Week 4: Space & Place
Castells discusses the effect of information technology on society and describes effects throughout his article, establishing a new paradigm, so to speak. He says, ?both space and time are being transformed? (407). Primarily, he observes how economic relations are changing and states that ?globalization stimulates regionalization? (411). In other words, as spaces become connected, economic dependencies shift and the hierarchy of major business hubs disperses. The global city is no longer ?a place but a process? connected in a global network, while simultaneously down-playing the linkages with the hinterlands? (417). Castells? first observation here?that places become acts in process?was reinforced by Kellerman, while Castells? latter observation?that global networks down-play the linkages with the hinterlands?was, to an extent, rebuffed by Kellerman, and I hope to draw out the distinction and show how they are both correct.
Regarding the first observation: Kellerman asserts that ?the very functioning of places have brought about different meanings of places. The common thread for these changes in the functioning and meaning of places is connectivity? (143). So it is this connectivity, says Kellerman, that essentially changes place because mobility causes places to take on new individuals, form new histories, and generate new meanings in a continual way. Here, Kellerman agrees with Castells and sees places as processes and asks us to view places as acts. Here, I wonder about the relationship of language to such conceptualizations-- changing nouns to verbs. Whereas language/the word is typically regarded as representative of some exterior reality to which a word refers, this shift of nouns becoming essentially verbs can demonstrate/highlight for us the constructed nature of language itself. The change in the idea of a place, in other words, can allow us to reflect on the shifting nature of language and how it forms our world--like the shifting sand dunes, the meaning of words moves--but I am getting off-topic here. Regarding the second observation: Kellerman asserts that homes in particular have lost much of their traditional associations with privacy (141) and have themselves become important work hubs; so he views connectivity itself as an equalizing force to some extent, and although he may suggest that hierarchical relationships do exist between managers and producers, the home is no longer simply one form of hinterland, but has actually achieved more status, whereas Castells suggests that the hinterlands are further marginalized (in Castells? view, however, ?hinterland? means middle America or rural places so the comparison is not completely fair, but if we take ?hinterland? to mean any out-of-the-way location, then the comparison is apt). To be brief: I think both observations are correct. The home, if we view it as one case study, has increased in prominence and in value if one looks from the market?s point of view, but, at the same time, the producers living away from main hubs in the megacities are further displaced from central command structures.
Kellerman also suggests that all locations, as a result of connectivity, experience a ?decline in local authenticity? (144). This particular observation, in conjunction with Castells discussion of mega-cities as power-hubs for command and control and as locations for people who want to compete at the level of ideas, rings true to me as a prior Los Angeles resident. What Castells misses, however, is the extent to which mega-cities not only cause ?processes of segmentation and segregation? (439) but the extent to which those segmented qualities continue to exist despite the fact that the people making up those segmented spaces change from year to year. In Los Angeles, for example, actors, professionals, and those who desire status and power, flock in by train, plane, and auto each year. And each year just as many leave with dashed hopes, and they join ?the hinterlands? because command and control can only enable a few commanders. What this tells us, in short, is that the space of flows is a carefully controlled affair, and if ?space is an expression of society? (440), as Castells says, then perhaps we live in a segmented and controlled society. And if ?space is the material support of time-sharing social practices? (441), then we are all complicit.
In many ways, Joshua Meyrowitz continues this discussion of how space controls our actions and our views of the world. Despite the fact that ?the localness of experience is a constant? (1), he suggests that our sense of the local changes, hence we change. He describes, first, how people from different localities now serve as mirrors for ourselves that we must negotiate and incorporate into our own notions of our selves. He then describes how we live in ?glocalities??the idea that we exist in ?an interconnected global matrix over local experience? (3) wherein views from around the world now directly shape our own view of our own localities. So, there can be little doubt that Meyrowitz agrees with Castells? observation that ?space is an expression of society?; however, Meyrowitz suggests more and takes the observation further?that space is an expression of the self and that the self and ?the other? are inextricably connected so that in our new technological environment a connecting becomes a blending of selves. Clearly, Meyrowitz is correct, and I see the correctness as I encounter people here in North Carolina who view me in terms of media projections of what Los Angeles-ness means; they construct me in a certain Los Angeles way, and I am forced to interact with such constructions and, to some extent, include them in my construction of my social self.
On to Manovich: As always, Manovich provides us with a nice historical discussion that outlines how changes in notions of space in virtual worlds have evolved through computer games and computer art, and he juxtaposes/enhances his observations with theories from modern and contemporary art. Central to his discussion is the observation that ?space becomes a media type? (251). In making this observation, he recognizes that space ?can be instantly transmitted, stored, and retrieved? (251). In this way, the virtual notion of space is the opposite of the one we inhabit in reality; as Meyrowitz explains, our space is always local and we are always static, yet our surroundings are always changing. So Manovich draws for us an interesting distinction and shows us the possibilities of creating a space and making it a virtual location that can exist in a certain way and exist for any amount of time before we choose to destroy it. In this way, I think that virtual space is taking the place of old concept of real space, insofar as real space used to be conceptualized as a static location characterized by the land?s physical features. Perhaps, new media allows us to enact a kind of sentimentalism. Virtual space, with its static qualities, gives us one way of expressing the loss of the real space to the shifting nature that mobility causes.
Also, I would like to comment on Manovich?s statement that ?like a river, cultural history cannot suddenly change its course? (285) because this statement seems to summarize his most basic guiding presupposition by which he organizes the history of new media. In short, I think Manovich is correct here. History flows like a river, and every new invention follows from an old and is organized/understood in reference to the old. However, I wonder about this question: where does a river like the one we have run, and are we able to see its path or is the splashing of the water too much for our eyes? I tend to think that the river runs, and it?s all we can do to stay afloat. This is, of course, the feeling of my parents, perhaps, and the feeling of all of the contemporary age more than it is the feeling we should have in the future as the forces of new media production become more integrated into our daily lives.