Kelly and Canclini: The Other Underground London
The ‘Other Underground London’ is a space of interlinked drains, sewers, tube tunnels and bunkers, accumulated organically over hundreds of years, curving around beneath the city in rhizomic tangles of unmappable, self-intersecting whirls.
This novel view of London drastically alters the conventional conception of the city being built on solid ground and sturdy foundations, instead offering the viewpoint of being founded on multiple volumes of air. The city of London is less stable than it first appears and the ‘Other Underground’ space is perhaps a contributor to the instability of society and culture at surface level.
From the surface, attitudes, values, conventions and the humanity of the cosmopolitan and metropolised city filter down through the porous foundations; re-emerging polarised and intensified in the underground spaces that are used by society. After passing through the foundations of the City of London, humanity appears to lose itself. As Londoners enter the ‘different’ and ‘other’ spaces of the underground, they adapt to the new environments and are governed by a new set of codes of conduct, evolving from those that are already established in the London above. There are differences at work between the two spaces the ‘surface London’ and the ‘underground London’, for the benefit of this paper these spaces will be conceived as ‘micro nations’ and using language taken from post-colonial studies I will draw similarities between the other and the ‘Underground London’. The two Londons can be conceived as autonomous nations, however the notion of ‘Underground London’ has been dented by derogatory perception as the ‘other’ space.
The tube networks beneath London, have a large affect on the lives of Londoners, a space inhabited daily, used by millions, making-up an ever-growing populace specific to ‘underground London’. However, the identity of those who inhabit the tube is misguided and ambiguous. Though the underground is another space that we all inhabit, ownership of the space and identity within the space is indistinct. The transient nature of the tube, coupled with the self, other dichotomy is in part responsible for this feeling of not belonging. ‘Underground London’ is a transitory space; no time is taken to establish any form of ownership or belonging to this unique territory. As a result, without any structure, the amorphous perception of the underground is troubling and irrational, difficult to navigate. The distancing effect of this space becomes un-relatable, aiding the ambiguity of the ‘self versus other’ hostilities. Doreen Massey discusses peoples imagining and structuring of their spatial loyalties and affiliations, using the metaphor of a Russian doll like sequence. Locating oneself in adherence to this kind of structure reveals that the global is actually everywhere local, and never universal, in a straightforward and linear filtering down. The transient tube dwellers are subconsciously compelled to form their spatial structure and apparent location linearly, starting with their seat of the train, to the carriage they are in, the train, the station or tunnel, the line, the tube, Underground London… and so it goes on. This conceptual viewpoint enables personal structures to be disestablished. Beginning with the specifically local and extending beyond to the vast extremes of the global. Power is therefore conventionally held at a conveniently abstract distance, where we are unable to imagine, rationalise, or grasp the complexities of the globalised world in our everyday lives.
This novel view of London drastically alters the conventional conception of the city being built on solid ground and sturdy foundations, instead offering the viewpoint of being founded on multiple volumes of air. The city of London is less stable than it first appears and the ‘Other Underground’ space is perhaps a contributor to the instability of society and culture at surface level.
From the surface, attitudes, values, conventions and the humanity of the cosmopolitan and metropolised city filter down through the porous foundations; re-emerging polarised and intensified in the underground spaces that are used by society. After passing through the foundations of the City of London, humanity appears to lose itself. As Londoners enter the ‘different’ and ‘other’ spaces of the underground, they adapt to the new environments and are governed by a new set of codes of conduct, evolving from those that are already established in the London above. There are differences at work between the two spaces the ‘surface London’ and the ‘underground London’, for the benefit of this paper these spaces will be conceived as ‘micro nations’ and using language taken from post-colonial studies I will draw similarities between the other and the ‘Underground London’. The two Londons can be conceived as autonomous nations, however the notion of ‘Underground London’ has been dented by derogatory perception as the ‘other’ space.
