Low-Tech – Freedom, Creativity & Love Translating Erich Fromm’s Psychoanalysis into Analyses of Architecture
Low-tech Erich Fromm narrative psychoanalysis architectural analysis
Kołakowski, Marcin Mateusz1 1Lincoln School of Architecture and the Built Environment / University of Lincoln, England Orcid: 0000-0001-7244-1479 [email protected] Citation: Kołakowski, M.M. (2021). Low-Tech – Freedom, Creativity & Love. Date of reception: 12/04/2020 Translating Erich Fromm’s Psychoanalysis into Analyses of Architecture. UOU scientific journal #01, 114-131. Date of acceptance: 24/06/2021 ISSN: 2697-1518. https://doi.org/10.14198/UOU.2021.1.10 This document is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 115
An attempt to understand the idea of ‘commons’ in architecture requires analytical tools and a narrative which will refer to ‘common values’. Yet the era of Postmodernism taught us mainly the relativism of multitudes of values, standards and paradigms. It made us used to ‘it all depends’ approach. Many popular methods of describing architecture are based on analysing it in a historical or cultural context. This paper, however, proposes a perspective that refers to human needs which have arguably been universal for all the people in all historical periods in all cultures. This perspective could be useful particularly while dealing with big contemporary issues of ‘commons’ in architecture – togetherness, ecology, common places and agendas. This paper proposes a framework based on the school of ‘positive psychology’ and in particular on the unappreciated father of the Frankfurt School and critical theory – Erich Fromm who worked all his life on his comprehensive ‘theory of needs’. This paper proposes translating the concepts of this theory into architectural analyses and narrative. If we are to understand the essence of ‘commons’, we need to refer to people’s common needs. These are the key concepts of Fromm’s model. This paper is structured around what Fromm described as three basic, common needs: freedom, creativity and love. The analysis of low-tech movement will serve as an example illustrating how the lens of Erich Fromm’s theory allows better understanding of this phenomenon. The objective of this paper is to propose a new definition and narrative of the low-tech movement which will be based on a psychological framework. 116 LOW-TECH – FREEDOM, CREATIVITY & LOVE MARCIN MATEUSZ KOŁAKOWSKI
INTRODUCTION UNSATISFACTORY included in the Dictionary of Architecture by Curl (1999): Low-tech movement is often DEFINITIONS associated with the use of The Ontology of Low-Tech “…involves the recycling of unprocessed materials such materials and components as timber, bamboo, straw The term ‘low-tech’ in and the use of traditional bales, unfired earth or recycled architecture first appeared construction, insulation, and products including car tires, in the 1970s and referred to natural means of heating bottles, etc. This movement is ‘ingenious but unglamorous and ventilation. Low-tech often also linked with building design’ (Ball, Cox 1982) recognizes the environmental techniques which encourage in a stark contrast with the damage done by High Tech self-built or co-operation during newly born buzzword ‘high- through excessive use of the building process. tech’ – coined by Kron and resources, and has been Slesin’s book High-Tech – the applied to the circumstances of Interestingly, for many Industrial Style (1978). Morgan poverty-stricken areas, where it reasons the movement is (1978) started to link the idea has been termed ‘alternative’, often ignored and under- of ‘low-tech buildings’ with ‘intermediate’ and even researched, despite the fact “energy conscious design ‘utopian’ technology”. that it experiments with the and employing concepts of burning issues of the building low embodied energy, use of At the beginning of the industry’s lack of resources and thermal mass, natural materials new millennium, ‘low tech’ in the link between architectural and passive heating”. In the architecture ceased to be a production and social cohesion. 1980s, ‘low-tech’ entered pejorative term. In 2001, Jean popular culture thanks to the Dethier, director of Centre Also, the definitions and the short story Johnny Mnemonic Pompidou, made a speech understanding of this movement by Gibson (1981), which celebrating the meeting of have been persistently unclear portrayed a dystopian future bamboo, paper and earth and unsatisfactory. This paper in which ‘Lo Teks’, a group of architects in which he said: proposes a way to address anti-technology outcasts, fight “high-tech is the past, the these problems by redefining an unscrupulous ‘high-tech’ future belongs to low-tech”.a low-tech as a movement. An corporation. ‘Low-tech’ first Books such as Sustainable alternative to current definitions entered the Oxford English Architecture – Low-tech will be proposed and structured Dictionary in 1989, still as houses (Mostaedi, 2003) and according to Erich Fromm’s an antithesis of the high- Ultra Low Tech Architecture concept of three main needs. tech style, but 10 years later (Mira, Minguet, 2011) present Erich Fromm was a key Luchsinger (1998) associated low-tech projects as those founder of the Frankfurt School, low-tech with “progressive that utilise unprocessed and later named as one of the most solutions where aims are recycled materials. unappreciated thinkers of the reached not by accumulating Problems of Definitions 20th century (Durkin, 2014:10). new technological tricks but As philosophy historian Neil by avoiding them”. Daniels The first problem concerning McLaughlin(1999) revealed, (1999) described low-tech as low-tech’s definitions due to political coincidences “passive methods of using the derives from the fact that it Fromm was unfairly wiped sun and natural environment”. is not necessarily rated on out from the school of critical In the 1980s, low-tech started materials or techniques only. theory which he was a founding to be associated with the Unprocessed materials – wood, member of. This paper tests approach proposed by Victor earth, bamboo or straw – have his theory by structuring Papanek who wrote about recently become part of the paragraphs according to his low-tech as being more of an vocabulary of architects which models and concepts, which “architectural movement” than could hardly be associated are translated below into the an architectural formal style with low-tech. Rammed field of architecture. (Papanek, 1985). This was earth walls were designed by acknowledged in the definition Norman Foster at Musée de #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 117 la Romanité in Narbo Via, by movements which promoted a LINES OF Herzog & de Meuron at the simple life and minimalism and INVESTIGATIONS AND Herb Centre, or Grimshaw were sceptical of luxury. In his Architects in the Eden famous book Walden or Life METHODOLOGY Project. Straw became part of in the Woods, Henry Thoreau Site visits and interviews mainstream guidelines and is strongly identified the link also used in technologically between minimalist lifestyle and In order to establish an sophisticated prefabrication architecture creating a blueprint understanding of the universal processes such as those which was used by many character and the essence proposed by Modcell. Renzo low-tech promoters (Thoreau of the low-tech movement, Piano developed bamboo 2018). These timeless, cross the author has followed architecture. Those examples cultural and cross historical grounded research principles could hardly be called low-tech. characteristics of low-tech by visiting over 50 workshops indicate that the essence of this and events which promoted The second problem is linking movement should be sought low-tech techniques such as the movement simply with in a more universal realm of various methods of building an eco-friendly architectural human psychology. out of earth, straw bales, response. Even if this is an bamboo, car-tires and paper important part of low-tech narrative, in the 21th century sustainability has become part of an accepted paradigm of the whole mainstream building industry. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where low-tech is driven by other ideas than sustainability: addressing problems of community or the poor, socially excluded or people affected by natural disasters. The third problem is that the movement is often defined as a modern trend starting in the 1960s. Yet low-tech could also be presented as not historically specific. The refusal to participate in the latest, most evolved technological conveniences is by no means a recent phenomenon, and not necessarily an architectural one. Advocates of these ideas may be found in different cultures, religions and historical periods: cynics and Diogenes in ancient Greece, Francis of Assisi and his followers in Christianity, Lev Tolstoy and the Tolstoyan movement in Russia, Mahatma Ghandi in Hinduism and a multitude of other Diagram 1 (by author based on Fromm, 1980: 114) 118 LOW-TECH – FREEDOM, CREATIVITY & LOVE MARCIN MATEUSZ KOŁAKOWSKI tubes. During the events, while Maslow (1943) in his a supportive society manifests over 100 structured and semi- pyramid of needs calls them itself in creativeness and structured interviews were ‘higher’ and claims that people ‘biophilia’ (the love of life), conducted based mainly on would want to fulfil them after whereas in a destructive two questions: “What is the the basic needs are satisfied. environment it could take the main characteristic of the low- Fromm claims otherwise, form of ‘necrophilia’ (love of tech movement?” and “What and points out that people dead & controllable objects made you get involved in the are often ready to suffer and like machines). Fromm put movement?”. Those interviews even commit suicide not forward a hypothesis that in were analysed in order to find because they are hungry or a supportive environment the main repeating themes and uncomfortable but because every person would rather lines of narrative. they fight for freedom and live in peace with people, be desire, love or a meaningful active and be free. However, if Psychoanalytical modelling active life. these options are not possible The second line of because of social conditions, Fromm’s model and one can fall into the alternative investigation was an attempt hypothesis links the needs at creating a model which options: conformist, narcissistic of Love, Freedom and and destructive (see Diagram would compare and contrast Creativity with culture and paradigms of the movement political systems. He argues The question remains with other movements, in that different social systems whether the Frommian theory particular, the mainstream promote different ways of how could be applied in any useful high-tech. The model has been the needs could be fulfilled. way in other domains such as developed based on Erich Fromm distinguishes cultures architecture? The following Fromm’s theory of human promoting growth from those paragraphs test the ‘translation’ needs. The hypothesis that which supress it, such as of Frommian concepts into ‘translation’ of the psychological slavery, totalitarianism but also a low-tech narrative. Each theory into architectural the hierarchical, bureaucratic ‘translation’ starts by forming syntax could be useful was office culture (which could be a short explanation of one suggested because of its ‘translated’ into an architectural of Fromm’s psychological universal character that allows office culture). According to concepts, and then suggests bridging technical, social and Fromm (2010), in a normal, how it could be translated into psychological domains. Fromm healthy environment the qualities regarded within this proposed the model in The ‘need of freedom’ manifests movement as flaws or virtues. Heart of Man (1980) but was itself in developing one’s developing it throughout his own potential but if this FREEDOM life in his other works such is impossible, if society/ Incestuous Ties vs. Oedipus’ as: The Anatomy of Human environment/culture does not Destructiveness (1973), The Art Rebellion (Following the support this development, the mainstream vs. escaping it) of Loving (2005), The Fear of same need takes the form of Freedom (2010) and others. oppression, destruction or an Fromm defines freedom In The Heart of Man, Fromm apathetic pedantic approach. as a condition in which proposed a model whose three Analogically, according to individual potential can be key elements are ‘freedom’ Fromm the ‘need of love’, which developed (Fromm 2001). (opportunity to develop one’s in a supporting environment Since everyone’s potential is own potential); ‘creativity’ naturally develops itself as different, the same concept of (opportunity of active and togetherness with people and freedom could apply to people meaningful interaction with the nature, could be transformed regardless of their different world) and ‘love’ (connection by dysfunctional culture into qualities. The first step to with the world and other obsessive narcissism or be free is to realise that one people). Interestingly, Fromm conformism. In a similar way, could be free. Fromm claims calls those needs ‘fundamental’ the ‘need of being creative’ in that in order to develop, one must break ‘incestuous ties’ #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 119
