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?

the following is the abstract for a paper/presentation I’m submitting for this conference. Could be good?

—

“Intersections of Politics and Poetics” can be likened to the conflict between the collective and the individual. “Politics” – the structures of democratic, legitimate justice – are outgrowths of a collective society, whereas “Poetics” – the creative acts of individuals – are products of a single mind. This distinction is debatable, but is sharply delineated in the realm of architecture, a field where individual ambitions are constantly at odds with the laws and codes of society.

The Randian hero-architect must battle the restrictions of law to achieve his creative vision. The eventual, inevitable, triumph of the hero’s will over the laws of the collective is the essence of 20th century American individualism. The superiority of the individual will receive recognition, by force if necessary.

In the 20th century, codes in the United States gradually came to favor utility, safety, and security, and the opportunities for radically experimental work became increasingly rare. If a would-be hero refuses to acquiesce to the will of the collective, to design-by-committee, he must find new, subversive ways to put forth his ultimate creative vision. The growing realization that the systems of nature and society are deeply interconnected at all scales forces a re-framing of individuality. The übermensch is recognized as an obsolete, or even dangerous, ideal. Collective action through cooperation is the new paradigm.

As the necessities of sustainability come to further restrict creative expression in architecture, how will architects reconcile their own ambition with the ambition of society as a whole? Will global forces of overpopulation and resource scarcity force the ultimate, unavoidable, concession of individuality in favor of the survival of the collective, or are outstanding moments of individual triumph necessary beacons of hope for a future that seems increasingly bleak?