Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey

8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey

1/16

Cha pter

ssembling rchitec ture

im ovey

The concept

of assemb

lage emerges in the wo rk

ofDeleuze

and Guattar i

(1987), primarily in A Thousand Plateaus and has been developed by

DeLanda (2005) and others

into

a mo re

tr

ansparent and prac

ti

cal social

theory. T his chapter explores the appl ication of assemblage thinking to

architecture and urbanism. n parallel wirh words like design , housing

and building , assemblage is at once verb

and

noun. An assemblage

is a whole rhar

is

formed from rhe inrerconnecrivity and flows between

constiruenr parts - a socio-spa tial cluster of interconnections wherein the

identities

and

functions

of

borh parts and

who

l

es

emerge from the flows

between rhem. Assemblage is at once material

and

represenrational, it

de

fi

es any reduction

co

essence ,

co

textual ana lysis or

co

materiality. It

is also multi-scalar with sma

ller

assemblages (rooms, fam ilies, events)

enmeshed in larger ones (cit ies, socieries, sta tes) wirhour reduction of

rh

e

smaller to the

la

rger. Assemblage is a useful way of rerhinking rheories of

place

in rerms of process, idenriry formarion and becoming, bur

wi

rhou r

rhe Heideggerian essen

ri

alism. A building

or

a place is neirher

ob

jecr

nor

a co

ll

ec

ti

on of par ts - rather it is an assemblage of socio-spa tial

fl

ows and

intersections. Assemblage. thinking has a capacity to move a rchitectu re

away from a foc us on fixed form cowards process

an

d transformatio n;

fr

om

an expression o f

arc

hitecture as Being-in-the-world cowards a mo re

Deleuzian becoming-in-the-world. While

appear

in

g abstract and often

opaque,

the conceptual

apparatus

o f assemblage thin king is eminently

pragmatic in terms of both design and research . This wi

ll

be illustrarcd

through a discussion of the design of new school buildings where adapt-

able learning environments are in demand to house complex, con t

es

ted

and

unpredictable

prac

tices. Archirects

are

engaged with the task

of

ho using a

tr

ansformation in the field o f educa tion from d isc iplina ry

technologies towards student-centred learning where creative and critical

capaciries rarher rhan socia l reproducrion become key.


2/16

32 Deleu

ze

and rch itecture

There are no easy entry po ints into housand Plateaus or assem

blage thinking because one needs to think in a d ifferen t way in order to

unders tand - it is the deep end wherever you dive in.

In

the translaror's

in troduction tvlassumi sugges ts that one

approach

the work like music

- some pa rts you will like wh ile others leave you cold . It can also be

explored

li

ke a strange city or a neighbourhood - a lmost any chapter

can serve as an introduction and you can

fo ll

ow the connections from

there: 'The Smooth and Striated ', Of the Refrai

n

and

Micropo

liti

cs

and

Segmentarity' may be the mos t engaging for a rchi tects. Another place co

scare is che index -

fi

nd the concepts you are particula rly interesred in

and

fo llow

the threads

through

the text. For Dcleuzc, ph ilosophy is the

invention of concepts as too ls for thinking . housand Plateaus can be

seen as a strange toolbox where the application

of

the tools is up to us.

A too l

is some

thing we use to ach ieve a desired end; it media tes a process

of production. Wha t is a t sta ke is not

tr

uth but usefu lness - how does it

enable us to think ?The usefulness of

some

t0o ls and /or concepts w

ill

not

be apparent

as

we rummage through the conceptual tool

box;

we may

also see uses

that

were never intended. s with any

too

lkit, the ways

we see each concept will depend on our desires. If we are researchers

conducting fieldwork, producing papers and concepts, then we will seek

analytic, methodologica l

or

explanatory

too ls

that

help these tasks.

If

we

a re des igners engaged in transforming the world then we will see and

seek our t0ols in a d ifferen t way. In eith

er

case ou r goals are practical.

I have argued elsewhere th

at

assemblage

ca

n be

app

roached as a

theory o f place' where it can he lp us engage wi th the socio-spacia licy of

the everyday world and therefore with the socia l d imensions of archi

tecture (Dovey 2010). Assemblage theory offers an

approach

ro theories

of place wit

hout

the reductionism and essentialism t

hat

have weighed

down

such discourse fo r so long. It is empirical w ithou t the reduction-

ism

of emp

ir i

ca

l science; it gives p

ri

or

ity to

exper

ience

and

s n ~

o

withou t reduc

ti

on to essence;

and ic

seeks

co

un

de

rstand the social

con-

struction of real ity without reduct ion tO text.

