The intangible effects of walls Alexandra Auer

Transcriber: Joseph Geni
Reviewer: Camille Martínez

Humankind loves to build walls.

Have you ever noticed that?

We build walls for everything:

for shelter, for protection, for privacy.

Over the past 70 years,

the number of barriers
between countries has doubled.

Right now, there are more walls
than at the end of the Second World War,

more than during the Cold War.

Growing up in Germany,

the fall of the Berlin Wall
always felt to me

like the introduction of a new world,
a world without barriers.

But since the attacks of 9/11,

the construction has experienced
an extreme rise.

Since then, the amount has doubled,

with about 30 new structures
that were planned or built.

Walls and fences are often built
with the intention of security,

security from another group of people,

from crime, from illegal trades.

But walls and fences only provide us
with a feeling of security,

which is different from real security.

Even though they might make us feel safe,

the structures themselves
can’t protect us.

Instead, they do something else:

they separate.

They create an us and a them.

They establish an enemy.

Walls make us build a second wall
in our head, a mental wall.

And those mental walls
slowly make us lose sight

of all the things we have in common
with the people on the other side.

The other way around,

mental walls can grow so strong
that they encourage us to build,

keep or strengthen physical walls.

Physical and mental walls
are closely interlinked,

and one almost always
comes with the other.

It’s a constant cycle:

physical walls empower mental walls,
and mental walls empower physical walls

until at one point one part falls away,

and the cycle is disrupted.

When the Berlin Wall was being built,

it was hard to tell
who the wall was facing,

because the people living around it
identified as one.

There was no us and them.

There was no others.

During the time of separation,

both sides developed differently
and formed individual identities.

All of a sudden, there was
an us and a them.

A mental wall was built,

and when the Berlin Wall
fell again in 1989,

this mental wall in the head
of the people stayed.

Eastern Germans had to be reintegrated
into their own country,

and even though they didn’t
have to move places,

many still today feel like
they have never fully arrived.

Those remaining effects
of the mental wall are also measurable.

A study from the Freie University
of Berlin in 2005

shows that even 15 years
after the reunification,

Germans still believed that cities
on the other side of the former wall

are further away than they really are.

The interesting thing is that they found
a link between political attitude

and estimation of the distance.

The more a participant was against
the German reunification,

the further away
they estimated cities to be.

It’s the mental wall which keeps
cities on the other side far away,

and the higher and stronger
this mental wall,

the more difficult
they seem to be reached.

I tried to repeat this study

with a group of young Germans
who grew up without the wall

to see if these effects
are still measurable nowadays.

And the results show that this generation,

my generation,

is just kind of bad
at geography in general –

(Laughter)

East and West.

But in our defense, this could be seen
as an improvement, right?

We never experienced the actual wall.

This physical barrier was never able
to make us build a mental wall

in the first place.

I would love to take this
as a serious indication

that there could be a future
without a mental wall dividing Germany,

but I think we have to face reality:

this one wall could be disappearing,

but in the meanwhile,
a billion others are constructed.

One global trend
we are currently experiencing

is the rise of gated communities.

And in a way, gated communities can be
seen the same exact way as countries,

just on the small scale –

neighborhoods surrounded
by walls and fences

to protect citizens from other citizens –

and the only difference is,
it’s by choice.

But the physical and mental effects
on the people living inside

and the people kept outside

are the same,

separating cities, neighborhoods

and even playgrounds.

In the spring of last year,
I worked on a design project in Brussels

at two elementary schools
where this was the case.

Both the schools share an entrance
and the schoolyard.

Both schools teach in Dutch.

But one school is mainly visited
by Belgian children,

and the other school,
by immigrant children.

The schools are separated
by walls and fences,

leaving the children
no point of interaction

other than this fence on the schoolyard
that separates them.

When I started to work there,

it made me sad to see children
having to stand at a fence

to talk to their friend on the other side.

But what’s even worse is that
most of the children

will never get the opportunity
to even make a friend on the other side.

School should be the place
where children, all children,

come together and learn –

learn from the teacher,
but more importantly,

learn from each other.

And the more diversity,
the more there is to learn.

In fact, school might be
the only time in our lives

where establishing a contact despite
social differences is even possible.

Separating children during
this time of their development

will make integration extremely difficult,

if not impossible.

And yet, somehow,

I seem to be the only one having
a problem with this fence in Brussels.

Most of the parents, teachers and children

stopped seeing or at least
questioning the structure.

It’s just how it is.

Nobody has ever seen it differently.

And people are in favor of it.

I once asked a boy if he would like
to play with the other side,

and he said, “No.”

Then I asked if he would play with them
if the fence wasn’t there,

and he said, “Probably.”

But then he quickly added
that the fence should stay,

because the other side is mean
and they never give back his ball.

It’s funny, because I talked
to children from both sides,

and everyone told me
that the other side is mean

because they never give back the ball.

The children on both sides
dislike each other,

and there are regularly arguments
breaking out at this fence,

which is also the main reason
why people feel the need

for it to be there:

it protects the children from each other,

or at least their toys,

and it prevents chaos.

At some point, the children started
to crawl beneath the fence

to get their ball back,

and the reaction of the schools
was to put these metal plates there.

Now they climb over.

I don’t know what came first in Brussels:

a mental wall that grew too strong
that it made them build a physical fence,

or this fence that now emphasizes
the social differences,

even on the schoolyard.

But what I did know
when I started to work there

was that I wanted to change something
about the situation.

I wanted to show both sides again
how much they have in common.

For children, this isn’t very hard,

because even though
one schoolyard speaks Dutch

and the other schoolyard, a mix
of French, Turkish and Arabic,

they all speak the universal
language of play.

And it turned out the desire to play

is a lot stronger than all
the supposed differences between them.

I installed different games at the fence,

which turned it into an interface,
a common ground,

instead of a barrier.

And all of a sudden,
children were drawing together,

exchanging pencils

and talking on the phone.

Especially the phones
were a great success,

because they were so amazed

by the fact that they can hear
the other side through this device

that they couldn’t stop speaking.

In the case of an elementary school,
parents play a very big role

in shaping the everyday life
and the environment of their children.

So I knew that if I wanted
to make a difference,

I had to somehow show them, too,
how much they have in common

with the other side.

But for parents, this was
a lot more difficult,

because most of them
speak different languages,

work different jobs
with different incomes,

live in different social circles,

believe in different religions,

experience different cultures

and share different values.

And then there was me,
a student,

different in all of these aspects again.

So how could I show them

how much they have in common?

I chose not to convince them myself

but by letting their own
children do the talking.

I designed a picture exhibition
on the schoolyard

showing them their children
playing together through the fence.

At the end of this exhibition,

I asked people to write down
their thoughts, ideas and wishes

on these big wooden boxes,

and I labeled the boxes
with, “What do you think?”

A lot of people wrote “Yes” on it.

Yes, what?

I never mentioned my opinion
or an action that should follow,

so which question
were they answering with yes?

When I asked, they said yes,
the fence should go.

Yes, we want to play with the other side.

The pictures implied enough
to answer a question

that was never proposed.

People were seeing the absurdity
of the situation again

and felt how unnecessary this fence is

without me forcing an opinion on them.

The exhibition showed the two sides
their similarities for once.

That day, there was no us and them,

there was no others.

The mental wall started to crumble.

I chose the word “crumbling,”

because breaking a mental wall
is a long journey,

and breaking a mental wall
can be a lot more difficult

than simply tearing down the physical one.

We have to challenge
our opinion and beliefs

and maybe even admit our own wrongs.

So what happened in Brussels
was a big step,

a step that has been taking
generations in Germany.

There are many examples
from all over the world

telling the same story I experienced
in Brussels and Germany,

enough examples from which
we could have learned.

But still, we seek walls as solutions
for problems that they cannot solve,

because walls don’t fight
the root of our problem.

If anything, they reduce the symptoms.

So the next time you
are planning to build a wall

or you are planning to support someone
who wants to build a wall,

I want you to remember
the impact you are really having.

Because, this simple structure
will hardly create more security.

Instead, it will affect the people
living with it every day,

people who, despite the geographic border,

often share a lot of culture and values.

For them, you are not building
one wall but two,

two walls which will take decades
and generations to overcome again.

Thank you.

(Applause)

抄写员:Joseph Geni
审稿人:Camille Martínez

人类喜欢建造墙壁。

你有没有注意到这一点?

我们为一切建造墙壁:

为避难所、为保护、为隐私。

在过去的 70 年里,国家之间

的壁垒数量
增加了一倍。

现在,城墙
比二战结束时

多,比冷战时期还要多。

在德国长大,

柏林墙的倒塌
对我来说总感觉

像是引入了一个新世界,
一个没有障碍的世界。

但自 9/11 袭击以来

,建筑经历
了极大的增长。

从那时起,数量翻了一番,计划或建造

了大约 30 个新结构

围墙和栅栏的建造通常
是为了安全,

防止另一群人

、犯罪、非法贸易。

但围墙和栅栏只是给
我们一种安全感

,与真正的安全感不同。

尽管它们可能让我们感到安全,但

这些结构本身
并不能保护我们。

相反,他们做了别的事情:

他们分开了。

他们创造了一个我们和一个他们。

他们建立了一个敌人。

墙让
我们在脑海中筑起第二堵墙,一堵心理墙。

而那些心理墙
慢慢地让我们忘记

了我们
与另一边的人所拥有的所有共同点。

反过来,

精神墙可以变得如此坚固
,以至于它们鼓励我们建造、

保持或加强物理墙。

身体和精神的
墙壁紧密相连

,几乎总是一堵墙

这是一个持续的循环:

物理墙增强了精神墙
,精神墙增强了物理墙,

直到某一时刻有一部分脱落

,循环被打乱。

当柏林墙正在建造时,

很难分辨出
这堵墙面对的是谁,

因为住在它周围的人都认为这
是一堵墙。

没有我们和他们。

没有其他人。

分离期间,

双方发展不同
,形成了各自的身份。

突然之间,有
一个我们和一个他们。

一堵精神墙建起来了

,当
1989年柏林墙再次倒塌时,

这堵在人们头脑
中的精神墙留了下来。

东德人必须重新
融入他们自己的国家

,尽管他们
不必搬家,

但今天仍有许多人觉得
他们从未完全抵达。

心理墙的那些剩余影响也是可以测量的。

柏林自由大学 2005 年的一项研究

表明,即使
在统一 15 年后,

德国人仍然认为
旧墙另一边的城市

比实际距离更远。

有趣的是,他们发现
了政治态度

和距离估计之间的联系。

参与者越是
反对德国统一,

他们估计城市的距离就越远。

是心灵之墙让
彼岸的城市远离,


这心灵之墙越高越强,

似乎越难到达。

我试图

与一群
在没有围墙的情况下长大的德国年轻人重复这项研究,

看看这些影响
现在是否仍然可以测量。

结果表明,这一代人,我这一代人,

一般来说地理上有点差——

(笑声)

东方和西方。

但在我们的辩护中,这可以
看作是一种进步,对吧?

我们从未体验过真正的墙壁。

这种物理屏障一开始就
无法让我们建立一堵心理

墙。

我愿意将此
视为一个严肃的迹象

,表明未来可能
没有一堵分裂德国的精神墙,

但我认为我们必须面对现实:

这堵墙可能正在消失,

但与此同时,
还有十亿堵墙正在建造。

我们目前正在经历的一个全球趋势

是封闭式社区的兴起。

在某种程度上,封闭式社区可以被
视为与国家完全相同的方式,

只是在小范围内——

被围墙和围栏包围的社区,

以保护公民免受其他公民的伤害

——唯一的区别是,
它是由选择的。

但是对

住在里面的人和被关在外面的人的身心影响

是一样的,它们

将城市、社区

甚至游乐场隔开。

去年春天,
我在布鲁塞尔的两所小学从事了一个设计项目,

情况就是如此。

两所学校共用一个入口
和校园。

两所学校都用荷兰语授课。

但是一所学校主要
由比利时儿童访问,

而另一所学校主要
由移民儿童访问。

学校
被墙和栅栏隔开,

除了校园里的栅栏
把他们隔开,孩子们没有任何互动点。

当我开始在那里工作时,

看到孩子
们不得不站在栅栏

上与另一边的朋友交谈,我感到很难过。

但更糟糕的是,
大多数孩子

连交到对方朋友的机会都没有。

学校应该是
孩子们,所有孩子

们聚在一起学习的地方——

向老师学习,
但更重要的是,

互相学习。

多样性
越多,要学习的东西就越多。

事实上,学校可能
是我们生活中唯一可以在

社会差异的情况下建立联系的机会。 如果不是不可能的话,在

他们发育的这段时间内将孩子分开

将使融合变得极其困难

然而,不知何故,

我似乎是布鲁塞尔唯一一个
对这道栅栏有问题的人。

大多数家长、老师和孩子

不再看到或至少
质疑这个结构。

就是这样。

没有人曾经以不同的方式看待它。

人们赞成它。

我曾经问一个男孩是否愿意和
对方一起玩

,他说:“不。”

