The experience of familiarity during movement within Rhodes University’s placeness is one of the more immediate ways in which reflexivity and reflectivity-based experience of placeness is engaged. The experience of familiarity incorporates both navigational knowledge (refer to Passini, 1984; Montello, 1998; Baskaya et al., 2004:840) and the experience of placeness as with familiar decorations from memory (refer to Lynch, 1960:23; De Certeau, 1984;
Middleton, 2011). The two spatial knowledge realities ensure that the individual is always in a particular spatial-knowledge-based relationship with the place they are within. Familiarity can be thought of as a form of making sense of the world in a manner that depends much on retracing (reflection) as well as tracing (reflexive presence) the relationship between individual and placeness.
137 | P a g e Familiarity places the individual within a locale and highlights the ongoing relationship between individual and placeness. As people move throughout a place the relationship of familiarity is negotiated. This process is that of making sense of the world at hand. According to Light and Smith (2005:43):
The process of making sense of the world can be analysed in the terms of strangeness and familiarity. This is the very basic distinction that does not in itself attribute any particular meanings to objects but puts them in existentially significant categories. In a new environment the objects and events we see and hear are mostly strange. They are not necessarily strange in any ontologically radical sense – when coming to a city we have not visited before, we are not Martians unable to make any connections between the various things encountered. […]
Strangeness means rather that we are not used to seeing and hearing the sort of things and events we occasionally face. Strangeness is the experience of going to Florence, Paris, London, or New York for the first time and trying to orient oneself in these cities both in the concrete sense of finding one’s way to a certain area, to a certain hotel, and in the psychological sense of being in the midst of unfamiliar buildings and things.
Through the process of incremental familiarity the individual acquires ever more information about the environment within which they are emplaced. This acquisition leads to a change in the relationship the individual has with the environment. From the environment being little known by the individual, the environment grows to be better known by the individual.
Participants spoke of familiarity as related to navigational knowledge:
I spend too much time in res studying, so I need to get out and actually SEE campus.
Uhm...I had a friend, uhm...I think that was a catalyst for the walks actually.
So, he is from the location and he was asking me about these different places and I did not know. It was two years of me living here and he was very surprised and he was like 'you call this place home but you technically don’t know much of it or a majority of it. So how can you call a place you don't know home and say that you’re comfortable here?’ So, I was like 'that is true actually'. (chuckle) So that is why I started to walk and see the different areas and....Rhodes being this open campus, it's much more easier to lose yourself within this whole space. Coz you don't have....there is a clear boundary where Rhodes is and where town is but you can be like…oh okay, you can come out this way (pointing at Barratt Complex) and 'oh!
There's town,' or you can come out that way (pointing down Prince Alfred Street)' and there's still town. (Kabomo, Interview).
It's just that coz I didn't know like where my lectures … like where they were and stuff. So, if I was going like I would go with someone from my res who's like going to the same place but now like I don't mind leaving res by myself and going to my lectures coz I know where they are. Yeah…but also like a comfortable thing, like
138 | P a g e I guess after more time I'm more comfortable walking by myself, the place is more familiar to me and I don’t feel as awkward as like in those first two weeks. (Baraka, Interview).
Both Kabomo and Baraka refer to their becoming familiar with Rhodes University’s navigational placeness in a similar manner. They speak of the need to know places’ – parts of placeness in this case – locationality so that there is a more desired navigational knowledge of the environment (refer to Passini, 1984:154; Montello, 1998:142; Baskaya et al., 2004). It is through knowing the locational existence of places that people become better acquainted with spaces within placeness.
Picture 7: Baraka states that, “I don’t mind leaving res by myself and going to my lectures because I know where they are”. Knowing how to get to a location is important for it determines the amount of confidence a person has in their navigational ability (Ujang, 2008:8).
Both Kabomo and Baraka acknowledge a time wherein they had little knowledge of the locational existence of places within greater navigational placeness. According to Montello (1998:143) this experiential reality of acquisition of locational knowledge is as it is because:
People acquire knowledge about the spatial layout of the places they experience (cities, neighborhoods, buildings). This includes knowledge of locations, distances, and directions. The acquisition of this knowledge begins immediately, as soon as one arrives in a place, but presumably continues over long time periods, for months,
139 | P a g e years, and even decades. This knowledge can become quite extensive and elaborate. It provides a framework for the organization of experience and supports sophisticated spatial behavior such as creative wayfinding and direction giving.
