So I'd like to introduce
the Activism panel.
Our moderator today
is Jeana Dunlap.
Jeana is a 2019 Loeb
Fellow and public servant
who has engaged with public
and private interests
to direct initiatives supporting
place-making, community
development, sustainability,
and historic preservation
since 2004.
She appreciates the need for
multi-disciplinary approaches
when tackling disruptive
redevelopment efforts
to improve quality
of life in place.
While facilitating change
through the built environment
is critical, she also believes
that changing mindsets
is paramount to achieving
vibrant communities.
We have five panelists
joining us today
for the Activism panel.
Sasha Costanza-Chock is a
scholar activist and media
maker and currently
Associate Professor
of Civic Media at MIT.
They are a faculty associate
at the Berkman Klein
Center for Internet and
Society at Harvard University,
faculty affiliate with the
MIT Open Documentary Lab
and the MIT Center
for Civic Media,
and creator of the
MIT Codesign Studio.
Their work focuses on social
movements, transformative media
organizing, and design justice.
Sasha's first book, Out of the
Shadows, Into the Streets--
Transmedia Organizing and the
Immigrant Rights Movement,
was published by the
MIT Press in 2014.
Peggy Deamer is Professor of
Architecture at Yale University
and an architect
practicing in New York.
She is the editor of
Architecture and Capitalism--
1845 to the Present, and
The Architect as Worker--
Immaterial Labor,
the Creative Class,
and the Politics of Design.
She is the co-editor with Phil
Bernstein of Building (in)
the Future and BIM in Academia.
She is the founder and Content
Coordinator of the Architecture
Lobby through which she
explores the relationship
between subjectivity,
design, and labor
in the current economy.
And we heard about that
previously from Chelsea.
Jess Myers is a
writer and strategist
focusing on urban
planning and architecture.
Based in New York,
she currently works
at LaPlaca Cohen, an arts
and culture consulting firm,
and is the Editorial Consultant
for the Service Employees
International Union Book
Series on social justice,
Taking Freedom, which
will be published in 2019.
Her podcast, Here
There Be Dragons,
takes an in-depth look at
the intersection of identity
politics and security
politics in public space
through the eyes of New
Yorkers and Parisians.
Maya Harakawa is a PhD candidate
in the Art History Department
at the Graduate Center, City
University of New York, where
she is writing her dissertation
on Harlem in the 1960s.
From 2015 to 2018, she
taught architectural history
at the Bernard and Anne
Spitzer School of Architecture
at City College.
She is a member of
and elected delegate
in the professional
staff, Congress,
the union that represents
CUNY faculty and staff.
And Jen Grosso is a licensed
architect at Skidmore, Owings,
and Merrill, with expertise
in New York City large-scale,
mixed use projects, including 35
Hudson Yards, and 11 West 61st
Street.
She is a founding board member
of the gender equity nonprofit,
ArchiteXX, which also
just presented, and serves
on the Urban Land Institute's
Young Leaders programming
committee.
She holds a B.Arch from
Cornell University.
Same as earlier, when
we open for questions,
we'd like to prioritize
questions from women of color
first.
Take it away, Jeana.
[applause]
Thank you so much.
All right, now, yes,
I can hear myself.
Great.
Awesome.
Thank you so much for
the gracious invitation
to moderate the Activism Panel.
And I'd like to thank everybody
here in the room at this moment
for showing your deep passion
and compassion for one another,
as well as for the groups that
you serve-- the stakeholders--
for engaging this work and
taking action on the why--
why you chose your respective
professions and disciplines.
And so we want to have
a conversation that
helps demonstrate the
power that each of us
have in our own individual way--
how we express our desire
to create and promote
positive change.
Activism, like
many of the topics
that have been discussed today,
can be very personal, right?
There's no one size
or one strategy
that works for everyone.
But I truly believe
that this panel
is very representative in terms
of the respective ways in which
they've brought
activism into the work
and into their
professional lives.
So Sasha, could you
maybe start us off
by explaining or sharing to
us what activism means to you?
Sure.
Thank you, Jeana.
And it's really a pleasure
to be here on this panel.
Thanks for having me.
To be honest, the communities
that I am working with and one
of the groups that I'm
spending a lot of time
working with now-- it's called
the Design Justice Network.
And it actually comes
out of several years
of organizing in the context
of the Allied Media Conference.
Allied Media
Conference is a space
where cultural workers, and
organizers, and activists
from different social
movement networks
come together every
year in Detroit
to meet, to share
skills, to think together
about what it
means to use design
cultural production and media
making for social justice.
And in that context, I
think if I have sort of one
takeaway from all of that
work and from the time
and energy that the Design
Justice Network has put
into building a shared
set of principles
and building sort of a body
of knowledge and practice
about how to do design in a
way that doesn't constantly
reproduce white supremacy,
hetero-patriarchy, capitalism,
and settler
colonialism, ableism,
and other aspects of what
Patricia Hill Collins calls
the matrix of domination, and
instead constantly challenges
it and tries to
overturn it, I would
say it's the principle of
nothing about us without us
that comes from the
disability justice movement.
So again, my one
takeaway on what
does it mean to do design
work, whether you're
designing in the
built environment
or you're designing
user interface, which
is sort of the area
that I work in more,
I think it's that you
need to have people
with the lived
experience of the issue
that you claim to be
working on on your team
from the very beginning and
hopefully through to ownership
of the project at the end.
So I would say, to
me, activism that
really is about nothing
about us without us
is kind of my guiding star.
That's awesome.
Peggy-- activism in a
professional setting--
what's your take on that?
Well, I think of
activism as a job
of changing minds, changing
behavior, and changing
institutions.
I think one of the things that
the Architecture Lobby has
talked about a lot
is the need to move
beyond raising consciousness
because raising
consciousness can happen in
a fairly safe environment.
But to actually argue for
change means putting yourself
on a line, and I think--
maybe this puts it too
bluntly, but offending people
and standing in that
space of dispute
and possible
disagreement and offense.
I think we think about the work
as an institutional critique,
an ideological critique,
as well as actions that
really change those things.
But I mean, just to say--
when you ask this
question-- me, personally--
I don't think that I
felt like an activist
until I went out there and
protested with the bullhorns.
And the very first performance
that we made in Venice in 2014,
I wasn't there--
two others were.
And we sent them the bullhorns
and did all these things.
We had people.
But after that, we decided
we can't do this in Venice
if we also don't go to the AIA.
Those are the two
different kinds
of architectural audiences, the
kind of scholarly aesthetic.
But then on the professional
that we had to do it.
And I just remember at that
lobby meeting saying who's
going to go to Chicago with me?
And no, actually, I said,
who's going to go to Chicago
and do this, and nobody said,
and it's like, oh, my god,
I have to do it myself
with somebody else.
And so that was
the moment when I
felt like I got into a
really uncomfortable space.
But it liberated everything.
It's kind of like
bop, you can do that.
So anyway, it's a performance.
But it also is about
discomfort and breaking eggs.
Yeah, it sounds like you sort of
touched on the concept of risk
there.
And I guess, Jess, we talked
a little bit about this--
I guess the difference
or similarities
between activism and advocacy.
Can you maybe--
Yeah, absolutely Jeana.
I think that, Peggy,
what you just said
is really important-- that
aspect of putting yourself
on the line, which is
why I think that activism
is not a fixed identity.
I don't think that you are
just de facto an activist.
It involves sort of you are
shifting in and out of action.
And I think that's
what defines activism.
And also, what is
really important,
I think, to say is
your closeness--
the stakes of your action.
Like, what are you putting
on the line in order
to do the action
that you are doing,
which is why I don't always--
actually, don't at all--
really consider myself
an activist because my work,
especially the podcast,
has kind of insulated me
against having real stakes.
And here, when I say stakes, I'm
talking about sort of violence
and precarity being pushed
on you because of the actions
that you're taking.
So the work that
I've done in terms
of exposing the ways that
security politics intersect
with identity
politics, you know,
I'm sort of insulated
in a sound booth at MIT.
And I'm not really
putting myself on the line
or increasing precarity
in my own life.
And I think that that
comes from the way
that we position understandings
of activism around sort
of the 1960s
understanding of activism
as like really putting your body
on the line in front of water
cannons, in front of
attack, in front of dogs,
in front of guns--
that kind of thing.
But what I do hope with
the work that I have done
is that it supports activism.
And I think that's
an aspect of advocacy
is that it becomes a tool
that makes conversations
that activists are
pushing easier to have
because it puts this basis--
it allows for this basis
of literacy for a broader
population so that
it's not continuously
the same meeting of ignorance
over and over again.
But there are tools that
don't involve directly
having to extract labor
from an individual over
and over again that can
help achieve a higher
level of literacy about
certain policies--
about certain
histories, for example.
Yes.
Maya, what's your
take on activism?
What does it mean to you?
So I think that I was one of the
people in our early discussions
before the panel
suggesting that we start
with the discussion of what
activism means because it might
mean various things
to different people,
and we shouldn't assume
that there's one definition.
But that being said,
in preparing myself
for discussing that topic,
I realized that I actually
even wanted to question
the privileging of activism
as the primary political
modality of sort of engaging
in political change.
And for me, that comes
from my own academic work
as a historian, but also my
personal work and thinking
about how I want to enact
change in my everyday life.
And this really comes from,
I think, a deep grounding
in feminism and understanding
interpersonal relationships
as being a ground for
political struggle.
So even though
oftentimes I guess
that activism is
sort of privileged
as a way of engaging
in politics,
something that I'm really
interested in is organizing
and what it means
to be an organizer.
And to me, that is important
because it suggests
a deep engagement and
a long-term engagement
in a specific community, right?
So it means also talking
to people one on one.
It means really interrogating
and sort of breaking down
these micropolitical moments.
And so an example
of maybe how we
could think of organizing
as being applicable to what
this conference is
doing here today
versus maybe an activist
gesture, which I think
is something that people
are uncomfortable doing
for a lot of the reasons
that we've already talked
about here today, as
in the previous panel,
somebody brought up the
issue of their only being--
that the audience here
is majority women.
And something that
I think would have
been really interesting as sort
of a thought experiment which
would be to say, what
if every person--
every woman who was
in attendance or every
woman-identified person who
was in attendance here today--
went to a male-identified
person in their life,
whether it's an intimate
personal relationship, someone
in your studio, a professor,
a professional relationship,
somebody you have a professional
relationship with, and told
them that you wanted them
to come here with you today?
So that's maybe not
an activist gesture.
But it's certainly a
political gesture, right?
You're saying to
the other person,
acknowledge the
power relationship
between the two of us.
Acknowledge this space
that I'm going to
and that's important
to me, and then also
a space that I want to create--
a more equitable-- if we want
to use that term-- space.
So I think it's
important for me and also
thinking about
historical communities
where people who
are oppressed are
trying to make change
in their everyday life
under structures of immense
power and oppression,
in terms of bringing this back
to the power conversation we
had earlier in the day, to
understand those smaller
moments as moments of political
struggle and self-articulation
that could be brought about
with something like organizing
as opposed to activism.
That's a great point.
Like you say, the
micro-moments that you have
don't typically fall in line
with the sort of micro-concept
of activism that carries a
lot of perceived or real risk.
Jen, what do you
think about activism?
Yeah, definitely.
I mean, Maya, that really
resonates with me because when
I think about the
practice of architecture,
and I think for this panel,
like, I am the practitioner--
I build stuff that
gets built in cities--
and for me, I think
about it as kind of you
know the ship of Theseus.
If anyone doesn't
know this myth,
it's a ship who leaves a shore.
And over the course of its
journey, all of the pieces
wear out and have
to be repaired.
And by the time it
reaches its destination,
it's a completely
different material thing.
Is it still the same ship?
And when I think about the
practice of architecture
and advocacy, I think
about advocacy integral
to that project-- to
that ship building.
And it's the work of doing
the change so that we're not
replacing the same
worn-out pieces that
are problematic in certain
ways with the same materials,
but we're really informing
ourselves doing the work
to educate others, as well to
improve upon what we're doing.
That's great.
Sort of thinking about
my first introduction
to the Graduate
School of Design, as
was mentioned before, I am
not in a degree program here.
I'm one of the Loeb
Fellows for 2019.
We were up here in the trays
touring around back in May
of this year and
noticed immediately
there were a lot of banners--
a lot of signage--
that we didn't really
understand the full context
of what was going on.
So just out of curiosity, out
of a show of hands of people
in the room, how many people
are familiar with the SAM
list or the Shitty
Architecture Mens list?
OK.
So quite a few, but
not 100% of the room.
Maybe for people
that are somewhat
closer to the activities
and events around that--
Jess, could you maybe
give us your perspective
on what that list was about
or its impact in terms
of how we got here today even?
Well, I think a
lot of you already
know that the Shitty
Architecture Men
list is modeled after the
Shitty Men In Media list that
was started earlier on at
the beginning of the Me Too
Movement and after the fall
out of all of the stories
that came out around
Harvey Weinstein.
And I think that what
I was specifically
interested in about the
Shitty Architecture Men list
was how many people involved in
the Academy were on that list--
like, a large
percentage of people
had positions in the Academy.
And what I felt was so
interesting and troubling
about that was that I
think the Academy has
a huge role in the way that
we address systems of abuse
in the industry as a whole--
in the sector as a whole.
And I think that there has
been for a long time a legacy
of not teaching students how
to recognize abusive systems--
how to speak up against
abusive behavior--
but how to join an
enabling force--
how to recognize
people who can hang
and people who can't and
really alienate people who do
try to speak out as people
who just can't take it.
They don't have what it takes to
be a competitive practitioner.
And I think that the
Academy has had a huge role
in ensuring that that's
the attitude-- that that's
the culture.
And I find that
really disturbing.
And I think that the
opportunity is now how can we
teach starting at the Academy
and even before the Academy
resiliency in architecture
where it's not
that we are enabling sort
of abusive celebrities
in the sector?
And also, you know,
not just speaking
about the practitioners
themselves,
but abusive behaviors of clients
towards architects, which gets
replicated, I think, in the
Studio and also in the Academy,
but how do you create
and teach resiliency?
How do you create and teach
negotiations, and people
who can defuse
situations of abuse
quickly instead of
allowing them to percolate
throughout a culture and
continue to replicate,
and replicate, and replicate?
Jen, I'm really interested
in your perspective
as well in terms of the impact
of the gesture of the process
of publishing this list and what
you feel the impact has been.
Sure.
I can talk about that from the
perspective of the profession--
I think just a
little bit different
than it is here in the Academy.
And I think it's been a
valuable tool, in the sense
that it provides this very
powerful narrative for people
who may feel alone in a certain
way about their experiences.
And I think it opens up
the conversation in terms
of all of the different
ways and shades of gray one
might see in a
patriarchy, right?
So from, for example,
the feminist group
that is in your firm
that someone may think
is not doing enough
to more sinister acts,
there's a whole
range within there,
which I think is a really
productive conversation
to have.
I think that also--
and maybe, I think, in
conversations coming out
of the list-- maybe
even this one--
I'm also really interested
in the critique of the list.
So one of mine might
be I'm concerned
about it falling into
the same grand narratives
that we see, for example,
in the film industry--
first act being a
fall from grace--
second act, redemption.
I'm not really interested
in centering people
who are the antagonists
of these stories
and not centering
others, let's say.
All right, great.
One of the things that's come
up through the Convergence
is how the burden to press
these important issues often
falls on the people who are
carrying the burden, right?
There's been talk
about self-care.
But I guess I'm interested
in new or alternative ways
on reorienting accountability
for progressive change.
Does anyone have ideas about
how to either share the load
or transfer the load
to the power makers--
the decision makers--
who are actually
influencing these environments
that we're either studying
or working in so that it all
doesn't fall on certain people,
like women or people of
color, for that matter?
I mean, I can share a personal
story just from the last week.
I mean, I'll preface
that by saying
that absolutely it's crucial
that we think about how
can people who occupy--
so we all occupy
some type of position
within the matrix of
domination, of the intersecting
structures of oppression.
And how can we figure out how
to organize the people who
hold power in the situation?
So as a white person, how do
I organize other white people
to become anti-racist
activists and accomplices?
Or how can somebody who
is a cisgender person
organize all their cis friends
to be allies to trans folks,
and so on, and so forth?
And so just in the
last week, you know,
when the Trump
administration-- when HHS--
Health and Human Services--
announced that they were going
to eliminate gender identity as
a category that was protected
for anti-discrimination,
followed by the Department
of Justice filing an amicus
with the Supreme Court case
on a funeral home
where they also said,
we're going to follow
the HHS approach--
this combined with a bunch of
moves the Trump administration
has made to attack and denigrate
trans and gender-nonconforming
people, and that combined
with the question three
on the Massachusetts ballot,
which if you're not familiar
with it-- question 3--
basically, Massachusetts
passed a law a few years ago
that protects trans and
gender-nonconforming people
in public accommodations.
And the right from
around the country
has been pouring millions
of dollars into a campaign
to repeal those protections.
So that all has been
going on for a while.
But then with the HHS
leaked memo last week,
I immediately wrote
a series of letters
to a bunch of people inside
MIT as an institution, saying,
it's really, really
important for the president
of the university, for
the dean of the school
that I'm in, for a number of
people in powerful positions,
to quickly and rapidly issue
public statements about how--
you know, regardless
of what happens
with either the federal
law or the state attempt
to repeal protections--
MIT remains committed
to being a trans
and gender-nonconforming
inclusive space.
And that took a bunch of
mobilizing and basically
lobbying people in
positions of power
to make those type
of statements.
Ultimately, Joi Ito, the
Director of the Media Lab,
actually very quickly responded.
And I was very pleased
that sort of within five
minutes of emailing him
he said, absolutely.
We need to do this--
CC'd in his communication team.
They developed a statement.
And they issued it quickly.
The president of the
university a little bit later--
a few days later--
did something.
And I think in that process--
I'm bringing this up
to answer the question
because in that process,
it was very, very
important that cis allies--
cisgender people-- who
aren't directly affected
by these proposals
stepped up in this case
to publicly demand
continued defense
of trans and
gender-nonconforming people.
So what the action
that Joi took--
other faculty members who
I wrote to, and I said,
hey, I need you to write
a letter to the president
that the president needs to
make a statement because it
didn't seem like--
it was not immediately
forthcoming.
But ultimately,
they did and partly
because of the pressure
of allies who are not
going to be directly harmed.
So I think we need that across
all these different axes
of oppression and resistance.
So, yeah, burden versus
leadership opportunities
are prompting.
Jess?
So, actually, I think
that's so important.
It's not just that
allies step up,
but also that people who
are directly affected
feel like they have
the authority to demand
that labor is really important.
Because I know that whether you
are in the professional world
or whether you're
in the Academy,
if you have any kind
of minority identity,
there is this kind of look to
you or responsibility to you
to open doors for people
to come behind you.
But there isn't the same onus
on the institutions that you are
in to actively open those doors,
nor has there been this idea
that you have the authority
within your institution
or within your working life--
your professional life--
to demand that labor
from people who
are in greater positions
of power than you.
So I can definitely
speak to the fact
that I have come into
competitive academic situations
where people will pull
me aside and be like,
don't get involved
in diversity stuff.
You are about to go into a
ton of debt just to be here.
And then they're going to
extract more labor from you
that you will not
be compensated for
to build a pipeline
that they should
have built in the first place.
And that doesn't seem right
that you have to give up time
that you've worked really hard
to get into this institution
to do.
And I really admire the idea
of being a good ancestor that
was brought up earlier.
But I'm also interested
in this question
of what is the
generation that gets
to claim the benefits of the
sacrifices that have been
constantly made,
and made, and made,
and made in order to get
you into the positions
that you are?
Like, I am acutely aware, as a
slave descendant black person,
what are the sacrifices
and tolls of violence that
have put me in a
position to be protected.
And I get to claim the safety
of people who came before me
who did not have that safety.
But what else are
you allowed to claim?
Are you allowed to
claim a state of being,
like, mildly removed
from a fight?
Are you allowed to
sort of put things
down and focus on yourself
and focus on your career?
And I think that what
is not made salient
is the amount of
guilt that you're
made to feel if you
are not doing that work
to palpably be a good ancestor.
But also, what is
the work that you
are doing to reap the benefits
of the sacrifices that
have already been made for you?
Peggy?
[inaudible]
[laughter]
I so appreciate both
of those comments.
And I think it kind of
in some way says it all.
But having been at the
Intersectionality Workshop,
it makes me very
conscious of how long it
can take us or maybe
how long it took
me to recognize where
I had privileges
and where I didn't
have privileges
and to recognize
that those places
where I did have privilege
did come with obligations.
And yeah, the obligation
is to speak for people
who are not in those positions.
And I don't think in general we
have enough self-consciousness
about that.
But the other was in-- and I
say this partly because I was
in this school for
a very long time--
had real sexist leadership--
and the one thing
that I also thought
is that the students didn't
realize how much power they
had just to say it one way or
the other, they're consumers.
And we're employees.
And employees are always
worried about their jobs.
Whereas the students
are the consumers.
And so I kept
thinking, why aren't
the students complaining?
Why aren't the students
complaining more?
And that is something
that is true.
But in some way, that also was
part of the length about why
I didn't then find out my
privilege, which then you
really had to do with
tenure because then
I could see that my colleagues
who didn't have tenure
were probably not
going to speak up.
And so there are these
kind of identities
that you need to
understand to be
precise about when and where
you can do certain things.
But I also felt that I learned
a really, really big lesson.
And I learned this, actually,
from the Beverly Willis
Foundation, who is another
activist feminist organization,
that you can't go it alone--
that you can't, for
example, be the bitch.
You know, it's like, oh, my
god, here she comes again--
she's going to be a bitch--
I know what she's
going to say-- oh--
you know, you turn off--
and that you really,
really need allies.
And so a lot of this--
the doing the work for
people who can't naturally
bear the burden, or
they aren't in positions
is to find the allies so
that you don't look crazy.
[chuckling] I think
that's [audio out]
Yeah, sort of taking it a step
further, you talk about allies.
And I guess I always think
allies as well as targets
in the context of
activism, right?
Because we all recognize
that something's missing--
that we want something
to be different.
But we've got to have a strategy
in terms of how we get there.
And so sort of following up
on your micro versus macro
activity, I mean, how
do you think, I guess,
most strategic, to go
about identifying allies
in any particular environment?
Well, I think that this is--
a critical piece is discussion
of power, which again, we
talked about somewhat
this morning.
But I don't think
it's possible to talk
about any type of
political action
without a serious
consideration of power.
And something that I took
away from that discussion
this morning was the difference
between structures of power--
so the ways in which hierarchies
are produced and maintained,
but then also empowering--
giving people the
power that they
feel that they lack in order
to challenge those structures.
And so I think an
analysis of both of those
are key in terms of identifying
strategies, targets,
and allies--
that at every instance,
an analysis of power
and a desire to
empower are critical
and that those things need
to be constantly reassessed.
So I think that any
sort of political vision
is doomed to failure if the
target is not seen as moving--
is seen as being static.
And so I think that it's
really, really important
to be constantly analyzing, and
reanalyzing, and understanding
how power works, and
also understanding
where you think it's not
operative because it probably
is.
Yes.
Jen, what's your take
on allies versus targets
and how to effectively
leverage those resources?
Sure.
Sure.
Well, for allies, yes,
allies are important.
You need them.
I think I'm [audio out]
particularly
interested in allies that bring
difference because then, I
mean, you're all great.
We're all here.
I think we have a lot in common.
I'm really more interested--
and I do you want to work with
you--
I am more interested
in working with people
who may be outside the kind
of thinking that I have.
I think there is an
opportunity to learn
from others in that way.
I'm really interested in
looking outside of architecture
for allies.
I'm looking at the
real estate industry--
I'm looking at private equity--
to really collaborate in ways
that I think that just within
a discipline, you can't.
And then I also look at ways
that architects-- you know,
we build one thing sometimes.
And it exists in one place.
And there is other
industries that
have maybe different ways of
distributing messages-- so
the film industry, for example.
I think especially with a
broader Me Too Movement,
there's a lot of opportunity
for collaboration there.
I mean, that's
particularly a discipline
that understands the power of
space in storytelling as well.
So did I answer your question?
I don't know.
Maya, do you have
something to add?
Yeah, some of the
things that you're
talking about in terms of
looking inside and outside
and welcoming difference
I find very compelling.
But I think that's
something that's
very particular and difficult
about the architecture
and related design
professions is the extent
to which architecture is reliant
on and embrocated in, again,
these structures of power.
And so I think
that it would be--
on the one hand,
I understand why
looking to things like
private equity and real estate
would be advantageous
for people who
want to work within
the giving system.
But I can also
understand why people
would say that those
institutions are
too corrupt and embrocated in
structures like capitalism,
for example, being the number
one, one that comes to mind,
where you wouldn't
want to work with those
or see those people as allies.
So I think it's important to
understand both strategies,
but also to be aware of
the particular difficulties
of architecture
and again, related
design professions, that makes
this question of identifying
allies so complicated
and difficult.
And I say this as someone
who's not an architect.
So if somebody wants to--
No, I'm really
glad you said that.
Could I respond?
I think that'd be good because
I think there is a time
to stand up and speak out.
And I really respect the
work that, Peggy, you do,
I think particularly
in that sense.
But I think there is
other ways that we
can be effective within
our given areas, I'd say.
And I guess what I'd like
to also proffer and ask
that we do is we all bring
within our own realm--
bring what we can to
the conversation--
an expanded or diversified
portfolio of activism,
if you will.
Please, please, Sasha.
I'm jumping in
this too because I
feel like listening to you
both talk, I'm thinking
about on the one hand,
there's how do we
transform these institutions
that we're inside of?
So that's like, you
know, what do we
do with the oppressive
culture of design education?
What do we do with what's
happening inside design firms,
and so on, and so forth.
And then there's the
question of the things
that we're making
in our practice
and how do we make sure
that that piece of it
doesn't reproduce these larger
structures of oppression.
And to me, I want
to go back again
to what I started with, which
is the sort of principle
from Design Justice and
from Disability Justice,
actually, about nothing
about us without us.
And so I'm thinking about
how if I'm an architect
or someone who's
working on city planning
and I'm interested in being
an accomplice to movements
of people who are
structurally marginalized
through capitalist
development of cities,
then what I'm going to do
is start by looking at who's
already organizing around that.
Who's organizing
around renters' rights?
Who's organizing around
the right to the city?
And so I'd look to work together
with groups like The Right
to the City Coalition--
find the local node that's
connected to that larger
network.
Here in the Boston
area, it's City Life--
Vita Urbana-- is
doing incredible work
trying to think about what
does the future of Boston
look like when looking
at it through a lens
of racial justice, and
environmental justice, gender
justice, and so
on, and so forth.
So how do we rethink the city
and building and planning
processes through those lenses
and through the lens of labor
and what it means for
the future of work?
How do we work in coalition
with groups-- like in LA,
the Stop LAPD Spying Coalition,
who are working on ensuring
that the deployment of
surveillance mechanisms
by LAPD--
trying to minimize that
to trying to research
and target the fusion centers
where local police are sharing
data with DHS and with ICE that
feeds the detention deportation
machinery?
So basically, in
a nutshell, it's
like, what groups are already
working on these issues,
and how as an
architect or a designer
can you work together with
them to lift up, and build,
and extend, and amplify
their work, not like you
from the ivory tower
can find the solution
that you will then
impose upon people.
Could I also say something
to the point of allyship.
I think that there have
been a couple of statements
in the room throughout the day
that have been sort of focused
on, like, yes, all these women
coming together in a room,
but, like, we really
need to reach out
outside of this context.
And I think there's
an aspect of that
that assumes that
just because you have
a group of women in
the room that they all
agree with each other.
And I don't think that's true.
Just because you're
all a captive audience
doesn't mean that
you agree with me.
[laughter]
And I think that that was kind
of really obvious in the Me Too
Movement.
And it was also really obvious
in sort of Hillary's run
for president is that just
because women are involved
doesn't mean all women
believe the same thing.
