“The Atlantic was born today and I’ll tell you how:

The clouds above opened up and let it out.

 

I was standing on the surface of a perforated sphere

When the water filled every hole.

And thousands upon thousands made an ocean,

Making islands where no island should go.

 

Those people were overjoyed; they took to their boats.

I thought it less like a lake and more like a moat.”

- Transatlanticism, Death Cab for a Cutie

(2003)

 

 

THE CLAUSTROPHOBIA OF VASTNESS

Foucault’s Sixth Principle of Heterotopias

 

 

 

 

Andrea Tsang

April 6, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

            The vast sea of information and space – the ‘everything‘ – in present-day global culture calls into question the relationship between the individual and ‘everything else,’ in particular, the ‘everything-ness’ of the contemporary built environment. Michel Foucault presents these types of spaces as “counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted… heterotopias” (Foucault, 3). Foucault breaks down the description of heteropias into six principles. The sixth principle is stated as follows:

“[Heterotopias] have a function in relation to all the space that remains…their role is to create a space that is other, another real space, as perfect, as meticulous, as well arranged as ours is messy, ill constructed, and jumbled” (Foucault, 6).

 

With the establishment of new means of both human and informational transportation, their consequence being the creation of a ‘global village,’ the existence of ‘non-places’ has become increasingly common. This project aims to define ‘non-place’ as a heterotopic site which, under the guise of liberation, neutralizes the individual amidst his or her endless possibilities. This phenomenon presents a crisis for the built environment that calls for a re-examination of current public space.

 

            French anthropologist, Marc Augé, describes the notion of place as an area that is relational, historical and concerned with identity. The loss of meaning of ‘far vs. near’ is fundamental to the existence of non-place – ‘here’ could be ‘there’ at any given time. The existence of non-places contributes to Karsten Harries’ notions of equidistance: “…equidistance…implies that there is no particular place which can be called ‘home’…But there is no genuine dwelling without both intimacy and distance.” (Harries, 396). The construction of ‘non-place’ in opposition to ‘place’ implies that a ‘non-place’ is the residue of ‘place,’ its existence hinging on the presence of place. If Point A and Point B are places, the space between them is a non-place. Spaces associated with transitory functions are thus paramount examples of non-place – motorways, metro stations and airports serve ‘places’ independent of themselves. The proliferation or vastness of non-place is a springboard for the discussion of the heterotopic site: Non-place folds into itself the simultaneity of “all other real sites” and takes on ‘everything-ness.’ How then does non-place create its mirror image – as Foucault describes, a space that is other?

 

            If non-place acquires ‘everything-ness,’ it is by nature messy and cacophonous. When atonal noises come together to create a cacophony that is constant, it becomes din; and when one becomes accustomed to din, din has the potential of becoming a type of silence. In the discussion of built environment, one can consider generic architecture as this silence, which is standardized and has absorbing qualities. This other space is perfect and well-arranged, as Foucault suggests, in opposition to the haphazard character of ‘everything-ness.’ The uniformity of non-place is thus the melting of an infinite diversity and gives way to ‘nothing-ness.’ The vastness of ‘everything’ allows for individuality while simultaneously contributing to homogeneity. The individual amidst ‘nothing-ness’ still exists, but to what end?

 

The discussion of the individual in relation to the ‘everything-ness’ of the globalized built environment, relies on an examination of its relationship with other individuals in non-places. The large quantity of accessible space brought about by globalization is appropriated “by himself and for himself” (Augé, 37). Individualization renders it difficult to ascribe stable reference points to any collective. To a collective end, the individual does not contribute anything and thus “the public space [simply] has become a derivative of movement” (Sennett, 14). The silence of non-place is an indication of the individual’s tendency to be mute and deaf towards a larger public whole. Each individual is permitted to do as he or she pleases, but non-place does not ‘hear’, record, or remember his or her intervention. Non-place’s other corollary embeds its perfection and meticulousness in its stability-of-instability, at the price of meaningful public space.

 

As a child, I had a recurring nightmare: I was in a space with no visible bounds; it was entirely white. I would always be in this space on a pendulum hanging from an imperceptible ceiling. This subconscious experience always left me with a deep sense of unsettlement because the immensity and lack of definition of this space was in fact suffocating. There was nowhere to go because position made no difference; I felt a sort of reverse-claustrophobia. When there is nowhere to go in an infinite space, a fear of confinement is evoked – perhaps agoraphobia in both its most literal and scientifically-accurate senses. Most conceive agoraphobia as a ‘fear of open space’ in opposition to claustrophobia. Yet looking at the root of the word, agora being the Greek word for marketplace, one can see that agoraphobia has to do with public spaces or situations associated with these types of spaces (crowds, social interactions etc.), rather than the mere expanse of space. In contemporary psychology, agoraphobia is described as an anxiety disorder that involves the fear of situations that are difficult to escape. The expanse of ‘nothing-ness’ provides no escape, evoking a sense of agoraphobia; on the other hand, the presence of ‘everything-ness’ instills a sense of claustrophobia.  The heterotopic siting of these two corollaries renders agoraphobia akin to its pseudo-antonym ‘claustrophobia.’  The potential of immobilizing or neutralizing the individual amidst an endless number of possibilities is a paradoxical reality of heterotopic non-place, especially non-place that disguises itself contemporary public space.

 

From place, non-place is born; from the ‘everything-ness’ of non-places comes ‘nothing-ness.’ The interdependency of these elements exemplifies Foucault’s sixth principle of heterotopias. The infinite expansion of space in the age of globalization gives way to undifferentiated spaces. In these non-descript spaces, the individual although free to do ‘everything’, is bound to his or her solitary boat in an ocean of both ‘everything-ness’ and ‘nothingness’ and remains powerless to affect change beyond its own boundaries. A newfound freedom asphyxiates the individual in the face of his or her contribution to a larger public whole.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORKS CITED

 

 

 

Augé, Marc. Non-places: An introduction to the anthropology of supermodernity. London: Verso, 1995.

 

Foucault, Michel. Of Other Spaces, Heterotopias. (First published: Architecture/Mouvement/Continuité, 1967). http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html

 

Harries, Karsten. “The Ethical Function of Architecture.” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory. ed. Kate Nesbitt. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996.

 

Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975.