An interview with sociologist Martina Löw about her unconventional theory on urban spaces.
Ms. Löw, you are a proponent of the theory that urban development can only be explained and influenced adequately if you appreciate the individual logic of cities, in other words understand what makes a city “tick”. According to your theory, every city has a character that is expressed through images of the city (photographed, printed, built) and is reproduced in everyday routines. How does Darmstadt, the city where you work, tick?
Darmstadt is contented, contemplative. The fundamental outlook of a Darmstadt citizen is neither that of a euphoric go-getter nor a lamenter, they just fit in. This characterisation is not my personal opinion, it is based on interviews and the “Typisch Darmstadt” event series organised by the “Stadtforschung” (city research) focus at Darmstadt University of Technology as a joint venture with the Schader Foundation.
Through my work I would like to sharpen awareness that spatial structures – as a subset of social structures – develop an effective force of their own. In this way, every city develops logic patterns of its own, which affect the patterns of experience of the people who live there. Buildings and places influence courses of action and become interwoven with day-to-day life. Or as Winston Churchill said: “We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us”.
Can you name any specific examples?
The pace of cities varies. In Berlin people run after tube trains more frequently than they do in Munich, even though in Munich they usually have to wait much longer for the next train. There are also significant differences in the Christopher Street Day (CSD) parades, depending on the event location. In Cologne, the Carnival predominates for a second time, in Frankfurt am Main mourning those who died of AIDS plays a key role, and in Berlin, this city characterised by division, the CSD celebration is split: the parade on the Kurfürstendamm becomes a consumer demonstration, in Kreuzberg it becomes a political rally.
Cities also differ in the way that they handle structural change and shrinkage processes. In your book “Soziologie der Städte” (Sociology of Cities) you compare Duisburg and Leipzig, among others. Why does Leipzig come out on top?
Firstly there is the explanation given as standard in political research based on the influential groups. In Duisburg a coalition of politics and administration that has grown up historically is persistently repeating its pattern of interpretation and action. In Leipzig on the other hand the change of elite after Reunification has resulted in a network of influential people that is organised in a decentralised and complex way and can react flexibly.
But in my opinion that still doesn’t explain the difference exhaustively.
The fact is, a city has politicians and influential people who are typical of it, in other words which networks maintain influence and characterise the city is essentially dependent on the individual logic of this locality. And at this point spatial and cultural aspects come into play. In this context the fact that young creative people who have moved into Leipzig design rooms as public lounges and host “lounge parties” is interesting. With these actions they are unconsciously picking up on behaviour patterns that were typical of the Leipzig sub-culture back in GDR times. What this makes clear is that people new to the city do things that fit in with this place, things that are acceptable, understandable and practicable, ideas which occur to people in this place.
The citizens of Bremerhaven tend to be passive and expect outside help, Rostock residents on the other hand take fate into their own hands. You also refer to the result of this study by your colleague Helmuth Berking and his team in your book. How have these character differences come about, when after all both seaports exhibit numerous similarities in social structure?
I can’t explain how these differences have grown historically. But it’s much more important to me to make people aware of the reproduction mechanism of urban individual logic. Structures specific to the location mould the character of cities, their atmosphere, but also their capacity for action and problem-solving. In this way they influence the life paths of people. The first step towards positive, effective change is understanding this mechanism. The next step would be putting it into practice, for instance in the form of political consulting.
Competition between cities for residents, investors, tourists and funding is on the increase and is also carried out with the aid of image campaigns. “Be Berlin!” advertises the capital city, Munich lures with “Munich loves you”. What do these slogans tell us about the individual logic of the two cities?
Munich is the self-assured big city with a heart, down-to-earth, secure, economically successful, confidently offering a certain something – love. Berlin on the other hand has to start by appealing to its residents to even feel like Berliners. This reflects insecurity and the challenges faced by a city that is contradictory, that is in a state of movement and change. The city’s division is a point of reference that crops up repeatedly in Berlin’s individual logic, not just since construction of the Wall. Even before that there are numerous indications of formative divisions in its history and literature, for instance the marked differentiation of the social strata into working-class on the one hand and middle-class on the other.
The objective of your research work is to draw a new, characterising map of the cities. Why is it important to have systematised knowledge of these differences?
When you research individual logic, in other words scientifically-based characterisation of cities, and the resulting creation of stereotypes which takes the routines of building, planning and governing just as seriously as everyday practices, then you gain foundations for urban decision-making with depth and focus.
Maybe parallels between cities will emerge, which up to now hadn’t been linked with one another at all. Vienna for instance has more in common with Lisbon than with Salzburg. Istanbul could benefit from comparisons with post-colonial cities in South America. And some European cities are possibly very similar to certain Asian cities in their structure and modus operandi.
Martina Löw is a Professor of Sociology at the Darmstadt University of Technology. Her work focuses are urban sociology and the sociology of space, women and gender research and sociological theory.
Martina Löw’s book Soziologie der Städte is published by Suhrkamp Verlag (292 pages, 22.80 Euro).
Sin duda: identificar y definir el perfil de cada ciudad y con ello optimizar sus características de "personalidad" ha sido una constante tanto en los planes estratégicos como en las campañas de mercadeo de las ciudades.
ReplyDelete