The Sidewalk: The Last Queer Space by ien boodan

the last queer space an essay

darien boodan Re: Adrian Blackwell ARCH 442: Contemporary Architectural Theory University of Waterloo School of Architecture 19 DEC 2017 CAMBRIDGE, ON

â&#x20AC;˘ around yonge & carlton, toronto, canada

â&#x20AC;˘ around university & dundas, toronto, canada

0. intro Through a brief exploration of three sets of binaries, I want to prove that the sidewalk is the only space or that allows an individual to express their identity in such a way that would be otherwise restricted elsewhere. I refer to “the sidewalk” in the context of a metropolitan city-- such as Toronto, New York, or Paris-- which I like to refer to as simply The City. In his book Queer Space: Architecture and Same Sex Desire, Aaron Betsky (1958) refers to any space which “brings you back to your body” as a Queer Space. The first queer space, he argues, is the closet. [0]. Here, identity is composed and expressed purely privately. This seclusion makes such expressions frictionless, as there are no observers to disprove one’s identity via normativity, biases, or aesthetics. However, because of this disconnection from the rest of the world, there is no opportunity for identity to be confirmed, either. Observers prevent the complete expression of identity due to the aforementioned reasons, but Observers also reveal and challenge fragments of personality traits, which the Individual may choose to preserve, evolve, or discard after or during a social interaction. In quantum physics, there is a phenomenon called The Observer Effect that stipulates that observing some thing will inherently and inevitably affect that thing. This effect primarily describes quantum objects that exist in some state of indeterminacy-and “observation” refers to the use of some tools or processes for measuring. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle mathematically proves the limits to which two fundamental properties of some thing can be known simultaneously. The household example says that the more precise the location of a subatomic particle is known, the less precise a measure of its momentum can be (and vise-versa). In philosophy (which allows ideas from all disciplines to be appropriated), an individual behaves [differently] when that individual is aware that they are being observed. People are mirrors-- reflecting a seemingly random array of characteristics of the Self. And if never observed, how could information abut this Self ever be collected or evaluated? Even if

we understand that such information is incomplete or impartial, or may drastically change over time, I think it is important to state that an incomplete data set is more informative than an empty data set. And observation is a necessary collapsing of reality, so to speak, for the existence of identity. *

If the closet is pure private queer space, I want to explore how the sidewalk is pure public queer space. And, in a sense, how the purest expressions of identity can only exists at these extremes. Also, when I talk about queer space, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not queer in the sense that it exclusively allows for the expression of queer identity. Rather, I want to convince you that queer space allows for the expression of all identities. AlL iDeNtItIeS mAtTeR If honest validity in identity, in this sense, defies any notions of heteronormativity, it is purely consequential. Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m not here to assert the sidewalk as belonging to any one or any some. I just want to write about how the sidewalk is a place where you can be any version of yourself you want, as well as become versions of yourself you'd never want to be: On the sidewalk, you can be a boss ass bitch, decked out head to toe in Balmain and Margiela, wearing furs from non-consenting animals behind a set of secondhand sunglasses from some Saint Laurent par Hedi Slimane collection, smoking a long, skinny cigarette breaking hearts with every click or clack of your Tabi boots, as you imagine the sidewalk to be a runway. Conversely, you may turn a corner on the sidewalk and feel evil eyes breathing down your neck at that instant; you grip your pocketknife; you pause your music; you adjust your body language to exhibit a little more swagger, a little more confidence, as you slowly accelerate, checking for your wallet every dozen or so steps. This is only possible because The sidewalk is moving. The sidewalk is stochastic. The sidewalk is soft.

1. momentum, inertia The sidewalk is meant for moving. It’s the persistent void that skirts the buildings and the parks of the city. Ever-present, it is the only architectural device that is deliberately invisible. In effect, this unique characteristic makes the people walking on it super-visible. With minimal architectural noise to interfere, the sidewalk is a space (a void) that is so submissive--- literally always beneath you--- that it provides a physical plane for identity to be expressed in a way that is streamlined and fluid. With no walls or openings to hide behind or be in or under, the sidewalk, rather is something that is meant to be on (perhaps suggesting that one would be off otherwise?). The only other architectural space I can think of that allows for Being-on is the Stage (“to be on-stage,” for example). If gender, in the words[1] of Judith Butler, is a performance, then spaces of Being-on are the optimal venue for such performances. On-stage, the individual is free-- just as much as the individual is expected-- to act. Being-on allows for expressions of identity to be a part of some larger narrative without diminishing the significance or influence of that identity in that larger narrative. In a Deluzo-Guattarian sense[2], Being-on allows for the individual to be considered a node in a network, as opposed to Being-in, which suggests some nested hierarchy. Being-on is being in a system. Being-in is being in a boundary. A system is fluid (or even gaseous); it is moving and free to expand or contract-- even within a container, otherwise, it expands infinitely outward. In contrast, a boundary will always establish a fixed dichotomy, and the problem with dichotomies is that they fail to describe things holistically. A [de]finite edge seeks to exclude irrelevant data, and, if too much data is exuded, then how can meaning be derived? Or rather, how can the meaning that is derived be trustworthy? (More on this later...) *

In describing an alternate, feminine, mode of writing, Luce Irigaray describes a “‘style’ [that] takes

each figure back to its source.” (Irigaray, 79). So let’s go back to the source for a second: The word “pavement” comes from the Latin word pavire, meaning “tread-down”. Later, pavimentum, “trodden-down floor”. The physical involvement of the body during the creation of the pavement is encoded in this etymology. It’s not just a floor, it’s a floor that was created by walking, and it is a floor that is created for walking. Which is to say, that the pavement was created by and for the movement of the body through spent breaths and heartbeats, like some transaction of mortality. (Note: I prefer “sidewalk” to “pavement” because the (assumed) etymology or encoded meaning is less encrypted: it’s on the side, and you walk on it-fairly straightforward.) *

A very small clause, in fact, a pair of words in Luce Irigaray’s essay When Our Lips Speak Together [3], I think, best summarizes this existential symbiosis of movement and Being. That clause is: “moving, living”. The whole passage is as follows: “It’s not that we have a territory of our own; but their fatherland, family, home, discourse, imprison us in enclosed spaces where we cannot keep on moving, living, as ourselves,” (Irigaray, 212). We see here a reference to the fallacy of static boundaries, edges, and enclosures-- the fallacy of Being-in-- and a shift towards a more transient and dynamic way of occupying and perceiving space-Being-on. This so-called feminine imperative of moving, living describes continuous movement-- momentum-- as an existential imperative. Momentum-- as opposed to inertia-- -- it can then be concluded-- is crucial to the expression and development of identity. Duke University professor Elizabeth Grosz (1952), expanding on this idea, writes: To produce an architecture in which “women

can live” (to use Irigaray’s formulation) is to produce both a domestic and a civic architecture as envelope, which permits the passage of one space as position to another, rather than the containment of objects and functions in which each thing finds its rightful place.[4]

The sidewalk permits such passage!, and its envelope in no way suggests or enforces a right or wrong use or occupation-- for it is entirely intangible and open and fluid. It is simultaneous and never fixed. Domestic in that you shovel the snow off your driveway, and then the sidewalk, too, because it is kind of part of your “home”. Also, people sleep on the sidewalk; people put wooden signs from Mill St. Brewery† and bowls of water for dogs in an effort to decorate and be hospitable. Civic, in that it is governed by some external entity which may suspend or remove such domestic actions and objects respectively, whenever deemed necessary. * * * In Building Dwelling Thinking, Heidegger writes, “We build and have built because we dwell, that is, because we are dwellers.”[5] And I could not disagree more. Dwelling is an act of inertia. There’s no one and no thing to react to. No performance. No audience. Are you you in your home if no one sees you? (((If a tree falls.....))) Also, dwellings don’t just come into being-- they are made and maintained like any other Body. If Heidegger is attempting to describe the pleasantries of a little R&R every now and then, yeah sure, but to define “us” as dwellers? No. We are doers. (Even if you do nothing.) Psychoanalyst and translator Bruce Fink, in A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis, claims that inertia is characteristic of psychosis, “by the lack of movement or dialectic in [an individual’s] thoughts and interests.” Dwelling, in this sense, opposes the development and actualization of the individual. To be still is to be fixed in time and space within a boundary, only able to reflexively evaluate that which has been frozen. This so-called mascuthis is just a commonality I've noticed during my time in Toronto.

