Architecture, Neoliberalism, and Capitalist Realism: Douglas Spencer in Relation to Mark Fisher
Architecture, Neoliberalism, and Capitalist Realism: Douglas Spencer in Relation to Mark Fisher
This comprehensive report examines the critical relationship between Douglas Spencer's The Architecture of Neoliberalism: How Contemporary Architecture Became an Instrument of Control and Compliance (2016) and Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? (2009), revealing how these works form complementary analyses of contemporary capitalism's spatial, cultural, and psychological dimensions. Spencer meticulously documents how architectural theory and practice have been reconfigured to serve neoliberal imperatives, transforming built environments into instruments that cultivate entrepreneurial subjectivity and normalize market logic across educational, workplace, and cultural institutions1233334. Fisher, meanwhile, identifies "capitalist realism" as the pervasive cultural condition in which capitalism appears not merely as the dominant economic system but as the only conceivable horizon of social and political possibility, rendering alternatives unimaginable56789. Together, these works provide an integrated critique where Spencer's material analysis of architectural space grounds Fisher's more diffuse cultural diagnosis, while Fisher's conceptual framework of capitalist realism illuminates the ideological atmosphere within which Spencer's architects operate. Both authors converge on the transformation of subjectivity under neoliberal conditions, the depoliticization of social critique, and the relationship between mental health crises and capitalist organization, though they approach these themes from distinct disciplinary perspectives—Spencer through architectural history and theory, Fisher through cultural criticism and political philosophy. Their works collectively expose how neoliberal capitalism operates not merely through top-down policies but through the spatial organization of everyday life, the internalization of market values, and the systematic foreclosure of alternative futures.
1. Situating Spencer and Fisher in the Critique of Neoliberalism
1.1. Two books, one conjuncture
Spencer's The Architecture of Neoliberalism was published in 2016, at a moment when critiques of neoliberalism had become widespread but had not yet been systematically elaborated within architectural discourse itself2310101034. The book focuses on the late twentieth and early twenty-first century "turn" in architecture toward parametricism, post-critical and so-called "projective" practices, and it argues that these developments cannot be understood solely as internal stylistic or methodological innovations2331134. Instead, Spencer insists that they are deeply entangled with the emergence of neoliberalism as a political rationality that recodes subjects as human capital, celebrates spontaneous order and complexity, and extends market logics into all spheres of life121234. His central thesis is that contemporary architecture has become an instrument of control and compliance, refashioning users as entrepreneurial, self-organizing subjects and reconfiguring institutions such as universities and workplaces in line with market imperatives334334.
Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, first published in 2009, quickly became a central reference point in anglophone left theory and cultural criticism5136718. Fisher coined "capitalist realism" to name the widespread sense that capitalism is not only the only viable social–economic system, but that alternatives have become literally unthinkable567. He traces how this "realism" emerges from the conjunction of neoliberal reforms with a postmodern cultural logic, producing a psychic infrastructure in which market values and competition appear as natural, while structural analysis and collective politics are displaced in favour of individualized explanations, especially around mental illness, work stress, and educational failure526789. Fisher's book ranges across popular culture, public services, management talk and political rhetoric, showing how the same logic recurs in arenas as diverse as Hollywood cinema, audit culture in universities, and the privatization of mental distress56789.
Both books respond to the same historical conjuncture: the consolidation, after the crises of Fordist capitalism in the 1970s and the end of the Cold War, of a neoliberal order that presents itself as both inevitable and desirable521484. Fisher emphasizes the transformation in common sense, the narrowing of political imagination, and the internalization of competition; Spencer traces how those transformations are materialized in architectural form and encoded in disciplinary theory12123331134. In other words, Fisher writes the cultural–ideological horizon within which Spencer's architects think and work, while Spencer describes the spatial and professional mechanisms that help reproduce the very "realism" Fisher diagnoses. This relationship is particularly evident in how both authors analyze the university as a key site where neoliberal logic is both implemented and naturalized—Fisher through the lens of audit culture and student-as-consumer frameworks, Spencer through the spatial reorganization of campuses into entrepreneurial ecosystems.
1.2. Neoliberalism as form of existence, capitalism as psychic infrastructure
Spencer explicitly frames neoliberalism not only as a bundle of economic policies but as an ideology that defines "the form of our existence"11234. Drawing on Philip Mirowski and Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval, among others, he distinguishes neoliberalism from capitalism as such, insisting that neoliberalism believes "that the only real way to maximise human flourishing is to maximise the profits of capitalists," a claim that functions as a normative principle rather than a neutral description124. Importantly, he focuses on neoliberalism's production of a specific conception of subjectivity, one in which individuals must understand themselves as entrepreneurs of their own human capital, perpetually optimizing and responsibilizing themselves in relation to competitive markets11234. This subject is not simply the passive bearer of labour-power but an active project of self-management, whose desires, capacities, and affects are to be mobilized for productivity.
Fisher's account of capitalist realism parallels this emphasis on subjectivity, but from a different angle. For Fisher, capitalist realism is not a doctrine that people explicitly affirm; it is a "pervasive atmosphere" or "psychic infrastructure" that shapes how they experience reality26715. It comprises common attitudes and implicit assumptions that make it difficult to see capitalism as contingent or transformable5267. The belief that "there is no alternative" to capitalism is not always articulated as a thesis, but manifests in a generalized fatalism, a sense that political projects beyond the market are unrealistic, while personal adaptation, resilience, and self-improvement become the only available responses to systemic crises567816. Like Spencer, Fisher stresses that neoliberalism and capitalist realism reconfigure subjectivity: individuals internalize structural contradictions as personal failures, particularly in the domains of mental health and work56789.
The relation between the two books thus begins with a shared premise: neoliberalism operates through the production of subjects and the shaping of everyday perception, not only through top-down state policies or corporate strategies. Spencer emphasizes the spatial and institutional apparatuses that enact this production, especially architecture's role in designing environments where self-organizing, entrepreneurial subjects are expected to flourish12334334. Fisher analyzes the corresponding psychic and cultural conditions, showing how these subjects experience their world as naturally capitalist and their distress as individual rather than structural56789. Taken together, they offer a multi-dimensional account of the same neoliberal order, where built space, institutional design, and cultural common sense all converge. This is particularly evident in their shared analysis of how mental health crises are depoliticized under neoliberal conditions—Spencer showing how architectural environments contribute to stress and anxiety while framing these as individual rather than systemic issues, Fisher documenting how depression becomes normalized as a personal chemical imbalance rather than a rational response to precarious labor conditions.
1.3. Theoretical lineages and methodological approaches
Both authors draw on similar theoretical resources while developing distinct methodological approaches. Spencer's work is deeply indebted to Michel Foucault's lectures on neoliberal governmentality, particularly Foucault's analysis of how neoliberalism transforms the art of government by extending market rationality to all domains of life1123. Spencer extends this Foucauldian framework to architecture, arguing that built environments become technologies of subjectivation that operationalize neoliberal truths about human nature and social organization333334. He also engages critically with Marxian thought, but deliberately moves beyond traditional Marxist analyses of architecture to focus on how neoliberalism specifically reshapes subjectivity through spatial practices1234.
Fisher's work similarly synthesizes multiple theoretical traditions, drawing on Marxism, psychoanalysis, and postmodern theory to develop his concept of capitalist realism514671815. He situates capitalist realism as a successor to the postmodern condition described by Fredric Jameson, arguing that where postmodernism emphasized the depthlessness and cultural saturation of late capitalism, capitalist realism names a further stage in which capitalism's totality is experienced as inescapable5146715. Fisher's method is more eclectic and culturally oriented, drawing on film, music, and popular culture to illustrate how capitalist realism permeates everyday life and shapes collective imagination.
Despite these methodological differences, both authors share a commitment to tracing the genealogy of contemporary conditions through careful attention to historical shifts. Spencer identifies the period following May 1968 as a crucial turning point when architectural theory began to abandon its critical and political commitments in favor of a "post-theoretical" stance that embraced complexity and emergence as alternatives to modernist planning123331134. Fisher similarly identifies the period after 1989, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the moment when capitalist realism fully consolidated its hold, eliminating even the symbolic alternative that state socialism had provided56789. This shared historical framing reveals how both authors understand contemporary conditions as the product of specific historical ruptures rather than inevitable developments.
2. Conceptual Frameworks: Neoliberal Governmentality and Capitalist Realism
2.1. Spencer's neoliberalism: governmentality, human capital, and spontaneous order
Spencer's book is deeply indebted to Michel Foucault's work on governmentality, especially his late 1970s lectures on neoliberalism1123. Foucault argued that neoliberalism should be understood as a distinctive art of government, one that extends economic rationality to all aspects of life and reconceptualizes individuals as entrepreneurs of themselves3. Spencer takes this as a starting point to analyze the "truths" about subjectivity that neoliberalism disseminates, and he is interested in how architecture becomes a medium for those "games of truth"3. In the introduction, he notes that theory and practice in architecture have come to share with neoliberal thought a hostility to hierarchical planning, a valorization of spontaneous order and self-organization, and a reliance on systems theory and cybernetics21231711. This convergence is not accidental; it reflects a deeper alignment around how the human subject is conceived and how it should be governed3.
Spencer traces an intellectual lineage from neoliberal economists such as Friedrich Hayek, who celebrated spontaneous order and the dispersed knowledge of individuals, through the uptake of systems theory and complexity science in post-war architecture and urbanism121217114. He argues that architectural discourses around "emergence," "complexity," and "self-organization" in the 1990s and 2000s rely on the same conceptual repertoire as neoliberalism's defence of the market21217114. This repertoire underwrites a vision of design in which the architect is less a master planner than a facilitator of processes, setting parameters within which users and systems self-organize. On the surface, this shift appears progressive, even emancipatory, promising more participatory, responsive, and flexible environments233334. Yet Spencer insists that it also dovetails with neoliberal efforts to dismantle collective planning and state provision, substituting market-driven, self-regulating systems for democratic decision-making121234.
Central to this argument is the figure of the entrepreneurial self. Spencer draws on Dardot and Laval to emphasize that neoliberalism redefines individuals as bundles of human capital, whose value is to be enhanced through continuous investment in skills, flexibility, and self-presentation123. Architects, he suggests, increasingly design spaces that presume such subjects: co-working offices, flexible learning environments, creative campuses, and branded retail landscapes all target users who are expected to network, innovate, and self-manage334334. Architecture thus becomes a technology of subjectivation, embedding neoliberal norms in its material organization of space and its scripting of behaviour. This is particularly evident in university architecture, where traditional lecture halls giving way to "learning commons" and collaborative spaces that encourage constant interaction and self-directed learning, reflecting the neoliberal transformation of education into a site of human capital development rather than collective knowledge production.
2.2. Fisher's capitalist realism: ideology, postmodernism, and business ontology
Fisher's concept of capitalist realism is likewise grounded in a theoretical synthesis, drawing on Marxism, psychoanalysis, and postmodern theory514671815. He situates capitalist realism as a successor to the postmodern condition described by Fredric Jameson, arguing that where postmodernism emphasized the depthlessness and cultural saturation of late capitalism, capitalist realism names a further stage in which capitalism's totality is experienced as inescapable5146715. The "realism" here is both aesthetic and ideological: it denotes a regime in which political actors and ordinary people alike treat market capitalism as the only viable frame, dismissing alternatives as utopian or dangerous5678.
A key aspect of Fisher's framework is his critique of what he calls "business ontology," the idea that the only legitimate way to organize any social activity is as a business618. This ontology underpins reforms in public services, where schools, universities, and hospitals are restructured as quasi-corporate entities, with management metrics, targets, and branding5678919. It also informs the cultural sphere, where creative work is recast as entrepreneurial activity, and artists, academics, and media workers are urged to think of themselves as self-managing micro-enterprises5671816. Business ontology thus aligns closely with Spencer's neoliberal subjectivity: in both accounts, people are expected to internalize market logic and self-optimize in line with it.
Fisher integrates into this framework an analysis of neoliberalism itself, often referencing its origins in free-market economics and its practical implementation through deregulation, privatization, and austerity5267. However, like Spencer, he is less interested in neoliberalism as merely a set of economic policies than as a cultural and affective regime. He underlines how neoliberalism encourages a highly individualistic, competitive, and moralizing way of seeing the world, in which structural inequalities are reframed as personal shortcomings267. This reframing is particularly apparent in his discussion of mental health: depression and anxiety are personalized, treated as chemical imbalances or individual pathologies, rather than as rational responses to precarious labour, work intensification, and social atomization567189.
Crucially, Fisher emphasizes that capitalist realism is not a coherent ideology in the traditional sense but a "state of affairs" or "cultural logic," a blend of neoliberalism and postmodernism that has become so ubiquitous that it is difficult to perceive from the inside21467. Like Spencer's "truth games," capitalist realism operates at the level of implicit assumptions and everyday practices, shaping how people interpret events and possibilities. In this way, it is directly analogous to Spencer's description of neoliberalism as the "form of our existence," suggesting that the two books are analysing the same phenomenon under different descriptions and from different angles11235267. This is particularly evident in their shared analysis of how mental health crises are depoliticized under neoliberal conditions—Spencer showing how architectural environments contribute to stress and anxiety while framing these as individual rather than systemic issues, Fisher documenting how depression becomes normalized as a personal chemical imbalance rather than a rational response to precarious labor conditions.
2.3. Shared emphasis on subjectivity and the limits of critique
Both authors, then, foreground subjectivity as the crucial site where neoliberalism and capitalism reproduce themselves. Spencer's architectural case studies show how buildings and spatial programs are designed to cultivate entrepreneurial, self-organizing subjects in specific domains, such as the "student-entrepreneur" on university campuses or the "team-worker" in open-plan offices334334. Fisher's analyses of education, work, and culture show how those same subjects are interpellated through management discourse, media representations, and therapeutic narratives, and how they experience the contradictions of neoliberalism as personal stress or failure567189.
A second shared concern is the apparent exhaustion of critique itself. Spencer notes, especially in his subsequent Critique of Architecture, that architecture's post-critical and projective turns have declared traditional critical theory obsolete or impotent, positioning themselves as more engaged with the "real" conditions of post-Fordist capitalism while actually legitimating neoliberal arrangements220420. Similarly, Fisher worries that much of what passes for critique under capitalist realism is toothless, either integrated into the market as a stylistic gesture or confined to despairing commentary that accepts the system's permanence51467211. Both thus grapple with how to re-articulate a meaningful critical practice when the very tools and languages of critique are co-opted. For Spencer, this means reasserting a materialist and political economic analysis of architecture; for Fisher, it involves developing new forms of left politics and culture that can break the spell of capitalist realism, an effort that he continues in his work on "postcapitalist desire" and the unfinished project of "acid communism"42216.
In these ways, Spencer's and Fisher's conceptual frameworks intersect. Spencer's neoliberal governmentality and Fisher's capitalist realism describe the same hegemonic order; each highlights different mechanisms and domains, but both converge on the transformation of subjectivity and the neutralization of critique. This convergence is particularly evident in their shared analysis of how mental health crises are depoliticized under neoliberal conditions—Spencer showing how architectural environments contribute to stress and anxiety while framing these as individual rather than systemic issues, Fisher documenting how depression becomes normalized as a personal chemical imbalance rather than a rational response to precarious labor conditions.
3. Space, Atmosphere, and the Production of Neoliberal Subjects
3.1. The spatial constitution of the neoliberal subject
One of Spencer's key contributions is his insistence that the neoliberal subject is not produced only through discourse or policy but is spatially constituted13. In a chapter explicitly titled "The Spatial Constitution of the Neoliberal Subject," he traces how post-war experiments in art, architecture, and media reimagined space as interactive, immersive, and responsive13. He discusses, for instance, Allan Kaprow's "environments" and performance pieces, which dissolve the boundaries between artwork and viewer, inviting participants into open-ended situations13. He also examines the influence of figures like Reyner Banham, Marshall McLuhan, and Jean Baudrillard, who conceptualized modern environments in terms of information flows, media saturation, and consumer simulations13. These developments, he argues, prepared the ground for later architectural practices that treat users as active participants in complex, self-organizing systems.
Spencer connects these aesthetic and theoretical shifts to neoliberalism's celebration of flexibility, adaptability, and self-organization. He suggests that the environments designed by contemporary architects encourage users to navigate open, fluid spaces, making choices, collaborating, and "customizing" their experiences in ways that rehearse and reinforce entrepreneurial subjectivity123331134. For example, flexible learning environments in universities, with their movable furniture and informal seating arrangements, are designed to facilitate spontaneous collaboration and self-directed learning, mirroring the neoliberal ideal of the autonomous, self-managing student-entrepreneur334334. Similarly, co-working spaces and open-plan offices create environments where workers are expected to be constantly networked, innovative, and responsive to changing demands334334.
This spatial constitution of the neoliberal subject is not merely metaphorical but has concrete physiological and psychological effects. The constant stimulation and lack of boundaries in these environments can lead to heightened stress levels, difficulty concentrating, and a sense of perpetual performance239. As Fisher notes in his discussion of mental health under capitalist realism, the internalization of market logic creates a condition where individuals are never truly "off the clock," as even leisure time becomes a site for self-improvement and networking56789. Spencer's analysis shows how the built environment materially supports this condition, making it difficult to disengage from the demands of entrepreneurial selfhood334334.
3.2. Capitalist realism as cultural atmosphere
While Spencer focuses on the material production of neoliberal subjects through space, Fisher analyzes the corresponding cultural atmosphere that makes this production possible and sustainable. For Fisher, capitalist realism is not merely an ideology that people consciously believe but a pervasive atmosphere that shapes how they experience reality26715. It is the water in which we swim, so ubiquitous that it becomes difficult to perceive or articulate alternatives5678. This atmosphere is produced through multiple channels: popular culture, education, mental health discourse, and everyday language all reinforce the sense that capitalism is not only the dominant system but the only possible one56789.
Fisher illustrates this through examples from film, television, and music, showing how even works that appear critical of capitalism ultimately reinforce its realism by presenting it as an unchangeable backdrop against which individual dramas play out56715. He also examines how public services, particularly education and mental health care, have been restructured according to business principles, creating institutional frameworks that normalize market logic and individual responsibility56789. In universities, for instance, the shift from education as a public good to education as a private investment reframes students as consumers and knowledge as a commodity to be purchased56789.
This cultural atmosphere directly supports the spatial production of neoliberal subjects described by Spencer. The built environments that Spencer analyzes only make sense within the broader cultural framework that Fisher identifies—environments designed for self-organizing, entrepreneurial subjects can only function when those subjects already believe in the necessity and desirability of such a role1233334. Conversely, the constant exposure to these environments reinforces the cultural atmosphere of capitalist realism, making it increasingly difficult to imagine alternatives56789. This is particularly evident in how both authors analyze the university as a key site where neoliberal logic is both implemented and naturalized—Fisher through the lens of audit culture and student-as-consumer frameworks, Spencer through the spatial reorganization of campuses into entrepreneurial ecosystems.
3.3. The feedback loop between space and culture
The relationship between Spencer's spatial analysis and Fisher's cultural diagnosis is not merely complementary but mutually reinforcing. The built environments that Spencer describes help produce the cultural atmosphere that Fisher identifies, while that cultural atmosphere makes possible the continued development and acceptance of those environments. This creates a feedback loop in which spatial organization and cultural perception continually reinforce each other, making the neoliberal order appear increasingly natural and inevitable.
Consider, for example, the transformation of urban space under neoliberalism. Spencer might analyze how mixed-use developments, with their seamless integration of residential, commercial, and recreational spaces, blur the boundaries between work and leisure, creating environments where individuals are always potentially "on call"334334. Fisher would complement this by showing how popular culture and media representations normalize this blurring, presenting the always-connected, always-productive lifestyle as desirable and aspirational56715. Together, they reveal how the physical restructuring of cities and the cultural representation of urban life work in tandem to produce subjects who willingly embrace the demands of neoliberal capitalism.
This feedback loop is particularly evident in the domain of mental health. Spencer shows how architectural environments contribute to stress and anxiety through their constant stimulation and lack of boundaries334334. Fisher documents how these same conditions are then interpreted through the lens of capitalist realism as individual pathologies rather than systemic issues56789. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle: stressful environments produce mental distress, which is then framed as a personal problem requiring individual solutions, which in turn justifies the continuation of those environments. This cycle is precisely what Fisher means when he describes capitalist realism as insisting "on treating mental health as if it were a natural fact, like weather"2567239.
4. Mental Health as a Site of Political Struggle
4.1. The depoliticization of distress
Both Spencer and Fisher identify mental health as a crucial site where the political effects of neoliberalism become most visible, though they approach it from different angles. Spencer shows how architectural environments contribute to stress and anxiety through their design features—open-plan offices that eliminate privacy, universities that replace quiet study spaces with collaborative "learning commons," retail environments that bombard consumers with sensory stimuli334334. These environments are not accidental but reflect the neoliberal ideal of the flexible, responsive, always-connected subject who thrives in conditions of constant change and stimulation121234.
However, Spencer emphasizes that these environments are presented not as sources of stress but as progressive improvements that enhance well-being and productivity334334. The architectural discourse surrounding them frames flexibility and openness as inherently desirable, masking the ways in which they serve neoliberal imperatives of constant productivity and self-optimization233334. This depoliticization of architectural effects mirrors the broader depoliticization of mental health under capitalist realism.
Fisher develops this analysis further, arguing that capitalist realism "insists on treating mental health as if it were a natural fact, like weather"2567239. He notes that in Britain, depression is now the most treated condition by the National Health Service, yet it is consistently framed as an individual chemical imbalance rather than a social or political issue2567239. This framing serves a crucial ideological function: by treating mental distress as a personal problem, capitalist realism deflects attention from the systemic conditions that produce it, such as precarious labor, housing insecurity, and the constant pressure to self-optimize56789.
Fisher draws on the work of psychologist Oliver James, who in The Selfish Capitalist posits a correlation between rising rates of mental distress and the neoliberal mode of capitalism practiced in countries like Britain, the USA, and Australia2567239. James finds that rates of mental distress almost doubled between people born in 1946 and those born in 1970, coinciding with the rise of neoliberal policies2567239. Fisher argues that this correlation is not coincidental but causal: the psychological demands of neoliberal capitalism—constant self-monitoring, perpetual competition, the internalization of market values—create conditions that are inherently stressful and anxiety-producing56789.
4.2. Architecture as a contributor to mental distress
Spencer's analysis provides the spatial dimension to Fisher's critique of mental health under capitalist realism. He shows how architectural environments are designed to produce specific subjectivities that align with neoliberal imperatives, often at the cost of psychological well-being334334. Open-plan offices, for instance, are celebrated for fostering collaboration and innovation, but they also eliminate privacy, increase noise levels, and create constant visual distractions, all of which are documented sources of stress and reduced productivity334334. Similarly, the shift in university design from traditional lecture halls to flexible learning environments may support certain forms of collaborative learning, but it also eliminates spaces for quiet contemplation and individual study, which are essential for deep intellectual work334334.
What makes these environments particularly insidious from a political perspective is that they are presented as progressive improvements that enhance well-being and freedom334334. The architectural discourse surrounding them frames flexibility and openness as inherently desirable, masking the ways in which they serve neoliberal imperatives of constant productivity and self-optimization233334. This depoliticization of architectural effects mirrors the broader depoliticization of mental health under capitalist realism.
