Aid, Capital, and the Humanitarian Trap

THRESHOLDS 40 S O C I O — JOURNAL OF THE MIT DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE Editorial Policy Thresholds, Journal of the MIT Department of Architecture, is an annual, blind peerreviewed publication produced by student editors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Opinions in Thresholds are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, the Department of Architecture, or MIT. Correspondence Thresholds—MIT Architecture 77 Massachusetts Ave, Room 7–337 Cambridge, MA 02139 [email protected] http://thresholds.mit.edu Published by SA+P Press MIT School of Architecture + Planning 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 7–231 Cambridge, MA 02139 Copyright © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The individual contributions are copyright their respective authors. Figures and images are copyright their respective creators, as individually noted. ISSN 1091-711X ISBN 978-0-9835082-1-2 Book design and cover by Donnie Luu www.donnieluu.com Printed by Puritan Press, Hollis, NH 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 THRESHOLDS 40 Socio— EDITED BY JONATHAN CRISMAN Cambridge, MA contEntS 5 Editorial: Socio-indEmnity and othEr motivES 67 tuktoyaktuk: offShorE oil and a nEw arctic urbaniSm — pamEla ritchot — Jonathan criSman 75 11 conJuring utopia’S ghoSt boundary linE infraStructurE — ronald raEl — rEinhold martin 83 thrESholdS 40 21 33 lE corbuSiEr, thE briSE-SolEil, and thE Socio-climatic proJEct of modErn architEcturE, 1929-1963 park aS philanthropy: bow-wow’S rEdEvElopmEnt at miyaShita koEn movE along! thErE iS nothing to SEE — yoShiharu tSukamoto 91 99 flow’S Socio-Spatial formation — nana laSt 47 — nEEraJ bhatia and alExandEr d’hooghE — daniEl a. barbEr — rania ghoSn 39 105 collEctivE EquipmEntS of powEr: thE road and thE city collEctivE form: thE StatuS of public architEcturE — dana cuff muSSElS in concrEtE: a Social architEctural practicE — ESEn gökçE özdamar — SimonE brott 55 diSSolving thE grEy pEriphEry participation and/or criticality? thoughtS on an architEctural practicE for urban changE — kEnny cupErS and markuS miESSEn 113 thE SluipwEg and thE hiStory of dEath — mark JarzombEk contEntS 121 Extra room: what if wE livEd in a SociEty whErE our EvEry thought waS public? 217 — amrita mahindroo 225 — gunnar grEEn and bErnhard hopfEngärtnEr 127 SculpturE fiEld: from thE Symbolic to thE tEctonic 233 cairo di Sopra in giù: pErSpEctivE, photography, and thE “EvEryday” 237 — JoSEph m. watSon 245 — chriStian a. hEdrick 175 huSh norcS in nEw york — intErboro partnErS 209 uncommon ground: aEthEr, body, and commonS — ziSSiS kotioniS thE End of civilization — daniEl daou 255 — StEvEn bEckly and Jonathan d. katz 189 aid, capital, and thE humanitarian trap toward a lakE ontario city — dEpartmEnt of unuSual cErtaintiES 263 SociopathS — JimEnEz lai Socio— 163 bEyond doing good: civil diSobEdiEncE aS dESign pEdagogy — hannah roSE mEndoza on radiation burn — StEvE kurtz thE princE: bJarkE ingElS’S Social conSpiracy — JuStin fowlEr — dan handEl 135 EdEnS, iSlandS, roomS aid, capital, and thE humanitarian trap JOSEPH M. WATSON thrESholdS 40 JoSEph m. watSon 1 Mary McLeod, “Architecture and Politics in the Reagan Era: From Postmodernism to Deconstructivism,” Assemblage 8 (1989): 25. 2 A representative sample from the architecture field might include individuals such as Shigeru Ban, who has been at the forefront of many relief efforts with his paper tube structures, Bryan Bell of Design Corps, Emily Pilloton of Project H, and Cameron Sinclair of Architecture for Humanity; notfor-profit organizations Habitat for Humanity, Make It Right, and MASS Design Group; and academic programs like the Rural Studio at Auburn University and the Vlock Building Project at Yale University. Exhibitions include the National Design Triennial: Why Design Now? and Design for the Other 90%, both at the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum, and Small Scale, Big Change: New Architectures of Social Engagement at the Museum of Modern Art. 3 Cameron Sinclair and Kate Stohr make use of socially conscious design and social design to variously describe their own organization, Architecture for Humanity, and the broader movement. See Architecture for Humanity, Design Like You Give a Damn: Architectural Responses to Humanitarian Crises (New York: Metropolis Books, 2006). Stohr even uses the curious phrase, “humanitarian, or social, design,” (35) which seems to incorrectly conflate the terms. For Sinclair and Stohr, as for humanitarian architects in general, humanitarian is understood to modify crises, causes, issues, and, occasionally, design but never architecture per se. Strictly speaking, however, humanitarian as an adjective describes those “concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare” (NOAD), so the humanitarian crises alluded to in Design Like You Give a Damn’s subtitle would imply crises to which no one responded. 4 Alain Badiou, Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil, trans. Peter Hallward (London: Verso, 2001), 4ff. Design trends, while not parallel with social, economic, or political trends, are certainly influenced by them and cannot be adequately considered apart from them. Regarding the relationship between architecture and its sociopolitical contexts in the modern and postmodern eras, Mary McLeod observes that “just as architecture is intrinsically joined to political and economic structures by virtue of its production, so, too, its form—its meaning as a cultural object—carries political resonances.”1 It then seems inevitable that after a generation during which society was (and continues to be) governed by neoliberal economics and neoconservative politics, and the design disciplines were dominated by corporate firms and celebrity figures, the turn of the 21st century would witness the emergence of a new trend. While the movement is relatively young, its protagonists are numerous and include individuals, not-for-profit organizations, for-profit companies, and academic programs for which every decision carries social, ecological, and political weight. It has gained immense popularity in recent years, becoming the subject of major museum exhibitions and significantly altering both the general cultural landscape and the language of the design professions.2 Settling on a name, at least for the architectural manifestation of this movement, is however quite confusing. Its proponents prefer socially engaged design, socially conscious design, or even, simply, social design, but since design and especially architecture are by necessity social, these are at best redundant if not essentially meaningless. While the term humanitarian design is frequently used within the design community generally, the social- terms are typically preferred by architects (both individuals and organizations) and are often used interchangeably.3 The most appropriate term might be humanitarian architecture, concerned as this movement is with providing shelter for and improving the material conditions of those affected by global crises—from the victims of environmental catastrophes to the refugees of political upheavals. Despite its novelty and professed goals, humanitarian architecture—when viewed within its contemporary socioeconomic context—might be exaggerating its selfproclaimed transformative potential. French philosopher Alain Badiou views this resurgence in the West of concern for “the rights of man” and “fundamental liberties” as the only possible recourse for a society that can no longer imagine any real alternative to neoliberal economics and must therefore accept its Churchillian claim to be “the least worst option.”4 Humanitarian architecture must therefore be situated within the political and economic structures from which it has 238 aid, capital, and thE humanitarian trap 239 5 A July 2010 blog post by Bruce Nussbaum sparked an online debate that might have achieved this end, but Nussbaum’s intentionally provocative title—“Is Humanitarian Design the New Imperialism? Does Our Desire to Help Do More Harm Than Good?”—put humanitarian designers on the defensive. While Nussbaum’s original post and some of the responses attempt to deal with the social and political complexities of humanitarianism, a few simply exchange intelligent dialogue for finger pointing, and none of the pieces move beyond questioning the design professions’ role in providing aid to the poor and the dispossessed within existing political and economic structures. See “Humanitarian Design vs. Design Imperialism: Debate Summary,” Change Observer, accessed November 30, 2011, http://changeobserver. designobserver.com/feature/humanitariandesign-vs-design-imperialism-debatesummary/14498/. 6 See Slavoj Žižek, First as Tragedy, Then as Farce (London: Verso, 2009). 7 Ibid., 34. 8 Ibid., 35. 9 Lawrence H. Summers, quoted in Ivan Petrella, Beyond Liberation Theology: A Polemic (London: SCM Press, 2008), 16. 10 For a systematic defense of Summers’s economic logic, see Jay Johnson, Gary Pecquet, and Leon Taylor, “Potential Gains from Trade in Dirty Industries: Revisiting Lawrence Summers’ Memo,” Cato Journal 27 (Fall 2007): 398-401. 11 Summers, Beyond Liberation Theology, 17. Habitat for Humanity’s 2007 Jimmy Carter Work Project in South Los Angeles (detail). Altered by author, original photograph by Lyndsey Payzant Wells. Socio— arisen.5 In Badiou’s rendering, the origin of these concerns can be found within the collapse of really existing alternatives to the dominant, global capitalist economy. Without competing ideologies, the only remaining economic system, market capitalism, simply absorbed the role played by the previously antagonistic ideologies and a “socially responsible” capitalism emerged in its place. Slovenian theorist Slavoj Žižek follows a similar logic but places the conflation roughly two decades earlier, when capitalism successfully absorbed the “legacy of ‘68.”6 By Žižek’s account, the free market system admits to its past and present exploitation and acknowledges its “catastrophic tendencies, [but] the claim is now made that one can discern the signs of a new orientation which is aware that the capitalist mobilization of a society’s productive capacity can also be made to serve ecological goals, the struggle against poverty, and other worthy ends.”7 By seeming to atone for its sins, capitalism aims to insert its own internal critique through the market, attempting to use market-based mechanisms to address market-caused ills rather than allow for true economic emancipation. We need not choose between Badiou and Žižek’s chronology to sense the magnitude of this shift. By claiming, with the likes of Margaret Thatcher and Francis Fukuyama, that there is no alternative and we are therefore living in the end of history, it is seemingly impossible to level a systematic critique against the only remaining and now universal politicoeconomic ideology. This more inclusive capitalism that no longer has an antagonistic relationship to social and ecological responsibility can supposedly remedy the damage caused by its prior incarnation. According to Žižek, “The new ethos of global responsibility is thus able to put capitalism to work as the most efficient instrument of the common good.”8 Rather than an externalization or a burden, social responsibility and the common good are now at the heart of global capitalism. Larry Summers’s infamous 1991 memo inadvertently demonstrates this new ethos. Written while chief economist and vice president for Development Economics at the World Bank, Summers’s memo argues that “the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.”9 Though the World Bank disavowed the memo and Summers has insisted that the language is sardonic and meant to provoke discussion on the policies behind liberalization, the economic logic does, in fact, remain impeccably sound.10 Summers goes on to explain that “under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDERpolluted” and, most importantly, that the consequences of dumping would only be felt in the long term.11 The population thrESholdS 40 JoSEph m. watSon Haiti’s National Palace in Port au Prince after the 2010 earthquake (detail). Altered by author, original photograph by Pamela Gordon. Trahan Architects’s prototype house for Brad Pitt’s Make It Right Foundation in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. Altered by author, original photograph by Michael Cobb. 240 aid, capital, and thE humanitarian trap 241 12 See Jeffrey Inaba and Katharine Meagher, World of Giving (Baden: Lars Müller, 2010). 13 Ibid., 152. 14 Ibid., 167. One could make the much more defensible argument that Habitat’s model provides housing for an often overlooked demographic of low wage earners that would not otherwise be able to obtain affordable housing, instead of simply focusing on the most visible demographic, but neither Habitat nor Inaba do. Socio— of developing countries can accept toxic waste from the developed world, accrue the economic benefits, and never live long enough for detrimental side effects such as cancer to settle in. Under the logic of traditional capitalism, the value of human life is commodified based on one’s ability to contribute to the global economy—either through production or consumption. The poor, unable to contribute and, therefore, economically worthless, are sacrificed as nonpersons to ensure the smooth functioning of the market. Yet Summers’s logic, representative of capitalism’s new social ethos, is far subtler: he finds economic incentive for the market to rehabilitate these nonpersons. Instead of being abandoned as refuse, superfluous to the market’s functioning, they are reincorporated. It is clear, however, that the market’s new ethos has more to do with improving the lowest-wage countries’ way of thinking rather than their way of life (i.e., ideological rather than material inclusivity). Since the lowest-wage countries must remain poor in order to remain relevant to the market, their living conditions cannot be significantly improved. Addressing the effects of economic scarcity through the logic of the market is codified for the design world in Jeffrey Inaba’s World of Giving, which develops a theory of philanthropic giving and humanitarian design.12 Extrapolating from French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s symbolic capital, Inaba’s concept of aid capital represents all of the various ways of giving, their component parts, and the relationships between givers, mediators, and receivers of aid. Aid, which might consist of accumulated individual donations, food, building materials, foreign government aid, or expert knowledge, travels between individual volunteers, philanthropists, not-for-profit organizations, non-governmental organizations, and sovereign governments, before ultimately reaching its intended recipients. Antagonistic to the greed inherent in economic capital, aid capital functions as a check; it reorients economic capital’s exploitative tendency, encouraging it “to abandon the exclusive economies of scarcity and enter an intentional, participatory and affirming economy of plenitude.”13 Inaba’s description of Habitat for Humanity reveals the ideology at work behind the supposedly benevolent aid capital. By providing housing based not on need but the ability to demonstrate potential stewardship through financial obligation and “sweat equity,” Habitat’s model divides the poor into those that are or are not useful to the market economy. Inaba defends this by allowing that Habitat “will never eradicate substandard housing, and thus ... its prioritization must be organizational longevity.”14 Habitat’s aid capital is accrued through its JoSEph m. watSon thrESholdS 40 15 Ibid., 33. 16 Žižek, First as Tragedy, Then as Farce, 35. 17 Inaba, World of Giving, 153. reputation as a successful organization and mortgagepaying homeowners supply a steady source of additional reputation-building capital. Of equal importance is assuring volunteers that they will not waste their time constructing a house on which the owners might default. The logic is strikingly parallel to the Summers memo: while attempting to incorporate the poor, it is justifiable to sacrifice some for the sake of others whose relevance is determined by their ability to assimilate into and contribute to the market. Even with the new humanitarian ethos, the market still determines worth and will continue to exclude those that cannot actively contribute. Since the needs of the organization and its volunteers’ “warm glow that results from acting generously”15 trump the concerns of the people actually in need of housing, the resignation that “they will never eradicate substandard housing” is thus Habitat’s own self-fulfilling prophecy. Inaba and the described humanitarian movement rely on a false dichotomy between greedy economic capital and benevolent aid capital. This is highly problematic because it presupposes that one can correct for greed inherent in the system through an internal check. So long as the humanitarian movement relies on the logic of market capitalism, it will never play a truly antagonistic role. Žižek explains that “the basic ideological dispositif of capitalism ... is separated from its concrete socio-economic conditions (capitalist relations of production) and conceived of as an autonomous life ... leaving those very capitalist relations intact.”16 In other words, the language but not the logic of the humanitarian movement is separated from contemporary neoliberal ideology, and the disproportionate relationships that allow those who control the flow of capital to define the type of world within which the rest of us must live are never questioned. The possibility for the humanitarians to make a substantial critique of the situation that necessitates their existence is reduced, and aid capital’s economic function suddenly seems less antagonistic: “In order for Aid Capital to flow back to the giver and accrue to the receiver, some element of the donor’s original intent needs to remain intact throughout the transformative procedure. As well, the particular aspects of the recipient’s need must help shape a donor’s original intent.”17 While the recipient’s need is considered, the donor’s concerns are privileged and, for the most part, the recipients are conspicuously absent throughout the consideration of aid capital’s movement between the two parties. Inaba’s aid capital is less a negation of economic capital’s exploitation than it is a transposition of this disposition into humanitarian terms. 242 aid, capital, and thE humanitarian trap 243 18 Badiou, Ethics, 106. 19 Cameron Sinclair, in Iconoclasts, season 4, episode 3, dir. Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky (New York: Sundance Channel, 2008). Sinclair’s full quote states, “We haven’t really talked about this, but some of our architects, including myself, has [sic] had death threats for what we do because we’re disrupting a system. We just sent a bunch of people to Sierra Leone and Liberia. This ain’t pretty, but it’s the right thing to do.” 20 Architecture for Humanity, Design Like You Give a Damn, 44. 21 A “thousand points of light” was a recurring allusion for George H. W. Bush during his presidency that emphasized the importance of individual stewardship in the face of diminishing government funds. See “Inaugural Address,” George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, accessed November 30, 2011, http://bushlibrary. tamu.edu/research/public_papers. php?id=1&year=1989&month=01. 22 Slavoj Žižek, Living in the End Times (London: Verso, 2010), 4. 23 Ibid., xv. 24 Inaba, World of Giving, 151. Socio— Again, the market determines worth—and increasingly finds more creative ways to do so. For Badiou, the ecological movement provides a precedent for the humanitarian movement by demonstrating how, rather than being antagonistic to the market, these movements simply “provide capital with new fields of investment, new inflections and new deployments. ... So long as it can be transformed or aligned in terms of market value, everything’s fine.”18 This is why Cameron Sinclair, founder of Architecture for Humanity and one of humanitarian architecture’s most visible protagonists, is not “disrupting a system” as he claims,19 but closing the loop on the same economic logic that created the situation to which his organization responds; why, as with Summers, the poor are “seen no longer as a burden but as a resource;”20 why natural and economic disasters provide an expanding customer base and opportunities to expand into new markets; and why Architecture for Humanity’s current efforts in Haiti, funded by the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, are essentially just cleaning up the damage compounded by the two presidents’ foreign policy. With no economic alternative to turn to, humanitarian architecture can at best reinforce the status quo. More problematically, it provides a sheen for the very system that created the inequality, with no need to admit culpability. Like “a thousand points of light,”21 it allows for the continued denial of responsibility by those with the ability to end the exploitation of the majority of the world’s population. According to Žižek, this fits perfectly with the hidden ideology behind today’s post-ideological society. Instead of asking what created the crisis with which we are confronted, “the underlying ideological message is something like: ‘Don’t think, don’t politicize, forget about the true causes of their poverty, just act, contribute money, so that you will not have to think!’”22 The urgency with which we need to respond removes the situation from its economic and political context, precluding uncomfortable questions about how our own lifestyle might be complicit in the structural injustice that leads to these types of crises. Moreover, it reduces the act of response to consumer choice—we can simply text a five-dollar donation without ever setting down our cell phones. In essence, it avoids imagining anything truly creative, settling instead for a “liberal ideology of victimhood, ... renouncing all positive projects and pursuing the least bad option.”23 Returning to aid capital, Inaba explains that it “works against the system of imbalance that necessitates its existence. ... It looks to short circuit the feedback loop that focuses capital into ever-tighter circles.”24 The problem is that it does not and cannot. In Badiou’s language, the only thing that would JoSEph m. watSon thrESholdS 40 25 The precise formal definitions of situation, event, fidelity, and truth can be found in Alain Badiou, Being and Event, trans. Oliver Feltham (London: Continuum, 2005). For a more concise and accessible explanation, see Badiou, Ethics, 40-57. 26 Reinhold Niebuhr, Beyond Tragedy: Essays on the Christian Interpretation of History (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1965), 207. effectively short-circuit the capitalist feedback loop would be an event, or the sudden irruption of a previously inconceivable logic that carries the potential to transform the dominant forms of knowledge in a given situation. Fidelity to the event marks the decision to think the situation in terms of the truth introduced by the event, which initiates a process by which new forms of thought are improvised and investigated.25 The logic to which Inaba and the humanitarian designers subscribe only re-presents that of the marketcapitalist situation. The donor maintains control and it is his, her, or the organization’s intent that must be respected throughout, ensuring that the asymmetrical capitalist relation (capital : labor :: donor : recipient) remains firmly in place. Inaba’s world of giving presumes that the structures of injustice that necessitate the gift would remain intact; nothing about the system of imbalance is actually negated. Yet over seventy years ago, the preeminent social ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr rebuked anyone “who takes established injustice for granted but seeks to deodorize it with incidental philanthropies and with deeds of kindness, which are meant to display power as much as to express pity.”26 Occasional efforts do little without systematic overhaul; even more dangerous is the notion that the same logic that produced the injustice can be used to find a solution. Today, Niebuhr’s incidental philanthropies have been replaced by a world of giving in which greed and giving are no longer distinguishable and in which the disparity between rich and poor has never been greater. With economic and ecological uncertainty looming, an architecture that does not rely on the logic of social injustice is an absolute necessity. *** Joseph M. Watson is a Master of Arts candidate in Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary in the City of the New York. He received a BArch from the University of Tennessee Knoxville and has practiced architecture in Manhattan. 244 THRESHOLDS 40 SOCIO— Editor Jonathan Crisman Designer Donnie Luu Assistant Editors Ana María León Jennifer Chuong Antonio Furgiuele Irina Chernyakova Advisory Board Mark Jarzombek, Chair Stanford Anderson Dennis Adams Martin Bressani Jean-Louis Cohen Charles Correa Arindam Dutta Diane Ghirardo Ellen Dunham-Jones Robert Haywood Hassan-Uddin Khan Rodolphe el-Khoury Leo Marx Mary McLeod Ikem Okoye Vikram Prakash Kazys Varnelis Cherie Wendelken Gwendolyn Wright J. Meejin Yoon Opposite: Intergalactic Sculpture, 1994. Copyright Ezra Orion. Patrons James Ackerman Imran Ahmed Mark and Elaine Beck Tom Beischer Yung Ho Chang Robert F. Drum Gail Fenske Liminal Projects, Inc. Rod Freebairn-Smith Nancy Stieber Robert A. Gonzales Jorge Otero-Pailos Annie Pedret Vikram Prakash Joseph M. Siry Richard Skendzel Special Thanks To my family, Mark Jarzombek, Sarah Hirschman, Adam Johnson, Donnie Luu, Nader Tehrani, Adèle Santos, Rebecca Chamberlain, Jack Valleli, Anne Deveau, Kate Brearley, Deborah Puleo, Michael Ames, and all of the authors, the editorial team, the advisory board, and the patrons. This issue would not have been possible without you. 5 SOCIO-INDEMNITY AND OTHER MOTIVES — JONATHAN CRISMAN 11 CONJURING UTOPIA’S GHOST — REINHOLD MARTIN 21 LE CORBUSIER, THE BRISE-SOLEIL, AND THE SOCIO-CLIMATIC PROJECT — DANIEL A. BARBER 33 MOVE ALONG! THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE — RANIA GHOSN 39 FLOW’S SOCIO-SPATIAL FORMATION — NANA LAST 47 COLLECTIVE EQUIPMENTS OF POWER — SIMONE BROTT 55 COLLECTIVE FORM — DANA CUFF 67 TUKTOYAKTUK — PAMELA RITCHOT 75 BOUNDARY LINE INFRASTRUCTURE — RONALD RAEL 83 DISSOLVING THE GREY PERIPHERY — NEERAJ BHATIA AND ALEXANDER D’HOOGHE 91 PARK AS PHILANTHROPY — YOSHIHARU TSUKAMOTO 99 MUSSELS IN CONCRETE — ESEN GÖKÇE ÖZDAMAR 105 PARTICIPATION AND/OR CRITICALITY? — KENNY CUPERS AND MARKUS MIESSEN 113 THE SLUIPWEG AND THE HISTORY OF DEATH — MARK JARZOMBEK 121 EXTRA ROOM — GUNNAR GREEN AND BERNHARD HOPFENGÄRTNER 127 SCULPTURE FIELD — DAN HANDEL 135 ON RADIATION BURN — STEVE KURTZ 163 CAIRO DI SOPRA IN GIÙ — CHRISTIAN A. HEDRICK 175 HUSH — STEVEN BECKLY AND JONATHAN D. KATZ 189 NORCS IN NEW YORK — INTERBORO PARTNERS 209 UNCOMMON GROUND — ZISSIS KOTIONIS 217 EDENS, ISLANDS, ROOMS — AMRITA MAHINDROO 225 THE PRINCE — JUSTIN FOWLER 233 BEYOND DOING GOOD — HANNAH ROSE MENDOZA 237 AID, CAPITAL, AND THE HUMANITARIAN TRAP — JOSEPH M. WATSON 245 THE END OF CIVILIZATION — DANIEL DAOU 255 TOWARD A LAKE ONTARIO CITY — DEPARTMENT OF UNUSUAL CERTAINTIES 263 SOCIOPATHS — JIMENEZ LAI