ABSTRACT
Architecture and death: Why indeed does architecture keep shooting itself in the … well, not just the foot? Its inability to be a relevant profession, its incapacity to compensate its practitioners fairly, its refusal to come to the table of cultural relevance after 9/11, its being DOA in the global discourse of ecology—all of these absences indicate that it is time to put architecture on the couch. Could it be that there is a “death drive” imbedded, not just in its practitioners but in its formal structure, something unavoidably present (or absent) that makes its irrelevance understandable?