So something that I have found
really striking about the Me
Too Movement is how, let's say,
different generations of women
approach survival tactics
in a sexual harassment
or abusive situation.
Whereas you're going to have
some women that are just like,
oh, these millennials
need to toughen up.
Or other women who are just,
like, an older generation has
been completely complicit in
these kinds of activities.
And I think that
what that says is
that there needs to be more
conversations between women
and between fems, generally,
to say OK, like, what have been
the strategies of survival--
what is no longer
serving anymore--
so you don't have
situations where
media are seeking
out, oh, where's
the woman who's going to be the
one that we can pluck and put
on TV and say, you know,
what about the men?
What about the men?
And I think that
when that happens,
that's an indication
of there was
no allyship around
that person to be like,
OK, come into this
community, and let's have
a conversation about what have
your survival tactics been
in these situations.
And then another
part of that aspect
of sort of singing to the
choir is that you don't really
need to sing to a choir.
A choir can sing on its own.
So I think there's this
aspect of resourcing
when it comes to
this kind of allyship
where it's great
to get into a room
together and then come
to the understanding
that you all agree
on a certain topic.
But then what is
the resourcing that
also comes to lift
people up into positions
and continuously support
them as they climb?
So I think that
is where, I guess,
what you would call
academically homo-social spaces,
are really valuable.
[audio out]
In some way, what
you're bringing up--
now I'm going to
divert this to a place
maybe where you
don't want it to go.
But forgive me.
But I do want to say this--
that I think part of what makes
a strong activist organization,
and I'm just speaking about what
I've seen works in the Lobby--
and I've had a lot to learn--
is actually making sure that
those differences are aired.
If you're actually going
for consensus all the time
and like-minded
thinking, you're going
to lose people all the way.
And so the most important thing
is for everybody to be heard.
And that's a system of
difference, actually.
And I guess I call
it radical democracy.
And in some way, it
also means that when
someone who disagrees
with you come and says,
oh, but you disagree with
so-and-so, and so you say this.
And so that must be the
collapse of the message.
No, it's not the
collapse of the message.
It's the nuance of the message.
And it's the vitality
of the message
that keeps getting debated
and keeps being talked about.
So I just think your point
is very important just
to the strength of activism.
Actually, I mean, I
think that plays directly
in to the next question
in terms of the very fact
that people that are
fighting essentially
for the same things, even if
they aren't expressed exactly
the same, is a direct
acknowledgment that everyone's
opinion--
everyone's input-- matters.
And this is not simple math.
It's more like calculus.
I mean, it's very nuanced.
And everybody just in their
involvement in the movement--
in the activism--
really helps to
shape and form, I
guess, what it is
we're working toward.
And so a lot of times in
an activist movements,
we spend a lot of
time, again, talking
about what it is we don't like
or what we feel is missing.
But I'm really
interested in each of you
sort of commenting
on what you feel
like is the impact or the
legacy of the activism
that you're partaking
in right now.
I mean, what does
the prize really
look like at the end of the day?
I think it's
important to know what
that is because then how
did you gauge your progress
along that continuum--
whether you're getting
closer or whether you're
moving farther away?
So we all are putting a lot
of time, effort, and passion
into our respective activism.
But what is it that
we're really aiming for?
Maya?
I'm going to speak
with a academic hat on.
And I think reflecting on
some of the conversations
that I've heard today,
it seems that there's
attention in terms
of thinking about
an activist academic
practice between content
and methodology.
And by that, I mean is the
role of an activist academic
or a feminist academic
to insert more of X
group into the
conversation, and sort
of thinking about canonization
and canon formation?
Or is the work and/or--
it doesn't necessarily have
to be a binary between-- you
have to choose--
but I think it's
important to make a distinction
between the former of content
versus methodology
versus the way
in which you approach
your subject.
So there is a way
in which I think
that work could be deeply
feminist and activist coming
from the Academy and still
thinking about white men--
that you could be approaching
your subject with methodologies
that sort of forefront issues
of labor, class, et cetera--
that are thinking
about the ways,
and again, which structures
of power and knowledge
are produced.
So I think, per my
work as an academic,
I would say that the quote,
unquote, "activist approach"
is moving more from the former
and more towards the latter.
So I'm thinking more about
structures of knowledge
and categories and how
we challenge those things
as opposed to keeping structures
of knowledge and power in place
but just adding more people
of X, Y, or Z identity
into the conversation.
While that is
important for me, I
think I gain more as someone
who's creating scholarship
and also from reading
the scholarship of people
who do the latter.
Jen, what do you think
the impact or the legacy--
the long-lasting
effect-- of activism
is on our environment,
our world, our practice?
Yeah, I mean, I was
thinking about this
recently because I was looking
at the work of Jennifer
Bloomer, and Ann
Berggren, and people
who come from different
aspects of the discipline.
And they went through this
exercise of asking themselves,
is this even something
worth bringing up?
Is architecture in
the feminine something
we should be talking
about and why?
And for me, when they
were talking about this,
it was this kind of exposed,
personal conversation
that they were having that they
published and showed everybody
else.
And for me, that was
incredibly resonant.
And I think they
pushed the conversation
and made it human in a real way.
And I think that's
something that I
would like to continue to see.
The question of legacy
I think's interesting
because I asked some
people who are also
on the board for
architects, and everybody
seems to think our
legacy is different.
And it's really personal
to the individual.
So some of us think
that we're following
the legacy of the Alliance
for Women in Architecture--
the Guerrilla Girls.
I mentioned [? mop-up ?]
[? work ?] and Jennifer
Bloomer.
I think the best
thing that we can
do for activism is just move
forward in your own voice
and kind of create
your own narrative.
And we don't necessarily
have to define one way
of being that in the future.
Jess?
Also, to kind of trouble
the idea of legacy also
is that I think it's
really attractive.
And I think that legacy has
been a huge part of creating
this aspect of mega
superstars in architecture
that has been kind of
contested throughout the day.
What if we weren't thinking
about such a long view
and were instead
thinking more immediately
and in our own lifetime?
A quote that I've heard
before that I like
is that you need to get out of
this life by saving someone.
And the person that you
can save can be you.
And how do you find ways to--
and not to make
it too existential
or anything because
time is so long
and everything else
is going to be swept
into the sands of time,
and maybe we're not going
to be here in 2040-- who knows?
There is this aspect of
instead of plotting out
the long plan,
which is important,
what is the responsibility
to sort of plot this shorter,
in my own time, aspect?
And I'm not saying that
to denigrate or put down
any ideas of legacy
because again, they
have been really enriching
for me in my own life-- things
that have come before
and inspired me.
But I'm also kind of
interested in what
if we weren't always taking
these grand narratives
to your point and
could value the smaller
short-term narratives?
Peggy, what's your perspective?
You know, when you
asked this question,
I think I think of
it so simplistically
compared to more
profound observations.
And I guess I just think about
what do I maybe long term think
are the goals of the Lobby?
And what are the
short-term things
that make me think that
progress is being made?
And they're just
dumb things like, I
mean, I just have to say,
every time I hear the word
labor within an architectural
context, I think, yes.
You know, now we can put
those two words together.
And people will actually
think that that is not
a way of saying that's the
downfall of architecture-- you
know, that those two terms
can be empowering together.
I [audio out] that's progress.
I have to say increasing
membership of [inaudible]
the Architecture
Lobby, that's progress.
I think long term, I
think that what success
would look like is people
coming to the Lobby
and not to the AIA for help--
[laughter]--
[laughter]
--just to say it because
I think we actually
do care about the
real issues and not
making it look like it's a
fun party and everything's
OK when everything's not OK.
So those are very
specific to the Lobby.
And I think in some
way maybe you also
want to ask around progress
around Me Too and feminism.
But I actually do
think a discourse
about work which has behind it
a discourse of class, and race,
and ageism, and sexism, really
is the essential ingredient
to the MeToo [audio out]
I mean, I really
like what you said,
Jess, because I've been reading
Adrienne Maree Brown's book
Emergent Strategy, which
I highly recommend,
which is about how
do we do that sort
of short-term, constant
readjustment towards based
on principles and
values that we hold
rather than sort of the 10-year
plan towards the revolution
type of approach.
So I recommend that book.
I do think that, again,
back to that distinction
between what happens inside
the institutions, then
the products, or the objects,
or services that we're
making-- that we're providing.
So yeah, long-term
victory looks like parity
with the general population
in all the positions of power
inside all of the
institutions that
are related to architecture.
So women and fems make up 51%
of all the powerful positions
and so on down the line in terms
of the intersections of race,
class, disability,
so on, and so forth.
In terms of the things
that we're building, to me,
a long-term victory--
future-- real long term--
well, it means a
world where there
are no architects that are
willing to build prisons
anymore.
So there's no more prisons.
And every building is fully
accessible for the wide range
of physical, and neuro-diverse,
and gender-diverse body
types and mind types.
And nobody is willing to
build a wall on the border.
And no one's willing to build
complicated and sophisticated
technical systems to
surveil, and control,
and algorithmically sort and
reproduce structural inequality
in smart cities of the future.
Instead, architects have
allied themselves deeply
with social movements
that are intersectional
in their analysis and led by
the communities most affected.
And I think we can get there.
[laughter]
[cheering]
[applause]
All right.
What a way to end on a
powerful, strong note.
That's exactly what we needed.
Thank you all for agreeing
to participate in this panel
and bringing your perspective
and unique perspectives
on this topic.
We would like to open it
up for a few questions
from the audience.
We do remind you that
we are live streaming
and that in order for
our remote viewers
to get the full benefit, we
need you to speak directly
into the microphone.
And while you're
doing that, we'd
like you to identify yourself
before you pose your question.
So do we have any questions
from the audience?
Hi.
My name is Camille.
I'm a dual graduate student at
GSAPP studying urban planning
and architecture.
Thank you so much to everyone
for this wonderful panel.
I wanted to ask
further about, I guess,
orchestrating the
different nuances
between having, I guess,
the same agenda sometimes
and not losing
the core of what--
almost like the nuances
and what we're actually
trying to achieve, too, and
how do you balance maybe this--
you so eloquently
just put that together
in terms of what we're
trying to aim for, Sasha.
And I'm wondering how do
you best navigate that?
And how do you
organize yourselves
through that or suggestions
for perhaps like a school that
is trying to really understand
the power that each individual
really has and how to make
actual meaningful impact
and change in the pedagogy,
in the power structures,
and in systemic things
that are happening.
Thank you.
Well, I think that,
to Peggy's point,
the diversity of opinions
and the diversity of ideas
of how you approach
change is a real strength
of progressive movements
because so many voices are
able to exist within
a progressive movement
that naturally all
of those solutions
and all of those opinions exist.
But I think that where
sometimes the things fall apart
is by being conflict
diverse or by having
this idea that any kind
of conflict is negative
and we need to stamp it
down as soon as possible.
I think that's how people
feel either completely ignored
or that you are trying to deny
the reality of their existence
and therefore cannot be in
allyship or cannot build with
you.
So I think one
thing that would be
really great if it was
taught in architecture school
is negotiations.
I think that would be super
powerful because not only is
that going to help you kind
of with client and contract
negotiations, but
it's also going
to help you interpersonally.
Whereas, you know,
I've seen so many times
in architecture firms
where it's just like, oh,
we're going to try and
go for this RFP in China.
And then someone
wants to talk about--
like, oh, let's talk about
the politics, and economics,
and history that we can
manifest in a project like this
and how interesting it is the
way that China is positioning
itself currently, and that could
be an interesting way that we
approach this RFP.
And then it's like, we
don't have time for that.
We only have three weeks
to put this together.
So we're going to throw
that in the trash.
And that's not--
I mean, so much
rich architecture
would come out of just letting
that conversation happen,
and letting that
wandering happen,
and letting those
conflicts happen,
instead of being one
we're time strapped into.
I just feel uncomfortable
with disagreements, or debate,
or conflict in general.
Yeah.
If you're not communicating,
you may not even
be aware that there's a
conflict, a difference
of opinion, and understand the
source of those differences.
So communication is essential.
I would agree.
One of the things that I try and
do to create a space like that
is I teach this course, which
is called the Community Design
Studio, basically.
And if you go to
Codesign.MIT.edu,
I'm going to be teaching
it in the spring.
And the main criteria
is that the students
have to work with a
community-based organization
to develop a project together.
And so in that
course, really it's
about learning how
to work together
on a community-led project.
Other questions?
No other questions?
We've got a hand up
here in the front.
Hello.
My name is [? namarta. ?]
And I'm a recent undergrad.
And I was wondering I think
one effective way of bringing
about change is giving
people hope that there
is a possibility of what they're
striving for coming to reality.
And I think with a lot
of media currently,
our future or what we're
aspiring to work for looks
a lot like Blade Runner and
[? akira. ?] [chuckling]
so I was wondering--
like, you know,
this perfect or seemingly
quote, unquote, "utopic"
setting that you're
describing of this perfectly
accessible space and such.
How do us as designers
convince people
that this is a
possibility and give
people hope so that
everyone strives towards it?
So I think that that's a
very, very good question.
And I think that a
lot of pessimism that
comes from political work--
well, there are many sources.
[laughter] But one big one that
I think that I check myself
in terms of encountering is
sort of having a vision of what
I think success looks like
before embarking on the process
of enacting change.
And I've been really
inspired, I think,
by reading the work
of academics who
are sort of writing in the
black radical tradition who
are thinking very, very
fruitfully, I think,
about the conditions
of, let's say,
black people living
under slavery.
So for a long time, the
way that was discussed
is normally very top-down--
that being a slave is just--
and not to dispute this at
all-- but that it's just
a horrible existence--
that there's
no room for sort of
self-articulation
nor a meaningful life.
And there are so many amazing
theorists and historians
who are sort of
challenging that-- like,
thinking about everyday
sites of struggle where
people who, again, live under
extreme sites of oppression.
We could continue this
into the present day,
right, from slavery to
mass incarceration--
pick your poison-- are
still able to carve out
meaningful spaces
for themselves.
And that means sort
of recalibrating
what it means to be
happy-- what it means
to have a world of equity,
and all these things
that we have articulated that we
might want from the profession
or from the world.
And so I think that
that doesn't mean that--
and then also that
means rethinking
how you achieve those things.
So it's not necessarily about
going out and voting even--
not to say that
that's not important--
but the way in
which you carve out
a meaningful,
interpersonal relationship,
or engage your
relationship with your boss
or significant other might
be just as important to you
on your day-to-day basis as
going to vote for a congressman
or whatnot.
So I think that that's
been really inspiring to me
in terms of thinking
about how I see
change and success
in my own life
and understanding how that
operates on multiple scales.
In some way in the back of
that question-- and this might
be me projecting onto
it-- is this idea
of do you believe
in the revolution?
And if you don't believe in
it-- if you don't believe
that the utopian
thing can happen--
if the revolution can't
come, let's give up.
And I know you're
not implying that.
But I really believe
strongly-- and this is kind
of a [inaudible] idea--
that it's not the
case that there
is going to be ultimate
success probably ever--
which is to say, I don't
believe in the revolution--
but that doesn't mean that you
don't strive in every single
moment to make it uncomfortable
for the hegemonic monoculture--
let's call it capitalism--
to feel uncomfortable.
Every single step
of the way, you
try and make it as
uncomfortable as possible.
And that may not lead
to this fabulous world.
But it means that
you've done everything
to make sure that those forces
of power don't run amuck.
So every step happens.
I also think that it
is the case that what
you strive for
shouldn't be measured
by whether that thing was
achieved because generally,
something else was achieved.
It's not that thing.
So you always have to be
very generous about what
you think change looks like.
And it's very, very
rarely the thing
that you thought was going
to be the measure of success.
So you have to be agile.
Well, thank you again.
That pretty much counts for
all of our time this evening.
Thank you to the panelists for
doing an amazing job leading us
through this conversation.
Thank you to everyone
that joined us here today.
And especially, thank
you to Women of Design
for creating a space and
a place for this dialogue.
We appreciate it.
[applause]
Thank you.
Thank you so much for that
galvanizing and provocative
discussion.
I think, yeah, the micro
to macro forms of activism,
no matter how precarious
to self, the work of airing
and expressing differences and
embracing conflict and having
the hard conversations--
that consensus can't
be taken for granted.
I think these are things that
we should embrace and that Women
in Design can bring
on-- you know, tackle--
in our group, too.
So we are now going to
take a 15-minute break
before coming back in for the
final collaborative build.
I'd like to ask that people go
into the lobby or the library
where there is an exhibition
to check out by Karen.
In the lobby, there is now
the rolling board in place
where you can post up the
action ideas from the blue slips
in your pamphlet.
We'd love to kind of--
I think we all have
our gears turning now
after listening to
this conversation.
So we would love to have that
be a place to document that
and also start gathering to
plan for collective action
in the future.
So thank you all very much.
We will see you in 15 minutes.
[applause]
