Research Portfolio Post #1: Research Interests

 

Cyber capabilities, weapons of war, and economic horsepower are often studied as tools used by countries vying for influence, strength, and power on the world stage. Ignored, however, are the many forms of soft power used skillfully by leaders, diplomats, and artists alike to project a particular image to the rest of the world. This is certainly worth researching, as how other countries perceive us—and how we perceive them—is essential to how we communicate and negotiate the challenges ahead.

The form of soft power I will focus on has not yet been decided—in fact, it shifts quite often. Currently, I am fascinated by how architecture shapes national identity; how everything from the scale to the colors to the building materials reflect a rich history. For some countries, the legacy of colonialism remains, with buildings for distinct social castes; for others, attempts at modernization and technological development are apparent in sleek, minimalist designs. Whatever the narrative, one thing is for certain: architecture is a visible, tangible projection of a country’s past, present, and future. For now, my research question shall be: how have, and how can, nations use architecture to define their narrative and national identity?

Puzzles abound with this research question. First, the concept of a national identity must be defined; some scholars even argue that the idea of a cohesive identity is merely imagined and impossible to define in areas with vast linguistic, ethnic, and cultural diversity. Which of these histories should architecture choose to reflect? The second puzzle is the trade-off of historical identity and modernity: in the pursuit of sustainability, efficacy, and technological capability, many buildings must be reconstructed or redesigned entirely. How, then, can that happen without erasing the history of the original structure? Finally, how can architecture—or the destruction of it—be used as a weapon in times of political turmoil or war? What do the materials, layouts, light sources, color palettes, and silhouettes communicate? Do architects and artists have a responsibility to adhere to a community’s identity and preference when crafting these structures? Do architects who begin projects in developing countries have an ethical responsibility to strengthen the technological capacity and sustainability of their buildings, and if they do, might it create a form of architectural imperialism in doing so?

These questions are inextricable from the transcendental-situated knowledge debate that Abbott has presented to us. Because architecture is perhaps one of the most resilient art forms we have, and because by nature, it is designed to last throughout decades and centuries, it is critical that I consider whether the historical meaning of these creations still remains throughout time, or whether it changes with new political and social eras.

I first began thinking about architecture and its relationship to identity as I moved up here, to Washington, D.C., from the South. The difference in residential areas was striking: in the South, houses are wide, white, and columned, with huge grassy lawns—not unlike the images of the plantation era. Here, I saw brick, multilevel houses that seemed narrow and industrial—I wondered how much that might have to do with the constraints that crowded-city living places on individuals. Then, I read a piece in Architectural Review about how to destroy architecture is to destroy a community, which referenced a Syrian monument destroyed in a terrorist attack.[1] I realized that residential, commercial, and religious structures alike are inherent to the way we perceive ourselves and our communities, and that the issue transcends geographic boundaries—so it may be worth researching.

[1] Mogliozzi, Zaira. “To Destroy Architecture Is to Attack the Cultural Identity of a Nation.” Architectural Review, February 13, 2016. https://www.architectural-review.com/essays/reviews/to-destroy-architecture-is-to-attack-the-cultural-identity-of-a-nation/10002660.article.

6 thoughts on “Research Portfolio Post #1: Research Interests”

  1. Hello Rachel,

    Your topic seems fascinating. I never thought of architecture as a way to express national or local identity. I definitely think monuments are a more obvious example so the fact that you are open to focusing on all forms of architecture is interesting. I also think it is very fascinating to see you talk about the various ethical questions surrounding architectural design. It could be cool to see how countries decide what buildings/monuments/spaces are important and which are not too. I think from a transnational perspective your topic is amazing. I could see how it intersects with various issues (indigenous rights, land claims, environmental policy, development) too. Also, you could explore how people across nations can identify strongly with architecture outside of their respective countries. The Notre Dame Cathedral fire comes to mind when I think of this. Looking at war monuments and memorials to better understand national identity could be interesting too
    I also never thought of how your topic fits into security discourses until you brought it up. I also think that could be an incredible angle to tackle your topic from. I definitely think architecture can count as a cultural marker which would make it a vulnerable site during conflict. I do have one question though. Do you anticipate any limits to what architecture can express about national/local identity? Again your topic is interesting and flexible. It can touch on many different topics and I cant wait to see what it becomes! Good luck Rachel!!

  2. Hi Rachel! Fascinating topic and post. I think architecture is a very interesting way to examine soft power. The puzzles you have identified are all salient questions about how architecture intertwines with identity, power, and politics. As you continue to define your research, I think it may be helpful to consider the differences in the architecture market (for lack of a better term) in various nations. Who decides how important buildings are designed/treated/modernized? The government? Businesses? The wealthy class? Religious leaders or communities? Likely in many cases the answer will be a combination of a few choices, but it is worth considering nonetheless. For example, it is one thing when an ancient mosque is destroyed in war, but another when the seat of government is. The meanings and depth of impact of those attacks may be different depending on the identity of those affected. A similar dichotomy can be set up between modernizing a government building and a religious monument, or a private business’s headquarters and an entire neighborhood. It may be helpful for you narrow your topic to a certain type of case or to just be aware of those differences when looking at a cross section of different types. I also think it might help you build in a strong tie to the examination of soft power. Again, such an interesting topic!

  3. Hi Rachel,

    Great topic! I am looking forward to seeing what you find, especially about how the destruction of architecture can be weaponized. If you have the time, I recommend visiting the Franciscan Monastery of the Holy Land in America near CUA. Their friars have been in Syria since the 13th century and are currently there working to protect cultural sites. The tours are free, and you get to see replicas of the catacombs and different shrines in the Holy Land. A few of the friars served in Syria or Egypt, so they may have first-hand accounts on why sacred/cultural sites are targeted and the psychological effects of their destruction.

    If you are sticking with architecture, I think it would be interesting to look at if specific buildings or monuments have certain meanings or ideas attached to them (real or conceptualized, by their country of origin or others) and why. How does that, as a result, affect how that nation is perceived by the world? I’d recommend reading Benedict Anderson’s /Imagined Communities/. It could be useful for defining “national identity” if you’re looking at it as something flexible or open to interpretation through a country’s art/architecture. Best of luck and can’t wait to learn more!

  4. Rachel,

    I truly appreciate your post and your way of articulating the different influences of soft power. I think architecture is a fascinating and interesting means of exerting soft power. When reading your project and interests I couldn’t help but think about China and it’s Confucius Institutes as methods for the Chinese government to be a presence in countries like the US and use of soft power beyond traditional diplomacy [1]. I would be fascinated to see if there are specific examples such as China’s Confucius institutes, that you will plan to focus on or explore further. I am also intrigued if there are certain architects that are employed by the state and are then given certain guidelines to how a country is to be represented. In detail, Confucius institutes almost overemphasize the traditional sense and expectations of what is considered “Chinese”. You could elaborate on this idea of how architecture in many ways conforms to the public’s expectation of and what a certain country or state’s architecture should look like. Does a country’s national identity have to affirm this inherent version of stereotyping and in doing so are they creating or reaffirming their own identities? I feel that this would elaborate on your essential question of “what is national identity” and whether representation through architecture is a good example of this. I also appreciate your awareness of the subject as well as can relate to your conflict in choosing to decide between Transcendental and Situated knowledge. I agree that it would be difficult since architecture is in so many ways fundamental and such a testament to their time. I find it hard to ignore historical narratives and context but in many ways, I also agree that architecture should be analyzed in its universal use rather than through particular means. Regardless, I look forward to your decision and direction in your project and can’t wait to learn more!

    [1] Torres, Diego. “China’s Soft Power Offensive.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 25 Dec. 2017, http://www.politico.eu/article/china-soft-power-offensive-confucius-institute-education/.

  5. Rachel,
    I appreciate your post and your way of articulating the different influences of soft power. I think architecture is a fascinating and interesting means of exerting soft power. When reading your project and interests I couldn’t help but think about China and it’s Confucius Institutes as methods for the Chinese government to be a presence in countries like the US and use of soft power beyond traditional diplomacy [1]. I would be fascinated to see if there are specific examples such as China’s Confucius institutes, that you will plan to focus on or explore further. I am also intrigued if there are certain architects that are employed by the state and are then given certain guidelines to how a country is to be represented. In detail, Confucius institutes almost overemphasize the traditional sense and expectations of what is considered “Chinese”. You could elaborate on this idea of how architecture in many ways conforms to the public’s expectation of and what a certain country or state’s architecture should look like. Does a country’s national identity have to affirm this inherent version of stereotyping and in doing so are they creating or reaffirming their own identities? I feel that this would elaborate on your essential question of “what is national identity” and whether representation through architecture is a good example of this. I also appreciate your awareness of the subject as well as can relate to your conflict in choosing to decide between Transcendental and Situated knowledge. I agree that it would be difficult since architecture is in so many ways fundamental and such a testament to their time. I find it hard to ignore historical narratives and context but in many ways, I also agree that architecture should be analyzed in its universal use rather than through particular means. Regardless, I look forward to your decision and direction in your project and can’t wait to learn more!

    [1] Torres, Diego. “China’s Soft Power Offensive.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 25 Dec. 2017, http://www.politico.eu/article/china-soft-power-offensive-confucius-institute-education/.

  6. Rachel — as we discussed when we met, you have an interesting and promising topic area here. Keep reading and researching (especially in scholarly peer-reviewed journals) so that you can work on moving from a broad topic area to a more defined research puzzle (something that can be expressed in a “why…?” or “what explains…?” formulation). You can start to answer some of the “do…?” questions you mention here with your background research so that, with that knowledge base, you can better connect to the conceptual and empirical explanatory puzzles in the topic area. Keep reading and researching–I look forward to seeing how the project develops!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *