In front of the incredible silence of the media about the Occupying Wall Street Movement -the New York Times had a very small article in the NY section about it five days ago bias(ly) entitled “Gunning for Wall Street, With Faulty Aim“- I feel obliged to talk about this extremely interesting micro-society existing right in between Ground Zero and Wall Street in New York. About this very eloquent silence in the press, you might want to read the excellent article by Gaston Gordillo on the never disappointing Critical Legal Thinking. Silence is indeed their best weapon to fight against their fear of this movement increasing.
The Police should know that its brutality is only bringing more reasons to resist the injustice that capitalism develops in its implementation and that now reach summit in the social inequalities. Nevertheless, the movement voluntarily remains absolutely non-violent and leaderless. Organization is the key notion here. A computer lab on site is relaying information directly on the Internet, a kitchen supplies food for the American indignants, and several working group gather everyday to discuss and create how this micro-society could sustain itself in time and implement outreaching actions. At the end of each day, a General Assembly is gathered in which propositions and votes are effectuated in a very communal way characterized by the mean used by the indignants to make themselves heard: one person speaks and the rest who could hear repeat for the crowd further, in a very symbolic union of voices. Here again, the organization is impressive, especially as far as the domain of law is concerned with competent lawyers -some of the National Lawyers Guild- and other Cop-watchers who make sure that nobody is left alone if arrested.
Some people outside of the movement seem to blame the lack of specific demands. I, however, would claim that this group seems to have understood something about revolt: in fact, they create a micro-society, two blocks away from their antagonistic way of life’s embodiment (Wall Street), which implements de facto the democracy and the solidarity they are calling for as a model of society. Just like for the recent Egyptian Revolution, the moment of liberation is not so much the achievement (and therefore the termination) of the resistance movement but rather the process of this movement which forces people involved in it to develop a collective identity.
Whoever reads regularly this blog knows that I develop an attraction for architecture schools in the United Kingdom; however I tend to focus a lot on the London ones (Bartlett, AA, Westminster, Royal College of Arts and Greenwich) and tend to forget too much the others which are proposing a very interesting pedagogy as well. This article is to make it up to those schools that might communicate less on an international level but work very rigorously with talented (young often) teachers.
The two following projects are third year undergraduate projects at Oxford Brookes University in a studio tutored by my friend Colin Priest along with Carsten Jungfer. The following text exposes the studio’s field of exploration:
This year we engaged in relevant theoretical and current practice-based discourse around Form Follows Performance. In critiquing Adolf Loos’ writing in ‘Ornament and Crime’ we challenged spatial conditions to re-discover the core values of architecture – space and material. In observing behavioural shifts violating prevailing norms, informal processes and their effects, we asked can negative acts manifest positive opportunities? Ultimately designing architectural solutions to proactively address cultural conflict and contribute towards the redefining of new forms of social and spatial order at a local scale in the city.
Stills from 36 Quai des Orfèvres by Olivier Marchal
I recently wrote an article (Sept 14th) entitled The Weight of the Body Falling which consisted in a first approach of a study of the effect of gravity on the human body and its potential architectural interpretation. The latter can be explored by writing about the notion of Landing Sites created by Arakawa and Gins (see all previous articles), I don’t feel ready to elaborate about it yet but it should come very soon.
For now, I would like to approach this notion of bodies falling in a Spinozist way, focusing on the notion of collision. The introductory image of this article is not innocent here; I noticed that however bad a movie can be as far as the scenario or the acting are concerned, I have a strong respect for films that are attached to the weights of bodies – body, here, has to be understood as a coherent cluster of microscopic particles forming a macroscopic ensemble. Off the top of my head, I am thinking in particular of the movies directed by Akira Kurosawa -in particular The Hidden Fortress- and of a very recent one directly registered in this genealogy: 13 Assassins by Takeshi Miike. I recommend -in addition of watching the movies themselves, of course- to watch entirely both movies’ trailer by clicking on the two previous links which in few minutes manage somehow to transmit this importance of the weight. Horses galloping in the mud, never far from sliding and falling, human bodies falling in the water or on the earth, and of course the instrumental steel of the swords that resonates when clashing, are as many indicators of the reality of two bodies colliding with each other.
