The Mic
is on you
An interview with Prof. Hilde Heynen
On February 27, 2023, at 33 Bedford Square in London, Hilde Heynen presented a paper co-authored by Lucia Perez-Moréno, for the “Writing-With: Feminist Architecture Criticism” organised by Marina Lathouri. In the series of lectures, we the students of MA History & Critical Thinking and other PhD candidates at the AA sat around a table listening to female voices and thinking-in-common. Hilde Heynen is professor of architectural theory at the University of Leuven, Belgium. Her research focuses on issues of modernity, modernism and gender in architecture. In her lecture she put forward and answered the question “Where are the women architects?”. During the discussion I happened to ask whether she has come across any major issues on gender violence in the profession, which she had not. Within six months, Future Architects Front exposes cases of sexual assault on David Adjaye. This has induced a chain reaction in calling out on celebrated architects undercover. It is perhaps the voices of women around many other tables that catalyse such changes. On that note, I would delve into knowing the experiences and perspectives of one among them through this interview. The mic is on you, Heynen.
Q- In the article you co-authored and discussed with us, you introduced the concept of the four waves of feminism and highlighted that you have lived through three of these waves. Has your understanding of gender and feminism evolved since you first engaged with these movements? Additionally, on a personal level, do you find yourself identifying with any of these four paradigms, despite your argument in the essay that all four should coexist together to create a true history of architecture?
As per my age, I primarily identify with the second wave of feminism since it came about during my teenage years. I am closely familiar with the arguments of the women’s movement during that time, partly due to my family history. In my family, especially on my mother’s side, there was a legacy of educated women. My mother pursued a university education and became a pharmacist, while her mother may not have been highly educated, but her aunt certainly was. This family background instilled in me an early conviction that, as a woman, you don’t want to be dependent on somebody, you need to be able to earn your own money to take care of yourself and your children. To do that, you need a good degree and a good job. This belief has been with me since childhood. The third and fourth waves of feminism have also played vital roles in my understanding. Through the third wave, I better understood that the construction of gender is a social and cultural construction rather than a natural given. I could also see how it relates to daily life, especially during my divorce when one of our disagreements was about what was normal and not normal in the way you conducted your life as a woman, as a man and as a parent. I encountered gender constructions in that situation.
​
And now, the last wave, I do not self-identify much with this whole digitalization, I’m not a huge user of social media, but I’m very much in tune with the whole MeToo movement and very pleased, in a way. Pleased? You cannot be pleased with the fact that so many women tell horror stories, but the fact that sexual violence and harassment are now much more in the open. That is something I’m witnessing with pleasure. But for my own formation, I think the second wave was most important.
I identify more with the fourth wave, which is expected given my age. Regarding the MeToo movement, while it’s encouraging that it’s easier for people to speak out, it’s concerning to see accused individuals sometimes treated as celebrities.
Q- While reading your article, I came across a mention of ‘her story’ instead of ‘history.’ How do you address the issue of gender exclusivity in the English language? Do you attempt to innovate the language to make it more inclusive? Or do you consciously choose alternative, gender-neutral language? What is your strategy when you write?
My strategy is to avoid using ‘he’ or ‘she’ and instead opt for ‘they’ in my text when I need a gender-neutral term. I write in the plural and refer to individuals as ‘they’ and ‘them’ to ensure gender inclusivity. I’m fully aware of the complexities surrounding gendered language. One particularly challenging instance was when I was writing a book on Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, how to address her was an issue. She went by at least four different names and her only consistent name was “Sibyl”. She initially went by ‘Sibylle Pietzsch,’ which was written in a German style, and later as ‘Sibyl Pietzsch,’ with a more Anglo-Saxon spelling. Later, she adopted the name ‘Sibyl Dreyfuss,’ and eventually became known as ‘Sibyl Moholy-Nagy.’ It felt belittling to refer to the subject of my monograph by just her first name. They never refer to Mies van der Rohe by his first name. Do they? Ultimately, I decided to use ‘Sibyl’ for the first chapter, which was biographical, to maintain continuity. For the rest of the book, I shifted to ‘Moholy-Nagy.’ This was a challenging decision, but it was essential to maintain clarity and respect for the subject.
In Western culture, there is an increased importance for surnames that I can’t comprehend. I personally prefer using the first name.
In Western culture, using first names is common and not considered demeaning when it pertains to relatives, friends or close acquaintances. In my experience, however, my students often refer to me by my first name, while they typically use surnames for my male colleagues. it’s a way of belittling, demeaning, familiarizing, taking down a notch. If you observe, you’ll notice that more females are commonly referred to by their first names in everyday conversation. For instance, Zaha Hadid is often known simply as ‘Zaha’. Is there one male architect you know only by their first name? Think about it. Yeah, I don’t think so. Walter. Who is Walter to you? Is that Gropius? I don’t think so. But Zaha, we know as Zaha.