Assemblage

The concept of 'assemblage' is translated from the French agencement

meaning 'layout , arrangement or 'al ignment -

both

a dynamic process

and a socio-spatia l formati

on

. While there are always deba tes over

transla

ti

on,

this seems the best English word with its mix

of

noun ver

b,

stability/change, structure/agency. The French word, however, a lso con-

notes the no tion of

a

lignment' indicating tha t the various parts of an


3/16

Assemb ng Architecture 33

assemblage a re nor

simp

ly connected

but

share a certain direction and

synergy. Beyond any definition, however, assemblage emerges from the

work

and is better defined by its use t

ha

n its meaning -

as

Deleuze pu ts

it,

don

t

ask

what

it

means, ask

how

it

works

(quoted

in Buchanan

and Marks 2000: 294 ). T he ques

ti

on becomes one o f how buildings and

places

are

assembled and how the) work.

M) interests here a l

so

have to do

wi

th the larger project of under

standing the ways architecture is enmeshed in practices of power. P

ower

is much too la rge an issue tO deal with here in any comprehensive way.

It is impor tant, however, tO understand and to si tuate che work of

Dcleuze

and

th

at

of Foucault (from which much assemblage thinking is

constructed) in relation to the long-standing distincti

on

between

powe

r

to

and

powe

r ov r - power as the capacity to achieve an end e

mp

ow

ermen t) and power exercised through control of o th

ers

(au t

hor

ity,

fo rce, violenc

e,

coerci

on,

manipu la tion, seduction) (Dovey 2008). T he

revolution in thinking about power that Foucault in itiated can be seen

as a re thinking

of

the ways

in

which

power

to becomes harnessed to

p

ract

ices of power over. With

Foucault,

however,

power

retains a bad

odour - the critique of the architecture/power nexus remains a critique

of the

pro

duction of discipline and norma lised subjectivity; the links

with

opp

ression a lways seems

more potent

than those

with

liberation.

While Foucault opens up our thin king to ways of understanding power

as capaci ty, as empowerment, it is o nly co describe ou r subj

ect

ion to

modern regimes of

power

ov

r

Architecture is always and everywhere i

mp

l cated in practices of

power; chis is the cond ition of

arc

hitecture. The des ire for an archi

recm re rhar mighr esca pe such pracrices is n ren implicared in such

practices.

The

task for

archi

tecture is

to

embrace su

ch an

engagement

because th

at

is where the emancipa tory potential of arch itecture lies.

In

everyday life a rc

hit

ecture

is

taken

fo

r

gran

ted

an

d its potency lies

precisely

in

this capaci ty

tO

escape cont

emp

lat

io

n. \Vhile the roots of

assemblage thinking are in the Foucauldian

no:

ion of che

apparatus

dispositif),

assemblage moves beyond instrumentality and pessimi sm.

Ir enlarges

ou

r

ca

pacity

co

understand the implications o f Foucau lt s

insight in to

power

as a p roduction of subjectivity and it enables

us to

understand the ke) link of power to desire.

Fo r Deleuze, desire is the primary force of life, immanen t to everyday

life and no t limited to the human world . Desire does

not exist

pre

fo

rmed but is a process

of

connection and

of

becoming.

Far

from thi

nk

ing of the world as a

coll

ection

of

beings

who

th

en

ha

ve

desires, Deleuze

insists rha t life begins

from

flows of becoming or desi r

e,

wh ich then


4/16

34

Deleuze

nd

rchite

ct

u

r

produce rela t

ive

points of

stab

ility (Colebrook 2002 : 66). Arc hi tecture,

as both process and form, can be understood as the resu lt of a mul tiplic

ity of desires - for shel ter, security, privacy and boundary control; for

status,

identity and reputation; for profi t,

amhor

iry and political power;

for change or stability; for order o r chaos. Assemblage is both verb and

noun, agency and structur

e,

change and stas is, process and product.

Fl

ows of des ire are the p rimary

fo

rces of assemblage (as a verb) - the

form

at

ion

of

connec tions th at become the assemblage (as a noun).

An assemblage di

ffe

rs from an 'o rganisation' in that the rel

at

ions

between pa

rt

s a re 'machinic rather tha n 'orga nic . As Colebroo k (2002:

xxii) pucs it: Des ire is machin ic precisely because it docs not ori

ginate

from closed organisms or se lves; it is the prod

uc

tive process of life t

hat

prod uces organisms and selves. From this perspective assemblages of

cities and citizens, neighbourhoods and neighbours, houses and homes,

schools and classrooms, insti tutions and states are produced by des ires.

W he n used as a n

oun,

assemblages are 'w ho les whose properties emerge

from the interactions between pans' (DeLanda 2006 : ). But the assem

blage is

nor

a thing

nor

a collection of things . Buildings, rooms, t rees,

cars, ga tes, people and s igns all connect in certain ways and

it

is rhe

con

nections between them tha t make an assemblage.

Assemblage has a fourfo

ld

(or tetrava lent) structure

fo

rmed from the

intersections

of

two primary axes (Deleuze

an

d Guattari 1987: 88-9).

T he

fi

rst of these axes opposes and connects mater ial ity co for mal

express ion ; it both d istingu ishes and connects lows and interactions of

bodies

and

things in space to express ions o f meaning through language

and representation. To see architecture as assemblage is co recon gure

the rela tion of form to func tion and avoid a reduction ro either text or

materia l condttions. Th is axis is construed

as

horizontal - neither sid e

has p riority - and is a lso described as fo rm versus content.

T he second

ax

is, construed

as

vertica l, in

vo

lves an oppositi

on and

moveme nt between the form

at

ion and erasu re o f te rritory - fro m terri

t

or

ialisa tion to det

er

rit0 ria

lisa

tion

an

d ret

err

ito ria lisation. Th is is wh

at

we know in everyday te rms as the appropriation and/or exprop ria tio n

of space. In terms of representation it involves the inscr iption/erasure/

reinscri

pt

ion

of

ter ritorial bound

ar

i

es

and identities; in material terms

it involves the cons truction, penetra

ti

on

and

enforcement

of

material

bo undary contro l. While terr itories are not necessa rily spatial, th is is

what esta blishes assemblage as rhe most

arch

itectura l of concepts in the

Deleuzian l

ex

icon.

Territ0 ria lisarion mediates the degree to which an assemblage is sta

bilised o r des ta bilised. The co ncept of terr it0ry here is broad enough


5/16

Assemb ng Architecture 37

Yet

to

perceive place

as stat

ic is

to

misrecognise it

as

a th

in

g

rather than

a n assemblage of differences. As

De

leuze

(2006

: 179) pucs it:

An assemblage is first and foremost what keeps very heterogeneous ele

mencs

together: [

. .

] both natural and

ar ti

ficial elements [ The problem

is one of consistency or

co

herence [ How do things take on consist

ency? H

ow

do they cohere? Even among ve ry different thing s an intensive

continu ity can be fou nd. We ha ve borrowed the word plateau from

Bateson precisely to designate these zones of intensive continuity.

Yet assembl age theory is noc a theo ry o f p lace so much as

an

intel

lectua l

too

l

kit

for understanding

how

p laces wor

k. To

what d

eg

ree

an

d

in

what manner

is

space

segmented

an

d terriroria lised?

To

w

hat

d

eg

ree

and

how

a re materia l

spatia

l practices

and

representa tional

narratives

dep

loyed in these assemblages an d to what ends? What coal itio ns of

desire drive a r

ch

it

ec

tu

ra

l

and

urban

development processes? We need to

kn

ow a lo t

more

about

how arc hi tectu re is assembled ; this is the

yaw

ning

gap

in

so

much of the

research applying Deleuzian

theory to built

form

- the actua l mechanisms

that

operate at and across different scales of

room, bui

lding,

neighbourhood,

landscape, city and

nation (DeLanda

2006

:

31). One of the

key tasks here lies in

the

practice

of mapping

. For

Dcleuzc

and

Guattari

(1987

:

12- 13)

mapp

ing

is

a cr

eat

ive

act that

they

d istinguish from a simple

mimet

ic t racing:

\Vhat

di

sting

uishes the

map

from

the trac ing is cha t it is e ntirely o riented coward a n

exper

i

mentat

ion

in

contact

with the real. Th e map is

more

than a s imple tracing o f

an

ex

isting for m because it is infused with a desire

co understand

how the

place might be

conceptua

lised, navigated

or

c hanged.

Maps

reveal the

workings of assemblages; they are at

once

concrete (grounded in a

mate

ria l

sta

te of affairs)

and abstract

(because

they canno

t

show

everything,

they select

and

ex

t

rac

t la

ye

rs o f

da

ta). laps mecia te between

th

e rea l

and

the vir

tu

al, between

past

a

nd

f

utur

e,

between hist

ory an

d design.

One

o f the

mo

re obscure concepts invented by Deleuze

and Guat

tari

is the a b

stract

mac hine or

diagram

o f

the

forces comprising

an

asse

mb

lage -

at

once

embo

died in the assemblage

and

productive of it.

