Genitalization in Architecture
In this essay, I explore the concept of phallic architecture and the reasons for its existence, normalization, and desexualization. Investigating this topic through Ortner’s (2006) text and some more recent feminist writing on architecture will reveal that a general concept of architectural genitalization exists in society whereby the male genitalization of architecture is not only largely permitted but in fact so normalized that it goes overlooked. On the other hand, the female genitalization of architecture has yet to be given the possibility of existing, let alone taken seriously. My analysis highlights three factors in this disparity: the gender and power inequalities within the architecture industry, the binary of men and women with nature and culture and other societal associations, and the hyper-sexualization of the female body, all of which perpetuate the male ability to genitalize. After discussing these reasons, the essay will turn to how feminist architecture is pushing back through the emergence of yonic architecture and by problematizing the male-female gender binary.
Before diving into this topic, I wish to highlight the abundance of literature on this subject; gender in architecture has been examined through many lenses and disciplines, and the discussion is ongoing. I have chosen to focus on a limited amount of literature as this essay will only briefly dive into this vast topic. Secondly, the texts and theories I address speak in a heteronormative binary. I wish to note that I am aware of the implications of writing through such a problematic and narrow lens. My goal here is not to perpetuate this binary but rather to demonstrate how it applies to the current concept of genitalization, and that to rid of this binary in the architecture industry, we must progress past this current concept of genitalization.
Though perhaps a mysterious subject to many, phallic architecture is witnessed daily and globally, whether intentionally or not. Phallic architecture refers to any architecture-- monuments, skyscrapers, and other structures-- that resembles a human phallus. That these buildings simultaneously symbolize power, wealth, and strength speaks to phallic architecture’s societal associations. This kind of architecture is hyper-present in our global society, and behind many phallic buildings are, unsurprisingly, male architects; to give two examples, a simple google search reveals that Robert Mills and Thomas Casey designed the Washington Monument, and Norman Foster designed The Gherkin.[1] As Leslie Kern, author of Feminist City, notes in an article for The Guardian, “[from] the physical to the metaphorical, the city is filled with reminders of masculine power. And yet we rarely talk of the urban landscape as an active participant in gender inequality” (Kern, 2020). She asks, “A building, no matter how phallic, isn’t actually misogynist, is it? Surely a skyscraper isn’t responsible for sexual harassment, the wage gap, or even the glass ceiling, whether it has a literal one up top or not?” (Kern, 2020). However, our culture, and what has been created, reflects the brains and views of the creator. In other words, “built environments reflect the societies that construct them” (Kern 2020: 20). And as Jane Darke has argued, “our cities are patriarchy written in stone, brick, glass, and concrete” (Darke 1996: 88 as cited in Kern 2020: 20).
As men have historically dominated the architecture industry, these arguments make sense. Women have been and still are massively excluded in architecture, and the female architects that have succeeded are largely excluded from the dialogue (see Hayden & Wright 1976: 925). As noted by Sherry Ahrentzen (2003: 180), at the time of her text’s publication, both the annual Pritzker Architecture prize and the American Institute of Architects Gold Medal had only been awarded to men.[2] Moreover, according to Zippia Careers, only 23.3% of all architects in the United States are women (“Architecture Demographics,” 2022). These disappointing statistics speak to one of the reasons for the incredible disparity between phallic architecture and its female equivalent, yonic architecture. Male architects have been the norm, so phallic architecture has been the norm.
However, there is a much deeper, socially-entwined reason for the perpetuation and desexualization of phallic architecture, which is highlighted through Ortner’s (2006) text, “Is Female to Male as Nurture is to Culture?” In this classic text, Ortner discusses “the universality of female subordination,” crediting this phenomenon to the binary of women as associated with nature and men as associated with culture (2006: 72). While she notes the oversimplification of this argument (“women are seen ‘merely’ as being closer to nature than men”), and while it is far too simplified for contemporary society, it certainly holds some truth in the world of architecture, which is not yet in this contemporary place as such (Ortner 2006: 76). The more important piece of her argument, perhaps, is that culture is “still equated relatively unambiguously with men” (Ortner 2006: 76). And, as Ortner (2006: 75) notes, “it is always culture’s project to subsume and transcend nature.” Playing into this gender binary, then, it is always men’s project as creators of culture to transcend women as embodiers of nature.
From Ortner’s argument, one can argue that what humankind has made from nature is understood as ‘masculine.’ While society has outgrown this rigid binary in many ways, it is still widely used and subconsciously engrained as a categorizing tool. The masculine-feminine dichotomy has worked its way into countless other binaries. Notably, strength and power are generally associated with men and ‘masculinity,’ while its antonyms are associated with women and ‘femininity.’ The overwhelming majority of architecture, specifically monuments, skyscrapers, and buildings aligned with national identity or the economy more broadly, is rigid. Harsh. Strong. It demands one’s nod to the power it exudes. Architecture is rarely, if ever, aligned with or described as ‘feminine.’ Quite universally, again speaking in an over-generalization for the sake of this discussion, ‘femininity’ does not and cannot equate to strength and power if its binary opposite does. Following Ortner’s argument, because culture is ‘masculine,’ and because men have dominated the architecture industry, not only has the space been allowed and expanded for the creation of phallic architecture, but society as a whole has been desensitized to the male genitalization of buildings; their sexual characteristics have been disassociated from the public’s view of them completely. The symbol of the phallus has been neutralized, seen not for its sexual nature, but for its power and strength.
The incongruity between the hyper-sexualization of the female body and the male body’s power to sexualize helps to reveal this desensitization, specifically in the desexualization of the phallus and the hyper-sexualization of the vagina. Not only does yonic architecture scarcely exist, but the sexual connotations of a yonic building would never go unnoticed. Not only would a vaginally shaped building, monument, or skyscraper not be perceived as normal and overlooked by the general public, it would be seen as overtly and inappropriately sexual. Building off of this comparison, it makes sense that the phallic architecture surrounding us globally is not ever considered sexual. Male genitalization of architecture is not only permitted, it is overlooked, deemed asexual. In contrast, female genitalization of architecture has yet to be allowed the same spotlight, or any real spotlight whatsoever.
However, feminist architecture and recent discourse are pushing back. As Kern (2020: 17) points out, “[feminist] architects, urban planners, and geographers have made significant interventions in their fields through rigorous empirical research into gendered experiences,” and these women are finally gaining recognition, their histories being brought to light. Feminist critiques have also been problematizing the binary so profoundly rooted in architecture and its practices. For example, Kern (2020: 21) highlights the previous discussion that “[the] language of architecture draws on the idea that gender is a binary opposition, with different forms and features described as masculine or feminine.” However, from the 1990s onwards, the intrinsic nature of this binary within the industry has been continually challenged, from which feminist critiques have immensely broadened the debate on the industry’s inequalities-- not only between gender, but between “class, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity” (Ahrentzen 2003: 182,183). In this recent contemporary discourse, yonic architecture has entered the scene in more profound ways, the most potent example being the 2022 FIFA World Cup Stadium in Qatar, designed by the legendary Zaha Hadid (Sizeland, 2022). This stadium has been hugely successful, and as architect Simone de Gale has noted, “[we] may discover the yonic form is best suited for stadium design and symbolic of excellence in architectural design,’ [...] Much like the phallic building, [de Gale] believes the yonic form could be reproduced many times over to become its own design staple and one that ‘gives life to new communities and elevates our society.’” (Sizeland, 2022).
This essay has provided a brief insight into the three central reasons for my concept of genitalization. While Ortner’s argument rests on an outdated foundation, its relevance in conversations today is seen through her text’s final takeaway. In order to dissolve the binary, women must be “aligned with culture,” and for this to happen, Ortner writes, “both men and women can and must be equally involved in projects of creativity and transcendence” (2006: 84). This logic is seen across more recent feminist discourse. As Grosz (1994: 27) highlights, this responsibility falls equally on men: “until men no longer regard space as the provenance of their own self-expression and self-creation [...] men cannot share in the contributions that women may have to offer in reconseiving space and place.” Women cannot only be added equally into the architecture industry; they must hold the same power to impact culture. In this balancing of power, not only will the binary lose its grip over architecture, but feminist architecture, with time, will become an ingrained part of culture too.
Footnotes:
[1] https://www.nps.gov/wamo/learn/historyculture/index.htm; https://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/place/951036-gherkin.
[2] Since 2003, five women have won the former, and three the ladder.
Bibliography
“AIA Gold Medal Collection.” The American Institute of Architects. Accessed November 5, 2022. https://store.aia.org/pages/gold-medal-collection.
Ahrentzen, Sherry. 2003. “The Space between the Studs: Feminism and Architecture.” Signs 29 (1): 179–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/375675.
“Architecture Demographics and Statistics in the US.” Zippia. Updated September 9, 2022. Accessed November 5, 2022. https://www.zippia.com/architect-jobs/demographics/.
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. “Women, Chora, Dwelling.” ANY: Architecture New York (4): 22–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41846076.
Hayden, Dolores, and Gwendolyn Wright. 1976. “Architecture and Urban Planning.” Signs 1 (4): 923–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173242.
“History & Culture.” National Park Service. Accessed December 26, 2022. https://www.nps.gov/wamo/learn/historyculture/index.htm.
Kern, Leslie. 2020. Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World. Verso, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kbdk/detail.action?docID=6178348.
Kern, Leslie. “Upward-thrusting buildings ejaculating into the sky' – do cities have to be so sexist?” The Guardian, July 6, 2020. Accessed November 5, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/06/upward-thrusting-buildings-ejaculating-cities-sexist-leslie-kern-phallic-feminist-city-toxic-masculinity.
“Laureates.” The Pritzker Architecture Prize. Accessed November 5, 2022. https://www.pritzkerprize.com/laureates.
Ortner, Sherry. “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?” In Feminist Anthropology: A Reader, edited by Ellen Lewin, 72-86. Newark: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/lib/kbdk/detail.action?docID=7104553.
Sizeland, Jennifer. “Why Are So Many Iconic Buildings Shaped Like… You Know?” Fodor’s Travel, March 18, 2022. Accessed November 5, 2022. https://www.fodors.com/news/arts-culture/what-is-phallic-architecture.
“The Gherkin.” Visit London. Accessed December 26, 2022. https://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/place/951036-gherkin.
