Miscellaneous


The wind is still on top of Machu Picchu today. I look down at this strange mix of wonders of both men and god(s), where stones are set upon rocks which build up to homes, together making a place for the movements of men, women and children now long gone

I walk from terrace to temple to terrace as guides rattle on like broken records about major battles and archeological discoveries– the capital H History lying within the ruins in the sky.

But I feel that the stories which truly give this place depth are left untold, palpable but hidden. These are the tales of men and women falling in love, of jealousy between friends, of families formed, flourishing and dissolved. If you listen closely enough, you can hear the true heartbeat of Machu Picchu.

*          *          *

Fall back to the summer of 1943 to hear the words of the poet Pablo Neruda anew, penned from this same mountaintop. Listen to his moment of transformation in “La Altura de Machu Picchu” (XII):

Look at me from the depths of the earth,
tiller of fields, weaver, reticent shepherd,
groom of totemic guanacos,
mason high on your treacherous scaffolding,
iceman of Andean tears,
jeweler with crushed fingers,
farmer anxious among his seedlings,
potter wasted among his clays–
bring to the cup of this new life
your ancient buried sorrows.
Show me your blood and your furrow;

Is it not the echoes of everyday from these men and everyday that frame our own stories—be they of love, ambition, hopes, and fears– into some larger (insignificant?) context?

*          *          *

My friend Max and I shelve ourselves onto an agricultural terrace overlooking the ruins with some bread and water, and I pull out Annie Dillard’s book “For the time being.” Dillard’s writing contains power in the way it holds in tension the seeming insignificance and prominence of the experience of being human. She notes the irony in which lives can be abstracted into statistics (230,000 dead in a Haitian earthquake) while still holding such singular importance to our experience (like the love-stricken Romeo and his inability to see life beyond Juliet). So which is it? Is Juliet one, or is she one of two-hundred thirty thousand?

Dillard writes:

Are we ready to think of all humanity as a living tree, carrying on splendidly without us? We easily regard a beehive or an ant colony as a single organism, and even a school of fish, a flock of dunlin, a herd of elk. And we easily and correctly regard an aggregate of individuals, a sponge or coral or lichen or slime mold, as one creature– but us? When we people differ, and know our consciousness, and love? Even lovers, even twins, are strangers who will love and die alone. And we like it this way, at least in the West; we prefer to endure any agony of isolation rather than to merge and extinguish our selves in an abstract ‘humanity’ whose fate we should hold dearer than our own. Who could say, I’m in agony because my child died, but that’s all right: Mankind as a whole has abundant children?

The words ring poignant on this mountain. The similarity of my stories with those long gone make me wonder whether this resonance makes my world important or insignificant. I see the stories of men long-gone stand together with those of my present—my own feelings of love tenuously held and lost, of evolving hopes and fears, of the ambiguity of my story mid-writing. Similarly, I sense the resonance of my present with those lives of future others who will till the land on this side of Eden. I strain to hear their wisdom, cringe to hear their critique.

How terrifying, this similarity, as though we are but a pixel on a painting, a spec of sand in a desert! “What meaning does anything have” we protest in the trek towards nihilism, “if my (love/life/journey) is not in some fashion different, if I am not in some fashion different?”

Or is it perhaps freeing, this notion of you and me as a hive of bees? For can I really handle the pressure that comes with an over-prominent story? Poet and essayist Christian Wiman recently writes, “Anxiety comes from the self as ultimate concern, from the fact that the self cannot bear this ultimate concern: it buckles and wavers under the strain, and eventually, inevitably, it breaks.”

Time is strangely held together in these moments, on these mountains. It is as if the past, present and future cannot be authentically separated. It is almost as if they move together by way of dance in the air– memory’s melody allowing the past to inform the present, the harmony of dreaming as the sound of the future calling the present into action.

*          *          *

I hear the echoes of Machu Picchu, for to be conscious of these stories is to see my own stories, in both triviality and beauty, in a different light. Maybe to feel my own anxieties in context is to know, but for a moment, the way we are all a part of this harmonious time. It is to know that we are bit players nestled among larger stories, which will be told again and again, around fires, and in novels and on stages. Perhaps this is what it is to feel as a flock of humanity.

