: It's like we're just going to put all this packaging on this because we don't have to, uh, oh, we have to clean that up too. Oh, oh, that shifts things. Um, so, yeah, I was just thinking about that as you were talking, as a way of pushing, ah, almost familiar mechanisms into, uh, the context of designing, um, as something of a sort of bridge or a. Or a spot on the pathway to, um, the more liberatory design, a more decolonized design.

Speaker B: Yeah. I think one thing that, like, is jumping out for me from what you just shared is this assumption around the neutrality of design. And sometimes I see this a lot in research work as well as design work in the context of how we're conditioned to see ourselves as being objective thinkers and objective actors, when in reality, I don't think anything's ever objective. And why I say that because it's the inherent politicization of how we are as complex relational beings and the biases we bring the privileges that we hold, as well as the ways in which we ourselves are impacted by the systems that we exist in. So I think, I feel like we always need to really push against this idea of neutrality or objectivity, because that does contribute to and create barriers for essentially what we're talking about and being able to confront harm when it shows up, or being able to take responsibility for when we've caused harm. I think the other piece there that's jumping out for me is even in some of the approaches that are like, sort of thinking about like trauma informed and trauma responsive design or research. One thing that I've really felt is it comes from an avoidance mindset. And to just expand on that a little bit, I feel like we really talk a lot about, like, I've seen a lot of discourse, literature, engagement around this piece of preventing harm and avoiding, like, harm, which I think is so, so important. Right. But at the same time I've been really wrestling with this idea of why do we only see being trauma informed or trauma responsive in the context of these interlocking systems of oppression? Why do we only see it as the prevention of harm? And what possibilities would open up if we also saw it as the presence of care, the presence of joy, the presence of accountability? Because within the system that we live in, I feel like we are often put into positions where we're being asked to remove ourselves and inherently remove our humanity from those situations. And um, yeah, so like, even when I think about design, it's just like we, we rarely think about like joy, care, accountability. And a lot of the ways that we're set up and we're conditioned to do is like, oh, even when you have those conversations around, like being trauma informed or being trauma responsive, a lot of it centers on the prevention of harm, but not simultaneously the presence of care or like just being joyful, being liberatory in those ways too. Because actually I would argue for a lot of people, the generational trauma that exists within them is from lack of the spaces that allow rest, that allow joy. Like that has been stripped through colonization, through different forms of oppression and intentionally so. I think actually bringing those elements into our work more is inherently being trauma informed and being trauma responsive.

Speaker A: Yeah. The side of things where it's like, oh, well, there's harm reduction over here and uh, where is the flourishing enhancement? Where's the joy promotion? And there's um. In public health, I had Bob Seki, uh, Dr. Bob Seki on the show and he talked about aces, adverse childhood experiences, and like the whole list of things like, oh, these things happen in your childhood. There are greater risk for negative outcomes later. And he said part of his work has been on, I think, paces, like, what are the positive childhood experiences? And if we're building systems to help reduce these negative things, shouldn't we also be building systems that promote these positive things? And, uh, I've been pulling at this, like, a thread of related things, and I don't know what that thread is, but because there's that resistance to, uh, play and joy that, oh, it was like, oh, we're working well, we're doing serious work. And so it has to hurt. It's like, oh, can it just not hurt? Like, no, no. If you're really, really going for it, it's going to hurt. And, uh, in different ways, that is pervasive in so many places. And one of the funny thing is that at very high levels of performance, it's the exact opposite. That's true. There is the playfulness. There are the times of recovery. I had a good friend who got me really thinking about rest versus recovery and, uh, having. Okay, there's rest. And that kind of feels like, oh, like the stopping, the pausing, um, getting out of the whirlwind. But recovery is like, oh, I'm pulling in generative things, both, like, mentally and spiritually and physically to sort of, uh, recover capability and, um, all of the fuel, all of the strengths. And so I'm, as you're talking about, like, oh, why are we so focused on harm? I'm also thinking about, yeah, where do we build in, uh, the, um, joys? Not as a nice to have, but as an essential part of everything.

Speaker B: Yeah, I love that. I think tying it back to, like, just thinking of, like, liberatory decolonial approaches to design work. I think liberation is a creative process. Right. And I think seeing it first as a process is very critical. And at the same time, it also. I feel like sometimes there's this pressure of, like, well, we need to reinvent the wheel. I'm like, actually, a significant portion of decolonizing design has to focus on remembering ancestral ways of being in community and building relationships, as well as tapping into your imagination. Right. Um, and I think that's the piece that often is constructed even as an either or thing. And I think that's something we actually have to decondition ourselves from is that way of thinking where it's like, oh, well, if you're talking about joy, then you can't talk about harm anymore. But actually we can do those things simultaneously. And I Think that's really, um, where we get to a place that is reconciling with the realities of the situation that we live in. So understanding the institutions and the systems and in the ways which they reinforce coloniality and uphold oppression. And simultaneously we are real time constructing possibilities that are liberatory, possibilities that are decolonial and pushing beyond the confines of this colonial imaginary that we exist in. So I think that work has happened simultaneously because I think we often see decolonization as like this undoing or reversal. And I don't personally resonate with that approach because I'm like, we can't actually undo what happened with colonization. We can't undo the ways in which colonization seeps through the way in which we practice design today. Now that, uh, doesn't mean that I'm saying, like, stop practicing design. But what I'm saying is we need to reconfigure our relationship with design, how we practice design and build up alternative ways to do that.

Speaker A: And in that is the generative call. The way we get through this is not by destroying, but it is by, um, harnessing the creative intellect. The, uh, creative spirit. The creative histories that in many ways have been like, left out isn't the right word. Have been threatening to, uh, various systems, various people over time. And joy can be scary for people. It's not on a low boil that human, human flourishing and rapturous joy. Like, oh, wait, we want to have things a bit controlled. Um, that's a bit raucous. Like, no, no, no. That's what humans do. And so thinking about how we practice, um, how we reshape the things that go into the listening, the interpretation, um, the creative acts, um, the building of relationships in design, um, that's exciting for me. Sometimes you'll have different conversations about things like, oh, that seems so heavy. How are we ever going to do this? Oh, wait a minute. A little bit of joy. I'm like, oh, all right, you can do that other stuff too. But, like, there are parts of this where we get to look for the spark in each other and, uh, flipping on the switches that help more people see more of the spark that's in all the people. I get excited about that totally.

Speaker B: I think it's also just like the complexity of, uh, the systems that we live in. Like, I, I think about this literally every day as well, where it's like, can we feel, like, can we feel joy within systems that are harming us? And I think the answer is, to some degree, yes. Like, I think those things coexist together. And as long as we don't. Because on the flip side, I've also seen narratives around joy and pleasure and imagination than being ways to, uh, sort of gloss over the potential for harm. And I think that's what we've talked about today, earlier in our conversation as well, is holding those two critical pieces together, I feel like, is the really the backbone of the work that we should be focusing on when we're thinking about these approaches on decolonizing design or, like, being more trauma informed and creating, um, those conditions for people to be able to experience joy and, um, like, tap into their imagination. Um, I think one other thing that's coming up there is I feel like design has to be really grounded within the context of place and space. And where I'm going with that essentially is, like, I feel like oftentimes we think of, especially when folks talk about scaling design, we, uh, actually forget. This piece around, like, place and space is integral and central to how a lot of communities operate. So sometimes it's not just as simple as taking something that we saw work in one part of the world and just implementing that in another part of the world or even another part that we think it might work. Because in reality, I think our, uh, work as designers really needs to be contextually grounded within where we are practicing. And with that piece, it's also really, um, tying back to that piece around decolonization sort of has to center Indigenous sovereignty. And with that, for a lot of indigenous cultural communities, like, land is such an important piece of that context around place and space that I was talking about. So it's just like, how do we sort of think about approaches to design that are relational, not just between human beings, but extending that conversation beyond into, like, our relationships with more than human beings and the land as well? Because I think that's the piece that I feel like oftentimes is missing from mainstream design narratives and conversations is sometimes it's really hard for people to even feel like, we talked about joy, right? And we talked about harm. And, like, sometimes it's really hard for people to even be able to have that capacity when the place and space that they're operating in is harmful to them.

Speaker A: So what you don't know is, you know, we paused and edited some stuff out. And I often try to have these nice seamless breaks, like seamless conversations. But because everything happened at once, I had to cough. My phone rang. There was a truck backing up outside with the beeping. You might still hear it. And a funny thing happened. He said, wait, A minute. Why is it that we keep laughing whenever we have to pause our conversation to like, oh, that's where the laughter comes in. So I wanted to have the laughter happening while you can hear it. Cause they're like, wow, you guys are really going for it. I was like, oh, that's. And here we are talking about joy, and you can't hear us having a good time. Um, and so I wanted to put in the part that I would often edit out, just like, oh, wait a minute. We are enjoying ourselves. And I have kind of no idea where we were, but I do know where we are. And I've experienced our conversation as flexing those muscles around, relationship, around, building together. And, uh. Oh, yeah, when you were talking about, um, shifting how we're thinking about design and moving beyond the human. I just. I've been playing with, um. There's a definition of, um, uh, of design thinking that I use when I'm doing an introduction to design thinking. And I have been playing with it. And it starts off the discipline of finding human problems, uh, worth solving and creating viable new offerings. In response, like, oh, I remember the whole thing. And I've been playing with human and non human. I'm thinking about, okay, where does that get us? And I say, well, creating viable new offerings, like offering offerings and systems. Um, and it's the. And not thinking of the system in terms of complex adaptive system. But there are systems we design within our work. Um, sometimes they're about doing the work. Sometimes there are other things that don't necessarily get offered out into the world, but they are part of design. We design how we practice the systems for practice with, uh, varying levels of intent.

Speaker B: And.

Speaker A: And then I kept thinking and I was like, so I need viable and ethical new offerings. Um, and it's like either pulling those assumptions in or another an additional lens or at least the question of should we. There's like, can we make this? Like, yes, should we? Um, and having something in addition to the profit line running there. Or like, should we make this? Um, and so you help me remember all of that, uh, that I've been, uh, playing with lately as well.

Speaker B: Yeah, no, I really like that. Framing is like that question around, should we? And I think one thing that's coming up for me is even deconstructing this idea around systems. I think oftentimes we sort of, when we get into this conversation around what are systems? Right? And systems are like. I feel like a lot of people see systems as this, like, abstract, like, thing that just exists everywhere, right? It's so like all encompassing that it's so hard to grapple our minds around. Right. But I think a. I, uh, want to invite us to really think about systems not just from an intellectual perspective, but from like the somatic perspective of how we experience them. Right. Because we've been talking a lot about joy and like harm and like, I feel like that's such an embodied response. Right. So I think that's the first thing that's coming up for me and I think the second piece that really want us to think about in the context of design as well is systems at their core are made of individuals, both human and more than human. They're made of individuals that have a web of complex, intersecting, converging, diverging relationships. And we have beliefs, we have practices, and we have mindsets of how we operate, how we coexist together. And I think that's the piece that we really want to think about. And this sort of draws on, um, the work of Adrienne Maree Brown and emergent strategy. Um, so that's like a casual book plug within conversation. Um, but I think, I really think a lot about design through this lens of multiple scales of transformation. Like, if we're thinking about changing systems, are we thinking about changing ourselves? And then are we thinking about changing the ways in which we practice relationality with each other and the land and more than human kin? But I think that piece is so important because oftentimes we just abstract. Like, we just think of systems in so many abstract ways that we actually unintentionally or intentionally remove ourselves and with that our own participation and complicity. And I think that's a very critical piece is what are systems?

