Architecture and Modernity : A Critique

capacity for human dwelling. . . . When the poetic appropriately comes to light, then
man dwells humanly on this earth, and then—as Hölderlin says in his last poem—
’the life of man’ is a ‘dwelling life.’” 24 If we take these texts of Heidegger seriously,
we will conclude that there is a virtually unbridgeable gulf between modernity and
dwelling. That at least is the conclusion that Massimo Cacciari comes to in “Eupalinos
or Architecture.”
Cacciari concentrates on what he calls the Fragwürdiges of the essay: what is
worth questioning is in particular the condition of homelessness perceived by Heidegger,
and the possible consequences of this situation for architecture. Heidegger,
according to Cacciari, poses the question of whether poetical dwelling is still possible
in our times, and it is this question above all that needs answering. Cacciari’s answer
is negative. The development of modern civilization has made the world uninhabitable;
“Non-dwelling is the essential characteristic of life in the metropolis.” Modern
life no longer has anything to do with the dwelling referred to by Heidegger: there is
an unbridgeable distance separating the metropolis from dwelling as proportionate
to das Geviert, the fourfold of earth, heaven, divinities and mortals. For Cacciari, then,
it is clear that “the home is past, it no longer is.” 25
This is not the first time that opinions of this sort have been uttered. Theodor
Adorno said something very similar in almost identical terms: “Dwelling, in the
proper sense, is now impossible. . . . The house is past.” 26 Adorno’s discourse, however,
does not entirely coincide with that of Heidegger or Cacciari. For him the impossibility
of dwelling originates in the first place in an ethical sensibility: “it is part of
morality not to be at home in one’s home. . . . Wrong life cannot be lived rightly.” 27
The fundamental injustice of the social system, which we all participate in whether
we want to or not, produces so profound a sense of discomfort that it is impossible
for us to feel at home in a world of this sort. Adorno perceives this underlying reality
in the actual forms that dwellings take. The traditional homes of the bourgeoisie are
no longer able to conceal their hypocrisy: the security that they offer the privileged
cannot be thought of separately from the oppression that is necessary to maintain
these privileges. Functional “modern” homes, bungalows, and apartments are
empty and meaningless shells for their occupants. No amount of “design” can do
anything to change that. Worst of all, however, is the situation of those who do not
have any choice—homeless people, foreigners, and refugees. For them even the illusion
of dwelling is impossible to maintain.
Dwelling fades into the distance . . . The metaphors used to describe the experience
of modernity very often refer to dwelling as the “other face” of modernity,
as that which under modern conditions is made impossible. Different approaches—
the existential with Heidegger, the ethical with Adorno, and the sociological with
Berger, Berger, and Kellner—all conclude that modernity and dwelling are diametrically
opposed to each other. Under modern conditions the world has become impossible
to live in; modern consciousness is that of “the homeless mind,” and
foreigners and migrants provide a model for the experience of every individual in a
1 Architecture Facing Modernity