This position paper looks at the 1964 AIA -ACSA Teacher conference, one that offers us a window into the current anxieties of architectural history survey courses. The conference was organized at a time when PhD programs in Architectural History and Theory were emerging, with accompanying mid-century notions of disciplines with clear boundaries, objects of study and hierarchy of experts. The questions that were being asked were fundamental: What is Architectural History? What are its contents? How should it be taught? Who is an Architectural Historian? However, a closer look beneath the masculine bravado of the conference reveals many of the same symptoms that persist today: questions of ‘diversity’ of content, anxiety to be ‘relevant’ to students in professional programs and a tendency to leave unquestioned the tradition of ‘designo’. This paper journeys through these anxieties with the hope of bringing some of those in play today into sharper focus. Perhaps, it concludes, the work of architectural history might be what Spivak termed as a project of “Planetarity”, involving not merely a change in epistemological methods but an undoing of the social order of architectural history.
The Uses of Local History in the American History Survey
