Excited for the new edition Karen! You mention the recent fascination with the third space in online discussions, and people theorizing their own spacial linguistics. I had a question and a theory of my own regarding new frameworks for spaces.
The question: do you give any credence to these ideas of 2.5 spaces or overlapping spaces? For example, your home office being a 2nd space within a grander 1st space or the break room of an office being a 3rd space within a 2nd space. Are these separate microcosms, or should we focus more on the fluidity of environmental psychology? Curious to hear your thoughts.
As for my own theory, I like that you've expanded the categories to include more possibilities (again, encountering a new set of overlaps such as a church holding both 3rd and 7th space). However, there is something about the idea of "space" being too focused on our shaping of the environment and gives less regard to our natural relationships with the environment.
The theory: while you gave a name to these new spaces, I feel there is a missing space centered around novelty. This "novelty space" has a lot of metaphysical aspects related to humanity's relationship to the unknown, and I think it's a useful framework to explain a whole host of places. My experience working in the service industry helps me understand the core of what makes third spaces function, the most obvious being our need for community, but novelty introduces an entire different framework to explain why we go to spaces we have no psychological or environmental mapping.
Specific examples include vacations, new restaurants, an imagined Dungeons and Dragons world, an amusement park, etc. all directed by novelty-seeking behavior. I find these spaces to be just as important for our psyche as any other space, one where you interact with the world in a mental state of surprise or wonder. I'm writing up my own analysis of the environmental psychology around this missing space, would love to get your thoughts on it! Maybe the "unknown" is outside the bounds of the sociological frameworks you and Mr. Oldenburg are describing, but I still think there's a worthwhile thread to tug on.
You’re right: there is overlap, and a given building or room doesn’t necessarily slot into a single category. That’s actually a good thing: having a hangout (a third place) in the corner of a shop or library or at the edge of a park makes a lot of sense. I’ve been talking to people about the human need for novelty, too. It’s one of the attractions of places where you meet strangers, or have chance meetings with acquaintances.
I love this exploration of seven spaces. I would like to riff on them if I may. Not to improve them but to help my own thinking about them.
I see virtual spaces as a sort of shadow world. Not in the Jungian sense but as a mirror image of the real world where the outline shape remains but much of the detail and reality is lost. Shadows are not bad things. Peter Pan's shadow was a necessary and loved counterpoint to the light. Our shadows remind us that we are in the living light. But the virtual space, seen as a shadow, is flat and incomplete compared to the real worlds it needs to give it shape. All the other spaces, it seems to me, can have their virtual shadowns.
Public spaces are now often faux-public and their use is being restricted. Similarly cultural spaces -- although libraries are sometimes real world places for shared interests.
Shared interests (nee virtual spaces) include activism which can lead to friendship and home.
The spiritual space includes nature -- the ultimate real space that we need to explore our place in the world -- and can be both solitary and all-embracingly communual.
I tried to plot the spaces on a graph showing real to shadow (virtual) on the vertical axis and solitary to social on the horizontal axis. Spaces 1, 2, and 3 could pretty much fill the graph. Space 7, spiritual including nature in my terms) filled only part of lower shadow half of the graph but all of the top real half. Cultural (5), public (4) and shared interests (sort of 6) could only occupy smaller areas.
Yet another way of visualising the spaces -- I am so trying to explain this to myself -- is to create a "temple of connection" (drawing inspiration from the Toyota Lean House).
The four sides of the hipped roof represent four needs for a happy and fulfilled life:
- family and friendship
- occupation and vocation
- personal interests and social interaction
- spirituality and connection with nature.
(There is a touch of ikigai in all this.)
The four pillars represent physical spaces 1 to 3 and 7 -- home, work/voctional, social/third, and nature: all needed to support the roof.
The floor has patterned tiles representing supplementary spaces: the public, cultural, spiritual. Perhaps also the transactional -- we connect, albeit briefly, in shops, on public transport, and so on.
And then all this has a shadow, a virtual reflection of the physical.
That's it. Enough rambling. Thank you for prompting me to think about this.
In my 80th year, I'm now rushing to drive my wife somewhere, and did not want to miss commenting on the 7th place focus. At age 80, I feel somewhat lonely, since I now recall my 1976 meeting with the Chinese ambassadors in Washington DC, regarding a friendly sport exchange, encouraged by President Nixon. At that time, Nixon encouraged me to follow the Chinese agenda, which was "friends first, competition second." Exactly -- where are we now?
A concluding answer is significant to the larger story. The ambassador's soon pressed me, thinking I owned some leverage to change Nixon's stance on Taiwan. They wanted me to talk to Nixon, so that Taiwan was no longer included in future Olympic Games.
Nixon's CEO friend at Pepsi Cola, Don Kendall, was trying to enter the China market before Coca Cola "got in" first, since Pepsi was keenly prepared to fund all future sport exchanges, without limit.
--- Coke eventually got into the China market, long before Pepsi, even though the Chinese demanded the singular importance of the phrase "friendship first, competition second."
Thank you, Paul. How interesting for you, to be there at that time, and disheartening to see the current state of play. Hoping for better times! There is interest in this work of mine in China.
Excited for the new edition Karen! You mention the recent fascination with the third space in online discussions, and people theorizing their own spacial linguistics. I had a question and a theory of my own regarding new frameworks for spaces.
The question: do you give any credence to these ideas of 2.5 spaces or overlapping spaces? For example, your home office being a 2nd space within a grander 1st space or the break room of an office being a 3rd space within a 2nd space. Are these separate microcosms, or should we focus more on the fluidity of environmental psychology? Curious to hear your thoughts.
As for my own theory, I like that you've expanded the categories to include more possibilities (again, encountering a new set of overlaps such as a church holding both 3rd and 7th space). However, there is something about the idea of "space" being too focused on our shaping of the environment and gives less regard to our natural relationships with the environment.
The theory: while you gave a name to these new spaces, I feel there is a missing space centered around novelty. This "novelty space" has a lot of metaphysical aspects related to humanity's relationship to the unknown, and I think it's a useful framework to explain a whole host of places. My experience working in the service industry helps me understand the core of what makes third spaces function, the most obvious being our need for community, but novelty introduces an entire different framework to explain why we go to spaces we have no psychological or environmental mapping.
Specific examples include vacations, new restaurants, an imagined Dungeons and Dragons world, an amusement park, etc. all directed by novelty-seeking behavior. I find these spaces to be just as important for our psyche as any other space, one where you interact with the world in a mental state of surprise or wonder. I'm writing up my own analysis of the environmental psychology around this missing space, would love to get your thoughts on it! Maybe the "unknown" is outside the bounds of the sociological frameworks you and Mr. Oldenburg are describing, but I still think there's a worthwhile thread to tug on.
You’re right: there is overlap, and a given building or room doesn’t necessarily slot into a single category. That’s actually a good thing: having a hangout (a third place) in the corner of a shop or library or at the edge of a park makes a lot of sense. I’ve been talking to people about the human need for novelty, too. It’s one of the attractions of places where you meet strangers, or have chance meetings with acquaintances.
I love this exploration of seven spaces. I would like to riff on them if I may. Not to improve them but to help my own thinking about them.
I see virtual spaces as a sort of shadow world. Not in the Jungian sense but as a mirror image of the real world where the outline shape remains but much of the detail and reality is lost. Shadows are not bad things. Peter Pan's shadow was a necessary and loved counterpoint to the light. Our shadows remind us that we are in the living light. But the virtual space, seen as a shadow, is flat and incomplete compared to the real worlds it needs to give it shape. All the other spaces, it seems to me, can have their virtual shadowns.
Public spaces are now often faux-public and their use is being restricted. Similarly cultural spaces -- although libraries are sometimes real world places for shared interests.
Shared interests (nee virtual spaces) include activism which can lead to friendship and home.
The spiritual space includes nature -- the ultimate real space that we need to explore our place in the world -- and can be both solitary and all-embracingly communual.
I tried to plot the spaces on a graph showing real to shadow (virtual) on the vertical axis and solitary to social on the horizontal axis. Spaces 1, 2, and 3 could pretty much fill the graph. Space 7, spiritual including nature in my terms) filled only part of lower shadow half of the graph but all of the top real half. Cultural (5), public (4) and shared interests (sort of 6) could only occupy smaller areas.
Yet another way of visualising the spaces -- I am so trying to explain this to myself -- is to create a "temple of connection" (drawing inspiration from the Toyota Lean House).
The four sides of the hipped roof represent four needs for a happy and fulfilled life:
- family and friendship
- occupation and vocation
- personal interests and social interaction
- spirituality and connection with nature.
(There is a touch of ikigai in all this.)
The four pillars represent physical spaces 1 to 3 and 7 -- home, work/voctional, social/third, and nature: all needed to support the roof.
The floor has patterned tiles representing supplementary spaces: the public, cultural, spiritual. Perhaps also the transactional -- we connect, albeit briefly, in shops, on public transport, and so on.
And then all this has a shadow, a virtual reflection of the physical.
That's it. Enough rambling. Thank you for prompting me to think about this.
It is fun to think about and I can imagine long discussions about it, too, if we were in Kolkata https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210812-adda-the-secret-to-bengali-conviviality. I appreciate the reference to ikigai - a reminder to look at Japanese culture. I will be including sentos in the new book.
In my 80th year, I'm now rushing to drive my wife somewhere, and did not want to miss commenting on the 7th place focus. At age 80, I feel somewhat lonely, since I now recall my 1976 meeting with the Chinese ambassadors in Washington DC, regarding a friendly sport exchange, encouraged by President Nixon. At that time, Nixon encouraged me to follow the Chinese agenda, which was "friends first, competition second." Exactly -- where are we now?
Rush rush rush.
A concluding answer is significant to the larger story. The ambassador's soon pressed me, thinking I owned some leverage to change Nixon's stance on Taiwan. They wanted me to talk to Nixon, so that Taiwan was no longer included in future Olympic Games.
Nixon's CEO friend at Pepsi Cola, Don Kendall, was trying to enter the China market before Coca Cola "got in" first, since Pepsi was keenly prepared to fund all future sport exchanges, without limit.
--- Coke eventually got into the China market, long before Pepsi, even though the Chinese demanded the singular importance of the phrase "friendship first, competition second."
Thank you, Paul. How interesting for you, to be there at that time, and disheartening to see the current state of play. Hoping for better times! There is interest in this work of mine in China.