1
SPACELAB
researchlaboratory forthecontemporarycityFacultyofArchitecture DelftUniversityofTechnology Berlageweg1
2628CRDelft spacelab@bk.tudelft.nl www.spacelab.tudelft.nl
>>
TheUrbanImage–Becoming
Visible
copyright:
Thisonlinepapermaybecitedorbrieflyquotedinlinewiththeusualacademicconventions.
Youmayalsodownloaditforyourownpersonaluse.Thispapermustnotbepublishedelsewhere(e.g. mailinglists,bulletinboardsetc.)withouttheauthor'sexplicitpermission.
Butpleasenotethat
•ifyoucopythispaperyoumustincludethiscopyrightnote.
•thispapermustnotbeusedforcommercialpurposesorgaininanyway.
StephenRead
Anurbanworld
We live in an urban world – where, for almost every one of us today, the way we liveandwhatweexperienceiscapturedwithinwhatwethinkofas‘theurban’.Our liveshavebecomesuspendedandconstitutedwithinfast-moving,connected,and technologicallymediatedworlds.Butattheverymomentthat‘theurban’comesto constituteourwholelives,thetermitself,itseems,losesitsfoundation.Itlosesits opposite–thecountrysideortheperiphery.Thatwhichis‘notcity’,whichis‘outside’ tothe‘inside’ofthecity,andwhichthecityneeds,asthefigureneedstheground, inordertospecifyitsoutlineanditsform,becomessomethingviewedthroughthe windscreenofafast-movingcarorfromthewindowofahigh-speedtrain.Itbecomes asceneryforastillurbanexistence.Pointingouttodaythatourworldisurbanisto pointtotheonlyremainingpoleoftheduality,andtorealizethatwepointonlyata stateofourbeing.Theproblemforusatthispointintimeisnotsomuch,asLefebvre could still proclaim in the last century, a problem of ‘the urban’ as a distinctively differentmodeofexistence,asitissimplyaproblemofexistenceitselfandofour beinginacontemporaryworld.
Theonceparticularqualityof‘theurban’hasbecomeabase-lineexperience,and wecanexpectnoremissionfromthisplainstateofaffairs.Butinshiftingtheangleof ourtakeontheproblem,wecanalsoredefineitinawaywhichpreservesacontinuity withthepastevenwhilenotingadiscontinuity–anon-linearity–atthelevelofour experience.Themodernworldofthe19thand20thcenturieshasgoneassurelyas medievalandearlymodernworlds.Thiscondition–ofstandingatthebeginningof somethingnew,somethingunformedanduncertain–leavesusfeelingrudderless andtryingtofindourbearings;tryingtounderstandandmanagewhatishappening aroundusbyreferringbacktobetter-known,apparentlysurertimes.WhatIhopeto demonstratehereisthatweliveinaworldwhichwasalwaysprovisional–thatas longastherehasbeenchangeinourworldsandinoursurroundings,ourexperience hasalwaysbeenoneofbeingonthebrinkofanunspecifiedoutcome,andwithina successionofeventsbracketedintheframeofanopen‘urban’.
Thesubstanceof‘theurban’
Thepresumed‘shift’totheurbanasauniversalcondition,ashiftLefebvresignaled attheendofthe‘60s1,wasalso–andthiswasacauseofthecontroversyhisbook
2 2
categories.2 Lefebvre was signaling that the instruments of the analysis of ‘the
urban’ were failing, and that we were on the cusp of something new – something that he himself, committed Marxist, dialectician, and humanist, was clearly also uneasyabout.Lefebvrenotedthewaythecitywasassertingaforcefulautonomy; undertheveryeyesofthetheoreticiansithadbegunarelentlessandaccelerating drift in directions given by attractors set by no human hand and framed within no contemporaryexplanatorydiagram.Thehumanartifactparexcellencehadbroken freeofthemooringswehadconstructedforitandwaschartingitsowncourse.It wasacoursethatwasdrawinganeverdensercreepingwebofurbanizationoverthe globe’ssurface,drivenapparentlybytheenergiesofa‘groundlessgroundoflived/ livingconcatenation,conglomerationandvisceralcross-reference’.3
The urban world had seemed suddenly to change in substance; from being a ponderous construction built towards the social end of the overdetermined poles of society and nature4, it had become something pulsing, alive, polyrhythmical, contingently eventful, and inexorably spreading and thickening. The ‘black box’ Lefebvre referred to has turned out in the end to be both more forcefuland more ordinary,andmorealienandautonomous,thanevenLefebvrehadimagined.Ithas forcedustoreconsiderourconstructionsofabounded‘social’andreviseourideas oftheelementsandsubstancesofsocietiesandcities.Whatthishasmeantfora ‘scienceofthecity’hasalsobeenhighlysignificant:inthefirstplacethe‘moorings’ that had traditionally anchored the city as a human and social construction and object of study, had been called into question. All of a sudden, it seemed, and concomitantly with massive regularizations and compressions that processes of connectivityandmobilityataglobalscalewereinducing,wewerebeingconfronted with the limits of some presuppositions that had been around so long we had forgottentheywerecreaturesofourownmaking.Thecityhadbecomesomething otherthanunambiguously‘social’,somethingmorethanunambiguously‘artifact’and instrumentofourcivicandtechnicaldeliberationsandwills,andsomethingcloserto thatof‘forceofnature’.Ithadbecomeasiteofautonomouscreationandnotsimply ahumanproduct,asimpleeffectofhumanlycreativeaction.Theurbanhad‘become “objective”,thatiscreationandcreator,meaningandgoal.’5
To approach ‘the urban’ as ‘objective’, as ‘autonomous creation’ and as ‘force of nature’,istoapproachtheconstitutionoftheworlddifferently.Theorderingapparatus andthinkingproceduresofpreviousanalyseshavebeenturnedontheirheads,and wehavebeguntounderstandthatthecity,initsdynamicorder,islinkedtouniversals which are more concrete and self-propelling andreal, less transcendental and differentiatedfromthematerialoftheworld,andlessinclinedtofolloworreflectthe ordersweusetomakesenseofthesethings.6
Toapproach‘theurban’inthisway–asagenesisofformoutofafieldof‘moments’ or‘events’7ratherthanassomerepresentativeorreflectiveformconsequenton‘the
3 3
ofmomentsandtheirsuccessionbecomesinthisframingintrinsicallyopenasthe ‘multiplicity’expandswitheachnewgatheringofanothermoment.8
Thisbecomesthenanattempttolocate‘theurban’intheconcreteuniversalofthe situationratherthanwiththeabstractuniversalsofourcategories.Itisanattempt to link the moment ofsocial experience directly with the material and with urban situationandtoassertthattheurbanisfundamentaltotheconstitution,andtoan everydayemergenceofaneverydaysocialinitseverydayappearanceandvisibility.
Thecity‘fromabove’
The concrete universals that open a new andvisible urban-social experiencein situareagatheringtogetherofheterogeneouselementsinfieldsofmovementand encounter.9 But this is a gathering just as emphatically from fields of movements
and connections which are for the most part entirelyinvisible to us at the level of everyday experience. The contemporary urban world, in its pervasively creeping connectivity, drawing together what we imagine to be far, spreads a veil over its workings as it spreads its influence over us. We absorb it uncritically, falling like innocentsfor,andtakingasgiven,thealreadythereandmaterialized,whichisitself the immediate evidence that we are connected to a world of whose workings we knownexttonothing.Thepathwaystotheglobalfromthelocalareforthemostpart hidden to us, revealed only in more regularized and regulated forms; mass travel andtourism,phonesandfaxesandtheinternet.Theglobalmeanwhileappearsin thelocal,broughttousalongmultipleinflected,regulated,unregulated,controlled, uncontrolled,andvariablyaccessiblepathways.
Webegininsituationratherthanin‘thesocial’anditwouldbeamistaketoimagine thatwhatisgatheredtothislocalisinsomewaynecessarily‘for’thesocial.Itwill infactbeoneoftheprinciplepointsmadeherethatsituationinitsgenerativeand openindeterminacy,istoahugeextentsimplyfound,beforeitisappropriatedand transformed–thatourworldisinthefirstplace,andoutoftheprocesseswhichmake it,agiven,andthatthereisthenaprocessofsocialtranslationandremaking.
ThedoubtsLefebvrestartedtoarticulaterevolvedinthefirstinstancearoundaloss of a direct ‘linearity’ between the urban world and the social, but drew out also a moregeneralprobleminunderstandingtherelationofknowledgetoacomplexand non-linearandvariablytransparentworld.Thecityasitismanifesttous,initssimple visibility,oftenreveals,inahighlychargedandintricatelyfoldedlocal,littlemorethan ourownprojectionsontoitssurfaces.Itisoneofthewondersofthecitythatitcan meansomanythingstosomanypeople.Thisisoneofitsgreatstrengths,andasign ofitsopenness,buttheseprojections,takenindividuallyorcollectively,arealousy startingpointforanalysis.
4 4
wemakeindiversemediaofwhoweareandwhatwewouldliketobe.Weexploitthis tensiontoopenwaystotheglamorous,thenovelandtheforbidden.Thecitybecomes morethanthebackground;itbecomessubjectandcharacteralsointhousandsof movies,musicvideos,advertisingandfashionfeaturesandstoriesofcontemporary life.Itabsorbsliveswhileoftentransformingthemintherepresentationswemakeof them;blessingthemwithahalo,sometimesinsubstantialanddelusory,ofnovelty,of thecontemporary,ofthemoment,ofnow.
Butthereareproblemswiththispervasiveandexpressivevisibilityasawaytothe knowingofanythingsubstantialaboutthecity.Partofthisrelatestooursituationas participantsinthemiddleofaprocesswearenotinapositiontoseeinanytotality. Our vision of the city is obscured by the overflow, the noise and excess, of what existsinourimmediatefieldofview;wehavenowayofseeingthebigpicturewhile theclamorofthesmallonedominatesourperceptions.Itisaparadox,becauseof coursethewholeisinthemonad;theproblemisthatthewholeoverflowsitsbasic nature,andbesidesthatwedon’tknowinanyimmediatewaybywhichpathwaysthe wholegottobethere.Aveilofinvisibilityhasbeendrawnoverbothsubstanceand means.
Continuityandbecomingvisible
Theimageofthecityandofurbanlifeofourphotographsandofourfilmsexistsinthe timeframeoftheunitaryeventandmoment,andtheslicesofrealityofthephotograph ortheframesofafilminterruptthesuccessionofoneeventintoanother.Wecan decomposerealityintoslices,asinaCATscan,butthereisnot,norshouldthere be,anyexpectationthatbythismeansweexposethewayurbanrealityisbroughtto life.Wedon’tanymorebringthecitytolife,orrevealitslifeforce,bydissectionthan wedothatofabodyontheslab.Injoiningwiththisproblematicofthetimeoflife, wejointheargumentBergsonhadwithBachelardandDeleuzewithBadiouoverthe relativeprimacyofcontinuityovertheevent.10Incontrasttoanemphasisonthings
oreventsasentitiesthatcanbedisengagedfromtheirsuccession,itiscentralto theideasofbothBergsonandDeleuze,andalsoWhitehead11,thatthereisarealm
ofcontinuitywhichexistsasacreativeintegratorandlife-givertothediscontinuous realmofeventsandthingsweseearoundus.Realtimeisforthemanengineofa vitalsuccessionratherthanasimplescaleinasuccessionofevents.
In order to approach this continuity and its full implications, we have to throw off someofourpreoccupationwith,andourpreconceptionsoftheunitaryevent,and indeedoftheatomisticanddivisibleasabasisofexistence.Inordertodothisweare luckyenoughtohaverecoursetothespectaculardisclosuresofelectromagnetism andquantumphysics,whichinspiredmuchofthisdiscussioninthefirstplace,and whichsuddenlyacenturyandmoreagoofferedupsomeverydifferentandforthen, counterintuitivewaysofapproachingquestionsofexistence.JoelKovelreferstoa ‘plasmaofbeing’asagroundingofexistencethatisnotobjectifiable;aprimordial continuumthatunderliesallknowingandallknowledgeofobjects.Themostsurprising andmostunfamiliarpartofthisideaisthatitsuggeststhatidentityandidentifiability, something we in our common-sense presumptions regard as fundamental to all existence, is founded not on ever smaller underlying identifiable units, as Leibniz forexamplebelieved,butratheronafundamentallycontinuous(andfundamentally dynamic)substrate.‘Intheuniverseasawholethereisnorealseparationbetween things;thereareonly,sofarasthemostadvancedsciencecantellus,plasmatic quantumfields;onesingle,endlesslyperturbed,endlesslybecomingbody.’12
5 5
powertobedynamicallyintegratedintoaworld–whichisthesourceindeedofthe forceoftheir‘creative’capacitytobeandbecomeintheworld.Ashiftinperspective –fromobjecttoprocessandfromthevisibletothe‘becoming-visible’–isanattempt tomakecontactwithanorderoftheworldwhichwearenotinapositiontoobserve directly.Itisanattempttoseebeyondthenoiseoftheeverydayandtogobeyondthe limitationsofoureverydayperceptions–andbeyondperspectiveswithinwhichwe perceiveandexperiencethingsfirsthand.Itisanattempttoextendourvisibilityofan urbanworldfarmorerichandcomplex(andultimatelymoreordered)thananything wecouldbedirectlyresponsibleforconstructing,eitherinourconceptionsoronthe ground.
A different being, an extra-terrestrial say, observing the processes of our planet and its urbanization from a different perspective, would see pattern erupting on the surface of the earth; pattern like a growth, apparently the result of underlying organic order. We, immersed in this growth, as part of the hybrid symbiotic stuff whichconstitutestheseemergingpatterns,donotseeanysuchemergencedirectly, or,whileweareimmersedwithinthisprocessandrestrictedtoourperspectiveof theeverydaylocal,eventhepossibilityofsuchanorder.Atthesametimesuchan order,emergentatascalebeyondourdirectobservationandexperience,willreturn toaffectandreconstructourworlds.Itwillalsoreturninrathercounterintuitiveand hiddenways,tointegrateandstructureourexperienceoftheworld.Onecouldsay thateveryemergenceimpliesa‘convergence’–anentirelyidenticalprocesswhose differenceistheperspectivefromwhichitisexperienced.14Wehavelearnedfrom
thesciencesofcomplexitytobecomfortablewiththeideathatlarge-scalepatterns orpropertiesmayemergefrom,withoutbeingreducibleto,complexmicro-dynamics atasmallerscale.WhatIamtalkingabouthereismorelikethiskindofcomplexity inreverse,wheretheminuteandtheminutelydetailedandcomplexemergesoutof simplerlargerscaledprocessesandspatialorders,aseffectswithin–likeasortof ‘fractalspace-filling’15–ofamuchlargerbody.
It is for this reason that the products of direct visual imaginations, narrative or painterly,cinematicorphotographic,inpartitioningtheflowoflifeandexperience, will always miss an essential aspect of urban experience – which has to do with theintegrationorconvergenceofwholeworlds16,andnotjustwiththeimaginative
constructionorreconstructionofthoseaspectsofitthatappearatthescalesofthat apparitionorinthetimeframeofthenarrative.Thisistosaythatthereisanother partofurbanexperience,apartthatcomesfrombeyondexperience;apartthatis tiedtoadirectinvolvementwithrealsuccessionsattheleadingedgeofbecoming. Thisisabecomingthatisopen,aswesawbefore,butisneverthelessframedwithin a‘convergent’and‘whole’urban–anditisbymeansofthisconvergencethatthe frameholdstogetherforus.Thisisanissueofformandofacorporealknowingand intelligibility;itisanissueofthe‘fleshoftheworld’,ofthestatusofthecityas‘body’, andof‘knowingbeforeknowing’.17Actualurbanexperienceencountersthegenuinely
novel,theunthoughtandsurprising.Butitencountersitthroughandalongsidethe ‘urbanalien’thatisaproductofalargercoherencethatweencounterreal-timeinthe urbancontinuitythatrevealsitsform.18
Extendingvisibility
6 6
worldstothedirectexperienceofparticipantsinthosesystems–wecanimagine how effects generated outside of the scales of our direct experience nonetheless verysubstantiallycontributetotheconstitutionoftheworldinwhichweperceiveand act.Thisaspect–ofthefoundandthealready-constructedofourexperientialurban worlds – is one which we tend to overlook when we emphasize the artifactural or ‘socially-constructed’natureofthecityanditsspace.Itisoneweoverlookanyway givenourparticularperspectiveandnatural-enoughbiastothescaleweknowbest. Theurbanecologyofwhichweareapartisaproductinlargemeasureofprocesses outsideoftheimmediatelyvisibleordiscernibleofeverydaylives;wecantoallintents andpurposesregarditmoreaccuratelyasasocially-found‘natural’order,produced verysubstantiallysomewhereelseandencounteredasasomewhataliengivenand foundintheworldofoureverydayexperience.
Theveracityofthisperspective,whenheldupagainstthatofthenaivelyimagined ‘socialcity’–understoodassomethinghand-madebyandforus–issomethingthat isbecomingeverclearertoday,inthehard-edgedrealitiesofincreasinglypervasive globalandmetropolitanurbanprocesses.Butsuchapositiononcestated,returns thequestionbackthroughurbanhistory,seekingfortheoriginsofsuchastateof affairs,andfailingtodefinitivelyfindthem.Itispossible,indeedprobableIbelieve, thatthecityhasalwaystendedtobeinthefirstinstancesomethinggivenandfound, notmadetomeasure;acreationofprocessestakingplaceoutsideofthescalesof ourimmediatelivesandourimmediatevisualandperceptualfields–andbeyondthe powersofourimmediateagencyorvolition.Thecityhasinalllikelihoodalwaysbeen somethingmorelikeaneruptionoutofafieldofmuchwiderscope,andourdifficulty inunderstandingthenatureoftheurban,andourpropensityformisunderstanding it,hasprobablyalwayshadtodowiththefactthatitwasafactorofprocesseswhich were larger than us and our immediate lives – more widely distributed, material, dynamic and spatial – less the product of humanly or socially scaled and located social, cultural, or economic ‘structures’. This is to say that the urban world has alwaysbeenafoundworld,deliveredtoussubstantially‘fromabove’throughlayers ofregulatingandsystematizingnetworksandinfrastructures.19Theseinfrastructures
formandcontrolwhattheydistribute.Theygatherthingstothemselves,andtheir systematizingpowerhasasmuchtodowiththe‘agencies’ofthecomplexnetworks themselvesastheyhavetodowiththe‘agents’whousethem.
Themovementofhumanandsocialappropriationofanenvironmentnot‘madeto measure’, has been one counter to this production of the given – a movement of creativeremaking,ofmakingagain,thatwhichisalreadymade.Itisalsobetween thesetwoprocessesthattheopennessofoururbanworldismaintained–similar ‘givensandfounds’canbevariablyinterpretedandremadetovariableends.Itisin thecomplexandunpredictablespacebetweenthesetwoprocesses,thatwehave in fact influenced the way the city is continually becoming visible and social, and continuallybecomingdifferent.
Theemergenceofurbanidentity
Itisoneofthemostbasicerrorsofurbanthinkingthatthecityemergesfromwithin,a productof‘swarming’processesatthelevelofexperienceandeverydaylife.Thecity ismoreandmoreevidentlynotsimplyaformwhichspreadsoutfromwithin;growing fromtheinside,asapatterninthelandscape.Ratheritemergesforthemostpart aslocal‘thickenings’ofpre-existentformsofadynamicallyconstitutedwholewhose scopeexceedsbyordersofmagnitudethethingweinthepast(andstilltoooften today)holdasbeingthecity.Aspathsandtrailspre-existthefirstsettlementasan objectinthelandscape20,soalsothe‘object’citytodayexistsinthefirstinstance
7
The story of the city is therefore one of the eruption of identifiable stuff out of a plasmic and non-differentiable substrate. In fact, the ‘non-place’ discussed in the ‘anthropology of modernity’21 is composed of the antecedent, the unformed stuff,
of the place it misses. Jane Jacobs’ obsidian traders tracing pathways over the Anatolianplateau22,HanseaticcogsplyingtheBalticsea-routes,thesilktradersand
thespice-ladencaravansthreadingtheirwaysthroughthemountainpassesbetween thenearandfareast,allthewaythroughtothe20tonneOshkoshthunderingdown a transcontinental motorway – all are antecedent to the identifiable location we recognizeinactualurbanplaces.
Weneedtogetbacktothesubstanceofthisthingwecallcity,inordertoconsider again what this architecture we inhabit is made of and how it conditions us and oureverydaylives.Fortoolongwehavelookedatitthroughnotionsofexistence informedbyeverydayvisibilityandtheimmediateactualityofthematerialstuffthat surroundsus.Wepresumetooquicklythata‘logic’ofourimaginedordersunderpins whathappensinoururbanworld;weimaginethattheworldmakesitselfaccordingto linearlawsofaccumulation–lawswhichdonotintheendhavethepowertorepresent thisthingoritsprocessofbecoming.Wecantoday,whenthefactforcesitselfon us, begin to see the city for something closer to what it is – something radically open,integralwithwhatappearstoustobeitsoutside,integralwithacontinuitythat gathersaheterogeneousvisibleworldtoplace.
Thecityissomethingconstructedwithindynamicswhichtakeplaceverysubstantially beyondwhatwetaketobeitsborders,andwhichbecomesitselfaccordingtoitsown laws.Thisviewcontradictsthoseofthegreaturbanistsofthemodernisthumanist city;Geddes,MumfordandWirthunderstoodthecityasbeingorganicinthesense thatitcouldbeconceivedashavingintegrityasaspatiallyboundedandsocialentity –asbeingasocio-spatialsystemwithitsownvitalinternaldynamic.23Inthisview
Iamoutliningthecityis‘machinic’inthesenseDeleuze&Guattariusetheterm, wherethedynamicsofthe‘organic’areconceived‘notintermsoforgans,organisms andspecies,andtheirfunctions,butintermsoftheaffectiverelationshipsbetween heterogeneousbodies...‘[A]“body”canbeanything–ananimal,abodyofsounds, amindoranidea,asocialbodyorcollective...[T]hismeansthatevolutionspeaks in fact of an involution, that is the dissolution of forms and the indeterminacy of functions,aswellasthefreeingoftimesandspeeds.’24Iwouldgofurtherheretosay
thatthisinvolutionmanifestsitselfasaprogressivegenerativefoldingorpleatingor ‘space-filling’ateverfinerscalesaswezoominfromtheultimatescaleofthecity whichisgivenbythe(ultimatelyglobal)limitsofitsconnectiveandcommunicative networksandinfrastructures.25
ItbecomesquestionablewhetherthecitycouldeverhavebeenorganicinMumford’s sense. If in the past it was possible, and perhaps this was so as a rather crude approximation,toconceivethecityasacontainedsocio-spatialsystem,todaythere canbenodoubtthecityanditspartsarepointsofarticulationinvariouslyscaled circuitsandthattheirprocessesareconstrainedandorderedforthemostpartbythe networksandinfrastructureswhichconstituteandconveythemratherthanbyany boundinglimits.
8
unprecedented ways, recognizes also the difficulty of inventing forms – life forms orsocialforms–outofnothing.Thepossibilitywouldfirsthavehadtobeseento exist,inatleastarudimentarywaybeforeitcouldhaveoccurredtoourproto-urban ancestorsthatpolisorcivitasmayhavebeenapossibilityforsocialexistence.
Ifwejustrunthislineofthinking–thatwemayrequireaphenomenalexpressionof somesocialformtoexistintheconcretebeforewearecapableofabstractingfrom ittoitssocial‘structure’–itmaybepossibletoarguethatcities(andperhapsother settlementforms)precededandweretheimpulseformuchthatwetodayregardas social,andforourexpectationsofwhatsociallifeisandcanbe.Developedsocial formsmaybeacreativeadditionto,abuildingupon,amatrixofencounterthatis urban.Thiscouldbeastoryofsocialbecomingatthesametimeasitisoneofurban evolution/involution.
Thiscannotontheotherhandsimplybeastoryofcitiesevolvingcontinuouslyin time–otherwiseitwouldnotexplainLondonorNewYorkorHongKongashubsina globalfinancialnetworkintheformwefindthemtoday;itcouldnotexplainBilbaoor ManchesterorLille,reinventedfromoutoftheirindustrialpastsashubsinnetworks oftourism.Insteaditattemptstoexplaincitiesasdiscontinuousinthesensethatthey arecontinuouslynew;reinventedandreconstructedonthebackofnetworkswhich arethemselvesinacontinualprocessofconstruction,revisionandreconstruction. Whatweareseeingincitiestodayarethetransformationsascitiesadjusttoshifting patternsof‘virtuality’.Andthesevirtualitiescanbeveryconcrete,veryreal,builtas infrastructures;activatingtheconcrescencesor‘alchemicbecomings’ofthecityas anobject.Whatweexperienceisnotadeathofthecity,norforthatmattera‘new’ citybuiltonprinciplesentirelydifferenttothoseofcitiesofthepast;wearefacing ratherateachturninhistoryarevisionofthetranslationsandtransductionsofurban substanceonthebackofchangingsubstratesofcontinuities.Whenweunderstand thiswewillbecomingtotermswiththeprovisionalanddependentandderivedthing thevisiblecityhasalwaysbeen.
Thetechnologyofthepath
Individualstoriesofcaravansandtheirmasters,theshipfleetsandtheircaptains and crews, are largely lost, along with the details of their hardships and their achievementsandfailures.Whatdoesremainarethetrailstheywore,thestringsof provisioningpostsandtradingstopsandportstheyestablished.Wehearlittleofthe detailsofthecomplexoverlappingarrangementsandagreementswhichunderwrite theexchangesincommodities,financeandotherformalandinformal,legitimateand illegitimatebusiness,nottomentionthecountlessmovementsandexchangesmade forreasonsofpersonalattachmentorgain.Whatwedosee,andwhatdoremain,are themoresystematizedflightandtrainschedules,theseasonsandcalendars–and therouteswhichdrawtogetherintoonemovementalltheindividualstorieslostin everywayexceptasanotherpairoflightsinamovingstreamonthefreeway,another passengerinaqueueattheticketofficeorthecheck-in,anotherpedestrianinthe movingtideonthepavementoftheshoppingstreet–orasaparticularsequenceof pulsesintheterabytesofdatatransmitteddownopticalcables.26
Before the city as we know it therefore, before the visible located city, comes a mobilization: a mobilization of material, data and populations; of mobile mass, massesandmessagesthatisadistributiontoallcorners.Theindividualandhisor herstoriesarelost,anonymous,inthismobilecrowd.Thisanonymouspopulation anditsmovementisthevirtual,antecedenttothelocationorplacethatisreallya relay,apassingonoftheflow.
9
landscapeatnight,oneofthevirtual‘engines’27ofthecityistodayperfectlyvisible,
perfectlyconcrete,butpriortoanythingwewouldcallanurbanplaceinitsdeveloped actuality.Theveryvisibilityandintensityofthistraceryatthisscalepointsalsotoa modeofgrowthofcities.Themovementsofpeople,goods,moneyandinformationat thisregionalscalewereinprevioustimes,‘outside’thecityasitwasthencommonly (but mistakenly) understood. Today, there is no question about it; this scale of movementexists‘inside’thelifeofthe(metropolitan)cityaswecommonlythinkof it.Infactwhathashappenedisthatanewlayerofmovement,anewstratificationof infrastructureandtheconnectionitaffordshasbecomedominantandimposeditself overwhatalreadyexisted.
Buttherearemultiplevirtualcentralitiesexistingatdifferentscalesandindifferent modesinthecityatthesametime–eachcomprisingwebsgatheringmovements into anonymous and distributed mobilizations. Infrastructural websstratify these mobilizations into layers of different ‘resonance’. Time enters this realm of pure quantities as speed or vibration. The impulse of these distributed networks is to distribute, but they also distributethemselves as well as the material they are distributing, as they seek to cover every part of the surface they are involved in integrating. A metropolitan freeway network will seek to cover and integrate the metropolitansurface,anurbanboulevardnetworkwillseektocoverandintegratea functionalurbansurface,andaglobaltelecommunicationsnetworkwillseektocover andintegratetheglobalsurface.Theseinfrastructuresarebuilt,theyarecostlyand subjecttoconstraintsofeconomy.Inthesamewaythesoapbubbleeconomizesby distributingtensionsandenergyevenlyoveritssurface,theseinfrastructurestend, otherthingsbeingequal,todistributeevenlyoverthesurfaceavailabletothem.28
Urbanplace–aspointofarticulationonmultiplestratifiedmovementnets–becomes alsoaplaceofcombinationandoftranslationandtransduction;oftheconversion of matter or energy of one sort into another. The urban we know, in its complex andactualizedform,emergesatthepointwherevirtualcentralitiesoverlap,allowing livestoadhere,toinhere,tobecomeentrainedandsituated,inpointsoflayeredand mutually supportive and dependant connectivity. It is the point where multifarious centralitiescometogether;itisnotacomingtogetherinonescale,onespeed,one timeandonespace,ratherthecomingtogetherisofavarietyoftimesandspaces in a process of combination that creates a complex, rich, and active individuated compound out of multiple preindividuated centralities of purer spaces and times. Thereisaconcrescence,analchemy,arealcreativemoment,whichtakesplacein theseoverlapsbetweenvirtualcentralities,activatingsituatedconditions,enabling individuation;actualizingthecentralitieswerecognizeassuchinrealurbanplaces.
Remaking,relaying,transforming
Locusorplaceisalsothepointatwhichtheindividualandhisorherstoriescomes backintofocus,andtheactualizationofurbanplaceisalsoitsbecomingassetting forembeddedstoriesofindividualeverydaylives.The‘non-place’29,the‘concretely
preindividuated’simplisticallyaccessibleplaceswemoreoftenthannotmaketoday, cannotholdreallivesandstories.Itlacksthe‘thickness’or‘density’ofsituation,in afabricofconnectivity,asarelayinmultiplevirtualities.Locusneedslayeringand overlapwithrespecttoitspositionwithininfrastructures;alayeringthatwillallowit tosupportmultiply-folded,complicated,implicated,interaction.Emplacedlivesare locatedwithinonlysomewhatsystematizingmultiscalarcircuitssharedwithmultiple others.
10
whichsupporttheprocessesofglobalfinanceandtourismcometogether.Butthe globalisnot,asissometimesnaivelyimagined,produceddirectlyandautomatically outofglobalconnectivity,withoutanotherprocessofalchemyortransduction–it requiresappropriationandremaking,andworkingatheringintoplace,andmaking thelocalandtheeveryday.Itrequiresaworkofcoordinationandrelaytomakethe connectionsandtoeffecttheexchangeswhichgiveeverydayrealitytoglobalbusiness andculture,andeventomakeactual,inthelocal,theideaoftheglobal.Thiswork willrequireasmuchengagementinlocalandregionalwebsofinterconnectivityas inglobalwebs.Theglobalisconstructedinthelocalthroughworkandorganization, and the design, construction, maintenance and provisioning of multiple networks which have to engage and intersect with each other in a particular local time and space. The global as a product existsin the local. The increasing pervasiveness of the global in today’s local is a factor of an increasingconnectivity alongside a simultaneous condition of increasing ‘criticality’30 of the world. This criticality is a
workofmaintenanceandextensionandrefinement,ofapreparationoftheground, butalsojustoftheevolutionofthecityasweseeitnow,thattakesinmuchofhuman history.Muchofthecontemporarydiscussionofglobalizationmissestheextentto which the global is in the first event produced and sustainedfrom the local, and thewayinwhichthisglobal,evenwhenitisseentoarrive‘fromabove’,hastobe appropriated,redrawnandreinventedinthelocalconditioninwhichitlands.
BrunoLatourindiscussingthe‘visibilisation’ofthecityofParisintroduceshisnotion ofthe‘oligopticon’:
So,‘localizingtheglobal’meanstolookattheplacewhereyouseethewhole notasapanopticon,butasanoligopticon...[T]heoperationisverysimple: therearecentersofcommand,therearerooms,insidewhichParisasawholeis visualized,butit’salocalroom,it’snotabigroom.Parisitselfisneverbig,there isnoplacewhereParisasacityexists,it’salwayslocalizedatsomepointwhere some of the engineers or urban planners, or specialists are actually making Parisasawholevisible....‘[O]ligopticon’meansseeingalittle,verywell,but justalittle.AndthevisibilityofacityliketheoneI’vestudiedhere,ismadenot inapanopticon,notthroughthissortofexcessiveparanoiaofcompletevisual spaceasdemonstratedinthefamousexampleofaprison,wheretheprisoners arecompletelyvisibletothegazeofthesurveillancemanager.Theoligopticon actuallydescribesmuchbetterthethreadycharacterofthewholebeingbuilt in a city, where you never have actually a whole which is not connected to a small place where the information is gathered. [...] I must remind you that informationisneveractuallyproduced,whatwemeanbyinformationisalways transformation....[T]hemapisnottheterritory,amodelisnotthehouse-and wheneverwetalkaboutinformationweforgetthepriceofputtingitintoform, andthewordinformationweshouldneverforget,meansputtingsomethinginto aform,andtheformisverymaterial.31
Thisisastory,morethananythingelse,abouturbanplaceandsituation,andabout howsituationisestablishedasacreationoftheurbanandthenasare-creation.It isastoryofthenecessarily(andpositivelyopen)‘hybrid’and‘alien’ofthaturban andthewayitgeneratesandproducesan‘extra-human’and‘extra-social’given;an ‘unthoughtbyus’,thatwehavealwaysappropriated,andcontinuetoappropriateand remaketoourownends.Iwouldspeculativelyproposethatwehave,forthemost partalwaysconstructedandstructuredoursocialworldsaroundandbymeansof theseworkingsandreworkingsoftheurban.
11
conditionsofcontemporaryurbancentralityandsocialandexperientialvisibilityand patterning,andtherelationofthesetotheconstructionsof(andourreconstructions of)theurbanandthesocial.Inparticularwetakeonthecontinuousandgenerative aspectsofthecitythatmostmeansofurbanrepresentationdivide.
12
Notes
1 HenriLefebvre,TheUrbanRevolution,trans.RobertBononno(Minneapolis:Universityof
MinnesotaPress,2003).
2 See:GregoryJ.Seigworth&MichaelE.Gardiner,‘Rethinkingeverydaylife’,in:Cultural
Studies,vol.18,no.2/3,2004,pp.139-159.
3 ibid.,p.141.
4 The‘constitutionalsettlement’ofLatour.See:BrunoLatour,WeHaveNeverBeenModern,
trans.CatherinePorter(CambridgeMass:HarvardUniversityPress,1993).
5 Lefebvre,op.cit.,p.28.Thelayersof‘therural’and‘theindustrial’haveturnedouttolack
thepower,evenas‘floatingsignifiers’,overurbanizationprocessesthatLefebvregranted thematthetimeofwritingandfromhisparticularideologicalpositioninthe1960s.
6 Latour,op.cit.
7 ‘Moments’arefromHenriLefebvre,CritiqueofEverydayLife,Vol.II,trans.JohnMoore
(London:Verso,1992).‘Events’arefromA.N.Whitehead,ProcessandReality(NewYork: Macmillan,1979).
8 ThisisaratherWhiteheadianreadingofmomentsandtimethoughitappearstoalsobe
implicitinLefebvre.SeeCharlesHartshorneon‘Whitehead’snovelintuition’in:GeorgeL. Kline(ed.),AlfredNorthWhitehead:EssaysonhisPhilosophy(EnglewoodCliffs:Prentice-Hall,1963).