Refugee Camp of Tadamon in Beirut (Lebanon) / Photograph by Simon Norfolk
While the Palestinian Authority is playing a risky game at the UN forcing to Obama to be more Zionist than a very important amount of Israeli people themselves, Al Jazeera releases an extremely interesting article about the legal implications of the Palestinian right to return on an international justice level. It is very well known that the State of Israel is violating the article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by implementing and developing a civilian colonization of the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967, the legal aspect of the right to return was until now unknown from me.
Since 1948, about five millions Palestinian are considered as refugees by the United Nations for Relief and Works Agency including a million and half of them living in camps. In Lebanon, for example, where 250 000 Palestinians refugees live in camps, this status is even harder to carry as a strong discrimination is exercised against them.
As I have been writing a numerous times already on this blog, the Palestinian struggle can be approached with two filters. The first one is a personal one, and there are millions of us who are personally shocked by the situation there in what we consider being a human injustice. This aspect of things is what pushes us to enter in resistance against such injustice but cannot really brings us to what can be called “a solution”. The second filter consist in a strictly legal approach which recognize law as the technology that mankind invented in reaction to the numerous human injustices evoked above. The sad irony here is that a very important part of the International Law was invented following the Second World War and more specifically the Holocaust who brought the Jewish Diaspora to create the State of Israel. This law should therefore be even more meaningful to the Jewish citizens of Israel.
Whenever one speaks about the Palestinian struggle, it seems important to re-enumerate what is at stake as the issues are so multiple. I can see five problems relative to a belligerent Israeli attitude:
- The problem of colonization in the West Bank
- The problem of colonization and recognition of East Jerusalem as being a Palestinian territory.
- The problem of the incarceration of an entire population in the Gaza Strip, regularly bombed like in a hunt in a preserve
- The problem of the Arabs citizens of Israel who are being segregated
- The problem of the five millions Palestinian refugees who are not allowed by Israel to return on the land they belong to. As stated before, this is this problem that we tackle here.
Architecture or Techno-Utopia: Politics after Modernism is a book written by Felicity Scott and published in 2007 by the MIT Press. She is director of the new program at Columbia University in Critical, Curatorial and Conceptual Practices in Architecture. This book is a historical exploration and analysis of the evolution of the political ideology that functioned as a motor for architecture since the 1930′s. The first chapter is entitled A Vital Bearing on Socialism and recounts the struggle against capitalism orchestrated by art historian Meyer Shapiro. It is interesting to observe how architecture, just like any discipline in between the two world wars, was able to carry a pretty straight forward and strong Marxist reading of society registered in the idea of class struggle. Following its course, the book ends-up with the Koolhaasian paradigm and his voluntary prisoners of architecture (see here for the text and here for the documents in previous articles). This approach to ideology is indeed more ambiguous and never stands too far from theories that gloriously self-declared as indeed post-ideological at the end of the 20th century. The quintessential example chosen by F.Scott, of such so-called post-ideological architecture is the competition for the reconstruction of New York’s World Trade Center after its destruction in 2001. Such competition could have legitimately be expected to carry a tremendously interesting debate about the relationship between architecture and the polis; unfortunately the least we can say is that it did not happen…
What distinguishes however Rem Koolhaas’ Exodus and the masters of the current architecture lies in his attachment and his rooting in the notion of utopia/dystopia which makes him use the means of fiction. In this regard I would like to finish by reproducing here one of the very last paragraph of F.Scott’s book to tackle this notion:
In his class at the Universite de Vincennes in 1983-84, Gilles Deleuze approaches cinema by what he calls la puissance du faux (power of the false) which intermingles (and not confuses) imaginary and reality to create the false and by extension, fiction. The notion of truth is therefore fundamental for his class and in his December 6th 1983 session, he exposes two visions of the world of truths of existence (in opposition to truths of essence) affiliated with each other. The first one comes from 17th century philosopher Gottfried Leibniz who imagined an infinite pyramid composed by the infinite possible worlds in which, each variations of circumstances brings each world to be what it is (see excerpt 1 after this text). To end up with a truth of existence, Leibniz has to bring in the notion of moral -and even of theology- for that he states that at the top of the pyramid, stands the world that God has chosen as it is unmistakably the best one.
The second vision, born from Leibniz’s narrative, occurs two centuries and half later, in 1941 with the short story El Jardin de Senderos que se Bifurcan (The Garden of Forking Path) written by Jorge Luis Borges. In this story, Borges introduces a book in which all the possible world are contained, simultaneous and equally real (see excerpt 2).
To this two visions brought-up by Deleuze, I would like to add the one proposed by Philip K. Dick in 1977 for the Metz’s (France) Science-Fiction Festival in a lecture entitled If you find this World bad, you should see some of the others. In fact, this vision has less to do with architecture and more with fashion design (!) as he suggests that each world is a coat owned by God who decides “in the morning” which one to wear. One obvious novel in which he developed this theory is The Man in the High Castle (1962) in which P.K. Dick introduces a parallel world (one might say an uchronia) that saw the Axis Powers (Germany, Japan and Italy) won the second world war three decades before the plot.
It became a sort of tradition on The Funambulist to publish regularly the work of specific people whose interesting projects, add one by one over the years compose a coherent ensemble. Fredrik Hellberg is one of those people. After his Manhattan Oneirocritica, his Japanese Embassy in London and his essay about Meta-Virtual Solipsism, his work is back on the blog with his thesis project at the Architectural Association that is now competing for the RIBA’s 2011 Silver Medal.
The project, already published on dpr-barcelona for its homage to Konrad Wachsmann is named The Second Community. It starts with an exhaustive research about three community based on the notion of game: Online-role playing gamers, the Burning Man Festival and the Cosplay Conventions and the architecture that result from such gathering. Considering the abandoned city of California City in the desert, Fredrik designed a gigantic structure -indeed influenced by Wachsmann and Buckminster Fuller- that can host a new form of event that gathers the three concerned game gatherings.
His project, in addition of introducing this poetical structure, impresses for the numerous technical means it uses to describes itself. The important amount of documents that follows the text constitutes only half of the whole set Fredrik managed to compose in order to give to his project a strong consistency. The notion of tourism as a form of territorialization and deterriorialization being important to him, he fabricated his boards as maps that literally unfold the project in front of the viewer (see the following film).
The following text is his introduction to the project (for more renderings and another approach to the project read the article on dpr-barcelona):
After writing an article about Björk, the transition is easy in order to speak about the her husband, Matthew Barney‘s work, and more specifically the short-film he released in 2004 under the name Hoist for the collection Destricted.
This idea to write about Hoist came for the reading of a similar article written by Todd Satter on his very interesting Any Space Whatever. Although my own (short) post will not reach the intellectual level reached by T. Satter, I felt that it was important that I wrote about this 12 min film which manages to bring the sexual relationship between human and technology to a new level. This new level is purely visual here and does not reach the power of Crash by James Graham Ballard -about which, I was incidentally writing yesterday- yet its literalness succeeds to increase our imaginaries.
Hoist shows a man hoisted under a deforestation caterpillar truck, itself suspended in the void. This man is methodically ejaculating against the rotating axis of the truck in such way that this operation appears as being part of the machinist process itself.
I am not really interested here, to dissect M.Barney’s own constructive interpretation involving the fact that his character seems to be related to the forest that the truck has been built to destroyed, or any other obscure narrative that would leads us into the usual “what he is trying to say” etc. On the contrary, I am much more eager to insist on the pure literalness of those images that mix a pure mechanic process with an organic one. The Deleuzian concept of the body as a desiring machine here seems so obvious and so literal that we might want to be cautious with it. In fact, the production of desire here does not appear to be its own end but rather a mean registered within the global function of the machine. The machine itself should barely be differentiated from the body who complete it and is somehow prisoner of it. Nevertheless the poetic aspect of those two entities hybridizing themselves together (it goes to the point that the body’s skin color is very similar as the bulldozer) manages to maintain the literalness of the film when symbolism is screaming to exist.
Watch the movie after the break
Whether or not we like Björk‘s music (I personally do a lot !), we are obliged to recognize that she always knows who to work with in order to continuously push the limits of the musical field. The last example of this great sense of collaboration is the conception of new instruments for her album Biophilia, and more specifically the design and realization of what she called Gravity Harps.
In order to achieve those giant musical pendulums, she worked with Andy Cavatorta who designed a what we could call a robotic string bell mixing something as simple as gravity with high technology of sensors and mechanical operators. In an interview for The Creators Project, A.Cavatorta explains:
There are four pendulums, each with a cylindrical harp on the end. As each pendulum swings through its lowest point, a single string on its harp gets plucked. The harp is cylindrical and can rotate, so any one of its eleven strings can be played by facing it to the plucker. There is also an ‘empty’ string position for playing rests.
