In Defense of Architects' Architecture

I find the sentiment that "architecture is too important to be left to architects" troubling. I understand De Carlo's reasoning - his 'architect' is compromised not only by his position within the socioeconomic and bureaucratic power structure, but also by his unwillingness to act to subvert the power structure in which he is confined. Where I differ is that I don't think this is a foregone conclusion, nor do I feel that the solution is to eliminate the gap between architect and user, thereby elevating the user to a sort of pseudo-architect absent the specialized knowledge required to act responsibly within the profession. Of course, the other consequence of this narrowing is that the profession of architecture is further eroded, now from two fronts, rendering the architect a delegate for corporate interests without any of the "intrinsic aggressiveness" to have an effect anyway. Instead, the goal should be, as De Carlo acknowledges later, an emphasis on the participation of a range of objects and subjects, not a hierarchical flattening of architecture's professional landscape.