27 From the Manifest to the Implicit. Effects of Leftist Ideologies in Participatory Architecture 1 Dragoș DASCĂLU, Ph.D. Student Technical University of Cluj Napoca Romania dragos_deggial@yahoo.co.uk Abstract Participatory architecture appeared in the late 60s as a criticism of modernist architecture and urban planning. It was a criticism that did not come from inside the profession (as most other currents and paradigm shifts did) but from the outside, from other disciplines, such as philosophy, art, and sociology. Based on the writings of Michel Foucault, the neo-Marxian Henri Lefebvre and Guy Debord, it challenged the dominant role of the architect as an expert planner and sole individual capable of designing built space. It was a criticism of the power the architect had regarding space, and how the individual user was dominated in this relation. Participation in architecture started therefore as a profoundly ideological practice and, even today, it is still seen as a radical leftist approach to architecture and urban planning. In contrast to the 60s and 70s when participatory architecture was manifestly Neo-Marxian, nowadays these processes are not always so clearly marked ideologically. This article tries to find the different effects of manifest and implicit ideologies in participatory architecture today. Our premise is the fact that participation is first and foremost a collaborative practice between individuals – agents. Like any other form of cooperation, participation must be based on trust but the main motor of cooperation is recognizing the needs and interests of the individuals who are rarely linked to abstract ideals. Manifest ideology, as a set of coherent and comprehensive abstract ideas about political and social action, will create relationships between like-minded individuals, while increasing the social distance from others. Considering that most individuals do not adhere to a specific ideology, manifest ideology in participatory architecture will therefore be an obstacle in creating trust relations. But ideology was and will always be a part of this type of architectural process. So the question is: how can architects or other initiators of participatory architecture reduce the social distance created by ideology? *1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This paper was supported by the project “Improvement of the doctoral studies quality in engineering science for development of the knowledge based society-QDOC” contract no. POSDRU/107/1.5/S/78534, project co-funded by the European Social Fund through the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources 2007-2013.