# data[].attributes.body
Richard Sennett argues in his book, that growing up and living in an affluent, modern city, people's desire for comfort and predictability grows, making it difficult for them to face conflicts and solve problems that they cannot forsee. In order to counter the human desire for certainty, he argues that cities should be purposely dense, disordered and decentralized and not a perfect system of order and control, where disorder is seen as a failure. He calls for an anarchic city, not on of chaos and irrationality, but one of creative disorder, differentiation and acceptance of uncertainty. He views emotions such as aggression, which are repressed in a modern society, as vital and natural. Repressing such emtions doesn't eliminate them, but bottles it up, which results in irrational outbreaks. I think for the time that it was written, his views are also quite feminine and progressive. In his last chapter, where he describes the life of a little girl growing up in a disoreded society, he touches on aspects such as women with careers, how to manage professional life and domestic life, how such a society can empower women and make them "bright".

# data[].attributes.body
Sennett says that when people always want safety and order, they hide from differences and conflict. This makes it hard for them to deal with new situations or people who are different. He thinks people need to face disorder, challenges, and disagreements to grow, learn, and become more flexible and tolerant.

He gives the example of Americans in the 1970s who moved from busy cities to quiet, similar-looking suburbs to avoid problems. Sennett thinks this was a mistake because working through differences helps people and communities grow.

For Sennett, real community means facing and dealing with conflicts, not avoiding them. He believes cities should welcome many kinds of people and some disorder, because this helps us learn. He warns that too many rules and too much control stop people from growing and make democracy weaker.

In today’s world, I think we are seeing a stagnation of growth not in a scientific sense, but more in a moral or personal way. Many people seem to withdraw and shut themselves off from the outside world, because it doesn't give a purpose or in the sense of no meaning. . Without regular contact and conflict (Like sennet said) with others in daily life, people lose the push to develop themselves. Reflecting on Sennett’s text and its message, I am reminded of the saying, “Tough times create strong people. Strong people create easy times. Easy times create weak people. Weak people create tough times.”

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Sennett argues in his book that the modern, planned city of the 1960s is sterile, lifeless and unorganic. While it indeed promises infrastructure and safety - which makes it appealing on paper - it is missing a crucial aspect that makes a city succesful. He also critises that the USA underwent urban renewal which had the aim to force black and white communities into such modern cities. However, this would strip them of their social networks and worsen their situation. A good city must have the following according to Richard Sennett: unpredictability, chaos and conflict so that people can grow into autonomous people. I aggree with Sennetts view that urban life cannot be planned but must be lived. Furthermore, while I do also aggree that there should not be a social community that is domineering, I doubt that it is possible to achieve. People naturally form strong groups and seek influecne, which will lead to some communities always striving for more power.

# data[].attributes.body
Sennett says people need disorder to grow up. When life is too safe and controlled, people stop learning how to deal with others who are different. In the 1970s, many Americans moved to suburbs to escape the chaos of the city. But Sennett thought this was a mistake. He believed the city’s mix of people, noise, and conflict could help people become more honest, free, and adult. Today we face a similar problem online. Social media lets us hide from people who think or live differently. We create digital suburbs. Maybe we still need what Sennett called “good disorder” — a bit of mess and tension that makes us talk and listen to each other. Real community, he says, is not about peace or sameness. It is about facing conflict and learning from it. Disorder is not the enemy of freedom; it is its teacher.

# data[].attributes.body
I find the topic questions to be very interesting. With the satiation of basic needs and wants people look for purpose, which can be difficult in the freedom of the city. This is something I notice today as well. Especially on the topic of religion, as people seem to be returning to it, as well as increased depression rates which can be caused by higher isolation. This is a paradox in cities with their greater density of people, as well as with the invention of the internet, which can connect more people, however still makes people more isolated. These topics are very interesting yet also interdisciplinary. Changes in culture would be necessary, which is what the text touches on, however I do not know how much can architecture do about it. The text was not easy to understand. Mostly because it began very vague and abstract. It took some time before I understood what it is getting at, at which point a second reading of it is necessary. Moreover, the comparison of affluent white people with poor white people with poor black people felt confusing as I would have liked more precise language. These books from the 1960s and 70s feel both too scentific and not scientific enough.

# data[].attributes.body
What I find most important in Sennett’s text is his idea that disorder in cities can actually be a good thing that complexity, conflict, and constant negotiation make urban life more human. He criticizes the routines and security of affluent societies, arguing that they lead to boredom and isolation. I find that inspiring, especially his belief that a city should allow differences to coexist rather than be managed away. Still, I don’t fully agree with his optimism that people would naturally embrace disorder; I think many still seek stability and comfort, and without some structure, disorder can easily become exclusion.

Placed in its historical context, the text clearly comes from the late 1960s, when there was a strong push against institutions and social control. That period’s idealism shapes his vision of a more open and participatory city. His ideas connect closely to Jane Jacobs and Lefebvre, who both see the city as a living, contested space rather than something neatly organized.

For me as an architecture student, Sennett’s argument is a reminder that design shouldn’t just impose order but create possibilities for encounter, change, and appropriation. It’s about designing frameworks that let life unfold, not fixing it in advance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Solnit2025_No Straight Road Takes You There_Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Richards1969_Lessons from the Japanese Jungle

# data[].attributes.body
In the text Richard Sennett questions the idea that order and stability are always good for individuals or for cities. From the very beginning, he argues that the modern city has become too organized, too controlled, and too afraid of mess. This desire for control might make people feel safe, but it also prevents them from growing. He sees disorder not as something destructive, but as something that challenges us and helps us develop a stronger sense of self. When life is too predictable, people stop learning from difference and discomfort.

As the book goes on, Sennett connects this idea to what he calls the “purified community,” where people build lives surrounded only by others like themselves. The middle-class suburbs become symbols of this desire for safety through separation. It is a world without friction, where everything feels comfortable but nothing truly changes. Reading this, I was reminded of earlier discussions of Mead and Tyrwhitt, especially their ideas about how keeping children enclosed and protected can actually stand in the way of their development. Just as children need space to explore and make mistakes, adults need cities that expose them to conflict and unfamiliarity in order to mature.

Sennett’s hope for a more open and impure city feels idealistic, but also deeply human. He wants urban life to be unpredictable and full of difference, because that is how both people and communities learn who they are. What struck me most is how relevant his argument still feels today, when so many cities continue to value control, safety, and sameness over real interaction. His point that growth depends on disorder is both unsettling and hopeful. It suggests that a bit of chaos might actually be what makes a city, and its people, alive.

Yet it also raises a difficult question: where do we draw the line? How safe is safe enough before protection turns into restriction, and how do we avoid building cities that feel careless rather than free?

# data[].attributes.body
In his text The Uses of Disorder : Personal Identity and City Life, from 1970, Richard Sennett explores the place of anarchy within the city. He establishes a shift between generations occurring because of a new state of affluence produced by the growing economy. This shift changes what the younger generation seeks in a city life, where routine, comfort, and peaceful isolation, previously cherished by past generations emerging from poorer times, are now discarded in the search for stronger community bonds, diversity and confrontational relationships. He means to push towards a new mentality in planning cities that could respond to this will of emancipation that he recognizes in the 70's youth. What he proposes is the idea of reinstating disorder within the city, in a stable and efficient way, something he calls "the city as an anarchic system". Taking advantage of this new condition of affluence that raises human condition above its basic survival instincts, conflicts of interest could be expressed without threatening a complete and violent destruction of the city. As Sennett phrases : "The reason [violence] exists is that society has come to expect too much order, too much coherence in its communal life, thus bottling up the hostile aggressiveness men cannot help but feeling." (p.181)

I think Sennett has a point in questioning the growing rush for more security, more homogeneity and routine for the health of our cities. The fact that the same phenomenon can be seen occurring today shows how significant this subject still is. I especially enjoyed his conclusion where he exemplified in a concrete example how he envisions his future city.

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Sennett argues for a new form of urban life in which disorder and diversity are not seen as threats but as essential conditions for personal and collective growth. He envisions cities that allow individuals, especially adolescents to develop identities beyond their given expectations. Referencing Karl Marx, Sennett highlights that inequality is not only material but also social. Meaning that people suffer when their environments limit their interpersonal contact, conflict, and genuine encounters with others and their surroundings.

What remains unclear to me, however, is how such a shift could take place in reality. How can those benefiting from existing structures be convinced to embrace disorder without fearing their loss of security? Furthermore how can dense cities embrace and support diversity without triggering gentrification or displacement?

# data[].attributes.body
Sennett’s text is interesting to me because he treats disorder not as a failure of the city but as its essential quality. He argues that affluence and routine can trap people in a kind of voluntary slavery, where comfort and predictability become more important than freedom. More freedom and disorder in the city (less regulation and control) will lead to giving responsibility and power to the people. That's why Sennett says that a city must be dense and diverse. It forces people into encounters and conflicts that challenge them to grow beyond.

I find it interesting that Sennett sees adolescence as a crucial stage in this process. He suggests that many adults in affluent societies remain stuck in adolescent patterns- seeking safety, sameness, and routine - because their communities don’t allow them to fully work through those desires. The city, with its disorder, becomes the place where people can confront this patterns and move toward a more "mature freedom".

What stands out to me is his insistence that disorder has positive human value. Instead of planning cities to eliminate chaos, he believes we should increase certain kinds of disorder so that people can experience dislocation and learn to live with it.

I personally think that maybe a small amount of disorder can be something constructive in urban life. It makes me reflect on how much of today’s urban planning still aims to control and sanitize, and how much space is left for unpredictability.

# data[].attributes.body
In The Uses of Disorder, Richard Sennett explores how the structure of modern urban life shapes personal identity. He argues that within affluent, predominantly white middle-class communities, adults often exhibit adolescent behaviors, seeking security, avoiding conflict, and submitting to social norms in what he describes as a form of self-imposed slavery. For Sennett, this immaturity is not simply psychological but comes from the way cities are organised encouraging citizens to retreat into predictable, homogenous environments rather than confront social and economic diversity.

I believe Sennett’s call for social disorganization is a way of reclaiming urban life as a space of learning and self-transformation. He advocates for dense, unpredictable cities where differences can coexist and where individuals are constantly exposed to new experiences that disrupt routine. I find this idea compelling, as it positions disorder not as a failure of planning but as a necessary condition for human growth and empathy. Somehow it makes me think of Paris.

I also appreciate the richness of Sennett’s references, drawing from different fields.

I believe his critique of how affluence enables isolation through routine remains highly relevant. I believe there is also an utopian dimension to Sennett’s vision, as he imagines a city where disorder naturally fosters tolerance, creativity, and personal freedom, an ideal that is both inspiring and perhaps difficult to fully realise.

# data[].attributes.body
I find Sennett’s idea of linking the notion of purified identity to the spatial form of human settlements very compelling.

In my observation, however, urban difference today often does not work as a stimulating condition for personal growth. Instead, diversity can become a kind of backdrop — a visual or cultural setting that reinforces the very purified identities it is meant to challenge.

This makes me think that our current moment requires a new approach to difference. It’s not enough to allow diverse groups or spaces to coexist; what is needed is an interweaving of differences, creating real connections and interactions rather than just proximity. Urban diversity should be lived and negotiated, not just displayed.

While Sennett imagined cities as “anarchic systems” open to chance and conflict, perhaps today we need to imagine cities as interwoven systems, where difference creates connection and small frictions help identities remain open and evolving.

# data[].attributes.body
Sennett's texts talks about the city life and its necessity of disorder and diversity in everyday life. In this way he questioned the need or desire of society to achieve order or comfort. Sennett takes the young adults/teenagers as a reference point to support his predications. The text conveys that modern affluence and the routines of planned communities, like the suburbs, trap people in a state of "voluntary servitude to unruffled ease". To counteract this, cities must be made intentionally dense, diverse, and anarchic, forcing people into conflict and confrontation to shed their "deep-down natural desire for a comfortable slavery to the routine" and gain greater self-control. His text provokes and makes one think about how we perceive a city.

# data[].attributes.body
Sennett’s text challenges the idea that order and comfort are the ultimate goals of social life. He argues that wealthy communities, especially suburban ones, create a sense of security that ends up being suffocating. What stood out to me is his claim that disorder is not something to fear but something necessary for growth. He sees cities as places where diversity and unpredictability can help people grow.

The racial language in the introduction is striking. When Sennett talks about wealthy whites trying to find warmth in black communities, he shows how these efforts were misguided and ultimately failed.

I also found his emphasis on conflict and confrontation important. He suggests that living in dense, diverse cities forces people to deal with differences directly, and that this process can lead to a richer social life. His critique of bureaucratic control and rigid planning makes sense in this context. He believes that too much structure kills creativity and freedom. Overall, Sennett’s vision of cities as spaces where disorder and diversity are embraced feels necessary if we want communities that are responsive to human needs.

# data[].attributes.body
Sennett describes a frustration among the youth in Fordist times, looking for a sense of community and freedom. The youth could not understand how their parents would fall into a life of routine after having lived a life of scarcity, because they grew up knowing nothing but affluence and safety. Sennett argues that people do not need routine when already on a stable economic ground, hence why more people were trying to leave the suburbs and move back to city centres. But neighbourhoods in the city were too homogeneous. He proposes that people need more disorder in their lives. By organizing the city in a more anarchical manner, allowing neighbors to govern themselves rather than relying on bureaucracy for every conflict, people could redirect their boredom into motivation and their aggression into constructive social conflict. In solving conflicts themselves, people trapped in an affluent routine can "grow up" by understanding how to govern oneself.

This reminded me of a story I heard recently about a student party. Someone was hosting a party in an apartment complex in Zurich. Their neighbour attended the party, and when the clock struck ten, the neighbour went home and called the police for a noise complaint. The behaviour of this neighbour reminds me of that of a child going to their teacher to report that a fellow student stole their pencil. I find it very much aligns with Sennett's metaphor of being stuck in adolescence. I imagine the person throwing the party after was really mad at their neighbour but had to bottle it up, which will lead to an aggressive explosion. Was the neighbour just childish and unable to confront the party person, or did the neighbour direct his boredom and aggression into making other people's lives more complicated? And what if the party person then went to confront their neighbour in an act of trying to be heard and solve the conflict themselves before having to pay a fine again. Then the conversation and hopefully mutual understanding of the two neighbours would be the type of self-governance Sennett had proposed. But I imagine the first ending is more likely - though I don't know what happened after.

Maybe what we can take from this as architects is that we should build in a more communal way, where you meet your community often, bypassing, on accident, instead of isolating the people. Then just let them be and solve their own problems. Imposing a theoretically perfect living situation is, first of all, not possible and second, against human desire.

# data[].attributes.body
In his text, Richard Sennett describes the desire for a new kind of city life, which emerges from different perspectives. He therefore proposes an urban society in which disorder and diversity are welcomed. This would allow adolescents to grow up in an environment where they could develop independently from the expectations of meritocracy, which contrasts with the idea of the suburbs. A non-routine life is presented as an ideal.
Sennett emphasizes this by referring to Karl Marx, who pointed out that not only the unfair distribution of means but also the lack of social life are responsible for the repressive system.

What I ask myself is how Sennett imagines the transition from the old to the new society. How will he convince those who fear losing their material privileges? How can an accumulation of people in cities lead to diversification instead of displacement? Is there a way for rural areas to become more diverse?

# data[].attributes.body
The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity and City Life (1970)

Introduction, Chapter 7, Chapter 8: pp. 11-18, 172-198

# data[].attributes.body
Post your reading response to the text until 13.11.25 13:00 on this Padlet

Suggestions for the Reading Response:

-What are the most important arguments and suggestions that you can take away from the text?

-Which arguments would you disagree with the author on, and why?

-How do you evaluate the text in light of its historical context?

-How could this text be related to other texts already read in this seminar?

-Which arguments do you consider significant for your future work as an architect?