ANGEL AK I

journal of the theoretical humanities volume 11 number 1 april 2006

hile visiting my departmental administrator we began talking about why she moved away from New York all the way down south to tiny Savannah. To my astonishment she clearly stated that this decision came in the wake of 9/11. Why? As regular commuters she and her husband no longer felt safe waiting in those endless traffic jams from Long Island to Manhattan; they no longer felt safe in the tunnels that delivered them from one side of the city to the next; they no longer felt safe walking amidst the tall buildings they once admired; and ultimately they no longer felt safe in an urban context full stop. I sympathized and recounted how I too felt anxious catching the bus in Jerusalem with the sound of my Rabbis warning to avoid the bus at all costs ringing in my ears. For a split second I asked myself: perhaps I should pay the extra few shekels for a monit (taxi)? However, I made a conscious decision to catch the bus despite the warning, not because I didnt believe or respect my Rabbis experience and advice but because I was prompted by the question: at what point does an urban environment stop working as one? The short answer: when the cacophony of civic life stalls. It is difficult to grasp the implications of heightened security measures without also considering the viability of urban life. What happens to the urban the moment social and physical spaces are barricaded? The contemporary Western urban environment is a transcultural locality. As a body it is a self-organizing entity producing and reproducing itself through the participation of sensorial and material movements. These include the smells and tastes of different localities, such as trees, gardens, parks and eateries; the rhythms of wind flow, flashing street signs, the pulse of traffic, the circulation of

adrian parr ONE NATION UNDER SURVEILLANCE turning striated space inside out
people and goods, the throb of music vibrating throughout streets and buildings; the visual clamor of color, shape, texture, scale, lighting, shade, fashion, building density, branding and the composition of all these elements; the soul of a neighborhood, whether that be the various places of religious worship, forms of sociality, traditions and rituals, or simply the overall tone of collective behavior; and finally modes of economic production and consumption, such as the types of commercial activity defining a particular landscape. At times these characteristics collide and in other instances they proliferate through, or even participate with, each other. There are differences in cultural specificity, social wealth, degrees of racial and ethnic segregation, population density and quality

ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN1469-2899 online/06/010099^9 2006 Taylor & Francis Group DOI: 10.1080/09697250600797955

99

one nation under surveillance

(the local population of residents and the homeless or the semi-local population of visitors and commuters). What has just been described is neither the model of a multicultural urban environment, whereby each cultural space is independent of the other, nor is it a homogeneous entity. Rather, it is best characterized by the proliferation of various localities that are not places bound by fixed relations, in the territorial sense. The urban condition just described is one of praxis. In other words, the process of urban activity is what creates distinct urban realities. Hence, the vitality of the urban condition operates according to a principle of provisional stability. What happens, though, to this transcultural movement once we begin to reduce the urban context to a problem of risk management, as has increasingly become the case in many American cities since the events of 9/11? During November 2002 President Bush Junior announced: The continuing threat of terrorism, the threat of mass murder on our own soil, will be met with a unified, effective response (Siff and Cooper). The response was the new Homeland Security Bill signed by Bush on 25 November 2002. It inaugurated a new US cabinet-level department estimated to cost $40 billion. The department will house all the agencies and infrastructure believed to be responsible for keeping Americans safe: immigration, border control, intelligence analysis, and terrorism response. On another level, though, the hackneyed term Homeland Security has actually produced very dramatic changes in urban design. The revisions to Libeskinds master plan for the World Trade Center (WTC) site, which will be discussed below, are just one example of this. But what does the term Homeland Security mean? First, it presupposes that there exists a land that can commonly be called home; and second, this so-called land with its definitive territorial boundaries needs to be secured. Put differently, the land commonly referred to as home needs defending. But we forget that the physicality of land has always been defended; in the past forts were built, moats were dug, and walls were constructed around entire cities. Today, though, it is not only land and the territorial borders geographically demarcating it, but key sights symbolic and economic that have increasingly come under scrutiny by American security agencies, not to mention the non-visible dimension of biological terrorism that we are told supposedly threatens to leak and contaminate entire populations. In this way, Homeland Security is becoming the point of view through which the urban condition is framed, judged, analyzed and consequently designed. So, how are the majority of US cities responding to the verdict of continued terrorist threats? There is one answer to this: emergency response preparations. One year after 9/11 cities began conducting widespread terrorism and bioterrorism response training; they also expanded surveillance systems and improved how information is shared. For example, Detroit, Austin and Los Angeles identified potential terrorist targets throughout their cities, whilst the Office of Emergency Management in Las Vegas instigated plans to simulate chemical attacks. But this prompts us to ask: how does one detect a threat? Especially an imminent threat? As Peter Beering, the coordinator of the Indianapolis Terrorism Preparedness, noted: We are dealing with an inherently elusive threat, and one where terrorists dont typically call and say, Were going to attack you on Monday at 9 oclock (Siff). Posed in this way, though, the problem of threat detection seems a bit like asking: what does G-d look like? The answer is obviously an arbitrary one. Likewise, when similar arguments are appealed to in the context of urban design, civic life becomes arbitrary: institutionalized and conceived of as separate to the very materiality of life itself, life is reduced to being a mere formality. After the New York Police Department (NYPD) released a report in May 2005 specifying security concerns for the Freedom Tower design that was to replace the old Twin Towers, Daniel Libeskind and David Childs responded quickly, presenting their new design on 29 June 2005 to the public. Primarily the findings of the NYPD concluded that the proposed Freedom Tower was vulnerable to attack for two reasons. First, it

100

parr
could easily be targeted from the air because of its height (1,776 feet). Second, it was a prime ground target since the proposed building design situated the Freedom Tower at the northwest corner of the WTC site, only twenty-five feet back from the very busy West Street. It was on this basis that New York Governor Pataki called for a complete redesign of the tower. Unsurprisingly, the heavy-handed symbolism of the Freedom Tower persists in the revised design: although the buildings height has been reduced to 1,368 feet, the Metropolitan Television Alliance mast on top of the building returns it to 1,776 feet. For security reasons the base of the building has been turned into nothing other than a bunker: a structure two hundred feet in height consisting of titanium and stainless steel. The symbolism is obvious: 1776 harks back to the year of American Independence; the height of 1,368 feet is the same as the original tower that fell; the mast, otherwise called the Beacon of Freedom, responds to the torch held by the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island. However, when the two planes flew into the Twin Towers and another into the Pentagon it was the symbols of capitalism, Western values and militarism that came under attack. It therefore seems a futile design gesture to give precedence to ground and air security more than symbolic design vocabularies. On another note, the symbolic meaning tediously repeated throughout every nook and cranny of the WTC design really only empties the site of urban meaning. What I mean by this is that the symbolic vocabulary fortifies the building and site from alternative meanings spilling forth; the patriotic charge of this vocabulary stakes an enduring claim to ownership both across the space of Ground Zero and the memory of 9/11 in the present and for the future. Yet what about transitional spaces that create the potential for rhythmic not fixed symbolic value? These consist of spaces that tempt hesitation, delay and rest, those that entice spontaneous and provisional activities to appear, that continue unfolding and revitalizing the rest of the urban fabric. It is difficult to understand the extent to which urban and architectural design impacts upon the concrete life of the social without first recognizing that life is inherently unpredictable and any measures that set out to manage its uncontrollable dimension are inevitably fascistic in spirit, in so far as they aspire for equilibrium, order and the management of how life flows through urban space and in turn defines the places this space gives rise to. Accordingly, any analysis of this current situation brings with it an ethical responsibility not just to react to the problem of security as it manifests itself throughout social life but also to consider alternatives. This paper intends to do just this. It begins by conceptually clarifying the spatial shifts that the current focus on Homeland Security invokes using Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari for its theoretical framework. The paper then goes on to explore how we might begin the more difficult project of extracting the smooth and open forces embedded within the current mode of spatial striation. It asks the question: how can we live smoothly amidst forces of striation?

i smooth and striated space

In chapter fourteen of A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari describe the difference and connection between striated and smooth space. Turning to music, mathematics, and more loosely ancient Greek philosophy they propose that striated space is inherently hierarchical, by which they mean we count such spaces in order to occupy them. Borrowing from the ancient Greeks and their conception of open spaces as nomos the antithesis of the polis (city) Deleuze and Guattari suggest striated space has a logos that organizes; in other words, they say it is a space that is canopied by the sky as measure and by the measurable visual qualities deriving from it (A Thousand Plateaus 479). Meanwhile, the smooth space of the nomos is where one distributes oneself in an open space, according to frequencies and in the course of ones crossing (481). It is important to point out here that nomos is generally translated to mean law and logos is taken to mean reason or word. However, in the context of Deleuze and Guattaris usage of these terms, logos refers to the Law of the Father or G-d, not nomos, which in the way they use it refers to nomadic law. This is

101

one nation under surveillance

not to suggest that striated space is inferior to smooth space; actually, in the context of urban design striated space is necessary to allow for quantification and measurement to take place. For instance, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC) estimates that the working population of the WTC site prior to 9/11 was 50,000, with approximately 150,000 people such as commuters and visitors using the area on a daily basis (LMDC, Viewing Wall). Figures such as these are required for well-informed design decisions to be made. Deleuze and Guattari insist that smooth space is non-metric in that it gestures to an incalculable mode of occupation. Considering that the implied smooth space of the WTC site addresses how space is used and what kinds of rhythms and flows produce different nodal points not just over the site but also throughout the city as a whole. What activities does a particular combination of buildings, open and covered areas, and underground and overhead pathways encourage or discourage? The question turns our attentions to urban intensities: the warmth and movement of the sun, shady spots for those hot summer New York days, wind levels, how traffic passes through the site and so on. Does traffic decelerate or accelerate, stand still, sit, lie back or walk briskly across the site? Does the movement take a diagonal or labyrinthine direction? How can the periphery leak and be rendered contingent upon other connections beyond the actual site itself? Do the building materials stimulate us to linger, look and daydream, or do they shut down sensorial stimulation and fend us off? For instance, the two hundred foot titanium and steel bunker base of the revised Freedom Tower turns its back on urban life in a very defensive and brazen manner. Citing the French composer Pierre Boulez, Deleuze and Guattari clearly state that smooth space is occupied by intensities, and the examples they provide include: the sea, wind and noise, forces, and sonorous and tactile qualities, as in the desert, steppe or ice (A Thousand Plateaus 479, 480). Smooth space continually alternates in the fusion of harmony and melody, so that the form of the smooth is continually developing as rhythmic values are produced, instead of a succession of fixed forms (478). To help us understand the broader distinction between the smooth and striated, Deleuze and Guattari offer a useful visual: the striated is like a line that exists between two points and the smooth is the inverse of this, it is the point between two lines. But how exactly do smooth spaces appear out of striated ones? It almost seems as though smooth and striated spaces are at opposite ends of the spectrum and the only way they could possibly communicate with one another is through domination. This is not necessarily the case. Deleuze and Guattari remark that striated spaces do not just impose an order onto amorphous smooth space, because the relationship between the two is not judicial. How the two interact cannot be understood negatively (regulated versus unregulated or law versus lack). Perhaps a better way to think about the smooth and the striated is in terms of a positive disjunction, whereby the hierarchical conceptual framework that presupposes a dominating or dominant reference point is kneaded and rubbed to the point where it becomes elastic. A good example of this would be the changes Michael Arad and Peter Walker made to Libeskinds master plan for the WTC site. The plan for the memorial site was to remain below street level as a symbolic reminder of the 9/11 attacks. What Arad and Walker did with their winning memorial design Reflecting Absence was allow nomos to distribute through the site once again, returning the memorial to ground level. Similarly, in the master plan provisions for cultural programming included plans to house four important cultural institutions that would certainly provide wonderful opportunities for nomos to distribute throughout the site. Simultaneously, these tenants would culturally and socially open the periphery up to the surrounding neighborhoods. That is until one of the proposed tenants the Drawing Center was given an ultimatum by Governor Pataki. In response to a report made by The Daily News in June 2005 that the center had exhibited works critical of the war in Iraq, Pataki demanded the Drawing Center guarantee it would not exhibit works that may offend the sensibilities of

