Although presented within the context of a meditation on architectural value, John Haldane’s observation that conflict over terms usually assumes ”that disagreement over values within a community is proof of the subjective character of the rival attitudes” broadly describes most instances of divergence within discourse, even if “rarely noticed is that a necessary condition of there being such disputes is that all parties to them share a common presupposed belief in the objectivity of value (Haldane 1990: 204-5).” Presentation of this underexplored tension establishes a provocative paradox that I will explore with regard to the peculiar adventure of Utopia within discourses of modern architecture.
Although within architecture, Utopia generally denotes failure, inasmuch as Utopia always already presumes its apparent opposite, Dystopia, or the impracticality of realization; to say nothing of the impossibility of fulfillment. On the other hand, Utopian Studies takes a distinctly different view: Utopia is multiple, rather than singular, or in Ricoeur’s terms, it has both a pathological and a constitutive dimension. When constitutive, it correlates with Bloch’s concrete Utopia rather than the totalizing habits of abstract ones. Closer to architecture, or at least the production of space, is Lefebvre’s–in places–positive use of Utopia as opening up possibilities, revealing the possible impossible as an equally constitutive and concrete concept. In this regard, it is worth noting that More’s coinage of Utopia in 1516 already suggests its dual nature: Utopia contains both Eutopia (good place) and Outopia (no place).
Negative characterization of Utopia enters architecture from two apparently diametrically opposed directions: on the one hand Frederick Engels’, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880) and on the other Karl Popper’s, The Poverty of Historicism (first published in 1944 and 1945). The influence of both ends of this spectrum of criticism against Utopia has been so complete that from Jane Jacobs, to Rowe, Tafuri and Frampton, amongst many others, Utopia has either been rejected outright or used as shorthand for the failures of modern architecture, including its social purpose. So pervasive is Utopia-anxiety that K Michael Hays recent book, Architecture’s Desire: Reading the Late Avant-Garde (2009), can barely speak its name, despite Utopia having been defined as the education of desire. The title of Hays’ book even recalls Jameson’s, Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions (2007), not surprising considering the influence Jameson wields within both Utopian Studies and architecture theory. Perhaps when architecture reconciles desire and utopia it can reclaim its social purpose through transactions with the possible-impossible.
Harvard Citation Guide: Coleman, N. (2010) The Peculiar Adventure of Utopia: discourses of modern architecture in the 20th century and today International Society for the Philosophy of Architecture, [blog] 23 May 2010, Available at: http://isparchitecture.wordpress.com. [Accessed: 01 June 2012].