Non places:un studiu despre aeroporturi

Aceasta lucrare se bazeaza pe studiul etnografului german ole putz:”from non-places to non-

events:the airport security checkpoint, de la universitatea bielefeld din Germania. Efectuat intr-o serie

de aeroporturi din Germania si suedia,acest studiu de etnografie analizeaza caracteristicile de non-place

ale aeroporturilor pornind de la observarea directa a acestora dar in acelasi timp ,urmareste modul in

care indivizii evita interactiunea in ciuda apropierii fizice(aceasta fiind o caracteristica a locurilor de tip

non-place .Inainte de a expune aceste temeeste necesar sa definim o serie de termeni cum ar fi:non

place ,non event,etnografie etc.

Termenul “ non place” a fost pentru prima data definit de antropologul francez marc auge in

lucrarea sa non- place:an introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity.

”If a place can be defined as relational, historical and concerned with identity, then a space which

cannot be defined as relational, or historical, or concerned with identity will be a non-place. The

hypothesis advanced here is that supermodernity produces non-places, meaning spaces which are not

themselves anthropological places and which...do not integrate the earlier places: instead these are

listed, classified, promoted to the status of 'places of memory', and assigned to a circumscribed and

specific position.”(marc auge,non places:an introduction to an anthropology of

supermodernity,1995,pg.77-78)

Ulterior termenul a fost preluat de geografia umana intrucat este in relatie directa cu obiectul de

studiu al geografiei:spatiul.

“spatiul se afla in centrul dezbaterilor referitoare la obiectul de sudiu al geografiei”.(Octavian

Groza,2005,6)

“Aujourd’hui,l’espace geographique semble etre le projet privilegie de la geographie;il est

construit a partir d’un objet reel et concret,l’espace terrestre…”(Antoine bailly,2001,pg.51)

“non place - A term coined by French anthropologist Marc Auge´ to describe certain qualities of

airports, highways, theme parks, motels, department stores and shopping centres, tourist sites and so

on. These sites have in common gatherings of individuals and groups of people who temporarily come

together at the same site, but who have no particular bond to each other. Rather than a social bond

determining the nature of these collective gatherings, it is typically signs and texts that guide people’s

movements within these spaces or that direct them to other spaces. In that latter capacity, the non place

is a conduit, a potential that structures the gaze to some other site.”(derek gregory,ron johnston si

altii,the dictionary of human geography,2009,pg.503)

Asa cum spuneam mai inainte termenul non-place este in relatie directa cu spatiul:”... the word

'non-place' designates two complementary but distinct realities:spaces formed in relation to certain

ends(transport,transit,commerce,leisure),and the relations that individuals have with these

spaces.Although the two sets of relations overlap to a large extent,and in any case officially(individuals

travel,make purchases,relax),they are still not confused with one another;for non-places mediate a

whole mass of relations,with the self and with others,which are only indirectly connected with their

purposes.As anthropological places create the organically social,so non-places create solitary

contractuality...”(Marc Auge,Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity,pg.94)

Putem vedea ca atat in definitia non-place cat si in acest din urma citat din studiul lui Auge este

mentionat termenul 'place' in legatura cu non-place.Non-place nu este negatia lui place ci,mai curand,

un termen dialectic(dupa The dictionary of human geography).”Place and non-place are rather like

opposed polarities:the first is never completely erased,the second never totally completed;they are like

paralimpsests on which the scrambled game of identity and relations is ceaselessly rewritten.”(marc

auge 1995,pg.79)

“the distinction between places and non-places derives from the opposition between place and

space.An essential preliminary here is the analysis of the notions of place and space suggested by Michel

de Certeau.He himself does not oppose 'place' and 'space' in the way that 'place' is opposed to 'non-

places'.Space,for him,is a 'frequented place','an intersection of moving bodies'(Marc Auge,non-

places:Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity,pg.79)...Place,as defined here,is not quite the

place Certeau opposes to space(in the same way that the geometrical figure is opposed to

movement,the unspoken to the spoken word or the inventory to the route:it is place in the esstablished

and symbolizeed sense,anthropological place.”(Marc Auge,Non-places:Introduction to an Anthropology

of Supermodernity,pg.81)

Al doilea termen ce necesita definire este” non-event”.deoArece folosirea lui este larga,in mai

multe stiinte,este cu atat mai probabil sa-I gasim definitia in cadrul uneia din aceste stiinte.Iata o astfel

de definitie data din perspectiva filosofiei.

