Pluralism_in_Architecture

Prévia do material em texto

Pluralism in Architecture. 
By Aaron Olko 
 
Southern California Institute of Architecture 
The Digital Turn 
Fall 2012 
Professor Amit Wolf 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the early and mid-1990‟s socio-political 
theorist Robert Mangibeira Unger addressed 
the global architecture community with two 
different politically charged essays. In these 
essays Unger proclaimed that society was 
changing in a way that had never occurred 
before and that the architecture which provides 
for it should change dramatically as well. He 
challenged architects to consider that the 
change in architecture does not happen through 
the architecture itself, but rather in the mind of 
the architect as he must become aware of the 
changing state of society through technology; 
shifting tides from command and market 
economies as well as statism and privatism to 
Pluralistic interests in economics and politics.i 
While this argument may not have become a 
household, dinner table discussion among the 
architecture community, it certainly hit the nail 
right on the head; whether the architects of the 
digital turn knew it or not. In the following text 
I will discuss how Pluralism has affected the 
evolution of the Digital Turn in Architecture. 
The first of Unger‟s essays came in 1991 
at the Anyone Conference in Los Angeles. Here 
in the midst of discussions among some of the 
world‟s most influential Architectural thinkers 
and designers Roberto Unger, as a complete 
outsider, suggests that Architects stop “taking 
refuge in self-indulgent virtuosity and 
prettiness” and “uphold the commitment to 
express in physical vessels a shared vision of 
collective life.”ii The second essay came in the 
form of a letter to Mr. William S. Saunders, 
editor of the Harvard Design Magazine after a 
panel discussion and ensuing article titled 
“Architecture in the Public Realm: A Public 
Discussion” in the Winter/Spring 1995 issue of 
GSD News. Here Unger elaborates upon his 
earlier dissemination at the Anyone Conference 
through a more elaborate and refined statement 
in which he expounds his conception of 
Pluralism, provides examples of what he 
believes to be an Architecture of „Visionary 
Naturalism,‟ and eventually concludes with a 
calling to arms of the students of the GSD.iii 
In Unger‟s expounding of Pluarlism he 
argues that “latter-day urban icons would work 
all the more if they became more pluralistic.”iv 
And that “Pluralism would not merely combat 
authoritarianism; it would open channels of 
communication between the public symbols of 
the state and the real life of society. In the 
absence of such a pluralism, the iconic and 
monumental space becomes, all too often, what 
the myth of republican engagement a la Roman 
Republic has generally been in the history of 
political thought: an attempt to ennoble 
through moral rearmament and edifying re-
description an unchanged set of political and 
economic institutions.”v The Pluralist argument 
here - that Pluralism is emerging in 
contemporary society and therefore we should 
address this in architecture - is really nothing 
new. However, for the first time since the initial 
discussions of pluralism, there is need for 
serious consideration. 
In early twentieth century philosophy 
Pluralism was a contrasting argument to 
Monistic notions of reductionist principles in 
existence. Pluralists believe in individuality and 
infinite variation, claiming that no two beings 
are the same. This is not to say that Pluralists 
believe in individuality to the point of complete 
autonomy, but rather that the multiplicities of 
beings do not exist as one; our existence is based 
on infinite influences creating infinite 
differences among beings. 
In political theory this concept is 
applied as societies become larger and more 
complex. Complexity in growing populations, 
diverse cultural make-up, balanced age groups, 
multiple religious sectors, numerous ethnicities, 
and distributions (or the lack of distribution) in 
wealth, ideologies, preferences, and anxieties all 
become congealed into a progressive form of 
variegated societal intellect. Because of these 
various bodies of social intellect, allocations of 
power become difficult to trace as individuals 
find creative allegiances with other individuals 
to aggregate into groups of association, so to 
say. 
Plural theorists propose the concept 
that power is the manifestation of the use of 
resources by an individual (or group) and that 
any individual at any time and place has at their 
disposal at least some amount of resources 
either in their possession or within their 
immediate proximity. When this is realized and 
exercised by multiple groups the central body of 
governance loses its ability to control society 
through coercive means and subsequently 
becomes a mediating organization to assure 
peaceful relations between the Pluralistic 
groups. 
Herein lies the traditional Cartesian 
organization of orthogonal societal power 
structures and the question which Robert Dahl 
poses in his critically acclaimed 1961 text “Who 
Governs?” In Dahl‟s book, he uses an example of 
resource distribution in New Haven, 
Connecticut in 1957 to show the inequality of 
