Education
Based on Ekistic Theory and Practice to
Enable
Action for Sustainable Humane Habitats[1]
T.W. Fookes
Ekistic Research
Unit-Auckland
Introduction
Purpose and Terminology
The purpose of this paper is
to examine Ekistic theory and practice as presented by C.A. Doxiadis to
see how it can inform educational programmes on Sustainable Humane
Habitat. This is a companion paper to
the one being presented by Sharmila Jagadisan (Chennai, Tamil Nadu).[3]
C.A. Doxiadis founded Ekistics
as a science of human settlements, with a book on the subject published in 1968
(Doxiadis 1968). It has become
recognized as trans-disciplinary because, with its development of overarching
concepts like Ecumenopolis and Human Community, it goes beyond
the idea of inter-disciplinarity. Today we are familiar with another
trans-disciplinary term to which many disciplines relate, namely Sustainability.
In connecting Ekistics
with the concept of Humane Habitats reference is being made to the
definition in the Asia Link Programme (funded by the European Community) where Sustainable
Humane Habitats “evokes long term economic and
material choices in designing and planning intervention on housing for the poor
and marginalized human settlements”
(Asia-link Factsheet in003).
Research Question
The question addressed in
this paper draws on the Asia-link project description above: “How can an education programme based on Ekistic
theory and practice help those who decide, build and live in housing for
the poor and marginalized human settlements, and need to develop participatory
methods, in-depth understanding of socio-economic conditions allowing them to
choose and monitor sustainable construction service and planning tools.”
Two additional consequences of this paper are:
(a)
the articulation of criteria for humane habitats based on the factors of Desirability and Feasibility; and
(b)
a tentative set of desirability outcomes.
These have been identified within the Ekistic Model of
Satisfaction.
Selected Parts of Ekistic Theory and Practice
Ekistic Elements
The body of knowledge which
makes up Ekistic theory and practice is voluminous, as one would expect for a
trans-disciplinary field of study covering human settlements. It has been necessary to narrow down the body
of theory and practice to fit this paper.
The first important part is Doxiadis’ development of five Ekistic
Elements (Fig. 1). These elements
represent by the use of keywords the contributing components of human
settlements; that is, NATURE, ANTHROPOS (Individual Person), SOCIETY, SHELLS,
NETWORKS. They cover the natural and
built environments and the society which inhabits them, each one influencing
the other.
Fig. 1: Inter-relationships between the Ekistic
elements achieves balance
Criterion for Selection
For this paper the criterion
for selection from Ekistics is broadly expressed as “Ekistic theory and practice that relates specifically to Sustainable
Humane Habitats.” The method of selection has been to use
Doxiadis’ Model of Satisfaction (Fig. 2). This builds on the
Ekistic elements (Fig. 1), as well as other parts of Doxiadis’ theories. This includes five Ekistic Principles and the
assessment criteria of Desirability and Feasibility.
The point of reference for
these Ekistic Principles is Anthropos,
defined as the individual person living in a society. The five principles are:
·
Maximisation of potential contacts
·
Minimisation of effort in terms of energy, time and cost
·
Optimisation of Anthrops’s protective space when alone
·
Optimisation of the quality of Anthropos’s relationship with the system
of life
·
Optimisation in the synthesis of all principles
(Source: C.A. Doxiadis (1975))
2
The first two of these Doxiadis groups as Principles of Dimensions. The other three are Principles of
Quality. All of these principles are
relevant to the subject “Humane Habitats” because they summarise the factors
which contribute in the most basic of ways to the establishment of human
settlements. The approach we should
bring to these is also captured by the terms “maximisation”, “minimisation”,
and “optimisation”.
Relevance to Humane Habitats
The relevance of these principles to humane habitats can be explained as
follows:
Principles of Dimensions
Doxiadis discussed potential contacts by
reference to accessibility to basic needs like water, fuel, and food sources,
as well as people who contribute to our social and economic needs.
Energy and effort were placed in the context of what people need for a settlement to
function. For example, the size of a
neighbourhood (population and area) determines the size of the area necessary
to provide the basic resources for its inhabitants, which in itself is affected
by the mode of transport available to those people. People who are dependent on walking or
bicycles and public transport need to consider the energy and effort required
to access supplies and bring them back home.
Access to a private car changes the energy and effort assessment,
resulting in a larger ‘footprint’ for those people.
Principles of Quality
By protective space Doxiadis reminds us
of the basic need for safety and security; a need that affects us in various
ways. For example, the distance we place
between us and others is both a function of our familiarity as well as a cultural
aspect. The former mediates our
perception of how safe approaching a person may be. Edward Hall’s theory of Proxemics (1959;
1966) explains our spatial relationships in these terms, and how they result in
the concept of the “human bubble”, and the implications for the design of our
neighbourhoods.
The idea of a
relationship between Anthropos and a system of life results from understanding
that the first three principles are not enough for a humane habitat. As Doxiadis explains, “Coming together is not
enough for happiness and safety”; what is required is “to bring a balance
between the elements of… settlements” (Doxiadis, 1975, p. 24). These elements are captured by the keywords
Nature, Anthropos, Society, Shells and Networks. The fourth principle, the notion of a balance,
can be expressed diagrammatically (as in Fig. 1). This principle holds Anthropos as the
reference point for the balance between these elements and the others. It is anthropocentric and very relevant to
the notion of humane habitats.
Finally, the fifth principle introduces the notion of synthesis,
applied in this context as what
3
occurs when all the four previous principles are
brought together. It is this synthesis
which results in a humane habitat if it is done in an effective and creative
way. This “doing” is achieved in
conjunction with systems thinking.
Doxiadis sums these principles up in a way that is
especially pertinent for us thinking about humane habitats, introducing
the issue of difference:
If there is any doubt as to the possibility of a
balance being developed between four principles which present differences and
even conflicts, such as between minimization of energy (second principle) and
protective space (third principle), the answer has been given by Heraclitus:
“the fairest harmony springs from difference” [quoting Aristotle] and by the
examples of so many successful villages of the past which we admire (ibid,
p.26).
In other words, across the
world and cultures the variables that are drawn into achieving the five
principles result in a variety of settlement solutions which may have the
potential to be described as “humane habitats”.
Consequently we should not be searching for a single answer in our quest
for a sustainable humane habitat.
Desirability/Feasibility and the Model of Satisfaction
Turning to the notions of
Desirability and Feasibility and their use in the Model of Satisfaction,
Doxiadis writes:
The definition of
satisfaction must have many aspects. We
must discover to what degree the existing part of the settlement satisfies the
daily human needs for which it has been built.
This should be estimated under all conditions if we are to understand
how this settlement satisfies our present needs and how well it can satisfy
them in the future – under normal and exceptional conditions of evolution, in
emergencies, in peace and in war (Doxiadis 1968, p. 489).
Desirability and
feasibility can be defined in the context above where Doxiadis states the need
for us “to understand how this settlement satisfies our present needs and how
well it can satisfy them in the future…”.
In other words, we can come to this understanding by first asking, “What
is desirable?” or, if we have some ideas we wish to promote, “Are these ideas
desirable?” Because something that is
desirable may not be feasible (i.e. practicable)[4],
it needs to be subjected to a similar line of enquiry. It stands to reason, if we carry out such a
line of enquiry, then our conclusions should be contestable by others. It is also important to ensure that the
enquiry proceeds taking into account the full scope of the situation. For Doxiadis this scope could be captured by
five Aspects: social, economic, political/administrative, technological and
cultural. Something may be desirable in
terms of one of these but not necessarily all; the same can be said for the
feasibility test.
This approach
enables us to create a simple matrix for us to work systematically across all
cells where each row covers each idea or principle (Fig. 2). The two shades represent the Principles of
Dimensions and the Principles of Quality.
|
|
DESIRABILITY/FEASIBILITY
CRITERIA |
|
||||||||||
|
Principles |
Desirability |
Feasibilty |
|
|||||||||
|
|
Economic |
Social |
Political & Administrative |
Technological |
Cultural |
Economic |
Social |
Political & Administrative |
Technological |
Cultural |
|
|
|
Maximisation of Potential contacts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimisation of effort |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optimisation of protective space |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optimisation
of quality of Anthopos’ relationship with the system of life |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Optimisation
of the synthesis of all principles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principles of
Dimensions |
|
|
Principles of
Quality |
Fig.
2: Model of Satisfaction (
The next step is
to apply the Model to Humane Habitat (Fig. 3).
This has been done by working with Desirability and Feasibility,
expressing these two notions as criteria divided according to the
five Aspects: Economic, Social, Political and Administrative, Technological,
and Cultural. This was the way Doxiadis
designed the Model of Satisfaction.
To shape the
model for an Humane Habitat assessment each Ekistic Principle (e.g.
Maximisation of potential contacts) is selected. Then for each Aspect (e.g. Economic) a
relevant Humane Habitat criterion for both maximization of potential
contacts and Economic desirability is developed. In Fig. 3 this is “Accessibility to local
markets and jobs”. This approach is then
applied to insert a criterion in each of the cells in the model, covering both
Desirability and Feasibility. Before
moving on to the next Principle it is important to check the criteria in each
row for consistency. There should be
connections evident between the content of cells. For example in Fig. 3 the first two cells for
potential contacts identify both accessibility
and proximity.
5
Application of the Model of Satisfaction to Humane Habitats
The purpose of
this part of the paper is to demonstrate how the Model of Satisfaction can be
applied to the subject Humane Habitats.
Establish Criteria
The first step
has been to use the model to interrogate the question “What are the criteria for
Desirability and Feasibility which can then be used to design, build and
administer a humane habitat?”
By taking each
Ekistic Principle in turn the criteria for that question are built up by using
each of the Aspects (Social, Economic, Political and Administrative,
Technological, and Cultural) in turn.
Each of the cells in the model contain a criterion but the notion of integration that applies within Ekistics
means we can expect the criterion in one cell to have a relationship with other
cells. In addition, for this paper the
criteria for Feasibility refer to the matching criterion for Desirability
rather than stating a separate criterion.
For example, the first principle (Maximisation of potential contacts) and
its Economic cell states “Accessibility to
local markets and jobs” as a Desirability criterion. This is matched in the equivalent Feasibility
cell with “Yes, but limited range of
goods, services and jobs”. By
approaching the assessment this way it avoids repetition of criteria and takes
the analysis one step further since it is indicating what the outcome may be.
By moving the
discussion from separate criteria - which can be used to assess whether a
project satisfies definitions of humane habitats (e.g. as from Asia-link,
above) - to a consideration of outcomes, enables us to get more value from the
matrix (Fig. 3). For example, if we take
the Desirability criteria we can generate outcomes through the process of
synthesis. First, each Principle can be
synthesised across the five Aspects. Second, a grand synthesis results from drawing
each of the Principles into one overall outcome. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.
While it is a
fair criticism of Fig. 4 that desirable outcomes could be stated without the
intermediate step of the full matrix (Fig. 3) by careful consideration of each
Ekistic Principle, it is also fair to acknowledge the transparent form of the
approach adopted. By working with Figs.
3 and 4 it is possible to see quite clearly how the desirable outcomes have
been devised – and to improve on them.
Similarly, the criteria in Fig. 3 are also set out and can be improved
upon or tailored for another application, if appropriate.
6