Culture and Architecture

I was educated at an architecture school (the University of Waterloo), that has cultural history enshrined in its mandate. The study of architecture is always to be part of a broader study of culture - particularly Western historical cultures. Studying the relationship between architecture and culture in ancient Greece or Rome is something I have come to regard as absolutely necessary to understanding the development and the place of architecture in our history. But, as often happens, the closer one gets to the present, the less direct the connections become - the more difficult it is to understand how culture and architecture (in this particular case) are related.

There are several perfectly understandable reasons for this to be the case. First, academics have had two thousand years to perfect their arguments about architecture and Rome (or architecture and Athens). Admittedly, there were several centuries in those two thousand years when no one gave a single thought to the subject but it would be hard to argue against the axiom, "distance provides clarity". Second, it has been almost half a century since there was a consensus opinion on the definition of architecture. After WWII half of Europe's housing stock was destroyed, along with many of the factories producing construction materials, and a large percentage of the people who actually built what architects designed. Providing housing for the homeless in a very particular economic and social circumstance became architecture's orthodoxy, even in places (like the United States) where the conditions which had generated that orthodoxy did not apply. Since Modernism (as the post-WWII architecture was called) was rejected, there has been no universal consensus as to what architecture does, how it should look, what its goals should be, how it should be judged, etc. The study of architecture and culture demands we know what both things are, and since 1975 (at the latest) no one has been able to say what architecture is. Third, as with architecture so with culture. That is to say, there is no consensus what culture is anymore. This might be a function of our position - like a fish trying to understand water, or some other metaphor. Or it might be the case that conflicting, and antithetical, views of culture have not, and cannot, be reconciled.

I am not smart enough to define architecture. I do not have the experience even if I was smart enough. The last person who provided a nearly universal definition was Le Corbusier - and I'm not him.

I can't define culture either but I can clarify some of the antagonistic positions that prevent people smarter than I am from defining it. But first, a brief summation of a few pivotal moments in the last 40 years is necessary. I'll keep it as short as I can.

Where to start? I could start in 1971, when the US voided the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system collapsed. Or I could start with the American backed coup in Chile that disposed Salvador Allende. After the coup the Chilean economy was restructured according to monetarist (what is now called neo-liberal) principles. Maybe a few words about the bankruptcy of New York City in 1975 - not really essential to the argument but the first clear indication of the neo-liberal principle summed up in the now famous phrase "privatize profit and socialize risk". Or I could start with the Volcker shock. Between 1979 and 1981 Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker more than doubled the prime interest rate. This signified a move away from embedded Keynesianism (aimed at zero unemployement) to monetarism, or supply-side economics (aimed at zero inflation). But I think I will start will Margaret Thatcher.

In an interview with Women's Own magazine (31 October, 1987) Britain's Prime Minister gave her clearest summation of her view on culture and politics. She said:
"There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first."

Thatcher's stress on individualism was consistent throughout her politics. She spent her first years in office in a bruising fight against labour unions, public education, and the entire social safety net Britain had previously provided. Her view that society was non-existent was also consonant with the opinions of then President Ronald Reagan.

One of Reagan's first actions as President was to crush the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO). On 3 August 1981 PATCO went on strike. The same day the President issued an ultimatum - return to work or lose your job. Union busting has been a staple of American politics for more than a century but the air traffic controllers were a white-collar union. Reagan was making a statement, very similar to Thatcher's. "There is no such thing as a union. Only individuals."

Individualism is a condition of neo-liberalism for a very simple reason - money. Neo-liberalism is an ideology tailor made to suit corporations. In the contest between an immortal individual worth billions and a mortal individual worth almost nothing, the corporation wins every time.

To be clear, altho I cannot agree with neo-liberal doctrine and think it is a repressive and morally abhorrent system, I do not think its advocates are evil people. They aren't even bad people. They are the people who have been put in charge of making sure our economy continues to grow. This is the lens through which they see the world. It had been demonstrated over and over that neo-liberal doctrine does not promote sustainable, or even healthy growth. The GWP, the world economy, was $19 trillion in 1980 and $70 trillion in 2012. That's definitely growth.

One of the ways that growth has been achieved is by enclosure. The term metaphorically recalls the actual enclosure of public (common) property in Britain in the five centuries or so preceding the Industrial Revolution. Modern enclosure is transferring public goods, land, infrastructure, and responsibility to private hands. The government (and this is particularly true in the United States) "privatizes" things that had previously been part of the public realm. Although this has been demonstrated to cost more, be less efficient, and concentrate wealth at the highest end of the social-economic spectrum, it is portrayed as a natural and axiomatic good by supporters. "The government which governs least, governs best."

While governments have moved away from the concept (or even acknowledgment) of culture, corporations have moved into it with every tool at their disposal. I won't summarize this movement. Instead I'll recommend Naomi Klein's NOLOGO - a very thorough and well-considered history of culture's co-option by corporations.

This dual movement, government removing itself from society and corporations installing themselves, has excluded people from society in essential ways. I am being shockingly non-rigorous with my terms here, using culture and society almost interchangeably - I should insist society is the many and various bonds which connect people through mutual obligation and affection and culture is the product of society but you get the picture. Anyway. The most important effect of corporate influence in culture and society is we now approach culture, society, and politics as consumers. Our only available (sometimes only conceivable) options are to approve (purchase) or disapprove (walk away). Raj Patel's book The Value of Nothing (2009) is instructive on this systemic failure. And those groups which do manage to maintain a connection and purpose separate from corporate marketing are typically small enough that marketing gurus can't find them or poor enough that they don't matter (in the eyes of governments and corporations alike).

All this creates a tough situation for those who study the interaction of architecture and culture, at least our architecture and our culture. It is much simpler, and probably more informative, to examine someplace with a monoculture that is both politically engaged and related fundamentally to the built world - like Eyal Weizman has been doing in Israel and Palestine for many years or Lieven de Cauter has been doing with the global politics of exclusion.