Shaping a networked society is an adventure in design. A public sphere in cyberspace will not emerge from technology itself. Rather, this public sphere must be designed. This paper is about that design. I am working on the assumption that a public sphere has to be designed by the public. It cannot be defined by commercial or governmental actors trying to "help" the public. In a democratic country, a public sphere in cyberspace must be defined and designed by the people who find such a sphere necessary for their own needs.

The idea that our traditional communities are challenged, and are even under attack by new technologies, has been circulating for some time. The telephone, radio and television have all been labeled as enemies of community values and community-building. Information technology is often portrayed as the latest and perhaps the most dangerous enemy attacking our traditional community structures and values.

Information technology is accused of promoting only the enjoyment and pleasure of the individual because it offers virtual social relations without sacrifices or obligations. This technology seems to be understood as an enemy of locality, commitment, solidarity, obligations, relations and pride — values connected with the traditional community.

At the same time, we can see an enormous variety of approaches and attempts all around the world to make that same technology a means for creating and developing communities. Given this fact, it seems relevant to ask whether it is at all possible to create community in "conspiracy with the enemy." In this chapter I will argue that there is a solution to this seeming impasse. I will suggest that a solution may be approached by critically examining the assumption that information technology is an "enemy" of community. A solution may also be brought about by contrasting fears of this "enemy" with empirical results from studies discussing the development of a widespread social life on the net. In the course of my discussion, I will introduce such concepts as architectonic and tectonic systems, designability, intended functionality, and unintended use.

I will be drawing the conclusion that technology can be deliberately and consciously designed, and that it is, in fact, so designed every day. To find ways to foster new designs, we need to show respect for the enormous richness and variety of the way people already have chosen to work with technology to provide for their everyday need for community. An examination of this phenomenon demands more close attention to the community life already on the net. Community research should focus on people already designing their lives "in conspiracy with the enemy."

The overall message of this paper is that technology cannot be regarded as a ready-made tool that can be used to create community. There exists no fixed tools and no predefined functionality. There is, however, a "soul" of this new technology.

Information technology is not just another type of technology with known matter, structure, appearance, and functionality. It is an entirely new kind of technology that is extremely diverse in the kinds of activities it manifests. That is why there is a need for closer studies of the technology, with the goal of understanding its "soul," or in other words, its basic core. There are several possible ways to understand technology and how it influences society. Today almost everyone agrees that technology does not in itself determine how it can or will be used and what consequences it may lead to. In the writings of Bruno Latour, particularly in his book Pandora’s Hope (Latour, 1999), we can find thorough and eloquent argumentation for the idea that neither technology nor the social environment alone are sole determining factors. Latour argues that there is no "divide" between them. To him, the idea of a divide is a modern attempt to rationalize our world. The divide is one example of how people have attempted to describe and understand the idea of modernity, but Latour argues instead "We’ve never been modern."

Latour’s perspective draws attention to the real world — to the reality where people live and in which technology is part of an everyday network of social and technological actors. According to this idea, it is, for instance, not possible to analyze the impact of technology by studying technology as a distinct entity in itself. At the same time, it is not possible to understand technological development solely by analyzing the social sphere. Latour uses instead the concept of "double aspect." There is no reference that begins at one or the other of the ends, i.e. either at technology (world) end or the social (word) end. Rather, as Latour writes, "Instead of growing from two fixed extremities toward a stable meeting point in the middle, the unstable reference grows from the middle toward the ends, which are continually pushed further away" (Latour, 1999).

This means that if we want to discover the true meaning of technology in relation to society, we cannot find it at one of the two extremities. We will never be able to understand how technology influences or changes our society by assuming technology to be "given" in any sense. Nor can we understand technology based on how people behave. One conclusion that can be drawn from Latour’s observations is that we have to start at the "middle" moving towards the ends. This begs the question: what is the middle when it comes to information technology?

Technologies can be described and categorized in many ways. One way is to talk about open and closed technologies. A closed technology is one that does not allow the user to change anything after it has been designed and manufactured. The structure, functionality and appearance of the artifact are permanent. When dealing with a closed technology, we might find general characteristics in the way the technology appears to influence the people around it. We might find that the technology seems to foster the emergence of certain situations and behaviors. The technology is a relatively stable variable in social settings. And when the technology is moved to another setting, we know it will remain the same as far as matter, functionality and appearance are concerned.

