Technê

Author(s): Robert Meagher

Source: Perspecta , 1988, Vol. 24 (1988), pp. 158-164
Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of Perspecta.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1567132

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspecta

This content downloaded from

8.37.43.186 on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:50:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Techne

Robert Meagher

To think of human being as homofaber is to say, with who

the stands as the preeminent producer, the theoretician
young philosopher Marx, that fabricating - or making and
- is practitioner whose principles and vision guide oth
the essentially definitive activity of human being. Thisers' hands.

perspective, of course, rests upon several arguable as-

sumptions: that economic concerns dominate contempo- Consequently, if architecture - understood as an ex
rary society; that production constitutes the core of eco-
panded, magisterial concept, embracing a wide range o
nomics; and that the theory and practice of production specific activities and professions - presides over pro-
are essentially architectural. Indeed, however deep and duction, further reflection upon the theory and practic
disparate may be the quarrels, both intra- and extra-mu-of architecture might reveal the essential parameters o
ral, over the details of economic planning and manage- human being, understood as the preeminently produc-
ment, the defining centrality of production is no lesstivean being. What I undertake here then, albeit briefly, i
article of faith within capitalist circles than within Marx-
a philosophical examination of the act of production, in-
ist ones - and virtually every developed or developing voking
na- two altogether familiar myths, that of Pro-
tion lies within a precinct of one or the other economicmetheus and that of Adam. My aim is to disclose th
and social structure. Furthermore, if we look to Greek paradigmatic significance of architecture as the essen-
roots to inquire into this humanly defining activity, tially
we human activity, unavoidably entangled in the ambi-
find that, presiding over the activity of fabrication - guities
the of idea and matter.
act of production encompassed by the Greek word techne
- is the architect, the architekton, or "master-producer."
Before going any further with the imprecision of such
By this understanding, what distinguishes the architect words as "production" or "fabrication" or "making," we
from the common worker (tekton) is that the architect must clarify what is meant by techne^, the mythical gift of
Prometheus and the proper trust of the architect.
stands officially nearer to the origins, the foundational
principles (archai) of the activity of production. In short,
Techne^ is making something into something it is not.
if society may be reduced to economics and economicsMaking
to love, and as a consequence, creating a child, or
production, and if it is thus uncontroversial common
ploughing and seeding a field and, as a consequence,
sense to think of production as the definitive human activ-
producing a crop are not properly considered techne; fo
ity, then within these circumstances, it is the architect
in each of these we are merely participating in a process

159

This content downloaded from

8.37.43.186 on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:50:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ... =. - .. -
7. :? ^" , '

' +~~~~'
r . . -..
*,_,,.,.~~~~~~ a. .X%
diAL

. a9&a*g:;-...
r:
?7
h
P?;i a ;'?
?:"-r
'"?? ii
--?I, r

?el ,?.. ii?

:| s ?: ?
, ? O

This content downloaded from

8.37.43.186 on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:50:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Techne Robert Meagher

which has its own purposes, without our intervening in, gazing, something to know and perhaps to wonder at. If,
much less contravening, those purposes. Neither is it as we are gazing at a tree, rain begins to fall, we may be
techne when we make a joke or produce a poem; for jokes inspired to look at the tree and see in its extended arms
and poems are made, as it were, from thin air. Thoughts welcoming shelter from the rain, not as if this were some
are immaterial as, for all practical purposes, are words. intrinsic purpose of the tree's unfolding but merely as a
Finally, any chance, random, or inadvertent activity, de- happy coincidence. Then, instead of gazing any longer at
spite what it may produce, is never a true instance of the tree, we run to it; and in doing so, we begin to see it in
techne, which may be defined as the conscious, willful our terms, as a refuge, as useful. So far, however, we have
working or reworking of matter until it becomes not only not altered the tree. Our presence, complete with human
what it was not but also what it was our intention that it need and desire, is as yet unintrusive. Suppose, however,
should become. Thus it is an instance of techne when we
we begin to have more permanent designs upon the tree
cut down a tree to make lumber for a house, or logs for
and awonder how it might become for us an enduring ref-
fire, or paper for a book. uge from the elements. Not without alterations. Not with-
out the tree's destruction. Not without work, the stages of
From these admittedly commonplace examples we may which we rehearse in our mind. When the rain stops, we
derive all the essential principles of techne: that it is get
con-up and step back from the tree. It and its neighbors
are now lumber to us and for our envisioned shelter. He-
scious, willful, materially violent, and materially produc-
tive. Interestingly, the ancient Greek word most com- gel, Marx, and the early Heidegger, to be sure, would pre-
monly used to mean "matter" or "material" is hule, whose fer more complex formulations for these ideas, but the
first meaning is simply "wood." This word in its ambiguity
story remains essentially the same. Human being essen-
represents a missing link between the natural and the tially realizes itself through negating what is and trans-
artificial. It points simultaneously back towards treesforming
and it in accord with human idea and will.
ahead towards matter, thus revealing the passage from
one to the other. Wood, halfway from tree to raw mate- This, then, is the core of human genius: to look at a forest
rial, is still recognizably natural and yet is, in the multi-
and see not the trees but a village of houses or a fleet of
plicity of its uses, a metaphor for all that is malleable.
ships, or to look at a deer and see not a deer but a shirt, a
Wood is not what the architect sees either firstly or of shoes, and a week's meals; and then, of course,
pair
finally. First there is the tree and finally there is the
materially to realize one's vision. Seeing beyond immedi-
house. In the meantime there is wood. ately given realities is, after all, not enough. Francis Ba-
con spoke with contempt of the impotent transcendence of
This movement from tree to house is and must be a leap ancient and medieval wisdom, which he likened to the im-
of imagination before it becomes a practical undertaking,
potent fantasies of boys. Effectual wisdom, Bacon argued,
which is to say that a house must be imagined beforeisitnecessarily at one with power. It is not enough to know
can be built. To the naked eye a tree represents itself as
the world; one must alter it, bend it to one's purposes, im-
prove it. There is nothing essentially new or modern,
what it is, an other being with its own life and its own pur-
however, in this notion, for this same fusion of idea and
poses. Seen for itself, in itself, it is an object of simple

