MİMARLIKTA MİLLİNİN OLUŞMASI

The conventional classification of architectural production according to 'national' categories provides ample evidence that the validity of a 'nationally' divided world is also present in architectural thought (1). As the large number of books on 'national' architectures demonstrates, architecture is frequently and unproblematically accepted as 'national*. Buildings have thus been accepted - mostly unconsciously - as conveying 'national' meanings, and are categorized and defined accordingly. This genre of studies generally compiles a number of products which are then presented as examples of 'national architecture', appropriating the actual heterogeneity of architectural products to the end of fulfilling the belief in 'national' unity (2). The basic assumption in these categorizations is the acceptance of a relationship between architecture and a specific 'nation', a specific quality that is attributed to architectural products as representative of a 'national identity' (3). In other words, the assumption is that each 'nation' has its own distinctive art/architecture that is evidence of, and implicitly supportive for, the powerful existence of the 'nation'. This depends on nationalist ideology's definition of the 'nation' as a real entity by attributing a homogeneous, unified and stable 'national identity* to each 'nation'. When 'national architecture' is taken as representative of such a 'national identity', it is similarly accepted as both synthetic and stable. The only problem then becomes one of defining what 'national architecture' is by finding out certain characteristics that formulate the meaning of 'national' in architecture. The focus is, consequently, on architectural forms; and the search is for finding out the appropriate 'style' to represent the 'nation'. This essay attempts to develop a critique of such an interpretation of'national architecture' as a 'form of the nation'. In their attempt to find out the 'national style', both the categorizations to examine different 'national' architectures, and the formulas to produce them conventionally assume that forms have intrinsic and stable meanings, regardless of their contexts. Hence, the main questionable assumption in this type of interpretations of'national architecture* is that they accept architecture as a field of production that is separate and autonomous from economic, social, political, historical, or any other, realities, ie. the specific contexts of 'nation'-building. I suggest that, for a better understanding of the concept of 'national architecture', the attempt should focus on why and how 'national meaning* is produced in architecture rather than on what 'national architecture* is, and that this requires a contextual, rather than an exclusively formal, analysis. In most attempts to create or define 'national architecture', one definitive element generally seems to be taken as providing the sought for unity and stability: the utilization of historical forms. The choice of the characteristics of 'national unity' depends on the formulation of identity attributed to the 'nation' in nationalist discourse, that is, an eternal identity which has a distinctive relation to both past and future. As the idea underlying this formulation is that of a common 'culture' rooted in a common history, the periods of architectural (and/or artistic) production that aim at representing 'national identity' -and subsequently termed 'national* in the historiography- are characterized by a search for roots, especially in terms of traditional architectural forms and styles. So-called revivalist periods are case examples. A process of appropriation operates in this search for unity that conceals the facts about the choice of specific roots as common to the 'nation', as it does not ask questions as to who chooses, whose roots are chosen, or simply why they are chosen. The search, thus neglects the fact that 'tradition can only be defined from where we stand' (Abu-Lughod, 1992,9). It must also be remembered that the desire to have a 'national identity' itself is something that is related to 'nation'-state formation as a 'modern' phenomenon with its specific aim of'progress'. Thus, the definition of'national identity' is only explicable in terms of- at best - appropriating traditional identities, and forecasting - the desired - new ones according to the ideals of the state with its objective of constructing the 'nation'. As these ideals vary according to differing conditions of specific contexts, the choice of forms -historical or not- as representative of a unified and unchanging 'national architecture', changes accordingly. These critiques that have emerged from studies of nationalism during recent decades are directed against nationalist ideology in view of its acceptance of the 'nation' as a natural, given entity. As against this essentializing interpretation, recent studies take nationalism as a process through which the 'nation' is created, invented, imagined and/or constructed (4). Hence, for example, Hobsbawm (1990,8-9) states that 'no a priori definition of what constitutes a nation ... [can be found], for the 'nation' as conceived by nationalism can only be recognized a posteriori.' Consequently, the basis of inquiry is not what 'national identity* is, but why and how the continuous process of 'nation'-building generates 'national identity' specifically in time and place, always leaving aside of course, what or who is unwanted in, or to be excluded from, the 'nation' (5). The 'national identity' is formulated in meanings generated by nationalist discourse that are 'reactivated, reinterpreted and often reinvented at critical junctures of the histories of nation-states' in the definitions as to who and