Virtual Scholars
An imagined form of scholarship…Archive for Semiotics
Urban Semiology – Fieldnotes #1
[Notes in progress...]
London. Last night I pulled out a slim volume from the shelf of unused books in the spare room where I am staying. On the spine it had read ‘Discover South America’ – it turned out to be a Reader’s Digest publication. I thought it might help me think about my hopeful trip to Bogota. I have been invited to submit an article to a new journal, Culture Unbound. This is the abstract proposal I submitted:
Amateur Dramatics: Barthes, Blogging and Bogotá
The article presents a close-reading (and re-writing) of Roland Barthes’ ‘Semiology and Urbanism’ (1967). Despite talk of a ‘scientific leap’ beyond a metaphorical ‘language of the city’, Barthes is clear about a changed ‘semiotic landscape’. The task, he suggests, ‘is not so much to multiply investigations or functional studies of the city as to multiply the readings of the city’. He positions himself as an ‘amateur’ of signs; status he later ascribes to ‘the subject who makes something, and no longer of the subject who speaks about something’. His methodology, however, remains open: ‘if we seek to undertake a semiology of the city, the best approach … will be a certain ingenuity on the reader’s part. It will require many of us to attempt to decipher the city … beginning, if necessary, with a personal report’. Today, we can reappraise the post-structuralist principle in light of our lived experience of a wired world, with its profusion of amateur writing (e.g. blogging and other related forms). Taking a contemporary perspective, and building on previous collaboration regarding place and the writing (of) place (Journal of Visual Art Practice, 2005, Vol.4, No.1, pp.19-27), the authors combine their own field notes on Colombia’s vibrant, yet under-represented capital city, Bogotá, with film and literary sources, as well as fragments of online writing. In this way, the paper (1) interrogates the spectre of Barthes’ ‘hopeful’ methodology; (2) makes theoretical consideration of the mediated, inter- and hyper-textual city; and (3) asks after a ‘language of the city’.
But they want the piece by May 15 and – due to current circumstances – I can’t see how I can get to Bogota before then. What do I do? Perhaps I forget the whole thing. Perhaps I write a theoretical piece, and/or get R. to contribute materials to help supplement the city bit. But I can’t help feeling this is all a great loss.
As it turned out, the Reader’s Digest book had little about Colombia (I wasn’t too surprised), but there was a nice paragraph on Bogota itself:
Santa Fe de Bogota (to give the city its full name) is the South American experience in caricature. The capital of troubled Colombia was once the Indian village called Bacata, which was razed by a conquistador who had a keen sense of location. In colonial times, it was the seat of Spanish viceroys ruling an area that also included modern Ecudor, Venezuela and Panama, but the exponential growth that drove its population to over 6 million by 2000 all came in the second half of the 20th century. The people of Bogota live in the clouds, 8670 ft (2642m) up in the misty northern Andes, taking pride in their culture and the purity of their Spanish accent. But the polluted, traffic-jammed metropololis is an explosive mix of extremes – futuristic skyscrapers and vast shantytowns, vibrant intellectual life and rampant crime, opulent resturants and bands of homeless children (Reader’s Digest, Discover South America, 2001, p.103)
I have been really asking myself, not so much ‘what is urban semiology?’, but more fundamentally, what is the point of an urban semiology? The line about the people of Bogota living ‘in the clouds’ is of course highly evocative. It could be the beginnings of a either an imaginary semiology (a chart of these clouds and their different layers), or it could be a semiology of dissapating – Barthes would surely have approved.
So, for now, I remain in England. I will work from texts, not from the streets. Sitting in the British Library right now, I have a copy of Richard Sennett’s edited volume from 1969, Classic Essays on the Culture of Cities. It offers a useful reminder of the then growing discourse around urban studies – a discourse Barthes was surely aware of when he gave his lecture on urban semiology.
Urban studies is a very recent field of study, yet cities are one of the oldest artifacts of civilized life. The reason for this is that up to the time of the Industrial Revolution, the city was taken by most social thinkers to be the image of society itself, and not some special, unique form of social life. In the ancient world this identification occurred in the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and Augustine; during the reemergence of city life in the late Middle Ages it could be found in the work of Machiavelli; during the 18th century this merging of city and society was powerfully stated in the social theory of Rousseau. Occasionally the city was treated as a special society, in the work of the 17th-century philosopher Jean Bodin, for instance, but the authority of the greater social theorists overwhelmed the view of those who felt as did Bodin. Thus, until quite recently, the field of urban studies had no real meaning of its own; the city was taken to be the mirror of a broader reality, more appropriate as a focus of thought. (Sennett, 1969, p.3)
The identification of society and city ‘changed during the Industrial Revolution of the last two centuries because the cities themselves changed’ – they became so much larger, due mainly to migration from those outside of the cities. In turn this led to the ‘process of orderly capital formation’ becoming more institutionalised and up for debate:
But holding sway over all these particular discussions and experiments was what Karl Polanyi has called the “grand idea” of the 19th-century intellectuals, that all these urban traits could be related in one way or another to society as a huge market place in which individuals or groups struggled with each other for gain. This system, generating the social conditions of cities, was thought to be perfectly clear an idea, and useful new knowledge would be gained, supposedly, in discovering the good and evil of the system in practice. (Sennett, p.4)
The authors Sennett collects together in his edited volume – Max Weber, Georg Simmel and Oswald Spengle of the ‘German School’; and Robert Park, Louis Wirth, Robert Redfield and Milton Singer of the ‘Chicago School’ – offer a critique of this ‘mechanical idea of a market economy generating urban social conditions’. This was too simple and reductionist a view to account for the complexity of urban experience:
Significantly, none of these new thinkers challenged the rightness or wrongness of the market idea as such, but rather sought to show that the economic life of the city was shaped in part by, or had at least a symbiotic relation to, noneconomic conditions peculiar only to urban areas. In this way, these classic urban theorists established themselves by enlarging the genera, the creatice forces, that men understood to have produced the specific conditions of city culture. (Sennett, p.4-5)




Virtual Feed