160

This content downloaded from

8.37.43.186 on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:50:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PERSPECTA 24

power are found in the ancient myth of Prometheus, to

eye of human being, it must be worked upon, violently
which we now turn. transformed by idea and fire. Such was the conviction of
Prometheus; and for better or worse, no conviction could
Prometheus, true to the meaning of his name, brings fore- be called more characteristically modern and western
sight, the capacity and the inclination to look ahead, be-than his.
yond what is to what might be; but also he brings fire, the
transforming power par excellence. Under the influence
Already twice in this discussion the "violent" character of
of fire, flesh becomes food, wood and coal become fuel,
techne has been cited and perhaps requires direct expli-
ore becomes steel, water becomes steam; and, in this cation. By "violence" something quite precise is intended
process, the world becomes more inhabitable, more sus- here. We may find the conceptual clarity required if we
taining, and more controllable. Techne, in short, repre- contrast two ancient Greek words for power: bia and en-
sents the convergence of imagination and power, of idea ergia. Bia is a power or force external to an object and
and fire. There is another dimension, however, to the made to bear upon it, whereas energia is the power or
name and the gift of Prometheus, the first architekton. force intrinsic to an object and at work within it. When I
Prometheus, the provider, bestows upon humankind the lift a chess piece from one square on a game board and. set
imagination not only to see beyond the present but also to it down on another, when I open and close a door, no less
see beyond the personal. In this way, the imagination and than when I cut down a tree or pound papyrus into pa-
the fire which Prometheus brings are as full of heart as per, I am exercising bia or violence. When I water a seed,
they are of technological promise. Compassion lies at warm an egg, or feed an orphaned animal, however, I am
their core. Aeschylus, for one, makes this profoundly endeavoring to cooperate with the unfolding of the ener-
clear in his rendering of the Promethean myth. Pro- gia or life force at work within the seed, the egg, or the
metheus comes to humankind with imagination and fire, animal. In short, violence works upon an object, while
because he finds the state of mortals pitiable. He per-energy works within an object.
ceives the world as less than welcoming, less than gracious
towards humans. Distilled to few words, Prometheus seesViolence, therefore, is governed not by any perception of
that the world, as it is, does not suit human beings. It is the essential or intrinsic potential of an object but rather
too cold, too harsh, too withholding, too threatening, tooby a perception of its potential usefulness. An ornitholo-
alien. Human beings need roofs, walls, fires, weapons and gist studies the ways of birds, seeking not to disturb but to
tools in order to make their way and to hold their own. understand them; and this activity is altogether passive
For human beings, to see the world as it is evokes not and non-violent. The hunter, on the other hand, sees
wonder but despair. Contrary to the preeminently con- birds as sport, a meal, or perhaps as a decorative trophy;
templative vision of Plato and Aristotle - who found the and thus the hunter's vision, like his weapon, is active
world to be a finished cosmos, perfectly in order and per- and violent. This vision moves, as it were, from the inside
fectly pleasing - Prometheus saw in the world an expres-out. It is, as Heidegger calls it, "projective," which is to
sion of divine indifference, even hostility, towards human say that it projects human need or desire onto an external
being. Before this world can be perfectly pleasing to the object. The ornithologist strives to "take in" the bird, its

161

This content downloaded from

8.37.43.186 on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:50:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Techne Robert Meagher

anatomy, its coloration, its movements, as fully as the pinnacle of their perfection; and Adam, created to act in
human eye is capable of doing so; but the hunter "takes the image of God, speaks over the cosmos of created
aim at " the bird, a different matter altogether. The first beings, giving to each its name.
stage in the hunter's vision is to free itself from the bird;
and once that freedom is achieved and the bird essentially The idea of a word so powerful that it creates what it ut-
negated, then the bird, negligible in itself, may be shot ters is peculiarly Middle-Eastern and simply foreign to
and cooked, stuffed, or left to lie where it falls, depending ancient Greece. Such a word is absolutely free, since
on the hunter's current needs and desires, which may prior to its utterance there is nothing. It is radically arbi-
stem from such diverse sources as hunger, sadism, bore- trary, answerable to nothing beyond itself. The divine
dom, or vanity. word proceeds from the infinite, impenetrable willfulness
of God and literally constitutes external, finite reality.
In the exercise of techne^, then, imaginative freedom is es- Adam, for all his similarities to God, however, is far more
sential and prior to violence. That the architect possesses constrained and accountable in his exercise of speech.
and practices such freedom is apparent, whether an Adam speaks not over the void but over the created cos-
architect is altering an existing structure or envisioning mos. He calls all things not into existence but to task. He
an as yet non-existent one. That the architect's freedom is bestows names, not existence. Nonetheless, his names are
always constrained and limited by matter is no less appar- powerful; for it is said that whatever he calls each thing,
ent; for every architectural vision must in the end refer, that is what it is.
even defer, to matter. Speaking properly and precisely,
the architect is a maker, not a creator. Architectural The key to the meaning of Adam's power lies in the
works, always only relatively creative, remain instances significance of names in the ancient Middle East, a matter
of techne, things constructed from matter, not created like all others in this essay complex beyond the synoptic
from nothingness. demands of this discussion. Nonetheless, we may say that
names were seen to confer upon anyone or anything their
In fact, no distinction is more decisive for the architect substance, their identity. Names, in short, construe real-
than that between "creating" and "constructing"; and no ity, relative to the name-giver. In entrusting the creation
text is more illuminating of this distinction than the crea- to Adam and in empowering Adam to construe the crea-
tion myth in Genesis, whose authority need be no more tion, God gave to Adam nothing less than effective sover-
than descriptive. In this text, since the respective natures eignty. In case we might skeptically wonder what is, after
of both God and Adam are defined solely by their activi- all, in a name, we should consider several examples of the
ties, the distinction between the act of creating and the forseeable range of Adam's name-giving power. When an
act of constructing proves at the same time definitive of animal, say a cow, is brought before Adam, it is for him to
God and of Adam; God is one who creates and Adam is construe it as something to worship or to harness or to eat
one who constructs. Both activities, however, are essen- or to milk or simply to acknowledge respectfully and let
tially acts of speech. God speaks over the void and sum- be. Similarly, when Adam confronts a river, he must de-
mons from the void a cosmos of beings, with Adam as the cide whether its waters are to be for drinking, or for the

162

This content downloaded from

8.37.43.186 on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:50:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PERSPECTA 24

ambition of modern techne,: to re-create the world. The

cleansing of sins, or for aquatic sports, or for commercial
traffic, or for the convenient receiving of sewage. Con-theoreticians of modern science and technol-
preeminent
sider, as well, the power of such names as "enemy"
ogy, suchandas Hobbes, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach,
"inhuman" and "resource" and "property" and and "crimi-
Marx, are quite outspoken on this point. The realiza-
nal" and "insane." Can we, in fact, name one contempo-
tion of this eminently human ambition requires the radi-
calization
rary ethical debate which does not finally resolve of both elements of techne: idea and fire. Hu-
itself
into an issue of naming and thus in the imaginative
man imagination must be liberated from every scruple,
defining of reality? from every vestigial deference to Being or to God. This
liberation is the work of a new metaphysics, contemptu-
Adam's situation, as described in Genesis and as dis- ous of contemplation and of faith, and celebrative of hu-
cernable in everyday experience, is quite ethically pre- man being as the defining center of existence. Apart from
carious. His is always the second word, not the word thatthe constraints of conscience, there is the sheer resistance
creates but the word that construes. Everything which heof things to human design. Fire must be refined until it is
names and describes and puts to his use already exists andable to reduce all things to their simplest element, revert-
is something in itself before it becomes whatever it is to be ing creation at least in principle to formlessness. Indeed,
for him; and there is always the possibility that his namesthe quest for the physical equivalent of the biblical void,
and definitions and purposes deny, distort, and violate or of Aristotelian prime matter - material utterly recep-
those beings on which they are bestowed. For Adam, facedtive to human creativity - is an obsession of our age. The
with a silent cosmos, unrevealing of its own intrinsic pur-discovery and manipulation of, for example, atomic, sub-
poses, there is one hope for integrity; that the creator God atomic, and genetic structures and the consequent forma-
will speak directly to Adam and articulate the divine willtion of synthetic substances and viable mutants represent
mutely embodied in creation. If Adam's will is not to vio-quite staggering stages in the human endeavor to appro-
late God's, then Adam's words over creation must repeatpriate creative power.
God's words over the void. The Hebraeo-Christian tradi-
tion is at one on at least this: that neither Adam nor his
What humankind come of age must realize, claims Feuer-
progeny are entitled to undo creation; and it must be rec-is that the figure of God in Genesis is no more than
bach,
ognized that all human creation is necessarily premised
a primitive, provisional stand-in for human being. The
upon the destruction of the divine creation or of what is creation described in Genesis lies not in the past
act of
prior to, and independent of, human creation. The butcon-in the future, as the ultimate calling of human being.
summate sin, then, is not to do what God would never un-
Creation is properly a human, and not a divine, preroga-
der any condition do but rather to do what only God un-Marx says as much when he proposes as the human
tive.
der any condition is empowered and entitled to do. Sin
idealisthe negation of all existing otherness and the imposi-
at its core the mimicking of God, the inevitably cata-
tion of the human stamp upon it. If we are to understand
strophic imitation of the act of creation. the vision of the early Marx, we would do well to consider
the sight of any large city from the window of an airplane
Minus, of course, the epithet of sin, this is precisely
as the
we circle to land. Nearly everything that meets our

163

This content downloaded from

8.37.43.186 on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:50:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Techne Robert Meagher

eyes is the willful work of human beings. What is now dry nothingness; and I fear that the void toward which our
land, supporting massive structures, may once have been technology is unwittingly pushing us is not the one from
water or marsh; and the rivers or canals before our eyes which it will subsequently be able to call forth anything
may have been diverted or even created by human intent which we shall ever look upon, much less see to be good.
and hands. The patches of green below us, trees and Finally, Marx justified the abolition of nature and the
parks, were planned and planted. The all-embracing erection of a cosmic human construct on the Hegelian
patchwork of concrete structures and streets were first grounds that otherness is alienating. There are some of
sketched and then poured into place, effacing whatever us, however, who find an untouched wilderness far less al-
once stood or lay in their place. Now, if we imagine the ienating than a complete, humanly designed and con-
entirety of the world similarly transformed until nothing trolled environment and who see in the vision of a hu-
wild, nothing alien, nothing random confronts us, until manly constructed cosmos not a dream but a nightmare.
all that exists reflects human will and power, then we
grasp the dream from which our age has yet to awaken. Awakening from this vision, it may then be the challenge
and the responsibility of the contemporary architekton to
Having taken this long to sketch with the broadest of pens conserve rather than to abolish otherness and to hold as
the idea and ideology of techne, there can be no question suspect any self-aggrandizing humanism that presumes t
of developing now a critique of the same. Instead, I will eclipse or diminish the non-human. A "wisely conceive
conclude with a series of unadorned comments, which humanism," in the words of Levi-Strauss, is one which
may provoke further thought. As both a beneficiary and a "does not center on man but gives him a reasonable plac
victim of modern techne, I am not uniformly confident within nature, rather than letting him make himself mas-
that its modern practitioners possess the compassion and ter and plunderer." Man, suggests Levi-Strauss, "is wor
goodwill of Prometheus. Prometheus defied the Gods and thy of respect more as a living being than as the lord an
brought transforming power to human beings so that master of creation." Heidegger's word Gelassenheit is a
their sorry plight might be alleviated, not deepened. His apt as any to describe the antidote to human tyranny. Af-
aim was to improve, not to eradicate, the cosmos as a hu- ter years of proposing that the cosmos should be made
man habitat. Neither am I confident that human beings into a human workshop with homo faber at its determin
will ever be capable of uttering the first word, the creative ing center, Heidegger re-considered his position and pro
word. It appears that, in attempting to appropriate crea- posed, instead, Gelassenheit, or "letting all things be."
tive power, modern techne has amassed primarily de- This, of course, is a prescription for contemplation, not
structive power, power perversely suited to uttering the for techne; but a techne experienced in contemplation,
last word, the word which would send the world into the riddled with the scruples of Adam, and inspired by th
void instead of summoning it therefrom. Creation, divine benevolence of Prometheus is at least likely to leave th
or human, by definition requires a formless void, virtual world as inhabitable as it found it.

164

This content downloaded from

8.37.43.186 on Wed, 10 Nov 2021 06:50:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms