Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
dure/i
Recontextualizing
Tafuri's Critique
Ofideology
In 1970, Manfredo Tafuri published a long artide titled
"Lavoro Intellettuale e Sviluppo Capitalistico" ("lntellectuaJ
Work and Capitalist Development") in the journal
Contropiano.t The artide followed the publication of his more
famous "Per una Critica dell'Ideologia Architettonica"
("Toward a Cr.itiqu.e of Architectural Ideology,) publishcd
in the same journal in 1969.2 Remarkably, "lntellecrual Work
and Capitalist Developmeot" contains no reference ro architccture proper. Rather the artide is a dense reflection on the
nature of intellectual work itself as seen within the conditions established by the capitalist systt!m of production. If
"Toward a Cririque of Architecrural Idcology'' had a large
criticai reception at the time of its publication, "lntdlectual
Work and Capitalist Developmem" remained in its shadow.
By rcapproaching Tafuri's critique through his arguments
about intellectual work, it is possible to suggest rhat the critique was not only directcd toward architecture and its proj ect, but was also concerned with thc themc of "intellectual
work'' and with culture in generai. For this reason, at this
criticai moment, it is worth the attempt to recuperate Tafuri's
concept of intcllectual work as a major force in his argument
and as rhc reas:on for thc radicalit),. of his critique of architectural ideology as the premiscs of his "project of crisis.''J
Through his intense activity of historicizing the developmcnt of architectural modernity from the Renaissancc to
the 1970s neo-avanrgarde, Manfredo Tafuri was che flrst
inrellecrual in the field of architectural history and criticism
to understand that it was no longer possible for inteUectuals
to address the issue of social and cultura! changes provoked by
capitalist dcvdopment from an out.ride perspective. Indced, for
Tafuri there was no outside position in capitalism, since its
totaliry was constitu.ted by the realiry of "waged labor," which
aJso incorporated the role of the intellectu.al. Conscqucntly,
he understood that a critique of capitalism could only be
produced fi-om. within, from the categories and forms through
which intellectuals were - consciously ot unconsciously 89
culturally mediating the effects of continued capitaHst production or patticipating in its reification. For Tafuri, and for
those who influ~nced his critique, this new condirion meant
that any criticai and politica! discourse needed f1rsr of ali to be
addressed to intellectuals as TPork.ers, rather than to "others,
Cworkers), contradicting the idea that the social and politica!
mandate given to the intellectual could be taken for granted.
To properly understand this shift, Tafuri's critique must
be s~en in th~ originai context in which it was formulated:
the debate that took piace in Italy in the 1960s on intellectual
work per se in relationship to its implied politica! mandate.
REPORMISM AND ITS CRITIQUE
Scc
Jt~~IUI (Milan:
moitmtl in
Edizioni di Comunit,
prcm.ises.
95
meant an extreme critique of leftist culture itself an d especially of how leftist progressive resistance t o and reform of
capitalism had inevitably fallen iato the hands of the capitalists as the most effective weapons of dominance over rhe
working class. 22 It is precisely withi n this context t ha. t Tafuri
constructed his critiquc of architectural ideology. If Fortini
showed Tafuri how to resist the temptation of reformism,
the editoria! project of Contropiano provided Tafuri with the
terms in which antireform.ism could be translated back into
a dass critique. Within th.is conte.xt, Tafuri wrote "Toward a
Critique of Architectural Ideology" with the aim of rracing
the ideologica! connotations of the origin of modern architecture. Accord.ing to Tafuri, modern architecture, and especially its avant-garde momcnts, could have been described as
the ideologica! prefigurations of the upcoming effects of capiralist dcvdopment. In so doing, modern.ist architectural culture had a definitive role in natura/izing tbese effecu and
making them socially and culturally accepta.ble.2J
The more architectural culture raised the bar of radical
experimentation, the more its cultural attributes contributed
to the following cycle of capitalist developmcnt. This was
and remains the vicious circle. And yet once a cycle of experimentation was surpassed by a newer cycle of development,
then its architecrural and urban products wcre left behind as
"form without utopia" - that is, a form devoid of any
reformist urgency. This was particula.rly true in "technological" advances in materials and systems, the engine driving
Fordism, and what later bccame an excuse for innovation. In
this latter stage, according to Tafuri, architecture was simply
a useless object for capitalist development, and not evcn its
"utopian" idc:ological weapon. From his anaJysis, Tafuri concluded that in terms of class stn1ggle it was useless to work
on newer projects and plans. What was needed instead was to
radically rethink the role of the architcct and the planner as
an inrellectual -r~orlur. This was intended to shift the critiquc
of ideology from the architectural and urban project to the
form of intellectual work itself. In "Intdlectual Work and
Capitalist Developmcnt," publishcd a few months after
"Toward a Crir:ique of Architectural Ideology," Tafuri
attempted to expand the critique of ideology at this level of
analysis. He argued that in order to go beyond tbc ideologica!
understanding of inrellectual work, it was necessary to
defme the link between the cycles of capitalist development,
the economie reorganization that each cycle imposed on thc
division of labor, and the ideological mediations produced by
intellectuals. For Tafuri, the most crucial mediation pro97
100