Fig. 1 Drop City – architectural manifestation of low-tech rebellion against establishment: unconventional form, material and organization (Photo: Clark Richert) – a toddler must realise his/ interpreted as relations with the role of an “architectural her own independence from clients or the professional outlaw” and “Garbage Warrior” the mother, a teenager from architectural milieu, which (2009). This rebellion towards the family. In the world of manifest itself in fashions low-tech represents arguments design, we can extrapolate this and social expectations. A against mainstream styles, into metaphorically breaking hypothesis might be suggested manufacturers and energy incestuous ties between the that low-tech creators could suppliers using rational and designer and conventions. be understood as ‘oedipal emotional justification. In these rebels’ against ‘incestuous ties’ circles everything that is ‘off’ or Fromm adopted the imposed by systems. Many low- ‘alternative’ becomes a virtue: Freudian concept of the tech promoters defy authority “off mainstream”, “alternative”, Oedipal complex, but gave it in their own way. This was the “off grid”, or “autonomous an unfreudian interpretation. case in 1960s in Drop City house” all have a positive This complex is not so much a (Ebert, 1981) and in today’s connotation for creators not negative urge to kill the father, ‘ecovillages’ in which young only in these circles but often but rather a positive rebellion people contribute towards also in wider culture. against authoritarianism which a new culture which is often limits one’s own development – manifested by alien, unfamiliar Some questions inspired by i.e., reinforcing freedom (2003 architecture. “It was kind of Fromm’s concept of Oedipal p. 117-118). rebellion against important Rebellion are: “Does a given technology allow you to rebel Low-tech Narrative: people and totalitarianism” – says founder of the Drop City – to come out of your comfort Modern technology promises (Grossman 2012). zone?”; “Does it encourage you a lot of freedom but under one to leave the comfortable nest condition: keeping strong ‘ties’ Many low-tech architects were and fly?” or “Does it tighten with technocratic manufacturers initially driven by the desire to the ties and seduce you by posing as ‘freedom providers’. escape the system which they ‘external potential’?” Fromm’s concepts can be found oppressive or unfulfilling Frommian Perspective: translated both as a metaphor and, in the process, decided to and narrative, but they also go give up potentially ‘successful A hypothesis may thus be deeper. Fromm emphasized careers’. Gernot Minke left suggested that low-tech could the fact that the development of work at the successful practice perhaps be better understood freedom (developing individual of Otto Freib; Hassan Fathy not as a result of hatred against potential) is conditioned by turned away from the path modern technology as such, but exposure to ‘external systems’ of a respectable modernist as a longing for independence, such as culture and the socio- architect to later be nicknamed the first step to which is the economic environment. In the “mad architect of mud” and ‘oedipal rebellion’. architecture, it could again be Mike Reynolds was attributed 120 LOW-TECH – FREEDOM, CREATIVITY & LOVE MARCIN MATEUSZ KOŁAKOWSKI
builder, who decided to move to Honduras to take up what he called a “solitary life sufficiency removed from anywhere especially the United States”, was conscious this trip was not the aim but only a means of finding his identity: “I knew I would not spend the rest of my life there… When the time came I returned” (Khan 2000, p. 94). Exactly such enjoyment of simple work as a way of developing one’s own skills was a key concept of the arch- critic of modern technology and Fromm’s collaborator – Ivan Fig. 2 Construction of Lincoln Hexagonium: each builder makes their own mark. Illitch (2001). This is what makes this building unique and what is a unique value of low-tech The involvement with low- tech is described by almost all Identification vs. Identity what he potentially is. The most professionals as a personal (Identification with Fashion important product of his effort is turning point and a relief from and Techno-culture vs. his own personality” (p. 177). the bureaucratic environment in Identity Through Unique & Low-tech Narrative: office work: “My psychosomatic Contextual Design) hatred to office work was Fromm claims that an In order to draw parallels so bad that once they had individual that has already with the low-tech building to call an ambulance. After managed to detach themselves movement, it is vital to realise this incident, I decided to from “incestuous ties” (mother, the extent to which modern spend several months in Asia family, conventions etc.) needs technology contributes to studying Tibetan construction to identify that they have – in identity. People are encouraged techniques. After returning to other words to find their own by adverts and cultural pressure Europe, I found straw bale potential and identity. In Man or to identify with the latest fashion movement which encapsulated Himself (2003), Fromm draws or high-tech products as a way for me a similar respect to on the humanist tradition to of creating individual images or nature.” show that the quest for self- improving credibility. Similarly in architecture, the latest Simple materials such as consciousness lies in the core earth or straw also allow message of thinkers in various technology is used as a way of raising status. Fromm warns every creator to make their cultures: Buddha said ‘Be ye individual marks in the lamps unto yourselves (p. I), against this loss of individual identity and encourages people form of ornamentation or Master Eckhart ‘I am I is only personalized solutions. Paulina mine and belongs to me and to search for their own unique faculties. Wojciechowska, founder of nobody else’ (p. 27), Spinoza “Earth Hands and Houses”, ‘the man is an end-in-himself’ A collective of testimonies and author of Building with (p. 19), and Kant ‘man should of low-tech creators e.g. Kahn Earth, sees this as a particularly be an end of himself and never (2000, 2004), Olsen (2012) and significant value of natural a means only’ (p. 90). For others, show that sometimes architecture and encourages Fromm, respect for identity is low-tech is a way for people every participating builder/ the sine qua non of freedom: to find their own identity, value volunteer “to feel joy, play “Man’s main task in life is to system, or own design path: and make such a mark on her give birth to himself, to become Hugh Brown, the tree house buildings” (Wojciechowska #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 121
