Metaphors, Asymmetries and Hope
I’ve always thought a bit radical that New Urbanism and Smart Growth be equated to “communism”.
I have come to fear communism not because of bike lanes but because of shortages, secret police, re-education camps and absolute lack of freedom.
The assumption that everything must be read in terms of asymmetrical relationships and assuming ill will, yet solved by the State, the biggest asymmetrical relationship of them all, and by the public servant, folks who magically surrender their ill will, is naïve, to say the least.
Marxian analysis is deeply embedded in the culture. Especially in some areas, like architecture and planning. Using its words and imagery might prove useful to see the world, but there’s some validation of problematic ideas in that process.
We create metaphors to live by. We see the world around us with hope or with fear, and act accordingly. Remind me to talk about the locus of control in a future installment.
We know what types of built environment are conducive for happiness and which breed fear and distrust.
Yet that is what we keep building.
If we frame the world in asymmetrical terms we create a world of fear, distrust and winner-take-all attitude.
If we frame it collaboratively, trust goes up.
Both alternatives replicate themselves and grow. Each creates an opposing model.
Forcing collaboration doesn’t add. Shaming people into collaboration doesn’t either. There’s a voluntary component that marks the rift between the world view of compliance and the one of collaboration:
using the threat of political power to force everyone to live by our assumptions
building the world to seek mutual benefit
City building was voluntary for thousands of years until we came up with zoning laws. Selfish builders would take advantage of existing building walls to build their houses, and in adding to the row made both his and the neighbor’s houses tougher and easier to heat. Opportunist shop owners tucked their stores in impossible corners and in that process were able to serve neighborhoods conveniently and inexpensively.
For thousands of years we have thrived despite asymmetries.
Using imbalances to explain urban interactions emphasizes the selfishness of the builder and tries to correct it by forcing compliance.
Celebrating the good outcomes, on the other hand, builds trust.
High trust societies hope and grow. Low trust societies fear and wilt. Would you rather live in fear or hope?