Dismantling Refuge: Architectural Propositions for Unbound Spaces Philipp Misselwitz
Derived from the Latin refugium, the Old French word “refuge” is commonly understood as a place or state of safety. Those “seeking refuge” wish to withdraw into a protected space or environment. Colloquially, the notion of refuge is used quite freely. It can refer to a holiday retreat, an ecological reserve, a place of hiding, a safe haven and so forth. Others instantly associate the notion of refuge with the refugee which, according to the narrow definition developed in the twentieth century for legal and humanitarian purposes includes only forcefully displaced persons who have escaped to safety across a national boundary. The imprecision with which the notion of refuge is used is both confusing and thought provoking. For the purpose of this short introduction, I will consider the notion of refuge in relation to a specific urban site—that of Dubai, best represented by the Palm Dubai as an extreme and iconic urbanism which has become a model for both proponents and opponents. Thus casting aside myriad alternative understandings, this definition will be based on the following three motifs: The constitutive moment for the emergence of a so-called space of refuge is an unresolved conflict. The nature and gravity of the conflict can vary tremendously, ranging from existentialist fear to dissatisfaction with a given situation: direct threat, physical danger, social or political pressure, persecution, exclusion, or eviction; but also perceived threats or simply discomfort with a social or cultural environment. In both cases, conflict triggers the act of seeking refuge, which can take the form of either involuntary displacement or more or less voluntary withdrawal. In either case, instead of addressing and potentially solving the conflict then and there, the individual or group chooses or is forced into displacement, an act of withdrawal or escape from the conflict’s origin. Unresolved, the conflict lingers on, as it were, and takes on the form of a repressed trauma. A second quality common to all forms of refuge relates to spatial characteristics. Spaces of refuge are above all defined by clear territorial boundaries. In most cases, these boundaries are physical and have been consciously placed to restrict access and cross-boundary movement—either from the outside to inside or in reverse). Architecture serves to protect and guard new boundaries, with the ambiguous function of either keeping intruders out or, containing and controlling those inside. This phenomenon can be described as encapsulation. While each space of refuge forms a disconnected island, these encapsulated spaces interlink with others, forming a matrix of parallel, simultaneous networks. A third shared indicator defining a space of refuge is the emergence of systems of control and new behavioural norms, which ultimately can be subsumed under the notion of governance. Following Giorgio Agamben’s concept of the “State of Exception,” one may argue that a unifying characteristic of these systems of governance is a full