Search

This paper offers a reflection on the relevance of Nietzsche to recent geographical scholarship. It starts by questioning the more general relationship between geography and philosophy/theory and interrogates what we might mean by theoretically sophisticated geographies. Drawing on a specific context - the postcolonial apology in contemporary Australia – the paper turns to the relevance of Nietzsche’s thinking about morality, in charting everyday moral geographies and imagining more ethical futures.

The advent of state-sponsored mass highrise housing in the post-war period brought into view a range of issues about the role of technology in everyday life. This paper draws on approaches in the study of science and technology in order to deepen our understanding of the socio-technical aspects of such highrise housing, past and present. We elaborate this thinking empirically by examining a 1960s highrise development, Red Road, Glasgow. The paper examines the inaugural phase of development, and the most recent phase of ‘redevelopment’, the first stage of which is demolition. The paper extends existing accounts of residential highrises generally, and Red Road specifically, as well as elaborating an alternate analytical framework for understanding highrise and supertall dwellings.

Published as Jacobs, J.M., Cairns, S.. (2008-03-01) The modern touch: interior design and modernisation in post-independence Singapore, Environment and Planning A 40(3) 572-595 http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a39123 This paper takes as its empirical focus the advice on interior design and decoration that Singapore’s Housing Development Board (HDB) distributed to residents as part of its programme of universal housing provision. Through a series of regular articles appearing in the HDB publication Our Home (1972-1989), readers were presented with stories that showed how selected HDB residents decorated their newly acquired highrise flats. This unique aspect of the HDB’s otherwise well-documented housing programme has, thus far, remained unexamined. The paper details the relationship between this design advice and three inter-related features of the Singaporean public housing programme: a commitment to modernist design principles, a self-conscious pragmatism, and the incorporation of a limited market logic (‘home ownership’). This paper demonstrates that the Housing Development Board’s vision of the benefit of its highrise housing programme was, from the outset, complexly entangled with cultivating individual investments in the home by way of interior design and decoration practices. It contributes not only to the specific story of Singaporean housing, but also to wider scholarship on modernism, the everyday practices of interior design, and housing consumption.

The scale and extent of human mobility in contemporary times has added a new inflection to a question that has long pre-occupied scholars: this being the matter of ‘what is home?’ or, more precisely and following Agnes Heller (1995), ‘where are we at home?’. These questions are both minor and major. They implicate something as ordinary as ‘the house’ and as extraordinary as our sense of belonging. Martin Heidegger’s well known essay from 1951, ‘Building Dwelling Thinking’, provides one starting point for thinking about how a building like a house is attached to an experience like dwelling (Heidegger 1975). He investigates how dwelling requires building (as a process and as a thing) and how, in turn, building helps constitute our sense of dwelling. Heidegger draws at one point on the example of a farmhouse in the Black Forest, which he uses to illustrate how building both cultivates and expresses dwelling. His conception of ‘proper dwelling’ relies, then, on the example of a house that is embedded in its place of origin -- where building and dwelling and location are co-constitutive. Through an architectural diagnostic, a dwelling such as Heidegger’s farmhouse might occupy the category of ‘the vernacular’. Through a sociological diagnostic, we might think of it as a type of ‘ancestral home’. Such models of ‘proper’ dwelling are being radically transformed in contemporary times. Not least, current levels of mobility act as a force of compromise. Mobility compels our lives to be full of radical open-ness, proliferating differences and multiplying loyalties. It produces flows of information, people and things that do away with, or render residual, what might be thought of as monogamous modes of dwelling. Within this restructured world, both vernacular architectures and ancestral homes come to assume new positions and are sutured into our modes of dwelling in quite different ways.

This paper is drawn from some new research I am getting underway on the fortunes of the highrise. I should say that this paper is largely speculative and has benefited greatly from discussions with my co-researcher on this project, Stephen Cairns who is in architecture at The University of Edinburgh. I invite you today to speculate with me about the fortunes of the highrise in the contemporary city.

The journal Cultural Geographies, and its predecessor Ecumene, has provided flagship scholarship in cultural geography for over a decade. Cultural Geographies has played this part in a period that has witnessed both unprecedented enthusiasm for the (now not so new) cultural turn, and an emergent scepticism around what cultural geography has come to stand for, and specifically its apparent over- emphasis on representation. As Catherine Nash and I have observed elsewhere, this new scepticism is evident in a range of cultural geographical writings. For example, the recent Handbook of Cultural Geography, itself an exemplary account of the vital contribution of cultural geography to the discipline, opens with a picture of a tomb with the epitaph ‘Here Lies Cultural Geography, Born 1925, Died 2002. In Loving Memory’. There could be no clearer expression of the peculiar combination of commitment to and disenchantment with the concept of culture in contemporary geography. It is not the only death wish that cultural geography has had to endure recently. Don Mitchell concludes his review of Mike Crang’s Cultural Geography with the following epitaph: ‘Despite a brief and brilliant beginning, in the end, it never amounted to much’. A mere decade ago cultural geography was seen as an analytic frame that could promise not only a productive, but also a necessary, reshaping of geographical scholarship. Now it seems we can’t decide if we want this sub-field to be dead or alive! This paper is not a defence of cultural geography per se, nor even an attempt to police the ways in which we might use the term ‘culture’ in our geographies, although that has been one evident response to the confusion over the value of cultural geographical approaches. It does, however, have something to say about things being alive or dead – and it does presume that the approach taken, in significant and worthy ways, is indebted at least in part to the vital novelty bequeathed by a sub-disciplinary field known as ‘cultural geography’. Not least, the paper’s focus on building technology and building practises self-consciously resuscitates and extends a theme common to cultural geographical scholarship, old and new.