With an open technology it is much more difficult to find such stable patterns. An open technology is always, in a more radical sense, in a dialectical relation to its user and the situation. At the same time, as someone is using the technology, he or she can also change its basic design and manifestation. An open technology allows the user to continue changing the technology’s specific characteristics, and to adjust, add or change its functionality. When it comes to an open technology, changes in functionality pose a question not only of change in the way the existing functionality is used or understood, but also of a real change in the artifact’s internal manifestation.

Information technology artifacts are often examples of an open technology. They can be changed, and if they cannot be changed it is usually possible to add, embed, contain, or surround the artifact with other technology in a way that radically changes it. When a technology is open in this way, we can recognize it as designable. A designable technology is by definition difficult to fully describe and define in a comprehensive way, since at any moment it might change. It is not uncommon for even a designable artifact to contain some kind of "closed" aspect in it hidden deeply in its innermost core. One fundamental property of an open technology is that it is sensitive to how much it is used. With a closed technology, it does not matter if there is one or thousands of users. But the more people use a designable technology, the more it changes. Functions are added or taken away. The structure is redesigned and its appearance might be changed continuously. This property of designable technology radically influences the notion of what it means to be either a designer or a user of the technology. The user is at the same time a designer, and the designer can be understood as a user. This blend of the two roles probably reflects a core aspect of truly open and designable technology.

Most designs can be described as systems; they consist of many parts interacting in ways that appear to be a single entity. We usually define a system by addressing its different aspects, such as structure, function, aesthetics and ethics. Sometimes we find these aspects implemented in a way that gives the system a sense of wholeness, or even a sense of being intentionally designed as a whole. This sense of wholeness might, if it is well worked out, serve users by giving them an overall understanding of the system, an understanding in which all details seem to relate and connect throughout the system, and each detail seems to have a relation to the whole. The system can be understood as a unit. We can label a system such as this architectonic.

Working in an architectonic way can be understood as a process in which the relation between details and the whole is at all times attended to by the designer, and every detail is considered as important as the whole. This way of working can very easily lead to a crisis of complexity, that is, a situation emphasizing the importance of organizing principles guiding the architectonic design work. Organizing principles helps the designer to make judgments throughout the design process.

A system can, of course, be designed without an organizing principle, or with only locally (or regionally) organizing principles. We can label such a system tectonic. A tectonic approach is possible when we have a system based on a technology that allows new parts and new functionalities to be added without necessarily changing the basic structure and dynamics of the system. With information technology, we do not have to be architectonic, i.e., we do not have to design the whole first. A tectonic system can work without a "super" designer, since the technology allows continuous adding and linking of new parts to the overall system.

Information technology has characteristics suitable for both architectonic and tectonic designs. One basic reason for this is that information technology is extremely open to design. The technology can be designed to be a system with an overarching structure, predefined functionality, and strict purpose and goal. But the technology also enables designs that are open to changes and redesign.

The ATM machine is an example of an architectonic IT-artifact. It has a clear purpose and a closed structure and functionality. As a user you cannot change the artifact. You are defined by the architectonic design of the system to be nothing but a user. A modern word processor sometimes has a built in capacity to be customized by the user. This means that the system can look and behave differently to different users. Usually, these differences will remain within the architectonic design implemented in the artifact. This means there is still a distinct difference between being a designer and being a user.

An architectonic design often has a clearly defined purpose and goal, one that is usually well known and built into the structure of the system itself. A tectonic design does not have an overall agreed upon-purpose or goal. The system can evolve in many directions and is therefore more difficult to both predict and understand.

Most information technology artifacts are results of architectonic design principles. But as the technology changes, so do the preconditions for new forms of artifacts and designs. With the Internet and cyberspace, we are moving into a situation where non-architectonic systems emerge and evolve. Cyberspace is a good example of a tectonic system that in itself both invites and reinforces new tectonic designs.

When it comes to cyberspace, the inventiveness of people has been fascinating. Underlying cyberspace is, of course, a core technological system with limitations and a basic functionality. But cyberspace is an open system with a strong tectonic character. This tectonic character lends people to be creative and to find ways to continuously re-design and add new designs to the overall system. This is one reason why it has been difficult to predict the way people will make cyberspace usable. Interacting with a technology in this way can be labeled bricolage. Bricolage happens when users do not take a system for granted. A bricoleur is a person who tinkers with the technology by combining and adding functions and parts, and by exploring hidden possibilities in the technology that makes new use possible (Levi-Strauss, 1962).

In a study on identity and deception in virtual communities, Donath shows the very delicate relation between behavior and technology (Donath, 1999). Donath describes how the designed functionality of transferring and communicating identity on the Internet breaks down when people finds ways to "fool" the system and to take advantage of possible but not intended capacities of the basic technological structure. What the study shows is that the realm for possible innovation is much larger than was probably intended by the designers, and that people are very good at finding new ways to act, i.e. new possible actions, in that realm.

One interpretation of this study is that people are good at finding new ways to overcome the limitations of the technology. They invent new ways of making use of the technology’s present structure and functionality. But this is too narrow an interpretation, since it is based on the assumption that technology should be judged by its intended functionality. Technology must instead be judged based on an understanding of the total space of possible actions it creates. Technology is polypotent and cannot be judged based on how this potency is brought to existence in one specific context (Sclove, 1995).

The study by Donath shows how difficult it is to clearly distinguish between use and design. This is definitely the case with tectonic systems. Since an architectonic system has a clearly defined purpose, stable functionality, and is usually a closed system, the idea is not to let users be part of an ongoing design process. The reason for this is that allowing unmonitored user contributions to design may open up the design for unanticipated and possibly dangerous use. It might even threaten the stability of the design itself. A tectonic system is, as a result of its fundamental structure, less threatened by "bad" or unintended use. Instead, it usually invites new creative uses and constant re-design.

If we assume that tectonic designs are always under "attack" from user creativity, and if we want to design sustainable systems, we have to build these systems based on design systems other than those common in architectonic design. Since architectonic design has been the model for almost all systems design, it is very difficult to escape the basic principles guiding this type of design. Examples of architectonic principles are the idea of a well-defined purpose, the idea of pre-defined functionality, and the idea of a consistent interface throughout the system.

These principles serve in many cases well as design recommendations. But design principles must be intentionally chosen in relation to the intended purpose of the final design. If we are looking for a stable, purpose-based system with pre-defined functionality, architectonic principles are suitable. But when we are designing for large numbers of users, users we do not know, and especially when we do not know how and to what ends they may want to use the system, other principles are necessary.

One of my intentions in this chapter is to argue that it is possible to establish design principles based on tectonic design ideas that better fit the idea of a public sphere in cyberspace, and of community building in particular. These principles, as they are presented here, still very abstract and not operationalized into practical tools for design. I will only present and discuss them briefly and without any priority. The basic idea is to understand cyberspace as a tectonic system and to create a tectonic system that we have to design in accordance with the following ideas:

Diverse functionality: This principle focuses on the idea that a system should be designed to be open to changing functionality. A rich and diverse repertoire of functions should be intentionally implemented. Functionality should also be understood as something changing over time, and as something amenable to change by the users themselves.

Bricolage: Every user should be seen as a prospective bricoleur. Thus, the basic assumption should be that any attempt by users to change and redesign the system is part of the process of establishing user-needed functionality and appearance.

Character: In tectonic design–design that invites modification and redesign--there is also a basic system demand with certain specific characteristics. A tectonic system needs to be robust to withstand "attacks" from users. It also should be forgiving, which means that it has some ability to accept changes without demanding complete safety.

Richness: In a tectonic system, richness is more important than user friendliness. A system whose purpose is to evoke creative and radical use must present a sufficiently rich and complex foundation. Creative and unexpected use is not produced in simplistic and easy-to- understand contexts. Tinkering and bricolage happens when things can be done in many different ways and with many different tools.

This first attempt to conceptualize some principles of tectonic design is based partly on empirical studies. But it is still only conceptual speculation that must be further empirically tested and studied.

In what way does the idea of tectonic design and its principles have implications for the shaping of a public cyberspace? It has relevance in at least two ways:

First, it has implications for the practical design work aimed at creating a public cyberspace. If we take these design principles seriously, they can work as conceptual guidelines. They will not work as practical guidelines in the particular design situation, but they can provide intellectual support in the overall design process.

