Compare_and_Contrast_Two_Views_of_How_Social_Order_Is_Produced_in_Public_Spaces.

In this essay I will be defining social order, and looking at how it is produced in public spaces. I will begin by looking at two opposing views of social order by Goffman and Foucalt. Then I will examine Buchannan’s report and Monderman’s thesis, describing both views and their relation to Goffman and Foucault‘s, and then compare and contrast to find the similarities and differences. Social order is the way that people imagine and practise their social existence. It is how individuals fit together in the world with other people and includes how they expect to interact. ‘Ordering is something intrinsic to social life and it is continuously practised.’ (Silva, 2009, p. 311) There are different ways of viewing social order, and the two examples I will be looking at are the contrasting views of Goffman and Foucalt. Erving Goffman places human interaction at the centre of his analysis, and suggests that social order is built up from social interactions. Within his studies he looks at the functions of rituals and orders in everyday life, and demonstrates the ways in which society is ordered through performances in certain contexts. This includes how people behave in the presence of others, and he views them as playing roles to manage the impressions they make on others. Within his studies in 1959, 1971 and 1972, he utilised the metaphor of the theatre, designating the front stage as the setting for the demands of interaction order, and the back stage as the place where people could let go of their performance (Silva, 2009, p.317) An example of this is the behaviour of restaurant waiters. On the ‘front stage’ with customers, they are courteous and respectful, projecting a capable and committed service with no negativity. On the ‘back stage’ in the kitchen, they transform into a more relaxed role, perhaps discussing customers unfavourably. Goffman believes that the rituals of trust and tact are carried out through control of bodily gesture, face and gaze along with the use of language, and that these are interactions carried out daily in pubic situations, even if we are not conscious of it. Michel Foucault views social order as being shaped and organised by authoritative knowledge. He focuses more on discourse to explore how knowledge and power have a bearing on shaping order. Authority to intervene in social order is granted to certain individuals - such as doctors, teachers, priests and policeman, and the authority is exercised through practices of law, punishment, education amongst others. Foucault’s concern is identifying who can claim authority over conduct and in whose interest. Foucalt contests the idea that the individual is a coherent being, self-aware and in control of themselves, and he regards historical processes as shaping the practices and power relations the define social order. Within his studies he examined the power to discipline human conduct, and different types of power (Silva, 2009, p. 321) There is sovereign power, where the ruling authorities of society (monarchy, state, political authority) have the power to punish wrongdoers visibly and publicly. This could be through public executions, torture or bruitilisation of certain targeted groups - dramatising the power an authority of rulers. Within European states this power gave way to other techniques based on expert knowledge and institutional arrangements, from schools to prisons. The increased surveillance encourages people to oversee themselves and regulate their conduct due to the assumed visibility to others. He views this as a disciplinary society, dominated by rationalist discourses used by professionals, based on professionalised knowledge and power connections and sees society as being characterised by coherence and order. In 1961, Colin Buchanan, an engineer, was commissioned by the UK Government to start work on the report ‘Traffic in Towns’. This was due to a large growth in motor vehicle usage, and there were concerns about road congestion unless the increase in vehicles was matched by an increased supply of roads. The report aimed to produce a new design for urban space ensuring access for vehicles to a large number of buildings without lowering the standard of environment for life in towns. The key principle was to isolate the ‘rooms’ for working, shopping and leisure from the ‘corridors’ where traffic would be (Silva, 2009, p. 327). The restriction of car use in towns became the vision for ordering space, and the principle of segregation of cars and pedestrians came about. The templates for town planning that followed this encompassed cases from Brasilia, the capital of Brazil, that were built in the late 1950s when segregation ideas first emerged, to Milton Keynes in the early 1960s, joining together many small villages through a grid system. This did not work well everywhere, and some new housing schemes within older towns became physically isolated such as Hulme, Manchester and Castle Vale, Birmingham. Within the report traffic is viewed as a dangerous agent, and to contain the dangers it must be segregated, isolated an bounded by roles imposed through visible space. There are similarities with the views of Michel Foucault, on the order being shaped by those with authoritative knowledge. Hans Monderman’s view is radically different to that of Buchanan. The segregation of pedestrians and vehicles since the early 1960s has led to an increasing arrany of traffic lights, railings, road marking and ‘traffic calming’ measures such as warning signs and speed humps. Monderman’s thesis is the best way to improve road safety is to remove all of these roadside amrkings and warnings. This is called ‘psychological traffic calming’. The aim is to create the need to motorists and pedestrians to share the area, and negotiate with each other for use of the road. He believes that this will encourage motorists to take responsibility for their actions, rather than being told what to do. In 1982, Monderman began his experiments after being appointed a traffic safety officer in Friesland, Netherlands (Silva, 2009, p.333). He stripped the village of Oudeshaske of signs and barriers, creating a plain and even surface, and it was found that drivers speed was reduced by 40 per cent when driving through the village as they were more aware of their surroundings. The ‘shared space scheme’ was replicated in other places, and an experiment using Monderman’s ideas was carried out in the town of Drachten, Netherlands. A junction east of the town centre had been causing problems during peak hours with traffic jams and gridlock. The decision was made to remove the lights, raise the road surface to the same height as the pavements and remove the road markings and stop signs. The journalist Max Gaskin reported on his experience of driving through this new ‘shared space’ (cited in Silva, 2009, p.335) and explained that whilst it was a slightly frightening experience, he felt that “.. there was no doubt that my concentration levels were higher than if I were simply obeying a green or red traffic light. And after attempting the same junction several times I found that I instinctively looked at the other drivers to judge where they were intending to go, and the crossing became -- while not exactly easy - certainly less perilous.” Monderman’s views are similar to those of Erving Goffman, with the importance of people’s performance, and interactions of gesture and eye contact. There are some similarities between Buchanan and Monderman, particularly that they both look at ways of improving social life through the design of space. They both see the importance of people being able to travel around, and the necessity of increasing security, albeit through different approaches. The main differences are their opinions on the relation of humans and vehicles. Buchanan believes in the segregation, whilst Monderman believes in a shared space. Buchanan feels the individuals should continue to be looked after by the authorities, whilst Monderman feels that individuals are able to deal with unpredictable situations and look after themselves. Buchanan has a modernist approach which emphasises standardisation and rationalism, whereas Monderman has a flexible approach which emphasises fluidity, adjustment and a lack of assigned rules. Overall, I feel that both Buchanan and Monderman have made valid points about social order through the design of space, but I am not convinced that either is completely right. I am intrigued by Monderman’s thesis, and the experiments carried out have had successful results, but these were in villages. I feel that the idea of shared space works well within smaller villages, but would have disastrous consequences for safety within a busy city. Buchanan’s views of segregation of vehicles and pedestrians is probably more sensible for large city centres, but it could be said that some of the street furniture, particularly signage, is not entirely necessary. If there are multiple signs that drivers are meant to take note of whilst driving, there is a risk of them not being able to take proper notice of what is occurring around them with other vehicles. I would lean more towards Monderman’s views of individuals being able to look after themselves in an unpredictable situation, rather than being dictated to by signs. Word count: 1500 References: Silva, E., (2009) ‘Making social order’ in Taylor, S., Hinchcliffe, S., Clarke, J. and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University.