Ashrita Shetty

Abstract

Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future (Our Common Future,1987, p.16). In urban contexts today, sustainable development is increasingly approached through a narrow lens of top-down policy and infrastructural goals (Jensen, Jørgensen, Elle, Lauridsen, 2012). This paper argues for a holistic approach, which recognizes that sustainable development is not just a top-down goal but involves a value system and human approach that starts ground up. (Our Common Future,1987, p.16) Both top-down and bottom-up approaches need to operate symbiotically for truly sustainable development. The paper highlights the role of an important tool for driving sustainable lifestyles and behaviors - a collective imagination that is rooted in place; in the past, artists and architects have utilized collective imaginations to drive public dialogue based on their own socio-political commentaries and visions for the future (Conrads & Bullock, 1964/1970). Drawing on ethnographic observation, participatory and secondary research, two places are presented as case studies - the township of Auroville in the state of Tamil Nadu, India and Thrikkaipetta village in the state of Kerala, India. The results suggest that both places are driven by strong, collective imaginations of sustainable, low-impact lifestyles and behaviors, resulting in an organic integration into practical, everyday life. Understanding and analyzing the mechanisms that enable both cases to achieve this can prove a valuable tool for sustainable urban development in the future.

Keywords: collective imagination, sustainable development, sustainable lifestyle, Auroville, Thrikkaipetta, India

The Power of Collective Imagination: A Driver of Sustainable Lifestyles and Behavior

Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The concept of sustainable development does imply limits - not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities (Our Common Future,1987, p.16).

It is important to recognize that while policy and other top-down measures are catching up in their own time to manage the implications of human activities, human actors do not need to wait to start taking action.

Sustainable global development requires those who are more affluent to adopt life-styles within the planet's ecological means - in their use of energy, for example. Living standards that go beyond the basic minimum are sustainable only if consumption standards everywhere have regard for long-term sustainability. Yet many of us live beyond the world's ecological means, for instance in our patterns of energy use. Perceived needs are socially and culturally determined, and sustainable development requires the promotion of values that encourage consumption standards that are within the bounds of the ecological possible and to which all can reasonably aspire (Our Common Future,1987, p.16-17).The Report of the Marrakech Process Task force on Sustainable Lifestyles (2010) defines a sustainable lifestyle as a way of living enabled both by efficient infrastructures, goods and services, and by individual choices and actions that minimize the use of natural resources, and generation of emissions, wastes and pollution, while supporting equitable socio‐economic development and progress for all.

From these definitions, it is postulated that sustainable development is composed of two main actors - (a) physical context at the scale of the planet, region, settlement or building- the “container”, and (b) lifestyles and behaviors that operate within them i.e. the human aspect- the “contained”. A holistic approach to creating a sustainable place is not focused solely on the container, but lays equal importance on cultivating the contained, so that the two symbiotically perform together. However, in modern, urban discourse today, the methods to achieve sustainable development are narrow, focusing merely on the container (Jensen, Jørgensen, Elle & Lauridsen, 2012). Top-down strategies such as heavy and deep infrastructure, zero waste management systems, high performance building envelopes and others are considered key contributors to sustainable development. Though everyday sustainability is sold in the form of consumer lifestyle products or “sustainable consumption” (Report of the Marrakech Process Task force on Sustainable Lifestyles,2010), it is observed that these efforts do not address sustainable lifestyles as a result of a deeply cultivated value system, but merely as a veneer to be applied homogeneously to achieve the image of a desired lifestyle.