Second, the idea of tectonic design might have implications for some of the ideas currently circulating in the debate about how to create a public cyberspace. For instance, these design principles to some extent challenge the quite common ideas of "best practice," participatory design, and userfriendliness.

The idea of "best practice" is that we can learn from the specifics in a particular situation. Usually this is done by "copying" behavior and actions from one situation and applying them in other situations. The idea is that we can use others’ experience without having to make the same mistakes. This might be a good strategy, especially if we are working with systems of an architectonic character, since these systems are based on the idea that users have common needs. With a tectonic system, the idea of "best practice" is not as valuable, since it is designed to be changed and re-designed. The notion of generally applicable design solutions has a different meaning when it comes to tectonic designs.

Participatory design is another approach that might not be as suitable for tectonic design as for architectonic. In the re-design of a tectonic system, it is the everyday user who changes the system. The user is not participating with the "real" designers. There is usually no designated designer with a close relation to the user as in a truly participatory design approach.

Userfriedliness has been a key concept in systems design the last decades. The idea is to create a system that shows itself to the user in such a simple and friendly way that the user will be able to use the system as it was intended. A tectonic system does not necessary have these attributes, since it will be changed all the time. Instead, richness and complexity seems to be basic preconditions for bricolage to appear in a constructive way.

There are some indications in previous research that the principles of architectonic design do not fully apply to systems in which the public is the user, and in which there is no natural and given functionality. The shaping of a public cyberspace is more about designing a foundation that allows for a rich and diverse functionality, and for the appearance of bricolage. Maybe public systems should be designed with a very strong emphasis on tectonic elements, and with a strong intention of providing a design that opens up a large space for possible actions.

In cyberspace, it is possible today to identify a huge variety of "uses". In many cases these innovative uses could be labeled "designs." This is, of course, still a very general speculation that needs to be examined and tested in real design projects, and also analyzed in relation to successful examples of public spaces in cyberspace.

Maybe we have put ourselves in an impossible position by asking how we should use the technology to create and support communities. Perhaps you cannot answer this kind of question with this technology. Maybe this is a question suitable for technologies of a more closed and architectonic character. A designable and tectonic technology cannot "be" anything. People change it all the time. It constantly evolves and develops. We will never be able to reach a full understanding of it. We can trace technology use back in time, but not, in any detailed way, foresee its future use.

So where does this take us if we want to find ways to use this technology to support communities and a public sphere in cyberspace? There are at least two possible ways to do research in this field that can generate general knowledge applicable in a prescriptive way. The basic premise of these two approaches is that people all around the world actually seem to succeed in creating and supporting a wide variety of communities with the help of this technology. We have to study these attempts.

But we have to study how they deal with and approach the technology, rather than focusing on what they actually do when they use it. The specific "use" is and will always be context- and situation-specific, and it will probably not be possible to produce abstractions in a way that can subsequently be used to produce general knowledge. The important thing, rather, is to try to find out how people understand and approach the technology. Since this technology is designable, it can never be moved from one community to another without being changed. This means that a tool or a specific use that is copied will not work the same way in two different places. The tool can and will be redesigned. The most important question is, therefore, what kind of knowledge and understanding of the technology is needed to create a good foundation for that kind of contextspecific redesigns.

This is also in line with Latour. We have to start at the middle working our understanding in an outward direction. There are no fixed ends. When we study technology, we have to study both it and the people who deal with it simultaneously. We have to create chains of circulating reference as Latour calls it (Latour, 1999). These chains of circulating reference can create a strong and viable understanding of how people relate to and deal with technology.

Information technology is no enemy. It is a technology that can be consciously and deliberately designed. We have only to learn how to deal with a designable technology. We have to learn how to begin our studies in the middle ground. We don’t have to find the "best practices" by describing how people use a specific technology. We have to study how the people behind a "best practice" understand and deal with that technology. It is more a question of method than of tools or use. We have to accept that we cannot find answers to questions about how the technology should be used.

This means that we can work in collaboration with the technology. Working with a designable technology makes it possible to design and redesign that technology to fit its specific and unique context and purpose. But we need to find new ways to extract and formulate the generality involved in the existing examples of successful use.

One last word of warning: even if a designable technology seems to be open for an almost endless variety of designs, it still has a core. Maybe the core in information technology hides something that we cannot see today. In the core, there might be an "enemy" just waiting to slowly change the world in ways we can’t even imagine today.