A recent architecture-school graduate, who has done
a lot of humanitarian-related design during and after school, thought that he
needed a real job. And yet almost all of the jobs available to someone with his
education were with architectural firms that depend on commissions from the top
5% of the U.S. population, who now control 63.5% of the wealth in the country
and whose widespread resistance to social programs prompted the very
humanitarian work he had done. What should he do?
The United States has
rarely had such economic inequality as it has now, making it the most unequal
country among the developed nations and even among many much-less wealthy
developing nations. With that rising inequality has a come a widening political
polarization in the U.S., with about half the country believing that the
wealthy need to pay more taxes in order to support much-needed social programs
and the other half, only a minority of whom are actually wealthy, seeing this
as theft of their hard-earned money. The polarization has little logic behind
it. Some of the strongest advocates for greater equality are themselves wealthy
and beneficiaries of the inequality, while many of the loudest opponents to
higher taxes come from the ranks of those who would benefit from the social programs
they despise.
Architects have become
caught in this political endgame. Because of the costliness of buildings,
architects have long depended upon commissions from wealthy individuals and
organizations as well as from governments and non-profit entities. And yet most
architects enter the profession in hopes of improving the quality of life not
just of their clients, but also of the myriad people who inhabit or experience
their buildings. The political polarization in the country has placed those two
realities at odds. Architects’ dependence upon the wealthy for work often means
that they must work for those who actively oppose the government’s efforts to
improve the quality of life of all of its citizens.
That conflict has become
particularly troublesome to young people who, unfettered by the ethical
compromises of their elders, see only unappealing options, as in the case of
this architectural graduate. He can either act on his ideals and live a life as
impoverished as those he seeks to help or make a larger wage and set aside his
principles to work for clients who have benefited from the inequality that has
contributed to the very problems he wants to address. Some architectural firms,
of course, work primarily for governments or non-profits or work in areas like
affordable housing and elderly housing, and so he has alternatives to firms
that cater mainly to the wealthy. But what about his aspiration to make
humanitarian work his career: how might he find a way to support himself doing
the work that not only he wants to do, but that millions – and globally,
billions – of people need him to do?
Ethics can help when we
face situations like this by redefining the terms of what we consider to be a
good life. Most ethical traditions recognize that wealth takes many forms and
that the personal satisfaction and social recognition that comes with
dedicating ourselves to a cause we believe in can more than compensate for the
meager monetary returns and material rewards that may result. The architect
graduate here, in other words, might be best served by continuing to do the
humanitarian work he has done, accepting the lifestyle that comes with it, and
counting himself fortunate to be among the relatively few people who allow
themselves the freedom to do what they love to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment