A deconstruction of Architecture-Feminism
Conversation between Cristina Vaccaro Cruz and Magdalena Picazzo Sánchez
As part of the HCT & Ph.D. Debates: Writing-With: Architecture Feminist Criticism
Architectural Association 2023
H D T & P H C_e t a b e s
Wr i t i n g ☻wi t h Archi+ectûre F 3mi nis t Cri t ic i s m
H C T P H D ϧ b a t e s UUr i t i n g - wi t h Architecture F emi nis t Cri t ic i s m 1
I find myself conflicted. I am doubting these definitions, and reconsidering what these words stand for, especially in terms of my own position. At a moment I felt that the discussions that took place within this year’s debates conflict with those that I carry with me. Despite their richness-I thought- they are not fully addressing f3 m i ni sm. I write this not because I do not agree with f emi n i sm-I am a strong believer in its generosity- but because I find the concept of fem 1n ism in a contradicting tension between singular and plural, north and south, arch i t3 ctur4 l practice and debate. Then, I wonder, is there really a space for är c hi+e ct u re within f3m1nis+ discussions? Is it possible to reconcile these two wide concepts? More importantly, how can I wrîte-with them, if every time I try these ideas feel more and more diffused?
I reached out to Cristina Vaccaro, a professor in the Facultad de Arquitectura of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, hoping she could help me dissect my concerns, these contradictions. I met her in 2018 when I serendipitously joined her Critical Thinking elective. As a professor she tackled àrchi+ect ure critically and motivated her students to understand arch1tectür@l criticism in a broad spectrum. This I find sympathetic to our approach at HCT, where we constantly try to place objects in their broader context.
Cristina studiedarchitecture and has a master’s degree and PhD in art history. Her research interest lays in the aesthetic category of the sublime in Modern Archït3ctur,e and is now elaborating on the concept of “el habitar”, to dwell, to inhabit. Two years ago, she instituted the first and so far, the only theoretical thesis seminar in the School of Architecture, which is producing state of the art discussions from undergrad students. However, more than just presenting her academic credentials, I would like to describe Cristina as I have come to know her, as a person that stands for many. She is a woman, a mother, a teacher, a chilanga2 driver. By being consistent with her critical thinking foundations, she is almost an activist against gendered and patriarchal violence. She has been sympathetic and active in the student-led protests against institutional aggressions (2018) and gendered violence (2019) and is now an orientator of the Internal Commission for Gender Equality of the Facultad de Arquitectura.
I had prepared a list of questions for her but discarded them minutes before our Teams meeting, half out of nervousness and half out of the realization that I was asking for help to dissect a concept, not just direct answers. Luckily, that is exactly what we did. The following text is a translated and edited transcription of the conversation where I ambushed Cristina with concerns from the writing-with exercise in context. We discussed ârchitecture, fEminism, and critical thinking. I am thankful for her patience and for pointing out how I can be self-critical in my thought process regarding architecture-feminism and criticism, replacing my flaming, pointing fingers with respect and a more generous understanding of freedom and difference. Being smarter. However, I left that Teams meeting with more questions than the ones I had prepared before.
But I feel optimistic: criticism is made from doubtful matter3. ☻
18:58 GMT. 11:58 CST. Magdalena Picazzo joined the meeting. Recording started.
19:00 GMT. 12:00 CST. Cristina Vaccaro Cruz (guest) joined the meeting.
Magdalena Picazzo Sánchez (MP): Being in the Architectural Assiciation I have needed to confront different perspectives. For example, we have discussed feminism and social housing in the terms of our Writing- With debates. I am not sure how much empathy I can have for the Global North approach to social housing which is almost opposite in essence to social housing in Mexico. How can I understand feminism from this position? You see, I am trying to make peace with the European feminism, a single, urban feminism; a white, highly educated, cultured, and therefore exclusive feminism. Meanwhile, in México and in Latin America we’ve had rising waves of feminist protests with multiple voices: peoples of all ages, of all identities and colors. In the end, we mostly support each other to deal with a reality against women and other groups. In that sense, I’ve reached out to you to bring one of those perspectives to our debates’ table and hear your feminist perspective from the architectural discipline and from the classroom. I present this preamble to you. I know I had sent you some questions, but I re-read them and now they seem rigid. I’d rather you say whatever comes to your mind now.
Cristina Vaccaro Cruz (CV): You’ve posed many issues. First, I’d like to tell you something that I think the purist feminists will not like (laughs). I think that feminism is part of el pensar crítico, of critical thinking. With this I do not want to take away from its power. I understand feminism as a critical position facing social and cultural realities that needs what I call critique, which is understanding the conditions of possibility of things. What feminism does in this understanding of the conditions of possibility is that it places gender perspective as an accent. Feminism is understanding a position in the world. And again, I’ll go back to critical thinking, because Adorno and Benjamin talk about this. The problem is that modernity and the Enlightenment -from their positions of power- presented us with the naturalization of things.
When they tell us that something is natural it means that it is as it is, right? Something that is natural is something that I cannot change. I cannot cover the Popocatepetl4 with a ball, sea water is salty, that’s natural. That’s not a historical or cultural construction, that’s nature. Or at least that’s one understanding of it, because nature is also a historical construction. But let’s use this term to differentiate from historical constructions. In our world, gender, inequalities, abuses… those are cultural constructions, they are not natural. In this sense feminism becomes the understanding of the singular, the understanding of one situation, of one world, and of one defense. Another thing that is important for me is that within the Benjaminian critical thinking there are no universals: “humanity”, “women”, that doesn’t exist. Conversely, the black, migrant, lesbian, pregnant, and abused women exists, and that’s the singular case that I want to study. In opposite, a single feminism comes from a very heavy place of privilege. I do not believe in pointing with a flaming finger and making generalisations about women. That woman, that singular, in that specific context. Let’s talk to her. That is what I’m betting on.
So, in that sense I believe I am unusual to understand feminism from the world of critical thinking. If one is really tied to the real critical thinking, not the critical thinking from the patriarchy, I believe there’s where one finds feminism. And I think architecture is also there, right? In that design that is respectful for the singular. That community, that family, that women, the spatiality that they need. I believe in respect for the other, and as an architect I believe in getting rid of a know-it-all vision. Let’s reflect and talk together.
MP. I believe that’s what we do here, “to put things in its broader context”. However, I find it a complex process. Despite of what you’re describing about designing for the singular and understanding specific needs, I find architecture and feminism irreconcilable, because as I’ve come to understand it, architecture is a tool for capital, right? Maybe I’m thinking about architecture as a gigantic building, like a philharmonic, and in the smaller scales that’s not the case. What do you think? Can both things be reconciled?
CV. Yes, they can be reconciled if you change your understanding of architecture. I’ll tell you where I’m constructing this idea from. Since last year we have a seminar where we’re working with some incredible thesis, and we’ve been reading about the idea of “el habitar”, inhabiting, dwelling, and I realized something fundamental. Have you read about Heidegger’s hut? The question is about inhabiting. If I ask any student or professor at the Facultad de Arquitectura “which is the best house to inhabit?” I am sure 95% would say that it is Luis Barragán’s House and Studio. Why? Because of the light, the ventilation, the colours, the double heights, the wood, all the pretty things one says about Barragán, right?
So, my next question would be, where do all of us, mortals, who do not live in Barragán’s house live? If architecture is only Barragán’s house and its only possible to inhabit there, then anyone who is not in that house is not inhabiting, and who knows what we do in the world. For the patriarchal architecture of objects, we are just ants suspended to the earth thanks to the force of gravity. So, yes, what we must do is to deconstruct the concept of architecture. And I cannot theorize more on the subject just yet. My colleague Rodrigo told me, one time when we were having a similar discussion, that I think architecture is almost everything, and that it has superpowers. And I said yes. I’m just thinking out loud now, but for me architecture is whatever allows me to be standing in the world. The fact that there’s a floor and I can stand on it, for me, that’s already architecture.
But Cristina, you might say,in this X space I do not feel comfortable, so it’s not architecture. Except it is! We also have the problem that we see architecture only in the positive. You know I’ve studied the Jewish Museum in Berlin. The Holocaust tower is a deeply uncomfortable space, that’s Libeskind’s goal. Tell me, is that not architecture? It is, but it’s not made to be inhabited. You see what I mean with the positive? Architecture is not only pretty and light. What I want to do is to make evident our complex relationship with the world since modernity. Our relationship with the world has moments that give us pleasure, and other that give us displeasure, but it never ceases to be architecture.
One of my students told me “Cristina, my theory professor said that architecture is the profession that is dedicated to make nice spaces where human beings live”. And I said, fantastic! Then your professor must have a very peaceful life because his problem with architecture is very reduced. I think architecture is much more complex, much more interesting and it allows me to have a position in the world. That’s how important it is for me. But I would never say that everything good is in the woods and that the city is bad, or that in the countryside one is well and in the metro one is not. Right? If you also understand this then we match, because then you’re also understanding this wide architecture that doesn’t always respond to Beauty.
MP. So the spaces that are designed for oppression, or as infrastructures of fear, are they within this category of architecture? Not always towards beauty?
