Socioplastic Urbanism does not announce itself as a style, nor does it pretend to heal the city through design ethics. It arrives as a disturbance in the regime of spatial legitimacy, forcing a confrontation between Urban Taxidermy and Active Dissensus. Where contemporary urban culture embalms conflict into heritage formats, curated participation, and inert “commons,” socioplastic thinking reopens antagonism as a productive force. The city is no longer preserved but metabolized; no longer exhibited but stressed. This is not urban repair, but urban exposure—an insistence that space remains unfinished, politically unstable, and structurally vulnerable to collective interference. Post-autonomous theory offers a useful but insufficient lens here. While it describes the evacuation of artistic sovereignty from institutional frames, it often fails to articulate what replaces that vacuum. Socioplastic practice fills this gap through Systemic Sovereignty rather than representational freedom. Sovereignty is not claimed symbolically but exercised operationally: through platforms, protocols, and recursive infrastructures that regulate circulation, authorship, and scale. The city becomes a medium whose governance is continuously renegotiated, not a backdrop awaiting curatorial interpretation. Autonomy is not outside the system; it is the capacity to reprogram it from within.
