Regionalism: Future or Past?

 Through the readings of Lefairve, he mentions multiple points of view on what regionalism is. It is defined as, "the theory or practice of regional rather than central systems of administration or economic, cultural, or political affiliation." In my initial understanding of the term, I understood this to mean the reintegration of regional aspects of an area based on historic significance. The looking back into the past and recreating what has already been done in order to return an area back to their cultural roots so to speak, distancing themselves from the mainstream (in this case the international style). This method seems regressive in a sense but begins to make more sense when you consider "critical regionalism" instead. 

Critical regionalism, "is a regionalism that is more self-examining and self-questioning." it is a point of view that learns from the past, extracting what truly defines a culture and their history while representing it in a way that both diverges from the mainstream styles while culturally enhancing the historic styles that once defined the area. We saw this critical approach rise in interest in the post war eras, when international styles were taking over. The international style was taking the place of many cultural building and homes that were destroyed during these battles. This essentially washed away the previous social, cultural, and political aspects of the area. The critical approach takes this opportunity to reevaluate the areas past and criticize the mainstream in order to grow as a culture and redesign their own future.