If an equilibrium model of social and political fairness is fundamentally flawed due to the unproductive nature of a homogeneous society (or, rather, the superior productive capacity of a heterogeneous one), would a new social ideal consist of constantly shifting power structures, a folding-over (kneading) of hierarchies that favored groups alternately such that every individual, over time, received equal opportunities and roadblocks, successes and failures? Would the social structure at any given moment be sufficiently heterogeneous to sponsor “production” (industrial, cultural, what-have-you)? And what would stop particularly “productive” configurations from persisting over time? How would this type of constant cycling be possible without the elimination of feedback loops that tend to consolidate wealth and power?
If an architecture has utopian goals, and wishes to contribute to the transformation of society towards an ideal, must it necessarily operate within the framework of the structure it wishes to destroy? Is complete occupation (full-spectrum-dominance?) the only remaining technique of subversion? If one must fully embrace consumer culture in order to critique it (Koolhaas? “Adbusters”?), at what point does sedition become suicide? Or, is the *new* utopia exactly this scenario of constant overturning, such that the parasite dying with its host is the ultimate contribution?