wordgames

 "...Exploring, very specifically how a spacial perspective can add new insights at a political/theoretical level but even more concretely add new strategies for  political organizations and activists to work toward greater social justice, towards greater equality, to fight against the most oppressive forces that are working in the word today."  - Edward Soja

Soja later continues to describe that justice (as defined by Soja) "is moving away from equality or more conservatively, freedom' toward an 'inclusive" that is less about; the struggle over workplace, racial issues, gender equality, ect....but instead, "justice opens a wider net to encompass many different forms of activism to come together in larger coalitions".

Equality - The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

Freedom - The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Justice - Just behavior or treatment.                        The quality of being fair and reasonable.                           The administration of the law or authority in maintaining this.

I don't buy this. Sorry, but this narrative doesn't convince me to design more 'inclusive' space. Instead it seems like a call to anarchy. Admittedly, I am hanging my hat heavily on Soja's verbiage and am having trouble moving away from it. Call me elitist but it comes back to who we design for; the people that pay us. Architecture is a service (yes, and  a lot more...but basically a service). Activist and S.J.W's don't pay the bills.

I keep circling back to a comment Elisa had last week in class, "history repeats itself". This could not be more true. It's a sick game in many ways. Analyze the 'space' until you're blue in the face...That's not going to change the fact that people are destructive creatures. We want to be defiant, its in our nature. that's why we walk upright, forcing the status quo to evolve with us. it won't though, because people will never get along. This is where Soja is wrong. Words do not evolve, people do. So rather than playing word games, and making definitions as you see fit....play by the rules. Why? because (in the US anyway) the IBC makes us follow the rules. Security check points, access, occupancy..all that good stuff.


Positively....I can stand behind the rhetoric of 'Citizen Architect' Samuel Mockbee and (my boy) Peter  Eisenman without second thought. I believe this is mostly because of the scale in which they talk about propagating change. At the scale of the individual; For the community. This I believe to be healthy architectural growth. Easy, straight forward, no reading between the lines. Providing quality housing to quality people.