Beyond Capitalism?

34 difficult, such as how one teaches and who might be able to teach or access architecture education in the first place. As concerns about endowments and profit increasingly take priority over the guiding functions of many western universities and professions, cultural production is replaced by hollow and self-referential terms. “Content” has come to mean everything and anything that can be consumed—even claims of “critical pedagogy” itself. Terms derived from the history of business, such as “innovation,” “leadership,” “growth,” “excellence,” and “performance” have become the defining metrics within architecture education; it is evident that the business of architecture and the education of architects are now indistinguishable. Inward-facing accreditation criteria and curricula prioritize course topics over pedagogy and well-being, licensure exams prioritize business over the environment and community, and a persistent culture of exploitation is maintained and reproduced across states and national borders, generations, and work sectors. The ABC School aimed to consider how the terms of capitalism have historically prevented structural change by demanding perpetually new content, as well as how new pedagogies based upon the techniques and principles of organizing might encourage change across architecture’s siloed sites: students learning with practitioners; faculty learning with students; members of the public learning with all of the above. The school was inspired by the intersectional work of thinkers such as bell hooks and Paulo Freire who challenge the “banking system” of education by connecting critical pedagogy to labor organizing. Organizing was imagined to be central to reconstructing the discipline of architecture and society at large.1 Beyond Capitalism? Organizing Architecture Education