The tube networks beneath London, have a large affect on the lives of Londoners, a space inhabited daily, used by millions, making-up an ever-growing populace specific to ‘underground London’. However, the identity of those who inhabit the tube is misguided and ambiguous. Though the underground is another space that we all inhabit, ownership of the space and identity within the space is indistinct. The transient nature of the tube, coupled with the self, other dichotomy is in part responsible for this feeling of not belonging. ‘Underground London’ is a transitory space; no time is taken to establish any form of ownership or belonging to this unique territory. As a result, without any structure, the amorphous perception of the underground is troubling and irrational, difficult to navigate. The distancing effect of this space becomes un-relatable, aiding the ambiguity of the ‘self versus other’ hostilities. Doreen Massey discusses peoples imagining and structuring of their spatial loyalties and affiliations, using the metaphor of a Russian doll like sequence. Locating oneself in adherence to this kind of structure reveals that the global is actually everywhere local, and never universal, in a straightforward and linear filtering down. The transient tube dwellers are subconsciously compelled to form their spatial structure and apparent location linearly, starting with their seat of the train, to the carriage they are in, the train, the station or tunnel, the line, the tube, Underground London… and so it goes on. This conceptual viewpoint enables personal structures to be disestablished. Beginning with the specifically local and extending beyond to the vast extremes of the global. Power is therefore conventionally held at a conveniently abstract distance, where we are unable to imagine, rationalise, or grasp the complexities of the globalised world in our everyday lives.
It is my opinion that this lacking of identity and the inability to invoke any form of ownership, forces the already extreme pressures of the modern urban city’s character to be filtered through itself, becoming an exaggerated and a polarised version of itself. The distillation provokes the forming of a subconscious intuition that governs individuals to become insular, uncommunicative, lacking respect, lacking empathy, rushed and ultimately inhuman, bordering on barbaric.
Is this state of the ‘Other Underground London’ susceptible to change? It appears in the reading of Nestor Garcia Canclini, and Susan Kelly; there may be some opportunity to intervene in the processes of ambiguous belonging, ownership and the relation to the other space, under the London in which we live. The tube most definitely has an affect on our lives, and therefore we too have an active ability to have an effect within it.
Canclini, in his text, ‘Remaking Passports, visual thought in the debate on multiculturalism’, discusses the issues surrounding the contemporary arts through the phenomenon of globalisation, universality juxtaposed to the local.
“When one observes, for example, the stylistic uniformity of the French Baroque, Mexican Muralism or American Pop, one might ask if the artists of the currents thought the nation in their work or if they left the pre-existing cultural structure to shape the configuration.” 1
Though directed more specifically at visual cultures Canclini’s notions of cultural practices speak broadly on the issues of national identity and the practices of nationhood. We can similarly question, when entering the underground spaces of London, whether the public consciously thinks of an underground identity to which they collectively adapt, or is it the existing pressures and structures of ‘Underground London’, which determine and mould the identity of the tube user? Canclini continues, suggesting ways in which, the visuality of the space and the disparate peoples alters the individual inhabitant’s identity.
“Identities are constructed now not only in relation to unique territories, but in the multicultural intersection of objects, messages and people coming from diverse directions.” 2
The ‘Underground London’ has become stagnant in the creation of self-perpetuating otherness, disparate from the London above, and the codes of conduct established in our locales. Rather than separate and distinguish between the aboveground and the underground, in a hierarchical manner, Canclini’s text refers to a cross national hybridity whereby the above is brought down to the underground and the underground is taken up to the above, enriching both spaces. Thereby creating a horizontal, non-hierarchical playing field with opportunities to conceive of the total as local. As a result ownership is established and distancing is limited, as the other space can be transfigured and adapted to become another space.
“While the European artist is allowed to investigate other cultures and enrich their own work and perspective, it is expected that the artist from another culture only works in the background and with the artistic traditions connected to his or her place of origin… if the foreign artist does not conform to this separation, he is considered inauthentic, westernised, and an imitator copyist of ‘what we do’. The universal is ours, the local is yours.” 3
Susan Kelly’s text ‘Something Happens’ explores the idea of the micro-state, I feel her ideas and perspective on the contemporary phenomenon, the declaration of a micro-state could be accessed to afford new insight into ‘Underground London’ as an other space.
“What happens when a ‘micro-state’ is declared? An animated sequence springs to mind where a small piece of land leaps off the earth defying all law of gravity and logic.”4
This understanding of the micro-state fits the model of ‘Underground London’, and reveals a new pathway for understanding the other space as another state, a micro-state. The micro-state is helpful in tackling the issues of distance and the ‘self versus other’ frictions, creating a solution to the Russian doll effect explained by Massey.
“Perhaps we could say that the micro-state de-familiarises the masking Russian doll (effect) and provides tools to imagine, recognise, make understandable or legible this complex ‘here-ness’.” 5
The micro-state avoids the distancing and break-down of the local and the global, as a quantity accessible, rational, and contained. If the underground networks establish a micro-state philosophy it is better situated to tackle issues of the distance and ownership, by affirming power no longer abstract or distant. Kelly continues with the ethos of the micro-state explaining the opportunities that become viable.
“They become something autonomous: something that operates according to its own rules. In this sense micro-states share a lot in common with other activist and political groups that use the idea of autonomy as a way of building a self-valorising, self-sustaining. Such communities often work as both models ‘and’ as tools for engaging liberal democratic governments.” 6
Issues of identity on the tube are ambiguous; the ‘otherness’ of the environment seems to cause anxiety and suppression. When entering the ‘other’ space, the Tube user displays a human instinct to adapt, they too become other, moulded by a regimented architectural system, yet governed by a unclear ideal of the inhabitant of ‘Underground London’.
“By applying a criteria of admission, states not only define who they see as inhabitants, but also what the strangers at the gate must become if they are lucky enough to be allowed in.”7
This creates a closed network where change and difference is met by strong opposition and confrontation, limiting opportunities for diversity in experience and exchange.
The underground London Tube network, as a whole or even more specific and distinct areas of the network could associate themselves with the notion of the micro-state, as a model and tool for greater access, active democracy and recognisable identity. This model can be practiced in a wider context, to battle the polarised conventions of the other space, as well as to enrich the processes at work on the streets of London.
“…A sequence of experiments or labourites in which we can investigate, and participate in the actions and formalisations of the ‘micro-state’ or the method of being autonomous. In doing so we might at least begin to imagine alternative shapes to actual existing democracy.”8
The model of the Tube as micro-nation and state affords an opportunity to develop an etiquette, breaking down the conventional barriers and allowing cross fertilisation of both interpretations of London and its two distinct spaces. ‘Underground London’ is able to modify, becoming another space rather than ‘the other’ space. Through a more concise structuring of our perception and position within ‘Underground London’ as ‘Another London’ the local immediacy of our relationship to space can be transferred to other areas, eliminating the notion of ‘other’. Consequently the structure of identities is established, through the opportunity for concretising ones position, affording a relaxation of the spatial architecture, removing the other-ness of the space. The experience of the Tube and ‘Another London’ becomes a tool and model to use in wider context of spatial experiences, as the fundamental identify of the power spaces as an ‘unknown’ and a ‘controller’ of actions within the space, is disestablished and altered.
image 1 Taken from, Susan Kelly, Something happens, [available on] http://www.muu.fi/amorph03/downloads/pdfs/kelly_text1.pdf, pp. 7
1 Nestor Garcia Canclini, Remaking passports: visual thought in the debate on multiculturalism, in, The art of art history: a critical anthology, edited by Donald Preziosi, pp. 500.
2 Nestor Garcia Canclini, Remaking passports: visual thought in the debate on multiculturalism, in, The art of art history: a critical anthology, edited by Donald Preziosi, pp.503
3 Ibid, pp. 506
4 Susan Kelly, Something happens, [available on] http://www.muu.fi/amorph03/downloads/pdfs/kelly_text1.pdf, pp. 6
5 Susan Kelly, Something happens, [available on] http://www.muu.fi/amorph03/downloads/pdfs/kelly_text1.pdf, pp. 8
6 Ibid, pp. 8
7Ibid, pp. 10
8 Susan Kelly, Something happens, [available on] http://www.muu.fi/amorph03/downloads/pdfs/kelly_text1.pdf, pp. 11