An architectural project conceived from the neoliberal system can only be hostile. That's what Father Júlio Lancellotti, an active figure in actions to support homeless people in São Paulo, says. His work at the head of Pastoral do Povo da Rua has deservedly received the attention of national and international media, as well as being frequently published on his own social networks, drawing the attention of the public and authorities to urgent issues of inequality, invisibility of the most vulnerable and the hostility of our architecture and public spaces.
Relying on the concept of aporophobia – a neologism coined by the Spanish philosopher Adela Cortina that means, in general terms, the systemic rejection of poverty and poor people – Lancellotti makes a brutal analysis of reality: "The city is not hospitable. The poor are not welcome." In a resistance movement, in a "fight of the defeated", he seeks to combat the hostility of urban spaces with small-scale actions, having already wielded the sledgehammer to demolish anti-homeless boulders under a bridge in São Paulo.
However, he does not lose sight of the most important thing: architecture and the city are part of a larger whole, the society, and the change we need is structural. Read the full interview below:
Romullo Baratto (ArchDaily): The Father Júlio Lancellotti law – which prohibits hostile construction techniques in public and private space – has a direct relation with architecture and the city. How do you see the relation between architecture, dignity and human rights?
Father Júlio Lancellotti: There are three concepts that are interconnected, or should be interconnected. Architecture must be in the service of dignity and always in defense of human rights. Human rights and dignity, on the other hand, need architecture to make themselves present in life. But this equation doesn't always work like this...
RB: Your work addresses this dysfunction; walks towards dignifying, humanizing people who are often dehumanized, made invisible. In the long run, however, it does not solve the issue. What kinds of strategies and laws do you believe could be used to definitively improve the quality of life for the most vulnerable?
JL: There is no law that solves social and structural injustice. And no knowledge is neutral, architecture is also not neutral. Just as science is not neutral, neither is medicine. So they can all be manipulated for certain interests.
In a city like São Paulo, for example, real estate speculation dominates. The real estate market interests are dominant. Real estate market is more important than education, than health. Legislation can be part of a historical path that corrects and builds new proposals, but no legislation by itself changes the neoliberal system.
Our architecture is also immersed in the neoliberal system. It is an architecture of neoliberalism. We cannot say that there is an architecture that is not influenced by the system. The change we need is structural.
Legislation in itself is important as a legal framework, but they also end up allowing interpretations, and I think that this proposed law against hostile interventions is unlikely to succeed.
RB: In what sense?
JL: Oh, it won't be approved. The interests of the real estate market are very strong in the National Congress. You have to be realistic. Is Congress more concerned with the homeless or with real estate developments? Will it give more importance to a homeless person who is being harassed by hostile architectural interventions, or to developers, contractors and large real estate corporations?
Aporophobia is part of the repertoire; it is common sense to install a hostile obstacle so that homeless people do not approach. Nowadays, the homeless, made invisible, are very visible to the real estate market. Hardly a real estate development will be built in an area with many homeless people – or something will be done to get them out of there.
RB: Listening to you, it seems to be a very difficult and disheartening battleground. So, for the same reason, these interventions on a smaller scale, almost punctual, like the ones you coordinate in Pastoral do Povo de Rua, seem to be the only possible way forward.
JL: Yes, and you can go on inducing, doing an educational process – and this is proposed by the philosopher Adela Cortina, who coined the term aporophobia, through an educational process that leaves hostility and moves towards hospitality.
Our architectural projects have many interventions of hostility and very few of hospitality.
RB: This issue of aporophobia is much related to the theme of hostile architecture, and when we think about it, smaller-scale examples come to mind: benches where you can't lie down, metal pins, concrete boulders in underpasses of viaducts - like the ones you symbolically ripped out with a sledgehammer one year ago. But it's more than that; the city can also be hostile on an urban scale, and it is!
JL: It is a conception: the city is not hospitable. And the poor are not welcome.
RB: Yes, and still on that, how do you see the changes that are happening in downtown São Paulo, with new bars, shops and public? Did you realize that this changed the dynamics of downtown and the homeless?
JL: People feel the hostility, they become urban refugees. Nobody wants them around, they have nowhere to go. They are not welcome anywhere, their lives are guarded. And everything that is done for them follows the neoliberal logic. See this recent proposal by the São Paulo City Hall for temporary housing: a temporary house for one year, made of recycled material, in an area of the city with very difficult access.
RB: That's exactly what I mean when I talk about hostile urbanism. Restricting the right to the city, the access to the city, is part of the logic of urban hostility.
JL: This is what I commented to students who came recently to the Parish. There are penthouse apartments for sale in the Mooca neighborhood; you can buy it, you just don't buy it because you don't want to. You are free, you can buy, you just have to have the money. Nobody will stop you. Want more democracy than this? Having money, you buy. Don't you have? It's your problem. It's the cynical logic of the system: with money you can do whatever you want. It is our neoliberal, meritocratic epistemology.
RB: This goes beyond the theoretical plan, it is literally concreted in the city.
JL: We act the way we think. If we think like that, we act like that.
An architectural project conceived from a neoliberal epistemology can only be like this. It has several impediments, not everyone can enter, entry is selective… Have you ever seen a homeless person in the mall? He doesn't even go through the door. They are neither public nor democratic spaces. We have fenced squares…
RB: In that sense, it seems that we are a long way from any structural change.
JL: Oh, very far away. It's a historical fight and I'm fully aware that I'll lose many battles. It's a fight of the defeated whose results I won't see. Besides, this fight is not mine, it's a very old fight, and most of the time we will be defeated, trampled on… This is what Paulo Freire says in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed: the ragged in history and those who are ragged for being on their side.
RB: In recent years, from 2018 onwards, it seems that your activity on the street has increased, perhaps proportionally to the number of homeless people in São Paulo. And your recognition too, as we can see on social media and in the awards you have received. Despite the awareness that this is a fight for the defeated, it is not possible to ignore that there are positive aspects to it.
JL: I believe that there are contradictions and that we need to live the contradictions of history. Many times, those who give you an honor do so to silence you and do not commit to change. The hegemonic system is very strong and has an ideological body that is also very strong to support it. I always quote Simone de Beauvoir's phrase: the oppressors wouldn't have so much power if they didn't have so many accomplices among the oppressed. And, again, as Paulo Freire says: when education is not liberating, the dream of the oppressed is to be the oppressor.
This is our daily weight. It is impossible to talk only about architecture or only about cities, we are a totality and change is slow, but it needs to be structural.
This article is part of ArchDaily Topics: Architecture Without Buildings. Monthly, we explore a specific topic through articles, interviews, news and projects. Learn more about ArchDaily topics. As always, ArchDaily is open to contributions from our readers; if you want to submit an article or project, please contact us.