然后我问如果没有栅栏,他是否会和他们一起玩

他说,“可能。”

但随后他很快补充
说,围栏应该留下来,

因为对方很卑鄙
,他们从不把球还给他。

这很有趣,因为我和
双方的孩子交谈

,每个人都告诉
我对方很卑鄙,

因为他们从不回球。

两边的孩子
互不喜欢

,经常
在这个栅栏上发生争吵,

这也是
人们觉得有

必要在那里的主要原因:

它保护了孩子们彼此之间的关系,

或者至少保护了他们的玩具

,它可以防止混乱。

在某个时候,孩子们开始
爬到栅栏

下拿回他们的球

,学校的反应
是把这些金属板放在那里。

现在他们爬了过来。

我不知道布鲁塞尔最先出现的是什么:

一堵越来越坚固的精神墙,
以至于让他们建造了一道物理围栏,

或者这个现在
强调社会差异的围栏,

甚至在校园里也是如此。

但是
当我开始在那里工作时,我

确实知道我想改变
一些情况。

我想再次向双方
展示他们有多少共同点。

对于孩子们来说,这并不难,

因为即使
一个校园讲荷兰语

,另一个校园
讲法语、土耳其语和阿拉伯语,

他们都讲通用
的游戏语言。

事实证明,玩的欲望比

他们之间所有假设的差异要强烈得多。

我在栅栏上安装了不同的游戏,

把它变成了一个界面,
一个共同点,

而不是一个障碍。

突然之间,
孩子们一起画画,

交换铅笔

,打电话。

特别是电话
取得了巨大的成功,

因为他们

对通过这个设备可以听到对方的声音感到非常惊讶,

以至于他们无法停止说话。

就小学而言,
父母

在塑造孩子的日常生活
和环境方面发挥着非常重要的作用。

所以我知道,如果我
想有所作为,

我也必须以某种方式向他们展示
他们与另一方有多少共同之处

但对于父母来说,
这要困难得多,

因为他们中的大多数人
说不同的语言,

从事不同的工作
,收入不同,

生活在不同的社交圈,

信仰不同的宗教,

体验不同的文化

,分享不同的价值观。

然后是我,
一个学生,

在所有这些方面再次不同。

那么我怎样才能向他们

展示他们有多少共同点呢?

我选择不亲自说服他们,

而是让他们自己的
孩子来说话。

我在校园里设计了一个图片展

向他们展示他们的孩子
们一起穿过栅栏玩耍。

展览结束时,

我让人们在这些大木箱上写下
他们的想法、想法和愿望

并在木箱
上贴上“你觉得怎么样?”的标签。

很多人在上面写了“是”。

是,什么?

我从来没有提到我的意见
或应该采取的行动,

那么
他们对哪个问题的回答是肯定的?

当我问的时候,他们说是的
,围栏应该去。

是的,我们想和对方一起玩。

这些图片
足以回答一个从未提出过的问题

人们再次看到这种
情况的荒谬,

并感到

没有我对他们强加意见的情况下这个围栏是多么不必要。

展览一次展示了双方
的相似之处。

那一天,没有我们和他们,

没有其他人。

精神之墙开始崩塌。

我选择了“崩溃”这个词,

因为打破精神之墙
是一段漫长的旅程,

而打破精神之墙
可能

比简单地拆除物质之墙要困难得多。

我们必须挑战
我们的观点和信念

,甚至可能承认我们自己的错误。

所以在布鲁塞尔发生的事情

一大步,这是德国几代人所迈出的一步
。 世界各地

有很多例子

讲述了我在布鲁塞尔和德国经历的同样的故事

,我们可以从中学到足够多的例子

但是,我们仍然寻求墙壁作为
他们无法解决的问题的解决方案,

因为墙壁并不能解决
我们问题的根源。

如果有的话,它们会减轻症状。

因此,下次
您计划建造一堵墙

或计划支持
想要建造一堵墙的人时,

我希望您记住
您真正产生的影响。

因为,这种简单的
结构几乎不会创造更多的安全性。

相反,它将影响
每天与它一起生活的

人们,尽管有地理边界,但他们

往往有着许多共同的文化和价值观。

对他们来说,你建造的不是
一堵墙,而是

两堵墙,需要几十年
和几代人才能再次克服。

谢谢你。

(掌声)