Products of political design schools, by key practioners, are generally good, usually strong design. The ideological framing certain can help in guiding design,

Products of political design schools, by key practioners, are generally good, usually strong design. The ideological framing certain can help in guiding design, providing continuity (even if the "narrative fact" is imaginal). I generally disregard the narrative attached to design - went to arch school so am entirely jaded about that aspect of design. So I love Sant'Elia but have a few issues with the Manifesto; love some Italian Fascist buildings (they're gorgeous) but am not a fan of Duce; same goes for Bauhaus: quite a few gems came out of Bauhaus, but as you noted I did not hide my disdain for that 'wing' of the orthodox binary political spectrum. Two dyads that have been adopted fairly generally as central to design for modern humanity are: individual vs. collective, and, man and nature. The architects that I admire started from the I|C paradigm and ended up in M|N. The former has an unfortunate tendency to be subsumed by a political reading of the question: what is the order and nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective. This dyad has proved to be a disaster, for example, in psuedo (poser) Marxist/Socialist approaches to mass housing, and is in no small part responsible for the distasteful Post-Modernism that followed in reaction. So design research in Man | Nature dyad. That is my personal direction and what I think (obviously :) is the appropriate venue of further efforts. (Why: The question of unit-collective is in fact embedded in that dyad. So is the quite topically urgent question of Man | Machine.)