An abstract observation Applications of philosophical, scientific or artistic concepts to socio-spatial phenomena tend to have various epistemological effects: i. Such applications may make the reality of the phenomena more visible, more concrete or more graspable than they might be; ii. They may help define some new aspects and new problems which might hitherto have existed only as undefined occurances; iii. By concentrating on specific aspects of the phenomena they may make them look much more specific and much more theorizable than the case might be. The last point first: when, for example, the idea of 'change' is isolated as a significant aspect, it is (mentally) isolated from other, possibly contradictory, aspects and processes. It becomes the focus of attention almost to the exclusion of other considerations. Yet, the field described as 'socio-environmental' is not developed enough to take rigorous accounts of the social in the spatial and the spatial in the social. It relies on borrowed paradigms from social sciences and overlays them on a background of largely pre-theoretical architectural formulations. Change, which is already an unsettled concept in the former becomes an intuitive obvious in the latter. While paying attention to detail, we sometimes ignore the whole, or while metaptiorizing over generalities we fail to see what, precisely, is and is not changing, and how. The central thesis of this paper will therefore be that there are so many changes in socioenvironmental phenomena (a) that our disciplinary horizons do not cover them all, (b) that they are not all metamorphotic, hence, (C) that raising the ontological status of our object by attributing to it a radical capacity to change would be premature. A concrete proposal This paper will aim to provoke questions about the possible need for our own transformation and our own metamorphosis, from an unevenly developed discipline (or, an unhappy mutant, a hybrid, a graft) to a promising new species. It will reiterate the case that the global context made up of such developments as the collapse of the 'Walls' and 'Curtains' (hence, revealing the ever-presence of new ones), 'surgical bombing' of Mesopotamia (hence, civilizing them back into the middle ages), imposition of a 'New World Order' (an eclectic mix of the Po-Mo Classical and the military), or the retreat of the collective conscious (even in a Uniting Europe) does not provide promising ecological, cultural, epistemological and designerly conditions for a meta-metamorphotic change in our field. Therefore, what the research knowledge is for, what the designs are really designing and what sort of humanity are we supposed to be serving are far from settled questions. 'Change' that we will be talking about at the Conference is so complex, so uneven and so varied that we seem to be neither fully aware of it nor are we likely to be in control of it. The project of describing and analysing changes in socio-spatial phenomena must go ahead. But the least that a maturing discipline and its Association should undertake at its Conference would be to go beyond this belated discovery. We must undertake to critically analyse the possible distortions in our perception that might be brought about by such a selfimportant concept. This paper will therefore aim to present the outline of a theory of change in architecture that is less than (or, semi-) metamorphotic.