Radical Infrastructure? A New Realism and Materialism in Philosophy and Architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most notable developments in architectural thought over the past decade has been the ascendance of infrastructural concerns within the theory and practice of the discipline. Contemporary architecture has increasingly shifted its attention from the design of individual signature buildings towards the organization of complex, overlapping and often transnational systems of energy, transportation, and natural ecology. Infrastructure-oriented architecture takes shape in realized projects such as the Lifescape landscape urbanism plan that is currently transforming Staten Island’s Fresh Kills landfill, once the largest garbage dump in the world, into a public park and wetlands conservation area. It also manifests itself in speculative proposals and competitions, including the ecological visions of the Toronto based firm Lateral Office and the WPA 2.0 design initiative organized by UCLA’s cityLAB – a contemporary reimagining of the Works Projects Administration, the depression-era American public infrastructure investment program. While Keller Easterling argues that the current architectural focus on infrastructure is inspired by “radical changes to the globalized world,” the movement has, somewhat surprisingly, demonstrated a marked aversion toward an engagement with critical theory and radical philosophy. Responding to an oversaturation of deconstructive and Deleuzean discourse within the field, the proponents of infrastructural architecture call for a form of design pragmatism that reprioritizes the concrete or physical practices of the discipline, eschewing abstract theorization. Yet this missed encounter between philosophy and architecture is an especially curious one given the recent proliferation of philosophical writing that seeks to address quite specifically questions of realism, materiality and natural forces that would seemingly pertain directly to issues of infrastructure. Whether grouped under the heading “speculative realism” or “new materialism,” these varied currents of thought are linked by a shared interest in moving away from textual or cultural analysis in order to conceptualize the realm of non-human objects and systems. This essay will attempt to outline a selection of these recent discussions, focusing primarily on the object-oriented philosophy of Graham Harman and Timothy Morton and the process-oriented thought of Jane Bennett. Its objective is to ask a number of related questions: firstly, what does it mean to speak of such a thing as a philosophy of infrastructure? What insights might these recent philosophical forays into questions of realism and materialism offer architects attempting to design tangible interactions between human and non-human systems? And finally, would this philosophy of infrastructure possess a radical or critical politics to match its radically non-anthropocentric ontology
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".