What is an affordance? Rediscovering Gibson’s ontological no-man’s land.
The use and abuse of ecological concepts
In 1988 Don Norman published a groundbreaking book ‘The Psychology of Everyday Things’. In the design world, it became a classic piece of literature for its illuminating expose of all those un-intuitive things that we love to hate — raise a hand if you’ve accidentally tried to pull on a pull-handle door, only to find you have to push! arrgh!
Perhaps one of the most famous aspects of the book was Don Norman’s seductive use of term “affordance”. Affordances, as explained in POET, are:
“properties of things, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how the thing could possible be used.” (POET 1988)
In the design world, affordances became a smash hit! And by understanding their nature a bit more, anybody could become the master of intuitive design.
But this was a fallacy.
In his later revision of POET, which became know as ‘The Design of Everyday Things’ (2013), Norman recognised the growing misuse of the term - a general assumption that affordances were about “where the action was happening” rather than “the possibilities for action”. Norman attempted to rectify this by introducing an alternative term: signifiers. Signifiers, he suggests, are the important clues about the function of things we seek as detectives of the world:
“People search for clues, for any sign that might help them cope and understand. It is the sign that is important, anything that might signify meaningful information.” (DOET 2013)
But the introduction of the signifier concept isn’t the end of the affordance misuse story. In his earlier conceptualisation of affordances, Norman appropriated the term from the ecological psychologist J.J.Gibson (whom he references in a little known footnote):
“The notion of affordance and the insights it provides originated with J.J.Gibson, a psychologist interested in how people see the world…My view is somewhat in conflict with the view of many Gibsonian psychologists, but the internal debate within modern psychology is of little relevant here.” (DOET 2002)
So what’s that all about?
J.J.Gibson and ecological affordances
J.J.Gibson, an american psychologist, originally invented the term ‘affordance’ as part of his radical theory of visual perception. Although first mentioned in ‘The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems’, it was brought to wider awareness in his seminal 1979 work: ‘The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception’.
In ecological psychology, affordances are a consequence of his theory of visual perception which rejects: 1) representationism and 2) physicalism.
Some scary words there, but lets explore this more:
Ecological psychology theorises how organisms perceive things in the environment and it aims to address an old philosophical dichotomy: does value and meaning (e.g. the stuff we perceive) exist IN our minds (i.e. subjectively as mind), or OUT in the world (i.e. objectively as matter)?
Gibson didn’t like this dichotomy of the subjective-objective because he wanted to create a theory of perception which rejected representationism and physicalism. Both encourage this dichotomy: representationism describes subjective (psychical) stuff existing in our minds; physicalism describes objective (physical) stuff existing in the world.
So, to annoy scholars to come, he came up with a radical theory that dissolves the subjective-objective divide and places value and meaning in the relationship between an observer and the environment. In other words, in a new ontological no-man’s land called “affordances”. Affordances are where value and meaning exist and they are directly perceivable.
Cue this natty quote:
“An affordance is neither an objective property nor a subjective property; or
it is both if you like. An affordance cuts across the dichotomy of subjective-objective and helps us to understand its inadequacy. It is equally a fact of the environment and a fact of behaviour. It is both physical and psychical, yet neither. An affordance points both ways, to the environment and to the observer.” (EAVP 1979)
Confusing right? But, luckily, for the less oxymoronically inclined, Gibson also defines affordances without the philosophical underpinnings:
“The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill...I mean by it something that refers to both the environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the complementary of the animal and the environment.”(EAVP 1979)
So when we recognise that “animals” also includes us a particular niche of observational beings, and when we perceive an affordance we discover the behavioural relevance of the world, it’s easy to see the similarities between Gibson’s affordances and what Norman appropriated in a design context.
And now we know all that, we can understand why affordances are really about an ecological psychologist called James Gibson and his strange ontological no-man’s land.
References
- Norman, D. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things.
- Norman, D. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things.
- Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition.
- Gibson, J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
About this blog
This blog aims to provide a simple and non-nonsense account of affordance theory — from the ground up. If you like this story please clap and share using the links below! Thank you for reading.
