Does Good Design Free Us?

Freedom has always been an embarrassing word in instructional design. Every ID worth their storyboard claims to create “learner autonomy,” but the irony is glaring: the freer the learner, the less they learn. Unguided, they drown in distraction, novelty, or Netflix. So we bind them with “good design.” We handhold, scaffold, chunk content, and sprinkle in dopamine rewards disguised as gamification.

And here’s the paradox: a free-thinking learner isn’t free when you give them designed freedom. They’re dancing in a cage that’s been padded, perfumed, and acoustically tuned for maximum engagement. It feels like liberty, but it’s choreography.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, warned that “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Replace “chains” with “design,” and you’ve got the problem in learning: the same scaffolds that enable comprehension quietly domesticate thought.

Yet—without those chains, chaos. Try giving learners complete freedom. You’ll find yourself with dropouts, confusion, and 37 open Chrome tabs. Instructional design thrives precisely because it curtails the messy, dangerous sprawl of unstructured learning. In other words: good design fetters you just enough to make you feel liberated.

The Jungle vs. the Pizza

Living in the jungle—no schedules, no push notifications, no UX flows—that’s real freedom. You can forage, run naked, invent your own rituals. But give me that, and after one week I’ll trade it all for a hot pizza delivered in thirty minutes.

Convenience feels like freedom. But it’s not. It’s a kind of narcotic efficiency, purchased at the cost of surrendering to design. The pizza app, the logistics network, the city grid, the thirty-minute guarantee—they shackle your life into industrial rhythms. Yet when you bite into the slice, does your body care that you’re not really free? Or does it just moan with gratitude?

This is where design wins. Freedom becomes secondary to the experience of freedom. The pleasure, comfort, and efficiency that arise from good design create the illusion of freedom so powerful that the distinction stops mattering.

Philosophers in the Waiting Room

This isn’t new.

• Herbert Marcuse, in One-Dimensional Man, argued that modern societies don’t liberate us with technology—they “repress” us by making us comfortable. Comfort keeps us docile, unwilling to revolt. Good design is exactly this: it numbs rebellion with ergonomics.

• Michel Foucault, in Discipline and Punish, described how power operates not through chains but through architectures—panopticons, timetables, disciplines. Design itself is power. A well-designed classroom or app doesn’t free you; it wires you into invisible circuits of control.

• Erich Fromm, in Escape from Freedom, pointed out that humans cannot bear the terror of total freedom. Pure freedom brings anxiety, isolation, and unbearable responsibility. So we escape into systems, rituals, ideologies—and yes, designs—that relieve us of that burden. Fromm’s insight explains why we embrace learning platforms, UX patterns, and frameworks: not because they liberate us, but because they protect us from the abyss of unstructured choice.

• Epicurus, ironically, might have smiled here. He believed freedom comes not from rejecting comfort but from intelligently pursuing it. His garden school offered simple pleasures—bread, cheese, friendship—as the truest liberation. Maybe a thirty-minute pizza is more Epicurean than jungle survivalism.

• Ken Wilber, in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, pushes it further. Systems evolve by becoming more complex, and every new design constraint enables higher freedom at another level. The paradox is baked into evolution itself: freedom comes not from tearing down structures but from building richer ones.

So which is it? Is design the velvet prison (Marcuse, Foucault, Fromm), or is it the ladder of liberation (Epicurus, Wilber)?

Instructional Design as Velvet Prison

Let me drag this back to my own field.

When I design a course, I know the paradox in my bones. If I unleash learners with “explore freely” instructions, they stall. If I force them through a rigid compliance module, they curse me. So I create the illusion of choice: branching scenarios, clickable explorations, quizzes that feel like games.

They feel free, but their freedom is staged. Like a child choosing between two pre-approved dinner options, learners mistake curated choice for authentic freedom.

Yet—this works. They learn. They feel smart. They come back. And maybe that’s enough.

This is where I start to suspect that “freedom” is not the right metric for design at all. The real question is not “Am I free?” but “Do I feel free enough to forget I’m being guided?”

A dangerous idea: freedom might be overrated

Here’s the dangerous idea: freedom might be overrated.

Sigmund Freud, in Civilization and Its Discontents, argued that civilization itself is built on repression. If every individual were free to indulge every impulse, the result would be anarchy. So we trade instinct for stability.

Design does the same. It represses chaos in favor of flow. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, in Flow, showed that the deepest states of human satisfaction occur not in raw freedom but in carefully balanced structures—challenges just hard enough, rules just clear enough. That’s not freedom. That’s constraint tuned to ecstasy.

And here Fromm’s Escape from Freedom drives the knife deeper: humans often don’t want freedom at all. They want relief from freedom. Design steps in as the elegant middleman—offering comfort, direction, and pleasure, while sparing us the vertigo of limitless choice.

So maybe the real job of good design is not to make us free but to make us forget the difference.

The Hominic Paradox

The jungle is freedom, but it’s also mosquito bites, empty stomachs, and existential dread. The pizza is slavery-by-design, but it’s also hot, delicious, and here in thirty minutes. Which one do I want? Both. Neither. Depends on the day.

This is the hominic condition: we are feral animals who crave the jungle but domesticated minds who crave the app. We oscillate between rebellion and comfort, between wanting to be raw and wanting to be designed for.

Good design doesn’t free us. It seduces us into loving our cage. And maybe that’s okay—as long as we know we’re in one.

Closing Thought

Does good design free us? No. But it rescues us from the vertigo of unstructured existence. Fromm would argue that most of us don’t really want freedom anyway—we want the escape from freedom that design so elegantly provides.

Design turns chains into velvet, boredom into flow, jungle-time into pizza-time.

And maybe the smarter question is this: do you want actual freedom—or do you want the escape from freedom that design so beautifully stages?

Because if you’re honest, nine times out of ten, you’ll still take the pizza.

📚 References for Further Reading

• Rousseau, J.J. (1762). The Social Contract.

• Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimensional Man.

• Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish.

• Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom.

• Epicurus (341–270 BC). Letter to Menoeceus.

• Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality.

• Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and Its Discontents.

• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.

👁️‍🗨️ Join the Cult of Clarity
Get weekly transmissions from the edge of reason and design.
No fluff. No manifestos. Just raw philosophy, sacred heresy, and the occasional pizza slice.
Subscribe Now: https://hominic.beehiiv.com/subscribe