Theo Jansen and his beautiful Standbeests are having an exhibition in the Oita Art Museum (Japan) with Earthscape. Entitled in a very Miyazakian way, The Beach Animal that Eats Wind seems to translate very poetically T.Jansen’s narrative in which the ingenious assemblages he builds-up acquire the status of living beings once achieved.
picture: The Shower by Kerry Skarbakka
Gravity is never more perceptible than when an object falls and when this object is a human body, the visual expressiveness of the scene becomes even more dramatic. Photographs of the body falling probably all owes a lot to the one composed by Yves Klein jumping in the void of a Parisian street in 1960. Since then other photographers worked on this subject, more or less voluntarily as we will see.
The photographs of Kerry Skarbakka are very expressive in this matter. Although his body is always suspended, he indeed succeeds to translate the weight of the body in his literal meaning: the degree of attraction of the body towards the earth. The viewer can inexorably imagine the moment that comes next, the collision of the earth and the body, climax of the violence of gravity.
Denis Darzacq is observing a similar method but, for better of worse, tend to express a feeling of slow motion that add to the aesthetics of the image but reduce this very interesting attraction which subject the body. In D.Darzacq’s photographs, bodies seems to be suspended in the void for ever as if the notion of weight was not effective anymore.
Eventually, one last photographer, Richard Drew, somehow involuntarily revolutionized this photographic subject as he managed to photograph one of the most traumatic scenes from the September 11st 2001′s attack against the New York World Trade Center, a man who chose the void over the flames and fell for long seconds along the very linear facade of the towers. This photograph tackles a lot of problems in the definition of art and its limits; nevertheless, it expresses the subjectivization of the body to gravity like no other work and provoke an intense emotion to the viewer who cannot not identify to this body and associate to it the context in which it has been photographed.
Sept 15th Add-on: The Huffington Post just released an article about a beautiful video filming base jumpers…it seemed appropriate to add it here.
Read the first sequel to this chapter published on September 26th 2011.
Read the second sequel to this chapter published on December 6th 2011
Read the third sequel to this chapter published on January 3rd 2012
All the concerned photographs are to be seen after the break:
Alessandro Petti, Sandi Hilal & Eyal Weizman and their team of Decolonizing Architecture are proving to us, once again, that not only they keep being the incontrovertible thinkers of the built dimension of the Palestinian struggle, but also that they constitute a crucial avant-garde in the relationships that architecture maintains with territorial and political challenges.
Their new exhibition, in Neuchâtel (Switzerland) is entitled Common Assembly: Deterritorializing the Palestinian Parliament and focuses on the construction site/ruin that constitute the building of this Parliament. As the text that follows this article explains, this building is situated in Abu Dis as the Israel State still do not want to recognize East Jerusalem the capital city of the Palestinian State and therefore pushed the Parliament for it to be built beyond its unilaterally declared border of Jerusalem. Incidentally this same border happens to cut the building in two parts, or rather as the Decolonizing Architecture team states, in three parts. One being part of East Jerusalem, colonized by Israel, the other being part of the Palestinian controlled territory and the last one being hosted by the line itself.
This idea of a space contained within the oxymoronic thickness of the line is obviously something that needs to be celebrated in a blog that took its name, The Funambulist (another name for tight-rope walker) and manifesto (see the small text on the sidebar and the graphic novel associated with it) based on this idea. In fact, in a world and more specifically a discipline, architecture, that materialize lines into borders and walls, the space of liberation might be contained in this infinitely small thickness of the line and we should indeed exercises ourselves to become funambulists.
For a reason that I ignore, it has been brought to my attention that the following article has disappeared from this blog in the transfer of the boiteaoutils’ archives…I am therefore re-publishing it here, apologizing to the people who already read it or who were looking for it on this blog…
One story by Jorge Luis Borges is interesting to read as it reveals his vision of his own work. This short story, entitled The Two Kings and the Two Labyrinths in fact compares two types of labyrinths; the first one, complex, full of tricks and devices and the second whose labyrinthine aspect comes from its extreme simplicity and “desertness”. It has been written that those the first labyrinth was assimilated to Borges’ vision of James Joyce’s litterature, which lost the reader thanks to the complexity of its form, whereas the second labyrinth was Borges’ interpretation of his own work which lost the reader thanks to the vertigo of its essence.
After his Supurban Project, Nick Axel comes back on the Funambulist with a new project that despite its lack of images -which I therefore salutes as the cult of the image consumption seems to have definitely won the world of architecture- develops an interesting visualization of what is architecture. Nick indeed continuously assembles -and dates when he can- a series of aphorisms that all begins with “Architecture is…”
He found a beautiful way to call this assignment, an ideological and hermeneutic map of architecture, and describes how the saturation of those aphorisms makes pure explicit meaning lost all meaning. This is indeed one way to interpret this very long graphic list of affirmations. Another one could be to observe that those short sentences that attempt to encompass the discipline of architecture in a very short amount of words, might in fact manage to define what is architecture by adding themselves to each other, tending a bit more toward a complete yet unreachable definition that is beyond words.
Finally, a third one could relates to the last article I wrote about how each manifesto constitutes a system of interpretations of the world (here, of architecture). Each of those aphorisms has indeed folded in itself, an entire story of founders, followers, detractors, and most importantly a certain amount of creative work that have been produced according to this small sentence. Words have this power in them. Not only they are able to constitute some meaning via their assemblage, but they also allow to compose (combat) banners that host in their material, pieces of historicity.
The following list is this hermeneutic map as it is today (you can participate to it by sending your “architecture is… sentence on Twitter with the following hashtag: #ArchitectureIs):
Marcel Proust by Stephen Alcorn
In a conversation he had with Michel Foucault in 1972 (L’Arc (No. 49, pp. 3-10)), Gilles Deleuze uses a quote from French literary author Marcel Proust to illustrate his interpretation of how intellectuals should consider their theoretical work:
A theory is exactly like a box of tools. It has nothing to do with the signifier. It must be useful. It must function. And not for itself. If no one uses it, beginning with the theoretician himself (who then ceases to be a theoretician), then the theory is worthless or the moment is inappropriate. We don’t revise a theory, but construct new ones; we have no choice but to make others. It is strange that it was Proust, an author thought to be a pure intellectual, who said it so clearly: treat my book as a pair of glasses directed to the outside; if they don’t suit you, find another pair; I leave it to you to find your own instrument, which is necessarily an investment for combat.
A theory does not totalise; it is an instrument for multiplication and it also multiplies itself. It is in the nature of power to totalise and it is your position. and one I fully agree with, that theory is by nature opposed to power. As soon as a theory is enmeshed in a particular point, we realise that it will never possess the slightest practical importance unless it can erupt in a totally different area. This is why the notion of reform is so stupid and hypocritical. Either reforms are designed by people who claim to be representative, who make a profession of speaking for others, and they lead to a division of power, to a distribution of this new power which is consequently increased by a double repression; or they arise from the complaints and demands of those concerned. This latter instance is no longer a reform but revolutionary action that questions (expressing the full force of its partiality) the totality of power and the hierarchy that maintains it. This is surely evident in prisons: the smallest and most insignificant of the prisoners’ demands can puncture Pleven’s [French Prime Minister in the 50's] pseudoreform. If the protests of children were heard in kindergarten, if their questions were attended to, it would be enough to explode the entire educational system. There is no denying that our social system is totally without tolerance; this accounts for its extreme fragility in all its aspects and also its need for a global form of repression. In my opinion, you [Michel Foucault] were the first-in your books and in the practical sphere-to teach us something absolutely fundamental: the indignity of speaking for others. We ridiculed representation and said it was finished, but we failed to draw the consequences of this “theoretical” conversion-to appreciate the theoretical fact that only those directly concerned can speak in a practical way on their own behalf.
This Sunday will be the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attack against New York’s world trade center, anniversary that Americans had the bad idea to call Patriot Day. Although this date is appropriate to remember that terrorism does not offer any reason to believe that it is a legitimate method of resisting towards oppression, it is also a good moment to question the society that seems to have appeared -to have been confirmed I should say- after this tragic day.
The Magazine Foreign Policy participates to this effort of questioning by releasing an article about Washington D.C.’s effort to protect its holy mall of memorials and monuments by placing an important amount of architectural obstacles around them since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Of course here, architecture used as a (defensive) weapon is pretty obvious and nearly deceiving in the fact that it could be considered as such only on such extreme conditions, which, at the end of the day, concerns relatively little of our daily lives. However, one would be indeed deceived to consider those architectural elements as such. They constitutes the tip of the iceberg (and therefore are not uninteresting to observe) of the fortress built-up by the Western world to protect itself from any human intrusion that could make its well designed capitalist balance shaking.
See also the slide show, from which the following photographs are extracted. proposed by Foreign Policy.
Thank you Martin
Corbu/Perriand reinvented: Chaise Lounge (1992) by jones, partners: architecture
This week, exceptionally there won’t be any guest writers essays on the funambulist. Instead I propose an interesting conversation I had, two weeks ago, during a short trip in Los Angeles, with Wes Jones, who was kind enough to answer my questions about the way he intermingles the notions of machine and design in his work. Since the early 90′s when he started his own office Wes Jones has indeed been proposing a design that engages a dialog between humans and “medium-tech” architectural assemblages that affirm and celebrate their mechanical legibility as a contractual agreement between the user and the architect.
Interview on August 22nd 2011 at Sci-Arc (all images have been chosen by Wes Jones himself to illustrate our conversation):
Leopold Lambert: As a form of introduction, could you please give us your definition of the notion of machine ?
Wes Jones: I see the machine as specific manifestation, not necessarily physical (deleuze abstract machine seems to me perfectly reasonable), of a more generalized technology. I see technology as an ontological category, on a par with man and nature, as that third possible form of existence that humans create and place between themselves and nature in order to mediate nature—to enhance or mitigate it.
Red Desert is the first color movie by Michelangelo Antonioni. First released in 1964, this film is indeed an extraordinary dialogue between bright chemical colors and industrial variety of greys. I don’t want to give too many indications about the plot here, and will only signal to the New Yorkers who did not see it yet or, like me who would like to re-see it, that the Brooklyn Academy of Music is currently releasing the film for another week.
What I am interesting to point out here is what I call the dark materialism that Antonioni develops all along the film to provide the perfect environment to maintain the generalized paranoia of the main character played by the superb Monica Vitti. In fact, Antonioni “fills” his image with a quasi-infinity of micro-particules that have all been influenced by human activity. The built environment is an obvious component of it, factories, antennas, modernist housing buildings, off shore rigs etc. but even what remains of the so-called nature has been corrupted and is now part of a sort of humanly produced mono-matter that seems to engulf Giulana’s body. Sounds themselves, created by the continuous processes of transformation of this matter act as an oppressive and persistent background.
However, I believe that it would be a mistake to understand the darkness of this materialism as being despised by Antonioni who would then give a moralizing vision of the successive industrial revolutions. On the contrary, he develops a creative approach that is close from one started in a contemporary period of time, the one by Bernd & Hilla Becher and their industrial photographic inventories. Few decades later, a photograph like Edward Burtynsky seems to have been greatly influenced by Antonioni and the Bechers. This approach is characterized by the expression of an ambiguity between disgust and fascination for those landscapes.
Let’s say it right away, Michel Onfray is not my favorite philosopher. I am doubtful of his -sometimes easy- peremptory conclusions and his systematic decomplexification that gets him to often appear on TV. However, one thing among others that I am absolutely admiring in his work, is the creation of the People’s University (Université Populaire) of Caen (Normandy) in which he has been giving very regular and rigorous classes of the Counter History of Philosophy over the years. One might argue that it is problematic to create such university for oneself to be able to teach without any prevailing authority, but on the contrary I would insist on the importance of the desinstitutionalization of the transmission of knowledge (More on that very soon I promised).
This year’s class, released all this summer on the great French Radio Channel France Culture, was attacking the absolute authority Sigmund Freud has on the discipline he is said to have created: Psychoanalysis. On the contrary, Michel Onfray argues that this discipline has been created by what Pierre Bourdieu calls “a collective intellectual”, and he focuses more precisely on three “Freudian-Marxists” that were part of this group: Otto Gross, Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm. In fact, those three psychoanalysts, followed several decades later by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari with their book Anti-Oedipus (see previous article), on the exact opposite of Freud’s conservative thesis, believed that neuroses were not the product of an individual internal complexes but rather the inexorable result of a societal conditioning.
As manifestos, Otto Gross calls for a “return” to a matriarchal society. Wilhelm Reich supports a sexual revolution and Erich Fromm opposes biophilia and thanatophilia in a sort of Spinozist reading of society’s tendencies.
For much more information, listen to the lectures themselves (in French only unfortunately)