Filozofski vestnik L etn ik /V o ltim e XXII • Š tev ilk a /N u m b er 2 • 2001 • 111-126
WALTER BENJAMIN AND THE URBAN LABYRINTH
H e in z Pa e tz o l d
T h e m a in p u rp o s e o f my essay is to discuss the relevance a n d fru id u ln e ss o f th e d e sc rip tio n o f cityscape as labyrinth. W ithin his city-centred cu ltu ral theory, W a lte r B e n ja m in , gave a new u n d e rs ta n d in g to this p ow erful im age w hich e m e rg e d in a n c ie n t M in o an c u ltu re a n d a n c ie n t G reek m ythology, a n d w hich fo u n d a w id e sp re a d re tu r n d u rin g the se v e n te e n th cen tu ry . Today, m any th e o re tic ia n s, w riters, artists, desig n ers, com posers a n d a rch itects a re still in s p ire d by th e c o n c e p t o f th e labyrinth. I c a n n o t give a full a c c o u n t o f this m ulti-faceted, puzzling history; Gustav R ené H ocke (1963), Karl Kerenyi (1950) a n d H e lm u t K ern (19 9 9 ), a m o n g o th ers, w ere b e tte r p re p a re d fo r d o in g so th a n I. H ow ever, fro m th e c o n c e p t o f th e labyrinth, B en jam in m ad e o n e o f th e c lu e s fo r u n d e r s t a n d i n g g e n u in e ly m o d e rn u rb a n e x p e rie n c e s : to e x p e rie n c e u rb a n ‘la n d s c a p e ’ as labyrinth. W hat were his m otives? I will b e a rg u in g th a t, w ith in B e n ja m in ’s c u ltu ra l theory, the c o n c e p t o f the lab y rin th is closely re la te d to a truely u rb a n cu ltu ral figure who em e rg e d in 19"' century:
th e flâ n e u r.
A lth o u g h a m a jo r p a r t o f m y essay focuses o n B enjam in, I am sp eak in g fo r o u r tim es as well. C an we give a new m e a n in g to the two a fo re -m e n tio n e d cru cial n o tio n s in B e n ja m in ’s th o u g h t, o r d o they rem ain w ith in th e h isto rical text? B u t le t m e b e g in by re m in d in g the re a d e r o f som e c e n tra l fe atu res o f p h ilo so p h ic a l re fle c tio n s o n lan d sca p e, b e fo re shiftin g fro m lan d scap e to cityscape.
I
I tak e as m y s ta rtin g p o in t th e a ssu m p tio n th at b o th la n d sc a p e a n d cityscape have to b e c o n c e p tu a liz e d n o t as p u re givens, in th e sense o f n a tu ra l p h e n o m e n a , b u t r a th e r as c u ltu ra l p h e n o m e n a . T h e re is always an e m b o d ie d subjectivity involved as th e ir c o n d itio n o f possibility. T h eo riz ers o f lan d scap e,
He in z Pa e t z o l d
ra n g in g fro m F rancesco P e tra rc h to A le x a n d e r von H u m b o ld t, C arl G ustav C arus a n d G eorg S im m el, share th e co n v ictio n th a t la n d sc a p e is a n e m in e n tly m o d e rn p h e n o m e n o n w hich p re su p p o se s an in d iv id u a liz ed a n d fr a g m e n te d subjectivity. L andscape exists only to th e e x te n t th a t th e r e is a subjectivity e x p e rie n c in g and co n stitu tin g it. A n a tu ra l e n v iro n m e n t b e c o m e s a la n d sc a p e only in so fa r as it is viewed a n d lo o k ed at. It is n o t p r o d u c e d by th e spatially a n d tem porally u n m o v in g subjectivity, b u t by th e m o v in g body. L a n d s c a p e is c o n stitu te d by a culturally sh a p e d subjectivity.
O n e c o n se q u e n c e o f this is th a t m a k in g a la n d s c a p e o u t o f a n a tu ra l e n v iro n m e n t is u n d e r p in n e d by cu ltu rally p ro d u c e d im ag ery - by p a in tin g s , fo r in stan ce. We m ay e x p e rie n c e th e c o u n try sid e fro m th e p e rsp ectiv e o f a C am ille C orot, a C aspar David F rie d ric h , a W illiam T u r n e r , a J a n van G oyen o r a V e rm e e r van Delft. T h e act o f co n stitu tin g lan d scap e consists in c o n tin u o u s shifts o f horizo ns a n d perspectives d u e to th e c h a n g in g po sitio ns o f th e m oving body. T h e resu lting perspective view is intrinsically lin k ed to th o se views w hich follow. E d m u n d H usserl used to talk o f ‘re te n tio n s ’ a n d ‘p r o te n tio n s ’.
F or purposes o f my following discourse, I w ould like to d istin g u ish b etw een two d iffe re n t lines in th e th e o riz in g o f la n d sc a p e . D raw ing o n F ran c esco P e tra rc h , A lex a n d er von H u m b o ld t, C arl G ustav C arus a n d G e o rg S im m el, th e G e rm a n H egelian p h ilo so p h e r J o a c h im R itte r a rg u e d , m o re th a n o n e g e n e ra tio n ago, th a t th e e x p e rie n c e o f la n d sc a p e is b a se d u p o n m o d e r n society’s ru le and c o n tro l over n a tu re . T h e a e sth e tic p le a su re o f e x p e rie n c in g th e n a tu ra l s u rro u n d in g as lan d sca p e is a specific, sec u la riz e d p h e n o m e n o n o f m o d e rn society. T h e co n tem p lativ e view o f th e cosm os, th e m etap h y sica l
‘th e o ria to u ko sm o u ’, re tu rn s u n d e r th e c o n d itio n s o f m o d e rn society in a c o m p le te ly c h a n g e d m e a n in g . W h a t, in a n c ie n t tim e s, b e lo n g e d to th e privileges o f G reek priests or R o m an a u g u rs, a n d th e n was s e c u la riz e d as a m etaphysical activity o f p h ilo so p h e rs, b ec o m e s, in th e c o n te x t o f m o d e rn society, an activity p e rfo rm e d by everyone, d u rin g leisu re tim e. F o r R itter, th e e x p e rie n c e o f land scap e is, in a w ord, a k in d o f r e tu r n to m etap h y sica l to tality by way o f ae sth etic re co n ciliatio n (R itte r 1974).
A d o rn o ’s thoughts, my second line, are closer to B enjam in. A d o rn o revises R itte r’s th eo ry o n two points. First, la n d s c a p e is to b e co n c e iv e d as n a tu ra l h isto ry . W e e ste e m in c u ltu ra l la n d s c a p e th e u t o p i a n f ig u r a ti o n o f a reco n ciliatio n o f n a tu re a n d culture. W e p ro je c t o u r lo n g in g fo r re co n ciliatio n o n to la n d s c a p e . C u ltu ra l la n d s c a p e is n o t a p u r e g iv en b u t a u to p i a n sem blance.
S eco n d , images o f cu ltu ral la n d sc a p e a re im ages o f ‘a m e m e n to ’ (AT, p.
102; AT, p. 96). H istorical m em ory a n d h isto rical m o u rn in g m u st b e in v ested in o rd e r to serve th e u to p ia n fig u re o f re c o n c ilia tio n b e tw e e n c u ltu re a n d
Wa l t e r Be n ja m ina n dt h e Ur b a n La b y r in t h
n a tu r e . A d o r n o stresse s th e d iscu rsiv e c o n tin u ity b e tw e e n th e a e s th e tic e x p e rie n c e o f n a tu r e in c u ltu ra l lan d scap e, a n d th e ae sth etic e x p e rie n c e o f m o d e rn is t w orks o f a r t (c o m p a re my essay P aetzo ld 1997, especially pp. 216- 22 2 ). B o th have in c o m m o n th e fa ct th a t they are im ages. N a tu re a p p e a rin g as b e a u tifu l is n o t co n c e iv e d as an o b ject o f action. T h e p u rp o se s o f self- p re s e rv a tio n a re tr a n s c e n d e d in b o th th e w ork o f a r t a n d th e a e sth e tic e x p e rie n c e o f la n d sc a p e (ÄT, p. 103; AT, pp. 96-97).
B o th th e th e o rie s I have re fe rr e d to, from R itter a n d A d o rn o , lo cate the e x p e r ie n c e o f la n d s c a p e o u ts id e th e p re c in c ts o f th e city. D u rin g th e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry how ever, th e re em erg ed an ex p erien ce o f landscape w ithin th e u rb a n sp ace. F o r m o st c u ltu ra l th eo retician s, Paris was th e place w h ere this sh ift o c c u rre d fro m la n d sc a p e o u tsid e th e city, to cityscape (c o m p a re S eel 1991, p p . 230-33). L ouis-S ébasden M ercier is su p p o sed to b e o n e o f the first a u th o rs lo o k in g a t Paris as a ‘p ic tu re ’, as a ‘sc e n e ’ (M azlish 1994, p. 46).
T h a t is to say, M ercier tra n sp o se d elem e n ts o f D enis D id e ro t’s c o n c e p t o f the th e a tr e stage to th e u rb a n su rro u n d in g .
I I
A fte r th ese p re lim in a ry re m a rk s, I can now e n te r th e th em atic analysis o f this essay.
As m y p o in t o f d e p a r tu r e , I take a fram e o f n o tio n s w h ich was in tro d u c e d by B en jam in . It is th e c o rre la tio n betw een, o n th e o n e h a n d , th e lan d sca p e o f th e m o d e r n m e tro p o lis, w hich is lab elled as a k in d o f lab y rin th , a n d o n th e o th e r h a n d , th e stro llin g activity o f a specifically u rb a n c u ltu ra l figu re w hich e m e r g e d in m o d ern ity : th e flâ n e u r.
In his “A rcad es P ro je c t”, B en jam in w rote: “T h e city is th e realizatio n o f th a t a n c ie n t d re a m o f h u m a n ity , th e labyrinth. It is this reality to w hich the flâ n e u r, w ith o u t k n o w in g it, devotes h im s e lf’ (B enjam in 1999, p. 429, M6a,4.
C o m p a re p. 839, F°13, F°19).
As K e rn con vincingly h as show n in details, th e lab y rin th as a culturally p o w e rfu l sy m b o l u n d e r w e n t tw o h is to ric a l tra n s fo rm a tio n s . Its o rig in a l m e a n in g as it su rfa c e d in a n c ie n t M in o an c u ltu re o n C rete was th a t o f a ritu al g ro u p d a n c e w h ich m a d e o f y o u n g girls a n d boys grow n-ups by re la tin g th em to society a n d th e cosm os a t large. A c co rd in g to K ern it is im p o rta n t to u n d e r s ta n d th a t th e lab y rin th -d a n ce was graphically draw n as a visual to k en (K ern 1999, p. 19). T h e first sh ift in th e m e a n in g of this sym bol o c c u re d w h e n it was a b s o rb e d in a n c ie n t G reek a n d R om an m ythology a llu d in g to T roy, as we ca n fin d in H o m e r ’s “Ilia d ”, la te r in V irgil’s “A e n e id ”, P lu ta rch ,
He in z Pa e t z o l d
Ovid, S trab o an d o th ers. A n c ie n t R o m an c u ltu re b r o u g h t a b o u t th e se c o n d tra n sfo rm a tio n o f th e lab y rin th ’s m e a n in g . T h e a n c ie n t R o m an s r e la te d th e lab y rin th -d an ce to th e a c to f f o u n d in g a c ity (K ern 1999, p. 114). As we will see later in this essay, B enjam in picked u p especially this m e a n in g b u t gave a new twist to it in th at h e attrib u ted it n o t to th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e city, b u t to th e m o d e rn u rb a n everyday. A t any ra te B en jam in to o k o n th e city-relatedness o f the symbol o f the labyrinth which belongs, to re p e a t, to a n c ie n t R o m an s’ legacy.
T o c o m e back to th e B en jam in ian d â n e u r-la b y rin th co n ste lla tio n : In th a t th e d â n e u r e x p e rien ces th e u rb a n sce n e as a “cityscape”, as B e n ja m in literally says, th e “o ld R o m a n tic s e n tim e n t fo r la n d s c a p e ” is r e p la c e d by a “new R o m an tic c o n c e p tio n o f la n d sc a p e ”, th e “c ityscape” (B en jam in 1999, p. 420, M2a, 1). W hereas th e old R o m an tic e x p e rie n c e o f la n d s c a p e was spatially lo cate d ou tsid e the city, th e m e tro p o lis has b e c o m e “th e p ro p e rly s a c re d g ro u n d o f flâ n e rie ” (B enjam in 1999, p. 421, M 2a, 1). T h e flâ n e u r, B e n ja m in argues, ex p lo res th e cityscape as a d ialec tic b etw e en “th e in te r io r as s tre e t (lu x u ry ), a n d the s tre e t as in te rio r (m isery )” (B en jam in 1999, p. 90 9 ). T h a t is to say, th e d â n e u r is, first an d fo rem o st, in te re s te d in th e “social sp ac e o f th e m e tro p o lis” (Frisby 1994, p. 84). T h e “s e n sa tio n a l p h e n o m e n o n o f s p a c e ”,
“th e ‘c o lp o rta g e p h e n o m e n o n o f s p a c e ’”, th e “K o lp o rta g e p h ä n o m e n des R au m es” is the f lâ n e u r’s “basic e x p e rie n c e ” (B en jam in 1999, p. 418, M ia , 3).
A lth o u g h B en jam in ’s use o f th e n o tio n s o f th e d â n e u r a n d o f flâ n e rie is o ften am b iv alen t an d co n tra d icto ry , I w o u ld like to su g g est th e follow ing in terp re tatio n . T h e simplistic origins o f flânerie ex ercised by th e ‘physiologists’
(M. B o n -H o m m e’s “Le F lân eu r au saison” [1806], Louis H u a r t’s “P hysiologie d u F lâ n e u r” [1841] am o n g others) w ere set aside by w riters like H o n o ré d e Balzac a n d V ictor H ugo , w ho c e le b rate d th e “artist-flân eu r”, a n d o f co u rse by C harles B audelaire, who b ecam e B e n ja m in ’s favorite m o d e l (F erg u so n 1994, pp. 22-42; B urton 1994, pp. 2-6). T hey - especially Balzac a n d B au d ela ire - revealed th e reality o f the m o d e rn m etro p o lis as an e n d a n g e re d , c o n tra d ic to ry totality.
Ifw e com pose B enjam in’s various re d ectio n s o n flân erie in to o n e co n c ep t, th e n it c o u ld be show n th a t h e h a d a c u ltu ra l h isto ry in m in d le a d in g fro m th e s o o th in g cityscapes o f th e physiologists th ro u g h th e u rb a n alleg o rie s o f B aud elaire, a n d e n d in g in B aron d e H a u ssm a n n . T h e d ialec tic o f flâ n e rie w hich h a d re la ted th e in te rio r o f th e h o u ses to th e p u b lic spaces o f th e streets, a n d w hich h ad its u rb a n site in th e arcad e s, c a m e to an e n d . I t was ca u sed by th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e g ra n d b o u lev ard s o f H a u ssm a n n , o n th e o n e h a n d , a n d by th e e m e rg e n c e o f th e d e p a r tm e n t sto res o n th e o th e r. B o th th ese shifts in th e u rb a n fabric d estro y ed th e so u rc es o f flâ n e rie w h ich w ere, to re ite rate, deriving from the en tw in e m e n t o f th e in te rio r as h o u se a n d as street.
Wa l t e r Be n ja m ina n dt h e Urb a n La b y r in t h
In “C h a rle s B a u d e la ire ” (1938), B enjam in gave die follow ing d e sc rip tio n o f th e h ig h lig h t a n d d e c lin e o f flânerie: “If th e arcad e is th e classical fo rm o f th e interior, w hich is ho w th e flâ n eu r sees th e street, the d e p a rtm e n t sto re is th e fo rm o f th e interior’s decay. T h e b azaar (W arenhaus) is th e last h a n g o u t o f th e flâ n e u r. If in th e b e g in n in g th e stre e t h a d beco m e an in te rio r for him , now this interior tu r n e d in to a stre e t, a n d h e ro a m e d th ro u g h th e lab y rin th o f m e rc h a n d is e (L a b y rin th d e r W are) as h e h a d o n ce th ro u g h th e lab y rin th o f th e city” (B en jam in 1973, p. 54).
It is n o tic e a b le h e r e th a t B enjam in relates th e strolling activity o f th e f lâ n e u r to th e la b y rin th ia n s tru c tu re o f th e city. A cco rd in g to B en jam in , th e f lâ n e u r e x p e rie n c e s th e crow ds o f th e m o d e rn m etro p o lis as a k in d o f sh ield b u t also as an o b je c t o f observ atio n . T h e flâ n e u r is n o t only draw n to th e streets a n d th e ir arc h ite c tu re , b u t also to the social spaces w h ere crowds g ath er, like railw ay statio n s, e x h ib itio n halls a n d d e p a rtm e n t stores. T h e flâ n e u r e x p lo re s th e ‘la b y rin th o f th e p o p u la c e ’, th e ‘h u m a n la b y r in th ’ o f th e m e tro p o lita n m asses.
As B e n ja m in says: T h e “m asses” “stretch b efo re the flâ n e u r as a veil: they a re th e n ew est d ru g fo r th e solitary. - S eco nd, they efface all traces o f th e in d iv id u al: they a re th e n ew est asylum fo r th e re p ro b a te a n d th e p ro sc rip t. — Finally, w ith in th e lab y rin th o f th e city, the masses are th e new est a n d m ost in sc ru ta b le la b y rin th .” (B en jam in 1999, p. 446, M 16,3).
I w ould now like to sum m arize my discussion o f th e flân eur, b efore m oving o n to lo o k a t th e n o tio n o f th e lab yrinth. It is my c o n te n tio n , th a t we have to u n d e r s ta n d flâ n e rie as an am b iv alen t cu ltu ral a n d p olitical activity, w hich e m e rg e d in th e ru n o f th e n in e te e n th century, b u t c o n tin u e s in to o u r own tim es. T h e flâ n e u r is re la te d to th e detective in sh arin g th e la tte r ’s c o n c e rn with observing th e crowds in the streets. For this reason, a flân e u r could b ecom e an a g e n t o f th e s ta te ’s s e c re t service. T h e flân e u r shares with th e p h o to g ra p h e r a n in te re s t in th e visual c u ltu re o f city life. H e p ro d u c es lite ra tu re a n d w orks o f a rt, as ex e m p lifie d by B au d ela ite, C harles D ickens a n d E dg ar A llen Poe, a n d also E d o u a rd M an et a n d E dg ar Degas. Flânerie is also the origin o f m o d e rn sociology. T h e g e n re o f u rb a n e th n o g ra p h y , in p artic u la r, is ro o te d in the u rb a n activity o f stro lling, as th e exam ples o f Siegfried K racauer, Franz Hessel, G e o rg S im m el, R o b e rt E zard P ark, a n d H e n ry Mayhew ca n show (see Frisby 1994). F o r m y a r g u m e n t h e re , it is im p o rta n t to recog nize th a t flân e rie is n o t j u s t stro llin g a r o u n d a n d g ap in g , b u t it transform s u rb a n o bserv atio n in to c u ltu ra l w ork. I f we in c lu d e B en jam in h im self in the g ro u p o f p assion ate flâ n e u rs, th e n we ca n c o n c lu d e th a t flân erie is related to a critical cu ltu ra l th e o ry o f city life. As C h ris J e n k s w rote: “T h e flâneur, th o u g h g ro u n d e d in everyday life, is a n analytic fo rm , a n arrativ e device, an a ttitu d e tow ards
He in z Pa e t z o i.d
know ledg e an d its social c o n te x t.” (Jenks 1996, p. 148). T h e m o v in g b o d y is involved h e re , stro llin g th ro u g h th e la b y rin th o f th e m o d e rn m e tro p o lis , b u t th e p h e n o m e n o lo g ic a l e x p e rien ce s m u st b e lin k e d to th e sym bolic s tru c tu re o f cu ltu re .
S p eak in g in term s o f philosophy, we m ay a rg u e th a t th e d â n e u r p o rtra y e d by B enjam in is a post-m etaphysical subjectivity. H e is to b e clearly d istin g u ish ed from P la to ’s Socrates in th a t h e has n o g u a r a n te e d c o m m u n ity to w h o m to ad d ress his reflections. Jean-Jacques R o u sse a u ’s ‘p r o m e n e u r ’ was as lo n e ly as th e d â n e u r, b u t fo u n d his m o ral id e n tity a t th e b o rd e rlin e b e tw e e n city a n d countryside. N ietzsche’s Z a ra th u stra d id n o t even e n te r th e m e tro p o lita n city.
B ut insofar as the d â n e u r d ep e n d s u p o n walking, h e is also clearly d istin g u ish ed from R orty ’s p o stm o d e rn ironist. A t th e e n d o f my essay I sh all c o m e b a c k to this p o in t.
A lth o u g h th e flâ n e u r takes th e d ista n c in g p o s itio n o f th e visual o b serv er, h e is by n o m eans th e dispassionate cogn itive subjectivity o f m o d e rn ity , b u t ra th e r th e o rg a n o f m o d e rn cu ltu re . C o n tra ry to th e m o d e rn u rb a n is t w hose th e o riz in g o f the city aim s at p ractical in te rv e n tio n in th e d e sig n o f th e city - if we th in k o f Ild efo n so C erda, B aro n G eo rg es E u g è n e H a u ssm a n n a n d Le C o rb u sier - the d â n e u r attem p ts im ages o f m o d e rn ity . A f lâ n e u r m ig h t b e a p o et, a p a in te r, a jo u rn a list, a socio logist o r a c u ltu ra l th e o ris t (see my essay P aetzold 1995).
It is tru e , a n d has o ften b e e n p o in te d o u t, th a t th e n in e te e n th - c e n tu ry d â n e u r was largely a m ale g e n d e re d c u ltu ra l fig u re (c o m p a re S hields 1994, especially p p . 63, 66-67. W olff 1994, especially, p p. 124-130). B u t ifw e lo o k at th e m an y traces in B e n ja m in ’s w ritin g w hich leave th e m a le -c e n tre d n e ss o f c u ltu re b e h in d , we can even fin d access to fe m in ist a p p ro a c h e s , especially if we b rin g to b ea r J u lia Kristeva’s th eo ry o f c u ltu re (W eigel 1996, p p . 63-79).
I l l
N ow I can pick u p th e th re a d o f my d isco u rse. T h e d â n e u r e x p e rie n c e s th e m o d e rn m etropolis as a labyrinth. B en jam in has ca lle d th e lab y rin th “th a t a n c ie n t d re am o f h u m an ity ” w hich has b e e n re alized in th e m o d e rn city. H ow s h o u ld we u n d e rs ta n d this? T h e la b y rin th o f th e m e tro p o lis is a p r e g n a n t G estalt th e sym bolic m e a n in g o f w hich is m ythically u n d e r p in n e d . T h e im ag e points towards daily e n c o u n te rs with m e tro p o lita n reality. T h e big city in w hich we live, day in a n d day ou t, ap p e a rs in th e im ag e o f a lab y rin th . T h is im ag e refers n o t least to th e opacity a n d im p e n e tra b ility o f everyday u rb a n life.
A lo o k at J o s e p h Rykw ert’s “T h e Id e a o f a Tow n. T h e A n th ro p o lo g y o f
Wa l t e r Be n ja m ina n dt h e Ur b a n La b y r in th
U rb a n F o rm in R o m e, Italy a n d th e A n c ie n t W o rld ” (1985) m ay h e lp to clarify th e m e a n in g o f B e n ja m in ’s n o tio n o f th e labyrinth. A cco rd in g to Rykwert, th e fo u n d a tio n a l m yths o f th e city co m p rise n o t only th e fixing o f an axial cross (c a rd o , d e c u m a n u s ), o f a c e n tre (m u n d u sj, o f b o rd e rs a n d gates, b u t also th e im ag e o f a la b y rin th (Rykwert 1985, pp. 148-153). T h e m yth o f the lab y rin th is m ostly a b o u t how to fin d access to th e city. A rid d le m ust b e solved o r a h e ro ic a c tio n is re q u ire d , b e fo re o n e is allowed to e n te r th e c e n tre , th a t is: th e w orld. U sually, th e m ythic h e ro n ee d s th e aid o f a w om an w ho is la te r le ft in th e lu rc h , o r is g o in g to b e killed; A riadne, for instance, guid in g T heseus th ro u g h th e C re ta n lab y rin th . W ith o u t d o in g injustice to Rykwert’s theory, we m ay take a clu e fro m it. W e can distinguish betw een fo u n d a tio n a l m yths (R o m u lu s a n d R em us o r C ain, as h eo ic fo u n d e rs o f cities) a n d those w hich r e fe r to th e m a in te n a n c e o f a city life. T h e m yth o f th e lab y rin th can be a ttrib u te d to th e la tte r category. It presu p p o ses th e fo u n d a tio n o f a city to w h ich access m u st b e g a in e d , o r even reg ain ed .
T h e sym bol a n d m yth o f th e labyrinth, as K ern, Rykwert, a n d Karl K erenyi have show n , w ere o fte n a c c o m p a n ie d with d an ce; th e m aze d an c e, by w hich th e victory o f th e h e r o is ritually celeb rated . T h e dancers p e rfo rm a n d position them selves in a sp iral form . G en erally speaking, we can distin g u ish b etw een th e spiral o r d o u b le-sp ira l fo rm , a n d the re c ta n g u la r fo rm , as ab stra ct g ra p h ic re p re s e n ta tio n s o f th e lab y rin th . T h e p o in t is, however, th a t th e m oving body w ith in a la b y rin th d o es n o t ‘k n o w ’ o f this overview, a n d is puzzled by th e ch o ice s to b e m a d e a t e a c h new ju n c tio n .
B e n ja m in ’s im age o f th e lab y rin th ian city is n o t a b o u t th e q u estio n o f th e fo u n d a tio n o f th e city, b u t o n th e co n tra ry seeks to d escrib e th e everyday life o f th e m o d e rn m etro p o lis. T h e lab y rin th is a convincing G estalt, by w hich city life ca n b e c a p tu re d . T h e city is n o t a ju n g le b u t a lab y rin th . D u e to the la b y rin th ia n s tru c tu re o f th e m etro p o lis, th e co n d u c t a n d b eh a v io u r o f the city-dw eller is slow ed dow n. “T h e la b y rin th ”, B enjam in says, “is th e h o m e o f th e h e sita n t. T h e p a th o f so m e o n e shy o f arrival at a goal easily takes th e form o f a la b y rin th .” (B en jam in 1985a, pp. 30-55, h ere: p. 40). W e sh o u ld n o t, in th e first in sta n c e , th in k o f p ro b le m s by w hich to o rie n ta te ourselves; ra th e r, th e e x p e rie n c e o f city life by way o f aim less strolling is w h a t is a t issue h ere.
A lthough Paris with its arcades were B enjam in’s original source for drinking a b o u t city life in term s o f th e labyrinth, he nevertheless a p p lie d this id ea to his
“B erlin C h ild h o o d a r o u n d 1900”. H e re h e states th a t to ex p e rie n c e th e city as a lab y rin th re q u ire s “sch o o lin g ”. It is a kind o f “a rt”. H e wants to m ake a parallel b etw een his p e rso n a l m em o ries a n d an intersubjectively valid ‘im ag e’ o f the city o f B erlin: “N o t to b e able to fin d o n e ’s way in a city d o e s n ’t m ean m uch . T o stray in a city as o n e strays in a forest, how ever, re q u ires train in g .
He in z Pa e t z o l d
T h e s tre e t nam es m u st speak to th e w a n d e re r like th e s n a p p in g o f d ry twigs, a n d th e little streets in the h e a r t o f th e city s h o u ld r e d e c t th e tim es o f day to h im as clearly as do es a hollow o n a m o u n ta in s id e . I le a r n e d this a r t late; it fulfilled the d re a m o f w hich th e first traces w ere lab y rin th s scraw led o n th e b lo ttin g p a p e r o f my n o teb o o k s... T h e p a th in to this la b y rin th ... le d o ver the B en d ler B ridge...” (B enjam in 1991, Vol. I V 1, p. 237. T ra n sla tio n ac c o rd in g to W eigel 1996, p. 137).
W ith in a labyrinth we are aw are o f all o u r a c tu a l step s a n d m oves. W e a re d ep riv ed , how ever, o f an overview o f th e w hole. W e give ourselves o v e r to th e to p o g ra p h ie s o f th e space we are in. W e b e c o m e m o tiv a te d to c o m e to g rip s w ith th e w hole - it em erg es, at any ra te . B u t we c a n n o t a ffo rd to m e e t this d e m a n d . O rie n ta tio n w ithin the city has m u c h to d o w ith th e m ag ic o f th e stre e t n am es. It is this m agic w hich gives th e lo catio n s w ith in a city a c u ltu ra l in scrip tio n , an d a t th e sam e tim e it is th e m agic o f s tre e t n am es a n d o f u r b a n areas w hich p ro m p t us to w a n d er th ro u g h th e city.
In his essay o n post-revolutionary M oscow, B e n ja m in says th a t h e h a d already m a d e an im age fo r h im self o f th e to p o g ra p h y o f th e city b e fo re h e e n te re d it. B ut bodily c o n ta c t with th e stree ts a n d h o u ses, d u rin g his flâ n e rie , only m a d e him e x p e rie n c e the la b y rin th ia n s tru c tu re o f th e city (B e n ja m in 1991, Vol. IV 1, pp. 318-19). We to u c h , h e re , u p o n a n im p o r ta n t p o in t. In o rd e r to reveal th e city as a lab y rin th , it is necessary fo r a m e e tin g to tak e place b etw een a layer o f e x p e rie n c e w hich ca n b e d e sc rib e d p h e n o m e n o - logically, a n d a sym bolic level. P h e n o m e n o lo g y m u s t re ceiv e a sym b o lic s tru c tu re in o rd e r to b ec o m e histo rical a n d critical (B en jam in 1985b, p. 175;
c o m p a re G illoch 1996 p p .135-139, 149-167, 171-177. C o m p a re W eig el 1996, pp. 48, 119).
TV
As fa r as I can see, B enjam in h im se lf has given th re e e x p la n a tio n s fo r th e lab y rin th o f the m o d e rn m etropolis:
First, th e lab yrinth is c o n n e c te d w ith th e m a rk e t as th e p re v a ilin g m o d e l o f sociality. It is the m a rk e t w hich s tru c tu re s th e a c tio n s a n d c o n d u c t o f m e n .
“T h e lab y rin th is th e c o rre c t ro u te fo r th o se w h o always arrive a t th e ir goal anyway. T h e goal is th e m a rk e t.” (B en jam in 1985a, p p . 30-5, h e re : p. 40 ). In this c o n te x t we m u st th in k o f the curio sity p ro v o k e d by th e passages a n d th e lu x u rio u s co m m o dities displayed in th em ; th e im p e d e d a c tio n s c a u se d by th e n e e d to lo o k at th e prices o f th e goods. T h e ru les o f th e m a rk e t, ho w ev er, a re also valid fo r the c u ltu ra l p ro d u c tio n s to w hich th e flâ n e u r is d e v o ted . T h e
Wa l t e r Be n ja m ina n d t iie Urb a n Labyrinth
flâ n e u r as p ro d u c e r m u st lo o k to th e value o f th e c u ltu ra l co m m o d ities h e offers, a n d how h e ca n sell th e m to his advantage.
S econdly, B e n ja m in offers a drive-based eco n o m ic e x p la n a tio n fo r th e la b y rin th (o f th e m e tro p o lis ). A c co rd in g to F reu d , b efo re it c a n b e satisfied a drive lead s a life in e p iso d es (B en jam in 1985a, p. 40). T h e drive shifts its goal;
it m u s t p ass th r o u g h d if f e r e n t in sta n c e s b e f o re it is s a tisfie d . F r e u d ’s psychoanalysis, w hich B en jam in a p p ro p ria te d d u rin g th e 1920’s, starts from th e p rin c ip le th a t th e re is n o su b stan tial co re to the self, it is d e c e n tre d . F or this re a so n , w ith in th e b io g ra p h y o f a self th e re are always only tem p o rary c o m p ro m ise s to b e fo u n d b e tw e e n th e claim s o f th e drives a n d th e c u ltu ra l in sta n c e o f th e ‘I ’. W ith in flâ n e rie , w hich reveals the la b y rin th ia n asp ect o f th e m e tro p o lis, th e m o d e rn subjectivity, w ith o u t a su bstantial c e n tre , finds its a d e q u a te e x p ressio n . T h e flâ n e u r ex p erien ces th e c o n te m p o ra ry as episodes o f th e ‘N o w ’; as in stan ce s o r m o m e n ts w hich are u n c o n n e c te d .
S ig rid W eig el h as p o in te d o u t th a t B en jam in uses th e im ag e o f th e la b y rin th as an im age fo r re c o n stru c tin g a p e rs o n ’s biography. A spatialization o f m e m o ry is p re s u p p o s e d h e re . I t replaces genealogy in term s o f origin, a n d fam ily in term s o f scen es a n d locations by passages a n d pathways (W eigel 1996, p p . 123-124).
T h ird ly , th e lab y rin th ian o f th e m etrop olis can b e in te rp re te d as an im age fo r a m a n k in d w hich d oes n o t wish to know w here things are lead ing (B enjam in 1985a, p. 40). H e re , o f co u rse, we fin d M arx’ id ea th at th e cap italist m o d e o f sociality h as c re a te d a se c o n d n a tu re , by w hich h u m a n b ein g s a re d e te rm in e d in reverse. D ream s a n d im ages b ro u g h t forw ard by c u ltu re a re necessary in o r d e r to k e e p o p e n th e p ro c ess o f social ch an g e. B ut B en jam in attem p ts to p e n e tr a te d re a m im ages w ith th e rationality o f th e co n c ep t, in o rd e r to re ach an aw akening.
In this c o n te x t, o n e has to re m in d o n ese lf o f B en jam in ’s d istan cin g from S u rre a lism . A c c o rd in g to B e n ja m in , th e c u ltu ra l s tre n g th o f S u rre alism c o n s is te d in th e r e h a b i lit a ti o n o f th e d re a m -w o rld . D re a m s h a d b e e n cate g o rica lly re je c te d by D escartes a n d m o d e rn ratio nalism . B enjam in d id n o t fa v o u r sim ply th e d o u ris h in g o f d ream s, like the S urrealists. H e too k ca p ita lism to b e a k in d o f d re a m in g sleep in to w hich h u m a n k in d h a d fallen d u rin g m o d e rn ity , a n d fro m w hich it sh o u ld be aw akened. “C apitalism was a n a tu ra l p h e n o m e n o n w ith w hich a new dream -filled sleep cam e over E u ro p e , a n d th ro u g h it, a re activ atio n o f m ythic forces. T h e first tre m o rs o f aw akening serve to d e e p e n sle e p .” (B en jam in 1999, p. 391, K la,8 a n d K la,9 ; see Buck- M orss 1997, p p . 270-274).
F o r B en jam in , th e rise o f socialist m ovem ents p ro d u c e d j u s t such trem ors o r stim u li fo r a n aw akening. T h ey n e e d e d to be stre n g th e n e d . H e w an ted to
He in/* Pa e t z o l d
re a c h a “co n stellatio n o f aw akening”, w h e reas th e S u rrealists re m a in e d in th e w orld o f dream s. T his co n stellatio n o f aw ak en in g was p ro je c te d by B en jam in as ‘p a ra lle lin g ’, as co nvergence b etw een th e ra tio n a l n o tio n a n d th e sen su o u s im age. In his “A rcades P ro ject” h e stated: “D e lim in a tio n o f th e te n d e n c y o f this p ro je c t with re sp e c t to A ragon: w h ereas A ra g o n p ersists w ith in th e re a lm o f d re a m , h e re th e c o n c e rn is to fin d th e c o n ste lla tio n o f aw aken in g. W h ile in A ragon th ere rem ains an im pressionistic e le m e n t, nam ely th e ‘m yth o lo g y ’.., h e re it is a q u estio n o f th e dissolution o f ‘m ythology’ in to th e space o f h isto ry .”
(B enjam in 1999, p. 458; N 1,9).
B e n ja m in ’s th eo ry o f th e collective d re a m has a p a ra lle l in E rn st B lo c h ’s th in k in g . A ccording to Bloch, d ay d ream s a re c h a ra c te riz e d by th e fe a tu re s o f e n r ic h m e n t o f subjectivity, o f o p e n in g u p new h o riz o n s, a n d o f p o in tin g to a telos o f successful ‘e n d in g s’. D aydream s w a n t to be ‘re a liz e d ’. L ike B e n ja m in , Bloch in te rp re te d th e d aydream as s o m e th in g w hich is n o t ra tio n a l in its ow n term s, b u t w hich is n o n eth ele ss accessible to a collective ratio n ality .
У
L e t us re tu rn to th e lab y rin th ian o f th e m e tro p o lis. As I h av e said, th e lab y rin th ian is c o n n o te d with co n c ep ts su ch as th e m a rk e t, th e psychic life o f drives in episodes an d finally th e ca p ita list c h a ra c te r o f society. H ow c a n th e la b y rin th ia n fu n c tio n as a clue fo r a n u n d e r s ta n d in g o f c o n c re te u r b a n p h e n o m e n a ? I w ould like to p o in t to a t least two aspects.
T h e first is re la te d to the street. A c co rd in g to B en jam in , th e la b y rin th ia n o f th e city receives p ro file as a synthesis o f two d iffe re n t ‘h o r r o r s ’ o r ‘d r e a d s ’.
T h e m o d e rn street, th e infinite ‘a s p h a lt ta p e ’ o n w hich th e flâ n e u r tram p s, is c h a ra c te riz e d by m o n o to n y a n d aim lessness. I t n e v e r e n d s, b u t this very en dlessness is attractive a n d fascinating. T h e way (W eg), o n th e o th e r h a n d , refers to a m ythical h o rro r. We do n o t know w h e re it is le a d in g a n d this m akes us anxiou s. I t could be a maze. T h e lab y rin th o f th e city synthesizes b o th o f these stru ctu re s, th e ‘way’ a n d th e ‘s tr e e t’. B en jam in w rites: “’S tr e e t’ to b e u n d e rs to o d , has to b e p ro filed a g a in st th e o ld e r te rm ‘way’. W ith re s p e c t to th e ir m ythological n a tu re s the two w ords a re en tire ly d istin c t. T h e way b rin g s with it th e terro rs o f w a n d erin g (G e rm an : Irrg a n g H P ), so m e re v e rb e ra tio n o f w hich m u st have struck th e lead e rs o f n o m a d ic tribes. In th e in c a lc u la b le tu rn in g s a n d re so lu tio n s o f th e way, th e re is ev en tod ay , fo r th e so lita ry w a n d erer, a d etectab le trace o f th e pow er o f a n c ie n t directives over w a n d e rin g h o rd e s. B u t th e p e rso n w ho travels a stre e t, it w o u ld seem , has n o n e e d o f any waywise g u id in g h a n d . It is n o t in w a n d e rin g th a t m a n takes to th e stre e t, b u t
Wa l t e r Be n ja m ina n dt h e Urb a n La b y r in t h
ra th e r in su b m ittin g to th e m o n o to n o u s, fascinating, constantly u n ro llin g b an d o f a s p h a lt. T h e sy n th e sis o f th e s e tw in te rro rs , h o w ev er - m o n o to n o u s w a n d e rin g —is r e p re s e n te d in th e la b y rin th .” (B enjam in 1999, p. 519; P 2 ,l).
H e re we have an e x c e lle n t ex a m p le o f th e way th a t B enjam in b rin gs to g e th e r th e p h e n o m e n o lo g ic a l ‘esse n c e ’ o f aw ay, a pathw ay, in c o n tra st to th e stre e t, a n d th e sym bolic in sc rip tio n o f this essence in to c u ltu ra l history a n d collective m em o ry . T h e way is a h o rr o r b ecau se it is e m b e d d e d in th e p ro c ess o f th e m ig ra tio n o f tribes. T h e a sp h a lt tape in d u ces n o t j u s t a fu nn y w alk, in th e lo n e ly s tro lle r, th e flâ n e u r, b u t also a d re a d . As a m o d e rn p h e n o m e n o n th e u rb a n lab y rin th is n u rtu re d by b o th of these aspects, it offers a p a ra d o x ic a l p le a su re a n d a t th e tim e it causes a th reat.
T h e m o d e rn m e tro p o lis has a laby rin th ian s tru c tu re in th a t it relates the
‘In s id e ’ a n d th e ‘O u ts id e ’, as well as th e ‘A bove’ an d th e ‘B e n e a th ’, o f th e u r b a n g e o g ra p h y in a new way. W e n e e d to distinguish b etw een a gate a n d a triu m p h a l arch ; b o th signify th resh o ld s, th a t is, m odes o f passages. T h e city g a te m e d ia te s th e e n tra n c e to th e world; triu m p h a l arches, o n th e o th e r h a n d , tra n sfo rm th o se w ho pass th ro u g h th e m in th a t th e glory o f th e c o n q u e rin g h e r o is m ir r o r e d o n to th e passer-by. H ow ever, b o th gate a n d a rc h have lost th e ir m yth ical stre n g th as e ith e r in itiatio n rite o r as elevation (B enjam in 1999, p p . 86-87; C 2a,S).
N o t o n ly d o es th e m o d e rn m etro p o lis redesig n th e re la tio n sh ip betw een th e ‘O u ts id e ’ a n d th e ‘In s id e ’, it also relates th e passages ‘B e n e a th ’ - the u n d e r g r o u n d tu n n e ls, th e g ro tto es, th e arcades - with life o n th e g ro u n d
‘A b o v e’. F o r this re a so n , th e m etaphysical dich o to m ies o f a c e n tra l co re an d a p e r ip h e r y o u ts id e , a h ie r a r c h ic a l ‘A b o v e’ a n d a se d u c tiv e ‘B e n e a th ’, d isa p p e a r. B en jam in c o m p ares th e c o rre sp o n d e n c e betw een ‘U p ’ an d ‘D ow n’
w ith d re a m in g a n d w aking: “O n e knew o f places in a n c ie n t G reece w here th e way le d d ow n in to th e u n d e rw o rld - a la n d full o f in co n sp icu o u s places from w h ich d re a m s arise. All day long, susp ectin g n o th in g , we pass th em by, b u t n o s o o n e r has sleep co m e th a n we are eagerly g ro p in g o u r way back to lose ourselves in th e d a rk c o rrid o rs . By day, th e lab y rin th o f u rb a n dw ellings re sem b le s co n scio u sn ess; th e arcad es (which are galleries le a d in g in to th e city’s past) issue u n re m a rk e d o n to th e streets. A t nigh t, how ever, u n d e r the te n e b ro u s m ass o f th e h o u ses, th e ir d e n se r darkness bursts fo rth like a th rea t, a n d th e n o c tu rn a l p e d e stria n h u rrie s p a s t-u n le s s , th a t is, we have em b o ld en e d h im to tu rn in to th e n a rro w la n e .” (B enjam in 1999, p. 875; a°,5).
T h e s e c o n d aspect: T h e e x p e rie n c e o f th e lab y rin th im plies th a t o n e ’s lo c a tio n is w ell d e te r m in e d , a lth o u g h it c a n n o t be in s c rib e d in to a co
o rd in a tin g netw ork. T his d o u b le-lay ered stru c tu re ch aracterizes th e passage th r o u g h th e la b y rin th . T h e city-dw eller e x p e rie n c e s th e d iffe re n c e s in
He in z Pa e t z o l d
a tm o sp h e ric tu n in g betw een u rb a n q u a rte rs, b u t th ey a re n o t in te g ra te d in to a u n ified schem e. T h e m etaphysical sig n ifican c e o f th e q u a rte rs v an ish , since th e c e n tre as the site o f ‘tr u th ’ is d evalued.
N evertheless, b o u n d a rie s re m a in ; th re sh o ld s w hich give s tru c tu re to th e regions. B enjam in refers, in this co n tex t, to th e m o d es by w h ich we e x p e rie n c e b o rd e rs w ithin th e dream . T hey are e x p e rie n c e d as cuts, w hich cau se su rp rise , b u t th e se cuts d o n o t follow a ra tio n a l, b u t r a th e r a p o e tic o r d e r . T h e e x p e rie n c e o f th e m e tro p o lis is in terw o v e n w ith su c h d re a m traces. It is precisely this which constitutes th e la b y rin th ia n o f th e m e tro p o lis.
“T h e city”, B enjam in says, “is only a p p a re n tly h o m o g e n e o u s. Even its n a m e takes o n a d iffe re n t so u n d from o n e d istric t to th e n ex t. N o w h e re, u n less in d ream s, can the p h e n o m e n o n o f th e b o u n d a ry b e e x p e rie n c e d in a m o re o rig in ary way th a n in cities. T o know th e m m ean s to k n ow th o se lin es th a t, ru n n in g alo n g sid e ra ilro a d crossings a n d across priv ately o w n e d lots, w ith in th e p a rk a n d alo n g th e riverbank, fu n c tio n as lim its; it m e a n s to k n o w th ese confines, to g e th e r with the enclaves o f th e various d istricts. As th re s h o ld , th e b o u n d a ry stretch es across streets; a new p re c in c t b e g in s like a ste p in to th e void - as th o u g h o n e h ad u n ex p e cted ly c le a re d a low ste p o n a flig h t o f stairs.”
(B enjam in 1999, p. 88; C3,3).
W
Now we have som e essential stru ctu re s o f B en jam in ian th eo ry o f th e u rb a n lifew orld a t h a n d . In the co n c lu d in g p a r t o f my essay I w o u ld like to o u tlin e a p o sitio n w hich m ain tain s som e d ista n c e fro m B en jam in , w hilst re m a in in g fa ith fu l to h is ‘C ritical T h e o ry ’, by tra n s fo rm in g it.
B e n ja m in ’s q u estio n as to w h e th e r we s h o u ld c o n tin u e th e social d re a m s o f th e n in e te e n th century, o r bid farew ell to th e m , is o n ly to b e an sw e re d from th e positio n o f o u r situ atio n today, th a t is, in th e d e c lin e o f fu n c tio n a list u rb a n ism , to w hich B enjam in su b scribed.
