Not a member of the AIA so wondering what members would consider it. The context for this question is elaborated below (if you have the time, appreciated).
I arrived at Capitalism and Christianity, American Style by William Connolly after wondering if there was an economic theory that could translate Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity... I then landed at Max Weber. From what I understand Weber's "The Protestant Ethic & The Spirit of Capitalism" was really about the state of US early 1900's (influences from Calvanism to Ben Franklin, etc) and the basis of for what is today's modern global capitalism - USA style - essentially. Based on text below from his essay “The Protestant Sects and the spirit of Capitalism”, you could easily find the inherent ideological justification for the the 1% class and the trickle down economy. In Feurbach's piece I felt certain sections basically said - a socialist was anti-christian...for some other time...
When I think of asceticism I sure as hell think of Architecture from school to profession.
I am also reminded of the AIA's inability to set fees like a guild, although it seems any architecture organization would best serve society as a guild? AIA AntiTrust guidelines
---------------quoted text -----------------------------------
The ascetic conventicles and sects formed one of the most important historical foundations of modern ‘individualism.’ Their radical break away from patriarchal and authoritarian bondage, as well as their way of interpreting the statement that one owes more obedience to God than to man, was especially important.
Finally, in order to understand the nature of these ethical effects, a comparative remark is required. In the guilds of the Middle Ages there was frequently a control of the general ethical standard of the members similar to that exercised by the discipline of the ascetic Protestant sects. But the unavoidable difference in the effects of guild and of sect upon the economic conduct of the individual is obvious.
The guild united members of the same occupation; hence it united competitors. It did so in order to limit competition as well as the rational striving for profit which operated through competition. The guild trained for ‘civic’ virtues and, in a certain sense, was the bearer of bourgeois ‘rationalism’ (a point which will not be discussed here in detail). The guild accomplished this through a ‘subsistence policy’ and through traditionalism. In so far as guild regulation of the economy gained effectiveness, its practical results are well known.
The sects, on the other hand, united men through the selection and the breeding of ethically qualified fellow believers. Their membership was not based upon apprenticeship or upon the family relations of technically qualified members of an occupation. The sect controlled and regulated the members’ conduct exclusively in the sense of formal righteousness and methodical asceticism. It was devoid of the purpose of a material subsistence policy which handicapped an expansion of the rational striving for profit. The capitalist success of a guild member undermined the spirit of the guild – as happened in England and France – and hence capitalist success was shunned. But the capitalist success of a sect brother, if legally attained, was proof of his worth and of his state of grace, and it raised the prestige and the propaganda chances of the sect. Such success was therefore welcome, as the several statements quoted above show. The organization of free labor in guilds, in the Occidental medieval form, has certainly – very much against their intention – not only been a handicap but also a precondition for the capitalist organization of labor, which was, perhaps, indispensable. But the guild, of course, could not give birth to the modern bourgeois capitalist ethos. Only the methodical way of life of the ascetic sects could legitimate and put a halo around the economic ‘individualist’ impulses of the modern capitalist ethos.
“The Protestant Sects and the spirit of Capitalism”
"But the capitalist success of a sect brother, if legally attained, was proof of his worth and of his state of grace, and it raised the prestige and the propaganda chances of the sect."
It is a trade association like the american beef council, not all beef ranchers are in it but they benefit from the promotional activities "Beef its what's for Dinner" was a very effective promotional campaign. The AIA has attempted to promote using architects for the design of buildings but it is a little strange in that this is not legally an option for most jurisdictions.
There is also a competing trade group the ALA in the US. but they lobby for state and local regulations that favor the profession more than they are a general PR operation.
Some might think they are Evil and or snobby, i have no opinion on this but my experience has been mostly positive even though I am not a member.
I don't consider the AIA to be particularly comparable to either guilds or sects. To me, its currently a wannabe political organization that has become pretty ineffective through bloat and lack of a clear mission.
"wannabe political organization" - the money and ideology must support some type of organization? I guess political is neither sect nor guild?
'politics' I would argue though do effect, whether in a good way or not, the real economy through ideologies. the operation of the group of political person would then either be a guild or sect?
Olaf, the AIA is certainly not a guild - but it is only a sect insofar as it is part and parcel with the modern American neo-liberal/capitalist/corporatist/conservative sect of subservience to the pursuit of wealth at all costs.
The aia is a trade association. Nothing wrong with it imo, but also nothing that magical about it. Just a bunch of dudes pating each other on the back over free lunch mostly.
would you consider the AIA a 'guild' or a 'sect'?
would you consider the AIA a 'guild' or a 'sect'?
Not a member of the AIA so wondering what members would consider it. The context for this question is elaborated below (if you have the time, appreciated).
-----------------Context-------------------------------------------------
I arrived at Capitalism and Christianity, American Style by William Connolly after wondering if there was an economic theory that could translate Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity... I then landed at Max Weber. From what I understand Weber's "The Protestant Ethic & The Spirit of Capitalism" was really about the state of US early 1900's (influences from Calvanism to Ben Franklin, etc) and the basis of for what is today's modern global capitalism - USA style - essentially. Based on text below from his essay “The Protestant Sects and the spirit of Capitalism”, you could easily find the inherent ideological justification for the the 1% class and the trickle down economy. In Feurbach's piece I felt certain sections basically said - a socialist was anti-christian...for some other time...
When I think of asceticism I sure as hell think of Architecture from school to profession.
I am also reminded of the AIA's inability to set fees like a guild, although it seems any architecture organization would best serve society as a guild? AIA AntiTrust guidelines
---------------quoted text -----------------------------------
The ascetic conventicles and sects formed one of the most important historical foundations of modern ‘individualism.’ Their radical break away from patriarchal and authoritarian bondage, as well as their way of interpreting the statement that one owes more obedience to God than to man, was especially important.
Finally, in order to understand the nature of these ethical effects, a comparative remark is required. In the guilds of the Middle Ages there was frequently a control of the general ethical standard of the members similar to that exercised by the discipline of the ascetic Protestant sects. But the unavoidable difference in the effects of guild and of sect upon the economic conduct of the individual is obvious.
The guild united members of the same occupation; hence it united competitors. It did so in order to limit competition as well as the rational striving for profit which operated through competition. The guild trained for ‘civic’ virtues and, in a certain sense, was the bearer of bourgeois ‘rationalism’ (a point which will not be discussed here in detail). The guild accomplished this through a ‘subsistence policy’ and through traditionalism. In so far as guild regulation of the economy gained effectiveness, its practical results are well known.
The sects, on the other hand, united men through the selection and the breeding of ethically qualified fellow believers. Their membership was not based upon apprenticeship or upon the family relations of technically qualified members of an occupation. The sect controlled and regulated the members’ conduct exclusively in the sense of formal righteousness and methodical asceticism. It was devoid of the purpose of a material subsistence policy which handicapped an expansion of the rational striving for profit. The capitalist success of a guild member undermined the spirit of the guild – as happened in England and France – and hence capitalist success was shunned. But the capitalist success of a sect brother, if legally attained, was proof of his worth and of his state of grace, and it raised the prestige and the propaganda chances of the sect. Such success was therefore welcome, as the several statements quoted above show. The organization of free labor in guilds, in the Occidental medieval form, has certainly – very much against their intention – not only been a handicap but also a precondition for the capitalist organization of labor, which was, perhaps, indispensable. But the guild, of course, could not give birth to the modern bourgeois capitalist ethos. Only the methodical way of life of the ascetic sects could legitimate and put a halo around the economic ‘individualist’ impulses of the modern capitalist ethos.
“The Protestant Sects and the spirit of Capitalism”
"But the capitalist success of a sect brother, if legally attained, was proof of his worth and of his state of grace, and it raised the prestige and the propaganda chances of the sect."
patrik schumacher, in one sentence
It is a trade association like the american beef council, not all beef ranchers are in it but they benefit from the promotional activities "Beef its what's for Dinner" was a very effective promotional campaign. The AIA has attempted to promote using architects for the design of buildings but it is a little strange in that this is not legally an option for most jurisdictions.
There is also a competing trade group the ALA in the US. but they lobby for state and local regulations that favor the profession more than they are a general PR operation.
Some might think they are Evil and or snobby, i have no opinion on this but my experience has been mostly positive even though I am not a member.
Over and OUT
Peter N
I don't consider the AIA to be particularly comparable to either guilds or sects. To me, its currently a wannabe political organization that has become pretty ineffective through bloat and lack of a clear mission.
"wannabe political organization" - the money and ideology must support some type of organization? I guess political is neither sect nor guild?
'politics' I would argue though do effect, whether in a good way or not, the real economy through ideologies. the operation of the group of political person would then either be a guild or sect?
Olaf, the AIA is certainly not a guild - but it is only a sect insofar as it is part and parcel with the modern American neo-liberal/capitalist/corporatist/conservative sect of subservience to the pursuit of wealth at all costs.
arch, thanks for the clarification, so what is it "predominately" if not guild or sect.
Maybe I need to get my socialogical terms straight.
I think it is hard to determine... this isn't exactly a new text so terminology has evolved quite a bit as have social customs.
Is a union a guild?
Is a sect a cult?
If a sect is a small but easily identifiable portion of the populace that is bonded in some emotional way...
then what is it when a vast portion of the populace holds the same fuzzy ideas about what is "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad"?
That's just the zeitgeist man, and it's looking pretty sheizer right now.
The AIA is a lobbying and professional organization. Does what it says on the box. It just exists inside a much larger and harder to grasp problem.
The aia is a trade association. Nothing wrong with it imo, but also nothing that magical about it. Just a bunch of dudes pating each other on the back over free lunch mostly.
Luken in tha dikshunairee.
The AIA is the architects lobby, thus a political organization. Based on their contributions to the Clinton Crime Family, a left-leaning one as well.
wristband
The AIA was supposed to be a guild, but it has failed at that task and devolved into a boosterism org, like Rotary for Architecture.
Gwharton - wasn't that due to the anti-trust lawsuits?
neither AIA is a cult
the antitrust consent decree was part of AIA's failure, yes.
(Was supposedx to be a picture of a cat looking in the dictionary to accompany that above.) Anyways, I'm not a member but I call it a club.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.