I have a seriously intended inquiry, although not from a formally
academic perspective:
It seems to me reasonable to say that one of the hooks on which Foucault
hanged his analytical hat was what an architect might call "the built
environment". I guess that the most famous example is his analysis of
the literal panopticon and its more subtle analogs.
In the most brutally abstract summary, one could say that discourse
dominated by the powerful (or by an abstract Power, if you prefer)
produces the physical artifact of a built environment, such as a
panoptic prison, and that it is the nature of that built environment
that it closes the cycle by reinforcing power (e.g., with built-in
opportunities for surveillance). Of course, Foucault was far more
detail oriented than this summary would suggest, and he was far more
interested in relating his analysis to traditional themes of academic
philosophy than the abstract would suggest. Those qualifiers aside:
In a sense, Foucault was more of a realist than most of those who
criticize him for being a relativist. He not only believed in a
scientific truth about the real world (e.g. the inevitable consequences
of housing prisoners in a panopticon), he was busy analyzing how
cultures make choices about using the physical, inescapable
characteristics of the world in their construction projects, as part of
how nexuses of power perpetuate themselves and evolve.
All well and good. Let me get to the case at hand:
Now, I happen to live in the city of Berkeley, California (USA). Like
pretty much every U.S. city all man-made changes to the built
environment are heavily regulated. There are zoning laws (what kinds of
building and uses are permitted where), there are building codes, there
are tax incentives and disincentives, there is common-law conventions,
there are the prevailing theories within the property investment
industry, and on and on.... the built environment is a highly
contentious space. The local politics is characterized mostly by
deadlock, punctuated by big ruptures of huge change. There is precious
little "incrementalism" in how the local built environment evolves.
It's also a "hot" political topic in that huge amounts of money and time
go into the fight for control over the evolution of the built
environment.
I was engaged in some public debate on what zoning and tax incentive
policies and what economic development policies our city government
ought to engage in when another participant in the debate said something
I found kind of interesting. He said (close enough paraphrase) "Would
it be too ridiculous that we should consult [local home owner]
Christopher Alexander about city planning?" If you are unfamiliar with
Mr. Alexander, I guess Wikipedia is a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander
I happen to think that Mr. Alexander is a bit sketchy in some aspects of
his work but, overall, promotes a bunch of very excellent ideas. I
agree with the person who brought him up that applying some of his ideas
and methods to the problem at hand would lead to good outcomes. Yet,
there is a serious problem:
Mr. Alexander's techniques for manipulating the built environment simply
"make no sense" within the legislative and juridical regimes of how
Berkeley (and pretty much every other city in the U.S.) manages property
and development. One can't even really propose yay or nay on an
Alexandrian approach to our government or the public forum because the
hierarchy of city, state, and federal laws - in combination with the
customs of commerce - make the Alexandrian approach inexpressible. For
example, the concept of a property line in Alexander seems to be
irreconcilable with the concept of a property line in our laws. The
fellow who brought up Mr. Alexander in the discussion asked if it would
be too ridiculous to consider consulting him and a correct answer is
that it wouldn't be ridiculous - it would be impossible. It would be
impossible because none of Mr. Alexanders key recommendations have a
"translation" into the relevant political and juridical discourse. One
can't even begin to say what it would mean for Berkeley to legally adopt
his ideas as a guide because the language and structure of the relevant
laws doesn't even make the concept expressible! We citizens can kick
the ideas around informally in the same way we can talk about wouldn't
it be nice if there were unicorns but the Alexandrian discourse is just
a complete "other" compared to the established civic discourse.
That discursive incompatibility and the tension of ideas shared by real
people seems to me like a real-time instance of the kinds of historic
pivot points that Foucault became fascinated by.
So my questions, such as they are, are:
Has there been theoretical work in the academic world that looks at Mr.
Alexander's projects through Foucault-colored lenses?
More banally, has there been theoretical work that focuses in deep ways
- that might relate to practical civic planning - to Foucault's
contemplation of the built environment?
And, a "free form response" kind of question: Regardless of whether Mr.
Alexander's approach is desirable or not - setting firmly aside Berkeley
politics - what is there in Foucault's "toolkit" that might help set the
debate here on a more rationally informed footing?
A strange post and set of questions, I'm sure. I hope it comes off as
interesting and not too stupid rather than borish and naive, but because
I'm not a Foucault scholar I'm prepared for either outcome (and
apologize if it is the latter).
