Abstract for MONU#15
Karl Heinrich Marx – Marxism, why so much of opposition? Marx was being holistic into his approach, he attempted to understand the dialectics of society‐politics‐economics of that era and respond to the conditions. He was critical of the socio‐economic class differentiation which existed in the model then, he termed it “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. Marx probably cannot be termed totally wrong for the time he existed; and perhaps even in present day to an extent, although the consequences have been a bit too tragic, a bit unexpected too. But the conditions running back then were being supportive – the emergence of industrial revolution, for instance had a major role of contributing to the growth of Marxism, directly and indirectly.
Perhaps his ideas are dialectic ‐ they were and are good and bad (if to be termed) at the same time, the way the television series character of Dexter Morgan is described – a serial killer and a lovable father, both at the same time. The economic and political conditions emerging during Marx’s era were impulsive. The new scientific discoveries, the new production methodologies were too rampant and way too ambitious in their stance itself.
If seen from a lens of architectural intervention only ‐ Industrial revolution contributed to an idea of following a typology in the methodology of conceiving architecture and cities which supported the throbbing economy. Anything ever since attempting to go against it, then be it from movements like arts and crafts movement to the situationist international to other political/ economic models – everything scummed to this outraging economy, everything was miniscule to make an evident change. This model crushed everything which came its way.
Certainly not only to criticise this model, this model has also taken care of catering to the demands, to the ever growing gap between population and available resources. Now it is a matter of question though – if this model really took care of or encouraged an exponential growth! An instance of inference – Haber‐Bosch Process for nitrogen fixation helped mass production of ammonium nitrate which made chemical fertilizers available abundantly; this led to exponential growth of crops and encouraged growth of population; population growth led to demand of other resources – encouraging further proliferating economy. If we look at this example although remotely predicted that it could have an impact on the way our society would be shaped in the next century; it did impact drastically downplaying its self‐role.
We see at the emerging Asian markets – primarily China and India, this is an on‐going chain reaction, an impact started from the west and is spread everywhere now. It is almost impossible to uproot this and impose a new model. The solution lies in evolutionary model probably.
Cities look generic today (a matter of question raised/ observed by many): what could be the reason? Presumably everything boils down to a common factor, the way our economy is shaped today, and hence our politics being supportive and society reflexive – and truly this as is widely accepted as a model by all the developing and developed nations around.
The essay attempts to highlight on an idea of not going against this well rooted model – the past suggests anything against would be killed! The present day is of getting influenced by multidimensional – multi‐parametrical conditions and responding to all of them equally. The day does not demand master of one aspect, but may be jack of all aspects put together; may be that was a demand always and we realise it today. And certainly not just attending the society‐politic‐economic conditions, but understanding their mutual response and dialectics; further intruding into their subtleties and intricateness to be more responsive.
The intent certainly does not encourage the present day evolved model… but does not discourage it altogether. It is to highlight the potentials in this model and further evolve from it. Hence, the solution ‐ I believe though ‐ does not lie in being nostalgic, but evolutionary.