“a non-event is the non-occurrence of an event.When we say,for example,”Mary did not get

married”,we are denying that a marriage has occurred;in the terminology of this paper,we are describing

a non-event.”(Philosophical Studies:An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic

Tradition,Non-events,1978)

Termenul non-event descrie asadar un eveniment ce nu a avut loc.

jdgahsdjandeafdarb

Aeroportul :non-place

in acest capitol as vrea sa expun o serie de propriertati specifice non-place.pe baza proprietatilor

generale vom expune caracterul de non-place al aeroporturilor.

“the link between individuals and their surroundings in the space oF non-place is established through

the mediation of words,or even texts.We know,for a start,that there are words that make image-or

rather,images:the imagination of a person who has never been to tahiti or marrakesh takes flight the

momment these names are read or heard...But the real non-places of supermbodernity have the

peculiarity that theyare defined partly by the words and texts they offer us:their 'instructions for

use',which may be prescriptive('Take right-hand lane'),prohibitive('No smoking') or informative('You are

now entering the Beaujolais region').

'Anthropological place' is formed by individual identities,through complicities of language,local

references,the unformulated rules of living know-how;non-place creates the shared identity of

passengers,customers or Sunday drivers.No doubt the relative anonymity that goes with this temporary

identity can even be felt as a liberation,by people who,for a time,have only to keep in line,go where they

are told,check their appearance.As soon as his passport or identity card has been checked,the

passengerfor next flight,freed from the weight of his luggage and everyday responsabilities,rushes into

the'duty-free' space...Alone,but one of many,the user of a non-place is in contractual relations with it(or

with the powers that govern it).He is reminded,when necessary,that the contract exists..The conntract

always relates to the individual identity of the contracting party.To get into the departure lounge of an

airport,a ticket-alwaysinscribed with the passenger's name-must first be presented at the check-in-

desk;proof that the contract has been respected comes at the immigration desk,withsimultaneous

presentation of the boarding pass and an identity document:different countries have differenr

requirements in this area(identity cARD,passport,passport and visa),and checks are made at departure

time to ensure that these wiil be properly fulfilled.So the passenger accedes to his anonymity only when

he has countersigned(so to speak) the contraCT”(marc auge,non-places:introduction to an anthropology

of supermodernity,pg 94,95,96,101, 102)

Punctul de control al securitatii aeroportului

dasdufdsnshg

“civil innattention” nu rezerva

dasgdawfdhjahbskdjg

metode de studiu si de observare

in acest capitol vom descrie metodele de observare care au fost folosite pentru studiul aeroporturilor si

rezultatele obtinute de fiecare din aceste metode

“Anyone can stop at a security checkpoint and observe travelers and screeners,at least for a

limited time. Waiting areas are located near most checkpoints and family members and friends of

travelers often loiter at the checkpoint to bid farewell. As a researcher, I did not have to behave much

differently than travelers and their companions. I was part of the waiting and observing crowd (Mode I).

But this first possible mode of observation limits the gaze to the events in front of the checkpoint and

also restricts how close one can get to the security check itself. To get closer, I took a step further and

became a traveler (Mode II). I planned a trip, bought airline tickets, joined the waiting lines before

checkpoints and passed checkpoints like any other traveler (the mode chosen by Kitchin and Dodge

2009). This allowed me to experience checkpoints first-hand. At the same time, Mode II limited the

range of behaviors to actions allowed by the process of inspection. I could not simply interrupt the

process of inspection, step out of line, and take notes.I could not linger extensively at checkpoints

because I had to catch my flight eventually. The third mode I used was to contact an airport security

organization and thus identify myself as a researcher interested in studying security checkpoints (Mode

III). This strategy allowed me to observe not only in front of the checkpoint but also immediately behind

it for longer periods of time. “(ole putz,from non-places to non-events:the airport security checkpoint)”

am putut identifica trei metode deobservare folosite pentru studiul aeroporturilor:observarea detasata

,de la oarecare distanta, observarea prin implicarea in procesul studiat si observarea in calitate de

cercetator,cu sprijinul autoritatilor.

de la standardizare la non-event

A precondition for non-events is the standardization of procedures at the checkpoint, which creates a

visual and sequential order. Strict procedural rules allow screeners and travelers to disconnect the body

of the traveler temporarily from the traveler as an individual. Screeners and travelers practically achieve

this disconnection by minimizing face-to-face interaction.

How does the checkpoint standardize interaction?

Architectural design and procedural rules provide us with a first answer to this question.

Architectural design guides travelers at airports. To physically access airside, travelers have to pass the

checkpoint;other ways are physically blocked. Doors secured with alarms and glass and brick walls divide

the more accessible landside where check-in is located from the more secure airside where the gates are

located.When travelers reach a checkpoint, ropes and other movable elements channel them into

forming a queue.The architectural design creates a visual and sequential order. Because travelers

physically move through the checkpoint, one after the other, the order of the checkpoint is highly visual.

By observing other travelers who are ahead, travelers can gain an understanding of what is to happen

next (Pollner 1979).I observed frequently that many travelers are indeed attentive and observe other

travelers for indications as to how they should behave. One can observe of this behavior when travelers

approach the x-ray scanner. Here, they momentarily have to part with most of their belongings. When

screeners ask travelers to empty their pockets and place their belongings on the conveyor belt of the x-

ray scanner, many travelers who are next in line follow suit. Belts are a good example: Not all travelers

are necessarily asked to take their belts off, since not all belt buckles contain metal; but when a traveler

is asked to take his or her belt off, the people behind often do the same. Such behavior also indicates

that travelers expect rules to apply to them if they apply to others.Consider the following episode, which

I observed at SCA during the summer: While a young traveler places his belongings into a box on the

conveyor belt, he asks whether he should also take his sunglasses off. The screener working at the x-ray

machine tells him to do so. Subsequently, the next traveler in line also takes his sunglasses off without

asking. The woman next in line starts removing her glasses too, only they are not sunglasses but regular

glasses. This action leads the screener to intervene. Screeners do not always correct imitations of others

even if they are unnecessary. Yet in this case the screener asks the traveler to keep her glasses on and

comments that it would be better if she was able to see where she was going

.the first procedural rule says that everybody needs a pass in order to pass.Kitchin and Dodge (2009)

regard the security checkpoint as a “code/space” with access mediated by software and information

systems. If friends or family bring a traveler to the airport, the waiting area in front of the security

checkpoint is the place to part. Only travelers with a boarding card can legitimately pass the

checkpoint.he first procedural rule says that everybody needs a pass in order to pass.Kitchin and Dodge

(2009) regard the security checkpoint as a “code/space” with access mediated by software and

information systems. If friends or family bring a traveler to the airport, the waiting area in front of the

security checkpoint is the place to part. Only travelers with a boarding card can legitimately pass the

checkpoint.The second procedural rule says that everybody who wants to pass the checkpoint is

controlled. Linhardt (2000) notes the paradox that those who are to be protected from harm by security

are those that have to be controlled.Yet the checkpoint is not only for travelers, it is also for people who

work at the airport or on planes, including screeners. Although colleagues may trust each other,

screeners are not excluded from organizational distrust. Most airports have checkpoints designated for

airport personnel only, and employees must be checkedThe procedural rules thus form a clear frame of

orientation for both travelers and screeners. The room for negotiation is limited. What must happen next

is clear for all because usually just one thing can happen next; take the next step and do the same thing

the traveler in front of you just did. Events at security checkpoints are translated into a binary scheme,

pass or no pass. Screeners avoid questions about motives and intent; they do not know more about the

traveler than can be assumed from their appearance. Screeners control everybody for forbidden items

and x-ray all belongings. After screeners perform the check, they lose sight of travelers. The security

checkpoint is blind toward what comes before and after it, it has neither anticipation nor

memory.Avoiding Interaction

The walk-through metal detector is 70 cm wide, 60 cm deep, and 205 cm high. An average-sized person

has no difficulties walking through it, yet some travelers duck while passing it, although they could easily

pass through. Other travelers take a deep breath before stepping through the metal detector. Some

pause right in front of it and take one large step, as if passing a point of no retur Travelers cannot avoid

the checkpoint, nor can they avoid physical proximity. How do they minimize the feelings this would

evoke in public settings as described by Erving Goffman (1956, 1959, 1963, 1971)? One of Goffman’s

central concerns is the ordering and navigation of bodies in interaction. Goffman describes the

negotiation of territories with the concept of “territories of the self” (Goffman 1971, 51-84). Individuals

have different territories of the self that they have an interest in maintaining but that are threatened

through other individuals and their interests. Next I analyze the security checkpoint by using the concept

of territories of the self. I focus on taking one’s turn, possessional territory, personal space, information

preserve, and conversational preserve. On arriving at the checkpoint, travelers form a queue to take up

position for their turn. The ordering principle at the security checkpoint is “first come, first served.”

Queues at the security checkpoint are highly disciplined. While crew members and members of security

usually skip the queue, only in very few cases did I observe travelers trying to jump the line.5 Travelers

seem to be unwilling to argue with or to try to convince screeners that they should receive special

treatment. The closer travelers come to the checkpoint itself, the quieter they become, as they interrupt

conversations and turn off cellular phones. On one hand, this waiting indicates that the airport is more

important than the traveler. Travelers have to wait inline for the airport to process them, not vice

versa.When travelers joke with screeners, they do so when placing their belongings on the x-ray machine

or when they pick up their belongings again at the end of the check. The avoidance of eye contact has

further implications. Most screeners who are responsible for patting down travelers nonverbally regulate

who passes at what point of time. Many travelers make eye contact with screeners before passing the

walk-through metal detector. Eye contact in front of the metal detector asks: “Do I pass now?” Eye

contact behind the metal detector asks: “Can I proceed?” Screeners answer both questions in agreement

with a nod of the head or in refusal with a gesture of the hand Some travelers make eye contact only

before they pass the metal detector, some only after they pass it. Other travelers lower their head while

passing the detector and make no eye contact at all, neither before they pass the metal detector nor

afterwards. They raise their head only if the metal detector sounds an alarm. This practice is achieved in

cooperation between screeners and travelers. If screeners do not react to the questioning look before

travelers pass the detector, it is probable that travelers will not try to make eye contact after they pass.

This procedure is only possible because the check is standardized in such a way that attentive or

experienced travelers can anticipate what to do next without instructionsby screeners. Travelers who

avoid eye contact presumably know that the beeping of the metal detector selects travelers for a pat

down and not screeners. So if no alarm sounds, they can proceed to pick up their belongings and leave

the checkpoint without raising their heads. One uses eye contact to initiate interaction and to signal

attention in ongoing interaction. Another important aspect of most interactions is talk When screeners

pat down travelers, they may give verbal instructions as to how travelers should turn around or raise

their arms, but the instructions do not initiate interaction. Travelers do not take the instructions as a

beginning of a face-to-face interaction and reply verbally; they only react with a change of body position

(see Heath 2006). The same is true the other way ahe moment when travelers walk through the metal

detector appears insignificant, to be patted down appears unremarkable. Both situations are non-events

and non-events are the elements that create Augé’s (1995) non-place. The security checkpoint

paradoxicallytakes its significance from what it is not. Memorable experiences can be negative indeed at

the checkpoint. If we do not remember the checkpoint,it has performed its function successfully.