-t
academic perspective:
It seems to me reasonable to say that one of the hooks on which Foucault
hanged his analytical hat was what an architect might call "the built
environment". I guess that the most famous example is his analysis of
the literal panopticon and its more subtle analogs.
In the most brutally abstract summary, one could say that discourse
dominated by the powerful (or by an abstract Power, if you prefer)
produces the physical artifact of a built environment, such as a
panoptic prison, and that it is the nature of that built environment
that it closes the cycle by reinforcing power (e.g., with built-in
opportunities for surveillance). Of course, Foucault was far more
detail oriented than this summary would suggest, and he was far more
interested in relating his analysis to traditional themes of academic
philosophy than the abstract would suggest. Those qualifiers aside:
In a sense, Foucault was more of a realist than most of those who
criticize him for being a relativist. He not only believed in a
scientific truth about the real world (e.g. the inevitable consequences
of housing prisoners in a panopticon), he was busy analyzing how
cultures make choices about using the physical, inescapable
characteristics of the world in their construction projects, as part of
how nexuses of power perpetuate themselves and evolve.
All well and good. Let me get to the case at hand:
Now, I happen to live in the city of Berkeley, California (USA). Like
pretty much every U.S. city all man-made changes to the built
environment are heavily regulated. There are zoning laws (what kinds of
building and uses are permitted where), there are building codes, there
are tax incentives and disincentives, there is common-law conventions,
there are the prevailing theories within the property investment
industry, and on and on.... the built environment is a highly
contentious space. The local politics is characterized mostly by
deadlock, punctuated by big ruptures of huge change. There is precious
little "incrementalism" in how the local built environment evolves.
It's also a "hot" political topic in that huge amounts of money and time
go into the fight for control over the evolution of the built
environment.
I was engaged in some public debate on what zoning and tax incentive
policies and what economic development policies our city government
ought to engage in when another participant in the debate said something
I found kind of interesting. He said (close enough paraphrase) "Would
it be too ridiculous that we should consult [local home owner]
Christopher Alexander about city planning?" If you are unfamiliar with
Mr. Alexander, I guess Wikipedia is a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander
I happen to think that Mr. Alexander is a bit sketchy in some aspects of
his work but, overall, promotes a bunch of very excellent ideas. I
agree with the person who brought him up that applying some of his ideas
and methods to the problem at hand would lead to good outcomes. Yet,
there is a serious problem:
Mr. Alexander's techniques for manipulating the built environment simply
"make no sense" within the legislative and juridical regimes of how
Berkeley (and pretty much every other city in the U.S.) manages property
and development. One can't even really propose yay or nay on an
Alexandrian approach to our government or the public forum because the
hierarchy of city, state, and federal laws - in combination with the
customs of commerce - make the Alexandrian approach inexpressible. For
example, the concept of a property line in Alexander seems to be
irreconcilable with the concept of a property line in our laws. The
fellow who brought up Mr. Alexander in the discussion asked if it would
be too ridiculous to consider consulting him and a correct answer is
that it wouldn't be ridiculous - it would be impossible. It would be
impossible because none of Mr. Alexanders key recommendations have a
"translation" into the relevant political and juridical discourse. One
can't even begin to say what it would mean for Berkeley to legally adopt
his ideas as a guide because the language and structure of the relevant
laws doesn't even make the concept expressible! We citizens can kick
the ideas around informally in the same way we can talk about wouldn't
it be nice if there were unicorns but the Alexandrian discourse is just
a complete "other" compared to the established civic discourse.
That discursive incompatibility and the tension of ideas shared by real
people seems to me like a real-time instance of the kinds of historic
pivot points that Foucault became fascinated by.
So my questions, such as they are, are:
Has there been theoretical work in the academic world that looks at Mr.
Alexander's projects through Foucault-colored lenses?
More banally, has there been theoretical work that focuses in deep ways
- that might relate to practical civic planning - to Foucault's
contemplation of the built environment?
And, a "free form response" kind of question: Regardless of whether Mr.
Alexander's approach is desirable or not - setting firmly aside Berkeley
politics - what is there in Foucault's "toolkit" that might help set the
debate here on a more rationally informed footing?
A strange post and set of questions, I'm sure. I hope it comes off as
interesting and not too stupid rather than borish and naive, but because
I'm not a Foucault scholar I'm prepared for either outcome (and
apologize if it is the latter).
-t