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.
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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 .
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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,
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
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.
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
14/16
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
15/16
8/10/2019 Assembling Architecture - Kim Dovey
16/16