Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilDossiers14Contributions Towards Interspecif...

Contributions Towards Interspecific Architectural Theory

Manuel Bello-Marcano, Marianne Celka et Mathias Rollot
Cet article est une traduction de :
Contributions à une théorie architecturale interspécifique [fr]

Texte intégral

  • 1 Rachel Carson, Le Sens de la merveille, Paris, José Corti, 2021 [1920].

“The inescapable fact that the decline of wildlife is linked with human destinies is being driven home by conservationists the nation over. Wildlife, it is pointed out, is dwindling because its home is being destroyed, but the home of the wildlife is also our home.”
Rachel Carson1

  • 2 Peter Berg, Beryl Magilavy, Seth Zuckerman (dir.), A Green City Program For San Francisco Bay Area (...)

“Cities, with their millions of human inhabitants, are obviously dominated by an artificial environment. But just as people enjoy bringing domesticated animals into their lives, so city-dwellers would benefit from the integration of wildlife and wild habitat into the urban environment. It will counteract the overwhelmingly human-controlled flavor of the city and make our surroundings a healthier, more balanced and appealing place to live. […] It requires not only physical room for animals to live and roam but also freedom from harassment and enough territory to support the rest of the food chain that the animals depend on.”
Peter Berg2

1Over the last few years, animal studies have evolved considerably, especially by means of scientific breakthroughs in ethology and biology. While today’s myriad of multidisciplinary literature offers an expansive overview of this topic in France and internationally, what about within architectural, urban and landscape research? This issue of the Cahiers de la recherche architecturale, urbaine et paysagère seeks to investigate the pathways through which architecture thinks and integrates animals into human societies, economies, politics and aesthetics. This is done by transforming the perceptions we have both of animals and ourselves, and by dismantling current depictions of the architectural discipline, including its practices and physical constructions, as well as its architectural, urban and territorial projects and the living practices linked to them.

  • 3 Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter, A Political Ecology of Things, Duke Press, 2010.
  • 4 « Être homme veut dire : être sur terre comme mortel, c’est-à-dire : habiter », Martin Heidegger, « (...)
  • 5 Ivan Illich, Dans le miroir du passé  : conférences et discours, 1978–1990, 1992), translated by Ma (...)
  • 6 Vinciane Despret, Bêtes et hommes, Paris, Gallimard, 2007, p. 133.
  • 7 Cf. Catherine Ingraham, Architecture, Animal, Human: The Asymmetrical Condition, London/New York, R (...)
  • 8 Antoine Chopot, « Les communautés plus qu’humaines », Appareil, n° 16, 2015, [online] [http://journ (...)
  • 9 Cf. Dominique Lestel, L’Animal singulier, Paris, Le Seuil, 2004, and Voyage au bout de l’espèce, Pa (...)
  • 10 Cf. Catherine Ingraham, Architecture, Animal, Human…, op. cit.

2This issue is thus situated among ecosystem-related questions brought about by contemporary environmental challenges. It aims to fuel the debate on the major roles that architecture plays— and could play — within this global transformation, inviting us to consider relationships with non-human life and our own animality as possibilities for enriching various dualities: technology/life, culture/nature, wild/domestic or even living/inert matter.3 As knowledge progresses with regard to animal worlds, cultures, communities and individualities, it becomes increasingly difficult to uphold Martin Heidegger’s belief that to be human means to inhabit,4 or “that inhabiting is unique to the human species,” as stated by Ivan Illich.5 Multiscalar in space and time, the different forms of animal existence instead invite us to develop both an anthropozoological perspective and an animal way of thinking about architecture. This also means thinking of architectural design methods capable of taking into account the presence and perspective of animals, and to consider the animal as both a subject and a potential user of human architecture. In other words, allowing oneself to be “contaminated” by animal intelligence and sensitivity, and letting this “contamination of attention”6 operate, would likely enhance our intellectual and actantial perspectives. As an “asymmetrical condition”,7 the architecture-animal relationship and the possible collaboration between ethology, design, urban planning and territorial planning, lead us to question the inhabitation of contemporary worlds by and for “more-than-human”,8 trans-individual and interspecific hybrid communities,9 made up of humans and animals. Political, ethical and aesthetic issues for architecture and urban planning are thus unveiled when we look past human/non-human, or even post-animal10 relationships.

3In 1996, the geographer Jennifer Wolch could already coldly state the deeply anthropocentric foundation of urban theories and practices:

  • 11 Jennifer Wolch, “Zoöpolis”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 1996, n° 7, pp. 2-48.

Today, the logic of capitalist urbanization still proceeds without regard to nonhuman animal life, except as cash-on-the-hoof headed for slaughter on the “disassembly” line or commodities used to further the cycle of accumulation [...] Paralleling this disregard for nonhuman life, you will find no mention of animals in contemporary urban theory, whose lexicon reveals a deep-seated anthropocentrism. 11

  • 12 Several related publications include: Vincent Bradel (dir.), Urbanités et biodiversité. Entre ville (...)
  • 13 Jennifer Buyck, Urbanisme et humanités environnementales : éco-critiques des situations, pratiques (...)

4But what about today? Is such a claim still valid? Through authors, journals or collective works,12 it is possible to show how the French-speaking urban planning and landscape communities have been developing substantial reflections on the connections between human settlements and non-human life, along with their potential positioning within the “environmental humanities”,13 for over twenty years —and not to mention the substantial body of in-depth work on the topic that exists in Anglo-Saxon communities. It could just as well be argued that some of this literature is already playing out within urban design policies and methods on the ground.

  • 14 See the works of historian Éric Baratay, Jean Estebanez (« Les animaux et la ville. Une histoire so (...)
  • 15 Cf. Violette Pouillard, Histoire des zoos par les animaux : impérialisme, contrôle, conservation, P (...)
  • 16 Cf. Thimoty Pachirat, Every Twelve Seconds. Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight, Yal (...)
  • 17 Cf. Jean Cuisenier et al., L’Architecture rurale française, corpus des genres, des types et des var (...)
  • 18 See Mathias Rollot, « Architectures animalistes », in Léa Mosconi et Henri Bony (dir.), Paris Anima (...)

5But what about within architectural communities? We can certainly identify some historical works on existing relationships between the city, architecture and animals.14 Much research exists on architectural typologies such as zoos,15 stables and slaughterhouses,16 as well as in-depth studies on rural and vernacular architecture,17all of which contribute to constructing an essential, trans-expert angle of attack for highlighting problems within the relationship between construction and multispecies cohabitation. We also note the presence of several practical “animalist architecture”18 experiments in the field, as well as specific confrontations that have begun to take place during study days, seminars, exhibitions and design studios within French National Higher Schools of Architecture (ENSA). This first inventory invites us to believe in the full potential of this still largely underexplored field of study and thus propose, with this current issue, to use these works to extend the disciplinary debate.

  • 19 Cf. Tim Ingold, Une brève histoire de lignes, Paris, Zones sensibles, 2011.
  • 20 Cf. Vinciane Despret, Au bonheur des morts, récits de ceux qui restent, Paris, La Découverte, 2015.
  • 21 On the obsolescence of architecture as a discipline, see especially Mathias Rollot, L’Obsolescence. (...)

6The contributions in this issue focus on the ways in which, over time, humans and animals have been able to co-construct relationships of cohabitation, organization and participation within shared territories. They also explore the ways in which these shared spaces may have represented places of conflict or peace, symbiotic and mutualistic ecosystems, or dominating and violent structures, along with the built artifacts that reveal these systems of cohabitation. Descriptions or narratives allow us to retrace the histories created by these collaborations, exposing how architecture, urban planning and landscape come to draw the interlacing meshes and lines of the human and animal worlds.19 Further, these disciplines take on new meaning in light of the entanglements and “propositions of existence”20 they help to construct. In this context, this issue highlights some of the conceptual ways in which different approaches to conceiving, evaluating, building and inhabiting architecture, the city and the territory could be brought about through an animal lens. These conceptual and practical shifts include tensions in the dialogical relationships between construction and destruction, accumulation and expenditure, or animate and inanimate. They question our disciplinary knowledge and its permanency by investigating the potential obsolescence of architectural principles and/or foundations.21

When Architects Take Animals into Account

  • 22 Cf. Jacob Von Uexküll, Milieu animal et milieu humain, Rivages, 2010 ; Thomas A. Sebeok et Jean Umi (...)
  • 23 Cf. Nathanaël Wadbled, « Les imaginaires écologiques des ruines romantiques et post apocalyptiques  (...)
  • 24 A notion proposed by the researcher Anne Simon in Une bête entre les lignes. Essai de zoopoétique. (...)

7The first angle of analysis is interested in the animal within design/creation processes and as a source of contemporary ethics for the architectural profession. Ethological advances have led animal culture to become valuable knowledge, increasingly recognized as socially necessary by architects, especially within discussions on the links between architecture and the environment in a context of ecological crisis. Indeed, architects are interested in the knowledge cultivated through the study of animal behavior — whether domestic, liminal or wild — and its emotional and technical link to its surroundings. This, insofar as it renders possible the practical and non-devastating reinterpretation of alternative modes of existence and environmental transformation. Several approaches fall into this perspective, such as the use of biosemiotics as developed by Jacob Von Uexküll and Thomas Sebeok in their respective studies on biological signs and the Umwelten,22 cited in several of this issue’s contributions. Systems of human-animal relations, such as the ecological phenomena of synanthropy (sustainable interactions linking humans with certain non-domestic animals, plants or parasites) or the concept of feralization, 23are also addressed from this perspective, along with several adaptation systems encouraged by architectural and urban strategies, as well as “dealing with pests”, insects and other infra-animalities.24 This perspective encourages critical thinking with regard to biomorphism and biomimicry in architecture, as well as taking animals into account in architectural history and in the transitions occurring between anthropological discourse and biological order.

  • 25 The zoologist Étienne Rabaud had already published Phénomène social et sociétés animales in 1937, i (...)

8Delphine Lewandowksi’s and Julie Cardi’s contributions investigate the question of insects, taking a research approach that strives for better synergy between animal societies25 and human societies. Their work provides several opportunities for fruitful exchange between research in the fields of architecture, scientific ecology and political ecology.

  • 26 Three representations of the insect reminiscent of the three categories and political statuses of a (...)

9In “Living Insects in Anthropized Space”, Delphine Lewandowski addresses our relationship to insects through a reflection on the implications of their integration into buildings and the impact of forms of human/insect cohabitation on spatial production. By sketching three portrayals of the insect (“harmful”, “useful” and “subject”),26 the author tries to understand how our relationship to insects not only reconstructs the place of humans and insects within anthropized space, but also the status and possible transformations of contemporary architectural culture and the production of buildings. In “Building with Tiger Mosquitoes”, Julie Cardi underlines the way in which the logic behind vector control goes against the very nature of the “city mosquito”. The Ae. albopictus demonstrates the consequences linked to homogenization and globalization processes within human societies, primary factors enabling the growth of mosquito populations as well as the expansion of their territory. In fact, the urban and peri-urban niches in which mosquitoes appear directly contribute to the increase in health risks incurred by human populations. By emphasizing the need to opt for a vision that is both transdisciplinary and transcalar, these two reflections clearly show how the interpenetration of animal and human surroundings must be understood through its several dimensions: ordinary, sustainable and interattractive.

The Animal at All Scales

10The second angle deals with how territorial planning and its associated policies are influenced by animals and their portrayal. Scales of coexistence and their multiplicity are questioned within this framework: that is, which policies, infrastructures and facilities were created in favor of a greater symbiosis with non-human life? Non-human mobility and methods of territorial co-construction by human and non-human actors are addressed through the lens of disciplinary intersection, such as biogeography, biology or even research on urban and territorial metabolism.

11In “Animal Infrastructures”, Mathieu Mercuriali uses architecture to explore the ways in which the horse can be seen as an actor in territorial transformation. Here, the relationship maintained between humans and horses is studied as being at the foundation of a series of paradigms (sedentarism, domestication or even relationships with nature and the wild) which structure the spatial organization of our human environments, and in turn, constitute a specific architectural culture. In the article entitled “A Multispecies Design Approach in the Eure Valley”, Björn Bracke offers an analysis of a design studio at a landscape architecture school. Taking an innovative pedagogical approach, carried out within the framework of a broader research project on ways of implementing a “more-than-human” landscape practice, the design studio on the Eure valley offers a context-specific and, insofar as possible, multispecies investigation (both in the method and in the very aim of the work). This demonstration highlights, on the one hand, that interspecies approaches are already a pedagogical, project-based and cosmological reality; and on the other hand, that “more-than-human” concerns are in no way opposed to “human” ethical, political and cultural considerations, but rather summon and largely revitalize their centrality.

12Both cases identified a variety of issues, thus raising questions about how architecture works against or alongside the non-urban with regard to the ecological diversity of urban environments; how it is impacted by rewilding (at all scales) and by the philosophies and practices of synergy, alliance, diplomacy, mutualism and entanglement. There are many ways to question the realities and spatial translations of territorial conflicts with animals, their areas of interspecific encounter, their more or less permeable limits, the protected areas intended to prevent conflicts (National Parks, Natural Regional Parks, etc.), the reproduction and displacement of these relationships within urban settings (liminal animals) as well as in “new ruralities”.

The Imaginaries, Cosmologies and Aesthetics of Animality

  • 27 In his studies on the bestiaries of the Middle Ages, the historian Michel Pastoureau has shown the (...)
  • 28 Alfred Schütz, Le Chercheur et le quotidien. Phénoménologie des sciences sociales, Paris, Méridiens (...)
  • 29 Cf. William Riguelle, « Le Chien dans la rue aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles… », op. cit., pp. 69-86 ; (...)
  • 30 Deborah Bird Rose and Libby Robin, Vers des humanités écologiques, Marseille, Wildproject, 2019 ; M (...)
  • 31 See especially Charles Stépanoff, L’Animal et la mort. Chasses, modernité et crise du sauvage, Pari (...)
  • 32 Cf. Kirkpatrick Sale, L’Art d’habiter la terre. La vision biorégionale, Marseille, Wildproject, 202 (...)
  • 33 Cf. Sentiers Métropolitains, [https://metropolitantrails.org/fr].

13If animals and animality have in no way been dispensed from the social imaginaries shaping our ways of inhabiting,27 then it is indeed the sociocultural patterns that shape architecture and our complex and ambiguous relationships with non-human living beings — often experienced as “self-evident”28 — which deserve questioning, in light of the renewal of our thought categories. It is therefore necessary to investigate the ways in which both the presence and the absence of animals in contemporary urban spaces29 contributes to the reconfiguration of our cosmologies, attitudes and behaviors. According to more or less decolonial epistemologies,30 this also presents the opportunity to reevaluate the relevance of indigenous, native or vernacular knowledge in our relationships with non-human worlds.31 In this context, this issue proposes to question the symbolic effectiveness and the different regimes of sensitivity with regard to animal otherness, as can be testified by architects. Modalities of perception, sensation, action and interaction with regard to animals appear as essential motors in guiding the multiple ways of thinking and constructing what it means to inhabit. Some examples include urban sheep pens and eco-pastoralism, the transmission of bioregional knowledge,32 urban trails33and the informal resurgence of small livestock farms in modern urban planning projects. The presence of animals — whether desired or unintended (as in cases of reappearance despite attempts for removal) — impacts bodies and spaces, motivates new pedagogies and promotes eco-empathy. Looking at the animal as an ambivalent and border-dwelling figure of otherness, the articles of Léa Mosconi, Latifa Khettabi, and Dominique Rouillard, as well as Ralph Ghoche’s interview with the architect Joyce Hwang, offer entries on the ways in which the animal allows architecture to renew itself as a discipline, theory and practice.

14Based on feminist works denouncing architectural normativity, founded in the idealization of a masculine and valid body, Léa Mosconi’s article proposes to consider “the animal body as a subversive power of architectural norms.” Through various case studies, and stemming simultaneously from practices, discourses and architectural pedagogies, the author uses a triple approach to provide a multiplicity of opportunities to (ourselves) question the traditional relationship between architecture and the body. In this way, Mosconi gives us some of the reasons to think that a renewed consideration for animal bodies could help architecture to refine and diversify its proposals with regard to a reality that we are slowly coming to better understand over time, in that it cannot be satisfied by a universalist model – whatever it may be.

