They Were the Future Once – A Review of Militant Modernism by Owen Hatherley

So before we begin I have a confession which will shock no-one. You see I’m not really that much of a modernist, indeed when it comes to aesthetics I am far closer to the arts and crafts movement of William Morris, the socialist illustrations of Walter Crane or let’s be honest, the general aesthetic of 20^th century left-wing Anglo-Catholicism. (Today being Palm Sunday we walked around the church singing hymns, clergy carrying massive palm branches, the congregation our palm crosses – say what you like about the Scottish Episcopal Church but we know how to combine faith, fun and ritual.)  So I’m probably not the natural audience for a treatise on why failed Modernism attempts in the interwar period point to new ways of socialist praxis that can inspire the future.

However, I have another confession to make. I really rate Owen Hatherley’s work. His books that describe and critique modern architecture (such as A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain and A New Kind of Bleak) were eye-opening for me, since as someone who had never really thought critically about architecture before, I went from looking at buildings blankly to trying to understand every building I saw. I can recommend them for anyone who doesn’t think they get architecture, and so I was absolutely willing to give Militant Modernism a chance, since if Hatherley was someone who could make me understand what they were trying to do with the Aberdeen University Zoology Building – however horrible I still think it looks – then he was someone who would open my eyes to this much maligned movement.

So what is Militant Modernism? In short it’s four essays on different aspects of modernism - Brutalism in Britain; Soviet experiments in modernism pre-1937; modernist ideas around sex and love; and finally Modernist theatre with a strong focus on Brecht. There is also a Forward and Afterwards that both aim to summarise more widely the rationale behind the essays as well as their relevance for the modern age.

But am I convinced that “the dormant Socialist Modernism can, if nothing else, offer spectral blueprints for such a future?” (p126) To be honest, I’m not. While the essays are each on their own interesting discussions on themes around modernism, one can’t help but recognise that the obscurity of them all shows how much of a failure much of the movement was. Furthermore in his study of Soviet modernism I find that the pre-Stalin era is presented in much more uncritical light then I would have expected from someone as erudite as Hatherley, is it really any surprise that buildings built on the ruins of confiscated churches might already be part of a dialectic of violence? It’s hard to not read the failure of Soviet Modernism under Stalin as less destroyed by the new totalising system, and more the obsession of well-connected dreamers who were too busy building castles in the sky over the actual experiences of Soviet workers and peasants through the chaos of the 1920s.

That’s not to say I don’t think there is any worth in this book. Far from it, I think it quite passionately describes many of the dead-ends of the socialist movement, and while I would not suggest they are blueprints for the future, I think it’s important to draw them out so that we can learn from the pasts mistakes as well as its example. Militant Modernism might not have signed me up to the “Brutalist is Best Brigade,” but I think it provides a useful resource for the left by exploring old failed utopian visions, even if it does not encourage me to dust them off and try building them in 2024.

Today's Soundtrack - "Communist Love Song" by Soltero