102

parr
New Yorkers or the families of the victims of 9/11. Here, the punitive response of Pataki demonstrates how security has become the transcendent subjectivity infantilizing the social through the striating force of cultural violence. The manner in which the problem of terrorism is articulated is therefore clearly part of the problem of how design practice and theory can striate urban space. Take, for instance, the in-depth and detailed study of terrorism put forward by urban theorist Jon Coaffee. He suggests that the territorial metaphors of wild and safe areas are used to separate threatening spaces from secure ones, implying that distance creates protection (Coaffee 217). Coaffees wild spaces of the city may be likened to the smooth force of terrorism that threatens to unravel the economic, social and political relations defining a city. Coaffee, however, seems to articulate risk in negative terms and in so doing he reinforces the scaffolding of striated space instead of problematizing and critiquing it. Leaning upon the arguments advanced by Ulrich Beck and John Urry, Coaffee proposes that world risk society is negative and he defines this in the following manner: uninsurable risk, the threat of attack, and technological advances that have turned into the terrorists toolkit. Admittedly, Coaffee is detailing the spatial imprint of terrorism and the urban impact of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in terms of infringements upon civil liberties due to counter-terrorist measures in the city of London; yet in his discussion of conventional and non-conventional security measures he presupposes the problem of security to be the ground of urban design in a post-9/11 world. His analysis, in turn, marks the striation of urban design theory. To adopt a judicial framework is to use the selfsame logic that has seen the institutionalization of violence: good versus evil, safe and wild urban areas, freedom versus terrorism, and liberalism versus fundamentalism. At this point it may be worthwhile to give our memories a bit of a jog. The will to govern the autonomous and unpredictable character of life forces was not introduced post9/11, it was simply exacerbated. Border control did not begin after 9/11, it was merely tightened. All in all, the homogenizing force of striated space was already at work when 9/11 occurred; 9/11 has simply become the excuse to increase and legitimize the interpretation and construction of space solely in terms of security. Coaffees position, whilst thorough in its analysis of policy and the urban ramifications of security measures implemented to counteract terrorist activities throughout the city, fails to elaborate on the possibility that in effect the problem of security is not the premise of design initiatives but is the effect of how we think the terms and conditions of contemporary urban design. What this means is that, for instance, both Coaffee and the WTC design focus on criminal and aberrant social activities along with the curbing and controlling of these, more than generating new social activities and innovative ways life is lived. For Coaffee it is a fait accompli that security management is placed in the foreground at the expense of unregulated sociality. Yet all the while he advocates the importance of urban life. Considering social life from the vantage point of security management inevitably presupposes the delimitation of lived space. But what if the smooth space of accidental and irregular activities, for example, is not conceived of in absolute terms as the polar opposite to the life of the city and is rather embraced? It is here where Deleuze and Guattaris conception of smooth and striated spaces alternating with each other in their difference is most useful when it comes to considering not just built areas but the intensities that orient and connect to produce a dynamic and stimulating environment. Whilst many have argued that after 9/11 the wild and safe zones of the city, understood in terms of the territorial boundaries of place, have been made redundant as a result of the uncontrollable risks 9/11 unleashed, on the whole the principle of global markets and globalization has always operated in defiance of national borders (Beck; Urry). Perhaps we need to allow space to skirt rigid organization and interpretation that the wild/safe model inevitably produces. The key issue here is how we might incorporate the transversal lines of alignment that attract the breath of smooth spaces and not simply the striation of space. Responses to the events of 9/11 simply legitimized the defensive interpretation of

103

one nation under surveillance

space in order to more effectively manage the smooth spaces that distribute and disrupt striated space.
places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget. (15)

ii living smoothly
The principles used to design for both the security and symbolic weight of Ground Zero are simply punitive. That is, urban life is being held accountable through the manner in which urban design takes place. Structurally speaking there is not much difference between the aggression a group of bandits waged against the symbols of Western democracy and the free market, and the aggression behind consciously building icons of Freedom and Capital in retaliation against these acts, not to mention the infantilizing culture of patriotism that such retaliation promotes. The suffering of a nation has imploded in a way that turns urban life into an object that is at once managed and then concomitantly used in the production of value and law. The aggression that the American administration and many civilians feel toward the axis of evil and the so-called elusive threat this implies has turned inwards and in the process many Americans have been left asking Who are you out there? And, Who are we in here? Posing the question in this way, the social reinforces infantilizing paternalistic structures whilst rolling back social equality. So, how can urban design help redirect these questions away from a problem of identity, or Being, toward the more ethical problematic of How can we become other than the conditions defining us? In her essay The End of Imagination, Arundhati Roy outlines to an architect friend that not all dreams are a matter of wealth and fame and that there are other dreams, namely to live while you are alive and die only when youre dead (Roy 15). To which her friend, with a taste of interrogation in her mouth, inquires what on earth she means by this. In response Roy writes the following on a paper napkin:
To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest

Her friend remains somewhat unconvinced by this. Roy goes on to say that she understood that it was nothing personal. Just a design thing (15). In effect what Roy is speaking of here is a difference in kind between what one dreams for and how one dreams. That is, for Roys friend, the dream operates as the Ideal predicate of life. However, if one asks what it is that dreams do, as Roys response invites us to consider, dreaming is broached as affection the ability to be affected and affect the world around you. Roy suggests that dreaming is something we do and therefore it is a pragmatic activity. In this way she qualitatively evaluates the praxis of dreaming in terms of love, modesty, empathy, strength and joy. In other words, she invites us to understand dreaming productively. I find the issue of how collectivities dream and imagine life particularly significant when thinking about design because in large part the capacity for collective violence feeds off a particular kind of imagination: one fixated on a transcendent order. In Difference and Repetition, first published in 1968, Deleuze reworks the Kantian argument that the experience of space and time is the result of a coherent subject who synthesizes their sense impressions. Instigating a transcendent order, the world according to Kant is synthesized and organized from a fixed point that exists beyond the world: the Kantian subject. Calling into question the privileged transcendent position that the Kantian subject enjoys, Deleuze advocates that [s]elves are larval subjects; the world of passive syntheses constitutes the system of the self, under conditions yet to be determined, but it is the system of a dissolved self (Deleuze 78). Essentially, larval subjects are the outcome of syntheses and not the other way around. He further adds that the self does not undergo modifications, it is itself a modification (79). Subsequently, Deleuze directly challenges the notion of a Kantian subject by developing Kants project

104

parr
into transcendental empiricism. Combining empiricism (experience is the ground for knowledge) with transcendentalism, Deleuze insists that experience is in a state of becoming. Experience, that is, has no point of origin or ground, as was the case with the Kantian subject whereby the faculties of the subject not only organize but also provide the conditions of possibility for experience. The philosophical preoccupation with being is therefore radically challenged once Deleuze tosses out the transcendent ground of experience: the subject. For Deleuze, it is affect that extends the limits of the faculties. Continuing on from here, in Anti-Oedipus Deleuze, with Guattari, identifies the transcendence of the psychoanalytic subject as an Oedipalized subject. So what is the connection between the Oedipal fantasy and a transcendent subject? Primarily, for Deleuze and Guattari, the problem of transcendence in the context of psychoanalysis surfaces when the childs love for their parents is turned into a threat. The Oedipal law forbids the childs love for the parent and in so doing the child is brought into line normative behavior with the threat of losing the parents love, that is, unless they modify their desire. Hence, the Oedipal triangle of mommy, daddy and me; namely, the judicial role characteristic of the father who says no and the imaginary space of the all-loving and all-giving mother, along with the child who forges and shapes their own identity in response to this original lack by channeling their desires into a more acceptable avenue: the image of identity prescribed by the parents. Hence, Deleuze and Guattari point out that identity is the result of repressed desire. Put differently, in order for the child to feel accepted and consequently loved by its parents the child sublimates the unacceptable image of identity in favor of a more suitable one. But what if desire was never really about just wanting the love of ones parents? What if desire was simply a matter of experimentation, one where the child plays with part objects without necessarily any object in particular being the primary point of reference? These are the kinds of questions that Deleuze and Guattari propose in Anti-Oedipus and later go on to develop further in A Thousand Plateaus. How this scenario of the transcendent subject, as it appears in both Kant and psychoanalysis, plays out in the new world of heightened security designed to combat the constant threat of terrorism constantly moving between orange and red is that the new security measures could be thought of as a structure that infantilizes the social body in much the same way as the omnipresent Oedipus complex infantilizes the subject by dominating desire with an image of acceptable and normative identity, or as the Kantian subject dominates the world with its own particular point of view using reason to synthesize the unreliable materiality of sense impressions. But how are we to understand the transcendent subject in the context of cultural violence? New security measures and the manifestation of these throughout the urban landscape are the effect of how we articulate and imagine contemporary urban life. This position presupposes there exists a higher authority (transcendent subject), one who knows what is best for you and by implication you the social body lack the necessary knowledge to ensure your own safety, in turn justifying the transcendent status of the all-knowing subject who keeps you safe. In other words, the transcendent subject infantilizes the social body by proclaiming the privileged status of being the only one who can and knows how to say no to terrorism. Therein lies the cultural violence: theories and design practices that produce a paternalistic framework in the way that life is theoretically or aesthetically expressed. The risk of terrorism is much like the perceived risk the child experiences when their desire is affixed to the prohibition of incest (repression). The effect being the belief that if we dont submit to national security measures and affix our identity to these measures then we run the very real risk of uncontrollable attack. However, the flip side to this coin is that we also submit to the forces of security whereby risk management is in itself a form of uncontrollable security. As Judith Butler points out in response to Theodor Adorno, once the collective ethos has been deserted and is no longer collectively shared

105

one nation under surveillance

it turns violent. That being so, under such conditions the collective ethos can only become collective once more by means of violence. Butler explains:
In this sense, the collective ethos instrumentalizes violence to maintain the appearance of its collectivity. Moreover, this ethos becomes violence only once it has become an anachronism. What is strange historically and temporally about this form of ethical violence is that although the collective ethos has become anachronistic, it has not become past; it insists itself into the present as an anachronism. The ethos refuses to become past, and violence is the way in which it imposes itself upon the present. Indeed, it not only imposes itself upon the present, but also seeks to eclipse the present and this is precisely one of its violent effects. (Butler 45)

iii conclusion
According to Deleuze and Guattari, freedom is an ontological condition tied to experimentation, joy and unpredictability. In the current situation this is not only discouraged but is also seriously hindered by the transcendent subjectivity striating social space. The visual vocabulary used to account for Freedom in the master plan for the WTC site in effect establishes a common ground where in fact no such ground can be presupposed. If the question of design is to really recognize and address the so-called elusive threat it spawns, then urban design and theory will be forced to face its own epistemological limit, all the while still having to offer the material conditions for economic productivity, social exchange and cultural encounters. This is tantamount to massaging forth the smooth spaces that subsist within the imploded spaces of striation. Creative practices are by no means a solution to the problem of terrorism and security as these materially manifest themselves in life, but in their experimental focus they are well placed when it comes to rendering the violent potential of striated space supple once more. As Deleuze and Guattari clearly say, the counterforce of smooth space inheres throughout striated space. What

this paper has proposed is that life comes to a standstill the moment we try to standardize variation and summarize complexity with simplicity. Simply pinpointing the problem remains a reactive project if we dont also propose different ways of responding, or conceive of new directions that might provide the conditions for change. How is all this relevant to our overarching problem of urban design? Ultimately, there is an urgent need to shift our focus away from solving the problem of security to opening up the parameters of this debate in a way that no longer understands the outside as terrifying and the source of contamination, against which the inside defensively freezes itself in an effort to contain and ward-off encroachment. We need, that is, to start turning things inside out a little more, to distribute friendliness indicative of affective connections and spaces open to unpredictable transformation as they are used and engaged with. That is, not just condensing life into a formal problem of security enhancement and risk management but imagining places filled with life in all its messiness, color, taste, smelliness, complexity and restlessness. I recall the first time I visited New York. While driving across Brooklyn Bridge I caught a glimpse of the skyline: congested and overwhelming. Arriving on Manhattan Island I was hit by a myriad of impressions: flickering surfaces, bifurcating directions, mingling bodies, colliding events, a haphazard environment but one that nonetheless had a sense of consistency to it. This was a place I could get lost in, and the awareness of this possibility not only filled me with excitement and nervousness but a sense of optimism along with it. I quickly became aware of the fact that the urban life of New York could not be summarized. And why on earth would we want to!

bibliography
Beck, Ulrich. The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited. Theory Culture and Society 19.4 , (2002): 39^55.

106

parr
Butler, Judith. Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham UP, 2005. Coaffee, Jon. Terrorism, Risk and the City: The Making of the Contemporary Urban Landscape. London: Ashgate, 2003. Deleuze,Gilles. Difference and Repetition.Trans. Paul Patton. New Y ork: Columbia UP,1994. Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem and Helen R. Lane. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P,1977 . Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi. London: Athlone,1987 . Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC). Viewing Wall: Urban Scale. 2002. Available 5http://www.renewnyc.com/PhotoArchive/viewingwall.asp4(accessed 8 Nov. 2005). Roy, Arundhati. The Algebra of Infinite Justice. Foreword John Berger. London: Flamingo, 2002. Siff, David. One Year Later: Security Tighter, Cities Stretched. CNN.com, 12 Sept. 2002. Available 5http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ US/09/06/prepared.cities.overview/index.html4 (accessed 3 Nov. 2005). Siff, David and Patrick Cooper. Bush Signs Homeland Security Bill. CNN.com, 26 Nov. 2002. Available 5http://archives.cnn.com/ 2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security/4 (accessed 10 Nov. 2005). Urry, John. The Global Complexities of September 11th. Theory Culture and Society 19.4 , (2002): 57^ 69.

Adrian Parr Department of Architecture College of DAAP University of Cincinnati PO Box 210016 Cincinnati, OH 45221-0016 USA E-mail: adrian@drainmag.com