It's the Epistemology, Stupid

There is a very fine book by James Kunstler, called Home from Nowhere. It’s about the destruction of the soul of the American built environment. That is, it’s about how virtually every American town and city tends towards losing its distinct identity, its sense of being a special place in its own right. Instead of existing as sites marked by soul, these places become increasingly monotonous and uniform – much like everywhere else. Soul is sacrificed to convenience, commercial instincts, utilitarianism, functionalism …

Now I repeat, this is a fine book by a fine writer, full of conscience and humanity. But to my mind, Kunstler’s penetrating analysis lacks a certain historical depth. Thus, when Kunstler ponders the reasons for modern soulless development, he looks only to post WWII developments!

I was astonished.

But then I’ve spent the last quarter of my life, analysing the loss of soul everywhere in modernity. Not just architecture, but throughout all areas of society.

And one conclusion seems inescapable to me. The new epistemology, initiated by Descartes, continued through Kant, Locke, Hume, and countless others has profoundly shaped all areas of our culture.

Epistemology which not only asks the question: ‘How do we know what we know?’ but also determines: ‘What do we take SERIOUSLY?’

For example: do we take *seriously* only the proven functionality of empirical data, or are we willing to take *seriously* that which can never be proven empirically? Put more simply, this question often amounts to: What do we take seriously, quantities or quality? Proven, functioning quantities or quality that requires not *proof*, but *faith*.

What reigns now, is functionalism and utilitarianism. Nearly everywhere we look, there is less faith in that which cannot be reduced to quantities. The same tendency is evident in all fields, not only architecture and economics, but psychology and even theology.

Which is why, as noble as it is, Kunstler’s analysis of soulless architecture is incomplete without Descartes’ progeny.

And which is why, in my headline, I drew attention to Bill Clinton’s (in)famous dictum, which represented yet another step in reducing the values of the Democrats to the 'bottom line' - quality to quantity.

The question is: how do we resurrect soul - in a society that cannot take soul seriously, because soul cannot be quantified or proven?

Now John Paul II said 'Be not afraid!'

Why I think this is relevant to this train of thought is something I hope to unpack - in time. But it involves faith, not in the sense of religious literalism or fundamentalism - but something very different.