“Me as We” & “We vs Me”
Asst.Prof Dr. Arttawut Changvittaya
Introduction :
The principles of “Me as We” and “We vs Me” are two mirror concepts that reflect how we view ourselves in relation to the wider society and fellowship. Through Design Thinking and an understanding of transgenerational issues, these concepts can be used to promote resilience, empathy, sympathy, and a growth mindset.
“Me as We” emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and the wider society and fellowship, promoting shared values and common goals that lead to a more harmonious and connected society. Using Design Thinking to approach problems through this lens, we can create solutions that address the unique needs of individuals while promoting the well-being of the wider society and fellowship. The phrase “one for all, all for one” can serve as a guiding principle for this process, emphasizing the importance of a collective approach that balances the needs of the individual and the wider society and fellowship.
In contrast, the “We vs Me” abstract can perpetuate transgenerational issues by prioritizing the needs of the individual over those of the wider society and fellowship. This approach can lead to a lack of empathy and understanding, resulting in solutions that do not address the needs of the wider society and fellowship.
The convergence of “Me as We” and “We vs Me” through Design Thinking can promote resilience, empathy, sympathy, and a growth mindset. By recognizing the interconnectedness of individuals and the wider society and fellowship, we can create solutions that promote healing and resilience across generations, breaking down the barriers that arise from an individualistic approach. This approach fosters a sense of collective responsibility and promotes the well-being of all members of the society and fellowship, fostering empathy and a growth mindset that leads to personal and collective growth.
Overall, the concepts of “Me as We” and “We vs Me” represent two different perspectives on the role of the individual in the wider society and fellowship. By exploring the ideas of Design Thinking, transgenerational issues, and the principles of “one for all, all for one,” these concepts can be used to promote a more compassionate, empathetic, and resilient society and fellowship. By recognizing the interconnectedness of individuals and the wider society and fellowship, we can create solutions that promote healing and resilience across generations, working towards building a society and fellowship where individuals can thrive.
“Embracing a Growth Mindset and promoting Convergence between ‘Me as We’ and ‘We vs Me’ reflects our relationship with society and fellowship. With Design Thinking and transgenerational awareness, we can foster resilience, empathy, and shared goals. ‘Me as We’ values interconnectedness, while ‘We vs Me’ can perpetuate transgenerational issues. Converging these concepts through Design Thinking promotes collective responsibility and well-being. Recognizing our interconnectedness, we can create solutions that promote healing and growth across generations, building a society and fellowship where individuals thrive.”
Objectives:
In conclusion, the objective of exploring the mirror concepts of “Me as We” and “We vs Me” through the lens of Design Thinking and a transgenerational understanding is to promote a more interconnected, compassionate, and resilient society and fellowship.
By recognizing the importance of a collective approach that balances the needs of the individual and the wider society and fellowship, we can create solutions that promote healing and growth across generations. With a focus on empathy, sympathy, and a growth mindset, we can break down the barriers that arise from an individualistic approach and foster a sense of collective responsibility for the well-being of all members of the society and fellowship.
Methodology:
Design Thinking is a problem-solving methodology that focuses on user-centered design, creativity, and experimentation. The methodology involves the following steps:
1.Empathy: The first step of Design Thinking involves understanding the users’ needs and pain points. Through research and observation, designers gain insight into the users’ experiences and perspectives.
2. Define: Based on the insights from the empathy stage, designers define the problem they are trying to solve, often by crafting a problem statement.
3. Ideate: In this stage, designers generate a large number of possible solutions without judgment, allowing for free-flowing creativity and brainstorming.
4. Prototype: Using the best ideas from the ideation stage, designers create a tangible representation of the solution in the form of a prototype. The prototype can be low-fidelity, such as a sketch or diagram, or high-fidelity, such as a working model.
5, Test: Finally, the prototype is tested with users, and feedback is gathered to evaluate the effectiveness of the solution. This feedback is then used to refine the solution and create a more effective prototype.
The iterative nature of Design Thinking allows designers to continuously refine and improve the solution, based on feedback from users. By focusing on empathy, creativity, experimentation, and user- centered design, Design Thinking provides a structured approach to problem-solving that can be applied to a wide range of fields and industries.
Techniques and Materials:
Visual Communication Design.
A metal sheet with a thickness of 2.5 mm that has been laser cut and given a hairline polish finishing.
Conclusion:
The principles of “Me as We” and “We vs Me” can be transformative, promoting empathy, sympathy, and resilience in individuals and communities. “Me as We” emphasizes the interconnectedness of individuals and the community, promoting shared values and common goals that lead to a more harmonious and connected society. By contrast, the “We vs Me” abstract can perpetuate transgenerational issues by prioritizing the needs of the individual over those of the community, leading to a more divided and individualistic society.
Overall, the result of applying the principles of “Me as We” is a more compassionate, empathetic, and resilient society, while the result of “We vs Me” is a society that lacks empathy and understanding, perpetuating transgenerational issues. By recognizing the interconnectedness of individuals and the community, we can create solutions that promote healing and resilience across generations, breaking down the barriers that arise from an individualistic approach.
References:
Khasnabish, A. (2017). “Me” and “we”: Imagining the collective in the age of neoliberalism. Organization, 24(1), 98-116.
Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84- 92.
Stoller, E. P. (2011). Transgenerational Trauma and the Other: A Contribution to Clinical Work with Survivors of Political Violence. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 31(3), 244-257.
Schuler, S., Schuler, P. J., & Schuler, P. (2019). The Collective Mindset: How Groups Shape Our Mind, Our Choices, and Our Lives. The MIT Press.
Fagnani, C. (2014). “Me vs. We” in the Sustainable Design Curriculum. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(1), 97-108.
Pillemer, D. B., & White, S. H. (1989). Understanding generations: Demographic and historical influences. The Gerontologist, 29(4), 396- 402.