15Dominique Rouillard’s investigation of “the other animal of architecture” serves to fuel master’s education, the animal leading us towards another way of taking interest in and re-reading the discipline in terms of its theoretical and historical dimensions, while simultaneously providing a step away from environmental news, the topic of “losses” (biodiversity, etc.) or, again, the notion of the Anthropocene. The article offers a contextualized and reflective account of a research seminar held at ENSA Paris-Malaquais from 2015 to 2021, and addresses some of the weavable entanglements between the multiple research and thesis topics conducted there over the past few years. The challenge is to show that architects can engage in a field “where they are not expected”, while fully remaining in their area of expertise and contributing to the creation of animal-related thoughts and knowledge.

16This challenge strongly echoes Latifa Khettabi’s article, “Animal Space in Rural Homes in Algeria”, which seeks to question the notions of vernacular territoriality and rural/urban hybridity in the context of urbanistic controversies in Algeria. Based on a wide range of studies carried out in the field, the author shows how a vision of “renewed rurality” is initially conceived and developed from the spatial practices of inhabitants. She shows the continuation of socio-cultural practices that involve living with animals, and the difficulty of their harmonization within contemporary urban architecture projects. She also addresses the “identity blurring” of rurality in Algeria caused by various territorial modernization plans. The informal reintegration of animal presence (small chicken farms for example) within new construction forms (modern housing developments) — which were not initially planned for this — creates nuisances both for human beings (hygiene) and animals (garbage ingestion). The article therefore highlights the need to better govern human-animal cohabitation in contemporary domestic and urban spaces in order to restore spatial and socio-cultural coherence with regard to interspecific relationships.

17Finally, in an interview conducted by Ralph Ghoche, the architect Joyce Hwang discusses her experience and reflections surrounding the architectural project and discipline. The discussion addresses small-scale designs capable of favoring deeply sensitive relational experiences between architects and bats, birds or bees. Her practice clearly demonstrates the need to combine bio-empathy with commitment, making the architect both a “lawyer” who seeks to involve other non-humans in their approach, and a “detective” who finds observation to be a powerful investigative tool. For Hwang, thinking of humans as an “audience” and animals as real customers could serve as an important key for us human-architects. Drawing on a few examples — and a few mishaps — of animal design projects, Joyce Hwang and Ralph Ghoche carefully explore the constraints of design projects and the interlacing of the different lives experienced by a building as part of an ecosystem, as well as the joys of some successes (and the sometimes-diverted pathways) that are attained through collaborations with biologists and ecologists. Architectural aesthetic is ultimately defined in recognition of the interdependence of the animal, considered simultaneously as user, client and collaborator.

Towards Interspecific Architecture?

  • 34 Habiter en oiseau, Paris, Actes Sud, 2019.

“Architect Luca Merlini said that architecture draws the shape of human relationships.
We must, I believe, rid this assertion of its anthropocentrism”
Vinciane Despret
34

  • 35  Cf. Vinciane Despret, Que diraient les animaux si… on leur posait les bonnes questions ?, Paris, L (...)
  • 36 Jennifer Wolch, Kathleen West et Thomas E. Gaines, « Transspecies Urban Theory », Environment and P (...)
  • 37 Baptiste Morizot, Les Diplomates, cohabiter avec les loups sur une autre carte du vivant, Marseille (...)
  • 38 With regard to the notion of “zoopoetics”, cf. Anne Simon, Une bête entre les lignes, op. cit.

18In order to reposition architecture in the face of today’s ecological challenges, it seems urgent and essential to question the tendency to consider architecture as exclusively human and, by extension, as a discipline whose purpose is to systematically domesticate the world, thus rendering it more familiar, and more ”at home“.35 Anthropozoological relationships related to architecture, while complex, undoubtedly require as much an inter- or transdisciplinary perspective, as they do an inter- or transspecies one. So as to recall the ”Transspecies Urban Theory“ proposed by Jennifer Wolch as early as 1995,36 we could say that the contemporary challenge is thus to successfully put forth an ”interspecific architectural theory“. As a new type of theory geared towards the discipline, along with its physical implementations and related professional and social bodies, the vision is also to position the architectural field within works from animal studies, humanities and social sciences, and environmental humanities. By exposing various modes of ”diplomatic" ethology,37 these contributions form concrete pathways to enrich this collective endeavor, allowing for living beings’ hypothetical territories to blossom with regard to ecological, zoopoetic and zoopolitical practices.38

  • 39 Donna Haraway, Manifeste des espèces compagnes. Chiens, humains et autres partenaires, Paris, Clima (...)
  • 40 Mathias Rollot, « Les trois paradigmes de l’architecture », Cahiers du LHAC, n° 4, ENSAN, 2022, pp. (...)

