Recently Mauricio Mejía, Professor of Design at Arizona State University wrote on LinkedIn:
Design is a series of activities in a process. These activities are conducted iteratively and differently in every process. For this reason, it is not possible to identify *the* design method. The design method is no method.
I responded to his comment, but his point made me reflect more deeply on a question that has long preoccupied me.
To debate design and methods as if they exist in a vacuum is a failure of critical thought. We are not discussing design in the abstract, but design under capitalism, in the face of climate collapse, mass extinction and the arrival of fascism. We must also acknowledge where we speak from when we talk about design—our position within this system is not neutral. We are embedded in the very structures we critique, shaped by their logics, constrained by their limits and often entangled in their reproduction.
To assume we can think about design from a detached perspective is itself an illusion, one that risks obscuring the ways design functions as both a tool of power and a space for potential resistance. To therefore treat method as a matter of creative preference rather than a battleground for power and ideology is to be ignorant of the stakes.
The rejection of methods isn’t about creative freedom—it’s about ensuring that design remains incapable of questioning the structures it serves. Framing methods as restrictive keeps design trapped in a cycle of surface-level iteration, free to explore but never to confront. This illusion of freedom is a containment strategy, ensuring that design stays within the boundaries of capitalism rather than challenging its logic.
A Promethean approach to design refuses to accept these constraints. It recognizes that real creative freedom doesn’t come from abandoning methods but from using them as tools for structural critique and emancipatory action. Just as Prometheus stole fire from the Gods to break their control over the means of creation, designers must seize the capacity to think critically rather than passively accepting the frameworks handed down by institutions and corporate narratives.
A methodless design culture isn’t liberating—it’s a way to keep designers working within a system that thrives on their confusion. True creative defiance lies in reclaiming the ability to define problems rather than merely solve the ones given. This, I believe, is the root cause of why the vast majority of designers struggle to have any real impact.
My comment to the original post is below:
If design has no set process and is purely emergent, how is it different from an extended art therapy session—with a client instead of a therapist?
From a CPS-informed perspective, we can rely on flexible thinking tools to navigate uncertainty. The key is in dynamic forms of reframing. Not just repeating steps but questioning the problem itself. Rather than following a single approach, we can choose different thinking strategies based on the situation.
It’s a sort of meta-level process for generating the process that makes sense. With adaptable and context-aware methods, structure is a choice, not a limitation.