Urban Eidos Issue 4:
Self, Space, Society
The relations between Self and space are not an abstract issue, but essential for society. ‘Modernity experienced a transition from community to anonymous society,’ the German sociologist Tönnies said at the end of the 19th century already. What about this today? And what about the Self, the single individual unit inside such contexts, and its space? How is life perceived in recent modern conditions, and how does this relate to recent societies? What about Self-conception, the inner eidos of the Self about itself (as addressed in the 4th issue of our journal Urban Eidos)? When speaking about Self and Space, the space related to the Self has several dimensions. Space is not only architectural space, but also the inner space of the Self and the social space that Self is belonging to.
First and foremost, it is an inner space, one belonging to, and formed by the Self as an individual human being; thoughts, emotions, imaginations, psychic as well as mental potentials and capacities, and so on. Summarized, it is about mind, soul, and spirituality. Particularly today, such an inner space is influenced by various forces threating it.
Next, in being a communal animal or zoon politikon, the Self relates to social spaces it is part of. Here, the aspect of community comes into play – to whom we belong, and want to belong to. Society as such is an abstraction – in fact, it consists of many individuals belonging to many different (and often overlapping) groups of people; to different communities, no matter their kind and degree of coherence. These diverse groupings make up what is called “society.”
Next, the Self relates to organized space, a space that is expressed in the context of civilization as architecture. One of its parts is the invisible but life-shaping architecture of social organization. Such architectures operate, as deliberately planned entities, to achieve some purposes, comprising the organizational architectures of institutions, enterprises, political parties, to name a few. In its total it is the invisible infrastructural architecture our recent civilization rests upon. The organizational spaces of these entities are architecture, an important component of social space. These architectures of formal organization, from the metro schedule to the corporation hierarchy, shape our lives and hence, influence the Self and our self-understanding of the Self, particularly in modern times.
An understanding of the Self is formed by life conditions. To these conditions belongs a further dimension of space, that of the visible built environment – the corporation citadels, streets, houses and public spaces in cities, the shopping malls, the “junk landscapes” of their outskirts, the housing districts of the poor, the representative and culturally inherited buildings. For this dimension of space, the question of community and the communal comes into play again: what about the public parks, the city quarters with their neighbourhoods, places of identity and belonging (as an individual, I cannot “belong” to a shopping mall, for instance). What about them, and their destruction?
An understanding of the Self, as well as that Self in itself, is based upon all those dimensions of space. A further dimension of space is to be considered: the space of evolution, of history, and its ideas. An understanding of the Self is culture-specific, based upon assumptions about a generalized human condition or conditio humana rooted in cultural heritage and a collective consciousness. Here, the aspect of community comes into play again since such a heritage is also group-specific; members of a rocker gang, as members of a specific community, do have a different self-understanding than politicians, middle class employees or corporation managers; for instance. Included in such a heritage are myths, philosophical and anthropological concepts about a generalized human condition and (hence) the Self: who we are, as human beings, where do we come from, what is our position and meaning in this world? In line with this, a Self presupposes an internal consciousness of itself. It is affected by collective consciousness, together with an understanding of cultural heritage and commonly shared values. In large parts, such a consciousness is in danger of extinction today.
For our forthcoming fourth issue of our journal, we want to invite for contributions. Deadline for submissions is January 31, 2025. Please consider the submission guidelines; otherwise, your paper cannot be accepted. In case of any questions please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office via mail@urban-eidos.com.
Ulrich Gehmann, Andreas Siess
Archive of past calls
The Neoliberal Agenda
(Issue 3 of Urban Eidos)
Our forthcoming issue will focus on the ideology of a neoliberal market and its consequences, in particular the destruction of space and community. This will affect living spaces and the individual within society. To use the metaphor of an ecosystem, the worldwide conditions generated by a recent neoliberal market constitute the encompassing socioeconomic and cultural ecosystem we all live in today.
The Ideal Spaces Foundation is holding a symposium on the neoliberal agenda, co-hosted by the international film maker, author, and visual artist Dr. Allan Siegel; please have a look at https://www.idealspaces.org/news/symposium-neoliberal-agenda/
The neoliberal agenda is not in any manner confined to an economic sphere. ‘The neoliberal world view’, says Allan Siegel, ‘permeates the interactions of peoples’ daily lives, and is embedded within a geographical network of diverse institutions and governing agencies. The ideology and practices of neoliberalism impacts economic, governmental and social practices’, he says, ‘and the fallout from its ideas filters through the social spaces of home and work and undermines dimensions of the public sphere’.
It is an agenda that does not need democracy, nor community, the demos. It centres upon the individual’s capabilities and on competition, instead of cooperation; its basic assumption regarding society is, what is best for the subject is also good for the society. To cite Siegel again, ‘the neoliberal ethos promotes the privatization of public services and space and undermines the communal aspects of social life, thereby diminishing democratic ideals and political interactions. It negates the concept of the demos, and interactions between citizens.’
In terms of world view, it is not (only) about the reign of a free market. It is the eidos of a complete privatization, alongside the belief that this is good for all, and for the best of society in the end. In its original Latin meaning, ‘privatization’ comes from privare, to bereave – who is bereaved, who gains, and what is the overall societal outcome and why and how should this be the best for all?
Is this all? Are there other concepts, also of liberalism, that could work? And if so, how, under which frame conditions? Liberalism is not confined to unleashed market forces and a neoliberal agenda, freedom is more than a free market, the demos is not confined to voters, and true entrepreneurship is not just capitalism. What about new perspectives, and solutions to overcome the existing ecosystem?
Polis and Democracy – the idea of the city for free citizens
(Issue 2 of Urban Eidos)
Democracy, and the related ideas of free citizens and human rights, are no self-evident achievements. Worldwide, democracies are in retreat, in favor of authoritarian and autocratic regimes. Inclusion of citizens on an equal basis is essential for democracy, next to the capability for true dialogue and a community allowing for diversity in public discourse and positions.
It was an idea that originated in Western culture, and one of its origins has been the Greek Polis. In its democratic versions, it is a human habitat where free citizens vote and discuss with equal rights and duties, to actively influence their own lives – and not just getting influenced as it is the case for the majority today, influenced and effectively steered by just a few in power, no matter if on the political level or that of multinational corporations.
The community of free citizens was a reality and a dream, at the same time, a dream reflected in many utopias. One of the habitats of such a community is the city. Today, the majority of all people worldwide live in cities. As regards the basic human condition, for Aristotle, the human being was a zoon politikon, an animal living in the Polis. For human beings, it is ‘natural’ to live in that way. A Polis means community, i.e. true inclusion, and in its democratic variants, deliberate participation in molding the habitat where I, as a free citizen, am living.
What about these features today, even in pro forma democratic states? Is a ‘parliamentary’ democracy still truly democratic in the sense of active, direct participation? What about the habitat, the city? What are the forces molding it? What about its architectures and their suitedness for communal living, and communities? Is a revival of city, community and direct democracy possible? Even more: is the ideal of direct democracy and cities suited to it still up to date, in times of socially and politically fragmented societies consisting of millions of people, the primate of neoliberal economy, and the Internet?
We aim to address these and other questions in our upcoming issue of Urban Eidos. Therefore, we invite submissions from scholars, architects, practitioners, and artists who wish to engage with the concept of the ‘free city for free citizens’. Contributors are welcome to approach this topic through the lens of specific case studies, reports on concrete projects, or from a broader, theoretical/historical perspective. We look forward to receiving a wide array of contributions.