‘Power’ can be defined as the capacity to achieve something, yet within societal affairs it tends to involve control over others or the ability to harness the capacity of others, and it is this distinction between power as a capacity and power as a relationship between people that is fundamental to understanding the architecture of authoritarianism. The power of governing bodies over others is driven by a desire to harness the power of the people in order to achieve an ultimate goal or policy, and the success of any such regime is determined by the amount of capacity it possesses. Therefore it can be identified that the goal of authoritarian regimes particularly, is to increase the number of people under their governance and then increase the potential of those people. The concept of architecture as a participatory tool of power emerged in the 18th century when society experienced a paradigm shift in social philosophy. The desire of the people and the states respectively to improve the current quality of life positioned them to consider strategies for increasing hygiene standards and eliminating crime and poverty within cities. And this common goal provided the opportunity for an increase in capacity, the development of which could operate under the guise of voluntarism, further legitimating the governing party. These new architectural forms surfaced in hospitals and prisons, and even extended into the layout of elementary classrooms and domestic homes.
The inherent lack of political control in the health system naturally decreased their control over the capacity of the people. Previously hospitals and other such public buildings were privately owned estates, more often operated by religious groups (Wagenaar, 2006), and this significantly diminished the opportunities for governing parties to legitimise their ideologies and policies. The contemporary design of hospitals as buildings reserved for the care of people suffering from illness or injury evolved over an extended period of time during which several social and political movements proved to be very influential. Initially, the medical institutions funded and operated by the state were reserved for military use as it was in their opinion that the capacity of the military, and thereby success of the state, was of the most importance. One of the most prominent of these military institutions is the ‘Hotel des Invalides’ which was constructed in the late 17th century and housed up to 7000 wounded or defective soldiers during its use as a hospital (Encyclopaedia Britain Inc, 2013). Architecturally, the geometric and social structures present in the ‘Hotel des Invalides’ design were highly reflective of the traditional hospitals built during the same period. The building features large spacious halls with high pitched roofs and is divided axially through the middle, representing the division between male and female, design concepts identical to those being implemented in other such establishments (Wagenaar, 2006). The appearance of religious spaces in the ‘Hotel des Invalides’ also reflected the social discourse of the era, that faith in religious structures could provide healing. Additionally, its seventeen courtyards functioned to provide the connection between the occupants and nature, something that was deemed necessary by the architects to increase the health of the occupants. It wasn’t until the mid-19th century that large campaigns to improve healthcare through cleaner air and water that hospital design truly became an issue of the governing regime. Furthermore an increasing devotion to medical science, philosophy and technology resulted in a decline in faith of religious healing and this transition transformed the design of medical institutions all around Europe and also the Americas.
Hospitals became the first buildings whose design and function was completely governed by the concepts of medical science. Liberating hospitals from religious influence inspired a second revolution, leading state architecture toward an organisational system of individualisation which celebrated science. The concept of organisation became increasingly important to governments as the individualisation of people allowed for increased levels of control – in this case, power over the spread of disease and illnesses within hospitals. The architectural strategy of segregation used in hospitals was partly inspired by the discovery of bacteria as the cause of most disease (Wagenaar, 2006). From a functional perspective, the previous design of hospitals meant that the medical equipment and human resources could attend to people in an efficient manner. However the lack of individualization allowed for the spread of disease in these spaces, and the spatial goal of medical institutions became to segregate the people as a means of prevention. But this meant that the medical technology and human resources were spread over a greater area to a point where the system became extremely inefficient. The architectural challenge lay in maintaining appropriate segregation, access points and boundaries in a manner in which human and medical resources could be efficiently accessed. Architect James Gamble Rogers’ ‘Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Centre’ (now the New York-Presbyterian Hospital) and Coolidge, Shepley, Bulfinch and Abbot’s New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Centre are two examples in which architecture is used primarily to exert authority over disease and community. Commonly referred to as “block hospitals” (Soloman, 2008) they served as celebrations of medicine and technology in which the segregation of people and the control of access and boundaries functioned to achieve these goals. The progress of medical institutions allowed for a significant increase in the health of society, and hence an increase in capacity and legitimation. The organisation of people within space extended beyond disease control to elementary and penal institutions as this system allowed for people to be separated within spaces according to class, age, sex, performance and fortune. The increase in control permitted was an attractive means for governing regimes to achieve their goals.
The security and efficiency discovered in this new organisational discourse influenced also the architecture of prisons. By the end of the eighteenth century the spatial ceremonies of punishment had lost public support and maintained themselves only through new legal practises. This movement can be accredited to a shifting public opinion, which saw the previous penal ceremonies as equal to, if not exceeding, the savagery of the crime itself.