2001, p.148). ‘Freedom from’ vs ‘Freedom Fromm asks ‘what does it to’ (Decadent design vs. offer instead?’ Freedom from In Fromm’s psychological Developing human potential) constraints could be interpreted perspective, respecting one’s as ‘decadent design’ (‘know In The Fear of Freedom own identity goes hand-in-hand how’ without ‘knowing what (2001), Fromm analysed with respecting the identity for’). of others. This explains why the history of the concept such importance is accorded of ‘freedom’ from the Low-tech Narrative: to respecting the surroundings Renaissance, when the idea in low-tech. Christopher Day started to play a crucial role Many low-tech promoters (2002) calls it the ‘Spirit of in Western culture, up until are sceptical about technology the Place’. The use of simple the 20th century, when central offering ‘freedom from’ toil local materials and vernacular Europe gave up freedom without developing meaningful techniques helps to emphasize by embracing fascism. In independence. “I am happy the identity of the surroundings. this seminal work, Fromm that I do not need all those This attitude contrasts strikingly introduced a key distinction new materials to feel free and with the approach of modern between the concept of creative,” said Professor Gernot architecture and prefabrication, ‘freedom to’, which gives Minke.b which imposes external meaning and makes it possible If we agree with Fromm that systems and coordinates to develop one’s own potential, freedom is a ‘possibility to indifferent to the spirit of a and ‘freedom from’, which develop individual potential’, place. only frees a human from then we can also make sense various ties and obligations. of the main drawcard that Frommian Perspective: According to Fromm, the attracts people to low-tech For Fromm, the ‘need for former could lead to passion, workshops. These events are identity’ is common to all the latter to fears and anxiety, orientated largely towards people, but it can be substituted which could push people to developing individual skills, by identification with external accepting dependence and knowledge, and networking. logos, gadgetry, and fashions authoritarianism. The testimonies of self-builders for the latest technology. It may Using this differentiation, it show that they are often be argued that it is the aversion may be argued that modern convinced that the greatest to those ‘fashions’, and not to sophisticated technology freedom comes from satisfying technological development itself promises freedom from the basic needs of here-and- which is a characteristic of low- dangers, toil and others, but now (such as dwelling). “People tech movement. think of the word ‘primitive’ as
Fig. 3 Interior and exterior of a private house designed by Gernot Minke for himself which encapsulates the low-tech idea if independence from processed materials. “I am happy that I do not need all those new materials to feel free and creative”.[b] 122 LOW-TECH – FREEDOM, CREATIVITY & LOVE MARCIN MATEUSZ KOŁAKOWSKI derogative. For me it derives socio-cultural and technological ecology is understood as a from ‘prime’, fundamental and if structures in which individuals derivative of a ‘relationship’. a building has good foundations feel subordinate or superior then you can be free and to others, push the human Low-tech Narrative: creative and you can sculpture psyche towards what he calls In promoting untypical building the walls as you want,” said a ‘sadomasochistic character’ methods, low-tech approaches Paulina Wojciechowska.[d] and thus blocks growth, which could encourage cooperation needs a balanced partnership. and partnership. Sarah Frommian Perspective: Low-tech technologies Wigglesworth, the architect Thus, the reluctance towards could thus be seen as a of Stock Orchard Street office sophisticated technology direct reaction against this in London, famous for her in the low-tech movement “sadomasochistic dependency” use of untypical materials, may not really be a criticism – limiting oneself to simple claimed in an interview that of technology as such, but techniques reduces concerns the “introduction of those could rather be understood as around access to expensive techniques deconstructs reluctance towards technology materials, and reduces the macho relationships on the that makes people dependent need for external experts and a building site and encourages on external systems. In this rigid system of standardisation. cooperative problem solving”.d sense, the low-tech paradigm As a result, it encourages Maurice Mitchell (1998) seems shift would be in the direction of experimentation and direct to agree with her when he ‘freedom to’. contact. It reduces the distance says that “technology using between the creator and the unfamiliar materials” has Sadomasochism a power to generate skills, object of design: it allows vs. Independence techniques and understanding (Standardisation vs. for touching and feeling the of other cultures. Mitchell Experimentation) material. At the same time, it is worth noting that such a claims that experimenting is Highly complex technological close relationship between the an effective way of developing systems require hierarchically designer and the environment individual potential. organised processes and could positively impact the The value of such structures. Fromm claims that ‘ecology of design’ if, indeed, experiments could be illustrated by a designer who said: “It is not important if the objects are low- or high-tech. I am interested in voyage, experimentation. Mistakes help me to discover new paths”.[f] He is by no means motivated by an aversion to sophisticated technology, rather the low-tech approach allows him to be more creative. In Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Fromm introduced the concept of a sadomasochistic relationship, which resulted from a mindset of people for whom everything needed to be in a strict Fig. 4 Workshop ‘Unfamiliar Materials and Structures’ at the Centre for Alternative Technology in the UK run by Maurice Mitchell, who values the fact that low-tech hierarchy and each thing had materials invite unpredictable solutions which could unleash hidden architectural to be subordinated to another, skill of their creators. preventing partnership. #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 123
Figure 5 Earth Dome in Hill-Holt Wood covered in car tires and a vault by Shigeru Ban suppor- ted by paper tubes. Both projects were possible because of low-tech’s distinctive feature which is en- couragement of self-built and experimentation with cheap non-standard materials.
Frommian Perspective: Revolution never fulfilled the of objects, but it often aims promise of liberating mankind to ‘produce’ social change. Thus, it could be suggested from mentally unsatisfying The promotion of building that low-tech practitioners avoid labour. Work that is alienating techniques for everyone, highly technological processes and ‘deprived of joy’ has activating people and ‘the not because they do not been criticised by critics of democratisation of technology’ appreciate technology as such, technology from John Ruskin lies at the heart of low- but because they try to avoid (2004) to Ivan Illitch (2001). tech and the Open Source hierarchical environments, Fromm discusses the problem Movement as is spelt out in which Fromm relates to of workaholism, which he the self-repair manifesto: “if sadomasochistic culture (“either describes as an antithesis of you can’t fix it, you don’t own you tell me what to do or I tell creativity – a result of stress it” (Fixit, 2021). This explains you what to do”). and anxiety. Comments of the contrast between the CREATIVITY architects who changed their popular paradigm of exclusive environment from conventional technology promoted as ‘easy’ Workaholism vs. Active Life to low-tech often emphasize the and the low-tech virtue of (Mass-produced off-shelf lack of creativity in mainstream ‘work intensive’ but accessible architecture vs. self-build) practices: “‘Being creative’ is building methods. Most low- merely a privilege of a very tech techniques allow for the When talking about small number of well-publicised participation of unqualified ‘creativeness’, Fromm referred individuals (e.g., star architects) people or even children in an to the state of being active whilst the stress related to environment in which everyone as an ability to change the deadlines, quality, finance, can feel like a creator (Minke environment and one’s own or increasing productivity are 2006). self (2002: 35-37). In Creative typical factors affecting other Attitude, he emphasized that more general architectural Because of their simplicity creativity is an attitude to life workers.” In the Frommian and low price, low-tech and not merely an artistic sense, despite the fact that it techniques, unlike high-tech, endeavour: “To be creative ‘creates’ objects, this type of also encourage modifications means to consider the whole production perpetuates the during habitation. In a concrete process of life as a process of social status quo and cannot building, the user must be birth and not to take any stage develop ‘creative’ people. very determined to introduce of life as a final stage” (Fromm changes, whereas in a simple 1959: 44). Low-tech Narrative: timber frame construction adaptation of the layout and The technology that has been Low-tech is not merely structure is available using developed since the Industrial dedicated to the production basic DIY measures. 124 LOW-TECH – FREEDOM, CREATIVITY & LOVE MARCIN MATEUSZ KOŁAKOWSKI
Figure 6. Straw vaults in Wangelin (by Gernot Minke) and Bamboo House in Boisbuchet (by Simon Velez). Those projects, like many other low-tech projects, were possible because volunteers are attracted to natural building sites.
Frommian Perspective: of society” (Fromm 1964: 53). (love of dead objects and The question remains then fear of life processes) was a It seems likely that the as to the means by which concept identifying the key low-tech movement attracts different societies and different attitude of a technocratic culture people who are disappointed ‘architectural communities’ praising objects, machines, and with the building methods influence this dynamism in predictable systems. that limit one’s own initiative. different ways. Perhaps in order to understand Significantly, in this respect the essence of low-tech, we Low-tech Narrative: low-tech offers a paradigm shift. need to understand the sheer Its promoters are often driven pleasure and joy of work and Dynamism and change by the ambition of empowering being active? are a trade mark of modern life: people, communities mainstream architecture. This, and nature (Naess, 1993). Necrophilia vs. Biophilia however, begs the question: Dynamism in the low-tech (Dynamism of Machine vs. dynamism ‘of what’ or ‘of environment often relates more Dynamism of Life) whom’? The glorification of to boosting self-reliance and dynamism was introduced Biophilia is a core concept aims at changing public opinion into European culture in 1909 coined by Fromm, which and lifestyle. In Architecture by Futurists with their famous emerges as an interdisciplinary for the Poor, Fathy talks Manifesto (Marinetti 2009) framework for investigating about vernacular techniques praising speed, machine, human affiliation with nature, not as an end in themselves brutality, anti-feminism and life and life processes, such but as a means to combat war. Analysing this text, as dynamism, change, unemployment and improve Fromm wrote: “Here we unpredictability and complexity. the low self-esteem of local see essential elements of Fromm claims that socio- population: “So the peasants necrophilia: worship of speed economic systems influence at once begin to look on their and the machine; glorification biophilia. “Love for life will own products with pride” of war destruction […] that develop the most in a society (Fathy, 1976: 43). John Smith, characterise Nazism, Mussolini where there is: security in the builder of the Universal Hall in and Hitler […] They had no sense that the basic material Findhorn Foundation – Scottish genuinely creative ideas, conditions for dignified life are ‘Mecca’ of low-tech architecture nor did they accomplish any not threatened, justice in the – said “we didn’t build the hall, significant changes for man. sense that nobody can be an but the building built us.”[g] It They lacked the essential end for purpose of another, and is one of the recurring themes criterion of the revolutionary freedom in the sense that each among low-tech builders spirit: love of life” (Fromm 1973, man has the possibility to be an (Dethier 2002). p. 345). For Fromm ‘necrophilia’ active and responsible member #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 125
by an earth builder, Henning Schmitt. h Low-tech embraces what the Spanish describe as ‘belleza de la imperfección – the beauty of imperfection, and the Japanese as wabi- sabi – cherishing the look of unfinished artefacts. The architect Rhen August Benson thus describes this contrast: “Low tech vs. high tech; tactile vs. slick; real Figure 7 ‘Beauty on imperfection’ is for many the most attractive feature of low-tech. Straw bale house in Przełomka (by Paulina Wojciechowska) vs. ideal; form and light take precedence over material and finish; intuitive vs. rational Further, according to Fromm’s with an authoritarian character and logical; natural vs. model, affiliation with nature suppressing spontaneous manufactured; simple without is a natural consequence of creativity. “[…] The tendency to austerity or pretence” (Benson, the biophilic attitude. This control and possess is only one 2021) Hundertwasser was mindset can often be observed aspect of anal character, but convinced that an ecological in low-tech creators who strive milder and less malignant than artist should avoid straight lines to harmonise with nature by hate against life” (Fromm 1973, (Hundertwasser, 1986), whilst incorporating green roofs 462). Compulsive cleanness is Papanek valued the beauty of and walls and contextualizing thus a symptom of fear of life slightly worn down objects over buildings in their natural setting. which by its nature is “messy” brand new: “all the scratches Self-imposed technological and not predictive. are just beginning to give it constraints could be seen as a character, making it unique” reflection of the natural limits The ‘anal character’, craving (1995, 142). of biological-growth, which is for cleanliness, and fear of The imprecise nature of low- a characteristic of every living ‘touching’ anything dirty could tech often results in it being being (Kennedy 1995). describe modern technology and high-tech architecture – rejected by the wider audience Frommian Perspective: spotless but cold, unpleasant or other potential clients. to touch, uncompromisingly However, this is a characteristic Given the above, one could precise and at the same of this movement that perhaps ask whether it is not time often struggling to deserves being investigated – the machines as such that cohabitate with nature which particularly in contrast with the low-tech architects are in fact is too unkempt in a media mainstream ‘anal’ tendencies. repelled by, but the lack of this environment which requires Lack of accuracy derives from biophilic appreciation of life images of clean cut, crisp the employment of simple and a necrophiliac fascination buildings. methods. Despite this, Fromm’s with dead objects that suppress interpretation encourages creativity? Low-tech Narrative: research into a correlation ‘Anal Complex’ vs Complex At the same time, low-tech between this low-tech Stimulation (Obsession can often be located on the inclination and its ecological with Control & Pedantry vs. other side of the spectrum ideals. Beauty of Imperfection) in terms of aesthetics. “Look Frommian Perspective: at the cold glass and steel Fromm used the concept building. How unpleasant it is Thus, it is suggested that of the ‘anal complex’ to to touch it. Why would anyone this aspect of low-tech is explain why attitudes such as want to design an untouchable not denying the benefits orderliness so often go together building?”, I was once asked of technology but merely 126 LOW-TECH – FREEDOM, CREATIVITY & LOVE MARCIN MATEUSZ KOŁAKOWSKI
