Summary of the introduction on Modernity in the book "Architectural Positions" (Part 2)

This article is the second part of my summary from the introduction in the book Architectural Positions. In this part there is a description of the 'public sphere' and the connection with 'public spaces'. As said before: 'public space' is a major part of the 'public sphere' and therefore the public sphere is very interesting while studying cities of today.

The public sphere – Gemeinschaft in absentia

Marshall Berman writes in 1982 a book on modernity: All That is Solid Melts into Air. The Experience of Modernity. Quote: “To be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us adventure, power, joy, growth, transformation of ourselves and the world – and at the same time threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are.” (Berman, 1982)

Many philosophers refer to the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies who already in 1887 describes the social association Gesellschaft in opposition to Gemeinschaft. In a Gesellschaft people live together without being essentially united as in a Gemeinschaft: “In Gemeinschaft they stay together in spite of everything that separetes them; in Gesellschaft they remain separate in spite of everything that unites them.” (Tönnies, 1887) Further Tönnies states that the association Gemeinschaft is found mainly in rural areas and the association Gesellschaft is found mainly in urban environments. Remarkable detail is that Tönnies addresses the most important means regulation the Gesellschaft are contracts and money. (Tönnies, 1887)

The French socialist Emile Durkheim makes a difference between ‘mechanical solidarity’ and ‘organic solidarity’. Mechanical solidarity exists of a repetition of similar segments with a homogeneous group identity. Organic solidarity is based on the differences between individuals by an increasing process of specialization of social roles, professions and occupations.

The German sociologist Georg Simmel writes on individuality and modernity: “the self preservation of certain personalities is bought at the price of devaluating the whole objective world... It drags one’s own personality down into the same worthlessness. “ (Simmel, 1903)

The American urban sociologist Louis Wirth continues: “Modern urban society is the product of a complex interplay of roles”. This makes it possible to participate in different social circles without truly getting to know anyone. Besides that there are very different people living together in a very small area. This means that one is constantly in the company of strangers. (Wirth, 1938)

According to the authors the Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman states about modernity: “The promise of liberation from tradition, of individual freedom, and of self realization, a promise which is an inherent part of modernity, comes at a high price. After all, this freedom goes hand in hand with the loss of security, of tacit, shared opinions, and of social ties and shared sentiments, all of which were central to traditional ways of life.”

Public Space: a new mode of social organization

The debate about ‘public space’ is closely related to the debate on the ‘public sphere’ and the ‘public domain’. The term ‘public domain’ is used in the distinction between public and private domain and refers in the text to actual spaces. The ‘public sphere’ refers also to a specific set of practices and is according to the authors often linked to the debate on the development of Western democracy.

Public Sphere

Freitag, Bauman and Habermas agree that the most characteristic element of modernity is the new public sphere. This public sphere is according to Freitag characterized by a new mode of social reproduction. This means that the traditional symbolic and cultural spheres which regulated society are replaced by a debate about the proper organization of society and the proper form of community. This debate takes place in actual public spaces but is also transmitted by new media: newspapers, radio, television and so forth. (And I think the internet is a very important medium nowadays)

Public domain

During the French revolution there was a declaration made defining the modern public sphere for the first time: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. (Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen, 1798) This document introduces a distinction between public and private domain based on three points:

1. Ownership. The public domain consists of spaces under possession of the government: streets, squares, parks and some public buildings. The private domain consists of private property: land, shops, offices and interior spaces.

2. Accessibility. “The public domain is accessible to all, at every moment of the day.” The private domain is characterized by restrictions.

3. Purpose. The public domain serves the public interest and has a collective purpose. The private domain serves the interests of individuals or a private body like families, businesses and organizations.

But in fact there are many spaces in which the relationship between public and private is more complex.

Berman, M. (1982). All That is Solid Melts into Air. The Experience of Modernity. New York: Penguin Books.

Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. (1798).

Simmel, G. (1903). Die Grossstädte und das Geistesleben. New York : McGraw-Hill.

Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44 , 1-24.

Summary of the introduction on Modernity in the book "Architectural Positions" (Part 1)

The authors of the book Architectural Positions are Tom Avermaete and Klaske Havik. Tom Avermaete is an architect and researcher with a special interest in the contemporary public realm and the architecture of the city. Klaske Havik is architect and writer and also involved with the section Architecture and Modernity at the TUDelft.

I think the introduction of this book gives a very clear overview of the thoughts about modernity by the most important thinkers on this topic related to the public sphere. Because public space is an major part of the public sphere these theories are very interesting while studying the city of today.

Schiphol

The first alinia the airport Schiphol is being described as a new build city because it offers all kinds of services one could find in a city. The services are being listed: shops, hotels, offices, bars and restaurants; schilphol has its own partition of the Rijksmuseum and a branch of the Salvation Army taking care of the homeless. Besides that there is a Schiphol-police force, a prison and even a mortuary. The centre of the AirportCity is Schiphol Plaza. This space has everything which makes a urban space appealing. It is full of shops, restaurants, bars and hotels. Besides that it is open 24 hours a day and totally sheltered from the weather. It is a space which is always clean and safe by its tight security services and airport police.

The question arises: is this space part of the public domain? Can a space monitored by cameras and mechanisms be a public space? The authors address the following idea about junkies, beggars and rough sleepers: “they hardly dare to enter the modern cathedrals of steel and glass”.

The anthropologist Marc Augé qualifies these new spaces as “non-places”. He writes: “Non-places are spaces of transport and transit that are lacking any historical significance and strong symbolism. If a place can be defined as relational historical and concerned with identity, then a space which cannot be defined as relational historical or concerned with identity will be a non-place.” (Augé, 1995) His statement is that these places does not promote a public experience. They are not capable of bringing people together like cities’ traditional public spaces can!

The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas already stated in 1962 in his work Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit that the public domain is under constant pressure from all sorts of forces and even risks vanishing completely. (Habermas, 1962) The question is addressed: “When a space is defined by restrictions, to what extent are we still free agents?” Following Habermas Michael Sorkin addresses: “The effort to reclaim the city is the struggle of democracy itself. “ (Sorkin, 1992)

They authors address the essential questions on this topic: What influence does architecture have? How can architecture accommodate and represent public life? In order to search for answers one should study the public sphere in the context of modernity. This is for the following reason: “Modernity has affected the way in which architecture approaches the public sphere.”

Modernity

While talking about modernity one should be specific about the difference of the terms ‘modernization’, ‘modernity’ and ‘modernism’. Modernization refers to the process of innovation. Modernity is the experience of modernization, it is the condition arising from technical and socio-economic innovation. Modernism refers to the artistic and intellectual reflection on modernity.

Another important term according modernity is ‘normalization’. Normalization refers to the reorganization of society by new common norms. Modernization caused “a search for a great, new rational world order.” Rational control, structuring, and regulation of life are the keywords.

The authors refer to Michel Foucault if they state that “modern society maintain the illusion of a perfectible world.” Humans who behave unpredictably, irrationally, or in a uncivilized way are being re-educated in specialized institutions: prisons, workhouses and boarding schools. (Foucault, 1963)

Modernity and its stages

According to the Dutch philosopher René Boomkens there are four “historical and philosophical stages of modernity”:

The 1st stage starts in the mid-nineteenth century. This was a time of new inventions, scientific breakthroughs and the rise of industry.

The 2nd stage was the period between the world wars. There was a process of liberation from the past, progress, aim at the future and emancipation. There was a strong utopian believe the perfectibility of society. The reaction on this movement was worried about a return to barbarism.

The 3rd stage was more diffuse. There was a growth of economical prosperity and social mobility but there was also a an increasing process of individualization.

The 4th stage is postmodernity. A claim that modernity brought not only freedom but also alienation and social exclusion. The destructive and volatile aspects of modernity are being enlightened.

- Augé, M. (1995). Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. New York: Verso.
- Avermaete, T. en Havik, K. (2009). Architectural Positions - Architecture, Modernity and the Public Sphere: An Everyday Triad. . Amsterdam: SUN publishers.
- Boomkens, R. (1998). Een drempel-wereld. Moderne ervaring en stedelijke openbaarheid.Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.
- Foucault, M. (1963). Naissance de la clinique . Paris: PUF.
- Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. . Darmstadt: Luchterhand.
- Sorkin, M. (1992). Variations on a Theme Park. New York : Hill & Wang.