skip to Main Content

Dignity Matters

How can architecture honor the lives that inhabit it?

by Peter H. Christensen

In Immanuel Kant’s widely cited collection of essays on morality, Lectures on Ethics, transcribed by his students between 1775–80, he issues an aphorism on the nature of human dignity: “Every man is to be respected as an absolute end in himself, and it is a crime against the dignity that be­longs to him as a human being to use him as a mere means for some external purpose.” Kant was advancing a growing body of Western philosophy on human rights, moving one step beyond the material rights of air, food, water, and shel­ter to say that every human being not only has the innate right to live, but also the right to live a life free from instru­mentalization towards an end. In other words, every life has intrinsic value.

This Enlightenment sentiment began to gain global cur­rency throughout the eighteenth century, paving the way for reform movements in the nineteenth and twentieth. Indeed, before the modern period, “dignity” was a word uti­lized to connote the state of being worthy of honor and re­spect; it was largely conceived as a quality either hereditary or earned. Kantian dignity upended this anti-universalist conception and put forth the tenet that, in theory, all human life—irrespective of class, achievement, race, or gender—deserves dignity. This intellectual lineage may explain why our thinking about dignity over the last two centuries has been primarily philosophical, not material, in nature.

By the twentieth century, in fact, dignity became so widely entrenched in humanist philosophy that it trans­figured into a legal concept in the constitutions of modern nation-states and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But this legal enshrinement patently did not trans­late into the preservation of human dignity on the ground. World wars, everyday hatred, and xenophobia stripped millions of their dignity when it did not strip them of their lives. Moreover, poverty—the most pernicious dissolver of dignity—may have decreased, but overall inequality has ballooned, manifesting its own egregious indignities. Today, the world faces new challenges to the preservation of human dignity, perhaps most loomingly the specter of a climate catastrophe that threatens our ability to ensure dignity over generations.

Poverty—the most pernicious dissolver of dignity—may have decreased, but overall inequality has ballooned, manifesting its own egregious indignities.

Consequent the myriad climate crisis catastrophes that we and our built world now face, it has become clear that the Global North must curb its material consumption. It is an injustice that the carbon emissions unleashed on the world by the industrial Global North are the same emissions that will most radically alter the lives of those in the Global South. Climate change and the migrations and demographic changes it has set into motion make it clear that radical alterations to our material world are urgently needed; this is where dignity comes into the picture.

Dignity is a threshold concept, the most emancipatory tool we have at our disposal for understanding how to balance the fallout of climate change while maintaining a commitment to inherent human worth. The climate crisis and the anthropocentric changes it demands raise the specter of a future world full of architectural sacrifices: of creature comforts like climate-controlled spaces, the spaciousness of our homes, the further densification of our towns and cities, and more. After all, the building sector has accounted for 40 percent of global carbon emissions. As we develop new ways of living, how can the concept of dignity guide us to lifeways that demonstrate both the value of a human life and the value of our environment?

Two architectural projects tethered to the rhetoric of dignity illuminate the ways in which history informs our understanding of this threshold condition for architecture. The first is in New Gourna, in Upper Egypt; the second the projects of Rural Studio, in Hale County, Alabama.

Any discussion of utopianism in the twentieth cen­tury necessarily involves mass housing. Any discus­sion of mass housing is, in some measure, informed by a theory of dignity, whether or not the architect real­izes it. The village of New Gourna was a settlement com­missioned by the Egyptian Department of Antiquities in 1945. The goal was to relocate the residents of Old Gourna, a longstanding improvised settlement, so as to repristinate the Pharaonic sites adjacent to it, including Hatshepsut’s Temple, the Valley of the Queens, and Valley of the Kings, among others. In so doing, the sites would become primed for more tourism. Depending on what one reads, the resi­dents of Old Gourna are alternately identified as looters or “amateur archaeologists.” Since at least the nineteenth cen­tury the settlement had been home to antiquities traders who made a living digging in the numerous valley tombs for treasures, most of which reached international buyers looking to develop Egyptological collections in the West.

The architect of New Gourna was Hassan Fathy, born and trained in Egypt, who was tasked with not only con­structing new homes for the residents of Old Gourna but also with redesigning the entire social and economic infrastructure of their livelihood. In his plan, Fathy sought to retool the careers of Old Gourna’s residents from “amateur archaeologists” to craftsmen who would make tourist handicrafts, trinkets, and souvenirs out of alabaster, onyx, basalt, and other local stones. New Gourna contained workshops for these activities as well as a market from which to sell them. The settlement also included communal structures Fathy saw as necessary for a village of several hundred: a mosque, a school, even an open-air theater. But political and financial complications as well as residents’ opposi­tion to relocation prevented completion. Today, only about 30 percent of what was completed of the original village remains.

New Gourna’s architecture consisted of modest, user-built mud-brick structures, chosen for their simplicity and affordability, which could be constructed with local materials. Fathy’s designs pulled from a variety of historical Egyptian sources, most prominently Coptic and Nubian ar­chitecture, resulting in his own vernacular style. Yet despite its originality, the design of Gourna was a massive failure: Fathy, for instance, made courtyards an essential part of the residences, even though courtyards were rare in Upper Egypt. When they were present, they served as work areas, not a spaces for leisure Fathy intended.

The most rudimentary secondary literature on Fathy naively paints him as a benevolent utopian seeking to better the lives of his countrymen. More sophisticated analyses, and his own archive, paint a more complex picture: that of an architect intent on improving the lives of the poor through good architecture, but also of a man with a deep-seated suspicion of the rural poor who, in his mind, lacked dig­nity through a combination of their living conditions— something they largely could not control because of their indigence—and something they largely could control, which Fathy describes as their “peasantly insolence.”

In his plan, Fathy sought to retool the careers of Old Gourna’s residents from “amateur archaeologists” to craftsmen who would make tourist handicrafts, trinkets, and souvenirs out of alabaster, onyx, basalt, and other local stones.

Fathy left behind an extensive written record, includ­ing his book on New Gourna, Architecture for the Poor: An Experiment in Rural Egypt, first published in 1969 as Gourna: A Tale of Two Villages by the Egyptian Ministry of Culture. His archives at the American University of Cairo reveal even more discussion of dignity in his letters, manuscript drafts, and in his own collection of literature. One of the key mea­sures of dignity was the destandardization of mass hous­ing. Fathy writes in Architecture for the Poor (1973), “How can people so poor that they cannot even afford to buy ready-baked bread, but have to make their own to save the baker’s profit, even dream of a factory-made house? To talk of prefabrication to people living in such poverty is worse than stupid, it is a cruel mockery of their condition. . . . We cannot house them cheaply even when we do standardize, and we cannot house them with any semblance of human dignity unless we destandardize.”

If destandardization was one pillar of dignity for Fathy, another was the environmental quality of the home, and a third was the activation of a kind of autodidacticism in his clients. Most tellingly, Fathy describes New Gourna holistically not as an “end in itself ” but rather as a heuris­tic for a better architecture writ large. This description of New Gourna as non-instrumental is precisely the kind of language that defines Kant’s conception of dignity. Fathy’s articulation is effectively a transposition of human dignity onto architecture. When imbued with dignity, architecture and human beings retain intrinsic, spiritual value.

However inventive and beautiful, we cannot ignore the failure of New Gourna to deliver on Fathy’s tall ambitions to alleviate poverty and retrain the amateur archaeologists of Luxor. The residents, by and large, did not become as enamored with New Gourna as critical regionalists and architecture critics did. Residents were unwilling or unable to participate in labor-intensive investment needed for the upkeep of mud-brick structures; one could argue that this mandate of perpetual labor was itself an indignity. And they were generally loath to jump in wholesale to the more “dignified” business of souvenir makers rather than that of “tomb raiders.”

At the root of this schism, I suspect, is a peculiar collision of values where, on the one hand, the state wishes to make honest men of tomb raiders and, on the other, the tomb raiders had been part of a lineage of generations of tradespeople with a certain measure of pride that conflicts directly with Western and museological morality. Their work, however problematic, was the only livelihood they knew. It would not surprise me if their reluctance to be domesticated into “dignified” citizens was, in a sense, also an opposition to the profound assault on their dignity. If architecture was the primary, and to some degree only, tool for this domestication, it makes sense that the would-be residents of New Gourna were indignant.

Rural Studio is a satellite campus of Auburn University’s School of Architecture. It is located in Newbern, Alabama, in Hale County, one of the poorest counties in the United States and at the heart of the so-called Black Belt in the American South. The term “Black Belt” originally referred to the region’s rich, black soil. The term took on additional meaning in the nineteenth century, when the region was developed for cotton plantation agriculture ex­ecuted by enslaved African Americans. After the American Civil War, many freedmen stayed in the area as sharecrop­pers and tenant farmers.

Founded in 1992 by the late Samuel Mockbee, a white Mississippi native, Rural Studio is a design-build program that, as part of its educational experience, immerses stu­dents in the design and construction of innovative, low-cost buildings for communities. And while their objectives share many similarities, Fathy seemed to revel in the role of the architect, while Mockbee regularly demonstrated scorn for the profession’s entrenchment and bent towards theory: he described American architects as “house pets for the rich” and was known to regularly quip “screw theory” whenever he was privy to a conversation that ventured into concep­tual territory. But what Mockbee was really denouncing were the discursive and exegetic traditions of the profes­sion. While he was not the prolific writer that Fathy was (he was, in fact, more of an artist), Mockbee did manifest a robust and recognizable theoretical domain of his own. “Everyone rich or poor deserves a shelter for the soul,” he said, evincing what is clearly an articulation of a universal idea of dignity.

Rural Studio is a design-build program that, as part of its educational experience, immerses stu­dents in the design and construction of innovative, low-cost buildings for communities.

Eschewing ambition or careerism, Mockbee noted that “compassion is more eventful than passion,” another clear indictment of what he perceived to be the architecture pro­fession’s ambivalence towards socially driven architecture. He manifested this philosophy with a sort of kit of parts or vernacular assemblage, drawing inspiration from “over­hanging galvanized roofs, rusting metal trailers, dogtrot forms, and porches.” The term “citizen architect”—lying somewhere between design and civic duty—was also cred­ited to Mockbee and remains the proud moniker of Rural Studio.

Since’s Mockbee’s death, in 2001, Rural Studio has been directed by the English architect Andrew Freear, whom I visited in February 2024, along with more than twenty rural studio projects in Alabama. The visit afforded me the oppor­tunity to ask the architect directly about what role dignity plays in his work. He told me that while dignity plays a cen­tral role, his understanding of the term is neither “academic” nor fixed. Freear has had to address certain criticisms of the studio that Mockbee did not in its early years. Foremost among them is the exploitation of power relations inher­ent in gift-giving and, as architecture critic Patricio del Real wrote in a 2009 Journal of Architectural Education article, for “making elitist architectural and middle-class values, rather than the process of political emancipation and self-deter­mination, a way to improve the lives of the poor.” Another criticism is the racial dynamics of a predominantly white corps of students building for near exclusively Black clients.

To counter these critiques Freear deploys his “intuitive” idea of dignity, a quality he believes is not afforded by a process that privileges recycling and cost-cutting. Though he seeks to train his students to work with manageable, off-the-shelf products, he does so without obsessing over price; doing so likens valuing people to valuing materials. Sublimating the tacit economics of the Studio is thus a means to focus on what Freear believes is the true measure of dignity: a refined and unique spatial creation that lifts the client’s spirit and empowers them to live with self-respect and a sense of ownership and dominion.

Freear also sees maintenance as a measure of dignity. Student builders are not specialist contractors, he admits, so some of their work needs remediation a few years later. In addition to new builds, a major component of the Studio’s work is doing such maintenance work on a growing list of structures, some of them now thirty years old. This is the reason Rural Studio does not build beyond a twenty-mile radius.

To date, Rural Studio has completed over one hundred houses and civic projects across three adjacent counties. Under Freear, they have also become more focused on prototypes, such as one deemed the $20K House. Because of the lack of conventional credit for people in the area, mobile homes are the main path to home ownership. Unlike a house, however, which is an asset for its owner, mobile homes depreciate over time. The $20K House, with its var­ied spatial permutations, is intended to model a home that could be reproduced at scale and with a measure of custom­ization and hence position itself as a viable alternative to the mobile home. Since 2005, there have been 16 iterations of the house, but none have yet to reach a scale justifying mass production.

What do these three architects teach us? For one, Fathy, Mockbee, and Freear assert the worthiness of dignity by articulating its moral obligations and supporting the indigent in word and deed. What do the places they built tell us about the nature of architectural dignity? I’m still working on the answer to this question, but I do know this: No matter how we must modify our lives, buildings, and cities for the future, human dignity must re­main a primary goal of architecture. Dignity in living, and the resources it requires, are not at odds with a just climate future. History is resplendent with the potential to point to the ways in which governments, if they are constitutionally committed to human dignity, must themselves incentivize the growth of renewable systems and the regulations to protect their inhabitants.


This essay appears in the 2024-25 issue of the Berlin Journal.

Photo: View of New Gourna from inside an extant domicile, 2023. Photo by the author.

Back To Top