what constitutes the 'nation' (Kandiyoti, 1994,378). Recent literature on nationalism, making clear the fact that 'national identity' can only be understood with reference to its selectiveness and constructedness in terms of how the new identity is supposed to be, obviously puts emphasis on the importance of specific 'actors' - politicians as well as intellectuals such as architects who may generally be defined as 'national elites' -who are a privileged class in these processes of selection and construction. Nonetheless, as recent criticism has also rightly stated, a unified 'national identity' is seen to be 'imaginary' when its construction is compared to any kind of reality. Therefore, the importance of 'actors' and of their definitions may only be understood in relation to the specific histories, events, and structures in the process of 'nation'-building. This is because the 'product' is not only dependent on definitions of identity as to how it should actually be, but is also affected by specific conditions that change over time and space. That is why, knowing who, where, when, why, and how is involved in constructing the 'nation' is essential in understanding the very social formation as it exists. The identity offered, or aimed at, by nationalist ideology is taken to be a set of characteristics that constitute 'national culture'. This identification of 'culture' with 'nation' necessitates the acceptance not only of the 'nation' but also of 'culture' as real and stable entities. Challenges to this acceptance have emerged in recent decades, especially as the result of a similar shift of paradigms, questioning the concept of 'culture' just as much as that of 'nation'. In the light of this critique, 'culture' is understood as being constantly produced (6); thus, 'nation'- building is a process of continually producing 'national cultures'. In addition, recent studies also question the idea of the production of 'national culture' itself: The basic idea being questioned is that of the mapping of 'culture' onto specific spaces, especially that of the 'nation'-state. On the contrary, studies point out that 'culture' is produced by diverse forces operating in a global (inter-national) system, which, though still manifesting different and differing occurrences at the local level, necessitate that the study of culture be situated beyond the 'national society' (7). These critiques have been effective in questioning the notions of 'nation', 'national identity', 'national culture', and consequently, 'national architecture', as a given, that is, as having Synthetic and stable meanings. Instead, what they suggest is a critical analysis of their production in the context of specific times and places. Thus, they provide the necessary ground to problematize the concept of a unified 'national architecture', and to defy the attempts that are solely concentrated on forms of architecture in their search for the appropriate 'style' to represent the 'nation*. In the light of recent studies on culture and nationalism, the critique of this approach proposes a move away from dealing with design features as such that are accepted as 'national'. Instead, the aim is rather to analyze the specific contexts in which architectural products are invested with, and produce, meanings through the continuous process of'nation'-building. Although a number of recent studies, some examining artistic production, have dealt critically with the relationship between the construction of 'culture' and the construction of 'nation* in these terms, there has, as yet, been much less attention given specifically to the field of architecture. Several studies, examining architecture in relation to its social and historical context, have contributed to such problematization of 'national architecture' as having synthetic and stable meanings in terms of the supposed relationship between certain styles and certain ideologies. They have demonstrated that there exist variations in stylistic preferences even during specific periods and under specific political regimes. Moreover, they also illustrate and clarify the fact that essentially similar quests for 'national identity' can be based on the utilization of different styles, and exist under different political regimes (8). Nonetheless, the critique developed from this type of study might be productively extended by analysis of the construction of 'national architecture' as formulated in the discursive conceptualizations of nationalist ideology (9), and operative on thebasis of the 'nation'-state system (10). The construction of a 'national order', with the aim of the 'nation'-state being directed to an end of nationalist ideology, is a socio-political process and formation, of which 'national architecture' is an integral part. Valuable insights have been offered along these lines by studies that interpret social formations as defying the commonly attributed totalized and stabilized meanings as these have been regulated by continuous struggles of power (11). Such studies thus provide a theoretical basis from which to problematize the concept of 'national architecture' where this is reflected in claims to represent a unified 'national identity', and to present this representation in terms of a formal/stylistic unity (12). A similar problematization of the concept of 'national architecture' could be developed by examining the formation and transformation of the way in which the relationship between architecture and the 'nation* is conceptualized in the context of 'nation'-building process. The aim of such an attempt is to analyze the construction of 'national architecture' in a reciprocal relationship with the construction of the 'nation', whereby architectural production is a constituent of, as well as being constituted by, the specific process of 'nation'-building. Accepting these constructions as processes occurring in specific contexts, the concern is not simply with formal stylistic analyses in order to define 'national architecture' as a real and stable entity; it is rather concerned with the inherent problematics of its definitions and production within the specific frameworks of particular political and social imperatives. The underlying assumption is that, for such an attempt to problematize the concept of 'national architecture', the examination should not be based on supposed dichotomous formulations (especially that of 'national/international') but, instead, various formations of the 'national' in architecture between and/or beyond these dualities should be analyzed. As King (1993,120) rightly points out in terms of the concern with the meaning of the built environment, this requires that we turn 'our attention from considering the social production of buildings to thinking about the production of people as social, cultural and political subjects'. Only then can the idea of a unified 'national architecture' be understood as having been conceptualized in nationalist discourse as part of the messages of nationalist ideology, and in terms of the existence of such a unified 'nation' itself. When architectural products are analyzed with reference to characteristics other than the formal, it becomes clear that there may be more affinities than differences between buildings which have otherwise different styles. Defying classifications or periodizations made according to exclusively formal characteristics, this type of inclusive analysis clarifies the fact that the definition of the architectural 'style' of a building is insufficient for easily defining its 'identity'. Architecture in a society will... always remain capable of readings in particular political terms (Baird, 1995,285). It is ideology such as nationalism, that shapes architectural identity, rather than any formal preference between two poles of oppositions like 'national/ international' or 'traditional-historical/modern'. However, it is clear from historical examples that the same architectural forms can be used to represent different (even opposing) ideologies. The comments of Speer, the prominent architect of Nazi Germany, are illuminating in this context. Having designed the German pavilion in the 1937 Paris Exposition in neo-classical style, he was surprised 'that France also favored neo-classicism for her public buildings' (Figure 1). He adds: It has often been asserted that this style is characteristic of the architecture of totalitarian states. That is not at all true. Rather, it was characteristic of the era and left its impress upon Washington, London, and Paris, as well as Rome, Moscow, and our plans for Berlin (Speer, 1970,81). The similarity in architectural forms in different regimes is not, in fact, so surprising when the context of their production is taken into account. The resemblances among public buildings in almost every Western country during the 1930s and 1940s', for example, could then be understood with reference to 'parallel developments, spurred by similar underlying political and social needs' of the depression years (Lane, 1986, 307). These created the same rationale for buildings in different countries through different routes that changed according to their specific conditions (Figures 2-4). In order to discover the meaning of architecture that is formulated in ideological discourses, the analysis of architectural forms must be linked to 'a focus on social relationships and the analysis of social structure* (Markus, 1982, 6). The presumed validity of classifying architecture 'nationally' necessitates studying 'national architecture' in terms of the context of'nation'-states. Architecture as an institution, and system of practices, including its manner and forms of education, its mode of operation and commissioning, etc., takes place within, and as part of, the 'nation'-state system itself. It is regulated by its 'norms and forms', thereby making the 'nation'-state more easily able to make use of it to the end of its ideology. A vision of historicity is necessary in the search for the meaning of architecture that analyzes the social relations and practices of subjects in 'society-in-history' (Markus, 1993). That is the reason why, in order to analyze the concept of 'national architecture', it is helpful to understand the system of the 'nation'-state as the social context that provides the regularities and constraints of the field of architecture. On the other hand, the fact that there exists a 'nation'-state system (operating according to nationalist ideology), does not guarantee a unified identity for the 'nation' which will be reflected in architectural productions, that means, there must be a 'national style' in architecture. Such a belief may be the reason why authoritarian (consequently totalitarian) state-systems (like that of Nazi Germany or fascist Italy) are the most frequent focus of attention for architectural historiography when dealing with the relationship between architecture and nationalism. However, it must not be forgotten that nationalist ideology is in fact inherent to all 'nation'-state systems, although its effects may not always be experienced as overtly as the effects of politics in totalitarian state-systems. For example, for state intervention in visual arts in Britain, it is stated that the form of organization of the corporate state 'contributes towards, or provides the conditions for, the systematic displacement of overt politics from the exercise of State power and authority... by a cultural consensualism which, while being in fact political, is experienced ambiguously but powerfully as a kind of informal consensual benevolence' (Pearson, 1982,104). Moreover, it is also difficult to define a set of formal elements typical of a specific building program that resulted from the policies of a specific regime. Even in the authoritarian Nazi Germany, '[t]he cultural policy of the new regime as reflected in its building program was, like Nazi ideology itself, confused and contradictory. Among the makers of official architectural policy, at least four different factions developed.... Thus despite the party's claim to... a uniform new 'national socialist' style, the rivalries of these factions permitted almost every type of architecture to be constructed' (Lane, 1968,8-9) (Figure 5). Similarly, '[t]he seeming paradox of different outcomes [in Italian architecture during the fascist era] serves to caution against any simplistic explanation of nationalism, modernism, culture or style in studying not only Italian architecture, but also the modern architecture of any country in this same period' (Etlin, 1991, 108). There is 'sufficient fluidity in the possible political readings of any particular architectural motifs for architects to presume a considerable (albeit socially bounded) scope of practice open to them in these matters' (Baird, 1995, 285). Hence, in an attempt to understand the nature and meaning of architectural products, accepting the existence of an inherent relationship between ideology and its 'culture' does not mean that (forms of) architecture is taken simply as the expression of an ideology. This would be as misleading in terms of assigning autonomy to architecture as would concentrating only on its formal aspects. The relationship between 'national culture/architecture' and nationalist ideology is a reciprocal one: A 'national culture' as the 'national identity' gets produced from nationalist ideology as it is oriented towards an end of 'national order'. Meanwhile, the construction of 'national order' depends on various kinds of symbolic tools (national flag, national anthem, military parades and the like) having an impact at the mass level. Political authority ... requires a cultural frame in which to define itself and advance its claims, [still] so does opposition to it (Geertz, 1985,30). In this way, symbols become the means and ends of power itself. And through them, politics is shaped by a cultural frame in its attempts to create a new man and a new face of the country (13). Architecture is certainly not just another symbolic tool: It not only is one of the 'images' constituting this face, but also creates the larger spatial and constructed environment to house the institutions and organizations of the 'nation'-state system. Architecture affects thoughts and actions, both as a tangible expression of ideas and as a tool for ordering the places where human activity and interaction occur (Coaldrake, 1996, 4). It is thus significant both materially and symbolically in the coming-into-being of a 'national order'. Figure Sd.What Said suggests for the analysis of imperialism can also be adopted for nationalism: The history of nationalist ideology and its 'culture' 'can now be studied as neither monolithic nor reductively compartmentalized, separate, distinct (Said, 1993, xx). And 'the outcomes are predetermined neither by a universal form that nationalism must take nor by a weighty and hardened cultural tradition'(Fox, 1990,8). The meaning of architecture resides not in its assumed autonomy (in terms of either the aesthetic or ideological character of architectural forms), but in its existence as part of a specific social formation, within the relations of production of its time and place. That means, looking for the meaning of architecture in relation to reality, does not mean taking the context as the ultimate determinant. The so-called new art history is critical (especially of the 'social history of art') on this point, rejecting the separation of 'text' (artistic products) from 'context': Context and text are thus established in the guise of separation that is at the same time an evident hierarchy, for the expectation is that context will control the text (Bryson, 1992,19). This interpretation also accepts architecture as an autonomous field of production, so that it can reflect meanings in reality that are taken to be imposed upon it. Architecture and its context of production are interdependent, that means, buildings are social objects. In this sense, and with reference to its definition by Bourdieu, architecture could be taken as a 'field' that operates through the process of 'nation'-building. In a field, the practice of subjects 'depends on their position in the field, i.e. in the distribution of the specific capital, and on the perception that they have of the field depending on the point of view they take on the field as a view taken from a point in the field' (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992,101). Yet, the field has to be seen as one of struggles whereby subjects as agents participate, practicing according to relations of power effective in the field in order to preserve or transform the configuration of the field itself (14). As such, a field operates according to the mutual relationship between the structural constraints of the social system and the specific and varying practices and relations of the subjects acting according to, and simultaneously changing, these constraints. The system of the 'nation'-state is not 'a well-defined, clearly bounded and unitary reality which stands in a relation of externality with outside forces that are themselves clearly identified and defined' (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, 111). The constraints and regularities of this system are rather configured throughout the process of 'nation'-building according to the changing power relations and practices of various agents in the production of different fields. The state, society, and architects are the principal agents in the production of architecture that constitutes one such field of this system. In this context, the built environment is constructed (partly) by architects who take their part in the state-society relationship acting in the 'field of struggles' of the 'nation'-state system. In order to understand the relationship between architecture and nationalism, what is necessary is a critical analysis of this relationship as operating through 'nation'-building as a process that continuously changes according to time and space specific conditions. In this process, nationalist ideology can not be defined as monolithic and stable but its formulations change according to the continuous construction of 'national order'. Order in a 'nation'-state is shaped by the constantly created and varying requirements of the state itself to the end of this order, and by the possibility of fulfilling them, in relation to changing conditions inside and outside the country. The system of the 'nation'-state is not 'a well-defined, clearly bounded and unitary reality which stands in a relation of externality with outside forces that are themselves clearly identified and defined' (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992, 111). The constraints and regularities of this system are rather configured throughout the process of 'nation'-building according to the changing power relations and practices of various agents in the production of different fields. The state, society, and architects are the principal agents in the production of architecture that constitutes one such field of this system. In this context, the built environment is constructed (partly) by architects who take their part in the state-society relationship acting in the 'field of struggles' of the 'nation'-state system. In order to understand the relationship between architecture and nationalism, what is necessary is a critical analysis of this relationship as operating through 'nation'-building as a process that continuously changes according to time and space specific conditions. In this process, nationalist ideology can not be defined as monolithic and stable but its formulations change according to the continuous construction of 'national order'. Order in a 'nation'-state is shaped by the constantly created and varying requirements of the state itself to the end of this order, and by the possibility of fulfilling them, in relation to changing conditions inside and outside the country.The existence of a national entity is a primary assumption of nationalist ideology, rarely questioned; but the content of [this entity] is the subject of continual negotiation and dispute (Handler, 1988, 51). During this process, different messages relating to the 'nation' are conceptualized in discourses and disseminated through various media, including the display of what is accepted as representative of 'national identity' -such as 'national architecture'. As architectural production is an integral part of this process of'nation'-building, the idea of 'national architecture* should be evaluated as produced accordingly. Only then is it possible to question the possibility of the existence of a unified and stable 'national architecture' as well as a similarly understood 'nation' itself. Only through such a vision of historicity is it possible to understand the 'national' in architectural culture as variously formed as is the 'nation' itself through the 'nation'-building process. Once architecture situates itself within [such] a given social context, it inescapably forsakes the autonomy it possesses in its hypothetical status as pure 'form' (Baird, 1995,281). In terms of an examination of'national architecture', this critique requires an approach that moves away from dealing with design features as such that are accepted to be 'national' -either primordially or by imposition. Form, alone and unaided, cannot be the vehicle of ideas. The ideas cannot spring from within the form. They arc added from outside, through turns of phrase and through practical function, through practice.... Without the support of language and functions, there can be no ideological content (Aman, 1992,257). What is significant for the concept of 'national architecture' is not the fact that architectural forms reflect and/or create 'national meanings' in this context. The question to be asked is, therefore, not whether 'national architecture' exists or not, or not simply what 'national architecture' is, but rather why and how attempts exist to understand architecture in 'national' terms. The analysis should thus be focused on the construction of 'national meaning' in architecture as variously formulated in discourse, and as simultaneously formed in practice, according to the constraints of the specific context through the process of 'nation'-building. This type of understanding requires an analysis of the specific contexts with specific requirements in which discursive formulations and practical formations of 'national architecture' operate. The consequent architectural products produce meanings, and their meanings are produced, as part of the process of constructing 'national order'. Only in these terms can an understanding of the relationship between architecture and nationalism be provided which does not depend on nationalism as a model that architecture adopts (and according to which architectural products are categorized) but which accepts both nationalism and architecture as continuously constructed through the process.