Low-Tech – Freedom, Creativity & Love
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.