TOTW: Against Architecture

Fun fact: A hummingbird's nest is mostly spider silk, lichen and saliva.

I have been thinking recently about what seems to me to be one of the greatest failures of anarchist, anti-technology and anti-civilisation discourse and practice. This failure is that of not having presented much, if any, critique or challenge to architecture, which seems to me to be the cage that captures most within the totalitarianism of this technologically dependent culture. What I mean by “architecture” is buildings and all that is involved in serving their Cause.

This is by no means intended as a challenge to what I would describe as nest, or shelter, creating, as nests/shelters do not strike me to be ways and means of capturing and containing individuals within the work-machine, unless an individual chooses to use one to keep being part of the work-machine when rendered without a house or other building to occupy. What I mean by a nest or a shelter is generally something that any individual can transport, assemble, take down and move again, such as a tent, or anything like the shelters being used by uncontacted people or pre-civilised people. When I was involved in a local homeless support group I had a conversation with a guy who had been houseless by choice for well over a decade (possibly 2 or 3) and hearing him speak about how he found his tent far more desirable than any mansion was beautiful.

Rather than striving for this kind of primal-freedom, of seeking to not live lifestyles of architectural-technological dependency, anarchists often seem to desire capture-by-buildings more than anything else - be it through the squat or the “democratically run” factory. A friend of mine who lived for a while at La Zad told me of how they witnessed competitive barn building, fights over barns and similar barn-oriented shitty politics and policing, rather than solidarity, mutual aid and anything that they had wanted to experience there - barns becoming the technologies of capture and church-like Causes.

Anti-technology discourse, which is often focused so intensely on contemporary gadgets and the technologies that are the products of the industrial revolution, similarly has, as far as I can see, failed to present any substantial challenges and/or critiques of architecture. It is tragi-comic that the holy-prophet of many sympathetic to anti-technology thought and action, Ted Kaczynski - whose Jesus-like position as a martyr, as being made by the Father whose forsook him, is often missed by his worshippers - spent much of his life captured by the cabin that was his bomb factory, only then to be captured within the architecture of the prison system. Also, I am often amazed at how anti-civilisation discourse so readily challenges “green technologies” and domestication, whilst largely ignoring the Cause that these technologies and narratives serve; architecture.

Most “radical” thought regarding architecture surmounts to little more than trying to envisage apartment complexes with community gardens built into them, or the Situationist style city that is constantly being taken apart and rebuilt - both of which strike me as horrific to imagine. Deconstructivist-architecture and anti-architecture are seemingly nowhere to be found, nor is there any challenge or critique to the “authority” of the Designer. Within Marxism, the architect is upheld as superior to the bee and it seems like this mode of speciesism is located within even more “libertarian” socialist economic theories.

Perhaps the best challenges to architecture, within discourse, that I have encountered come from Thoreau’s writings, which I have returned to recently. I am very much in agreement with Thoreau that, while civilisation might have improved the houses of the domesticated and the objects that they place within their houses, architectural improvements have done nothing to improve those who live within these houses or their lives. The obvious contradiction/paradox here, which does not negate the statements Thoreau makes regarding architecture, is that for the most famous and (seemingly) personally significant part of Thoreau’s life, he was (arguably) captured by his cabin - though I see this as a far less intensity of capture than that of the mansion owner, who puts in video surveillance around their house and lives with the anxiety of losing all that “they own”(/owns them), or of those who today may work 3, 4 or more jobs, in order to pay their rent and keep living within the flat that has seemingly captured them. It is fair to say that I too am subject to this contradiction/paradox, as I am currently sitting within the barn conversion bungalow that I call home, though I know that my intensity of capture is far less than the examples I just gave, as it is comparatively very cheap to upkeep and I do not feel paranoid regarding the safety of any of my “property” - I also don’t mind breaking the law of the excluded middle and living in the truth that I am both captured and not captured.

I will include here that another inspiration for this TOTW, alongside Thoreau’s thought, has been seeing more housing developments local to me, cutting down areas of woodland to build large poor quality houses, while also seeing large abandoned buildings being left unused and falling apart.

So, for this topic of the week, I invite anyone willing to suggest ways and means of challenging architectural totalitarianism, forms of architectural deconstructionism, new critiques of architecture and, if also desired, challenges to anti-architectural thought (of which I am sure there will be many).

May we live lives more beautiful than our houses! May we care for ourselves and those we love more than we care for the buildings that capture us!

We thank Julian Langer for sending us this TOTW submission via email.

There are 55 Comments

"I invite anyone willing to suggest ways and means of challenging architectural totalitarianism"

Petrol is freely acquirable. Matches are freely acquirable. All that's really required is conviction. Otherwise you're just having another wank with an overly verbose writing exercise.

Dude... Teddy K wasn't caught by architecture, I tell ya. It was a system of control, and does intersect at some level with architecture, but the architecture and urban design especially back in the early '90s didn't had reached such fascistic levels of micro-controlling we got in several super-developed cities today.

So this is an important subject still, as architecture/urban design IS being used as devices of social control, especially when it comes of enforcing the consumer/worker aspect of society, and exclusion the social misfits and the homeless. It's a powerful tool as once they get built they require very little energy and money (only for the maintenance costs) and while being dead things, they're also "autonomous" and passive-aggressive in the way they participate in enforcement.

"architecture/urban design IS being used as devices of social control, "

and has been for at least a century, probably much more. robert morris, anyone?

I didnt know shit about Robert Morris before reading his wiki right now. Something about hearing one of the founding fathers and major financier of the American revolution dying penniless and bankrupt is cool tho. What did he have to do with architecture?

I was going to quip about anarchitecture and thought oh, someone has done that already and . . . Oh, my, yes.

I don't know if this is intentional or not, but you seem to have included a romanticized notion of shelters used by uncontacted peoples and "pre-civilized" peoples. It oddly segued into the time you were involved in a homeless group. Pre-civilized people didn't dismantle their shelters, if they had shelter to begin with, to take with them to wherever they were migrating to. Just like other animals with their nests or shelters, they just left them when migrating. It's a waste of energy (calories) to do so and impractical.

Architecture sprang up around the same times as agriculture and was planned around the farming. Making architecture just mean "buildings" neuters it as it removes the other factors that are used for all kinds of control purposes that goes into architecture such as materials, tools, construction & techniques, skills, and planning. This totw is scattered. What is meant by "serving their Cause" or "the Cause?"

Yes very true, shelter was what was available to indigenous folk, and the left it when they moved on.

It's okay if you use every part of the shelter and don't let anything go to waste.

Also if someone died in a shelter it was disassembled and/or burned thus putting the spook to rest and preventing a future haunting of the house.

So pre-civilized people (middle to upper paleolithic) are not the same as indigenous people. Indigenous peoples had elaborate civilizations and architecture throughout the world while others did not have as elaborate civilizations. Either way, they're not automatic pre-civ people and is an example of romanticizing indigenous peoples.

haven't read it but makes me think of the rick and morty episode where the dad makes these aliens stop building a house bc he says once theres an inside and an outside everything goes downhill.

"...one of the greatest failures of anarchist, anti-technology and anti-civilisation discourse and practice" is that no one aside from a tiny number of people who have a personal stake in defining themselves in these terms pays any attention to this. That's a mighty big drawback -- about as big as they come.

so let me see if I got this "anon", if that is your real name...

are you suggesting, that anti-civ has a marketing problem? what with how almost no-one is buying what's for sale?!
but i thought the capitalist sells you the rope with which you can bootstrap yourself by the neck?

you just don't understand markets, that's your problem!

And their massive glass veneered smooth shiny aesthetic makes me wanna puke, urrgh!

Building aren't real. "Buildings" are merely constructs created by Authority to trick of the mind. Similar to debt or work, "buildings" were created to occupy anarchists' minds with meaningless thoughts about "buildings" to prevent them from rebelling.

Buildings are enclaves or enclosures to keep the anarchists but especially all those wannabe and pretend anarchists within walls and behind doors, so that they live their delusion within the private sphere instead of being a threat to public order outside, with neat things like, you know, ANARCHY...

Imagine believing in this thing called "Outside!"

No, but seriously…
Answering Julian a bit here. This is not very well thought through, is it? Saying that houses haven’t improved humans is perhaps the most stupid thing. How do you think eyeglasses or insulin should be created in your sacred utopia? Or do you just want to live your cozy life making critique? Putting quotation marks around “democratically run” because you know sooo much better than the stupid exploited working class!
Who do you think will sleep best: the one in a house or the one laying on the ground in -37 °C?
I see this TOTW as a stupid non-question.

Like Julian of the totw, you appear to think architecture just means houses or shelter. It does not. Architecture is the planning, design and layout of an area for the construction of structures. Like urban planning is an example of architecture. Your questions aren't thought through whatsoever. Architecture is and has absolutely been used as means to control people and the working class. I believe that's what Julian was trying to get at in their muddled totw post.

Can you elaborate further on what you think insulin and eye glasses has to do with architecture? Since you appear to be some sort of socialist, could you also further explain in some detail how in the workers paradise the insulin will be made and distributed. Dank you.

Btw, democracy is contradictory to anarchism, so I imagine that's why Julian put it in quotes.

First section of your post is not relevant to what I wrote.

You have to be indoors to make insulin and glasses. Yes, I'm an anarchist so I'm a socialist. That doesn't mean some sort of workers paradise. I don't work with making insulin or eyeglasses, but I think you can find how it's created ig you search online.

If democracy is contradictory to anarchism is a matter of definitions, so no need to be a dick about that. Of course work places have to be democratic in an anarchist society.

I can't wait to democratically participate at my workplace in our future anarchist society.

Your anarchism is garbage.
Fuck a workplace.
Fuck an "anarchist society".

you think maybe that was their point? do you need an /s tag?

You may have found the wrong ideology for you...
If you don't want to live in an anarchist society why even participate in the discussion on an anarchist site??

1. anarchism is not an ideology.
2. the goal of anarchism is not anarchist society, it is anarchy.
3. you must be new here. Fresh meat!

You should reread your initial comment in this totw towards Julian before you start complaining about how I or others are supposedly being a dick towards you. The first part of my response to you absolutely is relevant, but I surmise you don't know how to respond to it. That's fine. I guess I'll never know why you think architecture means houses. No one brought up eye glasses and insulin in regards to architecture except you, so are you able to explain the relation between them?

My questions in my response to you are the exact questions you asked totw Julian, but with a minor tweak. I was honestly expecting you could give an explanation for your own questions and that perhaps I'd learn something new or it was something I didn't think of. I didn't learn anything new from your partially true answer of "you have to be indoors to make eye glasses and insulin." But more importantly, I was interested in how both would be made and distributed in your socialist utopia. Just like how you asked how they'd be made in Julian's "sacred utopia." It's ironic because your silly questions are the same silly questions randos ask anarchists and/or socialists to endlessly mock anarchists and socialists as edgy teenagers.

Democracy contradiction with anarchism isn't a matter of semantics. Here's probably some of your favorite anarchists explaining how democracy is incompatible with anarchism. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-anarchists-again...

You seem to be a real fan of "the golden rule"... at least trying to force others to use it.

You have to be in a house to make insulin and glasses.

It's a question of the meaning of the word. Taking short quotes without context is pretty useless.

I think you dropped the ball here...
1. Yes. Anarchism is an ideology. What would it be otherwise?
2. What's the difference between an anarchist society and anarchy in your words, then? In my book anarchy=an anarchist society.
3. No, I'm not.

I don't have time for your noob bullshit. I'm here to dunk on idiots not educate them. Perhaps read a little more before opening your mouth. Start with Enemies, apologize after.

Learn to thread your replies, noob.

Then you of course have to explain what the words mean. Which wasn't what this discussion was about, why it's useless to drop lifestylist clichés here.

Apparently you do. I understand you weren't able to answer any of my quesions. :) Bye!

Ah yes the old argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy! Favorite of whiny shitasses the internet over.

I didn't make an argument in the comment you answered. What was whiny about the comment?

Translation (noobarchist to English):

EXPLAIN ANARCHY TO ME OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU! DON'T DUMB IT DOWN INTO SOME VAGUE SHIT! EXPLAIN ANARCHY TO ME RIGHT NOW OR I'LL LITERALLY FUCKING KILL YOU! WHAT THE FUCK IS ANARCHY WITHOUT SOCIETY? WHAT THE FUCK ARE IDEOLOGIES? DON'T DUMB IT DOWN OR I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU

the responses to them here are pretty sad. if you're not interested in engaging with the questions/ideas, then why post? you could at least head someone in the direction of readings that would explain what you're on about.

d-by, ideology is a word/concept that some anarchists and philosophers have taken to mean a set of ideas that constrain rather than empower, that ideology is when ideas own you, rather than the other way around. stirner and wolfi landstreicher are two authors who are relevant here.
society is also a word that is complicated for some anarchists, as it denotes an organized vision for how groups of people live together, and it implies a lot of things that some of us are not excited about. like, planning how others live, and sacrifice in the name of greater good, and other things.

if you're concern-trolling, or whatever, then you got me. good job!

yeah, the cynicism that impoverishes discussion is of course, what the trolls jerk themselves off to.

anarchy is an unideology, like an unbirthday! depending on which anarchism you fuck with of course.

traditional leftist influenced anarchist theory is fairly ideological, lots of marxist koolaid in that punch bowl, I say this as a grumpy old ultra an-com myself. more contemporary anarchist theory is intensely critical and skeptical of this old fashioned stuff ... and pretty much everything else ... and itself ... until it rips a hole in space time and vanishes in to the singularity of critique.

have you ever tried to preach dogma to the most contrarian, self righteous people on the planet? those are the anarchists at their best and it's why everyone always ends up shooting us instead. just a lot easier than arguing with us.

Hi, concern troll that's totally not D. B-y. ;-)

We post to exchange ideas with other anarchists on this site and not bitchass trolls like D. B-y. that contribute nothing to the discourse and are clearly not anarchist. We have no desire to simply expand the number of anarchists by being polite to all trolls who find the place and disrupt it with their inane ideas. We act instead as repellent to their stupidity in hopes that they will leave to allow the rest of us space for discussion on the topics at hand.

"you could at least head someone in the direction of readings"

This is not a classroom. However, if you weren't so concern trolling you would see that Enemies was suggested. So, shut up. Read it instead of bitching more under a sock puppet account concern trolling your troll account and pointing out that it might be a concern troll. Go outside with Enemies and learn a little.

Pee pee poo poo.

YOU ARE SO MEAN! ANARCHISTS SHOULD BE NICE SO WE CAN MAKE MORE ANARCHISTS FOR SOCIETY!

anyway, yea, i missed that enemies was suggested, so that's cool.

but there are tons of definitions of anarchists, more now than ever, and you assuming that because someone doesn't agree with your trajectory (or line of flight, shall we say ;) ), that that means they're not anarchist, is... well, if nothing else, it leads to boring ass conversations and much preaching to the quoir.

but boredom is obviously subjective.

one might argue that anews being non-sectarian is a pretty cool opportunity to engage with people of general like mind but different assumptions, blah blah blah. unless you're not into tthat sort of thing.

Different anon here.

The articles reposted on anews are non-sectarian. We anons of anews are very sectarian.

"Troll-jacketing" is a term trolls invented to try and convince society that they should be allowed around to troll. We anons of anews and anarchists and oppose society so you can stuff your "troll-jacketing" nonsense up your butt hurt butt and get out!

2. you can be sectarian and still be interested in talking to different kinds of people

3. speaking for all anews readers/writers is representation, which is not anarchist

your arguments are bad and you should feel bad.

1. jacketing is a niche term. "Troll jacketing" is further niche and used by trolls for the aforementioned reasons.
2. you can also be sectarian and uninterested in talking to different kinds of people.
3. you are assuming we were speaking for all other anews anons when we were not. We use plural pronouns, bigot.

My arguments are good and we feel good. It's a good thing the anews mods are protecting you from the harsh reality of your loneliness by deleting posts critical of you trolling.

An analogy for your earlier question and the lesson you so pathetically craved: The mods are privileged agents of Society and use their positions of Power to enforce restrictions on the free anons that are without this Power. This tyranny (society) is what anarchists oppose and the opposite of which is called Anarchy.

there is snitch jacketing, cop jacketing, gang jacketing... many different groups use the term.

you can be many things. you posited that non sectarian site didn't mean non-sectarian user. i posited that sectarian user didn't mean boring-only-wanting-to-speak-to-people-who-agree-with-you.

"We anons of anews and anarchists and oppose society." That is speaking for anons of anews and anarchists. you seem to be confused.

so, this has been fun, but i'm getting bored now. have a good day.

There are many different types of furries yet it is still a niche lifestyle and/or kink.

A non-sectarian sites does not mean non-sectarian users. Non-sectarian users can often be found on non-sectarian sites. You positing of "boring" is based on your subjective usage of "boring." Many other would find only wanting to speak to people whom they agree with as the opposite of boring. They might even see this practice as a way to further hone their ideas.

It was a plural pronoun usage. You should not tell people they are confused about their non-binary pronoun usage.

This has not been fun it has been boring. Much like engaging with non-anarchist trolls.

Jackets are civ. True anarchs have evolved to withstand all matter of weather and allow their rippling muscles to glisten uncovered in the moonlight.

The Funambulist magazine has covered the topic of radical architecture or whatever a ton.

https://thefunambulist.net/topics/architecture

"Our hope is to provide a useful platform where activist/academic/practitioner voices can meet and build solidarities across geographical scales. "

Add new comment