tax-paying registered voters. He notes that the 
fifty largest property owners in New Haven own 
one-third of all the usable property and amount 
to less than one-sixteenth of one percent of tax 
paying citizens.vi If resources are distributed as 
such, how then is equality in the democratic 
electoral process possible, Dahl questions. Over 
the last thirty years, this access to resources has 
shifted dramatically through the invention of 
the Internet and the mass distribution of 
Personal Computers.vii 
Returning to Unger, we may see that 
this argument can be considered a reviving of 
pluralistic political and existential theories from 
the early twentieth century. However, the 
format of the argument could be nestled into a 
modern day re-writing of Gottfried Semper‟s Die 
vier Elemente (1851). Here Semper ponders the 
development of architectural style through 
external influences, such as the need for fire, the 
evolution of material, and changing social 
representation. This evolution in style occurred 
due to the communal possibilities in which 
rudimentary shelter provided. Subsequently 
leading to social collaboration and eventually 
politics. 
This split in architectural style can be 
seen through the typical nomadic hut and its 
rudimentary form seen in Tibetan nomadic 
architecture and that of Native American and 
African tribal buildings (or tents/huts rather) 
and the established order of architecture seen in 
the civilizations of the Andes Mountains, 
Greece, and Egypt.viii This may be a direct 
difference between distributed social order in 
the need for individual necessity and complex 
social machines providing for the betterment of 
all of its subordinates, or rather a contrast 
between pluralistic and monistic political and 
existential beliefs. 
 Throughout the history of Western 
Architecture, the reductionist principle of 
monism and unity in society can be seen 
through the various styles of architecture 
exhibited from the Acropolis to the axial 
organizing and compositional principles of the 
Ecole des Beaux Arts: various different forms of 
post and lintel systems composed of rational 
elements derived from proportions of the human 
body and human head.ix This is also evident in 
the imperial nature of symmetry to express 
perfection in social icons as a way of ordering 
hierarchical presence of sovereignty and power 
overthe masses of subordinate individuals, thus 
reducing the variegated social complexities to 
the power of one. 
 The architecture of the first and second 
machine ages attempted to deviate from this 
stratification in architecture by attempting to 
eliminate indexes and dominating 
proportionality all the while trying to create a 
machine which seeks to provide for the 
individual needs of the end user. The ultimate 
intention was to provide for a more homogenous 
(and hopefully) Pluralistic, International style of 
design. This however turned into a further 
system of oppression by enabling the forces of 
capital to turn architecture into a machine of 
cheap shelter rather than allowing the end user 
to benefit from its mechanistic qualities. 
 This frustration within architecture was 
then enabled further in the Post-Modern era as 
collage compositions of multi-cultural 
architectural components and basic geometries 
were exploited to establish a contrast to the 
utopian ideals of Modernism. The incoherence 
of an architecture derived from a surrender to 
exploitation resulted in the celebration of the 
power of capital. This can be seen in the 
oversized, imperial collage of various 
architectural ornaments in the work of Michael 
Graves and the complete loss of all 
comprehensive discipline in the work of Robert 
Venturi and Denise Scott Brown.x 
 This language of architecture 
throughout civilization has furthered itself into 
an abyss of non-significance. As the origins of 
architecture stem from the basis of ideological 
beliefs in Greek and Chinese philosophy, 
Andean social structures, and Roman economy 
the significance of such formal language has lost 
its place among contemporary society, much 
like the ideologies of the historical eras. This 
formal language has thus begun the dissolution 
of its significance into “shop-talk;” the talk of 
geometric inquiry, separate from any talk of 
social responsibility.xi This is the conundrum of 
the architectural manifesto: the foundation of 
significance upon which most manifesto‟s are 
built are hollow, subsequently deflating as soon 
as they are inflated. 
 Unger uses the analogy of a swinging 
pendulum to describe the cyclical trap of 
architecture where the pendulum swings 
between formal order and “polycentric 
dynamism.”xii However, Architecture is not 
trapped within itself; it is trapped in the 
structured ordering of the state. Thus, we swing 
back and forth between the polarizations of this 
pendulum to cope with our pre-determined 
containment, like a dog pacing in a small fenced- 
in yard. While we spin ourselves further into 
insignificance we perpetually propose the next 
manifesto, providing the prescription of points 
for the next round of insignificance and the 
further polarizations of the pendulum.xiii In 
order to break this trap, the architect must 
understand it and be able to utilize the tools 
provided by our changing society. Here, and 
