Complex systems like stock markets and multinational companies have become so hard to grasp, it is almost as if they act as autonomous entities beyond our human control. Would using an object as a placeholder help get a better grip on these abstract topics and add a fresh perspective in the discussion, too? After all, we humans enjoy having something concrete to blame for what plagues us.

As Globalization cannot appear before court in person, “Proxies on Trial” makes use of objects as stand-ins to blame for abstract problems. Blaming objects that materially and symbolically represent complex non-humans allows the audience to indulge in safe “object scapegoating” and gives a physical presence to issues normally invisible.

This extends to the witnesses called before court: What did the tie witness in the financial market? Or what does an organic pumpkin have to say about nationalist ideas?

During the trial, the Grand Jury audience shapes the course of the debate by answering questions on their smartphones, such as evaluating the trustworthiness of a witness's statement. These responses influence the arguments presented by both the defense and prosecution on the spot.

Scapegoating is not a new concept in human history. Already in the Middle Ages, the church used to “sue” and “ban” all grasshoppers as they were deemed the reason for a bad harvest. In France 1408, there were two court cases of pigs put before court for the apparent “murder of a human child”. After losing the trial, the pig in question was sentenced to death and subsequently hung “before the eyes of its own kind”.

As part of our design research approach to scripting the performance and engaging a wider audience, we hosted a series of trial workshops. Participants were invited to select proxy objects representing abstract defendants—such as the precarization of labor or the financial crisis—develop accusations, and even step into the defendant's shoes to formulate pleas. All arguments were presented and acted out with the non-human “scapegoat” in court, sparking a debate that was both absurd and serious at once.

Globalization is a contentious issue. While it has sparked significant advancements, it has also left some behind or even exploited, while causing many more far-reaching implications. By examining this complex concept through a trial-like framework—where arguments are made for and against the accusation of “consuming the future for generations to come”—a nuanced and multi-dimensional debate emerges. This approach to discourse highlights the complexity of the matter and thereby avoids oversimplified, populist rhetoric.