According to Deleuze (1

988

:

36), the

diagram or

abstract

mac

hi

ne is

the

map

of relations between forces (

that

is co-extensive with

the

whole

soc

i

al

field .

One examp

le Deleuze (2006: 123) gives

is

Foucau l

t s

notion of the

panopt

ic

on

- a

soc

i

o-spat

ial

di

agram of one-wa) visibility

wherein

pract

ices

and

su

bject

ivities

are produc

ed

tO

m

eet

the

anony

mous gaze

of

author

i

ty

.

This

dia

gr

am

of

seeing wi th

out

being seen is

evid

en

t in the

many

discipl

inary

technologies of

th

e

pr

iso n, fact

ory

,

school, hospita l

and

CCTV network withou t

be

ii:g determined in each


6/16

38

Deleuze and Arch itecture

part

icu l

ar

in

sta

nce. Ir is an abstraction because an

abst

r

act set of

re la

t

io

ns

are evident

in a ll concrete examples,

and

it

is

a

machine

because

it is productive of subjectivity. The abs t

ract

machine is neither an infra

struc

mre

that is determining in

the

las t instance nor a

transc

endenta l

Idea t

hat

is

determ

ining in

the sup

r

eme

i

nstanc

e .

Rather

it plays a p

il

o t

ing role (Deleuze

and

Gua tta ri 19 87: 142).

A d ia

gram

is literally a gr

ap

hic represen t

at

ion o f co nnecti

ons

between

th ings, a

pattern

t

hat

connects a wide range of assembled

ou

tcomes . In

many

cases the d i

agram

is an image th

at

drives design

pract

ices

without

ever being written down. A stack of serviced floo r-pla tes with a view is

a

diagram

of

the immanent

forces pro ducing the

corporate

rower.

The

flows of desire embodied in this

diagram and ultimate

ly this building

type include

de

sires for flexibility,

the commanding

vi

ew

,

corporate

ident ity

an

d profi t (Dovey 2008:

ch

. 8) .

The diagram

of pedestrian paths

connecting magnet store

s

shows how

flows

of

co n

sume

r desire

are

captured in the private s

hopping

ma ll.

Her

e des ires for a safe, clean

and

cool or

warm environment mix

with desires for

product

s, for a fan tasy

world and

an anonymous

sense of

community

.

The diagram

i;

no

t a

t

ranscendent

ideal

but

a

conceptual understand

ing

of

the

immanent

forces of similar place types.

A fina l

word on

the r

ather

fundamenta

l

connection

of

design

to

desire - recall

that

fo r Dele uze desire is the primary force

of li

fe

and

of a ll fo rms of assemblage. Design is always based in flows of desire.

A public

transport

plan is based

on

a mu lt ipl ic ity of de

si

res gee o

work, to

shop

and

o

visi t

fr

i

ends.

A

sc

h

oo

l des ign

is

based on desires

for particu l

ar

modes

of

teaching

and

learning,

but

also

often

conflicting

desires for discipline

and

liberation. Assemblage thinking enables us to

overcome

simplistic divis ions between materia lity

and mean

ing, archi

tec

tur

e

and

p l

anning,

form

and

fun

ction

,

subject

and

ob

jec t. It enables

us

tO

see buildings

and

cities as

embody

ing

twofo

ld

concep

ts such as

rhiz

ome/t

ree, d ifference/identity

and

open/closed. It

enab

les us to

break

with

sta ti

c, fixed, closed

and

essen tiali

st

no

tions of

place, replacing

the

Heideggerian notion of being-in-the-world with becoming-in-the-world.

It

enab

les a rep lace ment of binary parad igms suc h

as

people environ

ment

with

the dynamic interconnectivity of the socio-spatial assemblage.

Open Planning

I n

ow want

to indica te

how

assemblage thinking might be

app

li

ed in a

part

icu lar research pro j

ec

t. As with

any

toolkit,

the

ultimate tes: lies in

practice -

what new

ways of thinking about

archi

t

ecture do

es it

open


7/16

ssembling rchitecture 39

up? T his projecr, u nderta ken with educationist Kenn Fisher, is a study

of innovarive spatial planning in

schoo

l classrooms. Th e rraditional

classroom is a rypical case of wha t Foucault (1979, 1980) rerms a dis

ciplinary technology where the gaze

of

authoriry works ro produce a

normalised and disciplined sub ject. A

one

-way

fl

ow of info rmation is

orch

estra

ted from a privileged posi tion tha t also ma in ta ins a contro lling

gaze

over

a class of s ubjec ts. Classrooms a re assembled inro schools with

corridor access; l

ear

ning is clea rly d

emar

k

ed

in space a nd time fro m

pl

ay

o r recess . Since the early twentieth century we have seen a range

o f archi tectural

ex

perimentation

on

the school classroom th

at

h

as

been

loosely labelled

open

planning. Such changes have been generally driven

by pedagogical theory

so

urced ro people like Dewey ((1916] 1966),

Vygotsky (1978) and others who sugges t a multiplic ity of ways in which

stu dents learn - didactic teach:ng being ju

st

one. There is no t scope

here

r

describe this sh ift in de:a il but it enta ils a move fro m singular

and static mo des of teaching and learning towa rds multip le group sizes

and

activity types over time; from a separa tion

of

l

earning

from play to

learning thro ugh play ; from reacher-cenrred ro stud

en

t-centred wirh a

demand for a range of place types and adaptability.

It

has l

ong

been clear

that

smd

cnt

-ccntred pedagogics a rc

ser

iously

constrained by rraditional classrooms.

Through

the mid-twentieth

cenruq

there was cons iderab le archirectural innovarion B lundell -Jones

1995

; H

er

rzberger 2008) and 1n rhe

1970s

the so-called open plan

school began to prol iferate in

the

developed wo rld, a move that was

large ly abandoned by the 1980s when m

any

such open p lans became

re-segmented into t

radi

ti

ona

l classroom cells. There were many reasons

for this failure;

among

rhem

are

t

ha

t designs were

often

driven by ideol

ogy

or

economy more t

han

pedagogy. In the new cenrnry we are seeing a

substan tial re -emergence of student-centred pedagogy in all educational

sectors . So h

ow

does a rchi tec ture r

espond

to such c

han

g

in

g pedagogy

and

how

a re underlying issues of power, contro l

and

di

sc

ipline played

o ut? Assemblage theory offers a framework for understanding this shift,

but a lso for understanding

why

it is tha t so many open p lans have fai led.

As

par

t o f a larger project

en ti

t led Smart Green Schools, we

ana

lysed a range

of awa

rd-winnir.g and innovative middle-schoo l plans

drawn

from organisations promoting new pedagogies

and

new learning

spaces.

1

These plans are replete with spatial categories such as general

learn ing area , learning commons , learning street ,

ope

n learning ,

lounge , collabo rative l

ea

rnin

g ,

studio ,

m

ee

tin

g , act

ivity

area ,

heartspace a

nd brea

k

out

. Each

of

these can mean m

any

things

but

our

key question is

how

has space been segmented

and

assembled?

Tbe


8/16

140 De

le

uze and

Arch itect

ure

analysis suggests th

at

there are many d ifferent

ki

nds o f open plann ing.

\Vhen conceived as socio-spatial assemblages of both people and build-

ings, plans and pedagogies, we begin to expose an extraord inary

com

pl

ex

ity of

act

ivities and spa tial types where the potentia l for

any

space

depends fundamen tally on i

ts

interconnections wi th o ther spaces.

The focus here is on spatial segmen tarity with the task tO d iscrimina te

between differen t kinds of

ope

nness and closure.

To

understand the

emerging plans, a diagrammatic mapping tec hnique has been developed

respond ing tO a need tO simu lta neously represent segmentarity (open vs

closed), interpenetration (overlapping),

co

nnectivity (adjacency, synt

ax,

through paths) and

adaptab

ility (o?cnability, closeability . A typology of

five

primary

pl

an

rypes emerged ranging from the traditional classr

oom

cluster to the fully open plan . This is illustra ted in an indicative manner

in Figure

7.1,

which shows diagrams of the generic

spat

ial assemblages

for each type. T ype 1 is essentially a trad itional classroom clust

er

where

the inclusi

on

of open learning areas occurs at the level

of

the

sc

hool

rather

than

the classroom.

Type

2 involves the inclusion of a learn ing

s treet as the en try space for a cluster of traditional closed c lassrooms.

Type 3 incorporates plans where clas

srooms within

a traditional cluster

can

be converted through movcal:lc

wall

s to become

common

learning

space and vice versa . Type 4 is where

an

assemblage of traditional class

rooms and lea rning streets can be converted from closed to open o r the

reverse. T ype

is the dedicated open pla n that canno t be converted tO

closed classroom

s.

While there a re man y kinds i f adaptabi lity within these assem

blages tha t invol

ve

the moving of furn iture and changes ro governance,

pedagogy, spatial practice

or

timetables,

our

focus is

on

the

fl

exibil it ies

enabled by the architectural shell, and it is crucial here ro

make

a dis

tinction between two kinds o f

fl

exibility. First there is the reversible

convertibility fr

om

closed clas

sroo

m

co

open learning areas, d

es

igned

co

enable conversi

on

from trad itio

na

l to student-ce

ntr

ed pedagogies and

the reverse. Second there is the ways the bu ilding enabl

es

fl

exi ble flows

from one activity type

co a nother within a multiplicitous pedagogy.

Th

ese two kinds o f adap ta

ti

on , th

at

may

be

ter med

convertib

ility and

fluidity , operate on different time cycles and rhythms, and

at

different

scales of

cont

rol.

Plan types 1 and 2 a re essentially non-convertible; the discipl

in

ary

techno logy of the classroom is maintained and progressive design is

conta

ined to a higher level

of

the spatial assemblage. It

is

int

erest

ing

tO

note th

at

while this is no t a quan titative study, a lmost ha lf o f our sample

of bui ldings se lec ted as p romoting progressive pedagogies belonged ro


9/16

Assembling Architecture 14 1

.......

~

~

TYPE 1: CLOSED ClASSAOOMS

CLOSED

DISCIPLINE

(Foucault

lYPE ~ S S R O O S

::::::: CORRIOOR

OMMONS OMMONS

CORRIDOR

TYPE 3:

CONVERTIBLE

ClASSAOOMS

OMMONS

SfREETSP CE

:::::::

STREETSP CE

TYPE

4: CONVER'llBLECLASSROOMS STREETSPACE

Tl ONS

Figure 7 .1 Typology

of

segmenrarity.

(Oeleuze}

OPEN

CONTROL

these types. Analysis needs to pay particular attention to the ways in

which the

par

:s a rc formed from their connections with the

who

le and

to connections between different scales of the

spat

ial assemblage. The

d istinction between streetspace and com mons is based

not

on size o r

supposed function

but on

the existence or absence of through traffic.

Streetspace is a thoroughfare tha t generates socia l interact ion

but

also

loses the acoustic contr ol and privacy necessary for man y learn in g func

tions; commons is open

bu

t

not

exposed to through traffic. Since it is

ex

posed

to

pr

ospective parenrs

and

visitors, streetspace has become

th

e

visible face of new pedagogies - it signifies student-centred learning.

Thus we find the emergence

of type 2 where strcerspace is added

to bur


10/16

44 Deleuze

and

rch itectur

of

power

are

no r

erad

i

ca

ted, rather they become m

ore

subtle

as

we move

fro m regimes of dis ipline ro those of ontrol (Deleuze

1992).

A word is in

order

about the diagrams in Figure

7.1 ,

which may

appear

to be reducrionisr. They

are

nothing more

than

conceptu al

rools, tO be judged on their usefulness rather than claims tO tru th.

The diagrams have impo rtant precedents in Alexander et a l. s

(1977)

pattern language and Hillier and

Hanson s

(1984) spatial synt

ax

. I

ackn

ow

ledge the importance of this wo rk but

point

ou r some key dif

fe

re .lces. Alexander is in many ways an assemblage thinke r who wrote

the

se

mina l paper A City Is Not a Tree (Alexa nde r

1965)

and argued

that a building is not a th ing

bur

the resu lt

of

a

set of

fo rces (Alexander

1964).

A pattern is at once a se t

of

social, spatial, aesthetic

and

mate

rial vect0rs or fo rces in a given situation and a diagram that resol

ves

rh

er

1

T he key d ifference fro m

as

semblage theory lies in the essentialism

of Alexander s approach, which is organic rather than machinic, trans

cendent rather than immanent. Hillier and Hanson s

(1984)

approach,

while also demonstrating

much

in

common with

assemblage theory, has

a p

cs

itivi

sr and

red u

ct

ionist

character

that is biased towards the material

pole of the assemblage.

The diagrams in Figure

71

have two key func

ti

ons, one practical and

one

theoretical.

The

practical function is

to

identify similarit i

es

and

dif

fereJces in plan structure

ar

an abstract level that both des igners and

educatOrs can understand. The diagrams embody a spatial language

that can dist inguish, for instan ce , between streets pace and commons ,

between interpenetra tion and openabiliry, between reversibi lity and

fluidity . They have the po tential co lift the design process our of the

simplist ic categories of open versus closed and into a discourse

of

multip le

plan

types .

For

architects, who universally loathe being given

tem

?la

te plans

tO

comply with, this leaves scope fo r

bot

h creative adap-

tat ion within pl

an

typ

es

and

the invention o f new types.

The

th

eore

ti

cal

function of che generic d iagrams is th at they reveal the immanent

pro-

ducti

ve

forces o f assemblage, the ways th

at

ows o f desire congeal i

nt0

certain socio-sp

ac

ial

pat

terns. Each of rhe ce lls in che diag rams is a form

of t

er

ritory chat may be more or less rigid ly inscribed in bo th material

and

expressive terms. Vilhat I have described as

adaptation,

reversibiliry

and flu idity can be seen as the processes of de t

err

itorialisation and reter

ritoria lisarion where one practice or pe

da

gogr is erased and another is

enacted. T he current p lans mos tly reveal contradi

cto

ry desires fo r

bui

ld

ings t

hat

will s

upp

o

rt

bo th

traditi

onal and

student

-centred pedagogies -

the building is an outcome of the assemb led desires of teach

ers

, stud

ents,

principa ls, fundi ng agencies, architects

and

parents .


11/16

Assemb

lin

g Arch itecture 145

Open hinking

The open

p l

an

school is j

ust one

small example

whe

re

assemb

lage think

ing might be applied to ar

ch

itecture,

an

d

whi

le

the

focus here has been

o n spa

ti

a l segmentar iry, there a re many d imensions

of

assemblage.

2

n

more genera l t

er

ms assemblage chinking e nables a

ra

nge of

app

roaches

to

arc hi

cecw re in terms

of

both

t

heory

an d practice. Ir

prov

id

es

a

frame

work within which we mig

ht

ger rigorous abour a focus on

con

nect ivity

and

flow rarher t

han

objec t and

form.

t

embod

ies a focus on

between

cond

it ions rhat privilege the

both/and over

rhe either/or. Assemblage

th

eory

enab

les a more rigo rous

cr

itique of the ways in which a rchi tec

ture

works

to produce

or const

rain spatial p

ra

ctices

and sub

jectivit i

es

. It

enables us

co

exp

l

ore

the

myriad

ways in which build ings a re

produce

d

by flows

of

des i

re and

p r

oduct

ive of further

lows.

Assemblage think

ing focuses accencion on mult iple scal

es of

assemb lage and o n the c rucial

co nnections between them.

I argued earlier against

any front to bac

k

reading of

Thousand

Plateaus

because it is not organ ised like a tree, and rhe fi rst

chapte

r

Rhi

zome

makes clear the p rivileging

of rh

izomic

over

arborescen t

th

ought

.

This

conceptual contr

ast

finds a

pa

ra

ll

el in

the

pe

nu

ltimate

chap t

er

on

str iated and

smooth

space

(Dele uze

and

Gua

ttari

1987).

The

sm

oot

h , with its

ab

sence

of

boundaries

and

sli

ppe

riness, is

easy

to

identify

wi

th

open

planning,

whi

le st

riated ,

wi

th

its links to st

rict

and

stringen

t ,

is

easy

ro

identify wirh

Foucauldian

disciplinary tech

nologies. The smooth resonates with the rhizomic and ne tworked

while

striation

resonates with the

arborcsccnr an

d hierarchi

ca

l

(Patton

2000)

. While the rhizomic

and smooth arc

consis t

ently and

impl icitly

privileged, rhis p riority needs

to

be read critically as a reversa l of t

ra-

d iti

ona

l fo rms

of

t

hi

nking

that

see the

world

in

terms of

pre-existing

unities. T hese

are

not

differ

ent

types o f space so much as

prope

rties

of

all spaces;

as

Deleuze a

nd

Gua

t

tar

i put

it, No

thing

is

ever

do

ne wirh:

smooth

space allows irself to be stria ted, and striated space reimparrs

a smoo

th space

[ all progress

is

made by

and

in

stria

ted space, but

all becoming occurs in

smooth space

(Deleuze

and

Guarrari

1987:

486).

What

sh

ou

ld we make

of

the id

ea that

all progress is made by an d

in

striated

space ?

I read

th

is

as

a recognition

that

t

erriror

ialisa

ti

o n,

o rganisacion,

stab

ilisat

io

ns of iden

ti

t ies an d practices are fundamental

to the ways we live. Whi le a rch it

ec

ts can have a signi

cant

i

mp

ac

t on

the

ways

in

whic

h rhe smooch/stria ted rwofold plays ouc, the ac t

of

design is

primari

ly

one

of

striat

ion - of st

ab i

lising the forms of

bui

l

din

gs,


12/16

46 Deleuze and rch itecture

the

construction

o f walls, the inscr

ip

tion o f m

ea

ning -

and the idea

of

designing a s m

oo

th

space ca

n be a dangerous illusion.

