Socioplastics Urbanism and Systemic Sovereignty * Radical Pedagogy as Relational Infrastructure

The proposition that urbanism is not planning but an operational closure enacted upon territory marks a decisive rupture with technocratic models of spatial governance; yet it also risks reinscribing the very systemic totalities it seeks to dismantle. Framed through systemic urbanism, the socioplastic thesis mobilises sovereignty as a critical device, transforming territory into a semi-autonomous epistemic field governed by internal logics rather than external regulation. However, from the standpoint of contemporary art theory—particularly post-autonomous practices—the notion of sovereignty demands further destabilisation. Sovereignty here functions less as emancipation than as a performative fiction that stages control under the guise of critique. While the invocation of Luhmannian closure and Wittgensteinian logic foregrounds linguistic and systemic self-referentiality, it simultaneously narrows the field of indeterminacy where political agency might emerge. The urban palimpsest becomes metabolised, but also domesticated: an artefact of high-resolution critique that risks aestheticising domination. 

Ritual Urbanism Beyond the Object

The corpus gathered across the site constitutes a sustained theoretical and artistic inquiry into what might be termed a socioplastic paradigm of space. Rather than conceiving architecture as a stable object or urbanism as a regulatory system, the work reframes both as relational, affective, and processual practices. Across installations, texts, performative devices, and spatial interventions, architecture is displaced from the regime of representation toward one of activation. The city appears not as a finished artefact but as a mutable ecology of gestures, rituals, and minor infrastructures.