Yes, not much has changed, but there is at least more willingness and openness to listen to people’s stories. It’s not a universal change, and there is resistance and backlash, as one might expect. However, I believe that the MeToo movement has achieved a significant shift in our collective awareness. It’s no longer a surprise when someone shares a story like that. Now we know that these things happen.
Even though I agree, from my perspective, I find using someone’s surname to be potentially offensive as it often reflects a patriarchal tradition, linking individuals to their father’s or husband’s side. This brings a different perspective to the notion of ‘belittling’ when addressing someone by their first name.
Yes, I understand what you’re saying. When someone takes their husband’s name, as Sibyl did, it’s a practice I personally didn’t follow. My surname is the one I had initially, and it continues to be so. It comes from my father, but my brother’s name also comes from my father. it’s the way children are named after their fathers and wives are named after their husbands. The relationship is similar. However, I feel that by naming somebody on a first name basis, you treat them as children. I’m not sure if everybody would share that feeling but I think, among women of my generation, this is something that we would share. Of course, societal norms and identities are evolving, and you mentioned language awareness. Personally, I am conscious of transgender and gender-fluid individuals, and I make an effort to respect their naming preferences when engaging with them. However, since they are not part of my everyday life, my practice in this regard is limited. So, for me, the language issue remains relatively simple.
Q- In your writing, you discussed how women often delve into gender-related issues, possibly due to their personal experiences with discrimination or a sense of moral responsibility. Have you personally encountered instances of discrimination as a woman in your profession? What led you to begin exploring the topic of gender in your work?
I didn’t experience discrimination so much as an architect since I never practiced as one, but rather as an academic. For instance, during my PhD, I faced clear examples of gender bias. When I became pregnant with my second child, there was an expectation that I wouldn’t complete my PhD, and I was deemed ineligible for a fellowship. My temporary position, which I held as a replacement for a male colleague who had joined the military, was not extended, as it typically would have been after two years, solely because of my pregnancy. I was sharing my office with a male colleague who was in the same stage of doing his PhD back then. He had three kids. I had three kids. At a particular point when I was going abroad to do field work for my PhD, everybody was very concerned how my husband was going to cope with the three children. Nobody ever asked my colleague the same question, although his wife also needed to cope on her own with three kids. These were some of the smaller stories. The most significant one would be the denial of a long-term contract due to my gender and motherhood. Apart from that, I didn’t face harsh instances of discrimination. I’ve always been confident and knew how to handle situations where some men may have attempted something. I can’t really complain about personal experiences, except for my divorce, which, in a way, was also related to gender dynamics. In my academic career, especially in the early stages, I encountered more challenges. However, once I had proven myself and gained a track record, the situation improved significantly
You are now the head of the department of the same institution where you did your PhD. Right?
I have been Head of the department in the past, for a period of seven years. As I’m nearing retirement, it is now a transitory position. To answer your question, yes, indeed, it is the same institution.
Q- Once when I was searching news reports of Pritzker winners, I noticed that when Zaha Hadid, Yvonne Farrell, or Shelley McNamara won the Pritzker, many reports emphasized their gender, referring to them as ‘women who won the Pritzker,’ rather than highlighting their names. In contrast, when David Chipperfield or BV Doshi won, their names were prominently mentioned. I also came across various perspectives among women in the field. Some preferred to be acknowledged as ‘women who accomplished,’ while others did not want their gender to be highlighted, like Zaha Hadid. For these individuals, they considered themselves at par with men and wished to not use womanhood for privileges. What is your point of view on this? Do you believe it’s important to be addressed by gender, or do you think it’s important not to be addressed by gender?
I can understand why some women don’t want to be labelled as ‘women professors’ or ‘women architects.’ They want to convey that they’ve navigated their careers just like men and shouldn’t be singled out because of their gender. At the same time, I think if you take that stance, and of course women can take that stance, then it is also ignoring the fact that there is still a battle to be won. Look at the Pritzker prize, look at so many things. Equality isn’t a given. Some argue that if they keep calling us ‘women architects’ or if there are special exhibitions or awards just for women, it emphasizes how special or unique we are. So, in order to normalize the presence of women in architecture, you should not underline that they are women. They have a point, but their argument would be stronger if there were true gender equality in these areas. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. The playing field is far from level. So, strategically, it’s important to continue to underline our femininity to demonstrate how underrepresented we are. In academia, for instance, we’re still a minority. In Belgium, while there’s some improvement, full professors are still less than 20% women, compared to a balanced male-to-female student ratio. So, it’s crucial to keep addressing these disparities.
