Barter and Sharing- Designing the Future of Collaborative Consumption

BARTER AND SHARING

Sameera Mudgal (M.Des Social Design)

Supervisor

Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan

Designing the Future of Collaborative Consumption

DESIGNING THE FUTURE OF COLLABORATIVE CONSUMPTION

Sameera Mudgal

(M.Des Social Design) Supervisor

Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan School of Design | Ambedkar University, Delhi | 2018

Barter and Sharing

Designing the Future of Collaborative Consumption

PROJECT THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Design in the School of Design

By

Sameera Mudgal M.Des (Social Design)

Supervisor

Prof. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan School of Design Ambedkar University, Delhi

2018

School of Design Ambedkar University, Delhi New Delhi-110006 (INDIA) Phone: 91-11-23864876

DECLARATION This is to certify that the Project Thesis titled Barter and Sharing- Designing the Future of Collaborative Consumption submitted by me is in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Design (Social Design) at the School of Design of Ambedkar University Delhi. This Project Thesis has not been submitted for the award of any other degree in this University or any other University and is my own work.

Sameera Mudgal M.Des Social Design 2015-18 Š Sameera Mudgal

CERTIFICATE We recommend that this Project Thesis be placed before the examiners for evaluation.

Prof. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan

(Supervisor)

Prof. Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan

Dean (School of Design)

Contents List of Images Acknowledgement Abstract Chapter 1 Background

1

What’s in your bag?

Scope of the project Context Site Chapter 2 Objects, Things and Stuff

10

Variety of viewpoints Objects and self The value in objects Design understanding of objects Chapter 3 Accumulation

21

Theorizing Accumulation Too many, too much?

Designers and objects Cases of anti-accumulation Chapter 4 Ownership and Sharing To own Sharing The four levels Instances of Sharing

40

Chapter 5 Proposals for prototypes

60

From a Store-room to a Library Bartering the accumulated Chapter 6 Saanjha Sangrahalaua Library of Things

69

The residential colony Sharing with neighbours The RWA Saanjha Sangrahalaya Analysis Conclusion Chapter 7 SwapShop Barter Experiment

111

Naming the experiment Swap Shop v1.0 Location, Visuals and guidelines for the activity Analysing problems Swap Shop v2.0 Experiment, case studies and analysis Conclusion Conclusion

164

Annexure

168

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6

List of Images Fig. 1- What’s in your bag? Experimentation Process ___________________________ 3 Fig. 2- Accumulation- A system’s Approach ___________________________________ 4 Fig. 3- Mapping of the process of the Thesis __________________________________ 8 Fig. 4 Experiment-What’s in your bag? Other cases ____________________________ 9 Fig. 5 Disciplines, Viewpoints and Relation to Objects _________________________ 11 Fig. 6 Interconnections and Effect __________________________________________ 10 Fig. 7 Variety of Terminology ______________________________________________ 13 Fig. 8 Object values and disciplines ________________________________________ 18 Fig. 9 Story of Stuff Project_________________________________________________ 26 Fig. 10 Chair from Anti-designers movement ________________________________ 28 Fig. 11 Amit and Kamla; Bartan Waale in a residential colony on Sunday ________ 30 Fig. 12 Cartpuller schedule ________________________________________________34 Fig. 13 Gurunanak Market, Kashmere Gate _________________________________ 35 Fig. 14a Inside of a Box __________________________________________________ 36 Fig. 14b Boxes external use _______________________________________________ 37 Fig. 15 Sketching sheets based on the market environment ____________________ 39 Fig. 16 Types of Ownerships _______________________________________________ 42 Fig. 17 Exploring disciplines with trends of sharing ___________________________ 44 Fig. 18 Types of Sharing __________________________________________________ 45 Fig. 19 Sharing- an overview ______________________________________________ 47

Fig. 20a Sourced from Facebook page “Books on the Delhi Metro” _____________ 50 Fig.20b Books on the Delhi Metro __________________________________________ 51 Fig. 21 Free lighter experiment ____________________________________________ 52 Fig. 22 Kunal’s floor: One room living spaces _______________________________ 55 Fig. 23 Trippy Station, artists’ space; Sharing on the boundary of Group and Community_____________________________________________________________ 56 Fig. 24 Design opportunities ______________________________________________ 61 Fig. 25 Objects identified for Library of Things _______________________________ 62 Fig. 26 Influence of Library on ownership ___________________________________ 63 Fig. 27 J Block- Google Map, typical house-plan and Colony map ______________ 70 Fig. 28 J-block Gate no. 1 and 2 __________________________________________ 71 Fig. 29 J-block- Residents _________________________________________________ 72 Fig. 30 Pre-experiment interview guide ______________________________________ 74 Fig. 31 Cabin space ______________________________________________________ 76 Fig. 32 Name of the Service _______________________________________________ 77 Fig. 33 Colony map ______________________________________________________ 79 Fig. 34 KaramYogi Park and Porta-cabin no. 3 _______________________________ 80 Fig. 35 Preparation for Saanjha Sangrahalaya _______________________________ 81 Fig. 36 Banner outside the cabin ___________________________________________ 83 Fig. 37 Poster for Colony __________________________________________________ 83 Fig. 38a Flex poster for Colony ____________________________________________ 84

Fig. 38b Flex poster for Colony ____________________________________________ 84 Fig. 39 Logo for Service ___________________________________________________ 85 Fig. 40 Poster inside the park ______________________________________________ 85 Fig. 41 Introductory pamphlets distributed door-to-door _______________________ 86 Fig. 42 Introductory pamphlets distributed door-to-door _______________________ 87 Fig. 43 Flex outside Porta-cabin ____________________________________________ 88 Fig. 44 Guidelines for service ______________________________________________ 89 Fig. 45 Pamphlets ________________________________________________________ 90 Fig. 46 Residents on Saanjha Sangrahalaya _________________________________ 90 Fig. 47 User Journey of service _____________________________________________91 Fig. 48a Preparation for experiment ________________________________________ 92 Fig. 48b Preparation for experiment ________________________________________ 93 Fig. 49a Saanjha Sangrahalaya ___________________________________________ 94 Fig. 49b Saanjha Sangrahalaya ___________________________________________ 95 Fig. 49c Saanjha Sangrahalaya___________________________________________ 100 Fig. 50 Entrance to Saanjha Sangrahalaya _________________________________ 101 Fig. 51a Sections of Saanjha Sangrahalaya ________________________________ 102 Fig. 51b Sections of Saanjha Sangrahalaya ________________________________ 103 Fig. 51c Sections of Saanjha Sangrahalaya _________________________________ 104 Fig. 52a Mobility aid: Saanjha Sangrahalaya ______________________________ 103 Fig. 52b Inside Saanjha Sangrahalaya _____________________________________ 105

Fig. 53 Emotional Response Scale _________________________________________105 Fig. 54 Naming the experiment ___________________________________________ 111 Fig. 55 SwapShop experiment beginning ___________________________________ 115 Fig. 56a SwapShop Poster 1 ______________________________________________ 116 Fig. 56b SwapShop Poster 2 ______________________________________________ 117 Fig. 57 SwapShop Guidelines ____________________________________________ 118 Fig. 58 Hindi mail ______________________________________________________ 120 Fig. 59 Revised Swap guidelines __________________________________________ 120 Fig. 60 SwapShop v1.0 __________________________________________________ 121 Fig. 61 SwapShop Case Study 1 __________________________________________ 124 Fig. 62 SwapShop Case Study 2 __________________________________________ 127 Fig. 63a SwapShop v1.0 curious participants approach ______________________ 128 Fig. 63b SwapShop v1.0 _________________________________________________ 129 Fig. 63c SwapShop v1.0 _________________________________________________ 130 Fig. 63d SwapShop v1.0 _________________________________________________ 131 Fig. 63e SwapShop v1.0 Case studies _____________________________________ 132 Fig. 63f SwapShop v1.0 _________________________________________________ 133 Fig. 63g SwapShop v1.0 _________________________________________________ 134 Fig. 64 SwapShop v2.0 Space finalized ____________________________________ 139 Fig. 65 SwapShop v2.0 Space Ideation ____________________________________ 140 Fig. 66 SwapShop v2.0 Space ideation ____________________________________ 140

Fig. 67 SwapShop v2.0 Object Categorization ______________________________ 141 Fig. 68a SwapShop v2.0 Poster ___________________________________________ 143 Fig. 68b SwapShop v2.0 Poster ___________________________________________ 144 Fig. 68c SwapShop v2.0 Navigation arrows ________________________________ 144 Fig. 68d SwapShop v2.0 Guidelines _______________________________________ 145 Fig. 68e SwapShop v2.0 Poster 3 _________________________________________ 146 Fig. 69 SwapShop v2.0 __________________________________________________ 147 Fig. 70 SwapShop v2.0 Participants with volunteers __________________________ 148 Fig. 71a SwapShop v2.0 Participants ______________________________________ 151 Fig. 71b SwapShop v2.0 Participants ______________________________________ 155 Fig. 72 Adi and Aditi ____________________________________________________ 158 Fig. 73 Experiment shifted outdoors _______________________________________ 159 Fig. 74 Future possibilities _______________________________________________ 165 Tables Table 1 Theories on accumulation __________________________________________ 24 Table 2 Enterprises in renting ______________________________________________ 58 Table 3 Pre-service Interviews ______________________________________________ 74 Table 4 Saanjha Sangrahalaya Weekly Analysis ______________________________ 97 Table 5 Saanjha Sangralaya Inventory______________________________________176 Table 6 Post-service interviews ____________________________________________ 107 Table 7 Prototype 1 criteria ideation _______________________________________ 113

Table 8 SwapShop v1.0 Data Summary ____________________________________ 122 Table 8a SwapShop v1.0 Registration Data__________________________________187 Table 8b: SwapShop v1.0 Registration Data _________________________________190 Table 9 SwapShop v1.0 Selected Cases ____________________________________ 123 Table 10 SwapShop v2.0 Volunteer requirements ____________________________ 137 Table 11 SwapShop v2.0 Space ideation ___________________________________ 138 Table 12 SwapShop v2.0 Data Summary ___________________________________ 160

Acknowledgements I express my deepest gratitude to the community members of J-block, Ambedkar University, Delhi and the cartpullers of Gurunanak market, Kashmere Gate who engaged with me during case studies and experiments, sharing with me their invaluable time, observations and feedback:- Mrs Prabha Gautam, Mr Ankur and Mrs Neha Sharma, Mrs. Vijaylakshmi, Yash, Kanishk, Jahnvi, Khushi, Riya (all the women and children at the KaramYogi Park), Mr. Nar Bahadur, Mr. Ram Bahadur, Mr. Surender Kumar (President, RWA), Mr. Bagdi Tekchand (Vice President, RWA), Mr. Vimlesh Kumar Jha (Member, RWA), Mr. Manoj (Gardener, J-block); Mr. Rahul (cartpuller), Mr. Bishwanath (cartpuller), Mr. Mukesh (cartpuller), Mr. Munna (cartpuller); the volunteers and friends who helped in prototyping experiments: Richa Sinha, Apoorva Jain, Akash Thakur, Joel John, Bharat Perla, David J Maeprath, and Vishal Paswan. Thanks to Mrs. Kumar, Siddharth P. Nair and Vikas Dalal for pushing me to go ahead with prototyping in the midst of unfortunate timings.

This thesis project has been a deep experience in terms of learning and it turned out to be fruitful because of the regular and meticulous guidance of my mentor Prof.

Suchitra Balasubrahmanyan. As the project began from intangible and subjective factors, her organized focus often renewed my own. I am also thankful to my parents for being involved and keeping me up with deadlines.

I would like to thank the entire School of Design at Ambedkar University, Delhi; the batches of 2015 and 2016, the faculty and the administrative staff who directly and indirectly helped in conducting the experiments as well as helping out with resources at the University; and several students at AUD who sat with me for endless discussions

about ownership, sharing and objects. Special thanks to my closest friends who were not only emotionally supportive but also gave deepest insights and were resourceful during the project:- Anish P Abraham, Aviral Sinha, Bhabesh San San Wal, Chandika Gupta, Dhruv Saxena, Sujata Sharma, Vaishnavi Mannava, Santosh Sharma. I am grateful for the many projects and exhibitions I have come across, and the many conversations I have had with numerous people, which have indirectly influenced my thinking and have not been named here.

Abstract This project explores material accumulation and individual and multiple ownership or use of objects while focussing on two forms of collaborative consumption which are sharing and barter. It delves into possible venues of sharing material belongings and their relationship with humans. It starts by looking at objects as possessions and connects ownership, accumulation, anti-accumulation, clutter and sharing on the levels of individual, family, community and city, based in the context of Delhi.

The project conducted two major experiments in a gated colony and a university space. Saanjha Sangrahalaya- Library of Things which focussed at a community level of collaborative consumption through sharing which was implemented in a gated residential colony; and SwapShop which is directed towards an individual level of collaborative consumption through barter and swapping, implemented in a university space. These experiments have helped reveal the ground reality, comfort factors and emotions associated specifically with barter and sharing. They emerge from and also add to the existing theories and speculations regarding accumulation, sharing and barter by revealing the unexpected limits and possibilities of collaborative consumption.

Through these experiments, the project has tried to answer questions regarding how human relationship with objects can become easier, what are the contemporary opinions on possessions, what can be shared and how they can be shared in a particular setting. Collaborative consumption is explored as necessary to form the base of circular economy where sharing, which is seen as a cultural activity, progresses into an economy in itself.

Chapter 1 Background The inquiry into human relationship with objects began with an experiment on individual accumulation. The questions that drove this experiment primarily were: - how much does an individual carry every day and for what reasons? Are all objects we acquire really necessary for us? Can ownership and subsequent non-ownership of objects be made easier? To test these questions, the following experiment was devised: an individual‟s bag was chosen as the storage medium. Participants were inquired about the objects in each of their bags. The questions asked to the participants were- How did you get this object?

How long have you used it for/when did you last use it? Why do you still have it in your bag? How would you get rid of it? Would you throw it away now that you remember again that you have it? The observations were noted in terms of- total number of objects, number of objects retained post-experiment, number of objects thrown away postexperiment, number of objects considered „useless‟ by the owner and thrown away, number of objects stuck in some form of transaction or procedure (such as a form or a receipt).

Experiment- What’s in your bag?

The aim of this experiment was to explore what people carry in their bags, why they would want to carry a particular object with them, what causes them to get rid of an object. The group with whom this experiment was done were 10 Ambedkar University students and 2 faculty members. After laying out the number of items from the bags of each individual, for each item it was asked why the individual chooses to accumulate it and keep it in their

1

bag. The reasons for accumulation of objects were subjective for each individual but could be extrapolated to certain objective categories of gratification which was commonly occurring within this group of participants. The bags were taken as a medium to find out how these individuals decided the reason for which an object should be stored and what are their motivations and subsequent gratifications attached with the act; the value/s an individual associates with an object.

The objects found in the bags fell into 6 major categories of value identification and a combination of them. These 6 categories were identified solely based on the data retrieved from the experiment results, hence they are debatable and not watertight, but were identified for the purpose of data analysis. These categories were: o Memories- objects used as memorabilia, emotional value o Procedural- objects part of a procedure such as identity cards o Transactional- objects like money, incomplete forms o Functional/Utilitarian- objects coming to use such as earphones, stationary o Potential Use/Emergency- objects kept in an extra set or objects of limited value o Forgotten- any object which the owner did not remember being present in the bag It was found that objects often overlapped within these categories- a memory object may also be useful, a forgotten object may also be procedural etc. This proved that an object at any given point may be gratifying (or not gratifying) an individual at one or more levels.

Fig. 1 is analysis of one individual and his bag and the common categories of gratification identified by the end of this experiment.

2

Fig. 1 What’s in your bag; Experimentation Process

Another insight derived from the experiment was based on a systemic view of accumulation explained in Fig. 2.

3

Fig. 2- Accumulation- A system’s Approach

Considering accumulation of objects as a system, we see in the case of the experiment What’s in your bag that to reduce or even be aware of their accumulation, individual participants went through a process of reflection. In the duration of the experiment, participants were given an opportunity to identify or reconsider each object‟s position in their lives. The questions asked for the purpose of understanding their current and past relationship with their objects were: how is the object gratifying them now contrasted with before, how long has it been with them and till what point was it useful, when did they last use the object, what are their motivations to keep or throw away an object, is the object at present an asset to them or a liability, and so on. The reason to go through this process in

this way was to find out different value systems that individuals have associated with each object.

4

Points of enquiry: major questions From this experiment onwards, one of the directions I took was of tapping into the objects being accumulated. I also took the path of exploring how people behave towards owning and not owning objects. Some major questions that I started off with were- What are the different dimensions/factors to the human-object relationship?

When do „objects‟ become „things‟ and vice versa? What happens to the object‟s life as it goes through and sometimes across human hands? How do we choose and accumulate objects and how do we get rid of them? What do disciplines like psychology, economy, sociology, architecture, design, anthropology and theology etc. say about objects, accumulating objects and the minimalist lifestyle? How can minimalism be explored in our cultural context? When are object assets and when are they a liability? Are space, domestic architecture and objects connected to each other while influencing human material accumulation? Can we accumulate sustainably? What are the ways in which we can explore the utility of objects without having to acquire them? What is sharing and how does it work? When people have excess of objects, is it possible to own easily by sharing? How is the past, present and future of sharing? How can designers contribute in changing the current norm of ownership behaviours?

Scope of the project For the purpose of this project and its research probes, I have taken three major ideas that I work around: - object accumulation, object swapping and shared value.

5

Object accumulation: to understand how people accumulate, organize and store their material belongings.

Individual values: to explore how people identify value in objects beyond the monetary value in an equation; probed through the swap/barter form of collaborative consumption.

Shared Value: to see if people can contribute objects from the domestic or individual space to a shared collection of sorts for everyone to use.

The project began by understanding objects in their own thickness, inside and outside the realms of ownership, but the scope of the project was eventually narrowed down to experimentation with collaborative consumption- its contours, workability and limitations. The project also tried to present future worlds where objects would reside beyond the polarity of „yours‟ and „mine‟. The project dealt with the following illustrated categories in terms of objects:

Context This project examined the various values and relationships individuals have with their objects. The value of an object was determined by the different ways of gratification that object provides, and how share-able it seemed. This project also tried to further

6

examine the multiple modes/ways of sharing which are prevalent in the given context and tried to propose possible design interventions which create platforms for sharing to happen. Secondarily, it explored what it means to live minimally and sustainably, a sort of lightweight lifestyle in an urban context and how can individuals aid each other in the above-mentioned lifestyle through a community. It tried to look at relationship with objects from all disciplines and orientations to understand holistically each level of need gratification, value addition, ownership, function etc. Eventually the project implemented two prototypes with a select group of audience, working around and recording their behaviour regarding objects.

Site This project was done in Delhi in two locations: 1. The Kashmere Gate campus of Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD). AUD was established by the Government of NCT and is located in Kashmere Gate, Old Delhi.