19Studying the biological and emotional connection between humans and non-humans allows the architect to participate in questions relating to the status of animals and living things in general, insofar as the latter can be appreciated as heuristic appeals and reflexive levers for the constitution of knowledge and expertise. As Donna Haraway remarks, let us not forget that “no being pre-exists its relationships,”39 and that architecture, the architect and the animal are not exempt from this logic. This is why the presence and consideration of the animal within architectural project rationales, design practices and transformation imaginaries could help the architect develop other approaches to the worlds they are supposed to transform, thus allowing the discipline to position itself in the face of recognition, respect and collaboration with non-human otherness. Architectural knowledge can be used to position architecture among issues such as ecofeminism or decolonial thinking, thus contributing to correcting, in certain respects, the still largely universalist ambition of part of the discipline,40 while helping architects reflect on the types of architectural knowledge and know-how (expert, popular, vernacular) that they engage with, as well as their participation in our contemporary societies.

20With this issue, we wish to confirm the possibility of filling a gap as fundamental as that related to animals and animalities in architecture. Its contributions work to take into account non-human otherness in the perception, design and construction of our architectural surroundings. They aim, with moderation and humility, to reflect on the outlines and contents of an architectural discipline that knows how to emancipate itself from anthropocentricity, constituting a further step towards an interspecific architectural theory, each in their own way.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Rachel Carson, Le Sens de la merveille, Paris, José Corti, 2021 [1920].

2 Peter Berg, Beryl Magilavy, Seth Zuckerman (dir.), A Green City Program For San Francisco Bay Area Cities and Towns, San Francisco, Planet Drum Books, 1989, p. 46-47.

3 Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter, A Political Ecology of Things, Duke Press, 2010.

4 « Être homme veut dire : être sur terre comme mortel, c’est-à-dire : habiter », Martin Heidegger, « Bâtir habiter penser », in Essais et conférences, Paris, Gallimard, 1958, p. 173.

5 Ivan Illich, Dans le miroir du passé  : conférences et discours, 1978–1990, 1992), translated by Maud Sissung and Marc Duchamp, Paris, Descartes & Cie., 1994.

6 Vinciane Despret, Bêtes et hommes, Paris, Gallimard, 2007, p. 133.

7 Cf. Catherine Ingraham, Architecture, Animal, Human: The Asymmetrical Condition, London/New York, Routledge, 2006.

8 Antoine Chopot, « Les communautés plus qu’humaines », Appareil, n° 16, 2015, [online] [http://journals.openedition.org/appareil/2228] ; DOI : [https://doi.org/10.4000/appareil.2228].

9 Cf. Dominique Lestel, L’Animal singulier, Paris, Le Seuil, 2004, and Voyage au bout de l’espèce, Paris, Dis voir, 2010.

10 Cf. Catherine Ingraham, Architecture, Animal, Human…, op. cit.

11 Jennifer Wolch, “Zoöpolis”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 1996, n° 7, pp. 2-48.

12 Several related publications include: Vincent Bradel (dir.), Urbanités et biodiversité. Entre villes fertiles et campagnes urbaines, quelle place pour la biodiversité ?, ERPS vol. 4, Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne, 2010; the following journals: Cahiers du paysage, n° 21 « À la croisée des mondes », 2011; Cahiers de l’école de Blois, n° 18 « La mesure du vivant », 2020; or the works of Nathalie Blanc, Les Animaux dans la ville, Paris, Odile Jacob, 2000; of Philippe Clergeau, Une écologie du paysage urbain, Paris, Apogée, 2007, and Audrey Muratet et al., Manuel d’écologie urbaine, Paris, Presses du Réel, 2019 (among others).

13 Jennifer Buyck, Urbanisme et humanités environnementales : éco-critiques des situations, pratiques et savoirs du projet urbain, HDR thesis, IUGA/PACTE, 2022.

14 See the works of historian Éric Baratay, Jean Estebanez (« Les animaux et la ville. Une histoire sociale, politique et affective à poursuivre », Histoire urbaine, 2016/3, n° 47, pp. 125-129); of William Riguelle (« Le Chien dans la rue aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. Le cas des villes du sud de la Belgique », idem, pp. 69-86), or even Caroline Hodak (« Les Animaux dans la cité : pour une histoire urbaine de la nature », Genèses, n° 37, 1999, pp. 156-169). Cf. « Animaux dans la ville 1 », Histoire urbaine, 2015/3, n° 44; « Animaux dans la ville 2 », Histoire urbaine, 2016/3, n° 47 ; Dominique Rouillard, « L’autre animal de l’architecture », Cahiers thématiques, n° 11 « Agriculture métropolitaine/Métropole agricole », ENSAPL, 2011, pp. 105-120.

15 Cf. Violette Pouillard, Histoire des zoos par les animaux : impérialisme, contrôle, conservation, Paris, Champ-Vallon, 2019 ; Natascha Meuser, Zoo Buildings : Construction and Design Manual, DOM Publisher, 2019 ; Derrick Jensen, Zoos : le cauchemar de la vie en captivité, Paris, Libre, 2018.

16 Cf. Thimoty Pachirat, Every Twelve Seconds. Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight, Yale Press (UK), 2011 ; Sigfried Giedion, « La Mécanisation et la mort : la viande », in La Mécanisation au pouvoir, Paris, Denöel, 1980.

17 Cf. Jean Cuisenier et al., L’Architecture rurale française, corpus des genres, des types et des variantes. Le Nord-Pas-de-Calais, La Manufacture, Lyon, 1989 ; P. Oliver (dir.), Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World, Cambridge University Press, 1997 ; and, more recently, Jean-Philippe Garric, Vers une agritecture – architecture des constructions agricoles (1789-1950), Paris, Mardaga, 2014 ; as well as the work of Sandra Piesik, Habiter la Planète, Atlas de l’architecture vernaculaire, Paris, Flammarion, 2017.

18 See Mathias Rollot, « Architectures animalistes », in Léa Mosconi et Henri Bony (dir.), Paris Animal, Paris, Pavillon de l’Arsenal, september 2022.

19 Cf. Tim Ingold, Une brève histoire de lignes, Paris, Zones sensibles, 2011.

20 Cf. Vinciane Despret, Au bonheur des morts, récits de ceux qui restent, Paris, La Découverte, 2015.

21 On the obsolescence of architecture as a discipline, see especially Mathias Rollot, L’Obsolescence. Ouvrir l’impossible, Genève, Métispresses, 2016.

22 Cf. Jacob Von Uexküll, Milieu animal et milieu humain, Rivages, 2010 ; Thomas A. Sebeok et Jean Umiker-Sebeok (éds.) Biosemiotics. The Semiotic Web, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter, 1982. We also refer the reader to practical experiences in architecture in the work of the CODA agency, cf. Caroline O’Donnell, Niche Tactics. Generative Relationships between Architecture and Site, New York/London, Routledge, 2015.

23 Cf. Nathanaël Wadbled, « Les imaginaires écologiques des ruines romantiques et post apocalyptiques : représenter le sauvage et la pollution contre l’artificialisation moderne », Sociétés, n° 148, « Humanités environnementales », 2020/2, pp. 101-113 ; Anna Tsing, Le Champignon de la fin du monde. Sur les possibilités de vivre dans les ruines du capitalisme, Paris, La Découverte, 2017.

24 A notion proposed by the researcher Anne Simon in Une bête entre les lignes. Essai de zoopoétique. Marseille, Wildproject, 2021, p. 313.

25 The zoologist Étienne Rabaud had already published Phénomène social et sociétés animales in 1937, in which he questioned the gathering of animal individuals (including insects) according to two human forms: society and the crowd. He notes that “the gatherings of animals caused by inter-attraction create no other possible determinism than the reciprocal influence which brings individuals together and keeps them united. This is indeed the social phenomenon itself, the fundamental process which is at the foundation of any society.” (p. 129)

26 Three representations of the insect reminiscent of the three categories and political statuses of animals proposed by Will Kimlyka and Sue Donaldson: “domestic-citizen”, “liminal-resident” and “wild-sovereign” animals. Cf. Will Kymlicka et Sue Donaldson, Zoopolis. Une théorie politique des droits des animaux, Paris, Éditions Alma, 2016 [2011].

