Peggy Deamer & Manuel Shvartzberg as a natural reality stemming from individual’s Thus, in Laclau and Mouffe’s theory, work, natural preferences and requiring only proce- workers, and the working class are reconceived For an Architecture of Radical Democracy dural tweaks in purely technical terms). Argu- as follows: (1) In lieu of the idea that the eco- ing that there is simply no outside to the social nomic process is a categorical, ‘transparent’, itself—no privileged vantage point from which and objective phenomenon where capital and to formulate a total perspective on it—Laclau labour relate exclusively in economic terms, and Mouffe propose that culture replaces struc- Laclau and Mouffe argue that socio-cultural to this question. It is enlightening because it 2 Any viable political project in architecture to- ture as the chief mediating agent of the social. relations are fundamental to the economic pro- re-focuses Marxist critique for the current day must contend with the idea and practices of This cultural versus structural description of cess. The fact that workers are able to socially economic regime under explicitly postmodern radical democracy. At a time of global socio-po- society attempts to reckon with identifications organize themselves and affect the nature and conditions and it is applicable because it offers a litical and economic upheaval, the architectural that are not just economically illogical, but often terms of their working conditions de-mystifies scalable model for how architecture and archi- 3 profession, like other collectives, seeks models contradictory. Yet such identifications may pro- the idea that “the economy could be under- tectural work can be rethought in this context. and institutions that will allow it to address its duce contingent alliances that can enlist differ- stood as an autonomous and self-regulated We argue that any progressive political activism 5 grievances as part of this upheaval. The par- ent actors (with divergent interests) into a com- universe.” (2) In lieu of the idea of the working within (and without) architecture must contend ticular fallouts within architecture are multiple mon project, at least for a determined period of class as a homogenous unity that fully identi- with radical democracy’s insights if it wants and well-known: high rates of un- or under- time. In this sense, it is a non-teleological theory fies with itself in a common economic context, to address architecture’s structural problems. employment, low and unequal pay and fees, of social change—pragmatic and instrumental the authors find the working class is a divided Radical democracy offers a viable understand- terrible work-life balance, mountains of student rather than historically deterministic. It also and divisive category, with unequal groups ing of the relation between architecture as an debt, lack of access for minorities, and a lack of rethinks class, in as much as the “working class” (sexes, races, legal status, etc.) and unequal actor within civil society and the state, and pro- socially-rewarding and meaningful projects to is displaced from its conditions (hours, cesses of social change. work on, among others. position as singular salaries, benefits),

This essay will fall into two parts: reviewing & SHVARTZBERG DEAMER While architecture has typically shrugged agent of historical and that these are some of the main ideas of radical democracy off these social issues as largely exogenous to change, with a defini- “political, not merely and considering them in relation to architecture 6 the discipline, a growing number of practi- tion that relies on fluid economic divisions.” and architectural work. tioners and theorists have come to appreciate identities and power And (3) the authors these political realities directly through their Radical Democracy relations dependent dismiss the primacy work experiences as architects, not as parallel on a given moment’s of revolution—cri-

or external to it. Hence we see the awkward correlation of socio- tiquing modernist CRITIQUES Radical democracy, while emergent from Marx- manoeuvrings of conservative architectural political forces. Build- avant-gardes’ privi- ist discourse, is fundamentally at odds with a institutions like the AIA to try and cover their ing on the work of An- leged access to “a ra- number of classical Marxist tenets. The central- Architecture Lobby members perform outside the crisis of legitimacy (catalysed, most recently, by tonio Gramsci, Laclau tional and necessary ity of “revolution” as a transcendental break Pennsylvania Convention Center during the 2016 Na- their infamous reaction to Donald Trump’s in- and Mouffe theorize movement of history with the past, the privileged role of the working tional AIA Convention. frastructure plans) through ineffective and su- class around the im- accessible to scien- class as the agent of historical change, and the 7 perficial “reports,” “listening rounds,” and other portance of moral and tific knowledge” —an 1 ascendancy of economics over any other social recuperative strategies of corporate “inclusion.” intellectual influence, including the integration idea that assumes teleological historical devel- determination, are critically reconceived. As a Rather than dealing with these structural of extra-class values, habits, and narratives as the opment, and a separation between leadership theory, radical democracy attempts to under- problems in a remedial and patchwork fash- foundations of political struggle. In short, they and ordinary citizens. Instead, they promote a stand “the ontology of the social” while reject- ion, the moment demands a more systematic claim, ideology ought to be understood as an constantly dynamic process of reconfiguration ing the truisms of essentialist models that en- analysis—in effect, an effort to align the reali- “organic and relational whole, embodied in insti- of individual and collective identities, implying shrine any social order as natural or inevitable. ties of architecture today with the discourses tutions and apparatuses” rather than reflecting constant struggle and antagonism without any In a critically post-modern fashion, Laclau and 4 and practices of progressive politics at large. only structures of production. historically-preordained resolution. What are their relations, if any, and how might Mouffe break with the modern social science they suggest more effective models of political idea that “the social” can be represented in its 2. For important challenges to Laclau and Mouffe’s post- term that Gramsci gives to a process of identity formation agency for architecture? totality, as something objective and external— structuralist framework, which we have attempted to where culture plays an outsized role in cultivating consent in effect, challenging both classical Marxist incorporate in what follows, see: Ellen Meiksins Wood, The across groups with different interests; it does not negate The concept of “radical democracy,” first Retreat From Class: A New 'True' Socialism (London: Verso, the role of economic relations, but incorporates them into a theorized by Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto orthodoxy (that would see the world as a pri- 1986). For an influential history of the relations between post- new interpretive synthesis. See: Antonio Gramsci, Selections Laclau in their seminal 1985 book, Hegemony marily economic structure totalized by capital- structuralist and Marxist theories, see: Perry Anderson, In the from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (New York: ism as a mode of production) as well as liberal Tracks of Historical Materialism (London: Verso, 1983). International, 1995). and Socialist Strategy: Towards a R adical Dem- 3. Laclau and Mouffe’s framework is based on Antonio 4. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist ocratic Politics, offers enlightening approaches political philosophy (that would see the market Gramsci’s theorization of hegemony, in which cultural Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso, relations are attributed a more important role than in purely 1985), 67. ‘economistic’ Marxist models. Through a layered political, 5. Ibid., 80. 1. See The Architecture Lobby, “A Response to AIA Values”, economic, and cultural reading, Gramsci explains why 6. Ibid., 82. The Avery Review 23, April 2017. Available at: http://averyreview. certain social actors do not identify as “working class” and 7. Ibid., 84. com/issues/23/a-response-to-aia-values act against their own material interests. Hegemony is the

24 PROJECT Issue 7 25 The theory of radical democracy seeks to nomic and political events that reflect the full aspect can be understood schematically in bilizing architectural responses to all of these give these endless (cultural) struggles an ap- blush of present-day neoliberalism. Advanced terms of scales—(1) the geopolitical as it affects conditions. In part, this involves promoting propriate (cultural, political, and economic) neoliberalism exacerbates the struggles previ- architecture; (2) the associations that configure alternative financial strategies that look beyond outlet that will displace violence in favour of ously identified in the critique of late capital- architectural communities, organizations, and neoliberalism itself, pushing to abandon both more democratic forms of action—what Mouffe ism—the coercions of anti-labor policies, institutions; and (3) the discourses and policies capitalist globalism and nationalist isolationism would subsequently theorize further as “demo- austerity, the shrinking of the welfare state, the aimed at rationalizing the division of labor at in favor of a more just redistribution of inter- cratic agonism.”8 Thus, if liberal democracy establishment of a markedly pro-business po- the scale of the individual and the office. national wealth and access to resources. Such a is predicated on an equality of opportunities litical framework (from free trade agreements geopolitical reorientation could repurpose the guaranteed (in theory, if never fully in practice) to financial de-regulation to oligopolistic wars), Radical Architectural Democracy global glut of savings accumulated since the by a system of rights under a free market, radi- the marketization of social identities—but these 2008 financial crisis, directing capital towards cal democracy is predicated on an equality of struggles are now masked ever more extremely 1. Geopolitics public goods, and investing in meaningful work, access to the political process, expansively un- by an economic-cultural discourse of individu- health, education, and green technologies.12 It derstood. No longer seeking a unified “people” alism, innovation, creativity, DIY, and start-ups While a few large firms compete globally for also, at an architectural level, is the responsi- (the working class, the nation, the party) led that seems to reward “self-realization” in the the small-pie business of iconic projects, this bility of all architectural actors to first stress by a self-selected avant-garde or charismatic name of market “disruption.” In reality, these zero-sum model of architectural innovation that architecture as a discipline is indeed in the leader, cultural claims, rights, and property be- illusive self-empowering paradigms operate as leaves the vast majority of places, regions, and world. This means marginalizing discourses come subject to political deliberation—not just coercive mechanisms (‘Be creative! Or else… architectural firms mired in disinvestment.11 of autonomy or narrow interests in style and through the “official” channels of parliaments lose your job, health care, etc.’) that fulfil the Always at the edge of economic relevance, analysing what structures of ideology make but also through the regulation of markets and anti-democratic requirements of finance capital architects have thus been distanced by this architecture susceptible to these sidelining the cultural mediations of civil society. and neoliberal globalization. geopolitical-economic model from participating narratives. For academics, this means teaching The opportunity to change current practices Indeed, neoliberal policies have increasingly in the activities that actually matter: creating architecture in the context of geopolitical, eco- lies, according to Laclau and Mouffe, in two unhinged social identities from their historical, “public” spaces that are truly public; housing for nomic, and cultural history. For practitioners, & SHVARTZBERG DEAMER interrelated aspects: (1) the radical enfranchise- material, and political articulations and turned all; quality infrastructure; and democratically this means an embrace of, as opposed to an in- ment of actors within the democratic process the very constitution of identity into a market zoned urban, suburban, and rural networks. As difference to, the non-architectural agents with at every level of society—through transparency, contest.10 Thus, for example, instead of feminist cities vie for the scarce capital available for pub- whom we necessarily interact. Our contracts participatory modes of engagement, and access claims radically disrupting a heteropatriarchal lic goods, a race-to-the-bottom logic extends could be written in such a way that contrac- to political infrastructures; and (2) a constant form of social organization, in the corporate throughout community building: private real tors are not pitted against architects (and both seeking out of “chains of equivalences” between sector they tend to supplement and legitimize estate has taken over where public policy (with against owners) and collaboration with “subs” CRITIQUES the different struggles that constitute the demo- it. If all political struggles can be reduced to some civic pride) should rule; in environmental is the norm. We should discard the class-based cratic public sphere in order to forge a new (yet individual and incommensurable claims, there impact, ecological integrity has been lost to the condescension that is at the root of profession- always contingent) democratic socialist hege- can be no aggregate group interests of any du- economic interests of markets; technology has alism. And we should see that the squabbles we mony. They call for a new left politics that seeks rability, and hence, no alternative hegemonic made the connection to actual agents of pro- have with our contractors and consultants pale strategic alliances between those struggling project. The question for an updated radical duction—contractors, subcontractors, laborers, in comparison to the larger forces that sell the against sexism, racism, nationalism, environ- democracy therefore now becomes: how to fabricators, working drawing specialists— re- built environment down the river. mental degradation, and the plights of workers, redirect the agency of fluid identity formations mote and abstract; architectural competitions Radical democracy implies the embrace of in order to create a viable alternative to neolib- away from the reinforcement of capitalism and for iconic symbols of entry into the global mar- conflict rather than its denial: architectural eral politics. A common socialist practice would towards a democratic project with a new set of ket reward architects chosen for their branding practitioners must both protest injustices in hinge “upon a ‘collective will’ that is labori- real, material institutions? capabilities rather than their social commit- the streets and be at the decision-making table, ously constructed from a number of dissimilar The answer involves three steps: (1) bring- ment or expertise. actively calling out the spurious motives of points.”9 This view of social change is never fully ing back the structural analysis of capitalism; Radical democracy offers different ap- developers. Equally, we should bring the people resolved or crowned by a master-historical “rev- (2) establishing new connections and systems proaches to deliberating, analysing, and mo- who inhabit our spaces into the process of de- olution,” but implies ceaseless reconfiguration of representation between social, juridical, with no guarantee of a utopian resolution—only economic, and political institutions; and (3) singular categories such as class. One result of this that 12. This critique—that capitalism tends towards monopolies we are now only too familiar with is the commodification of and financialization, creating problems for itself—is central a fairer, more democratic process. creating an aesthetic—rather than purely eco- identity claims themselves. Instead of the proliferation of to the Marxist understanding of the capitalist mode of nomic—discourse of labor that understands the identities serving the worthy goals of radical democratic production, especially under conditions of “unfettered” Radical Democracy and Neoliberalism co-dependent character of class and culture in enfranchisement, in neoliberalism they have been channelled free-market capitalism of the kind seen in the 19th century, in more tokenistic terms as new marketable assets. For more and which neoliberalism has quite successfully attempted the twenty-first century. on this line of argument, see: MaurizioLazzarato, Signs and to reproduce the world over since the 1970s. The thesis of The principles given here by Laclau and Mouffe, We will articulate these three aspects with Machines: Capitalism and the Production of Subjectivity (Los “secular stagnation” due to lack of productive investment as written over thirty years ago, predate eco- reference to the architectural profession. Each Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2014). was integrated by capitalists themselves in the 1930s, by 11. Bob Jessop, Jamie Peck, and Adam Tickell, “Retooling the thinkers as diverse as Keynes and Schumpeter. For a another Machine: State Restructuring, Uneven Development, and ‘mainstream’ contemporary interpretation, see: Larry 8. Chantal Mouffe, Agonistics: Thinking The World Politically 10. As social identities become “unfixed,” Mouffe and Laclau Urban Politics,” in A.E.G Jonas and D. Wilson, eds., The Summers, “The Age of Secular Stagnation,” Foreign Affairs, (London; New York: Verso, 2013). note that “[i]dentity, then, has become purely relational” Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later March/April 2016, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ 9. Laclau and Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, 87. (Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, 86), not conditioned by (New York: SUNY, 1999). united-states/2016-02-15/age-secular-stagnation.

26 PROJECT Issue 7 27 sign, attempting to think and frame all scales tions—rejecting purely market-driven work and no longer necessarily positive in today's context competition.) But architecture is different from of architectural work in the context of infra- models of organization—in the face of socio- of a hyper-competitive neoliberal economy. In law or medicine, which have powerful lobbies structure—in physical, economic, social and political-economic perversity. their place, alternative organizational mecha- pushing for state legislation in their favor. It financial terms. Too often, the price of being at the table of nisms that undo the coercive control over how thus bears the worse effects and none of the For environmentalism, radical democracy power where these struggles unfold is the co- we associate, work and culturally legitimate rewards of antitrust legislation. requires a refusal to operate under the unsus- option of our ambitions. To achieve meaningful social divisions of labor are necessary. Instead Radical democracy offers a rethinking of tainable capitalist “green-washing” models that engagement rather than betrayal, architects of simply exercising rhetorics of expertise and professional institutions by transcending a gov- currently serve national hegemonic impera- need to leverage their power politically, not only rationality for the sake of market efficiency (or ernmentally-imposed insistence on competi- tives, ensuring that all those affected by global professionally. Yet this political power must be raw power grabs of economic, racial, or sexual tion (of a piece with “austerity” economics) and warming—big and small nations, powerful and found across a spectrum of social movements, natures), institutions need to be understood as, the brutal division of labor and expertise that disenfranchised institutions—have full access not only within architecture “itself.” This means and transformed into, machines of collective come with it. At the broadest level, this would to information and meaningful participation articulating the common socio-economic bases subjectivation; world-building social instru- imply deprofessionalization. No longer a nega- in shaping policy. This, in turn, requires archi- of various struggles while not erasing their own ments in political and aesthetic terms. tive term depicting deskilling in the “learned tects to promote communal organizations at specificities—an approach for which architects In American architecture, the dominant professions,” deprofessionalization could un- the local level to combat predatory develop- should be uniquely qualified given their compe- associations—NCARB and AIA—serve the cur- burden architecture—still competency-certified ment, and to push for publically-controlled and tencies working across scales and contexts, from rent economic structure in their own particular and still passionately driven—of its ideologi- self-managed data systems to empower and aid place to infrastructure. In this regard, dem- ways. NCARB protects the public’s interest by cal hang-ups: aristocratic class identification; coordinated modes of growth. onstrations of conscientious expertise are the setting standards of competency for architects specialization that holds us apart from other In other words, the turn from a geopolitical minimum baseline for cultural legitimation with to ensure public safety. Its members are the actors in the AEC industry; the false ideal of a “war of all against all,” to a more integrated and diverse publics; more substantially still, social- state architectural licensing boards. The AIA metaphysically superior expertise; ignorance sustainable system requires an embrace of new ization, unionization or cooperativization—in “protects” the profession’s interest and organizes of a complex balance of diverse social forces; technologies—open source designs, 3-D print- alliance with multiple urban-rural constituen- its professional goals. While NCARB and AIA unfulfilled notions of autonomy; fictitious ideas & SHVARTZBERG DEAMER ing, robotics, additive manufacturing, artificial cies and other built environment profession- jointly maintain NAAB, NCARB makes a point of being above business; and the expense of elite intelligence, drones, etc. Architectural experi- als—would add a level of structural force to our of distancing itself from the AIA in that, it education. It would allow for fluid movement mentation must stop lamenting a lost era of “au- ambitions for geopolitical-architectural equity. says, consultation with the self-interest of the between disciplines as architects morph into thentic” craft and start using data-driven design profession undermines public trust and incurs landscapers, engineers, water-managers, pro- to foster platforms of cooperation and collabora- 2. Associations and Institutions suspicion under antitrust laws. At the same grammers, ethnographers, industrial designers, tion rather than capitalist competition. Yet rath- time, the AIA, despite being the organization artists, and more.17 CRITIQUES er than constructing “private cities” of an alarm- Architecture defines itself politically in the meant to advocate for architects, only promotes Alternatively, a more dynamic conception ingly feudal flavour,13 architecture must leverage context of its professional institutions: NCARB, aesthetic and functional “exceptionalism” and of professionalism could be introduced, such cyber-physical systems such as smart grids, which monitors licensing through its establish- fails to campaign for circumstances that would as those found in staged systems of either li- virtual power plants, smart homes, intelligent ment of education, experience, and licensure; make architecture more powerful, relevant, or censing or certification—like pilots’ “licenses”, transportation, and smart cities as integrated AIA, which shapes professional coherence and justly rewarded. Just as NCARB distances itself which vary according to different experience components of a new international socialism. In identity; and NAAB and ACSA, which, respec- from “helping” architects because of antitrust and expertise.18 In aviation, one operates (in other words, we have to invent, not merely seize, tively, monitor professional education standards laws, the AIA backs off from political advocacy ascending order of expertise) as a student, new means of production, putting the funding and support educational research and develop- for fear of antitrust recrimination.15 Having two sport, recreational, private, commercial, or and management of “innovation” under radically ment. While these institutions appear to be consent decrees issued against them in 1972 airline transport pilot, with privileges broken democratic, not shareholder, control. disciplinarily “natural,” they need to be under- and 1990 for apparent price fixing, the AIA op- down by category (a classification of aircraft Finally, in lieu of branding as the main dis- stood in the context of professionalism, itself a erates off its left foot when trying to prove the type), class (classifications within categories of cursive interface between the profession and construct of liberal capitalism. The three simul- profession’s worth to the public.16 As a profes- aircraft such as single-engine or multi-engine), the public (a model which architects do not taneous goals of professionalism are: to ensure sion, then, architecture, like other professions, and type (for particular aircraft over 12,500 admit to but that is implicit in the star system a guiding, elite knowledge sector; to—ironically, suffers under antitrust law-enforced, capitalist- pounds or turbojet-powered). A similar, multi- to which most architectural institutions tac- at the same time—hark back to pre-capitalist imposed competition. (Antitrust laws are gov- leveled certification/licensure in architecture itly subscribe), a radical democratic approach ideals of craftsmanship, universal protection erned by the single principle of guaranteeing would respond to the individual passions of would eliminate the star/genius myth, instead of the social fabric, and noblesse oblige; and to supporting the collective intelligence that gath- offer conventions of standardization, scientific 15. While professions for many years operated outside antitrust from a litigation-oriented approach toward a regulatory one. ers in the architectural office/collective and and cognitive rationality, and a functional divi- laws for their special societal integrity as established by their 17. This would obviously imply a new social contract altogether, 14 celebrating those firms that take ethical posi- sion of labor. If they ever were, these goals are codes of ethics, since Reagan and neoliberalism, this is no as other professions and the very distribution of capital in longer the case. society would have to be radically changed in order to be 16. Consent decrees are the normal way of resolving antitrust able to sustain these new freedoms. What we are suggesting 13. As Google, for example, recently announced: “Alphabet to 14. Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise of Professionalism: Monopolies suits brought by the DOJ and FTC. They have the advantage of is that such a change could begin with coordinated action build futuristic city in Toronto,” Financial Times, 17 October of Competence and Sheltered Markets (New Brunswick, NJ: avoiding the expense of a trial and any admission of guilt. They across different disciplines to alter the existing institutional 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/5044ec1a-b35e-11e7-a398- Transaction, 2013), xiii. set rules of conduct meant to stop the perceived illegal behavior arrangements propping up the social division of labor. 73d59db9e399 and prevent possible recurrence. In other words, they move away 18. In the US, pilots are actually certified, not licensed.

28 PROJECT Issue 7 29 firms and their varying modes of expertise at environmental, informational, etc.), this orga- workplace, infiltrates organizations, public in- acknowledge their exploitation of others’ labor the same time that it would dismantle the one- stitutions, civil society, and the very production to secure their jobs; and it would encourage nization could gather and coordinate resources 23 size-fits-all standardization behind current in the realization that we should not compete of the self. Architecture sits in a particular academics to “legitimately use their academic institutional arrangements. against each other but rather against forces relationship to managerialism because most positions as a pulpit from which to challenge One could imagine a professional organiza- architectural firms are devoid of any manage- students to recognize the oppressive nature of (namely, capitalism, hetero-patriarchy, white 26 tion that, instead of begging the public to ap- supremacy, and other conservative hegemonic ment skills at all—hence our general inability to the system they are being prepared for.” Clear- preciate our noble work and trying to secure formations) that marginalize our best quality optimize productivity without throwing more ing the managerial workplace from coercive commissions, provides a safety net for a disci- work altogether. employee hours at a task. At the same time, the mechanisms of control opens the way for the pline in seemingly perpetual precarity. Absent a managerialist mentality has permeated both development of an aesthetic understanding of society-wide Universal Basic Income, this safety 3. The Individual and the Office our attitude about what counts as “successful architectural labor—one in which our work is net could be an organization similar to that work” (positive economic outcomes) and our not merely an economic function in a devel- instituted by the German government where In the current context, most architects primar- acceptance that our managers must know best. oper’s spreadsheet, but a positive articulation of all architects pay into a fund supporting retire- ily experience architecture as a job. The term Or, more problematic still, we all see ourselves collaborative expertise, materials, places, emo- ment, or a guild that collects dues supporting “job” defines a common sense view in which as managers. Rarely identifying as a worker, the tions, and nourishing social relations. both employers and employees during difficult social, bureaucratic, scientific, and other kinds architectural employee relates to those manag- To get there, these necessary ideological times. Or one could consider a union that would of labor are understood as primarily a market ing them because they themselves will soon be (cultural) realignments of architectural work represent employees to make sure that they are process rather than a social or political one. A in that managerial role (and, in any case, there need to be structurally re-organized away from not suffering from illegal labor practices while “job” in this sense defines the de-politicized is only harm in arguing against them); the mid- the reliance on a mobile, unhinged labor market also easing the burden on firm owners by nego- instrumentalization of tasks, devoid of any level managers assume they will move up that force, to one in which employee-ownership, tiating systematic policies on overtime, payroll, philosophical meaning, and thus perfect for the ladder and wear their management status hap- coordinated labor markets, and radically benefits, leave policy, and vacation time. In ei- aimless process of accumulation of capital for pily; and owners, precluded from the sense of democratic modes of design and planning be- ther case, the multiple voices of those working in real ownership of ideas, hope at best to be good come the norm. Changing the habitual model & SHVARTZBERG DEAMER its own sake. Radical democracy would propose 24 architecture—licensed or unlicensed, employee not the exchange of jobs for aimless leisure, but managers. One role of managerialism is to of operation of the architectural office—one or employer, large or small-firm owner, academ- to move from jobs to work. “Work,” in contrast disempower the insights of owners. Manageri- which has created a false continuity between ic or “professional”—would have a better chance to “jobs”, stretches our subjectivity beyond mere alism is what allows us architects to by-pass any the master guild craftsmen of yore and today’s of being heard and being able to argue for their self-indulgence or ineffective agency while in- discourse of labor whatsoever. Under capital- starchitecture offices, but without any of its contribution to the discipline. tegrating this subjectivity into a social network ism, architectural labor is ultimately hired and social protections—means actually enfranchis- Such potential dynamism in the institu- 20 organized for the purpose of extracting a profit; ing architectural workers as owners, with a CRITIQUES both collaborative and mutually rewarding. tional categories of architecture—based upon The fixation on jobs is certainly the work work is precarious, ambiguous, and alienating; corresponding socialization of architectural a social rather than market-based accounting of capitalism and industrialization; Tayloriza- and tasks are intensified and polarized—yet we offices’ economic surplus and determination of of its embodied articulation—would be well tion, scientific management, and Fordism were have failed to analyse labor as such, in all its strategic objectives. complemented by further institutions acting central to this process.21 With neoliberalism, qualitative, aesthetic, dimensions, in our eco- Conclusion to interface, coordinate, expand and animate the division of labor and its required admin- nomic equations or value propositions. the profession. For example, one contemplates istration have moved from mere management Architectural radical democracy would an organization whose main aim is to coor- to a more ideologically-driven managerialism. reorganize work to better accommodate task While many of the above suggestions for re- dinate architectural research and implement Managerialism is, on the one hand, “a belief interdependency; it would offer “decentraliza- thinking architecture in line with practices of it through government action, making the that organizations have more similarities than tion as a means of enabling flexible responses radical democracy do indeed rest on the ac- building industry more effective and resilient, differences and thus the performance of all or- to volatile and unpredictable operating con- ceptance of the cultural nature of social identity and the built environment more sensitive to ditions,”25 without exacerbating precarity; it and organization, it is crucial to note that their 19 ganizations can be optimized by the application real needs. Instead of leaving each firm alone of generic management skills and theory”22 ; but would commit to solidarity of the victims of actual implementation cannot rest on the cul- to finance research (technological, material, it is also an ideology that, moving beyond the bad management ethics. It would encourage tural level alone; a more structural understand- architectural workers to organize to improve ing of power relations is necessary. If we want to the terms and conditions of their employment; actually transform the profession, our concrete 19. Institutes like this, at the intersection between professional 20. This reconception of “jobs” to “work” owes much to the expertise and government, have historically heralded the most work of Hannah Arendt, Herbert Marcuse, Henri Lefebvre, it suggests that practitioners could directly institutions and not only our theories have to intense periods of architectural experimentation for the public and Hardt & Negri, among others. Fundamentally, it implies good. One need only think of the Deutsche Werkbund as one out a recognition that “jobs” are never really “just jobs”, but of many examples—however complex and uneven their roots are socially produced—that is, in a capitalist system they 23. See: Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's are all managers. Architectural firms for the most part are not and outcomes may have been, as with the Werkbund’s relation necessarily produce physical and mental alienation, as they Stealth Revolution (Brooklyn : Zone, 2015); Pierre Dardot and publicly held and so do not fall directly under this model; but to German nationalism and corporate capitalism. The point is artificially cut people off from each other. Furthermore, Christian Laval, The New Way of the World: on Neoliberal Society, they do absorb its ideology. See: Gerald Davis, Managed by that we need to re-think and re-engage the relation between in feminist terms, they bracket out the centrality of (Brooklyn: Verso, 2013). the Markets: How Finance Reshaped America (Oxford; New York: architectural delivery and democracy, an equation that has social reproduction and the work of women and affective 24. It is helpful here to think about publicly traded companies. Oxford, 2011). become totally dominated by the market under neoliberalism. economies of care. The owners of the entity are the stockholders who have no 25. Paul S. Adler, Linda C. Forbes and Hugh Willmott, “Critical See: Frederic J . Schwartz, The Werkbund: Design Theory and 21. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks. care for the product other than capital gain. The CEO’s—who Management Studies,” 3. Mass Culture Before the First World War (New Haven: Yale, 1996). 22. Thomas Klikauer, “What Is Managerialism,” Critical Sociology we hear most about, get the huge compensations, and move 26. Ibid., 38. 41.7-8 (2015), 1104. (as uber-organizational experts) from company to company—

30 PROJECT Issue 7 31 become more fluid, horizontal, and complex. Central to achieving this is bringing back a modified and updated concept of class—not as a teleological discourse, but as a social identifica- tion that is primarily enacted through the de facto positions that different people and groups occupy in any given social arrangement. In cap- italism, this arrangement corresponds with the relative ownership of capital. Thus, a concrete step in the direction of a radical architectural democracy would entail the promotion of em- ployee-owned practices and the participation of all stakeholders in the determination of archi- tectural and urban programs. These structural changes in architecture are necessary precondi- tions for the positive cultural shifts offered by the theory of radical democracy. Adopting this position in architecture today means not only becoming more politi- cally activist, but also expanding our notions of labor to go beyond the ideological discourses of managerial entrepreneurialism—attempt- & SHVARTZBERG DEAMER ing to see structures of feeling and production, once again. If post-structuralisms of every kind (including the theory of radical democracy) destroyed the stability of meaning of class as a concept, this does not mean that class ef- fectively disappeared in the real world; on the CRITIQUES contrary, it became ever more transcendental and pervasive.27 In turn, if the structural condi- tions of capitalism underpinning architecture can be grasped, this will pave the way for a more capacious, inclusive, and dynamic notion of labor and class itself. As labor becomes less alienated, it is the world itself that appears in The Architecture Lobby, "(Re)Working Architecture," performance and workshop at Co-Prosperity Sphere, view, and in play. Chicago, 2015. Video still shot during the 2015 Chicago Architecture Biennial. Full video available here: https://youtu. Articulating the nature of this aesthetic be/4RJ3ZmL-tU4 discourse of architectural labor goes beyond the scope of this short paper, which has attempted to merely outline the complex theoretical field between the worlds of architecture and radical democracy; a field that warrants further and systematic elaboration. The Architecture Lobby, an activist organization to which both authors belong, will continue elaborating on key aspects of this framework in subsequent papers on envi- ronmentalism, professionalism, managerialism, and technology and automation as they pertain to architecture.

32 PROJECT Issue 7 33