The arrogance of design. Questions on minor ways to imagine the future.

Journal title CRIOS
Author/s Sofia Moriconi
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2021/22 Language Italian
Pages 8 P. 80-87 File size 338 KB
DOI 10.3280/CRIOS2021-022008
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Camillo Boano wonders «Is there a minor project? And if it exists, how is it done?» in his book "Progetto Minore", produced thanks to his thoughts during the first period of the pandemic. That was when the arrogance of the design derived from determinism and bio-techno-scientism was manifested in all its violence and emptiness. The book’s author wonders if it is possible to practice a form of minority in the architectural and urban planning disciplines without "retiring" in other fields or contributing to the project’s decline. Through a wide and disparate variety of references, Boano suggests putting at the centre the incessant evolution of the generative process rather than the final product. Deriving them from the works of Agamben, Esposito and Mignolo, he proposes three declinations of minority: inoperative, institutional and decolonial. This reflection questions the nature of the suggested generative process and the breadth of the margins of a "designing subject".

Keywords: minority, becoming, design, negative, decolonial, inoperative.

  1. Barad K. (1998). Getting real: technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10(2): 87. DOI: 10.1515/9780822388128-007.
  2. Barad K. (2001). Re(con)figuring Space, Time, and Matter. In: Marianne DeKoven Feminist Locations: Global and Local, Theory and Practice. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
  3. Barad K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham:Duke university Press. Boano C. (2016). The ethics of a potential urbanism: Critical encounters between Giorgio Agamben and architecture. London: Routledge.
  4. Braidotti R. (2013). The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  5. Braidotti R. (2017). Per una politica affermativa: itinerari etici. Milano: Mimesis.
  6. Braidotti R. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  7. Cacciari M. (1981). Progetto. Laboratorio Politico, 2: 88-119.
  8. Escobar A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse. Durham: Duke University Press.
  9. Fraser M. (2002). What is the matter of feminist criticism?. Economy and Society, 31(4): 606-625. DOI: 10.1080/0308514022000020715
  10. Jeinic A. (2013). Neoliberalism and the Crisis of the Project… in Architecture and Beyond. In: Jenic A., Wagner A., a cura di., Is There (Anti) Neoliberal Architecture?. Berlin: Jovis: 64-77.
  11. Katz C. (1996). Towards minor theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 14(4): 487-499,
  12. Katz C. (2017). Revisiting minor theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 35(4): 596-599.
  13. Willis A. M. (2006). Ontological designing. Design philosophy papers, 4(2): 69-92.
  14. Zartaloudis T. (2015). Violence without law? On pure violence as a destituent power. In: Moran B., Salzani C. eds. Towards the Critique of Violence - Walter Benjamin and Giorgio Agamben. London: Bloomsbury Press: 169-186.

Sofia Moriconi, L’arroganza del progetto. Interrogazione sulle modalità minori di immaginare futuri in "CRIOS" 22/2021, pp 80-87, DOI: 10.3280/CRIOS2021-022008