This year’s Venice Architecture Biennale, titled Laboratory for the Future, was inaugurated on the same day that the leaders of the G7 industrialized nations met in Hiroshima, Japan. As different as these events appeared, both signaled the end of globalization. Both also displayed the promise and perils of a fragmenting world.
Of all the arts, architecture is the most globally homogenizing. Erecting tropical copycats of Paris and London was a staple of European colonial policy. Today, the same glass-and-steel tower blocks dot interchangeable financial capitals the world over.
However, the biennale’s curator, Ghanaian-Scottish architect Lesley Lokko, is using international architecture’s most influential event to critically reassess that one-world narrative.
Illustration: Mountain People
“The dominant voice has historically been a singular, exclusive voice, whose reach and power ignores huge swathes of humanity,” Lokko writes in the introduction to her ambitious exhibition.
Brazil’s show (winner of the Golden Lion for the best national pavilion at the Biennale) centers on unearthing — quite literally — the architectural and living practices concealed by the establishment of the country’s modernist capital, Brasilia.
Modernism, the architectural style that spread after World War II, we are told, represented a “colonial invasion” of “the indigenous nations of central Brazil.”
Yet, modernism was a universal language shaped by non-Western architects such as Brazilians Oscar Niemeyer and Lina Bo Bardi, and Ghanaians John Owusu Addo and Samuel Opare Larbi. Tropical Modernism, a contribution to the biennale by London’s V&A, shows that precolonial building practices were actually highly influential in its development.
However, modernism originated in the colonial center and from it developed one language fit for the planet as a whole. That language might have acquired many accents, but it only had one vocabulary — and it was written in the Latin alphabet. Modernism was an example of Eurocentric universalism.
As an alternative to it, Nigerian architect Tosin Oshinowo, writing in the biennale’s catalogue, claims that only tradition can provide a “nuanced understanding of the environment, culture, and context.”
And tradition — real or imagined — is everywhere in this biennale.
Many of the contributions to the main exhibition dig into their own particular, civilizational past, with a focus on materials, ways of building, of being and modes of sociability that are firmly anchored in their place of origin. The construction of an autonomous African perspective is the explicit aim of many of the invited African practitioners, representing a majority of the 89 artists and architects included in the main exhibition.
Ghanaian-British architect David Adjaye, for example, presents a film illustrating the unique architectural morphology of the societies of precolonial Africa and a series of architectural models for megastructures such, as the Thabo Mbeki library in Johannesburg, framed by narratives forged outside of the Western canon.
Attention to decolonial thought and practices has taken center stage in recent cultural discourse.
However, many of the works on display in this show actually go a step further, from the postcolonial to the civilizational, where pride in the rediscovery of one’s own traditions takes center stage, and the West, no longer a benchmark of judgement, fades into irrelevance.
More accurately, the West fades into its own version of civilizational provincialism, abandoning the universal and embracing the particular.
Symbolic of this transformation was European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who flew from Hiroshima to Venice to inaugurate a presentation of the New European Bauhaus, a flagship European architectural program fostering a more sustainable and inclusive way of building for the continent.
Bauhaus, an early 20th-century European architectural practice aiming to merge aesthetics with utility, was the father of modernism. So modernism, criticized as a homogenizing, universalizing Western imposition, symbolically returns to Venice reduced to a homegrown, humbly European and no longer universal.
Freed of domination by Western artists and ideas, Venice displays the joyous promise of a pluralistic world. Formerly colonized countries shape their own architecture — and worldview — with reference to their own traditions. And so: Let a hundred flowers bloom? We would do well to pause before joining the cheers.
China, arguably the earliest country to celebrate its civilizational renaissance with a newfound pride and international projection in everything from architecture to semiconductors, offers the main cautionary tale. If modernity imposed a universal conversation anchored in colonial bias, it also spread the claim to the universality of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Does denouncing all universal aspiration as a homogenizing and ultimately colonial imposition run the risk of becoming an enabling factor for nationalism and authoritarianism?
Tellingly, the Chinese ambassador to Italy canceled his participation at the opening of the biennale in protest at the inclusion of an installation by the Rotterdam-based British architect Alison Killing, which used satellite images to document and visualize Chinese internment camps for Uighurs.
China’s political tradition never included human rights or democracy. Should we respect that tradition, too? The Chinese government — and a host of Chinese political scientists and philosophers — argue that we should.
It is a shame that the biennale features almost no Chinese contributions to the main exhibition. Not only is China more responsible for the infrastructure boom in much of Africa than any of the African architectural practices on display, but exploring China’s own claims to civilizational uniqueness might have helped shed light on the darker side of this somewhat naively praised return to tradition.
As the biennale opened in Venice, authoritarian Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was inaugurating the controversial Central Vista redevelopment in New Delhi, a megastructure celebrating Indian architectural tradition and Hindu nationalism.
Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was too busy winning re-election to attend the opening of the biennale, but his own authoritarian regime proudly builds tradition-inspired, Ottoman-rekindling Turkish nationalism.
Authoritarians often deploy tradition and portray universalism as nothing but the product of European gunboats to justify their trampling of allegedly imported Western democratic values: Rwandan President Paul Kagame is a master of this game. In their view, liberal democracy, like the New European Bauhaus, should lose its claim to universality and be the traditional culture of a Western civilization.
This was the world on show at the G7 in Hiroshima, a summit tasked with taking stock of the denunciation by Russia and China of the international rules-based liberal order as a Western imposition. Let there be no mistake: We should celebrate our collective departure from fake Western universalism. The arrival of a world built on multiplicity and interaction among equals is a world where people will be freer and happier — even if the road to multipolarity is bumpy.
Yet, how does multiplicity not slide into relativism? As we abandon the homogenizing language of Western modernity, is the future one where the large language models of artificial intelligence carry different values in different countries, adjusting what they say regarding the Uighurs or LGBTQ+ rights depending on whether you ask the question in Beijing, Cairo or Madrid? Is tradition and identity and the slippery slope toward nationalism all that we have left, or can we imagine a new universalism binding together a common humanity?
Despite the promise of its title, Lokko’s Laboratory for the Future offers a stupendous glimpse into our present moment. It is the joyous, hopeful face of a fragmenting world. This makes it a resonant, powerful exhibition. Yet, this also means that some of the most urgent questions for the future are left hanging.
As globalization continues to unravel, we will need a laboratory for a new planetary universalism to try to answer them.
Lorenzo Marsili is a philosopher, activist, author and director of the Berggruen Institute Europe.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS