Architecture is not merely about aesthetics or form; it also carries a social responsibility. An architect’s political self-reflexivity is inherent to their understanding of the discipline and ways in which they practice. As a state apparatus, architecture can embody and perpetuate the political aspirations of its time, making it a central medium for change. Architecture can be used as a means of social control, and a tool to reinforce government agendas. Whether architects collaborate with governments and institutions that instigate, and support state violence has been and remains an important question for the profession.

A selection of archival documents, included in Records of Protest, demonstrate past approaches to advocacy and organizing in architecture. The activism of groups, such as Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility and UK Architects Against Apartheid, inspired major professional debates and ultimately led to extensive shifts in the discipline. The collective efforts of architects, students, and educators of the past are carried on in the resistances to systemic issues that persist today.

Founded in 1980, Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR) began as an international group of design professionals advocating for nuclear disarmament. Their actions exemplify how designers can oppose militarism and mobilize public consciousness. Through visually engaging exhibitions and design competitions, they responded to military escalations, showing how architecture can be used as a medium to enact politics.

In a 1983 poster, which depicts an atomic cloud foregrounded by a grid of architectural icons, ADPSR vividly illustrates the threat nuclear proliferation poses to global built heritage.

Similarly, a competition flier from the Northern California chapter shows the group’s response to a 1986 civil defence plan to build nuclear-resistant shelters for government officials. This design competition aimed to expose the paradox of nuclear survival, demonstrating how critical design practices can serve as tools of resistance.

UK Architects Against Apartheid (UKAAA) worked to sever institutional ties with entities that collaborated with South Africa’s Apartheid regime. Following attempts by students to break UK architectural links with the country, the group was founded to “co-operate with the anti-apartheid movement and help South African organisations struggling for the elimination of apartheid.”

An article in Building Design, which documents their inaugural meeting in September 1986, highlights the group’s support for the boycott of building materials imported from South Africa and their lobbying of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and the Architects’ Registration Council of the United Kingdom (Arcuk, now Architects Registration Board). In a call to action, the meeting brought together local architects and RIBA Council members, as well as “Denis Goldberg, an African National Congress (ANC) member who spent 23 years in a South African gaol and Mike Terry from the Anti-apartheid movement.” It was recorded that Cedric Price, who spoke during the meeting, claimed “we must make those still practising architecture in South Africa realise they are becoming professional lepers, and that ethical leprosy is very slow to cure.”

In South Africa, the role of architects in the Apartheid system sparked considerable professional debate, regarding the extent of their contribution and opposition. The UKAAA were supportive of South African architects and students who refused to cooperate with the redevelopment of areas that were bulldozed by the government and called for the Institute of South African Architects (ISAA) to commit to not doing any government work.

The meeting minutes and newspaper clippings retained by Price and found in the Cedric Price fonds, highlight that the UKAAA participated in local organizing alongside trade unions, political and religious groups, regularly meeting in London and remaining active until Apartheid was abolished. Notably, they challenged bodies like the RIBA to withdraw recognition of South African architectural schools. The group also persuaded RIBA to fund architectural training for South African refugees in Tanzania.

Additionally, the documents reveal the challenges faced by the group, as the UKAAA secretary wrote in a letter to an outgoing committee member, “we are working in a profession that must be one of the most reactionary in its organisation, in the way that architects work together, and its role in the construction industry, and that frequently refuses to admit any political content to its role in society.”