There is an old Gaelic language proverb which runs: ‘Nil Aon Tintean Mar Do Thinean Fein’ which translates into English as ‘there is no Hearth like your own Hearth’ or more succinctly: ‘there is no place like home’.
While dusting off an old town planning thesis (dating back to Edinburgh 1977) this week as part of a rather late ‘spring cleaning exercise’, I was flicking through the bulky tome and wondering if it’s contents had any relevance to today’s times. Perhaps as a little exercise in wish fulfilment, I decided to extract a few ideas from this thesis and to link them to a few current observations to see if I could construct any interesting hypotheses from them. Thus, this little blog may be appear somewhat academic compared to most blog entries of mine but I hope that any readers will indulge me this one time. The original planning thesis dealt with Personal Choice and Environmental Change as a basis for Housing Policies, but I would like to concentrate here in a more limited perspective on the definition and association of ‘Home’ both as a place association and active resource in the new era of rapid technological change.
It is perhaps inevitable in an age where the ideal of progress is so often projected as the optimum goal for social aspirations, that the artistic dimensions of modern life should suffer as compared with its technological and scientific aspects. Thus, despite our advanced technical ability to process information in ever increasing aspects of our daily lives as a basis for controlling decision making and infiltrating ordinary social intercourse, there would appear to exist a disturbing counterbalance of severe disenchantment with the quality of this life and its consequent manifestation in social malfunctions in human relationships. Arguably, the core malaise of modern life is the increasing divergence between art and science, values and technology in modern life. Simply expressed, the stimulus for science and technology is the perceived redress of a deficiency of knowledge, whereas the stimulus of art is the communication of refined and ordered expression to our emotions and our latent desires.
By structuring the World into domains defined by ‘natural’ directions, ancient man gained an ‘existential footing in the world. Such a structured environment depends upon our ability to recognise it, that is, on the existence of relatively invariant places. However, place is no longer the primary source of diversity, for mobility both physical and technological, has stirred the pot so thoroughly that the important differences between people are no longer place related. Commitments are shifting from place related structures (nation, city, and neighbourhood) to those (profession, friendship network) that are themselves mobile, fluid and for the most part, place-less. We have only to consider the huge impact on our daily lives of Facebook, Twitter and the Semantics domain in general, to see the profound impact of technological innovation on our lives, a process which through the integration and increasing sophistication of the place-less influence is likely to increase over the next few years.
Although a definite, limited territory is of great importance for human development, the quality of such a relationship and its influence on human behaviour is primarily symbolic. However, a place can symbolise social groups in quite different ways for different individuals. Each person has a certain ‘base of operations’ for his behaviour which is accommodated by a particular ‘radius of action’ within fixed limits. Thus, for example, if people always meet, converse or work in the same place, that place tends to symbolise the social relationships which occur in it. Hence, man is motivated by stimuli in the environment to which, through psychological conditioning over the years, he has learned to react. Objects only become symbols in social and communication processes. The very permanence of the material environment itself means that groups are liable to rediscover their collective memories in surroundings which at the same time they have themselves moulded.
Any activity has spatial aspects, because any activity implies movements and relations to places. Thus, the expression or character of the environment is neither something subjective within man nor something to be found outside, but an aspect of man’s being in the world. Character, therefore is determined by concrete things, such as a simple object like a fireplace while quality is determined by such abstract variables as their functional relationships. Which brings us right back to the Tintean (hearth). It is not for nothing that this Tintean became the focus of this special Irish phrase.
Thus in our brave new world of instant messaging and constantly updated news feeds through our wide array of communication tools, we should not loose sight of the importance of place relationships. The problem of social intercourse is the problem of intentions and attitudes of the human being faced with the reality of ever increasing dynamic change. The success of this social interchange depends not just on the rapidity or sophistication of the technology which provides a means to an end but more importantly on the continued renewal of a shared system of values which give this end meaning in itself.
So in summary what lesson has this little discourse for the Twitter addict? I would just say that the average little Tweeting Bird in his Twitter Nest should perhaps not give exclusive thought to the composition and dissemination of an endless stream of little social bleats. Rather he should also give some thought to the character and artistic realisation of his own little nesting place and its association with others in his ‘local’ community however defined in physical, social or cultural space. Otherwise, he runs the risk of eventually end up singing a bizarre solo refrain with technological wizardry in a social and artistic vacuum!
May I end therefore by quoting John Houriet from the foreword to my old humble thesis:
“Nothing- no person, no atomic particle –exists complete in itself, unaffected by the viewer. This is a fact of both physics and journalism. Reality is relationship”.
All comments and musings welcome!
While dusting off an old town planning thesis (dating back to Edinburgh 1977) this week as part of a rather late ‘spring cleaning exercise’, I was flicking through the bulky tome and wondering if it’s contents had any relevance to today’s times. Perhaps as a little exercise in wish fulfilment, I decided to extract a few ideas from this thesis and to link them to a few current observations to see if I could construct any interesting hypotheses from them. Thus, this little blog may be appear somewhat academic compared to most blog entries of mine but I hope that any readers will indulge me this one time. The original planning thesis dealt with Personal Choice and Environmental Change as a basis for Housing Policies, but I would like to concentrate here in a more limited perspective on the definition and association of ‘Home’ both as a place association and active resource in the new era of rapid technological change.
It is perhaps inevitable in an age where the ideal of progress is so often projected as the optimum goal for social aspirations, that the artistic dimensions of modern life should suffer as compared with its technological and scientific aspects. Thus, despite our advanced technical ability to process information in ever increasing aspects of our daily lives as a basis for controlling decision making and infiltrating ordinary social intercourse, there would appear to exist a disturbing counterbalance of severe disenchantment with the quality of this life and its consequent manifestation in social malfunctions in human relationships. Arguably, the core malaise of modern life is the increasing divergence between art and science, values and technology in modern life. Simply expressed, the stimulus for science and technology is the perceived redress of a deficiency of knowledge, whereas the stimulus of art is the communication of refined and ordered expression to our emotions and our latent desires.
By structuring the World into domains defined by ‘natural’ directions, ancient man gained an ‘existential footing in the world. Such a structured environment depends upon our ability to recognise it, that is, on the existence of relatively invariant places. However, place is no longer the primary source of diversity, for mobility both physical and technological, has stirred the pot so thoroughly that the important differences between people are no longer place related. Commitments are shifting from place related structures (nation, city, and neighbourhood) to those (profession, friendship network) that are themselves mobile, fluid and for the most part, place-less. We have only to consider the huge impact on our daily lives of Facebook, Twitter and the Semantics domain in general, to see the profound impact of technological innovation on our lives, a process which through the integration and increasing sophistication of the place-less influence is likely to increase over the next few years.
Although a definite, limited territory is of great importance for human development, the quality of such a relationship and its influence on human behaviour is primarily symbolic. However, a place can symbolise social groups in quite different ways for different individuals. Each person has a certain ‘base of operations’ for his behaviour which is accommodated by a particular ‘radius of action’ within fixed limits. Thus, for example, if people always meet, converse or work in the same place, that place tends to symbolise the social relationships which occur in it. Hence, man is motivated by stimuli in the environment to which, through psychological conditioning over the years, he has learned to react. Objects only become symbols in social and communication processes. The very permanence of the material environment itself means that groups are liable to rediscover their collective memories in surroundings which at the same time they have themselves moulded.
Any activity has spatial aspects, because any activity implies movements and relations to places. Thus, the expression or character of the environment is neither something subjective within man nor something to be found outside, but an aspect of man’s being in the world. Character, therefore is determined by concrete things, such as a simple object like a fireplace while quality is determined by such abstract variables as their functional relationships. Which brings us right back to the Tintean (hearth). It is not for nothing that this Tintean became the focus of this special Irish phrase.
Thus in our brave new world of instant messaging and constantly updated news feeds through our wide array of communication tools, we should not loose sight of the importance of place relationships. The problem of social intercourse is the problem of intentions and attitudes of the human being faced with the reality of ever increasing dynamic change. The success of this social interchange depends not just on the rapidity or sophistication of the technology which provides a means to an end but more importantly on the continued renewal of a shared system of values which give this end meaning in itself.
So in summary what lesson has this little discourse for the Twitter addict? I would just say that the average little Tweeting Bird in his Twitter Nest should perhaps not give exclusive thought to the composition and dissemination of an endless stream of little social bleats. Rather he should also give some thought to the character and artistic realisation of his own little nesting place and its association with others in his ‘local’ community however defined in physical, social or cultural space. Otherwise, he runs the risk of eventually end up singing a bizarre solo refrain with technological wizardry in a social and artistic vacuum!
May I end therefore by quoting John Houriet from the foreword to my old humble thesis:
“Nothing- no person, no atomic particle –exists complete in itself, unaffected by the viewer. This is a fact of both physics and journalism. Reality is relationship”.
All comments and musings welcome!
Mister - you are clever!
ReplyDelete