Technology, place and community
Andrew Light argues convincingly that the foundation of environmentalism is a primary concern for one’s relationship to one’s fellow humans (“The Moral Journey of Environmentalism: From Wilderness to Place,” in Adaptive Design: Tools for Sustainability, Steven A. Moore, editor). That is, the context for concern for the environment is framed in relationships and human community. In the process, he casts serious doubts on the effectiveness if not validity of the experience of environmentalism as being a quasi-spiritual one, to the point of mocking them. I’ll not take issue with his position on Deep Ecology and its adherents. Of greater interest, particularly in the context of the other readings, is the relationship between environmentalism and community.
(Just using the word environmentalism makes my skin creep if not crawl. Light’s chapter helped me see why: the term marginalizes those with concern for our global health and puts them in the ghetto of reactionary discourse. Thankfully that’s changing, but it has seemed that that label hurt the cause of our common future by objectifying its adherents as extremists. I think I’ll stick to sustainability, as clichéd as that’s becoming).
Now let’s look at GIS (geographic information system; it is to geography and planning as CAD is to architecture), a technology that points to a fundamentally phenomenological understanding of place. The methodology of mapping abstract data in layers (or Themes) onto a digital model of geography has interesting implications. The first is that an abstract tabulation of data can capture the qualities of place. This is not so new: homogeneity or equivalency of space is a Cartesian precept that, as Eliade argued, characterizes the modern world-view as distinct from the tribal or primitive. The difference here is that the sheer quantity of data can produce quite nuanced mappings, as TMY2 data tables or information modeling for land development projects can easily attest. GIS implies that with enough layers, enough data, the unique characteristics of a place will be wholly defined. In that regard, it has the potential for objectifying place as being a thing outside one’s self or world. The notion that a place can be contained within a machine, even virtually, may add to that objectification.
Secondly and more profoundly, the very nature of GIS data, both in its collection and tabulation, implies human use. That is, we collect and organize data according to whether it is useful. One could, I suppose, create a sentimental layer in a GIS model, and as in Light’s village, map locales where marriage proposals have taken place, but that is hardly the common usage. Soil alkalinity, prevailing winds, demographic income levels, automotive traffic—these are the types of data we tend to map. There is therefore an inherent relationship of use in GIS.
Third, GIS allows, even excels, at filtering data. Place is not a singular place; it can be seen as topography, or vegetation, or climate, or fauna, or any of hundreds of data types. In fact, to view all data layers in a GIS model is overwhelming and renders it useless. Its power is in its abstraction (much as architectural drawings).
On these three points — homogenous space, data oriented to human use, and data filtering — GIS or more properly the perspective it implies is an inherently objectifying exercise. But go back to Light’s critique of first and second phase environmentalism. The problem with an individualistic basis for an environmental concern is that while it might appear at first blush to be subjective, that is framing the natural world as the subject of our concern, in an odd way it actually objectifies “nature”, as a personal and exclusive experience.
Because of its emphasis on community — at least potentially — the GIS-view allows for the subjective. We rely on data derived from actual experience (the foundation of phenomenology) in order to construct a graspable model of a geographic region. Furthermore, the GIS-view’s relating geography to human use ties human activity, human experience, human community to “nature”. That is not to say that one cannot use GIS to exploit and damage a geographical region. But by deepening our understanding of the relationship between these layers of data, there is a possibility of seeing our relationship to the physical world not as self and other (objective), but self and larger self (subjective). In practical terms, when we invite “nature” to join our human community, or see humans as part of the “natural” community, we improve the quality of life for systems as a whole, and their human and non-human components.
(Just using the word environmentalism makes my skin creep if not crawl. Light’s chapter helped me see why: the term marginalizes those with concern for our global health and puts them in the ghetto of reactionary discourse. Thankfully that’s changing, but it has seemed that that label hurt the cause of our common future by objectifying its adherents as extremists. I think I’ll stick to sustainability, as clichéd as that’s becoming).
Now let’s look at GIS (geographic information system; it is to geography and planning as CAD is to architecture), a technology that points to a fundamentally phenomenological understanding of place. The methodology of mapping abstract data in layers (or Themes) onto a digital model of geography has interesting implications. The first is that an abstract tabulation of data can capture the qualities of place. This is not so new: homogeneity or equivalency of space is a Cartesian precept that, as Eliade argued, characterizes the modern world-view as distinct from the tribal or primitive. The difference here is that the sheer quantity of data can produce quite nuanced mappings, as TMY2 data tables or information modeling for land development projects can easily attest. GIS implies that with enough layers, enough data, the unique characteristics of a place will be wholly defined. In that regard, it has the potential for objectifying place as being a thing outside one’s self or world. The notion that a place can be contained within a machine, even virtually, may add to that objectification.
Secondly and more profoundly, the very nature of GIS data, both in its collection and tabulation, implies human use. That is, we collect and organize data according to whether it is useful. One could, I suppose, create a sentimental layer in a GIS model, and as in Light’s village, map locales where marriage proposals have taken place, but that is hardly the common usage. Soil alkalinity, prevailing winds, demographic income levels, automotive traffic—these are the types of data we tend to map. There is therefore an inherent relationship of use in GIS.
Third, GIS allows, even excels, at filtering data. Place is not a singular place; it can be seen as topography, or vegetation, or climate, or fauna, or any of hundreds of data types. In fact, to view all data layers in a GIS model is overwhelming and renders it useless. Its power is in its abstraction (much as architectural drawings).
On these three points — homogenous space, data oriented to human use, and data filtering — GIS or more properly the perspective it implies is an inherently objectifying exercise. But go back to Light’s critique of first and second phase environmentalism. The problem with an individualistic basis for an environmental concern is that while it might appear at first blush to be subjective, that is framing the natural world as the subject of our concern, in an odd way it actually objectifies “nature”, as a personal and exclusive experience.
Because of its emphasis on community — at least potentially — the GIS-view allows for the subjective. We rely on data derived from actual experience (the foundation of phenomenology) in order to construct a graspable model of a geographic region. Furthermore, the GIS-view’s relating geography to human use ties human activity, human experience, human community to “nature”. That is not to say that one cannot use GIS to exploit and damage a geographical region. But by deepening our understanding of the relationship between these layers of data, there is a possibility of seeing our relationship to the physical world not as self and other (objective), but self and larger self (subjective). In practical terms, when we invite “nature” to join our human community, or see humans as part of the “natural” community, we improve the quality of life for systems as a whole, and their human and non-human components.
Labels: community, GIS, phenomenology, place, sustainability
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home