PUBLIC SPACES
Under this title I will publish a series of multimedia essays, commenting on the public areas that I encounter in my daily life and travels.
I believe that the way a social system (community, culture, a nation, etc.) chooses to assign, design and utilize public spaces, is a reflection of the level of health of the social relationships within that system.
Definition of Terms:
Public Spaces - I will refer here mainly to urban spaces, such as parks and squares, libraries, schools.
Social Health / Level of health in social relationships - I define it as the ability of a social system to achieve a relatively stable aesthetic distance between its community needs and the private needs of its individuals.
Aesthetic Distance - in this case I define it as the optimal distance (in a figurative way) between the individuality and togetherness forces that act in that specific social system. More clear: the aesthetic distance of a social system represents the appropriate balance between two extreme social attitudes:individualism on one hand; and and communism (understood as an -ism, rather than as a political system), on the other hand.
By appropriate I mean that there is no main focus on either of these extremes, AND there is no fight for supremacy within the social system: the need for and the pursuit of individuality does not exclude the need for and the pursuit of social togetherness.
I would like to specify here that, in my view, the concept of aesthetic distance is not a midpoint, not an exact balance determined by perfectly equal quantities - it is not a politically correct distance. Instead, I see it as a homeostasis, as a state of dynamic equilibrium, where the extremes do not confront, but they complete each other (a state described by Mircea Eliade as coincidentia opositorum, the coincidence of the opposites).
Similar to art, business consulting or psychotherapeutic interventions, where it produces a moment of cathartic nature, the aesthetic distance of social systems is a state that cannot be maintained permanently, in fact it usually lasts relatively short periods of time. When achieved within a larger social system, aesthetic distance creates an opportunity for significant social transformations.
The space and the institutions shared by the individuals of a society(i.e., the Public Spaces), reflect their value system and social attitude. At one end of the spectrum we have a social system that believes that everything should available to everyone, and ends up coercing the individuals to give up their private property, their individual desires, needs and wants, supposedly for the good of the community. At the other end of the spectrum we have the system that promotes exclusively (or coerces into?...) the benefits and freedom of private ownership (including owning nothing). In both cases the public spaces are suffering, by either being invested with qualities and powers they cannot hold, or by being considered a burden and hence let to decay.
Between any two ends (extremes) there is an infinity of points: there is no need to adopt a fundamentalist attitude (such as communism, or laissez-faire capitalism) about the way we construct our social systems and public spaces. The idea is to place ourselves at aesthetic distance -- defined as a dynamic psycho-social mental space, appropriately distanced from the extremes. This social aesthetic distance is directly related with a sense of social responsibility. However, social responsibility can exist only when individuals forming a social system have acquired an appropriate balance between their sense of self (Individuality) and their sense of belonging (Togetherness). Public Spaces are indicators of the position where a social system situates itself on the continuum created between Individualism and Enmeshment.
I believe that the way a social system (community, culture, a nation, etc.) chooses to assign, design and utilize public spaces, is a reflection of the level of health of the social relationships within that system.
Definition of Terms:
Public Spaces - I will refer here mainly to urban spaces, such as parks and squares, libraries, schools.
Social Health / Level of health in social relationships - I define it as the ability of a social system to achieve a relatively stable aesthetic distance between its community needs and the private needs of its individuals.
Aesthetic Distance - in this case I define it as the optimal distance (in a figurative way) between the individuality and togetherness forces that act in that specific social system. More clear: the aesthetic distance of a social system represents the appropriate balance between two extreme social attitudes:individualism on one hand; and and communism (understood as an -ism, rather than as a political system), on the other hand.
By appropriate I mean that there is no main focus on either of these extremes, AND there is no fight for supremacy within the social system: the need for and the pursuit of individuality does not exclude the need for and the pursuit of social togetherness.
I would like to specify here that, in my view, the concept of aesthetic distance is not a midpoint, not an exact balance determined by perfectly equal quantities - it is not a politically correct distance. Instead, I see it as a homeostasis, as a state of dynamic equilibrium, where the extremes do not confront, but they complete each other (a state described by Mircea Eliade as coincidentia opositorum, the coincidence of the opposites).
Similar to art, business consulting or psychotherapeutic interventions, where it produces a moment of cathartic nature, the aesthetic distance of social systems is a state that cannot be maintained permanently, in fact it usually lasts relatively short periods of time. When achieved within a larger social system, aesthetic distance creates an opportunity for significant social transformations.
The space and the institutions shared by the individuals of a society(i.e., the Public Spaces), reflect their value system and social attitude. At one end of the spectrum we have a social system that believes that everything should available to everyone, and ends up coercing the individuals to give up their private property, their individual desires, needs and wants, supposedly for the good of the community. At the other end of the spectrum we have the system that promotes exclusively (or coerces into?...) the benefits and freedom of private ownership (including owning nothing). In both cases the public spaces are suffering, by either being invested with qualities and powers they cannot hold, or by being considered a burden and hence let to decay.
Between any two ends (extremes) there is an infinity of points: there is no need to adopt a fundamentalist attitude (such as communism, or laissez-faire capitalism) about the way we construct our social systems and public spaces. The idea is to place ourselves at aesthetic distance -- defined as a dynamic psycho-social mental space, appropriately distanced from the extremes. This social aesthetic distance is directly related with a sense of social responsibility. However, social responsibility can exist only when individuals forming a social system have acquired an appropriate balance between their sense of self (Individuality) and their sense of belonging (Togetherness). Public Spaces are indicators of the position where a social system situates itself on the continuum created between Individualism and Enmeshment.