Hi Thomas,
Firstly, I think your discussion¬/questions are neither stupid, nor boring, nor naive...
Secondly, I think what Foucault has to say in ‘The Order of Discourse’ (‘Discourse on Language’) in R. Young’s “Untying the Text,” Boston, Mass, 1981, would be a very good place to start in thinking about Mr. Alexander’s discursive interventions in planning the build environment.
To paraphrase Foucault’s discussion of Mendel, it would seem from your description of his discourse that Mr. Alexander is what Foucault called a “true monster,” and that as such the discursive regime of the built environment simply cannot “speak of him” (OD: 61). Mr. Alexander may be speaking the truth, but he is not 'within the true' of the discourse of environmental planning of his time (OD: 61).
And if we follow Foucault, it will not be possible to enter into discussion with Alexandrian discourse until there has been a fundamental transformation in the dispositive of environmental planning, the built environment, etc.
As Foucault put it,
“It is always possible that one might speak the truth in the space of a wild exteriority, but one is 'in the true' only by obeying the rules of a discursive 'policing' which one has to reactivate in each of one's discourses” (OD: 61).
Lastly, as for being a Foucault Scholar, it would indeed seem that there is both a legislature and a discursive policing regarding what it is to be such an individual, but you shouldn’t let that phase you: what you are doing seems both interesting and relevant.
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lord@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:58:28 -0800
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Foucault-L] foucault, architecture, C. Alexander?
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
Firstly, I think your discussion¬/questions are neither stupid, nor boring, nor naive...
Secondly, I think what Foucault has to say in ‘The Order of Discourse’ (‘Discourse on Language’) in R. Young’s “Untying the Text,” Boston, Mass, 1981, would be a very good place to start in thinking about Mr. Alexander’s discursive interventions in planning the build environment.
To paraphrase Foucault’s discussion of Mendel, it would seem from your description of his discourse that Mr. Alexander is what Foucault called a “true monster,” and that as such the discursive regime of the built environment simply cannot “speak of him” (OD: 61). Mr. Alexander may be speaking the truth, but he is not 'within the true' of the discourse of environmental planning of his time (OD: 61).
And if we follow Foucault, it will not be possible to enter into discussion with Alexandrian discourse until there has been a fundamental transformation in the dispositive of environmental planning, the built environment, etc.
As Foucault put it,
“It is always possible that one might speak the truth in the space of a wild exteriority, but one is 'in the true' only by obeying the rules of a discursive 'policing' which one has to reactivate in each of one's discourses” (OD: 61).
Lastly, as for being a Foucault Scholar, it would indeed seem that there is both a legislature and a discursive policing regarding what it is to be such an individual, but you shouldn’t let that phase you: what you are doing seems both interesting and relevant.
Regards,
Kevin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lord@xxxxxxx
> Sent: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:58:28 -0800
> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Foucault-L] foucault, architecture, C. Alexander?
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth