Architecture, Politicsand Consequences - Term Paper Example

Architecture, Politics…And Consequences? [Name] [Professor Name] [Course] [Date] [WORD COUNT 3056] Executive Summary Politics consists of activities and affairs aimed at gaining control or managing a state. Although most designers feel dissociated with politics, it transcends the key areas of architectural practice. This essay argues that that design is political since it has societal consequences, but architects are political since they are mere instruments of power. The logic of how political ideology informs, affects, and controls architectural practice, and architectural design has been used dominantly in controlling social norms, behaviors and practices. Because of this, architecture is generally seen to serve as a regulatory force and has been applied to influence and control the behaviour of the public through embodying power. In conceptualizing design reasoning and political reasoning, it is critical to observe that reasoning in architectural critiques has a consequential achievement deeply engraved in social norms and social interaction. In which case, design reasoning cannot be assumed to be merely a mental faculty that is aimed at ensuring built results. Two political reasoning are examined: First, substantial rationality is political reasoning about human good. It is basically concerned with the conception of human wants that enable individuals to engage in rationalizing what is good for the society and the best forms of social life. Second, pragmatic rationalism is based on the premise that political reasoning can be rational if it follows an explicit criteria to differentiate between irrational and rationally held beliefs. Further, this essay takes the position that architects are apolitical, as architectural practice is greatly influenced by politics forcing architects to be instruments in influencing values through designs rather than being perpetuator or political actors. A specific area of concern is the power that designers have in shaping the society rather than using the power of design as a tool for propaganda. Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 How political ideology informs, affects, and controls architectural practice, and architectural design 4 Conceptualizing design reasoning and political reasoning 7 Forms of design reasoning that justify built results 7 Forms of political reasoning that support design reasoning 8 Substantial rationality 9 Pragmatic rationalism reasoning 10 The reasoning behind advanced capitalism and whether architects are apolitical 11 Conclusion 14 References 15 Introduction Politics consists of activities and affairs aimed at gaining control or managing a state. Although most designers feel dissociated with politics, it transcends the key areas of architectural practice. In any case there would be missed opportunity here since politics is concerned with values and design would be nothing if it wouldn’t be a means to embody these values. This essay argues that design is political since it has societal consequences, but architects are political since they are mere instruments of power. Accordingly, to a great extent, political ideology informs, affects, and controls architectural practice, and architectural design. How political ideology informs, affects, and controls architectural practice, and architectural design Politics is often perceived as a set activities and affairs concerned with gaining control and managing a state or a government. Most designers feel dissociated with politics. In any case there would be missed opportunity here since politics is concerned with values and design would be nothing if it wouldn’t be a means to embody these values (Lockton 2011). A specific area of concern is the power that designers have in shaping the society rather than to use the power of design as a tool for propaganda. Therefore, to a great extent, political ideology informs, affects, and controls architectural practice, and architectural design (Winhall 2006). In modern-day architectural practice, insinuations on the impacts of political ideology on architectural practice and architectural design came into much limelight in 2001 after it was revealed that it had the power to influence election outcomes. For instance, Florida’s shoddily designed butterfly ballot were largely cited for their potential to cost Al Gore US presidency. This perhaps became the largely discussed scenario among modern-day architects over the political impact of design (Lockton 2011). Indeed, influences of political ideologies on design are all around major world building designs. A typical example is the influence of political ideology in prison designs. For instance, in the last decades, a team of policymakers, educationists and architects teamed up to conceive ways of redesigning prisons. Prisons are indeed powerful indicators of how political ideologies influence architecture (Lockton 2011). During the 19th century, a predominant ideology in the American criminal justice included power through control, surveillance, mental languishes and awe of the state. At that juncture, architects were prompted to design prisons that could repress any sense of personal identity and autonomy. A typical design is the Panopticon, which includes a circular format that has a central watch tower allowing an observer to survey and monitor all prisoners, without the prisoners knowing they are being observed. Panopticon have been documented for their capacities to have a controlling effect, punish and create psychological trauma rather than punish (Winhall 2006). The logic of how political ideology informs, affects, and controls architectural practice, and architectural design has been used dominantly in controlling social norms, behaviors and practices. Because of the influences of political ideology, architecture is generally seen to serve as a regulatory force and has been applied to influence and control the behaviour of the public through embodying power (Anon 2009). The direct use of architecture by the political sphere to influence the demographic or economic make-up of areas has ranged from policies of Business Improvement Districts to change the social class of visitors in an area. For instance, in the American case, the Tennessee Valley Authority during the Depression era sought to improve impoverished areas using massive development programs through settlements to colonise territories (Winhall 2006). Within this context, environments where architecture is instrumentalized, planning decisions will to a greater extent follow political and strategic agenda rather than ecology, sustainability or efficiency. For instance, the layout of Washington DC that was conceptualised by Pierre Charles L’Enfant in 1791 is generally perceived to reflect the principle of ‘separation of powers’ contained in the US constitution. Pierre Charles L’Enfant separated the buildings that housed the branches of the government. Along almost similar lines, in 1943 in Britain, Churchill requested that parliament that had been damaged by a bomb be rebuilt in the former design for the good of the House of Commons (Lockton 2011; Winhall 2006). Further, internal building layouts are designed for their potentials for ‘power implication,’ who apply the concept of “space syntax analysis’ to develop buildings such as the Forbidden City of Beijing, Albert Speer’s Berlin Chancellery and Metro Centre shopping mall in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. A recurrent pattern in political buildings includes the use of a ‘diplomatic promenade’ to reveal a series of anterooms to visitors. Architecture has also been used to exert social control in Shaker dwelling houses, such as the use of different staircases and entrances for women and men, and the lack of routes through the house that protected one from being obscured one from being observed by other family members (Lockton 2011). City layouts have also been used in a strategic way to prevent disorder. For instance, Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann’s “militaristically planned Paris” was designed with the goal of securing the city against the civil war. Further, the design of the streets was aimed to ensure erecting or barricades impossible at all times. Additionally, new streets were aimed to furnish the shortest way between the worker’s district and the barracks. The Hausmann project also consisted of planning straight avenues to control the crowd during political rallies (Lockton 2011). The correlation between politics and architecture, particularly rationalistic architecture and political ideologies, is a predominant theme in the Italian Architectural practice. For instance, much of the buildings constructed in Italy between 1920 and 1940 were led to ideologies of Fascism. Analysis of the buildings that were designed for the University of Rome in 1930 was basically Fascist architecture (Warren and Prior 2000). They were led to a large extent by Fascist ideology rather than by economic, iconic, economic, typological factors. The logic behind reconstruction of Paris can also be compared to the process of transforming old-growth forests into designs of scientific forests or unitary fiscal management, part of which comprised making space as well as the individuals in it controllable by whoever is in power through removal and simplifying local practices or inconsistencies (Warren and Prior 2000). Conceptualizing design reasoning and political reasoning Forms of design reasoning that justify built results Design reasoning consists of the decisions or rationale made during the processes of designing a structure as well as the reasons why such decisions were made. Its key objective is to support designers by offering them a means to communicate their reasoning, argumentation and rationale behind the process of design. It therefore involves the reasons behind a design decision, the justification for the design, the evaluated trade-offs, argumentation behind the decision as well as other alternatives that were considered (Murphy, Ivarsson and Lymer 2012). In discussion about the general role of reasoning in architecture and interaction of designs, it is critical to observe design in various contexts. Two critical areas ways the impact of design reasoning is concentrated and greatly related is the role it plays in promoting policies and decision-making in the society (Jacoby, Dipl and London 2013). Within this perspective, it is critical to observe that reasoning in architectural critiques has a consequential achievement deeply engraved in social norms and social interaction. In which case, design reasoning cannot be assumed to be merely a mental faculty that is aimed at ensuring built results. Rather, it is a technique for essential for identifying and controlling problems in the society (Murphy, Ivarsson and Lymer 2012). Based on this perspective, design reasoning is seen as a fundamental tool for understanding and justifying the “whys” and “hows” of architectural designs and the circumstances surround the built results. Throughout history, political perspective has played a critical role in determining architectural design. Indeed, certain forms of political reasoning have been instrumental in supporting design reasoning (Winhall 2006). Forms of political reasoning that support design reasoning Everyday political reasoning has various elements that relate to the everyday physical reasoning. It involves values, causal reasoning and continuous parameters. With regards to causal reasoning, it is concerned with the consequences of events as well as how situations can be changed for the better (Jacoby, Dipl and London 2013). Put differently, political reasoning can be understood through the qualities required by a political agent, such as policymakers, and other aspects or political reasoning about the physical world such as economic factors, interaction between political agents, such as the politicians and the citizenry or the policymakers and the residents (Jacoby, Dipl and London 2013). Substantial rationality Substantial rationality is political reasoning about human good. It is basically concerned with the conception of human wants that enable individuals to engage in rationalizing what is good for the society and the best forms of social life (Stier 2006). This kind of reasoning aims at ensuring that humans are governed to live a fulfilled life. It is connected to the defense of virtues and morality in the society. Therefore, it is concerned with the good and the bad and the right and the wrong in the society (Stier 2006). This kind of political reasoning significantly supports design reasoning in a number of ways. For instance, it may be concerned with punishing the bad and the wrong to promote peaceful coexistence in the society. Substantive rationality as a form of political reasoning significantly influences design reasoning in the areas of disciplinary architecture. Throughout history, disciplinary architecture has encompassed a range of issues from prison design of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon of 1787, anti-homeless park benches to technological punishment conceived by Foucalt in 1977. This kind of political reasoning is seen to influence the design reasoning to protect the general public against undesirable behaviour by other members. With this regards, measures to control the behaviour of the public are instituted through the architectural designs (Winhall 2006). Such similar measures may be used by the members of the public to protect their properties. A case in point is the reasoning behind the interdictory spaces that are designed to intercept and filter people in frequently used public spaces. Others include slippery space that makes accessing some buildings difficult, prickly space, that make a space difficult to access because of measures that inhibit sitting, walking or standing (Murphy, Ivarsson and Lymer 2012). Pragmatic rationalism reasoning For pragmatic rationalism, it is argued that individual’s can only said to be rational if they follow an explicit criteria to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate explanation about irrational and rationally held beliefs. However, the criteria for rational reasoning vary depending on places and situations (Stier 2006). Pragmatic rationalism reasoning applies in the area of environmental politics and policies, where the assumption that deciding on policies should be governed by the greatest good it will have for the greatest number of people despite the cost-benefit calculations (Light, A & de-Shalit, A 2003). In other words, it is concerned with what designers can contribute to the greater good of environment policies. Architectural designs following this reasoning have recently received attention in the UK to control crimes, a typical example is the Design Against Crime Research Centre at Central Saint Martins, whose designs have addressed control of the public in high profile areas, such as theft of bags and bicycles in bars and restaurants. The designs take into account the environmental context where crimes are prevalent (Winhall 2006). While the design rationale has been on ensuring better products, they have been significantly influenced by political reasoning focused on crime prevention. For instance, the concept of ‘crime prevention through environmental design’ (CPTED), which focus on designing of architectural products to control certain public behaviour, has developed since the 1970s to date. In the UK for instance, architectural in some areas have to comply with a CPTED initiative of an Association of Chief Police Officers. Indeed, this has become a condition for designers to get planning permission for residential developments in some areas. As a consequence, this has led to a situation where some estates are required to be surrounded by a perimeter wall that has CCTV and sharp steel pins (Winhall 2006). In this way, architecture has been used as a form of crime control with the view of addressing the demands of social policy-maker and legal audience. This is particularly interesting as it portrays the concept of architectural solutions that subtly and sometimes even strongly embody or reinforce social norms rather than, enforce them. Architecture can in this way control human interaction as well as monitors individuals in a community and allow the greater impacts of social norms to dominate in the society. Towards this end, it can safely be argued that the power of social norms to impact social norms can in some circumstance overlap that of the law, since law may in some instances face apparent difficulties in an attempt to directly control social interactions (Winhall 2006). The reasoning behind advanced capitalism and whether architects are apolitical In response to Mayo’s proposition that “The reasoning behind advanced capitalism and its underlying operations encourages [my emphasis] architects to be apolitical,” this essay takes the position that architects are apolitical, as architectural practice is greatly influenced by politics forcing architects to be instruments in influencing values through designs rather than being perpetuator or political actors (Murphy, Ivarsson and Lymer 2012). A specific area of concern is the power that designers have in shaping the society rather than using the power of design as a tool for propaganda. Therefore, it can be argued that design is political since it has consequences, but architects are apolitical since they are mere instruments of power (Anon 2009). By being apolitical, it refers to a situation where architects take an unbiased position with regards to political issues. Put differently, it refers to being politically neutral. This essay argues that in advanced capitalism, architects have more often than not been reluctant to take a stance in political matters than in furthering their career prospects. Indeed, architects have been used as instruments for promoting values and ideologies where they are directed or influenced by policymakers to take. The process has been promoted by freedom of expression in advanced capitalism (Murphy, Ivarsson and Lymer 2012). Under this scenario, individuals are allowed to freely express themselves and transformation design, where there is intense collaboration between economists, designers, policymakers, and social scientists to solve complex socio-economic problems. A feature of advanced capitalism is the possession of capital by the few in the society (Warren and Prior 2000). Advanced capitalism refers to a situation in a society where the capitalist model has been deeply integrated and developed over an extensive period. Capitalist model in this case refers to an economic system that is based on private ownership and product for profits. Another important feature of advanced capitalism is political abstinence or privatism coupled with focus on consumption, leisure and career (Warren and Prior 2000). Indeed, in advanced capitalism, art is influenced in many ways by the political agent -- whether the tax payer, electorate, dictator or representative. A political agent may patronize the arts by employing an architect to promote values or promote a state, or commission architects to impose value upon a community or in some instances encourage free reciprocation between social activities and artistic activities. Through this, an architect is forced to an instrument rather than a partaker of a political ideology or values (Murphy, Ivarsson and Lymer 2012). In which case, architects are in forced to exalt the people who dominate politics or the ruling class. Through this, architects are seen to dignify the ruling class and to promote the machinery of government. Political designs have often changed depending on the ruling political ideologies. An example includes the Fascist buildings in Italy that were designed between 1920s and 1930s (Warren and Prior 2000). Industrial capitalism has sought to produce some political elites who in the advanced capitalism are the accountants, businessmen, lawyers, managers or even a union secretary and even architects. This is different from the military genius or the orator of the old. These modern-day political elites have sought to promote their set of values by commissioning architects to design buildings of their preferences. This has largely been induced by the freedom in design and enhanced by the diversity in techniques and industrial materials (Warren and Prior 2000). It is indeed critical to observe that different from the state-monopolised artistic patronage of the old that tended to make architects political, advanced capitalism has create more freedoms stimulated by profits and consumers making architects to be neutral in their stance. Architects have therefore been reluctant to promote any political cause and effect on their own accord. Rather, they have helped political agents or the ruling class to promote a cause and effect. For instance, the freedom of expression in architecture in the U.S.S.R. promoted the idea that architecture was a mere vehicle for a new ideology (Parker 1950) In advanced capitalism, a growing number of political agents, such as policy-makers collaborate with designers to create new public services as well as innovative public policy. In the UK for instance, architectural in some areas have to comply with environmental policies in the area. Indeed, this has become a condition for designers to get planning permission for residential developments in some areas (Murphy, Ivarsson and Lymer 2012). As a consequence, this has led to a situation where some estates are required to be surrounded by a perimeter wall that has CCTV and sharp steel pins. This kind of approach is called transformation design, as it facilitates the collaboration between economists, designers, policymakers, and social scientists to solve complex socio-economic problems (Warren and Prior 2000). Conclusion In conclusion, design is political since it has societal consequences. However, architects are apolitical since they are mere instruments of power. Accordingly, political ideology informs, affects, and controls architectural practice, and architectural design. Further, design reasoning consists of the decisions or rationale made during the processes of designing a structure as well as the reasons why such decisions were made. Its key objective is to support designers by offering them a means to communicate their reasoning, argumentation and rationale behind the process of design. Political reasoning is aimed at promoting fulfilment of human life and changing social norms for the better. Architects are therefore apolitical, since they are instruments in influencing values through designs rather than being perpetuators or political actors in promoting the values. References Anon 2009, Architecture or Revolution? , viewed 28 Oct 2013, http://neilleach.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/architecture-or-revolution.pdf Doordan, Dennis.1993 The political Content in Italian Architecture During the Fascist Era, Art Journal pp121-132. Viewed 28 Oct 2013, http://brianrwilliams.com/lesson_plans/HNLA101/FA12/week%207/Political%20Content%20in%20Italian%20Architecture%20Fascist%20Era-Doordan.pdf Jacoby, S, Dipl, A & London A 2013, The Reasoning Of Architecture: Type And The Problem Of Historicity, University of Berlin, Berlin Lane, B 1986, "Architects in Power: Politics and Ideology in the Work of Ernst May and Albert Speer," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 17, pp283-310 Light, A & de-Shalit, A 2003, Moral and Political Reasoning in Environmental Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lockton, D 2011, "Architecture, urbanism, design and behaviour: a brief review," Architectures, viewed 27 Oct 2013, http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2011/09/12/architecture-urbanism-design-and-behaviour-a-brief-review/ Murphy, K, Ivarsson, J & Lymer, G 2012, embodied reasoning in architectural critique, University of Gothenburg: Gothenburg Parker, S 1950, "Architecture and Politics," Design Review Vol 3 Iss 3, viewed 27 Oct 2013, http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Arc03_03DesR-t1-body-d3.html Stier, M 2006, The Trouble with Liberalism: Discovery or Invention? Reason, the Good and Rights, viewed 25 Oct 2013, http://www.stier.net/writing/over/overview_main.htm Winhall, J 2006, Is deisign Political, Core77, viewed 28 Oct 2013, http://www.core77.com/reactor/03.06_winhall.asp Read More