Q- Recently, I was reading the WhatsApp group chats of official architects’ groups in my hometown in India, and I could see that there is a common distorted idea of feminism. Many women seem hesitant to identify as feminists due to a prevailing misconception that it implies being anti-men or misandrist. This got me thinking if you’ve ever considered publishing for a broader audience beyond academia, perhaps for architects in practice or the general public? As researchers, our work informs ourselves, but do you ever feel the urge to reach out to a wider audience through channels like social media, magazines, or more accessible forms of writing?
I don’t engage in outreach efforts too frequently, although I do so on occasion. However, I’m fully aware that making a meaningful impact in the public domain requires a significant time commitment. It’s a choice, and especially so if you’re based in a non-English speaking country, as it means consistently writing for different audiences in multiple languages. This can be quite demanding. To truly become a public intellectual and engage in the broader debate, you’d need to allocate one to two days a week to activities such as writing for newspapers, contributing to magazines, or participating in blogs and public forums. While it’s a possibility, it competes for time with other pursuits. In my case, I’ve opted to focus on interdisciplinary research and facilitating collaboration across various disciplines, which I find more aligned with my interests than pursuing a broader public voice. I believe both are valuable, but it’s a matter of where one chooses to direct their efforts.
Q- It’s common for women trained as architects to switch to other fields where they also excel. In such cases, do you consider their contributions as falling within the scope of the historiography you deal with?
Yes. That’s also our plea that we should develop a more inclusive idea of architecture that looks at neighbouring fields and other practices. By keeping a very narrow focus on buildings with a lot of panache to it, you reinforce the gendering of the profession. By keeping out women in interior architecture, consultancy, civil services etc., you keep architecture pure, but you also keep architecture male and masculine. The purity of architecture is the male purity. So, I’d rather go the other way around and say, let’s be inclusive and look at an expanded field of the profession.
Interesting. Last semester we engaged with the subject of “Architecture; Agents and Economics” wherein we dealt with themes of contemporary boundary work. We had a debate on whether there can be architects after architecture or not. However, we didn’t address gender aspect in the debate, but it seems relevant.
Q- I came across an article from 1975 about women in architecture where the author suggested that, instead of women conforming to the masculine image of architects, more feminine qualities should be integrated into the profession and educational system. As an architectural professor in an architectural school, do you make conscious attempts to revise the traditional masculinity associated with architecture, and if so, how do you go about it?
I introduce to students a wider understanding of what architecture is all about, by trying to develop the idea of architecture as a caring practice rather than as a practice of erecting monuments. If you say it’s a caring practice, taking care of the environment, taking care of people, you already have a much more feminine overtone in how you define architecture. I give a feminine understanding of architecture without telling the students that this is what I am doing.
Q-Have you asked your students to not read or critically read Fountainhead?
I don’t ask them to read it because the book is lengthy and discussing what is wrong with that book would need a lot of unpacking which is not worth the time. In the current generation of the students, it’s not a cult book, which needs addressing.
Q-When researching on Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, how did you access all the necessary data?
Accessing Sibyl’s research materials was relatively straightforward. Her papers are stored on microfilm at the Archives of American Art, which is part of the Smithsonian. I conducted my research over several years, starting in the early 2000s. Along the way, I reached out to Sibyl’s daughter, Hattula, who is still alive as far as I know and conducted extensive interviews with her. Hattula also connected me with a niece of Sibyl’s, who had the family archive, and I gained access to that as well. Additionally, I travelled to California, Santa Barbara, to access another portion of Sibyl’s papers, including her coursework and slides related to her courses. In total, I interviewed around 20 people who had known Sibyl during her time as a student.
Q- Do you conduct surveys of architects to gather statistics for your research?
I don’t conduct surveys myself; instead, I get data from European agencies that provide survey data. For qualitative material, I’ve been fortunate to work with graduate students who conducted interviews on related topics. Most of my research grants have been focused on other areas rather than the underrepresentation of women in architecture. Securing funding for such a study might be challenging. To do a survey, I would likely require collaboration with social sciences colleagues. Statistical expertise and social research methodology falls outside my expertise as an architect.
As a researcher, few of my questions were to inform myself and possibly other fellow researchers who are curious.
My decision to interview Hilde Heynen was at a point of time when I was completely intolerant towards the sexism in the profession in my hometown and was considering campaigning through writing. However, having witnessed failed attempts and having realised like Heynen mentioned that outreach consumes much time, I refrained. Maybe later. However, it is through encounters with such women in academia that I, a woman, a beginner in the field, aspire!
The mic is on me now.