Significance of Connection to Place

In the virtually networked and digital world of today, it is a common phenomenon for the significance of being grounded in a real, physical context to fade and be easily overlooked. But it cannot be overlooked that every life has embedded, physically-rooted resource implications; every life is resource-dependent and resource consuming. Long standing practices of burying infrastructure below surfaces, behind walls, has exacerbated the lack of exposure and firsthand knowledge of resource consumption as well as the physical processes of resource extraction, procurement and generation, creating a deep disconnect with our environment (Kaika & Swyngedouw, 2008). Furthermore, with access to resources at the mercy of economic forces, the rift between human beings and the environment is only deepened - desensitizing populations to an increasingly dichotomous global situation (Klein,2014). The widespread attitude of indifference and lack of connection to place that has led to the same path-dependent processes of the past, continues to the present - breeding needs and aspirations that are apathetic to the future. According to Klein (2014), “...Humans should be capable of making some important lifestyle changes in the interest of stabilizing the physical systems upon which all life depends.” And yet, it is observed that these top-down technical and consumer solutions can be considered welcome distractions from the more difficult societal and structural changes that a sustainable future demands.

Role of Collective Imagination

Collective imagination is a set of symbols, customs or memories that have specific meaning to it and is common to all the people who are part of it (“What is Collective Imagination | Psychology Concepts”, 2015). Collective imagination lies at the core of social change, but it is difficult to concretely determine its role and how it effects this change. From the past, it is known that architects, artists and movements such as the Situationists, the Bauhaus, Constant Nieuwenhuys and others developed collective imaginations for the future of humankind, and based their art and architecture on these collective imaginations to spark public, collective thought and dialogue (Conrads & Bullock, 1964/1970). According to Appadurai (1996), “When the imagination is collective...it can become the fuel for action. The imagination is today a staging ground for action, and not only for escape.”

Recognizing that sustainable development is part of a holistic system immediately crystallizes the act of building a collective imagination to sustain public dialogue and action, as integral to the success of this system. Not establishing this foundation negatively affects the goal of achieving sustainable futures. Alternative models of sustainable development that leverage the collective imagination to drive low-impact lifestyles and behavior are presented in this paper.

Method

Ethnographic Observation

Ethnographic observation and secondary research for two locations (a) Auroville, Tamil Nadu, India, and (b) Thrikkaipetta Village, Kerala, India was carried out. In both locations, the ethnographic observation was carried out by complete participation in the form of living and volunteering there.

In Auroville, the volunteering took place at a sustainable housing project Sacred Groves where ecological housing prototypes constructed from earth (cob technique) are being developed. Living and volunteering in Auroville over a period of ten weeks enabled opportunities for visits to other sustainability-focused projects, involvement in community and spiritual life and regular, active engagement of both local and transient populations in the settlement.

In Thrikkaipetta village, complete participation was in the form of a month-long volunteering workshop focused on primary research on the lifestyles of local below-poverty level tribal populations¹, knowledge-share seminars from local professionals (scientists, architects and others) and the design-build of bamboo housing and furniture prototypes. These prototypes were then further developed by local professionals for implementation in the field. The workshop was conducted by local non-profit Uravu along with some of its partners. The main goal of the workshop was to develop alternative housing prototypes in response to the failure of housing provided through government housing scheme Indira Awaas Yojana²; the lack of contextually appropriate housing caused the structures to be left semi-built and unoccupied.

Active engagement and immersion in local activities and lifestyle was strongly encouraged while studying and living amongst the local population.

Case Studies

Introduction. Auroville, India and Thrikkaipetta Village, India have been presented as case studies to study the role of collective imagination in driving sustainable development. They are both working models of human settlements that have been successful in grounding their contemporary identity in a collective imagination intimately connected to their physical contexts. It should be noted that being tied to a physical context does not imply that a collective imagination to be specific to a particular geographical location. Instead, it recognizes specific physical parameters and conditions that the collective imagination responds to and operates within. It was observed that the most compelling outcome of this collective imagination is a healthy, symbiotic relationship between human and place.