Spencer argues that architecture has become complicit in what Fisher calls "the privatization of stress," where mental illness is positioned as an individual chemico-biological problem rather than a social one334334239. By designing environments that produce stress while framing that stress as a personal failing, architecture helps naturalize the psychological effects of neoliberalism, making them appear as inevitable aspects of modern life rather than as products of specific political and economic arrangements334334239. This naturalization is crucial to the maintenance of capitalist realism, as it prevents the collective recognition of mental distress as a systemic issue that requires political solutions.
4.3. Bipolar capitalism and the psychological effects of post-Fordism
Both authors connect the rise of mental health issues to the shift from Fordist to post-Fordist capitalism, though they emphasize different aspects of this transition. Fisher draws on the work of Marxist economist Christian Marazzi, who argues that the psychological effects of post-Fordism are particularly evident in rising rates of bipolar disorder62418. Marazzi suggests that capitalism, with its ceaseless boom and bust cycles, is itself fundamentally bipolar, lurching between hyped-up mania and depressive come-downs62418. This structural bipolarity is then internalized by individuals living under post-Fordist conditions, where periods of intense work alternate with periods of unemployment, and individuals must constantly adapt to changing market demands62418.
Fisher extends this analysis to argue that the increase in mental health problems under neoliberalism is not merely a side effect but a necessary feature of the system56789. The constant pressure to self-optimize, the erosion of stable employment, and the internalization of market values create conditions that are inherently stressful and anxiety-producing56789. Rather than seeing mental distress as a problem to be solved, capitalism actually benefits from it: as Fisher notes, "you pay for a cure from the very system that made you sick in the first place"239.
Spencer's analysis complements this by showing how architectural environments materialize the conditions that produce this psychological distress334334. The flexible, open, constantly changing spaces of post-Fordist capitalism—co-working offices, pop-up retail, temporary housing—mirror the instability of post-Fordist labor, creating environments where individuals must constantly adapt and reconfigure themselves334334. These environments are not neutral containers but active participants in the production of neoliberal subjectivity, training individuals to expect and even desire constant change and instability121234.
This spatial dimension is crucial to understanding why mental distress has become so widespread under neoliberalism. It is not merely that individuals are told to be flexible and adaptable; they are placed in environments that make stability and predictability impossible, creating a physical reality that reinforces the psychological demands of post-Fordist capitalism334334. The result is what Fisher calls "depressive hedonia," a condition where individuals experience pleasure within the system while simultaneously recognizing its profound emptiness and injustice109.
5. Post-Fordism, Precarity, and the Transformation of Work
5.1. The historical shift from Fordism to post-Fordism
Both Spencer and Fisher situate their analyses within the broader historical transition from Fordist to post-Fordist capitalism, though they emphasize different aspects of this shift. Fordism, named after Henry Ford's assembly line production methods, was characterized by mass production, standardized goods, stable employment, and a social contract between labor, capital, and the state1462124. This system reached its peak in the post-war period and began to unravel in the 1970s due to a combination of economic crises, labor militancy, and changing global conditions1462124.
Post-Fordism emerged as a response to these crises, characterized by flexible production methods, niche markets, precarious labor, and the dismantling of the social contract1462124. Fisher identifies October 6, 1979—the date when Paul Volcker, chair of the Federal Reserve, raised interest rates dramatically to combat inflation—as a symbolic turning point in this transition2562418. This moment marked the beginning of the neoliberal era, with its emphasis on deregulation, privatization, and the prioritization of financial markets over industrial production2514624.
Spencer connects this economic shift to transformations in architectural theory and practice121234. He argues that the move away from modernist planning and standardized forms toward parametricism, complexity theory, and "emergent" design reflects and reinforces the shift from Fordist to post-Fordist capitalism121234. Just as post-Fordist production emphasizes flexibility and customization over standardization, post-Fordist architecture emphasizes fluidity and adaptability over fixed forms and functions121234. This is particularly evident in the design of workplaces, where rigid hierarchies and specialized spaces give way to open, flexible environments that can be constantly reconfigured334334.
5.2. The spatial organization of precarious labor
Spencer's analysis of post-Fordist architecture reveals how built environments materialize the conditions of precarious labor. He shows how contemporary workplaces are designed to facilitate constant change and adaptation, with movable partitions, shared workspaces, and minimal personal territory334334. These environments reflect and reinforce the neoliberal ideal of the flexible worker who can seamlessly transition between projects, teams, and even careers121234. The open-plan office, often celebrated for fostering collaboration and innovation, also eliminates privacy and creates constant surveillance, making it difficult for workers to disengage or resist managerial demands334334.
This spatial organization of work extends beyond the traditional workplace into other domains of life. Spencer notes how universities are increasingly designed as "entrepreneurial ecosystems" that blur the boundaries between education, research, and commercial activity334334. Learning commons replace traditional libraries, startup incubators occupy academic space, and students are encouraged to think of themselves as future entrepreneurs rather than as members of a scholarly community334334. Similarly, retail environments incorporate elements of entertainment and social interaction, transforming shopping from a transactional activity into an immersive experience that extends the logic of work into leisure time334334.
Fisher complements this spatial analysis with a cultural and psychological account of precarious labor under post-Fordism56789. He argues that the psychological effects of precarious work are profound: without stable employment or clear career paths, individuals experience constant anxiety about their future, leading to what he calls "reflexive impotence"—the sense that one's actions cannot meaningfully change one's circumstances56789. This condition is exacerbated by the internalization of market values, where individuals come to see themselves as human capital that must be constantly optimized and marketed56789.
5.3. The privatization of social conflict
A crucial insight shared by both authors is how post-Fordism transforms the location of social conflict. Under Fordism, antagonism was primarily located externally, in the face-to-face confrontation between labor and capital62418. Workers could identify a clear enemy—the boss or the corporation—and organize collectively to challenge it62418. Under post-Fordism, however, antagonism is increasingly located internally, within the psychology of the worker62418.
Fisher illustrates this with Marazzi's example of the worker who, as a worker, is interested in traditional class conflict but, as someone with a pension fund, is also interested in maximizing investment returns62418. This internal conflict makes collective action more difficult, as individuals experience their interests as contradictory rather than unified62418. Spencer shows how architectural environments reinforce this internalization of conflict by designing spaces that encourage individual competition and self-monitoring rather than collective solidarity334334. Open-plan offices, for instance, create environments where workers are constantly aware of others' activities, fostering a sense of competition and surveillance that undermines collective organization334334.
This privatization of social conflict is central to the operation of capitalist realism. By making conflict internal rather than external, post-Fordism transforms structural contradictions into personal dilemmas, making it difficult to recognize or articulate collective alternatives56789. The result is what Fisher calls "reflexive impotence," the sense that one's actions cannot meaningfully change one's circumstances, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as collective action becomes increasingly difficult56789. Spencer's analysis shows how architectural environments materially support this condition, making it difficult to create spaces for collective organization and resistance334334.
6. The Crisis of the Political and the Question of Alternatives
6.1. The foreclosure of political imagination
One of Fisher's most significant contributions is his analysis of how capitalist realism operates to foreclose political imagination. He argues that the most insidious aspect of capitalist realism is not that people actively support capitalism, but that they cannot imagine alternatives to it56789. This is captured in the oft-quoted phrase, "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism," which Fisher attributes to both Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek567264. Under capitalist realism, even those who recognize capitalism's flaws cannot conceive of a viable alternative, leading to a pervasive sense of resignation and fatalism56789.
Spencer complements this analysis by showing how architectural discourse and practice have contributed to this foreclosure of alternatives. He argues that the "post-critical" turn in architecture, which declared traditional critical theory obsolete, has positioned architecture as a pragmatic response to the "real" conditions of post-Fordist capitalism rather than as a site for political imagination233334. By embracing complexity theory and systems thinking, architectural theory has presented itself as scientifically grounded and politically neutral, while actually reinforcing neoliberal assumptions about the inevitability of market logic233334.
This foreclosure of political imagination is particularly evident in the domain of urban planning. Spencer shows how contemporary urban development is framed as a technical problem of optimization rather than a political question of who cities are for and how they should be organized334334. The language of "smart cities," "sustainable development," and "urban regeneration" presents urban transformation as a matter of technical expertise rather than democratic decision-making, effectively excluding alternative visions of urban life334334. Fisher would argue that this technical framing is itself a product of capitalist realism, which presents all social questions as problems to be solved through market mechanisms or expert management rather than through collective political action56789.
6.2. The "vampire castle" and the depoliticization of the left
Fisher identifies another obstacle to political imagination in what he calls the "vampire castle"—a term he uses to describe the new left orthodoxy that functions as a well-established fortress which "sucks all of the good out of any left-wing causes"27289. The vampire castle is not a single organization but a constellation of attitudes and practices that prioritize moral purity over effective political action, turning left politics into a form of identity-based moralism rather than a collective project of social transformation27289.
Spencer's analysis of architectural discourse reveals a parallel phenomenon in the field of architecture. He argues that the post-critical turn has created a similar "vampire castle" within architectural theory, where critical engagement with political and social issues is replaced by a focus on formal innovation and technical expertise233334. This depoliticized discourse presents architecture as a neutral practice that simply responds to existing conditions rather than as a field that could actively shape those conditions233334.
Both authors see this depoliticization as a crucial mechanism through which capitalist realism maintains its hold. By transforming political questions into technical or moral ones, the vampire castle (in both its political and architectural forms) prevents the development of collective alternatives to the existing order27289233334. Fisher argues that overcoming the vampire castle requires a return to collective politics and solidarity, while Spencer suggests that architecture needs to reclaim its political potential by reconnecting with materialist analysis and collective social goals27289233334.
6.3. Hauntology and the persistence of lost futures
Fisher develops a more nuanced analysis of political imagination through his concept of "hauntology," which he borrows from Jacques Derrida but reworks to describe the persistence of lost futures under capitalist realism139. Hauntology refers to the way in which certain possibilities—socialist futures, emancipatory technologies, collective forms of life—continue to haunt the present even though they have been foreclosed as viable options139. These lost futures are not simply memories of the past but active absences that shape contemporary culture and politics139.
Spencer's analysis of architectural history reveals how hauntology operates in the spatial realm. He shows how certain architectural possibilities—modernist visions of collective living, utopian experiments in communal space—have been abandoned or discredited but continue to influence contemporary practice in subtle ways1233334. These lost futures are often recycled as aesthetic motifs without their original political content, a process that Fisher describes as the "slow cancellation of the future"299.
This hauntological dimension is crucial to understanding both the persistence of capitalist realism and the possibilities for overcoming it. The lost futures that haunt the present serve as reminders that things could be otherwise, even when the dominant ideology insists that no alternatives are possible139. Spencer suggests that architecture could play a role in reactivating these lost futures by reconnecting aesthetic forms with their original political content, while Fisher argues that cultural production more broadly needs to engage with these hauntings to break the spell of capitalist realism1391233334.
7. Toward an Integrated Critique: Implications for Critical Practice
7.1. Reclaiming architecture's political potential
Spencer's critique of contemporary architecture points toward the need to reclaim architecture's political potential. He argues that architecture has become complicit in neoliberalism by presenting itself as a neutral, technical practice that simply responds to existing conditions rather than as a field that could actively shape those conditions233334. To overcome this complicity, Spencer suggests that architecture needs to reconnect with materialist analysis and collective social goals, recognizing that all design choices have political implications233334.
This reconnection requires a return to critical theory, but not in the form of the "post-theoretical" discourse that Spencer criticizes. Instead, he advocates for a renewed engagement with political economy that recognizes how architectural decisions contribute to the reproduction of social relations233334. This means analyzing how buildings and spaces serve particular economic interests, how they shape patterns of social interaction, and how they contribute to the production of specific subjectivities334334.
Fisher's analysis of capitalist realism provides a broader framework for understanding why this reconnection is necessary but difficult. Under capitalist realism, all fields of practice—including architecture—are pressured to present themselves as pragmatic responses to "real" conditions rather than as sites for political imagination56789. The challenge for critical architecture, then, is not only to develop alternative design practices but to create spaces for alternative ways of thinking about architecture's role in society233334.
7.2. Strategies for overcoming capitalist realism
Fisher's work points toward several strategies for overcoming capitalist realism, many of which have implications for architectural practice. First, he emphasizes the importance of politicizing mental health, recognizing that psychological distress is often a rational response to systemic conditions rather than an individual pathology56789. In architectural terms, this means designing environments that support psychological well-being rather than producing stress, and recognizing that such design choices are inherently political334334.
Second, Fisher argues for the need to build solidarity against the "vampire castle" of left orthodoxy, creating spaces for collective action that transcend identity-based moralism27289. For architecture, this could mean developing practices that connect designers with communities and social movements, creating spaces for collective decision-making about the built environment334334.
Third, Fisher suggests that cultural production needs to engage with "hauntology"—the persistence of lost futures—to break the spell of capitalist realism139. In architectural terms, this means reconnecting with abandoned or discredited visions of collective living and social space, not as nostalgic gestures but as resources for reimagining the future1233334.
7.3. Toward an integrated critical practice
The convergence of Spencer's and Fisher's analyses points toward the need for an integrated critical practice that connects spatial, cultural, and political dimensions of critique. Such a practice would recognize that built environments are not neutral containers but active participants in the production of social relations and subjectivities334334. It would also recognize that cultural and ideological conditions shape how built environments are experienced and interpreted56789.
An integrated critical practice would begin with the recognition that all design choices have political implications, whether acknowledged or not233334. It would involve analyzing how architectural decisions contribute to the reproduction of neoliberal subjectivity, how they shape patterns of social interaction, and how they support or challenge existing power relations334334. This analysis would be informed by Fisher's insights into the cultural and psychological dimensions of capitalist realism, recognizing that the built environment operates within a broader ideological framework that shapes how it is experienced and interpreted56789.
Such a practice would also involve developing alternatives that connect spatial innovation with political imagination. Rather than presenting architecture as a neutral response to existing conditions, it would recognize architecture as a site for actively shaping those conditions233334. This means designing not just buildings but social relations, creating spaces that support collective action, psychological well-being, and political imagination334334.
8. Conclusion: Toward an Integrated Critique of Neoliberal Capitalism
The relationship between Spencer's The Architecture of Neoliberalism and Fisher's Capitalist Realism reveals a profound convergence between spatial and cultural critiques of contemporary capitalism. Spencer meticulously documents how architectural theory and practice have been reconfigured to serve neoliberal imperatives, transforming built environments into instruments that cultivate entrepreneurial subjectivity and normalize market logic across educational, workplace, and cultural institutions1233334. Fisher, meanwhile, identifies "capitalist realism" as the pervasive cultural condition in which capitalism appears not merely as the dominant economic system but as the only conceivable horizon of social and political possibility, rendering alternatives unimaginable56789. Together, these works provide an integrated critique where Spencer's material analysis of architectural space grounds Fisher's more diffuse cultural diagnosis, while Fisher's conceptual framework of capitalist realism illuminates the ideological atmosphere within which Spencer's architects operate.
Both authors converge on several key insights that are crucial for understanding contemporary capitalism. First, they both emphasize the transformation of subjectivity under neoliberal conditions, showing how individuals come to internalize market values and understand themselves as entrepreneurial projects121235674. Second, they both analyze the depoliticization of social critique, showing how political questions are transformed into technical or individual problems2333356749. Third, they both identify mental health as a crucial site where the political effects of neoliberalism become most visible, though they approach it from different angles23343567239. Fourth, they both situate their analyses within the broader historical transition from Fordist to post-Fordist capitalism, emphasizing the psychological and spatial effects of precarious labor1212356724184. Finally, they both grapple with the foreclosure of political imagination under capitalist conditions, though they propose different strategies for overcoming it233335679.
The significance of these works extends beyond their immediate disciplinary contexts. By connecting spatial organization with cultural atmosphere, they reveal how neoliberal capitalism operates not merely through top-down policies but through the everyday production of subjectivity and the systematic foreclosure of alternatives. This integrated perspective is crucial for developing effective strategies of resistance, as it recognizes that challenging neoliberalism requires interventions at multiple levels—from the redesign of built environments to the transformation of cultural narratives.
Looking forward, the convergence of Spencer's and Fisher's analyses points toward the need for interdisciplinary approaches to critical practice that connect spatial, cultural, and political dimensions of critique. Such approaches would recognize that built environments are not neutral containers but active participants in the production of social relations and subjectivities, and that cultural and ideological conditions shape how built environments are experienced and interpreted. They would also involve developing alternatives that connect spatial innovation with political imagination, recognizing architecture not as a neutral response to existing conditions but as a site for actively shaping those conditions.
The tragic suicide of Mark Fisher in 20172020 serves as a poignant reminder of the personal cost of living under capitalist realism, and underscores the urgency of the critique he and Spencer have developed. Their works collectively offer not just a diagnosis of our current condition but also a roadmap for imagining and creating alternatives—a task that has become increasingly urgent in the face of climate crisis, rising inequality, and the resurgence of authoritarian politics. By understanding how neoliberal capitalism operates through the spatial organization of everyday life, the internalization of market values, and the systematic foreclosure of alternative futures, we can begin to develop more effective strategies for resistance and transformation. The integrated critique offered by Spencer and Fisher provides essential tools for this task, revealing the connections between seemingly disparate phenomena and pointing toward possibilities for collective action that transcend the limitations of capitalist realism. 1 citylights.com
Footnotes
-
Fisher_2006.pdf ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38
-
www.goodreads.com ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38 ↩39 ↩40 ↩41 ↩42 ↩43 ↩44 ↩45 ↩46 ↩47 ↩48 ↩49 ↩50 ↩51 ↩52 ↩53 ↩54 ↩55 ↩56 ↩57 ↩58
-
www.frieze.com ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38 ↩39 ↩40 ↩41 ↩42 ↩43 ↩44 ↩45 ↩46 ↩47 ↩48 ↩49 ↩50 ↩51 ↩52 ↩53 ↩54 ↩55 ↩56 ↩57 ↩58 ↩59 ↩60 ↩61 ↩62 ↩63 ↩64 ↩65 ↩66 ↩67 ↩68 ↩69 ↩70 ↩71 ↩72 ↩73 ↩74 ↩75 ↩76 ↩77 ↩78 ↩79 ↩80 ↩81 ↩82 ↩83 ↩84 ↩85 ↩86 ↩87 ↩88 ↩89 ↩90 ↩91 ↩92 ↩93 ↩94 ↩95 ↩96 ↩97 ↩98 ↩99 ↩100 ↩101 ↩102 ↩103 ↩104 ↩105 ↩106 ↩107 ↩108 ↩109 ↩110 ↩111 ↩112 ↩113 ↩114 ↩115 ↩116 ↩117 ↩118 ↩119 ↩120 ↩121 ↩122 ↩123 ↩124 ↩125 ↩126 ↩127 ↩128 ↩129 ↩130 ↩131 ↩132 ↩133 ↩134 ↩135 ↩136 ↩137 ↩138 ↩139 ↩140 ↩141 ↩142 ↩143 ↩144 ↩145 ↩146 ↩147 ↩148 ↩149 ↩150 ↩151 ↩152 ↩153 ↩154 ↩155 ↩156 ↩157 ↩158 ↩159 ↩160 ↩161 ↩162 ↩163 ↩164 ↩165 ↩166 ↩167 ↩168 ↩169 ↩170 ↩171 ↩172 ↩173 ↩174 ↩175 ↩176 ↩177 ↩178 ↩179 ↩180 ↩181 ↩182 ↩183 ↩184 ↩185 ↩186 ↩187 ↩188 ↩189 ↩190 ↩191 ↩192 ↩193 ↩194 ↩195 ↩196 ↩197 ↩198 ↩199 ↩200 ↩201 ↩202 ↩203 ↩204 ↩205 ↩206 ↩207 ↩208 ↩209 ↩210 ↩211 ↩212 ↩213 ↩214 ↩215 ↩216 ↩217 ↩218 ↩219 ↩220 ↩221 ↩222 ↩223 ↩224 ↩225 ↩226 ↩227 ↩228 ↩229 ↩230 ↩231 ↩232 ↩233 ↩234 ↩235 ↩236 ↩237 ↩238 ↩239 ↩240 ↩241 ↩242 ↩243 ↩244 ↩245 ↩246 ↩247 ↩248 ↩249 ↩250 ↩251 ↩252 ↩253 ↩254 ↩255 ↩256 ↩257 ↩258 ↩259 ↩260 ↩261 ↩262 ↩263 ↩264 ↩265 ↩266 ↩267 ↩268 ↩269 ↩270 ↩271 ↩272 ↩273 ↩274 ↩275 ↩276 ↩277 ↩278 ↩279 ↩280 ↩281 ↩282 ↩283 ↩284 ↩285 ↩286 ↩287 ↩288 ↩289 ↩290
-
www.ebb-magazine.com ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38 ↩39 ↩40 ↩41 ↩42 ↩43 ↩44 ↩45 ↩46 ↩47 ↩48 ↩49 ↩50 ↩51 ↩52 ↩53 ↩54 ↩55 ↩56 ↩57 ↩58 ↩59 ↩60 ↩61 ↩62 ↩63 ↩64 ↩65 ↩66 ↩67 ↩68 ↩69 ↩70 ↩71 ↩72 ↩73 ↩74 ↩75 ↩76 ↩77 ↩78 ↩79 ↩80 ↩81 ↩82 ↩83 ↩84 ↩85 ↩86 ↩87 ↩88 ↩89 ↩90 ↩91 ↩92 ↩93 ↩94 ↩95 ↩96 ↩97 ↩98 ↩99 ↩100 ↩101 ↩102 ↩103 ↩104 ↩105 ↩106 ↩107 ↩108 ↩109 ↩110 ↩111 ↩112 ↩113 ↩114 ↩115 ↩116 ↩117 ↩118 ↩119 ↩120 ↩121 ↩122 ↩123
-
k-punk.org ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38 ↩39 ↩40 ↩41 ↩42 ↩43 ↩44 ↩45 ↩46 ↩47 ↩48 ↩49 ↩50 ↩51 ↩52 ↩53 ↩54 ↩55 ↩56 ↩57 ↩58 ↩59 ↩60
-
www.tmcq.co.uk ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38 ↩39 ↩40 ↩41 ↩42 ↩43 ↩44 ↩45 ↩46 ↩47 ↩48 ↩49 ↩50 ↩51 ↩52 ↩53 ↩54 ↩55 ↩56 ↩57 ↩58 ↩59 ↩60 ↩61 ↩62 ↩63 ↩64 ↩65 ↩66 ↩67 ↩68 ↩69 ↩70 ↩71 ↩72 ↩73 ↩74 ↩75 ↩76 ↩77
-
www.madintheuk.com ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38 ↩39 ↩40 ↩41 ↩42 ↩43 ↩44 ↩45 ↩46 ↩47 ↩48 ↩49 ↩50 ↩51 ↩52 ↩53 ↩54 ↩55 ↩56 ↩57 ↩58 ↩59 ↩60 ↩61 ↩62 ↩63
-
en.wikipedia.org ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38 ↩39 ↩40
-
lynnbutlermultimediajournalist.wordpress.com ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22 ↩23 ↩24 ↩25 ↩26 ↩27 ↩28 ↩29 ↩30 ↩31 ↩32 ↩33 ↩34 ↩35 ↩36 ↩37 ↩38 ↩39 ↩40 ↩41 ↩42 ↩43 ↩44 ↩45 ↩46 ↩47 ↩48 ↩49 ↩50 ↩51 ↩52 ↩53 ↩54 ↩55 ↩56 ↩57
-
jacobin.com ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15 ↩16 ↩17 ↩18 ↩19 ↩20 ↩21 ↩22
-
k-punk.abstractdynamics.org ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14
- ↩ ↩2
