Clear Village: with the aim to create bridges? Reflections.

by Kristina Börjesson
PhD, Research Associate
Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design
The University of the Arts London

Have eco-villages a tendency to become islands, partly cut off from the mainland? Or some kind of gated communities with mental rather than physical fences and gates?

When used as a metaphor, an island signifies something fairly isolated: without a natural connection to its physical and/or mental surroundings. Gated communities are perfect examples of islands: even if there is a physical entrance gate you need a code to enter and there is often no mental bridge. Insiders and outsiders are kept apart.

If we want to create sustainable places and encourage dwellings (a built and planned environment which allows us to have be positively present physically and mentally), we should avoid any type of fence and be aware that the invisible might be the most difficult to climb: representing the border between those who knows, the cognoscenti, and those who do not, the populace. As an immediate effect, many people would experience feelings of not belonging: not having the correct faith, knowledge or even insight. This is in direct opposition to the Clear Village aim of presenting good examples and inviting people, institutions and organisations to the experience. If there is too much emphasis on learned experience; science and technology, calculations and formulas, whilst lived experience is regarded as second rang, we exclude not only people but also important knowledge. Taking this into account, Clear Village ought to be an integrated concept for sustainable dwelling rather than a physical village of sustainable excellence.

Having arrived at this point in my reflections, the notion 'sustainable dwelling' appears as something close to a grammatical replication. Heidegger's notion of dwelling encompasses our need to associate, to recognise, to understand and to have our expectations met: to create meaning. The latter is closely related to authenticity and there is reason to believe that it is critical to dwelling. Is it when we experience meaning that we start to care about our environment and take measures, consciously or not, to keep and sustain it? Dwelling would in that case be a prerequisite, a base, for the successful application of ecological science and technology. Without this base, time and money risk thus to be wasted on constantly being in opposition to human ways of being followed by almost continuous demand for alterations following changes in human ways of living.

The notion ‘human ways of being’ should be about being in the body and refer to our sensual experiences and how these are liaised to needs (as opposed to desires, which we aim at through our ways of living). Already Maslow found out when developing his need-pyramid in the 50th, that once the physiological needs are fulfilled, it is quite difficult to create a meaningful hierarchy of our needs for safety and security, love and belonging (community), appreciation (which includes self-esteem) and finally self-actualisation. They seem to be intertwined in various ways dependent on the environment and therefore change priority from time to time. BUT, they are always present and govern human lives more or less beyond conscious cognition according to recent development within neuroscience. Heidegger’s notion of being in the world is probably best translated as: not until human ways of being are met, are we mentally represented in the world: we live a life which goes beyond existing. Being in the world was by Heidegger and some of his followers sadly developed into a fairly uncritical nostalgic regionalism: back to basic lifestyles and vernacular architecture.

To simplify, human ways of being and living could respectively be explained as meeting needs versus aiming at desires. Humans are constantly in a process of adjusting their needs to the context and translating them into lifestyles which meet their desires. The result of this process is different degrees of well-being mainly depending on the opportunity the context offers and the individual capability to handle the context.

However, the essence of Heidegger's thinking (did it originally emanate from Kant?), further developed by the French philosopher Merleau-Ponty and architecturally lately expressed by the likes of Zumthor and Pallasmaa, is too important to be neglected. It has over time gained new relevance with the increasing focus on sustainable development: dwelling is realised by taking into account human ways of being and lived experience: if we succeed to satisfy all or most of our five basic senses, and not merely the eye, the greater the experience and hence the need fulfilment and the chance to create long-lived affection instead of short-lived emotion. According to Pallasmaa, who has branded the notion "mental ecology", is it only when this balance is in place, that it is relevant to apply advanced technology to further facilitate sustainability.
Or as Zumthor points out: our needs to feel, hear, smell, touch and see can never be overruled by technology. This is not solely about tactility [a critique raised] but refers to imaging: sensual experiences within.

Should we then not pay any attention at all to lifestyles and human ways of living? The answer is of course: we should. It is, however, important to separate the components of being and living. Lifestyles and ways of living are closely related to time as different eras, while ways of being relate to time as an ongoing process. Eras come and go whilst the process continues with minor adjustments. Science and technology ought to be there not to create new short-lived lifestyles but to present solutions, which are based on human ways of being and therefore aiming at improvement. Change is easier achieved in cooperation with humans and nature than in opposition.

It is time to conclude my reflections: we ought hence to secure that 'mental ecology' or conditions for dwelling are taken into account - that a bridge is in place - before we begin to apply scientific and technical solutions to create eco-villages alternatively try to develop and revitalise urban and regional places or areas in a sustainable way. If technology is applied without regard to human lived experience, we will raise fences. There are sadly already too many of these whilst a shortage of bridges. Clear Village have an important pursuit here: rather than to construct 'Clear Villages', the clear village concept; knowledge and aim, should be made laudable and further applied in as many villages (towns, cities, regions) as possible.