No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Demokratische Architektur in demokratischen Hauptstädten: Aspekte der baulichen Symbolisierung und Verkörperung von Volkssouveränität
Abstract
Hauptstädte in demokratischen Staaten sollen wie jene in den alten Monarchien und den modernen nicht-demokratischen Regimen den Willen und die Vision des Souveräns ausdrücken, sind aber mit dem Problem konfrontiert, dass der Souverän ein eher abstraktes Kollektiv, nämlich das Volk, ist. Vor diesem Hintergrund erörtert der Beitrag, wie Demokratie in Hauptstädten symbolisiert und repräsentiert wird, welche Funktionen die Hauptstädte im demokratischen Kontext erfüllen müssen und wie Demokratie als Versprechen und Praxis die Standortwahl und die Gestaltung der Stadt sowie ihrer wichtigsten öffentlichen Gebäude und Plätze beeinflusst. Dies geschieht durch einen Überblick zur Thematisierung demokratischer Architektur in der Literatur, und zwar anhand der zentralen Gesichtspunkte Hauptstadtbau und –umbau im demokratischen Regimekontext und damit einhergehende Repräsentationsaufgaben, die Rolle historischer Hinterlassenschaften und adäquater Formsprachen sowie funktionale und performative Anforderungen an die Architektur demokratischer Bauten, einschließlich der besonderen Anatomie von Parlamentsgebäuden. Es stellt sich heraus, dass die demokratische Qualität von Staatsarchitektur weniger an einer bestimmten Formensprache oder am Baumaterial, sondern vor allem an der demokratischen politischen Praxis, d.h. durch das demokratische Verfahren ihrer Errichtung und die demokratische Aneignung der Bauten, abzulesen ist.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Transparency represents the openness of a democratic society, making glass the natural material of democratic architecture. Contrary to this common assumption, I argue that transparency is tied to a very specific form of democracy that provided a utilitarian answer to the massive challenges at the beginning of modernity. For this answer, the idea of transparency was directly derived from glass in physics and architecture, providing an iconic logic to design democratic practices that focus on a pure and rational discourse. The genesis, diffusion, and critique of transparency is analyzed in this article by reviewing the contributions of Jeremy Bentham, the Bauhaus, and Günter Behnisch. In Behnisch's parliamentary architecture in Bonn, the norm of transparency in politics and architecture is revised, giving way for an alternative concept of democracy.
The Democratic Leader argues that leaders occupy a unique place in democracies. The foundational principle of democracy-popular sovereignty-implies that the people must rule. Yet the people can rule only by granting a trust of authority to individual leaders. This produces a tension that results in a unique type of leadership, specifically, democratic leadership. Democratic leaders, once they have the confidence and authority of the people, are very powerful because they rule through consent and not through fear. Yet in many respects, they are the weakest of leaders, because democrats distrust leaders and impose on them a range of far-reaching constraints-legal, moral, and political. The democratic leader must perpetually navigate the powerful and contending forces of public cynicism-founded in the suspicion that all leaders are self-interested power-seekers-and of public idealism-founded in a perennial hope that good leaders will act nobly by sacrificing for the people. The Democratic Leader suggests that the inherent difficulty of this form of leadership cannot be resolved, and indeed is necessary for securing the strength and stability of democracy.
States have long been active in commissioning architecture, which affords one way to embed political projects within socially meaningful cultural forms. Such state-led architecture is often designed not only to house the activities of government, but also to reflect political-economic shifts and to chime with a variety of 'internal' and 'external' publics as part of wider discourses of belonging. From the vantage point of sociology, this context necessitates critical engagement with the role of leading architects' designs and discourses relative to politicized identity projects. Focusing on the mobilization of architecture in periods of social change, The Sociology of Architecture uses critical sociological frameworks to assess the distinctive force added to political projects by architects and their work. Through engagement with a range of illustrative examples from contested contemporary and historical architectural projects, Paul Jones analyses some of the ways in which architects have sought to.
