Finding Ariadne's Thread : Addressing the Global vs. Local Conflict

 

The reading Here There and North of Nowhere by Jeremy Till identifies the problem of the binary fight between the two extremes, "global" and "local." Typically, the 'global' is seen as the dominant opponent of the local. A big, bad wolf that will swallow all traces of culture and identity that its weaker opponent, 'local,' is pushing back against. To compare the two equally, we must consider how we define these terms since they are extensive categories. Most of the time, the definitions boil down to a visual aesthetic. 

What people define as a "local" aesthetic is usually one that has developed over a considerable period and is synonymous with the identity of that geographical area. However, with changes in time, architects and architecture have to move to adapt to the needs and requirements of society, and this often means that they look outside their geographical area to places where successful precedents have been carried out and attempt to replicate them where they are based. More often than not, this leads to the mass production of something that isn't typical of that area. It starts taking precedence over what was originally there, and this is where the pushback of the debate begins. 

So, how do we determine the better of the two when they are both addressing different things? Like many other topics in architecture, this is not a this-or-that kind of discussion. It is imperative to accept that there will never be a perfect resolution or a 'winner' between the two, just like there will never be one perfect superior form of architecture that everyone can adopt. 
As the reading observes, the first step is "to dissolve the rigid binary of global/local or rather, according to Zygmunt Bauman, to see us in a state of "liquid modernity," in which traditional categories merge and the global/local are characterized in a much more complex, uncertain and turbulent relationship than the simplistic dialectic ever allows." 

There will always be pros and cons associated with both, so to try and pick one over the other is quite ridiculous. It makes more sense to consider, as Bruno Latour notes, that "there is an Ariadne's thread that would allow us to pass with continuity from the local to the global,.. the two extremes, local and global, are much less interesting than the intermediary arrangements that we are calling networks." The critical term here is networks, which suggests a set of negotiations between the extremes. This differs from 'glocal,' which implies an uncritical and inevitable hybridization of the two.

When things keep changing, how can an identity remain static? The grass has always been greener on the other side, and people will always look back with nostalgia to the past with rose-tinted spectacles. This is a challenge for us as architects to "open up our radar to a wider set of issues than merely the aesthetic and tectonic, and instead follow the Ariadne's thread through the urban register with all its social, political and physical connotations" and continue to redefine the networks which would create a more effective solution that is relevant to the current situation. Why pick one (global or local) when you could have both?