CHAPTER 5 THE FAILURE OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE AND THE VISION OF ECOCITIES Introduction As we have detailed in the previous chapter, the temple was the fusion of the aedicule and the trilithon. Allsopp believes it is precisely the problem of modern architecture that it has tried-- however unsuccessfully--to fuse the two archetypes together. Modernism was an attempt to break free from the classical past and to build an alternative language which "enfolds the heresies and dissonance of history" (Zevi 65). In order to do this, modernists rejected the authority of the academic Ecole des Beaux, and favored mass production over craftsmanship and handworked buildings. The flat roofs of the modern buildings were an iconoclastic protest to the archetypal pitch roof aedicule. Another stylistic and philosophic change from classicism was that modernism no longer followed the rules of symmetry. The Rule of Symmetry In Bruno Zevi's book _The Modern Language of Architecture_, he explains that symmetry equals passivity, "a spasmodic need for security, fear of flexibility, indetermination, relativity, and growth--in short, fear of living" (17). He believes symmetry is a language of homologous parts, i. e., of the same parts. These repetitious patterns in architecture constrain people into thinking in conformist, uniform, and rigid ways. Zevi points out that symmetry can be thought of as a "tumor whose cells have metastasized everywhere in geometry." Throughout the history of cities, these age-old cancerous tumors have spread into chessboard urban patterns around the world. Although there may have been an illustrious remission during the medieval ages, Zevi thinks the cure of the cancer will only come about through an iron will. Western medicine perceives a mind-body duality in which illness is perceived to be the result of an external virus or bacteria invading the body. Health is maintained by driving out or killing the foreign invaders. Following this same pattern, Kisho Kurokawa, in his book _Rediscovering Japanese Space_, asserts that Western philosophy, which is believed to be wise and healthy, does the same thing. It drives out any different way of thinking in order to protect itself, which is exactly what dictators or bureaucrats do. They kill or ignore dissent, justifying their actions by designating the dissenters as insane and criminal. In order to recover, we must make a critical archetypal shift in our way of thinking so that we are whole once again. Symmetrical architecture is a fixation with the past, repressing death by denying separation with the primordial mother. It leaves no room for anyone to wander outside the traditional form. Symmetry is the language of rationalism, not of romance. Because of this lack of unique identity, people are easily controlled by despotic power. In Freudian terms, Zevi calls symmetry a language of homosexuality. He points out, Perhaps the whole history of architecture could be reviewed in terms of symmetry neurosis...It has always been like that: symmetry is the facade of sham power trying to appear invulnerable. The public buildings of Fascism, Nazism, and Stalinist Russia are all symmetrical. Those of South American dictatorships are symmetrical (17). Let me add that the governmental buildings in Washington, D.C. are symmetrical. Hitler's architectural plans for Berlin were to be modeled after that "monumental city": Washington, D.C. In its most revolutionary designs, modern architecture is the language of heteronymous parts. "Hetero" means different. Its language is asymmetrical and antiparallel, not needing the tools of symmetry--compasses, drafting machines and T-squares. Zevi writes that symmetry is the infantile fear of the father--the academy, in this case, is a father figure, protective of the cowardly child--who will castrate you if you attack a heteronymous figure, the woman, the mother. As soon as one becomes passive and accepts symmetry, the anguish seems to subside, because the father no longer threatens, he possesses (17). Could we then conclude that asymmetrical design is an architecture of the feminine which breaks through the homologous design of the male order which made women into slaves? Certainly, the modern change from pitched top roofs to flat roofs was not the archetypal revolution which would cause our liberation so that we no longer fear the father and have the courage to separate from the mother. Slaves to Market Forces Now back to our tragic past. Architects in the 1920's believed that they were no longer the tailors of society, but its doctors who could cure the plagues of the world. They saw themselves in the role of prophets who believed we must build a single homogenized global structure based on the International Style. These social-methodologists believed modern architecture could cause social regeneration. However, this was still within the value system of the mainstream. The International Style was erected and directed according to the standards of Western Civilization. The visions of these social architects were not profound enough to go beyond the dualistic society which had divided the world into citizen and foreigner, ruler and ruled, man and woman, nor capable of entering the "nondual core of being and knowing" (Kurokawa 118) necessary for cultivating "the empty spaces in the human soul" (Mumford 570). Modern architecture is clearly constructed on the paradigm of spacial divisions which separate "interior from exterior, environment from building, private from public, historic from contemporary" (Kurokawa 30). Kurokawa points out that Western democracy, as well as science, is based on such dualities. He writes, The yeses and nos are tallied, and whichever is greater, if even by one, determines the course taken. This is the principle of majority rule. But the doubt must crop up whether this method, which ignores the reality of existence as something that is not simply black or white, yes or no, is really a proper one (19). Norman O. Brown points out the mysteries of life which are intrinsically esoteric are offensive to democracy. In the democratic principle it is believed that everything can be seen by the people; there is no esoteric knowledge. The secularized democracy has become a civil religion, with the political party in power becoming its priesthood. The president is the hierarch who swears to God at his inauguration that he will defend the national constitution. M. N. Roy observes that under this system, the helpless individual is made to believe that power can only be generated by following the party leaders, and so the citizen is directed by the external voice of the presidency. Marxism failed to produce a world revolution because it, too, asserted in a secular salvation produced through science, technology, and material progress. Kurokawa says that the scientific method, on which Marx based his social theory is born in the same piecemeal fashion. In the academic democracy, the empiricist believes the world to be made of empirical stuff on the basis of data deduced from the scientific method. Truth, then, is subject to public verification. The so-called scientific method is "the attempt to substitute method for insight, mediocrity for genius, by getting a standard operating procedure" (Brown 1965, 9). In this worldview, material gratification is seen as the way to human fulfillment, and material progress is achieved through economic growth. In order to justify one's claim within this one-dimensional worldview one has to accept the terms of empiricist methodologies, which of course exclude the spiritual or transphysical dimension of life altogether! The multi-dimensional web of life's interelationships is completely ignored leading to a de-sacredness and devaluation of life. Law and justice, then, is based on an adversarial system. In this domination model, the good government is the one which emerges from the pluralistic groups "pulling and hauling among competing interests" (French 402). The group, individual, or institution with the most wealth eventually wins. Marilyn French in _Beyond Power_ writes that this adversarial system redefines justice as victory, and transforms judicial process into a game which one wins or loses. It arises from the old patriarchal assurance that God grants the victory to the good, even as those who lead wars fought with this claim knew that might makes right, victory accrues to the more powerful and the powerful decree what is good" (402). In architecture, during times when general systems of religious inspiration break down, as during the Industrial Era, pluralistic notions of architecture create personality cults as architects rival one another for fame, fortune, and the most prestigious contracts under the Law. These modern architects were sons of the Enlightenment. Rationalism, behaviorism, and pragmatism fed the ink in their drafting pens as the monopolists and big business financed their projects. Peter Blake, in his book _Form Follows Fiasco_, points out that without being aware of it, modernist architects became the advocates of ugliness, greed, venality, social disintegration, and exploitation of the land. Frank Lloyd Wright remarked, "Doctors bury their mistakes, but architects can't." Hence, we are surrounded by sick, decaying buildings as landscapes of Eros have been transformed into landscapes of Thanatos (Gablik 79). Blake ponders why modern architects failed to become the doctors and prophets who could have solved our planetary problems. His first consideration is that architects were corrupted from their own greed. Nevertheless, he realized that it was not the architects who were making the money, but the contractors and financiers. He explains, The Modern Movement, with its shining dogmas, its exciting slogans, and above all, with its absolute self- righteousness, was and is, quite clearly, a religion. The cult is doubly seductive in that it not only insures the believer a place in heaven, but also a more or less permanent place on Earth. No other profession leaves such large and eminently visible monuments to itself (and to its clients) (149-150). Modernism was, afterall, really an extension of the cult of the dead and the patriarchal revolution. In his essay "Modernity verses Postmodernity" Jurgen Habermas points out, The word modern in its Latin form "modernus" was used for the first time in the late 5th Century in order to distinguish the present, which had become officially Christian, from the Roman and Pagan past. With varying content, the term "modern" again and again expresses the consciousness of an epoch that relates itself to the past of antiquity, in order to view itself as the result of a transition from the old to the new (54). It seems clear that modernism has been, and is, a perpetuation of the Christian Epoch. Being stuck in the perpetual new, it has failed to revolutionize the future. However, today, postmodernists no longer believe in the messianic faith in the new. They are antimodern. They no longer believe that architects can solve social problems through innovations in technology and design. To them, art does not have the power to cause social transformation. The only thing they can do is deconstruct society. Postmodern architects now embrace all "period styles, whether classical or vernacular" (LeLeod 19). All styles are opened to their imitation and reinterpretation. Postmodernists believe the modernist movement was an unfortunate divergence in the history of Western architecture, one which prevented "cultural continuity or social expression" (LeLeod 19). In Mary LeLeod's essay on architecture, she says that since the preoccupation of postmodernism is whether or not architecture has social meaning, then, if it does, what kind of meaning what does it have? Postmodernists ask if a visual architectural language can express values and ideas. She writes, "The evolution of postmodernism in architecture thus raises the question of whether the utilization of past styles has insured more meaning, or whether it is a nostalgic refusal to recognize architecture's own situation in history" (42). I might add that past styles, from classicism to postmodernism, have not given us a sense of organic meaning, nor connected us with the cosmic forces in life. Postmodernism can be seen as part of the refusal to acknowledge death and the powers of regeneration. The meaning and spirit of the trilithon was first corrupted, then completely lost by the materialist values of the society. Allsopp calls the use of monumental architecture for commercial aggrandizement "ridiculous and monstrous." He feels we must go back to structures which are purely aedicule or trilithonic and wait for a time of a new faith when monumental architecture can reflect a new value system. In Oscar Newman's essay "Whose Failure is Modern Architecture?" the failure of modernism is attributed to poetics. He says that the problem with the social-methodologist school was that it was not poetic enough. In its prosaic form, it was subservient to cost, building programs, and materials. This resulted in its form being rigid, not allowing an inner lyricism to direct the architectural language. In its attempt to fuse together the aedicule and the trilithon, modern architecture made the home into a factory, "a machine for living in." For the wealthy, this meant the house was a custom-made work of art which was hand-crafted with the most advanced technology and communication systems. For others, housing was an industry-made, inexpensive shelter. And so, housing adopted the ideology of mass production, mass communication, decentralization, mobility, structural rationalism, and the sanitation of a hospital. This resulted in shoebox-type apartments made of concrete slabs which were called Siedlugen. These apartment buildings were well designed for "garbage or rent collection" and for "crowd control and police functions" (Blake 125). Mass housing serves bureaucracy, industry, commerce, and government. It is a way to keep the poor in their place, confined to their undeclared prison cells in the most toxic parts of the cities. Furthermore, mass housing does not fuse together the audicule and the trilithon. The city and the landscape are still divorced. Allsopp writes about mass housing and its monumental emptiness, It would be silly to argue that the triumph of democracy and the rule of the people should mean that their homes, numbered in millions, should be treated as monuments, which is what we tend to do. Slabs of housing do not symbolize democracy; their meaning is very plain to read--it is the subjugation of the individual, the suppression of freedom. If they are a monument to anything it is to bureaucracy (Allsopp 1974, 71). John Dewey held a view similar to Allsopp's criticism of modern housing. He believed architecture in our cities is unworthy of being called fine art. He observed that the architecture of both the rich and the poor are essentially aesthetically repulsive because of it's lack of imagination. Even though we have the technical know-how and materials to build beautiful cities, Dewey, believed the reason why we have failed to do so is the profit-motive economics which determine how the land is used. He prophesies, "Until land is freed from this economic burden, beautiful buildings may occasionally be erected, but there is little hope for the rise of general architectural construction worthy of a noble civilization" (Dewey 1958, 334). Peter Blake quotes political science professor Marshall Beuman, who says, "it seems virtually impossible today to feel or even to imagine the joy of building, the adventure and romance and heroism of construction" (Blake 149). In _The History of Postmodern Architecture_ by Heinrich Klotz, a similar sentiment is expressed in the words of visionary architects Krier and Scolari. They believe that "architects who build are corrupt" because local bureaucracies are controlled by "thieves and murderers who are the only ones who still have money for building" (404). Hence, "an architect should not build but should record his concepts in drawing." Krier states the postmodern paradox; he writes, "I can create architecture because I am not building. I am not building because I am an architect" (404). Visions of Ecocities Postmodern architects must stop looking to the historical past for their source of inspiration. The times call for us to fully and nobly embrace a new archetypal form of intelligent architecture which is based on a truly new feminist value system. Blake describes this new fusion as a reintegration of horizontal and vertical space which will cause passages in any direction. He calls the fusion "urbatecture," an architecture which reintegrates the city and the countryside. Urbatecture uses curving--oblique, and inclined lines in a fourth-dimensional fashion--so that there is not one static viewpoint as in classical architecture, but an infinite movement of viewpoints. Kurokawa asserts that on the journey of finding one's purpose in life, people do not proceed on the straight and narrow path, which the symmetrical line of classicism induces. Evolution happens through curves, not on straight lines. Instead, people "wander through complex mazes, digress down meandering rhizomelike passageways in order to discover their purpose" (38). He believes it is time to transcend both linearity and literalism in order to begin building a world of symbiotic cities. Maybe it is indeed time to move from being homo sapiens, to hetero-techno sapiens. This is not to disregard our sameness, but to finally acknowledge our differences and diversity in order to come to a deeper understanding of our wholeness. There are two basic parts making up the human species, female and male, which are made up of a variety of different organisms, both organic and inorganic. This basic duality is in a continuous flux and change of birth and death. The body-mind duality which has inflicted Western Civilization was a deception to hide this natural unity, so that women could be kept in an inferior position, ignoring the romantic reality of nature. Hence, this will create a system of a pluralistic duality made up of a variety of individuals with different talents and gifts, who, with the proper understanding, fit harmoniously together to create a universal Oneness. A monist outer shell made from eternal organic forms, which is subject to improvement as knowledge increases, is determined through the ecological requirements of the given location. The human race is then, in "a state of evergrowing perfection." The outer shell or skin of an arcology would be composed of the collective dreams and necessities of humanity. On the outer skin would be the place for personal dwelling space, turned outward towards nature. Along the central spinal axis inside the arcology would be located the civic space, the place where people turn inward to find the internal language of humanity. As we turn inward, an organic planetary hagiarchy (governance by holy woman and men) can evolve to create a superior form of social coordination made up of individuals who have discovered their innate role in the cosmic web of life. When we find the symbolic queen and king of the planetary organism, a new Vision can come forth. In Constantinos A. Doxiadis's book _Between Dystopia and Utopia_ he writes, What humanity needs is the realization of common dreams. What each of us needs is the realization of his [sic] own dream, within the framework of the common dream...For the first time in history, man [sic] will need a greater ability to dream in order not to become a slave-machine" (51, 54). Inside the interior of the shell, personal dreams are realized with the flexibility of the new technology to change the surrounding environment to fit personal moods and desires. Walls will no longer be fixed, difficult-to-move slabs, but may be "curtains of light, sound and air, both visible and invisible," not walls, but membranes. They may be "dynamic interiors," holograms creating visible barriers, qualities of color and texture, and optical images" (Kroner 330). There is even a belief that everyone's nervous system could be connected to the electronic global network so that personal input and output is possible which we are in fact witnessing today as more people tap into the information highways of the computer age. Through this higher level of communication David Bohm "proposes that by creating situations where people can learn to dialogue with each other, we might succeed in generating a kind of social "superconductivity," a higher state of social intelligence" (Gablik 162). No one will be an outsider. No juno or genius will be wasted as humans evolve away from being consumers and producers who waste nature's resources, and evolve toward the realization that the Earth is a "closed circuit where every natural resource will be used and reused but never destroyed." The new "wo\man" becomes the great conservationist "who controls the use and conversion of all natural elements of inanimate and animate life in a circle ever renewing itself" (Doxiados 71). One of the most beautiful descriptions of the city of the future and the post-historic wo\man is visualized by Lewis Mumford in his book _The City in History: its transformation, and its prospects_. He states that it is now the whole world which needs to be humanly ordered, in order to be able to control the infinite amount of energy we have tapped. We must harness it before it destroys us. We desperately need to create the balance between advanced technologies which have brought the elite instant globalism, and the people who at this point remain for the most part voiceless. This is the time to enact a new form of governance, what I call the democracy-meritocracy model, where the visionaries guide the collective dream for the good of all the world's people. To achieve this vital balance between social order and individual freedom, "the smallest neighborhood or precinct must be planned as a working model of the larger world" (573). The blueprints of arcologies have done this for us. We have evolved from the Greek idea that the agora was the center of the Greek polis, into the gothic period when the church and the religious spirit were the instruments of authority around which the city revolved, through the public square in the Renaissance city which had on either side the church and the palace who controlled both financial oligarchies and military dictatorships, and then to the Baroque when the established religion joined forces with the centralized monarchies, and finally to the modernist period of the International Style where the seat of governance is the municipal building and industries control the money. Now, the entire world is becoming a global amphitheater in which the religious symbolism of the thinkers of the age determine the evolutionary course of architecture. Science is now ready to build the living temples to the ideal social ethic, the home of the world citizen. With the shift in paradigm moving away from the two- dimensional chessboard city design, to the designing of ecocities with four-dimensional space, the main function of the ecocity is "to convert power into form, energy into culture, dead matter into the living symbols of art, biological reproduction into social creativity" (Mumford 571). "Thus," Mumford continues, "slavery, forced labor, legalized expropriation, class monopoly of knowledge, have been giving way to free labor, social security, universal literacy, free education, open access to knowledge, and the beginning of universal leisure, such as is necessary for wide participation in political duties" (571). The purpose of the city is, then, to help foster the individual to develop the self-knowledge needed to find human happiness. Professor Jon Huer in his book, _The Wages of Sin_, defines happiness as a social event, what he calls the "Social Ethic." Its antithesis is the greed created by the "Profit Ethic" of self-interest which takes no responsibility for the public good. He says that one can not be happy alone, even though one can survive alone. Huer writes, "happiness _depends_ on one's happy relations and relations among all with all...Society--unlike the state of nature--exists to make _everyone_ happy." Ecologist Noel Brown sees three components to happiness. The first is to recognize life as a gift. The second is to have the opportunity to live a purposeful life. And thirdly, happiness can be achieved when we take a responsibility for sharing the gift of life with our community (Brown 1989). Our means to happiness is through seeking art and love. Huer goes on to state, the Social Ethic assumes that society is the means of happiness and justice its end. To be human and social is to be at once happy and just. If happiness is the purpose of life, then justice is what validates that happiness as true. Happiness requires justice, and justice makes happiness possible (9). Unlike industry and business in the Profit Ethic, education of the Self is the center of activities in the Social Ethic, a center without a center as the classroom becomes a global network of poetic reality. To become a member of one of Buckminster Fuller's world management teams will be a new leadership goal for children. Ecocities will give form to social egalitarianism so that hereditary privileges, (i.e. individual inheritance) of the Profit Ethic (aka the Profit Motive) no longer exist. Intelligent Architecture Walter M. Kroner in his article, "Intelligent Architecture through Intelligent Design," states that we now have the technology to create intelligent architecture, an architecture which uses artificial intelligence. The essence of intelligent architecture is that various systems like communication, energy, transportation, information, etc., are effectively coordinated through an automated and electronically controlled management system. Present day buildings are not designed to enhance this technological revolution so that technology is used to liberate us all; rather, it is used to keep us in a state of slavery. Advanced technologies are made to fit into traditional designs rather than envision a revolutionary architecture. Smart technology is packaged into "an already designed container." And so, the possibilities of designing a completely revolutionary smart architecture which uses alternative energies in ecological ways goes virtually unheeded. For the most part, Kroner writes, architects relegate technological issues to specialists without understanding problems and opportunities for integrated and holistic thinking. The humanist is not a critical part of the design team, and the user's needs are secondary to budgets, construction schedules and energy management. Instead of designing an architecture in harmony with nature, we continue to see nature as something to be overcome or conquered (324). The design of houses and skyscrapers is the same as it was forty years ago. Kroner writes, "the smart technology lies hidden in the floors, pipes, ducts and ceilings, so that there is no visible evidence of a changed architecture" (322). An example of the way technological changes are made to fit into the existing structures was provided when President Bill Clinton announced to reporters that the White House needed to update its telecommunication system. He didn't have the technology to even conduct a telephone conference with his staff! The telephone system had not changed since the Kennedy Administration accept that phones with dials were changed to push buttons. Clinton said, "There's not even any E-mail. It's a yesterday place, and we need to make it a tomorrow place." But I don't see a way to ultimately reform the White House into a tomorrow place without the use of dynamite! The Need for a Lovolution Of course, this age of symbiotic intelligent urbatecture will require the collectivization of land, but Peter Blake warns that, once the land is collectivized, a new architecture must be built or else nothing will change as was the case in Soviet Russia. With the bureaucratization of state capitalism in the "East," modern architects were left without a social idealism to structurally symbolize. The practical became detached from the poetic inspiration. Blake says that urbatecture "demands a new beginning, as if no linguistic system had ever existed before, as if it were the first time in history that we had to build a house or a city" (7). He continues to say that creative spirits have always started from scratch. For, all around us, the environment we have built over the past century or so with supreme confidence is literally collapsing: the walls of our buildings are crumbling--literally; the well-intentioned zones mapped by our city planners are creating the worst ghettos in recorded history--literally; the best- planned schools by the world's most idealistic architects are producing a generation of zombies-- literally; the finest public housing projects to be found anywhere in the world, and designed according to the noblest precepts, are turning into enclaves of murder, rape, mugging, and dope addiction, with the only way out a charge of dynamite to reduce those noble precepts to rubble--literally (11). So on July 15, 1972, dynamite was used to implode the Pruitt-Igoe Housing project in St. Louis. It was declared that the basic design of the mass housing units were responsible for the high crime rate because of the sense of anonymity and the lack of community felt by its inhabitants. This was the day when modernism in architecture officially died. Nevertheless, without creating a new morality of a living mythology by building a new archetypal system in architecture, crime will persist, resulting in the imprisonment of the lower-classes. The land owners will continue to be rewarded, while their victims will continue to be punished for their addictions, such as crack cocaine which "numbs the pain of archetypal starvation and the vacuum of meaning" (Gablik 51). Addictions keep one unaware of the pain and anger of living in poverty, injustice, and the lack of feeling joy and love about life. Addicts stop using their internal knowledge of the senses and become deluded by confused perceptions allowing one to remain addicted. As Elaine Pagels points out in her book _The Gnostic Gospels_, self-ignorance is a form of self-destruction (126). Most people live oblivious--or, in contemporary terms, unconscious--of their true natures. Their lives are led without fulfillment as they "dwell in deficiency." Anne Wilson Schaef writes in her book _When Society Becomes an Addict_, By robbing us of the freedom to experience and reveal our feelings, the Addictive System robs us of important information about who we are. It also robs us of life; repressing our feelings long enough can eventually kill us (89). The Addictive System encourages addictions to keep people so far away from their feelings and awareness that they cannot challenge the system (145). Because society conditions us to lie about our unjust reality while training us to become addicted to our own self-interest, explains why artists and writers who have risen above the addictions, and have found their true identities, remain a suppressed minority. The moral vision, expressed through their art, become a target of censorship in the Addictive System. Marilyn French states, "To change the way we handle crime, we have to change our morality" (404). In order to do this, there is no other way but to radically change our money and power relationships, so that the rewards of success are not based on the domination values of the market place--competitive individualism and economic striving of the Profit Ethic. Le Corbusier, the man whose architectural ideas in the International Style have had such a great influence throughout the world, was addicted to power. He believed power was more important than morality. During the 1920's he was a member of the Redressement Francais, a proto-fascist organization. He tried to work for the Soviets, wrote highly of Mussolini, and, beginning in 1941, he spent eighteen months trying to persuade the Nazi-sponsored Vichy government of France to adopt his plans for Algiers (Barnett 115). Le Corbusier drew from classical antiquity for his inspiration, as did Hitler. The foundation of Greek society is sexist and based on war, so classical antiquity is hardly the place to look for ideas on how to free the world. But the megalithic architecture of the Great Goddess civilization, which was non-sexist and non-combatant, can provide us with the vision and inspiration to build the New Cosmology--in a sense, to our "archaic future!" World of Arcologies The task for our species is to reunite the three basic architectural archetypes together--the aedicule, the trilithon, and the nomadic tent--by building a world of arcologies. This epic task is to restore true poetesses and poets to their primitive position as the magicians of the collective desires, the mediators between the "individual consciousness and the collective unconsciousness." The task is not to introduce a new architectural style of individual architects, but to usher in a new way of life, to ride the wave of the ecological (global warming) and social (women's liberation) changes which are creating a new general system of universal human rights based on biospheric designs. Herbert Read writes in _To Hell With Culture,_ "Poets should not go outside their own ranks for policy; for poetry is its own politics" (9). Through the politics of Neutopian poetry, we will find the way to create new linguistic, cultural, and religious symbols to reconstruct our thinking so as to understand that all the Earth is sacred; there is no separation between life and art; the macrocosm and the microcosm are one; intelligence can not be creative without being guided by intuition; rationalism cannot survive without the mysteries of romance; and religion is the deep understanding of the natural cycles of death and life, not barbaric animal sacrifice and the worship of the dead. Therefore, the mission of the Poetess is to lead us to a proper perspective of the Universe, so that we can rebuild Gaia's Temple, a planet of symbiotic ecocities which has reverence for life. In this Gaian paradigm, love and cooperation, not power and competition, reign supreme. A wise saying from Carl Jung reads as follows: "Where love rules, there is no will to power; and where power predominates, there love is lacking." In the Gaia perspective, love is the saving power, the core of creation, which blesses us with the necessary transformative vision. It has been said that in this new paradigm the leadership of individual juno and genius will no longer be relevant as we all become co-creators of the dream-body. I read Gablik to say, however, that the _individual_ is the source of creativity in society. Social transformation occurs when there is a "personal breakthrough to a new way of seeing." The individual then works as an organ of the collective dream-body, whose personal ideas have planetary consequences (Gablik 23). Erik Erikson describes these individuals as paradigmatic figures whose personal neurosis and crisis correspond with the universal problems of humanity in order to produce "a new form of human awareness" (Charme 1984, 109). In Henryk Skolimowski's book _Eco-Philosophy_, he explains how it has always been the creative minority, the deviant few, who are the change-artists. This is true from "time immemorial, when the first amoebas started to multiply themselves and gave birth to more complex organism" (114). Skolimowski says that the story of life is the story of the deviant minorities who refuse to conform to the established order. These deviant few create new mutants and new form of life both biologically, culturally, intellectually, and spiritually. The Greeks called these times of mutation, _kairos_. _Kairos_ is the exact moment for a "metamorphosis of the gods," transformed by the wisdom of the goddess, in order to change our basic symbols and principles about ourselves and the world. The world depends on these infinitesimal units of charisma that tip the scales of events. Doxiadis asks, "Don't we know by now that man [sic] creates theories before he [sic] creates tools and solutions and that the builder has the image of his [sic] cathedral in his [sic] mind before he starts building it?" (52) However, now the question is: Don't we know by now that woman creates the sovereignty, in the form of epic poetry, to allow both man and woman to unify their energies into the founding of Neutopia? Monique Canto writes, "Values are, as it were, constituted by women, who are the foundation of the political order. A real woman's politics is what makes possible the transition from nature to the city" (Canto 1986, 347). For one, I am personally preparing for the change. I can almost taste the fresh air of the ecocities that are so deeply implanted in my brain. It has become difficult for me to even walk on these twentieth century streets in this cold New England town when I know we now possess the technology, knowledge, and theory to finally live in a beautiful, free world society. The life-energy is bursting to grow from my root-bound pot! The great American architect, Louis Sullivan, who invented the skyscraper, once said that architecture is not an art, but a religion. He was absolutely right! Religion is created through our individual self, the divine spark within us, in relation with the environment. Consequently, religion exists because we are part of the environment and can not be isolated from it. Therefore, religion cannot be accepted or rejected, but needs the "relentless scrutiny of science" and the "illuminating sincerity of art" in order to survive. Our relationship with the environment determines the quality of life (Coggin 1962). Now, we have the planetary religion we need to set up the management committees to actualize the magnificent blueprints of our most creative architects who have envisioned an ark of salvation. I end this chapter with the following stanza from _Leaves of Grass_, the epic in honor of American democracy written in 1855 by Walt Whitman. Whitman understood that the epic and the city are one body politic. When the materials are all prepared and ready, the architects shall appear. I swear to you the architects shall appear without fail, I swear to you they will understand you and justify you, The greatest among them shall be he who best knows you, and encloses all and is faithful to all, He and the rest shall not forget you, they shall perceive that you are not an iota less than they, You shall be fully glorified in them. The materials and communication networks were not ready in 1855 to create the great democratic\meritocratic ecocity, but they are now. Long-live the epic of the Gaia! The natural sovereignty of womankind, forever live in peace! Summary In this chapter we have seen how the traditional designs of symmetrical architecture are built in forms which keep people in their place as slaves to totalitarian regimes. The modernist movement challenged this hegemony by attempting to build public housing for the masses, but it became the religious cult of the International Style which ultimately gave a new facade to the old totalitarian mind-set. Hence, modernism failed to achieve the fusion of the aedicule and the trilithon as it succumbed to the pressures of the Profit Ethic. For architecture to become a vehicle for social liberation and human happiness requires that our cities be rebuilt in radically new ways. CHAPTER 6 HOW CHILDREN VISUALIZE HOME: A STUDY OF AN ARCHETYPE Introduction This chapter focuses on the artwork of children, particularly on how they are trained to draw pictures of home. By focusing on the way children draw the built environment, we can begin to understand the urgent need for a spiritual revolution to restructure the physical environment and to provide us with an image which will revolutionize education. There is a major shift in consciousness occurring presently on this planet. It is essential that educators take a leadership role in this world-wide evolutionary movement so that the biosphere can be saved. A new archetype in architecture is emerging which will begin the process of deepening our awareness and our sense of home and change our life-style. The American Dream The founding father of the American Dream, Thomas Jefferson, had a vision of land development which corresponded with the land development theory of the first European colonists of the New World. The cultural changes caused by the European colonists cannot be fully understood without looking at the ecological changes which resulted from their practices, especially the effects caused by their domination of the land. It can easily be concluded that "capitalism and environmental degradation went hand in hand" (Cronton 161). The native Americans had a different approach to the ecosystem than the European settlers. They loved the land and respected it. The New England Indians had developed an equilibrium between the ecology and the human community. Their life-style was not centered around a permanent settlement like that of the homesteaders. Instead, they were nomadic, traveling to different locations depending on the season. Their kinship networks formed villages, but as William Cronton points out in his book _Changes in the Land_, villages were not "fixed geographical entities: their size and location changed on a seasonal basis, communities breaking up and reassembling as social and ecological needs required" (38). Their houses, made of wooden frames covered with grass mats, could be broken down and reconstructed in a new location within a few hours. Their relocation reduced their impact on the land enabling them to work less and enjoy the natural diversity more. When they used other species, they "made sure that no single species became overused" (53). The American Indian's seasonal mobility made surplus property undesirable. They were confident that the environment would provide them with what they needed. As Cronton notes their willingness to give property away, was not a sign that property did not exist, but, by giving, they received social prestige and social position within their culture. Cronton states that the real struggle between the Indians and the settlers was between the mobile, seasonal and communal use of the land, and the fixed impact of permanent settlements and private ownership of the land. These different approaches expressed the different value systems of the two people in the ways in which they conceived "property, wealth, and boundaries on the landscape" (53). Colonists such as John Winthrop distinguished between the two ways of inhabitancy as being either natural or civil. Winthrop believed the superior approach was the civil right to land ownership which had evolved beyond the natural way where "man" sowed and fed wherever he pleased. Winthrop's philosophy was an extension of the biblical thought that an individual should possess as much land as he could "subdue and make productive" (73). In the anonymously authored "Essay on the Ordering of Towns," it was declared that the individual should be given the amount of land which was his due proportion based on how many servants and cattle he had to "improve" the land. These colonial theorists trivialized the Indian economy and ecology, and thus paved the way to destroying their culture. Cronon writes, "In this way, the social hierarchy of the English class system was reproduced, albeit in a modified form, in the New World" (73). The values behind the drawings of the single family detached house are derived from the patriarchal/matriarchal tradition responsible for our attempted domination of nature and other people. Jeffersonian democracy had a vision of creating an agrarian society by dividing small parcels of land throughout the United States. Jefferson's plan, in reaction to feudalism, was devised to create a democratic land ownership as a base to the political system which became a "property-owning democracy" where political and economic freedom was equated with land ownership. His vision of the good society differed from his adversary, Alexander Hamilton: Jefferson wanted to decentralize power through small family farms and Hamilton wanted to develop the New Republic into a great industrial nation. In order for Hamilton's vision to be realized there needed to be a centralized government which would have economic control. Hamilton did not believe that democracy was created by an equality of wealth, whereas Jefferson thought economic equality was essential to maintaining a democracy. In order to avoid autocracy and coercion, Jefferson believed economic independence gained by property ownership was just as important as political independence gained through the ballot box. Farmland was the only available means for the citizen to gain economic independence, allowing families to become self-sufficient in terms of substance and trade. Jefferson taught that farming and property-owning were democratic, just ideas, while industrialism and city life were undemocratic and corrupt. Certainly, the European industrial cities such as London, at the time were unpleasant, even unhealthy places to live. Womens' rights were not even considered important under this vision of land development. Jefferson believed that the good women's life was centered around the home and the children. The house was also believed to be a symbol of the female womb. One can see how easily this vision could connect to the old saying "a woman's place is in the home." Jefferson's vision was flawed by the very nature of land itself. Some pieces of land are far more fertile than others, consequently, some pieces were more valuable for agriculture than others. He also did not take into account that some people have no desire to become farmers. And no matter what Jefferson wanted for the United States, the forces of industrialism would assure its becoming the wave of the future. Even though he made sure land could not be monopolized, other businesses such as transportation, storage, and marketing were able to establish monopolies (Green 1977). Jefferson's vision was, of course, insensitive to the philosophy of the Native Americans. The Indians had an economy based on hunting which needed vast wilderness areas in order to be renewed. They could not understand the cutting down of forests in order to build houses. In 1663, the Indians were offered individual land allotments by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. As long as they conformed to the establish order they could have the same terms of ownership as the settlers. Since that meant giving up hunting for agriculture, they could not accept the offer. The Indians preferred "tribal ownership and corporate land-use" over individual and nuclear family form of land development. In order to better understand the thought pattern which caused the "American Dream" to have been established and spread throughout the world, let us proceed by looking into the psychology of children's drawings. Universal Patterns Rhoda Kellogg in _The Psychology of Children's Art_ states that children all over the world draw houses that look alike. She writes, "Each makes a square to form the walls, a smaller square to show a window, and elongated square for the chimney, a curly scribble to indicate smoke. Indeed, the houses are so much alike that the national origin of the young artists might well be the same" (11). In his essay, "Cross-Cultural Research in Arts Education," Elliot W. Eiser considers the first five years of life--when nationality in children's drawings cannot be distin- guished--to be the "universal years" in which specific culture has little or no influence (Eiser 1984). Even though there seems to be a universality to children's early drawings, interaction with the environment does impact these universal years. This universality indicates a basic cultural structure and myth throughout the world. Only through further development do children pick up the specific cultural symbols and the particular drawing formulae of their respective societies. A young child does not draw a particular dog or house, but the archetype of a dog or house, the ideal type. Consequently, we have a fundamental global culture, created through our basic interaction with the environment, which can be witnessed in the early drawings of children. Kellogg acknowledges that children "are building upon the creative impulse which is the heritage of all mankind [sic] and is limited to no one land and culture" (Kellogg 1967, 77). Carl Jung attributes such universality to a common human heritage of archetypes, the range of which comprises the collective unconsciousness. These archetypes make up the essential psychic energy of brain patterns common to the human species. Herbert Read notes that "as consciousness develops, these archetypes sink below the level of consciousness, where they exercise an unconscious control of our modes of imagination and thought" (Read 1966, 247). In these patterns our emotions and fantasies automatically fit. A series of archetypal forms create myths, what Jean Houston in her book, _The Hero and Her Goddess_ calls, "the DNA of the human psyche" (7). She further explains, "these primal patterns unfold in our daily lives as culture, mythology, religion, art, architecture, drama, ritual, epic, social customs, and even mental disorders" (7). Herbert Read emphasizes that archetypes are not phantasms of the imagination, but are the built-in structures that give direction to our mental activities and amorphous feelings. These structural feelings are what we call works of art. Jung observed that when archetypes are at their best, the mysteries of life are unfolded to us, bringing together the mind and body, the individual and community, and the self and the universe. When archetypes are repressed, alienation occurs, cutting off our ties with nature, the individual with the community, and the self from the Infinite. When an alienated culture begins to use this archetypal energy, as in the case with Nazi Germany, the energy can become brutal. However, as this paper will point out, the archetype we use for shelter, the home, is just as brutal. As Jean Houston explains, "For the real question behind the prevailing fear is not about economics, politics, or even militarism--it's about archetypes" (13). Therefore, we should not blame the architects for the destruction of the land before we blame the underlying cultural assumptions which have forced the architects to build such a dysfunctional environment. Suzi Gablik declared the metaphor of our epoch is the bulldozer. The ultimate end of the bulldozer is the house. The Image of Home Do children's drawings of home indicate that there is a world-wide conformity to certain ways of land development-- in the form of the single-family detached house--which is impressed upon the child early in life and which directs her or his values towards land development? James L. Peacock states in _Consciousness and Change_, Adults learn systems of symbols beginning in child- hood, but they postpone learning their adult roles until adulthood. Only as adults do they become fathers, mothers, voting citizens, and full-fledged workers, though they may have played at such roles in childhood. But children begin to learn the rudiments of myths, beliefs, totems, theologies, worldviews, and aesthetic convention as soon as they are born, if not before. Accordingly, such systems of symbols are imbedded in the experience of childhood, with all of its "magical thinking," fear, loneliness, and worth (225). The dream of home, in a single-family detached house, which children draw throughout the world, regardless of whether they reside in a high-rise apartment in an urban environment or in temporary housing shelters, is a clear sign that these children are receiving certain land development values which they will strive to obtain during their lives. House mortgages are the main debts that people in the United States work to pay off. Home ownership is an economic slavery for those who are upwardly mobile, while those who are renters are slaves to landlords, that is, if they can afford housing at all. In _The Palace or the Poorhouse: The American House as a Cultural Symbol_, Jan Cohn observes that, "Both as an objectification of tradition and as the realization of property, the house has been a bulwark against threats to political stability and, therefore, a profoundly conservative institution in America" (214). It is not just in America where the cultural symbol of the house perpetuates, but throughout the world. The global corporations controlling the mass media have indoctrinated the entire world with this image of home, that is, the consumer dream house, and, in turn, this image dictates who we are, our social status, and how we must conform in order to gain the American Dream. Perhaps, their goal is to indoctrinate the world with the image of the "global shopping mall" as the pattern of development. This consumerist image of development is a danger to the delicate biosphere which is planet Earth; it must be stopped! A new image of development is imperative for our future. A surprising correlation to this image of home is that romantic relationships are also molded to fit into this archetype. In 1926 Edward Carpenter, in his book _Love's Coming of Age_, writes, The man needs an outlet for his passion; the girl is looking for a "home" and a proprietor. A glamour of illusion descends upon the two, and drives them into each other's arms...But at a later hour, and with calmer thought, they begin to realize that it is a life-sentence which he [the priest] so suavely passed upon them--not reducible (as in the case of ordinary convicts) even to a term of 20 years (75). The fairy tale marriage becomes a nightmare of co-dependency when the couple becomes totally dependent on each other for their sense of security. They cannot act independently for fear of causing instability within the relationship. The male is dependent on the woman in the traditional female role for emotional and physical support. The female, or one who is playing the traditional female role, is dependent on the male to make all the public decisions and to provide shelter. Anne Schaef writes, An addictive relationship is, by definition, a _permanent_ parent-child/child-parent relationship. It cannot survive if either person becomes a whole person or a full adult and takes responsibility for her or himself. It is jeopardized if either person begins to grow or change (28). In order to free ourselves from these destructive co- dependent relationships ecologists throughout the world are demanding that we radically change our life-styles. However, this change would mean a new architectural design which is based on solar energy, recycling, miniaturization, communalism, mass transportation, harmony with nature, and a new educational, ecofeminist philosophy based on equal access to knowledge. Worldwide rain forest loss and ozone depletion are directly linked to land development and, as this paper is pointing out, land development is directly linked to child development. The adult world imposes the single-family detached house worldview on the child and this has resulted in the growth of the carcinogenic megalopolis around the globe. This unhealthy growth can be seen as children begin drawing their dream house. In _Children Drawing_, Jacqueline Goodnow remarks, "The child is developing not just a type of line but also a concept, discovering similarities, and realizing that many separate items may be represented by a single symbol" (141). The hypothesis of Wayner Dennis' book, _Group Values through Children's Drawings_, is similar to Goodnow in that he also theorizes that children's drawings not only mirror the environment but reflect values or preferences (4). He writes, "the drawings of children show not only the values of children but also the values of their society" (7). Herbert Read also notes that the development of art is parallel to developments of thought and both are directly linked with social and economic forces. When there are changes in the laws of art, the laws of the state are likely to change with them (Russell 1981, 26). The law of art which must change is the way we perceive home and the role art plays in making our planetary abode a good, healthy, and beautiful place. The Changing Laws of Art Suzie Gablik explains Kaprow's theory of the two contrasting art traditions within modernism: it is "artlike" art when art is seen as separated from life, making it a mere egocentric object in the buyer\seller marketplace, and it is "lifelike" if it is connected with life and everything else, playing a vital role in building community. "Lifelike" art revolves around the formation of our relationship with the ecology and with each other, fusing together values and knowledge. The "lifelike" artist embodies, and thus, becomes a work of the earth spirit, where as the "artlike" artist is seen in terms of her or his "competitive individualism and economic striving." Artists who have succeeded in the old path of "artlike" works, receiving money, fame, power and glamour, have failed to meet the challenges of the times. Gablik writes, "The need to transform the egocentric vision that is encoded in our entire worldview is the critical task that lies ahead for our culture" (141). In order to do this, Gablik urges artists to quit playing the marketplace games of the "art world" which are only destroying us. Only by taking a new path of health, vision, interconnectedness, and participation may we find the self- fulfillment and happiness necessary for creating a better world. Art then becomes a release of the power of the life-force itself as the artist becomes the avatar, prophetess, or teacher of a divine message. In this way art becomes a work of wisdom by relating to the whole. Gablik writes, Once we have changed the mode of our thinking to the methodology of participation, we are not so detached. For the participating consciousness, things are no longer removed, separated, "out there." Objectivity strips away emotion, wants only the facts and is detached from feeling. Objectivity serves as a distancing device, offering the illusion of impregnable strength, certainty and control. Knowledge can then be used as an instrument of power and domination (178). The world of participating consciousness does not destroy the autonomous vision of the artist, but makes her or his vision grounded in the social and ecological responsibility necessary for the founding of an ecocity. The production of art objects will no longer be the primary function of artists, but will be replaced by a new primary goal of becoming teachers of self- knowledge in the New Cosmology. Jose A. Arguelles writes in his book _The Transformative Vision_, "If art is no longer specialized, then it becomes a means of relating to the whole; that is, it becomes an activity that responds to and helps direct environmental impulses rather than an art (or a technology) that is imposed on the environment" (285). Money will no longer be the goal of life or art. The invisible, non-material, and non-measurable values of the creative and courageous spirit will be highly rewarded as society begins to realize that our natural resources are both objective and subjective, and each is necessary for the survival of the species. It is now economically possible to give value to this vital balance between the invisible and visible world. We now have the means to create a perfect balance between supply and demand, a new system where nothing is wasted. Jon Huer equates this "perfect state of economy" as the aim of all societies to become self-sufficient. Now we have the means to maintain society's survival needs and life's comforts. What people need can now be supplied. In this perfect state, no one will demand more than what they need, and nothing will be supplied more than it is demanded. Huer writes, "demand is determined through necessity and supply by (1) the extent of demand and (2) whether the society has enough resources to meet the demand" (Huer 1991, 277). Also, all products must be ecologically sound. And so, through this balance all things will become free. With all human wants satisfied, the misery and pain of human poverty is no longer a problem. A time will then come when "our individual life begins" as a true meritocracy based on virtue and talent is established. Non-economic values will then replace market values and purchasing power as people's goals reflect non-material ends. Huer foretells, "the societies basic obligation thus fulfilled, it enters what we might call a post-economic era of high civilization and lofty humanity" (283). Our surplus energy can then be used for the creation of ecocities, the formation of a society of art and new science, and the learning of how to love one another. Carpenter writes, When mankind [sic] has solved the industrial problem so far that products of our huge mechanical forces have become a common heritage, and no man or woman is the property-slave of another, then some of the causes which compel prostitution, property-marriage, and other perversions of affections, will have disappeared; and in such an economically free society human unions may at last take place according to their own inner and true laws (138). A panelist at a Earth Day conference in Amherst several years ago said that in the new epoch the value which will replace profit will be nourishment, the idea of progress will be replaced by sustainability, power will be replaced by fulfillment, and products will be replaced by relationships. Drawing Development Some psychologists are of the opinion that children go through five stages of drawing development. Children are autodidactic, that is they teach themselves to draw. They begin by scribbling, then begin drawing abstract forms very much like primitive drawings. These drawings are enchanting and spontaneous. Rhoda Kellogg observes that children, who are not coaxed by school teachers and parents to draw real-life objects, develop a "store of knowledge which enables them to reach their final stage of self-taught art" (17). She believes that confidence in one's self-taught art is necessary for the growth of the creative spirit (17). Teachers and parents who rate a drawing on its realistic similarity to the object may stifle and kill the confidence of the child. Kellogg believes adults rob children of the joy of their self-taught non-pictorial work by encouraging a representa- tive form of expression. Buckminister Fuller expresses similar sentiments: "Every child is a genius until it is degeniused by education." According to Ellen Winner in _Invented Worlds: The Psychology of the Arts_, these earlier stages lead to greater desire and skill in representing the world in a naturalistic style. By the age of nine or ten children draw for optical realism. By adolescence most children in industrial societies have given up drawing altogether. Helga Eng, in _The Psychology of Child and Youth Drawing_, is also of the opinion that naturalistic drawing is the natural form of drawing development and that abstract art is a regressive movement away from the evolution of art. She explains, ...child and youth drawing does not fraternize with art that is moving away from realism, away from human- ism, away from culture, away from nature, away from life. The free, spontaneous drawing of child and youth is akin to Greek Art, "the most natural art ever found." This kinship seems to indicate that the evolution of Greek art is an instance of the natural growth of art (13). Other art educators and modern artists argue that naturalism is not the natural form of expression, for everyone expresses themselves in different ways. In _Education Through Art_, Herbert Read emphasizes, We must realize that the child's graphic activity is a specialized medium of communication with its own characteristics and laws. It is not determined by canons of objective visual realism, but by the pressure of inner subjective feeling or sensation. From the very beginning the drawings of children are wholly and spontaneously of this kind. They only change because a naturalistic attitude is gradually imposed on children, first by the necessity of coping with an external world--by the need they experience of objectifying their perceptual world so that they can measure it, assess it, deal with it, _subdue_ it; and secondly, by the impulse to imitate the naturalistic modes of representation which they see practiced by their parents and teachers. In so far as the former need is met by conceptual modes of thought, the image merely disappears, or is devitalized, and no need for representing it graphically or plastically is experienced; and in actual fact only a few children, belonging to a specific psychological type, acquire any considerable skill in naturalistic representation (135). Read stated that nothing could be more unnatural for the majority of children than naturalistic drawing. Raphy M. Pearson also expresses a similar view to Read in his book _The New Art Education_. He asserts that "children are born creators and remain so until their native art impulses are killed by the imposition or imitation of adult standards concerned with skill and literal fact" (206). And, similar to Rhoda Kellogg, Pearson believes we cause spiritual poverty to children early in their lives by consciously or unconsciously demanding that they mold to the established pattern of design. Howard Gardner asks in his book, _Artful Scribbles: The Significance of Children's Drawings_: "Is our picture of the development of drawing following the initial stages a genuinely general account, or is it rather a caricature obtained through the technologically tinted lens of our own culture?" (159) He believes children follow a natural progression towards literalism because they need to know whether the rules of that culture "promote realism or abstraction." He observed that alternative schools which promoted abstract expressionism became just as dogmatic and rigid in their own ideology as the traditional schools promoting realistic expression. However, I believe the image of the house is an example of how children around the world are molded with the naturalistic indoctrination corrupting their subjective and objective lives at early stages of development. In _Beyond Alienation,_ Ernest Becker concluded, "not nature, not instinct, but society, social fiction, early training of the child--these were the sources of constricted behavior, of evil in the social realm" (157). Becker believed that parents start the social indoctrination. Schools and the universities carry it on. Even the spacial environment within the traditional classroom setting of dividing the chairs into rows composing a grid, reinforces totalitarian values. The purpose of the partitioning is to monitor and interrupt communications as well as to isolate the student's individual performance, training them to fit into the competitive job market as they consume the objective knowledge of the school system. Teaching students to choose the right mate is not even part of the school curriculum. James Hillman points out in his book _Insearch: Psychology and Religion_ that "eros is cultivated through intense internalization." People reach intimacy with another not so much through horizontal connections, but through "parallel vertical connections of each within himself [sic]," creating a spiritual communion with the other (82). But in the totalitarian system, eros is not even an issue to be discussed and is certainly not acknowledged as the supreme reality underlying all life! Some psychologists are perplexed as to the reason why the majority of adolescent children stop drawing. According to Eng there is "little agreement among drawing psychologists either as to the age at which this stagnation generally sets in, or the cause of it" (1). It is known that in non-industrial cultures where art is not separated from daily life this period of decline does not happen. Kellogg, Pearson, and Read seem to agree on why children become alienated from drawing when so few have an innate drive to draw naturalistically. This drawing stagnation is caused by the false objective base of naturalism. Drawing is no longer a source of spiritual joy for the adolescents, but limits them to materialism. The drawing style passed down to them by the adult world is not a form of liberation, but a form of domination. The dream house has become a symbol of drudgery even though most of us are not consciously aware of it. The symbol of home breeds isolation and a competitive mentality rather than a sense of community and love. It divides people into ethnic and kinship groups, rather than creates a culture of the united family of wo/man. The child becomes alienated from the self, as most children strive to conform to the social norms of the group, losing their subjective spirit which connects one with the universal symbolic language of creative mythology. Throughout sacred time, myths have been "written" in a universal symbolic language. But modern people, for the most part, have lost this language, not when they are asleep, but when they are awake. The dream world is rendered senseless to the men who build the machines and systems which are so destructive; their world is reigned by the rationality of logos. Could it be that the symbolic inner life constructs the good world, and, now, it must be emancipated? (Fromm 1951) Logos and Mythos Logos is speech in the sense of sequential development, causality, reasoning grounded in the subject of the knower and the world as objectified for knowing. Logos can be described as gathering, counting, reckoning, explaining, reasoning, and the categorization of stable systems. It is a thinking mode which can be demonstrated, measured, and verified. It is a process defined with precision and can be fit into single modalities. Meaning is disembodied from the reality of change and flux. Logos reduces the complexity of mythos into a purely mechanical and computable certainty. There has been a long standing intellectual debate on which mode of thought, logos or mythos, is the mature and better way of thinking. The established thought is that logos and its reductive inquiry is the better way and mythos is only "an immature degraded version of logos" (Sternberg 1990, 56). The personal and inner dimensions of life are seen as less real than the collective and outer way of relating to the world. By the outer world, I especially mean the world set up by the patriarchs, such as Aristotle, who divides the mind from body, the inner from outer, the universal from particular, and the sacred from the profane. Aristotle's sexism can be seen in his description of human reproduction. He denied men's contribution to reproduction was of the material sort. The woman's ovum was material and primitive, while a man's sperm was more spiritual and divine. For this reason, it was believed that women were unable to sublimate from their bodies to be able to create culture or comprehend science. In the Enlightenment worldview, man was able to remove himself from what he was observing and rationally analyze what was under his observation, whereas woman was stuck in the material body unable to become an objective observer. Women were considered unable to distinguish between subjective and objective and therefore could not know abstract scientific knowledge. The female experience was thought to be inferior to that of the scientific male. Susanne Langer states, Everything that falls outside the domain of analytical, propositional, and formal thought is merely classified as emotive, irrational, and animalian...All other things our minds do are dismissed as irrelevant to intellectual progress; they are residues, emotional disturbances, or throwbacks to animal estate and indicated "regression to a pre-logical state" (Labouvie-Vief 1990, 65). According to Gisela Labouvie-Vief, educational theorist Jean Piaget believed reality was the impersonal, external, collectivity of the outside world. In order to connect with it, the mature adult had to submit to the processes of logos. Piaget thought mythos was a childish and immature state of mind which the normal child outgrew with the desire to function within the social framework. The inner symbolism of the child was degraded and thought to have no objective meaning to the outside world. Therefore, the child is forced to forget her or his inner life in order to fit into the status quo. Self-knowledge, the interplay between subjectivity and objectivity, is lost, as is the child's natural juno or genius. For there to be an evolution of wisdom, a reintegration of mythos and logos needs to take place. Labouvie-Vief writes, What makes the artist, the poet, or the scientist wise is not expert technical knowledge in their respective domains but rather knowledge of issues that are part of the human condition, more generally. Wisdom consists, so to say, in one's ability to see through and beyond individual uniqueness and specialization into those structures that relate us to our common humanity (77-78). What then do we mean by wisdom? Wisdom is the mythic, holistic, Gaian perspective which is found through the intuitive knowledge of our archaic selves. Skolimowski says "wisdom is the possession of the right knowledge" which is "based on a proper understanding of the structural hierarchies within which life cycles and human cycles are nested and nurtured" (38). This intuitive knowledge calls prophetesses and prophets to the task of creating a compassionate world. Colin Wilson writes, What I wish to emphasize here is that a highly developed reasoning faculty has nothing whatever to do with genius. Nothing was ever _discovered_ by logic. All things are discovered by intuition, as the lives of the great mathematicians and scientists prove again and again. Logic plods after intuition, and verifies discoveries in its own pedestrian way. Logic is a mere servant of the imagination. To exalt it--as modern thinkers tend to--is to invite spiritual anarchy (Wilson 1957, 102-3). Mythos and Love Mythos, the force which brings things together in a holistic picture, is a motivating force for love. This intuitive "knowledge of the heart" when focused on the image of a creative humanity is essential for planetary salvation. It is the guiding microbial force that creates harmony between the sexes and gives logos, science, and technology an ethical basis to explore nature and the mysteries of the universe. Love takes us to the origins of life and creates new worlds where our dreams become the surrounding culture. In _Becoming Human Through Art,_ Edmund Burke Feldman writes, Love has to be a dimension of everything that education means and does because of the crucial role it plays in bringing about wholeness of human character. Whether love is an instinct or a type of spiritual reaching out, it is nevertheless the force that generates all human effort, especially educational effort, striving always to bring about oneness among the things it touches (128). Without love as the nucleus of education, logos will continue to dominate our culture with the one-sided perspective of scientific realism. Without mythos as the basis of education, educators will remain impotent in their ability to create the radical social change necessary for our survival. Edward Carpenter writes, the conclusion is that the inner laws in these matters--the inner laws of the sex-passion, of love, and of all human relationship--must gradually appear and take the lead, since they alone are the powers which can create and uphold a rational society; and that the outer laws--since they are dead and lifeless things--must inevitably disappear (143). There is no reason to believe that children need to confirm to naturalism in order to develop higher stages of reasoning. In conforming to the status quo there is certainly reason to believe naturalism is necessary. But this conformity is not an education to produce self-reliant thinkers and doers, but to produce neurotic middle-class workers striving to make home payments. Read notes that when children are exposed to abstract design and paintings, they will develop an abstract style. He writes, "it has not been proved that the normal child has an irresistible desire to make naturalistic representations of objects" (125). The Origins of Art In Arnold Hauser's book _The Social History of Art_, he explains his theory of why the transcendental or naturalistic state was favored over the abstract expression. He believes the domination of realism originated during the Paleolithic age when people were hunters and gathers, eating hand to mouth. Because hunting was so important to the survival of the group, it required an acute awareness of the natural world: all five senses of the hunter had to be directed outward into the objective realm. George Bataille writes, in _Prehistoric Painting, Lascaux or the Birth of Art_, that the two capital events in history have been the making of tools, from which work was born, and the invention of art, in which play began to delight our minds with wonder. Wonder is the source of philosophy which attempts to comprehend the intrinsically esoteric secret mysteries of life. In the world of work the homo faber man was not yet human. He became a homo sapien when he began to practice art, not only for a utilitarian activity, but as a protest to the existing world. Here began the rivalry between the world of work and the realm of sexuality and death--the world of art and the goddess tradition. Hauser asserts that the Paleolithic cave paintings represented the monistic concrete worldview of the empirical reality of the world of work, not the abstract designs which appeared during the Neolithic Age when animism began to appear. The animist world view saw the world divided into a duality between the natural world and the spiritual world. No longer was the artist an imitator of nature, but its antagonist, opposing the appearance of things with his own homogeneous pattern. With this shift of perspective came the change in our economic relationship with the ecology as a result of the agricultural revolution. We were no longer totally at the mercy of nature since we had learned to produce our own food. Art, then, no longer had to be a naturalistic representation of reality. It became a sign of an idea or vision. This changed art into a pictographical sign language. Primitive and Modern Artists According to Otto Rank primitive artists did not have a sense of individual fame and personal immortality that modern artists strive to achieve, but their art sought to create a collective immortality. The art work was a picture of the collective soul. The collective soul was the aim of art, in "the continuation of the individual existence in the species" (Rank 1968, 14). The soul needed to be represented by an abstract idea. Art, therefore, was spiritual, not concrete and practical. Art historian, Lucy Lippard writes in _Overlay,_ "Art in fact was the concertizing vehicle that permitted the abstract ideal of religion to be communicated and thereby survive" (10). Neolithic artists were concerned with the presentation of ideas and less concerned with the imitation of nature. Lippard states that primitive art and modern art are ideologically opposed: primitive, or primal, art is integrated with daily life while modern art is set totally outside daily life. In the primitive world, both art and religion were once inseparable aspects of collective life. Lippard writes, "Conflicts between nature and culture, between historical awareness and supposed universality of art, clearly did not exist in prehistory" (5). In certain historical periods non-figurative art has prevailed: the Neolithic Age, as well as the Celtic and Arabic civilizations. Read says that "such periods prove that a non-representational tradition can be "natural" or "normal" at all stages of individual development" (125). In _Modern Art and the Modern Mind_, J.P. Hodin states that the problem between abstract art and figurative art lies in the philosophic difference between Plato and Aristotle: Plato believed reality could be found in the world of ideas, but Aristotle believed reality was experience through the senses which are part of an indivisible whole. Abstract art represents the ideas of Plato and figurative drawing represents the thinking of Aristotle. In Aristotle's philosophy of art the elements of beauty took different forms: taxis, summetria, and horismonon, which are prevalent in mathematics. Taxis means order; symmetria means measured together; and horismenon means restriction. These rationalistic modes of order and beauty have prevailed in Western civilization throughout the ages. Skolimowski writes, "the architecture inspired by the mechanistic logos has demonstrably failed us" (90). Modern painters also may have achieved a level of abstraction somewhat akin to Neolithic painter. Gottfried Richter in _Art and Human Consciousness_, has written that "modern art proves that the world of the senses is only foreground and that the spiritual world is the real, essential one" (250). Modern artists saw nature as a manifestation of the self; Jackson Pollock even declared "I am Nature" (McShine 1976, 125). Arshile Gorky, who also painted to express the nature within himself, agrees, Beloved, abstraction is therefore the probing vehicle, the progressive thrust toward higher civilization, toward higher evaluation of the finite by tearing the finite apart, exploding it so as to thereby enter limitless areas. Mere realistic art is therefore finite and limits man only to the perception of his physical eyes, namely that which is tangible. Abstract art enables the artist to perceive beyond the tangible, to extract the infinite out of the finite. It is the emancipator of the mind. It is an exploration into unknown areas (McShine 1976, 127). Modern artists felt estranged from society since they had no integral social role in daily affairs. In _Abstract Expressionist Painting In America_, William Sietz writes of the modern artist that, "society connotes to him not a social organism of which he is a part, but a huge middle-class world of property, manufacturing, buying and selling--a society to which he is alien" (139). The painter Robert Motherwell felt the artist was a spiritual creature trapped in a property-loving world. Shortly before his death, Vincent van Gogh said that the great steps in the future of art would be taken collectively, for no one would be able to bear the burden alone (Russell 1981, 104). What is this collective burden? Isn't it to create a new world? Modern and post-modern artists seem to yearn for a position in society which directs culture, rather than being received into the market place. The modern painter rebelled from the scientific experiences of the senses and returned to the archaic out of the inner necessity of creating a new civilization. It was hoped that this civilization would foster a new relationship between the collective and the individual, in other words, between the social myth and the artist. The modern artist was in conflict with the collective myth, but unlike the primitive artist who perpetuated the collective myth, she or he aspired to achieve individual immortality through creating a new collective myth, a new dreambody. Unfortunately, the modern period did not experience the total revolution of a new way of collective living, even though it did provide us with a new way of visualizing the world. This new way of seeing did not fully revolutionize art education. Modernism failed to provide us with a political philosophy of art which could link our imaginations together. Plato is one of the few philosophers who realized that art and society are inseparable concepts. Government is not a science, but an art having the power to fuse the divided world. For there to be an effective revolutionary movement, a visual plan of action, evolving from the arts, must be implemented at the pre-school level and be allowed to continue to develop throughout life. Education must change its perspective of home by presenting images of futuristic high-tech ecological cities, or arcologies, in various bioregions on our home planet of Spaceship Earth. In this plan, both the practical skills of realism and the spiritual qualities of abstract art will be needed to deconstruct the present system and visualize the reconstruction of the world. We can no longer afford for these two viewpoints to be antagonistic towards one other. The real images of our archetypal home are uniquely different for each individual, for it is inside the mind where the self resides. Liberation from the naturalistic way of self-expression for those people who are not innately inclined to it is required so that they can reconnect with the mythic universal language, while providing a new visual model of collective behavior from a concrete architectural plan. This will offer us the foundation for a new artistic and educational philosophy. Becker writes, "We need a unified world picture, founded on a living myth and vital belief; and we need in addition knowledge that is personally liberating, that makes our action less automatic and more free within the society that follows that belief" (128). He believes human freedom comes about in a community when it nourishes the highest development of both the individual and the community. In this community, unlimited knowledge is the goal as the mysteries of life guide the communal action. The community's concern will be the best way to free the energies of all people, and the communal meaning will be the "celebration of the broadest and deepest meanings of the universe" (219). From this new place in the universe, the value of the human soul will be rediscovered and the divine self will be found as the illusion of the commercial society fades into history. Modern science has not been able to explain the mystery of life, nor answer essential questions about the nature of the cosmos and the origins and meaning of human life. Nor has it been able to discover the "mechanism of the imagination." Yet these mysteries reveal themselves through the symbolic nature of the intuitive arts. A symbolic order is necessary for us to know our individual place in the organic-cosmic universe. Herbert Read observes, "science has in no means replaced the symbolic functions of art, which are still necessary to overcome the resistance of the brutish world" (Read 1967, 22). Albert Einstein realized that science did not have the knowledge needed to solve the worlds critical problems. He believed that the problem of the survival of our race would be found within the dimension of the arts and theology. Jean Houston writes, "Myths and archetypes communicate from the poetic level of mind and thought, allowing Nature to speak to the imagining soul rather than just presenting us with scientific laws and probabilities" (20). She sees a new world myth arising from Gaia. From this new myth, we can begin to build the architecture of the Imagination, so that the temples of our legacy are not the nuclear power plants, toxic waste sites, shopping malls, and suburban sprawl of the Modernist Era: clearly, these must be replaced by the visionary architecture of ecocities. By means of the suppressive visual formula of home, children first become trained to conform to the brutish world ruled by modern science, and it will be through a liberated artistic expression of a universal order where we will collectively find salvation. Our brutish culture divides the society into pluralistic subcultures. Read explains, "The culture of an artist or a philosopher is distinct from that of a mine worker or field labourer; the culture of a poet will be somewhat different from that of a politician; but in a healthy society these are all parts of the same culture" (Read 1967, 23). Instead of each individual pursuing her or his own dream house and personal pleasures, in a new cultural myth, people will begin to share meaning, communal goods, natural resources, and social justice, so that everyone will have the means to pursue human happiness for the betterment of humanity. In his book _The Redemption of the Robot_, Herbert Read writes, the "imagination seeks and finds archetypal forms. Civilization is the search for these forms; civilizations decline when they relinquish the creation of form" (252). The first concern of politicians and dictators has always been to control and manipulate images so that they serve the interest of the ruling class. Parents and teachers must stop being the unwitting, yet sinister administrators of the social dogma and archetypes, which are destroying the ecology, by perpetuating the false image of the socio-economic structure of the ruling class: the private house. It is imperative that the censorship of the poetic vision be stopped. As the houses of history collapse, the "blueprint of the archaic" may once again come forth to give us an eternal beginning, which "calls for a totally different design and points of stress." Educators must begin to enact this great paradigm shift of understanding and communal living by revolutionizing the way we perceive and draw the home. With the collapse of the inner house of the soul, the outer walls of the built environment will soon lose their support and the square house will collapse (Arguelles 1975). To be locked into the square house, is a prison cell for the mind. One of the basic messages of Buckminster Fuller's teachings is that the square is an unsound form on which to structure civilization. The triangle, which is also integral to the circle, is the basis of universal order. North Americans can no longer delude themselves that land ownership is the way to insure a just democracy, for it is clearly not. The pluralistic ideology that has emerged from the democratic society is unable to create the new social myth which we need in order to evolve and save the species. Our future rests in the new social vision. The social mission of education is to offer an alternative vision to students. The Collective Wisdom Advocates for the homeless building their own houses, as opposed to their living in makeshift shanty towns on the edge of megacities, or government planners building anonymous mass housing for them, need to accept the new communal archetype in architecture. Advocates for a people's architecture must begin to realize that we can no longer live with Plato's belief that every man should build a house before he dies, that somehow it is one's divine right to build one's own home. No longer can we act as if it is environmentally and socially desirable to house one's own biological family. As I have shown in previous chapters, the notion of private ownership of land and the acquisitive instincts are part of the dysfunctional matriarchy-patriarchy relationship and are environmentally unsustainable. The myth of building one's own home has lead to a mediocre and unhealthy environment which lacks any artistic merit. Skolimowski writes, In our lowbrow culture, which is so often proletarian in the worst sense, the architect must assert his [sic] role as a patrician, must lead instead of bowing to acquisitive and materialist preferences. Only when people transcend their obsession with material acquisitiveness--which is one of the chief causes of environmental destruction and of our inner emptiness-- will it be time for the architect to relinquish his [sic] role as the designer of a complete environment (101). Advocates for a people's architecture say shelter- making is a basic human drive. Let's hope it is so, since shelter-making is what we desperately need in order to build magnanimous ecocities. This new orientation will require a massive effort on the part of everyone. For ecocities to become reality, all members of the world community must contribute to their spiritual and material construction in a variety of ways, re-linking people with nature's source. The same is true on another forefront of human habitat, the biosphere. The biospheric technology (e.g., the Biosphere II experiment) merges together ecology and technology, the organic and the mechanical. The enclosed pod of Biosphere II, is clearly an opportunity to finally fuse together the two basic architectural archetypes in order to radically change power and economic relationships. However, there is discussion about using this technology for individual housing units. In an article entitled "Biosphere 2 at One" Kevin Kelly writes, A personal biosphere is only a couple of jumps away from a long American tradition of self-sufficient homesteads...A personal household biosphere is the pinnacle of self-sufficiency. You drink your own recycled pee, breathe your own recycled farts, eat your own recycled shit. Not only do you make your own granola, you make your own atmosphere! (104) Biospheric technology used in this fashion would only further nuclear family isolation, making the home into a high-tech cocoon. Of course, the poor who could not afford the new kind of shelter will be left without the protection of the clean environment in the life underneath the dome. In this model, biospheres will be built to make a profit, and so the capitalist system uses another technology to serve the greed and self- interest of the few in clean, environmentally safe ways. Using biospheres for individual housing units is absolutely unethical as well as impractical. Using biospheres as nuclear family units will only perpetuate the domination model of the dysfunctional matriarchy-patriarchy relationship. The Greeks believed the idion or individual domain was the province of idiocy. The evolutionary path we must follow is one which uses the technology to build shelter which is based on justice and equality for all. We have the architectural and technologic know-how to build ecocities, and it is our moral duty to do so, to end poverty forever on this planet! Future civilization lies in visualizing, and eventually creating new urban environments of biospheric arcologies. It is our adult responsibility to prepare children for this new way of living. It is time to abandon our old concept of housing, which has divided the world into master space and slave space, and move towards a planet of arcologies interconnected through telecommunications. Arcologies will provide us with the space to build community again, so that women and men will have places in which to "circulate, meet, and enter into union with one another" (Canto 1986, 344). Nature's aim of bringing about an image of reproductive primal unity can then transform the world. Gyorgy Kepes writes in _Structure in Art and in Science_, "To reach what we all hope for, to become worthy of an environment worth living in, we must do what we can to bring our outer and our inner worlds together--renew the ancient marriage of art and science, art and nature" (vii). In Greek, ecology literally means home, and by building arcologies, planet earth will become the temple of harmony and balance between psyche and techne. Summary In this chapter we have seen how the Jeffersonian American Dream is based on a concept of land ownership which was brought over by European colonists. The lust for private ownership of land destroyed the Native American way of life that for eons had lived in balance with the natural forces. Throughout the world, children learn to conform to the American Dream house as they adopt the traditional patterns of drawing behavior based on Greek perspective. This destroys their subjective, inner voices, as well as the external world of the global ecology. Under this worldview, children lose the joy of drawing and love for art as they begin to conform to the rigid rules of naturalism. Modern artists sought to liberate humanity from this three-dimensional, scientific perspective by developing an inner voice through abstract art. However, Modernism did not become a powerful revolutionary force which could change the way children perceive home. What is urgently needed now is a new image of home which respects the interconnectness of all things.