The Classical Order as a Symbol of Power Order: A Comparative Analysis of Ideological Strategies in the Architecture of the USA, Nazi Germany, and the USSR

Chzhan Veichzhen' ORCID: 0009-0003-3690-1572 Postgraduate student; Institute of Philosophy; Saint Petersburg State University 199397, Russia, St. Petersburg, Vasileostrovsky district, Cash street, 36, room 6, square 15 samzhang1996@gmail.com

Introduction

To interpret the relationship of architecture with ideology and cultural identity, an interdisciplinary analytical system is being built in this study. Its philosophical and methodological foundation forms a synthesis of dialectics (in its Hegelian-Marxist tradition) and an activity-based approach (theory of practice), most fully developed in the Russian scientific school. This framework allows us to analyze architecture as a dynamic field of material embodiment and reproduction of ideology. It is concretized and enriched by Bernard Saint-Giron's aesthetic theory of power, James W. Carey's ritual view of communication, as well as the critical methods of Walter Benjamin and Jacques Derrida. This synthesis allows us to shift the focus from static symbolism to the processuality of ideological production and reproduction in space.

Dialectics and activity: a dynamic field of architectural ideology. The development of cultural forms, according to Marxist dialectics, is conditioned by internal contradictions. In relation to the classical order, this is reflected in the dialectic of the identity of form and the struggle of meanings, which is key to our study. The formal warrant system has demonstrated remarkable resilience over the ages (identity), while its ideological content — from Republican ideals to imperial ambitions — is constantly being challenged and redefined (struggle). However, contradictions are resolved not in speculation, but in socio-historical practice. The activity-based approach (theory of practice), which has been developed in Russian psychology and cultural studies, becomes central here. In psychology (L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev) it was shown that consciousness is formed in the process of objective activity mediated by signs ^{[20] [21]}. In cultural studies, this approach was reinterpreted in the analysis of culture: E.S. Markarian defined culture as a "specific way of existence" of activity ^[23]; M.S. Kagan developed an idea of culture through mechanisms of objectification and objectification of human forces ^[22]; V.M. Mezhuyev interpreted culture as a sphere of production of social relations in their human form ^[24]. This theoretical framework allows us to consider architecture as a collective activity in which ideological constructs are objectified in spatial forms, and then through ritual interaction they are objectified, forming a collective experience and identity. Thus, architecture appears not as a passive symbol, but as an active field of practice, where ideology is constantly being updated. Mao Zedong's works "On Practice" and "On Contradiction", on which the research is based, represent a concrete development and application of this general Marxist dialectical-activity paradigm to the analysis of socio-historical processes, which makes them a relevant tool for studying ideological production in space ^[19].

The Aesthetic Dimension of Power: from Saint-Giron to Benjamin

To analyze the specific strategies used by the government in architecture, the triad of Bernard Saint-Giron is used — "Beauty", "Sublime", "Grace". This toolkit makes it possible to differentiate between modes of visual influence aimed at legitimization or intimidation. His analysis is logically complemented and deepened by Walter Benjamin's key idea, the concept of "politicization of aesthetics" ^[1]. In his landmark work "A Work of Art in the Era of its Technical Reproducibility," Benjamin shows how, with the loss of a unique "aura," a work of art becomes an object of mass distribution and, consequently, an instrument of political mobilization ^[1]. Monumental architecture, especially in totalitarian regimes, is a pure expression of this trend: aesthetic experience, such as awe of the "sublime" scale, is directly mobilized for political purposes. Thus, the combination of the theoretical constructions of Saint-Giron and Benjamin allows us to consider the aesthetics of the colonnade not just as a language of legitimization, but as a technology of political mobilization and the formation of collective experience. As I. M. Chubarov notes, exploring Benjamin's media theory, such a "politicization of aesthetics" represents the transformation of art into a means of organizing mass perception and constructing political reality ^[2], which is fully applicable to the analysis of totalitarian architecture.

Ritual communication and deconstruction of the spatial code. James Carey's ritual concept of communication is used to understand how architectural form affects the level of collective identity and everyday experience. According to Carey, communication is a ritual that supports through time-shared symbols. Majestic colonnades forming a rhythmic space transform physical movement into a similar collective ritual that supports and reproduces a certain social order ^[3]. For a critical analysis of the ideological structures hidden in this ritual space, the approach of J. Derrida. The deconstruction method, aimed at identifying and analyzing internal contradictions and hidden hierarchies in any text or discourse, allows us to reveal binary oppositions encoded in the architectural language ^[4]. As A. A. Savenkov emphasizes, in the legal and political context, Derrida's deconstruction serves as a tool for analyzing how power justifies itself through hidden, "mystical" foundations of authority, manifested in a variety of systems, including spatial ones ^{[5, p. 40]}. As applied to architecture, this allows us to show how through the juxtaposition of center and periphery (the axis culminating in a dome or statue), sacred and profane (the space behind the colonnade), order and chaos (strict regularity of the order), power builds its hierarchies into the very fabric of perceived space, and the ritual described by Carey helps to consolidate this perception..

The result of the proposed framework. The combination of a dialectical activity approach (revealing the dynamics and mechanism of ideological production), political aesthetics (Saint-Giron and Benjamin) and ritual-deconstructive analysis (Carey and Derrida) creates a multi-level tool. It allows us to simultaneously trace the historical dynamics of meanings, analyze specific visual strategies of power, uncover ideological structures embedded in space, and understand how these structures are internalized through bodily and ritual experience. This synthesis contains the analytical power of the proposed dialectical-deconstructivist approach to practice and communication.

The material and cultural embodiment of power: symbolic logic of columns and colonnades

The universal and timeless status of columns and colonnades as symbols of power and culture is rooted in the deep structural isomorphism of their formal language to the fundamental principles of power relations and the basic needs for collective identification. From the point of view of the dialectical activity approach developed in the study, the colonnade is not just an image, but a materialized act of practice in which ideology takes on a physical and spatial form. Its symbolic potential is revealed at three interrelated levels corresponding to the key aspects of our analytical framework: structural-ordinal, bodily-political, and ritual-communicative.

Structural order as a metaphor and deconstruction. A separate column is a load—bearing support, and a colonnade is a rhythmic sequence of such supports. This creates a direct structural metaphor of power as a social "supporting structure" and a stabilizing "framework". Moreover, the very concept of "order" (from Latin. ordo – order) and its strict mathematical proportions represent a spatial translation of a rational, hierarchical order. As noted by A.V. Ikonnikov, architecture acts as a "mirror of culture", embodying its values and beliefs in a material form ^[6]. Power, appealing to this geometric order, presents itself as a universal, rational and indisputable law. However, using the method of deconstruction of J. Derrida's approach, aimed at revealing hidden hierarchies and contradictions in discourse ^[4], can reveal the ideological binary oppositions embedded in this seemingly neutral structure. As A. A. Savenkov points out, deconstruction in a political context serves to analyze how authority justifies itself through implicit, "mystical" grounds ^{[5, p. 40]}. In architecture, this is manifested in the opposition of the stability of the support to potential chaos, the center (axis of symmetry) to the periphery, and the sacred space behind the colonnade to the profane outside world. Thus, the classical warrant is not only a "recording device of the historical and cultural process" ^{[7, p. 30]}, but also an active tool for introducing a certain logic of the world order through the practice of construction and perception based on the tacit acceptance of these hierarchies.

Body politics and scale manipulation in the aesthetics of power. The proportions of the classical order historically date back to the imitation of ideal human proportions, which initially connects it with an anthropocentric worldview. However, as the aesthetic theory of power shows, deliberate control of scale becomes a direct political technique. In the terms of B. Saint-Giron, colonnades corresponding to the human scale tend to the regime of "Beauty", hinting at inclusivity, harmony and rational order, legitimizing power through aesthetic pleasure. On the contrary, intentionally enlarged, gigantic colonnades, which cause a feeling of depression and awe in an individual, operate in the "Sublime" mode. This transition is directly related to the concept of "politicization of aesthetics" by V. Benjamin ^[1]. Benjamin showed how, in the era of technical reproducibility, art loses its unique "aura" and becomes an instrument of mass political mobilization ^[1]. Monumental architecture, especially in totalitarian regimes, is a pure expression of this trend: the aesthetic experience of a "sublime" scale is directly used for visual violence and total mobilization. As I. M. Chubarov notes, developing this idea, such politicization turns aesthetics into a means of organizing collective perception and constructing political reality ^{[2, p. 245]}. This policy of scale, as noted by G. V. Yesaulov, is at the same time a declaration of cultural identity: "Architecture as a carrier of cultural identity through its form, space and decor expresses the uniqueness and belonging of the group" ^{[8, p. 15]}. The activity-based approach reminds us that this identity is not given, but is formed in the practice of interacting with this dominant, politically loaded scale.

The construction of ritual space and the interiorization of order. The colonnade is an excellent tool for creating a space that functions according to J. W. Carey's ritual concept of communication. Through strict sequence, rhythm and orientation, it forms a sacral atmosphere where the physical movement of a person is programmed as a ceremonial act. Passing through the colonnade to the central portal becomes a spatial ritual, during which the individual not only sees, but physically experiences hierarchy and subordination, thereby internalizing the proposed social order and collective identity. As emphasized in modern research, architecture is becoming a field for the formation of cultural memory ^{[9, p. 1306]}. A deconstructive view allows us to add to this that the ritual route itself often reproduces key binary oppositions (movement from the periphery to the center, from the profane to the sacred), naturally consolidating them in experience. In this ritual act, which is based on the architectural space itself, power relations and cultural narratives are constantly reproduced and brought to life. Thus, the effectiveness of ideology transmission lies not in simple representation, but in the organization of spatial experience, which transforms abstract categories of power into a part of the human sensory and social world.

The symbolic logic of columns and colonnades thus stems from their ability to simultaneously be a structural model (subject to deconstruction), an aesthetic instrument (subject to politicization), and a ritual environment. This threefold nature makes the classical order an exceptionally effective medium for the materialization and transmission of ideological constructs. It works not only at the level of visual perception, but also at the level of bodily practice and collective ritual action, providing a deep embedding of the authoritative order in the fabric of culture and individual consciousness.

The Classical paradigm: the embodiment of power in architecture

From the sanctuaries of ancient Greek poleis to the national palaces of the Enlightenment, the classical order in the architecture of power formed a stable complex of architectural, aesthetic, cultural and symbolic features, which made it an effective and replicated model for the transmission of ideological meanings. This classical paradigm— an established set of principles and forms recognized as the model language of architecture, is characterized by several common features that will later be subjected to various forms of ideological appropriation.

The primary common cultural trait is the pursuit of eternity, legitimacy, and cultural orthodoxy (cultural orthodoxy). Whether it was the Parthenon on the Athenian Acropolis or the Pantheon in Rome, the use of the classical form was aimed at connecting the authority of the current government with some kind of timeless, sublime source of cultural values. In fact, this is the embedding of political power into a more ambitious genealogy of cultural heritage, donning it in the mantle of legitimacy and cultural orthodoxy. Architecture here serves as a "repository of historical culture and collective memory" ^{[7, p. 30]}, and its transmission strategy is to construct historical continuity. This mechanism can be considered as a forerunner of the one described later by Benjamin, in which aesthetic forms and experiences are directly mobilized to achieve political goals ^[1]. However, in the classical era, this mobilization was primarily aimed at establishing a universal cosmic and social order, rather than manipulating the masses in the modern sense.

Secondly, the classical colonnade artfully forms a liminal space (threshold, transitional space) in which publicity, sacredness and cultural identity not only coexist, but also mutually enhance. The intermediate volume created by it is open to access and meetings, while acting as a distinct boundary marking the sacred status of the inner core. It is this duality — openness to the outside and the marking of inner exclusivity — that makes the colonnade an architectural form ideally suited to the tasks of representing power, requiring, on the one hand, visible public participation, and, on the other, an emphatic demonstration of a unique cultural identity. Thus, the colonnade turns into a "unique cultural calling card" of a city or civilization ^{[8, p. 15]}. A structural foundation has already been laid here for future deconstruction, a critical method that reveals internal contradictions and hierarchical binary oppositions hidden in a text or form ^[4]. The classical colonnade materializes the opposition of the "profane/sacred", "external/internal", which later, as A. A. Savenkov shows, will be used by different regimes to legitimize their authority through spatial structuring ^{[5, p. 40]}.

In this long classical genealogy, the principle of "beauty" in its Saint-Giron understanding (harmony, proportion, clarity) usually occupied a dominant position ^[10]. The harmonious proportions and clear composition were aimed at arguing for the reasonableness and stability of power itself through visual pleasure and rational order. This aesthetic strategy, through imitation of a recognized perfect cultural paradigm, achieved wide emotional recognition and political legitimacy, fulfilling the function of transmission as a "cultural symbol" ^{[7, p. 30]}. As I. M. Chubarov notes in the context of media theory, such a strategy is a classic form of perception and consensus organization, preceding the technically mediated mass mobilization of the 20th century ^{[2, p. 245]}.

Thus, the classical paradigm established a universal vocabulary of architectural expression of power based on order, measure and ritual. Its stability was ensured not by stylistic "classicism", but precisely by this high stability, repeatability and the possibility of recoding — properties that made it exceptionally susceptible to subsequent ideological appropriation. From E.S. Markarian's point of view, such stability is explained by the fact that the classical order is not just a set of forms, but a "specific way of existence" of architectural activity, fixed in the cultural tradition ^[23]. In the classical era, the identity of form and meaning seemed to be inseparable, but the structural oppositions and mechanisms of legitimization embedded in it through aesthetics created the very "operational mechanism" that in the new historical conditions would be used for completely different purposes.

Ideological appropriation and Construction of cultural identity: the practice of Aesthetic Power in comparative examples

The appropriation of classical architectural language by various ideological systems in the 20th century was not a stylistic imitation, but a purposeful project to construct and visually assert a special cultural identity through material practice. The study selects four landmark cases for comparative analysis, guided by the following principle: each case represents one of the dominant ideological models in the 20th century (liberal democracy, fascism, socialism), which, regardless of the time of construction of a particular building, actively and strategically used classical vocabulary in the 20th century for the purposes of legitimization and propaganda. Thus, the object of analysis is not the date of the laying of the stone, but the practice of ideological appropriation and functioning of the architectural image in a key historical period. The choice fell on the following objects: the U.S. Capitol (as a permanent symbol of American statehood), the Nuremberg complex for the NSDAP party congresses (as the quintessence of the architecture of the Third Reich), the unrealized project of the Palace of Soviets in Moscow (as a utopian project) and the Main Building of Moscow State University (as its material substitute and triumph of the Stalinist Empire). It is important to note that in the 20th century it was not about a literal reproduction of the ancient order, but about its deconstruction and strategic recombination. As will be shown, both Soviet and Nazi architecture used elements of classical language (colossal order, simplified entablature, gigantic scale), tearing them out of their original tectonically proportional context and subordinating them to a new ideological program, which allows analyzing this process through the prism of the struggle of meanings within stable forms.

The US example: "Beauty" as a ritual of democratic continuity and global legitimacy. In the framework of this study, the Capitol in Washington is considered not as an architectural monument of the XVIII century, but as a key visual symbol that functioned most actively in the ideological practice of the United States throughout the 20th century. The choice of this building is due to the fact that it was the United States, which established itself in the 20th century as the world's leading democratic power, that made the image of the Capitol an imperative element of its global representation. Thus, its classical form has become not a historical anachronism, but an actual tool for constructing and spreading a certain image of power and cultural identity in the modern era.

Its monumental portico, representing the "temple of democracy", strictly follows classical proportions, and operates almost exclusively in the "Beauty" mode according to B. Saint-Giron. This aesthetic strategy, based on harmony, clarity, and rational order, served a dual ideological function. Politically, she carried out a symbolic link between the young republic and the authoritative paradigms of ancient democracy and Roman republican valor. Culturally, it made it possible to instantly create a deep and sublime historical and cultural genealogy for the new nation, compensating for the absence of a long national past. As V. V. Kochetkov notes, such architecture of government buildings plays a fundamental role in "strengthening symbols of state power, symbolizing power, strength and eternity" ^{[11, p. 115]}.

According to J. W. Carey's ritual concept of communication, the Capitol functioned throughout the 20th century as the central place of civil ritual on a national and international scale. Inaugurations, addresses to Congress, state funerals — all these regularly repeated and widely broadcast events turned the building into a stage where the "division" and interiorization of democratic values took place. This process is a vivid example of a practice in which the abstract ideals of a constitutional republic materialize in a collective experience. As V.M. Mezhuyev emphasized, culture is the sphere of production of social relations in their human form ^[24]. The architecture of the Capitol serves as the material basis for the production of democratic relations through ritual and ensures their reproduction. Here, the dialectic described in the theoretical framework manifests itself in the identity of form (the unchanging classical canon of the facade) and the constant struggle/actualization of meanings: the original language of imperial Rome was successfully recoded into the visual rhetoric of republican representation, popular sovereignty and, later, global leadership. Thus, the classicism of the Capitol in the 20th century is not an archaic quotation, but a continuous and effective ideological practice of building, maintaining and exporting national identity through an aesthetically legitimized and mediatized ritual.

The example of Nazi Germany: "Sublime" terror, "imperial tectonics" and deconstruction of classics. The architecture of the Third Reich, deeply explored in the classical works of Y. P. Markin and A. V. Vasilchenko, is the ultimate expression of the "Sublime" as an instrument of ideological suppression and the construction of mythological identity. As A.V. Vasilchenko emphasizes, Nazi architecture was understood from the very beginning as "a word imprinted in stone" — a material carrier of ideology designed to create timeless symbols of domination ^{[12, p. 15]}. This attitude turned construction practice into a tool for forming the visual language of total power.

This doctrine was most vividly embodied in the Nuremberg Complex for the NSDAP Party congresses (Reichsparteitagsgelände), in particular in the Zeppelinfeld tribune designed by Albert Speer. What we are witnessing here is not the application of the classical order, but its radical deconstruction and recombination. Doric columns, devoid of bases, entasis and detailed entablature, turn into abstract, cyclopean pylons. This transformation is the practical embodiment of what Vasilchenko calls "imperial tectonics" — a consciously constructed language of inviolability. It was expressed in "a brutal simplification of classical forms, gigantic scales and deliberate "stone" heaviness, which turned buildings into the semblance of impregnable fortresses" ^{[12, p. 112]}. This approach, as Huang Xutong correctly notes, led to the fact that in this architecture "the meaning of a person disappears" ^[13].

This deconstruction of human scale and tectonic logic served a specific purpose. Through this practice, the "politicization of aesthetics" (Benjamin) was implemented, where the aesthetic shock of a grandiose and overwhelming scale was directly mobilized to intimidate and demonstrate the absolute superiority of the regime. The ritual space between the giant pseudo-columns of the grandstand and the endless marching field was designed as a machine for the total discipline of the masses, where the individual dissolved into the synchronous movement of the crowd. As Vasilchenko notes, such structures were largely theatrical, designed to "wishful thinking" and create an ideological spectacle ^{[12, p. 245]}. Thus, the Nazi architecture, analyzed in detail in the works of Markin ^[14] and Vasilchenko, vividly demonstrates the dialectic of the struggle of meanings: the stable elements of the classical language (column, symmetry, axial composition) were emasculated, devoid of humanistic content and filled with a new, terrorist meaning of millennial racial domination, realized through totalizing spatial practice.

The example of the USSR: "Socialist Classicism" as synthesis, deconstruction and utopian practice. The Soviet approach to classical heritage during the Stalin period demonstrates the most complex and dialectical case of ideological appropriation. Unlike the literal reproduction of the order, its creative deconstruction and synthesis was carried out here, which resulted in a unique style, conventionally called "socialist classicism" or "Stalinist Empire style". His goal was to visually resolve a fundamental ideological contradiction: the simultaneous need to symbolize a revolutionary break with the past and affirm the status of the USSR as the rightful heir and the pinnacle of the entire world culture. Therefore, Soviet architecture operated not with canonical orders, but with their large-scale elements, radically transformed and incorporated into a new compositional system.

This strategy was most clearly manifested in the fate of two related projects: the utopian Palace of Soviets and its material "substitute" — the Main Building of Moscow State University. The project of the Palace of Soviets (architect B. M. Iofan and others), which remained unrealized, was a pure ideological over-task in the field of practice. His idea, as S. D. Tugarinova notes, was to create the "main building of the country", which, through eternal classical architectural forms, was supposed to embody "the viability of the socialist system" ^{[15, p. 180]}. The multi-tiered colonnade-stylobate and cyclopean pylons here were not a colonnade in the classical sense, but an abstracted image of bearing power, crowned with a hundred-meter statue of Lenin. This project operated in the mode of the absolute "sublime" (Saint-Giron), embodying the grandeur of the historical victory and utopian aspirations for the future. As B. M. Iofan himself emphasizes, it was about expressing "socialist ideas through classical architectural language" ^{[16, p. 15]}, which meant not copying, but melting down the language into a new ideological content. Here, according to Kagan, the objectification of socialist ideology took place in architectural forms — the material embodiment of the new system ^[22].

The main building of Moscow State University (architect L. V. Rudnev and others), erected in the post-war years, became the material realization and evolution of this program, the "iconic artistic dominant" of new Moscow ^{[17, p. 50]}. There was a synthesis of two aesthetic modes in its architecture. The central risalite with a giant, simplified order (colossal pilasters and columns) refers to "Beauty", to order and rationality, legitimizing the state as the patron saint of science and enlightenment. However, the overall gigantic scale, the stepped pyramid composition and the rushing spire with the Soviet star appeal to the "Sublime", visualizing the undeniable power and vertical of power ^[18]. The practice of building it was a grandiose ritual act that mobilized resources and symbolically consolidated victory in the war. In this building, ideological meanings were not only objectified, but also through the daily interaction of students and teachers with the monumental space, their objectification took place — the interiorization of Soviet values and the formation of collective identity (Kagan) ^[22].

Thus, Soviet architectural practice realized a dialectical synthesis. She borrowed classical elements (columns, symmetry, pediment) to connect with cultural orthodoxy and eternity. But she developed and transformed them through:

— Gigantism and verticality that overwhelm the human scale in the name of state greatness.

— Simplification and geometrization of details, depriving them of antique anthropomorphism in favor of abstract monumentality.

— Synthesis with national motifs (in other buildings) and Soviet symbols (stars, sickles and hammers), creating a new semiotic system.

As a result, the space of Moscow State University and similar "skyscrapers" functioned as a powerful ritual space (Cary), where the future elite of the state internalized through everyday experience a narrative about the synthesis of revolutionary power, historical continuity and socialist cultural superiority ^[19]. This case clearly shows how, in the struggle of meanings within the accepted form, a new, complex ideological structure is born.

The conclusion is that a comparative analysis of the three ideological systems reveals not stylistic similarities, but a common operational mechanism of government through architectural form. In each case, classical language was subjected to strategic recoding in the process of material practice: in the USA — to ritualize historical continuity and legitimize global leadership through the regime of "Beauty"; in Nazi Germany — to materialize absolute suppression through the "Sublime" and deconstruction of the human scale; in the USSR — for a synthetic narrative that dialectically combined both regimes in a project "socialist classicism." This process confirms the key theoretical premise of the study.: The political significance of architecture is born not from the immanent properties of the form, but from its ideological appropriation, where the identity of the structural elements allows for a constant struggle for meanings. Thus, the order (or its elements) acts as a universal operational field in which various ideologies implement their specific strategies for constructing cultural identity through spatial experience and ritual.

Conclusion

Thus, the present study, carried out within the framework of an interdisciplinary dialectical-deconstructivist approach, confirms that the repeated appeal of various political regimes to the classical architectural language is not a consequence of cultural inertia, but the result of a purposeful strategic choice. The classical order (or, more precisely, its key elements — colonnade, portico, strict symmetry) appears not as a passive "symbol" of power, but as an active operational field and mechanism of ideological translation. Its universal effectiveness is rooted in the dialectic of the identity of a stable form and the constant struggle of meanings, which is resolved in concrete material and spatial practice.

The theoretical synthesis, which included the dialectical activity paradigm, the aesthetic theory of power (B. Saint-Giron/V. Benjamin) and the ritual-deconstructive analysis (J. Carey/J. Derrida), allowed the focus to shift from the question of what architecture means to the question of how it functions. The analysis showed that ideology asserts itself not through declarations, but through the organization of spatial experience, the manipulation of scale, and the ritual use of form. The concepts of Markarian, Kagan, and Mezhuyev allow architecture to be considered as a specific mode of activity, a mechanism for objectifying values and producing social relations, which reveals its active role in the construction of collective identity.

A comparative study of three paradigms of the 20th century — the liberal democratic (US Capitol), the totalitarian fascist (Nuremberg Complex) and the revolutionary socialist (Palace of Soviets / Moscow State University) — clearly demonstrates this mechanism. In all cases, it was not a reproduction that took place, but a strategic appropriation and recoding of the classical canon.: in the USA, to legitimize succession through "Beauty," in Nazi Germany, to assert terror through the "Sublime" and the deconstruction of the human dimension, in the USSR, to synthesize utopian rupture and cultural inheritance. At the same time, as noted in the course of the analysis, the Stalinist and Nazi regimes operated precisely with elements and images of the classics, subjecting them to a radical transformation to create a new visual language of power.

Consequently, the history of the classical colonnade in the 20th century is a history of power practices embodied in stone. She reveals architecture as a tool for constructing cultural identity, acting through the direct, bodily involvement of an individual in a ritualized space. This study emphasizes that a critical analysis of architecture should consider it not as a mirror, but as an integral part of the ideological production itself, whose strength lies in the ability to make the abstract order of things a tangible, experienced reality.

The article is published in the version approved by the reviewers (after receiving a positive review recommending the manuscript for publication) with corrections made by the author (after receiving the editor’s comments, if any).
Read all reviews on this article