(Imaginary) Street dwellers

In a globalized world...

We live in a globalized world....

How many times have you heard or read that sentence?. I've googled it, and there are more than 7000 references, counting both globalized and globalised spelling (by the way, which is the correct way of writing it?).

Usually, it acts as a starting point to two different types of arguments. On one side, the catastrophic view: due to globalization cultures and traditions will be lost, the natural environment will be destroyed and we will end up in a uniform, oppressive, orwellian world where difference will not even be remembered. On the other side globalization, serves as a excuse to push unpopular decisions (usually political or economical), like 'because we live in a globalized world, we need to dismantle the welfare state...'.

These two arguments are based on a typical deterministic view of technology. It is obvious that what we call globalization has been speed up by the advent of new communication and information technologies, and, from a deterministic perspective, those new technologies determine how society is going to evolve; there is no way out, society has to resign to its fate...

There are several pitfalls to these arguments. It is simply not true that globalization is a new thing, there have always been global relations between the different regions of the world. Cultures and societies are not closed entities that have grown up and evolved in total isolation (yes, there is, maybe, the exception of some communities in some out of the way areas, island in the middle of the Pacific, Hymalayan valleys,..., but even in that case those peoples had to come from somewhere...). The idea of an intrinsically pure culture of a community (country, region, people, race...) that can be polluted and must be protected from external influences, is just a myth fed by nationalistic interests.

And, although it is true that new ICTs expedite and facilitate communication, relation, and sharing between different parts of the world, that does not mean that this integration must evolve in the directions we usually (and wrobly?) associate today to the word globalization.

Faster and better communication technologies bring with them more interaction between people and cultures, but that does not necessarily imply reducing the cultural, social and economical diversity of the world, as most of the arguments that start with 'We live in a globalized world...' try to suggest.



And what about the photo?

I think this one illustrates cultural diversity in a global world at its best: a Brazilian barber shop in the Chinatown area of NYC, probably frequented by Hispanic customers that also live in that area...

Exclusive use

The text literally says: For the exclusive use of the Fire Brigade.

In the urban landscape, as in technological innovation, there is a constant tension between the originally intended usage of artifacts and spaces, and the creative modes of use that grow out of the daily interaction with them.

There are two approaches to this tension: the coercive approach, designing in a way that prevents different usages (mis-usages?) and, when design by itself is not enough, adding norms and rules, and the extensive approach, enabling, by design, the capability to add new modes of use that can extend the original intent.

Both of them have advantages and drawbacks: it is very difficult to completely prevent different usage models unless you resort to a heavily normative (policed) system; the best technological example being the completely unsuccessful attempt to prevent the sharing of music and, in general, content on the internet. But it is also quite difficult to ensure that the proliferation of new modes of use does not have a negative impact on the capability to deliver the original intended functionality...