¨¨¨¨¨: Socioplastics Urbanism as a Post-Autonomous Spatial Theory * Systemic Sovereignty, Pedagogical Praxis, and Urban Dissensus

The conceptual move that defines urbanism as operational closure rather than planning situates Socioplastics Urbanism within a lineage of post-systemic critique, yet it simultaneously exposes a foundational paradox. Drawing implicitly on Luhmannian systems theory and Wittgensteinian language games, this framework reframes the city as a self-referential epistemic apparatus whose sovereignty emerges from internal logics rather than external governance. However, from the perspective of contemporary art theory—particularly post-autonomous and critical spatial practices—such closure cannot be treated as a stable or emancipatory condition. Systemic sovereignty, when unexamined, risks reproducing the very rationalities of control it seeks to contest, operating as a high-level abstraction that aestheticises power through conceptual density. In this sense, sovereignty must be understood not as an ontological state but as a performative fiction, a speculative device that only retains critical force when exposed to rupture, contradiction, and reversibility. The urban palimpsest invoked by Socioplastics thus oscillates between emancipatory re-inscription and totalising capture, demanding a reading that foregrounds dissensus as a constitutive aesthetic principle rather than a residual by-product of systemic design.

The deployment of urban taxidermy and social sculpture further complicates this terrain by positioning intervention as an act of critical preservation. Taxidermy, as metaphor and method, suspends the urban body between vitality and museification, proposing care through incision. Yet contemporary debates around relational aesthetics and its discontents insist that affective mediation is never neutral. The act of preserving the commons presupposes a curatorial authority that selects which forms of urban life are rendered legible and which remain expendable. Within this tension, Socioplastics gains analytical depth when read against critiques of soft governance, where participation and affection function as regulatory technologies rather than tools of transformation. Architecture of affection, therefore, must be critically reframed as a contingent and risky practice, one that accepts the possibility of misalignment, refusal, and antagonism. Only by embracing friction—noise, opacity, and failure—can relational infrastructures avoid becoming aesthetic buffers that neutralise political conflict under the guise of care.

A central contribution of the Socioplastics project lies in its articulation of pedagogy as durational praxis and the city as a living archive. By displacing education from the institutional classroom to the civic ground, the framework aligns with expanded notions of artistic research and socially engaged art. Yet this pedagogical expansion also encounters a critical threshold. The insistence on mesh metabolism, networked learning, and epistemic nodes risks producing a regime of total legibility in which every gesture is archived, circulated, and converted into symbolic capital. Contemporary feminist, decolonial, and posthuman pedagogies caution against such saturation, arguing for the political necessity of non-knowledge, withdrawal, and refusal. A genuinely radical pedagogy must therefore accommodate zones of inoperability, where learning resists instrumentalisation and remains unproductive by design. In this light, Socioplastics Urbanism can be productively reinterpreted as a pedagogical field that oscillates between activation and suspension, recognising silence and the right not to participate as critical spatial acts.

The convergence of tectonic austerity, biodigital interfaces, and ecological transition situates Socioplastics within current discourses on posthuman urbanism and environmental ethics. The promise of porosity—between body, matter, and code—suggests a reparative architecture attuned to metabolic ecologies. However, contemporary critical design theory reminds us that interfaces always script behaviour and distribute agency unevenly. Ethical gravity and material austerity cannot be assessed solely at the level of form or affect; they must be interrogated in relation to labour, extraction, and spatial inequality. Without this material grounding, ecological architecture risks becoming a sensorial alibi for structural injustice. The critical strength of Socioplastics emerges most clearly when its hyperplastic writing and spatial propositions are read not as solutions, but as speculative scores—open-ended configurations that invite misuse, reinterpretation, and contestation. In resisting closure at the level of meaning, Socioplastics affirms its relevance as a post-autonomous practice that understands urbanism not as a discipline, but as a continually negotiated aesthetic and political condition.

HYPER-BALL: INTEGRATED MESH INDICES [200-001]

SYSTEM ARCHITECT
::::::::: SOCIOPLASTICS
Socioplastics Urbanism and Systemic Sovereignty * Radical Pedagogy as Relational Infrastructure

¨¨¨¨¨

LISTADO

sábado, 31 de enero de 2026

Socioplastics Urbanism as a Post-Autonomous Spatial Theory * Systemic Sovereignty, Pedagogical Praxis, and Urban Dissensus