Elitism as a Response to Elitism

I took issue with the anti-functional claims of Peter Eisenman who argued that the value of architecture is the thing in itself, not how it is used, how it affects people, or anything related to it being in the world. While I could argue that it isn't really possible to design something truly non-functional, or that the non-functional elements they include are essentially just ornament, whether or not they choose to call it that, I think there is a more important argument to be made.

First, this gets to a question of what the point of architecture is if it can only be "Architecture" if defined by "the inherent value of the object in and of itself and its capacity to be represented," as Eisenman claims. If it has no function, I would argue that it is not architecture but rather art (which can have the type of functions of simple aesthetics, experiment, or breaking norms that these "non-functional" forms innately have). There may not be a consensus on what defines Architecture, but the idea that it relates to buildings  as opposed to simply ambiguous structures seems to me a key component. Architecture is a building or structure with some purpose for users, whether people or animals; it must serve a purpose, otherwise, it is simply a large-scale art piece. 

Further and more importantly however, the views of these thinkers seem to be the very antithesis of human centred design, which frustrates me even more than the paternalistic and condescending (and unsuccessful) attempts at human centred design by the Modernists, something I wouldn't have thought possible. The Modernists may have decided they know best and will 'fix' everybody else and teach them the "right way" of living, but at least in their minds, they were trying to design for the users and make something fit for them, or rather for them to fit to.

The perceived failure of Modernism's attempts toward utopia by Tafuri, Rowe, Eisenman, and Koolhaas that sparked this philosophy should have led them to question why it didn't work to tell people how to live, and inspired a focus on the user, thus leading to human centred design. Instead, in a supremely cynical move, they pronounce utopian architecture a failure, seeming to say that architecture for social good cannot and should not exist, and keeping instead the worst part of the Modernists - the high-minded, privileged view of "Architecture" that only they can create and recognise, Architecture that is above and beyond the general public, the unwashed, uneducated masses. It is an elitist sentiment to say that architecture should have no function. There are thousands without adequate shelter, and millions for whom the built environment poses very real barriers to everyday tasks, and all sorts of groups for whom architecture has been used to suppress, constrain, control, or even traumatise. To simply ignore these people is irresponsible, but to actively ignore them, using your professional influence to claim that 'true Architecture' can only be created by ignoring them goes beyond irresponsible, beyond privilege and elitism, and becomes simply cruel.