THE METROPOLIS AND THE CAPITAL Anne Querrien The metropolis and the capital relate to two different ethical principles and involve two different modes of human distribution. Nevertheless, these diverse * phenomena are produced by similar forces and can occur, with varying inten- sity, ina single location. Indeed, many cities partake of both types, though there are “pure” metropolises (such as Hanse or contemporary Hong Kong and Singa- pore) and “pure” capitals (such as Versailles before the Revolution). Below are some notes towards a typology of these two urban forms. ies 41. The metropolis imposes a common measure on the regions with which it I tends to submit them to its dominance. ___ Comes into contact, whereas the capital 7 Gieffece, the metropolis isa membrane which allows communication between sor more milieus, while the capital serves as a nucleus around which these are rigorously organized. the metropolis is not a center itself caught up ina network of cities xu ny circulates. This transnational network is relatively independent boundaries. The capital, on the other hand, is 2 center which “yor consumes the national wealth. Somewhat restrined by or is partly limited by the protection which, a8 8 its territory and inhabitants. and has no center: made up of net- through which the flux of the2. The social ideal of the metropolis isa democracy in which citize and at an equal distance from one another and enjoy equal rights. H a world market, the metropolis encourages a limitless ch completely overrides this ideal. Unlike the capigy 5 of vatioy origins st ever, in its quest for nomic expansionism whit rn the metropolis has no identity to preserve: itis only concerned with promtn certain proportional relations. In the name of these relations, which are some. , the metropolis feels free to explo times confused with relations of equa regions of the world. The capital, on the other hand, primarily concerned with subjugating the national territory and population to acommon heritage. Consequently, whereas the metropolis is more readily maritime than continental, the capital is nec sarily bound to its hinterland. Even as the capital drains the resources of the hinterland, it must protect it, for it is on this guarantee of protection that its legitimacy depends. 3. It is di more antagonistic to traditional practices. One convenient case in point isthe ficult to decide whether the metropolis or the capital is generally system of roads: the capital tends to demand a new layout of roads in order to. ensure its own central position, whereas the metropolis tends to improve rather than restructure traditional commercial routes. Territorial administration is another story, however. As symbol and protector of the “homeland,” the capital maintains the traditional organization of parishes and villages (albeit in subjo- gated form), whereas the metropolis is inclined to replace this organization with rational territories — with a generally geometric division of space and arithme- tic serialization of the population. 4. The capital can begin in any minute concentration of power exercised forthe sake of protection and defense. For its part, the metropolis begins with the sigh” est desire to exchange, to communicate, to leave the fortress behind. Where the capital works to control the economic flux so as to reproduce the state PP" Tatus and social hierarchy, the metropolis seeks to free this flow of all obsta“ 5. The center of the ca gated its territory. Thi pital represents the political power by which ithass¥))" Ss center, sporadically alive with the comings and & ings 220of representatives, is often apparently vacant, especially at night: it is never the heart of metropolitan life. The metropolis meanwhile is the place where people congregate, where migrants find their socially predetermined destina- tion. (This transition, usually made through the medium of the ghetto, may lead to settlements outside the ghetto, sometimes as early as the first generation but usually with the second.) The metropolis considers the public in terms of its minority potentials. ‘The metropolis puts an incongruous mix of beings into circulation; it offers its own mode of space-time to those for whom the principles of a sovereign people and a nation-state do not apply. It is a place of experimentation, where new operational propositions can be made concerning current practices — as Jong as capitalization does not set in. As soon as it does, the metropolis begins to be eclipsed. ‘Translated from the French by Cynthia Schoch auoz