In the following the two guiding theoretical frameworks are presented. Initially, and primarily, Lefebvre’s conceptual triad of the production of the social space is presented. Lefebvre not only contributes with an analytical method, but his perception of space and emphasis in the spatial practice is also used methodologically in the thesis. The analytical triad thus embraces the second guiding framework: Kingsley and Urry’s use of systemtheory. The system theory focuses on development or paths of the specific system.
3.1 Lefebvre – the triad
As mentioned, Lefebvre will be the key component of the methodological framework, which calls for an elaborated description of his conceptual triad.
“The aim is to construct a theoretical unity between ‘fields’, which are apprehended separately,” (Lefebvre 1991: 11)
By referring to historical development of the perception of space Lefebvre emphasizes the change from an absolute to an abstract perception of space. (Shield 1998: 176, Lefebvre 2004: 47) In short, absolute space focuses only on the physical, ruled by warfare and military action. (Lefebvre 1991: 48, Simonsen 1999: 8) In contrast, the abstract space deconstructs the absolute and focuses only on the formal relationships between things/signs (See also Methodology chapter).
Instead of perceiving space as a whole, the elements, both physical and psychological, are analysed as part of the symbolism that shapes space. (Lefebvre 1991: 49) The two perceptions occur due to changes in the history of ideas (Shield 1998: 171), but, as Lefebvre states in the above quote, they are apprehended separately and have occurred as scientific paradigms, with antagonistic overtaking of the 'popular truth' instead of merging ideas. In his work, Lefebvre draws on the spatial development and bases his theorising of the production of space on The double illusion - the illusion of transparency and the realistic illusion (Lefebvre 1991: 27).
The double illusion embarks on the break with Decartes’ dichotomy between mental (res cogitans) and material space (res extensa). (Lefebvre 1991: 39). The illusion of transparency is grounded in the intervention of talking and writing, which was widely accepted for describing a coded realm. The emphasis on decoding the coded realm gives space an intelligible nature and deflects the attention from the materiality of space in favour of mental and social elements, with a similar unilateral optic as Decartes´ res cogitans. (Lefebvre 1991: 29). By decoding space it thus occurs as illuminated, understandable and real. (Simonsen 2005: 169). Executing an epistemologically approach, based on the illusion of transparency, is done by writing and saying everything. Therefore, communication is key for changing space (i.e., society – revolution) with only little faith given the autonomy of the people.
On the other hand the realistic illusion embarks on space perceived as (mechanical) materialistic; here the emphasis is on the physical - substantial and the natural. Space needs no decoding due to its materiality, thus mental and social elements of spatiality are deflected (res extensa). When studying space as a material, things appear as real. (Lefebvre 1991: 30).
According to Lefebvre, the above are examples of the apprehended separated aspects of spatial studies; aspects that are not entering antagonism, but are challenged due to the fact they both are stating conclusions within the same field. (Lefebvre 1991: 30). To apprehend, physical, mental and social elements as one, he introduces his conceptual triad.
Lefebvre’s’ entry point for gathering these elements is: the body. The body posses the required characteristics to bridge the two apprehensions; it both perceives and is being perceived. It appears as both subject and object in one, thus overcomes Decartes´ optic mentioned above. The body consists of consciousness with embedded mental and social elements as well as a physical appearance, also noted in Merleau Ponty´s corporeity phenomenology. (Simonsen 2001: 25). When the body perceives and is being perceived it is actions situated in time and space, and thus affect the perspective of the perception of space. Perceiving space as a production is key, because practices, such as perceiving as well as all other bodily activities, are done in time and space and therefore constantly change. (Lefebvre 1991: 31).
The physical, mental and social now have the required setup to be conceptualised in a unifying meta-theory. Lefebvre does this by introducing and “bringing the various kinds of space and the modalities of their genesis together with one theory” (Lefebvre 1991: 16). Three different types of space merges in one when social space is produced. Applying the physical, mental and social into spatial analysis requires a set of definitions of each space or element described as follows:
- Spatial practice
The physical is the practising body, which contributes to space with its physical appearance and its physical spatial practices, which Lefebvre states as the perceived space. We contribute to the production of space by perceiving – an active practice in time and space – whether we sitting silently on a bench or we commute on bikes.
- Representations of space
The scientific work of planners, architects, and social scientists covers the mental aspect in the production of space. Space is conceived theoretically and abstractly by appointed people with the mandate to dominate space by physically shaping the space we live in – the conceived space. It is the abstract presentations of experience in space reduced to quantified movements along with historical and present planning ideals executed by leaders. This is utilised by understanding, knowledge, and ideologies, and can be explained as the discourse on space. (Lefebvre 1991: 41, Shield 1999: 161).
- Representational space
The social element of space is considered the lived space, where history, culture, symbolism and tradition are socially created. This is done when people inhabit it, talk about it and think about it. According to Rob Shields, the socially produced sayings, symbols and thoughts can be described as, the discourses of space. These experiences are sought to be changed and appropriated by the users of space. (Lefebvre 1991: 39, Shields 1998:163).
Lefebvre’s conceptual triangle incorporates all three elements dynamically and thus avoids Decartes’ binary struggle.
To partly utilise Lefebvre´s triad, we can use the Copenhagen case. Literature and experts on the subject and the gathering of data from practicing bicyclists contribute to cover the three elements of the triad (See methodology for data-covering).
To sum up the introduction to Lefebvre, the analytical triad briefly shows the data already presented and the data that needs to be gathered or discussed.
Pragmatically, this can be put into equations as follows:
In the Copenhagen case, we already have the result of Lefebvre’s three elements: the well functioning social space of velo-mobility. It is each element of the triad that needs to be analysed.
With Lefebvre´s triad in mind three sub questions can assist the research question:
- What is the social practice of the bicyclists in Copenhagen?
- What are the leading discourses on the space of velo-mobility? (representations of space)
- What are the leading discourses of the space of velo-mobility? (Representational space)
3.2 Kingsley & Urry – The socio-technical system approach
The initial interest for Kingsley and Urry´s ‘After the car’ is based on the difference in objective in comparison to Lefebvre’s analytical project. With a critical perspective, Lefebvre’s analysis is utilized to understanding the present state of a certain field e.g. state, economy or urban space, etc. Kingsley and Urry’s’ approach is grounded in systemtheory, with an emphasis on the causes for change. System-theorists focus, rather, on the development of systems and their surrounding environments. The system-theory is applied due to the interest in how a series of historical events have affected the path of Copenhagen’s infrastructure to be a pioneer in velo-mobility.
The inspiration sought in Kingsley and Urry’s post-car system is related to what Lefebvre calls the accumulated scientific knowledge as a part of the representations of space. (Lefebvre 1991:40). However, the development of the space of velo-mobility also affects the representation of space and the spatial practice indicated by the two-way arrows. 3.2.1 Context - Systemtheory
According to system-theorists, the increasing complexity of the society makes us no longer capable of understanding the society and make rational decisions. The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann points out this evolution of society by emphasizing certain evolutionary steps in the organizing of our societies.
It began with the relatively simple monarchies where the state and legal power were personalized in the hegemony. The simple system developed and increased in complexity with dispersion or outsourcing of the power into smaller sub-systems of politics, economy, geography, etc., towards our functional differentiated modern society. The different systems are affected by their environment and internal activity. These activities usually strive towards a return to equilibrium by self-reference. However, changes appear constantly and systems can disappear or evolve into more subsystems, or completely new systems. (Luhmann, 1990: 167).
Our present society can be used as example. It has increased complexity and dispersed into numerous subsystems, both geographically in counties and municipalities and ruling power into governments and ministries.
As a solution to the complexity-challenge Luhmann introduces the system-theory approach as a very comprehensive, criticized and abstract theory, so I will refrain to attempt a full explanation but instead focus on what Kingsley and Urry use to describe the evolution of the car-system. It has been capable to have a clear dominance in the variety of transportation. Through time the car system has not only eliminated potential threats to this position, but it has also had a major impact on our daily production of space, both physical in planning and our travelling patterns.
3.2.2 Content – feedback mechanisms, Tipping point and socio-technical systems
Kingsley and Urry analyse the development of auto-mobility as a complex system, and hence describe systems as:
“(…) patterned, regular and rule-bound, but through their workings they can generate unpredictable features and unintended effects(...)Complexity thus investigates emergent, dynamic and self-organizing systems that co-evolve and adapt in ways that heavily influence the probabilities of later events.” (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 48).
The quote shows the system-theory’s emphasis on future developments, albeit a rather unpredictable future. Central for the matter is change: what changes a system? In this present case the social space of velo-mobility is the system undergoing changes. Kingsley and Urry use two significant notions to describe the changes of systems: Feedback mechanisms and tipping points.
3.2.3 Feedback mechanisms
Each system is constantly affected by its environment, which leads to change, albeit at a very different pace. According to both Luhmann and Kingsley and Urry systems are most likely to re-store their function and develop as little as possible, by referring to itself – self-reference. (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 54, Luhmann 1995: 218). Self-reference is done by a negative feedback process, where the circular causality, also known as the systems equilibrium, is re-established as a counter to the change. Exemplified negative feedback in the auto-mobility system can for example be the fact that the car-prices are lowered at times of economic recession.
Rapid changes occur when systems are unable to keep up the equilibrium and thus undergo changes. The changes usually lead to an immediately new equilibrium, but sometimes the changes develop a snowball effect, which leads to radical changes of a system. These changes are known as positive feedback where one change leads to yet another change etc. An example of this, for instance, is the rapid development of fax-machines or cell-phones, which swept over the globe and changed our means of communication overnight. However, the fax machine is also an example of how a necessity (system) certainly becomes obsolete and disappears. (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 55). Copenhagen has seen positive feedbacks that have developed another path for the mobility-system than other similar cities, which makes this notion a noticeable focus in the analysis. The changes in systems are highly influenced by the environment and its socio-technical changes affecting the system, however,
“Once a development is set on a particular course, the network externalities, the learning processes of organizations, and the historical derived subjective modelling of the issues reinforce the course.”(Kingsley & Urry 2009:56)
Kingsley and Urry's example with auto-mobility is stated to transform our urban landscapes and influence our perception of mobility-culture in general, also explained above by Jane Jacobs. (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 56, Jacobs 1992).
3.2.4 Tipping points
Systems precondition a certain kind of negative feedback and equilibrium for us to acknowledge it as a system. In time, systems can be highly vulnerable towards externalities, which Ervin Laszlo notes as Chaos points, where systems paths are more likely to change than normally (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 59). An example is climate change that is said to create drastic changes with even small abnormalities in temperature. Kingsley and Urry describe this figuratively: if one adds a grain of sand to a pile, it may land and strengthen the structure of the pile or be the very grain that causes the avalanche (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 60). An increasing emphasis on the climate might cause positive feedback for both cycle- and car systems. Climate changes might pass the thresholds for the equilibrium and be the tipping point for both systems. It is worth noticing that the consequences of positive feedback can be both good or bad, reconfiguration is the only certainty.
Firstly, they present a series of events that have turned out to be crucial for the development of the car system. And secondly they present major initiatives and factors that can reconfigure the car systems into the New post-car system. (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 49, 65).
The ‘New post-car system’ is seen as important guide for the development of the cycle system of Copenhagen, due to the fact that we all transport ourselves in the city and therefore create a competition in the modal split or a mobility battle (Horton 2007:3). If we choose to take the bike to work we choose also not to take the car.
In the following Kingsley and Urry’s Post-car system is briefly presented as an example and a reference for an elaborated understanding of the possibilities with the socio-technical systems.
3.2.5 The’ New post-car system’ and Copenhagen as mobility
system
When studying the bicycle system development and looking at feedbacks and tipping points one has to identify significant elements in the system, just as Kingsley and Urry do to the car-system.
“We examine the car system as being made up of humans (driver, passengers, pedestrians), machines materials, fuel, roads, buildings, and cultures, what is key is not the 'car' but the system of connections.” (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 63)
Importing this into a bicycle-context the events involving and influencing cyclism are key to understand the strength of the bicycle system. Kingsley and Urry use Frank Geels innovation systems, and stress that not only technical revolution will create a change in urban mobility, but also policies, user practices, innovations, industry structures, new perceptions of private vehicles etc., account for changes in the mobility systems. (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 63). This list shows that the socio-technical system share the same break from Descartes´ binary perspective on the physical and the non-physical. Here again the social and the physical are seen in one system.
Each circle separately affects the system as a minor change. One will challenge the present system’s equilibrium and altogether the inter- dependent influences might make the present car system pass the tipping point and change the system into a New post-car system.
The New post-car system will serve as inspiration for the analysis of development of velo-mobility in Copenhagen. Any feedback for the car also affects the bicycle and vice versa since they are both a part of the overall mobility system. Copenhageners will always commute, but they can choose between different modes of transport. New fuel systems; transport policies; living, work, leisure practices; etc. will affect the mobility subsystem and will be a favour to one of the different modes of transport. (Kingsley & Urry 2009: 65).
Pragmatically, we can see the modal split as the mobility system of Copenhagen with the different modes of transport as subsystems. Hierarchically, the mobility system is above and encompasses the different modes of transport, so changes in the modal split does only affect the subsystems. (Luhmann 1993: 19). The system-theory approach allows an elaborate analysis of the development of Copenhagen as a bicycle pioneer.
With Kingsley and Urry’s’ system approach two sub-questions can assist the research question:
- What major social and technical feedbacks have affected Copenhagen’s system of velo-mobility?
- What can be identified as tipping points in the development of Copenhagen’s system of velo-mobility?
In the following chapter the methodology will be presented beginning with the perceptions of space- and mobility used in the thesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment