Quoting tom lists <[log in to unmask]>:
> I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with
> the ideas behind Space Syntax, only that there seems
> to be a resistance to formulating a theory as such, or
> perhaps several competing theories. As Didem
> suggests, it seems more like a lucky dip of methods of
> measurement, statistical techniques and more general
> ideas.
Dear Tom, this is exactly the opposite of what I meant! I said, indeed,
that the
seeds of 'alienation' lies exactly here - that is, in reducing space syntax to
some tools and methods of measurement, without 'knowing' well what the results
mean in social terms. The theory you think is lacking is in the Social
Logic of
Space. Are you sure you have read the book? I read it several times,
and turned
back to it also after reading many other theories that seem at first sight to
be incompatible with it, and realised how powerful a theory we have there, and
that actually it can have a dialogue with others.
If I had time now to explain why space syntax is a powerful social theory, I
would start from 'movement' as Alain did - cause it is at the origin of the
theory. I can't do that cause I have other things waiting to be written, but I
can just start here by saying that movement is inherently social since, in the
most basic sense, it is through movement that the individual body relates to,
and get to attain a knowledge of, the social world surrounding it. Maybe Alain
could take up from here...
didem.
|