The conceptual opposition between smooth

and

stria ted,

between

lines of fli

gh

t

and

points of stability, between w ings and roots to

add

anot

her

metaphor,

makes it te mpting

co add

the conceptua l

oppos

iti

on

of

space

versus place

and

tO identify

space

with freedom

and

m

ovement

in

contrast

with the stability a nd roo te

dn

ess o f place. I

think

this is a

ser ious mistake an d

that

p lace is b

est

conceived

as

the assem

bl

ed mix.

Th

e

concept of

place

has

been widely misrecognised as a n o r

ganic

tree

like concept tha t organises spatial meanings

around

a n essentia

li

sed

stem. This view of place is un

de

rstandable since it meets a p r

imary

human d

es

ire for a sense of home

and

identity. Place can be identified

with

th

e axis

of

ter

ritor

iali

sation along

which assemblages become sta

bilised . Yet the wholesale ide

nti

ficati

on

of place with being, stability

and striation, with singu lar mo des o f r

ooted

sedentary

dw

elling

and

stabilised ide ntit ies, is a

narrow,

self-deceptive and insular view. Place

is an assemblage th

at

stabilises dwelling but also encompasses lines

o movemen t and processes of becoming.

The

immanence of place

is a field of differences within which tree-like

stab

ilised

identiti

es

are

plan

reel

In

a ll

of

these senses places can

be

constr

ued

as

assemblages in

con-

tinuous states of change. Such

an approach

to place runs

counte

r

to

Heideggerian notions of place as

grounded

in

an

o ncology of being

rather tha n

becoming . Some

o f those

who

adopt a Deleuzian approach

to

bu

ilt form see

the

need to over

turn the

Heideggerian notio n of a

si;atially

groun

ded

on

tology.

For

Rajchman (1998:

86) the grounding

o dwelling in place is a

source

of fa lse

naturalism and

a constrain t on

freedom: we need to

get away

from

the

picrnre [

tha

t the life-world

is

in

the first instance a

grou

n

de

d

world.

From this view,

the

gravitas

and heaviness o f

th

e

earth

is

to

be

ove

r

co

me

in

a Nietzschean

spir

it

of

freedom; place is

an

ancho r which weighs

us

down. As

Rajchman

(1

998

:

88) puts it:

O

nce we give

up

the belief

that

our life-world is r

ooted

in

the

ground,

we m

ay

thu s come co a poin t where ungroundedness is no

longer

exper

ienced

as ex

istential anxiety

and

despai r bur as a freedom

and lighrness

thar

finally allow us to

move. There

is here a

pr

ivileging of

movement

over

stasis,

of wings

over r

oots ,

which is

understandable,

but

the idea l of sever ing buildings fr

om

the

ground on

which they stand

is wishfu l

thin

king

that

suggests architecture can escape the constraints

ol

dwelling.

This

inv

o lves a

den

ial o f the

mater

i

ality

of

the assemb

lage

and,

ultimately, a re

du

c tion of arc hi tecture tO tex t.

The

task is not tO

decide between

an

architecture of

roots

or wings but to un

de

rsta nd

that


13/16

148 Deleuze and Arch itecture

Dovey, K., S. Wo ll

an and I

Woodcock (2012), Placing

Graf

fi

ti',

Journal

of

Urban

Design 17: I , 21

-4 ).

Foucault, M. (1979), Discif>li e and P ish:

Tl>e

Birth

of the

Prison trans.

A.

Sheri

dan,

New Y

or

k:

Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1980),

Power/Knowledge: Selected Tnterviews

and Other

Writings

1972-1977

ed

.

C.

Gordon, New York: Pantheon.

1-Ie

rt

zberger I-[.

2008), Space and Learning: Lessons in

rc

hitect

rc 3, trans.

J. Kirkpatrick, Rotterdam: OJ0 Publishers.

I Iillicr, B. a nd J.

Il

a nson (I 984 ), The Social Logic of Space Cambridge: Cambridge

Un

iversiry ress .

McF

arla

ne, C . 10 11 ), Assemblage a nd cr itical

ur

banism , City 15:

2, 204-24.

'anon,

I . (2000),

f e u and

the

Political London: Roudedge.

Rajchman,

J.

1 998), Constructions Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L S. (1978),

i vli

d i Society Cambridge

MA

:

Ha

rva rd University Press.


14/16


15/16


16/16

Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey

Documents

Transcript of Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey