An architect from a wealthy suburb got elected to
the state legislature, eventually letting his architectural license lapse as he
rose in the ranks of conservative politics. This led some to wonder if
architecture has bipartisan appeal or if the issues that seem to matter most to
architects invariably lean the profession toward the political left.
The design of buildings,
landscapes, and communities remains, fundamentally, an apolitical activity. All
people need shelter – places in which to live, work, shop, study, and play –
and it should not matter where one stands on a range of other political issues.
Seen in that way, architecture represents a technical field, more involved in
keeping the rain out than in worrying about which political party reigns.
Still, the design and
construction industry involves large investments, both public and private, and
it invariably gets entangled in politics. Politicians make decisions that
directly affect the amount of construction that occurs, either through
appropriations of public money or through monetary and tax policies that
influence private investments in buildings. And the industry, like all major
sectors of the economy, has lobbyists who try to sway the opinions of politicians,
left and right, about issues of concern.
Politics, though, remains
as fluid a field as design and in recent decades, the political spectrum has
become more like a barbell, with two opposing sides and almost no one in the
middle. Many analysts have tried to explain this political polarization,
attributing it to everything from radio talk shows and factional media to the
growing disparity between a super-rich minority and everyone else. Whatever the
cause, however, the implications for architects have become clear.
Architects, as individuals,
no doubt have a wide range of political opinions. But architecture, as a
discipline, does have commitments to improving the quality of life and
enhancing the public realm that, at least in our current climate, seems to
place the field, politically, toward one end of the barbell and not the other.
That may say more about
the changing nature of politics than it does about architecture. The political
left and right used to debate how best to finance public education, public
healthcare, public transportation, and the like. However, the debate has become
more about whether we should have a public realm at all. The skepticism – and
in some quarters, outright hatred – of the government has led some
conservatives to call for the drastic shrinkage of the public sector in order
to grow private sector jobs.
This, in turn, has led to
efforts to “privatize” a lot of what people formerly assumed to be the
government’s role, with public funds providing vouchers for people to go to
private schools, with public healthcare viewed as a government takeover of the
private market, and with public transportation seen as an unnecessary
expenditure that benefits only a few.
Architects, of course,
work for both public and private clients and so benefit regardless of whether
public or private investments dominate. But the discipline’s long tradition of
advocacy of the public realm does place the field at odds with political conservative
and does suggest that we have a duty, ethically, to oppose extreme efforts to
privatize everything we once thought of as public.
Just as doctors advocate
for health and lawyers, for justice, architects need to advocate for that which
improves people’s lives, their physical surroundings, and the public realm
generally. Some, like that architect-turned-legislator, may not agree. But our
ethical duty as a discipline trumps our political self-interest as individuals,
and for those who don’t see it that way, they can always let their licenses
lapse.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete