How I understand the concept of
Spatial Affordances
The concept of affordances was first introduced
by Gibson (1979) referring to a quality inherent to the particular makeup of a
material object. Affordances are usually regarded as action possibilities, making them actor dependent for their utilization. A common example is when becomes a staircase a a set of walls on a gradient? Because a staircase for an adult may as well represent a wall for a toddler, however the quality wall or staircase is only dependent on the user.
The concept of affordances has since been extended by other writers as well, most notably by Norman (1988) extending it into design and technology. Fridlund (2012) further extends the concept to include socio-technical affordances. He includes different social ideologies, practices, conventions (etc.) and technological advances which all culminate into creating a complex web of interaction that offers new affordances. Foucault (1975: 162-163) describes a transformation of warfare due to the invention of the rifle. This act transformed armies from being two advancing lines into single groups operating individually. He attributes this change to the greater accuracy of the rifle compared to the musket, this subsequently increased the value of each solider; however it also increased the vulnerability. Fridlund would describe this as socio-technical affordances.
However the concept of affordances has also been criticized, notably by Collins (2010). He claims that it is a somewhat simplification of the actual process, by providing an intellectual Band-Aid (Collins 2010: 51-52). Nevertheless he acknowledges the usefulness of the concept and succeeds to apply it avidly throughout his description of tacit knowledge. Collins is quite right in pointing out that affordances do not represent a classical rigid concept that is able to identify important factors a priori. However it is precisely this quality that makes it suitable to describe spatial issues, since space is the columniation of everything included within it (Hägerstrand 2009), consisting of a myriad of different aspects were space represents the loci where all these come to gather and materialize. Therefore spatial affordances have to be viewed as a combination of all the aforementioned concepts of affordances coming together in combination with their spatial relations to one another. Knowles and Healey (2006) describe the Iron Industry of 19th century Eastern United States in these terms (not explicitly in the language of spatial affordances). They claim that the technological superiority of mineral coal based furnaces over charcoal was not a simple product of one technologies superiority over another. But rather it represented a combination of factors like; location, availability, transports cost, iron quality, quality of the measuring equipment, social economic stability etc. all combining in eventually creating a superior technology of mineral coal based furnaces. These combination however where non-trivial and not predetermined to the people of that age, this made the choice to prefer one technology over another not an easy decision.
So spatial affordances are the product of different social processes, technological aspects, material affordances and their subsequent distribution in space all coming together in one location. This treatment of space is very similar to the treatment of space in ANT (Law 2002), were space depends on the object and action in question. Because space (and also time) are no abstractly removed social categories, they are composites of that what we understand as social. Without their ever-present influences social, technical or material constructs would not be able to exist. Building a house presupposes are certain temporal structuring of the work, of materials, this in turn gives rise to certain social phenomena that there are specialist in building the foundation, woodwork etc. representing a feedback loop were everything is dependent on each other. Famously space has been described by Hägerstrabnd of having a double nature “in terms […] of graveyard and cradle of [all] creation” (Hägerstrand 1983: 239).
The concept of affordances has since been extended by other writers as well, most notably by Norman (1988) extending it into design and technology. Fridlund (2012) further extends the concept to include socio-technical affordances. He includes different social ideologies, practices, conventions (etc.) and technological advances which all culminate into creating a complex web of interaction that offers new affordances. Foucault (1975: 162-163) describes a transformation of warfare due to the invention of the rifle. This act transformed armies from being two advancing lines into single groups operating individually. He attributes this change to the greater accuracy of the rifle compared to the musket, this subsequently increased the value of each solider; however it also increased the vulnerability. Fridlund would describe this as socio-technical affordances.
However the concept of affordances has also been criticized, notably by Collins (2010). He claims that it is a somewhat simplification of the actual process, by providing an intellectual Band-Aid (Collins 2010: 51-52). Nevertheless he acknowledges the usefulness of the concept and succeeds to apply it avidly throughout his description of tacit knowledge. Collins is quite right in pointing out that affordances do not represent a classical rigid concept that is able to identify important factors a priori. However it is precisely this quality that makes it suitable to describe spatial issues, since space is the columniation of everything included within it (Hägerstrand 2009), consisting of a myriad of different aspects were space represents the loci where all these come to gather and materialize. Therefore spatial affordances have to be viewed as a combination of all the aforementioned concepts of affordances coming together in combination with their spatial relations to one another. Knowles and Healey (2006) describe the Iron Industry of 19th century Eastern United States in these terms (not explicitly in the language of spatial affordances). They claim that the technological superiority of mineral coal based furnaces over charcoal was not a simple product of one technologies superiority over another. But rather it represented a combination of factors like; location, availability, transports cost, iron quality, quality of the measuring equipment, social economic stability etc. all combining in eventually creating a superior technology of mineral coal based furnaces. These combination however where non-trivial and not predetermined to the people of that age, this made the choice to prefer one technology over another not an easy decision.
So spatial affordances are the product of different social processes, technological aspects, material affordances and their subsequent distribution in space all coming together in one location. This treatment of space is very similar to the treatment of space in ANT (Law 2002), were space depends on the object and action in question. Because space (and also time) are no abstractly removed social categories, they are composites of that what we understand as social. Without their ever-present influences social, technical or material constructs would not be able to exist. Building a house presupposes are certain temporal structuring of the work, of materials, this in turn gives rise to certain social phenomena that there are specialist in building the foundation, woodwork etc. representing a feedback loop were everything is dependent on each other. Famously space has been described by Hägerstrabnd of having a double nature “in terms […] of graveyard and cradle of [all] creation” (Hägerstrand 1983: 239).
Other papers on spatial affordances:
Wineman, Jean
D. (2009) Constructing Spatial Meaning Spatial Affordances in Museum Design, Environment and Behavior Volume 42
Number 1
References used in the description
Collins, Harry (2010) Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
Foucault, Michel (1975) Discipline and Punish
Fridlund, Mats (2012) Affording terrorism: Idealists and
materialities in the emergence of modern terrorism, in Taylor & Currie, (ed.)
Terrorism and Affordance
Gibson, James J. (1979) The
Ecological Approach to Visual Perception
Hägerstrand, Torsten (1983) In serach for the sources of
concepts, in A. Buttimer (ed.) The
Practice of Geography
Hägerstrand, Torsten (2009) Tillvaroväven
Knowles, Anne Kelly and Richard G. Healey (2006) Geography, Timing, and
Technology: A GIS-Based Analysis of Pennsylvania's Iron Industry, 1825-1875.
Journal of Economic History 66 (3): 608-34.
Law, John (2002). Objects and Spaces. Theory, Culture
& Society. Vol. 19 Is. 5/6 pp. 91–105
Norman, Donald (1988) The Design of Everyday Things
No comments:
Post a Comment