Depth II

All the books say not to do it, but I have no choice... there isn't another word which means what his one means, so I am using a new and previously unused piece of terminology: 'depth'. I have blogged about 'depth' before, and as was probably apparent then, I have spent the past two years grappling with what it actually is. But now the time has come. I am writing up. And I need to nail my colours to the mast: what the hell is 'depth', and why am I using it as a central tenet of my thesis instead of all the alternative, perfectly good and usable jargonish words already in the vocabulary of urbanists, sociologists, geographers, and all the other waifs and strays who congregate around the academic study of cities?

First off, it needs inverted commas, so it is 'depth' and not merely depth.  Depth (sans commas) is useful because it gives a general context and meaningfulness to 'depth', but I my aim is that 'depth' will have a specific definition, and not merely be a metaphor - like plain old depth. Depth  as a metaphor refers to intensity (colour or sound), profundity (emotion), and to the unknown and unknowable (the depths). The depths are also the furthest, innermost and most extreme (the depths of despair). It is of course a metaphor born of physical dimensions and movement in the world (the depth of the well is 100m) and in these terms it always refers to things which go down and in or under, rather than up and out or over (eg. the plane is not 5 miles deep in the air, but the submarine is 5 miles deep in the ocean).

In this respect, 'depth' (note the commas) refers to what is below and what is innermost - the supporting structure connecting the apparent structures (with their inherent possibilities) of the city with the basic conditions of the world (eg. time and nature - or physis). This deep structure harbours  'formal' and 'informal' life and allows it to co-exist, for example, in a block adjacent to a high street wherein the structure supports the high street (and vice versa). The deep structure (the structure of depth) is formed of place (part of which is architecture), time, history, civic institutions and institutionalized order, as well as people.

Horizons of Involvement

Living in the city involves all sorts of things, it involves knowledge of customs, habits and language; knowledge of places, the way they are connected with each other and what purpose they serve; knowledge of institutions, systems and political structures at all levels and much more.The exercise of existing within all of this knowledge does not require that it be articulated at the forefront of people’s experience. Instead, living in the city involves embodying this knowledge through action, which here is called ‘praxis’.
Praxis routinely involves making decisions in the face of situations and settings that are composed of many layers and have many aspects.These conditions are horizons of involvement, and it is within these horizons that judgements for action and involvements are made.The horizons of involvement are composed of urban topography and architecture, as well as non-physical, institutional and systematic elements that are embodied in the city.

This is unlike the horizon found in perspective, where the horizon exists only with respect to the viewer (who stands at the centre of the universe). Instead the horizons of involvement in the city exist outside the individual who makes judgements within them; and are defined and located by the situation and its component parts – or the topic.The topic may, for example, be ‘café’, which has its own history, set of traditions, decorum, systems – all of which are embodied in a specific place (and in all places which we recognise as café).Thus, the individual in the café is not just ‘perceiving’ the café, as though in a snapshot with attached information, but is ‘involved-with’ the café, and all that the situation entails.

It is indicative of how utterly embodied such praxis actually is when one comes to describe it; the words do not come easily and a new vocabulary is required to write about it.Walking into a café to buy a cup of tea takes minutes, but to start to unpick the layers of history; cultural context; monetary systems; the details of human interaction and all its rules etc. that are actually required to accomplish the tea-buying will take pages and pages of text.Yet, it is an action that is thoughtlessly and habitually achieved by millions of people ever y day. All of this latent knowledge is a background and context which forms the horizons for involvement with the café, and that are not acknowledged until an involvement with the café occurs. It is these horizons with respect to topic that provide the shared and common ground for all people in the city, in which possibilities (within the constraints of the horizon/topic) can be played out.

Architecture and the topography of the city are the place where involvements take place, and it is within this common ground that architects work.The ‘language’ of architecture and place is a framework for understanding the depth (or the common ground of difference) and richness of civic life. It allows an ethical interpretation of what is found, since what is common to all ultimately concerns ethics.