Speaker A: Mhm. And we need the tools of playing with systems. Um, and our causal loop diagrams and our iceberg models and our system maps and all of those things. Um, but the trap of seeing those representations as more real than they are, um, and uh, that is a dangerous and seductive thing. Um, when we do that, we think it means we think we have more. Even though we lose ourselves in it, we feel like we have more agency. It was like, oh yeah, we always just tweak this thing here and Lavana, point, solution there, point, all good. Um, and we've seen the track record on point solutions not so great. And so, um, I like thinking about both the relational and uh, the kind of the hive nature of human beings, um, interconnected in what we would call a system. And you kind of say, oh yeah, it's like the cognition being very much distributed and the Idea that the individuals acting within and in interconnected systems aren't as individual as we like to think of people. Yeah, I want to thank you for taking us everywhere that we've gone. Um, as you're, as you're thinking about, we've talked about and what we haven't talked about, is there anything that you were thinking about and what would you like to say about what you're feeling or the ideas, um, that are going through your head?

Speaker B: Yeah, I think the last thing I'll say is now that you've said that, I'm realizing we've gone a lot of places today, um, which sort of grasp exactly what we just talked about around systems and just the complexities of them. Um, I think the piece that I really want, I guess, um, people that are tuning into this to think about is just going back to what we said earlier, like the imperfection but responsibility of the work that we're doing. And you won't always get it right, but coming from a place of care, dignity, agency responsibility and what it means to truly embody those values in practice. And I think the other thing that I often encounter is then people have, when they're running up against the system that's pushing back, when they're trying to change it, they feel let down. And I think, uh, I always feel the urge to remind people to sort of hold, hold that self compassion and grace for like, systems can't change overnight. Neither can we actually change overnight. It takes sometimes generations as well. But I think the work that we're doing, when we think about decolonizing design or liberatory approaches to design, it is both multi and inter generational. And I feel like there has to be a level of care that we practice towards ourselves too as designers, where it's just like, it can feel really overwhelming to bear the grunt of coming up against some of these challenges. Whether you're working in corporate organizations, whether you're just working in communities, there will always be challenges when you're trying to do this work and just like recognizing your own humanity and reminding ourselves that this work is imperfect. But as long as we really are committed towards being responsible when we cause harm, taking accountability and practicing care, um, because care is reciprocal. Like unless we feel cared for. Like I think the where I'll leave us is unless we feel cared for in spaces and places that we're doing this work, we can't actually sustainably practice care ourselves because it is multi dimensional and it is reciprocal. So I think that's the piece that like I really remind folks and myself actually is just like being intentional about holding grace, self compassion and practicing all of the things that we've talked about for ourselves as well as designers.

Speaker A: Maya, thank you so much for containing so much and, uh, connecting so well. I'm very, very excited about what your practice of design, your shifting and nudging of design is doing. So, um, thank you and thank you for coming on the show.

Speaker B: Yeah, thanks for having me. I guess we can say this was a joyful conversation. I hope you would agree. Yes.

Speaker A: Some people didn't hear the laughter, but it was there. Um, and it's like. And we have the part where it came in and so. Yeah. All right. So thanks again.

Speaker B: Yeah. Thank you.

Speaker A: Thank you for listening to today's episode of the Design Thinking 101 podcast. Please sign up for Ask Like A Designer. You can sign up@fluidhive.com studio. My ask like A Designer studio is a free resource where you'll learn things that help you create services and solutions. The Ask Like A Designer studio is where I talk about ideas that are from the podcast. I notify people of new design. Thank you. One of my podcast episodes. And you'll receive invitations to some of my free design skills workshops. You'll also receive all of the announcements and invitations to my design skills courses and design skills trainings. And I try to share new resources, tools and other things that I discover as I'm looking for new ways to help people to create services and solutions by thinking and solving like a designer. So I hope you will check out Ask Like A Designer. You can sign up@fluidhive.com studio. That's fluidhive.com studio. Until next time. Take care and stay lucky out there.