In writing on our modern state of anxiety, Wiman points to James Joyce’s “Ulysses,” suggesting its greatness, “is partly in the way it reveals the interior chaos of a single mind during a single day, and partly in the way it makes that idiosyncratic clamor universal. However different the textures of our own lives may be, Bloom’s mind is our mind; the welter of impressions he suffers and savors is a storm we all know.”

Likewise, on this particular day, in this particular moment, the whisper of Machu Picchu is that while we are all containers of the same stories, they are still worth telling, that they are all worth living. Perhaps our moments are meaningful, despite their triviality, in that we are all children of god. Or, if you must, consider this same sentiment with less conventionally religious language… a necessity if our language must sometimes be, “stripped of (its) religious meaning… (in the same way that) faith itself sometimes needs to be stripped of its social and historical incrustations and returned to its first, churchless incarnation in the human heart” (Wiman).

The wind is still today on Machu Pichhu. It is as though the trees were asked to remain motionless while they receive a painting from the rising sun. We should be grateful for this silence. For it is in here, among these ‘ancient buried sorrows,’ and amidst the tales of “blood and… furrow,” that Machu Picchu truly begins to speak in its pregnant silence.

image from http://farm1.static.flickr.com/58/220279254_17c20cbec5.jpg

Consider the contrast of the following two quotes:

“We do not believe in ourselves until someone reveals that deep inside us something is valuable, worth listening to, worthy of our trust, sacred to our touch. Once we believe in ourselves we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight or any experience that reveals the human spirit.” – e.e. cummings

* * *

“Call it what you will, incentives are what get people to work harder.” – nikita khrushchev

Two quotes, and two very different view on the role of incentives (rewards as conditional on who we are) and unfaltering support (rewards as unconditional on who we are or what we do) in shaping behavior. Let’s consider the difference with regards to one common and important human emotion and behavior… love.

The Khrushchev quote is what underlies much of our market economic system (pay for performance, etc), and also often underlies much of the way we interact with others. Speak all we want about the joy of unconditional love, we are highly conditional with how we interact with each other. We love our spouse… if they take out the trash. We trust our friends… to the extent that they prove trust worthy. We seek out the companionship… of those who seem interesting. We seek people conditionally. We stay with people conditionally.

E.E. Cumming’s quote displays a different logic. We cannot fully be ourselves until we feel something unconditional. Until we feel full support, the logic goes, we can never be true friends, real lovers, great parents. In this way, our behavior is not fundamentally moved by constraint (you do this because you fear what happens if you do not), rather it is enabled by the fact that we feel unconstrained, and more free to be ourselves. In other words, two lovers approach “curiosity, wonder, spontaneously delight, or any other experience which reveals the human spirit” not because they are afraid failing doing so will result in punishment, but rather because something relationally allows them to pursue the behavior. This is not to say that relationships don’t have incentives and punishment, but that there is also something deeper at work in such situations.

* * *

But how does this develop? Take a relationship. Two people go on a first date. They posture, they pose, they wear their best clothes. The other person likes them, in part, because of such moves. Charmers are more likely to get second dates, as well as those who are physically beautiful. In this way, liking and eventually loving grow out of a structure of conditionality. The relationship grows in trust as each person proves trustable. Love emerges in some pattern of exchange.

But life changes, doesn’t it? Fast forward 30 years and you now have two individuals, not 21 and fluttery with feeling, but 50+ with many things changed through the years. What sustains them now? There love is still in some way conditional (if you cheat on me, I will leave), but in other ways, it extends beyond conditionality. Consider North Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson and his decision to forgive and stay with his wife after her public extramarital affair.  His speech, viewable here, is not one of his love being a result of her good behavior (it obviously was not), but something at least approaching unconditional love (i love you because i love you, because you are worth loving despite your mistake). Or what about an even more common example– the fact that as everyone ages, they look different, and often less “attractive” by normal standards of youth-centric beauty. While some couples obviously split for this reason, many couples obviously stay together. Yet, had they met looking their worst, its very likely the relationship wouldn’t have developed.