†

line stillness is only useful during such a process of evaluation-- measuring against fixed axes that are permanently imbued with some arbitrary metric for the sake of so-called progress. But, returning to Irigaray, stillness prevents the expression of [feminine] identity. In a wonderfully melancholic and sarcastic tone, she writes, “Indifferent one, keep still. When you stir, you upset their order. You upset everything. You break the circle of their habit, the circularity of their exchanges, their knowledge, their desire,” (Irigaray, 207). Movement here, is a necessary act of defiance against stillness in the assertion or expression of one’s identity. *

Absolute Zero describes a system that is devoid of energy. And such a system is impossible, because there will always be energy present-- there will always be heat; there will always be movement. Every-thing, no matter how cold or how small or intangible, is comprised of subatomic particles. Even memories exist as choreographed fireworks tracing neural-synaptic constellations. Impossible to hold still-- even photographs fail to capture such fervour. And if identity can be traced from our environments, to our bodies, to our minds, I think we should go one order of magnitude deeper: trace identity at the quantum scale. How different can the behaviours of electrons and quarks and light be from the behaviours of a conscious mind? As Carl Sagan might say, we are, after all, star stuff, no? So how could actual inertia exist? When we subscribe to the so-called masculine method of “pinning things down,” we end up describing fragments of the universe in a way which is true only in theory. Virtual, idealized, inert scenarios are good for developing the language systems for mathematics and physics, but they shouldn’t be as ultimate explanations of anything real. Such systems can only approach reality. To recap: Being is a performance-- an act, a show, a Netflix Original Series™ to which you subscribe, then devour. Photographs, maps, snapchats, and graphs can give us a glimpse into one's life (noun), but living (verb) is moving and subject to change.

some observations:

Dufferin Grove, Toronto, ON. Screenshot from Google Maps street view taken 18 December 2017.

Here, some objects in space create a civic-domestic moment on the sidewalk. The chairs are positioned along the store's facade, within its site boundary-greenery, signage, and that wagon are placed opposite, on the sidewalk, creating some sort of â&#x20AC;&#x153;zoneâ&#x20AC;? between for dwelling.

Parkdale, Toronto, ON. Screenshot from Google Maps street view taken 18 December 2017.

Here, the sidewalk extends beyond the (assumed) property boundary. The ambiguity of whether the house property extends into the sidewalk or whether the sidewalk extends into the house property blurs the threshold between public and private. The man sitting there could we waiting for the streetcar, or just chillin' outside his place.

2. stochastic, normal A fundamental characteristic that lends the sidewalk its frictionlessness is its ability to supply and house an endless supply of random micro-encounters. What I mean by this is that there is an endless supply of stimuli (people and things) to react to. To watch, to ignore, to help, to smile or not. These actions and non-actions, I believe, are the smallest and purest evidences of personality. Who are you when no one is watching? Even when not alone? These effortless, forgettable, automatic micro-performances, which go largely unnoticed, represent the individual as truly, effortlessly, simply being. A performance for a negligent audience by a relentless albeit honest actor. Lefebvre writes that everyday life is composed of a series of micro-encounters: these happenings and becomings are what compose identity.[7]

cycles or loops: home-work-home-work-home... home-school-home-school... he loves me, he loves me not... rain/snow heartbeat, breathing

lines or arrows: eating, music, reading, withdrawing money from the bank, shitting, cumming

daily life

He writes, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Daily life [results] from conjunctions between cyclical processes and times and linear processes and times -- that is, between two very different modalities of the repetitive.â&#x20AC;? (Lefebvre, 11). This predictability-- these patterns-- form who we are. We reproduce these patterns by habit, and grow accustomed to them because of their seeming-omnipresence. But in actuality, so-called daily life is just as fluid, precarious, and stochastic as we. The line I drew to signify daily life is amorphous and broken (permeable). Within these loops and arrows is a persistent hum of familiarity {{{from

the Latin word familia, which translates to family, but also servant, and household}}}. We reproduce routine/daily life, such that it remains familiar, but there will always be variation-- anomalies. Such things exist independent of our selves, but the reliability on others' [reactions], or the dependability on our belongings to remain as lucid mirrors of ourselves, is what lends the stability we call identity found in “Daily Life.” Otherwise, perfect reproductions of daily life might trigger a reaction like that in Groundhog Day (1993) or Edge of Tomorrow (2014), which helps to prove that routine isn't the only thing that informs identity, but instead, identity is formed based upon our response to unknowable reactions[of others], measured in reference to our self-defined, self-produced “routine.” To clarify, I want to say that routine is just the foundation or the raw material or the domain in which identity is formed. And further, identity is just some barely-stable image within this domain that remains contingent on the predictability of, essentially, everything. The erratic events that challenge the pattern of who are become the active components of identity. Meaning, these patterns are invisible (not repressed), and they exist as a persistent audible hum challenging static notions of Self-- and routine teaches us to tune it out. And--- like electrons disappearing from reality and reappearing somewhere else, but still reliably “orbiting” around some nucleus to be considered a part of a singular identifiable/nameable atom--- I want to argue that it is not the patterns that form who we are, but rather, the erratic, anomalous, albeit energetic challengings of patterns that [in]form identity. Not what is there; what keeps it there. “Alterations in daily life will remain the criterion of change” (Lefebvre, 41). After some stochastic event, whether or not you chose to adhere to your previous set of ideas/beliefs is when identity is simultaneously formed and confirmed, as there is more information encoded in the changing of identity than there is in the preserving of it.[Wiki: Information Entropy] There's a more exciting word I'm going to use from

here on out to describe this phenomenon, and that word is: Entropy. Negative energy. Chaos. The only certain thing in this universe is persistent uncertainty. And entropy can be a measure of uncertainty. In 1948, a mathematician named Shannon E. Claude (1916 - 2001) described the nature of data communication, and in doing so, laid the foundation for the field of study that would later be known as Information Theory. Claude describes the three fundamental elements of all communication: channel

communication recipient message

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages.[8]

I want to write, briefly, about these irrelevant semantics: The medium through which a message is sent should be selected such that the meaning of the message can be received. Meaning is entirely intangible, and must be conceptualized and rationalized by the recipient from the message received, after it has been sent from the source-- a phenomenon exclusive of sentient consciousness. (How can you transmit that which does not exist [physically]?) Literally, and phenomenologically, there is no such channel, and there will always be interfering noise that obscures the [intended meaning of a] message. Noise is what produces entropy (uncertainty). No

language or any of its vehicles can communicate meaning. There is no perfect channel to send a perfect message to have meaning perfectly received. British writer William Somerset Maugham (1874 1965) explains this better: Each one of us is alone in the world. He is shut in a tower of brass, and can communicate with his fellows only by signs, and the signs have no common value, so that their sense is vague and uncertain. We seek pitifully to convey to others the treasures of our heart, but they have not the power to accept them, and so we go lonely, side by side but not together, unable to know our fellows and unknown by them. We are like people living in a country whose language they know so little that, with all manner of beautiful and profound things to say, they are condemned to the banalities of the conversation manual. Their brain is seething with ideas, and they can only tell you that the umbrella of the gardener's aunt is in the house.[9]

Noise is ultimately what prevents such a channel from existing. The persistence of noise is what obscures meaning. In general, noise patterns exist on some spectrum ranging from stochastic to normal--from high to low entropy, respectively-- which affects the readability of meaning. Noise “distorts” a transmitted signal. And what's more important,

stochastic noise

gaussian “normal” noise

is that “distortion may be corrected ... by merely performing the inverse functional operation on the received signal,” (Shannon, 406 ) or, alternatively, “by sending the information in a redundant form

[so that] the probability of errors can be reduced. For example, by repeating the message many times and by a statistical study of the different received versions of the message, the probability of errors could be made very small,â&#x20AC;? (Shannon, 410). Which is to say, that the urban sidewalk is a stochastic process (in Shannon's terms) because of the sheer quantity of external observers. Exposure to so many Others--- so many mirrors-- allows you to find some certainty of identity within an inundation of redundancy.

These are two diagrams found in Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communication. Fig. 1 shows how a message is intercepted by some external noise source. Fig. 8 shows how an observer acts as an external entity to correct this noisy data. Observation, in this sense rationalizes uncertainty without col-

lapsing it into any one, ultimate state. There still exists some quantity of entropy, but meaningful data can now be extrapolated (or interpolated?). The sidewalk--- to gets things back on track--- hosts numerous observers. Through numerous micro-encounters and micro-happenings and micro-becomings, the chaotic, fluid, and indeterminate characteristics that are inseparable from identity can now deliver meaning without ever being still. ***

Here, I seemingly-arbitrarily superimposed the graphed function for normal distribution on top of the graphed function that represents the entropy of a coin flip measured against the bias of that coin (0.5 representing a coin where heads and tails are equally probable; a.k.a. normal). I just want to say-- and this chapter will end afterwards-- that entropy is maximum at peak normativity. And if this is true, then the inverse must also be true: certainty is maximum at peak queerness.

