Hi Alan
I'm not proposing invisible forces or anything like that - quite the
contrary - I'm proposing that the structures we uncover (as we read them
onto the real city) have agents and that those agents are not space but
rather people doing things in space. So, for example, in the scheme of
things I am proposing one is not permitted to say space is represented in
this or that manner, say by drawing the fattest possible convex space or
the longest possible axial line (unless one makes clear that this is a
rough and provisional approximation). Rather one has to consider (in the
last analysis if not in the first) the spatialisation of what people are
really doing. The representation in the end has to account for the activity
not the space. I believe that this is in the spirit of space syntax as it
is set up theoretically (its at least 7 years since I read Social logic -
but that's the idea I remember coming away with). Its also in the spirit of
some theorising about social space by others who would not have called
themselves post-modernists. I wouldn't deny that space can be thought about
seperately from what is going on in it. I just wonder if that does justice
in the end to the power of the tool. I don't really believe you either that
space syntax is just about treating space as pure space. If so why is it
particularly the axial map that we use (90% of the time (or 80 or 70 - I
don't want to quibble about particulars in this response)) All 'depth' and
'integration' (purely spatial) refers after all to a very particular
representation. Why not the node and edge traffic model type or any number
of other ways of representing the space of the city. Because it works -
that's why. In those circumstances someone is entitled to ask - yes but why
does it work and not the others?? - and the question of mechanism is always
going to be hovering in the wings obvious to all who want to know something
about ss. I could also ask - what about the terminology - integration,
intelligibility, community, economy. These imply - quite correctly in my
view - that we are dealing not with space for it's own sake but with
spatialisations.
Ok so maybe you would say - well we're just talking about the same thing
again looked at from different angles (sorry if that's not your response
but I want to get one more thing in before the weekend). What I want to say
is that I'm not trying to go for a medal in theoretical correctness - I
think there's an important practical point here for nitty-gritty research.
I don't know how you come up with hypotheses that you want to use space
syntax to test - but what I do - and I can't imagine that you do it that
differently - is to speculate about mechanisms. To illustrate - as I was
writing that bit yesterday about the meaning of 'phatic' it occurred to me
that a representation of the space of the city that counted steps at
traffic lights and stop streets as well as changes in direction might give
a pretty good account of car movement in the city. I have no idea if it
would work but maybe someone one day would like to try it. How did I come
up with this - by speculating about the psychology of car drivers in
relation to 'spatial stories'. Mechanism is with us all the time - its the
old story about science as it is presented vs. science as it is done.
Messy, creative, imaginitive as opposed to cut and dried theory and
methodology. I can't help feeling that a few mechanisms (speculative or
not) would help others to understand what we can or can't do with space
syntax and help them to come up with some hypotheses of their own.
I realise we come closer together towards the end of your message - and I
wonder where the boundary is between syntax and the axmap as we use it to
study cities. What I and I'm sure most of the people using ss for is to
">test hypotheses
>about how things might 'work'". If that's not syntax then let's call it
>something else.
Thanks for the response about Lacan. I've only skimmed it so far, its
sitting on my bookshelf waiting for me and has slipped a couple of places
in my priorities.
Stephen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|