Architecture, Power, and National Identity/ Lawrence Vale/ 1992

This book, through several case studies, seeks to explore how architecture has been used by national
regimes to express political power, and how the urban built environment has been manipulated to promote a version of identity that would benefit the government in power. Divided in two parts, this book discusses the various agencies influencing the creation of new 'capitals' and the design of new 'capitols'.

Chapter 1 introduces the terms 'capitol' and 'capital', where capital refers to the city housing the government, and capitol refers to the building housing the government. Vale identifies four ways in which buildings 'mean' - denotation (through meanings), exemplification (drama), metaphorically, and through mediated reference. He provides a historic overview of the development and design of modern capitals, and identifies three types of modern capitals:  

a)Evolved capitals  like London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin which have been in continuous use much before becoming the center of power for national administrations. Here, the political capitols are treated as equals with non-government and public institutions.  These capital do not have one single center of architectural focus, but are poly-vocal. At different stages in history, the various ruling regimes have architecturally imprinted the city to signify their power.

b)Evolved capitals 'renewed' like Rome, Moscow, Athens are cities that have been serving as capitals for several centuries, and whose architecture and urban fabric has been renewed time and again to suit the changing needs of subsequent regimes. As power changed from royal families to papal state, from imperialism to democracy, and to socialist and communist regimes, the city's architecture was continually redefined by adding capitols, memorials, and congregational  spaces which helped in spatially and physically anchoring their political ideologies.

c) Designed Capitals are cities that have been clearly designated as a capital. They are either carried forward from a colonial past (Delhi) or designed afresh to suit the image of a newly formed nation-state (Brasilia).

Chapter 2 discusses the role of capital city and capitol buildings in construction of national identity. While the first chapter introduced the terminology and gave a historical overview of the evolution of capital cities, the second chapter focusses specifically on 'postcolonial capitals' and their importance in nation building. For this Vale begins by surveying the academic landscape of 'nations' and 'nationalism'. Quoting postmodern scholars like Gellner, Hobsbawm, and Anderson, Vale suggests Nationalism to be a modern invention. National identity, he says, was born out of a necessity to have a shared cultural, linguistic lineage among the residents of a newly independent nations who found it easier to identify themselves by who they are not, rather than who they are. Vale proposes that even as capitals and capitols are supposed to be representative of a national distinctness, they often represent the culture and power of only the dominant group within a plural society. This group usually is the ruling political power, and becomes especially problematic if the central division of the nation-state is on religious lines. Then, national identity proposed through capitol buildings can be thought of as 'constructed identity'. He identifies three types of identity projected through the construction of capitol complexes:
a) Subnational identity: In postcolonial nations construction of new capitals becomes a mere demonstration of power and a search for legitimacy by a new regime in power. Ex:Brasilia
b) Personal identity: The personality and influences of the designer or the political sponsor overshadows the showcasing of national identity, especially when a non-native architect is imported to design the new capital Ex:Chandigarh
c) Supranational identity: When architecture (often ostentatious) is used by a self-interested political bureaucracy to symbolize the modern aspirations of a new country and its emerging economic development. 

Chapter 3 discusses four capitals which were designed for union, imperialism, and independence. Vale describes them to be representative of early forms of nationalism. While DC was one of the first capitals to be designed by a union, the colonial capitals were European inspired to served the interests of an overseas empire. 

1. Washington DC was the first postcolonial modern capital. Vale traces the history of DC as one of early capitals designed based on French gardens and town plans and Italian renaissance design by Pierre Charles L'Enfant to today's touristy DC which is a 20th century product. He notes the role of the Capitol building as a symbol of unity from its standing as a locus of power.
2. Canberra: In Australian capital Canberra there were debates over an appropriate symbol for democracy, and the relevance of a master plan that spoke an aristocratic and imperial language.
3. New Delhi: Designed as an Imperial capital, the master plan of New Delhi was the physical manifestation of race, rank, and socioeconomic status prevalent in the Indian society. The colonized and the colonizers had distinctly demarcated spaces in the capital.
4. Ankara: Unlike Imperial Delhi which had a history that pre-dated arrival of British, Ankara was chosen over Constantinople (Istanbul) which had a history of over 1500 years. It was symbolically moving away from European ties of Constantinople and centuries of Ottoman rule to a new Turkish republic. 

Chapter 4 provides an in-depth analysis of two post-war 'modern' capitals - Chandigarh and Brasilia where architecture and urbanism was used to symbolize modernism and national identity of new nations.
1. Chandigarh: Vale is largely sympathetic towards Corbusier and admires his efforts on designing a modern Indian capital which is also evocative of India. He marks the architectural convergence of Corbusier's ideas with that of Lutyens, and notes that by detaching Capitol complex from the city Corbusier represented the supremacy of the executive.
2. Brasilia: The capital was moved inland to the geographic center from the port city of Rio De Janeiro to symbolically claim the newly acquired vast expanse of land. Even as the masterplan of the new capital was said to be influenced by the cross of the catholic church, scholars like Holston argue that this was only done to hide the more radical aspects of the city's design. Unlike in Chandigarh where class segregation was consciously pursued in residential design, Brasilia aimed to break the divide by building all residential units alike. But it only ignited riots amongst the residents. The central capitol complex was not designed by bureaucrats, Vale writes, but for them. 

Chapter 5 discusses three capitals (Islamabad, Abuja, Dodoma) that were designed after 1960's and were significantly influenced by the masterplan of Chandigarh and Brasilia. Here, the ideas of the prior capitals were reconsidered and improved upon. Post-war capitals have not only imported western architecture but also western democratic ideologies. 

Chapters 6 to 9 discusses four capitals built after 1980's : Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Kuwait, Bangladesh. Vale brings out the strengths and failures of each of the capitols, and ends every discussion on a hopeful note that the building that is currently unsuited for the people may in future shed its negative connotations and become naturalized in its setting.  

1. The architecture of Papua New Guinea's (PNG) capitol complex was said to be inspired from various aspects of traditional village life of the region. The architecture was drawn from vernacular roof forms, the aesthetics came from ritual objects, and urban form was taken from village men's houses etc. But in all this the political struggle was embedded. The vernacular structure was found only in some parts of the region, which had been traditionally seen as the dominating class, and hence the architecture of capitol complex was accused of favoring one set of people over others. The ritual objects and art pieces were taken out of context and presented as secular indigenous objects which was seen as disrespectful. Vale argues at PNG both subnational and supranational identity were being constructed by the collaboration and cross-pollination of various groups' identities.  

2. Sri Lankan island parliament designed by native architect Geoffery Bawa differs from the previous case studies by embracing indigenous architectural traditions and a  multitude of references from different ethnicities. But being in a country that is plagued by ethnic conflicts and civil war it came to be seen as representative of the unchallenged Sinhalese power on the Island. 

3. Kuwait's National Assembly complex was designed by John Utzon and was inspired by local Arab tents in the the marshlands, but the symbolism was lost in abstraction.

4. Dhaka's National Assembly building designed by Lois Kahn appears to be the most severe failure of all the capitols studies in the book. Being influenced much more by the architect's ideologies than the government's the building appears to a  army stronghold rather than a house of democracy. Kahn's over utilization of the elements of Mosque provoked strong reactions from the 11 million Hindus in the region. 

Chapter 10 brings together all of the case studies where Vale offers a prescriptive conclusion for designing capitals and capitols. He presents three ways to approach the design of a  capitol complex that would symbolize both national identity and the power. a) he argues that capitol complexes should move beyond politics where the designer should consciously steer away from the political intentions of its sponsor. b)Vale questions if it would be possible for one building to be a microcosm of an entire society, and if so who should be the judge of its accuracy. He offers that since it is impossible to have a microcosm the symbolism of the national building is significant and hence must be carefully designed. c) Vale argues that since Capitol complexes end up being instruments of political power, and they cannot be representative of an entire society, the buildings should be designed to reflect an idealized form of governance and intergroup relations in the country. Here again he wonders who would have the power to decide what an ideal representation should be.
Vale concludes his prescription of a 'good capitol' with the thought that even as Capitol complexes have not been ideal buildings and have favored one group, regime, political institution, or even a designer over the interests of the common public, they showcase the the hierarchy of power structure in the country. He writes, "Regimes build capitol complexes chiefly to serve personal, subnational, and supranational interests rather than to advance national identity; designers cannot mold political

change; and governments still find it necessary to demonstrate their power through aesthetic exaggeration."