In th e 1960’s, th e D u tch a rc h ite c t A ldo van Eyck in tro d u c e d th e vision o f a ‘la b y rin th ia n clarity ’, in o rd e r to c h a ra c te riz e th e m u tu a l r e la tio n s h ip betw een th e a rch itectu ra l b u ild in g a n d its site w ith in th e u rb a n te x tu re . H e p u b lish e d a m anifesto-like te x t in th e “S itu a tio n ist T im e s ” (N o. 4, O c to b e r 1963), sta rtin g fro m the tra d itio n o f D u tc h stru c tu ra lism a n d o p p o s in g L e C o rb u sie r’s fun ctio n alist creeds. T h e p ro g ra m m a tic c o re o f his m a n ife sto was:
“T h e larg e h o u se - little city sta te m e n t (th e o n e th a t says: a h o u se is a tiny city a city a h u g e house) can g e t o n very well... It possesses a k in d o f clarity th a t never q u ite re lin q u ish es th e se c re t it g u ard s. It is above all... a k in d n e ith e r
Wa l t e r Be n ja m ina n dt h e Ur b a n La b y r in t h
h o u s e n o r city c a n d o w ith o u t. L e t m e call it lab y rin th ian clarity.” (van Eyck 1963, p. 84).
N o t o nly d id A ldo van Eyck in sp ire arch itects in th e ir designs, such as H e rm a n H e rtz b e rg e r, L u cie n L afour, o r T h e o Bosch, h e was actively en g a g ed in th e u rb a n re n ew al o f A m ste rd a m ’s N ieuw m ark t d u rin g th e 1970’s a n d 1980’s. O n th e o t h e r h a n d , in his “La P ro d u c tio n d e l’e sp a c e ” (1974) w hich h as b e e n tra n s la te d to E nglish in 1991 H e n ri Lefebvre tra c e d the sym bolic m e a n in g o f th e la b y rin th b ac k to a “m ilitary an d political s tru c tu re ”, d esig n ed to tr a p e n e m ie s in e x tr ic a b ly in a m aze , b e f o r e it s e rv e d as “p a l a c e ”,
“fo r tific a tio n ”, “r e fu g e ” a n d “s h e lte r”. T h e labyrinth exp resses a “n a tu ra l p rin c ip le ” w ith in th e G re e k id e a o f L o g o s/C o sm o s (Lefebvre 1991, p p. 233, 240).
W h a t th e s e re fe re n c e s a re a rg u in g fo r is th e thesis th a t cityscape as la b y rin th is still a n in sp irin g id ea, b ey o n d B enjam in. As I have a rg u e d , th e lab y rin th a n d th e d â n e u r a re re la te d co ncepts. T h a t is to say, only by stro llin g d o we e x p e rie n c e th e city as a labyrinth.
T o d ay we fin d d iffe re n t th eo ries which can give new m e a n in g to th e n o tio n o f flâ n e rie . I w o u ld like to sin g le o u t ju s t two new m od es o f u n d e rs ta n d in g flân e rie:
O n th e o n e h a n d we have M ichel d e C e rte a u ’s “W alking in th e City” (De C e rte a u 1993, p p . 151-160). De C erteau develops a “rh e to ric o fw a lk in g ” (De C e rte a u 1993, p. 158). His is a strategy o f c o n c e n tra tin g o n everyday life a n d fo c u sin g o n w alking in o r d e r to overcom e th e fu n c tio n a list view o f th e city as a view fr o m a b o v e , in o r d e r to c o n tro l: “u r b a n l i f e ”, h e e m p h a s iz e s ,
“in cre asin g ly p e rm its th e re -e m e rg e n c e o f th e e le m e n t th a t th e u rb a n isd c p ro je c t e x c lu d e d , ‘w alking’” (D e C ertea u 1993, p. 155), th a t is to say th e a c cen t is o n th e “c h o ru s o f fo o tstep s” (D e C erteau 1994, p. 157). A rh e to ric o f w alking is a “style o f u se ”, th a t is “a way o f b e in g ” a n d “aw ay o f o p e ra tin g ”. De C e rte a u ’s w alker m ak es use o f th e u rb a n spaces by b rin g in g in h i s / h e r own bo d y in m o v e m e n t. B u t this w alking activity aims a t a “p oetic g eo g rap h y ” o f u rb a n sites (D e C e rte a u 1993, p. 159). A rediscovery o f “local le g e n d s (legenda: w hat is to be read b u t also w h a t can be read)" (D e C ertea u 1993, p. 160) em erges; th a t is to say, a p h e n o m e n o lo g ic a l level. M erleau-P onty spoke o f a ‘style’ o f bodily m oves; we e x p e rie n c e th e b o d y insofar as it is p u t in to actio n: Physical m o tio n a n d sym bolic level a re in tertw in ed . De C erteau m akes u se o f two B enjam in ian n o tio n s in this re sp e c t, th e ‘la b y rin th ’ (D e C ertea u 1993, p. 152) a n d the
‘d r e a m ’, as m e a n s o f clarifying th e “p e d e stria n rh e to ric ” (D e C ertea u 1993, p. 160).
W h a t is im p o rta n t h e re is d ie fact th a t de C e rte a u ’s w alker aims a t a ‘poetic g e o g ra p h y ’. T h a t is to say, ‘n a rra tiv e s’ w hich reveal cityscapes in c u ltu ra l
He in z Pa e t z o l d
‘w orks’, u n d e rm in in g b o th th e fu n c tio n a list view o f th e city fro m ab o v e a n d th e ‘d iscip lin ary ’ pow er stru ctu re s w hich supervise th e city-dw ellers th ro u g h the official, adm inistrative politics o f th e state in stitu tio n s. M ich el d e C e rte a u is in favour o f m icro-narratives lin k e d to th e m o v in g a n d stro llin g body. H e gives a new m e a n in g to th e c o n c e p t o f th e flâ n e u r.
A n o th e r stim u latin g m o d el is involved in J in n a i H i d e n o b u ’ s ‘sp atial a n th ro p o lo g y ’. In his b o o k “T okyo” J in n a i H id e n o b u tells th e c u ltu ra l sto ry o f Tokyo. T h e story m akes use o f city walks. T h e se walks, how ever, a re to b e re la te d to a scholarly re a d in g o f city m ap s fro m d iffe re n t p e rio d s , as well as to a scholarly re a d in g o f th e p o etic n arrativ es o f th e specific sites o f th e city, th e w ater-side, th e fo rm e r c o m m o n e rs ’ h o u ses, th e b a c k stre e ts etc. “W e have b ec o m e so accu sto m ed to travelling by subway o r elev a ted high w ay th a t we have b e c o m e insensitive to th e rich variety o f fe a tu re s fo u n d in everyday life.
‘R eading th e city’, re q u ires us to walk in stree ts a n d e x p e rie n c e its sp aces fo r o u rse lv e s. O n ly th e n d o we a c q u ir e a fe e l f o r th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f its n e ig h b o u rh o o d s .” (H id e n o b u , 1995, p. 9).
VII
T his brings m e to a c o n c lu d in g re m a rk : R ic h a rd R orty h as la u n c h e d a n in d u e n tia l view o f p o stm o d e rn c u ltu re , w hich d esc rib es it as b e in g in h ib ite d by ironists w ho are in search o f c o n tin u o u s re d e sc rip tio n s o f th e ir lives a n d o f the m oral state o f society, a n d w ho are restlessly re a d in g a n d c o n su m in g books.
P h ilo so p h y is re p la ced by literary criticism in o r d e r to im p ro v e th e m o rality a n d th e po litical c u ltu re o f th e lib era l co m m u n ity . T h e p h ilo s o p h e r e m e rg e s in the guise o f a ‘polypragm atic’ w ho has to link th e various discourses to g e th e r in o rd e r to k eep the co nversation o f society o n re le v a n t issues g o in g . A g a in st this elitist a n d b o d iless id e a o f a c o m m u n ity , I w o u ld lik e to p r o p o s e a revitalized ‘Critical T h eo ry ’ w hich is a n c h o re d in u rb a n c u ltu re a n d in c u ltu ra l w orkers (see for a step in th a t d irec tio n P aetzold 2000). T h e se b e a r th e im p rin ts o f city walks exercised by real bodies. T h e y a re c u rio u s a b o u t u rb a n affairs, a n d w ant to m ake sense o f city life today in th a t th ey p ro d u c e a t th e sam e tim e city-related p oetic m atters.