here only will there be a separation. 
However, one may argue that the 
architect‟s hands are bound by social 
expectation, economy, and the privatization of 
society. Therefore there is no possibility for 
absolutism or autonomy from within 
architecture, regardless of the off-springs of 
“science envy” and/or “art envy” which most of 
the discussion of Digital Turn is founded 
upon.xiv The answer lies in our ability to become 
animalistic, to infuse a sense of vitality into 
architecture, to recognize the problem of our 
enclosure and take action to create difference. It 
is more important for the architect to realize 
that the separation from the pendulum‟s swing 
comes from outside of Architecture, in order for 
it to be changed within architecture. Much like 
how Gottfried Semper established the evolution 
of architecture (beginning with the communal 
space as mound, hearth, enclosure, and roof) as 
coming from the basic need for fire, Unger has 
positioned us to question whether the incessant 
repetition and stagnation in architecture is the 
result of the tired (dying) Monisitic beliefs in 
society.xv 
To understand the concept of enclosure 
further we can turn to the lengthy discussion in 
Gilles Delueze and Felix Gauttari‟s A Thousand 
Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Delueze and 
Guattari expand on the notion of being trapped 
in the catch of a state apparatus that behaves in 
a striated manner, much like a chess board. This 
striated environment is an ordering principle 
from which smooth space can emerge with the 
generation of “creative differences” and 
subsequently “lines of flight.” The aggregations 
of creative differences comes from variation in 
assemblage based upon plural existence and 
parallel subjectivities, in turn creating a 
machine of offensive intentions from within the 
catch of the state apparatus. From within this 
comes a separation from the striated and a 
becoming of the smooth. This is not a discussion 
of geometric transformation, nor should it be 
considered as such through metaphors or 
analogies. Thus, Pluralism is not necessarily a 
naïve model for one-to-one translation in 
collage-like form-work or color composition, 
but rather the becoming of an existential 
separation between the individual and the 
whole that allows for the disbursement of 
controlled subjectivity and thus the desire for 
infinite difference and variation.xvi With the 
accelerated progression of technology, the 
invention of the internet, and the dissolution of 
Cartesian concepts and application of calculus 
in geometric understanding through software, 
architecture of the twenty-first century has 
been provided with new ways to explore the 
refinement of geometric and spatial significance 
to address the perpetual separations and infinite 
differences in an evolving pluralistic society. 
At the time of Unger‟s address this 
exploration in technology was in the midst of 
unfurling through the work of many different 
architects, however most of them oblivious to 
this condition in the emerging society of the 
twenty-first century. Many of these 
practitioners came across happy accidents in the 
process of exploring the translation of 
technology and theory in architecture and some 
aimed directly at the foreseeable explosion of 
change, while others missed the point entirely. 
Regardless, it is important to look at several 
works to come to the realization that all of the 
architects of the Digital Turn were designing 
along the lines of Pluralism, some succeeding in 
the quest for differentiation, others returning to 
the dogmatic pendulum of architectural non-
significance. 
One example of an architect who came 
across a happy accident in terms of Pluralism is 
Greg Lynn and his Embryological House (1998-
1999). As the proprietor of blob-like shapes, 
Lynn provides a universal variation of internal 
subjectivity through fluid, undulating surfaces 
and an obscure establishment of enclosure 
within an Embryo-like shape. Through the 
ambivalence of the shape, its anxieties can be 
interpreted in infinite ways yet is almost 
incoherent in verbal communication. It 
expresses no hierarchy of order or any formal 
non-significance.xvii Thus, it establishes a 
relationship to society at large through 
technological and material advancement, while 
at the same time catering to individuality in the 
real lives of the end user. It‟s reproducibility 
allows it to be accessible to society as a modular 
unit. Each unit‟s shape is based on user 
preference and programmatic needs, so no two 
shapes are exactly the same. This creates 
accessibility and individuality while breaking 
the fabric of the constrained environment in 
which it resides through non-iconic 
differentiation.xviii This project however was not 
presented as a direct response to Unger‟s call for 
pluralistic architecture.And while it presents 
strong pluralistic significance it was designed at 
a level of privatization where social pluralism 
does not exist as more than a projection of 
individual subjectivity on to its adjacent and 
peripheral environment. This situation can be 
seen throughout the twentieth century as 
individuals with the appropriate means can 
have a house built that contrasts its 
environment. 
Pluralist Architecture is manifested at 
the public scale, where the interests of the many 
are formally projected through the incoherence 
of the majority. Possibly the best example of this 
at the beginning of the Digital Turn can be 
found in AKS Runo‟s Alexandria Library project 
(1989). 
Submitted before Unger‟s first essay at 
the 1991 Anyone Conference, the Alexandria 
Library project‟s intent is to “create its own 
text” and “not recite the work of other 
architects and other eras,” and its ambivalent 
formal resolutions do just that.xix Bahram 
Shirdel and Andrew Zago described in the June 
1990 issue of A+U “[…] architecture is in need of 
powerful heresies to shake it from its lethargic 
orthodoxy.”xx This sentiment aligns with the 
concept of Pluralist Architecture, whether 
Shirdel and Zago knew it or not. The caged, 
reduced shapes in the Ptolemy space at the front 
of the Library directly express the resistance to 
orthodox conformity that the established order 
prescribes, while the residual space between the 
shell of the plinth and the encasement of the 
library stacks defines a separation from 
traditional order and creates an experimental 
space in which creative use can emerge. 
Together with this, the veil draped over the 
fractured plinth covers the adjacent corniche, 
creating a language relatable only to the 
Mediterranean Sea. On the other side of the site, 
the sixth, inner caged object projects out into 
the city, once again drawing into the site a 
language its own, not signified by precedence. 
 The incoherence presented by the 
Alexandria Project was one of the few projects 
in the Digital Turn that experimented with 
Pluralism in the way it related back to society. It 
did this through spatial experimentalism and 
physical interruption not just visual affect. In 
contrast to spatial experimentalism, UN 
Studio‟s Mercedes Benz Museum in Stuttgart, 
Germany (2001-2006) is an example of a project 
that exhibits a strictly visual, plural affect. 
 The initial concept of the Trefoil 
organization used to establish circulation and 
formal resolution was reduced to strictly formal 
resolution as the project developed. The hopeful 
creation of an MC Esher-esque spatial 
containment seemed to have been lost in the 
attempt to relate the project back to the 
circulation patterns of the Staatsgalerie, the 
Guggenheim (New York), and the Centre 
Pompidou. This limiting of added precedent 
vocabulary debilitated the spatial 
experimentation of the project, removing the 
possibility of ambivalent space, only to be 
replaced by prescriptive (and expected) gallery 
and circulation compartments.xxi 
On the visual side of the project, the 
trefoil organization processed the elevation of 
the building to appear as an elevation of direct 
origin to the process that created it. The 
concavity, protrusions, and conflictions that 
compose the representation of the volume on 
the façade are in fact the volume. Thus the 
building has no façade aside from the material 
surfaces that mask its mechanical nature. This 
super rational approach comes across as a form 
of incoherence in relation to the foundation of 
non-significant architectural language in which 
the building is surrounded, thus initiating a 
plural reading of subjective identity. 
Aside from the work of Jeffrey Kipnis 
there was not much acknowledgement towards 
the concept of Pluralism (or Unger‟s argument) 
during the Digital Turn. However, those 
involved showed a strong desire through their 
work to define the new and the shocking with 
little discussion of architecture‟s raison d’etre: 
provision to and representation of society. The 
discussions of science and philosophy within 
Architecture inflated the endogenous response 
to pluralism as if there was no need to discuss 
society, but rather just find new and creative, 
yet justifiable methods in with which to react to 
it. It was an unspoken law: society is changing 
from monistic homogeneity to a pluralistic 
heterogeneity. That‟s it. Pluralism is always 
there, hiding in plain sight as an explanation for 
the desire and need for the new, the different, 
and the variegated interruptions to social 
existence. 
Much like Gottfried Semper‟s argument 
in De vier Elemente: the need for mound, roof, 
enclosure, and hearth to protect the flame being 
the beginning of architecture; so is society‟s 
need for incoherence of geometry and space to 
protect the expanding individual subjectivities 
of a pluralist society in the evolution of 
architecture. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
i “The focus of ideological conflict is ceasing to be the quarrel between statism and privatism, command and market economies. 
It is becoming, instead, the conflict among alternative institutionalized versions of political and economic pluralism and the 
varieties of social experience that each of these versions supports or discourages. By taking, through his work, a stand in this 
conflict – building along directions such as those I have just evoked 0 the architect speaks in a way less corrupted by solipsism 
and vanity.” The Better Futures of Architecture, 4 
ii The Better Futures of Architecture, 1 
iii Unger provided examples of Visionary Naturalism as E. Fay Jones‟ Thorncrown Chapel (Eureka Springs, Arkansas, 1980) as 
well Jorge Silvetti and Rodolfo Machado‟s House in Tunisia (Djerba, Tunisia, 1976). April 3rd, 1995 Letter to William Saunders, 
6. I find these examples contradictory to what Unger discusses for several reasons, however this is not the occasion to elaborate 
on such concerns. 
“I urge the faculty and students of the Graduate School of Design to live the moment in this spirit, understanding the active 
construction of social space as a special contribution to democratic experimentalism. The further they go, the more disillusioned 
with disillusionment the will become”, April 3rd, 1995 letter to William Saunders, page 7 
iv April 3rd, 1995 letter to William Saunders, 1 
v April 3rd, 1995 letter to William Saunders, 2 
vi Who Governs, 4 
vii
 As of 2010 there were roughly 229.7 million internet users in America. That is roughly 74% of the population. This has been a 
steady increase since the internet‟s inception and places America as the second largest internet consumer (China has roughly 
460.1 million users, 45% of its population). 
viii An interesting project that dances along the line of nomadism in the contemporary society is the “Suburban Tipi” by John 
Paananen, Cranbrook, 2009 
ix
 Considering the 1 to 7 ratio of the head to the body and the 1 to 9 ratio of the nose to the face 
x Unintended for this purpose, I find Peter Blake‟s contrasting images of the University of Virginia and a city street scape in 
God‟s Own Junkyard a prime example of a failed attempt to create a manifold transition of architecture towards utopianism, in 
turn giving in to capital and a complete return to symbolism of power. Architecture‟s attempts to escape symbolism to rise to a 
higher power of service for society is a cyclical failure. 
xi Sylvia Lavin, “Practice Makes Perfect,” Hunch 11 (Winter 2006-2007) via Dora Epstein-Jones “The Non-Significance of 
Columns,” Log 26 (Fall/Winter 2012) 
xii “The pendular swing between rigid order and studied disorder seems merely to have continued withever wider sweeps. The 
willingness of contemporary architects to play a role in this pre-written script would weaken if only they saw it more clearly for 
what it is; the script usurps their power to choose a future for architecture resonating with a future for society.” The Better 
Futures of Architecture, 2 
xiii In Jeffrey Kipnis‟ Towards A New Architecture he provides an interesting interpretation of Unger‟s first essay, The Better Futures of 
Architecture. This is especially seen in his analysis of InFormation and DeFormation. However, it is actually an example of what is 
the problem in the first place: compartmentalization and existential empiricism. Architecture cannot be prescriptive in the 
Digital Turn if it is to provide for a Pluralistic society. 
xiv Kenneth Frampton‟s text on the Autonomy of Architecture (Reflections on the Autonomy of Architecture: A Critique of Contemporary 
Production from Out of Site: A Social Criticism of Architecture, Bay Press, 1991) is used here as an all-encompassing umbrella relative to 
architectural discussions of Folding in Architecture, Catastrophe Theory in Architecture, Topology in Architecture, etcetera. 
xv Henry Francis Mallgrave elaborates on Gottfried Semper and Die vier Elemente in Modern Architectural Theory, pages 130 – 139 
 America‟s Monistic society is the result of a governing body based on Plutocracy. 
xvi In the article A Family Affair, Jeffrey Kipnis comments “Many efforts have been made to overturn that view of architecture in 
the name of everyday life – not least of which was Manfredo Tafuri‟s call for architects to leave the boudoir and turn its attention 
to building practices. The fact that the historical and cultural construction of architecture‟s self-image as a discipline still 
persists speaks not to a a conspiracy of elitists but to the extraordinary long-lived success of the discipline in these terms. And in 
these terms, the contemporary urge to greater variation simply speaks to the reality that our contemporary social coherence no 
longer seems grounded in a common subjectivity, but in a common embrace of multiple, partial subjectivities. This state does not 
reflect the naïve model called pluralism, which understands that multiplicity as between one person/group and another: I like 
green, he likes yellow, we‟re both entitled to our opinion. Rather it speaks to a postmodern state of the subject (which should 
thus, strictly speaking, be called a subject) that is composed of multiple, partial, and conflicting subjectivities that roil within 
each of us.” Greg Lynn Form, pages 196-198. 
xvii
 This term is borrowed from Dora Epstein-Jones “The Non-Significance of Columns,” Log 26 (Fall/Winter 2012) 
xviii This is considering that Lynn created hundreds of formal variations to explore the possibilities; as well as the concept of the 
structure skin separation that Lynn had designed to make the House accessible. 
xix
 “The Alexandria Project,” A+U, June 1990, page 23 
xx “The Alexandria Project,” A+U, June 1990, page 23 
xxi It‟s only fair to consider that the limitations of spatial experimentation could have been a result of limited knowledge of such 
ambitious projects by government agencies and/or a lack of wiggle room for Van Berkel and Bos by their client, DiamlerBenz 
 
 
Bibliography 
 
 
1. Unger, Roberto M. "The Present of Architecture and Future of Democracy." Letter to William Saunders. 3 Apr. 1995. Harvard 
Law School. Harvard University, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2012. 
 
2. Unger, Roberto M. "The Better Futures of Architecture." Address. Anyone Conference. California, Los Angeles. 1991. The Work 
of Roberto Mangibeira Unger. Harvard University. Web. 22 Oct. 2012. 
 
3. Kipnis, Jeffrey. "Towards A New Architecture." AD: Folding in Architecture (1993): 56-65. Print. 
 
4. Russell, John E. "Why Not Pluralism?" The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods 6.14 (1909): 372-78. JSTOR. Web. 
27 Nov. 2012. <http://WWW.jstor.org/stable/2012255>. 
 
5. Frampton, Kenneth. "Reflections on the Autonomy of Architecture: A Critique of Contemporary Production." Out of Site: A 
Social Criticism of Architecture. Seattle: Bay, 1991. 17-26. Print. 
 
6. "The Alexandria Library Project." A+U June (1990): 20-23. Print. 
 
7. Epstein-Jones, Dora. "The Non-Significance of Columns." Log 26 (2012): 119-30. Print. 
 
8. Moffett, Marian, Michael Fazio, and Lawrence Wodehouse. Buildings Across Time: An Introduction to World Architecture. London: 
McGraw-Hill, 2004. Print. 
 
9. Mallgrave, Henry F. Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673-1968. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print. 
 
10. Moore, Jerry D. Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes: The Archaeology of Public Buildings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. 
Print. 
 
11. Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. Cambridge: MIT, 1960. Print. 
 
12. Guattari, Felix. "1227: Treatise on Nomadology; 7000 BC: Apparatus of Capture; 1440: The Smooth and the Striated." A 
Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism & Schizophrenia. By Gilles Delueze. Mineapolis: University of Minnesota, 1987. 351-500. 
Print. 
 
13. Kipnis, Jeffrey. "A Family Affair." Greg Lynn Form. New York: Rizzoli, 2008. 196-201. Print. 
 
14. Chase, John, and Leon Whiteson. "AKS Runo (." Experimental Architecture in Los Angeles. By Aaron Betsky. New York: Rizzoli, 
1991. 12-17. Print. 
 
15. Bos, Caroline. "Trefoil Organization: Mercedes-Benz Museum, Stuttgart." UN Studio II: Design Models. By Ben Van Berkel. 
London: Thames & Hudson, 2006. 184-209. Print. 
 
16. Bergson, Henri. "The Evolution of Life - Mechanism and Teleology." Creative Evolution. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2005. 1-64. 
Print. 
 
17. Etzioni, Amitai. "Communitarianism and the Moral Dimension." American Political Thought. By Isaac Kramnick and Theodore J. 
Lowi. N.p.: W.W. Norton &, 2009. 1511-522. Print. 
 
18. Laski, Harold. "The Foundations of Sovereignty; Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty." The Great Political Theories. Vol. II. New 
York: Harper Perennial, 1962. 436-39. Print. 
 
19. Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale UP, 1974. Print.