Sound Sovereignty: Control and the Element of Choice

45

window, which clearly minimised the disturbance of outside noise. The same goes for Amsterdam Nieuw West, and although there are hardly any monumental buildings there, the isolation quality of some homes was lacking, especially if they originated from the early Post-War era of approximately 1945 to the 1970s. One experience regarding the importance of sound proofing comes from Johan (66) who once lived in a 1950s apartment next to the A10 highway:

“my wife kept spending more time in the kitchen on the other side of the house so I’d ask her

‘why are you constantly sitting in the kitchen?’ And she’d say ‘oh that highway is driving me mad’. Well I can warn you, never go live there, it was really badly isolated, all homes from the 50s, no double glazing or any quality isolation, it was bad”. Consequently, this lack of sound proofing eventually led Johan and his wife to search for a new home. In both districts, a lack of proper isolation also meant participants regularly heard their neighbours, although annoying at times, they were considered relatively acceptable and sometimes even experienced as pleasurable, as will be discussed in chapter 6.3.

46

sovereignty is, in that case, being able to shut a door or window and block out most of the outside noise, which makes living in a relatively noisy area more pleasant and healthy. As Shanon (40) mentions: “you can hear everything that goes on outside, even when the windows are closed because we don’t have double glazing and it’s a monumental building (…) I would love to be able to soundproof the bedroom (…) that you have a choice in hearing the noise outside or not”. So her ability to create her own quiet environment would reduce exposure to unwanted sound and thus the need for quietness, especially at night.

The importance of sound sovereignty comes back in other acoustic environments as well, which can be as simple as being able to choose your own music: “I think there’s a big difference between putting on you own music or hearing you neighbour’s music, just by the fact that you control it” (Maaike, 37). In this case, the lack of control over your neighbours’ music, including its type, volume and duration, at least partly reduces the pleasantness of that music.

Similar to other participants, Maaike also explained how mechanic sounds of electrical appliances at home were often not considered as annoying as those outside her reach. “I have a Dison that purifies the air that makes a constant *whoooohh* sound, but the idea that I can turn it off any moment, already makes it a lot less annoying than one of those ventilation systems”.

Sound sovereignty can be found in more structural, socio-economic facets of urban live as well, as in the ability to live in a place that meets personal preferences. Realising those preferences depend largely on economic viability. For example, Verbeek (2019) found that income is a “robust predictor for both air pollution and noise exposure across the whole urban territory” (p. 40). This means that people with limited financial means might be limited in their choices for homes, and end up in noisier places. Conversely, Annabelle (50), who was previously mentioned, consciously chose to live in Centrum and enjoyed her life there, even accepting recurring noise disturbances. What might mediate that disturbance is again sound sovereignty: “of course, we are really lucky, we live in a house in which we call the shots and decide a lot ourselves, so we can afford it to be tolerant towards noise, I think if we would live somewhere crammed into a tiny appartement it would be a whole other story”. So for those that do live in noisy areas, financial means are important to gain back control over the acoustic environment. For some, this means going to their holiday homes abroad or plots of land outside the city, go boating, build in isolated floors, walls or ceilings, or put on their noise cancelling headsets. “those headsets are a great solution, it is definitely a bit of control. Because sometimes I find it hard to deal with that powerlessness or lack of influence” (Pien, 26). All these possibilities for increasing sound sovereignty and fulfilling needs of quietness come with

47

a price tag, not just available to anyone. These examples could link the concept of sound sovereignty firmly to environmental justice studies, that emphasise the socio-economic inequality in public access to clean and healthy living environments (Von Szombathely, et al., 2018; Verbeek, 2019; Mohai, Pellow & Roberts, 2009). At the same time, it could shed more light on the inequality in private access to quietness too, which is now mostly discussed in media rather than among academics (Biguenet, 2015; Schama, 2014; White, 2018; Petrarca, 2017; Kooyman, 2019).

The beforementioned examples mostly cover some of the actual means of control that enhance sound sovereignty, but other examples also show that a sense of control is enough to impact the experience of sound and the need for quietness. For example, communication about noise disturbances is important to create a sense of control for the perceiver, by knowing what to expect: “communication about [noise] is just really important so people know what will happen that causes the disturbance, when they know what will happen when, and when it will stop, it usually much more acceptable for everyone” (Johan, 66). Similarly, Claas (72) states:

“If someone is making noise, but there’s a note saying ‘this lasts 15 minutes or so’, then you know and it doesn’t bother as much. But in the anonymity of the building, you often have no idea where the noise is coming from, which can be challenging”. These findings relate to what was discussed in chapter 6.1, on the characteristics of noise. Especially the unpredictability and unexpectedness of loud sound is often disturbing, because it takes away the perceiver’s sense of control over the acoustic situation. As Annabelle (50) explains aptly: “noise disturbance to me are sounds that I don’t expect, (…) things that I can’t take into account beforehand are challenging to me. So I’m often more bothered by sounds coming from the neighbours than from the nearby café, because at least then I can estimate when they’ll happen”.

These statements also explain why the opposite of sound sovereignty, the sense that things are ‘out of control’, is often used to describe unpleasant acoustic situation. It is noted, for example, that tourism in Amsterdam has gotten out of hand, and should be heavier controlled by the municipality. Similarly, the noise from loitering youths described earlier also seemed uncontrollable because they weren’t easily approached by those that were bothered, due to the negative connotations and hostility that surrounds them.

Lastly, sound sovereignty as the sense of control by knowing what to expect, can be related to the appropriateness of sound, which is informed by the context of experience and found to be influential in the evaluation of our acoustic environments (Jo & Jeon, 2020, p.

106975; Bruce & Davies, 2014; Aletta, Kan & Axelsson, 2016, p. 68; Botteldooren, De Coensel

48

& Muer, 2006). The way urban sound and quietness are experienced and evaluated in relation to different contexts, will be further discussed in the following chapter.