The Here and Elsewhere:
We have found difficulty crossing the threshold/frontier that lies between the here and the elsewhere
In the modern/contemporary world we have lost the ability to observe autonomous evolution in any human group. The human race has become interdependent. [This is seen as "world architects" build everywhere, technology from all over the world has emerged form the same logic, ect]. These factors have made it more difficult to distinguish between the here and the elsewhere, the interior and exterior [the pentagon's national exterior with an international interior style].
-What would be the phenomenologists view of this idea? Because despite the fact that information is crossing over, trends, ideas, and customs are being shared; there remains a true identity, or at least a reminiscent one, to a specific time and place. I know Auge, in the coming chapter, argues that this is increasingly impossible because of the acceleration of time, overabundance of events, ect, but it still seems that there is more specificity in any context than he is admitting to.
-On the other hand, if our cultures have been created by by our relationships to each other (as they interact, one by one), and now our communities are defined by the globe (countless communities simultaneously), have we redefined the real? The idea of things eventually becoming completely homogenous is understandable.. could this constant cross over eventually overrun the foundations of these cultures that have developed over hundreds of years? Could that reminiscent identity be completely lost? In some ways to try and ignore the effects of globalization, to continue to hold true to what once was and no longer is, lacks truth. I can see how some cities are more omnipresent/ubiquitous than others, if it was simply how they have always functioned. For example, Cincinnati has served as an international hub for P&G, served as the threshold during the civil war, the industrial surge that brought people Germans, the world war that pushed the Germans out, Cincinnati has never held any particular culture for any significant duration. Cincinnati has been, in a sense, a non-place since the beginning. Is that in itself an identity? On the other hand you consider a city like SF which has held a more consistent function and culture, which has a stronger identity attached to it. What are the characteristics that allow SF to keep its identity, at least longer, than some other places have? Or has it?
As Auge Says, time is speeding up as is and as the access to the elsewhere sources which cobble together our rituals, styles, cultures, religions, ect. While our past has shown a detailed illustrated a slow combination and interweaving of cultures and influences , now our reach to various cultures and instant..
:: I am over half way through Auge and I have four more pages of notes I need to post and elaborate on.. but I am too tired tonight. Tomorrow I will try to type up the rest of my notes and get through the rest of the next segment. ::
Jessica,
ReplyDeleteGood work on Auge.
As for the phenominologists view, I'd say not to worry about it right now. I think that these ideas of place, placemaking, and the notion of non-place have implications upon the act of dwelling. I also think that there are specific connections to be made between Auge, Serres, and Heideggar. As per the specificity in context or not I think that perhaps that is outside the scope of this study. Think instead of the trend toward globalization that mention in your notes. With that globalization of information, culture, lifestyle etc. there comes a homogenization of form and space at the scale of the indivdual/domestic. This should have some fairly profound impacts upon the act of dwelling - the definition of indivual space. What might those impacts be? And, what kind of connections can be made to tie Auge, Heiddegar, Serres, and Hailey together?
Consider your bus observations, Auge would consider the bus a Non-place right? For Serres it could be a spatial operator akin to the Bridge. For Heideggar perhaps it is the context within which an individual is able to create their own space - sense of place - a temporal domesticity that moves along with them as they enter and ext the vehicle. This is not dissimilar to the notions that Hailey presents for his camps - and for your camps at the beginning of this journey. What is the tent? How do people "fill" the tent with their own devices for crafting place? The tent is a mass produced object that is nearly identical to any others - a space with no specificity. How is similar or disimilar to the bus? To the hand crafted house?
The question at the hear to of all your others, I believe, is what defines identity. So... what defines identity? Is it related (I think you'd say yes) to those methods/devices by which people dwell? Recall Heideggar's Four-fold...
As for the definition of place, culture, identity being housed within the "reminiscent," or maybe residual, which I think is a good word by the way, this is very much the argument Auge is making. The other side of his argument is the injection of new elements or the erasure of old ones in the wake of globalization. The bus, the terminal, the airplane are each physical/arhitectural manifestations of this absence of place. Could it be that this homogenization/globalization is impcting the capacity for people to dwell?
JE