9 See:EdwardCasey,‘Howtogetfromspacetoplaceinafairlyshortstretchoftime’,in:Feld
S.&K.H.Basso(eds),SensesofPlace(SantaFe:SchoolofAmericanResearchPress, 1996).
10 See Chapter 3 of: Keith Ansell-Pearson,Philosophy and the Adventure of the Virtual:
Bergsonandthetimeoflife(London:Routledge,2002).
11 CertainlyinHartshorne’sreadingofWhitehead.
12 JoelKovel,HistoryandSpirit:AnInquiryintothePhilosophyofLiberation(Boston:Beacon
Press,1991).
13 ThisistheproblematicwhichLatouraddressesinhiswork(discussedlater)andisone
which links us conceptually with the idea of fields developed in physics in the late 19th andearly20thcenturies.Seealso:PeterPesic,SeeingDouble(Cambridge:MITPress, 2003).
14 See: Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart,The Collapse of Chaos (New York: Viking, 1994),
p.222.
15 Mike Batty, author ofFractal Cities (co-authored with Paul Longley, Academic Press,
London, 1994) pointed out this point about ‘fractal space-filling’ to me in conversation (December2004).
16 Thewholeworldwearetalkingabouthereisnotthemanagerialistsystemormachineof
multipleorganizedconnectionsholdingawholetogetherasaglobalorglobalregionalor metropolitan‘clockwork’.Rather,aswillbearguedintherestofthepaper,itisthewhole thatisintegratedbythewaythatmultitudinousuncoordinatedactionsaresortedandthen recombinedbyadynamicprocesswhichdifferentiatesmodesandscalesbymeansoftheir timesor‘rhythms’.
17 The ‘flesh of the world’ is from M. Merleau-Ponty; ‘knowing before knowing’ is from M.
Heidegger.
18 Puttingpaidtothemostnaiveformsofsocialconstruction.
19 BrunoLatour,‘Thepoliticsofexplanation;analternative’,in:S.Woolgar(ed.),Knowledge
andReflexivity(London:Sage,1988).
20Seemy‘Abriefhistoryofflightstotheperipheryandothermovementmatters’,in:Read&
Pinilla(eds),VisualizingtheInvisible(Amsterdam:TechnePress,2006).
21See:MarcAugé,Non-places:IntroductiontoanAnthropologyofSupermodernity,trans.
JohnHowe(London:Verso,1995).
22Jane Jacobs,The Economy of Cities (New York: Vintage Books, 1970). The proposal I
13
conformingtotheconventionalmodelwhichwouldsee‘community’asprovidingthe‘glue’ forsocialaggregationandsettlementforming.Myargumentisthatsettlementasaproduct ofandasanexpressionof‘socialaggregation’isaninadequatemodelforunderstanding cities–andthisfactbecomesallthemoreclearascitiesdistributethemselveseverywhere andbegintoconstituteourwholeworld.
23Seeforexample:LewisMumford,TheCultureofCities(NewYork:Harvest,1970). 24See:KeithAnsell-Pearson,ViroidLife(London:Routledge,1997).
25Themodelpresentedherebeginstobecomesuggestiveasregardstheideaof‘omnicausal’
systems(whenthewholedeterminesthebehaviourofitsparts)asopposedtothosewhich are‘particausal’.See:G.E.Mikhailovsky,‘Biologicaltime,itsorganization,hierarchyand presentationbycomplexvalues’,in:A.P.Levich(ed.),OnTheWayToUnderstandingThe TimePhenomenon:TheConstructionsOfTimeInNaturalScience(PartI),(London:World ScientificPublishing,1993).Thereisapotentiallyrichlineofinvestigationherewhichgoes intothepurported‘negentropic’propertiesofomnicausalsystems.
26SeethemovieKoyaanisqatsi(1983),directedbyGodfreyReggio.
27Thisengineisagainnotthatofasystem–ofatechnocraticmovement-connectivemachine
–butaspartofa‘machine’effectingtranslationandtransformation,andtheactualization ofurbanvirtualityorpotential.This‘engine’producesatthemomentofitsencounterwith another‘concretevirtualities’,creatinga‘thickness’ofpresenttimes(Mikhailovsky).Thisis apointwhichwillbedevelopedelsewhere.Seeforafirststep:Read&Bruyns,‘TheUrban Machine’ in: Read & Pinilla (eds),Visualizing the Invisible (Amsterdam: Techne Press, 2006).
28Thisassertionneedssomequalificationofcoursebecauseatcertainmomentsinhistory
allroadsdidleadtoRomeorLondonorParisorwherever.Neverthelesstodayinthetime ofNegriandHardt’sEmpire,itseemsthatthisstatementisbecomingmoreratherthanless true.
29Augé,op.cit.
30Criticality is a notion taken from science in which a material undergoing phase change
transmitsthisconditionlocally.Seealso:Pesic(2003).
31ThequotationistakenfromatranscriptionofBrunoLatour’slecture,26November,2001,
atTheBerlageInstitute,Rotterdam;transcribedbyAkselÇoruh.Tomyknowledge,atthe timeofwriting,anotheroutlineoftheideaoftheoligopticonbyitsauthordoesnotexistin theEnglishlanguage.
