Categories
animals atmosphere caring infrastructures city-making collectives ecologies functional diversity & disability rights heat and shade more-than-human older people publications urban and personal devices

The City of Shades > Tarde

Originally published in Tarde

▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 

 This issue was prepared by Tomás Criado and curated by Zofia Buni and Paloma Yáñez Serrano. Design and edition: Santiago Orrego

▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ 

Editorial note: The City of Shades is the second issue in a series of urban explorations that are part of an ongoing collaboration between Tarde and xcol.org.

Download Zine | DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JU6VM

Our climate cultures are in crisis. Heat is no longer a distant or abstract event, something that happens to us. It is among us. And in its most extreme versions, it appears more like a chronic illness with profound, unequal, and devastating effects [1].

In a peculiar way, for a country like Spain, where I live, accustomed to sun and heat as a recurring seasonal issue, this places us before a crisis for which we can feel over-prepared. But summer after summer, heat wave after heat wave, inherited habits and practices do not quite work. It is no longer enough to walk under cover, wear sunscreen, drink a lot, dress lightly, lower the blinds, and wait for the worst to happen because the worst is yet to come on those torrid, tropical, and infernal nights, as meteorologists call them.

Modern infrastructures and construction methods, which made us feel at the avant-garde, appear today hopelessly problematic. We need a radical change. Different international and intergovernmental organizations have long warned that the response to climate change must start from cities [2]: increasingly populated settlements and complex-to-change infrastructures from which we need to rethink the habitability of the planet.

Anti-solar urbanism

The ongoing climatic mutation places us before the challenge of reconfiguring urban ideas of care, protection, or shelter, inventing more plural ways of living, and protecting those who could be more exposed or suffer more from its devastating effects [3]. In that sense, we live in a time of urgency and frantic searches for solutions. However, and this is my proposal, in addition to infrastructural or “nature-based” solutions, we have an important task before us: this requires, above all, redescribing what the urban might be.

In situations of great uncertainty, where how to respond is sometimes difficult to imagine, we may need to train themselves to pay attention to the seemingly irrelevant but crucial, such as urban shades and shadows: unimportant entities that articulate urban life and our daily relationships with the sun and heat.

Without a doubt, there is nothing more conventional than shades. As terrestrial beings we all have one. But thinking about urban shades can be something much deeper than it seems, since it forces us to pay attention differently to our everyday environments. Indeed, what is shade if not a changing relationship we enter with the Sun as it passes through our habitats throughout the day?

Edvard Munch (1911) The Sun / Solen

With Copernicus and Galileo, modernity put the Sun at the center. One of the many effects of this heliocentric turn and its profound cosmological effects is that we tend to attribute to the star that presides over our firmament a beneficent role, the ability to give life and irradiate us with its strength, but this regularly positive appreciation needs a counterpoint: What to do when it harms us or puts us at risk, such as in the conditions of extreme atmospheric heat or in the solar exposure that leads to melanoma? [4]

The modern philosophical tradition, but also our forms of artistic expression and folklore –– with innumerable children’s songs praising the Sun –– have difficulties treating without prejudice everything that remains outside of these irradiations: a solarized caricature treated as the archaic, the conservative, the dangerous, the murky hours of the night. However, and this is the hypothesis that I would like to share here, what if we have never been solar? What if, to breathe and think again, sheltered from wild solar power, we need to move the Sun away from the center?

This does not necessarily mean to stop considering the relevance of the Sun, nor resurrecting the Platonic distrust that condemns us to see nothing more than the shadows projected on the walls of a cave. The type of ‘sheltered thinking’ that we could begin to practice has, rather, shades at its center: What if shades were not the possibility of thinking negatively, taking things for what they are not, but a way of thinking protected from the Sun and its scorching heat and irradiation? In fact, as baroque painting amply showed, shadows are central to our perception, allowing figure/ground distinctions, but they are also key to our understanding of the world and our survival [5].

Climate shelter

Taken thusly, our terrestrial life could be re-read as a long interspecific story of how the living have learned to protect ourselves from solar irradiation. That is one of the most interesting arguments in the work of paleontologist and geologist Anthony J. Martin, Evolution Underground, which traces the evolutionary importance of burrows and underground architectures for the survival on the face of the earth of many animals since time immemorial, including human beings [6].

But, going further, the atmosphere itself, an initial bacterial achievement, with its complex circulation of air, or later in the history of the Earth, the seas and river banks, the iridescent tapestry of clouds and forests are nothing but aspects of a patchy system, with singular expressions, of ways to capture, regulate, dissipate or block the Sun’s rays. In this renewed centrality of shades, we cannot forget plants and their important role in making our planet habitable.

Cloud shade

Philosopher Emanuele Coccia expressed this very poetically in a recent conference titled “The Garden of the World.” One of his main arguments is that what we call Earth today cannot be understood but as a technical achievement of life, more precisely the work of plants, crucial to producing the atmosphere and orography, as well as the oxygen thanks to which other beings live:

“The Earth has the status of an artifact… a cultural production of all living beings that inhabit it and not only the transcendental precondition for the possibility of life. Gaia is Flora’s daughter. The Sun is Flora’s cosmic doll” (my translation) [7].

And what would have happened to the terraforming of our planet were it not for plants and, more particularly, trees: with their ability to transform soil and air, producing habitats or microclimates so that many animals could begin to crawl beyond the seas sheltered from the Sun [8]

Tree shade

In fact, many of our primary experiences of shade and protection from the Sun actually have to do with the delicate interweaving of tree foliage and the strange collage of plant cover. Thinking with trees allows us to venture another hypothesis about the habitability of our planet: What if shades have been more important than what we have told ourselves until now? What’s more, despite the fact that they are usually considered a secondary product of the Sun, its negative version, what if shades were the very condition of habitability on Earth and, therefore, in urban habitats troubled by climatic mutation?

The interesting thing is that even if shades are an old acquaintance, growing environmental concerns have caused administrations and professionals of all kinds to begin to recover this daily environmental relationship, long forgotten by modern forms of urbanization. For this reason, it has gained great importance in different technical solutions to face the extreme heat of the present: municipal shading plans, bioclimatic itineraries, or shade infrastructures [9]. This requires revitalizing ancient knowledges and techniques, as well as speculating and creating new solutions to mitigate and adapt to increasing heat.

Stating that we have never been solar, paying attention to shades also means restoring the violence exercised against many ancestral traditions by the moderns, with their hygienist obsession with clean air and wide, controlled streets intended primarily for traffic. This heliocentric or solar urbanism was the way in which Reason re-incarnated as a city project. In the aftermath of this, centering shades is also a way to restore their relevance for urban habitability, which allows us to admire the wrongly called ‘vernacular’ architecture with different eyes, seeking inspiration! Also, as Paloma Yáñez Serrano suggested in a conversation, it might lead us to understand trees and plan shades not just as ‘infrastructure’ but something part of a complex sentient ecology we should allow to thrive, something urban ecology and forestry schools are far from doing!

Solar Urbanism

However, to say that we have never been solar is not to throw modernist architecture overboard but rather to notice modernist urban formations for which shade has also been relevant. That is, it is about re-reading architecture and urbanism not from the blinding light of the Enlightenment but from the murky atmospheres of shades and shadows, as architect Stephen Kite proposes in his book Shadow-makers, a cultural history of shadows as a ‘shaping factor in architecture’, both in its traditional and modern forms [10].

Although much of Kite’s book is devoted to the importance of shadow in defining the cavities of buildings and interior spaces, there is a wonderful chapter on the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Islamic city because what is the medina –– an architectural conglomerate formed by deep canyon adobe buildings, together with canopies and the use of damp fabrics –– but a great ode to shade as a principle of urban habitability?[11].

Ladouali (2011) La casbah d’Alger

But there are also interesting examples of urban treatments of shades and shadow in different modernist traditions that have developed in hot and arid climates. This is extensively covered in a recent exhibition on tropical modernism in Africa and India curated by Christopher Turner at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London [12].

In Barcelona, where I reside, there is also a history to be reconstructed of modernist shade architectures, of which the two umbracles (shadow buildings) of the modernist Ciutadella and Montjuic parks stand out: Siamese structures, but that operate on the inverse principle of the greenhouse, even if conceived as part of the same colonial impulse. This is far from being a local story: a similar twin architecture can be found in Lisbon’s signature Estufa Quente and Estufa Fria. Indeed, umbracles or estufas frias and greenhouses can be read as key to what architectural historian Lydia Kallipoliti calls the grammars of ‘colonial acclimatization,’ which allowed the fragile transportation, and the massive relocation of plants, animals and people from different regions of the world, for the purposes of trade and exhibition, sometimes also starting out a new troubled life in the metropolis [13].

Umbracle de la Ciutadella (Ciutadella Park’s shade building)

And yet, the great ‘achievements’ of the past, no matter how problematic or interesting, cannot be ‘the’ solution. We have entered an experimental moment, one of great stupor. Our cities have become what the French philosopher and anthropologist Bruno Latour calls “critical zones”: complex unknown territories where living beings are literally risking their lives, but also where they rush the most to continue making liveable worlds in their irreducible plurality [14]. The challenge we face in what Latour calls the “new climatic regime” in these critical urban zones is, therefore, to engender plural forms of habitability in a frankly complex and problematic moment without guarantees [15].

To tentatively respond to this major challenge, I believe we need to experiment with forms of urban transformation. This may sound paradoxical, I know because we are at a moment where we feel like we have to run to do something to fix the problem right away. But we must be careful not to turn this rush into a technocratic project governed by experts or elites who impose on us how to live, as in the colonial period. No doubt, terrible things are underway, but there is a great danger of confusing the diagnosis with the solution, especially when we do not know how we could live and with whom.

Precisely in this moment of pressing urgency, we need more than ever an experimental culture to rethink the city. With this precaution concerning technical solutions, I do not mean that countless infrastructural arrangements –– such as porous and reflective pavements or shaded spaces to protect us from the Sun and the heat island effect ––are not important. We also need to learn to leave space for plants to develop or allow animals to thrive in cities on an equal footing. This is all key, but we need to go further.

Street canopy

At a time like this, we also need to address the social and material life of atmospheric and climatic phenomena, such as shades, whether already existing or designed. In a heated present, where the ability to shelter ourselves from the scorching Sun is a poorly distributed good, revitalizing their knowledge and generative practices may be crucial to relearning to live as earthly beings. 

To do this, perhaps we need a ‘Department of Umbrology’ in each of our territories. This notion was developed by writer Tim Horvath in his short story The discipline of shadows, where he explores the complex relationships in a comically absurd university department devoted to the study of the life of shadows, where physicists, shadow theater dramaturgs and Platonic philosophers coexist without understanding each other, generating funny situations in their mutual incomprehension [16].

Collateral shade

However, in an absurdly tragic moment like the one we find ourselves in, we might need to explore how to make the type of space inspired by that story exist, but not as a university department. Rather, taking inspiration from the description and intervention work of artivist collectives such as the Los Angeles Urban Rangers [17] or the dramaturgical speculative experiments of the Crisis Cabinet of Political Fictions [18], what if we imagined it as a workspace devoted to the study of and intervention in the urban life of the shades: hence developing umbrology as a practice addressing both physical and material aspects as well as social and cultural relationships.

To make it exist, we would need to train ourselves to appreciate the intricacies of this environmental relationship: devoting ourselves to the study of the complex relationships between the Sun and buildings, the street or trees, as well as the role that different types of shadows can have for different people or groups and their ways of surviving the scorching heat. I would like to appeal to the relevance of ethnography for this task because of how it foregrounds an investigation of the embodied and situated study of practices, the senses, and ways of life. Ethnography would also allow a different approach to inquiry, enabling an understanding of environmental phenomena beyond two well-trod paths in which we render shades readable and discussable: [19]

  • On the one hand, climatological and meteorological practices that foreground their temperature and other atmospheric variables (such as humidity), leaving in the shadows their lived or cultural dimensions, the forms of life from which they arise and those that make them emerge, enabling or disabling different urban climates;
  • On the other hand, the practices of spatial legibility, from a bird’s eye and in Euclidean terms, undertaken by projects such as ShadeMap or Shadowmapgeographic information systems (GIS) that, through geolocation, allow us to simulate the inclination of the Sun and the shades and shadows cast by the urban environment on our digital devices.
Bird safe glass, using shades

To study how to make our cities habitable again in the face of increasing heat, we also need to learn to describe with many more nuances, both symbolic and ephemeral, taking into account other knowledges and ways of articulating problems, the new terra ignota that our cities have become: undertaking experimental cartographic endeavours such as the one suggested by Frédérique Aït-Touati, Alexandra Arènes and Axelle Gregoire in their magnificent Terra Forma, hence allowing us to re-center our bodily implications in the urban climates we inhabit and the plurality of our ways of inhabiting them [20].

The importance of the lived body in ethnography is a key aspect since it can help us stop thinking about atmospheres or climate and, more specifically, heat as res extensa: as an external thing or issue, detached from our actions. Rather, as different recent works in the fields of history and social studies of science and technology have argued, climate, atmospheres, and heat are something humans have partaken in their making: by omission and commission, in more direct or more distant ways, in our daily practices, embodied and mediated by different technical gadgets, but also by the ways in which we consume and build cities: our clothing, our buildings with air conditioners. Put differently, as a result of deeply mediated collective practices [21].

The sociality of shades

Thus considered, shades cease being a mere natural effect and acquire relational cultural properties because there is no shadow equal to another, and its uniqueness depends on how we observe, practice, and interrogate it in its site-specificity. This sensitivity seems important to me because it would allow repopulating shades and shadows: not, to say it again, as the negative presentation of what can be seen or as empty places [22], but as sites that enable many living beings to thrive: hiding from the blinding light of both the Sun and the Enlightenment as a project.

This version of shades as protecting other life-forms deeply resonates with the antiracist work of radical Black Caribbean thinker Édouard Glissant, who coined ‘a right to opacity’ as a condition of survival for all forms of difference in the long tail of slavery [23]. But also, in a more clearly environmental sense, with the proposals of architectural historian and disability activist David Gissen [24]. Gissen defends the need to rethink cities from many forms of bodily vulnerability, commonly removed from the centrality of urbanism: Black communities, older people and children, people with chronic illnesses and disabilities. Particularly because of how the Sun and heat endanger them: like the older people suffering in silence the ‘fatal isolation’ of heat waves or the uncountable Black bodies of outdoors workers exposed to brutal conditions of heat and insolation [25]. This would dispute the Sun’s centrality in public space design, making shade into a careful urban design principle.

Solar playground

Considering the social and material shade arrangements from the practices of diverse bodies in need of urban supports, allows us to think of shades not only as a ‘civic resource’, but also as an ‘inequality index.’ Shade is, indeed, subject to different conditions of unequal access, both in troublesome everyday negotiations of spatial production and in the legal regulations of who is allowed to produce or live in the shadows and how in different contexts. Shade, thus, appears a key infrastructure for urban habitability. And that is the main reason why journalist Sam Bloch suggests shades should be turned into a mandate for urban designers, or even more radically by urban theorist Mike Davies, into a collective urban right [26].

But how to study shades ethnographically? Faced with this challenge, therefore, we actively need to relearn how to describe and dimension the problems we face – also the problems of solutions –in order to be able to test many proposals to make the plural habitability of our urban environments possible. We need, therefore, to cultivate urban speculation, not real estate! I am referring to our ability to think and rethink the many possible ways that the urban could have to make it habitable again. This would require both (i) the invention of devices to carry out field research, giving a new meaning to the term ‘shadowing’, and (ii) taking inventory of everyday spatial practices, focusing on the relationship that different people have with our perpetual companions as inhabitants under the Sun [27].

Shade on a notebook

Hence, experimenting and speculating on how to articulate a Department of Umbrology: a confederation of singular forms of thinking and intervention, a self-constituted entity from where we could liberate, imagine, and cultivate new urban sensibilities and responsibilities on how to make more livable cities. We need such a space to take responsibility for describing, protecting, and bringing to dimmed light many underground forms of knowledge and forms of collective intelligence that need opaque supports to flourish. That is, to discuss the multiple needs of a large number of unique actors often displaced by solar urbanization. I do not only mean those who cannot pay the air conditioning bill or those who need support to transform their homes and workspaces into more energy-efficient and comfortable. I also mean those who, like homeless people, appear as second-class humans, in addition to many non-human urbanites, like dogs or birds, we rarely think of when imagining climate policies.

For this proposal to work, we need very different professional and collective knowledges –– not just academic or institutional –– to work together. This mutual exchange and cross-contamination would allow exploring and trying out devices for urban inquiry, drawing on the plural sensibilities and knowledges to imagine how to equip these strange professionals of umbrology: between the natural and the cultural, with a particular interest in the analysis and politics of shades; devoting themselves to understanding the social and material complexity of shades, the multiplicity of actors and assemblages constituting them; the practices of generating shade, by and for whom, as well as the forms of sociality that they allow as regions or territories [28]: attending to their temporalities, their rhythms, and their spatial dramaturgies. 

If we are successful in setting up such an experiment in the ways we encounter and describe shady urban worlds, we might make another city appear, one usually overlooked: the city of shades! 

Online references

[1] As shown by two recent reports from the European Environment Agency: EEA Report No 07/2022: Climate change as a threat to health and well-being in Europe: focus on heat and infectious diseases, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate -change-impacts-on-health ; EEA Report No 22/2018: Unequal exposure and unequal impacts: social vulnerability to air pollution, noise and extreme temperatures in Europe, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/unequal-exposure-and-unequal-impacts

[2] A good example of this is the centrality that the issue of heat and the citizen response has in the recent 2022 IPCC report, particularly its chapter 6 “Cities, settlements and key infrastructure”, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/; or the initiatives of the Arsht -Rock Foundation to prepare for the risks of urban heat, around urban “heat officers”: https://onebillionresilient.org/project/chief-heat-officers/ or the categorization and naming of heat waves: https://onebillionresilient.org/project /categorizing-and-naming-heat-waves/   

[3] My argument draws on and is deeply inspired by the work of the late French philosopher and anthropologist Bruno Latour and many of his collaborators. In his work of the last decade, there is a central notion: “New Climatic Regime,” which refers to the problems as a way of life, production, and its dependence on fossil energies that a particular has thrown us into. A destructive regime that has transformed our environments, shaped our knowledges and political institutions for more than a century, putting the habitability of the planet at risk. At the same time, this characterization suggests the possibility of its transformation from an old regime (ancien régime) to a new one: this requires searching for other horizons of meaning to engender plural forms of habitability. For an introduction to these ideas, see Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Polity.

[4] For an attentive look at the elemental plurality of human and non-human practices, or the scalar paradoxes of the multiple spatial, corporal, temporal, historical-cultural configurations of our omnipresent relationship with the sun and the dissipation of its rays or what we could call “solarities” –– from the infrastructural forms linked to the photovoltaic energy transition to anthropogenic catastrophes induced by the carbonification of the atmosphere (where the sun appears as “the source of withering and desiccation, a maker of monstrous heat”, p.18), not to forget the planetary centrality of photosynthesis or diurnal cycles, or its effects in the production of fossil energy or our very visual perception systems –– see Howe, C., Diamanti, J., & Moore, A. (Eds.). (2023). Solarities: Elemental Encounters and Refractions. punctum books.

[5] The most detailed attempt to restore the philosophical centrality of shadows that I am aware of is that of Casati, R. (2003). Shadows. Unlocking their secrets from Plato to our time. Vintage Books.

[6] Martin, A.J. (2017). The Evolution Underground: Burrows, Bunkers, and the Marvelous Subterranean World Beneath our Feet. Pegasus Books.

[7] Coccia, E. (2021). El jardín del mundo (The garden of the world), CENDEAC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxTQjBwuZRA&t=60s.

[8] Albert, B., Halle, F., & Mancuso, S. (2019). Trees. Thames & Hudson; Coccia, E. (2018). The Life of Plants: A Metaphysics of Mixture. Wiley; Coccia, E. (2021). Metamorphoses. Wiley; Leonardi, C., & Stagi, F. (2019). The Architecture of Trees. Princeton Architectural Press; Mattern, S. (2021). Tree Thinking. Places Journalhttps://doi.org/10.22269/210921

[9] Such as the ones developed by an architectural contest and experimental prototyping process put together by Barcelona’s City Council that I have been accompanying since the summer of 2023: https://bithabitat.barcelona/es/proyectos/sombra/

[10] Kite, S. (2017: 5). Shadow-makers: A cultural history of shadows in architecture. Bloomsbury Academic.

[11] Ludovico, M., Attilio, P. & Ettore, V. (Eds.) (2009). The Mediterranean Medina. Gangemi Editor.

[12] Turner, C. (Ed.) (2024). Tropical Modernism: Architecture and Independence. V&A Publishing.

[13] Kallipoliti, L. (2024). Histories of Ecological Design: An Unfinished Cyclopedia. Actar.

[14] Latour, B., & Weibel, P. (Eds.). (2020). Critical Zones: The Science and Politics of Landing on Earth. ZKM/MIT Press.

[15] Latour, B. (2018). Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime . Polity; Latour, B. (2021). After Lockdown: A Metamorphosis. Polity.

[16] Horvath, T. (2009). The Discipline of Shadows. Conjunctions 53 , 293-311.

[17] Bauch, N., & Scott, E.E. (2012). The Los Angeles Urban Rangers: Actualizing Geographic Thought. Cultural Geographies 19 (3), 401-409; Kanouse, S. (2015). Critical Day Trips: Tourism and Land-Based Practice. In E.E. Scott & K. Swenson (2015). Critical landscapes: Art, space, politics (pp. 43-56). University of California Press.

[18] Crisis Cabinet of Political Fictions: https://www.gabinededecrisis.es/

[19] Hepach, M.G. & Lüder, C. (2023). Sensing Weather and Climate: Phenomenological and Ethnographic Approaches. Environment and Planning F 2 (3): 350–68.

[20] Aït-Touati, F., Arènes, A., & Grégoire, A. (2022). Terra Forma: A Book of Speculative Maps. MIT Press.

[21] Calvillo, N. (2023). Aeropolis: Queering Air in Toxicpolluted Worlds. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City; Fressoz, J.-B., & Locher, F. (2024). Chaos in the Heavens: The Forgotten History of Climate Change. Verse Books; Hsu, H. L. (2024). Air Conditioning. Bloomsbury; Parikka, J., & Dragona, D. (Eds.). (2022). Words of Weather: A glossary. Onassis Foundation; Starosielski, N. (2021). Media Hot & Cold. Duke University Press.

[22] In the same way that deserts are not empty either, a colonial representation commonly associated with the justification of the savage exploitation of arid lands: Henni, S. (Ed.) (2022). Deserts Are Not Empty. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City

[23] Glissant, E. (1997). For Opacity. In Poetics of Relation (pp.189-194). University of Michigan Press.

[24] Gissen, D. (2022). Disabling Environments. In The Architecture of Disability: Buildings, Cities, and Landscapes Beyond Access (pp. 95-114). Minnesota University Press.

[25] Keller, R. C. (2015). Fatal Isolation: The Devastating Paris Heat Wave of 2003. University of Chicago Press; Macktoom, S., Anwar, N.H., & Cross, J. (2023). Hot climates in urban South Asia: Negotiating the right to and the politics of shade at the everyday scale in Karachi. Urban Studieshttps://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231195204

[26] Bloch, S. (2019). Shade: An Urban Design Mandate. Places Journalhttps://doi.org/10.22269/190423 ; Davis, M. (1997) The radical politics of shade. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 8(3): 35–39; Macktoom, S., Anwar, N.H., & Cross, J. (2023). Hot climates in urban South Asia: Negotiating the right to and the politics of shade at the everyday scale in Karachi. Urban Studieshttps://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231195204

[27] For an interesting example, see Boserman, C. (2023). Solar Drawings: On anthotypies and environmental affectivity. Re-visiones,13http://www.re-visiones.net/index.php/RE-VISIONES/article/view/529

[28] In the rich ethological sense explored by Despret, V. (2021). Living as a Bird. Wiley. A proposal that breaks with the idea of ​​territory as something that can be explained away either in functional and economic terms or as property, ownership and exploitable resources, claiming instead the need to describe it from multiple practices of inhabiting that constitute it and the arts of coexistence that they make possible. This idea is further developed by Latour, B. (2021). After Lockdown: A Metamorphosis. Polity. Latour’s proposal is to undertake a cartographic practice of territories different from the ideas of ‘blood and soil’ that have underpinned European traditionalisms and nationalisms. This is crucial, in his words, to orient oneself in the New Climatic Regime, which requires understanding ‘where we live’ and ‘what we live off’ by listing our affiliations.

Zine: Kit, Roles & Devices for the Department of Umbrology

How to fold the zine

Recommended citation: Criado, T.S. (2024). The City of Shades. Tarde, a handbook of minimal and irrellevant urban entanglements, 6. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/JU6VM

Categories
animals atmosphere city-making ecologies events functional diversity & disability rights heat and shade more-than-human older people urban and personal devices

Prestar atención a las sombras urbanas: Zonas críticas de la habitabilidad contemporánea 

Presentación del taller La ciudad de las sombras: Etnografiar la habitabilidad urbana en tiempos de mutación climática (17-21 de junio de 2024 | Barcelona)

Nuestra cultura climática está en crisis. El calor extremo ya no es un evento externo, está entre nosotros, como un mal crónico con profundos efectos desiguales y devastadores.[1]

De manera peculiar para un país como el nuestro, acostumbrado al sol y al calor como un asunto estacional recurrente, esto nos sitúa ante una crisis en la que podemos creernos sobre-preparados. Pero verano tras verano, ola de calor tras ola de calor, los hábitos y prácticas heredados no acaban de funcionar: ya no basta con caminar a cubierto, llevar crema solar, beber mucho, vestirse ligero, bajar las persianas y esperar a que pase lo peor, porque lo peor está por llegar, en esas noches tórridas, tropicales e infernales, como las llaman nuestras colegas de la meteorología.

Las infraestructuras y modos de construcción modernos, que nos hacían sentir a la vanguardia, aparecen hoy irremediablemente problemáticos. Necesitamos un cambio radical. Diferentes organizaciones internacionales e intergubernamentales alertan desde hace tiempo que la respuesta al cambio climático debe partir de las ciudades:[2] asentamientos cada vez más poblados e infraestructuras complejas de cambiar desde los que necesitamos repensar la habitabilidad del planeta.

La mutación climática en curso nos sitúa ante el reto de configurar nuevas ideas urbanas de cuidado, protección o refugio, inventando formas plurales de habitar que protejan a quienes pudieran estar más expuestos o sufrir más sus efectos devastadores.[3] En ese sentido, vivimos un tiempo de urgencia y de búsqueda frenética de soluciones. Sin embargo, y ésta es mi propuesta, además de soluciones infraestructurales o “basadas en la naturaleza” tenemos ante nosotros una tarea importante: esto requiere, sobre todo, redescribir qué es lo urbano.

En situaciones de gran incertidumbre, donde cómo responder es un asunto a veces complicado de imaginar, quizá necesitemos entrenarnos a prestar atención a lo aparentemente irrelevante, pero crucial. Ese es el objeto primordial de este taller, que quiere poner el foco en las sombras: entidades aparentemente ínfimas, pero que articulan nuestra vida urbana y nuestras relaciones cotidianas con el sol y el calor.

Sin duda, no hay nada más convencional que la sombra. En tanto seres terráqueos todos tenemos una. Pero pensar la sombra urbana puede ser algo mucho más profundo de lo que parece, puesto que nos obliga a prestar atención de otra manera a nuestros entornos cotidianos. De hecho, ¿qué es la sombra, sino una relación cambiante en que entramos con el sol a medida que atraviesa nuestros hábitats a lo largo del día?

Edvard Munch (1911) The Sun / Solen

Con Copérnico y Galileo, la modernidad puso al Sol en el centro. Uno de los muchos efectos de ese giro heliocéntrico y su profunda transformación cosmológica es que solemos atribuir a la estrella que preside nuestro firmamento un rol benefactor, la capacidad de dar vida y de irradiarnos con su fuerza, pero esta apreciación regularmente positiva necesita un contrapunto: ¿qué hacer cuando nos daña o nos pone en riesgo, como en las condiciones atmosféricas del calor extremo o en la exposición solar que conduce al melanoma?[4]

La tradición filosófica moderna, pero también nuestras formas de expresión artística y folklore (con innumerables canciones infantiles alabando al sol), tiene dificultades para no tratar con prejuicio todo lo que queda por fuera de esas irradiaciones: una caricatura solarizada, tratada como lo arcaico, lo conservador, lo peligroso, lo turbio de la noche. Sin embargo, y esta es la hipótesis que quisiera compartir aquí, ¿y si nunca fuimos solares? ¿Y si para volver a respirar y pensar, guarecidos de su poder salvaje, a la sombra, necesitemos desplazar al sol del centro?

Esto no necesariamente quiere decir dejar de considerar al sol, ni resucitar la desconfianza platónica que nos condena a no ver más que las sombras proyectadas en las paredes de una cueva. El tipo de pensamiento cobijado que pudiéramos empezar a practicar tiene, más bien, en su centro a la sombra: ¿Y si la sombra no fuera la posibilidad de pensar en negativo, tomando las cosas por lo que no son, sino un modo de pensar protegido del sol abrasador? De hecho, como mostró ampliamente la pintura barroca, las sombras son centrales para nuestra percepción, para nuestro entendimiento del mundo, para nuestra supervivencia. [5]

Con esa clave, nuestra vida terrestre pudiera ser leída como una larga historia interespecífica de cómo los vivientes hemos aprendido a protegernos de su irradiación. Ese es uno de los argumentos más interesantes del trabajo del paleontólogo y geólogo Anthony J. Martin Evolution underground (la evolución bajo tierra), que retraza la importancia evolutiva de las madrigueras y arquitecturas del subsuelo para la supervivencia sobre la faz de la tierra de muchos animales desde tiempos inmemoriales, incluidos los seres humanos.[6]

Pero, yendo más allá, la misma atmósfera, logro inicial bacteriano, con su compleja circulación del aire, o más tarde en la historia de la tierra los mares y las riberas de los ríos o el tapiz irisado de las nubes y los bosques no son sino un gran sistema, con expresiones locales, de formas de captar, regular, disipar o bloquear los rayos del sol. En esta centralidad de la sombra no podemos olvidar a las plantas y su importante papel en hacer habitable nuestro planeta.

El filósofo Emanuele Coccia expresaba esto de forma muy poética en una reciente conferencia en el CENDEAC, titulada “El jardín del mundo”. En ella planteaba que lo que hoy llamamos Tierra no puede entenderse sino como consecución técnica de la vida o la labor de las plantas, cruciales para la producción de la atmósfera y la orografía, así como del oxígeno gracias al cual otros seres vivimos:

“la Tierra tiene un estatuto de artefacto… una producción cultural de todos los seres vivos que lo habitan y no sólo la precondición trascendental para la posibilidad de la vida. Gaia es hija de Flora. El sol es la muñeca cósmica de Flora.”[7]

¿Y qué hubiera sido de la terraformación de nuestro planeta a través de las plantas y, en particular los árboles, de no ser por su capacidad de transformar lo, producir hábitats o microclimas para que muchos animales pudiéramos comenzar a reptar más allá de los mares, cobijados del sol?[8]

De hecho, muchas de nuestras experiencias primordiales de sombra y protección del sol tienen que ver, de hecho, con los delicados entramados del follaje de distintos árboles y plantas. Pensar junto con los árboles nos permite aventurar otra hipótesis sobre la habitabilidad de nuestro planeta: ¿Y si la sombra fuera más importante de lo que nos hemos contado hasta ahora? Es más, a pesar de que suela ser considerada como un producto secundario del sol, su versión en negativo, ¿y si la sombra fuera condición misma de la habitabilidad en la tierra y, por ende, en nuestros entornos urbanos atribulados por la mutación climática?

Lo interesante es que, aunque la sombra sea una vieja conocida, la creciente preocupación ambiental ha hecho que administraciones y profesionales de todo tipo hayan comenzado a recuperar esta relación ambiental cotidiana largamente olvidada por las formas modernas de urbanización. Por esto mismo ha cobrado gran importancia en distintas soluciones técnicas para hacer frente al calor extremo del presente: planes municipales de sombras, itinerarios bioclimáticos o infraestructuras de sombreado.[9] Esto está requiriendo revitalizar saberes y técnicas antiguos, así como especular y crear nuevas soluciones para mitigar y adaptarnos ante el calor creciente.

Decir que no hemos sido solares, prestar atención a las sombras, significa también restaurar la violencia ejercida contra muchas tradiciones ancestrales del habitar por parte de los modernos, con su obsesión higienista por el aire limpio y las calles amplias, controladas y destinadas primordialmente al tránsito. Este urbanismo heliocéntrico fue la forma en que la Razón se hizo ciudad. Frente a ello, colocar la sombra en el centro es restituir su centralidad para la habitabilidad urbana, lo que nos permite admirar con otros ojos a la mal llamada arquitectura vernácula: buscando inspiración.

Sin embargo, decir que nunca hemos sido solares no es tirar la arquitectura modernista por la borda, sino comenzar a advertir formaciones urbanas modernistas para las que la sombra ha sido nuclear. Esto es, se trata de releer la arquitectura y el urbanismo no desde la luz, sino desde la centralidad de la sombra, como plantea el arquitecto Stephen Kite en su libro Shadow-makers, una historia cultural de las sombras como factor modelador de la arquitectura (“shaping factor in architecture”), tanto en las formas tradicionales como modernas.[10]

Aunque gran parte del libro de Kite está consagrado a la importancia de la sombra para definir las oquedades de edificios y espacios interiores, hay un capítulo maravilloso sobre la ciudad islámica mediterránea y de Oriente Próximo, porque ¿qué es la medina –– conglomerado formado por arquitecturas de adobe de cañón largo y usos de toldos o tejidos humedecidos –– sino una gran oda a la sombra como principio de habitabilidad urbana?[11]

Ladouali (2011) La casbah d’Alger

Pero existen también ejemplos interesantes de tratamientos urbanos de la sombra en diferentes tradiciones modernistas que se han desarrollado en climas cálidos y áridos, de lo que trata ampliamente una reciente exposición sobre el modernismo tropical en África y la India comisariada por Christopher Turner en el Victoria and Albert Museum de Londres.[12]

En Barcelona hay también una historia por reconstruir de las arquitecturas modernistas de la sombra, de entre las que destacan los dos umbráculos de los parques de la Ciutadella y Montjuic: estructuras siamesas, pero que funcionan por el principio inverso al invernadero; concebidas como parte del mismo impulso tenebroso que la historiadora de la arquitectura Lydia Kallipoliti denomina las gramáticas de la “aclimatización colonial”, que permitieron el frágil transporte o la relocalización masiva de plantas, animales y personas, para su comercio y exposición, en ocasiones comenzando una nueva vida problemática en el corazón de la metrópolis.[13]

Y, sin embargo, las soluciones del pasado, por problemáticas o interesantes que resulten, no puede ser la solución. Hemos entrado en un momento experimental, de gran estupor. Nuestras ciudades se han convertido en lo que el filósofo y antropólogo francés Bruno Latour llama “zonas críticas”: complejos territorios ignotos, donde los vivientes se están jugando la vida literalmente, pero también donde más se apresuran para seguir haciendo mundos vivibles, en su pluralidad irreductible.[14] El reto ante el que nos sitúa lo que Latour llama el “nuevo régimen climático” en estas zonas críticas urbanas es, por tanto, engendrar formas plurales de habitabilidad en un momento francamente complejo y problemático, sin garantías.[15]

Para responder tentativamente a este reto mayúsculo creo que necesitamos practicar una cultura experimental de la transformación urbana. Esto puede sonar paradójico, lo sé, porque estamos en un momento en el que sentimos que debemos correr para hacer algo. Pero debemos tener cuidado de no convertir esta prisa en un proyecto tecnocrático gobernado por expertos o por élites que le digan o le impongan al resto cómo vivir, como ya ocurrió en el periodo colonial. Si la vida es compleja, si la vida consiste en fabricar las condiciones generativas de hacer la tierra habitable, podemos sin duda advertir que están pasando cosas ciertamente tenebrosas, pero existe un gran peligro de confundir el diagnóstico con la solución, sobre todo cuando no sabemos cómo podremos vivir y con quién.

Precisamente en ese momento de urgencia, necesitamos más que nunca una cultura experimental para repensar la ciudad. Con esta prevención de la solución técnica no quiero decir que no sean importantes innumerables arreglos infraestructurales como pavimentos porosos y reflectantes, espacios de sombra para protegernos del sol de justicia y del efecto isla de calor, o dejar sitio para que la vegetación autóctona se desarrolle o que los animales vuelvan a ocupar un lugar central en las ciudades. Sin lugar a dudas todo esto es central, pero necesitamos ir más allá.

En un momento así, necesitamos también abordar la vida social y cultural de muchos fenómenos atmosféricos y climáticos, como las sombras, sean estas ya existentes o diseñadas. En un presente acalorado, donde la capacidad de cobijarnos del sol abrasador es un bien mal repartido, revitalizar sus saberes y prácticas generativas quizá sea crucial para reaprender a vivir como seres terráqueos. Para ello, quizá necesitemos, un ‘Departamento de Umbrología’ en cada uno de nuestros territorios. 

Este idea está inspirada en una propuesta desarrollada por el escritor Tim Horvath en su cuento corto The discipline of shadows, donde explora las complejas relaciones en un absurdo departamento universitario dedicado al estudio de la vida de las sombras, donde coexisten sin entenderse y generando muchas situaciones cómicas y de incomprensión supina físicos, dramaturgas del teatro de las sombras y filósofos platónicos.[16]

Sin embargo, en un momento absurdo como en el que nos encontramos, el taller es una invitación a co-crear y explorar cómo hacer existir un tipo de espacio inspirado por ese cuento, pero no como un departamento universitario. Más bien, tomando inspiración del trabajo de descripción e intervención artivista de colectivos como Los Angeles Urban Rangers[17] o los experimentos especulativos del Gabinete de Crisis de Ficciones Políticas,[18] quisiéramos imaginar un espacio de trabajo entregado al estudio de y la intervención en la vida urbana de las sombras: una umbrología que atienda tanto a los aspectos físicos y materiales como a las relaciones sociales y culturales.

Para hacerlo existir, a través de distintas actividades queremos entrenarnos a apreciar esta relación ambiental: dedicándonos al estudio etnográfico de las complejas relaciones entre el sol y los edificios, la calle o los árboles, así como el papel que distintos tipos de sombras pueden tener para distintas personas o colectivos y sus modos de sobrevivir al calor abrasador. Apelamos a la centralidad de la etnografía, como forma de indagar por la importancia que otorga al estudio de las prácticas, la sensorialidad y los modos de vida, porque creemos que necesitamos comenzar a entender estos fenómenos ambientales más allá de dos formas convencionales con que solemos hacerlos legibles y discutibles:[19]

  • Por un lado, las prácticas climatológicas y meteorológicas que ponen la temperatura y otras variables atmosféricas como la humedad en el centro, dejando en la sombra las dimensiones vividas o culturales, las formas de vida de las que surgen y las que hacen emerger, que permiten o dificultan distintos climas;
  • Por otro lado, las prácticas de legibilidad del espacio a vista de pájaro y en términos eucliedeanos, como hacen algunas plataformas digitales como ShadeMap o Shadowmap basadas en sistemas de información geográfica como OpenStreetMap que, a través de la geolocalización, permiten simular en nuestros dispositivos la inclinación del sol y las sombras que proyecta el entorno urbano.

Pero quizá para estudiar cómo volver a hacer habitables nuestras ciudades ante un calor creciente, necesitemos también aprender a describir con muchos más matices, tanto simbólicos como efímeros, atendiendo a otros saberes y formas de articular los problemas la nueva terra ignota en que se han convertido nuestras ciudades: fabricando otras cartografías experimentales que, como en el trabajo de Frédérique Aït-Touati, Alexandra Arènes y Axelle Grégoire Terra Forma, nos permitan traer a la centralidad nuestras implicaciones corporales en los climas urbanos que habitamos y la pluralidad de nuestras formas de habitarlos.[20]

La importancia del cuerpo vivido en la etnografía es central porque nos permite dejar de pensar las atmósferas o el clima y, más concretamente, el calor como res extensa: cosas externas desgajadas de nuestro hacer. Antes bien, como bien argumentan diferentes trabajos recientes en los ámbitos de la historia y los estudios sociales de la ciencia y la tecnología, el clima, las atmósferas y el calor son algo de lo que “participamos en su hacer”, por omisión y comisión, de formas más directas o más distantes, en nuestras prácticas cotidianas, encarnadas y mediadas por diferentes instrumentales técnicos, pero también por los modos en que consumimos y construimos ciudades o, dicho de otra manera, por las prácticas colectivas en las que estamos insertos: nuestra vestimenta, nuestros edificios, nuestros aparatos de aire acondicionado.[21]

Así, la sombra deja de ser un mero efecto natural y adquiere también propiedades culturales relacionales: porque no hay una sombra igual a otra y su singularidad depende de cómo la observemos, practiquemos e interroguemos. Esta sensibilidad me parece importante porque nos ayudaría a repoblar la sombra: no como la presentación en negativo de lo que se ve, algo vacío[22], sino como algo que posibilita y ha posibilitado la vida de muchos colectivos que buscan esconderse de la mirada cegadora de la luz, tanto del sol como del proyecto ilustrado.

La centralidad de la sombra como protectora de otras formas de vida resuena en el trabajo del pensador de la tradición radical negra caribeña Édouard Glissant, que en un contexto que todavía convive con la larga cola del esclavismo, defendió “el derecho a la opacidad” como condición de supervivencia para todas las formas de diferencia.[23] Pero también en el sentido más netamente ambiental del que habla el historiador de la arquitectura y activista de la discapacidad David Gissen.[24] Gissen defiende la necesidad de repensar las formas de urbanización desde muchas formas de vulnerabilidad corporal comúnmente apartadas de la centralidad del urbanismo –– las personas negras, mayores y la infancia, con enfermedades crónicas, diversas funcionales, etc. ––, por los considerables riesgos para la salud que el sol y el calor implican: como la de las personas mayores que sufren en silencio el “aislamiento fatal” de las olas de calor o la de la infinidad de cuerpos negros trabajan en exteriores, expuestos al calor y al sol abrasador.[25] Esto disputaría la centralidad del diseño del espacio público con sol abundante, haciendo crucial la sombra como principio de diseño urbano.

Pensando en los arreglos sociales y materiales de la sombra desde esta diversidad de cuerpos que la necesitan para su sostén cotidiano nos permite pensarla no sólo como “recurso cívico”, sino también como un “índice de desigualdad”: una infraestructura de la habitabilidad urbana central que debiera ser un mandato para los diseñadores urbanos, pero que aparece sometido a diferentes condiciones desiguales de acceso y negociación de la producción espacial, en la regulación de a quién se le permite que produzca o viva en la sombra y cómo, en diferentes contextos. [26]

Por tanto, partiendo de esa sensibilidad antropológica queremos: (i) trabajar en el diseño de pequeños materiales para realizar investigaciones de campo; y (ii) hacer un inventario de prácticas espaciales cotidianas, centrado en la relación que diferentes personas tienen con nuestras perpetuas compañeras como habitantes bajo el sol.[27] Experimentando y especulando con cómo poder hacer realidad diferentes Departamentos de Umbrología –– una confederación de entidades autónomas, singulares y auto-constituidas ––, queremos también liberar, imaginarnos y cultivar nuevas sensibilidades y responsabilidades urbanas sobre cómo hacer nuestras ciudades habitables.

Queremos hacernos responsables de describir, proteger y traer a la luz tenue muchos saberes y formas de inteligencia colectiva subterráneos que necesitan soportes opacos para florecer. Queremos, también, poner en discusión las múltiples necesidades de un gran número de actores singulares muchas veces desplazados de la centralidad urbana: no sólo quienes no pueden pagar la factura del aire acondicionado o quienes necesitan soportes para transformar sus viviendas y espacios de trabajo; hablamos, también, de quienes muchas veces no se contemplan como humanos o se nos aparecen como humanos de segunda, además de una gran cantidad de urbanitas no humanos en los que rara vez pensamos.

Para armar esta propuesta puede ser crucial poner a trabajar conjuntamente muy diferentes saberes, profesionales y colectivos, no sólo académicos ni institucionales, que tenemos la gran suerte de tener en esta sala. Esto nos permitirá, además de imaginar ese departamento que, esperemos, deje de ser una ficción de un cuento, hacer que esto ocurra a través de la generación de un proceso de intercambio mutuo y contaminaciones cruzadas.

Ante este reto, por tanto, necesitamos activamente volver a aprender a describir y dimensionar los problemas ante los que nos encontramos – también los problemas de las soluciones –, para así poder ensayar muchas propuestas para hacer posible la habitabilidad plural de nuestros entornos urbanos. Necesitamos, por tanto, cultivar la especulación urbana: ¡no la inmobiliaria! Me refiero a nuestra capacidad de pensar y repensar las muchas formas posibles que podría tener lo urbano para convertirlo de nuevo en habitable.

Explorando e inventando dispositivos de indagación urbana, bebiendo de sensibilidades y saberes de las artes, las humanidades y las ciencias queremos imaginar cómo equipar esos extraños profesionales de la umbrología, entre lo natural y lo cultural, con un interés particular por el análisis y la política de las sombras. Si tenemos éxito en estos experimentos sobre las formas en que entramos en contacto y describimos los mundos urbanos, haremos aparecer otra ciudad: la ciudad de las sombras, normalmente pasada por alto. Y nos entregaremos a entender su complejidad social, así como la multiplicidad de actores y ensamblajes que la constituyen; las formas de generar sombra, por parte de y para quiénes; así como las formas de socialidad que las sombras permiten como regiones o territorios:[28] atendiendo a sus temporalidades, sus ritmos y sus dramaturgias espaciales.

Ante la mutación climática que cambiará cómo viviremos en las ciudades, queremos, por tanto, contribuir a pensar otras formas posibles de habitabilidad urbana más allá de grandes soluciones de todo propósito y pensadas de forma tecnocrática. Es por ello que nuestra llamada a constituir departamentos de umbrología aparezca como un intento de abrir a reflexión colectiva los modos de respuesta urbana al cambio climático aprendiendo de un gran número de agentes urbanos: incentivando, estimulando y ayudando a sostener sus tejidos de saberes y prácticas en formas que bien pudieran exceder a las responsabilidades de las instituciones. Esa es la tarea de un ‘Departamento de Umbrología’ en nuestros territorios urbanos: salir de las sombras, para estudiar las sombras, trabajando “sobre las sombras, desde las sombras.”[29]


[1] Como lo muestran dos recientes informes de la European Environment Agency: EEA Report No 07/2022: Climate change as a threat to health and well-being in Europe: focus on heat and  infectious diseases, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-impacts-on-health; EEA Report No 22/2018: Unequal exposure and unequal impacts: social vulnerability to air pollution, noise and extreme temperatures in Europe, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/unequal-exposure-and-unequal-impacts

[2] Un buen ejemplo de ello es la centralidad que la cuestión del calor y la respuesta ciudadana tiene en el reciente informe del IPCC de 2022, particularmente su capítulo 6 “Cities, settlements and key infrastructure”, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/; o las iniciativas de la Arsht-Rock Foundation formando y articulando “heat officers” en diferentes ciudades: https://onebillionresilient.org/project/chief-heat-officers/ o planteando nuevas formas de preparación ante los riesgos de las olas de calor, categorizándolas o nombrándolas: https://onebillionresilient.org/project/categorizing-and-naming-heat-waves/   

[3] Mi argumento bebe y se inspira profundamente en la obra del recientemente fallecido filósofo y antropólogo francés Bruno Latour y muchos de sus colaboradores. En su trabajo de la última década hay una noción central: “Nuevo Régimen Climático”, que remite a los problemas a los que nos ha arrojado un modo de vida particular, la producción y su dependencia de las energías fósiles. Un régimen destructivo que ha transformado nuestros entornos, moldeado nuestros saberes e instituciones políticas durante más de un siglo, poniendo en riesgo la habitabilidad del planeta. Al mismo tiempo, esta caracterización sugiere la posibilidad de su transformación, de un antiguo a un nuevo régimen: lo que supone la búsqueda de otros horizontes de sentido para engendrar formas plurales de habitabilidad en un momento francamente complejo y problemático, sin garantías. Para una introducción, véase Latour, B. (2017). Cara a cara con el planeta. Una nueva mirada sobre el cambio climático alejada de las posiciones apocalípticas. Siglo XXI.

[4] Para una mirada atenta a la pluralidad elemental de prácticas humanas y no humanas, o a la paradoja escalar de las múltiples configuraciones espaciales, corporales, temporales, histórico-culturales de nuestra omnipresente relación con el sol y la disipación de sus rayos o lo que pudiéramos llamar “solaridades” –– desde las formas infraestructurales vinculadas a la transición energética fotovoltaica a aquellas formas relacionadas con la catástrofe antropógena de la carbonificación de la atmósfera (donde el sol aparece como “the source of all withering and desiccation, a maker of monstrous heat”, p.18), por no olvidar de la centralidad planetaria de la fotosíntesis o los ciclos diurnos, o de su efecto en la producción de energías fósiles, por no hablar de nuestros sistemas de percepción visual –– véase la compilación de Howe, C., Diamanti, J., & Moore, A. (Eds.). (2023). Solarities: Elemental Encounters and Refractions. punctum books.

[5] El intento más detallado de restituir la centralidad de la sombra del que tengo conocimiento es el de Casati, R. (2003). Shadows. Unlocking their secrets from Plato to our time. Vintage Books.

[6] Martin, A. J. (2017). The Evolution Underground: Burrows, Bunkers, and the Marvelous Subterranean World Beneath our Feet. Pegasus Books.

[7] Coccia, E. (2021). El jardín del mundo, CENDEAC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxTQjBwuZRA&t=60s

[8]Albert, B., Halle, F., & Mancuso, S. (2019). Trees. Thames & Hudson; Coccia, E. (2017). La vida de las plantas: Una metafísica de la mixtura. Tipos Infames; Coccia, E. (2021). Metamorfosis. La fascinante continuidad de la vida. Siruela; Leonardi, C., & Stagi, F. (2022). La arquitectura de los árboles. Santa & Cole; Mattern, S. (2021). Tree Thinking. Places Journal, https://doi.org/10.22269/210921

[9] Como, por ejemplo, este concurso de prototipado del Ajuntament de Barcelona: https://bithabitat.barcelona/es/proyectos/sombra/

[10] Kite, S. (2017: 5). Shadow-makers: A cultural history of shadows in architecture. Bloomsbury Academic.

[11] Ludovico, M., Attilio, P. & Ettore, V. (Eds.) (2009). The Mediterranean Medina. Gangemi Editore.

[12] Turner, C. (Ed.) (2024). Tropical Modernism: Architecture and Independence. V&A Publishing.

[13] Kallipoliti, L. (2024). Histories of Ecological Design: An Unfinished Cyclopedia. Actar.

[14] Latour, B., & Weibel, P. (Eds.). (2020). Critical Zones: The Science and Politics of Landing on Earth. ZKM / MIT Press

[15]  Latour, B. (2019). Dónde aterrizar. Cómo orientarse en política. Taurus; Latour, B. (2021). ¿Dónde estoy? Una guía para habitar el planeta. Taurus.

[16] Horvath, T. (2009). The Discipline of Shadows. Conjunctions, 53, 293-311.

[17] Bauch, N., & Scott, E. E. (2012). The Los Angeles Urban Rangers: Actualizing Geographic Thought. Cultural Geographies, 19(3), 401-409; Kanouse, S. (2015). Critical Day Trips: Tourism and Land-Based Practice. In E. E. Scott  & K. Swenson (2015). Critical landscapes: Art, space, politics (pp. 43-56). University of California Press.

[18] Gabinete de Crisis de Ficciones Políticas: https://www.gabinetedecrisis.es/

[19] Hepach, M.G. & Lüder, C. (2023). Sensing Weather and Climate: Phenomenological and Ethnographic Approaches. Environment and Planning F 2 (3): 350–68.

[20] Aït-Touati, F., Arènes, A., & Grégoire, A. (2019). Terra Forma: Manuel de cartographies potentielles. Éditions B42.

[21] Calvillo, N. (2023). Aeropolis: Queering Air in Toxicpolluted Worlds. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City; Fressoz, J.-B., & Locher, F. (2024). Chaos in the Heavens: The Forgotten History of Climate Change. Verso Books; Hsu, H. L. (2024). Air Conditioning. Bloomsbury; Parikka, J., & Dragona, D. (Eds.). (2024). Palabras de tiempo y del clima: Un glosario. Bartlebooth; Starosielski, N. (2021). Media Hot & Cold. Duke University Press.

[22] De la misma manera que los desiertos tampoco están vacíos, representación colonial comúnmente asociada a la justificación de formas de explotación salvaje de tierras áridas:  Henni, S. (Ed.) (2022). Deserts Are Not Empty. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City

[23] Glissant, É. (2017). Por la opacidad. En Poéticas de la relación (pp.219-224). Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.

[24] Gissen, D. (2022). Disabling Environments. In The Architecture of Disability: Buildings, Cities, and Landscapes Beyond Access (pp. 95-114). Minnesota University Press.

[25] Keller, R. C. (2015). Fatal Isolation: The Devastating Paris Heat Wave of 2003. University of Chicago Press; Macktoom, S., Anwar, N.H., & Cross, J. (2023). Hot climates in urban South Asia: Negotiating the right to and the politics of shade at the everyday scale in Karachi. Urban Studies, https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231195204

[26] Bloch, S. (2019). Shade: An Urban Design Mandate. Places Journal, https://doi.org/10.22269/190423; Macktoom, S., Anwar, N. H., & Cross, J. (2023). Hot climates in urban South Asia: Negotiating the right to and the politics of shade at the everyday scale in Karachi. Urban Studies, https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980231195204

[27] Para un ejemplo interesante, véase Boserman, C. (2023). Dibujos solares: Los caballos de espinacas Sobre antotipias y afectividad ambiental / Solar Drawings: On anthotypies and environmental affectivity. Re-visiones, 13. http://www.re-visiones.net/index.php/RE-VISIONES/article/view/529

[28] En el rico sentido etológico explorado por Despret, V. (2022). Habitar como un pájaro: Modos de hacer y de pensar los territorios. Cactus. Una propuesta que rompe con la idea del territorio como algo que pueda explicarse bien en términos funcionales y económicos o en términos de propiedad, posesión y recursos explotables, reivindicando más bien la necesidad de describirlo desde las múltiples prácticas del habitar que lo constituyen y las artes de la convivencia que hacen posible.

Esta idea es desarrollada por Latour, B. (2021: 90). ¿Dónde estoy? Una guía para habitar el planeta. Taurus, para proponer una cartografía de los territorios diferente de las ideas de “sangre y suelo” que han fundamentado los tradicionalismos y nacionalismos europeos. Esto es crucial, en sus palabras, para orientarse en el Nuevo Régimen Climático, que requiere comprender de “dónde vivimos” a la vez que “de qué vivimos” listando nuestras afiliaciones.

[29] Department of Umbrology: https://umbrology.org/

Categories
accessibility caring infrastructures more-than-human multimodal objects of care and care practices older people publications technical aids urban and personal devices

Ageing Cities > Zine

How are cities and urban designers responding to the challenge of population ageing? How can we as ethnographers understand the social and material transformations underway in their efforts to shape ‘ageing-friendly’ cities or cities ‘for all ages’? These are two of the leading research questions of our ethnographic study project “Ageing Cities” on which we worked together in the academic year 2021-2022.

Our main concern has been to explore the distinctive intergenerational design challenges of what some architects and urban planners are beginning to call “Late Life Urbanism” (check the video of the final presentation).

Our exploration included an excursion in April 2022 to Alicante, Benidorm and neighbouring urban enclaves in the Costa Blanca (Spain). The area is relevant as ageing bodies and practices have become, since the 1960s, a sort of vector of urbanisation in the region: developing into what some geographers call “the Pensioners’ Coast.”

Considering the intriguing history of migration of this region, with pensioners from all over Central and Northern Europe (but also from other regions of Spain) relocating there, the “Pensioners’ Coast” is an interesting experimental ground to witness what happens when older bodies take centre-stage. Over the course of seven eventful and exciting days we had the chance to explore how sensitised urban designers from the area respond to the intergenerational design challenges these bodies bring in different ways.

In a joint endeavour with STS-inspired architectural researchers from the Critical Pedagogies, Ecological Politics and Material Practices research group of the University of Alicante, the visit allowed us to explore different approaches to architectural practice where older people have more active roles in the design and management of ageing cities (from cooperative senior cohousing to inter- and multigenerational housing projects, as well as accessible public space infrastructures, ranging from sidewalks to beaches and public transportation).

With this Zine we wish to share some of our main reflections, learnings to engage ethnographically with late life urbanism in Costa Blanca (or should we say eng-age?). The Zine could be taken as a long thank you note and a memoir of our encounters with different initiatives. But we also see it as a relevant intergenerational gift of sorts, lent to future urban researchers on these topics.

Download

Lo-Res PDF | Hi-Res PDF

Editorial team

Adam Petráš, Anna Maria Schlotmann, Christine Maicher, Doreen Sauer, Erman Dinç, Maximilian Apel & Tomás Sánchez Criado

Design and typesetting

Maximilian Apel

CC BY NC ND November 2023 Institut für Europäische Ethnologie, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Categories
accessibility caring infrastructures city-making ecologies ecologies of support ethics, politics and economy of care more-than-human older people publications urban and personal devices

Reassembling Ageing, Ecologising Care?

Upon Patrick Laviolette and Aleksandar Bošković’s invitation, I have written the Anthropological Journal of European Culture’s Editorial Response to Issue 32(1) on Materialities of Age & Ageing.

Reassembling Ageing, Ecologising Care?

Welfare states and market actors across the world have transformed what ageing as a process and being old as an embodied identity might be today, through a wide range of equipment, services and infrastructures. This ‘material’, when not ‘materialist’ drive is the object of analysis of the proposals gathered in AJEC‘s 32(1) special issue, which features different case studies aiming to foreground hitherto under-analysed ‘age-related matters’ to offer conceptual and ethnographic proposals to better understand what the editors call ‘landscapes of ageing and pressing gerontological concerns.’ The backbone of this special issue addresses how ‘material culture’ works in anthropology might be affected by what in other neighbouring disciplines like STS and Ageing studies is being addressed as a ‘socio-gerontechnological’ approach: that is, a joint attention to how ageing is a material process, as well as how materials inscribe or support peculiar meanings or ontologies of ageing.

Drawing from the recent experience of teaching the StudienprojektAgeing Cities: The Crisis of Welfare Infrastructures’ – and particularly reflecting on a field trip where we visited Benidorm and other ageing enclaves in the Costa Blanca (Alicante, Spain) – in my editorial response I wish to take issue with the need to widen this material agenda around ageing bodies and their situated enactments, thinking beyond classic ‘material culture’ objects of study – the home and everyday technologies – and venturing into wider and more convoluted urban arenas, with their variegated scales and material entities. These problematisations, I believe, would force us to provide less metaphorical uses of ecological vocabularies, hence addressing the challenges that these materialised ‘landscapes’ entail for to our conceptions and practices of care: perhaps pushing us to consider the very environmental effects of ageing-friendly modes inhabiting and terraforming, and the new forms of care these landscapes – deeply affecting, in turn, ageing processes — might need?

Recommended citation: Criado, T. S. (2023). Reassembling Ageing, Ecologising Care? (Editorial Response to Issue 32(1) on Materialities of Age & Ageing). Anthropological Journal of European Cultures32(2), v-xii | PDF

Categories
accessibility caring infrastructures city-making events older people

Studienprojekt “Ageing Cities” > Presentation at the IfEE’s Institutskolloquium on Collective Access

Next Tuesday 19.07.2022 2:30-4pm (CET) please join us for the presentation of the Studienprojekt Ageing Cities by Maximilian Apel, Erman Dinc, Christine Maicher, Adam Petras, Doreen Sauer, and Anna Maria Schlotmann, the wonderful group of people with whom I have had the immense luck to work with in the last year.

In this year we’ve been exploring ethnographically how cities & urban designers are responding to the challenge of population ageing, and how we could understand as ethnographers the social & material transformations underway in their efforts to make ‘ageing-friendly’ cities (check the syllabus of the project)

In this choral presentation we aim to show our findings, searching to answer these questions through specific cases, most of them taking place in Berlin (on variegated issues like intergenerational and intercultural gardens or queer housing projects; the urban activism of the gray panthers; the controversies in public space design, focusing particularly on the conflicts of bike infrastructure; and VR projects to enable urban displacement or travel for older people living in residential care homes).

The picture describes a steep street from Alicante. The left part shows the sidewalk, where an older woman with her walker can be seen from behind. The middle part of the picture displays the bike infrastructures. The right part the street and parking spaces. Framing it from both sides there are 4-storey buildings.

The course has also included an excursion in April 2022 to Alicante, Benidorm and neighbouring urban enclaves in Costa Blanca (Spain). This is a very relevant area because of how ageing concerns have turned, since the 1960s, into a vector of urbanisation in the region – developing into what some geographers call “the pensioners’ coast.” But also, and perhaps more importantly, they have sensitised urban designers from the area to respond to these intergenerational design challenges in different ways. In a joint endeavour with STS-inspired architectural researchers from the Critical Pedagogies, Ecological Politics and Material Practices research group of the University of Alicante, this visit allowed us to explore different approaches to architectural practice where older people have more active roles in the design and management of ageing cities.

In showing all of this we not only wish to tell specific stories, but want to share our conceptual and methodological explorations, and the many questions this process brought about around the contested scripts and the distinctive intergenerational challenges of late life urbanism projects

This will be the last session of the Instituskolloquium of the Institut für Europäische Ethnologie (HU Berlin), which this semester had as a theme ‘Collective Access‘.

Here you could view the video recorded from Zoom
Categories
caring infrastructures concepts formats objects of care and care practices older people participatory & collaborative design of care infrastructures personal autonomy publications security & location sociality & isolation techniques & ways of doing

Civilising technologies for an ageing society? The performativity of participatory methods in Socio-gerontechnology

For the past couple of years Alexander Peine, Barbara L. Marshall, Wendy Martin and Louis Neven have been editing the book Socio-Gerontechnology. Interdisciplinary Critical Studies of Ageing and Technology. Its main aim is to outline a new academic field called “socio-gerontechnology.” As they state:

the book explores how ageing and technology are already interconnected and constantly being intertwined in Western societies. Topics addressed cover a broad variety of socio-material domains, including care robots, the use of social media, ageing-in-place technologies, the performativity of user involvement and public consultations, dementia care and many others. Together, they provide a unique understanding of ageing and technology from a social sciences and humanities perspective and contribute to the development of new ontologies, methodologies and theories that might serve as both critique of and inspiration for policy and design.

In all likelihood the book will turn into the ultimate compilation of works at the crossroads of Ageing Studies and STS.

With my long-time friend and colleague Daniel López we’ve had the immense luck to take part writing one of the chapters (our thanks to the editors for the invitation, and for their insights in the writing process).

Looking back at our involvement in the EFORTT project, our contribution is titled:

Civilising technologies for an ageing society? The performativity of participatory methods in Socio-gerontechnology

Given the importance of participatory methods in gerontechnology – especially to prevent the uncritical reproduction of discriminatory imaginaries in technological development – the lack of appreciation of how these methods can contribute to socio-material configurations of age and technology is striking. Inspired by the semiotic-material study of methods, this chapter provides a detailed account of how participation and public engagement were performed in a project on telecare both authors were involved in between 2008 and 2011. We show how the ‘civilising’ endeavour of this project was undertaken through the creation of two different instances of participation: in the first, representatives, experts and policymakers were enacted as stakeholders, in the second, end-users (older people and caregivers) were enacted as concerned citizens with telecare as a public issue. In foregrounding the realities enacted in the performance of these methods we emphasise, in conclusion, the need to address the materialisations of later life and technology, which these participatory methods help bring to the fore in Socio-gerontechnological developments.

Published as López Gómez, D. & Criado, T.S. (2021). Civilising technologies for an ageing society? The performativity of participatory methods in Socio-gerontechnology. In A. Peine, B.L. Marshall, W. Martin and L. Neven (Eds.), Socio-Gerontechnology. Interdisciplinary Critical Studies of Ageing and Technology (pp. 85-98). London: Routledge | PDF

Categories
caring infrastructures independent-living maintenance and repair older people publications telecare

“The Lady is Not There”: Repairing Tita Meme as a Telecare User

Francisco Martínez & Patrick Laviolette have recently compiled the edited volume Repair, Breakages, Breakthroughs: Ethnographic Responses, which they explain as follows:

What does it mean to claim that something is broken? What is the connection between tinkering and innovation? And how much tolerance for failure do our societies have? Exploring some of the ways in which repair practices and perceptions of brokenness vary culturally, Repair, Brokenness, Breakthrough argues that repair is an attempt to extend the life of things as well as an answer to failures, gaps, wrongdoings and leftovers. The set of contributions illustrates the strong affective power hidden in situations of disrepair and repair; broken objects often bring strong emotions into play, but also energising reactions of creative action.

In response to their kind invitation, I contribute with a short piece, summarising a chapter published in 2012 in Spanish as part of my PhD. In an ethnographic snapshot–in the vocabulary of the editors–I address ‘repair’ from the particular work of underpinning users in a telecare service for older people.

ABSTRACT

Repair has been addressed in the growing body of literature in the social sciences either as a restoration of social order or as a form of care for fragile things. Drawing from ethnographic work on a telecare service for older people in Spain between 2007 and 2011, I address here repair from the ‘flesh and bones’ side of it. In particular, I focus on the work undertaken by service workers, users and contacts alike that helps to maintain an infrastructure of usership: not a restorative form of medical rehabilitation, but a constant restoration of a web of embodied, legal and technical practices so that someone could be considered a user of a service. That is, an infrastructure creating and ensuring the conditions for (tele)care to happen or take place in compliance with contractual terms. Rather than as a form of ‘re-instauration’ (going back to square one, revitalising and polishing in practice the terms of the contract), I call their form of repair ‘underpinning’. It entails going with the flow, and acting thereon. Underpinning could be described as a form of repair that addresses habits as things going beyond the skin, in and through different mediators that connect uneven events and places. To underpin, hence, is to ensure on the go a certain topology of habit: a habitality.

Published in Repair, Breakages, Breakthroughs: Ethnographic Responses (pp. 67–72). Oxford: Berghahn | PDF

Categories
accessibility animal therapy caring infrastructures design intraventions ethics, politics and economy of care events experimental collaborations functional diversity & disability rights independent-living intravention objects of care and care practices older people participatory & collaborative design of care infrastructures re-learning design technical aids techniques & ways of doing urban and personal devices

Nordic Design Research Society (Nordes) 2019 conference “Who cares?”- Keynote speech: ‘How to care’

The Nordic Design Research Society (Nordes) organises its 8th biannual conference next 3–4 June 2019 at the Aalto University in Helsinki (Finland), under the timely topic ‘Who cares?‘, whose call looks fantastic:

 What do, or should, we care about in design and design research today? Underpinning the question are issues of culture and agency – who cares, for whom, and how? Taking care, or being cared for, evokes the choice of roles, and processes of interaction, co-creation and even decision-making. Caring, as a verb, emphasizes care as intention, action and labor in relation to others. Care can be understood as concern for that beyond oneself, for others and, thus, human, societal and even material and ecological relations are at stake. The question of care is also a call for questioning relationships, participation and responsibility, democratic and sustainable ways of co-existing. From this expansive societal standpoint, we could even ask who cares about design? And what should we do about it? The 8th biennial Nordes conference poses the question, “Who cares?”, exploring related questions, issues and propositions concerning responsibilities, relationships, ways of doing and directing design today.

[…]

In the 2019 Nordes conference, we draw inspiration from notions of care as a lens through which to reflect upon and critique as well as potentially to refocus and redirect design and design research. Care might be understood in relation to philosophical lines of inquiry in other disciplines exploring theories, politics and ethics of care. Care might be understood concretely in relation to the ideals and infrastructures of welfare and healthcare systems, or service interactions. Care might be understood personally as a mindset seeking out what is meaningful for people, and for life, and with design as reflective and skilled action concerned with improving things and preferred situations.

Thanks to the generous invitation of the organising committee I will have the immense honour to act as one of the keynote speakers, contributing to one of the main themes of the conference: ‘How to care?’ (Care and care-ful materials, methods and processes in design and design research) – For this, I will be sharing my anthropological work on and my different modes of engagement with inclusive design (see the text of my intervention below)

HOW TO CARE?

Keynote speech, 3.06.2019, Helsinki (published online on 9.04.2020)

Dear all,

Before anything, I would like to warmly thank the organizing committee of the NORDES conference for their kind invitation to speak here today.

When I received your proposal I thought this was a fantastic occasion to attempt to think collectively on how to care in and through design practice. But also, an occasion to think through the recent popularization of the term.

Why such a recent fuzz about ‘care’, you might ask?

As the organizers of the conference have aptly identified, care has indeed begun to pop up in many design domains and situations beyond the arena of social and health-care services. And the concept is now being vindicated when discussing particular modes of architectural and design practice: ranging from participatory approaches to discussions around the ecological crisis as requiring designers of all kinds to engage in ‘critical care’.

Care, hence, has become a politically and morally-laden vocabulary for designers to engage with issues of energy transition, environmental concerns and social inclusion. This interesting expansion of the term is indeed bringing about interesting new repertoires of action for designers, but also newer problems: it is sometimes used as an all-purpose and generic term. Having worked in the vicinity of different uses of this term by professional and amateur architects and designers in the last decade, I have trained myself to pause a bit whenever I hear it being used.

To me, care as a concept has a very specific origin in the feminist politicizations searching to make palpable our constitutive vulnerability and to grant value to the ecologies of support and interdependence put in place to sustain our lives. As such, this term not only highlights the practices that can lift what might be heavy, might serve to protect and support. But also it is a fraught terrain with a very thorny legacy of asymmetries and further violence: sometimes, when coupled with a clear-cut knowledge of what needs to be done and how, care could also be a way of imposing understandings of what it might mean to lead a good life or a good death. Perhaps the best thing we might keep in mind is that, as the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Hence, in what follows I will invite you to share a reflection that, at best, will try to incite you to think on your own practices on how to bring forth more careful modes of designing, rather than attempting to tell you what to do. My aim is to lure you in considering that rather than having clear and straightforward ideas on what caring might mean, perhaps to care is always an intervention into the very meanings and ways in which practicing care could be possible and desirable, or not.

In the last decade I have been practicing what I call hyperbolically an anthropology of, through and as inclusive design–having worked on a wide variety of settings where care was vindicated as a domain or concern, from telecare for older people to urban accessibility infrastructures, and in a wide variety of engagements as an anthropologist, from providing ethnographic input to design processes, to working in activist collectives or formally training architects.

Drawing from my work, I will sketch out different versions care: namely, as (i) domain of intervention, as (ii) a method (of inclusion or participation), as (iii) a mode of inquiry, and I will close (iv) advocating that perhaps the best way in which we could mobilize care would be as a way of activating the possible, what is not here yet, what could be otherwise, hence weirding our understandings of care in design, enabling to speculate with alternative knowledge distributions and materialisations of togetherness not based on clear-cut understandings of the good nor consensus and commensurability. Perhaps this is what we might need, to navigate the uncertain conditions of the present.

I. Care as a domain

Most people think that to care about care as designers relates to a particular domain of intervention: namely, that of care services and technologies. Indeed, since the 1990s and as a result of the fear of what some call the ‘silver tsunami’–the alarming prospects of population ageing and its alleged catastrophic impact in welfare systems and everyday informal chains of support–, many designers felt the call to engage in conceiving services and products attempting to bring solutions to this conundrum. Largely conceiving their role as that of technologizing or, more specifically, digitalizing these relations, the last decades have seen the advent of many promising devices and platforms, commonly advertised as solutions bringing a technical fix to care burdens. The list might be long: telecare, AAL, robotics, etc.

After my initial involvement in understanding the prospects of this technologisation, I learnt that despite the great investment put into them, these innovations sit on very problematic grounds: These projects and services tend to work articulating and bringing into the mix private actors, such as insurance companies, perpetually claiming that this could lead to more efficient ways of caring for care. However, the potential for their widespread use still resides on the state sustaining via pensions or direct payments the lives of a vast majority of vulnerable populations. An economy of hope that piggybacks on social states and their incentives to grant solutions for those who could not afford them.

After the 2008 crisis, this machinery was exposed at least in many countries of the European south, and it began to show darker contours: in deflating economies, and in the advent of a crisis of welfare systems, the technologisation of care and the prospect that we will all be taken care of by 1m€ robots seems to me rather flawed.

These innovations usually travel within the closed circuits of a handful of countries of the rich North; not only they do not substitute informal care, which is usually rendered even more invisible as an essential work for them to operate as solutions. Not to mention that we know very little of their polluting footprint. Indeed, making an educated guess, critical work on e-waste, such as Josh Lepawsky’s Reassembling Rubbish, indicates that we should include in the calculations of the impact of many digital innovations their environmental effects: not just in terms of its post-consumer polluting externalities, but also those related to the extraction of materials and their production. In fact, if we held all these things in sight, most of our understandings of welfare tend to be premised upon a human exceptionalist, colonial and extractive project of techno-centric innovation.

Welfare, seen in this light, is revealed as a deeply unsustainable machinery. I don’t mean to say that innovation in that sector is not important or even crucial, precisely to tackle our many social and environmental challenges, but we need to think hard beyond the present-day regime of innovation, revising the promise that nitty-gritty technologisation and hardcore digital infrastructuration will automatically bring the common good, as it risks not only creating further social divides when social states cannot work to redistribute wealth, but also further damaging our environment.

How to do it then?

II. Care as method

Against this background, a popular register for care in product, service and urban design has tended to reinvigorate it as a concern around inclusive methods or means of designing: namely, a worry for non-tokenistic forms of participation and inclusion of concerned publics in the creation and articulation of a wide variety of social and material arrangements. Care, then, here reads as an agenda for processes so that users’ voices, wishes or needs could be heard, discovered, interrogated, made available, shared and discussed in the hope that we could find a more inclusive common ground. In the desire to be more careful, more standpoints should be brought into the equation.

These issues are, for instance, constantly made to emerge in attempts at building urban accessibility infrastructures. Let me share an example: all over Europe a new pedestrianized paradigm has popularized, the ‘shared street’. It is premised upon a gigantic infrastructural transformation of squares and sidewalks using more durable and hard-surface materials, with the idea that if the zoning of street uses–and with it the differences in patterns and heights–was dropped, pedestrians and bikers would be safer, because cars would have to slow down, and pay attention to their surroundings. However, with mounting cases of older or blind or deaf people being hit by cars or motorbikes all over the place, many find these spaces paradoxically much more dangerous than before. Yet, finding a solution by consensus doesn’t look very promising here. Perhaps for these spaces to allow for good forms of pedestrianization the views and needs of some must prevail over others, for this to be a lasting good, and protective solution.

As this example shows well, participation is much more complicated than just bringing all concerned people in or back into the design fabric. Composing a common ground tends to be very complicated when we are not only in the business of the concertation of  already known interests of well-articulate parts of a whole–that is, when we are not dealing with mere stakeholders–, but when we operate with wicked problems affecting us in strange and emergent ways, for which we have no simple nor common definitions of the problem, and therefore much less solutions, and where the process might need us to take part not as a clearly recognizable part of a whole but engaging in more agonistic, critical, and dissent-oriented design practices.

What about those whose views are not that articulate, those whose ways of being and acting do not make of them adequate liberal subjects in the social-democratic search for consensus? What about ‘the part of those without part’, to paraphrase philosopher Jacques Rancière?

In situations like this, to care might not be to enact consensus through the concertation of interests. This doesn’t work when we have incommensurable positions, and when we’re in a situation of uncertainty. How to care, then?

III. Care as a mode of inquiry

What these situations show is that care, rather than a clear path towards a solution, should be addressed as a domain of problematisations, in the sense that Foucault gave the term: that is, as problem spaces whereby we probe into and articulate competing and sometimes opposing versions of the world through particular material and semiotic assemblages.

In that vein, care as a mode of inquiry became an analytic in feminist initiatives: As a descriptive tool, it conveyed the importance not only of invisible or undervalued work — that is, the everyday reproductive tasks of supporting fragile and interdependent beings in both informal and formal settings — but also of affects and emotions going against the grain of modern societies obsessed with efficacy, justice and rationality. As a category of political intervention, it helped give value and articulate a wide variety of forms of interdependence.

These two meanings can be appreciated in the notion of care famously coined, almost thirty years ago, by Berenice Fisher and Joan C. Tronto as “a species activity that includes everything that we do to maintain, continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as possible.” (Fisher and Tronto 1990, p. 40)

Many designers have been involved in producing conditions for such a feminist inquiry, in projects of mapping, visualizing and debating alternative cartographies of interdependence and invisible labour.

These projects search to make exclusions and forms of supports visible so as to debate alternative arrangements, also opening up discussions on the very effects of making visiblet.

The feminist legacy of care also points out at the requirement to practice care even though we might not know how to do it, even though we might not be fully sure of how we’re doing it, even though we might constantly be in a search for better ways of being and living or dying together, and even though we might fail most of the time.

Recent feminist works in STS have indeed readdressed care as searching to engage in understandings of ‘doing the good in practice’, to paraphrase Annemarie Mol; not only to dispute generic understandings of how, what or who to care for and why– in fact, care tends to be an art of the singular and the practical, rather than of the generic and the universal–, but also in some other occasions so as to not forget the violent prospects of care interventions. Highlighting the importance to remain, to rejoice, to learn from being troubled from the ways in which we care, not searching to explain them away.

As such, it resonates with the particularly lucid call by Michelle Murphy for a politics of care that unsettles its often-hegemonic histories, as well as contemporary alignments and circulations. Perhaps that might be the best way of caring: not taking for granted how to do so, doubting without ceasing to find ways to act, remaining aware of the potential exclusions it might bring to the fore, so as to find ways to retrace our steps and act towards more just modes of togetherness. And for this, care concerns with practices that stress not just the finitude of our particular bodies and their vulnerabilities, but also their openness and unfinishedness.

Seen in this light care, then, care could be understood as a way of protecting the constitutive vulnerability of being in a way that doesn’t easily conflate to the certainty of who these beings are and what their contours might be: securing hence our ways of remaining open to the unknown, perpetually ‘assembling neglected things’ as María Puig de la Bellacasa has so vehemently put it.

But how to do it, then?

IV. Care as activating the possible

Perhaps the current situations of planetary distress have made us aware that care is now more than ever an issue affecting us all. And yet, although vulnerability and the need to find supports cuts across social divides care risks becoming a too generic a term if not considering the different forms and gradients of intensity to exposure and carelessness.

My warning is raised in a context in which care is also vindicated for the worse in the brutal responses: with its connotations of good will and humanitarianism, care can be problematic if not extremely violent analytic for many collectives and ecologies of practice. For instance, refugees or other collectives subject to social are tend to oppose a vocabulary that renders them into passive subjects of someone else’s attention.

Yet, this problematization or troubling of the care analytic might have become more generic today, when the likes of Trump or Salvini regularly word out “we must take care of our own” as an exclusionary project, be it in the building of more steep and brutal borders or preventing rescue ships from having a safe port in the Mediterranean.

When care is invoked in violent nationalist, supremacist and macho projects of cocooning against our own constitutive otherness; but also when care is vindicated as an expert vocabulary of professional certainty, some of us feel we might need another word.

However, care is too important to be abandoned to its own fate. It is precisely under the influence of these brutal, palliative and reparative understandings of care–that is, those that want to keep things as they are, or restore things to an imagined or aspirational Valhalla of how nice things once were, that we should insist in vindicating and pluralizing care. As I see it, in such a context, care might be understood as a task of what philosopher Isabelle Stengers might call ‘activating the possible’: a way of making available what isn’t there yet, what could be otherwise.

Practiced in this unsettled way, care might be expanded even, not only to many other-than-human and more-than-human ecologies but also beyond the regular modes of politicizing care in all too human affairs.

One of the most interesting places for the recent renewal and expansion of careful design practices have been the many community-making endeavours that emerged after the doomed landscape of the 2008 financial crisis. In Spain, for instance, the indignados protests gave way to a wide variety of crowd-sourced, low-tech and DIY community explorations–analogous to others that appeared in many other locales–exploring forms of activist design with hackers, makers, maintainers, and menders experimenting with recycling, re-use and up-cycling, activating design as a practice bringing forms of care by other means.

Revitalising the critical debates of the 1970s these projects started to show how design practice, as a sometimes technocratic and consumerist-driven modernist endeavor, might as well be part of the many problems of our contemporary predicaments rather than a solution.

As a reaction to these modes of practicing design, these initiatives have created conditions for shared and distributed expertise going well beyond the technocratic pact of social utility of design: whereby designers act as experts in the closure of political and social conflict through solutions–services or products–for the common good, sometimes asking different groups their opinions, or enrolling social scientists like yours truly in learning about users and uses through methods like ethnography or participatory fora.

To me, the most interesting thing is that many of these projects reveal care as a project of what in STS is known as ‘technical democracy’, when searching to remain open to uncertainty, dissent and probing into complex yet collaborative modes of inquiry, with the aspiration to bring forth divergent ecologies of support.

Indeed, these different design enact other roles for designers: as facilitators of ‘socio-material assemblies’ or ‘design things’, as Thomas Binder, Pelle Ehn and colleagues would call them: staging and infrastructuring problems and different modes of engagement in design after design; or as bringing forth critical, speculative, poetic and more explicitly adversarial forms of design practice that elicit and provoke material modes of collective interrogation around design and its effects.

As I see it, these divergent design practices elicit a wide variety of repertoires of caring for the possible, precisely because they operate against how anthropologist Arturo Escobar defines modernist design practices, as operating under the ontological occupation of modernity and its natural and cultural, expert and lay clear divides. Indeed, these projects enact or activate the possible because they practically carve out alternative ontologies of the world and relational modes to the classic modernist ones, however unknown, unfathomable or scary they might seem at first. Indeed, caring for the possible in these endeavours is far from being an easy task.

 Activating things: En torno a la silla

But allow me to exemplify. From 2012 to 2016 I actively participated in a collective space of this kind in Barcelona: an exploratory activist design initiative called En torno a la silla, a wordplay in Spanish signalling an attempt at situating ourselves around, en torno, wheelchairs, sillas, so as to activate other possible environments, entornos, for them. And have been searching ever since to learn from our hyperbolic aspirations, fraught methods and experimental practices to open up inclusion not as a solution but as a problem-space.

En torno a la silla emerged after the indignados protests of 2011, after the recognition that we had no spaces to meet in bodily diversity, and that we might need to make or carve out those spaces so as to keep knowing each other. It started operating as a collective including an architect, professional craftspeople, members of the independent-living movement in Barcelona and me in the role of a documenter.

What gathered us was the intention to prototype a toolkit to turn the wheelchair into something beyond a chair that moves with wheels, but rather as something akin to “an agora that produces agora”: that is, a political and collective space that brings further people in. This was not a participatory design project where designers lured us to work with them in their own solutions or aims, but a collaborative space of inquiry through making where all present contributed in different ways.

For instance, we discovered a lot in the process of creating from scratch a portable wheelchair ramp: not only that we needed to elicit a lot of knowledges about our partners’ bodily diversities and their different types of wheelchairs; but also to think through the technical modes of folding, transportation and unfolding, or the right materials for it to make sense. We also learnt a lot from using it, from the particular effects it created, and the conversations it opened up.

Upon using it the first time in an accessible bar, and publicizing the result on our blog, a debate with colleagues in the independent-living movement ensued; we were accused of undermining the collective struggle by proposing an individual response, but we tried to remain true to what the experience had allowed us: being together in places that had not been imagined for us, opening up an encounter with the people populating them by the sheer act of irruption.

We learnt that the ramp was no solution, but a way of unfolding the problem of inaccessibility in particular situations. And in the joyful way in which we always operated, we started doing it more purposefully: calling the practice that there ensued one of a-saltos, playing with the double meaning in Spanish of jumpy walking, as we were entering places after a jump, as well as one of assaulting, irrupting and disrupting the static normalcy that those places enforced.

Rather than being a project whereby designers cared for known needs and conditions, the intense 4 years that En torno a la silla worked at full steam was rather a process of learning together to care for forms of mutual access, and mutual exploration of whomever wanted to live in bodily diversity, making but also repurposing and recycling all kinds of materials to do so.

This is the reason why we speak in a weird way about what we discovered busy doing: as we came to understand, were not designing technical aids for the of inclusion of the disabled, but caring for the emergence of technologies of friendship, as we called them. That is, spaces of encounter without clarity of purpose beyond the very desire to keep on finding ways of relating at the hinges of unrelatability. Our open approach to design became in time for us a form of inquiring into the conditions of mutual access in bodily diversity.

But working in conditions of ontological occupation, to reiterate Escobar’s appreciation, tends to make things difficult for these attempts at sustaining critical, collaborative and speculative initiatives search to pry open other modes of relating and living together. Many of these projects prove extremely fragile and vulnerable. How could we care for them?

In the last years, much efforts have indeed been put to sustain the liberation of modes of designing that these practices entail. One of the most notable examples has been a concern to infrastructure and generate conditions of exposure to a wide variety of knowledges, through the critical involvement in open-access publication platforms and open-source infrastructures. In opening up to other knowledges and in making them available there lies a hope that we might create alternative resources for alternative modes of living together.

En torno a la silla’s legacy, for instance, remains in the open-source platform that I allowed to put together, with a careful attention to the documentation of our processes of doing and thinking in tutorials, accounts of processes or events, or poetic reflections. However, this liberation of design and its knowledge also needs a welcoming ecology. And for this we need to be aware that open design and its knowledges tend to be framed when not diminished by particularly market-centric and expertocratic conditions of circulation, subject to many disputes in deeply asymmetric contexts of variegated expertise, in many circumstances putting these strategies of opening in danger.

The fraught prospects, hopeful versions and capitalist deformations of the sharing economy are, indeed, here a case in point. As I see it, care here becomes a practical issue for designers whenever searching to test experimental modes of inclusion into the fabric of products, services, platforms, cities or environments. This way of understanding care, then, might demand from us to become activators, so that this openness might flourish. And, for this, to care might mean to open up experimental pedagogic spaces.

Activating pedagogies: Design in crisis

I especially learnt of the difficulties not just to sustain this openness but to create situations of openness when I moved to Germany in 2015. I started working from the belly of the Bavarian beast–if you allow me the pun to talk about the leading German technical university at the core of one of the golden cradles of global corporate capitalism, teaching architects and other types of designers more formally in the chair of participatory design, where I was hired to bring what I had learnt in my variegated engagements in Spain.

From the beginning I faced the many difficulties or sheer impossibilities of translating the modes of thinking and doing I had learnt in the previous years to a context I couldn’t relate to very easily. In fact, this stupid idea of believing I could do it has made me feel a great sense of loss in many a dark night.

I also had to face my naiveté or sheer audacity in having forgotten that institutional spaces of alleged financial or funding abundance are not devoid of other problems of scarcity: a chronic lack of time created by the many commitments and compromises that ‘spending money reasonably’ entail; but also, the lack of a generic care for free processes of collective thought that an individualist focus on career and unit-centric demarcations might create; not to speak of the problems deriving from how well-greased hierarchies might operate in places of monetary power…

Hence, for most of the first year, I was constantly accompanied by a sense if failure: a failure to carve out openings in a hierarchically conceived academic culture; a failure to capture the students’ attention beyond ready-made humanitarian gestures, facing an overall tendency to understand their role as one of ‘problem solving’ and perpetually reenacting technical-social divides, demanding from the social professionals that we provided information about users and uses or methods to deal with the problematic prospects of ‘the social’.

Indeed, and much to my dismay, students and colleagues seemed many times uninterested. But I also realized that perhaps my teaching methods were the problem: lecturing, reading and commenting proved deeply inappropriate.

Under such circumstances, I realized that the best thing one could do is to attempt to put the students’ design in crisis, forcing them to engage in processes of learning to unlearn, to undo, or even to undesign the trained habits, goals and practices of modernist design ontologies, and its market-centric and deeply unsustainable effects. But how to do so? Indeed, such was the premise of a radical pedagogical approach in a series of design studio settings called ‘design in crisis’ put forward together with my colleague Ignacio Farías, which lead to a collective reflection on ways in which STS could be made to matter to design and architecture students in the edited volume Re-learning design, published by the Chilean bilingual journal Diseña.

In our particular approach, we sought to design studio practice, searching to sensitise future designers to other forms of understanding their practice, exposing and confronting them with somewhat impossible tasks that force them to engage in other learning process, as well as exposing them to the potential exclusionary effects of their practice.

That became our aim in a series of design studio projects that we framed under the title Design in Crisis, where we tried to work on creating experimental situations that should function as operating a reflection on our student modes of designing, although

the idea was also to show that this was feasible to make students aware that, however crazy or strange our proposals were, the briefs responded to ‘real’ situations where their particular mode of designing should be readdressed.

In Design in Crisis 1 we made them design at great speeds a series of architectural solutions in a fake competition to provide solutions for a series of humanitarian disasters, such as the refugee crisis, then devoting 3 months to undoing and unfolding the problem of their proposals, making them confront their projects in a wide variety of ways with those who might suffer from them.

However, we realized that we might need to train them to practice these confrontations, and for this, in the following versions, we devoted great lengths to train them in multi-sensory approaches to design, then producing toolkits for an alternative architectural practice: in Design in Crisis 2, for instance, we confronted them with the impossible task to design a toolkit for a blind architect, which led them to develop a tool they called ManualCAD, a multi-sensory tool for co-design processes; and in Design in Crisis 3 the challenge we confronted our students with was to re-learn green space co-design by creating a set of devices–simulation and co-working suits, pipes and chemical substances– to establish enter in a relation with the beavers populating the river Isar, attempting to enable them to participate on its renaturalisation.

The outcomes our students produced might be conceived as potential toolkits for a different kind of architectural design practice. Despite being ‘gadgets’ these toolkits should not be seen as closed ‘objects’, nor well-packaged ‘plug-n-play solutions’.

Quite on the contrary, being accompanied by an open documentation of all the shaky learning outcomes the groups had been through in becoming a group, they function as a re-learning device of sorts: as pedagogical devices performing an ‘intravention’ into architectural practice with the potential of having an impact on our students’ future professional practice and allowing others to follow their steps.

Intraventions, hence, whereby students were exposed to forms of designing more carefully, activating the possibility of alternative architectural modes of designing.

Concluding thoughts

But En torno a la silla or Design in Crisis are just some of the many examples of a potential design practice understood as a form of care for the possible. That is, a form of designing so as to activate other forms of designing. But I am sure you could contribute with many others.

In times of planetary distress and complex future prospects for any form of living together, perhaps we need render ourselves amenable to activating our modes of designing in unforeseen ways.

As I would have liked to propose, perhaps the best thing we could do is to decidedly engage in the design of situations to explore different speculative engagements, demanding from us to engage beyond the strict role of ‘advocates’ or ‘activists’: sites, venues or forums to problematize the worlds we live in by making and provoking distinct registers of appreciation of complex conditions in a wide variety of aesthetic registers and design genres, from the parodic to the fictional. Hence acting as ‘careful troublemakers’, un-doing or un-designing the conditions of those whose actions have the potential to be harmful, so that we could attempt to create uncertain practical openings into the possible, where we might experiment and learn to engage in alternative and hopefully better ways of living together.

Categories
caring infrastructures ethics, politics and economy of care events functional diversity & disability rights legal objects of care and care practices older people participatory & collaborative design of care infrastructures urban and personal devices

IH, CCHS-CSIC | Seminario de Investigación: “Estados del cuidado: Para una genealogía del bienestar en crisis”

 

estados_del_cuidado

Miércoles, 15 de Marzo 2017, 12-13:30, en la Sala Gómez Moreno 2C del Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales del CSIC (C/Albasanz 26-28, Madrid), estaré presentando algunos elementos de mi trabajo etnográfico reciente y su contextualización.

Organiza: Grupo de Investigacíón “Mundialización y mundialización de la ciencia” (IH, CCHS-CSIC)

Estados del cuidado: Para una genealogía del bienestar en crisis

‘Estados del cuidado’ quisiera ser una indagación no sólo de las formas en que los estados han querido arrogarse las competencias y dotarse de infraestructuras para cuidar, sino también del estado en que queda el cuidado por los diferentes modos en que esto se hace. La presentación, aunque resonando sobre el material etnográfico de mi trabajo reciente, tendrá un cariz genealógico. En ella intentaré explorar el bienestar como un concepto y un conjunto de prácticas sociomateriales sometidos en la historia Euro-Americana reciente a numerosas crisis: en un sentido que incluye las derivadas de medidas de austeridad o de los modos de economización neoliberal, pero que quisiera también considerar otras muchas problematizaciones abiertas sobre los asuntos a dirimir o los sentidos de las diferentes transformaciones institucionales. Con la mirada puesta en algunos debates sobre el crítico estado desde su concepción del estado del bienestar español, así como en la historia de algunas de sus transformaciones recientes, quisiera sin embargo prestar especial atención a las formas en que diferentes radicalizaciones de colectivos y profesionales–vinculadas a espacios feministas y LGBTi, movimientos anti-psiquiátricos o relativos a la vida independiente y la diversidad funcional, conectados con un contexto más amplio de debates en el ámbito Euro-Americano–, han venido no sólo articulando ‘críticas’ a diferentes estados de ese bienestar (paternalista y/o asistencialista, expertocrático y/o familista, caritativo y/o institucionalizado, externalizado y/o autogestionado), sino también construyendo alternativas, arreglos o ecologías de soportes y apoyos que pondrían ‘en crisis’ ciertas maneras restringidas de entender el cuidado, ampliando los modos críticos en que pudiera entenderse el bienestar más allá de algunos de sus estados recientes.

Categories
ethics ethics, politics and economy of care older people personal autonomy publications sociality & isolation telecare

Older People in a Connected Autonomy? Promises and Challenges in the Technologisation of Care

connected autonomy

New article published in the REIS (Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas), nº 152 October – December 2015, pp. 105-120 published in English & Spanish

 

Older People in a Connected Autonomy? Promises and Challenges in the Technologisation of Care

(co-authored with Miquel Domènech)

Abstract

This paper offers an ethnographic interpretation of how in a changing context of family care different Spanish home telecare services provide older people with social links to prevent their isolation, granting them ‘connected autonomy’: the promotion of their autonomy and independent living through connectedness. To do so, services need to craft a network of ‘contacts’. Different versions of the term figuration are employed to describe the practical materializations of the forms of relatedness put in place by such services: what roles become available and explicitly supported; what other figurations of relatedness (e.g., kinship, friendship, neighbourliness) they come across; what happens when these different figurations of relatedness meet. In doing this, our aim is to allow space to reflect ethically on the practical relational promises and challenges of these forms of technologized care of older people.

Full textPDF in English

¿Personas mayores en autonomía conectada? Promesas y retos en la tecnologización del cuidado

(escrito en colaboración con Miquel Domènech)

Resumen 

Este artículo propone una interpretación etnográfica de cómo, en un contexto de cuidado familiar en transición, servicios de teleasistencia españoles buscan proveer a las personas mayores de vínculos sociales para prevenir su aislamiento, articulando una infraestructura de conexión y monitorización para promover lo que denominamos «autonomía conectada». Para funcionar estos servicios necesitan articular redes de «contactos». Empleamos diferentes acepciones del término figuración para entender los significados de la materialización práctica de diferentes formas relacionales por parte de estos servicios, prestando atención a: los roles que hacen disponibles; con qué otras figuraciones relacionales se encuentran y qué ocurre al encontrarse. A partir de esta descripción, abrimos un debate ético acerca de las promesas y retos relacionales que enfrentan los intentos por tecnologizar el cuidado de las personas mayores.

Texto completoPDF en castellano