APJP

Paul Hyett believes architects should make a stand but Robert Adam argues that taking politics into the profession is unwise

In 2002 as president of the RIBA I visited Bloemfontein, where I apologised to the South African Institute of Architects for any upset caused by the RIBA’s decision to sever links 30 years earlier. In 1972 Nelson Mandela had served 10 years of his sentence at Robben Island’s penitentiary, and had not yet become the revered statesman who gave South Africa the forgiveness and future that at the time was unimaginable.

I admitted that as a member of Architects Against Apartheid, along with veteran campaigner Abe Hayeem, Walter Hain — Peter’s father — and Cedric Price, I had been partly responsible for the decision. Many South African architects told me that severance had been a huge boost to morale. They said it had highlighted international support for their own disgust at their government’s actions.

As architects we cannot put the world to rights, but we can ensure that the important issues of the day, especially those involving or consequent upon our work, are properly aired. This, at least, ensures that our professional colleagues in construction both here and internationally are informed about the context in which their actions should be considered.

Some readers may remember a photograph taken about 20 years ago showing a multiple gallows in a Middle Eastern prison that had been designed by an eminent UK practice. After this unwelcome publicity, all involved surely took great care to determine where and by whom their skills would be used in future. Such calling to account must be right.

To promote architecture as a primary political activity is naïve and arrogant. Architecture is the servant of society, not its conscience.  You cannot judge the quality of architecture as architecture according to who it serves. To so do would be to write off much of the Renaissance — nasty oligarchs, the Medicis — or to damn the constructivists as regicides. It is also very dangerous to try to make professional solidarity a political tool.

Political issues are rarely black and white. On the one hand that kind of professional posturing simply cannot address an issue fully, let alone ensure that your fellow travellers are bona fide or really understand the complexity of the problem. The result can just look foolish, and can backfire.

On the other hand it can create problems for the profession as a whole, because political opponents won’t stop making buildings. Either they’ll think architects are too stroppy to bother with, or else they’ll employ architects with different views — and there always are some — and so split the profession.

There’s nothing wrong with architects engaging in politics.  Just like any other citizen, if you care about society, it’s your duty. And while it’s simply impractical to check on the politics and political past of every client or client organisation, it is reasonable to avoid working for someone or something with which you fundamentally disagree — because your work isn’t likely to be much good.

Beyond this, however, taking politics into architecture is unwise and could make life impossible.