2. J-Block, Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi. J-Block is a Central Government Employeesâ€&#x; Residential Colony in the Kali Bari area of central New Delhi. The Type-II colony is the residence of employees falling in the monthly income bracket of 30,000-60,000. The residential colony is occupied by Central Government employees from Delhi and other cities; periodically the occupants shift out and new employees come to take their place.

The locational and situational factors affected how each audience accepted and participated in the prototypes and their varying enthusiasm for the ideas presented to 7

them. The next section deals with building a holistic understanding about objects coming from various viewpoints.

Fig. 3 Mapping the process of the Thesis

8

Chandika (22) Student 40 items All retained

Apoorva (21) Student 43 items 38 retained

Sameera (22) Student 22 items 19 retained

9 Fig. 4 Experiment - What’s in your bag? Other cases

Chapter 2 Objects, Things, Stuff

In the statement, author Arjun Appadurai precisely conveys the changing nature of how we look at objects. This fundamentally fluid disposition is not only related to the way we engage with objects and things but also how things themselves transition across space and time along with the everchanging meanings assigned to them. The core of this thesis project resides in exploring this texture of changing human-object relationships.

Variety of viewpoints Objects are approached through various disciplines, each looking at objects through its own lens. This has led to a scattered way of looking at objects, making it almost impossible to look at them holistically as each discipline has given a new dimension or depth. As author Prasad Boradkar has mentioned in the book Designing Things- a critical introduction to the culture of

Fig. 6 Interconnections and Effect

objects, “Design has traditionally regarded objects in formal rather than social terms and can benefit by including within its system of analysis a more socially and culturally 10

rooted understanding of objects which is germane to cultural studies. While metaphysics questions the nature of the very existence of things, scholars in Science, technology and society perceive them as socially constructed technological events.

Fig. 5 Disciplines and Viewpoints relating to Objects

Design discourse expends more of its energies in analysing processes, whereas cultural theory and media studies typically deconstruct materiality, drawing upon political, economic and sociological approaches in their analysis. Anthropology views objects as artefacts and studies them as representatives of specific cultures, while engineering treats them as scientific entities subject to laws of physics and mathematics.� (Boradkar, 2010:45)

11

All these different perspectives originate from having unique points of exploration in each of these disciplines. The terms to define objects also vary because of the varying disciplines which have tried to understand material belongings. These terms themselves yield many meanings and facets related to understanding objects. Fig. 7 connects the terms to disciplines.

The main three categories of material belongings are: 1. Objects- This term is used throughout this thesis to denote materials still intact with their individual materiality. Terms like „artefact‟ and „gadget‟ would come as sub-categories under this category.

2. Things- This is the point where an object lose its individual materiality to being possessions. Terms like „Product‟, „Device‟ and „Possessions‟ would come under this category.

3. Stuff- The objects have completely turned to a heap of mass materiality. Terms like „Commodity‟ and „Possessions‟ would come under this.

These terms also accommodate values which are attached to objects when viewed from a particular discipline. It is important to note how objects hold different meanings in different disciplines, which is a product of varied, but isolated understanding of how they are seen.

The ownership cycle is such that all material objects begin by being „objects‟, some turn into „things‟ at some point, and end up as „stuff‟. While objects are in this cycle, it is not a linear path which means that objects fluidly move from one category to the 12

other according to value assigned at that point in time. Objects inside a seeming stuff at one point might be considered thing, and the point of extracting that object from the heap gives it the existence and individuality of object again. As author Bill Brown cites

Fig. 7 Variety in Terminology

“We begin to confront the thingness of objects when they stop working for us: when the drill breaks, when the car stalls, when the windows get filthy, when their flow within the circuits of production and distribution, consumption and exhibition, has been arrested, however momentarily. The story of objects asserting themselves as things, then, is the story of a changed relation to the human subject and thus the story of how the thing really names less an object than a particular subject-object relation.�

(Brown, 2001:28) Thus objects are always affected by internal and external factors of 13

both the individual as well as the object itself. This takes us back to the quote by Arjun Appadurai at the beginning of the chapter that in terms of perception, objects are always in a state of change.

Objects and the Self Possessing or owning objects is a human trait that goes beyond the constructs of age, gender, caste and class; it is a tendency for everyone. Theories have been devised around how objects are actually an

extension

of

our

self-image,

sometimes

in

physicality

and

sometimes

metaphysically. We acquire objects to make ourselves more efficient and increase the quality of our life. We use objects to extend our physical and mental capabilities, we use them to express our personal as well as group identities and we would be absolutely lost without their constant presence. Acquisition and possession of objects is a subconscious need, as proposed by Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre. They say that the mind does not function well when not processing or being a part of an activity, and humans need constant stimulation towards a task. “Our bodies are not large enough to satisfy the sense of self” (Csikszentmihalyi 1993:28) We accumulate because our „self‟ is not enough to express our self. Objects then come into existence, by an amalgamation of resources, labour and imagination and often with layers of production, consumption and distribution. These objects are at all times placed on planes of economy, psychology, technological relevance and semiotics, and that is where objects start to define and shape an individual‟s self, the process which is called reification.

14

Objects are not just present as outside entities in the material or visual landscape around us, but largely influences and get influenced by our behaviours, understanding and taste, inside and outside the realms of ownership. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel point out about the argument of not taking things as a matter of fact, but as a matter of enquiry, “For too long, objects have been wrongly portrayed as matters-of-fact. This is unfair to them, unfair to science, unfair to objectivity, unfair to experience. They are much more interesting, variegated, uncertain, complicated, far reaching, heterogeneous, risky, historical, local, material and networky than the pathetic version offered for far too long by philosophers.” (Latour, Pieter 2005:19) They suggest to consider objects “critically with the tools of anthropology, philosophy, metaphysics, history, sociology to detect how many participants are gathered in a thing to make it exist and to maintain its existence”.

The Value in Objects How do we evaluate an object? What are the different ways in which an object provides gratification?

The value of an object at all times is fluid, is forever changing and is represented as a sum. Value exists because it is generated by a relational act between an object (a thing) and a subject (a person) engaged in the process of evaluation. Value can be conceived as a fluid aggregate relation, continuously in flux through processes of production, distribution and consumption involving the engagement of numerous stakeholders (Boradkar, 2010:46-48) Hence the value of an object in reality is always shifting, as is the case with the meaning of objects. The value aggregate has an individual, subjective aspect to it which goes beyond market factors. An individual 15

may hold an object to be invaluable even though its market value might be nothing.

Hence, value must never be considered as a quality or disposition of an object, but as an aggregate of judgement. “In whatever empirical or transcendental sense, the difference between objects and subjects is conceived, value is never a „quality‟ of the objects, but a judgement upon them which remains inherent in the subject” (Simmel 2001:63). Frondizi (1971:160) suggested understanding value in terms of Gestalt principles, by taking value as a complex whole which cannot be reduced to individual parts and in which factors are interconnected and influencing each other.

Nonetheless, for understanding and acknowledging purposes, Boradkar (2010:4952) has identified eleven value types and has tried to categorize the notion of value, while acknowledging that they overlap. These are: 

Economic Value- The price of object, profit margins, consumer judgement etc.



Aesthetic Value- Style, taste, experience



Functional/Utilitarian Value- how well the object works



Brand Value- object as sign by the virtue of its trademark



Emotional Value - Memories, objects which induce feelings



Historical value - classics, vintage, collectibles



Environmental value - green goods, nature sensitivity



Social value - objects having a positive societal impact



Cultural value - Lifestyles, behaviours, rituals, and practices 16



Political value - Objects which influence relationship of power



Symbolic value - objects serving as signs/symbols and conveys information such as status, individual/group philosophy etc.

The values, definitions and categories were explored but there seemed to be a lack of a category that explores an object‟s shared value (As explained in Fig. 8, Page no.

18). To define it in a lay manner, „Shared value is related to an object‟s inherent capacity to be shared in the way that the ownership of that object becomes fluid within a particular group/community‟ Don Norman has provided three basic characteristics which affect gratification by value and which attract individuals to an object. The first one is visceral which is related to our senses. Second is the behavioural which speaks to the user experience and the last one is reflective which is connected to an individual‟s self-image, ownership, pride, shame and other forms of personal satisfaction. Objects from a design lens are essentially seen from functional, efficient, utilitarian factors, but this aspect of an object is equally important when it comes to the users.

Pieter E Vermass and Wybo Houkes, who spoke about utility with the notion of functionality and complexity, cite that “artefacts are the means as well as the product of intentional human action.” (Costal, Dreier 2006:29)

17

There is also another phenomenon when a „thingâ€&#x; turns into an artefact, which in effect means to broaden the bandwidth of the value of an object. This occurs when a new value is added to it. This may happen by the means of any one or many influencing factors which can be a cultural shift, or an event, or by attachment of emotions or simply by labour put into it. This other kind of value in the current age and context takes the form of the do-it-yourself (DIY) culture and up-scaling which is explained in the later chapters.

Fig. 8 Object Values and Disciplines

18

Design understanding of Objects The contemporary interpretation/perception of design is increasingly becoming process oriented. There is a shift in the standard idea of design, it is no longer seen as only product yielding. The problem with this standard idea, as the author Slavica Ceperkovic (Ceperkovic, 2014) says in her thesis, is that this view for designers limits them to the possibility of only creating objects with a simple understanding of functional utility purposes. This approach also takes away any prospects of understanding creation of an artefact in a holistic manner. “Specifically speaking, an object is the means, and is used as a manipulation of itself to reach an end.” (Costal, Dreier 2006:30) Social design hopes to bring design process and methods and apply it to the fields of social sciences. Amongst the various definitions of social design, one of them suggests that “social design is about applying general design principles to our social realities and „designing‟ ways to address social issues” (Burkett, 2016) Another definition talks about it as „socially responsible design‟ which is “an attitude that emphasizes the needs and experiences of people over concerns of form or aesthetics” (Mangold, 2014). These definitions come from addressing a lack which was felt in the standard view of design. Hence, naturally social design engages itself with areas of behavioural design, co-design, and participatory design.

Thus, I have focussed this thesis on conducting design research and subsequently exploring the three above mentioned tools through prototyping two experiments. This project from a social design point of view explored interdisciplinary intersections and tries to bridge the gap of isolated understanding. The thesis concentrated on the

19

aspect of individual behaviour related to object consumption, ownership, sharing and discard/give away, presuming that individual behaviour builds social norms.

This section has tried to develop a disciplinary view about objects, self and objects, the values of objects and design awareness about object creation and ownership. The crux of this chapter lies in making the covert connections prominent to visualize the complexity about how many ways we have already tried understanding objects. The next section explores the accumulation, anti-accumulation and non-accumulation of objects and correlated cases in culture.

20

Chapter 3 Accumulation The memory system of the human psyche is made up of three parts, the conscious, subconscious and unconscious. The conscious is where the most recent bits of information are stored, the ones which are currently being used or processed. The subconscious contains memories or information which can be retrieved at will (some information can also be brought back to conscious using other trigger methods). The largest part of human psyche is made up of the unconscious; the part which is not accessible at will and which contains most of one‟s experiences. The pattern of human material accumulation is similar to the structure of human psyche; there are things which are used every day and are conscious most times, things which are not conscious information but can be brought in memory and subsequent use at will, and things

which

we

don‟t

remember and happen to find by chance.

Similar to the psyche, human material accumulation is also done in the three levels; things we consciously remember/use, things easily retrievable to memory when needed, and things we don‟t remember but are stored. The things we own occupy a physical space and their relation to the physical space is based on their functional/gratification value at a given point. Both the above mentioned accumulation has costs related to them, although the costs are different. Memory has a natural freeing up mechanism known as forgetting, the apparent loss or modification of information already embedded in memory.

21

“Memory Trace Decay theory assumes the presence of a physical memory trace that decays with disuse over-time� (Brown, 1958; Peterson & Peterson, 1959. In Cicarelli, 2006:249-260).

In terms of material accumulation, I take the liberty of incorporating forgetting as both the object ceasing to exist in our memory and as the object not revealing itself to any functional/gratification value even when brought back to conscious awareness (due to being lost in a hidden space/ a mass of other objects). However the forgetting of object does not lead up to the natural subsequent freeing of space and thus we encounter what is known as material clutter which will be spoken about at length later.

Forgetting in memory can be understood if we assume human brain as a physical space, we can relate it to an infinite hall where information forgotten will cease taking space considering that the space is infinite. Theories on forgetting are still debated because there is documented proof on the costs of unconscious baggage even when original information is lost- costs such as unresolved emotions, phobias, positive biases or complexes. In material terms, forgetting does not lead to a subsequent freeing up of space or economic costs; the physicality of objects makes it different from the texture of memory storage.

Accumulate To gather or collect, often in gradual degrees; heap up: to accumulate wealth.

Accumulation Act or state of accumulating; state of being accumulated.

Growth by continuous additions. (Thesaurus)

22

The accumulation of objects by an individual is an act of gathering, storing, collecting, organizing, hoarding and amassing. The word is used in the following section to denote an increase in the number of possessed objects and also encompasses the phenomena of clutter.

Theorizing Accumulation “Humans are materialistic by nature, but we have an odd relationship with the things we own. Possessions enrich our lives but they also come at a cost, both environmental and psychological.” (New Scientist: Our stuff: Why it's human nature to own things) This section is an attempt to take a stock of the perceived benefits and costs of accumulating objects.

Material clutter as understood from secondary literature is defined in terms of its functional/gratification value, storage systems, economic value etc. The term material clutter has been labelled as „stuff‟ by author Maurizia Boscagli in her book Stuff Theory- Everyday Objects, Radical Materialism. Stuff is defined as “an assemblage of quasi-objects quasi-subjects, forms, flows, and events that supersede the object as it has been defined, whether in Newtonian physics or Hegelian dialectic. Thus, it points to a matter that is continually becoming, through an increasing production of contact zones, an increasing criss-crossing of flows of power that continually and necessarily compromise its individual identity. At the same time, stuff blurs the contours of the object into a dangerously valueless materiality-as-mass. (...) In a culture of abundance, stuff is everywhere. It now needs a theory that might make us aware of what we do when we buy, discard, recycle, or simply why we cannot let stuff go. Or

23

why it cannot let go of us.� (Boscagli, 2014:14) The author identifies stuff in relation with the space of storage, in terms of an object losing value by becoming a part of a mass of other stuff which is not navigable by the owner themselves, and also in terms of what is discarded and what remains. The reason for why we accumulate in excess varies extensively with varying reasons for the particular kind of accumulation. The three main theories I have come across through the course of this project is explained in Table 1.

Accumulation of objects and material clutter is a phenomenon at an individual level; nonetheless the repercussions are not just psychological but largely social and environmental.

Table 1 Theories on accumulation

24

Too many, too much?

What has happened with the boom in production and how does it impact our individual self, societies and environment?

As described earlier, things are an amalgamation of resource, labour and imagination often with layers of production, consumption. While theorizing things it is also important to discuss this aspect of things.

One of the earliest theories on understanding objects as commodities was provided by Marx in his model of political economy (as cited in the quote above). Those theoretical propositions remain true decades later, but they have been described as incomplete by various authors. According to Baudrillard, objects are organized into systems of signification that are, in turn, broken down into 1. Non-functional objects 2.

Functional objects 3. Metafunctional objects (Baudrillard, 1968:183).

Summarizing the theories, Baudrillard has given emphasis to the contemporary perception of accumulation by bringing in three seeming categories based on utility of objects. He has given a strong emphasis on the brand name, and objects being consumed as signs which speak the „language of consumption‟. His idea of excess of objects come from a consumer being governed by these „signs‟ or „codes‟. This project however has identified and based its learning on more values than just this one (which may be referred to as „symbolic value‟) and thus can safely conclude that

25

the phenomena of clutter is not only based on just one kind of value but several others.

As a way to make lifestyle related costs visible and comprehensible to the larger audience, environmental advocate Annie Leonard founded the “Story of Stuff” project.

It began as movie on the production, consumption and hidden environmental and social

costs

of

„stuff‟.

She

highlighted the problems with a “consumerist

linear

model

of

economy on a planet with finite resources.” This project is based in the context of USA, presenting data from the viewpoint and lifestyle of Fig. 9 The Story of Stuff project: Youtube video

USA.

One is not trying to directly correlate data such as this which is based on capitalistic mode of consumerism of a developed country and hence acknowledging that it cannot be connected directly with the Urban Indian context. But it is safe to predict that India is not far from becoming a similar landscape. With the increasing landfills, we realize that no matter how much we are a culture of hand-me-downs and second hand, we are not outside the consumerist loop of obsolescence created by industries.

Another project which highlights accumulation on a big scale is photojournalist Peter Menzel‟s project called the Material World- Family Portraits. It documents the material possessions of families around the world from various African, Middle Eastern and

26

South Asian countries and visually shows how they use their space and built environment.

Designers and Objects Designers, being in the industry of creating, have had a very direct role with the establishment of the culture of obsolescence. Post industrialization and with the boom of production, objects in abundance was the centre stage. Many movements and trends have come from the design industry itself, which have tried to tackle the problems with the linear production system.

The Anti-designers was a movement in the 1966-80s, in Italy which made a case about letting objects be in the space of temporary, “as quick to throw away and be replaced by something new and more

functional.

This

would

certainly mean consumerism and profits if people keep coming back for more, but the message was very different. Anti-Designers wanted people to THINK about the objects they were buying, even if they ultimately threw those objects away.” (Grindstaff,

Fig.10 10Chair Chairfrom fromthe theAnti-Designer’s Anti-Designer’smovement movement Fig.

27

2015) While modernism lead to obsolescence and a throw away culture, Antidesigners took the position and did not shy away from embracing the new situation built around the consumerist culture, but proposed a new solution, to make people think when they buy. Their criterion was to intervene at the buying stage rather than post-bought stage. Other product oriented design trends include minimalism and ecofriendly designs which focus both on production material as well as the behavioural aspect of use. These aspects are brief strays and were not explored deeply for this project.

A case of anti-accumulation As previously explored in the systemâ€&#x;s mapping in Fig. 2 on page 4, there are feedback loops to accumulation which maybe external or internal to an individual.

These feedback loops cause the phenomena of anti-accumulation (process of decluttering or reducing the accumulated), the method for which is decided by an individual for themself. This process may take the form of donation, exchange, recycling or up-cycling. In the formal sector, various NGOs create thrift shops where they sell donated clothes for charity. In the informal sector, setups like Chor Bazaar in Azad Market, and Raghubir Nagar market in West Delhi are major spots of second hand clothing. The culture of hand-me-down is extremely prevalent in the family and extended families as well. Donation is prevalent, but looked through a class angle.

The main cultural phenomena which are used for anti-accumulation in the given context are as follows:

28

Recycling Bartan Wale (traditional barter of utensils for clothes) This trend is seen all across India. Bartan wale are the most prominent form of barter in the urban Indian context and is the most common way of eliminating old household items while making sure they are exchanged for their commodity value. The bartan wale are called so because traditionally they went door to door to exchange new utensils for second hand clothes given by people. Historically they have been known to belong to the Waghri community from Gujarat. The occupation is mostly dominated by women. These days all sorts of old objects like clothes, decor items, electronics, utensils etc. can be given to them in exchange of new utensils or even in some cases plastic buckets. Their work is usually oriented towards residential colonies; the couple shown in Fig. 11 are inside a residential colony in New Delhi. They usually visit on Sundays but can be found working the rest of the week as well. According to them, each bartan waala is associated with a manager who provides them with a warehouse where they keep their objects. This couple live in West Delhi and their collected second hand objects are sold at Raghubir Nagar Market, which is one of the biggest second hand clothing markets in India. They also share that the prices at which the objects are resold in the market is very cheap, and customers mostly belong to the working class. If some objects are in a really good condition, they can also be sold at a good price in flea markets like Sarojini Nagar market, Janpath or Chandini Chowk.

29

Fig. 11 Amit and Kamla, Bartan Waale, working on a Sunday in a residential colony

The particular couple in this interview (see Fig.11) have their usual selling spot in Raghubir Nagar market near Subhash nagar, West Delhi. According to an article published in Indian Express, the author states, “Raghubir Nagar market opens up at 3 am... Clothes such as skirts, shirts, sarees etc are sold at Rs 50 or less, the catch is that they are all second hand. No one really knows when this market came into existence. Gauri Devi, 60, a vendor from Chandni Chowk, says she's been coming to this market for the last forty years. Sita, a collector aged 40, explains how they get objects “We go to houses and collect old clothes and give the exchanger steel utensils or glass jars...and other household items in return. Sometimes, housewives do not want anything in exchange, they just want to get rid of their old stuff."” (Hebbar, 2011) 30

The collectors sell objects to vendors in second hand goods markets who then resell it to customers. The object ecosystem is quite rotational because of these markets. While exchanging with people, the collectors acquire objects like quilts etc. by weighing them and then giving an exchange option according to the weight, other objects like clothes are exchanged on the basis of number of items. Functioning electronic equipment get a higher value by collectors, as they can sell them in electronic markets. The collectors sell their objects to the vendors by virtue of weight, regardless of the kind or value of object. Hence, the collectors end up receiving the worst out of the deal as some clothes are resold by the vendors at extremely high prices but the collectors receive a standard price. The vendors receive second hand clothing by bartan waale, cutsoms and illegal trades. They sort, mend and clean the objects as required, for further reselling.

Gift giving/Hand-me-downs In this context, as it is culturally acceptable to share belongings, old objects are often given to siblings, relatives and friends and there is no hesitation around accepting these objects if one feels one can use them. This is the most common practice surrounding a variety of objects like baby clothes, toys and other equipment, jewellery and clothes and is often neglected as it is observed as non-economic.

Ecological and Religious Trends As there is a growing awareness about lifestyle related environmental costs; many individuals are trying to own less, and thereby trying to reduce their carbon footprint.

Minimalism and using eco-friendly products have led these trends.

31

Religious rituals and ideologies have a significant role in consumerism, accumulation and anti-accumulation. Religions such as Hinduism, Jainism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc. have mentioned ideal relationships with possessions in their codes of behaviour. In Hinduism, it is said that „a man is not considered great according to how much one owns, but by how easily one can let it all go‟. There are festivals like Diwali which becomes an occasion of cleaning of the house and all objects within it for Goddess Lakshmi (the goddess of wealth and prosperity) to rest. Though, buying of new clothes and gifting is equally a part of this festival. The festival of Holi has a ritual of holika dahan where old objects are burnt. Islam specifically mentions rites which promote charity and donation as a part of life. In the same space of religion, there are people who do not accumulate. There are Jain monks and nuns who own very few possessions and depend upon devotee‟s charity for food and clothing. In Feng shui, a part of the Taoist culture, broken objects are considered to hold bad energy because of which it is suggested that they are thrown away.

One of the 11 vows taken by Mahatma Gandhi was of Aparigraha, which comes from the Hindu tradition of Aparigraha itself. His views on this oath are documented in his sayings: “Non-possession means that we should not hoard anything that we do not need today.” (Gandhi, 1944) “When you dispossess yourself of everything you have, you really possess all the treasures of the world. In other words, you really get all that is in reality necessary for you. If the food is necessary, food will come to you.” (QTD in Hingotsni, 1961)

32

Accumulation and anti-accumulation have always been an important part of festivities and deriving from various religions to different philosophies of living, it seems like accumulation and anti-accumulation has always been a major part of theories on „living‟.

Up-cycling Up-cycling refers to reuse (discarded objects or material) in such a way as to create a product of higher quality or value than the original. It includes reselling or redistribution of old objects. The „Do it yourself‟ (DIY) culture is a part of up-cycling trends which have expanded from once being looked as hobby projects to an industry of itself. Through various social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Pinterest channels, individuals can now develop, demonstrate and distribute objects without a third party distribution mechanism. Organizations such as the Maker’s Asylum in Delhi and Bombay lets people use machines and tools such as 3D printers, sewing machines, carpentry and other craft tools without having to own them. The case of up-scaling and redistribution comes as a part of the reuse-recycle trend and is at the borderline of effecting accumulation.

33

A case of Minimalism without Choice From one extreme of excess of objects, to another extreme of minimalism, accumulation of possessions is placed on various wavelengths. This particular wavelength which is being discussed is about minimalism without a choice, minimalism due to constraints. There are individuals with whom excess of possessions and hoarding is impossible due to constraints of their lifestyle. Individuals who are considered in this group would be people living a nomadic lifestyle and homeless in the urban context. What is to „not ownâ€&#x; in this lifestyle? To understand their relationship with objects for this thesis project, a group of cart-pullers from Kashmere Gate were chosen to prepare a small case study.

Fig.13 shows the Guru Nanak Market, Kashmere Gate. It is one of the main open areas and collection points for cartpullers in the Kashmere Gate area. The cartpullers work here for transportation of goods for the shops in this market during the daytime, and sleep outside the same shops during night.

Fig. 12 Cartpuller Schedule

34

Fig. 13 Guru Nanak Market, Kashmere Gate

The cartpullers who were interviewed had migrated to the city for additional income from their hometowns in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. They had chosen to not rent a house/room in order to save money.

Belongings in a box The cartpullers store their belongings in boxes which are called peti. One can see these boxes lined up on footpaths and corners of alleys in the Old Delhi area.

Fig. 14a shows a cartpuller opening his box on Hamilton road, Kashmere Gate during lunch time. The objects kept on the top were cooked food, water and wet clothes for drying.

35

Fig. 14a Inside of a Box

The boxes are roughly 3ft width-4ft depth-4ft height in dimensions; there is no standard size. According to the carpenter in the Gurunanak Market who offers to make these boxes for Rs. 3000-5000, the wooden boxes were made from scrap waste found in the transportation system of the auto part market. The boxes were established in the area around 1970-80 as storage spaces for the few cartpullers who started work in the area. Those boxes have since then remained; repaired, reused and even thrown away through decades. As the number of cartpuller population increased, the number of boxes automatically increased.

At present, one discovers that these boxes are constructed from varied materials, varied technique and used in different ways individual to individual. The metal boxes

36

Fig. 14b Boxes external use

are made on the Hamilton road and the wooden boxes are not made any more as it brought with them several infestation and maintenance related problems. The box owning system is based on allotment on the criteria of relations, friendship and trust.

Each box is shared by 2-3 individuals; usually these are relatives or friends from their hometown. The cartpullers usually work for anywhere between 1-6 months. The people interviewed speak about travelling very light when they came to Delhi for the first time as they had relatives and friends working here already. They also said that during their duration of stay they mostly have to buy ration, 2-3 utensils, soap, and oil etc. Resource pooling is a common phenomenon as well; two individuals bring food and gas and cook and eat together. The key to the box remains with the people who 37

are sharing the box. If one has to go back to their hometown they leave the objects in their box, trusting their fellow box occupant. Usually individuals keep very few clothes; 3 or 4 pairs at most and are kept at the deep end of the box. The top most part has food which is cooked for the day in the morning, utensils, wallet, grooming objects.

Some people also use this part to dry their washed clothes and for storing drinking water.

Even though the cartpuller case provided a unique depth to the idea of accumulation, I could not take it forward (For extended reason, refer to Annexure Section 5).

Nevertheless, this group remains a case which gave a unique perspective to relationship with objects under constraints.

This chapter explored accumulation of objects as a human tendency present across the barriers of age, class, caste, gender etc. while acknowledging the different theories on the reasons for accumulation. I have tried to document the social, psychological and environmental costs of accumulation. It also briefly explores product designerâ€&#x;s role in accumulation by placing of object intent in production.

Finally, the chapter documents ways and methods of anti-accumulation in the given culture. The next section draws upon the reason for accumulation i.e, ownership. It also explores sharing as a method of collaborative consumption, which gradually becomes the action crux of this project.

38

39

Chapter 4

Ownership and Sharing The larger dialogue around accumulation, ownership and sharing comes from our need to acquire. previous

Building chapter

from

the which

examined accumulation of objects, this chapter is about the ownership of objects and the qualities, boundaries and conditions of sharing. One of the focus points for this thesis project have been to identify occurrences of acquisition vs. exploration in relation to objects which means to find out ways in which one can derive benefits from objects without having to acquire it. Sharing has revealed itself through instances in the given context as a useful way to use without accumulation.

In this chapter, I would explore objects in the realms of shared, co-owned and owned.

I would also define and discuss the various types of ownership and forms of sharing there are, and document trends and impacts which reflect sharing in our culture and subculture.

To Own Possessions are regarded not only as part of self, but also as instrumental to the development of self. –Russell Belk, Collecting in a Consumer Society

40

Russell Belk is a pioneer in the work of materialism, collections, sharing and meaning of possessions. According to him, “In a consumer society, our ideas about ourselves are often bound up or represented in what we desire, what we own, and how we use these things.” His research covers what possessions mean to individuals after they acquire them, and how different cultures regard consumption.

Another pioneer in the field of consumer psychology and ownership studies is Floyd Webster Rudmin. Rudmin defines ownership in the following way “Ownership is an interpersonal dominance relationship to control resources for imagined future utility, secured by semiotically shared perceptions and by their institutionalization in law.”

Borrowing from an interview of Rudmin, “humans are governed by owning things, people and spaces, so much so that we don‟t realize the restraints ownership puts on us. Ninety-nine per cent of the world is inaccessible to us and we are not bothered at all.” (The Science of Ownership, Wordpress) In this definition, Rudmin explores the „potential utility‟ factor amongst other things that causes us to own. In the experience of the course of the project, potential utility or seemingly future utility of an object is one of the biggest criteria for accumulation that is, most of our belongings would fall in the category of „it might come in use later‟. This validates the presence of a need which makes individuals own objects for a future utility which is also explained in the field of evolutionary psychology. In the hundreds of years of evolution, humans have developed the tendency to accumulate and store objects for sustenance, protection and for emergencies. Jean Piaget, a founding father of Child Psychology, observed that the sense of ownership emerges incredibly early in human beings. Infants of almost one year of age can identify their favourite blankets, comfort toys etc. and get

41

so attached that they express extreme rage when having to part with these material belongings. In psychology, the term „endowment effect‟ is used to describe the phenomena where two things happen- we always greatly value the objects we own because of the fact that we own them; and when we own them, the objects start to become a part of our „sense of self‟, which I have mentioned in Chapter 2. Hence a connection forms between object and subject, product and user.

Author Slavica Ceperkovic has cited in her thesis, The Future of Domestic Object 2025, “The purchasing of objects becomes an extension of what one may value in addition

Fig. 16 Types of Ownerships

42

to the purpose the object serves. Ownership is a polemic examination of tensions belonging to an object as either individual or social usability. The intension of the object is either to be individually owned by a consumer, a part of its value proposition or is something that is communally owned and shared” (Slavica, 2014) Ceperkovic takes two polarities of an object‟s inherent capacity to be owned, while also acknowledging that economic value and the intention of an object is incomplete without taking into consideration the social or personal value of an object. This provides more varied reasons and purpose for ownership. The author has also used a historical lens to understand how models of ownership of multiple objects serve various purposes. There are objects which are bought because their usefulness lies in their ability to help the owners acquire social status. Sometimes the things we accumulate or acquire are not even bought, some things are found or gifted or passed on. These extreme points take away the notion that we only acquire due to mere consumerism. Jean Baudrillard suggests that every object has two purposes “to be put to use, and to be possessed. Each pure object that is devoid of its function and is abstracted from any use; it becomes part of a collection or simple artefact in our lives.” To add to Baudrillard‟s theories here, one can easily ask questions around what is the „use‟. Is the criterion of object use supposed to be purely functional or any other kinds of uses (such as emotional, transactional etc.) are as legitimate? Are museums

abstracting

objects

from their utility? Are all kinds of collections the same or are their differences between an organized

43

collection where objects retain their individual identity and stuff where objects get lost in a mass of materiality?

Sharing What is sharing? In his article „How sharing is subjugated to exchange‟ Wolfgang Sutzi accurately explains this phenomenon which is often considered altruistic and hence goes unrealized. He says “The question seems superfluous. Sharing is something so common and commonplace that for the most part we do not perceive it as a special act – as when, for example, we share the air or a language with others.

In this way it slips under the threshold of perception and gives rise to the impression that there is nothing here to question or explore.” (Sutzi, 2014) The Canadian consumer researcher Russell Belk has noted that the widespread assumption that actions are motivated by selfinterest forms one of the

Fig. 17 Exploring

disciplines with trends of sharing

obstacles to understanding sharing. Taking self-interest as the primary motive makes it easy to comprehend share relations. We may assume that giving and taking occurs in a sort of reciprocal 44

interest, but, sharing is not reciprocal. In fact sharing is something communal. “Hence where people share, there is no market, no exchange value and no economic profit.

Sharing has therefore long been seen as not economically relevant.

This privileging of exchange also has as a consequence that sharing itself is described as (often symbolic) exchange, which likewise has not been conducive to our understanding of sharing.” According to Sutzi, sharing creates community which is based on common use of a resource and as he beautifully puts “for sharing alters the “who” of the sharer. In sharing, one‟s own existence is experienced as co-existence with others. Sharing renders the limits of the individual subject permeable.” Belk has also spoken of the “extended self” of the sharer: “whenever we share, we also, or even chiefly, share our own self.”

Fig. 18 Types of Sharing

Factors facilitating Sharing Through the course of the research done for this project and exploring various instances, I have narrowed down to three main reasons which facilitate sharing (in 45

terms of taking and co-using an object which is shared). The factors which cause sharing are summarized in the following statements: 

When a convenient access to certain resources are provided



When there is an option to explore a resource potential without having to acquire



When there are economical, spatial, utilitarian, situational etc. constraints in accumulating resources

These factors facilitate sharing in terms of taking and co-using objects.

Floyd Webster Rudmin critically explores the future of ownership research when he says “Except perhaps for the child studies, I am pessimistic about the future of the topic because it is easy for consumer psychology and behavioural economics to fixate our focus on mere possession, i.e., on the possessor-possession relationship, and to equate possession with ownership, ignoring possession without ownership (e.g., love and protection of a child, a park, or a landscape) and ownership without possession (e.g., owning shares of a corporation or owning vacation time-share rights).We easily ignore the interpersonal essence of ownership. Such failings might be corrected, for example, if every data collection on ownership of favoured possessions, also included data collection on ownership of disliked or discarded possessions, on ownership of unknown or forgotten possessions, of lost or stolen possessions, of communal possessions, or data collection on the liabilities of ownership, on the semiotic marking of ownership, on the cognitive and emotional costs of ownership, on the imagined persons or agencies who threaten ownership, on the shift of access by ownership to access by renting, borrowing, and stealing.” Thus, although there is literature on

46

objects from a consumer psychology lens, but there is a lack of research on branches related to ownership and sharing.

The four levels Fig. 19 explains the levels of object ownership, co-ownership and sharing amongst 4 levels.

Fig. 19 Sharing- an overview

These levels are Individual, Family/Group, Community and City/Outside. 

Individual- These objects are highly individual owned because of the intent and function, utility, need or value gratification of that object. This category may contain grooming objects, objects of personal hygiene, beddings, an individual‟s everyday use objects, certain clothes or memorabilia etc. These objects are infused with an individual‟s personal/subjective opinion on sharing,

47

the environment of an individual (his/her lifestyle, social needs etc.) and a designed object‟s inherent capacity to be shared. The feeling of single ownership is strong in this category and sharing occurs strictly based on the individual‟s level of comfort or trust. 

Family/Group- These objects can be shared with 2 or more people who are the closest to the individual, or a somewhat closed group in a space which is considered trustworthy by the individual. This category also includes friends or colleagues living together. This category of objects is either shared or coowned, and may or may not be close in terms of attachment to the individual, but they are considered share-able by the individual. A few examples would be cooking gas, television, cleaning and maintenance equipment, furniture etc.

The types of objects in this category are rather varied and the only common identification that can be generalized across cases of sharing is that it is done on a very high level of trust. The trust factor is sometimes made obvious, (for e.g. when telling a sibling to take care of a dress while lending), and sometimes the trust is in the deal in a tacit fashion.

While studying cases of co-ownership, it was found that these objects usually fall within one or more of below mentioned categories: o Seldom used

48

o Share-able by function/intent o Trust based contract 

Community- These objects are either co-owned/co-used by a group or community or shared by one individual in a community. When the object is decided to be co-owned by a community, certain rules are set within the deal.

These rules generally don‟t give space for the psychological set up of single ownership to take place because of which objects are able to be fluidly owned.

In shared cases, these objects might be of infrequent utility (for e.g. portable ladder, big lunch boxes, storage items, mobility aid, certain hobby equipment).

Co-owned objects can be of various types encompassing things and non-things like community shared space utilities, funds etc. For the purpose of this project, non-physical entities have not been explored.



City/Outside- The category would include objects automatically shared, not owned by any „one‟. These may include books of a Public Library, park benches, public transport vehicles, electricity poles, buildings etc. It may also 49

include services like the transportation system, postal systems etc. but services have not been explored in this project. This category has not been explored for this project at length.

Instances of Sharing Free Objects A project of sharing freely movable objects, Books on the Delhi Metro was initiated by Shruti Sharma, a resident of Delhi. She was inspired by Emma Watson, actor and UN ambassador, who began dropping off feminist literature in the London Subway for people to read. Sharma got to know that the actress had collaborated with the initiative „Books on the Move‟ who have 20 branches in 14 countries. She asked permission from this organization to do a Delhi initiative, and the project began in May, 2017.

Fig. 20 Sourced from Facebook page “Books on the Delhi Metro”

50

Sharma states that since then they have dropped off about 300 books at different stations of the Delhi Metro. She also has 4 „book-fairiesâ€&#x; working alongside her who drop off books, the number is growing. While growing up as a child of a middle class household, she did not have access to a lot of books. Buying books or having a home library was a luxury from her point of view at that time. The constraint of access to books was dealt with through borrowing from family and friends. She strongly feels that books should be available to everyone.