3. softness, hardness Okay, so this part of the essay becomes increasingly anecdotal and increasingly biased. But in the previous section, I provided some mathematical evidence that to be biased is to be certain [of identity], so to speak. So, please, suspend your pretentious upholding of the so-called academic tone for the remainder of this text, because I've got some personality I'm looking to share: ••1 “Do you feel any different?” the doctor asked. “No,” I responded. “Would you like another month to see if things change?” “Sure.” The three days that followed after my second month of being on 150mg of Wellbutrin would change my perspective on life (and would grant me access to myself in a way that had been previously unfamiliar). I started observing things. Everything. All the things that happened around me and my reactions to them. This brought on a habit of meta-thinking. I listened to my body. My heart. What was is saying in response to all this external stimuli? Talk to him. Leave him alone. Keep your head down. Conduct yourself like lightening*. Just say “I'm good. Thanks.” and walk away; there's nothing here for you. I fucking hate white gays. It would be nice to date a white guy again. Maybe I should try being polite. I need to be more firm. Smile. Don't smile. Näher, leiser; wieder und immer noch. I began to locate such thoughts in my body. Later, I learned to simultaneously map where these thoughts occurred to me in the “real” world. Psychogeography, it's called. * Tagaq, Tanya. 2016. Retribution. From the same-titled album. Toronto: Six Shooter Records. Demand awakening The path we have taken has rotted Ignite, stand upright, conduct yourself like lightning because The retribution will be swift

Just say “I'm good. Thanks.”and walk away; there's nothing here for you.

Don't smile. Maybe I should try being polite.

Smile.

I need to be more firm.

Talk to him.

Conduct yourself like lightening

Keep your head down.

Leave him alone. It would be nice to be dating a white guy again.

I fucking hate white gays.

Näher, leiser; wieder und immer noch.

For no reason I can recall, the word soft is what I began to label this behaviour. I spent some time asking myself (and a few select others who have left a permanent impression in my heart): What is softness? My search for a definitive definition hit a brick wall when I reached a point when I had asked: Is softness action or non-action? This type of binary, in retrospect, was useless. Because softness, now, to me, is both. Is softness action or non action? Yes. *** During this period of ambivalent self-exploration, I found it incredibly informative to go for walks around my city (Toronto, at the time). But not just a normal walk, the walk of a flâneur. Wikipedia has an apt definition if you're unfamiliar with the term: The flâneur was, first of all, a literary type from 19th century France, essential to any picture of the streets of Paris. The word carried a set of rich associations: the man of leisure, the idler, the urban explorer, the connoisseur of the street. It was Walter Benjamin, drawing on the poetry of Charles Baudelaire, who made this figure the object of scholarly interest in the 20th century, as an emblematic archetype of urban, modern experience.‡ Here are such mappings: 1. A walk leading up to The Walk (Sober with a friend; sober alone; not-sober alone). Geography. 2. Neighbourhoods. Psychogeography of the collective conscious; still municipally mappable. 3. Happenings. 4. How I felt. Psychogeography of the individual.

Shaya, Gregory. 2004. The Flâneur, the Badaud, and the Making of a Mass Public in France, circa 1860–1910", Bloomington: American Historical Review 109. ‡

The trajectory of this walk, I allowed to be entirely beyond my conscious decision. If a street light turned red, I'd turn left or right. If someone smiled at me, I'd smile back or not. I observed others. I observed myself. I tried to give myself a list of criteria to fulfill to optimize this behaviour: 1. put your hands behind you back and slouch ever-so slightly, just like that japanese man who looks so placid; no one is bothering him. 2. walk fast enough so that people think you're too busy to chat, but slow enough so that you don't miss anything that's supposed to happen. 3. don't follow women. 4. smile at children from your heart; you're no longer a boy and parents might think you're a creepy man. 5. be invisible. 6. be superluminous when engaged; not to please, but to leave a lingering impression. Upon actualizing this list, more and more meaningful happenings occurred. And, for the first time in what felt like forever, after 21 years of thinking that I am depressed was a personality descriptor, I felt like myself. And it was the result of my new behavior on the sidewalk. It was on this walk that I learned how to be soft: how to be soft: listen locate contextualize optimize actualize (evaluate)

(Evaluation) is a masculine/hard process, but it's important to check up on yourself when deemed necessary. ***

I am many. I change my mind infinitely and at the speed of light. Who I am to one person and who I am to another are both true. Sitting on the subway and being one person for too long makes me uncomfortable because of others' assumed reactions. I want to change, but if they see me change, they will know I made a mistake. But I can be a different person with every person who seems my eyes. And I can know that I am alive. *** This happened in the Summer before school resumed, and it was in school that I stumbled upon the writings of Luce Irigaray. Her descriptions of what it means to be a woman resonated with me in a way that all other descriptions of who I am or who I am supposed to be previously hadn't. I am a man. I identify as a man, still. But I am also a gay man. A first-generation-Canadian-son-of-a-Spanish-Trinidadian-father-and-Indian-Trinidadian-mother. I am a nerd and a lover. An academic. A hedonist. A nihilist. An optimist. A realist. A pessimist. I am all these things and more, so why haven't I ever considered myself a woman? Perhaps because no one knows what that means. “Whence the mystery that woman represents in a culture claiming to count everything, to number everything by units, to inventory everything as individualities. She is neither one nor two. Rigorously speaking, she cannot be identified either as one person, or as two. She has no “proper” name.” (Irigaray, 26) This passage led me to immediately, in pink ink, draw on the book I had borrowed from the library:

√-1

-1

-√-1

I may feel like a woman, but I still have that masculine tendency to define everything. I recently learned that there exists a whole dimension of numbers perpendicular to what I and a lot of others have been calling the “Real” number line. This perpendicular axis contains “Imaginary” numbers, and they complete geometry**, so to speak. Friedrich Gauss attributes the delay in the development of these mathematics to the language that was used to describe them: “That this subject [imaginary numbers] has hitherto been surrounded by mysterious obscurity, is to be attributed largely to an ill adapted notation. If, for example, +1, -1, and the square root of -1 had been called direct, inverse and lateral units, instead of positive, negative and imaginary (or even impossible), such an obscurity would have been out of the question.” It was literally just language that formed this delay. Irigaray, these mathematicians, and astrophysicists, too, agree that a “void” carries just as much, if not more,*** information as that in the volume its equivalent mass would occupy. The fundamental properties of this “dark matter” or “dark energy” are unknown, but what is known is that there is something to be studied. It is not just nothing. Which makes sense. Coldness is measured as warmth. Darkness is measured as light. Architectural rooms are defined by their walls. And, Irigaray argues, Women are measured as Men (or rather as not-Men). And it's all wrong. We feel coldness. We experience darkness. We use rooms not walls. And women are women. These statements are so disgustingly obvious, but the axes we apply to measure such things collapses them as a substratum[2] in the measuring of their supposed **Welch Labs. 2015. Imaginary Numbers Are Real [Part 5: Numbers are Two Dimensional]. YouTube: https://youtu.be/65wYmy8Pf-Y ***Dark Energy, Dark Matter. NASA: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy Dark energy comprises 70% of the Universe. Dark matter, 25%. Which is to say, 95% of what the Universe is is unknown to us.

counterpart. A binary, in this case, doesn't measure two. It measures one thing against one fundamental property of that thing. *** I lucked out in my subconscious choosing of the word soft, because there are 38 definitions for it, according to Dictionary.com, but so many of them define soft in the negative, as opposed to the affirmative: Softness is not: hard, stiff, rough, coarse, harsh, unpleasant, glaring, sharp, strong, robust, difficult, laborious, [full of] minerals, supported by sufficient gold reserves, [in-focus], harmful to the vehicle or its contents, committed to any one candidate, so fast! stop! So now I have my own definition: Softness is being a woman: being multitudinous, simultaneous, active and reactive; fluid, moving, growing, changing, living. And the sidewalk--- because of its loosely-defined program, its subservience, its silent ubiquitousness, its flexibility, moveability, permeability, hospitality, etc., etc.--- is just that. Soft. It begins as a viscous fluid of water, and cement, and assorted aggregates between a water-tight boundary of wood. 28 days later---- the same amount of time it takes for a lunar cycle, as well as, on average, a menstrual cycle---- it is evaluated as being hard [enough]. You can walk on it now and it will carry you. The sidewalk is physically solid, but by no means hard. (To be continued)

bibliography . Betsky, Aaron. 1997. Queer Space: Architecture and Same-Sex Desire. William Morrow. [0]

. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge. [1]

. Deleuze, Gilles; Guattari, Felix. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [2]

. Irigaray, Luce. 1985. This Sex Which is Not One. New York: Cornell University Press. [3]

. Grosz, Elizabeth. 2001. Architecture from the Outside. Cambridge: MIT Press. [4]

. Heidegger, Martin. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper Colophon Books. [5]

. Fink, Bruce. 1997. A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [6]

. Lefebvre, Henri. 2005. The Critique of Everyday Life (Volume 3). London: Verso. [7]

. Shannon, Claude Elwood. 1948. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. New York: The Bell System Technical Journal. [8]

. Somerset Maugham, William. 1919. The Moon and Sixpence. London: William Heinemann. [9]