An Introduction to ‘Non-places’
Being situated in the age of supermodernity, Auge (1995) presents the notion of ‘non-place’, a neologism he coined, to the public through real-life examples in his well-known book, Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity.
As natives of the era, the majority of individuals would find such locations utterly familiar, even if they are unaware of the characteristics of the places. This brief essay serves as an overview of the concept. I attempt to apply Auge’s theory of non-place in an acquainted piece of architecture, i.e., a cinema, and compare it with the airport, which Auge uses as an example, in order to identify parallels and contrasts and to determine if the theories translate in everyday life.
It is, however, impossible to apply the theory without stating at least some of Auge’s argumentation, if not all. To facilitate the comparison, I will present four centrepieces of the concept of non-places to present, namely (1) the linkage between individuals and the space of non-place, (2) non-places’ creation of a shared identity, (3) the contractual relations between the users and the non-place, and (4) the retrieval of ones’ true identities at exits of non-places (Auge, 1995).
Non-places, unlike other types of locations, have an unconventional linkage with their users. Auge (1995) points out that such a relationship is established with the mediation of words. Non-places offer users their prescriptive, prohibitive, as well as informative ‘instructions for use’, with which specific traffic conditions of spaces, particularly that individuals are assumed to interact with texts, are established (Auge, 1995). With one of his examples, i.e., an airport, ones could quickly notice that they are, de facto, surrounded by instructions, such as ‘No smoking’ (prohibitive) and ‘Departure ↑’ (informative) when they are situated in one.
Intriguingly similarly, the same linkage could be found in a cinema. If you recall, cinemas are also awash with various signs, such as ‘House 4 X’ (informative), and ‘Queue here’ (prescriptive). Since efficiency-wise, individuals are expected to navigate independently according to the instructions, notwithstanding cases in which ones seek assistance from ushers. Nonetheless, such instances indicate waste of human resources and thus, are undesirable. It can be seen that in both examples, the airport and the cinema, ordinary language and codified ideograms (Auge, 1995) have become the bridge connecting the non-place and its users.
Meanwhile, non-places create a shared identity, let it be passengers or consumers, for users, offering them a form of relative anonymity (Auge, 1995). Airports, as a typical non-place, exemplifies the claim. Many would agree that they experience a sense of relieve upon approaching an airport terminal. Such a phenomenon might also help explain why some like to visit the airport on occasion.
Auge (1995) expounds his view that each person who accesses a non-place is assigned an identical, ad hoc, yet unchallengeable identity that could be felt like a liberation. At airports, having their passports checked, ones are no more than passengers despite their actual identities, whether they are businesspeople or teachers. They are no longer judged by their language and the local reference, e.g., accents (Auge, 1995).
The same holds true for the scenario in a cinema, which might even be a better illustration. Individuals are merely audience with their torn film tickets in a movie theatre. Ones are altogether isolated from one another and the outside world and become thoroughly anonymous when lights inside the cinema house are off. What matters is the playing film per se, instead of the identities of the audience. ‘Instructions’, as mentioned previously, e.g., ‘No talking’ and ‘Please turn off your phone’, would further compartmentalise individuals’ lives with their work and social lives. The audience could take pleasure in “the passive joys of identity-loss” (Auge, 1995, 103). These traits betoken cinemas’ non-place quality.
Furthermore, Auge (1995) articulates the contractual relationship between a non-place or the powers that govern it and its users. In an airport, for instance, showing one’s passport and flight tickets to personnel for security checks signifies such a relation; Auge (1995) adds such a “contract always relates to the individual identity of the contracting party” (101) since the passenger’s name is always printed on the flight ticket that must then be presented to the check-in desk alongside an identity document. The individual’s anonymity is only given when the contract is fulfilled, and his/her identity and innocence are proved (Auge, 1995).
Such a relationship more or less applies to the cinema example. In order to gain access to a cinema house, ones must purchase a film ticket on which, despite the absence of their names, the contractual relations are still established. Notwithstanding that one’s innocence might not always be proved when purchasing film tickets, there are alternative methods for doing such identity-checks. For instance, people who bought student tickets are required to present their full-time student cards that reveal their identities and personal information; the transaction records of those who pay with credit cards are digitally recorded. We can see that cinemas continue to resemble a non-place in spite of slight differences.
I have mentioned the ad hoc nature of the shared identity above but do you realise that it actually suggests the retrieval of one’s real identity? Auge (1995) points out that users of non-places retrieve their identities at exits. He used the airport example again, justifying that passengers regain their identities only at Customs. The identical shared identity of a passenger is expired once ones pass through the gates of Customs. However much they feel like they are leaving a non-place and entering an anthropological place, their identity as a businessperson, a student, or a sightseer returns to them. It is no longer mandatory for users to “[obey] the same code as others, [receive] the same messages, and [respond] to the same entreaties” (Auge, 1995, 103).
One would probably have the same feeling when leaving a cinema house. The sudden change in space, from a dark to an illuminated one, moreover, dramatises the scenario, providing the users with an even more theatrical feeling. The moment they step out the cinema, they are once bombarded by information as they turn on their phones and revert to the pre-film selves. They resume to be subjected to others’ sight and views both extrinsically (appearance-wise, aesthetically) and intrinsically (culturally, lingually). The close resemblance of an airport and a cinema in terms of the features of non-places is then plain to see.
The preceding paragraphs about leaving non-places lead us to the surrounding environments of airports and theatres. Airports are typically located in suburban areas, the former Kai Tak Airport aside, to minimise disturbance to residents. The suburbs might not be considered an official anthropological place. It is, however, for many, the suburbs are rather not non-place-like. Although Auge (1995) sees well-designed highways, which connects the urban area and the suburban airport, as non-places since they retain the aforementioned characteristics, the landscape and natural sceneries possibly allow individuals to have connection and communication to the geographical and anthropological surroundings.
As perplexing might it seem, the surrounding environments of cinemas, which are typically shopping malls in most cases, also share the peculiarity. Shopping malls are also often referred to as non-places. Nevertheless, comparing with cinemas, shopping malls lack the same intensity of non-placeness. Unlike cinemas, in which communications are largely filtered, shopping malls accede to the demands of interpersonal connection and a slight manifestation of individual identities, albeit delusional as people are more often given the shared identity of a customer.
After looking into the examples, isn’t it frightfully absorbing to see how Auge’s theories construct the fabric of non-places and apply to architectures with which we are familiar and how we could notice similarities and differences? In the digital era, we are losing the sensitivity to the environment. Ones must pay attention to places around to explore what hidden behind the ‘façades’ of architectures are. After all, the reality always surprises us.
Reference
Auge, Marc. (1995). Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity. London: Verso.
