Totalitarian architecture is a term utilized to refer to the relationship between totalitarianism and architecture, often (though not always) in the context of alleged "approved styles" of architecture within totalitarian regimes.^[1] Most commonly, the term is used to describe an observed fixation on Neo-Classicism and realism within specific regimes.^[1] Such fixations on neo-Classicism are not unique to totalitarian regimes, however, and manifest in other political and social systems historically and globally.^[2][3] Beyond Neo-Classicism, descriptions of the architecture of totalitarian regimes sometimes focus on brutalist architecture, often in the context of Le Corbusier and his associations with Benito Mussolini.^[4] In contrast to these views, several authors have upheld brutalism and socialist realism as modernist art forms which exist beyond simply being physical manifestations of totalitarian ideology.^[5][6]

Though many architects and architectural historians believe that similarities exist in the planning and construction of buildings within totalitarian regimes, the notion that there is a universal style of totalitarian architecture is generally not supported, with the term being applied to a variety of governments and time periods across the relevant literature.^{[7] [8]}

Overview

Terminology and application

The term "totalitarian architecture" was initially developed as a means of comparing the architecture of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to that of the Soviet Union.^[9] Much of the study on architecture under totalitarian regimes and the related terminology was developed after the Second World War as people began to reconcile with extant buildings that invoked totalitarian ideals long after the associated regimes had collapsed.^[10] Redevelopment of cities involving large-scale demolition of previous buildings was often executed by totalitarian regimes as a way of physically reshaping society to the desires of the nascent totalitarian states and their leaders.^[11]

Architect and architectural historian Dmitry Khmelnitsky [ru; uk; de] wrote that the concept of totalitarian architecture is usually associated with Stalin's neoclassicism and that it "strives to symbolize an abstract idea by architectural means. Usually, this is the idea of the greatness of statehood and power."^[12] Elizaveta Likhacheva [ru], art historian and director of the Shchusev Museum of Architecture, noted that the concept of totalitarian architecture has become widespread in art criticism and journalism, but "not all serious researchers perceive it as a correct concept."^[13] No true definition exists of a single unified style of "totalitarian architecture," and the term is generally considered as a descriptor of the trends within the architecture of totalitarian regimes in Europe rather than as a school of architecture in and of itself.^[7][8]

In contrast to its usage as an umbrella term for the architecture of different totalitarian governments, Tony Ward described totalitarian architecture as a manifestation of the architect's traditional role when corrupted in an inherently alienating society. In this context, totalitarian architecture is taken to refer to architectural applications intended to render human subjects to the most non-human role possible, often manifesting in the offices of government agencies or within American prisons.^[14]

The imperial style of Japan is sometimes also grouped under the label of totalitarian architecture.^[15][16] However, art historian Yu Suzuki argued that the totalitarian style in Japan was not nearly as uniform as in Germany or Italy due to the lack of direct control over architects.^[16]

Analysis

As all architecture is inherently a product of the society in which it was constructed, the architecture of totalitarian regimes can be used to glean information on the ethos and desires of its creators, making it a popular subject for analysis by architectural historians.^[17] The architecture of totalitarian regimes is often viewed in terms of how it manifests dominant state propaganda.^[18][19][20] While the architecture of fascist Italy, Germany, Portugal, and Spain often invoked notions of racial supremacy, colonialism, and Christian supremacy, Stalinist architecture (such as the Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy) frequently emphasized the cultural diversity of the Soviet Union, presenting an idealistic image of collectivization across ethnically diverse regions.^[10]

The goals of totalitarian regimes in constructing memorials to their leaders and the aesthetic qualities of religious architecture are often compared, such as Lenin's Mausoleum invoking the shape of the Pyramid of Djoser.^[21] Other tombs‘ architectural typologies, such as Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum and Georgi Dimitrov Mausoleum, have also been described as examples of architecture promoting totalitarianism as a political religion.^{[21][22][23][24]}

The remnants of the architecture of European totalitarian regimes can be seen as a part of European cultural heritage. According to the Council of Europe, "studying the architecture of Europe's totalitarian regimes...is a way to enhance the European identity in its unity and diversity. The idea of Europe originated from the wounds of World War II and the fall of Fascism and Nazism. It entered a new phase after the downfall of Communism, opening the way to a broader and more comprehensive idea of a Europe based on fundamental values such as political liberty, freedom of expression and assembly, democracy and the rule of law."^[25] The European cultural organization ATRIUM collects photographs of abandoned buildings which have outlived the regimes that constructed them and "that still stand as monuments to another time."^[26]

A number of buildings and memorials created by totalitarian regimes have been demolished, especially in Poland and Ukraine, based on legislation such as The Law on the Prohibition of Propagation of Communism or Any Other Totalitarian System Through The Names of All Public Buildings, Structures and Facilities.^[27][28] A demolition of the Palace of Culture and Science in Poland was debated.^[29]