Figure 8. Earthship construction by Michael Reynolds, who like other low-tech architects developed a cheap construction for poorer parts of the society a subconscious reaction Low-tech Narrative: Thus, the contrast of this against those types of modern attitude with the low-tech technology which cannot find a Narcissism, both of society in paradigm could not be more way to support life. general and of the architectural striking. Cooperation, mutual profession specifically, might help, sharing and open-source LOVE explain the problems in are concepts deeply embedded Modernist buildings’ failure to Narcissism vs. Togetherness in the ethos of the low-tech relate to the context. Modern movement. Most straw-bale (Competition vs. cities with shopping centres Cooperation) constructions have been which turn their backs to any erected as a group effort of In The Art of Loving, kind of integration with the local volunteers and enthusiasts. Fromm described love in surroundings, or megalomaniac Catarina Pinto, straw and the socio-political context as edifices that overshadow the earth builder, said: “If you a “development of interest, neighbouring city fabric are only want to build a house, you care, responsibility, respect some examples of narcissism either need a lot of money or and knowledge” toward the in architecture. A contemporary a lot of friends” i. Limitation environment (Fromm 1956, p. capitalist society’s glorification and simplification encourages 32-33). of competition and egoism alternative self-build by friends, (without care, responsibility, neighbours or communities. If the need for loving is respect or knowledge) Settlements designed by Walter blocked, however, human goes hand-in-hand with the Segal in Lewisham (Towers, beings often push themselves conformism of maintaining 1995: p. 82-85) or Michael towards decay in the form of standardised products, styles Reynolds in Taos (Reynolds, conformism or narcissism. and approaches. #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 127
Figure 9. Direct contact with material and building processes is a characteristic of many low-tech constructions. In the picture: the author (in the forefront) mixing cob for Kadłubówka first Polish straw-house design by Paulina Wojciechowska
2000) were possible not only perception of loving as “active with your own hands, to feel it thanks to simple techniques but striving and inner relatedness” and smell it. There is nothing also because members of the (Fromm, 2005: 99). better than the touch of earth community helped each other. while are you plastering a wall Sophisticated technology with your own hands and being Frommian Perspective: often introduces tools, able to shape it with every interfaces and procedures move of your palm”.d A hypothesis may be which disassociate the suggested that the people user away from the subject. Many volunteers participating who experience the pleasure At times, this indirectness in low-tech constructions of cooperation in low-tech could be perceived as a emphasize the pleasure of construction might be repelled loss of relationship with the direct contact with materials by high-tech because of an environment or with the subject and processes. Low-tech anxiety related to competition of creation. methods, more than any others, and predictability associated enable close direct contact with with the conformism of Low-tech Narrative: materials. The urge to be closer established systems. Paulina Wojciechowska said to the site and its workers, Inrelatedness vs. “Sometimes when I work on a makes some designers move Relatedness (Indirect vs. computer, I can see a yellow away from office work. Simon direct contact with the line, a green line and I feel like Velez said “My office is where building process) I am losing contact with the the building site is, and by building and the design. It is so being close to my workers, all I Fromm redefined Freud’s liberating to touch the building need is an A4 sheet to explain core concept of libido into his any aspect of the project”. 128 LOW-TECH – FREEDOM, CREATIVITY & LOVE MARCIN MATEUSZ KOŁAKOWSKI
Figure 10. Many low-tech architects were driven by the idea of helping the poorest parts of society. In the picture: New Gourna designed from earth by Hassan Fathy (photo by Marc Ryckaert)
Frommian Perspective: needs (and wants) without irresponsibility of modern having any care, knowledge technology were expressed by Thus, a hypothesis may or responsibility. Users of more than half of interlocutors. be suggested that low- sophisticated technology are Due to limited resources, tech creators do not wish rarely encouraged to consider low-tech approaches compel to oppose a society that the whole life cycle of a builders to understand, develops technology, but product or what happens to appreciate and study the instead to enrich technological it once it has been used. As laws of nature, limitations of development with a more direct Giles Slade (2006) claims in materials and the potential and tangible relationship to his Make to break, planned of local environment and materials and people. obsolescence became part of vernacular architecture. Gernot Care vs. Carelessness advanced technology – “Out of Minke, one of the world’s (Care vs carelessness in sight, out of mind”. Jealously most prominent researchers architecture) guarded knowledge in high- of natural construction, tech culture is legally reinforced said: “When I visited Middle Fromm decided to reclaim by intellectual property rights, America and saw villages with love from naïve pop culture. copyright and often embedded poorly designed architecture, In The Art of Loving (1956), in products deliberately I realized that by combining he described love in the designed as incompatible their vernacular tradition with psychological but also with products made by other construction knowledge which socio-political context as a manufacturers. I had as an architect, I could development toward “interest, make a much bigger change to care, responsibility, respect Low-tech Narrative: the world than in fancy modern and knowledge of environment” In a series of interviews architecture”.[c] Encouraging (Fromm: 32-33). conducted at the European knowledge, educational values Modern technology often Straw Bale Gathering and information sharing play makes it possible to fulfil our [k] , accusations of the an important role in low-tech #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 129 architecture. Low-tech blogs, through this lens inspires movement not as merely books, meetings or workshops one to pose the question: related to techniques, tools are usually connected with perhaps what really fuels or materials, but rather as a mission of popularising low-tech is not techniques emanating from a more knowledge. Some institutions, but the dissatisfaction with significant psychological such as the Centre for carelessness, and the need for position. Alternative Technology, started love? as informal groups dedicated In this paper, the elements to the promotion of knowledge, TRANSLATING of Fromm’s theory presented before they developed towards PSYCHOANALYSIS in Diagram 1 were ‘translated’ into key architectural concepts becoming an organiser of INTO ARCHITECTURE formal education courses in which could be visualised in cooperation with universities In the previous paragraphs, Diagram 2. Erich Fromm’s concepts were (Harper, 1995). It is worth noting that translated into the domain of Diagrams 1 and 2 indicate the Frommian Perspective: architectural narratives and interdependency of the ‘needs analyses. These translations Rehabilitating the concept axes’. This model emphasizes make it possible to identify and of ‘love’ makes it possible that it is not enough to nurture systematise the characteristics to see a strong connection only one aspect of growth: of low-tech that distinguish the between psychological needs Love without freedom turns into movement from others. The and the low-tech movement. overprotectiveness paralysing narrative allows presentation Architecture observed personal development; of the main qualities of this
Diagram 2. Model of qualities regarded within low-tech as flaws and virtues (author: M.M. Kołakowski) 130 LOW-TECH – FREEDOM, CREATIVITY & LOVE MARCIN MATEUSZ KOŁAKOWSKI freedom without creativity is could be characterised by proposed in this paper could not constructive, and creativity voluntary refusal of available be one way of constructing without love may turn into sophisticated technology and a narrative which bridges decadent design. In order replacing it by innovations the technical and humanistic to assess the attitudes and driven by ambitions for perspective. paradigms of creators, aspects reshaping the role of technology of love, freedom and creativity towards processes that The remodeling of the should not be assessed would respect the humanistic, architectural analytical toolkit separately but they should psychological, environmental proposed in this paper be triangulated. Diagrams 1 or social values. Translation of suggests different ‘measuring and 2 could also be useful in Frommian concepts helps to strategies’ which refer to love, describing architectural creation analyse those ambitions as an creativity and freedom. Are by indicating the intensity/ attempt to support ‘construction we able and ready to translate potential on each axis. process culture’ which will those humanistic values into nurture personal growth. architectural narrative and CONCLUSIONS analyses? The narrative suggested in The movement of low-tech this paper helps to see the NOTES / REFERENCES is under-researched and not problems of a sustainable TO INTERVIEWS without organisational and building industry not merely CONDUCTED BY THE ideological challenges. Yet, it from the perspective of tools, AUTHOR deserves particular attention indicators, measurements of because it tests answers to CO2 and KW/h etc. Attitudes [a] Interview with Jean Dethier, vital questions concerning of designers, builders and Boisbuchet Vitra Museum Centre, France, 21.07.2002 our technological civilisation users have their psychological – in material, technological dimension. A building could [b] Interview with Gernot Minke, Wangelin Germany, 2011.09.01 and narrative sense – our be designed or presented relationship to the ‘commons’: theoretically as sustainable, [c] Interview with Jakub Wihan. Bridport, UK. 2012.06.20, the benefits of social but all of this would be in vain collaboration, lack of resources, if the process is not supported [d] Interview with Paulina potential for reducing the use by and harmonised with culture Wojciechowska, Przełomka, Poland 2007. 08.17. of energy, but most of all – the and psychological attitudes of role of technology in personal designers, builders and users. [e] Telephone Interview with Sarah and social development. Wigglesworth 2008.02.20 This problem is identified, [f] Interview with Peter Rollings. Literature on low-tech for example, by research on Lincoln 2014.05.14 has so far not managed the well-known problem of [g] Interview with John Smyth (one to develop a satisfying ‘performance gap’ – where of the builders of Universal Hall in definition encapsulating a disparity is found between Findhorn), Findhorn Foundation the characteristics of the the sustainability predicted at 06.06.2002 movement. Low-tech cannot be the design stage and that in [h] Interview with Henning Schmitt described merely by analysing operation. Berlin, Conference Lehm 17.11.2000 technical aspects of this [i] Interview with Catarina Pinto movement. The ‘translation’ The key to sustainability which Wangelin, 30 08 2014 would truly respect ‘common’ of Fromm’s theory into [j] Interview with Simon Velez, 21 architecture proposed in this resources, spaces and values July 2000. Boisbuchet, France lies in the psychological paper offers a narrative and a [k] Series of 20 interviews. research platform which relates attitudes and aspirations of European Straw bale Gathering to the attitudes of creators and designers, builders, promoters 2013.09, Łódź, Poland links it with the socio-economic and users. This is why the [l] Interview with Gernot Minke, culture. This perspective makes humanistic perspective and Wangelin, Germany, 28 Aug 2011 it possible to redefine ‘low- narrative of technology is tech’ as a movement which so important. Translations #01 COMMONS UOU scientific journal 131
BIBLIOGRAPHY Gibson W., 1981. Johnny NAESS Arne. Spinoza and the deep Mnemonic. Omni Magazine, May, ecology movement. Delft: Eburon, BALL, Rick, COX Paul, Low-Tech. 44-55. 1993. Fast Furniture for next to Nothing. HUNDERTWASSER Friedensreich., PAPANEK, Victor, Design for the London: Century Publishing,. 1982. Humaniesierung der städtishen real World, Human Ecology and BENSON Rhen. Technology Umwelt –Kehrtwertung. In: KENNEDY Social Change. London: Thames and manifesto. [viewed date: 2021.04.29]. Margritt (ed.) Öko –Stadt. Band 2. Hudson, 1985.