CV. Whether we like it or not, a Nazi camp is architecture. In rational terms it is a good object, it serves a purpose, but of course ethically it has plenty of issues. But to negate that it is architecture is complicated, it was designed by an architect from the Berlin Academy. So, you might ask, is it not architecture if it’s for wrongdoing? I’m sorry, but there is design. He generated a way of living. It is ethically wrong, I agree. I’m not doing an apology for the nazis. What I am trying to say is that the Jews within those camps had an experience, so, I try avoiding talking about inhabiting. I talk about the experience in architecture, because to inhabit always carries a positive component. ´
MP. I see what you mean. It’s evident then that both instances are within a spectrum, within the category of architecture.
CV. If not, then architecture is fairy-tale. And no, it’s much more complex. If you would ask me, “Cris, then what is the ideal house?” I’d say it doesn’t exist. Ideals do not exist. They died in the eighteenth century. Benjamin said it already, it’s called the death of God. What do we have today? We have the house for Cristina, in X place, with her child, with her books, etcetera, etcetera. And an ideal house for Cristina would have a tiny kitchen because I couldn’t care less about cooking. So, of course we are facing different and complex issues. In our seminar we’ve been saying that the architectonic answer of today could be the architecture that gives freedom. Like a loft, right? I’m not saying anything new; it’s called an open floor plan. But a real open floor plan. Not Mies telling us how to live. Just give us the structure and then we say what we want.
MP. About the difference between the experience in architecture vs. the experience of inhabiting. We could use Barragán’s house as an example again. I’ve studied the difference in the spaces of service and of “pleasure” in his house. Of course, the women who helped him depended on a spiral staircase that is inaccessible from the bedrooms, so they needed to maneuver around his comfort. The main staircase, the pretty one, that’s untouchable. So, I wonder, is the architect living in his house inhabiting? And is everyone else having an experience in the architecture?
CV. That’s why I mention Heidegger. He wrote that he was able to inhabit modernity in a hut in the woods because only there he could encounter the mortals, the gods, the earth, and the sky. So, maybe Heidegger could inhabit modernity in Barragán’s house, right? Because there you have light, you have the earth… The problem is that it is a scape from modernity. The answer this man gives to where to inhabit modernity is not in modernity, is in the countryside. Now, me, being congruent with critical theory, I do not run away from modernity. I assume it. So, what is the answer to where do the people who live in Mexico City and move in the metro inhabit? For Heidegger we don’t. That’s my issue with the word inhabit. Not so much in the sense of social class.
Now, in terms of gender, Barragán’s house has a million problems. If we’ve learned something is that an inclusive space is also a safe space. So, I think the worst problem is that Barragán negates the city. He does the same as Heidegger. Walking outside of Barragán’s house- in front of that wall that negates the city- I mean, that man could have built his house in his ranch in Jalisco! He didn’t want to engage with the urban, that’s a negation of modernity. Modernity in architecture is the efficient, affordable spaces. If you think efficient and affordable is not architecture, then I do not know what it is. If for you, architecture is only the four houses designed by Barragán, the two of Mies, and I don’t know, the four of el Güero del Moral, then in Mexico there are about 200 architectural objects and that’s it. So, I wonder, where are the 2300 people who enroll into the school of architecture? Because not all of them are doing the Barragán house. And more importantly, where do these people live? Where do the 20 million people in Mexico City live?
Play with me. Imagine we have enough money so that the 6 thousand million inhabitants of the world could live in a Barragán-style house. The implication of that is drying out the Amazonas! The impact would be absurd. Those are very old ideals. Barragán, that untouchable figure, he is the patriarchy. He couldn’t be a better exemplar of the patriarchy, and his houses are the same. So, where is architecture- and now I’m going to use a complicated term- where is the real architecture? That where we are, that where we live? That architecture where we experience, where we have a cup of coffee? These are my concerns, that is my discussion, that that’s what I want to work with.
MP. Part of my internal conflict with discussing feminism is talking about ideals. I hear academics talk about feminist ideals in the Global North as if they were an extended reality. When someone comes and presents social housing, and it is a beautifully built complex in the Global North, it conflicts with my conception of social housing. In México, sadly, social housing means reduced, poor-quality houses. So, your idea of realarchitecture is very relevant for me, especially thinking of architecture as a condition of possibility of being. Opposite to an ideal architecture, I find realarchitecture within a complex tension, even more so if it’s studied from a gender perspective.
CV. I think you could be smarter and think about how these academics of the Global North are talking from their own place of enunciation. Really. Keep returning to the critical theory. Ask, where is she talking from? You know, I just recently discovered its almost impossible to see other person’s privilege. It’s almost impossible. What I want to say is that I’m also very bothered by people who go around with their flaming fingers, pointing out at Global North architects. Be smarter and see where she is enunciating from. See where she is constructing her ideas from. Understand what the Global North is. See what happened in her country. All that forms part of her social housing and what it means to her. What you have to say is that the discourse from which we can study the singular in Mexico is another.
Believe in difference. Think about post-structuralism. I have to say, at that point the critical theory was still thinking that the brain is one thing, and the body is another. But post-structuralism said no, you’re not a brain and some other thing. If I am congruent with that idea, then I believe there is a different way of thinking between men and women. Whenever I say this many feminists look at me funny. It’s curious because I only say that it’s different, not if its better or worse, that’s something they add by themselves. I believe in difference and in respect. I have a three-year-old daughter, so for a year my brain did not work because my body was at the service of my child, producing milk and giving my months old baby the attention that she needed. My brain was not doing synapses. I don’t think that is wrong because my body was dedicated to my baby. It’s different. There is a difference. By believing in differences that you can defend you can speak out loud and say “this is the discourse that makes sense when we work Mexican architecture”. For example, which is the discourse that makes sense to work Mexican feminist architecture? The architecture of safety, the architecture of respect, the architecture of light -pero la luz chida, the good light, not Barragán’s light-, the architecture of crossed ventilation, those singular things that make sense in Mexico. See? It’s Mexican architecture. Mexican architecture from Sonora. Mexican architecture from Quintana Roo. Like that, there’s also the Global North, or the European architecture you’re approaching. This makes me want to say, “come on, let’s stop creating categories. This is what I have to study. The architecture in Coyoacán. The architecture, I don’t know, wherever”.
MP. So you propose that before we even approach design we must know in detail, and almost become best friends with whoever is asking something from us, so we can understand that they need and provide them with an adequate answer to their needs? Maybe this is obvious, but if we design based on manuals and standards then we are already contaminated to make feminist architecture.
CV. Do you know what feminist architecture is? I think here it’s safe to generalize. Feminist architecture is an architecture where not all furniture is made for a 1.82-meters height. It’s conversely made for the average height of the people who will use that space. That’s feminist architecture. Do all doors have to be 1.90? Not necessarily. We must know what we really need.
The other day I was watching this HBO show about architects. They have recommended it to me so much that I decided to see it -I almost threw up. The first chapter is (Alejandro) Aravena, and he starts by saying that architecture is whatever will last two hundred years. Okay. Everything in that sentence is wrong. We still think what we are going to do is going to last forever. If that’s true then, sorry but we have not even surpassed the pyramids in Egypt. We think we’re very modern and we still believe in pharaohs. What we need today is to provide an answer to the problems of 2023. And in 2030 we’ll have another problem. We must solve that problem by throwing away whatever needs to be modified. That’s why I think freedom is what’s at stake in architecture, or at least what should be. And even freedom is a very blandengue- soft, weak concept. What’s at stake is possibility and respect. It needs to be given more thought, but well, that’s the way it goes. ☻
1 A typographic experiment to represent the author’s confusion about these terms before a conversation-with someone who she thinks actually has a grasp on these concepts.
2 Chilanga, chilango, chilangx, is a colloquial demonym adjective for natives and residents of Mexico City.
3 “Sócrates: Di con una de esas cosas que el mar arroja; blanca, de purísima blancura; alisada y dura, y suave y liviana…
¿Quién te hizo?, pensé. A nada te pareces, y no por eso eres informe… Fedro: ¿Y de qué materia estaba hecha? Sócrates: De igual materia que su forma: materia de dudas”.
/
Sócrates: Say with one of these things that the sea throws; White, of the purest whiteness; smooth and hard, and soft and light… Who made you? I thought. You look like nothing and you’re not amorph because of that. Fedro: And, of what matter whas it made? Sócrates: Of the same matter than its form: matter of doubts.” (my translation)
Quote from Paul Válery’s 1921 Eupalinos, o el arquitecto cited by Josep María Montaner in his introduction to Arquitectura y Crítica (3rd revised edition, Editorial Gustavo Gili). Montaner introduces the reader into the problematic of critique with this quote, and it was the first text I read-with Cristina as her student. I sourced this quote from the same PDF scan she sent from along the course’s programme on Thursday, August 9, 2018.
4 Popocatepetl (UK: /ˌpɒpəˈkætəpɛtəl, ˌpɒpəkætəˈpɛtəl) is an active volcano located in the states of Puebla, Mexico and Morelos in central Mexico, 70 km southeast of Mexico City.