DIP21 will focus on the notion of nomadism with respect to climate change, as well as the social, political and technological mutations that are occurring in the contemporary world.

Sedentarisation and power, historically, go hand in hand. When people settle they become productive, governed by the tacit regulations of participation in a collective society. In the fixed settlement, the construct of the state, the idea of the nation, the border and the homeland find their root. Within systems of capital, the sedentarisation of a given population therefore facilitates a collective increase in the accumulation of natural resources, the production of processed goods and the distribution of assets for economic gain.

Contemporary, globalised societies have coalesced around notions of economic deregulation and liberalism, pursuing the perpetual generation of capital under the promise of increasing flexibility and mobility for the individual. People and goods are supposed to move as freely and easily as one another – we can now move from country to country, rapidly change jobs as required and constantly modify our mechanisms of production. Some have been tempted to describe this condition as a new form of nomadism. But it has nothing to do with it.

Nomadism draws distinctions of territory that are uninscribed by the borders of the state, fundamentally relying on an ability to adapt in different environments. Nomadic people share a common ground and an interwoven history – they understand how to live in many different places and the subtleties of how to negotiate with other societies that they encounter. Nomads know how to live together. However, this form of moving settlement is rapidly disappearing, in tandem with the erosion of hospitality, togetherness and collective freedoms.

Our cities are not suited for fugacity and transitory passage without economic gain. Authorities cannot stand freedom of movement. So, how can we make room for nomadism? How can we, as architects, act to make cities welcoming and adaptable again? These issues go far beyond questions of shelter and provision – the ontological dimension of architecture and the nature of the human being is at stake. Architecture does not stand in relation to an economic system, but rather to the body, to space, to time, movement and territory. We advocate an architecture of instability, for the nomads of tomorrow.