Different cultures?

In Auroville we like to put the emphasis upon unity rather than our differences. However, while this is the ideal, it shouldn’t disguise the fact that, at present, we may have rather different ‘cultures’ – different ways of perceiving and experiencing the world – which make it difficult, at times, for them to understand and communicate with each other. There are, of course, the national cultures where differences of language, customs etc. can present communication challenges. But perhaps there are other ‘cultures’ which we don’t recognize so readily, cultures which are defined by work experience as well as by the propensities of those who are drawn to these activities.

I wonder if, for example, those who work on the land and those who are office-based planners could be seen to constitute somewhat different cultures. And this may be why, almost from the beginning of Auroville, a certain tension has existed between these two groups.

Making any kind of generalization about Aurovilians is perilous, because there seem to be so many exceptions to the rule. However, here are some very tentative suggestions about some of the things that may distinguish these two ‘cultures’.

Planners are conceptualists, mind-based, whereas land workers tend to be more experiential and body-based.

Planners are primarily shapers of an environment, which is viewed as manipulatable, while land workers are responsive to the needs of an existing environment.

Planners are future-oriented, while land workers tend to be focused more on the grain of the present. Planners focus on the needs of society as a whole, while land workers focus more upon the natural environment.

Clearly, these are very broad generalizations, and there are plenty of planners and land workers who span or don’t fit neatly into these categories. But if the broad lines are correct, it may explain why it is difficult at times for each ‘culture’ to understand the other, and why they have different views about how and in what form the city should develop.

For example, one reason why many of our land workers favour ‘organic’ rather than planned, top down development is that they are dealing on a daily basis with the ground realities of organic life here – water catchment, afforestation, soil protection etc. – and understand how close attention, even identification, with nature provides emerging indications of what needs to be done (or not done) that are naturally in tune with the planet. Wedded to the slow rhythms of nature, land workers also tend to be conservative when it comes to contemplating any kind of dramatic change.

Our planners, on the other hand, are more interested in forms which shape the landscape and society, and which call the future. This potentially (although this does not always happen in actuality) makes them more interested in experimentation, less tied to present ground realities and determinisms, and more eager to see quick results. These differences can be seen, to a certain extent, as reflecting the mind/body dichotomy. The mind is more agile, adventurous, the body more grounded.

Clearly, each perspective has something important to learn from the other. If planners don’t listen to land workers, there is a danger that their plans will devastate our environmental base. For, as John Le Carre pointed out, “a desk is a dangerous place from which to view the world”. If environmentalists don’t listen to planners, there’s a danger that certain ideals Auroville aspires for – like the manifestation of new material forms to support new forms of consciousness and social behaviour – will be neglected.

In fact, the need for each culture to understand and work with the other was understood earlier. In the 1980s, the Auroville Resource Centre brought together architect/planners and environmentalists to work on plans for the developing township which would integrate these different perspectives. Unfortunately, after a few years of harmonious work, the experiment was discontinued.

But before its demise, the environmentalists and planners agreed upon a vision which is a model of collaboration and integrality:

We agree with and appreciate the salient features of the original concept of the city like the four zones surrounding the MM, the inner ring road, the crown, the need to build dense and the general spirit of unity in diversity as expressed in this concept.

Our approach is holistic: we are working on the harmonious interpretation of a developing urban process in this environment (human and natural). We aim at using consciously and judiciously the resources put at our disposal so that AV – the city the earth needs – may become an example for India and the world, as we are very concerned by the devastation of the environment that is linked to the overexploitation of the world resources, due to modern patterns of development .

Our task is to help the community – now a living being – to grow and experiment. Like other types of organization (town planning is the spatial organization of the town), it has to provide a frame for our development but remain flexible. The unity and harmony of the city of the future we do not see so much as a finished product of designers but in the diverse living and working process of a growing community longing for it in all aspects of life.

It would be wrong to reduce the present controversy over the Crown Road to merely being a clash between these two cultures. For it also involves Aurovilians who are neither planners nor land workers, who differ, for example, in how they view the symbolism and sacredness of form, or how Mother’s words are to be interpreted. However, as the controversy also threatens to harden the line between planners and land workers, it makes it all the more urgent that each of these orientations tries harder to understand, as well as appreciate, the other.

More profoundly, it points to the urgent need for each of us to try to transcend the influence of the internal and external factors which divide and shape us into different cultures. How? Mother gave the clue. By making the ‘inner discovery’ of who we truly are, “behind social, moral, cultural, racial and hereditary appearances”.