RACISM, RADICALISM, AND RADISHES: A BRIEF HISTORY OF EVERYTHING

 When it comes to Modernism, people love to hate it - perhaps rightfully so. The entire goal of the movement was a form of universalization and mass production, experimentation and questioning. Particularly in the article about Scandinavian Suburbs where modernism made all sorts of claims and essentially fed segregation and racism...but did it? The article poses the questions "Prevailing ideas about appropriate cures for the disease of modernist urbanism have taken the form of biopsies, amputations, or why not just euthanasia?" (659) However, I have a very hard time believing the modernist designers sat down and designed neighborhoods, houses, and environments with the intent of causing a separation in society. It is always very easy to look at failed experiments and blame the designer for the side effects. I believe the modernists should be given a bit of forgiveness and leeway in their work. Yes, it had horrible consequences, but the intentions were pure. How can we expect anyone to experiment and propose ideas if we persecute people for getting it wrong sometimes? The author even writes "...buildings and landscapes become scapegoats for less socially acceptable feelings and concerns" (660). It is time to forgive the modernist and say "you tried something new, it didn't work. That's okay, try again"

When it comes to Leberecht Migge, I am conflicted. 

The proposals and ideas he proposes work under the assumption of universality - that everyone will think, act, and work in a similar manner and thereby the solutions should be similar. That is the great flaw with both Migge's work and Ebenezer Howard's - the assumption that everyone will get on board and work together. Not to sound too Communist here, but as a means to abolish the nuclear family aspect, there should be a total collaboration with the community, not just self-reliance on the household. Essentially, every household in a community would be responsible for one or two particular food products and the community would come together and equally trade and share the products - regardless if one household was a single person or a nuclear family. Every household produces a product and everyone shares with their neighbors. Anyone who does not produce their established product does not receive any from the other community members. A reliance on the greater scale. Hence, THAT becomes "the nexus between individual and collective life" (video quote). 

I do see possible issues with the cities that remain as they rely on the produce from outside sources for survival. If everyone leaves the city, the city dies. If most leave the city and start self-supporting, no product goes into the city, so everything becomes scarce and unobtainable, the city dies. If everyone leaves the city for garden cities or Siedlung cities, we get suburban sprawl. I was shocked at how much the diagrams and drawings Migge produced resembled suburban neighborhoods, and I question would that be a bad thing if they were self-sustaining? Probably so, there's many other issues to contend with. 

I do propose, however, that same self-sustainability and reliance and even similar housing structures within correctional facilities and prisons. As they drain much of the taxpaying dollars with the idea of "punishment" reigning over "correction," why not teach the people who need to learn how to live in society the power and importance of reliance on your neighbor and community while also focusing on reformation. The seeds cost very little at the co-op.