dimension since it means that some historical eras are presented very partially. Section 6, for instance, examines the past fifteen years exclusively through the lens of urbanism, while concerns such as gender, sexuality, and ethnicity appear in some sections but not in others. The editorial abridgments, marked by ellipses, are sensitive, but unfortunately the indexing is somewhat erratic. Eggener’s introduction, a historiographic review of architectural scholarship since the early nineteenth century, contextualizes the work included, and his lists of suggested further reading are valuable guides for both general and specialist readers. The primary role of this new anthology will be as a supplement to survey texts. At the same time, American Architectural History points up the inadequacy of the synthetic accounts on which most teachers and students rely. By remapping the field, it highlights the need for new publications of two kinds. One is a new anthology of primary material to replace Leland M. Roth’s out-of-print America Builds (Harper & Row, 1983) and supplement Building the Nation, a recent collection edited by Steven Conn and Max Page (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003). The former is too traditionally professional and monumental in focus; by including only the voices of clients and users, by contrast, the latter neglects important questions of professional ideology and civic representation. We also need a new synthetic account to replace the existing surveys by Roth, David Handlin, Mark Gelernter, Dell Upton, and others. Currency is a moving target, and even some of the work excerpted in American Architectural History has been superseded by more recent scholarship. We need new survey texts that integrate—and further explore—the topics, methods, and insights represented in Eggener’s anthology. What might be the basis of such a synthesis? The material collected in American Architectural History suggests a sociological and geographical framework. Analyzing the built environment in terms of class, race, gender, sexuality, and other social attributes might be the best way of integrating into a synthetic account both monumental commissions and everyday landscapes, normative as well as alternative perspectives, not only the master’s house but also its kitchens, smokehouses, and quarters.

(2000). Problems in theorizing “The Political” in architectural discourse. Rethinking Marxism: Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 117-129.

(1991). Cultural Politics and Education. Journal of Architectural Education: Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 67-68.

This article situates the work of Leon Krier within the contexts of postindustrialism and postmodernism. The author is critical of Krier, and finds problematic his self-proclaimed stance of idealism/purism, a position which devalues a possible practice of direct cultural and political action, and reduces his work to the level of hollow scenography. Dutton argues that, especially in these times, architects must strive to overcome their marginalization. He points to an instrumental role for architecture in promoting transformative cultural directions, politics, and ways of life. He argues that there is maneuverability to resist dominant culture, a precondition of which is for architects to link with struggling cultures to help produce their vision and spatiality.

(1989). The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potential. Journal of Architectural Education: Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 53-55.

Utilizing an educational concept known as the hidden curriculum to analyze the design studio, the author argues that there is a rough correspondence between schooling and larger societal practices, where the selection of knowledge and the ways in which school social relations are structured to distribute such knowledge, are influenced by forms and practices of power in society. Asymmetrical relations of power are reproduced in schools and classrooms, including the design studio. In response, the author has been experimenting with a transformative pedagogy for the design studio, attempting to set up the conditions to investigate not only the many issues of design, but the nature of design education itself, especially with regard to how knowledge is produced and disseminated, how social relations are structured, and how students and the professor come to see their roles in these activities.