Tafuri’s essay illuminates the progression of technique to better accomodate the inhabitant, where the modernist ideologies worked towards integrating the body as a functional machine in space. It seems that, leading up to the activation of the body, architecture was limited to being the effect rather than the effected. By activating the body in space, the modernists successfully created a typology of efficiency and aesthetic. And so, as the human condition changed throughout the first half of the 20th century, so did the architecture. Tafuri ultimately sees 20th century as a further progression of the working class, and that capitalism has issued a dramatic effect on architecture. Tafuri writes, “Modern architecture has marked the paths of its own destiny by becoming the bearer of ideals of progress and rationalization to which the working class is extraneous, or in which it is included only in a social democratic perspective.” The role of architecture is then clearly defined. As a support for social interaction, architecture can convey the zeitgeist, a capturing of what is required for that time and place. But at what point will this statement translate to the 21st century and will the role of architecture change? Or has architecture maintained the same role despite a clear shift in the contemporary paradigm? Do pre-existing ideologies negatively or positively impact architecture moving forward?