Physical Determinism A Theoretical Critique on the Illusions of Spatial Control Jezra Thompson
P
hysical determinism is often argued to be an illusion of control, a manifestation of the desperate need for organization and regulation. It has a deep history and often serves as a means of last resort for governments, architects, philosophers, and planners who seek to implement change. Why are we drawn to the illusions of physical determinism and why do we still want to believe in its ability to subdue the chaos that lurks beneath society and the spaces we inhabit? In a brief analysis of social manipulation through psychological and cultural tools—architecture, planning, politics, and philosophy—I will examine past and current examples of institutions and communities that have turned to spatial determinism in constructing elaborate illusions of change and order.
The building’s architectural arrangement, which allows prisoners to be observed without their knowing if and when they are being watched, would lead to good behavior.2 He clarifies these objectives by describing the Panopticon as “a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.” 3 The post-modern philosopher Michal Foucault critiqued Bentham’s social machine, set to orchestrate behavior with spatial intervention, as a symbol of society’s socio-political design. Foucault does not
political and social architectural structures are illusive physical and psychological manipulations.5 Modern day contrivances that attempt to achieve similar goals can be seen throughout our landscapes. Institutions, such as schools and hospitals strive for order through spatial control. Upon entering a hospital you must register your name and purpose before allowed to proceed beyond the lobby. Once inside, you are presumably under surveillance while navigating a strictly controlled space. In an example more familiar to many of us, universities erect stately, authoritative buildings that are deliberately placed to direct paths of movement that attempt to allude to hierarchical power and collegiate superiority. Take Columbia University for example, a campus that is essentially a gated community. There are guards at every entrance keeping a watchful eye at every corner. You cannot enter or exit without being subtly given the right of way.
This one-size-fits-all response is not a solution, but a perpetuation of societal manipulation through physical infrastructure, be it cities, communities, or In the late 1700s, the English philosopher institutions. Outside of institutions lie worlds of contrived Jeremy Bentham theorized the idea of creating
social order through the use of organized and heavily controlled space.1 His focus was on the innate problems facing the British prison system, which he deemed solvable with an architectural phenomenon called the Panopticon. The Panopticon is an intricately designed prison that achieved notoriety and invited new scrutiny with the publication of Michel Foucault’s book, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Bentham idealized this structure as an instrument of indoctrination, stating that social change would occur with an omniscient presence of control.
18 controlled space URBAN
argue for or against such instruments, but he does help clarify the various ways in which society could be lured into believing in them and even subconsciously wanting them. In actuality, the Panopticon does not instill the oculus, or eye, of surveillance that it claims to. Rather, there is an illusion of a round-the-clock observation that constantly watches the prisoners. The Panopticon is organized so the prisoners cannot see the guards. Instead, they have been told profusely that they are being watched and will be punished for their misconduct.4 This illusion alone is the social control. Foucault brings light to the concept that
spaces, specifically designed to control the way they are used. Scattered throughout the physical environment, like descendents of the Panopticon, are cul-de-sacs and gated communities, common interest communities, and private corporate developments. These places are often monitored by closed circuit television (CCTV) units that presumably protect the inhabitants by watching them and their investments.6 Suburbia has become its own prison. All vehicles and pedestrians are presumably taken note of. Services and amenities are regulated. Despite all these security features, are these communities really any safer or do they just provide an illusion of protection and comfort? Who are they