In Defence of Ruthless Criticism in the Search of what’s Best
This short essay takes aim at the discourse culture of our discipline. Rigorous debate has been hollowed out in recent years. In schools of architecture criticising student work is increasingly avoided, seen as disrespectful, regarded as feature of a now outmoded toxic culture. One underlying factor is identity politics. If ideas are understood to be tied up with identity, then criticism is perceived as attack on those holding these ideas. The response is then indignation, and often explicit ad hominem attacks on the critic, rather than argument. The result is a dysfunctional bifurcation into an unforgiving de-platforming of unrelenting critics and an all-forgiving tolerance of all communicating within and according to the rules of the “safe space”. This logic violates a key principle of discursive rationality, namely that ideas are to be appraised irrespective of their bearers.
The inhibition of frank critique is thus not only a matter of over-politeness or over-protection (confused with respect) but also a matter of historically motivated (but ultimately counter-productive) ‘postmodern’ philosophical assumptions. At the heart of these assumptions lies a defeatist relativism that considers the human condition - in terms of circumstances, world-views, values and aspirations - as inherently fragmented without any hope of discursive convergence. This theory contrasts with the factual universality of the aspiration for higher standards of living and individual liberty, evidenced e.g. by global migration pressures into countries where this universal desire is met better than in the migrants’ countries of origin.
The historical experience that global modernisation-for-all is non-trivial and a much more fragile, complex and uncertain endeavour than initially expected by mid-20th century modernisation theories (including Marxism) lies at the heart of the post-modernist ‘incredulity towards grand narratives’. Postmodernism injected some necessary loops of reflection into social theory, in particular the reflection on historically and culturally specific discursive formations. These reflections were since absorbed into more complex, subtle and circumspect social theories and theories of societal progress, while the trajectory of post-modernism’s own discourse mutated into the defeatist/self-defeating intellectual culture rejected in this book. The postmodernists failed to discriminate and judge the diverse discursive formations and did not recognise the superiority (superior prosperity potential) of the unique lineage of discursive formations postmodernism itself was a part of, namely Modernity, with its unprecedented elaboration of technology and science, including critical social science. They failed to recognize the unique self-transcending thrust of this (lineage of) discursive formation(s) that actively refuses to remain tied to any historical origin, parochial social group, or particular set of societies. While philosophy - Habermas, Luhmann a.o. - has moved dialectically from the modernist thesis via the postmodernist antithesis to a new synthesis that recuperates the concept of progress on a new level of complexity, postmodernism - and under its influence much of mainstream academic culture - got stuck with the antithesis to modernisation theory.
Thus unassailable ‘subjective validity’ has replaced the regulative concept of objective (intersubjective) validity. In architectural debates I therefore often shift to the meta-level of critiquing our discursive culture as a necessary preface to articulating my positions on substantive issues. This is necessary because my very quest - to ascertain the most promising direction architecture can take to contribute to prosperity and social progress - appears to be discredited and anachronistic. Here are my meta-theses addressing the discipline’s discourse culture:
1. Imperative of convergence: the discipline must strive to define a shared paradigm, as the (best) way forward. A shared paradigm is a precondition of cooperative, cumulative progress towards a global best practice. A coherent paradigm/goal is required so that simultaneous or sequential designs do not subvert each other and undermine the functional integrity of the built environment.
2. Rejection of pluralism: We must accept paradigm pluralism only as temporary historical condition during periods of paradigm shift (1900-1920, 1970-1990). Divergences are dialectically productive only if the aim is to resolve and overcome them. We must reject the fatalistic acceptance of a supposedly unresolvable paradigm pluralism in architecture (just as we must reject the more general multi-culturalist presumption that all cultures are equally life-enhancing).
3. Benign intolerance: Ruthless criticism is a productive mechanism of convergence. The principle of indiscriminate tolerance makes sense only in a phase of post-crisis brainstorming. If made permanent this principle denies the comparative evaluation of positions/paradigms and ultimately blocks progress.
The degeneration of the process and purpose of critical discourse is also undermining the important institution of the public crit in architecture schools. Here too, the lack (denial) of any shared substantive paradigm that could furnish criteria of progress undermines the legitimacy of criticism and judgement. What regulates the crit instead is the principle of indiscriminate, pluralist tolerance. ‘Crits’ no longer aim to critically appraise, debate, judge and compare the relative validity and worth of projects/proposals, but degenerate to mere displays of unassailable subjective expressions, soliciting nothing but indiscriminate flattery. Nothing is either weeded out as inferior or marked out as superior. These very notions, and indeed any ranking and selecting, are anathema. But how can progress be made without rejecting failures, and selecting successful contributions as exemplars to build upon?
This systemic institutional failure to promote progress does not only stunt the discipline’s development but applies equally to individual students’ learning curves. Worse, nothing stops the retrogression of students (and of whole academic design studios or whole schools) into ever more indefensible pursuits. Where no pushback is ever expected and no defence is ever required, the indefensible mushrooms. Rigorous critique must be reinstated.
Even the most ruthless criticism of a project, proposition, or even cultural tradition/identity, should never be taken as ad hominem attack. No set of ideas (nor any acquired or inherited cultural pattern or identity) represents an immutable characteristic that inherently defines or limits any person. To rigorously criticize inferior ideas means to emancipate and empower rather than to disempower the bearer. To politely “respect” ideas one recognises to be dysfunctional is the very opposite of genuine respect.
Published in: ‘Five Critical essays on the Crit’ Edited by Austin Williams and Patrik Schumacher, Machine Books, London, Spring 2023