The Power/Knowledge Dichotomy in Appreciating Architecture and Design

‘Wherever there is knowledge, look at the power(s) it produces and those who produce and
sustain it’

The power/knowledge dichotomy, outlined by Foucault as being an interdependent dynamic

within bodies of knowledge is, in this essay, applied to and analysed within the context of
the architectural and design fields.

The trajectories of the theoretical lifecycle of marginalized bodies of knowledge, its

induction into the mainstream and its transfiguration into a totalizing discourse of orthodoxy
are briefly examined and discussed, with possible recommendations; a ‘third term’ 1 by
which to escape the dilemma between the complete destruction of critique and discernment
versus perpetuating the current order of events that looks set to devolve into a ‘totalizing
discourse’ 2 .

Theoretical Lifecycle

Where design-savviness previously sat within the rarified segments of society, seen as
marginalized purely by the fact that it has not reached the mainstream consciousness, often
at odds with the ideals and sentiments of the generation, the reverse is often true now, with
design and architecture frequently being an essential tool for commercial success.

Where Howard Roark 3 used to represent the archetypal, idealistic architect who refuses to
compromise his ideals in view of prevailing notions of building design, we now see a
generation of architects who create Vegas Guggenheims and lend their names to a new
genre of condo couture. To an extent, the rapprochement between the developer
concerned with commercial success and the architect wishing to preserve his architectural
integrity has been initiated by the new breed of ‘enlightened developers’, who assume the
role of architectural patrons and are equally concerned with maintaining the urban fabric as
they are with commercial viability; these Gramscian organic intellectuals 4 of sorts gradually
straddle the line between architectural and design integrity and commercial success.

However,when design and a brand name architect prove to be greater selling factors,
eclipsing even location and pricing, design savviness has entered the mainstream and
become the ideology that seeks to marginalize others. Big name architects are as
tangential to a project’s success as are its proximity to prestigious schools and the square
footage pricing. Design and architecture have been co-opted into commercial viability and
have become effectively, part of the mainstream.

From a marginalized ideology, thus, design-savviness has become compatible with

mainstream success. As the mainstream audience becomes more attuned to design and
architecture, the gatekeepers of knowledge- architectural critics, editors of design and
lifestyle publications, those generally recognized as being the ‘arbiters of taste’- are
increasingly invested with a power associated with leaders of institutionalized bodies of
knowledge.

1
Proposed by Georges Bataille in response to Roland Barthes’ dilemma in ‘Le Plaisir du Texte’.
2
Drawing a parallel to Roland Barthes’ dilemma between an act of destroying the text and exploiting the pleasure of the
text.
3
Protagonist of ‘Fountainhead’ by Ayn Rand.
4
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. “The Intellectuals”, in Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Translated and Edited by Q.
Hoare and G. N. Smith. New York: International Publishers, page 3-23;
Identifying marginalized ideologies

“Let me offer a general and tactical reason that seems self-evident: power is tolerable only
on condition that it mask a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to
hide its own mechanisms. For it, secrecy is not in the nature of an abuse; it is
indispensable to its operation” 5 .

While Foucault’s recommendations are for the resurrection of marginalized ideologies

within any institutionalized form of knowledge, the casualties within the architectural and
design fields are oftentimes varied and nuanced entities, whose ‘victimization’ and
‘marginalization’ can sometimes be questionable.

Even within the circle of critics and editors, previously referred to in the same breath within
this essay as being the leaders of this institutionalized body of knowledge, the roles of
‘marginalized’ and ‘marginalizor’ are not well defined. With editors of design and lifestyle
magazines frequently taking a more commercial role and assumed to be more susceptible
to commercial interests and policies , juxtaposed against the independent, academic
snobbery of the architectural critic, these two leaders within their respective fields of
knowledge variously play out the roles of the ‘marginalized’ and the ‘marginalizor’.

The architectural critic, whose credibility often hinges on an effective separation from
commercial interests, is more often seen as being on the periphery of the mainstream
discourse, thus enabling him to play out the role of the marginalized more easily. To
discount the significant influence of the architectural critic on commercial success, is,
however, to underestimate the significant overlaps that exists between the commercial and
the academic. As design savviness becomes more mainstream, there is increasing reliance
on the views of the architectural critic. Consumers are increasingly influenced, if not reliant
by/on the views of the architectural critic. With a public that becomes increasingly design
conscious and architecturally inclined, the boundaries separating the mainstream from the
periphery becomes increasingly blurred, with significant overlaps and reversal of roles;
critical choices effectively become the mainstream, triumphing over popular views and
opinions.

With design and architecture so intertwined with commercial success, it is debatable

whether that is conceivably a triumph for the architectural and design fields or the ultimate
subordination of architectural and design integrity. What is obvious is that, as concern with
architecture and design enters the mainstream, that body of knowledge correspondingly
becomes an institutionalized body, where there is a formation of a totalizing discourse, and
the existence of suppressed or marginalized bodies of knowledge becomes an assumed,
associated side effect from having been inducted into the mainstream.

It is convenient to speculate on the political motivations of suppressing and marginalizing

competing ideologies within a body of knowledge. That, within the circle of architectural
critics and editors of design and lifestyle publications exists an Ellsworth Toohey 6 , endowed
with a political motivation in establishing altruism as a preferred lifestyle creed, facilitating
his privileged position of power to manipulate the worldviews of Americans. The possibility

5
Foucault,Michel, History of Sexuality Vol. 1, 86
6
Again, a character of Ayn Rand’s ‘Fountainhead’.
that we have been blindsided by those in authoritative positions, who decide for us what
qualifies as tasteful and worthy and what does not.

The possible Howard Roarks of today, unable to achieve commercial success due to their
uncompromising values are possibly the most obvious, truest forms of marginalized
ideology within this context. Young architects, expected to emulate the works of dominant,
established architects of the day are possibly the easiest examples.

The theoretical lifecycle referred to at the outset also dictates the casualties to any
institutionalized forms of knowledge. Where there are two competing ideologies, the
triumphing ideology often seeks to suppress the defeated, competing ideology. The latter
normally constitutes once-dominant ideologies that become ‘unfashionable’ once the
current ideology triumphs against it.

A regional example would be the gradual loss of favour of the Balinese aesthetic.
Previously a preferred style of architecture and design for those wishing to incorporate
elements of that holiday in Bali into their homes, the style became gradually tempered by
more modern elements, ‘evolving’ into a form of modern or neo-tropicality, to be replaced,
as quickly, by a more Spartan, utilitarian aesthetic. Made Wijaya, aka Michael White, a
popular landscape artists whose works and influences were predominant in this part of the
region was quoted in the International Herald Tribune: “I am proudly post-Zen. My works
are full- blown Balinese Baroque” 7 . Representing a once dominant, now-defeated ideology,
Made Wijaya rails against the totalizing clean lines that seek to snuff out the luxuriant
foliage of his Balinese landscape works.

Examining the structural elements

Unlike Foucault who criticized bodies of knowledge that sought to pass themselves off as
being ‘objective’ and therefore, ‘the truth’, this essay has focused on subjective bodies of
knowledge, that, despite the occasional attempt at categorizing it as an objective field 8 ,
largely has no pretense of being otherwise. Subjective bodies of knowledge, without the
convenience of passing off their views as ‘objective truth’, often encapsulates the
power/knowledge dynamic of Foucault more fully.

Whilst inarguably subjective, ‘good design’ or ‘good architecture’ has sometimes been
passed off as higher than the objective truth. Assertions, or, in corporate speak, mantras
like ‘Design is instinctive…’ try to construct our aesthetic appreciation not as a result of
societally acceptable images and understanding of what is ‘appealing’ but rather, as an
innate ability of some amongst us to be able to distinguish the good and bad of aesthetic
appreciation thus necessitating a privileged reading of the ‘text’ 9 . This translates into a
more elitist, violent institutional approach- where most fields necessitate years of study and
apprenticeship before being recognized as an authoritative source of ‘knowledge’,
subjective fields sometimes cannot be ‘learned’ and has to be supplemented by that
instinctive ability to distinguish between good and bad architecture or design.

Where power has a direct correlation with recognition of one’s views/knowledge,

institutional players become wholly dependent on winning the definitional battle for ‘good
architecture’ and ‘good design’. Those considered to be the arbiters of taste are conferred
with the highest amount of power. Definitional battles for what constitutes good or bad
architecture or design becomes more tangential for those making a bid to become the next
authoritative source of ‘knowledge’.
7
June 1, 2006, Vaudine England, Bali Dream Homes: Resiliently Ever-Rising, International Herald Tribune
8
Saunders, William, ‘From taste to judgment: Multiple criteria in the evaluation of architecture’, Winter/Spring 1999
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/7saunders.html
9
In this case, architecture and design form the ‘text’ that forms the discourse.
The discursive practices of perpetuating particular notions of good design and architecture
typically involve around high profile awards(usually given by architectural bodies or design
magazines) and press reviews of works. Those works that fit in within the parameters of the
reigning ideology are duly rewarded and recognized; those that don’t are ignored.
Architects are seen as good and worth celebrating only if they conform to a particular ideal
of ‘good design’. Contemporary architects attribute their inspiration to architectural
luminaries, themselves the product of the power/knowledge dichotomy of an industry so
obsessed with setting the definition of subjective notions; ‘what makes good architecture’,
‘what is good design’, ‘what differentiates a poor imitation from the genuine article.

Young architects frequently find themselves struggling against the hegemony of their
established, well-known predecessors. Frequently, their works have to be fashioned after
the predominant building style for their work to be celebrated or for them to even be
commissioned with a work. Those refusing to conform are often marginalized and
suppressed- their works are reviewed badly, or refused actualization.

By structurally excluding certain forms of discourse and privileging another form, Foucault
argued that this is tantamount to an institutional exercise of power 10 , where discourse
simply serves as another form of ‘regulation, control and repression’.

The dangers of totalizing discourses or ‘Consensus Terrorism’

“In the 70s they acquired the knowledge they now implement, they made the friends with
whom they now network, they challenged the bureaucrats whose positions they themselves
now occupy, and they created the institutions that now feed the mainstream.” 11 Illustrating
Foucault’s aversion towards being inducted into the mainstream(often seen as a precursor
to the formation of totalizing discourses and an institutional exercise of power), Vanstiphout
discusses the ‘omnipresence of Rem Koolhaas and the consensus terrorism of the
magazines’.

Vanstiphout discusses the Delft school of architects, a ‘very small, marginal and short-lived
school of architect-historians whose prime influence was Michel Foucault. Reading
Foucault, these young architects learned that underlying even the most beautiful, free, and
democratic environments was a palimpsest of structures and knowledge designed to
regulate, repress, censor, and canalize bodies (humans)’.

The third term

The same dilemma that confounds Roland Barthes in ‘Le Plaisir du texte’ is similarly
present here- given the potentially totalizing discourses of those who play a role in deciding
the value of any works of architecture and design, do we then divest critics of that power,
conferring the authority to judge architectural and design merit to the laymen(Design is
Instinctive), an act that would effectively lead to the destruction of the critic’s field as it does
of the texte. The other extreme would be to simply revel in the elitist, institutionalized
power/knowledge structure as run by these critics, an act akin to indulging in the pleasures
of the text. A third term, as proposed by Georges Bataille to Roland Barthes’ moral
quandary presents itself.

10
Michel Foucault, L’ordre du discourse (Paris, 1971) or ‘The Discourse on Language’ published as the appendix to
‘The Archaeology of Knowledge(New York, 1972).
11
« Consensus Terrorism”, Wouter Vanstiphout, Harvard Design Magazine, Number 2, Summer 1997
http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/research/publications/hdm/back/2vanstiphout.html
Given the constant flux within contesting ideologies, and battles waged by institutional
players to maintain their positions of power, should critics be divested of their power,
conferring the role of critic to the laymen? Thomas Heatherwick opines that ‘People have
an instinctive intelligence about design’ 12 , Souren Melikian, art critic of the International
Herald Tribune discusses the triumph of the discerning, uneducated eye over established,
knowledgeable critics. The first alternative towards solving the quandary of totalizing
discourses and institutionalized exercises of power is to divest the authority of the critics, an
act akin to the destruction of the texte for Barthes. The other alternative would be to
maintain the status quo, reveling in the elitist, institutionalized exercise of power- ‘le plaisir
du texte’.

Georges Bataille’s recommendation to ‘counter modesty not with sexual freedom but with
laughter’ represents the third term to the quandary where the alternatives seemed to be
between an act of destroying all forms of criticism and indulging in it.

This essay concludes that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ forms of architecture as possibly
judged by architectural critics and editors of design publications. It is not to these
institutional players that we turn to for the proposal of the third term, however, but the same
‘enlightened developers’ who initially paved the way for the merger of architectural integrity
and commercial success.

Those who position themselves as ‘enlightened developers’ present a platform for new
architects. In an age where the avant garde have been criticized as being just a theory 13 ,
the salvation might lie not in more theories, or even the vibrant intellectual climate of
architectural debate as proposed by Vanstiphout but in the pragmatics of property
developers, the Pradas and the Guggenheims.

It is, after all, Wynand who provided an outlet for Roark’s architectural vision and genius to
be actualized ultimately, achieving salvation both for Wynand’s moral integrity and the likely
societal death of Roark.

12
“A maverick pushes boundaries of design”, International Herald Tribune, May 29, 2006, Alice Rawsthorn.
13
Ffrench, Patrick,'Tel Quel' and surrealism: a re-evaluation. Has the avant-garde become a theory? The Romanic
Review, Jan 1, 1997