Daily pages - September 01, 2021

So I realized yesterday that in the eight months since I finished my rough draft of the book, I have yet to write a single pattern that I feel is complete. I think that means that I don’t really understand what makes up a pattern, and I’m getting frustrated trying to write the discussion sections and not feeling like they’re correct.

So, I’m going to try and dissect the structure of a proper discussion section is, and also how I can do better with the context and posttext sections.

I think the discussion section consists of an analysis of the forces that are in conflict in a given context. In Alexander’s writing, the problem and the forces seem to be two sides of the same coin. The conflicting forces are the problem, and the problem is the result of conflicting forces.

So I think the first part of the discussion section lists the forces at play based on the problem statement and the context, the second section talks about how we can resolve those forces, leading to the solution statement. The “therefore” that is used as a transition between the discussion and the solution statement would imply that the solution follows from the discussion above.

In reading Alexander, the discussion is almost always a friendly explanation of what is meant by the problem statement. The problem statement is pithy and can’t go into depth about why it’s a problem, and it may not be obvious to everyone why the problem as stated is even a problem, so the discussion elaborates on the nature of the problem. Specifically, taking the Scattered Work pattern in his book, the problem states “the artificial separation of houses and work creates intolerable rifts in people’s lives.” That’s a pretty bold statement and could be, as we say, up for debate. So he starts explaining.

He starts by explaining the logic behind the current situation: industry is noisy and polluting and homes can’t be nearby, zoning laws, etc.

Then he starts explaining why it’s a problem. Families are artificially separated during the day, limiting their activity and interactions; children grow up without men around; adult lives are sharply divided between work and home, and work is reinforced as “toil” that is separate from “living”—”a schizophrenic view which creates tremendous problems for all members of a family.” It’s a simple argument without a lot of examples to back it, but putting aside his confusion between schizophrenia and split personality disorder, it’s fairly effective. It at least elaborates on what the problem statement says.

Then, he starts discussion what it will take to “overcome this schism and re-establish the connection between love and work, central to a sane society.” He calls for a redistribution of living and working spaces in towns. He also gives a list of requirements for such a distribution. listing five fairly specific and quantifiable ways to know if the distribution is really resolving the conflict: every home within 20-30 minutes of many hundreds of workplaces; many workplaces within walking distance of children and families; workers can go home for lunch, run errands, etc.

Then he proposes that the only pattern that meets all these criteria is a scattered work pattern where work is highly decentralized. Noisy workplaces can be placed at the boundaries of neighborhoods, but others can be scattered within homes and neighborhoods.

At this point, I might think that the argument has been made, but he writes quite a bit more.

He elaborates on the fact that the arrangement he describes will make it possible for families to interact more during the day, children will experience work as part of life, and so on.

He talks about how this pattern in natural if traditional societies, but has changed as he have become more industrialized. So, he asks, how strong is the need for workplaces to be near each other? (the counter argument).

From an industry perspective, centralization has economic advantages, but “large, centralized organizations are not intrinsic to mass production.” He offers examples of groups of small workshops working together in a decentralized fashion have been successful: the Jura Federation of watchmakers, and other examples from a book by Raymond Vernon.

Then, he offers a new frame: “the city itself is a vast centralized workplace… [producing] economies of scale by bringing thousands of of work groups within range of each other…” which can “support an endless number of combinations between small, scattered workgroups; and it can lend great flexibility to the modes of production.”

So, he’s saying that not only is this pattern better for people, it could be better for business as well, and the arguments that business has for avoiding it are not well-supported. Or rather, they may be supported in a context where only productivity and profits matter, but we are trying to build a world that helps make humans whole.

He then points out that even big undertakings like building a large bridge are accomplished by subcontracting many smaller firms. We’re seeing that more and more today with the gig economy. then he emphasizes that he’s not saying give up high tech so you can have decentralized workplaces; the two ideas aren’t incompatible and we can have both.

Then the solution statement: Use zoning laws, neighborhood planning, tax incentives, and any other means available to scatter workplaces throughout the city. Prohibit large concentrations of work, without family life around them. Prohibit large concentrations of family life without workplaces around them.

Okay, so the larger structure looks like. Each of these parts can be anywhere from one to several paragraphs, depending on what kind of detail is needed to be clear. You may find that counter arguments aren’t really an issue as most people seem to recognize the problem, but just don’t know how to resolve it.

Describe the basic understanding of the current situation. Outline the forces that make this situation common. Expand on and clarify the problem statement so it’s clear to the reader why the current situation is a problem. How do these existing forces conflict with other forces, usually toward a life of wisdom? Briefly discuss how you propose to resolve the problem. Give specific, measurable criteria that would indicate that the problem is resolved. This can be several paragraphs, especially if you have research that supports your idea. Discuss any counter argument. Give counter examples. Try to reframe the situation so the reader can see the point of view that allows your solution to make sense.