Posted by Shwan on June 22, 2002 at 09:36:19:In Reply to: Re: "architecture of control"...? posted by Simple Simon on June 22, 2002 at 06:34:09:
I think I might start by defining what I mean by “power”, since this is a word that is widely used and at the same time misused. The word comes from the Latin word potere and simply means “to be able”. Yet in humanistic terms what we refer to power involved control “over” others. Power is the ability to define circumstances and control events so that one can influence things to go in the direction of one’s interest. So basically it’s the power to choose your own house, go for a walk in the park voice your opinion against a certain bureaucracy, all the mentioned are types of empowerment. One can say that in this case empowerment is linked to “freedom” and “autonomy” both of them imply liberation from arbitrary forms of power over us. One’s notion of having power over others maybe regarded as parasitic entity, the harnessing of other individual’s power to drive ones own desires. The two forms of power work as a symbiosis.Power over: this is the power of an individual or a group of people that ensures compliance of the others with ones will. A number of examples range from force, coercion, manipulation authority and seduction.
Force relates ones power to strip the other for non-compliance. In the built form one can give an example of a prison or incarcerate institution, which would come under the realms of social exclusion. The you have the bunker or the fortress, which is spatial exclusion. Now back to simpler terms of everyday living we can take into consideration elements that enforce spatial exclusion such as the door, a fence a wall or more high tech security devices. This is a limited source of power though and more a preventative measure rather than an enforcer.
Coercion is a threat of force to ensure compliance. More effective than the overt force above mentioned since it works in more of a subtle way, disguising itself as voluntarism. This is a form that gains power through implied sanctions and normally leaves no room for resistance. Architecturally speaking I can explain this through three notions. Domination, where the architectural formality, or urban design can signify a threat of force. If you look at cities like Baghdad, Iraq, there is a complete sense of force in the architecture and the implications the architecture has on the city. Over exaggerating monumental element (eg: Arc de Triumph, two of Saddam’s fists breaking through the ground on either side of a military parade path, clenching onto two swords [one in each fist] that criss-cross about 30meters of the center of the road.) Moments like this within a city belittle human beings.
Another form of coercion would be the surrounding element.
“Coercion consists of transforming private, communal, group or cultural spaces into organizational spaces in which people perform actions directed towards the fulfillment of another’s plan, or refrain from performing actions subversive of the realization of another’s plan.” (Weinstein 1972)
The built environment offers us everyday certain areas of activity, it frames those areas and spaces for us and at the same time closing other possibilities. Naturally we avoid those behaviors and boudaries everyday that we realise are going to meet us with force. Even though in theory there is an implication between those spaces and boundaries in reality there needn’t be a boundary to imply such force.
Manipulation: a form of coercion an area that requires both knowledge and ignorance, most effective when the subjects are well aware of the direct implications and connection between their behavior and possible endoresments, but are unaware of the long term indirect connections by which their behavior constitutes and sustains the feedback of coercion and sanctioning that controls them.
(Ideology extracted from Barnes 1988)
Fragmentation of space and time, the loss of history and orientation can be conducive of to coercive control. Viewing the subjects as atoms living in the public realm, under supervision and surveillance, but as far as possible without social relationships.Seduction: Although this might sound sophisticated and it is, it can be explained in a logical format, where it is regarded as the practice which manipulates the interests and desires of the subject and his/her self identity. Shaping the behavior and cognition of the subject so they have to accept what is given in the order around them. They can not see nor imagine an alternative because it is regarded as natural and unchangeable. Architectural constructs feed different desires, all architectural representations are of nature and order. Seduction carried the implication that desire has been manipulated and the we induldge such desire against our own interest. So this implies that seductions fall on the boundaries of reality versus perception. Real interest and perceived interest. There is a realisation that this implies that the subject can not decide on their own interest. But from what angle can one suggest that pleasure is not real? Architecture plays on ones desires, the fact is that one had to understand seduction as opposed to negating it.
Authority: This is one of the most powerful and effective sources of power. From the macroscopic entity of the “Government” through to the “industrial corporation” and down to the microscopic level, “the family” although one can sometimes argue that the industrial corporations govern the government, but I don’t want to strike a political debate in regards to this issue. Logically authority works on the basis of unquestioned recognition and unchallenged compliance. The rights are recognised socially. Since the state or nation is an invisible matter, authority is symbolised through iconic elements (eg:eiffel tower) and other subtle hints around the city to show the existence of this non-bodily force that is in existence. There is an imagery around the city a hologram that the nation is dependent on for its own existence in reality, forms of solidarity that one can not argue with. This is the way things are done this is the way the “real” is built.
I would like to briefly mention the September 11th incident, the destruction of the two pieces of architectural achievement. The incident was deisgned not to destroy the actual buildings and neither to kill thousands of innocent lives but the reality behind it was to destroy the their symbolic nature. To hurt the invisible state. It might as well have been the statue of liberty theoretically speaking. But it wasn’t the symbol of solidarity that they wanted to hurt it was the symbol of the Capitalistic reform.
Furthermore in relation to architectural formality in the aspects of power I would like to mention certain elemental fundamental attributes that I regard as forceful. Orientation and disorientation that the built form can induce in its subjects through framing of the everyday life. Brian Massumi in his article Strange Horizon talks about the cognitive map that we use I our everyday life. How we get to wrok without actually thinking of where we are going relying on the subconscious completely. Publicity and privacy, segregation and access, stability and change, authenticity and imitation. Identity and difference. There is a lot of reading material out there that you may be interested in looking at, sociological aspects of architecture and psychological understanding of human behavior are very important factors in the education of an architect I just can not emphasize enough on their importance. I hope this elaboration was enough, feel free to ask me any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.
Regards,
shwan
|
ArchitectureWeek
Search
Buildings
Architects
Types
Places
Pix
Free 3D Models
Store
Library
|