Talking about something that isn’t there? Questioning the Responsibility in Contemporary Architecture

“Acting responsibly means nothing more than taking power relations into
account.” (Konrad Paul Liessmann) Architects, in their socially relevant
role, rightfully feel a sense of responsibility, and it extends far beyond the
mere building itself; it includes idealistic claims, such as how and where
we work, how people are educated and trained, how healing and health
are managed and maintained, how we interact with each other, and now
more than ever, how sustainable architecture itself is—whether social-
ly, economically, or ecologically. But do these things truly fall within their
realm of responsibility? And if so, why are architects not empowered to
ultimately make decisions on these matters, in their role as mediators
between different areas of expertise? How does this quasi-responsibility
shape our profession and work? And how can we make the quasi-respon-
sibility productive?
Perhaps the responsibility of architects is something that cannot
truly exist anymore, namely a responsibility for the indirect or direct con-
sequences of their work. It is much more about a quasi-responsibility,
curtailed by neoliberal dogmas and architecture itself as service work. In
an ideological environment in which the public sector is undermined, and
private competition with its arbitrary conditions is seen as the ultimate form
of truth, architects seem to have lost their established place. Is it time to
act irresponsibly in order to regain responsibility for one’s own work?