Two questions:

  1. What is the process by which conditional liking changes to (more) unconditional love? Is there a clear tipping point? When does it tip back and why?
  2. In a relationship, what are the ways in which conditional liking (incentives) and unconditional love enable or constrain behavior, respectively? In other words, why is cummings right, and in what ways is khrushchev on the ball?
Tag

You're it!

Volkswagen has a great experimental project called the fun theory. The idea behind the endeavor is that “something as simple as fun is the easiest way to change people’s behaviour for the better.” They encourage visitors to the site to “be it for yourself, for the environment, or for something entirely different, the only thing that matters is that it’s change for the better.”

One of the examples I like the most is making stairs into a piano keyboard to make people take the stairs over taking the escalator.  Check out the video below… I think its ingenious.

And yet, while I love the idea, here is the problem… I already take the stairs. In fact, I usually work out, I generally eat pretty healthy, and shower with a good deal of regularity. I even recycle moderately frequently, and brush twice aday. Heck, I keep floss in my shower so I remember to do that with increasing regularity.

The things I struggle with are more interpersonal. Telling people that I care about them. Getting bogged down by the day to day and failing to see those moments of transcendent in the everyday. Moving day to day, and then realizing that time has too quickly slipped by without having pursued things that really matter. Or maybe not thinking about what matters to us enough. How do we pursue those things with ‘fun’?

In line with VW, I think we should all go out and play ‘tag’ with someone today. You know… tag, the things that kids play. Go, find someone you care about and leave them a note. Tag them. And make sure they know the game doesn’t end there. Maybe they have to get you back, maybe someone else. Regardless, maybe living like a kid for a bit allows us to recaptured that “period of human life intermediate between the idiocy of infancy and the folly of youth — two removes from the sin of manhood and three from the remorse of age” (Ambrose Bierce). Maybe there is something to that.

I humbly request that you sing the following entry to a bright and bubbly tune.  This long overdue submission is another glimpse into a topic that I’ve been thinking about for a good fortnight or four.  Like it or not, it has the potential of sounding downright pessimistic.  Without further ado; please, sing away:

What is a guy supposed to do when he wants to explore the world, pick up and go, leave nothing behind, no strings attached, but at the same time, is afraid to leave his friends?

2gether clearly stated: “the hardest part of breaking up is getting back your stuff”.

My stuff is all emotional baggage.  I’m not upset about leaving my family.  As harsh as that sounds, I have an unwavering faith that they will occupy an active roll in my life.  But my homeboy friends are going to change; I’m certain of it.  Pessimistically, I can already imagine how we are going to grow apart.  The subject I want to address in this post is how much effort we choose to invest in our friends and acquaintances.

My sister brought this up to me months ago.  She lives in a large metropolitan city an, has a business job, and comes into contact with a heck of a lot of people everyday.  Since she graduated from college, she explains that it is just impossible to keep in close personal touch with all of her old friends.  Eventually, you have to evaluate the people that you still hold dear, think about what they bring to your table of friendship, so to speak, and then choose to invest a proportional amount of your time and energy.  This does not mean that you close the door on all of those people that you just don’t get the chance to see as often as you might like; it just seems that, at some point, you can’t be everyone’s best friend.

Man, that sounds bad.  She would never relate “proportional “time and energy” to her “table of friendship”.  I suppose I am harshly paraphrasing.  I’m hoping, though, that you can, at least, somewhat relate to what I am saying here.

What you think?  Many semi-close friends, or a few really close ones?  Or maybe a third really cool option that I don’t even know about?

I hope this didn’t come across too insanely nutso.  I’m not angry at anyone.  I don’t view my friendships as investments that I evaluate quarterly.  I don’t have a mathematical formula that I keep in my head to remind me every Thursday evening to reevaluate my current relationships.  I do, however, like to let my friends know that I care for them.  And I am beginning to find myself in situations where it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep in touch with everyone I hold dear.

In case you were wondering, when “caring”, poking someone on Facebook doesn’t count.  I mean, seriously, I’ve reached a point that I’m sure other people have: feeling lucky and warm inside when I get a personalized email from a friend that wasn’t generated through a third party website.  No kidding!  I almost wish it was the winter holiday so I had an excuse to send out paper cards to everyone…like, OMG, maybe even with some handwriting in them or something!

Ugh.  Maybe I’ll do that later.  At the moment, the dog is wining because she is about to poop her pants, I have some emails to read, wash to do, shirts to iron, and some pokes to hide.

Please advise.

Your friend and, now, more frequent contributor,

~ Andrew

EDITORS NOTE: A special welcome to our newest blogger, Caroline Allen!

In a thought-provoking new book called, “My Stroke of Insight”, the Harvard-trained brain scientist, Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, describes the life-threatening stroke she had at age 37. Hers was an arteriovenous malformation, or AVM, stroke caused by a congenital disorder which occurs when a person lacks a capillary between her artery and vein connections. Eventually, the over-worked veins burst from the constant, high blood pressure in the arteries, causing a massive hemorrhage in the brain.

Dr. Taylor was fully conscious over the four hour period that the massive hemorrhage took place in her left hemisphere. With her logical, sequentially thinking hemisphere disabled, she was unable to walk, talk, read, write, or access most of her tacit knowledge and memories. Interestingly though, she found this new right hemispheric existence to be euphoric and peaceful. Without her left brain to tell her where the boundaries of her body were, she felt an incredible oneness with the world and the people around her. She was fully present in every moment and acutely felt the joy of just being as described in this excerpt:

The essence of your energy expands as it blends with the energy around you, and you sense that you are as big as the universe. Those little voices in your head, reminding you of who you are and where you live, become silent. You lose memory connection to your old emotional self and the richness of this moment, right here, right now, captivates your perception. Everything, including the life force you are, radiates pure energy. With child like curiosity, your heart soars in peace and your mind explores new ways of swimming in a sea of euphoria. Then ask yourself, how motivated would you be to come back to a highly structured routine?

The key takeaway of her book is that we should all be tapping into this euphoric state within us or, as a phrase on the back of the paperback purports, “peace is just a thought away”. While I am fully on board with the importance of living in the present and not being caught up in the past or worrying excessively about the future (the idea is Biblical after all, Matthew 6:27), the message that we should avoid the unpleasant things in life by escaping to the present is dangerous.

A red flag appears because the state described could easily be confused with a heroin experience. Both disassociate a person with her burdensome reason and judgment and enable her to experience a rich, dreamlike present… only without the high price tag or harmful physical side effects. But, in the example of drug use, is it really the price and bodily side effects that make habitual drug use devastating? Or is it actually one’s retreat from society and the shirking of one’s responsibilities to family, friends, and work that cause the real damage?

Just because we can potentially shut the world out and enjoy a present euphoria within our minds, ignoring who and what we are, should we? I think the circumstances in our lives, like how good an employee, brother/sister, husband/wife, father/mother, or friend we are, can bring equal or even greater levels of peace, joy, and fulfillment to us; but it takes time, effort, and there are no shortcuts. It’s not that being more present is wrong, only that ignoring the greater context of our lives, as monitored and communicated by our diligent and sometimes overbearing left hemispheres, should make any resulting joy comparatively pale and incomplete.

Whether we like it or not, Google has significant control over the way we live in a virtual world. Their programs have changed the way we communicate (gmail), search for information (google.com), get directions (maps.google.com), and collaborate with others (docs.google.com), among other things. Their forthcoming project Wave is Google’s new attempt to influence communication over and above g-chat and gmail, as demonstrated in the video above.

Tim O’Reilly summarizes the new program as ” re-imagined email and instant-messaging in a connected world, a world in which messages no longer need to be sent from one place to another, but could become a conversation in the cloud. Effectively, a message (a wave) is a shared communications space with elements drawn from email, instant messaging, social networking, and even wikis.” I agree with O’Reilly’s assessment that Wave includes some really interesting features, many of which I am very excited about as a consumer.

In an alternative vein, Alan Jacobs raises some intriguing critiques of the philosophical approach to communication with Wave– that of a strong emphasis the benefits of developing more and more nodes of communication, coupled with greater cross-integration. He writes:

I tend to think that among email, IM, Facebook, Twitter, FriendFeed, shared bookmarks on Delicious, shared RSS feeds on Google Reader, and [insert your favorite social technology here] we already have enough nodes. We already have enough shared information. Instead of asking how our existing information technologies can do more and more of what they already do well, why don’t we ask what they’re not doing well — or at all?

For me, the larger question is what our Internet tools simulate, and what ideal world they are striving towards. Do these tools mirror the ways we already approach communication, or do they offer radical departure from what we already know. If so, what are they departing from?

Take for example the way Wave approaches email and instant messaging, addressed at minute 10:30. Lars explains, “we transmit live almost character by character what I am typing. (In contrast, with) today’s instant messaging tools, you spend almost half of your time looking at it saying “stephanie is typing, she’s typing, she’s typing, she’s typing” before you can look at what she says.” In WAVE, he promises, this horrible (??) wait is eradicated with a product that offers pure unfiltered transmittal of communication– fingers to keys, mind to mind.

But again, what communication model do the designers of Wave attempt to simulate. Often creativity comes from importing something from a different approach, and applying it is a new way.  If that is the case, what is this model? In removing the social space of editing (you don’t see what I say until I am sure I want to say it), Wave initiatives a radical departure from the editing posture inherent in the writing of letters and email. Almost ironically, it appears to be simulating the way we stutter through face-to-face conversations, often lacking a filter. It is a move toward a communication model that suspends the pacing, dance, and editing of written communication.

I can’t help but wonder if people prefer communicating in this (unfiltered) way. Specifically, I wonder if people like their messages received without this editing space/ filter. Take for example the huge number of people that would prefer to write a paper over having to present the same content with public speaking. Or look at the way people do speak in public, and the form it takes. 90% of the best-man and maid of honor speeches I have seen involve a significant amount of reading word for word from a pre-written transcript.

This trepidation is understandable as unfiltered implies vulnerability. Take this example of an instant message sent to a friend.  In the normal g-chat model, the friend sees this.

(Peter is typing…)

Peter: I like you.

In the Google Wave model, the communication is qualitatively different when the internal dialogue becomes explicit.

Peter: I love you!! .. (edit back, remove exclamation points, retype)… I love you… (edit back, change wording)… I like you.

Oh how different the latter message is, as understood by the receiver! The observed process significantly changes the final product. While the final form of Google Wave will have ways to make this editing more private, as of now, the default seems to be the real time approach. While this might be less of a problem for people with a stronger internal filter (read here: NOT me), I have no doubt that this approach could at least subtlety  change the way all of us ‘speak’ and ‘listen’ in an Internet age.

Happiness

Happiness

This month’s Atlantic contains Joshua Wolf Shenk’s fascinating profile of Harvard’s “Grant Study” of human happiness. The project started in 1937 and followed the lives of 268 Harvard men in an attempt to tease out the primary factors underlying human happiness and success.  The researchers selected  these men to follow over their life based on high performers across a variety of metrics (health data, academic records, and recommendations from the Dean).  Moving between various financiers and directors over the next 72 years, the project now rests in the hands of George Vaillant, a psychologist trained at the intersection of Freudian psychoanalysis and empirical behaviorism.

So, what transpired over the past 72 years? For starters, what started out as a somewhat homogeneous group of well-adjusted young men frayed into a highly divergent group: some successes and some failures by modern standards, a mix of happy and depressed, containing both the typical and atypical. As David Brooks writes in a recent column:

The life stories are more vivid than any theory one could concoct to explain them. One man seemed particularly gifted. He grew up in a large brownstone, the son of a rich doctor and an artistic mother. “Perhaps more than any other boy who has been in the Grant Study,” a researcher wrote while he was in college, “the following participant exemplifies the qualities of a superior personality: stability, intelligence, good judgment, health, high purpose, and ideals.”

