April 3, 2012 § Leave a comment
“J’ai entrepris un sujet moderne, une barricade et si je n’ai pas vaincu pour la patrie au moins peindrais-je pour elle” (I have undertaken a modern subject, a barricade and even though I have not fought for my country, at least I will have painted for her), wrote Eugène Delacroix to his brother in 1830.
Also a modern ‘subject’ — Some time in the late 18th century Antoine Lavoisier, famed chemist and fermier general, came up with the idea of drawing a barrier around Paris in order to prevent the evasion of the despised octrois, or internal customs duties. Charles Nicolas Ledoux, official architect of the ferme générale swiftly designed more than 6 watchtowers and 50 solemn neo-classical structures that would be the collection offices—these variations on a theme provides perhaps one of the best examples of the late 18th century obsession with architectural typology, an obsession that followed the greater attempt to classify nature, after Linneaus and Buffon (perhaps best illustrated by JNL Durand’s AMAZING Recueil et Parallèle). This architectural exercise, however tackled a new type, and Ledoux was ostentatious in his departures from Classical language.
Construction began in 1785 on what Ledoux would bombastically refer to as “les Propylées de Paris.” Predicting popular protest, most of the wall and collection offices were completed within the short span of three years.Unlike previous defensive walls built around the cities, (the form having been perfected by Vauban under the auspices of le Grand Dauphin) this was the first circumscription designed not to protect the city from external threat, but rather as a way to manage the internal affairs of a city. Ironically, Ledoux’s propylaea performed a function completely opposite of those that guarded the entrance to the Greek city-state. Here we see the perfect functional (as opposed to formal) inversion of Arendt’s polis . The new wall besieged a concretely redefined urban enceinte, as a gathering of men who observed economic duties as opposed to a gathering of men bearing political rights. This was the monarchical state’s attempt to capture the wealth of the city, but it was a grave mistake. At this moment the menu peuple could not only view the totality of the system, they could not avoid the very image of their own over-determination. Any remaining illusion of the city as the space of political appearance had suddenly given way to the reality of the city as pure function of the monarchical household (oikos— Greek for house, but as Arendt reminds us, also the origin of the word economy). Clearly, this transformation had taken place long before the wall was even imagined, but the construction monumentalized reality. Unsurprisingly the wall concentrated the energies of the menu peuple. whotook to repeating the aphorism “Le mur murant Paris rend Paris murmurant” (The wall walling Paris keeps Paris murmuring). The year that saw the completion of the wall was also the year of the storming of the Bastille. The perfection of the city as a pure economic function of the state required this physical enclosure. Without it the city’s undisciplined merchants and farmers would always find a way of evading the duties imposed upon them. That perfection, however was also its demise. The men of fermé generale understood that the wall, from its moment of conception was a target—a testament to the already outdated nature of the wall as a technique of control, but paradoxically also ‘taught’ or, as it were stood as a reminder (the barricade was hardly new by 1789) of the powerful effect of walls.
Despite their power, I would argue (after Wendy Brown) that walls are in fact a signal of flagging power and waning sovereignty (if we can
 Because in fact the form the polis remained relatively unchanged, and as Ledoux himself indicated was in fact reminiscent of the Ancient polis)
 A general transformation from the Ancient city; the city as a community of citizens, into the modern city, which as an image has only an representational relationship to society and a merely illusory connection the Ancient city.
 Today the phrase is a popular French tongue twister of apocryphal origins.
April 3, 2012 § Leave a comment
So recently I just listened to This American Life’s “Retraction” of Mike Daisy’s story about Foxconn. I get it. Journalistic honesty is important, I still felt bad for Mike Daisy. But listening to this painful berating of Daisy started to get me thinking…
I’m TAing for an urban history class at Barnard this semester. most of the reading is, predictably about housing, and of course about the ‘quality’ of cities (though ‘vulgar Marxist’ qualitative concerns do make a cameo appearance via Ernst May and an unsure of himself Hilberseimer)—and much of this literature is written with the American/European worker in mind. The focus of this discourse wasn’t so much on inhumane conditions of factory work, but on a quality of life standard, a concern that shaped the face of EuroAmerican cities. The overriding concern of planners in Europe and the United States was that industrial capitalism (as opposed to the quality of social life) was over-determining the shape and texture of our cities.
Does a similar discourse exist in Shenzhen? I’d be curious to find out. This enough is clear: that the mobilization of a massive economy through the development of Free Trade Zones is the driving force behind Chinese urbanism today. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t recreational facilities at the Foxconn plant (a google image search yielded images of factories with well appointed recreational amenities), by the way this doesn’t mean that sub-standard living conditions don’t actually exist, they are simply not that easy to find on the internet. Even the fact that the Chinese Factory owners (or Taiwanese or Singaporean factory owners operating in China, to say nothing of the American companies that they supply) seem to understand what it means to put its best face forward, at the very least communicates an understanding about what constitutes humane and even pleasant working conditions. The fact is that young Chinese workers don’t come to Shenzhen to play basketball, they come to Shenzhen to work overtime and earn as much money as they can so that they can bring it back home to help support their families, who often live hundreds of miles away. Of course they won’t complain about overtime—they need overtime.
Complicating factors… As Charles Duhigg pointed out in an interview with Ira Glass, an increase in pay given to Foxconn workers after the break of the NY Times story led to a subsequent rent increase for workers after landlords caught wind of a pay raise. This is just more ‘evidence’ that what we’re dealing with here isn’t just the guarantee of ‘humane’ working conditions, but rather a cultural problem, a well-worn problem—the old problem of the worker (and his/her whole life world), reconfigured in a now globalized not quite post-industrial society. I know that this is not news… but this is a problem I think everyone should be obsessed with…
One of my favorite moments in the “retraction” was when Ira Glass starts wondering if he should feel bad about his iphone—starting off by saying that he’s “not so sure” he should feel bad. Duhigg comes in and says “of course you should feel bad, Ira, you created these conditions.”
Post-Fordism, after all is simply the exportation of sub-standard working conditions to ‘developing’ economies abroad.
There’s a split here between daily life and a distant ‘family life’ (intra national diaspora and free trade zones)
TBC… I need to think about this some more.