Richard Sennett: The title of my talk, or the pre­sen­ta­tion, is The Stupefying Smart City.” And it might seem to you that I’m there­fore going to give you a kind of anti-technology talk. But that’s not the case. What I’m wor­ried about is that with the tech­no­log­i­cal tools that we have today, as in the past, our first use of them is the least inven­tive that we can make. And the issue is how urban­ists can actu­al­ly use these new tools well rather than use them in a way which is harmful.

As I say in my paper, this has old his­to­ry in the his­to­ry technology—the inven­tion of the scalpel took near­ly a cen­tu­ry for peo­ple to fig­ure out how to use this super­sharp knife in order to do bet­ter surgery. And I think the same thing is true for the tech­no­log­i­cal tools that we have at our dis­pos­al for the smart city. At present, there are temp­ta­tions to use them in ways which are stu­pe­fy­ing to the pop­u­lace, in which the tool sub­sti­tutes for the judg­ment of the urban­ite. And that I think is some­thing that we have to counter and that we can counter. That we’re begin­ning to get a more sophis­ti­cat­ed sense of how these tools could be used, but its a pol­i­cy choice. And I’ll try and lay that out to you.

What I’d like to add to what I’ve writ­ten in the news­pa­per is the fol­low­ing. You could think in a way of the issue here of what this tech­nol­o­gy can take away from peo­ple’s capac­i­ty to rea­son, to feel, to make sense of com­plex­i­ty, by pos­ing the ques­tion Do you need a street to have street smarts?” And my answer to that ques­tion is yes. That is, to be a sophis­ti­cat­ed, com­pe­tent urban­ite, you need a street. And I’d like to make that a lit­tle more tech­ni­cal­ly clear to you, what that means.

In social psy­chol­o­gy now, there have been stud­ies for the last ten years about the ways in which peo­ple acquire an abil­i­ty to think and feel—both together—about com­plex­i­ty. There’s stud­ies of tran­si­tions from ado­les­cence into adult­hood. And they focused on the ways in which adults become adult by being able to deal with com­plex­i­ty. And these stud­ies have focused on three capacities.

One is the tol­er­a­tion of ambi­gu­i­ty as a con­di­tion of adult cog­ni­tion. The sec­ond is the abil­i­ty to pur­sue incom­plete action. That is, to bring some­thing for­ward, to act on it even though the results are say 80% rather than 100%, or 51%, or even 30% of what you intend­ed to accom­plish. And the third form of this adult cog­ni­tion is what’s called dia­log­ics, which is the abil­i­ty to lis­ten to what some­body means behind the words that they use. And it’s a real advance in under­stand­ing the sort of high­er lev­els of deal­ing with com­plex­i­ty that human beings can acquire as adults.

What the city does to these three forms of cog­ni­tion about com­plex­i­ty is pro­pose that you can learn how to tol­er­ate ambi­gu­i­ty, to pur­sue incom­plete action, or to prac­tice dia­log­ics with strangers. That is that strangers will stim­u­late you to prac­tice these forms of cog­ni­tion (and as I say, they’re both ratio­nal and emo­tion­al) more than being with peo­ple who are very famil­iar to you. So that there’s in prin­ci­ple a kind of— On the cultural/psychological side, there’s an inter­sec­tion between the social con­di­tion of the city, poten­tial­ly, and the process of becom­ing a sophis­ti­cat­ed adult.

Now, here’s where the sto­ry I want to tell you enters in. Because we can use tech­nol­o­gy to disable these forms of learn­ing com­plex­i­ty. And in my paper I’ve shown a cou­ple of exam­ples of how this can hap­pen. Of a use of tech­nol­o­gy that makes peo­ple more stupid—and that’s not quite a word I like, but it’s a won­der­ful title. But in which some­thing where peo­ple are not stim­u­lat­ed to deal with com­plex­i­ty in all of its forms because of the way in which we’re think­ing technologically.

Here for instance is Masdar, in the United Arab Republic. It’s a city planned with a tight fit between form and func­tion. It’s a very Fordist city in that way. For each func­tion there’s a place, and a form. And what that means is there’s not much stim­u­la­tion to think about dif­fi­cul­ty. Or to try and make sense of the rela­tion between where and what. It’s all been done in advance.

Similarly, you can see here how it works. It’s some­thing that is con­tained with­in itself. There are no fuzzy edges here— (I’m sor­ry, I don’t want go back to the talk that Ricky Burdette has accused me of being very philo­soph­i­cal about.) But this is a bound­ary rather than a bor­der. That is, the edges of this big giant build­ing are the edges of where set­tle­ment ends. There’s no periph­ery, there’s no ambi­gu­i­ty in the space. 

And the space itself is some­thing which is very direc­tion­al in its social log­ic. You know exact­ly what’s hap­pen­ing in each of the spaces by the kind of archi­tec­ture that’s made for it. It’s a very glitzy look­ing space, but it’s a space that requires no interpretation. 

Now, this… Masdar, extreme­ly expen­sive. It’s an exper­i­ment, as Saskia Sassen has point­ed out, in how far you can push tech­nol­o­gy. And per­haps only the UAR could afford it. But it’s an exper­i­ment in Fordism. And this kind of envi­ron­men­tal Fordism I want to argue to you is a way of stu­pe­fy­ing peo­ple. Of depriv­ing them of the spaces in which they devel­op those three street smarts of tol­er­ance of ambi­gu­i­ty, the pur­suit of incom­plete action, and dialogics.

Now, here is Songdo. It’s anoth­er smart city. It looks beau­ti­ful in a way. But when you look here you see some­thing that I think for urban­ists is a very very impor­tant prob­lem. There’s no hor­i­zon­tal val­ue in this space. I don’t mean sim­ply that there aren’t streets, but that the notion of hor­i­zon­tal­i­ty has been removed from the space. It’s a depri­va­tion— You don’t go out. Here every­thing’s con­tained in the building. 

Some of that has to do with the cli­mate of South Korea, which is harsh. But Koreans typ­i­cal­ly have over­come their cli­mate, and use the hor­i­zon­tal with base­ments. They’ve been very clever about using below­ground as a kind of hor­i­zon­tal. And the hor­i­zon­tal is a way of extend­ing out encoun­ters with oth­er peo­ple. This is a space, in my view, of depri­va­tion, because it has no streets. You can’t devel­op street smarts when you’ve tak­en away half of the visu­al vec­tor of what peo­ple need for their expe­ri­ence of oth­er people.

These build­ings each have a func­tion, and peo­ple are stacked up in them, again accord­ing to the Fordist prin­ci­ple of you go where you go where you belong, you are nev­er where you don’t belong. 

Here’s anoth­er part of it built up. You can see there’s no mean­ing­ful street here for human beings. 

By contrast—and I just bring this in, this is Third Avenue. This is a space in Third Avenue where the build­ing typol­o­gy, ver­ti­cal­ly, is as monot­o­nous as this. [slide not shown] I’m show­ing you an old­er build­ing. But the ver­ti­cal typol­o­gy is ter­ri­ble. But, at the ground plane the idea is that while up is pret­ty much uni­form, the ground plane is some­thing that’s dis­or­der­ly, con­fused, ambigu­ous, incom­plete, that needs to be read and needs to be inter­pret­ed. And my argu­ment to you as urban­ists is that what we’ve got to do in using this tech­nol­o­gy is fig­ure out ways in which we do not abol­ish the hor­i­zon­tal ground dimen­sion. It’s the dimen­sion of com­plex­i­ty, such as we know it today. 

Songdo and Masdar rep­re­sent I think ways of sim­pli­fy­ing the city even with its enor­mous tech­ni­cal com­plex­i­ty, sim­pli­fy­ing the space of the city, and mak­ing peo­ple unable to access this kind of mature devel­op­ment along these three axes that I’ve indicated.

I just as a counter to this want to say some­thing about Rio de Janeiro, which has used the information-gathering capac­i­ty (this is a won­der­ful project pur­sued By IBM and Cisco) to do coor­di­na­tion of what’s hap­pen­ing in the city, rather than a kind of pre­plan­ning of what should hap­pen. This is a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent a mod­el of tech­no­log­i­cal use. One in which the tech­nol­o­gy deals with com­plex­i­ty on the ground rather than tries to pre­clude it through over­plan­ning and overde­sign. This is some­times known as the headache room,” and you can under­stand all those screens rep­re­sent traf­fic blocks, points where peo­ple have to get through, where ambu­lances have to get through, and so on. In oth­er words they rep­re­sent spaces in the city to which the tech­nol­o­gy is reac­tive, try­ing to enable what’s hap­pen­ing on the ground.

And to me this seems like a much more use­ful tool in think­ing about how to take tech­nol­o­gy for­ward than think­ing about the cen­tral pro­cess­ing sys­tems that we now have as pre­scrip­tive. This is coor­di­na­tive rather than pre­scrip­tive use of tech­nol­o­gy. And I think that’s the way for­ward for us as urban­ists, that we have to think more in that line than about how to make the city resem­ble a well-oiled, well-functioning machine. If we do that, we take away as it were the genius of the city that makes peo­ple com­pe­tent urban­ites. Thank you very much.

Further Reference

The Stupefying Smart City” essay by Richard Sennet [dif­fer­ent from this pre­sen­ta­tion] in the Urban Age: Electric City con­fer­ence newspaper

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.