The specific configuration of the relationship between architecture and politics, as shaped by the action of specific groups from the late 18th century to the present day, can be examined by questioning the notion of generation. After Karl Mannheim, historian Reinhart Koselleck's Past Future [1] is one of the most fruitful ways of looking at the interplay between generations. If we follow his perspective, we could say that each generation shares the same "horizon of expectation" as well as the same "space of experience".
A series of episodes previously considered longitudinally - or diachronically - are thus revisited synchronically. Political rather than architectural, entry often also corresponds to thresholds in architectural theory and practice. These thresholds obviously coincide with the liquidation and replacement of existing hierarchies and institutions, often the consequence of revolutionary mutations and the emergence of new social formations and expectations. They are also part of the horizon of expectations we call "progress". More precisely, they mark the emergence of modernity, a horizon of expectations detached from previous experiences. The expectations and experiences of the generations of 1789, 1848, 1871, 1914-1918, 1933, 1940-1945, 1968 and their contemporaries are examined.
This synchronic study of generations, which remains largely to be done, and the diachronic study of the long trajectories of architects, decision-makers and activists, are essential to understanding the adjustments between architecture and politics.
