# data[].attributes.body
Hooks talks in her text “Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness“ about margins as a space of separation, oppression, exclusion and her individual experience of the margin as a young  African American woman and scholar growing up in a town marked by segregation. But she sees the margin not just as a negative space but also a space of resistance and “radical possibility“.

For Hooks language is an important part of the margin and an factor of segregation and inclusion.

She tries to find a language where she can life out opposition as well as radical perspective shaped by marginality.

I wonder what language different margins speak to each other when their reality might be fundamental different? is the margin one thing or a fragmented cluster of realities?

# data[].attributes.body
An important insight from Bell Hooks' text is the transformative power of marginality as a consciously chosen site of resistance. Hooks describes the margins of society not only as spaces of exclusion, but as ‘radical openness’ a position that enables dominant power structures to be questioned and alternative perspectives to be developed.

Marginality is not suffered passively, but actively, which can be used as a strategic standpoint: ‘It is not a marginality one wishes to lose, but rather of a site one stays in, clings to even, because it nourishes one's capacity to resist.’ This attitude contradicts the common idea that marginalised people must inevitably strive towards the centre. Instead, the margin becomes a place of self-assertion, where memory, language and collective experience serve as tools of liberation.

Hooks' emphasis on language as a “site of struggle” emphasises this: Choosing which voice, idiom or tradition to speak in becomes a political gesture. By using Black Southern English alongside academic language, she consciously breaks with the expectation to conform to the norms of the dominant culture.

Based on this realisation, spaces - whether linguistic, architectural or social - should be rethought, not as predetermined structures, but as dynamic fields that can be constantly renegotiated through resistance and remembrance. The question is not how marginalised people can reach the centre, but how the centre itself can be transformed through the perspectives of the margins.

# data[].attributes.body
The author of this essay invites us to look at what she refers to as "the margins" in a fresh way; to see power there, instead of weakness, actors rather than victims.

Different types of margins are to be found everywhere, and they'd constitute as many opportunities to develop counter-narratives, to challenge the established and rethink practices - starting with the making of space.

The ideas presented have the great advantage of giving back dignity to the people we all seem to want to help.

# data[].attributes.body
The thing that stuck most to me from the text is the radical openness that the author is talking about. I think in every discussion or political system the respect towards the opposition is the foundation to a functioning culture. It's about empathy and understanding where my opposition comes from and why it thinks the way it does. What is their cultural background, story and imprint? And in understanding ourselves we start realising where we come from and we start to realise where to other person comes from. That will lead to a fruitful coexistence.

# data[].attributes.body
Bell Hooks discusses marginality and oppression in a way that often presents clear-cut distinctions between "the colonized" and "the oppressor." While I see her point, I find that these dynamics are often much more nuanced, with individuals and groups occupying both roles depending on the context. For example, power structures shift based on factors like nationality, class, or political influence, making it difficult to define a singular oppressor-oppressed relationship. Given that so many people experience some form of marginalization, is it even possible to identify a shared struggle that unites such a diverse range of individuals?

# data[].attributes.body
Jeremy Waterfield

waterfield@arch.ethz.ch

The question as always for me is one of strategy. How radical does the margin need to be in order to draw the centre towards it. Reading bell hooks is always a reading of someone who has learned how to play within the structure of the university. To what extent is the marginality employed towards the centre as a marker of legitimacy. For me its a question of the multilayered aspects of the centre. Because towards the global the only thing that work is power and domination. But towards the edges of the centre there is an opportunity to draw away parts of centre. Related to urban design, how does the marginal architect act? How do you make things happen, like a minnow nibbling at the edges of the centre. How do you ratchet these projects all the way to the very middle of space.

# data[].attributes.body
The work questions the expression of ideas, that fight the colonialism in a language, that is originally colonial. How does the change of perspective influence the development of the language?

# data[].attributes.body
Where there is power, there is corruption. Where there is inclusion, there is exclusion. Despite the, for me, overly dominant Marxist tone when speaking in terms like class domination, revolutionary resistance, and the binary framing of every thought and group as oppressor and oppressed, Hooks touches on some of the deepest and probably eternally ongoing questions organized society faces.

The center of the body and its margin, in a way, always existed. It is a contrast that emerges as soon as a group of people establishes some common goals, common values, common narrative, common language, common story. The center is the court, the king’s palace, the national flag, the temple, the top – where things are aligned. And what does not align is excluded. From there, we can clearly see that it is not an open space and not a safe space. It is only safe for those who are aligned with the king.

On the opposite end, there is the space of oppression, of inversion, of invention, of radical openness. In Hooks' words: "This space of radical openness is a margin – a profound edge." It is the edge of the city, the outskirts of society, the carnival, the resistance, the other, that which is declared as not aligning with the king.

"From margin to center" - To move to the center in a way where you are not adapting yourself—the margin—to the power hegemony of the center, but adapting the center to change its aim, its way of judging, its way of dealing with the margin. It is about working towards re-aligning the corrupt center to not exclude unjustly the margin. To not unnecessarily marginalize that which is unjustly suffering and paying with pain for the comfort of the king.

“Decolonizing your mind” may seem almost esoteric, but the paradigm change, in a way, is something that moves slowly at the deepest levels and has to be discussed at the highest level. It’s about talking to the king, the head, the public, and making it aware and accountable for the suffering at the center—caused by the unity of the city, of law and order, of the rigid power structures and societal narratives.

“To be in the margin is to be part of the whole but outside the main body.”

Can the question of the margin be understood not as a binary opposition, but as a subsidiary question of love and justice?

Can we think of the margin in terms of re-alignment rather than inversion?

# data[].attributes.body
Hooks’ exploration of marginality as a space of resistance challenges us to reconsider how power operates within both language and spatial practices. If the margin is a site of creativity and counter-narratives, then it also serves as a space where alternative forms of knowledge emerge—ones that disrupt dominant structures and demand new ways of thinking. In this sense, architecture and urban planning are not just physical practices but also discursive ones, shaping how people move, belong, and resist. The question then arises: If spatial design can reinforce dominant hierarchies, how can it also be used to actively foster a culture of counter-narratives and alternative knowledge systems?

# data[].attributes.body
As an architect, I am continually faced with inquiries regarding how spaces either include or exclude people. bell hooks' concept of marginality as a space of radical openness provokes us to think differently about the role architecture plays in the distribution of power. Space is never benign; it reinforces prevailing social hierarchies. How might we approach design that values that which is pushed to the margins?hooks explains that rather than thinking of marginality as a problem, "we must instead think about marginality as a site of resistance and possibility." Architecturally, we tend to think of ways to integrate marginalised communities into existing hegemonic models of living. Instead of imposing solutions, we should be listening and collaborating to create spaces that affirm and celebrate rather than erase marginalised identities.Spaces exist through the act of inhabitation. Just as a barbie is only a barbie when played with, a space has meaning when it is lived in. Our job as architects is not just to create space but to create relationships between people and their environments. Rather than assimilating the margins into the center, what if we designed with multiplicity, co-existence, and the creative potentiality as a result of difference?

# data[].attributes.body
In Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness, bell hooks transforms the concept of marginality from a place of exclusion into a conscious space of resistance. For hooks, “being on the margin” is not only the result of social exclusion, but can also be a self-chosen position - a place of speaking, thinking and acting beyond hegemonic structures.

This perspective opens up a new view of the connection between space, power and identity. In architectural discourse, which often sees the center as a place of order and meaning, hooks calls for a radical rethink. For her, the margin becomes an active, open space in which alternative forms of life, knowledge production and communities can emerge.

This chosen marginality is not a retreat, but a conscious political decision. It means not assimilating, but creating new possibilities from a critical distance. Especially in times of increasing social division, hooks' concept offers an important impulse: to rethink spaces - including social spaces - by not only seeing their margins, but taking them seriously as places of change.

# data[].attributes.body
How can we empower marginality as an active force in urban design, using its spatial and social potential to reshape both marginalized and dominant spaces through participatory and adaptive approaches?

# data[].attributes.body
When Hooks talk about the marginality “of a site one stays in, clings to even, because it nourishes one’s capacity to resist”, I think of Switzerland and the West today, where the minorities are told over and over that their oppression is a thing of the past. This stance relies on the fact that in the law, discrimination is prohibited, and that on paper we are all equal, ignoring the fact that in practice it doesn’t work. One cannot resist if one thinks themselves free. It is easy to tell yourself that you are lucky to live here, and forget that we can do better. Could the common understanding of marginality evolve for people to maintain their awareness in societies that pretend to have moved past discrimination?

# data[].attributes.body
bell hooks’ essay "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness" challenges the dominant narrative that marginality is solely a position of lack. Instead, she argues that the margins can be a space of power, critique, and resistance.

Through this lens towards the end of her essay, hooks critiques the way privileged individuals and institutions discuss marginality without fully engaging with the lived experiences of the marginalized. Even radical scholars who claim to give space to “Other” voices often maintain power structures by controlling the discourse:

“Often this speech about the ‘Other’ is also a mask.”

This raises a relevant question about how academic spaces, including this course, approach the study of marginality. The lecture series seeks to amplify the voices of thinkers and writers who have lived as minorities, offering students access to perspectives from around the world. The use of video conference technologies connecting ETH students with these guests is certainly a step toward a more globally inclusive conversation. However, does the structure of these discussions truly foster radical openness, or does it subtly reinforce traditional hierarchies of power?

"No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story. And then I will tell it back to you in a new way. Tell it back to you in such a way that it has become mine, my own."

While these lectures provide exposure to diverse experiences, the discussions often remain, in my opinion, surface-level. The limited time –often as short as 5 minutes in groups– allocated for discussion, along with the often cursory responses from students, sometimes creates an atmosphere of detachment rather than deep critical engagement. It does also happen that conversations are framed and moderated by a teaching team from historically dominant backgrounds.

If hooks warns us that discussions about the “Other” can become a performance rather than a site of real engagement, are we witnessing something similar here? Furthermore, if marginality, as hooks argues, can be a site of knowledge and power, is this course truly creating a space for that power to emerge? Or is it simply granting brief, controlled visibility to the margins while leaving the center unchanged?

There may be no perfect way to integrate these voices within an academic structure that remains inherently hierarchical. If marginality is to be embraced as a site of transformation, how can academic institutions move beyond the performative inclusion of marginalized voices? Exposure alone is not enough– is there a way to create a space where the marginalized actively shape the discourse on their own terms?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text 'Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness', the author Bell Hooks describes the difference between marginality on the one hand as a place of pain, isolation and oppression, as created by the colonizers, and on the other hand as a self-chosen place of opposition and resistance. Resistance is above all about maintaining one's own values and view of the world, even if one leaves marginality to work, study or even live in the center, which is shaped by the colonist discourse that alienates the marginalized groups. In this way, the author establishes that one does not have to remain in the margins in order to remain resistant, but should not adapt to the colonizers, but instead maintain a critical view. She sees marginality as an opportunity to recognize alternative spatialities, because only through a distanced view of centrality can it be rethought.

As such an alternative space, can there be formed a new centrality in the margins, which would make the term 'margin' obsolete? How could such a new centrality be connected with already established centralities, while still maintaining its criticalness? How could they exist next to each other, without one form dictating to the other how it has to function?

# data[].attributes.body
The reading showed me once again how deeply colonial power relations are anchored in seemingly well-meant practices such as conservation. I was particularly concerned with the examination of marginalized spaces. The text rightly calls for these to be seen not as defective or incomplete, but as spaces full of meaning, history and resistance.

But therein lies the problem: even when marginalized voices are to be made visible, this often happens within existing structures, with institutional rules, cultural frameworks and Western ways of thinking. Is this really participation or simply a new form of control masked as inclusion?

If we immediately redesign, name or “make accessible” spaces on the margins, is there any room left at all for what originally grew there?

Perhaps it would be more radical and honest to simply do nothing in certain cases. Not to plan, not to preserve, not to interpret. Just to leave space.

# data[].attributes.body
I was struck by how Hooks looks at marginalized areas in a radical way, rather than a negative, reminiscent of the past, emphasizing painful emotions. Just like the recurring quote in the article, "Our struggle is a struggle of memory against forgetting", if cultural works (films, black literature, and critical theories) are about people using language as a weapon to fight against oppression. Then how do we, as architects or landscape designers, use marginal spaces to speak out? Space is power, design is always political and we need to be clear about "who it is for". The voices of marginalized groups should be prioritized, and work as the starting points of innovation of the margin areas.

This also makes me wonder: Are the mainstream aesthetics we’ve been taught to embrace and admire likewise dominated by those in power, causing us to overlook the subjectivity of marginalized communities?

# data[].attributes.body
bell hooks’ Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics offers an emotional, first-person perspective on navigating a colonized, dominated space as a Black woman. She explores the tension between marginality and centrality, adapting to different realms while grappling with linguistic power dynamics—where the language of the dominant often silences the marginalized. Yet, within these spaces of pain, hooks sees potential: marginalization becomes a site of resistance, transformation, and collective innovation.

“We greet you as liberation. This ‘we’ is that ‘us’ in the margins… a site of resistance.”

Applying hooks’ ideas to urban design raises a critical question: How valid are our projections of what urbanism should be? Architects traditionally seek to “solve problems,” but perhaps, instead of erasing marginality, we should embrace and amplify it—redefining it as a source of strength rather than something to be fixed.

# data[].attributes.body
Bell Hooks’ exploration of margin and center reveals a systemic failure—one that upholds barriers to accessibility and maintains rigid social hierarchies. To be positioned at the margin is not a choice, nor does the system allow for movement toward the center. Instead, the margin is imposed, reinforced by language that defines certain people as “Other,” as outside the dominant body.

Her way of resistance are spaces of radical openness. They are not safe spaces, because one is always at risk. They are there to form a community, a community of resistance.

She also talks about the feeling of alienation. „Home is nowhere…It is locations“.

I’m thinking about how this border between margin and centre can be broken up, how everybody can be feel at the centre?

It starts with the language, the distinction between ours and others, is already creating a border.

As urban designers, we must critically examine our role in reinforcing or dismantling these borders. Are our design choices upholding exclusionary structures? Who are we designing for, and who is being left out? Public spaces, zoning laws, and architectural decisions can either perpetuate the margin or serve as tools for radical inclusion.

Perhaps the challenge is to design spaces that are fluid, participatory, and open to transformation—spaces where those at the margins are not merely accommodated, but empowered to redefine their place in the city on their own terms.

# data[].attributes.body
While reading Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness, I became particularly aware of how Bell Hooks understands marginality not as a deficit, but as a space of resistance and transformative possibilities. She describes these marginal areas as zones of creative development and protection. What is commonly seen as a place of exclusion is transformed here into a space of empowerment where new voices and perspectives are heard. This perspective challenges how we conceptualize physical and social spaces. While the center upholds power structures, the periphery holds subversive potential. In urban planning, for example, marginalized groups are often “integrated” through top-down interventions. As architects, we should critically question this conventional notion of inclusion and instead reconceptualize marginality as a spatial quality in its own right. Where should decision-making processes be located? Who has the right to define spaces and according to which principles does this happen?

# data[].attributes.body
Can spaces of marginality remain "spaces of radical possibility and resistance," truly centering those within them, without being appropriated by the oppressor under the camouflage of inclusion?

It's a question I ask myself. Where the recognition or "discovery" of spaces of marginality by the opressor results in an urge of action. The action is most often camouflaged as an act of inclusion to the so-called "center". Ultimately this act of inclusion erases the radical possibilities that otherness holds.

The alternative of choosing not to interfere poses its own challenges. The risk of exclusion, otherness, marginalization and seperation. But as bell hooks also notes, the space of marginalization is not only one of deprivation.

Not interfering as an action.

# data[].attributes.body
I found this section really compelling because it reframes preservation from a technical task into a deeply political and ethical act. Especially in a place like Nablus, where space and history are contested, it becomes clear that design decisions can't be divorced from the lived realities of occupation, resistance, and identity.

The authors’ emphasis on local agency and situated knowledge is super important. Too often, preservation projects risk becoming top-down and alienating when they don’t reflect the values or struggles of the people actually living there.

One thing that stood out is how fluid and layered “heritage” becomes in this context—it’s not just about buildings, but about memories, stories, and survival. That complicates the usual notion of preservation as "freezing" time or space.

How can global institutions like UNESCO adapt to context-specific forms of heritage that don’t fit neatly into Western aesthetic criteria? Also considering how rebuilding/ nation-building efforts might look after the current conflict.

# data[].attributes.body
Gender Space Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Introduction explores how architecture is not gender-neutral but reflects societal power structures. The book highlights how spaces have historically been designed from a male perspective, often marginalizing women and other groups. A key issue is the division between public (male-dominated) and private (female-assigned) spaces. Feminist theories advocate for gender-inclusive design that considers diversity and safety. Modern architecture is beginning to challenge these patterns, aiming to create spaces that are accessible and equitable for all.

# data[].attributes.body
In the essay "Choosing the Margin as a space of Radical Openness" Bell Hooks redefines the idea of the “margin.” Rather than seeing it only as a place of exclusion or oppression, she argues that the margin can also be a space of radical possibility—where new knowledge, perspectives, and ways of being can emerge. I think this is interesting because it challenges traditional approaches that often focus on integrating marginalized communities into the “center” rather than valuing and learning from their own spatial practices.

Another striking point is her emphasis on who gets to speak and be heard. She critiques how dominant power structures often dictate whose voices matter, whose experiences shape cities, whose histories are erased, and whose needs are prioritized.

I was asking myself: How can Bell Hooks’ idea of the margin as a space of radical openness be applied in a way that doesn’t just ‘include’ marginalized voices, but actually centers their knowledge and lived experiences in shaping cities?

# data[].attributes.body
Bell Hooks effectively captures the dual nature of the margin, as both a space of repression and resistance. She highlights the importance for marginalized voices to find and use their own language rather than adopting the language of their oppressors. Hooks clearly demonstrates this through her intentional choice of words like "marginality," "struggle," and "resistance."

There is a strong emphasis on the idea that marginalized groups should not try to fit into the dominant culture. Instead, they should build their identity within their own margin, a place of radical openness beyond the oppressors' control.

Hooks stresses the importance for marginalized individuals to write their own narratives, not allowing dominant groups to define their stories. This raises a challenging question:

how can oppressors participate or genuinely understand without imposing their own language?

Is it even possible for them to enter the margin simply to learn, or does entering always involve oppression?

# data[].attributes.body
In "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness," bell hooks articulates the significance of marginality as a site of resistance and radical possibility for oppressed individuals. She emphasizes the need to confront oppressive boundaries related to race, gender, and class, advocating for a politics of location that allows for the reclamation of voice and identity. Hooks critiques the dominant language that often silences marginalized voices, asserting that true expression emerges from the pain of personal and collective memory. She argues that maintaining a radical perspective from the margins is essential for cultural transformation, urging the creation of spaces that foster dialogue and resistance against colonization and oppression.

Is there a way to break from the hegemonic rules of language?

# data[].attributes.body
Can we identify ourselves as users of the language of the oppressors in our professional ways of communicating through architecture/landscape architecture/urban design? Where do we position our own margins or spaces for critical reflection? How can we deal with the clear oppression of critical thinking in public educational institutions?

# data[].attributes.body
I find very interesting how bell hooks in her text reclaims the power of the margin in shifting the perspective away from the oppression back to the power that can be reclaimed and the resistance, that the marginalisation can bring as well. She writes about taking the power and voice back by not seeing it as a zone of domination but of possibility.

„To be the in the margin is to be part of the whole but outside the main body. […] Across those tracks was a world we could work in as maids, as janitors, as prostitutes, as long as it was in a service capacity. We could enter that world but we could not live there. We had always to return to the margin, to cross the tracks to shacks and abandoned houses on the edge of town.“

She argues that this marginality is not perceived as places of deprivation but as the opposite, as places of radical possibility and resistance to which they didn’t want to leave but to cling to, „because it nourishes one’s capacity to resist. It offers to one the possibility of radical perspective from which to see and create, to imagine alternatives, new worlds.“

I wonder in what way marginalised groups would shape those new worlds and urban spaces?

The oppressing language hooks talks about could be translated on the language we as architects use as well. Architecture, historically seen, has been a profession that was dominated by an elite. But not only the words that we are used to talk about in architecture but also the language of a space can be count into this description and the structures of not only urban, but also small scale planing that were imposed on. In this regard I ask myself how we can also make the work more accessible and understandable to non-architects on one hand, but also how we can integrate the people we actually build for into this process, and how would this challenges and changes the whole design process in itself, as well as our urban planning strategies?

# data[].attributes.body
'Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness' by Bell Hooks talks about the marginality not only as a space of repression but also as as a space of resistance, where regeneration and reinvention of new alternatives could take place. Another aspect of the text that I found interesting is the idea that there is a lack of middle ground between the oppressed/the zone of margin and the oppressor/the central zone, where a new language could act as a resistance to the established colonizer/colonized mentality and discourse could happen freely, without appropriation.

# data[].attributes.body
Bell Hooks describes language as a continuosly oppressing factor for minorities, as they need to communicate in this language to resist oppression itself. This made me think about how this applies to the architectural language and the way architecture is expected to be communicated as well. Is there even chance to resist and communicate architecture in a new, non-oppressing way?

# data[].attributes.body
Bell Hooks’ Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness is an essay concerned with power, reality, forgetting, and pain. Within a society dominated by power, every individual within the social structure is, to varying degrees, alienated. Reality becomes blurred—manipulable—while forgetting seems to have become a habit. This habit of forgetting is not only at the level of collective memory, but is also accompanied by the disappearance of physical entities, such as the dissolution of communities.

The direct product of the tension between power, reality, and forgetting is pain—a pain that seeps from the margins towards the centre. This centralised configuration mirrors the dominance of a singular power structure in society. The pain here is not easily reconciled and demands resistance. But in the face of overarching social power, how much strength does an individual truly possess? And more importantly, how should one act?

Towards the end of the essay, the author seems to offer a concrete answer: space. It states:

“Spaces can be real and imagined. Spaces can tell stories and unfold histories. Spaces can be interrupted, appropriated, and transformed through artistic and literary practice.”

This is a tangible proposition. Yet social power often exists in a disembodied form. So, is it truly feasible to counteract intangible power through tangible space?

# data[].attributes.body
Language is never neutral. It orders, shapes, maps the boundaries of thought. To speak is to locate oneself – to take a position, to step into a space already structured, already marked, already claimed. Language is itself a site of struggle. Oppression and resistance, containment and disruption. Marginality is not just a spatial or social condition – it is linguistic. Who controls meaning?

Language moves. It carries echoes, sedimented meanings, traces of what has been spoken, forgotten, erased. Meaning is never fixed. It recedes, defers, dissolves. In this instability, there is resistance.

Perhaps radical openness is never safe. It is risk. It is presence as disruption. But in that rupture, a new language might surface – one that does not define, but makes space. One that does not close, but keeps open possibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
The text speaks of the contrast between two spheres - the center and the margin. The author, who comes from the latter, tells of the difficult navigation between these two worlds, of being expected to hide one's heritage and to adapt, while at the same time trying not to forget one's identity. Rather than escaping the margin, it is necessary to (mentally) transform it from a place of hopelessness to a place of resistance, forming a resilient community. Instead of being viewed as "the other" by the detached center, the roles are reversed - the center is invited into the margin, forcing it to experience the feeling of otherness.

What lies on the edge between center and margin? What might a desired future look like? Could it consist of diverse and equal communities shaped by a shared history? Or a dynamic mix of people from different spheres sharing a common place they call home? How can culture and identity from other places be preserved and lived? Could intercultural exchange spark the formation of a new collective culture?

# data[].attributes.body
In her text "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness" Hooks redefines marginality not as a form of deprivation but as a space of resistance and transformation. While the margin can be a site of radical possibility, it is not always a voluntary space. It is shaped by exclusion, yet within it, new ways of speaking, acting, and resisting emerge. If we are to fully embrace the concept of radical openness, we must recognize that the struggle for voice, memory, and space is not just theoretical, it is a lived reality that demands active engagement.

Gender Space Architecture extends this discourse into the realm of urban and spatial design, critiquing the way marginalized spaces are often viewed as temporary, incomplete, or needing a change into dominant urban forms. Instead of treating these spaces as deficiencies, we might reimagine them as critical sites of spatial and social production, places where alternative ways of living, designing, and engaging with space emerge.

However, this raises challenges: How can architects and urban planners actively incorporate radical openness into design without reinforcing existing power imbalances or appropriating marginalized identities in the process?

# data[].attributes.body
If I am being honest, I found the beginning of the text a bit off-putting, as it focused a lot on "I… I… I," and the dramatic tone of the text (which I don’t intend to downplay) was somewhat difficult for me to process.

However, the text became truly fascinating when it shifted from "I" to "we"—to how it was growing up in a marginalized environment and the consequences this has for everyday life. I can certainly imagine that the lack of prospects may have led to resignation but also created an opportunity to think and write more freely.

I also found the reference to "what it means to be taught in a culture of domination by those who dominate" very thought-provoking. From a Western perspective, we are often unaware of how much culture we suppress and fail to hear, and how much cultural richness is lost in the process. Sometimes, I even feel that one of the few positive aspects of climate change is that Western arrogance— including the desire to dominate the world through technology and economic growth—has taken a significant hit. I have the impression that we are now more open—though, of course, still far from open enough—to different ways of thinking and other cultures, as climate change demands a certain humility.

Arab and North African techniques for cooling cities are suddenly being valued (which could certainly also spark a debate about cultural appropriation), and thinkers from other cultures, such as the Nigerian philosopher Bayo Akomolafe, are being invited onto Swiss television’s Sternstunde Philosophie.

This course also repeatedly highlights my own ignorance—how little I actually know about other cultures and ways of thinking. Opening up more and more to these perspectives, and doing so on an equal footing, is something I deeply appreciate and value. Thank you.

# data[].attributes.body
In her essay, Bell hooks explores the idea that the ‘margins’, traditionally seen as spaces of exclusion, suffering and isolation, can be transformed into strong spaces of resistance, subversion and creativity.

According to Bell Hooks, this way of opening up is necessary in order to challenge the social hierarchies, gender norms, race relations and systems of oppression that structure society.

Bell hooks also addresses the question of language, and the role of words as a space of resistance to claim and denounce repression. Marginalised people, although often invisible to the dominant structures, can use their words to assert their ideas, write their history and building a memory against oblivion.

For Bell hooks, choosing and considering the margins as a space for social struggle is a way of freely appropriating space, history and memory, and thus resisting repression. So far from being a place of suffering, the margins become a hotbed of infinite possibilities for those who seize them.

How could architecture play a role in this need of memory in a post colonial and apartheid context and how could it support the fight of minorities?

# data[].attributes.body
I kept asking myself what a “space of radical openness” is. Is she talking about a piece of writing, a conversation, a memory or something else? Or is it a concrete place? Or maybe both?

She writes about the margin as a space of possibility and not just exclusion. It is where those pushed aside can speak, resist and create. She connects this idea to her own experience in university. I tried to understand where exactly she locates this margin. Is it in alternative forms of education that break traditional hierarchies? Or in the segregated black communities she describes?

At first, the text was hard to understand (and still is). The language is abstract and often uses big words without much explanation.

From an urban design perspective, it raised questions. What role do designers have in the creation of "spaces of radical openness"?

The text is filled with pain, memory, and trauma. It is emotional and personal. It does not speak from theory alone.

She describes the margin as a place “at risk,” not a safe space. Radical openness is not about comfort. It is about staying in that hard place instead of escaping to the center. The text has a poetic quality that carries emotion and is why it stayed with me more then a more "usual" academic text.

# data[].attributes.body
The text by Bell Hooks starts by describing language as a place of struggle, analyzing it as a tool, that we should only use by reflecting your own positions and background from which we speak. „Our words are not without meaning, they are an action, a resistance.“

Analyzing the term of „The Other“ or „otherness“, she describes „to be in the margin is to be part of the whole but outside the main body.“

Whilst relating exclusion, inequal power relations and dependencies, she defines marginality as a space of resistance and radical openness.

Moving between the main body and the margin allows new perspectives on power structures and the possibility to „imagine alternatives, new worlds.“

I´m wondering, how and what can those that are positioned in the „center“ learn from the margins and those who operate between?

# data[].attributes.body
As architects trained in the precision of Swiss engineering and the global ethos of ETH Zurich, we are conditioned to see preservation as a technical act—a safeguarding of material heritage. Yet bell hooks’ reimagining of marginality as a space of radical openness challenges this lens. In Nablus, preservation transcends the physical; it is an act of existential resistance, where urban spaces become canvases for reclaiming memory and agency against colonial erasure. Here, the architect’s role shifts from neutral technician to engaged interlocutor, tasked with amplifying—not overwriting—the narratives embedded in stone, soil, and collective struggle. How do we reconcile our institutional frameworks, often rooted in Eurocentric notions of “neutral” design, with the politicized realities of spaces like Nablus, where every restored facade or repurposed ruin is a defiance of silence?

# data[].attributes.body
One key insight that struck me was bell hooks' reframing of the social "margin" as a space of radical possibility, not as a neglected periphery, but as an essential source of fresh, transformative ideas. Rather than seeing marginality solely as an imposed limitation, hooks challenges us to recognize that the experiences and perspectives arising from the margins can destabilize dominant narratives and foster a more inclusive, dynamic cultural politics. This approach invites us to reimagine power structures, understanding that genuine innovation and resistance often emerge from the very spaces that mainstream society tends to overlook.

How can urban planning and policy be restructured to truly harness and integrate the innovative potentials of marginalized communities, rather than further marginalizing them through processes like gentrification and homogenization?

# data[].attributes.body
Urban design is largely shaped by politics, which defines urban spaces through mechanisms of power and control. To challenge this dynamic, it is crucial to develop the ability to imagine radical alternatives, oppositional perspectives and new design approaches.

Even in Swiss history, we find examples of a failure to understand different cultures, often reduced to stereotypes due to ignorance and a tendency to generalize colonized realities. This has fueled discrimination and misunderstanding.

A very crucial aspect that I found really interesting is the issue of language, that reappears in this text under a different lens: for colonies, language is a constant struggle, a reminder of the colonial past (or present). However, it can be reappropriated and radicalized to become a tool of resistance. Decolonizing language means making it one's own, shaping it according to new narratives.

# data[].attributes.body
I was most fascinated by bell hook's statement ‘Language is a place of struggle’. It addresses the position from which one speaks. This position can be differentiated into colonised or coloniser, the oppressed, the marginalised, or the oppressors and the majority. Who is talking to whom about what? What is my own position, my background? Where do I stand? Or as bell hooks writes, what is my space, my location?

Can a dialogue only begin with an awareness of one's own positions and those of others? It also seems important that we do not cling to our own positions, as otherwise we very quickly end up with the wording and positioning of the‘Other’.

Bell hooks writes ‘It is not just important what we speak about, but how and why we speak.’

I think the difficult thing about language is that, on the one hand, it can and should create a space for openness and inclusivity, but at the same time it can also quickly lead to misunderstandings or offence.

Open language is new to the majority of the population, so it is important that it also allows room for further development.

For me, the question of open language is an extremely complex issue, mistakes can happen, but if the discourse were to be stopped as a result, it would be even worse.

What makes open discourse even more difficult is the fact that language is power. This can be seen in the past, but also in the current news, with the example of the list of words that will disappear within the Trump administration. Most of the words have been increasingly introduced in recent years to enable a more open discourse. They name problems and injustice in our society today, which for me is the first step in overcoming the problem of the ‘Other’. We need words in our language such as climate crisis, discrimination, inequality, injustice, marginalised, multicultural, oppressive, privilege (to name just a few) in order to speak. Naming problems in concrete terms is a first step towards productive discourse.

I think bell hook's text is an extremely important contribution, especially in relation to current developments and changes. The complex problem of open language will remain, but today it is more important than ever that we engage in discourse, name things and are aware of our position.

# data[].attributes.body
The author explores the transformative power of memory, marginalization, and language. She emphasizes that memory, when actively engaged, can become a tool for social and political change, shedding light on both the past and present. She distinguishes between "nostalgia" (passive) and "remembering" (active), asserting that the latter can open spaces for transformation, particularly in marginalized communities. Language, though often insufficient to fully express lived experiences, holds immense power in giving voice to resistance and remembering painful histories. Despite the risks of marginalization, speaking out, even through imperfect words, is an act of resistance that keeps history alive, ensuring that it is not forgotten. This idea extends to urban and architectural spaces, where memory and resistance can shape how cities are planned and how they reflect marginalized histories.

How can urban spaces and architecture integrate the act of remembrance and resistance, particularly in post-colonial or post-apartheid contexts, to give voice to marginalized communities?

In what ways can language, despite its limitations, be used to empower marginalized voices in both the political and physical spaces of the city?

# data[].attributes.body
I love how bell hooks redefines and reclaims marginality. She challenges the common view of marginality as simply a site of deprivation, oppression, and isolation and reframes it as a space full of potential—one of freedom, creativity, and possibility. While she does not romanticize this space, acknowledging that “it is not a safe place” and “one is always at risk,” she sees it as a location where one can challenge the status quo and build alternative ways of thinking and being.

The "radical openness" hooks speaks of refers to the willingness to question and dismantle dominant systems by creating spaces for freedom, inclusivity, and critical reflection. She defines marginality as "a central location for the production of counter-hegemonic discourse," not just through words but through the way one lives and exists in the world.

What stands out to me is how hooks presents marginality as a position shaped by many aspects of identity—language, gender, sexuality, race, class, and social or geographical context. As a result, it’s a deeply personal experience but one simultaneously shared by many "oppressed, exploited, and colonized people." Because it is so intrinsic to one’s identity, (for her) it’s not a marginality one would want to relinquish in the pursuit of moving toward the center. Rather, it becomes a space one holds onto, even clings to, because it strengthens one's capacity to resist.

However, hooks doesn’t suggest that just because someone is marginalized, they automatically exist in that space of radical openness . This is why I appreciate the word "choosing" in the essay’s title. Embracing marginality as a space of radical openness is an active, intentional and lifesaving decision—a transition from pain, silence, a "broken voice“, and surrendering to an oppressive system (a passivity) into one of refusal, resistance and possibilty (agency).

I believe this shift can only truly happen when being in community, when seeing our interrelatedness, which becomes clear when hooks talks about late-night conversations with friends and uses "we" . The collective aspect of this journey is essential to making that transition from the margins into a space of radical openness.

For me, this concept translates into collective practices and community spaces. It's the realization that one's struggles are not isolated but shared, creating a sense of collectivism—whether in the form of a cooperative, a project like Yalla, or self-building initiatives. These efforts expand people's capacity for action. The margins, then, become a space that can hold multiplicity. It’s about creating a space for community, even under difficult material conditions, and demonstrating that it is the networks of people, not just the physical spaces, that truly form communities, neighborhoods, and urban life.

I believe this discourse is highly relevant for architecture and planning, as most practitioners are still situated in the center. There will always be a center, which inherently creates a margin. The critical question for me is: how can those working from the center learn from and support the activities of those operating from the margins without appropriating, profiting from, or exploiting their efforts?

# data[].attributes.body
Chosen marginality as a radical opposition is a quite well-thought tactic but yet I cannot help but wonder where the line between a reflex to flee an uncomfortable setting and a clever or intellectual position that has been willfully taken.

In both cases, some incredible design responses, in the context of architecture, can emerge. Later on, I can imagine other types of interesting phenomenas such as the turn from the moments where marginalized counter culture becomes mainstream. These fluctuations then become a kind of infinite chase.

I also believe we should put into perspective the action of reclaiming marginality as a space of empowerment. Can it really be achieved ? Can marginality actually escape the structure that defined it as marginal in the first place ? Is it even the goal ?

# data[].attributes.body
Hooks reinterprets marginality not as a state of deprivation but as a space of resistance and creative possibility. Rather than a constraint, the margin offers a unique vantage point—a position from which to critique, envision, and construct alternative futures. For hooks, remaining in the margins is a conscious political choice, one that challenges assimilation into dominant narratives. From this space, new perspectives emerge, shaping counter-narratives that contest oppressive structures. The margin, then, is not just a boundary but a fertile ground for cultural expression and solidarity through shared struggle.

Could and should the perspective from within marginality be taught as a tool for urban design, shaping how we imagine and build cities?

# data[].attributes.body
The text Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness explores the dynamics of marginality and centrality, emphasizing how space, both physical and conceptual, is shaped by power structures. The author highlights how those in marginalized positions experience space differently, often navigating exclusion while also finding ways to resist and redefine their environment.

One of the key ideas is that space is not just something we inhabit; it is also something we create through interactions, language, and perception. The way we describe places and people reinforces boundaries, shaping social hierarchies. The text argues for breaking these divisions by recognizing and engaging with different lived realities rather than maintaining distance. This raises an interesting point: can spaces be transformed simply through shifts in language and perspective?

From an architectural standpoint, this discussion challenges the role of designers. Should architects work from the margins, embracing alternative ways of thinking and designing, or should they try to bridge the divide between central and peripheral spaces? How can spatial practices actively challenge exclusion rather than just reproducing existing social structures?

# data[].attributes.body
What if we stopped seeing space as something with a clear center and edge? What if we let go of strict labels and started thinking about cities as living systems shaped by diversity?

Too often, we define parts of a city as "marginal" or "on the edge." But doing so sets them apart, as if they are less important or in need of fixing. Instead, these so-called marginal spaces can be places of creativity, resilience, and new ideas. We need to rethink the language we use and see these areas not as leftovers, but as vital parts of the whole.

Nature gives us a great example. In forests or wetlands, there's no perfect order—everything grows in relation to everything else. It's messy, unpredictable, and full of life. This "perfect chaos" is what makes nature thrive. Can our cities do the same?

What if schools, housing, and public spaces were designed to reflect the real mix of people and needs they serve?

Not just adding diversity as an afterthought, but letting it shape the structure from the beginning.

Could we design cities that grow like ecosystems, adapting to change and making room for difference?

Let's ask: Who gets to define what a space is for? What would a park look like if it was shaped by everyone who uses it? How can we stop seeing diversity as something extra, and start seeing it as the foundation?

When we move away from rigid planning and open up to difference, we don't just include more people: we make stronger, more vibrant places. Spaces shaped by many voices can become places where everyone belongs. Maybe the edge was the starting point all along.

# data[].attributes.body
In her text, bell hooks vigorously criticizes scholar institutions (and its members), where oppression is evidently perpetrated — she was a victim of it in the frame of critical discussions about discrimination as a student at university. She says that a way to overturn this discrimination is to include and engage with marginalized people in the theory of marginalization rather than talking about them. As architecture scholars, how can we create built spaces to encourage these spaces of radical openness and erase the boundaries between the margin and the center, respectively where colonized and colonizer people are located?

# data[].attributes.body
Hooks emphasizes the importance of listening to voices from the margins. What are the ethical and political challenges of this practice? Can the privileged ever truly listen without appropriating or distorting marginalized perspectives?

# data[].attributes.body
The margins are a form of resistance—a space for radical openness where voices that are often silenced can be heard, grow, and strengthen without being lost in the language of those in power. They are places that keep memories alive, recognizing the histories of the colonized and offering a different perspective from the dominant narrative. The margins push back against the way a single language or narrative can twist reality, keeping attention on the real causes of injustice and giving people a space to claim their right to exist. The margin is a space of resistance and power rather than just a place of exclusion. Instead of seeking full acceptance in the center, they should use their unique positionality to create new knowledge, solidarity, and transformative change.

What role does public space play in preserving the histories and identities of marginalized communities within rapidly transforming cities? How can marginalized communities reclaim and redefine urban spaces as sites of radical openness and resistance? How can marginalized communities participate in shaping the built environment rather than being passive subjects of top-down urban planning?

# data[].attributes.body
The feminist author highlights the double definition of marginal spaces, underlining the fact that they are often perceived as isolated, dominated and oppressed by colonizers. On the contrary, she redefines these spaces not as places of deprivation, but as places of choice, resistance and refusal, leading to new perspectives, the creation of alternative worlds and social change. The notion of language takes on new importance within these marginalized groups, often forced to remain silent. In the marginal space, their voices have the opportunity to express themselves and reverse the paradigm of a culture of domination, where the dominant teaches the dominated. Acknowledging the space of the margins becomes an opportunity to rethink power relations, and thus inclusion. I'm wondering how the use of this tool, combining space and language, can be used today to explore other forms of activism, for example in feminist movements? How can the author's definition of the margin inspire current feminist struggles within education?

# data[].attributes.body
The text explores the concept of marginality as a site of both repression and resistance, emphasizing the importance of recognizing voices from the margins. The idea that marginality can serve as a space of radical openness resonated with me, highlighting the potential for creativity and power that arises from these experiences.

The necessity of understanding one's location in relation to both the center and the margins is crucial and challenges the dominant narratives often imposed by society.

We should do a critical examination of how (and why) we speak about difference and the responsibility that comes with it. We should acknowledge our positionality and actively participate in dismantling oppressive structure.

# data[].attributes.body
"For me this space of radical openness is a margin - a profound edge"

Marginalized spaces are not just imposed limitations but can become intentional positions of critique and transformation. The author questions the way language creates belonging and exclusion. It highlights how dominant discourses shape who gets to speak and be also heard.

If marginal spaces offer radical possibilities, how can we make sure that they remain sites of empowerment rather than spaces co-opted by dominant power structures?

# data[].attributes.body
Bell hooks redefines marginality not as exclusion, but as a site of radical possibility a space where resistance and reinvention collide. This tension between erasure and potential mirrors the language of architecture, where every building encodes power, memory, and contested narratives. Who decides which structures stand as monuments and which are demolished as obsolete? Cities, like texts, are palimpsests of dominance and dissent, their grids mapping hierarchies of center and periphery. But if we read every façade as oppression or every plaza as a battleground, how do we create space for collective reimagining?

Language and architecture share this fragility: a word misheard, a threshold too narrow, a bench designed to deter sleep each can wound or welcome. When every gesture is scrutinized for violence, silence becomes the safer choice. Those who fear misstep retreat; those who seek disruption dominate. If only the provocative speak, provocation becomes the only dialect. Yet hooks reminds us that memory, when active rather than nostalgic, can be a tool for transformation. To remember a city is to interrogate its wounds and possibilities to ask how we might inhabit space without replicating its violences.

The margin’s power lies in its refusal to be static. But how does "radical openness" materialize in streets and structures? Participatory design is one answer, yet even the language we use "revitalization," "the other," "periphery" shapes space before a single brick is laid. To decolonize architecture is to democratize not just its creation, but its daily inhabitation. A building is inert until lived in; a neighborhood abstract until walked through. The challenge is to forge spaces where friction doesn’t fracture, where memory bridges rather than divides.

hooks’ call to "break silence" is urgent, but speech alone isn’t enough. If cities are to be collectively rewritten, we need tongues that question as fiercely as they proclaim, and ears that listen as deeply as they defend. The margin’s promise isn’t isolation it’s the insistence that here, too, is a world waiting to be built.

# data[].attributes.body
What stood out to me was the following quote: "Often when the radical voice speaks about domination we are speaking to those who dominate."

I was wondering if Bell Hooks also thought about whether those who dominate even care to listen to the radical voice,

whether they want to engage with it,

and whether they are aware of their position of dominance in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
The text talks about margins, which can be seen as a created space where certain people are pushed aside due to unequal power relations, making them feel left out or disadvantaged. This can be a social or even a physical place where these people live. I'm curious about whether these margins are easier or harder to notice in different societies. Does the actual physical existence and therefore visibility of these margins affect people's ability to recognize and understand discrimination that's happening there? If it does, how can this impact their ability to stand up against such inequality?

# data[].attributes.body
“Struggle, Marginality, Resistance”

After reading this text a few questions raised up in my mind.

Is there a way we could engage with the language and frameworks inherited from hegemonic traditions to create spaces that challenge exclusionary norms and obviously not reinforce them? Accordingly, how could we operate avoiding to reinforce existing hierarchies unintentionally? Would there be a possibility to encourage inclusion and counter-hegemonic discourse being aware of not creating without intent forms of segregation?

# data[].attributes.body
From this brief text, the narrator emerges as a spokesperson for a radical shift in the perception of marginal areas; the word "spokesperson" carries significant weight here when considering the importance attributed to language in the first paragraphs of the text. Such a radical change requires, first and foremost, a shift in perspective, and this theme emerges alongside the concept of 'home': at first, the phrase "home is that place which enables and promotes varied and everchanging perspective" struck me as strange. Incorrect. Incorrect because, for me, home is everything that doesn't offer a change in perspective. It is a comfort bubble. And to change perspective, one must step out of it. But for an "exotic Other," indeed the concept of home, as the author highlights, becomes a more complex notion, truly capable of providing other perspectives, since it is a witness to the power dynamics of exclusion and inclusion materialized in a 'marginal' architecture; an architecture that constitutes a margin commonly understood as a barrier, and consolidated as a margin because it is still part of a whole that excludes it. From this perspective, it is particularly poignant how the railway, considered an opportunity from a white-Western point of ignorance, instead functions as a "daily reminder" of the opposite condition of marginality. The author sees this daily reminder as a resource upon which a population develops its ability to resist, to imagine alternatives. It becomes crucial in a context where even the mind is otherwise colonized.

Transposing these considerations to a context closer to "ours" is extremely complex. By "ours," I mean that which is not marginal, that which creates the margin and understands it as such. Not as an opportunity, but as a danger. And if "other" minds are colonized, what are ours, the colonizers'? They are blind. And I wonder if, for "us," a margin can serve as a useful opportunity to de-cloud our minds. I fear that even considering a margin, which de facto would mean going there, would only allow for a slight perception of what is foreign, other. One must become the other in order to understand it, and thus question ourselves. As a visitor, the perception of reality is only partial.

# data[].attributes.body
The connection between physical and social spaces and the empowerment of marginalised voices.

To what extent does built space - both in its physical design and in its symbolic meaning - influence the ability of marginalised groups to raise their voices and be heard? How can we as architects consciously design and conceive the built space in such a way that it no longer perpetuates the marginalisation of certain groups or suppresses their voices, but rather creates them?

# data[].attributes.body
In her text “Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Opennes” bell hooks draws on the dichotomy of the margin and the center. Placing herself in the former while practicing and using habits of the latter, she strongly advocates for a distinction between a marginality imposed by oppressive structures and one which she chose to locate herself in, which allows for a verbalization of resistance and creativity in thought. Space is not only bound to geographic terms but rather to socio-demographic aspects and further to the space of imagination creativity and thought. Language becomes crucial as it encompasses marginalization and imposes the rule of the oppressor, yet it can become an embodiment of resistance, when voicing thought from the margin and in the vocabular of the margin, while freeing the discussion from “the Other”.

While marginality has become a more prominent topic in the recent years throughout the disciplines, I wonder how different individuals and groups with varying locations within the spaces of the margin can find a common language which in return allows to formulate collective spaces of resistance and eventually allows for decision finding for spatial (architectural, urban, etc.) interventions.

# data[].attributes.body
When discussing hegemonic constructs we have a choice whether to speak about them in the language adopted by the “dominating” (the groups that established this hierarchy) or to address these structures through “political resistance” and in this way to open a more ample range of perspectives and possibilities.

In this sense it is important for us as architects to be aware that the terms, typologies, and other denominations that we operate with, have often been coined or formulated by privileged groups. One such example that comes to mind is LeCorbusier´s “Modulor”; the idealised human that should serve as an orientation for dimensioning. This model was conceived from a very particular perspective that does not represent several groups and minorities and really only depicts the male perspective.

What are techniques that we can learn to constantly be altert to recognise and question hegemonic biases in the built environment and in the architectural practice as a whole?

Lucius Burkhardt and his method of Spazierwissenschaften (Strollology), but also techniques from the Situationists, seem to be a possible point of departure…

In this text the author offers an ambiguous perspective on marginality by describing it not just as a place of segregation but also as a space of possibility for “counter-hegemonic discourse”. She describes marginality - at the periphery of the center dominated by the hegemonic language and culture - as a place where the “capacity to resists the dominating” is nourished. Somewhere at the edge, but still part of a bigger hole and connected to the center.

In our profession we have a substantial responsibility and impact in shaping the built environment. How can we strike the balance where we can offer something like “safe-spaces” where minorities can find productive places for a non-normative discourse, without secluding and “ghettoising” these groups and is this balance even possible? When is a tipping point reached and how can we avoid this? What are examples that could illustrate this balance?

# data[].attributes.body
"Our struggle is also a struggle of memory against forgetting." Here the writer talks about memory erasure and history being rewritten and changed. Forgetting is a mechanism of power; oppression forces rely on collective amnesia to make the injustices of the past dismissed.  Memory here is used as a form of defiance against dominant narratives. This new tool of memory is a way for marginalized people to survive and make their narrative live. Remembering is an act of political resistance; it is important that lives and stories of marginalized people isn’t erased.

In this text the margin is not only a place of victimization but is also a site of possibilities; being a part of the margin allows for a different perspective on power structures.

How can memory serve not just as a tool of resistance, but as a means of reshaping the future?

# data[].attributes.body
The author emphasizes that language and location are political battlegrounds where marginalized voices fight against dominance and oppression. She reflects on her personal and collective experience of marginalization as both a site of suffering and resistance where alternative perspectives and cultural expressions emerge. Through memory and radical openness, she calls for a new, transformative mode of articulation that both resists and creates new perspectives.

As a white cis gay man from the countryside with parents from the Emmnethal, I ask myself to what extent I use language as a means of resistance against social and political oppression or am I the oppressor myself? And how unconsciously or consciously does language lead to oppression in our everyday lives at ETH?

# data[].attributes.body
While nostalgia implies a static, almost backward-looking attitude, remembering in its sense is a tool of transformation - both individually and socially. This active engagement with the past enables critical reflection on power relations, identity and spatial structures.

This idea can be taken further in the discussion about urbanity and architecture: How does collective memory shape the design of cities? How can marginalised spaces not only be preserved, but also strengthened as places of participation? If we understand marginality as a place of resistance and creativity, the question arises as to how this openness can be translated into concrete urban practices. Is it possible to break up the rigid centres and edges of the city through participatory planning? And how can we ensure that remembrance does not become a mere romanticisation of the past, but actually creates new narratives?

# data[].attributes.body
The text discusses the political and cultural significance of "place" and "language" in relation to marginalized communities, especially in the context of African American and colonized experiences. The author emphasizes the importance of questioning and reshaping one's cultural and political perspectives, particularly within the framework of resistance. She talks about the need to break out of established social and cultural norms in order to develop new viewpoints that fight against oppression and marginalization.

For me central message of the text is that marginalized voices and spaces should not only be seen as victims of oppression but also as sources of resistance and cultural revival. The marginalized position, while often associated with pain and exclusion, is portrayed as a form of resilience that offers the possibility to challenge dominant discourses and create alternative aesthetics. The author discusses how language itself is a battleground, where the meaning of words and the right to express oneself play a role in resistance.

Overall, the text urges us to look at our own "location" and that of others from a critical, resistant perspective, and to fight against forms of colonization and cultural appropriation. It stresses the importance of seeing "marginality" not as something to overcome, but as a space that allows for the development of new ways of thinking and acting.

# data[].attributes.body
Bell Hooks describes marginality not only as a space of oppression but also as a site of resistance, radical openness, and transformation. Particularly compelling is her perspective on language as a battleground - both as a tool of oppression and a means of liberation. She also emphasizes the role of memory as a political instrument and the necessity of creating spaces for alternative narratives. Furthermore, she calls for a critical examination of power structures and positionalities within academic and cultural discourses.

However, can marginality always function as a productive space of resistance, or are there circumstances where the weight of oppression is so overwhelming that actively utilizing this position becomes impossible? And how can marginalized groups ensure that their language and narratives are not diluted or appropriated by dominant structures?

# data[].attributes.body
This essay impressively demonstrates how intricate language can be and emphasizes the importance of the positions of sender and receiver, reader and writer.

Because the sender/reader is situated in a position of marginalization, her engagement with language, and with the forms produced by the writer, is one of critical analysis. On one hand, the given language is perceived as oppressive and dominating.

As a reader, she has spent her entire life within a script that was not written for her, a script that has shaped and carved her existence, but not in her favor. Since her family has accepted this narrative, she has developed the skill of reading the script honestly, from the perspective of marginalization. She knows its boundaries, oppressions, and possibilities by heart.

Through this understanding, she empowers herself to become a sender. Not a writer, but a sender. She attempts to send non-conforming messages back to the receiver/writer. Naturally, this does not please a receiver who has lived within a language that perfectly reflects his reality. Why change your way of speaking if you’ve mastered the language and benefited from all its perks?

Moreover, responding to the sender and accepting her struggle demands effort, effort to become part of the opposition, to engage in fatiguing work, discussions, protests, and so on. And beyond that, if you acknowledge her problem as valid, you must also begin to recognize all the other problems humanity faces. So instead, it’s easier to stay in your comfort zone, secure your power, and continue benefiting from your familiar style of writing.

The essence, as I understand it, is to find the margin in which the receiver/writer does not completely shut down, and where the sender/reader can exert even a small influence on the language. This allows it to shift slowly, in the right direction. Step by step.

# data[].attributes.body
Does the margin still offer radical possibilities in the future? Bell Hooks sees it as a space for change. In today's world of digital activism and global movements, are online spaces the new margins? Do they truly allow open and radical ideas, or do they repeat the same exclusion and power structures as the mainstream?

# data[].attributes.body
In "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness," bell hooks explores marginalization as both exclusion and resistance. She highlights how language and space shape power dynamics, influencing inclusion and exclusion in urbanism.

Hooks argues that marginality offers opportunities for alternative knowledge and resistance. This suggests shifting focus from city centers to neglected peripheries—while ensuring marginalized voices lead rather than being spoken for.

Architecture, like language, can be a site of struggle. If every space is seen as a symbol of oppression, how can we still design collectively? How do we foster dialogue instead of division?

Hooks challenges us to consider who speaks for marginalized groups and how planners can integrate community voices beyond symbolic inclusion. Given the complexity of oppression and privilege, is it possible to find a shared struggle that unites diverse marginalized communities?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text Hooks presents the margin as a site of resistance, but in a neoliberal context, marginalized voices are often commodified. How can individuals and communities resist co-optation while maintaining visibility? Can radical thought survive within mainstream institutions?

# data[].attributes.body
While reading the author's text about marginality, exclusion and silence, I began reflecting about contemporary discussions, both in the academic and political realm. Social topics such as oppression, discrimination and injustice are present in a considerable portion of every-day news and debates. These voices seem to find a way into the public opinion, but are they actually fundamentally changing our perception? Are they limited to only superficially scratch systematic injustices in form of hollow performative actions, instead of actually tackling underlying social structures that enable this silence? Are parts of our system, including popular media and news outlet, coded to remain "in the center", allowing speeches to only go to a certain extent, ultimately not tackling the problem but only creating a remorseless feeling for oppressors?

# data[].attributes.body
The text challenges the idea of the margin as merely a site of exclusion and instead reclaims it as a space of resistance and critical engagement. One must be critical talking about the qualities of these spaces in relation to architectonical design concepts. The marginal spaces shouldn’t be turned into a spatial or aesthetic framework, marginalized spaces cannot be designed. It is an experience and cultural understanding that arises from within social structures, not something imposed as a concept. So i wonder how marginal perspectives can be integrated into to formulating a design, without replicating the very systems that create exclusion?

Also, marginalized spaces are deeply shaped by class, cultural background, and the power dynamics of privileged spaces. Social and cultural background shape how individuals experience both marginal and privileged spaces, with exclusion often occurring through less visible or unspoken norms and means. So i ask myself how marginal perspectives can change our perception of space as architects?

# data[].attributes.body
In the margins is where bell hooks describes a space for radical openness where those whose voices are often silenced can maintain, develop and strengthen their own perspectives without losing themselves to the language of those in the centre. The margins are places that act “against forgetting”, recognizing the memories that are part of the stories of the colonized. Histories and identities are often relegated by colonizers to studies of the past, simultaneously devaluing their existence in the present and deeming them irrelevant to designs for the future. bell hooks’ description of the margins demonstrates how history is evidence of existence and existence in turn is resistance. Existence of struggle and pain forces a confrontation with the why and how of their origins, and acknowledgment that from within discomfort there is a place from which change can begin. Moreover, when a single language or single narrative is used, the dignity of people or even places can fall prey to stories that twist and manipulate their realities, making us react with pity and distracting us from the roots of the problem. The margins resist these narratives as spaces to question how these stories came to be and for people to assert the right to exist on their own terms. The margins are where we can see not only who we are and once were, but also who we can become.

How can architecture incorporate practices of listening? How can transformations of urban space preserve memories that are deeply rooted in place?

# data[].attributes.body
Reading bell hooks’ "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness" as an architecture student raises important questions about how space is shaped by power and exclusion. Her idea that the margin is not just a site of oppression but also of resistance challenges the way we typically think about spatial design. Architecture often claims to be neutral, yet the way spaces are planned, who they are designed for, and who gets excluded is deeply political.

In Switzerland, where cities are highly regulated and space is carefully structured, it is difficult to imagine “margins” in the way hooks describes them. Are there truly spaces of radical openness within a system that is so controlled? Informal and self-organized spaces exist, but they are often temporary, either absorbed into the mainstream or erased. This raises the question: Can architecture actively create spaces that resist dominant power structures, or do all designed spaces inevitably become part of the system they seek to challenge?

Her work makes me reflect on the limits of inclusion in architecture. We talk about participatory design and accessibility, but how often do we genuinely give space for voices that challenge the system rather than adapting them to fit within it? Perhaps the real question is not just how to include marginalized perspectives, but whether we are willing to let them transform the way we think about space altogether.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading bell hooks "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness" encouraged me to rethink my understanding of marginality. I had always associated it with exclusion and disadvantage. hooks presents marginality not only as imposed, but also as a potential site of resistance, protection and self-definition.

Her perspective made me reflect on my current working environment. The spatial separation between employee and supervisor, with supervisors occupying their own enclosed office, creates a hierarchy and marginality from decision making that is subtly reinforced. It's a small but clear example of how power structures are embedded in space.

I also thought of left-wing activists in Zurich who occupy buildings such as the former post office in Wipkingen. Their decision to live outside the dominant norms seems to be both a critique of the system and a search for autonomy. This made me wonder: is the choice to live on the margins ever truly a choice of freedom, or is it always shaped by prior dissatisfaction or exclusion? Perhaps it's both and Hooks shows that even when not fully chosen, the margin can become a space of radical openness and transformation.

# data[].attributes.body
Choosing the margin as a space of radical openness, a text by bell hooks, questions social marginalization. Having herself come from a disadvantaged neighbourhood, she was able to enter the world of the oppressor by disguising its social codes. More specifically, she has changed her language and her way of life. In this way, there is a clear opposition between us and you/ between oppressor and oppressed.  Architecturally, she takes the example of the railway lines that separated the rich from the poor and the service relationships that were the only option for being part of that world. bell hooks therefore proposes a kind of in-between, a margin, that allows both groups to come together, in discussion and resistance and creativity to combat social oppression.

I understood this space as a social and open space, not an architectural one. However, these questions about marginalization are intrinsically linked to architecture. Urban distinctions are always very clear; I know perfectly well which areas of my city are disadvantaged and which are not. I've often seen architectural attempts to create more inclusive places that would create equal relationships between people. But most of the time, these spaces are designed by people who are oppressive and who have no idea about other ways of living. And often this results in spaces that are only used by the already advantaged. This raises the question of who should create or donate these spaces? Could these spaces be created through collaboration? What architectural elements would make it possible to create spaces that could accommodate all these questions? Should traditional aesthetic or functional standards be changed?

# data[].attributes.body
Both space and language are sites of struggle. They are places where power is negotiated and where identities are suppressed or reclaimed. The dual nature of these places is necessary since both parts induce each other. Bell Hooks states «One can only […] speak the voice of resistance, because there exists a counter-language. While it may resemble the colonizer´s tongue, it has undergone a transformation […].» She talks about marginality and describes it not just as a place of repression and exclusion, but also as a place and position of resistance and refusal. They are places of friction, but they also hold the potential for transformation. To then speak from the margins is to assert presence in a place where one may not be welcome. It is an act of making oneself visible, refusing to be silenced. This «speech» can also be translated to art and architecture where both can play a crucial role in serving as tools for redemption and help reshape present realities.

How can spaces be (re-)designed as places that give voice to those who have been silenced? How can non-marginalized groups altruistically help the marginalized to find a voice and to what extent is collaboration wanted and possible? How can physical spaces be acts of rememberance, but still embody a new narrative?

# data[].attributes.body
As with the last text we read for the course, there is a certain strange feeling when engaging with a text which wasn't written yesterday. The text springs up, with it's tightrope poetical walk , which it in my opinion, sadly only explores towards the end of the text, around 1989. This style, I'm sure was perhaps less present during it own time, but has since become more or less norm when writing about resistance. We are treated to a poetics and it's twisting, pulling and pushing of words to express a certain freedom. I wished it went further into these poetics, as we since read from text which are surely inspired by what was done here.

To the text itself:

There is a softness to the text, a clear and strong and soft way of speaking plainly. I enjoy this.

Again, I feel like it is sometimes to "soft". There are places I feel like the quotations add a real effect to the words and position the text nicely, there are other place where I feel like the text is simply "weakened" by them.

# data[].attributes.body
What if “choosing the margin as a space of radical openness” were the key to revolutionizing the way we think about urban design globally? bell hooks urges us to look beyond the center, beyond the official maps of cities, to listen to the stories that emerge from the edges, from the margins. Who has the right to imagine and build urban space? Who gets heard when cities are being planned? “Language is also a place of struggle,” hooks writes, and space is no different: it is loaded with power, exclusion, but also with radical potential.

In the urban margins of the world (favelas, ghettos, forgotten peripheries) there are ways of inhabiting and resisting that never make it into masterplans, but that perhaps hold a deeper truth. “Home is no longer just one place. It is locations,” says hooks, revealing how space is also memory, identity, trauma, and healing.

hooks does not just ask us to observe the margin, but to consciously inhabit it: “I make the choice to dwell in the margin. To speak from there.” What would happen if urban design also began to speak from there? If the margin became the new starting point, the place from which to radically rethink cities?

# data[].attributes.body
The text seems to explore the complex relationship between language and power, touching on themes of speech, voice, oppression, marginalization, and resistance. These concepts are constantly revisited throughout the discussion.

What's particularly interesting is that the text doesn't delve into the idea of speechlessness or voicelessness. For me, the conclusion seems to be that everything—whether it's a person, an object, or even a concept—has a voice, a language, and can speak in its own way.

Architecture, in this sense, could also be seen as a form of language—a medium that communicates. But this leads me to wonder: is it possible to create an architecture that is "voiceless"? An architecture that doesn't tell stories or carry specific messages, one that speaks without using words?

The text suggests that language can be manipulated by both the oppressor and the oppressed, so might it be preferable to create a form of architecture that remains speechless? If so, would it still be considered architecture? What would such a "voiceless" architecture look like, and what problems could it potentially address?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text, hooks describes the concept of marginality. In the most positive and empowering way, marginality means to hooks a way of seeing the world that allows hooks to critically reflect on reality and see it differently, in some regards more wholistically. Furthermore, this way of understanding the world gives hooks the voice and ambition to enter resistance.

Included in the notion of resistance are corresponding language and spaces. For hooks, language and spaces possess equally as much power to actively struggle and change ways of thinking. In regards to language, in addition to a language of oppression, hooks also criticizes self-proclaimed progressive thinkers who talk about an “other” and thus also silence the occupants of marginality. Instead of condemning all ways of non-marginal individuals might connect with oppressed, hooks invites them to enter their space of marginality.

In architecture, particularly theory of architecture, a language about spaces, how can architects enter that space of marginality? As well as in other areas of life, architectural language still often talks about the “other”, therefore silencing the margin. That necessarily translates to the spaces that are produced and resultingly are equally oppressive. How can architects offer spaces that can foster a place of resistance and give voices to the struggling?

# data[].attributes.body
Marginalised groups often speak of a duality of exclusion: "We looked both from the inside out and from the outside in". They may find themselves belonging to two sides but not fully accepted by either, reinforcing a sense of isolation. The external environment plays a crucial role in shaping these experiences, either deepening exclusion or creating pathways to inclusion.

A key question arises: does fostering inclusion require the creation of separate spaces for specific marginalised groups to provide them with a sense of belonging? Or does this approach inadvertently reinforce divisions? Instead, how can spaces be created that embrace inclusion at multiple levels, ensuring diversity within marginalised communities? Ultimately, is true inclusion possible without some degree of exclusion?

# data[].attributes.body
“To be in the margin is to be part of the whole, but outside the main body.”

The author emphasizes that the margin is not only a place of suffering and oppression, but also a space of resistance, radical possibility, and creative power. She encourages us to enter this margin, as it offers a different perspective on the world and a different way of speaking and acting. Marginality, she argues, is not a state of despair, but a conscious place that inspires resistance and the creation of new worlds. I would, however, be critical of the last statement; the margin may be a conscious place, but not always a voluntary one.

The author speaks of the "politicization of remembering" and the "struggle of memory against forgetting." How can memory be used as an active process to fight against the forms of oppression you have described?

The author states that home is not only a place, but also an experience (which is transformed through decolonization and radicalization). How can we redefine home in a transformative and resilient sense, especially in a globalized world?

# data[].attributes.body
i assume it can bring great difficulties to embrace a marginal space as a space and concept to help to overcome the relationship of coloniser and colonised when being in the marginal group. however i agree with her that it is not possible that this move away from those existing structures can happen in the realm of the dominators. it would be interesting to see how those spaces are formulated and how they can host those changes. is it a mental space as she talks about or can it be a literal space. either way its i think important that those spaces happen from within and are not forced. in other words i think this is not a change that design can lead. the cultural understanding of this situation has to happen first.

# data[].attributes.body
to me the text reflects the relationship between words and power

as concepts of language, speech, voice and oppression, marginalization, resistance are constantly reoccurring.

it is interesting that the text does not really reflect on speechlessness or voicelessness.

the conclusion for me is that everything has a voice, a language and is able to speak

architecture can also be seen as a language, that communicates

but here i am asking myself if it would be possible to create a voiceless architecture

an architecture for everyone, speechless - not telling stories

as it is exactly as the text argues, words can be used as tools by the oppressor and the oppressed

so wouldn’t it be better to have a speechless architecture?

is this then still architecture?

how would it look?

and what would it solve?

# data[].attributes.body
In the book “Gender Space Architecture: An interdisciplinary Introduction,” there is a captivating discussion on hooks’s essays “Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness,” which argues against the notion of marginality being an entirely oppressive space. In my opinion, the most telling point she makes is that “the margin can be a space of creativity and of resistance. By accepting and embracing the margin, people and communities can think and live beyond the boundaries of power.” In fact, alongside this point, she also argues that her lived experience from the margins equips her with knowledge that is often unattended or overlooked. In the eyes of hooks, change can only be achieved when these perspectives are integrated, not just recognized, in the conversations revolving around space, power, and identity.

# data[].attributes.body
By situating the margin as a space of radical openness, "Gender Space Architecture" challenges conventional architectural thinking, which often treats marginalised spaces as temporary, incomplete, or in need of assimilation into more dominant urban structures. Instead of viewing these areas as sites of deficiency, they can be understood as places of critical spatial and social production, where alternative ways of living, designing, and engaging with the built environment emerge. This perspective raises an important question: how can architects and urban planners actively incorporate the concept of "radical openness" into the design of public and private spaces without reinforcing existing power imbalances or unintentionally appropriating marginalised identities?

If architecture is inherently political, then the design process must acknowledge its role in shaping power dynamics. Engaging with marginalized spaces requires more than just inclusion- it demands a shift in architectural education and practice toward more participatory and critically engaged approaches. Yet, most architectural training still prioritizes top- down design methods over an understanding of spatial inequality as a lived reality. This leads to a second question: in what ways can architectural education challenge traditional spatial hierarchies and better equip students to engage with the margin as a site of resistance and empowerment, rather than merely as a space to be "developed" or "integrated" into dominant urban narratives?

Is it possible to rethink our role as architects and planners, by thinking of ourselfs as part of the whole and not just master planners? Architectural education is truly missing its relevance when it comes to the common citizen and its not trying to be part of their understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Bell Hook’s Text on Race, Gender and Cultural Politics attempts to deliver an emotional first-person perspective of her own lived experience being a black woman moving within the realms of a dominated, colonized space. On jumping between marginality and centrality, living out different scripts to adapt within the respective realms.

Hook highlights the discrepancy of different languages, as one is expected to speak the language of the dominated, to silence the language of the marginalized. However, one can find chances within the space of pain that Hook discusses. Spaces of marginalization offer opportunities for resistance, on politicization of memories versus nostalgia. Marginalization offers opportunities of transformation, collectiveness, growth, and of innovation of the “other”.

“We greet you as liberation. This ‘we’ is that ‘us’ in the margins, that ‘we’ who inhabit marginal spaces that is not a site of domination, but a site of resistance”.

When we draw back Hook’s topics on the marginalised space to urban design, it poses the question: How valid are our projections on how urbanism should look like? Surely, it is a thin line that we tread as architects, as each design we propose are projections of our ideas of an ideal.

Traditionally, architects always believe to “solve a problem” by proposing a solution. However, counterintuitively, should we instead be taking marginality as a starting point and possibly amplifying it, instead of “solving this problem”?

# data[].attributes.body
The text «Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness” by bell hooks was written in 1990. She writes about her own experiences as a marginalized, black, female person living between two worlds dominated by white colonizers. Dominance is often talked about by those who dominate. So language can really be a place of struggle. Talking about “others” is usually easier than talking about oneself. But this is exactly what bell hooks wants to change by speaking from their perspective. Even if marginalized people are part of our society, they are not within the construct but are often excluded or even forgotten. In the description with the train tracks, this feeling is brought spatially and in connection with our constructed world.

Which elements in our everyday lives create such divisive moments, even if they were not originally intended as such?

There is much to learn on both sides and both sides can be places of resistance and struggle, even if it is more visible on the non-dominant one.

What advantages does one world offer over the other? Does the decision in favor of the non-dominant world bring new possibilities in living together, of radical openness, new possibilities and creativity?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text “Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness”, bell hooks reflects on the positions that individuals have within society. The concepts of centrality and marginality are repeatedly discussed, illustrating the importance of where one stands within the social structure. In part, this position is a personal choice; however, in many cases, it is not possible to freely determine one’s place. The surrounding context often dictates the opportunities available for movement within the system. These phenomena of isolation and marginalization are not merely personal choices but are shaped by systemic forces that influence access and opportunity. In the text, this marginality is often referred to as a space of resistance or opposition, offering an alternative viewpoint that can provide clarity regarding the issues and contradictions within society. It allows individuals to see more clearly the inequities, struggles, and tensions that might be overlooked. However, the question remains: what does this mean for us as architects? Should we position ourselves at the margins, embracing the space of resistance, or should we seek to change the current model by connecting the margins to the center?

# data[].attributes.body
Bell Hooks talks about language clarity and meaning in the beginning of the text selection from the book "Gender Space Architecture - An interdisciplinary introduction" but I find some of her own language used quite blurry and hard to grasp. The notions of "marginality"/ "the colonized" / "the other" and their opposites are shown in a very plack and white manner, which in my opinion is a very US American way of reflecting on society. Often there are many nuances to a personal situation and the oppressor is also being oppressed depending on its context. If one looks at her example of a black person in a majority white school, the roles are quite clear but but if we look at a situation where the differentiation isn't as clear as plain racial oppression, the roles aren't as clear. Who is the 'real' oppressor when a black person voted an administration into power which deports a latino person which has racist (against black people) tendencies/opinions? I find Bell Hooks descriptions of such relations quite difficult to grasp, as they are presented which such obvious examples. I see her point but think that there is much more nuance in oppression and the language that is used to facilitate it. Additionally the amount of people in a society that aren't in some way marginalized (be it for race, nationality, sexuality, gender, religion, disability, age, ...) is very small, in truth the real minority. This again points to multiple crossovers between people who colonize/oppress and at the same time are colonized/oppressed. It is difficult to put this into words but I think that this aspect is crucial to actually grasp the power systems in place and to realize what the common struggles are for these marginalized groups, which in reality are all together the majority within a society. This poses an even bigger question: Is it even possible to find a common struggle for such a diverse group of different marginalized individuals?

# data[].attributes.body
What stuck with me most was how Bell Hooks is letting the content of the Text resonate into the language she uses. By repeating sentences like ‘language is also a place of struggle’ or the word ‘margin’ over and over she is resisting in a way and plants these words into the readers head.
This margin she is talking about is a place to generate something new – a place for critical thinking – a place for resistance.

Thinking about architecture, we often want to design for the public (meaning everyone) creating neutral space but we rarely communicate and often assume what people want. Through interaction new perspectives arise and lead to sustainable solutions for society.

How can we embrace and recognize this marginality and give them a voice in decision making?

# data[].attributes.body
How do class and cultural background affect people in privileged academic and cultural spaces, and what mechanisms of (unconscious) exclusion or appropriation can be observed?

And how can a privileged person consciously critically scrutinise or expose themselves in the face of such mechanisms?

# data[].attributes.body
Reading Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness, I was struck by how bell hooks reclaims marginality, not as deprivation but as a space of resistance and transformation. Margins, often seen as places of exclusion, become sites of agency, where new voices and perspectives emerge. This challenges the way we think about space, both physical and social. If the center holds power, the margin holds potential. In urbanism, marginalized communities are often "included" through top-down interventions. But can true inclusion come from the center, or must it always be built from the margins themselves?

# data[].attributes.body
The key concept of bell hooks' essay "Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness" revolves around the idea of the "margin" as a space of resistance and possibility. Hooks redefines the margin—not as a place of exclusion or oppression, but as a site of empowerment and creativity. She argues that marginalized individuals can use their position to challenge dominant narratives, create counter-hegemonic spaces, and foster transformative dialogue. The margin becomes a space where new ways of thinking, being, and resisting can emerge.

As for the urban issue at stake, the essay can be interpreted as addressing the broader societal structures that perpetuate inequality, including urban environments. In cities, marginalized communities often face spatial segregation, limited access to resources, and systemic exclusion. Hooks' concept of the margin invites us to rethink these urban dynamics, advocating for inclusive spaces where diverse voices can thrive and contribute to a more equitable society.

I then wonder how we could rethink our spaces with the notion of the "margin" in mind? Do architecture or urban exemples exit that would fulfil this notion?

# data[].attributes.body
This text made me think of those neighbourhoods that are considered to be shabby, dirty and disorganised. When cities grow, these neighbourhoods move to make a home for themselves on the outskirts. In reality, they don't move, but are destroyed to make way for new buildings.
The author talks about the colonisation of thought. If we apply this principle to architecture, it is easy to see that more often than not, we build by imagining how people would like to live. Especially when we're changing organic, marginal neighbourhoods, we don't bother to ask. We imagine that they want to live like us.
Should we not let the future residents tell us how they live?
If we don't talk, all our homes will look the same. This ties in with the author's point about very open thinking. If everything is the same, there is no more debate. If there is no debate, we lose our critical faculties.
How do we know whether a point is part of open thinking or genuinely linked to a culture? How do we know when we are colonising thought and when we are reinforcing it?

# data[].attributes.body
The text urges us to rethink the boundaries between inclusion and exclusion and to recognize public space as a dynamic, political arena. It underlines the importance of acknowledging marginalized areas as spaces with great potential - places where diverse voices can be heard and societal change can take root.

At the same time, it highlights the need for a sensitive societal approach to adequately accommodate those at the margins, as well as the voices of resistance and suffering. Truly listening to and understanding these voices requires particular care to prevent further marginalization.

Furthermore, the text cautions that planning and designing these marginal spaces must be handled with great delicacy, ensuring that their protective and symbolic functions remain intact - even when the goal is to amplify suppressed voices. Ultimately, it reveals that transformations in power structures are often deeply rooted in colonial histories, making it a significant challenge to redress this imbalance in favor of those who were colonized.

Sometimes, I wonder whether, in certain situations, the best solution might be to simply allow space without planning at all.

# data[].attributes.body
The margin (the edges of society where oppressed people are pushed) isn’t just a place of struggle, it can also be a space of power and resistance. People facing racism, sexism, and classism fight back from here, refusing to accept domination. But speaking up is hard : the powerful often ignore or twist their words, and even families or communities sometimes silence them. For those who are marginalized, "home" isn’t one fixed place, it’s wherever they can be free, change, and grow. Survival means staying aware of how society excludes them, but it’s also where they find strength. Real resistance means listening to not speaking for the oppressed. When others tell their stories for them, they risk stealing their voices instead of supporting them. The margin isn’t just a line, it’s where real change begins. The margin is where oppressed people turn their exclusion into resistance. They fight back, reclaim their voices, and refuse to let others control their stories. True change happens when we listen to not speak over those on the edges.

If the margin is a space of resistance and power, how can we, as individuals or a society, truly listen to marginalized voices without silencing, co-opting, or rewriting their stories?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text, the author Bell Hooks talks about marginal spaces as inclusive sites of creativity, possibilities, power and resistance against the oppressors. Hooks invokes to re-envision these spaces on the city boarder, that historically were spaces of segregation, oppression, isolation, colonialism and despair. She pleads to see them as spaces where resistance of the oppressed can grow and find a room for expression, spaces where the silenced can start to talk and exchange with those who are open to listen and understand, spaces that hold possibilities to find and create identity, spaces to appropriate and transform, spaces to share stories, spaces of hopeful possibilities, and spaces that erase the categorization of colonizer and the colonized.

Hooks speaks about the silenced and how they are shut and robbed of the possibility to speak up and how they fear those who speak about them instead of with them.

I reflected on how often we as planers or people in position with more power decide over other people and especially minority groups without knowing their real needs and without going to their space, without talking with them and experience their life, their struggles and needs. Often decisions are made out of habit and mainly based on financial questions or statistical and technical data. How can we implement collaborative planning and participatory design strategies? At what stage in the design process can we integrate talks, discussions, interviews and workshops with local people to give them a voice? Until what point can we still integrate those ideas and inputs in the design, or how could we open up the process and give it more room to be a cyclical-, rather than linear design flow (where in later stages you can’t change or influence decisions that were made in the feasibility analysis)?

Additionally, how political can we be in our practice and how selective can we be with the projects we are willing to work on? Where can we say NO to projects and ideas of clients that we don’t approve on and how can we speak up for those who don’t have a voice that is heard as much as our own? And how do we make sure to clearly listen to the needs of the silenced and to not just project our own ideas of them?