Spaces of formal and informal intellectual discourse in Uganda : a comparative study

Abstract

In many traditional societies, intellectual discourse mainly occurred around the home and other non-specialized spaces. Intellectual discourse alludes to the exchange of ideas and information necessary for development of the society. The division of space for intellectual discourse between the formal and informal societies has created inequality and disempowerment among the people of Uganda, thus the potential for collaboration and exchange of knowledge has remained untapped. The problem is that the contemporary spaces for intellectual discourse have not been understood. This study aimed to understand the settings where intellectual discourse takes place in both formal and informal societies. A setting refers not only to the physical dimensions of space, but also to the social, cultural, and symbolic meanings that are attributed to the environment. Based on the review of literature on setting, formality and knowledge, participant observations and interviews were conducted in two different settings for discourse in Kampala Central. To represent the formal setting was Nile Hall in Hotel Africana and Mukati in Owino Market to represent an informal setting to understand the physical attributes, culture, and people of the setting. Analysis of the results demonstrates that; well as both spaces are used for the same purpose, they have physical and cultural differences, interpersonal distance is much larger in the formal setting compared to the more intimate informal setting, hierarchies were reinforced by the spatial arrangement in the formal setting while in the informal setting, there was decentralised arrangement. The behaviour in the formal setting was more regulated with the space being panoptic to regulate the behaviour of users while in the informal setting, the behaviour was more loosely governed and the space instead acted as a shield to provide a degree of privacy while staying welcoming to more visitors. The results indicate that the different spaces for intellectual discourse accommodate one group while casting away the other. On this basis, it is recommended that architects and sociologists devise a middle ground that accommodates both societies to allow for the free flow of knowledge for the benefit of the progress of society.