“[Punishment was thought to] accustom the spectators to a ferocity of crime, to make the executioner resemble a criminal, judges murderers, to reverse the roles at the last moment, to make the tortured criminal an object of pity or admiration.” (Foucault, 1995. 9)
Punishment as a public spectacle suggested an unmediated contest between violence of the criminal and violence of the state, degrading their legitimacy and coercion. The state realised that through ‘general punishment’ and the excess sentencing of death and torture they were effectively diminishing their public resource and aggravating the resistance of the remaining public toward the governmental body. The need to develop a more subtle threat of force caused the concept of detention as discipline to become very popular. This then allowed for the reformation of individuals through the use of several architectural and psychological strategies. The first principle was isolation. Isolation of the criminal from society and from the force which motivated the offense as well as of the criminals from each other, which is achieved through the architectural framing of the person (Foucault, 1995). The second principle was structure. A series of tasks which reflected the social and behavioural standards idealised by the governing body, which were to be completed within a series of defined spaces at specified times. The enforced spatial confinement and enforced spatial exclusion, “strips the subject of any choice of non-compliance” (Kim Dovey, 2002). Jeffery Bentham’s Panopticon represents an architectural image in which the systems of control and power are exercised ideally. The design consists of a primary circular structure in which the cells are located, lining the peripheral wall and extending into the central space. The central space itself contains a tower which is used by the jailer or guard(s) to survey the surrounding space. The angled partition walls of the cell and large openings, located at the back and front of each unit, created a strong visual connection between the individual being framed and the surveillance tower at the centre (Davies, 2004). The outside window allows the light to cross the cell from one side to the other, further emphasising the central connection and also increasing the level of surveillance permitted. This ‘panoptic’ spatial arrangement allows for the constant surveillance and isolation of each individual and the easy recognition of any person whose behaviour does not imitate the imposed system. It was recognised by Bentham that continual surveillance of each cell and inmate was not possible and the architecture responds accordingly using devices such as venetian blinds to create the illusion that a guard or inspector is always present. As the inmate has no way to determine whether they are being watched or not they are reserved to comply appropriately and efficiently in the event that they are indeed being surveyed. This disciplinary system becomes increasingly efficient through the internalisation of the power relationship between the individual and the authority. This appropriation of force as a mediator of power in penal institutions promotes the reformation of social delinquents and furthermore illustrates architecture as a participatory tool of power.
The architecture of prisons also assisted in the creation and repetition of spatial rituals, which legitimised governing regimes through the second principle of structure. The issue remained that the capacity of people who deviated from the desired behavioural discourse was required to be optimised through the disciplinary process. It was believed that work, accompanied with strict regime and isolation, was “an agent of carceral transformation” (Foucault. 1995, 240). Following regimes were devised with the intention of harnessing the human resource that was evident in the penal system, including Leon Faucher’s (1837) rules ‘for the House of young prisoners in Paris’ which outlined a series of tasks to be completed every day during detention. However, this concept was proven to be ineffective in the absence of supporting architectural spaces and framework, as released inmates failed to reproduce the behaviour and social standards imposed within prisons. It was identified that the experience of space could potentially cause people to become particularly vulnerable to the ideological appropriations of power. The notion of framing individuals and using spatial rituals to normalise a set of qualities and values was a key architectural strategy used in penal institution to assist in legitimating authority while also rendering the persons docile and useful to society.
The process used by governments to optimise social capacity, found itself being appropriated within the elementary system during the 18th century, when questions arose regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of these penal institutions. The disciplinary techniques that could be exercised within schools, for example, were far more effective than those which were being used in penal institutions, as the psychological state of children is particularly vulnerable to external influences. And more importantly, through the discipline of children the government could prevent the formation of undesirable social structures and hence the initial need for penal institutions.
Discipline, as a technique for constructing and enforcing social structures, at times requires enclosure, and this spatial recognition is evident in prisons. However in other situations discipline can involve the distribution and circulation of bodies within a network of relations, and this spatial arrangement combined with implied segregation was adapted to elementary schooling to encourage particular social systems. In the 18th century class began to define this distribution of individuals within the educational system (Foucault, 1995), and the organisation of serial space became the architectural gesture through which discipline was facilitated. In previous educational establishments the disregard for spatial arrangements resulted in the majority of students remaining idle while one person was being attended to by the respective master. By assigning individual places and enforcing spatial boundaries it made possible the supervision of each individual and the simultaneous work of all pupils, thereby increasing learning efficiency. It should be noted here that the supervision of students acts similarly to the principles of surveillance, as employed in prisons. The psychological impact of being constantly under surveillance presents itself in the form of compliance. Furthermore spatial relations between the students and each other and the students and the master enforced the ideals of class and social etiquette. These principles are still evident in the contemporary design of both lecture theatres and class rooms. Lectures theatres, such as the Elizabeth Jolly Lecture Theatre at Curtin University, use tiered spatial arrangements to allow for the maximum visibility of students. Not only does this ensure obedience but it enhances the visibility of the lecturer and subject content, increasing the level of intellectual exchange permitted. The built form of lecture rooms is also used to reorient the students towards the lecturer, by forming an elliptical ring within the peripheral view of the speaker. Similarly the layout of the modern classroom relies on the concept of surveillance through spatial relations to classify and enhance the learning capacity and efficiency of the student body. By placing ill-behaved children within a closer proximity to the surveyor it is believed that the increased visual connection would enforce a particular level of compliance. And likewise by enforcing spatial separation between children of poor performance, either in academic ability or social status, and children of higher class it would assist in establishing strict social order (J. B. 248-9). From the point of view of surveillance, it can be demonstrated that value is subsequently placed in the areas in which this visual connection is diminished. And it is through the distribution of individuals within and around these valued spaces that authorities can successfully normalise desired behaviours and social etiquettes. The use of architecture in framing these social structures allows for their repetition throughout society. Furthermore the use of educational space to normalise a set of qualities and values guarantees the future obedience of individuals, but also a better economy of time and resource.
Power over society could only be exercised in public spaces, such as those previously discussed, and this created issues for the state as the home became motivated as the ‘breeding grounds’ for both crime, and disease. Both of which were issues presented in the public interest and in the desire of governments to optimise capacity. In our modern age we have a prefabricated set of ideologies through which we perceive the ideal home. However, in the 18th century groups of people were living in ‘houses’ which in fact comprised of one or two rooms. And it was in these spaces that there would be one place for living (day room) and one place for sleeping, without any present spatial boundaries (Soloman, 2008). Once this was identified as an issue, structure and spatial control was extended into the ideology of ‘home’. New ideals appeared “strangely panoptic” (Soloman, 2008) but also presented an appeasing alternative, and hence provided the guise under which coercion was most effective. Domestic housing was proposed as the ultimate solution to the social and political goal of improving living conditions. The development of domestic housing was of interest to the state partly to create streets, which would use the same principles of surveillance, orientation and experience of place to prevent crime and enforce particular behaviours. But it was equally the division of space within each house that could impose the social norms being implemented outside. The new layout of the home featured many partitioning walls which physically separated each space. This overt exercise of power was further emphasised through the process of assigning different characteristics of spaces to particular functions. Through the development of spatial recognition authorities could ensure compliance within spaces which were not able to be surveyed. However the design intent of these new communities connected government policy with the public interest and hence provided necessary legitimacy to the authority. Community housing was used as a further means of preventing crime and disease, and hence exhaustive penal and medical institutions.
Architecture can be seen to act directly as a participatory tool of power, and this is evident through an understanding of the power relationships and authoritarian regimes present in the 18th and 19th centuries. Regardless of whether or not power is successful in its goals, it is apparent that it was the intent of the governing authority to exercise control over society through the use of architecture. The development of hospitals reflects the need of the state to improve the health of society. Irrespective of medical progress, architecture always assisted in constructing the relationship between efficient medical care and the governing party, be it religious or political, which legitimised the authority. Moreover, the architecture of prisons functioned to provide the coercive threat of force necessary to maintain power over society. While additionally providing the framework through which social structures could be enforced, hereby optimising the potential of citizens. The appearance of necessary power relations in elementary systems again recognised the potential of architecture to allow for the construction of behavioural standards and orders of class which suited the governing authority. And the extension of spatial control into ideologies of ‘home’ reflects the strong desire of governing authorities to maintain social order.
References:
Archiseek. 2012. “1674 - Hotel Des Invalids, Paris.” http://archiseek.com/2009/1674-hotel-des-invalides-paris/#.UayCFUAwpe9
Brought to Life Science Museum. 2012. “Exploring the History of Medicine.” Military Hospitals. http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/techniques/militaryhospitals.aspx
Davies, Kim. 2004. Panopticon. Encyclopedia of Prisons & Correctional Facilities. CA: Thousand Oaks. 664-67. http://www.sagepub.com/hanserintro/study/materials/reference/ref8.1.pdf
Dovey, Kim. 1999. Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form. London: Routledge.
Encyclopaedia Britain Inc. 2013. “Panopticon.” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/441450/panopticon
Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline & Punishment: The Birth of the Prison. NY: Random House Inc.
Miller, Barbarra L. 2007. Housing and Dwelling: Perspectives on Modern Domestic Architecture. NY: Routledge. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=nET0FIXOxRkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Soloman, Nancy B. 2008. Architecture: Celebrating the Past, Designing the Future. NY: Visual Reference Publications Inc. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=ErvkPOjhulEC&pg=PA279&lpg=PA279&dq=columbia+presbyterian+medical+center+architecture&source=bl&ots=SqO3qI9d8w&sig=g8rQMcfqgl6GXXhRc6E_JWCBjeU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qzOrUb7NKcyiiAfx7YHoBA&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=columbia%20presbyterian%20medical%20center%20architecture&f=false
Wagenaar, Cor. 2006. Five Revolutions: A Short History of Hospital Architecture – The Architecture of Hospitals. Rotterdam: NAI publishers.
No comments:
Post a Comment