The team began by dropping books at the blue and yellow line, their aim is to cover all lines of the metro. Their model is based on donation; she started collecting old books or money from family and friends

Fig.20b Sourced from Facebook page

and now she gets donations from strangers as well. The only way to know if a book is picked up is if the traveller posts about the book with their hash tag #booksonthedelhimetro which sends a notification to their page and then they share it. Other than that, there is no record of how many books remain in circulation and how many are removed from it, but she firmly believes that often books are spotted after 3-4 months of remaining unfound.

This is a one of kind radical case of freely moving objects being shared in an outer/city environment but creating a kind of community inside the metro space.

51

Free objects hold their own place in object ecosystem. They are everyone‟s and yet no „one‟s‟. An experiment was conducted in the course of the thesis in the Ambedkar University Kashmere Gate campus. The experiment was called free lighter.

The experiment required for a lighter (refer to Fig.20) to be placed in a space, at a location where people go for their smoke breaks. In the smoking circles in the given context, lighter as a commodity is often shared and often even not returned to the owner. Other things shared are matchboxes. Often one will be able to spot matchboxes left around in these common smoking spots by previous owners.

Fig.21 Free Lighter Experiment

After placing the lighter in the decided location inside the university, people who were the users of this space for the particular activity were approached. They were shown the lighter and asked if they thought it will be stolen or remain commonly used. Users replied that they did not think it will be stolen. The lighter was missing sometime after 4 days of supervision. The learning from this experiment was that a stronger spatial or ownership anchor would be more effective. It could be communicated through the lighter that it belonged in „a space‟ rather than to a community, which reinforced the 52

fact that sharing happens first and altruistic feelings come second. The second inference was to try and place the lighter not completely free, but tied to a wire, so that it is not completely movable from the spot and dynamics of getting lost may be reduced. These ideas are only proposed and remain untested.

(Note: This experiment was not intended to promote the activity in the university campus, but only used an activity in a space for testing an idea)

Sharing within groups in a space This section deals with sharing amongst flatmates and neighbours. It falls on the intersection of family and community levels. The following cases have a common factor of living in a limited space which has facilitated sharing of objects.

One-room living space and sharing Kunal is a resident of Rajpur village Gurmandi, Vijay Nagar, North Campus and a student of Political Science at Ambedkar University. He lives in a building of 1-room domestic spaces. The people inhabiting other rooms on his floor are mostly people from the lower-middle class- workers from the dhaba and restaurants in the Vijay Nagar area, students studying for competitive exams and few Masterâ€&#x;s students as himself. According to his own experience, it is difficult to store a lot of things in the one room he has, which therefore becomes a constraint driving specific behaviours.

He claims that many resources, spaces and things are automatically shared. By this he means that there is an unspoken contract about what specific things can be sharedby virtue of what they are, where they are placed, and what relationship one has with the owner. He usually goes to make his chai at his neighbourâ€&#x;s, who are a family and 53

have a stove. In return he often leaves his bathing bucket in the shared balcony space outside, which is attached to a common bathroom and toilet. Things he has seen being shared are cycles, ropes and clips for hanging clothes, toilet soap, clothes (in case of friendship).

Fig.21 shows the map of Kunal‟s floor in the building. Kunal‟s room has a cupboard he bought second hand from an old resident of his building who was shifting back to his hometown in Manipur. Shared Rack A: first of this rack is owned by the neighbours where Kunal keeps things like soaps and his neighbours keep their kitchen equipment like extra gas cylinder, ration for the week, etc. Second rack is owned by Kunal where he keeps his shoes. A‟s space is bartered for B‟s objects. Shared Rack B is where people keep old newspapers, old shoes; things people want to throw away or things people are not using.

People who are shifting out of their living spaces in that area have a unique system of selling/giving their objects. Most of the people who use this method are students.

Outside buildings one can find A4 size sheets pasted on walls, with lists of objects students want to give away/ or are up for selling.

These spaces provide a unique relationship with objects as comes with constraints of space, finances and/or situations.

54

Fig.22 Kunal’s Floor,

One room living spaces

55

Trippy Station

Fig.23 Trippy Station, artist’s space. Sharing on the boundary of Group and Community level

Trippy station is a common artist space belonging to a community of 10-15 artists.

The space, a barsaati (1-2 rooms terrace houses) in Shahpur Jat, was itself co-owned and shared amongst the community, and people who did not pay for the space directly treated it as shared. Interesting fact about this sharing was the books and artworks table. People from the community and outside of it often left their personal belongings in the space, sometimes as forgotten things, sometimes as gifts and often as a way to share it with the others. Most common of these objects were jewellery, clothes, artworks and books. The table in the Fig.23 (left) holds books and artworks put there by frequent and infrequent members of the community, which come from their individual collection. Community members borrow books from the table without any formal verbal contract about this transaction. There was also a collection of common t-shirts that everyone could wear. The space, however, did not continue to

56

thrive and grow because of excessive neglect of common rules and ethics around the sharing and co-ownership of the initiative as well as the space and resources.

Circular Economy and Collaborative Consumption Circular economy is a system‟s approach which answers to the lacks of the traditional economy model. According to WRAP organization, UK, the definition is as follows- “A circular economy is an alternative to a traditional linear economy (make, use, dispose) in which we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life.”(WRAP website) Collaborative consumption is one of the methods through which a circular economy functions.

Although sharing is viewed as inherently altruistic, relating to subjective generosity and hence the sustainability of sharing is itself questioned; collaborative consumption is fair and objective. It is more about “The amount of time you use my car determines the price you pay for it”. In the age of connectivity at all times, when it is so easy to make groups and network, collaborative consumption is most facilitated.

According to Rachel Botsman, there are three forms of collaborative consumption documented in today‟s world. The first is based on the fifth of the R‟s- reduce, reuse, recycle, repair and redistribute. Redistribution happens in terms of „swapping‟, „donations‟ and „second-hand‟. The second is collaborative lifestyle which is about sharing of resources such as money, skills and time. This includes terms like „couch surfing‟ and „co-working spaces‟. The third is product-service systems. This type is based on renting models, “pay for the benefit of the product.” (Botsman, 2010) 57

This thesis project attempts to explore the first two forms of collaborative consumption, redistribution and collaborative lifestyle by experimenting with two groups of people.

The next section proposes two experiments which would facilitate collaborative consumption, working with two groups around activities based on sharing and swapping.

Table 2 Enterprises in Renting

58

The following statements below are a series of postulations derived from the book, "The Wasted City: Approaches to Circular City Making," co-written by multiple authors and edited by CITIES Foundation (Trancity, Valiz, 2017). These statements try to convey a forthcoming environment in the urban lifestyle, based on the circular economy and collaborative consumption methods, “where circularity is the undeniable common denominator.” 

Ownership is dead; sharing infrastructures are the cradle of a new urbanity.



People are the cornerstone of urban circularity, and you‟ll never walk alone.



Regulation must not lag behind the niche. Without new rules, the process is too slow.



Urban metabolism is screaming for commodity brokers.



Circular education is paramount for the wider population.



Circularity is not the sole goal; it is a means for systemic change.

This chapter defines ownership at the individual, group and community level, and documents cases of sharing at the individual, group, community and the city level. It goes on to connecting instances at the specified levels and explores factors which facilitate sharing. The chapter culminates with a brief note on collaborative consumption. The next chapter proposes experiments related to collaborative consumption

which

would

be

implemented

in

the

course

of

the

thesis.

59

Chapter 5 Proposals This thesis project began with putting together a holistic approach to help build a diverse understanding about objects. In the previous chapters, I have documented the secondary research and conceptual framework of the ecology of material belongings. This chapter and the following would cover the experiments which were used to explore modes of sharing and material ownership in given contexts. The following prototype proposals partly come from a conceptual understanding which was built during the process of collecting secondary literature and conducting primary research and experiments, and partly originate as an inquiry into and for particular hypothesis that emerged with explorations. The two prototyped ideas which I propose hereby are 1. Library of Things 2. Barter Experiment The concepts emerged from a systemic understanding of objects as having a positive tendency to get accumulated with very few outflows or feedbacks (refer to Fig.2 Chapter 1, page). The outflows refer to objects going out of the accumulated lot and feedbacks refer to information being provided about introspection on value gratification, space shortage or any other factor. To influence the accumulated lot, one could either increase the outflows or create feedback mechanisms. Library of

60

things and SwapShop are both based on a combination of creating outflow platforms and allowing for feedback in the form of introspection.

Approaching this thesis as a design project, the main opportunities emerged from two distinct explorations are:

Fig.24 Design opportunities

From Store-room to a Library Store-room denotes a space where many objects are kept by many individuals from the point of view that the object has value

In the future or a seeming utility



It is special, or that it was useful for an individual at a point but not anymore



It is useful but not close enough to be kept in proximity for individual, but the individual doesn‟t mind someone else making use of it as well.

While observing diverse cases, this space has mostly been a store-room or a garage, sometimes been identified as a cupboard, and sometimes even a drawer, or the top of a table. Whatever form the containing space took, it was very crucial for this project 61

as it contained objects in a way that the object detached itself from the individual, from his/her psychological plane as well as the spatial plane. Objects which have made the journey from individually-owned spaces to group owned spaces, automatically go through a process in the individualâ€&#x;s cognition, and hence holds a different place for the individual. Sharing comes into play and self-ownership decreases in affect, the way the particular individual now responds to his/her object changes. Objects when enter a common share-able zone, they are shared automatically on a commonly accepted contract of trust. These objects might be or might not be something individuals are invested in, hence sharing becomes easier. When objects are shared from a common space, it forms a sort of community. This community could be already formed (e.g. a family or a workspace) or the act of sharing could be

the

thread

to

form

such

a

community.

Hypothesis: How can a store-room become a

library

of

Fig.25 Objects identified for Library of Things (on the basis of value and utility)

things; thus

making an individual a part of a sharing community? Do objects belonging to an individual/family, which fall in the category of sometimes, rarely or once used have the possibility of being shared outside in a community?

62

Driving questions: Can sharing be advantageous in making ownership easier? Can a storing space be transformed into a sharing space?

Saanjha Sangarahalaya This model of a library of things explores a space where individuals can share objects of limited use and value to them, and these objects can be of use to other people who donâ€&#x;t have to buy them. The concept was to make owning things less individual and more shared. It was called a library as the model was intrinsically based on an objectâ€&#x;s shared value and the service ran on the logistics inspired by a library of books where an object not owned by a single person is used by many. The service would be based on a contribution model where individuals decide the things they can contribute and make available for use by their community. It is an attempt to make objects travel within the parameters mentioned in Fig. 26.

Fig.26 Influence of Libraries on ownership

The objects for this service belonged to one or more of the following categoriesspare, under-used or hoarded. It was also taken into account that the share-ability of objects decreases as the circle of familiarity goes farther away (Fig.19 in Chapter 4).

Hence, objects which are generally considered to be shared only with the closest circle

63

of an individual (e.g. clothes, emotionally valued belongings etc.) were not included.

Initially, the categories of objects which were included in the first prototype were: 

Maintenance tools and equipment- household tools such as hammer, testers, gardening equipment, professional car toolkit, portable ladders and power tools such as drill machines are used for less than half of their entire life after being bought by a household. They have also emerged

during

interviews

as

usually

borrowed

items

from

friends/neighbours. 

Travel gear- objects such as 90L rucksacks, camping gear, trekking pole, adventure sports gear and other travel related items were found to be shared amongst friends when need arose and used on a sometimes or rarely level.



Toys and Games- These objects are mostly hoarded even after their use life by children. There are many commercial toy rental services such as toys-on-rent, toy express, friendly toyz which function as a toys and books renting platform for children. Some of them also provide a playing space. A community library of things would mean easier access for children, also objects of this kind can be easily contributed.



Books and Magazines- These items are found to be shared on a family, community and city level. They have been identified as most shareable in the pre-service interviews.

64



Certain kitchen equipment- Specific kitchen tools which are not necessary for everyday use. Depending on individual tastes and demands, this category includes sev/murku makers (dough shapers), specific blenders, strainers, large size utensils, large tiffin boxes etc.



Mobility Aid/Medical equipment- Taking into account the limited life of certain medical equipment (in case of temporary circumstances), this category was included.



Miscellaneous- Objects such as electronics, furniture, multiples of the same object, clothes and objects related to religious rituals came up in the pre-service interviews as rarely or unused, and have been included in this experiment.

Location: A community in a closed space with some form connectivity and security to develop trust, maybe a gated colony or a university Age group, Gender: No constraints Community status: middle or lower middle class households with families, homogenous occupation in an attempt to avoid complications arising from perceived „status and class‟ dynamics Bartering the Accumulated It was observed that many individuals had several kinds of objects which were deemed not-useful (judged on the basis of gratification by value) but still held a place in the individual‟s possessions. This meant that these objects were considered to have 65

value but they weren‟t realized or utilized by the individual to a great extent, and were yet retained or hoarded. These aggregate value could be one or more of the following- Potential Value, Exchange value, Emotional value, Economic Value, Aesthetic

Value,

Functional/Utilitarian

Value,

Brand

Value,

Historical

value,

Environmental value, Social value, Cultural value, Political value, Symbolic value. The difference between this group of things and other belongings of an individual would be that the individual primarily thought of this group as things he/she does not mind getting rid of as long as: 1. Someone else is taking care of it.

2. They can get a price/value in exchange for it 3. Someone else makes use of it Thus, a conclusion was reached that there are objects which contain within themselves emotions invested by the owners. Some objects were not discarded because there was a residual quality or value which causes individuals to not be able to part with them.

While many options are available to get rid of old objects (donation, gifting or selling) through traditional mediums such as „bartan wale‟ or giving it to house helps, or selling through websites such as OLX and eBay, people still chose to retain these objects by hoarding them into the category of „stuff‟.

The Method: Bartering includes reciprocity and coincidence of wants. It is a system which predates monetary system, and can be used in almost any field for exchange of any physical or non-physical asset. Barter is based on mutual negotiation and coincidence of wants which complicates the situation, but is successful in making acquisition purely need based. I saw this medium as a way to deconstruct and expose 66

all kinds of values that an individual had assigned or not assigned to a particular object which could help an individual introspect and decide for himself/herself whether to keep the object or give it away.

Hypothesis: Can objects be exchanged thereby doing away with economic and charity based transactions?

Driving questions: In an age where many objects are invested with emotions, can we also look at objects in terms of values which are beyond money while exchanging as well?

SwapShop This experiment was conceptualized as a barter platform; a barter not in the traditional way i.e., from person A to person B, but from person A to table and table to person B, person B to table, and table to person C; and so on.

The idea was to have a platform which motivates individuals to introspect on their belongings; what they need and donâ€&#x;t need, which one have lost their value, which objects might find use for someone else. The platform tried to create a safe space for people to take out belongings they are not using anymore; safe because often objects do not leave the closets and drawers because the owners arenâ€&#x;t sure who would like to take these objects or might see value in them, for example, a sweater in the polo neck style of 90s. This space takes away the threat of having to value belongings in any one kind of category, thereby giving space to an object to be judged flexibly

67

across values subjectively assigned. It also takes away the discomfort of giving the object to someone who does not need it/would not use it, as with many cases of gifts.

The first motive was to prompt individuals to think about their relationship with material belongings- to introspect about how they organize, use and store their objects, what they are using, what they own, how objects contribute to making their self. The second motive was to show how fluid the value aggregate really issomeone‟s junk is really another‟s treasure. The experiment was an opportunity to explore bartering as a form of collaborative consumption with the hope of persuading individuals to reflect on their belongings. The incentive/takeaways for the participants were proposed as- bring an object you are not using and take something you might want to use. The idea of „swapping‟ objects and not a donation drive was proposed so that the value remains intact and people become aware of what to take and what to give on the basis of what they need and do not need.

Kind of Objects: Unused gifts, emotionally vested memorabilia, clothes, jewellery, accessories etc., one time used objects, books, extra crockery, utensils, decor, tools and equipment, artworks and crafts, stationery Location: A closed group with some form connectivity and security to develop trust, maybe a gated colony or a university Age group, Gender: No constraints Community status: Flexible because anyone can give anything. The trust resides in the service rather than in the community.

68

Chapter 6 Saanjha Sangrahalaya (Library of Things) The previous chapter proposed two opportunities which were turned into experiment during this project. The experiment „library of things‟ which focussed on a community level of sharing objects was decided to be implemented in a gated residential colony.

The colony in which I chose to do this experiment is called the Central Government Employees Residence (CGER) J-Block, Kali Bari Marg, New Delhi. I chose this colony based on expectations that an occupationally similar colony would provide necessary homogenous grounds to facilitate sharing. Also as it was my own residence, I could engage with the residents from an „inside‟ point of view and could navigate my way for resources in and around the colony. I could personally relate to organization and storage needs of the residents, given the similar house plan of the colony, which was beneficial for the project. Having good ties with a few neighbours and being in touch with them periodically for the course of 3-4 months helped enrich the project. This chapter explains pre-experiment planning, implementation, experience and data analysis related to the library of things experiment.

The Residential Colony J-block was constructed in the 1980s. The colony has about 403 apartments and 8 parks. It is situated right next to a Balaji temple, the Birla mandir and Kali mandir, a Kendriya Vidyalaya, and on the other side by Talkatora garden and stadium. The central government employees who are allotted these apartments roughly fall in the income bracket of Rs 30,000-50,000 per month. This bracket covers positions from 69

office peon to gazetted officers. The employees who rent these flats are mostly in nontransferrable jobs, but there is a lot of shifting in and out as employees get promoted, retire or shift out to another allotment or to a purchased home. Hence there are often

Fig. 27 J Block- Google Map, typical house-plan and Colony map

70

new residents. Along with an apartment, people are allotted a garage measuring 3 feet in width, 9 feet in height and 7 feet in depth.

Fig.28 J-Block Gate number 1 and 2

People- As the residents change, the demographic also changes. As per the narratives of the residents, during the late 1990s, the majority of people living in the colony used to be from West Bengal and the southern states of India. In the 2000s most people were from Himachal Pradesh and Uttrakhand regions (mainly Garhwal and Kumaon).

In the recent years, most residents are from Uttar Pradesh or Bihar. Most households in the colony are families of three or more because of which there is a mix of age 71

groups, very few flats are individually occupied. The colony has a functioning residentsâ€&#x; welfare association (RWA) with members elected every three years. The RWA is involved in various colony matters like security and complaints, and organizes events around major festivals and national holidays.

It was decided that the library of things would be open to all age groups and genders amongst the residents. However one of the hypothesis based on interviews reflected that women were generally the decision makers about which household objects shall remain and which have to be discarded, and the method for discarding. Hence a major part of discussions were conducted with women in the colony. However, it was realized in the second-third week of the experiment that although women often decide the fate of objects in homes, not many seemed interested in the idea of sharing or forming a library of things.

Fig.29 Residents of J-Block

Sharing with neighbours The first step was to identify objects which are currently being shared amongst neighbours in the colony. Sharing is more common amongst neighbours when there is trust; mostly in cases when neighbours are friends or are cordial.. However, for this 72

service I did not consider relationships in which neighbours are very good friends with each other because that makes a leap from community circle to the friends circle, which is a closer group to the individual. As I have mentioned in the previous chapter, this library would focus on objects which can be shared on a community level. The communication amongst neighbours includes objects when the need to share it arises.

These needs are based on extreme cases when an object is too expensive, or if itâ€&#x;s needed for a one time use. The theory that economical, spatial, utilitarian, situational etc. constraints in accumulation facilitate sharing of resources (see Chapter 4, page under fig.18) was practically understood at this point. Objects that were observed in research as being borrowed amongst neighbours were- big tiffin boxes, portable ladder, tester tool, colourful tape and dĂŠcor stationary. In specific cases like having common age, interest etc., objects such as curriculum books, study equipment and fancy dresses have also been known to be borrowed or shared. Some of the questions asked were: 1. Objects that you feel are spare and you want to get rid of, but they are just kept?

2. Have you tried selling these objects? What steps did you take?

3. What are objects which are kept with you but you use once in a long period? (6 months or more) Objects which came in use once and not again?

4. Sharing the concept of a library of things- Rules, Benefits, and types of Objects

73

Fig.30 Pre-experiment Interview Guide

(See Table 3 for gist of Pre-service Interviews. Refer to Annexure Section 1 for extended interviews of the aforementioned and other residents)

74

Table 3 Pre-service Interviews

75

The RWA After the initial round of interviews with few of the residents and with promises of objects to be contributed, I went to the RWA of my colony with my proposal. I explained to them the service as follows-

Fig.31 Cabin space for service

“Imagine a Library where we can issue books which are to be returned after a set time. We don‟t have to buy those books and they remain accessible to us. This is also a library, but of objects. The idea is that certain objects remain in our houses, sometimes too valuable to give away, sometimes unused and left sitting. Sometimes they take up too much space, and sometimes they stop functioning properly because of long term idle storage. These objects can be shared with people who might need them in a situation. They can use these objects through this service without having to buy them. On the other hand, if every household contributes, there would come out at least 1 object from each house which falls in the apt category to be able to be contributed in this Library.” It was communicated that I would take ownership for

76

running the service and take responsibility for the security of the objects contributed and would also plan the logistics of the service. Some of the RWA members promised objects like sewing machine, bicycle, some books and furniture. One of the members commented that a service like this would help reduce our carbon footprint as well so it seems clear that people were able to make connections about unseen motivations and multiple facets of the project (for instance; resource degradation and planned obsolescence). After the first meeting, it was worked out that the RWA would lend me a space. In our colony, like other CGER, the AAP government in Delhi built spaces called Porta-Cabins. These cabins are usually used for cultural activities, to hold colony meeting and for personal reasons like weddings and are lent out for these purposes for a few days. The space itself is shared in that way. The RWA initially agreed to introduce the library of things service through a circular printed on the associationâ€&#x;s letterhead so that it would get credibility in the eyes of the colony members. Later however, the RWA backed out of this, as they felt that they could not endorse a personal project for the fear of facing some NDMC related issues, given that they are lending out the porta-cabin for a personal project for a long period of time (initially proposed as a month, but it extended while running the service).

Name of the service

Fig.32 Name of the Service

77

The RWA and other residents were informally approached to discuss and ideate upon naming the „library of things‟ service. This ideation gave an insight about how they perceived this service and what words they associated with it.

Brainstorming on the name, the RWA had the following suggestions „Saanjha‟ in Punjabi means „to share‟ or refers to „a collection of shared‟. It comes from saajnha chulha (shared stove), a tradition started by the Sikh guru, Guru Nanak Dev which was based on a community kitchen or langar. The idea originated from the fact that not all women could afford the earthen stove, and hence they would share the community stove and collect there in the afternoon to make roti. Thus, saanjha is used in Hindi with the same meaning of „shared‟ or „commonly owned‟. „Samudayik‟ refers to belonging to a community, a samuday. „Vastu‟ refers collectively to an item, object, things etc., although the term upyogi vastu (useful things) refers to commodity. It was interesting to see the change in the point of view of the RWA members, when I suggested „sharing things‟ they were already thinking from a commodity point of view and hence suggested the particular term.

Sangrahalaya means a „space for collection of objects‟ and is used for referring to places like museums. In this regard the same challenge was faced while using the word library or the Hindi pustakayala (space for books). The word itself held a specific meaning with reference to books and hence it was confusing to use. The other option in place of this word was „kendra’ which roughly translates to „centre‟. Hence I went ahead with sangrahalaya.

78

Eventually, the name Saanjha- samudayik vastu sangrahalay was chosen.

The RWA were extremely supportive of the idea. They collectively agreed to having a lot of things that they were not using and were open to sharing things with other residents. They were also enthusiastic about making this service a permanent addition to the colony. However they were extremely sceptical about how it would run and how ownership would be taken once my thesis project ended.

Saanjha Sangrahalaya The space The location offered by the RWA was Porta-cabin no.3 which is situated in the Karamyogi Park.

There are three porta-cabins of uniform dimensions (12ft by 15ft) in this colony. The first one is used for meetings of RWA, the second is used to lend out to residents for wedding and other events. The third was decided to be used for Saanjha- vastu sangrahalaya. The Karamyogi Park in which the third porta-cabin is situated is the biggest park space in J-block. People who visit the park are mostly senior citizens, residents, a few teenagers and young adults, a lot of children in the age group of 6-12 years, housewives and young mothers with their infants from this colony and nearby colonies. Activities happening

Fig.33 Colony map

79

here are mostly walking, playing and gossip/discussion groups. The Porta-cabin no. 3 was used by the gardening staff working for the maintenance of parks in the colony to store their work clothes and equipment and as a resting spot to make tea etc. Initially

Fig.34 KaramYogi Park and the Porta-cabin No. 3

80

there was a lot of hostility from the gardening staff as they had to completely give up the cabin space for the sangrahalaya. But slowly after talking to them and explaining them the idea of the service and putting forward the security threat there would be to objects stored in the space if it is open without supervision, they understood and agreed to move out for the duration of the experiment. The park and other outdoor locations are livelier in the winters as residents come out because of the comfortable weather; hence the timing of the prototype was beneficial.

0The

objects given in the Fig.35 were promised by residents of the colony when they

were individually approached with the idea. Many challenges followed this promising beginning. A total of eight residents had promised objects in their homes that could be put to better use through Saanjha. Out of these eight, eventually three residents

Fig.35 Preparations for the Sangrahalaya Experiment (Representational images)

81

went through the process and contributed. One drawback of choosing a physical space to set up the sangrahalaya was that a lot of logistical issues occurred with shifting objects, the timing suitable for the residents, and the fact that contributors had to trust another person for the security of their objects. During the experiment, few residents visited the sangrahalaya and promised objects but they never had another conversation about it nor delivered the objects, which led to a lot of promised objects which were eventually not contributed.

One characteristic difference between a traditional library and Saanjha- vastu sangrahalaya came out to be that in a traditional setup objects are owned by the Library; whereas in Saanjha, objects remained possessions of the original owners, unless verbal affirmation from the owners that they are donating their objects to Saanjha. This kind of diffused ownership was one of the hypotheses of the experiment and was a major anchor in the project which was: any group, community or family with trust and mutually agreed terms have a set of objects in a diffused state of ownership. Diffusion of ownership vastly depends on the ground of trust hence it was necessary for a sharing service to firstly test the grounds of trust for objects in a diffused state of ownership within a particular community.

The experiment Saanjha- vastu sangrahalaya officially began in the first week of January. Posters, pamphlets and flyers in English and Hindi were made and distributed around the colony.

82

Fig.36 Banner hung outside the cabin

Fig.38a Flex poster for Colony

83

Fig.37 Poster for Colony

Fig.38b Flex poster for Colony

84

Fig.39 Logo for service

Fig.40 Poster inside the park

85

Fig.41 Introductory pamphlets distributed door-to-door

86

Fig.42 Introductory pamphlets distributed door-to-door

87

Fig.43 Flex outside cabin

88

Fig.44 Guidelines

89

Fig.45 Pamphlets distributed door-to-door

Fig.46 Quoting residents on Saanjha

90

Fig.47 User Journey of the Service

91

Fig.48a Preparation for Experiment: Cabin before and during cleaning

92

Fig.48b Preparation for Experiment: Setting up

93

The Library started functioning from the 6th of January 2018 and remained open till the 10th of February 2018.

Fig.49a Saanjha Sangrahalaya

The cabin was in extremely dirty condition as it was being used for gardening-related activities and there was no routine for cleaning it. It took more than a week to clean the walls and the floor which threw off logistical time management. The RWA initially seemed supportive but when help was requested in terms of contribution of objects promised, or tables for storing furniture, or fixing the electricity of the cabin, they delayed and often refused help which led to further delays. When it came to actually contributing objects, it was observed that people started avoiding me or there was never a good time for them to meet me. Hence to get the process started, I chose kinds of items according to previous research and interviews and intentionally added

94

certain objects with the help of friends and family inside and outside the colony. I explained to this group how this service would run and accordingly they chose objects

Fig.49b Saanjha Sangrahalaya

from their household which they thought would be right for contribution. The only difference was that many of them were not a part of the community. Nevertheless, these objects have been marked as „Added Intentionally‟ in the object data list. (See table in Annexure Section 2) Personal reflections/Log: Pre-Service (month of November and December): Distributed pamphlets door-to-door. Went to apartments and to groups of people sitting in parks and spaces in the colony and introduced the service informally. Most people thought it is a donation drive the ‘needful’, some wanted to ‘throw away waste objects’ through this service, cleared their doubts about 95

what this is, emphasized on sharing. It was felt that till the service actually begins, it will be hard for people to imagine what are the ‘objects’ that Sangrahalaya is targeting. Pasted posters under each building and notice board, put up banners and flexes in the common collection areas. Planned out the logistics of the cabin- procuring objects and renting out furniture for service.

Week 1- Stored, arranged and registered objects with number coding through stickers.

Denoted each section of the Sangrahalaya. Saanjha sangrahalaya began. People were curious about the idea. The visual material has not seemed to work in making people understand what the service is about, but excessive pamphlet and flyer distribution helped in increasing familiarity with the name and logo of the service. To most people the idea seemed completely new and undoable. Three in five people who visited the sangrahalaya enthusiastically agreed with the contribution model and felt that the hypothesis about a large part of our belongings not being used was true. Footfall peaked on the weekend. Ten RWA members visited.

Week 2- The idea of a community library is being understood but not accepted in a way that it facilitates participation. It is difficult to make community members imagine how a contribution model for objects is beneficial. People have shared the belief that keeping a membership fee or charge would make it work. This suggestion probably comes from the feeling of assumed ownership or vested interest which mostly happens after investing money in something. Although this was supposed to be a ‘need-based’ collection of objects,

Saanjha ended up being a ‘surplus-based’ collection of objects. This seems like a shortcoming of the contribution model to not be able to address the ‘need’ issue. Hence, a 96

procurement model on demand basis was also suggested. Some community members also said that they do not see this service as useful to them. They saw it as baseless social work and as not benefitting them. It has happened that people who were enthusiastic pre-service were not so happy when they saw the service. They said that was because of ‘seeing less objects than they expected’. This comes as a deficiency of the contribution model as objects are limited and fails to persuade people’s imagination in relation to sharing. Three children visited on the weekend and issued three objects, which were the first sangrahalaya checkouts.

Week 3- Children in the age group from six to twelve years of age have started coming to check out objects. They visit the sangrahalaya from 4-5:30pm almost every day and books and toys are the only checked out objects till now. 35 books have been contributed this week. It has been expressed by the resident that contribution still does not feel incentivised to the contributor.

Week 4- Children who showed up regularly were informed that as this was a research project, it would have to come to an end. They expressed their disappointment for the loss of their play equipment. Two girls offered to run Saanjha library during their summer vacations. A pair of skates became dysfunctional while in use by a borrower as one of its straps broke. These skates were already old and run down from use. The owners were notified. Fortunately they had donated the skates so did not care about it, but it raised more doubts about doing a contribution model for Saanjha. Another resident contributed 8 children’s books. The regular children users of Saanjha were still not happy with the

97

quality of books, nevertheless they sat in the sangrahalaya to browse through and read the books.

Analysis Saanjha Sangrahalaya- Inventory Sangrahalaya sections: Code 1: Kitchen Number of items: 06 Code 2: Books Number of items: 40 Code 3: Miscellaneous Number of items: 09 Code 4: Toys and Games Number of items: 05 Code 5: Mobility Aid Number of items: 03 Total number of Objects registered: 63 Number of houses which contributed: 06 Number of houses whose residents checked out: 08 Unreturned object: 01 (magazine; serial number 2.6) Maximum check outs on serial number: 4.2>4.5> 4.3 98

(For details of inventory, see table in Annexure Section 2)

99

100 Fig.49c Saanjha Sangrahalaya

101 Fig.50 Entrance: Saanjha Sangrahalaya

Fig.51a Sections of Saanjha Sangrahalaya: Mobility aid and Books

102

Fig.51b Sections of Saanjha Sangrahalaya: Toys and Games

103

Fig.51c Sections of Saanjha Sangrahalaya: Kitchen and Miscellaneous

104

Fig.52a Mobility aid: Saanjha Sangrahalaya

Service End Interviews 

What is this service, in your understanding?



Whom do you think this service benefits



How would you form or run this service?



What objects do you share in your community/neighbourhood?



Have you encountered similar sharing platforms in your hometown?

Fig.53 Emotional Response Scale

105

Number of residents interviewed at the end of service: 9 (Contributors, Borrowers and

Fig.52b Inside Saanjha Sangrahalaya

closest stakeholders) (See detailed interviews in Annexure Section 3)

106

107 Table 6 Post-service Interviews

Conclusion Saanjha Sangrahalaya The experiment began with the hypothesis that surplus objects and stored objects can open up as shared. A physical space was chosen to store the contributed objects so that they are available to everyone else. In hindsight, a physical space was not able to influence a community formation on the basis of „shared use‟ as there was no designated space for communication between contributors and borrowers. The experiment however was successful in persuading community members to look at their individual accumulation as a phenomenon of itself, and to open up their perspective towards sharing.

Children in the age group of six to twelve years were the largest group of borrowers at Saanjha sangrahalaya, which was an unexpected outcome. Games, toys and infant equipment came up maximum in the hoarded category during pre-experiment interviews as most people of this community had kept their old toys, sports equipment etc. After the experiment, none of the residents have asked for their play equipment back, which meant that they have donated it and do not find those objects valuable for them, which further confirms that the „unused, old play equipment‟ category of objects are plainly being hoarded. It was found through the Saanjha experiment that children are open to borrowing toys and games when there is ease of access.

A big part of contributors who were enthusiastic about the idea were young adults and middle aged residents (24 -35 years old). They expressed in their own words the usefulness of this service especially for senior citizens and children, and they were also 108

the maximum in number when it came to contributing objects. Hence it is safe to claim that through this experiment two viable groups of borrowers (children form sixtwelve years old) and contributors (aged young adults to middle aged) have emerged with whom further exercises of collaborative consumption could be planned in a similar setup. Objects such as kitchen equipment, maintenance tools and magazines were not borrowed. Although they came up in pre and post experiment interviews as commonly shared, but a service like this could not cater to the need of borrowing these objects. Time of functioning is an influential factor here, this experiment only ran for a month and the objects need to be in common knowledge so that they are accessed or borrowed when need arises. Saanjha sangrahalaya or a similar service should be established with credibility and through at least a time period of 6 months to one year so that it is common knowledge for people of a community to check for objects they need in the sangrahalaya before looking for it anywhere else.

Saanjha sangrahalaya was anticipated to function independently; without me or any other facilitator, given that security measures were in place. However, it was co-noted by me and the community members that community or facilitator ownership is vital for the productive functioning of this service. It is in the culture of this particular context to share with or pass on things to family, extended family and friends, relatives, maids and security staff of the colony, and in some cases neighbours. In this regard sharing form of collaborative consumption is already prevalent, as has come up in primary and secondary research. Saanjha sangrahalaya has effectively provided a platform for sharing these objects to more number of people than an individual could reach by themselves. This I think is one of the important contributions of a community level

109

sharing service- it allows for an individual to reach a bigger audience, which raises the number of items he/she can explore through access to more people, and enables him/her to reach someone in need of an object which he/she has, are not using, and donâ€&#x;t mind sharing.

110

Chapter 7 SwapShop (Barter Experiment) The Bartering of Accumulated subsection in Chapter 6 proposed a platform for exchanging objects and for valuing objects not just in economic terms but in all the other values which are associated with objects, values such as social, emotional, aesthetic etc. The idea of a barter space addresses the category of objects which were never or once valuable, meaningful, useful, gratifying etc. but in a way that at present the owner has lost any utility for it (on the basis of individual priority). Hence the owner either does not derive gratification from it anymore in one or more of the values defined in the previous chapters (economic, aesthetic, brand, functional, emotional, historical, social, cultural, symbolic etc.), or he/she simply would like someone else to take it. The concept is based on the idea of barter which is the exchange of physical or non-physical assets (non-physical assets such as services however could not be explored in depth). It particularly experimented with barter by exploring values beyond economic value and applying it in terms of exchange.

Moreover, barter provides the possibility of replacing a previously owned object and relationship with a new one, which ensures working around the „psychology of ownership‟ „self and objects‟ and „social life of things‟ (as explained in Chapter 1-3)

Fig.54 Naming the Experiment

111

Naming the experiment The name for this bartering experiment was ideated on the basis of two focus pointsexchange and a space. The name should be able to express a place which provides a possibility for exchange with the qualities of share. It also should express an open space denoting transparency like a bazaar. The two shortlisted names were „Barter Bazaar‟ and „SwapShop‟. After a quick search, it was found that „Barter Bazaar‟ was already a bartering company for businesses which were looking for exchanging excess inventory or services. Hence to avoid confusion on the virtual platforms, „Swap Shop‟ was chosen as the name for this experiment.

SwapShop v1.0 Location, Visuals and Guidelines of the activity The location chosen for this experiment was Ambedkar University, Delhi (AUD). Like other university spaces, AUD, to some extent, provides a socioeconomic diversity amongst its students, administrative, security and maintenance staff which came to be useful in the course of this experiment.

Swap Shop was organized in two versions with two and a half months interval between the versions. It was implemented in the form of an event in the same location, i.e., AUD. The first experiment was conducted on 23-24 November 2017.

The second experiment was conducted on the 5-6-7 February 2018.

I conducted few informal interviews. These interviews were done from the period of August-October 2017 and mostly recorded verbally and through note-taking. Some general comments have also influenced the driving questions for this prototype which

112

haven‟t been recorded as interviews, but have been condensed in the proposal given in Chapter 6. (For interviews see Annexure Section 4) Most of the interviews conducted happened during the prototype; participating in the experiment helped give the users a clearer idea of what this experiment was about and how the activity was being accepted. The research and theories from chapter 1-4 have been used as base for conceptualizing this experiment („value gratification‟, „objects and self‟).

This chapter documents the versions, iterations, observations,

object swapping and feedback from participants. It also contains the visual material and content developed for marketing, data of objects swapped and people who participated, and case studies which affirm or oppose the hypothesis I initially proposed.

Table 7 Prototype 1 Criteria ideation

113

Version 1- Swap Shop v1.0 The location chosen for the Swap Shop v1.0 was dictated by two factors: it should be accessible to all and it should be visible so there is a curiosity for the concept. An open space was also assumed to create a transparency which may facilitate sharing.

The criteria deciding the object organization within categories devised for the experiment was ideated as given in Table 6 and explained below. The organization criteria is essential to make sure that the swap guidelines work out efficiently and effortlessly, and also to reveal how this experiment looks at different kinds of objects in the realm of barter. Hence this facet was ideated upon to come to a conclusion which would be fair as well as clear to the participants. Eventually the ideation revealed four potential categories, which were not exactly implemented but they helped carve out the final guidelines and categorization.

1. Organization on the basis of object‟s Proximity to Individual. Flaw- excluding completely individual objects, proximity is subjective in terms of values 2. Segregation in terms of Economic value. Flaw- went against hypothesis 3. Categorical division for type and kind. Flaw- wouldn‟t facilitate swap, barter is need based and goes beyond kind and type 4. Tables divided on the basis of activity. Flaw- These activities can‟t be forced, design becomes complicated and unreachable.

The first version did not begin with any intentionally added objects, three empty tables were put up on the day of the event and people started participating with their objects.

114

Eventually for this version of the experiment, the guidelines came out to be a mix of the mentioned criterion of Economic Value and Kind of objects. In the later part of the chapter it would be explained why these guidelines were not the best for a barter exercise and in the second version of the experiment, the guidelines would be modified on the basis of feedback received. The visual material, content and invites are provided in the following pages.

Fig.55 Beginning of Experiment: 11 AM

115

116 Fig.56a SwapShop Poster 1

117

Fig.56b SwapShop Poster 2

Fig.57 SwapShop Guidelines

118

Email invite sent to students, faculty and admin staff of AUD. Dear fellow students, teachers and administrative staff This mail is to invite you all to an event scheduled in the Ambedkar University Kashmere Gate campus on the 23rd and 24th November 2017. SwapShop is an open platform for sharing objects in form of Barter and Swapping.

The procedure is simple, bring an object you aren't using anymore but believe that it still has functional, emotional and/or aesthetic value to it but not for you, and swap it with another person for their object in which you see value for yourself.

The idea comes from an interdisciplinary approach combining the disciplines of Economics, Psychology, Sustainability and Design. To understand the exercise, view it as an open platform to give away, share or take objects, but you may also take the opportunity to observe the connection with your own material possessions.

This initiative is in the form of an event; however the idea is to make these modes of sharing easily available in our culture, so that collaborative consumption activities such as these become a quality of our University and be useful for the people.

To access more information about the idea and get updates, like the page on Facebook through the following link https://www.facebook.com/swapshopAUD/ Please find attached the posters and guidelines for the activity, I hope as many of you can show up and find something new about yourself.

119

Fig.58 Hindi Mail

Fig.59 Revised Swap Guidelines

120

The Event: The experiment began around 11 am on the 23 of November 2017. The location chosen was outside the University Library which is on the main road of the university.

The focus group for this experiment was adept with virtual platforms. Hence for the purpose of spreading the word for the first experiment, I created an open page on Facebook which mentioned the event timing and where I shared related posts from secondary research for the project. Around 80 AUD students and staff reached the event though the Facebook page.

Fig.60 SwapShop v1.0

Total number of objects and average number of objects which were brought in for the experiment are given in Table 8 on the next page. (Detailed registration list as per the same serial numbers is attached in Annexure Section 6)

121

1111

Table 8: SwapShop v1.0 Data Summary

1111

122

123

Table 9 SwapShop v1.0 Selected Case Studies

Case Study 1:

Gave jewellery, books and clothes

Took clip hanger and exhibition catalogue

Fig 61: Case Study 1

124

Deepti, PhD Psychosocial clinical studies Deepti participated with a box full of jewellery, 3 pieces of clothing and 5 books.

Because she was one of the first few to participate she didn‟t have many options to swap. She came back later in the day and still felt that she “didn‟t need anything from the table.” When offered, she took 3 things- a collection of artwork for an exhibition of KG Subramanyan; a circular clip hanger; a seashell necklace.

What did you understand about this experiment?

SwapShop seems like a place to exchange commodities; it explores parallel form of getting new objects which is beyond monetary methods. It seems like a postcapitalistic model at a small scale.

How/whom does it help?

It could better interpersonal relationship. We‟re connected to market but we don‟t know the maker. For this event also we don‟t know the maker but sometimes previous owner brings residual emotions that we so miss with the lack of connection to maker.

Yet, I could not meet the previous owners of the objects I swapped but I wish that could‟ve happened. When we „buy‟ things, the relationship is almost always absent.

But hen swapping it comes from a subject to another subject and that forms a relationship.

How did you choose your objects to give away?

I chose the objects which weren‟t of use to me; I didn‟t feel like giving away for charity. I chose those things because I wanted someone to find value in them and then 125

use them. I give some of my unused things to friends, but often you don‟t know if friends would actually like it and use it. Sometimes gifts are just kept. And of course all these are factors contributing to our unsustainable culture of throwing away, which has led to resource threat and environmental hazards.

I don‟t like the concept of donation and charity. It brings it down to money, and money is itself a commodity, it feels to me that it doesn‟t question the status quo and maintains power equation. NGOs are part of maintaining the status quo.

Would you swap without an event like this?

It takes more than your immediate friend circle or a small group. I believe for something like SwapShop, I‟d like to do it from a community instead of a closed group. There are more options to choose from, and more people who may find value in objects I give.

How did you identify the value for objects you swapped?

It may seem like the value was unequal considering I gave many things and took only 3. But for me, I feel the value is fine. Because the things I gave away were the things that I wasn‟t using anyway. Some of those things might be valuable in an emotional way or purely from an accumulation way, but I chose to finally let go of them. So I can say that for me the objects I gave held a niche value.

Case Study 2 Rea, BA Psychology

126

Fig 62: Case Study 2

Rea gave 10 objects which comprised of a stationary gift set, a few books, Uno cards, Scarves etc. She didn‟t take anything; the only thing she needed was a diary, hoping she‟d find one at the event but couldn‟t. She chose to contribute and not swap.

Were you emotionally attached to any of the objects that you brought here? Is anything difficult to give away?

No, if it was difficult to give away I wouldn‟t have brought it here.

How did they end up with you?

A lot of them are gifts given by my sister; she likes going shopping and picks up things for me. I don‟t use them but keep nonetheless because of their emotional value. Plus some of the items are really expensive like this kangaroo stationary set, so I don‟t know what to do with them. Some things I buy just because they are sold at a cheap

127

price. Like these books I got for 30-50 bucks each. I don‟t have the time to read them; there are important academic books to read already. So they are just there.

If we exchange these objects which you feel are expensive for an object which has lesser economic value, are you going to be bothered about that?

No, I don‟t mind. I‟m not exchanging it keeping in mind the economic value of it. But the stationary set I had bought. So I think for that one you should consider the MRP.

Fig 63a SwapShop v1.0 curious participants approach

128

Knick-Knacks and Books

Artworks swapped for earrings

Registration Table

Fig 63b SwapShop v1.0

129

Fig 63c SwapShop v1.0: Participants

130

Fig 63d SwapShop v1.0: Object travels

131

Fig 63e SwapShop v1.0 Case studies

132

Fig 63f SwapShop v1.0

133

Fig 63g SwapShop v1.0

134

SwapShop v1.0: Analysis and problems SwapShop v1.0 was scheduled for two days. The location chosen for the experiment, i.e., the open space in front of the main library at AUD created a festival kind of a feel for the experiment, and led to building a general interest in people. As it was conducted in the centre of the University and was in an open space, it turned out to be accessible for most groups of people; participants ranged from students, administrative, cleaning and security staff, faculty and passer-byâ€&#x;s. Some problems that were faced during the implementation of SwapShop v1.0 are given below: o A number of objects for one object- Each swap came out to be unique; in some cases one object could be swapped for many and vice versa. In relation to forming guidelines, the rule of one object for one did not work as a general rule. How to decide fairness of swapping value objectively and make it a general rule to be easily followed without causing confusion? o Economic Value- Facilitator could not understand how to decide fairness of value being swapped, so resorted to making economic value as base category as it was the most accessible, universal way of judging an object. Because of lack of needs which are presented by two parties, economic value was automatically considered when swapping. This was not a fair rule as barter does not entirely depend on equality of two objectâ€&#x;s economic value. Barter is based on negotiation and coincidence of wants. o Numbers of Days were less- It was an unfortunate timing for conducting the experiment as the university was closing from the very next day onwards. Some

135

participants suggested that it should be for more number of days as they did not know about the event beforehand and hence could not get their things. o Experimentation with closed space/different location- In the conceptual phase, it was envisioned that the aim of SwapShop would be to become a permanently established and always accessible collection. Access would facilitate possibility of sharing and co-ownership activities taking place and permanence would enable rotation which would counter possibilities of individual accumulation due to not being able to discard objects and promote healthy ownership. For this purpose, an indoor space would have to be tested for behavioural changes during the experiment, in an attempt to make SwapShop a permanent and always changing collection in the University space.

Experiment version 2 SwapShop v2.0 was done differently than the first version. The problems were ideated upon and tweaked in this version. SwapShop v2.0 objective were: o Instigating an individualâ€&#x;s imagination to view objects and their relationships with them o Collect varied data on how people value objects o Trying detachment from the objects first, making new attachments is secondary o Behavioural differences towards sharing when conducted indoors o Space and Object arrangement and how it influences Swap Guidelines The hypotheses decided for the second version of the experiment are as follows: 136



Seeing vs. Not seeing. If all objects are not present right in front, how does it impact swapping number, behaviour, conversations? Objects in an indoor space would aid in creating an introspective gap, people choosing objects to give away before choosing objects they want.



Categorical Division. Should swapping be based on any kind of categorieseconomic or kind etc.? Is it important for SwapShop as a service to decide fairness of value?



Space. Has open space played a role in the behaviour in the first prototype?

How different would this be in different space?

Fot the first version of the experiment, I took help from friends for photography, registration and table facilitation. The timing of the first version co-incided with semester end because of which many people at the university had free time as there

Table 10 SwapShop v2.0 Volunteers

137

were less classes. For the second version I had to hire volunteers for the same purposes.

To explore spaces and behaviour for this experiment, I ideated upon choosing three locations which were: Open space, Semi-open space and a closed space. The analysis is given in Table 10. Open space had been explored in the first version of the experiment. The second experiment was decided to be done in a closed space. This was the Workshop no. 3 at AUD. The new object organization criteria were devised within three categories: KnickKnacks, Everything else, Arbitrary. The general rule was object for object, value for value; economic value was not considered till there was a huge gap between the given and the swapped objects.

Table 11 SwapShop v2.0 Spaces Ideation

138

Fig.64 SwapShop v2.0 Space finalized; - (Top) Closed space Workshop 3, AUD; (Bottom) Iterations with interior setup

139

Fig.65 SwapShop v2.0 Space Ideation; Open space Dara

Fig.66 SwapShop v2.0 Space Ideation; Semi-Open

140

Fig.67 SwapShop v2.0 Object Categorization

141

The posters, email invite and guidelines for SwapShop v2.0 are given below: Dear fellow students, teachers and staff This mail is to invite you all to an event scheduled in the Ambedkar University Kashmere Gate campus from the 5th-9th February 2018. SwapShop is an open platform for sharing objects in the form of barter and swapping.

The procedure is simple, bring an object you aren't using anymore but believe that it still has functional, emotional and/or aesthetic value to it but not for you, and swap it with another person for their object in which you see value for yourself.

The idea is born out of an interdisciplinary approach to understand what our relationship with objects is and how we understand value through the exercise of barter trade and share. To understand the event, view it as an open platform to share any object that you would like to exchange with your peers (refer to guidelines), but you may also take the opportunity to observe the relationship between you and your material possessions.

This initiative is in the form of an event; however the idea is to make these modes of sharing easily available, so that object transition and collaborative consumption becomes a mainstream activity and a basis for conversation at least in the space of our University.

For more information about the idea and to receive updates, access the page on Facebook via the following link https://www.facebook.com/swapshopAUD/ The event link and details are given below https://www.facebook.com/events/529922607386320/ Venue- WS3, workshop corridor, Kashmere Gate campus Date- 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th February, 2018 142

Timings- 11am-5pm

Fig.68a SwapShop v2.0 Poster 1

Please find attached the posters and guidelines

143

Fig.68c SwapShop v2.0

Fig.68b SwapShop v2.0 Poster 2

144

145

Fig.68e SwapShop v2.0 Poster 3

SwapShop v2.0 was implemented on the 5th, 6th and 7th February 2018. The chosen closed space for this prototype was Workshop 3 (Fig. 64, pg. 136). This location is neither in the centre of the university, nor accessed by many. Hence a lot of effort was put in trying to spread the word and directions for the venue. The tables in the workshop were arranged in a linear fashion for easy walkway and giving space for groups to have discussions, a banner was hung and a board with a sign was put up outside the workshop also to help guide people. The arrow markings were glued on the floor across university, which turned out to be a better marketing tool than posters as the abnormality of a progression stuck on the floor was eye catching.

146

147 Fig.69 SwapShop v2.0

148

Fig.70 Participants with Volunteers

Personal reflections/Log 5th February 2018 The first day brought up some issues, major being: o Inside location vs. previous outside location o Swap guidelines- categorical division, quality for quality, value for value o Decreased footfall Inside vs. Outside location SwapShop v1.0 was conducted out in the open, in the middle of the campus, to increase curiosity and make it easily approachable to the maximum number of people. This resulted in a higher footfall and more number of swaps. But it also resulted in a factor that was not previously considered- wanting new objects. This meant that people were naturally rummaging through available objects to just possess new objects from the table which led to them giving anything they currently possessed to acquire the new object. This insight was strong for 1 in every 3 people who came in, because of which v2.0 was iterated upon as a prototype and was differently conducted in terms of the location. V2.0 did not see as much footfall or numbers of swaps as v1.0, but the swaps this time have been thought out, people have done the exercise of introspecting and analysing their material belonging before coming to put them on the table. The numbers of people who did the exercise beforehand were 1 in every 3 this time. Earlier it was 1 in 5.

149

However the cons of doing it inside is that there is not much footfall, which meant that comparatively the news of this version didnâ€&#x;t spread like fire on the 1st day. Problems also came up with the logistics of the space itself; inside light is gloomy and not too welcoming. Iâ€&#x;m going to wait for 1 more day, considering that it was just the first day, and then shift the prototype outdoors to test the relevance.

Swap guidelines The categorical division was decided to be broadly two categories- knick knacks and everything else. Knick Knacks had items which were small and possibly less than 50 bucks or are perishable or of fragile quality. Bigger items include books, clothes, accessories, crockery and miscellaneous. But because each swap is unique in terms of what the party is getting to the table and what they want in swap, the guidelines often have to be tweaked, for e.g., Knick knacks can only be swapped for knick knacks, but an expensive book could be swapped for clothing, or clothing could be exchanged for cutlery. Because of non-uniformity in guidelines, people are turning back with their items. The final decision considered by volunteers and facilitator is that the only two categories of objects would be knickknacks and all other objects, beyond which the terms are left to subjective and objective on the spot judgement.

People tried to give broken, old, dirty and non-functional objects for swapping with expensive objects. People have asked if they could bring objects like socks, manifestos, pamphlets and NGO visual communication materials etc. Now it feels a line has to be drawn, a limit to what we consider functional given the user group.

Objects like underwear, socks, make-up are not generally considered to be shared.

150

Even though it is actively swapped, I might have to remove make-up from the table tomorrow onwards.

Fig.71a SwapShop v2.0 Participants

Decreased footfall People are not as enthusiastic this time and that could be because of several reasons.

The indoor space chosen is in a hidden corridor and unapproachable to the maximum audience. People donâ€&#x;t want to put effort into going all the way that side.

The space itself seems dingy because of lack of good lighting. Another reason is that v1.0 happened just two and a half months back, because of which, as people have claimed, they cleaned just now and donâ€&#x;t have anything else left to give away.

SwapShop has been realized as best functioning as an annual sort of activity and seems that it would be useful only if done after appropriate intervals.

151

6th February 2018 The footfall has not increased, although the numbers of swaps have proportionally increased during this prototype. This meant that amongst the people coming in, maximum came with a clear idea that it is a swapping spot and they had gone through the exercise of identifying objects they don‟t need for objects they would want.

The unforeseen factor before influencing this behaviour was value judgement. It could not have been seen that for introspective value judgement to happen, the possibility of new objects had to be visible. Although this meant in some cases that the greed factor is coming in which is counterproductive for the hypothesis of the prototype, but it also meant that people really valued objects kept on the table, and valuing is being done both for their own objects and for new objects. That ensured fairness in the swapping of value as well. Doing the exercise himself, Dhruv Saxena, a volunteer for SwapShop v2.0 reported what he felt when he went in to swap- “The first thing I thought was what do I have with me that is least valuable. First I thought economically, then functionally. I wanted to hit the „best deal‟ that I could manage. The best deal would be giving the least valued item and receive the most valued item. My process did not accommodate valuing an object for itself at all neither did I „feel‟ the fact that someone has given it. The only thing I thought was it is a shop.” In terms of indoor space dynamics, it could not have been predicted that the event would become like a traditional shop which would bring out capitalistic behaviours relating to value judgement (capitalistic being defined as wanting more profit out of profit, exponential increase). The indoor space seemed to have affected behaviour in this way that value exchange beyond economical isn't happening.

152

7th February 2018 Bringing the event outdoors, the footfall has gone up from 70 to 280 in a single day, the proportion of swaps has decreased, but the numbers of swaps have increased. It is observed that the quality of objects (quality being defined as an object‟s condition, make and relevance for the target group) has increased. When participants asked the question „What do I have to give to swap for this particular object‟ the best answer that the team arrived at was: give anything of similar value, if you think it is pretty give something pretty, if you think it is useful give something useful. Come to think of it, that was the essence of historical large scale barter; utility.

The last day saw a small unforeseen tweak in terms of the expected user group; two children who were in the University premises saw the event being held and wanted to participate. Their enthusiasm and understanding towards guidelines was a surprise to all facilitators, the conversation is documented as a case study later in the chapter.

The prototype ended before the scheduled 5 days. It was implemented for 3 days due to several reasons such as repetition of data and learning and completion of the testing of the major hypothesis.

The conflicts arising from participants related to getting value for their objects substantially decreased as it once again became a social activity. People judged the new object first and then brought forward their object, which ensured fairness. As a facilitator, seeing how people were judging their object considering if they want the new object in front of them reminded me of a statement made by Ilse Crawford in the episode 08 from Abstract series, “Humans understand materials the best through

153

contrast. That is how we are wired. The most natural form of categorization comes based on type: make, origin, material. But the category most workable is based on interconnections.” It made sense why keeping object in visibility while the introspective exercise goes on is important. The hypothesis of seeing vs. not seeing had been proven. Lust/Greed under constraints was considered problematic to prove hypothesis, but now it appears to be a part of the whole exercise.

After the second day indoors, it was decided to move the experiment outdoors. A poll was taken during the event for which location they preferred- indoors or outdoors.

Many participants from the previous event and a few volunteers voted for outside as a preferred location. When asked for the reason, maximum people expressed that they felt outdoor to be livelier, and the quality of objects were better outdoors. It was noted that some objects did get better- like books and jewellery. Otherwise the same objects which were inside, when they were kept outdoors elicited a difference response from the people due to the festive atmosphere. Although indoors had a higher proportion of swaps considering the footfall, outdoor had a higher footfall.

SwapShop v2.0; Case studies and analysis “But my necklace is heavy” A participant had a debate with the facilitators about her necklace being heavier and of better quality than the rest of the jewellery. She did not want it to be placed in the knickknacks table, and she wanted better stuff in exchange of the necklace.

154

Fig.71b SwapShop v2.0 Participants registering

155

This kind of understanding of valuing objects presents a new found complication related to fairness of value. In the first prototype, a girl had given a Vero Moda cardigan and said that we should be careful about whom we give it to and in exchange of what, as it was an expensive thing. Nonetheless, the cardigan was considered without exemption of rules and as a single object in clothing. Coming back to the participant in prototype 2, she was adamant that she should be able to get more stuff in exchange of the necklace even when she was told about Vero Moda cardigan episode.

The question left unanswered here is: can swapping be based on economic value at all? If not, how does satisfaction get affected?

A conclusion was reached after talking to the participants. The space of SwapShop is also seen as a parallel way of acquiring objects; and that means that the value judgement norms would naturally be tweaked for each case. It is quite difficult to separate an object from its own commoditized part, and we are so used to thinking of objects in terms of money that any other way does not seem legit/fair/apt. “This lighter can be refilled�

A participant brought a lighter without fuel in it, though the equipment seemed to be working appropriately. When it was shared that the only criteria for object acceptance is that it should be working properly, he blasted the facilitator saying that you can get it refuelled for Rs 5 from outside the University.

156

This was a very apt question. In terms of partial dysfunctionality, the facilitators had to decline a number of objects, reasons being: zippers/buttons broken, dirty/unwashed objects, objects that need refilling, etc. This rule is not subject friendly as the service denies the right to users to choose for themselves- maybe they‟d like to get pants even if they have to fix its zipper, or maybe they want the wallet and do not mind washing it on their own. But to make sure that certain rules are generally followed for quality control, such decisions had to be taken.

“I would like to swap my dirty socks for this book” Participant did not have anything to swap but wanted a book. He felt that a pair of socks is equally valuable so he wanted to swap it for a book. Agreeing with him, the facilitators asked to check the socks for quality check. The participant hesitated. When he showed the pair of socks, it was observed that they looked extremely dirty and recently used. When asked if they were washed, the participant said he‟ll get them tomorrow after washing. The participant did not come the next day. Similar to this case, in the first version, a girl insisted on getting an earring for an almost finished tube of lip balm. It has been repeatedly observed that sometimes when people don‟t consider that someone else will take and use their object, they end up working towards getting the „best deal‟. When people give objects fully acknowledging that someone else would use their object, then the results are more thoughtful and reckless discard is avoided.

157

Adi and Aditi (8 and 12 years respectively) As the last day of the prototype was held outside, two kids who were passing by happened to see the event being held, chose the objects they wanted and asked for the price.

When the concept and guidelines were explained to them, they were extremely excited and decided to barter whatever objects they could find with them at the time. They were

specifically

happy

about

having an option to barter their Fig.72 Adi and Aditi

artworks. When they got many

artworks, they were explained that their artworks would be considered as one because it is from the same artist and because the table cannot accommodate too many artworks. To this Adi, 12, was heard explaining to his younger sister Aditi, 8, “Or else everyone would start giving artworks Aditi, it is fine weâ€&#x;ll give all this as oneâ€?. The swiftness with which he understood fairness and quality which the guidelines tried to accommodate was quicker than the current user group. After a quick read on sharing with children, it was found that children under the age of 6 naturally barter as the most common method of acquiring in day-to-day life, and sharing is more acceptable in children under the age of 12.

158

“We can do this within ourselves also�

An employee from the History department, Tanuj spoke about how he and his friends were waiting for the last day of the event to come and swap, and because SwapShop ended earlier than declared they were quite disappointed. As they were discussing this, they realized that they could do this on their own as an intra-department or inter departmental activity. SwapShop began with a vision of making barter activities mainstream in the University, and having a conversation like this reflected that the user group feels it to be possible.

Fig.73 Event shifted outdoors

159

40

65

250

Table 12: SwapShop v2.0 Data Summary

160

Conclusion SwapShop was primarily a platform to barter exchange/donate belongings which were not useful for one individual. It was envisioned as an activity which could help in de- cluttering of accumulated possessions, but more importantly, it was used as a platform for exchange of hidden values- values which do not have a space and which get constrained in the current economic system; or values which are without any hesitation attached with objects but often causes accumulation. It also tried to help an individual reaching a person who can realize a value in an object they have, whom the individual by himself/herself often cannot find.

In the versions conducted, SwapShop seems to have opened up a platform for a need based, contemporary form of gifting as well. Many of the participants in SwapShop wanted to know who takes their objects and liked having conversations with the new owners to know what value they found in their old objects. Yet, SwapShop was not as much of gift based as barter based as it worked on the guidelines of quality for quality, value for value. On the part of facilitators, it was observed that the division of categories of objects for swap guidelines did not prove to be self-sufficient for judging a swap. The individual demands/needs of participants, number of items swapped, quality of an object and many other factors culminated in each swap being unique.

The facilitators were required to often judge on the spot if an object can be swapped.

This led to a diluted, flexible set of rules and guidelines for swapping, which often worked for participants but some participants were left with a feeling of discontentwhen they felt an unfair value for value deal. This way of decision making in the service can be seen as a flaw, as this judgement is not need based but inherent value 161

based. SwapShop began with accepting all objects as long as they were functional.

Initially, books and jewellery constituted the maximum of given and swapped items. By the end of the second version of the experiment, all kinds of objects had passed through the tables, namely- crockery, clothes, accessories, artworks, poetry, photographs, memorabilia, cleaning and maintenance equipment etc. However when users started bringing manifestos, NGO brochures and other marketing material, CDs and DVDs, it was noted that certain objects have limited value (for e.g. CDs being out-dated technology, and NGO brochures and pamphlets carrying very limited informational value). A service like SwapShop in which all functional objects are considered acceptable, it was remarked by the volunteer facilitators how certain objects need to be refused or given separate category on the grounds of limited value.

Critically viewing this aspect reveals that SwapShop itself at points behaved like a market where value and demand were considered, if not solely considered. Three children (ages six-eleven years old) participated in SwapShop version 2.0 while it was being held during their visit to AUD. They clearly understood the guidelines, were enthusiastic about the prospect of an event like this being held in their school. After this conversation, a quick research revealed that children from the age of three years start negotiating their wants for what resources they have. (Schiller, 2014) In this way, it can be said that barter behaviour in humans is as innate a tendency as accumulation itself.

SwapShop as a permanent addition to a university space should deally occur at a biannual or annual basis. Anytime less than that is not conducive to act at the individual accumulation stage.

162

Conclusion

This thesis project tried to build a holistic understanding of contemporary material culture and accumulation of possessions. It raised questions about what and how we own, assign values and decide to accumulate objects. Subsequently, it went on to define objects through various disciplinary points of views and categorized objects into „Objects, Things and Stuff‟ on the basis of the fluid value aggregate (the everchanging values associated with an object by an individual, and not a pre-disposition of the object). It further explored accumulation along with anti-accumulation (methods of de-cluttering and giving away) and non-accumulation (non-possession due to constraints or individual philosophy) by documenting forms of sharing, co-ownership, recycling, up-cycling, renting and gifting in the chosen cultural context. These forms of collaborative consumption were divided on the levels of „Individual‟, „Family/Group‟, „Community‟ and „City‟ and correlated instances were documented and explored.

The second part of this thesis project engaged with conducting experiments around collaborative consumption implemented in two locations- a gated colony and a university space. These experiments concentrated on an object‟s „shared‟ and „exchange‟ values. The first experiment, Saanjha sangrahalaya was about sharing individually owned objects through a contribution-based model of Library of Things, in a physical space inside the chosen gated colony. It was a community-level objectsharing service which attempted to co-design a collaborative consumption activity. The 163

experiment was successful in persuading community members to look at their individual accumulation as a phenomenon, and to try to open up surplus or unrequired objects for sharing amongst community members. Most community members who engaged with the service agreed with hypothesis that they do retain objects beyond their use and consider them hoarded. In this experiment, a group of six to twelve year old children came out to be the main of borrowers/users of service.

It can be deduced that children under the age of twelve would be the most receptive group in collaborative consumption activities. The second experiment, SwapShop, explored the barter form of material exchange. It was envisioned as an activity which could help in de-cluttering or exchange of accumulated possessions, but more importantly, it was used as a platform for exchange of hidden values: - values which do not have a space and which get constrained in the current economic system, or values which are without any hesitation attached with objects but often becomes the reason for accumulation. It was also used by the participants as a contemporary form of need based gifting. The experiment was done in a University space.

This project around material possessions focussed on collaborative consumption, which is seen as the base on which circular economy can be built. The industrial and production model is traditionally linear and based on unsustainable schemes like planned and absolute obsolescence along with propagating a throw-away culture, hence there needs to be both behaviour oriented and system based models of collaborative consumption which includes thinking about each and every product and service from a circular angle. Hence, both practice and policy level changes are required. The bigger probe into accumulation could lead to many possible branches

164

which I could not deeply explore during the course of the thesis. One main possibility which I was drawn to the most was introspection or an information based project on material belongings which reveals the hidden costs of possessions- environmental, social, emotional and spatial. Another possible branch of this topic is exploring ways of „organized accumulation‟ and „anti-accumulation‟ living. Organized accumulation refers to collectors and anti-accumulation living is about lifestyles which choose, or without choosing, live with the least accumulated possessions.

The process of detachment from material possessions revealed itself to be so strong

Fig.74 Future possibilities

165

that each possessed object is coupled with the owner in a way that the detachment is no less than an atomic fission. They are seen as „elements of outside‟, but are a part of us more than we realize. Objects on one hand fall in the realm of owned, accumulated, utilized, and on the other hand fall in the realm of forgotten, lost, hoarded, and thrown. Even when accumulated possessions are described as often becoming a source of annoyance, it became clear, as expressed in subheading Objects and Self of Chapter 2 of this thesis, that objects are definitely required considering that our self is not enough to express the vastness of ourselves. The experimentation with collaborative consumption by exploring two of its forms i.e. barter and sharing have revealed that there is a lack of space on a bigger scale in the current context for considering and conversing about objects while allowing for the variety of values associated with these objects (and not only financial value). It was also made clear in the exercises of both barter as well as sharing, that children under the age of 12 are an excellent user group to begin collaborative consumption activities.

The

future

of

collaborative

consumption

does

not

only

encourage

more

environmentally sustainable practices, but also provides base for healthy social and emotional relationships with objects. Ideating on the futures of collaborative consumption, there is no one final outcome as there are many possibilities. However in the most probable (dystopian) future, there is extremely high possibility of the „Internet of Things‟ developing and encapsulating all domestic objects. Technology would extract sharing from the realm of a social or altruistic activity, and make sharing inherent within objects. A blender would travel and be picked up as and when

166

required, and wouldnâ€&#x;t have to be retained post utility in households. The most probable future not only predicts less attachment with belongings, but also with sharing. More or less, it would be the foundation for creating systems which optimally utilize a resource but at the same time, it would also be building a very different relationship between humans and objects.

167

Annexure Section 1 Saanjha- vastu sangrahalaya Pre-experiment Interviews Interview 1: Kumars, J-831 A couple in their 50s, husband is a Central Government employee and wife is a homemaker. They live with their 3 children in the age group of 20-26 years. They have been a resident of the colony for 5 years. Their hometown is in Dehradun, Uttrakhand.

“We have objects that we are not using but storing it because of some reason or the other. For example, many old clothes and shoes which we are not using but don‟t know whom to give as they are too valuable and totally functional so we don‟t want to donate or exchange them with the bartan waali; functioning but old model fridge and washing machine; expensive books bought for study curriculum of our children, junk jewellery our daughter keeps buying, a small table which is kept in the garage that we don‟t use. But I do not know what you‟ll do with these things. In our village till last year when we went there people still collected cots and mattresses from each house to make resting space for the baraat when there is a wedding in any house. In the cities people have a big stigma related to using someone else‟s objects forget sharing.

Why do you think renting portals which give furniture, clothes, equipment etc. work?

I don‟t know, maybe because they take money and that‟s an assurance. People think if anyone is giving anything away it must be dysfunctional. We have tried to give 168

people things like tables, clothes etc. but no one is interested. I think it is because everyone can afford to buy, so why would anyone like to use anything old or second hand?

So if we show objects that look new, then do you think people would be interested in sharing?

It‟s not about the wear and tear, or number of times of use of an object, but about the fact that it is owned by someone else. We have given a lot of fully functional objects to the kabaadi wala just because we had to get rid of things. In village it is very common place to use second hand. We all have had hand me downs in clothes, books etc. But in cities it is difficult. People are attached to their objects.”

Interview 2: Ms. Prabha Gautam, J-728 She is a single mother of 2 boys within the age group of 18-25 years. Her husband died 10 years ago. She is a central government employee aged 50 years and has been a resident of the colony for more than 11 years. She is originally from Noida, U.P. “I have things in the house which I don‟t use but are functional. There are old books of my children. I also have a table fan which needs some repair otherwise it works fine. I was meant to give it to my brother but he lives far so never got a chance to transport it. Now it has been in the garage for more than 2 years and got broken just sitting there. I have a hawan kund which I use to do my pujas, but it is not useful for me on an everyday basis so I don‟t mind other residents using it as long as I can get it

169

as and when required. I have some sports equipment like skates and badminton rackets of my children which they don‟t use anymore and don‟t care about so can be contributed. My son is going for a job interview tomorrow and needs a new set of formal clothes. I don‟t want to buy completely new clothes for this purpose. I wish it was easier to rent these things from a neighbour as he only needs a blazer and pants for one interview and buying it does not make sense. I‟m very involved in religious rituals and like to read books related to philosophy and religion so it‟ll be good if I can get something like that from your Library. I‟d like to borrow an idli maker from the Library as well. I think this service makes a lot of sense working around neighbours.”

Interview 3: Mr Ankur and Mrs Neha Sharma, J-829 A young couple 30 years of age, they have a 4 year old son. Ankur has been a resident of the colony since 1999, whereas Neha shifted in after her marriage 6 years ago. Both are working professionals, Ankur is a Central Government employee and Neha has a private job at a nursing college. They both hail from Palampur, Himachal Pradesh “Our family believes in donation a lot; hence we don‟t have much unused objects lying around the house. In terms of a formal service like this which tries to make sharing easy, I think what we can contribute is a wheelchair of my grandmother. She passed away around 2 years back. We bought that wheelchair for her specifically but it was only used a few times. After her death we couldn‟t find time to give it away. I have wanted to donate it in a hospital anyway, if you think it might be useful for the

170

colony then I don‟t mind. We also have our child‟s old pram and walker. Both of these things were used for a very brief time period for our son as he learned to walk fairly soon. I don‟t know though if people would actually use objects from your Library. We live in a time and in a place where we all can buy and no one wants to use someone else‟s belongings. There might be some people who have a problem with who uses their objects. For example I would be interested to see if someone is donating kitchen equipment and if the watchman of the colony wants to use it for his home then how the colony people would react. But it is a good step considering that we should think about this. Plus through this service I can get in touch with someone who actually needs my wheelchair considering that you can reach a larger number of people than I individually can. There would be nothing better than that because even in donation I don‟t know where it will go.”

Short Interviews (conducted pre and during service): Mr Mahesh Kumar; 30 years; Gardener, J-block.

“I feel that this service would not work here as this is a posh colony. People share only when they need something, mostly because they can‟t buy it. If you receive any bicycle please let me know. I‟d like to issue it from here. It gets difficult to come from home every day. If it breaks in my use I‟ll get it repaired also considering that you are not taking any money to use this service” When another person asked him what this service is about, this interviewee went ahead and explained to him in detail with examples of how everyone can benefit from a service like this.

171

Mr Jitendra and Mrs Seema Rawat; 40-50 years; Resident, J-block.

“Our son was always participating in sports events during his school years. We had to buy a lot of equipment for him like tennis racket, boxing kit, roller skates etc. He doesn‟t use it now but they are too valuable to be given to a kabadi wala, so they are all just kept. We would like to contribute by giving these things. We have many books as well. Nevertheless, it is difficult to make a service like this work here as people don‟t really like parting with their things. Plus if the objects break then how would you figure out how to get them fixed and who pays for it. The RWA should collect funds for this service. Who will take ownership of the place after your research is done? You should ask one of these uncles they mostly sit in the park and drink and gamble and can use their time better. I think a lot of books will be contributed; you should make a reading space in the cabin as well. Eventually if everyone donates objects I‟m sure this porta-cabin would not be enough to hold objects because everyone has a lot of things which can be given here. Maybe you can work around making a list of objects which remains with the owners but people can contact them for it.”

Mr. K. Chenthimara, 50+ years, Resident, J-555 “I didn‟t really understand the concept from your posters because they were mostly in Hindi and I‟m not fluent with that language. But now you explained and I understand.

I like the idea because a lot of things are actually not useful to us but I don‟t know who needs it. Here at least I‟m sure someone else can make use of it. My daughter is away studying engineering. She writes poetry. I‟d like to give poetry written by her

172

over here. She would get a place to share it and if someone would like to read it that will be good for her. ” Mrs. Shobha, 40-50 years, Resident, J-666 “I‟m from Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. In my village there is a committee of this kind which is based on sharing. They buy objects with money collected by the community which are stored and then lent out to members of the community. It works there; I don‟t think it will work here. People wouldn‟t want to give away their objects. It seems like there is no benefit for them to give away objects. Plus no one is good friends here; in the village communities are close-knit. Trust is a big factor. My son while studying for IIT exams bought a few engineering books that are just eating dirt in the garage, maybe I can contribute those. I think you should keep big kadhai, kadhchi etc. those are the things people need very rarely but have to pay so much to get them.”

Mrs. Vijaylakshmi; 40-50 years; Resident, J-680 “Everyone in the colony knows me; from children to old people. I‟m very talkative. I got these pamphlets of yours. Is it some sort of advertisement for these objects in this logo? So these objects have been given by residents... but you didn‟t get too many objects. Why? People must have not understood your service. But I don‟t need to borrow anything from here, I have everything. I‟d like to issue this magazine Grehshobha, reminds me of my youth when I used to read them. I don‟t buy them anymore as I don‟t like to read much now. But I‟ll issue this now.”

Yash, 11 years, Resident, J-760

173

“I don‟t have skates because I don‟t know how to use them. In my school they taught us, but I couldn‟t learn that time. I love that you have skates here; I can take it for as many days and practice. I also like the Sachin Tendulkar book as I am a cricket fan.

You should also have football and studs, badminton net etc. I think first thing you should keep here is electricity, it‟s so dark here and in the summers it‟ll be difficult to even sit. I have speakers at home that I don‟t use, but they are broken. You can‟t use it right? I also have my old bicycle which works fine.”

Kanishk, 10 years, Resident “I like the books here. I‟d like to borrow the Sachin biography. I don‟t have any ID I‟ll ask my mom dad and come back? Mom Dad said we can‟t give ID” Since then the rule was revoked as it was a hindrance for the user in the service at this point.

Riya, 13 years, Resident “I think there should be more books for us, like Enid Blyton, Sylvia Plath, and Shakespeare etc. We are reading about these authors. And there should be more board games and toys”

Sections 2 Saanjha vastu sangrahalaya Experiment-Inventory data

174

Table 5 Saanjha Sangralaya Inventory

175

Section 3 Post-Experiment Interviews Interview 1 Ms. Prabha Gautam, J-728 Prabha (50) is a single mother (widow) of 2 boys of age 18 and 26

years.

She

is

a

central

government employee and has been a resident of the colony for more than 15 years. She is originally from Noida, U.P. She contributed a hawan kund (vessel used for making fire for religious rites) and a pair of skates for the Library. “I understand that this service was about things we are not using, and can be usable for other people. I liked the idea. It would benefit all members of a community, like residents of a colony. If I would have done it here, I wouldnâ€&#x;t have used virtual mediums as not everyone here comfortable with that. I would have gone to each household and asked people to donate objects. I thought the sports and games section and the mobility aid section was the most useful. Books section is also very useful. I would give a bigger number of objects for this section if I run this service. I have never seen a community sharing service before, but informally I had asked for a tiffin box to take food for my relatives at the hospital, one of whom was admitted there.â€?

176

Interview 2 Sunayana Bhardwaj, 23, resident J-908.

She is working professional, pursuing her Master‟s in English Literature from IGNOU. She lives with her sisters, the elder one being the

Central

Government

Employee.

Her

interests lie in dance and beautician services.

She contributed novels and story books.

“I got to know about this service pretty late. I understood it as a service to give away our things which we are not using. I donated old children‟s books which I used to read as a child. Initially I wasn‟t comfortable with giving the books, I felt my connection with those books as a part of my childhood and I felt protective. But I brought myself to give them away as I felt they are anyway just kept at my house, and as you said I‟ll get them back. After getting the books back I realized I was getting paranoid just like that; now the books don‟t hold that sense of „mine‟ for me. I‟m not threatened to share them. So it was a good exercise in that way. I liked that the children who came to your Library liked reading my books; otherwise I wouldn‟t have been able to reach them. I have never seen a sharing service like this, nor do I share with neighbours. I also like the toy and games section, wish I would have had it when I was younger.”

177

Interview 3 Mayank Pal, 31, gardener, CPWD employee He has been working in J-block parks since 6 years. He hails from UP. “This service is a saanjha (shared collection) of objects which can be used by everyone. If I don‟t have something and there is a need for it, I can simply come here and issue it, I wouldn‟t have to buy it or look for it somewhere else. If I do it, I‟d do word of mouth marketing; tell the locals of the community about this. I would make a small separate section for children and their things like toys etc. I saw kids used to come here every day for your library. If I run it, I would keep garden equipment like garden scissors, dhatal, khurpi, fafda, kallar. These things are not there with everyone. Having said this, it didn‟t work in the J-block colony for the reason that it is a posh colony; and when people can buy they don‟t want to share. If you would have done it in a colony near west Delhi, or locations like Seelampur this would have worked very well. People over there look for ways to reduce expenditure. I could also make a model where objects are procured from the rich because they would have many things in abundance, and given to the Library of the poor.”

178

Interview 4 Rajveer

Singh,

54,

Supervisor

gardener, CPWD employee since 22 years.

“I

understand your service as

getting unused things back to use, and re-establishing that cycle. In my home with neighbours we share portable ladder, kallar, sarota, kadalu koes, big utensils like kadhai, kadhchi which are not there in everyone‟s homes, and other kitchen equipment. Saanjha means to share and use. But if people don‟t use then the service is a waste. I didn‟t see many people come here. I myself haven‟t seen this before today so I don‟t know, but some people told me a pagal (mad) girl comes every day to open this cabin, things are kept here. I‟m just telling you what people say. You should have done this in colonies in locations like Shahdara. This service would work there, because there should be people who are willing to contribute but also people who are willing to take and use objects from such a service. This colony is very rich for this service to work.”

179

Interview 5 Jahnvi (left) and Isha (right) are 11 years

old,

both

classmates

at

Dayanand Model School and both are residents of J-block. Since the second week of functioning, they came to the Library every day when it was open as it coincided with their play time at the park. They issued objects under the toys and games section.

Jahnvi- “I understood from this that we can use other people‟s things through this.

And we can give our things here. And things which we do not use often can come in better use if given here. I think poor people are the ones who would benefit from this service and they would also spread the word of doing something like this in other places. I think the model should be that you should take objects from the rich people for this library so that poor could use these objects. But some objects like books, wheelchair and games would be useful for all classes. I would have done this service indoors but a little table outdoors for people to know what this is. I would keep books, toys and old baby clothes here. I do not like sharing my things.”

180

Interview 6 Isha (right side in the picture above) “I think of this as a Library where we keep our old things, and people who do not have these things can use them. Then people would not have to buy things they are not going to use just after a few days and because of which it is going to go to waste. The people who would benefit from this service are those who need an object for a short duration of time, these people would not have to spend their money. If I would have run this service, I would have put many more pamphlets because residents still do not know that you did this service. I would have also kept objects like battery bank, stencils and other stationary. I would also like to keep old board games and other sports equipment. I do not borrow much from my friends, but I remember I recently borrowed painting brushes from my friend Jahnvi.�

181

Interview 7

Riya is 12 years old, a resident of J-block, studying in Convent of Jesus and Mary. She checked out books and skipping rope.

“This service is about donating and using things. If one donates something, I can take it and use it. It is very need based in that way. For example when we are studying, sometimes we need a guide which is an answer key to all the questions in the book to tally our answers. But we don‟t all have to buy it as it is not used on a daily basis. So we can borrow it from this Library. If I‟d run this Library, I would keep important things like water storage utensils, because sometimes you need to store extra water, drill machine is also important but you already have it in here. I‟ll also keep medical emergency related equipment and storybooks. In school I share the food in my tiffin box, water bottle, and stationary. I also share clothes but only with my siblings.”

182

Interview 8 Ankur

Sharma

government

is

a

employee,

his

wife Neha Sharma teaches at a nursing college. A young couple, both 30 years of age, they have a four year old son.

Ankur has been a resident of the

colony

since

1999,

whereas Neha shifted in after her marriage 6 years ago. They both hail from Palampur, Himachal Pradesh. They contributed a wheelchair and a pram for the library. “It was a service to give away objects we are not using and there is no point in keeping them at home. It is about unused things which can be used by other people.

It is beneficial to anyone who needs things present in the library. I would conduct this in a physical space, but it all depends on mentality- if people are willing to use second-hand objects given by other people. I would specifically keep more things for children and senior citizens. Although we contributed items, we couldnâ€&#x;t find time to come see your library because we both come home at around 6 and your library shut down by that time.â€?

183

Interview 9 Sachin, 30, is a resident of J-block. His hometown is near Patna, Bihar. He is a working professional in an accountancy firm, a tutor at his coaching centre and a student. He donated 35 books related to curriculum of class 10th-12th. “This service calls for things which are useless, and one can lend it to someone else to use rather than selling it to the kabadi wala (junk/scrap dealer). I saw that the kids in our colony were mostly using this service. J-block also is distributed and varied when it comes to class. Some people are on the higher end of middle class. Some people who are on the medium and lower end would be extremely interested in this sort of a service. I think people who are financially week and in need would benefit from this. If I would have done this, I would have advertised more. President of the RWA should have also sent a word from his side about this service. Did you approach the RWA? They should have been more helpful because that is how people would have known about it and participated. Main thing is people should be made aware, that is how something like this would work. Although I gave my books but nobody took them, so I am a bit sceptical about the how much something like this would work. I think more sports equipment should have been there, like badminton net, football etc. I have a coaching centre so I end up with many curriculum books and keep getting books from publishers as well. I share these books with students. In my village, we have 12-15 families. For every function we collect utensils- small and large. Food is also prepared and served collectively.�

184

Section 4 Swap Shop Pre-experiment Interviews Interview 1 Swati, PhD student, AUD; Hometown-Darjeeling; Recorded in August 2017 “I buy clothes and jewellery quite often, and I have a big collection of jewellery which I don‟t wear now. That is possibly because they get old, or I get bored, or because I buy new ones. Taste keeps changing with time. I‟d like a place where I can leave this jewellery which I am so close to, in the hopes that someone takes it who finds value in it. This platform seems like an interesting concept because people will take objects only when they see a value for it and that makes it easier for me to give up my objects which are not an asset to me anymore, as they can be an asset to someone else. Sort of like an afterlife.”

Interview 2 Avinay, Student, M.A Economics, AUD; Hometown- Bombay; Recorded in October, 2017 “I stay in a rented flat in civil lines with 1 other roommate. We got this flat this year when we moved in for our course to Delhi. When shifting from home, we got the usual things like clothes, bags, accessories, stationary, books, technological and other tools and equipment and big utensils like saucepan, kadhayi etc. Now that we have stayed here for a while, we were wondering if we should buy glasses, cups, more plates, bowls etc. but it doesn't make sense to buy these things as I would be moving 185

back in another year, what will I do with those things? I have asked my classmates and friends here if they have extra cutlery we could take, but so far no one has reverted back.”

What if someone offers to give you cutlery and in return you will have to give something?

“I don‟t have excess of objects here in Delhi. But I‟d like to cook for them, or maybe buy them a bottle of rum” Section 5 Cartpuller Case Study Personal view/Log The space of Old Delhi, especially the Gurunanak market is male dominated. Just the presence of an opposite gender seemed to put everyone in an uncomfortable, nonreceptive state. During the exploration of the space in the morning hours, cartpullers were visibly hostile because of the presence of a female in the vicinity of their bathing and changing space, and as the project was related to something so personal and private as their belongings in their boxes they were all the more sceptical. It also made me greatly aware of my own class and how difficult it was for me to imagine a life in a box. Hence at least for the period of the time I engaged with this group, the approach I took to connect with the cartpullers was drawing and sketching. I would sit in the sidelines of the Gurunanak market, mostly chatting with the businessmen, middlemen and cartpullers and sketch the carts, the boxes, the water sources and the 186

problems. After talking to the cartpullers for 2 weeks, it was clear that they did not seem to understand the scope and relevance of the questions being asked. As one of them described their feelings “A lot of students like yourself come here to study and when it is done you leave. There are studies on things as well now? I‟m not convinced.

You would not change our life at all and we do not want to talk to you if it does not help us.”

Section 6 Swap Shop v1.0 Data Table 8a: SwapShop v1.0 Registration Data

187

188

189

SwapShop v2.0 Registered Data Table 8b: SwapShop v2.0 Registration Data

190

191

192

193

SwapShop v1.0 Interviews Short discussion 1 Shravan is a student of Master‟s in Education. He gave a sling bag, a short version of Crime and Punishment, and a motivational poster. He swapped these things for a Himachali cap.

“This bag has been with me since six months and I only wear it occasionally, like once in a month, if I‟m going out or something. It has hardly been used.

Mostly it is just there, stuck in the middle of bookshelves. I was thinking about what to swap and then I read in the guidelines something written about value and aesthetics, and I thought yes this bag has been close to me but maybe it is time to let it go. It‟ll be nice to know who is taking it though. It is interesting to know who is taking what by giving what.”

194

Case Study 3

Madhavi is pursuing her Bachelor‟s in Psychology. She gave seven objects and swapped them for two. “I bought this book for 100 bucks just because it was for 100 bucks, and I haven‟t even read it. I have had these knitting needles with yarn since three years now, and this crayon set since my school time; couldn‟t get myself to practice so I think I can part with these things. It‟s very interesting, I thought okay these things I don‟t need them, but someone else might find them useful. Anyway, my value judgement doesn‟t matter; eventually it is about how the other person sees it. That makes it fascinating to see.”

195

Bibliography Cited works and further references: 1) Anti-Design; Art History Archive http://www.arthistoryarchive.com/arthistory/antidesign/ 21 Apr 2018 09:59 2) Appadurai, Arjun (2006); The Thing Itself, in Public Culture, Duke University Press. Winter 18.1; http://www.arjunappadurai.org/publications/ 3) Baudrillard, Jean. The System of Objects (first published as Le système des objects, 1968) Translated by James Benedict ŠVerso, London, 1996 4) Belk, Russel; Wordpress blog The Science of ownership; Interview accessed through https://thescienceofownership.org/facesvoices/featured/436-2/ at 1304-2018 00:51 5) Boradkar, Prasad. Designing Things. Berg Publishers (2010).

6) Boscagli, Maurizia. Stuff Theory: Everyday Objects, Radical Materialism.

Bloomsbury, 2014 7) Botsman, Rachel. (17 December, 2010) The case for collaborative consumption Ted video https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_case_for_collaborative_consu mption/transcript#t-626312 Accessed at 13:11 22-03-2018 8) Brown, Bill (2001). Thing Theory. Critical Inquiry, 28(1), 1-22. Published by The University of Chicago Press; Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344258 9) Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, Making things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy; Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2005; 196

https://interactivematerials.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/latour.pdf Accessed 01:31 22-03-2018 10) Burkett, Ingrid. 21 January 2016. So What is Social Design? by Ingrid Burkett; Design for Social Innovation http://www.design4socialinnovation.com.au/news/so-what-social-designingrid-burkett/ 11) Can the Sharing Economy bring back Bartering Fast Company; https://www.fastcompany.com/3024555/can-the-sharing-economy-bringback-bartering Accessed 01:00am 04/04/2018 12) Ceperkovic, Slavica; The Future of the Domestic Object 2025; Master‟s thesis OCAD University, 2014 13) Ciccarelli, Saundra K. (2006) “Memory.” Psychology, Pearson Education, p.

249–260.

14) Ciccarelli, Saundra K. “Memory.” Psychology , Pearson Education, 2006 15) Costal, Alan and Dreier, Ole (Ed). (2006). Doing things with things- The design and use of everyday objects; Ashgate Publishing; Surrey, UK; in The Future of the Domestic Object 2025; Ceperkovic, Slavica; Master‟s thesis, OCAD University, (2014) 16) Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi (1993) Why we need things; Published by Smithsonian Institution Press 17) Design for Social Innovation; January 21, 2016; http://www.design4socialinnovation.com.au/news/so-what-social-designingrid-burkett/

197

18) Domestic futures; National Museum Design Stockholm; Exhibition. http://www.domesticfutures.com/ Accessed 01:00am 04/04/2018 19) Floyd Webster Rudmin; Wordpress blog The Science of ownership; Interview accessed through https://thescienceofownership.org/facesvoices/featured/4362/ at 13-04-2018 00:51 20) Gandhi, M.K November 26, 1944 in Bapu ke Asshirvaad, (Ahmedabad).

Accessed at http://www.gandhimanibhavan.org/gandhiphilosophy/philosophy_11vows.htm 21) George Carlin YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac 22) Grindstaff, Beverly (2015) Origins of Unsustainable Luxury: Becoming Slaves to Objects, Design Philosophy Papers, 7:2, 107-122, DOI: 10.2752/144871309X13968682695073 Published online 29 April 2015 http://tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2752/144871309X13968682695073?nee dAccess=true Accessed 4:15 pm 14-06-2017 23) Hingotsni, Bombay, 1961 M. K. Gandhi, My Philosophy of Life, 24) James, William; The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company, 1890; QTD in Russell Belk “Are we what we own” 25) Latour, Bruno; Weibel, Pieter. (2005) Making things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy; Cambridge MA: MIT Press,20-1 Accessed 22-03-2018 https://interactivematerials.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/latour.pdf Accessed 01:31

198

26) Mangold, William; Design and Social Responsibility; The People, Place and Space Reader; http://peopleplacespace.org/frr/design-and-socialresponsibility/ Accessed 10-04-2018 17:01 27) Our stuff: Why it's human nature to own things; New Scientist https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/stuff/ Accessed on 25/2/2018 17:10 28) Pallasmaa, Juhani; Robinson, Sarah; Mind in architecture; MIT Press 2015 29) Prajakta Hebbar: The Indian Express, Sun Aug 21 2011, 00:48 hrs. Accessed through http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/exchange-market/834801/ at 13-04-2018 00:04 30) Rachel Botsman; TedXD; https://www.ted.com/talks/rachel_botsman_the_case_for_collaborative_consu mption/transcript#t-626312 Accessed 13:11 22-03-2018 31) Schiller, Ben. 16 January 2014 Can the sharing economy bring back bartering? Fast Company. 16 January 2014. https://www.fastcompany.com/3024555/can-the-sharing-economy-bringback-bartering Accessed 01:00am 04/04/2018 32) Simmel, Georg. 1990, reprinted in 2001 The Philosophy of Money. Published

by Routledge in New York. Read in Boradkar, Prasad. (2010). Designing Things. Berg Publishers p 47 33) Sutzi, Wolfgang. SHARING: AN OPTION ON PROFIT? HOW SHARING IS SUBJUGATED TO EXCHANGE, Goethe Institut Indonesia; hs://wwwttp.goethe.de/ins/id/en/m/kul/mag/20765578.html Accessed 15:46 22/02/18

199

34) The Science of ownership. Wordpress blog. Interview accessed through https://thescienceofownership.org/facesvoices/featured/436-2/ at 13-04-2018 00:51 35) Thesaurus http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/accumulate?s=ts Accessed 1004-2018 17:01 36) Trash orbiting earth in Real Time https://hyperallergic.com/220475/follow-allthe-tech-and-trash-orbiting-earth-in-real-time/ 37) Turkle, Sherry; Evocative Objects; The MIT Press; Reprint edition (30 September 2011) 38) Willette, Jeanne S. M. and Art History Unstuffed Published Sep 5 2014; Accessed 12-04-2018 17:12 http://arthistoryunstuffed.com/jean-baudrillardsystem-of-objects/ 39) WRAP organization UK; http://www.wrap.org.uk/about-us/about/wrap-andcircular-economy Accessed 04:52 25-03-2018

200

SwapShop Interviews and Case Studies https://youtu.be/MdS3hMY_iLU

SwapShop overview runthrough https://youtu.be/TrNI5mzC9Cs

201