Key Pages:

Archaeologies of Place | Home
-
Course Description and Objectives
-
Course Requirements and Grading
-
Weekly Schedule
-
Commentaries and Discussion
-
Projects
-
Resources and Links

---

Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology

---

 

 

One of the main things that struck me from our discussion last week was questioning and partial rejection of Auge’s definition of a ‘non-place’, examples of ‘non-places’, or the entire idea of a ‘non-place’. His examples seemed particularly weak and fell apart when a variety of experiences were considered for each 'non-place'. In striving for a true example of a ‘non-place’, the most appropriate ‘non-place’ seems to be the Internet. Granted, in a physical sense, it is actually not a place, but in every other sense we do speak of it as a place. The very vocabulary used to describe it evokes images of place: it is composed of ‘sites’ where people interact anonymously; sties are given ‘domain names’ and are spoken of in terms of real estate. In supermodernity, the Internet is increasingly seen as a ‘place’ to which people go. Entering requires self-identification and you must travel along established routes and work within particular parameters while at the same time you are under constant view. As Auge describes you are “alone, but one of many”. While most sites do produce a history of use (like this wiki), sites are continuously updated and the old location of such activities is lost and forgotten. Any real history of the site vanishes as use continues and changes. The Internet seems to be the embodiment of the combination of a ‘non-place’ and supermodernity.

Supermodernity is inherently tied with ideas of American commercial ‘colonization’ and globalization. Auge’s sees ‘non-places’ as a production of supermodernity and therefore a production of this modern-day colonialism. The presence of these supermodern ‘non-places’ is often seen as a sign that a previously natural and indigenous ‘place’ has been infected with American capitalism. Many of Auge’s examples of ‘non-places’ are part of this process. Airports serve as the initial conduit for the importation enterprising businessmen who bring stores like Wal-Mart and MacDonald’s. Supermarkets are used to distribute Coca-Cola and other American products. These ‘colonial non-places’ draw strong contrast with local ‘places’ that are seen as authentic and tied to the rich history of local people. The juxtaposition of these two ideas, ‘place’ and ‘non-place’, recreates the ‘colonizer’ and ’colonized’ dichotomy that postcolonial studies have sought to move beyond. The idea of studying place and the many different types of interactions people can have with place presents a postcolonial way of viewing the world. It acknowledges a native, long-spanning history that both stretches before and after the point of contact with the modern. It also does not limit the study of that place to one perspective or another. By introducing the idea of ‘non-place’, places that could be seen as locations of cultural fusion (i.e. the mix of local and imported products at supermarkets), are instead cast from a solely supermodern, western point of view.