Week 12 Reading
Classes covering Week 12 readings will be on Tuesday 9:30-12:30 HHN 109 or Friday 5:30-7:30, room TBA.
Reading is as follows.
-as much as you can get through of Eyal Weizman and Rafi Segal, A Civilian Occupation. London : Verso, 2003. (purchase)
-selections from Agamben, Giorgio, The State of Exception. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2005. (PDF)
Reading is as follows.
-as much as you can get through of Eyal Weizman and Rafi Segal, A Civilian Occupation. London : Verso, 2003. (purchase)
-selections from Agamben, Giorgio, The State of Exception. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2005. (PDF)
Please note that your outlines are due by email Sunday 11/16- so that I can get comments to you by class this week.
posted by Meredith at 11/15/2008 05:40:00 PM
6 Comments:
In this except Agamben begins takes a critical and historical look at the state of exception as it has changed over the last few centuries. He explains that as states evolved and citizens entered into contracts with their respective governments, laws were viewed and agreed to as the rules of conduct. However with the occurrence of war and threats to national security, the state of exception is put in place and the countries laws are suspended so that the government acts freely in the name of national safety and interest. This situation allows the government to take whatever means necessary to secure the safety of its citizens, or at least use this explanation as an excuse to in fact use the lawless state of the nation as a means of securing the power for the political entity in charge.
Agamben uses the controversial patriot act as an example of this condition where the government can act against an individual or entity it perceives as a threat, without being bound by the law. He implies that we are entering into a time of perpetual exception. The laws are now in a perpetual state of suspension due to the pressing need of the state to protect us from the threats--both real and perceived--of the terrorists. I find this state of exception highly problematic, as when laws are lifted, there is room for abuse of power and of course, the more important question becomes who has the right to judge what measures are appropriate in light of a threat, and if no evidence is needed to prove said threat, how can we know it even exists or feel ok about another individual being persecuted for a threat that may not even be real??? I cannot help but think about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, some still minors when captured and held on nothing more than having a suspicious name or family connections. This state of exception has allowed the US government to hold them indefinitely and without any legal recourse.
Agamben's point is that the state of exception identifies a lawless state wherein one can seize power and act politically. His argument is that the state is not the only actor who can seize this anomy. If one is willing to exert themselves within this gap, than the world can be can be changed… not sure I agree
In regards to Agamben’s, State of Exception, my initial response / question is how does this actually relate to architecture? I suppose that much of our focus within this class has been on defining the relationship between the West and Non-West. And since the State of Exception is explained as a means to allow government to take actions, not legally defined in law, during ‘exceptional’ or extreme occurrences, such as times of war and threats, my conclusion is that this relates to our class only because the West generally would receive threats from ‘Non-Western’ civilizations, i.e. terrorist attacks from Iraq or Afghanistan. First, while I understand the reasons to allow exceptions during times of desperate measures, I am also obliged to consider the possible repercussions this State of Exception advocates in response. Agamben confronts this issue and suggests the example that has recently allowed US government to take away individual legal status by allocating over-extended custody of alien civilians. Without going into further depth of how I may interpret and respond to these ‘exception’ laws, I would like to poise the conversation in discussing ‘Non-Western’ political issues. I reflect on several class discussions and how we have dissected the problems of colonialism. I feel that for the most part we have only studied how the West has influenced, inhibited, infiltrated, disregarded, assimilated, and/or associated their own perspectives on the East. Surely there must be texts that purely discuss Eastern viewpoints in personal , political, and architectural matters, and that aren’t always so negative. Or, is there truly no way of momentarily detaching the Non-West from the West? Or, perhaps it’s possible to consider the positive affects the East has actually had on the West.
Even though a Civilian Occupation addresses this immense ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine it also reminds me that this aspect of territorialization and de-territorialization and its severity as seen in this context is very much present and sometimes hidden in other nations (1st worlds within 3rd worlds/post –colonial/classes), even if the military component is not visible (it enforces its invasiveness and brutality). The military component or enforcer can eventually manifest itself as Agamben’s State of Exception. The reading was quite provocative and enlightening; it would have been interesting to read a point of view from an Israeli Zionist (perhaps not extreme right wing) of their perception of land rights in Palestinian lands. Why is it that, as Levy questions, residents of these settelments do not acknowledge this as an invasion?
The concept of occupation on a latitude level is unbelievably surreal. It is as such symbolic presence and scale that it nearly parallels the absurd to me, so evident and imposing. The other shocking aspect of these occupations is the impressive speed in which they are mobilized. The word shocking and again invasive can also be used to the current land and residents these settlements occupy. In other words the settlement does not emerge organically from the land and its history or community. On a level of resources and schedule, it is also a reminder of the other extreme where it takes incomprhensible amounts of time to bring these infrastructures to poverty consumed peripheries of fast growing third world cities.
Additionally the military/political visual aspect of these settlements are extremely interesting as well as the strategies in which they are planned (Sharon’s corporal division, 45% city – 55% rural; as well as the planning of Ma’ale Edummim and others alike.) The Homa Umigdal, the tower outpost and wall as a comparison to the discourse of modernism and its “potential or aggression, invasion and intrusion” is an interesting one that drove me to find images of the referenced examples to potentially instigate the discussion in class.
‘Voisin’ Le Corbusier
http://aftercorbu.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/plan_voison_paris.jpg
‘Citrohan’ Le Corbusier
http://www.usc.edu/dept/architecture/slide/ghirardo/CD3/023-CD3.jpg
’Cabanon’ Le Corbusier
http://boomer-cafe.net/version2/images/stories/blog/cabanon/corbusier_cabanon.jpg
‘Tropical House’ Jean Prouvé
http://i.treehugger.com/files/prouve2.jpg
Two statements architect Thomas Leitersdorf makes during the interview that are quite discerning regarding the profession and Arab architecture are:
-“To tell you that an architect influences politics? He doesn’t” - A question that has been posed often is whether architecture can be discussed separate from its politics? (I don’t think it is possible.)
-“Architecture without architects – this is the Arab village, and this is its beauty. It is always better than when an architect comes in; the architect only spoils things because the architect has to work logically and they do not.” Yes, yes, yes ….no!
Giorgio Agamben
“The fact that is that in both the right of resistance and the state of exception, what is ultimately at issue is the question of the juridical significance of a sphere of action that is in itself extrajuridical. Two theses are at odds here: One asserts the law must coincide with the norm, and the other holds that the sphere of law exceeds the norm. But in the last analysis, the two positions agree in ruling out the existence of a sphere of human action that is entirely removed from law.” So how does one protect democracy from absolutism both nationally and on a global scale?
It's tempting to think of architecture as a means of power. Most architects are quite vain, and we like to think that we hold the key to making the world a better place - that we can solve social problems and global warming, all through one building. It's a little unsettling to think of design in the reverse, though. "A Civilian Occupation" illustrates architecture and planning as a weapon, one which can divide territory, control regions, and threaten people. In the context of Israel and the west Bank, the government uses architecture in this way. It seems as though one could call this a state of exception: one government taking power far beyond tradition or law. the citizen becomes disenfranchised, used merely as a tool for occupation.
I can't decide if it's the Palestinian or Israeli citizen living in the West Bank who is being controlled, though. In the end, it's probably both. Palestinian villages are surrounded by Israelis, but it is not the average Israeli citizen making the decisions about where to settle. "Civilian Occupation" argues that this is manipulated by the government, to strategically inhabit the area. Only 2% of the land in the West Bank is settled, but these settlements are arranged in such a way as to control every bit of territory. The architects and planners become the keepers of each inhabitant - the built environment enforces the political agenda very effectively. The text goes on to suggest that the planners who designed these settlements were intentionally violating human rights, and perhaps they should be held responsible by law. I'd like to discuss this more in class - it seems really relevant in today's political climate. Can an architect commit a war crime?
A Civilian Occupation I feel is the most literal representation that I have read so far that combines both politics and architecture, I don’t know if the representations given though are fully representative of the politics are architecture that have been discussed throughout the semester but powerful nonetheless. What I found most informative is that in almost all of the instances what is created architecturally of a purely defensive nature.
Specifically the “Homa Umigdal” structures erected quickly at night to secure a region of land where in essence light forts that dotted the land. The role of architecture in the settlement of territories like the west bank is total, architecture is taken away from the role of the esthetic design for beauty’s sake and Instead a esthetic of power or defense or defiance… etc this is an architecture that is “ executing a political agenda through spatial manipulations.” In some cases “ ... suburban homes, industrial zones, infrastructure and roads are designed and built with the self proclaimed aim of bisecting, disturbing, and squeezing out [of] Palestian Communities.” Its is situations like these that force the architect to make an ethical decision, do they partake in such actions, designing these communities and laying out these plans know full well that they will likely displace people, or do they not work… In any case the architect is taken out of the bubble of design and thrown head first into political action. What is also striking from a planning perspective is that a lot of the architectural actions that where politically driven honestly had not real merit other to further either the desirers of those enacting the development or to in simple terms hold land. “With a built fabric comprising less than 2% of the total land of the west band settlements strategically placed managed to generate complete territorial control.” But an overriding theme of the book seems to be that for most of the actions taken only a few where actually successful. The homa umgdal though quickly built and served a defensive and territorial holding purpose, was little more then a temporary fort. Numerous government settlements setup one after another would pull people from one settlement to another, as in the settlements could never hit a critical population level to sustain themselves. Many settlements were little more then camps that required heavy government support thereby being a drain on the system, and so many settlements means many different locations that have to be defended so instead of creating a large buffer zone of safety to grow they create many islands all cut off from the next that must all be defended…
I can help but begin to wonder with all the failures of architecture not just in this reading but in what has been read throughout the semester…. When the hell do we ever get it right?
I wasn’t planning on blogging this week, but I can’t help but pose a couple questions.. (so this isn’t a real blog..)
I would like to clarify the definition of settlement. It’s a very basic term, but I am very disconnected from it – and I think the word itself lends itself to separation. Are these settlements neighborhoods or gated communities? How are they connected to the networks outside their settlements? Do they just provide housing or will settlements lead to more complexity or urban forms? Often I feel like I can’t identify with the people – Israeli or Palestinian – who are in the middle of this conflict, until I speak with friends who live in Israel and remind me of our similarities. I think one of the reasons I feel this way is because some of the language and vocabulary used is not truly familiar to me or a part of my identity – settlement, Zionist, etc..
Chapter 4 describing the meticulously crafted, all encompassing national plan of Israel also fascinated me. I was first struck by just how comprehensive this plan was, not only shaping physical construction, but also designing “its patterns of urbanization, socialization and employment, the overall framework of production and service, the character of its public life as well as its patterns of domestication in the new Israeli state” (61). I’m curious of the immediate effects this top down experiment had on society as well as the plan’s future ramifications. I also thought the emphasis on the periphery rather than urban centers speaks of the priorities of the nation state, whose ultimate goal was (and maybe still is – not sure) to reestablish the Hebrew civilization.
That’s it for now..I’m looking forward to this discussion!
Post a Comment
<< Home