Contested discourses national identity and architecture

Architecture has historically been an important part of a cultural repertoire used by stateskhatejadidto construct the nation code. In modernity authoritative state definitions of the nation werekhatejadidpossible due to the clearly demarcated cultural boundaries that existed between states, andkhatejadidalthough states seldom had total control over the nation code they were for the most partkhatejadidable to construct dominant, cultural symbols of the nation. In this age of nation-buildingkhatejadiddistinct national styles of architecture, which emerged through the modification ofkhatejadiduniversal styles to particular contexts, provided a significant space for nation codification.khatejadidVictorian Britain provides a clear illustration of these general trends. At this time manykhatejadidprominent British architects accepted state commissions to design public buildings in akhatejadidquintessentially British style. Styles reliant on historical reference such as Gothic and neo-khatejadidClassical were used by the British state to legitimate their imperialistic, colonial aims. Inkhatejadidthe twentieth century the emergence of the modem code of architecture, with its morekhatejadiduniversalised aesthetic, challenged boundaries between national styles. However, manykhatejadidstates did attempt to modify this style, as modernism's progressive logic and utopian idealskhatejadidwere ideas with which governments wanted to align 'their' nations.khatejadidThe cultural boundaries of the state have become more porous due to processes associatedkhatejadidwith globalization. In most European societies the nation is increasingly a fragmented,khatejadiddiverse concept, and the relatively stable relationship between nation and state inkhatejadidmodernity has frequently become unstable under globalized conditions. Post-nationalkhatejadididentities that pay little heed to geographical and political boundaries have emerged, withkhatejadidnew forms of citizenship association threatening the ability of the state to provide thekhatejadidstable national identities that were to a large extent possible in modernity.khatejadidThis dissertation argues that the ambiguous relationship between the nation, the state andkhatejadidpost-national identities fmds a tangible form in some contemporary state-led architecturekhatejadidprojects. The Millennium Dome, the Jewish Museum, and the Reichstag all express manykhatejadidof the tensions inherent in contemporary state-led architectural projects. The dominantkhatejadiddiscourses around these buildings are of transparency, openness, and democracy, reflectingkhatejadidthemes in contemporary European politics. As the wider political and cultural discourses inkhatejadidwhich buildings are situated can often shape their interpretation, the architects responsiblekhatejadidfor these buildings have attempted to control the symbolic meanings attached to their workkhatejadidas far as is possible. States still have a continued interest in architecture that expresseskhatejadidnational identities, but vitally not with the same degree of mastery they once had.khatejadidIn short architecture is a discursive medium, and as such harbours the potential to codifykhatejadidcollective identities. The state-led architectural projects assessed here reflect some of thekhatejadiddominant discourses in the construction of post-national identities. Resultantly thesekhatejadidbuildings have also provided a focus for contestation about contemporary identity projects.khatejadidThe dissertation makes two significant contributions to existing knowledge: firstly bykhatejadidbridging the gap that currently exists between sociology and architectural theory andkhatejadidsecondly by developing this framework with reference to three specific illustrativekhatejadidexamples in contemporary European architecture.