Customer Reviews

Architecture as Metaphor: Language, Number, Money (Writing Architecture)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is a tremendous accomplishment. An intellectual pleasure. In the first half of the book, Karatani deals with what he calls "the will to architecture". According to him, the whole Western philosophy has been constructed on the basis of "the will to architecture" since Plato. (Can we see here the influence on Karatani from Nietzsche?) What is interesting in his attempt to deconstruct this "will to architecture", or a "building" constructed by it, is that he tries to get "outside" of it by taking "the will to architecture" to the extreme. Karatani calls this procedure "formalization". He refuses to presuppose the "outside" intuitively. "The will to architecture" deconstructs itself by the extreme "formalization". However, though this attempt is an tremendous attempt, he finally abandons it. For he realized that he had to presuppose the viewpoint which can look at the totality of the system from above though he did so in order to deconstruct that very totality of the system. What he did after this "turn-around" is to turn to the "outside". It might sound naive, but this "outside" is not intuitive at all. The "outside" I am talking about here is the "other". This "other" is someone with whom you don't know whether you can communicate. The "other" is like a foreigner or a child. If you say something to him or her, you can never be certain whether what you are trying to say is communicated. This concept of the "other" has a lot of theoretical implications though I cannot talk about them here because of the limitation of the space. For example, you no longer need to worry about the prison-house of language. You don't have to suffer from the closedness of language. It is impossible to introduce everything Karatani says in this book. All I can say is "Just read the book." If you do, you will see a rare intellectual accomplishment in philosophy/theory.

I am coming to this book a little over a decade too late. I had read Karatani's Transcritique, and I liked it very much. And so I decided to pick up this earlier book. Much like Transcritique, Architecture as Metaphor is wonderful and erudite, packed with many interesting ideas.

Karatani's argument is that "architecture," broadly construed as making [poiesis], has been the dominant metaphor in Western philosophy, which becomes explicit in such names as "structuralism," "poststructuralism," and "deconstruction." However, at a certain point, there is a backlash against architecture as metaphor and a turn instead to the text as metaphor. Instead of "making," philosophy becomes about "becoming."

The "will to architecture," driving philosophy, leads to what Karatani describes as formalization, which, putting it simply, is the sense that a structure is primary over its embodiment or even cognition. Much of the book is devoted to showing how widespread formalization is--from math, through architecture proper, linguistics, psychoanalysis, and to of course philosophy. Even Marx was a formalist.

Formal systems, for Karatani, are inherently self-referential, which, taken uncritically, can lead to the idea it occured naturally qua spontaneously. But, for Karatani, this naturalness only means that humans are unaware of how they have made the formal systems in which they inhabit. The turn to textuality and therefore to becoming is in a certain sense a prohibition on self-referentiality.

The self-referential quality of formal systems allows for a transversal of position in which a shift in standpoints leads to a radically different perspective on the system itself. Karatani's highest example is the shift from C-M to M-C in Marx. Here, you can already see the basic premise of transcritique. Such a shifting is "transcendental critique."

As I said, this book is far reaching in scope. Taking the simple argument that philosophy exhibits a will to architecture, Karatani is able to take us from mathematics to city planning. It is absolutely fascinating, although, at times bewildering. The book is not as systematic as my summary makes it out to be. Many times throughout the book I found myself saying "This is absoultely fascinating, but what does this have to do with the preceding chapters." So you do have to work at it. I think to some extent, Karatani is simply interested in showing just how productive and widespread architecture and formalization actually are. But the highlight of the book is how it moves from discussions of architecture as metaphor to something he describes as asymmetrical formal relations, exemplified by the teaching/learning relationship (Plato), analyst/analysand relationship (Freud), and the selling/buying relationship (Marx). Absoultely fascinating!

Like I said before, I am coming to this book nearly a decade later. After reading it, I thought to myself "How come I have not heard of this book earlier?" Why is Karatani so little known, even now, after Transcritique? Why does Karatani take a back seat to Zizek, Badiou, Laclau, Derrida, Agamben and others? This book offers an interpretation of the history of Western philosophy that is absolutely fascinating and rivals anything offered by those philosophers. Yet, Karatani still is an obscure name. Part of me thinks that it is because he is from the "wrong" continent. Whatever the reason, now is as good a time as any to read this book, if you have not read it already, and get acquainted with one of the most perspicacious philosophers writing today. Like the saying goes: Better late than never.

First, let me assure you that this outstanding text by influencial Professor Kojin Karatani is NOT about Architecture in the strictest sense; second, this philosphical tour de force, ranging seamlessly from Plato to Wittgenstein with clarity and precision, will enthral anyone even remotely interested in POST poststructural re-critique (as I call it). The book is challenging, thought provoking, and requires a quiet setting and an ample dose of caffeine - I strongly recommend it.

Ostensibly, Karatani's project is twofold: first, to inject the intellectual Left with a pseudo-Kantian formalism (as opposed to a prevailing Romantism) sadly lacking at times; second, and perhaps more importantly, he sets out to assail the seemingly impenetrable ediface of the Western philosophical tradition by invoking a unique critique of "making" (such as the Cartesian Self) versus "becoming" (Hume's non-self) in Western philosophy. Indeed: a lofty goal!

But Prof. Karatani pulls it off with vigor and, as a self-proclaimed outsider - that is, a philosopher coming from an intellectual tradition (in this case, Japan) all too often marginalized by Western academic discourse - he positions himself at an objective angle from which to view his weighty object.

Yet, here is where I have a slight (if not downright trivial) problem with Prof. Karatani's project in general. In the introduction, he displays a palpable hubris, writing: "...in Japan, the will to architecture does not exist - a circumstance which allowed postmodernism to blossom in its own way. Unlike the West, deconstructive forces are constantly at work in Japan. As sstrange as it may sound, being architectonic in Japan is actually radical and political." Now, as an expat who lives in Japan and is familiar with its wonderful cutlural tradition, its language, and its poeple, let me assure that this "will to architecture" does, like ALL countries, exist. And the "West?" What is this thing, this object? Personally, I have never fallen back on the reductive "west" versus "east" bifurcation; I tend to see more similarity than difference between people around the globe.

This is an exceedingly minor gripe, I know, and in no way does it negate the enormity of Prof. Karatani's work.

Finally, let me mention that anyone interested in Prof. Karatani should research his unique organization called NAM (New Associationist Movement) which, according to his website, "...is an association of individuals who take the task of organizing effective and non-violent counter-actions to capitalism and the State."

This is a must read for anyone interested in philosophy. Period.