This week's reading by Labbeus Woods were a little difficult to digest, I found myself having to re-read passages to clarify the meaning of what I had just read. However, there were a few concepts I found really fascinating that I did some more research into and would like to discuss here.
The concept of heterarchy was something I was not at all previously familiar with. So, I did a quick wikipedia search to get an overview of the implications and meanings behind heterarcy.
The definition given was: A heterarchy is a system of organization replete with overlap, multiplicity, mixed ascendancy, and/or divergent-but-coexistent patterns of relation.
I what I found to be particularly interesting is how this concept relates to our discussion on the theoretical understandings of Power with Christian Mattheis last week. As described, heterarchies are networks of elements in which each element shares the same "horizontal" position of power and authority, each playing a theoretically equal role. In a hierarchical scheme, all elements that have the same relative amount of authority or power are not linked vertically to one another, but are "horizontally" linked through a common direct or indirect superior.
If hierarchy constitutes a relationship between power over (controlled) and power of (given authority), does a heterarchy function on a relationship of mutual power to (authority given by yourself)?
"The difference between the hierarchical and the heterarchical city is the difference between being and becoming.” This is an interesting distinction. One confers stagnation while the other suggests evolving.
As I continued reading I discovered Triarchy, a theory that suggests there are three ways of "getting things done": hierarchy, heterarchy, and responsible autonomy. This is a spectrum of power consistent with the fundamentals of power: over, of, and to. Triarchy suggests that hierarchy drains the energy from collaborative projects and sometimes fails to recognize the input of able individuals whose contributions can be overlooked in a formal reporting structure.
"In a truly hierarchical organization, only the individual at the top learns. Everyone else obeys orders. Creativity and innovation are limited to that of the individual at the top. An organization without learning will only survive in very stable conditions. In practice, of course, the lower ranks actually learn and adapt without being told to do so. But hierarchies tend to learn slowly, especially because a lot of effort goes into preserving the superior status of those at the top, inevitably an 'anti-learning activity.' "
I think that perhaps when Labbeus was referring to the inconsistent pattern that it was this relationship he was speaking of. "Architects must struggle on the same level as others in order to reconstruct their lives" he said. By breaking down the barriers we are free from "fixed social norms" and can develop a hybrid - mutations of new ideas.
"Design the architecture of the architecture." This statement was in reference to reconstruction and rebuilding and creating a framework in which new architecture could be inserted. How can this approach be applied to projects outside of the scope of rebuilding?
Woods says to "draw buildings as if they have been lived in many times over." I found this to be super interesting - does drawing in this manner reveal the true authenticity of a building and create a sense of liveliness that cannot simply be created?