27 In his studies on the bestiaries of the Middle Ages, the historian Michel Pastoureau has shown the weight of animal presence — whether real, imaginary, protected or threatened — in the construction of human communities. Roger Caillois (Le Mythe et l’homme, 1938), Gaston Bachelard or Gilbert Durand (Les Structures anthropologiques de l’imaginaire, 1962) in turn taught us the power of animal figures in the collective subconscious and the innumerable socio-cultural configurations to which they contribute.

28 Alfred Schütz, Le Chercheur et le quotidien. Phénoménologie des sciences sociales, Paris, Méridiens Klincksieck, 1987.

29 Cf. William Riguelle, « Le Chien dans la rue aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles… », op. cit., pp. 69-86 ; Damien Baldin, « De l’horreur du sang à l’insoutenable souffrance animale. Élaboration sociale des régimes de sensibilité à la mise à mort des animaux (19e-20e siècles) », Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire, vol. 123, n° 3, 2014, pp. 52-68.

30 Deborah Bird Rose and Libby Robin, Vers des humanités écologiques, Marseille, Wildproject, 2019 ; Malcom Ferdinand, Une écologie décoloniale. Penser l’écologie depuis le monde caribéen, Paris, Seuil, 2019.

31 See especially Charles Stépanoff, L’Animal et la mort. Chasses, modernité et crise du sauvage, Paris, La Découverte, 2021.

32 Cf. Kirkpatrick Sale, L’Art d’habiter la terre. La vision biorégionale, Marseille, Wildproject, 2020 ; Mathias Rollot et Marin Schaffner, Qu’est-ce qu’une biorégion ?, Marseille, Wildproject, 2021.

33 Cf. Sentiers Métropolitains, [https://metropolitantrails.org/fr].

34 Habiter en oiseau, Paris, Actes Sud, 2019.

35  Cf. Vinciane Despret, Que diraient les animaux si… on leur posait les bonnes questions ?, Paris, La Découverte, 2011. With regard to domestication, breeding and animal production, cf. Jocelyne Porcher, Vivre avec les animaux, Une utopie pour le XXIe siècle, Paris, La Découverte, 2011.

36 Jennifer Wolch, Kathleen West et Thomas E. Gaines, « Transspecies Urban Theory », Environment and Planning D, vol. 13 « Society and Space », 1995, pp. 735-760.

37 Baptiste Morizot, Les Diplomates, cohabiter avec les loups sur une autre carte du vivant, Marseille, Wildproject, 2016.

38 With regard to the notion of “zoopoetics”, cf. Anne Simon, Une bête entre les lignes, op. cit.

39 Donna Haraway, Manifeste des espèces compagnes. Chiens, humains et autres partenaires, Paris, Climats, 2019 [2003], p. 29.

40 Mathias Rollot, « Les trois paradigmes de l’architecture », Cahiers du LHAC, n° 4, ENSAN, 2022, pp. 123-148.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Manuel Bello-Marcano, Marianne Celka et Mathias Rollot, « Contributions Towards Interspecific Architectural Theory  »Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale urbaine et paysagère [En ligne], 14 | 2022, mis en ligne le 30 avril 2022, consulté le 05 octobre 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/craup/10485 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/craup.10485

Haut de page

Auteurs

Manuel Bello-Marcano

Architecte, docteur en sciences sociales, maître de conférences en sciences humaines et sociales à l’École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Saint-Étienne (ENSASE), membre de l'unité « Architectures et transformations » (ENSASE) et du laboratoire Études du contemporain en littératures, langues, arts (ECLLA) de l'université Jean Monnet.

Marianne Celka

Maître de conférences au département de sociologie de l’université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3 et membre du Laboratoire d’études interdisciplinaires sur le réel et les imaginaires sociaux (LEIRIS), Marianne Celka est l’auteur de Vegan Order. Des éco-warrior au business de la radicalité (Arkhê Éditions, 2018).

Mathias Rollot

Maître de conférences TPCAU et membre permanent du Laboratoire d’histoire de l’architecture contemporaine (LHAC) de l’École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Nancy, Mathias Rollot a écrit, édité et traduit près d’une quinzaine d’ouvrages sur la théorie critique et l’éthique de l’architecture écologique.

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search