When looking at these two views of how traffic should be ordered, it would appear that they have very different ideas about who should be in control and how towns and cities should be designed. Buchanan has a modernist approach, which is ‘an approach emphasising standardisation and rationalisation’ (Silva, 2009, p. 339). So in his view, the space is split by rules, prohibitions and orders that require individuals to adapt to the system that is imposed by the government and public authorities. However, on the other hand, Monderman uses the flexible approach, which ‘emphasises fluidity, adjustment, lack of prescribed rules’ (Silva, 2009, p. 339). His shared space ideas claims to make human behaviour central as it calls upon the individuals to regulate themselves.
Another difference that is noticeable is the way Buchanan and Monderman collect their data. Buchanan uses quantitative data in the form of a table. Table 1 provides evidence of the ‘continuing preference of the population for the individualised and flexible form of transportation afforded by cars’ (Table 1, Silva, 2009, pp. 326-327). When Buchanan was commissioned by the UK government in the 1960s, the volume of traffic had more than doubled, so when the Traffic in Towns report was written it was ‘assumed not only that more roads needed to be built, but also that a new way for towns to live with cars needed to be implemented’ (Silva, 2009, p. 326).
On the other hand, Monderman conducted an experiment known as ‘The Drachten Experiment’ which is a form of qualitative data. In this experiment, it became apparent that there were issues with the flow of traffic in Drachten, so Monderman offered solutions to assist with this. He advised for the local authorities to get rid of the traffic lights and erase the white lines. Monderman believes that drivers become zombies, when they are treated like zombies and therefore they stop thinking for themselves and accidents follow. The findings from this experiment show that the junction they removed all signs and markings from, became less dangerous and both traffic and pedestrians were treated the same and both had to negotiate the use of the area (Glaskin, 2004 cited in Silva, 2009, pp. 334 – 335).
Although Buchanan and Monderman have different views on how traffic should be ordered, they are similar in that they are both in view for an improvement of social life through changed design of urban space. They believe that a natural social conduct would be achieved through the application of materials (Silva, 2009, p.345).
Another similarity between Buchanan and Monderman is that they both devise technologies of zoning, and specific street furniture, to fit diverse behaviour. Buchanan street furniture mainly consists of traffic lights, signs and road markings, railings and kerbs to define the areas between the roads and pedestrians. In Monderman’s case, he began by narrowing the roads and putting in design features. These features included things like trees and flowers, red brick paving stones and fountains and were intended to discourage people from speeding.
A third commonality between Buchanan and Monderman is that they both ‘appear as authority and produce their own authority in the process of authorising a social order’ (Silva, 2009, p. 346). They produce their own authority through ways of talking and writing and this made their ‘claims appear factual, objective and factual’. To back up their concepts they used maps, statistics, photos and reports as types of messages, to pass on ‘an imagined order of how life in urban space should be lived’. (Silva, 2009, p. 345).
When talking about traffic and the way it is or should be ordered, one could see this is a way of describing social order. Social order ‘is a way of describing the rules and expectations that make up the ways in which we live together’. When looking at social order there are two contrasting theorists – Goffman and Foucault. Goffman places human interaction at the centre of analysis. He claims people perform roles in specific contexts and use the metaphor of the theatre to describe these performances. He also claims that interaction involves the use of peoples gaze and body language which develops the concept of the interactional order. Goffman’s theory is that ‘social order is produced through the everyday actions and practices of people as they live their lives’ (Staples et al., 2009). On the other hand, Foucault raises the questions of who has the power to rule how others should behave and how is behaviour ‘authorised’ and by whom. He claims that experts and knowledge have authority and that power works through different ways of thinking and understanding. Foucault believes that ‘social order is produced through the power of knowledge and discourse in disciplining individuals’ (Staples et al., 2009)
While looking at Goffman and Foucault theories and concepts they appear to be similar to Buchanan and Monderman’s ideas. Buchanan can be linked to Foucault in the fact that both claim that authorities and expert discourses and knowledge should be central to how individuals behave. In contrast, Goffman can be linked closely to Monderman’s ideas of human interaction, as this is visible in Monderman’s approach to negotiating shared space (Silva, 2009, p. 343).
In conclusion, Buchanan believes that the relationship between traffic and people should be that they should be kept separate, and that it is the local authorities that should be in control and govern individuals. Therefore, it is important for there to be separate areas for pedestrians and vehicles and that street furniture should be central to directing what people should and should not be doing. In contrast to this, Monderman believes that both vehicles and pedestrians should share a space and negotiate these areas through interaction, i.e. gaze, instead of the use of lots of traffic lights and segregated areas. He claims that drivers and pedestrians would be more aware of their surroundings, reach a state of high arousal, and therefore would improve road safety and create a better relationship between people and traffic.
References
‘Making and Comparing Arguments’ (2009) Making Social Lives (Audio CD 4), Milton Keynes, The Open University
Silva, E.B. (2009) ‘Making Social Order’ in Taylor, S., Hinchliffe, S., Clarke, J., and Bromley, S., (eds) Making Social Lives, Milton Keynes, The Open University
Staples, M., Meegan, J., Jefferies, E., and Bromley, S. (2009) Learning Companion 2, Introducing the Social Sciences, Milton Keynes, The Open University
Self – Reflection
I found this essay quite interesting but also hard work. Differences were easier to spot then that of similarities. I found the write up challenging in the fact that I wasn’t sure of how to write a comparing and contrasting essay, even though the audio CD gave me some helpful pointers and ideas to try and incorporate into this assignment.