Radical Entanglements: Architectures, Societies, Environments, Politics. Eindhoven, 2022.

Michel Foucault’s use of English Philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s ‘Panopticon’ As an example of disciplinary architecture to control and transform individuals signifies the critical role architecture plays in defining power relations between institutions and citizens. Architecture is not the essence of power, but the use of space to control bodies reveals it as a tool power uses to operate. Foucault observed that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, and hospitals; institutions that play a mechanistic role in surveillance and discipline whilst also being spaces that every individual must traverse at some point in their lives. The built environment impresses upon people, consciously and unconsciously, moulding and shaping identities. The architect’s role as an actor for social change is to determine if those impressions shall continue to reinforce hierarchy and administrative control, or challenge how space is used to establish power relations. 

This paper will present a Foucauldian analysis of the role of architecture in defining power relations between institutions, individuals and citizens by examining the case example the Al Daayan Health District, designed by OMA and Buro Happold. This paper will argue that the difference between OMA and Buro Happold’s ‘hospital of the future’, Foucault’s hospital-prison and Bentham’s panopticon lies in who is empowered by the design. Citizen activated spaces are those that are designed for human wellbeing, enjoyment, and community empowerment. A citizen activated design is as powerful for social change as a panopticon is for social control. The focus of the built environment must be on the needs of the least privileged if it is to be a tool to enact social change and achieve social sustainability, equality and justice.