Language

In the everyday language about computers, there are many references to spatial imagination. These are words such as “network world,” “chat room,” “firewall,” “homepage,” “forum,” “desktop,” “storage space,” etc. When people talk about the Internet or their own computer, do they think in spatial contexts? If so, is there a territorial behaviour in the virtual space of our working world today? In order to approach this question, we first have to consider whether this virtual space within work systems is a territory in the environmental psychological sense. Only then can we deal with the interactions between humans and their environment in the sense of a territoriality. Miller (1990) names four central characteristics of territories: They are geographically locatable, they have a border or border area, they are independent of persons and the processes within the territories are predictable to a certain extent (Miller 1990). The independence of persons can be further differentiated. Territories do not exist around persons. Territories are therefore immobile, in contrast to the personal space around a person. A person can enter and leave a territory. If a person is absent, the territory continues to exist. Territories are characterized by a certain predictability, i.e. the environmental conditions do not behave completely unpredictably (Miller 1990): “Territories constitute fixed spatial references through a relatively constant material and social milieu.”

Computers and the work place

Before we now apply the term territory to virtual working environments, I would like to describe in more detail what I understand by a virtual working environment. In today’s office workplace, the computer has an enormous significance as a work tool. Many aspects of such a computer reflect a typical office environment. For example, the organization of currently important files takes place on a desktop. The files can be named and placed freely according to the user’s ideas. There are folders in which written documents can be stored. Documents that are no longer needed are moved to a “recycle bin.” Local in-house computer networks extend the own virtual working environment by connecting to those of work colleagues. The Internet then connects virtual workplaces on a global level beyond the local network. These computerized elements of the working environment can also be understood territorially. Territory is the own local storage space in a computer. Even in a network it is still delimited from other computers (e.g. realized by the read and write access rights of the user accounts). But files can also be shared between several specific users (e.g. in a cloud or in shared folders). On the other hand, there are areas in distributed file systems that are not accessible to specific users. These described file systems are persistent, they exist independently of people. Thus we find the aspect of person independence of territories in a virtual space. What happens within these virtual territories is predictable for the users to a certain extent. If certain folders are shared between several users, the users are usually aware of this. Work-related folder structures serve a previously defined purpose. If several users work together via a distributed folder structure, it is predictable for the individual users what happens in these folders when they work together with other users on the same thing.

Territoriality

Next, I would like to investigate whether the concept of territoriality is applicable to a virtual working environment. Territoriality as the feeling of being connected to a certain place has already been described by the sociologist Simmel (2013). The term was later specified as a claim to dispose of a space (Katz 1948). Aspects of territoriality include ownership, duration of occupation and emotional ties. Depending on the extent to which the aspects of ownership and duration of use are expressed, we speak of primary, secondary and tertiary (public) territories (Miller 1990). Primary territories are characterized by the permanent possession of a single person and his or her exclusive power of disposal over the territory. Secondary territories refer to several owners, each of whom has less power of disposal. Miller (1990) speaks of tertiary or even public territories if the use is of limited duration and generally binding rules.

For each of these forms of territoriality we also find correspondences in virtual working environments. The data and software of a user account, its specific settings and personalized aspects (e.g. desktop wallpaper), provide a kind of workspace that can be called a primary territory. A specific user account is intended solely for a specific user. Read and write rights delimit the use of data and software in the network from other users. The account itself is protected by a password against access by other users and, together with the read and write rights, represents the power of disposal over the virtual primary territory. Correspondences can also be found for secondary territories in virtual work environments. A storage space shared between several users meets the criteria for secondary territories. Folders containing important data can usually be read, changed or deleted by their creator, while other users can only view, but not change or delete them. In this shared folder the users have less power of disposal.

We have seen in the previous sections that in virtual work environments, correspondences can be found for different types of territories. In the last section I would like to deal with the aspect of territoriality, human territorial behaviour and experience, which is important for ergonomics. A starting point for understanding territorial behavior is the consideration that humans depend on social interaction. Social interaction enables people to find their identity (Altman 1975). The word identity (Latin īdem, “the same”) refers to the total set of all the characteristics that characterize an individual that make him or her distinguishable from others. Territories can constitute aspects of the identity of its owner. Proshansky (1978) refers to this as local identity. The local identity can be shown by an “interior and exterior description.” The interior description can take place through personalization of the appropriated space (Proshansky 1978). With regard to virtual working environments, personalization is conceivable within the scope of the design options already mentioned (e.g. graphic adaptation of the desktop environment, use of preferred software, individual system settings). However, there seems to be no equivalent for the external description with regard to virtual work environments. Exterior description refers to the spatial component of the location identity, such as “I live on the Maybachufer.” Since virtual working environments cannot be localized geographically in this sense, there seems to be no possibility of identification here. This point indicates a central psychological difference between geographical and virtual territories: virtual territories offer fewer possibilities of identification than physical territories.

Summary

In summary, we can state that the concept of territoriality is only conditionally applicable to the context of virtual working environments. Many aspects of territories can be mapped into virtual work environments. However, there is no obvious equivalent to an external description of territorial identity. It is also questionable to what extent the interaction between humans and their environment can be explained by territoriality. We could transfer territoriality relatively arbitrarily to another context. The arbitrariness with which we were able to find concrete examples from virtual working environments here contradicts the meaningfulness of a model of human behaviour under specific spatial conditions.