Auroville, Tamil Nadu, India. Auroville is a model experimental township located in the state of Tamil Nadu in India. In 1968, Blanche Rachel Mirra Alfassa “The Mother” started her mission of creating Auroville, an experimental global city where residents were free of caste, creed and politics and exemplifying human unity. The ethos of experimentation and sustainable development were inherent to Auroville’s inception and Mother’s vision (https://www.auroville.org). It was with these core values and ideals that the physical place that Auroville occupies today, was built.

Due to its unique environment and structure, Auroville is a place that fosters and welcomes learning and research through its multiple and diverse organizations, which in turn, strive to support sustainable development in the small communities and the surrounding villages (https://www.auroville.org).

The township is continuously evolving, true to its ideals of experimentation. It is the location of multiple projects centered around sustainable development, lifestyles and practices encouraging innovation and radical experimentation, along with sharing of knowledge and skills. Within Auroville, individual microcosms work collectively towards a shared imagination of holistic sustainable development. Sustainability-focused activities and programs in Auroville are experimental and extremely diverse, touching most aspects of human life today and encompass fashion, building technologies, soil and water conservation and others³ (Gangopadhyay & Chakraborty, 2015).

Findings. The township’s permanent population comprises citizens “Aurovilians” and long-term residents. The rest of the population is transient comprising students, volunteers and tourists seeking direct experience of this collective imagination (“Demographic Characteristics”, n.d.). A defining feature of being a part of Auroville is the universal attitude of primarily active participation in low-impact lifestyles.

Most activities are opportunities to interact directly with practices that respond to resource shortage in a visceral way. At Auroville, the veneer of a perceived lack of scarcity that can be said to be commonly experienced by stronger socio-economic classes of urban India is equitably stripped away. Very few street lights function after dark and the use of compost toilets creates a visceral awareness of sustainable waste management practices. Washing dishes can be an activity that requires three tubs of communal water, coconut husks and ash. Streets are intentionally unpaved to limit heavy motor traffic. It was observed that a tap that does not flow but only drips, creates a strong awareness of exactly how little water is needed to cleanse hands after a meal. These alternative forms of direct participation and organic exposure to sustainable practices led to their natural integration in daily life and routine.

Whether certain resources are abundant or scarce in Auroville is immaterial; resource scarcity is a global condition that Auroville responds to, in its locally appropriate way. In this way, it remains universally relevant while operating within the collective imagination of place that it is tied to.

Conclusion. Auroville was conceived by the Mother, but it came to fruition only because of a collective effort. It was borne from an abstract idea but was physically developed ground-up in accordance with this imagination and hence all development and activities and lifestyles are cognizant of/heavily rooted to place. Today, it continues to exist aligned with its root principles because of continued participation in the same imagination that it was founded with. The existence of a collective imagination enables the township to be “alternative” and remain experimental and continuously evolving. Without a common thread that binds together Aurovilian activities, it would dissolve into a series of disparate efforts that would not have the power to drive and support sustainable lifestyles and behaviors as it does today.

Thrikkaipetta Village, Kerala, India. Thrikkaipetta village is a small village located in the Wayanad district in the state of Kerala, India with a large tribal population. Thrikkaipetta’s contemporary identity as a “the Heritage Village of Bamboo” or “Bamboo Village” is from a collective imagination driven by non-profit organization Uravu and tourism-focused organization Kabani (Nath, 2012). Uravu’s mission encompasses facilitation of sustainable development, promotion of indigenous knowledge systems and green technologies (“Vision and Mission”, n.d.). The non-profit was founded by local residents who leverage this collective imagination as a vital tool to overcome socio-cultural barriers⁴ and mobilize residents to manage resources locally and become self-sufficient (“Impact”, n.d.). Kabani added more depth to this imagination by structuring a sustainable tourism model for the village and adding a complementary income source for the residents.

