Architecture Metalanguage and the Rhetoric of Consumption

I'm wondering how we can find a common language with the inhabitants of the built environment and if our need or want to maintain the specialized knowledge of our profession is closing off the function of architecture and keeping it from doing what it can and should - creating a new humanism that principally solves real human needs instead of adding to the rhetoric of consumption. That there is an architecture metalanguage at all assumes that architecture is itself a language, which I think is accurate. That assumption leads to the question - if urbanization and the growth of the built environment is driven by the reinvestment of surplus capital, and it is the architect's job to provide the means to build more stuff, are we as architect's simply perpetuating the cycle of consumerist rhetoric? And can we manipulate our language to potentially subvert the social and institutional barriers to new humanist growth? In this way, urbanization is the byproduct of a widening gap between concentrated private ownership of surplus and the necessary human means of production. If the surplus is tainted, is not the built environment as well?