In contemporary discussions of preferred urban form, many planners and designers advocate a return to the grid. Proponents of the grid see it as legible, accessible, efficient, traditional and, perhaps, even egalitarian. This paper examines the grid in the context of social traditions which have used it as a dominant form in city building. A brief historical review shows that the grid emerges in some societies seeking to diffuse authority among citizens, but appears most commonly in societies which are centralizing or globalizing power. The extraordinary symbolism of the grid as a rational built form imposed on landscapes can convey a range of meanings, both positive and negative.
In this paper, Maria Kaika and Korinna Thielen chart the historical development of ‘the secular shrine'—an assertion of state and corporate power that came to dominate the urban landscape from the second half of the nineteenth century. Many of the aesthetic features of this secular monumentalism can be identified in earlier sacred and classical architecture and served to legitimate its adaptation for secular purposes. With the exception of industrial architecture, it was only in the latter half of the twentieth century that the secular shrine as unadorned modernism finally emerged. The perceived failure of modernism to create liveable communities prompted a shift in emphasis towards a ‘picture postcard' view of the city in which ‘signature buildings' stand as new forbidden temples. Kaika and Thielen conclude that both the sacred and the profane continue to use the built form as an iconography of their respective wills to power.
Um das lose Gerede über „politische Architektur“ zu vermeiden, empfiehlt es sich, nach einer beglaubigten Methode zu suchen, die politische Bedeutungen nicht nur assoziativ analysieren kann. Dies ist noch immer die Methode der Ikonologie. Bei der Annäherung an eine politische Ikonologie der modernen Architektur sind zwei Fragen zu klären:
Welche Rolle spielen die Sozialwissenschaften und die Geschichtswissenschaft im Rahmen der interdisziplinären ikonologischen Analyse? Die Ikonologie zeigt eine innere Verwandtschaft mit sozialwissenschaftlichen Mehrebenenanalysen. Aber die Wissenschaften, die sich mit dem Politischen befassen, spielen im Ganzen nur die Rolle einer Hilfswissenschaft (vgl. Abschnitt 2). * Weite Teile des Beitrags gehen zurück auf von Beyme, Klaus (1996): Politische Ikonologie der Architektur. In: Hipp, H./Seidl, E. (Hrsg.): Architektur als politische Kultur. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, S. 19–34.
This 2006 collection examines the urban spaces of Berlin and Washington and provides a comparative cultural history of two eminent nation-states in the modern era. Each of the cities has assumed, at times, a mythical quality and they have been seen as collective symbols, with ambitions and contradictions that mirror the nation-states they represent. Such issues such stand in the centre of this volume. The authors ask what these two capitals have meant for the nation and explore the relations between architecture, political ideas, and social reality. Topics range from Thomas Jefferson's ideas about the new capital of the United States to the creation of the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, from nineteenth-century visitors to small-town Washington to the protesters of the 1968 student movement in West Berlin. This lively collection of essays speaks to audiences as diverse as historians, urban sociologists, architects and readers interested in cultural studies.
This 2006 collection examines the urban spaces of Berlin and Washington and provides a comparative cultural history of two eminent nation-states in the modern era. Each of the cities has assumed, at times, a mythical quality and they have been seen as collective symbols, with ambitions and contradictions that mirror the nation-states they represent. Such issues such stand in the centre of this volume. The authors ask what these two capitals have meant for the nation and explore the relations between architecture, political ideas, and social reality. Topics range from Thomas Jefferson's ideas about the new capital of the United States to the creation of the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, from nineteenth-century visitors to small-town Washington to the protesters of the 1968 student movement in West Berlin. This lively collection of essays speaks to audiences as diverse as historians, urban sociologists, architects and readers interested in cultural studies. © German Historical Institute 2005 and Cambridge University Press, 2007.
The erosion of the old societas civilis, civil society, and the separation of art and politics is a process that has been going on since the Italian renaissance. But the functional subsystems of art and society continued to mutually strengthen their acceptance by the whole of society. Architects as a rule served an art of power. Only occasionally, in revolutionary times, did they demonstrate the counter-power of the arts. Democracy hoped to reach a balance between power and art through a communication free from power, as Habermas would call it. Experts and juries have replaced the power to decide exercised by rulers and fulfil the function of mediation between the subsystems of art and politics.
Capital cities have been the seat of political power and central stage for their state's political conflicts and rituals throughout the ages. In the modern era, they provide symbols for and confer meaning to the state, thereby contributing to the "invention" of the nation. Capitals capture the imagination of natives, visitors and outsiders alike, yet also express the outcomes of power struggles within the political systems in which they operate. This volume addresses the reciprocal relationships between identity, regime formation, urban planning, and public architecture in the Western world. It examines the role of urban design and architecture in expressing (or hiding) ideological beliefs and political agenda. Case studies include "old" capitals such as Rome, Vienna, Berlin and Warsaw; "new" ones such as Washington DC, Ottawa, Canberra, Ankara, Bonn, and Brasília; and the "European" capital Brussels. Each case reflects the authors' different disciplinary backgrounds in architecture, history, political science, and urban studies, demonstrating the value of an interdisciplinary approach to studying cities.
Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec empire before the Spanish conquest, rivaled any other great city of its time. In Europe, only Paris, Venice, and Constantinople were larger. Cradled in the Valley of Mexico, the city is unique among New World capitals in that it was well-described and chronicled by the conquistadors who subsequently demolished it. This means that, though centuries of redevelopment have frustrated efforts to access the ancient city's remains, much can be told about its urban landscape, politics, economy, and religion. While Tenochtitlan commands a great deal of attention from archaeologists and Mesoamerican scholars, very little has been written about the city for a non-technical audience in English. In this fascinating book, eminent expert José Luis de Rojas presents an accessible yet authoritative exploration of this famous city--interweaving glimpses into its inhabitants' daily lives with the broader stories of urbanization, culture, and the rise and fall of the Aztec empire. © 2012 by José Luis de Rojas y Gutiérrez de Gandarilla. All rights reserved.
This book explores the rights and situations of ethnocultural groups in Western democracies. It presents essays that share three major themes: the dialectic of nation building and minority rights, the gap between theory and practice of liberal democracies; and the effectiveness of emerging forms of nation-building and minority rights in Western democracies. The book is divided into four parts. Part I presents debates on the rights of ethnocultural minorities. Part II discusses the requirements for ethnocultural justices in a liberal democracy. Part III examines liberals’ misconceptions about nationalism. Part IV focuses on how democratic citizenship can be sustained.
What does it mean to say that a country is governed democratically? Here, we will focus on the political institutions of democracy on a large scale, that is, the political institutions necessary for a democratic country. We are not concerned here, then, with what democracy in a very small group might require, as in a committee. We also need to keep in mind that every actual democracy has always fallen short of democratic criteria. Finally, we should be aware that in ordinary language, we use the word democracy to refer both to a goal or ideal and to an actuality that is only a partial attainment of the goal. For the time being, therefore, I'll count on the reader to make the necessary distinctions when I use the words democracy, democratically, democratic government, democratic country, and so on. 1.
The architecture of houses of parliament and of legislative chambers in countries around the world is analysed for its relationship to political culture. It is argued that parliamentary buildings and spaces (1) preserve cultural values of the polity over time; (2) articulate contemporaneous political attitudes and values; and (3) contribute to the formation of political culture. Preservation is illustrated by how parliament buildings occupy sacred sites, symbolize the state and assure the continuity of legislative traditions. Articulation is exemplified by reflecting the relative importance of the two legislative houses and making expressive statements about the role of parties, executives and individual legislators. Formation can be affected by the physical dimensions of chambers, the arrangement of seats, aisles and lecterns, and spatial relationships between houses and the parliament versus the executive. It is concluded that the advent of television broadcasting of parliamentary sessions may make these architectural features even more important in perpetuating, manifesting and shaping political culture.
Warum interessieren wir uns für die Haarfarbe Gerhard Schröders oder die Schönheitsoperationen Silvio Berlusconis? Philip Manow antwortet: Weil ein Teil der symbolischen Bedeutung, die ihren Sitz einst im Körper des Königs hatte, in der Demokratie nachlebt, nicht nur im Herrscherkörper, sondern auch im zentralen politischen Körper der repräsentativen Demokratie: dem Parlament. Zum Ausgangspunkt für seinen Essay über die politische Anatomie der Demokratie wählt Manow die Gestaltung moderner Plenarsäle. Anhand von weiteren Überlegungen zur Immunität von Abgeordneten, zur Öffentlichkeit parlamentarischer Verhandlungen und zur Frage, warum in George W. Bushs Wagenkolonne stets mehrere baugleiche Cadillacs fahren, kommt er zu dem Ergebnis, dass in der modernen Demokratie das staatstheoretische Gedankengut des Mittelalters überlebt. Kapitel 1: Hat die Republik einen Körper? Kapitel 2: Das Parlament als politischer Körper - parlamentarische Sitzordnungen 2.1 Kennt die Demokratie keine Bilder? 2.2 Grundformen parlamentarischer Sitzanordnung und ihre historische Genese 2.3 Der Schatten des Körpers des Königs 2.4 Die Parlamentarisierung des Gottesgnadentums Kapitel 3: Das Parlament als politischer Körper - parlamentarische Immunität, Publizität, Proportionalität und Diskontinuität 3.1 1793 - republikanisches body snatching 3.2 "Ein Grad von Heiligkeit" - parlamentarische Immunität 3.3 Die parlamentarische Puppe kann sprechen! - parlamentarische Publizität 3.4 "A recognisable likeness of the populace" - parlamentarische Proportionalität 3.5 "Le parlement ne meurt jamais?" - parlamentarische Diskontinuität 3.6 Der "verabschiedete Volkskörper"? Kapitel 4: Demokratische Körper/Despotische Körper 4.1 Stellvertreter/Doppelgänger 4.2 in corpore/in effigie (1) 4.3 in corpore /in effigie (2) 4.4 in corpore /in effigie (3) 4.5 heiße / kalte Repräsentation 4.6 gewalttätig /wundertätig 4.7 dignitas /humanitas 4.8 Entzauberung/(Rück-)Verzauberung
Comparative Politics Today. A World View. 9
- G Almond
Power and Architecture. The Construction of Capitals and the Politics of Space
- C Asendorf
The Elusive City. Five Centuries of Design, Ambition and Miscalculation
- J Barnett
Der Bundestag im Reichstag. Zur Inszenierung einer politischen Institution in der ‚Berliner Republik‘. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen
- A Dörner
Architektur und Demokratie. Bauen für die Politik von der amerikanischen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart
- A Arndt
Leibniz und die Revolution der Gartenkunst. Herrenhausen, Versailles und die Philosophie der Blätter
- H Bredekamp
Demokratisches Bauen Eine architekturtheoretische Diskursanalyse zu Parlamentsbauten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
- G Brendgens
Planning Twentieth Century Capitals (S. 8 - 14)
- P Hall
Das Symbolische, das Imaginäre und die Demokratie. Eine Theorie politischer Repräsentation
- P Diehl
Architektur und Demokratie. Bauen für die Politik von der amerikanischen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart. 2. Aufl
- I Flagge
- W J Stock
Planning Europe’s Capital Cities. Aspects of Nineteenth Century Urban Development
- T Hall
Architektur und Demokratie. Bauen für die Politik von der amerikanischen Revolution bis zur Gegenwart
- W Nerdinger
The Mall in Washington (S. 19 - 34)
- N Evenson
Vieux Paris - Vieux Londres. Quelles parallèles dans l’approche patrimonial de la ville a la fin du XIXe siecle
- R Fiori
Die National Mall in Washington D. C. - Einheit und Differenz des demokratischen Systems
- P Manow