Findings. This collective imagination was borne out of a very specific set of social, economic and environmental conditions such as resource scarcity along with an ailing economy and indigenous knowledge. Established in 1996, Uravu was started by a group of friends to generate employment in the area focused on sustainable farming practices. (Das, 2015). Capitalizing on bamboo as a resource, they branched out into bamboo processing along with technical training, bamboo design development and product diversification programs for artisans. Bamboo is being researched and developed for housing, lifestyle products, art and more (“Vision and Mission”, n.d.). There is a community fund that a fixed proportion of the income from the tourism goes into, to be used for collective good such as skills training for village residents (Nath, 2012). Similar to Auroville, this identity has succeeded in being a magnet for students, researchers and tourists interested in directly engaging with this collective imagination.

Today, the community focuses on becoming a pioneer of sustainable living and economy through skill-building, sustainable tourism and construction creating a robust bamboo-centric ecosystem (B, N. S. B. (2016).

Conclusion. In Thrikkaipetta village, a collective imagination of sustainable development centered around bamboo and its physical context, was crucial to revive a faltering craft and economy. Without the community’s collective imagination of a shared goal, it would have been very difficult for the village to survive, let alone thrive and innovate as it does now. Today, its contemporary identity is a source of pride for its residents and it is making continuous progress towards a holistic social, economic and environmental sustainability.

Discussion

Connection to Physical Place

From studying both Auroville and Thrikkaipetta, it was notable that cultivating a sustainable lifestyle involved recognizing and responding to constraints and opportunities in the physical environment such as resource scarcity, climatic conditions and others. Stronger place attachment and sense of place⁵ were developed through direct exposure and opportunity to shape existing physical context. Firsthand participation in this lifestyle and engaging with these conditions, arguably left a strong imprint that had a higher likelihood of initiating lasting lifestyle changes (Cross, 2001). Unlike top-down measures, it provided a sense of ownership and autonomy to an individual to be able to incorporate locally based, sustainable practices in everyday life however they chose to.

Collective Imagination

From the studies, it is inferred that a collective imagination can be considered an effective “staging ground for action” (Appadurai,1996) because it is a participatory effort towards a shared aspiration that can operate at an individual or collective level. It holds the potential for a goal or abstract target to be set, but can be manifested in a tactical way that is experienced first-hand when rooted in a physical place.

One of the most important outcomes of a collective imagination is the potential of discovery of an alternative that exists outside the status quo. Through this lens, a key contribution of collective imagination is the dismantling of preconceived notions and biases associated with the “alternative”. Sustainable practices could involve radical changes to one’s lifestyle and solutions outside the status quo. This heightens the significance of a collective imagination because it drives a benchmark to work towards and builds a community to integrate into. “Without such a collective imagination capacity and active deliberation processes, societies lack both the motivation for change and guidance for decision-making in a certain direction of change” (Milkoreit, 2017).

Additionally, a collective imagination can be proactive and anticipate future conditions, unlike planning and policy that is typically reactive and rigid. It can be nimble enough to reflect current and future conditions, and evolve based on new findings while adapting to suit varying lifestyles.

The Working of Collective Imagination. A collective imagination cultivated around a place drives its contemporary identity and shapes the individual attitudes of actors within it. Participating in a collective imagination of a sustainable place drives an attitude of active participation in sustainable lifestyles and behaviors. This attitude, in tandem with existing structural sustainability measures, achieves a holistic approach to sustainable living. In a symbiotic dynamic, sustainable lifestyles and behavioral patterns would drive how development at varying scales takes place and this development in turn, would have implications on lifestyles operating within it. An actor’s “method” to sustainable living manifests differently based on subjective influences not limited to economic, political, social, or religious factors (or a combination of any).

In both Auroville and Thrikkaipetta, though the collective imagination of sustainable living was grounded in a physical context, as a social construct it was universal. Storytelling and human memory enabled this imagination to grow and be shared with populations far beyond the geographic boundaries of a physical place.

However, the presence of a periphery, i.e., a physical threshold, was not without significance. The threshold delineated a physical place where the collective imagination of a lifestyle could be tangibly experienced. The act of crossing a threshold served to strengthen connections to this shared imagination of sustainable living. Therefore, the presence of a collective imagination was signaled in two ways at the threshold: (a) mental perception of the place built by storytelling and memory, and (b) physical cues that established the place - buildings, infrastructure, landscape, activities. These physical cues that established place strengthened mental perception of it, and likewise, the mental perception of the place drove the physical cues.

Conclusion

The paper contributes to a body of research that aims to broaden perspectives on how sustainable lifestyles and development in urban environments are perceived and addressed. The focus of modern, urban discourse is on sustainable development and lifestyles being approached through a top-down lens of technology, infrastructure, policy, and sustainable consumption respectively- often siloed. This divorces the “container” from the “contained” and could delimit the role of those working towards sustainable development.

In contrast, this paper provides alternative narratives that recognize that holistic sustainable development is equally dependent on the “human factor”, implying the need for these actors (architects, designers, planners and others) to be involved beyond merely shaping of the physical realm - to additionally, spark collective imaginations of a sustainable future. The study of both Auroville and Thrikkaipetta highlights the power of collective imagination to drive and maintain sustainable lifestyles and behaviors. Furthermore, it illustrates the significance of connection to place and a visceral engagement with active sustainable living practices and contextual conditions to create a deep impact on individual attitude.

Though both are non-urban settings, creating similar opportunities for urban dwellers to cultivate and/or operate with a collective imagination might be key to nurturing a value system that will organically drive the locally-based, bottom-up sustainable lifestyles and behaviors needed for future sustainable development.

­References

1. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota Press

2. B, N. S. B. (2016, October 1). How to take back your damn life. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@naagasubramanya/how-to-take-back-your-damn-life- 5bc4c6ceae97

3. Cross, J. (2001) What is Sense of Place? Retrieved from http://western.edu/sites/default/files/documents/cross_headwatersXII.pdf

4. Conrads, U. (Ed.). (1970). Programs and Manifestoes on 20th Century Architecture. (M. Bullock , Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1964)

5. Das, B. (2015, Aug 28). A day at Uravu, The Bamboo Village in Wayanad. Retrieved from http://www.thealternative.in/society/uravu-the-bamboo-village/

6. “Demographic Characteristics” (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.auroville.info/ACUR/masterplan/demographic.htm

7. Gangopadhyay, N., & Chakraborty, P. (2015). An Alternative Model of Sustainable Living: the case of Auroville in India. IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science, 38-49.

8. https://www.auroville.org

9. “Impact” (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.uravu.net/vision-and-mission/

10. Kaika, M., & Swyngedouw, E. (2000). Fetishizing the modern city: the phantasmagoria of urban technological networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 120– 138.

11. Klein, N. (2014) This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. New York City, NY: Simon & Schuster

12. Jesper Ole Jensen, Michael Søgaard Jørgensen, Morten Elle & Erik Hagelskjær Lauridsen (2012) Has social sustainability left the building? The recent conceptualization of “sustainability” in Danish buildings, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 8:1, 94-105, DOI: 10.1080/15487733.2012.11908088

13. Milkoreit, M (2017) Imaginary politics: Climate change and making the future. Elem Sci Anth, 5: 62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.249 \

14. Nath, S. (2012, November 12). Bamboo village: Above and beyond a tourism project. Retrieved from http://www.thealternative.in/lifestyle/bamboo-village-above-and-beyond-a-tourism- project/

15. Our Common Future (1987), p.16. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common- future.pdf

16. Report of the Marrakech Process Task force on Sustainable Lifestyles (2010). Retrieved from https://mst.dk/media/mst/68633/Background%20paper%20A%20-%20Session%201.pdf

17. “Vision and Mission” (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.uravu.net/vision-and-mission/

18. What is Collective Imagination | Psychology Concepts. (2015). Retrieved from https://edukalife.blogspot.com/2015/06/what-is-collective-imagination.html