T h e B en jam in ian p ro je c t is n o t a t all c o n fin e d to B au d ela ire. It h as b e e n c o n tin u e d by a rem ark ab le chain o f w ritin g city-dwellers, ra n g in g fro m literary figures, such as V irginia W oolf, Jam es Joyce, P e te r H a n d k e , K o n stan tin Kafavis, Eric d e K uyper to P aul A uster a n d T h o m a s P y n c h o n (L e h a n 1998). T h e y all are in sp ire d by city life a n d b rin g to su rface w h a t its specific c u ltu re is.
Wa l t e r Be n ja m ina n dt i i e Ur b a n La b y r in t h
Bibliography
T h e o d o r W. A d o r n o 1973: Ästhetische Theorie, e d . by G. A d o rn o a n d R.
T ie d e m a n n . F ra n k fu rt / M.: S u h rk am p 1973 (ÄT)
T h e o d o r W. A d o rn o 1984: Aesthetic Theory. T ran slated by C. L e n h a rd t. L on d o n : R o u tle d g e (AT).
W a lte r B e n ja m in 1973: Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era o f H igh Capitalism. T ra n s la te d by H . Z o h n , L o n d o n : New L eft Books.
W a lte r B en jam in 1985a: Central Park. T ran slated by L. Spencer. In: New German Critique. N o. 34, W in te r, p p . 30-55.
W a lte r B e n ja m in 1985b: One-Way Street and Other Writings. T ra n sla te d by E.
J e p h c o tt a n d K. S h o rte r. In tro d u c tio n by Susan Sontag. L o n d o n : V erso.
W a lte r B e n ja m in 1991: Gesammelte Schriften. Vol. IV. E d ited by R. T ie d e m a n n a n d H. S c h w e p p e n h ä u se r. F ra n k fu rt a. M ain: S uh rk am p.
W a lte r B e n ja m in 1999: The Arcades Project. T ra n sla ted by H o w ard E ilan d a n d Kevin M cL au g h lin . P re p a re d o n th e Basis o f th e G erm an V olum e e d ite d by R o lf T ie d e m a n n . C am b rid g e Mass., a n d L o n d o n , T h e B elknap Press o f H a rv a rd U niversity Press.
S usan B uck-M orss 1997: The Dialectics o f Seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. C a m b rid g e Mass., L o n d o n : M IT Press, seventh p rin t.
R ic h a rd D. E. B u rto n 1994: The Flaneur and his City. Patterns o f Daily Life in Paris 1815-1851. D u rh a m : U niversity o f D urham .
M ichel d e C e rte a u 1993: “W alking in th e City”. In: The Cultural Studies Reader.
E d ite d by S im o n D u rin g . L o n d o n an d New York: R o u tle d g e, pp. 151- 160.
A ldo van Eyck 1963: “L ab y rin th ian Clarity”. In: Situationist Times, No. 4, October.
Priscilla P a rk h u rst F e rg u so n 1994: “T h e F la n e u r O n a n d O ff the S treets o f P aris”. In: The Flâneur. E d ite d by Keith T ester. L o n d o n an d New York:
R o u tle d g e , p p . 22-42.
D avid Frisby 1994: “T h e F lâ n e u r in Social T h e o ry ”. In: The Flâneur. E d ited by K eith T ester. L o n d o n a n d New York: R outledge, p p . 81-110.
G ra e m e G illoch 1996: Myth and Metropolis. Walter Benjamin and the City. O x fo rd Polity Press.
G ustav R e n é H o c k e 1963: Die Welt als Labyrinth. M anier u n d M anie in der europäischen Kunst. Von 1520 bis 1650 u n d in der Gegenwart. H am b u rg : R ow ohlt.
J in n a i H id e n o b u 1995: Tokyo: A Spatial Anthropology. B erkeley, Los A ngeles, L o n d o n : U niversity o f C alifo rn ia Press.
C h risje n k s 1996: “W atch in g Y our Step: T h e history and practice of th e flâ n eu r”.
He in z Pa e t z o i.d
In: Visual Culture. E dited by C h risjen k s. L o n d o n a n d N ew York: R ou tied g e, pp. 142-160.
K arl K e re n y i 1950: Labyrinth - Studien. L abyrinthes als L in ienreflex einer mythologischen Idee. Z ürich: R h ein V erlag. 2-, e rw e ite rte A usgabe.
H e rm a n n Kern 1999: Labyrinthe: Erscheinungsformen u n d Deutungen; 5 0 0 0 fahre Gegenwart eines Urbilds. M ü n ch e n : P restel, fo u r th p rin t.
H e n ri Lefebvre 1991 : The Production o f Space. T ra n sla te d by D. N icholson-S m ith.
O xford : Blackwell.
R ichard L eh a n 1998: The City in Literature. A n In tellec tu a l a n d C u ltu ra l H istory.
B erkeley, Los A ngeles, L o n d o n : U niversity o f C a lifo rn ia Press.
B ruce M azlish 1994: “T h e F lân eu r. F ro m S p e c ta to r to R e p re s e n ta tio n ”. In:
The Flâneur. E d ited by K eith T ester. L o n d o n a n d N ew York: R o u tle d g e , p p . 43-60.
H e in z P aetzo ld 1995: “T h e Politics o f S trolling. W. B e n ja m in ’s F lâ n e u r a n d A fte r”. In: Issues in Contemporary Culture and Aesthetics, N o. 2: J a n v an Eyck A kadem ie, M aastricht, pp. 41-50.
H einz P aetzold 1997: “A d o rn o ’s N o tio n o fN a tu ra l Beauty. A R e c o n s id e ra tio n ”.
In: The Semblance ofSubjectivity. Essays in Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory. E d ite d by T o m H u h n a n d L am b e rt Z uidervaart. C a m b rid g e , Mass.: M IT P ress, p p . 213-235.
H e in z P aetzold 2000: Symbol, Culture, City. Five Exercises in Critical Philosophy o f Culture. M aastricht: J a n V an Eyck A kadem ie.
Jo a c h im R itter 1974: „L andschaft”. In: Subjektivität. Sechs Aufsätze. F r a n k f u r t/
M.: S u h rk am p , pp. 141-163; 172-190.
J o se p h Rykwert 1985: The Idea o f a Town. The Anthropology in Urban Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World. C a m b rid g e Mass., L o n d o n , se c o n d p rin t:
M IT Press..
M artin Seel 1991: Eine Ästhetik der Natur. F ra n k fu rt/M .: S u h rk a m p .
R ob S hields 1994: “Fancy footw ork: W a lte r B e n ja m in ’s N otes o n F lâ n e rie ”.
In: The Flâneur. E d ited by Keith T ester. L o n d o n a n d N ew York: R o u tle d g e, pp. 61-80.
Sigrid W eigel 1996: Body- and Image-Space: Re-reading Walter Benjamin. L o n d o n a n d New York: R outledge.
J a n e t Wolff: “T h e A rtist a n d th e F lân eu r: R o d in , R ilke a n d G w en J o h n in P aris”. In: The Flâneur, E d ited by K eith T ester. L o n d o n a n d N ew York:
R ou tled g e, p p . 111-137.
[A previous version o f this essay has b e e n p u b lis h e d as “T h e city as la b y rin th . W a lte r B en jam in a n d b e y o n d ” in: Issues in Contemporary Culture an d Aesthetics. No. 7 ,1 9 9 5 : J a n V an Eyck A k ad em ie, M aastrich t, p p . 15-28.]
