









































The fact that buildings are so strongly associated with various power 
holding empires, nation-states and other forms of  civilization is widely 
recognized in the study of  both the history of  people and their buildings. 
From Pericles’s Acropolis to Niemeyer’s Brasilia, architecture has long 
been associated with political figures and institutions. Buildings such as 
the British Parliament, the Russian Kremlin, and the U.S. Capitol stand out 
not just as iconic architecture, but also as representative of  the politics, 
institutions, and culture of  their nations. Architecture and politics are 
intimately connected, yet precisely how are political concepts captured in 
the form and function of  buildings? 

Certainly utility plays a strong role here. We know that buildings serve 
the establishment and maintenance of  a governing body. But in serving 
that function, do they also necessarily contribute to maintaining a 
particular ideological belief  system? If  we acknowledge that buildings 
hold both deterministic effect and autonomous disassociation, how do 
architects and politicians act? To what extent should architects design 
public structures intended to capture the social and political ethos of  the 
people? Do architects have an obligation to address the socio-political in 
their work, or is this kind of  moral obligation misplaced? Is it rather that 
the work of  architects is already tacitly, inextricably part of  the political 

isparchitecture.com

CALL FOR PAPERS: 
Biennial Society Conference



AP . vol 2 . No 2 . 2017

process? And to what end? Is the ‘autonomous turn’ in architecture of  the 
1980s well and truly dead? 

Beyond considerations of  functionality, how do rulers utilize building to 
achieve their political goals and ideals? Is building fundamental to realizing 
ideological goals or a mere part of  the process? One might also worry that we 
read too much into the social and political power of  architects and buildings. 
While power routinely uses architecture to further its agenda, how reliably 
can we read buildings as instances of  specific intentions? Architecture can 
be a highly political art form, but what can be said about the relationship 
between political intentions and aesthetic merit? Are there styles or 
typologies particularly conducive to establishing and maintaining power? Is 
the association of  contemporary democracy with classical Greek and Roman 
architecture appropriate or warranted? And is the style’s reverence intrinsic or 
learned? Could the Romanesque not equally as well serve the same purpose? 

Assuming that buildings are already intrinsically enmeshed within the 
governing body’s authority, can a single building work against that same 
authority? Can a building undermine a regime more readily than it can 
legitimize it? Some may argue that the Berlin Wall marked the end of  the 
Communist rule over Eastern Germany, but how much weight can we 
ascribe to a building’s maintenance of  a governing body? Does time sanitize 
architecture that came into existence in the service of  repugnant regimes?  

How effective, for instance, are efforts to rebuild Iraq? Do contractors 
design buildings that are consistent with the social and political climate of  
the people? Can the people interpret these buildings independently of  their 
feelings about the builders? Could it be that the very act of  building in Iraq 
may be taken as an offense by some in the Iraqi nation-state? Although not 
all instances of  international exchange are as contentious as this one, can 
architecture be incompatible with particular political concepts or systems? 

Finally, what of  the relation between architecture, power and capital? 
Does the globalization of  capital and in its wake, of  architecture, render 
architecture’s connection to any individual state obsolete? Or to put it another 
way, is everything becoming an expression of  the values of  global capital? 

The intent of  this interdisciplinary conference is to gather philosophers, 
architects, urban planners, and critics to consider these questions regarding 
building’s service to political ideologies, governing authorities, and socio-
political contexts. 

The event will be held in one of  the most iconic and representative projects 
of  the International Style of  20th century modern public architecture: Walter 
Netsch Jr.’s United States Air Force Academy—a premier education facility—
in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The conference itself  will be held in the latest 
addition to the Academy: the new Polaris Hall—a 45 million dollar addition 



isparchitecture.com

designed by SOM that remains true to Netsch’s 
original vision. The stunning new addition breathes 
new life into a pristinely preserved Modernist 
campus, a detailed analysis of  which is featured in 
the Journal of  the American Institute of  Architects. 

In addition to the conference, presenters and 
participants will have the rare opportunity to tour 
the Academy, including the well-known Academy 
Chapel with its four distinct worship spaces. 

Full consideration will be given to all proposals 
(500-700 words) received by 15 January 2018; 
acceptances announced no later than 12 February 
2018. Send your proposal as an attachment prepared 
for blind review to isparchitecture[at]gmail.com. 

A selection of  papers will be published in a special 
issue of  Architecture Philosophy, edited by Prof. Tom 
Spector, Dr. Mark Jensen, and Dr. Carolyn Fahey.. 




