Fears of lesbian builders and deviant homes in modern Germany - in this post I will detail my thought on Despina Stratigakos' chapter in Baydar and Heynens 'negotiating domesticity: spacial production of gender in modern architecture' exploring the modernist movement from a different angle.
Gulsum Baydar, Hilde Heynen, Negotiating domesticity: spatial productions of gender in modern architecture (London, New York ; Routledge, 2005), 145-161
The uncanny architect is an exploration of the fear mongering of the lesbian architect during the modernist architecture movement in Germany. The chapter is part of a wider book critiquing spatial productions of gender in architecture. The word 'uncanny' is referencing Sigmund Freuds 1919 essay into the subject of the uncanny. Defining uncanny as ‘something familiar that arouses dread’. As well as this idea he explores the uncanny double which is viewed as ‘a mirror self who threatens the boundary of ego and becomes the uncanny harbinger of death’. The author relates this to the collective idea from the male architects of the modernist movement that the lesbian architect is the harbinger of his professional death.
The chapter presents the absurdity of the response from male architects at a time when women were beginning to formally enter the profession. This is narrated alongside the 1932 novel Bas Haus der alleinstehenden Frauen (the house of single women) which depicts the lesbian architect as a man hating self-destructive individual whose single lifestyle lacks the traditional feminine family values, our lesbian architect builds homes for single, independent women to live comfortably. Yet as a result, she, and the home she lives in is visual pollution and acts as a disease infecting the other women around her. The women who live in the homes she built turn lonely and bitter, turning to suicide, murder and madness. However, the story ends with the women being cured of her deviant homosexuality and she returns to the traditional feminine role in the home. The story acts as a view into the ideals of the past and the fear of change in gender roles in society.
The author draws conclusions that the introduction of women into the architectural field caused men to feel as though the masculinity of architecture would be destroyed. The fear of being viewed as feminine resulted in the creation of the ‘lesbian architect’. The lesbian architect is a fallacy portraying women in the arts as lesbians because if they are taking on a male role then they take on male characteristics therefore they gain the attraction to women which men typically have. This figure of the female architect was then exaggerated, and the women takes on a third gender role to allow men to not feel emasculated in their jobs.
Reading this chapter, the link between architecture and masculinity seems foreign to a modern reader and a studier of architecture. For example, the author states ‘suddenly the prospects of women architects loomed large. The shift in Scheffler’s writing exemplifies the masculinization of the builder in the period, as practitioners, critics”. This link seems outdated and incorrect. It is a strange comparison for someone reading this at a time when you sit in a lecture theatre equally filled with men and women. Architects should be designing for everyone and therefore we should have diversity within the profession. We should design for the people rather than for architects.
Comments