Function
When we talk about things working, or elements being in a working relationship with other elements, we talk about the functioning of something. Here, it is easy to make a common mistake, muddling things up in our thinking, which really gets in the way of a clear and useful understanding.
For instance, some of us feel comfortable with the idea that a thing can have qualities or properties that do not perform a function. That, I would argue, is an unhelpful way of looking at the idea of function or indeed at the idea of properties. Why?
Let’s unpack the notion of functioning.
The function of something can be looked at analytically and critically.
Looked at analytically, we can quite happily say that everything that there is performs a function of some sort, simply on the basis of the qualities or properties it has.
If something has a property that helps it be what it is, then that property has at the very least the function of helping make the thing what it is.
The thing thus helped could be said to have the function of simply being what it is. But perhaps that is too trivial. Just to be sure, I don’t think it is. Imagine if we said that it cannot be the function of a human being to be a human being or to do what human beings do. I think that is the same thing. So, a first function of a thing is to be what it is.
It can then be looked at in the same way as the property of the thing just discussed. A thing is, after all, a part of a greater whole and has the function of helping that greater thing be what it is.
Let’s now turn back to the property of a thing that helps it be what it is. We can say, for instance, in all earnestness that redness is a function of a tomato. It helps a tomato be what it is. And that is useful to us; it helps us identify tomatoes. The function of a stone in a landscape is to be a part of that landscape; it helps form that landscape to be what it is in a quiet sort of way, without itself appearing to be doing very much.
Functions, then, are expressions of properties in that the property of something is expressed with the verb to be and the function of something expresses that same property as a doing, i.e. using the verb to do. That small difference is crucial.
A thing exhibits properties in particular situations under particular conditions. Tomatoes are not red when they are not being looked at by us. For them to appear red to us, we have to look at them in a particular light (not in a disco or under a green light) using our perceptive-cognitive apparatus. So, if we want to objectify our knowledge properly, we need to take that into account. The way that these properties make things behave is their function: they help their working.
Then there is the critical way of looking at function. In critical mode, we look at how something might have some use to us.
The implications of how a thing behaves under certain conditions and in certain situations, as understood by someone ready to use them to their advantage, draw the functioning of a thing’s properties into the cognitive funnel of purpose.
Purpose is a normatively settled use of something, giving us cognitive efficiency. Knowing a thing’s purpose saves us energy.
From that moment, we judge a thing’s working from our perspective, we see their working and seek purposes as well as other affordances.
To use something, we must have what we can call causal and modal competence, that is, analytical and critical knowledge of the implications of a thing’s properties under certain conditions and in certain situations.
As soon as we place ourselves in relation to that knowledge for the purposes of using it, and say that something has no purpose or has no function, we are in fact saying something very different to what the words themselves suggest; to say that something has not use or purpose is to say that something does not contribute usefully to something under consideration, a design or some other intentional action.
All properties have the function to help that which it is a part of be; some properties are not useful for a particular purpose, and some properties afford a use that may not at a certain moment in time be required for some purpose. Some properties may not be useful to you, but might be useful to someone else. As such, to say that something is useless is to give a critical evaluation of something with reference to some use or purpose relating it to you and yours. It cannot be an analytical statement; it cannot be objectified.
Getting the analytical stance and the critical stance muddled means we are in danger of dismissing something outright because it does not work towards our purpose, when in fact it could be used for other purposes and probably already is, if we were to take the time to analyse the situation.
Distinguishing these two ways of looking at functioning properly sets us up to think sustainably about the part played by everything in our environment.
When we say something ‘has no function’ we are in fact denying it existence within the space of implications. Everything is active within the space of implications.
So, when we more correctly say, “This doesn’t work for me,” we might judge this ‘not-working-for-me’ on two levels. Either the thing’s functioning gets in the way of the intended action or design and makes it perform poorly, or the thing’s functioning is merely redundant, and neither helps nor deters the design.
Let’s call a spade a spade. Distinguishing between an analytical and a critical approach to function would help us develop a more attentive and caring way of thinking about ourselves and our place in our environment.
Let’s try that. For something to be something, it does something, and for it to do something, it has things to do it with.
That is true for everything.
As such, it is useful to talk about things as activities because it allows you to understand the functions a thing performs in terms of what those functions are incompatible with and what the consequences of those functions are, so that you can change or avoid them.
Any thing can accumulate an indeterminate number functions on the basis of its properties, it being a whole, made up of working parts and their working relationships.
Take a door. Analytically, a door is, roughly speaking, made up of a doorpost, a threshold, and a large, usually rectangular plane made of some material that hinges within that doorpost.
Critically on the other hand, it has many uses: It functions to separate an inside from an outside, it functions to filter things through so that big things can’t get through and small things can, it has the function to announce itself to those wanting to make use of it, it has the function perhaps of giving some indication of the status of the owner of the door or of whatever institution the door gives access to; it may have the function of ‘fitting in with the rest of the design’. It may function as an example of beautiful craftsmanship or high-tech production techniques. The door also functions as an example in this text. If it is painted red, it functions by association, reminding us of a famous song. We could go on like this for a long time.
Things have a limitless number of possible functions, analytically… and critically.
It is not really useful to ask whether something has a function; it is much more useful to ask how it might function, to what end, and who might benefit or be hindered.
What is important to consider is that any element designed:
- at least performs all the functions the designer intends it to perform and, if designed well, that these are compatible with each other and with other functions that other elements need to perform.
- avoids those functions that are destructive of the intended goals (including the final one of making our lives flourish).
- and that any unintended functions remaining do not get in the way of those intended ones, and that other elements within the design do not hinder the functioning of the element under discussion.
It is the designer’s task to respond to all these possibilities for function and decide which ones they will devote consideration to in the design, determining how each function should be expressed, emphasised, or downplayed.
© Jacob Voorthuis, 2025. Please cite Jacob Voorthuis as the author, The Theoria Project as the title and the page address as the location. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially under the following terms: No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
[1] I treat of these activities in greater detail in an earlier part of the Theoria Project *
[2] This part relies on the work of Kathrin Koslicki, The Structure of Objects, Oxford (2008)