By 31, he had developed hostile feelings toward his parents and the world. By his mid-30s, he had dropped off the study’s radar. Interviews with his friends after his early death revealed a life spent wandering, dating a potentially psychotic girlfriend, smoking a lot of dope and telling hilarious stories.

Another man was the jester of the group, possessing in college a “bubbling, effervescent personality.” He got married, did odd jobs, then went into public relations and had three kids.

He got divorced, married again, ran off with a mistress who then left him. He drank more and more heavily. He grew depressed but then came out of the closet and became a major figure in the gay rights movement. He continued drinking, though, convinced he was squeezing the most out of life. He died at age 64 when he fell down the stairs in his apartment building while drunk.

One important (and interesting) question is how to  best make sense of these lives and the cause of their specific trajectories. The original study intent was to produce some helpful yes/ no’s in regards to what it takes to live a happy live. Don’t smoke, indulge desires. Go to church, abandon religion. Get married, Stay single.

And while this longitudinal study has produced some interesting correlations, the more interesting piece is the variance left unexplained– how the lives emerge uniquely over time, and what this says about how thought is both shaped by and shapes lived reality.

One approach which emerges throughout the article is the potential of the narrative framework to help understand these men– the importance of seeing lives as stories with their own inertia and the power to given the mundane meaning. In psychologist Jerome Bruner’s 1990 Jerusalem-Harvard Lecture entitled “Acts of Meaning,” he suggests of this approach that:

It was, we thought, an all-out effort to establish meaning as the central concept of psychology – not stimuli and responses, not overtly observable behavior, not biological drives and their transformation, but meaning. It was not a revolution against behaviorism with the aim of transforming behaviorism into a better way of pursuing psychology by adding a little mentalism to it.  (p.2)

In all these men we can see the role of meaning in shaping life interpretation and resulting behavior. For example, how do we understand the man identified by #218 whose disillusionment with his decision against pursuing medicine at a young age haunted him to his death bed. When asked about his overarching philosophy, he states: “I have an overriding sense (or philosophy) that it’s all a big nothing—or ‘chasing after wind’ as it says in Ecclesiastes & therefore, at least up to the present, nothing has caused me too much grief.” Was this his way to account for the earlier decision to pass up on medicine, and did it shape what he taught his children, or what he spent free time on as he aged? Can this stance be accounted for solely in his biology, education, or family social structure? While those surely matter, perhaps their effect is primarily in helping code that which gives him meaning– as pieces of the larger narrative structure.

Or, how do we understand #47, a man who married and divorced twice all the while deeply desiring to grow into a role as a famous writer. He eventually came out as a homosexual and emerged as a major figure in the gay rights movement.  In the study he tells Vallient, “It’s important to care and to try, even tho the effects of one’s caring and trying may be absurd, futile, or so woven into the future as to be indetectable.” How did this understanding factor into his decisions on what tasks to pursue, whether he ought to stay in his marriages, and how he approached his coming out and eventual involvement in the gay rights movement? Or what about the themes that emerge as stories even without one’s ability to clearly tell these as a narrative… the stories and assumptions that operate below one’s level of awareness.  Are these thoughts but causally meaningless ruminations as the body and mind churn away unaltered? The Grant Study, and other research that takes us outside the temporally flat world of the university laboratory setting begins to suggest otherwise.

St. Louis Shaw Neighborhood Home

St. Louis Shaw Neighborhood Home

In my first post in this series, I introduced the ten principles of New Urbanism and posed the following question: how can we best explain the rationale behind this intent to live in community with a diversity of individuals? In the following post, I offer a few tentative proposals for expanding the diversity of interactions in communities which, though already statistically diverse, lack much interaction across this diversity.

First off, what do I mean by diversity? Diversity signifies different things for different groups of people. For example, some people might consider a diverse community as a group of people that have varied background experiences living together. Another person might ignore the experiences component, and value a commitment to racially mixed neighborhoods. Taking this into account, I will structure the definition for this post after the New Urban principle (since the initial conversation started from an examination of New Urban principles): diversity of people – of ages, income levels, cultures, and races.

So what does diversity in the US look like along these dimensions?  The 2008 United States Census Bureau estimates racial division in this country as follows: non-Hispanic whites 68%, Hispanics 15%, African American’s 12%, and Asian Americans 5%. Given racial segmentation by community, few if any cities fall exactly into this pattern, as this percentage emerges only in the aggregate.

What about diversity of income and age? Though the US demonstrates significant income disparity, the amount of interaction across financial diversity is limited in so much as people are stratified across income levels. Wealthy families often isolate themselves in exclusive neighborhoods, and lower socioeconomic groups have to find neighborhoods affordable from an income perspective (hint: these two neighborhoods don’t overlap). Nursing homes, retirement communities and the small number of cross-generational households families in the US — as compared to hispanic cultures, for example– show similar clustering patterns across age groups.

There are, however, communities that exemplify the diversity principles of New Urbanism. For example, my current neighborhood in Saint Louis, Missouri, partially follows this model. The Shaw Neighborhood has slowly gentrified as a group of young non-Hispanic white families have moved into a neighborhood that was largely African American following the white flight of the 1960′s. Age diversity remains as these young families are juxtaposed to a relatively large contingent of older African American residents. Today, the racial composition of Shaw is 50% African American, 50% non-Hispanic white, and incomes range from those of the upper class to residents living in Section 8 subsidized housing. On paper, the Shaw Neighborhood has achieved something unique in the American landscape – a racially heterogeneous, multi-tiered income community.

However, in moving beyond the demographic statistics, my experience in Shaw has not felt that diverse. I have been disappointed by the lack of activities between neighbors and saddened by segregated streets, all leaving me somewhat confused as to how this experience matches up with the “stats” on paper. Though I live in a statistically diverse community, I rarely interact with my neighbors through any social or public forums, and I have not had experiences that have enriched my understanding of other cultures and races.

This experience leads me to two disparate conclusions about the ongoing debate for diverse communities. First, it is possible to structure and live in diverse communities as defined by the New Urban principles. These communities, whether organic like the gentrifying Shaw, or planned through zoning and regulation in New Urban communities, can physically be accomplished. Second, this planned and realized diversity does not necessarily lead to more diverse interactions at an individual level.

One way to create diverse interaction within diverse communities (somewhat which doesn’t flow as easily as I expected) is to structure in a commitment to the public institutions present in our everyday life– what Richard Beck calls informal third places in a recent blog post. Schools are one such institution.  Because the St. Louis Public Schools are significantly below public standards, families in the Shaw Neighborhood separate by those who can afford to send their children to the private Catholic schools and those who send their children to the local public schools– either as a result of financial or principled reasons, or because it serves as a natural default position.  Though the public school system have the potential to be a common social space that all families share, its performance problems have left it as another wedge expanding the gap between the financial “haves” and the “have nots”. Outside of improved schools, we need more large scale events available for residents regardless of income or age, such as farmers markets that cater to both affluent clients and those who need to use EBT food stamps. Finally, James Howard Kunstler’s critique of suburban sprawl at TED provides an interesting proposal of what social spaces must look like to create this type of diverse interaction– architectural techniques for creating ‘outdoor public rooms’ for interaction.

The previous points are but a few ways that an already ‘diverse’ community can come together in interaction, rather than remain a segregated across races, ages and incomes. Though diverse neighborhoods have the potential to enrich the social fabric of communities, it will take certain intentional practices at both the individual and policy level to reshape our everyday life experiences and facilitate such interaction.

Prezi in Action

Prezi in Action

PowerPoint has become the second language of business and academia, among other settings. If you don’t have bullet points and a click-as-you-go approach, you might as well go home now and avoid severe audience disillusionment.

