Non-Places and Home
This week we read about theories dealing with place and space. I would like to take up the idea of two issues found those readings: first, the ?non-place?, which came up a few times and second, ?home? as a place, which was dealt with in Kellerman.
First, to be completely blunt, I disagree with the notion of a non-place. While the definition is fair enough: ?sites marked by their transience ? the preponderance of mobility? as best illustrated by transportation hubs such as airports (Kellerman, p. 137), I think Kellerman (and with him Auge and Castells) are assuming a lack of meaning in movement (or, physical mobility). Kellerman himself states (on the same page, in fact) that in a mobile society, ?place is pause? and each pause makes it possible for ?location to be transformed into place.? If this is true, then why can?t my pauses at airports or train stations transform those locations into place? Why have they lost their meaning?
For me, place does not simply refer to a physical locality as defined by Castells, who states that the ?form, function, and meaning? of places ?are self-contained within the boundaries of physical contiguity? (p. 453). I prefer Meyrowitz?s statement: our current society ?[fosters] greater emotional attachments to place? (p. 6). He is referring to changes brought about by electronic media, but we can?t disconnect ourselves from that impact. He relates our ?emotional attachment? to place to an increase in perceived choice of location. When I travel, I have a number of ?choices? available to me. Whether it is the route I take in my car or the stops I make in an airplane or the route I choose on a train, I have greater choices and make my choice according to meaning that I have attached to certain places. Kellerman mentions Merriman?s argument that non-places develop their own kind of placeness, stating that places are ?contingent, open, dynamic, and heterogeneous?and boredom, isolation and detachment may be experienced at one?s home as well? (Kellerman, p. 138).
For example, Chicago Midway airport would be considered a non-place because it is only a temporary location predominated by mobile people. Now, I?ve never been to the Barcelona airport, but its ?cold beauty? (Castells, p. 451) doesn?t sound that different from other modern airports (Midway, I think was constructed in the late 1990s). However, its coldness or my lack of affect for the people in that airport don?t change the meaning it has for me. I choose to fly through there whenever possible because it brings to mind previous trips, people I was with, places I was going, events that happened while I was there. Midway holds a specific piece of my mobile self and is a welcome place when traveling. It?s not a three hour layover; it?s the familiarity of the shops and the street-like construction of the food court. It is memories of snow-storms and lunch with a scholar from NCA.
I could go on and on about other locations that hold similar meaning for me beyond their ?physical contiguity.? By stripping these locations of their placeness, of their meaning, we fail to take into account the personal meaning that goes into travel ? the time we spend (and it?s often a lot of time) waiting on our trips is worth more than relegation to a ?non-place.?
To go along with this notion of ?place? as a location of meaning, I want to talk about home as place. Bachelard argued that ?we need a sense of home in order to understand who we are? (from The Poetics of Space, 1994, p. 4). In our mobile society, Kellerman says that home is ?micro-scale terminal?, a node in the virtually mobile, societal network (p. 139). I think that these definitions go together pretty well, if one assumes that who we are is at least partially defined by our place in the social network ? a place that is often centered around our ?home,? although that home does not necessarily need to be our house (think homepage or home office (as in branch of a company, not the room in your house)).
A discussion of home reminds me of the metaphor of home in baseball (check my forthcoming WIKI post). Home is the only place where, once we have reached it, we are not in danger. In baseball, we are only in danger after leaving home and all danger ends as soon as we return. Bachelard argues that we cannot truly understand a location?s homeness until we leave it and experience the threats outside. It is only upon our return that we can appreciate the safety home brings. Home is where we can feel safe. Home is where we are protected from external pressures. Right? Not so much any more. Kellerman points out that ?homes have lost much of their traditional role as refuge and as havens of privacy and intimacy? (p. 141). Much of this loss stems from our interaction with new media.
As Meyrowitz points out, ?electronic media bring the public realm into the home, and bring intimate topics, images, and sounds into the public sphere? (p. 9). While I?m not sure what kind of intimate sounds are making it into the public sphere, the loss of separation between home and public is obvious. So, as our definition of home becomes less clear, is its meaning diluted? And as the meaning becomes diluted as home blends with public, does it become less home? If non-places are places without meaning, is a home with less meaning a non-home? I would say no. But at the same time, I would agree that home is becoming harder and harder to define.