This is to highlight the progressive nature of locational familiarity within the experience of place. People grow more familiar as they spend more time within placeness and in such a manner learn about ever-increasing numbers of places and how to get to such places (Siegel and White, 1975; Ujang, 2008:7). This process is a directed look at locale in the development of a particular relationship – in this case the relationship of familiarity in navigation – between the individual and part(s) of placeness.
There are then continuous tests of the quality of the relationship of familiarity between individual and locational placeness as Fran and Manny highlighted:
And when I first got here, I got LOST. The department is not where it used to be.
It used to be by Jac Labs, that Arts building. And then I kept on going there, kept on going there, and I'm like, "Hhayi bo! Where is everyone? Maybe they've gone for a conference. But all of them?" And then I go to Student Bureau and I'm like,
"I'm looking for the School of Languages". And they're like, "No. It's down there now". Coz it used to be a res. (Fran, Interview).
Oh! Luckily enough I had a friend who was also doing the same subjects as me so...I don't know how, but she had memorised the entire map of the campus (chuckle), so I would just tag along when she would go for lectures. But I remember I once got lost coming from a lecture -- so she left before me and I was coming from a lecture to res -- I remember getting lost but luckily enough one of my house comm members she directed me where res was. (Manny, Interview).
Fran and Manny reflect on the experience of tests to familiarity in terms of particular locations that needed to be reached and how the location was a challenge to their personal locational knowledge of the places in question (refer to Golledge, 1999; Foo et al., 2005:196). Such a challenge to the locational awareness of people is an important part of individual experience of locational placeness.
140 | P a g e Picture 8: Fran states that, “When I first got here, I got LOST”. This is a highlight of the navigational tests that Rhodes University will sometimes get an individual to experience as their knowledge of locational familiarity is expanding (Baird et al., 1979:92).
Tests on locational familiarity are questions to the reflexivity of familiarity. Getting lost – or being in a position where one can seriously think that one may find themselves lost – is a challenge to the achieved quality of the relationship of familiarity. Getting lost in terms of navigation in an environment is one of the more affectual experiences of placeness. According to Lynch (1960:4):
To become completely lost is perhaps a rather rare experience for most people in the modern city. We are supported by the presence of other and by special way- finding devices: maps, street numbers, route signs, bus placards. But let the mishap of disorientation once occur, and the sense of anxiety and even terror that accompanies it revels to us how closely it is linked to our sense of balance and well-being. The very word “lost” in our language means much more than simple geographic uncertainty; it carries overtones of utter disaster.
It is the case that sometimes the locational knowledge of people is not enough for the successful negotiation to a part of place. Since navigational familiarity makes the environment destination-based, then being lost between and within the destinations becomes the most pressing experience of placeness (Baskaya et al., 2004:840). The individual is experientially
141 | P a g e within a part of placeness that is amplifying the need to have an unfluctuating quality of locational familiarity within placeness.
The presence of support for navigational purposes is highly important for it anchors navigational knowledge. A reference to navigational support is made by Manny who refers to a friend with a ‘mental map’ of Rhodes University. This mental map is one of the ways in which placeness can be navigated in the desired manner. According to Kuipers (1978:129):
Common-sense knowledge of space is knowledge about the physical environment that is acquired and used, generally without concentrated effort, to find and follow routes from one place to another, and to store and use the relative positions of places. Among other things, this knowledge allows me to follow the familiar route between my home and MIT; to think up a new and shorter route to the shopping center; to elaborate my "mental map" when given a guided tour; to point toward places I cannot see; and to face North. This body of common-sense knowledge is often called the "cognitive map."
Thus, people will sometimes use support mechanisms for navigational purposes. These support mechanisms ensure that place is navigated in the desired manner and that the challenges to locational knowledge are not greater than what the individual can handle (Kuipers, 1978:132).
This support is also a call out to the body (whether of this very person or a person who may allow themselves to be utilised as a being who has some locational familiarity as a previous navigator) that has been within a location before.
When it comes to the experience of locational familiarity with the placeness of Rhodes University people experience a growing locational knowledge of the university. This growing knowledge determines where the individuals go within the university and how they get there.
Through the process of acquiring better acquaintance with the locational existence of the university, individuals sometimes experience tests to their familiarity as they are called upon to attempt being within spaces where they have not been before in terms of locational presence.
What is sometimes helpful to the navigational experience of Rhodes University in such cases is then the exploitation of navigational support mechanism which make the destination-based travel run in a manner that will lead to the successful location-searching navigation of placeness.
142 | P a g e There is a further way in which the experience of familiarity was spoken about by the participants. It is the case that people experience a familiarity with place that is residence- based. What I mean here is that the individual experiences a familiarity that is most consequentially influenced by his or her being within a particular place over a period of time (Kuipers et al., 2003:86; Ujang, 2008:7). This familiarity has nothing to do with navigation but rather is a form of pause upon the environment as that of a familiar surrounding scene.
In terms of routine walking, this residence-based familiarity is consistent with often being within the same spaces. According to Light and Smith (2005:44-45):
Strangeness is temporally prior to familiarity, but it cannot be a continual state.
While we are living in the lifeworld, doing and making things, acting in different ways in different situations, we create ties to our surroundings, and in this way familiarize ourselves with it. We make the environment “our own,” we create relations that are significant for us and serve our purposes and interests. Our personal likings often play a role in this: we prefer particular kinds of art, for example, classical music to cinema, and accordingly concert halls are a significant factor in our everyday surroundings rather than cinemas, or vice versa. The network of significant-things-for-me can be complicated and surprising in the sense that a person may make connections that do not make sense to someone else. I may take a particular route from the office back home because I find it more beautiful, or because there is a particular grocery store in which I want to do my shopping.
Familiarity is about the place knowledge and experience of particular places within greater placeness. It is through walking the environment that people end up being exposed to a collection of places that they know simply because they walk to, from, and through the spaces (see De Certeau, 1984; Wylie, 2006; Middleton, 2011). This familiarity is selective and stems from the continued exposure of the individual to specific parts of placenes.
Manny and Fran here reflect upon residence-based familiarity in a similar manner, referring to a scene within placeness:
Uhm...well, I think...when I first got here everything, I think uh change of scenery, so you feel like everything was very, it still is but...it was SO interesting, I mean last year. Like how I used to go to the fountain. But then over time, it becomes second nature to you, so you don't really...it's not something, it's not like a WOW!
143 | P a g e Even if it is but it's not like a really WOW! factor and uh....in second year I found more shortcuts to use, so that's great (chuckle). Uhm, but then you become agitated with things such as the road works coz...they just block your way of going to places.
But weirdly enough there's still some places that I haven't discovered about Rhodes.
Maybe I have been busy a lot this year; Maybe next year I'll have a chance to see other places that people go to like the Bot Gardens -- I haven't been there. Maybe if I go there that'll be my peaceful place. (Manny, Interview).
And the reason that I came back to Rhodes...you know when you know a place and then you think it's gonna be the same not knowing that actually it's not gonna be the same because the people are NOT THERE anymore, it's just gonna be a new place to you coz....I guess the PEOPLE MAKE THE PLACE WHAT IT IS, I don't know. (Fran, Interview).
The participants describe here what occurs within placeness as experienced by them through being within and in a relation with the space that leads to growing familiarity (Lynch, 1960:2;
Light and Smith, 2005:43; Ujang, 2008). This particular relationship to a space leads to there being a familiarity-based relationship between the individual and the place – a relationship largely informed by the memories the individual has of place (McAndrew, 1998:409; Haapala, 2005). This relationship does not look at a place as part of a navigational plane but rather as a corner of decoration – decoration that makes a particular corner of a place unmistakenly that particular corner of the place. This relationship stems from physically being within a particular part of placeness and that very placeness becoming familiar to the individual for the very reason that they are within its particular site and situation. And that in turn allows its familiarity to be engaged in a specific way that will at times be called upon as an experience.
At the same time as the above-mentioned reflections, however, there is also the qualitative reality of a part of placeness being made too ‘everyday’ to ever be looked at in a manner wherein its features call for a double glancing. What I mean here is that some places through residence become mundane and their allure fades out. Here Armand and Kabomo refer to the experience of familiarity-inspired mundanity:
I don't know I think the only thing that I could just add is like we really take for granted the stuff that we see every day and it just becomes so mundane and normal that we don't really notice like 'oh there's a tree here'. I'm sure there's so many stuff that I've ignored because I'm late or I just couldn't be bothered, or I'm just so used to it that I don't even know when it's there and when it's not there. So, I think this really was interesting for me personally just to think about the walk as simple as that sounds. (Armand, Interview).
144 | P a g e Uhm...I'm feeling slightly nostalgic. In first year I had to go to uhm...I still remember...I had to go to a place where....I came by a train....by the train station I took a taxi, the taxi left me there (pointing at the Arch)....I didn't know it was the Arch back then...to me it was ''Okay, cool. I have arrived., I guess.' (chuckle). And we walked through here [pointing at glass shards route] to Eden Grove. And when I walk here every day, I don’t remember that...coz it seems very different from my first time. Coz when I came in it was like, 'Ohhh kay'. But now it's like, 'Mxm!
The Arch'. It had a meaning when I first came. It had that, 'Ohhh. I'm entering a school now. I'm about to be independent. I'll be be here for the rest of three years.
So, I need to start uh...I need to start familiarising myself with it'. And I did. And now it's just....it's common. (Kabomo, Interview).
Armand and Kabomo describe a familiarity experience that is inspired by residence and the fact that this familiarity leads to some of the features of Rhodes University’s (at least) architectural placeness being experienced as mundane and thus relegated to sort of second- class features within the architectural environment.
Picture 9: Kabomo states that, “Now it’s [The Arch] just….it’s just common”. This is a reflection upon the changing relationship between person and environment as the individual grows in their familiarity with the environment (Saito, 2008:109).
The experience of familiarity here is yet again consequentially informed by the duration of time and exposure to the specific part of the environment. However, here the experience is framed in terms of novelty. According to Reid (2005:109):
145 | P a g e Novelty is not properly a quality of the thing to which we attribute it, far less is it a sensation in the mind to which it is new; it is a relation which the thing has to the knowledge of the person… It is evident, therefore, with regard to novelty,…that it is not merely a sensation in the mind of hum to whom the thing is new; it is a real relationship which the thing has to his knowledge at that time.
This is to say that the experience of a thing as novel has a sort of expiry date. In other words, things do – after continued exposure to people – become less novel and take the quality of an everydayness that is not particularly memorable or noticeable in any particularly striking light.
This is how people also experience the Rhodes University environment. Through becoming more and more familiar with parts of Rhodes University’s placeness – in many cases the architectural placeness – individuals grow to experience less novelty.
The reflection by Kabomo is highly informative of a residence-based familiarity that might go beyond simply relegating novelty to everydayness. In Kabomo’s reflection is a familiarity that relegates even place memory, through symbolism within a place, to being mere placeness architecturally. Here the emotional relation to place is arguably overlooked as the place becomes more and more familiar. This is how Kabomo ends up reflecting that, “It [The Arch]
had a meaning when I first came”, as a way to highlight that places sometimes decrease in meaning as an individual becomes more familiar with them. This is an experiential reality informed consequentially by the constant referral – as reflection – back to the experience of the particular part of placeness and in the current moment thinking (reflexive action) of the overall familiarity of the moment in familiar site and situation.
The familiarity of Rhodes University’s placeness is subject to two not vastly dissimilar realities. To experience the familiar is firstly simply the experience of locational familiarity.
Here the experience of placeness is consequentially informed by the ability to navigate space successfully as it is a placeness of locations and the need to move between the locations. People experience familiarity as they navigate between destinations and are sometimes tested in terms of their locational knowledge. In cases where people are tested in their knowledge, people sometimes experience the use of navigational support mechanisms to moderate the navigation so that it is an experience that they find desirable. There is also the experience of familiarity as in relation to places and residence. For such familiarity there is no longer the focus on location