But is powerpoint really that great of a way to present?  As Alan Jacobs recently twittered, “iTunes U has led me to believe that horrific PowerPoint shows are required of Stanford professors.” I too would have a hard time counting on the my two hands (and perhaps the hands of several other close friends) the number of times that I have seen a boring, disengaging, and uneventful presentation using the standard PPT methodology. Though I often blame the failure on the presenter, I cannot say that the tool is not merely guilty by association. It does take two to tango, after all.

The flip side of PowerPoint’s boring tendencies is that such presentations are often quite easy to follow given a shared set of expectations between presenter and presentee. As an audience member, you usually know what is coming next– even if that next slide is accompanied by tears of boredom.

This all leaves me wondering however whether there might be better ways to engage an audience in presentation.  And for this, enter PREZI (www.prezi.com)!  Take a look at soem of the examples on the site.  Prezi is a zooming editor where the essential approach is to create a visual collage of information, and then zoom in and rotate around to best tell the story in presentation.  It is visually stunning for the viewer, and relatively intuitive with regards to building a project. In short… I love it!

I would be lying however if I said I wasn’t left with some nagging fears.  Specifically, does the aesthetic appeal of Prezi come at the expense of communication efficiency given its deviation from the second language of PowerPoint?  Are audience expectations so strongly oriented towards PowerPoint that they end up having a harder time ‘getting’ the jist of a Prezi presentation? Are the differences between expectation and reality refreshing or distracting? Will the use of Prezi leave people more impressed with Prezi as a tool that the story you are telling?

No answers yet on my front, but based on first impressions, I think it would be more than possible to use Prezi effectively and overcome some of the potential problems of a linguistic curveball thrown at with the audience. Now it’s time to put those goals into action. Dissertation proposal Prezi style perhaps?

Serenbe homes

Serenbe, Georgia

Over breakfast this morning, my eye caught an intriguing article in the New York Times, “Heads Up – Outside Atlanta, a Utopia Rises.” The article deals with an issue close to my heart, that of New Urbanism. Written by Kevin Sack, the piece traces the development of Serenbe, Georgia, a new development thirty miles outside the ever-consuming sprawling entity known as Atlanta, Georgia.

Serenbe, Georgia, initially started as a weekend retreat and place of solitude for acclaimed culinary couple Steve and Marie Nygren. In 1995, the Nygren’s purchased a 60-acre farm as a weekend retreat from the chaos of Atlanta. Soon their weekend retreat transformed into a vision for a sustainable community, founded on the following ten New Urbanism principles: walkability, connectivity, mixed use and diversity, mixed housing, quality architecture and urban design, traditional neighborhood structure, increased transportation, green design, sustainability and quality of life. The article briefly addresses the values of New Urbanism, choosing instead to focus more on the unique culinary heritage of Serenbe Community and the resulting impact on the community today.

New Urbanism, according to their website, offers the following definition:

Giving people many choices for living an urban lifestyle in sustainable, convenient and enjoyable places, while providing the solutions to peak oil, global warming, and climate change.

Notable communities founded on New Urban principles include Seaside, Florida; Celebration, Florida; and Kentlands, Maryland, among others.

Seaside, Florida

Seaside, Florida

For me, one of most interesting principles of New Urbanism is its commitment to mixed used and diversity. New Urban communities seek to blend demographic and social heterogeneity into their communities, and yet, when wealth is not equally distributed across demographic lines, diversity is difficult to achieve when the introductory prices of houses are $300,000 – $500,000, as is the case in Serenbe, Georgia.

So how should the tension between diversity and housing quality be addressed? Should New Urbanist communities continue to espouse the importance of mixed use and diversity as a principle, or sacrifice these components in order to create the idyllic community that results from high realty prices? In addition, why is diversity important if it continues to remain at the center of New Urbanism. While New Urban communities and designers propagate the importance of diverse communities, they offer limited reasons as to why diverse communities need to exist. Is ‘diversity’ just another buzzword used without justification? If we as a society and community value diverse communities (something I very much believe in), how can we best explain the rationale behind this intent to live in community with diverse others? In the following series, I will attempt to address these questions.

Next Page »