Dd101_Tma4

Compare and contrast two views of how social order is produced in public spaces. This essay compares and contrasts two views of how social order is produced in public spaces. It starts by looking at what is social order' To get an insight of social order in public spaces it discusses theories by Erving Goffman and Michel Foucault respectively. It then goes on to look at the engineers Colin Buchanan & Hans Monderman respective views of how social order is produced in public spaces. Then the essay compares and contrasts the views of Buchanan and Monderman on how social order is produced in public spaces. It then looks at the links between the views of Buchanan and Foucault and those of Monderman and Goffman. The essay then summarises what these views imply about how social order is produced in public spaces. Social order is the process of organising and ordering social lives involving ideas of how people fit together and connect to each other and to material things in the society they live in. It is also about people knowing what behaviour is expected of them and what to expect from others and how these expectations interrelates to help them understand society. Social order is different for each time and society; however it is continuously made, remade and reordered to allow people to live together. To maintain social order individuals are told how to conduct themselves by explicit and/or implicit norms. These norms are defined as, ‘shared sets of values or expectations about how people will or should behave’ (Silva, 2009, p307). In addition people accept the rules to avoid disrupting the order because there are also norms to be followed when social order is disturbed and these rules are to repair and restore social order. As Evelyn Ruppert said ’….social order is a key principle of living together’, (‘Reflections on Ordered lives’, 2009, track 3). In addition, there are different views of how social order is produced. For instance the sociologist (Goffman cited in Silva, E., 2009) views social order as being more of social interactions and presentation by individuals. He argues that it is an interactional order where individuals perform in a specific way at specific times and situations. He puts human interaction at the centre of social order governance and sees social change as a result of the making and remaking of social interactions between individuals. To gather evidence for his theory Goffman involved himself in social situations as a participant observer, focusing his attention at micro level of society and not concerning about the history of the social interactions and how they are ruled. However, the social philosopher (Foucault cited in Silva, E., 2009) views social order at a macro level of society and removes the individual from the centre of social order production. He views discourses and authoritative knowledge as powerful tools that are used to instil social order. According to him social and political institutions are given power to produce social order by making rules and maintain social order by punishing those who break the rules. He argues that institutions use discourses to shape social life and rule the way individuals behave by providing imaginations, assumptions and expectations of how they should conduct themselves, ‘…discourses are shaped by both authority relations and changes in dominant ways of thinking’(Silva,2009, p322-324). Foucault‘s theory is based on authoritative knowledge, new and old discourses. He collected his evidence through historical documents and by looking at the history of institutions. Furthermore, the engineer (Buchanan cited in Silva, E., 2009) believes that social ordering in public spaces is produced by segregating people and things in the society and this is illustrated in his ’…very influential report commissioned by the UK Government, the Buchanan Report, published in 1963, (that) predicated on the segregation of pedestrians and cars’(Silva, 2009, p325) . His ‘modernist approach’ (Silva, 2009, p339) to social ordering is rationalised and standardised with uniform rules, regulations and behaviour. He suggests that the state governs the people by creating rules. This approach does not allow difference or uniqueness in social order of public spaces. It also limits social interaction and undermines the individual’s ability to use their judgement to decide how to behave in public spaces. However, a thesis by (Monderman cited in Silva, E., 2009) shows that social order should be implemented by individuals. He argues that individuals should be allowed to interact and make decisions about how to conduct themselves in public spaces without being imposed by signs and instructions. His thesis is illustrated by his idea of ‘shared spaces’ (Silva, 2009, p333) and implementation of ‘psychological traffic calming’ (Silva, 2009, p333) measures which remove road signs, markings and warnings from the roads. This allows road users to use eye contact, communicate and negotiate how to use the shared road. His ‘flexible approach’ (Silva, 2009, p339) has no set rules and allows adjustments by the individuals. It makes what is happening visible to individuals using public spaces rather than them following the same rules in every situation. Both engineers look at how social order is produced and constructed to allow individuals and things to coexist in public spaces. Similarly, both aim to improve the standard of social order and safety through design of public spaces. Also they focus on the different roles played by individuals and state in the production of social order in public spaces. Also neither offers a perfect solution to production of social order but both models could be applicable at certain times and places because social order differs with time and place. They both use authority, knowledge and discourses to convey their imagined social order in public spaces. But, Buchanan’s approach to production of social order in public spaces is uniform with same rules and regulations for everyone. The public spaces are ordered by separating the inhabitants of the society and controlling them by rules and regulations. It certainly gives power and authority to produce and maintain social order to the state. In contrast Monderman’s approach is flexible with no set rules and allows individuals to assess their environment and negotiate the use of shared spaces. It also acknowledges the individual’s ability to assess unpredictable situations and behave accordingly. It centralises individuals and give them power to produce and maintain social order in public spaces. Additionally, Foucault’s theory that individuals are ruled by discourses and authoritative knowledge rather than conducting themselves accordingly, links with Buchanan modernist approach of applying uniform rules for individuals to conform to in order to produce and maintain social order in public spaces .Both Foucault and Buchanan gives the power to produce order in public spaces to the rules by the state. However, Monderman’s thesis gives power to produce social order in public spaces to individuals. It suggests that individuals have to communicate, negotiate and cooperate in public spaces not just conform to rules that are imposed on them. This flexible approach is linking with Goffman’s theory that individual’s performance of daily interactions produces and maintains social order and not the results of rules and regulations (Staples et al, 2009). In conclusion, it would be complicated to coexist in the society without order, so this essay looked at social order as the ordering of the way people live with other people and things. It highlighted that social order differs with time and place. It also looked at Foucault’s vision that social order in public spaces is produced and maintained by rules and regulations that are imposed by the state. This is contrasted by Goffman’s view that social interactions between individuals produce social order. It then looked at two approaches to governance in public spaces using the engineers Buchanan and Monderman views. Buchanan vision of social order is that individuals and things should be segregated and be ruled by the state rules. Monderman view is that individuals and things should share the public space and individuals should interact and negotiate the use of the space and not just conform to rules by the state. The Buchanan model assumes that individuals are looked after and governed by the state and they have to conform to these rules to maintain social order. This approach linked with Foucault theory that individuals are ruled by the power of discourses and authoritative knowledge. Also Monderman thesis of shared spaces assumes that individuals are capable of producing social order by negotiating the use of the space and they do not require rules by the state to be able to coexist and maintain social order in public spaces. This approach linked with Goffman centralisation and focus on individual interactions to produce social order in public spaces. Buchanan and Monderman models aim to improve social life by designing public spaces. They both look at roles played by individual and state in the production of social order in public spaces. These approaches of how social order is produced in public spaces could be applicable at different times and at different societies because social order differs from time to time and from place to place and it is made and remade all the time. (1497 words) References Silva, E. (2009) ‘Making social order’ in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clareke, J and Bromley, S. (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University. ‘Reflections on Ordered lives’ (2009) Making Social Lives [Audio CD 3], Milton Keynes, The Open University. Staples, M., Meegan, J., Jeffries, E. and Bromley, S. (2009) Learning Companion 2, Introducing the social sciences, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Self-Reflection This I found it challenging, interesting and learnt new skills doing it. I didn’t not understand the question at first and when I started writing I was worried about how much info regarding the traffic management model I should include without losing focus on social order in public spaces. 49 WORDS