Metaphor emerges when mental images are projected onto abstract concepts so that they can be reasoned with relative to our own bodily experiences (Capra 63). Throughout various phases of life our understanding of our environments and causal relationships in nature matures, expanding the scope of functional metaphor at our disposal and giving us a larger reserve of experiences and observations to draw upon when reasoning with new challenges or opportunities. As Capra illustrates, at a relatively young age many of us learn to associate affection with warmth and being held. "Thus associations between the two experiential domains are built up, and corresponding pathways across neural networks are established. Later in life, these associations continue as metaphors when we speak of a 'warm smile' or a 'close friend'" (Capra 64).

Through repeated communication, the many associations we form as individuals and as networks within networks converge to shape the cultural norms, shared values and rules of conduct that society is based upon. Laws are constructed to optimize the efficiency of decision-making relative to these shared values and rules of conduct (Capra 88). However, simply creating a law is not an effective way to constrain behavior. Legislative artifacts are designed to preserve a record of meaning for future generations, but without communication meaning and action are lost.

Not long ago, I was driving down Montgomery avenue, heading back to the lab to work on a project. As I was approaching an intersection I observed a gutted out old Chrysler minivan blowing through a red light to make a u-turn. This certainly isn't a rare occurrence in Savannah, so I didn't give it too much of a reaction. It did lead me into questioning if I could make a u-turn, though. In my home state of Nebraska a driver is allowed to make u-turn at an intersection, but in Colorado a u-turn can only be made when there is a median structure of some kind. I have no idea what the law states here in Georgia. I suppose I could go online and spend an hour searching through exhaustingly unusable local government websites. Or I could just ask around. I learned about the difference between laws in Nebraska and Colorado through casual conversation with a couple of my roommates. In fact, I wonder if I've ever learned of a single written law by reading an official document. Have you? I've learned through communicating within the various networks that constitute my place in society, and I suspect I'm not alone in that regard.

When communication within a network begins to break down, cultural norms and rules of conduct immediately go right out the window. Just as fostering greater communication and transparency empowers a social system, closing off means of communication effectively shuts down a social organization's ability to sustain its culture, and ultimately its identity. For better or for worse, this concept is the founding principle of the information age that has defined our era. If you are in the conversation, you automatically have unprecedented access to a wealth of information and opportunity. If you're outside the conversation, you're on your own.

As more of our interpersonal relationships move into the virtual realm and individuals become more physically isolated from their respective social networks, we run the risk of becoming overwhelmingly fragmented and disempowered. As our society continues on its adventure into digital dematerialization I believe we will see far greater cultural and environmental disintegration within our local communities.

Perhaps the most obvious sign that we need better methods of designing and planning is the existence, in industrial countries, of massive unsolved problems that have been created by the use of man-made things, e.g., traffic congestion, parking problems, road accidents, airport congestion, airport noise, urban decay and chronic shortages of such services as medical treatment, mass education and crime detection. (Jones)

Let's apply our new perspective to one of these very familiar systemic breakdowns: traffic congestion. Many people believe that traffic congestion is the result of a logistical, mathematical breakdown, or simply a lack of insight and planning around projected population density or commuting patterns. I disagree. Cars are operated by people. When two strangers meet in a tight hallway they engage one another through a complex choreography of facial, bodily, gestural and spoken communication to coordinate their behavior and navigate past each other. Put those same two people in separate, enclosed two-ton automobiles and we have a different situation altogether. Communication is reduced to a horn, blinkers, and a pair of middle fingers. Transparency into each other's intentions is virtually nonexistent, greatly inhibiting their ability to organize, respond and adapt as a singular, creative entity. Traffic congestion is very much a social problem, compounded by our blind faith in a technological solution.

I believe that most of the catastrophic problems we face today are based upon and/or magnified by fundamental communication failures being addressed with technological solutions.

Continue to Part 3: The Ecology of Collapse

References

1. Capra, Fritjof. The Hidden Connections. New York: First Anchor Books Edition, January 2002.
2. Jones, John Chris. "Design Methods, 2nd ed.," cited in C. Thomas Mitchell, Redefining Designing: From Form to Experience. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993, 39-40; cited in Margolin, Victor, "Expansion or Sustainability: Two Models of Development." The Politics of the Artificial: Essays on Design and Design Studies. Ed. Victor Margolin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. 79-91.