The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities

Author: Leslie Sklair
Year: 2005
Source type: article
Raw file: raw/articles/sklair-2005-transnational-capitalist-class-contemporary-architecture.md

Summary

This companion article to Sklair's 2006 piece on iconic architecture focuses specifically on the four fractions of the transnational capitalist class (TCC) and their roles in and around architecture in globalizing/world cities. Sklair argues that the TCC consists of people who "typically have globalizing as well as (rather than in opposition to) localizing agendas" and who "operate transnationally as a normal part of their working lives." The four fractions are: (1) corporate (owners/controllers of major TNCs and local affiliates in architecture); (2) state (globalizing politicians/bureaucrats who decide what gets built where); (3) technical (globalizing professionals responsible for structural features, services, education); (4) consumerist (merchants/media responsible for marketing and consumption). Sklair uses Gutman's typology of architectural firms (strong-idea, strong-service, strong-delivery) to show that most contemporary iconic architecture is produced not by the biggest firms but by relatively small practices led by celebrity architects with high symbolic capital.

Key Claims

• Companion article argument: "In a companion article (Sklair, 2006) I argue that one of the consequences of capitalist globalization is a transformation in the production, marketing and reception of iconic architecture." In pre-global era (before 1950s) "most iconic architecture was driven by the interests of the state and/or religion, while in the era of capitalist globalization the dominant force driving iconic architecture is the transnational capitalist class."

• TCC definition: "The TCC consists of people who typically have globalizing as well as (rather than in opposition to) localizing agendas. These are people from many countries who operate transnationally as a normal part of their working lives and who more often than not have more than one place that they can call home."

• Transnational social spaces: TCC members have "relationships to transnational social spaces and the new forms of cosmopolitanism of what I have conceptualized as generic globalization." These forms "encourage both local rootedness and transnational (globalizing) vision."

• Four fractions of TCC:

  1. Corporate fraction: "Those who own and/or control the major transnational corporations and their local affiliates." In architecture: "major architectural, architecture–engineering and architecture–developer-real estate firms, listed in the magazine World Architecture." Their revenues are small compared to global consumer goods/energy/financial corporations, but "their importance for the built environment and their cultural importance, especially in cities, far outweigh their relative lack of financial and corporate muscle."

  2. State fraction: "Globalizing politicians and bureaucrats... who actually decide what gets built where, and how changes to the built environment are regulated."

  3. Technical fraction: "Globalizing professionals... ranging from the leading technicians centrally involved in the structural features and services (including financial services) of new buildings to those responsible for the education of students and the public in architecture."

  4. Consumerist fraction: "Merchants and media... responsible for the marketing and consumption of architecture in all its manifestations."

• TCC mission: "Those who lead the TCC see its mission as organizing the conditions under which its interests and the interests of the capitalist system can be furthered in the global and local context."

• Intra-class mobility: "While the four fractions are distinguishable analytic categories with different functions for the global capitalist system, the people in them often move from one category to another. A common form of this intra-class mobility is the 'revolving door' between business, education and government, and vice versa. Many leading architects are simultaneously practitioners, professors and agents of the state at various levels."

• Five transnational respects:

  1. Economic interests "increasingly globally linked rather than exclusively local and national"
  2. Seeks "economic control in the workplace, political control in domestic and international politics, and culture-ideology control in everyday life through specific forms of global competitive and consumerist rhetoric and practice"
  3. "Outward-oriented globalizing rather than inward-oriented localizing perspectives"
  4. Share "similar life-styles, particularly patterns of higher education and consumption of luxury goods and services"
  5. Seek to "project images of themselves as citizens of the world as well as of their places of birth"

• Gutman's three firm types:

  1. Strong-idea firms (Gehry, Graves, Meier, Venturi): "practice-centred businesses"
  2. Strong-service firms (SOM): "business-centred practices"
  3. Strong-delivery firms: "commercial firms that rarely win awards but build a great deal"

• Celebrity trend: "Personal inspiration was being replaced by more conventional marketing for architectural services and that it was getting more difficult to ascertain how much and exactly what the architect contributed to big projects." "There has been a tremendous expansion in opportunities to consume architectural culture over the last few decades."

• Big firms vs. iconic architects: "Few celebrity iconic architects are with the biggest architectural firms. When we attempt a transnational capitalist class analysis of iconic architecture it is important not to assume that the biggest firms (the major transnational corporations in the architecture industry) are necessarily the most celebrated firms (those led by the major signature architects)."

• Corporate fraction specifics: "The corporate fraction of the TCC in architecture consists of the major globalizing architectural, architect–engineering and architect-developer-real estate (mixed) practices, in terms of fees and fee-earning architects employed. These are the 'strong-delivery firms' who build many buildings but do not produce much contemporary iconic architecture."

• Iconic buildings from top firms: "Of the biggest 30 firms, only two could be said to have definitely produced iconic architecture" — SOM (Jin Mao Tower Shanghai, Canary Wharf London, National Commercial Bank Jeddah) and Foster and Partners (HSBC Hong Kong, Chek Lap Kok Airport, Reichstag Berlin, Swiss Re "Gherkin" London).

• Most icons from small firms: "Most contemporary professional icons that have also attracted a measure of public icon status, however, have been produced by architects whose practices are relatively small in terms of revenues but whose symbolic capital in the industry is high. A good proxy for such architects of iconic buildings is the list of winners of the Pritzker Prize."

• Global Intelligence Corps: Olds (2001) uses term GIC — "the very small number of elite architectural and planning firms that aspire for prestigious commissions in cities around the world. These firms tend to be synonymous with high-profile charismatic men." Historical exemplars: Le Corbusier, Gropius, Mies. Modern: Piano, Rogers, Foster, Nouvel, Koolhaas. But "The GIC formulation... obscures the extent to which their architects connect with capitalist globalization as analysed here."

• Architect-developer: "The pre-eminent architect-developer of the global era so far is John Portman, whose Peachtree Center in Atlanta and Westin Bonaventure in Los Angeles have made the atrium hotel iconic, at least for postmodernists (notably Jameson, 1991)."

Connections

Authors: sklair-leslie
Debates: jencks-vs-sklair-iconic-architecture
Related source notes: sklair-towards-understanding-architectural-iconicity, sklair-2006-iconic-architecture-capitalist-globalization

Direct Quotes

"In the pre-global era (roughly the period before the 1950s) most iconic architecture was driven by the interests of the state and/or religion, while in the era of capitalist globalization the dominant force driving iconic architecture is the transnational capitalist class."

"The TCC consists of people who typically have globalizing as well as (rather than in opposition to) localizing agendas. These are people from many countries who operate transnationally as a normal part of their working lives and who more often than not have more than one place that they can call home."

"Most contemporary professional icons that have also attracted a measure of public icon status, however, have been produced by architects whose practices are relatively small in terms of revenues but whose symbolic capital in the industry is high."

"There has been a tremendous expansion in opportunities to consume architectural culture over the last few decades." — Gutman

Open Questions

• How does Sklair's TCC framework connect to Johnson's analysis of OMA/AMO — is Koolhaas part of the technical fraction or does he straddle fractions?
• What is the relationship between "symbolic capital" and Bourdieu's field theory (Jones 2009) — is Sklair providing the empirical content for Bourdieu's abstract framework?
• Does the finding that iconic architects come from small firms (not big TNCs) complicate the TCC analysis — are they a distinct fraction or dependent on other fractions for commissions?
• How does the "revolving door" between fractions connect to the "silent complicity" Jones identifies — is mobility the mechanism that produces complicity?