Navigation – Plan du site
Dossier : Feminist Architectural Histories of Migration

“Dear Comrade,” or Exile in a Communist World: Resistance, Feminism, and Urbanism in Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s Work in China, 1934/1956

Sophie Hochhäusl
Traduction de Qiran Shang, Irina Chernyakova, Kevin Berry, Sang Pil Lee et Zhengyang Hua

Résumés

In the 1930s and the 1950s China recruited thousands of foreign "experts” to consult on programs to modernize the country. Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky (1897–2000), an Austrian architect and postwar member of the Communist Party, was invited to participate in these programs in both periods. Today Schütte-Lihotzky has been canonized in this history of architecture for her interwar contributions to modern housing and educational institutions in Austria, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Turkey. Recent scholarship has shown, however, that both, her architectural and political efforts, spanned more than eight decades. Schütte-Lihotzky was actively involved in the Austrian Communist Resistance in the 1940s, as well as the Austrian women’s movement, the international peace movement, and transnational architectural organizations such as the International Congress of Modern Architecture (ciam), and the Union of International Architects (uia) in the postwar years. By focusing on two extended research trips Schütte-Lihotzky made to China in 1934 and 1956, this essay positions her work in a wider discourse about the agency of female architects as well as the networks of communist intellectuals during the Cold War. It presents Schütte-Lihotzky’s endeavors in China as a lens for examining the complex entanglements of gender, class, and ethnicity in international women’s organizations as well as instances of “othering” perpetuated by European architects who served as foreign “experts” abroad. Finally, the essay also argues that Schütte-Lihotzky’s travel coincided with moments of China’s effort to build relationships with countries abroad. While her book manuscript Millionenstädte Chinas, completed in 1958, thus serves as a document chronicling these exchanges in design culture, at the time Schütte-Lihotzky understood it as a preparatory text for devising a global architectural history written from a communist vantage point.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial (...)

I am arguing for politics and epistemologies of location, positioning, and situating, where partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard to make rational knowledge claims. These are claims to people’s lives. I am arguing for the view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured body, versus the view from above, from nowhere, from simplicity.1

Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” 1988.

  • 2 Edward Said, “Freedom from Domination in the Future: Movement and Migrations,” in Culture and Impe (...)

The tender soul has fixed his love on one spot in the world; the strong person has extended his love to all places; the perfect man has extinguished his.2

Edward Said, “Freedom from Domination in the Future, Movement and Migrations,” 1993.

Figure 1: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky in front of the Trans-Siberian Railway Car in April 1934 before her trip to Japan and China.

Figure 1: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky in front of the Trans-Siberian Railway Car in April 1934 before her trip to Japan and China.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise”, 1934, Photos, F/CJ/4.

Introduction: A Manuscript Unpublished, 198X

  • 3 This letter is undated, but it was likely written by Schütte-Lihotzky as she sorted her archive, w (...)
  • 4 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Schema für Kindergarten System, Sofia, Bulgaria, 1946,” Vienna (Austr (...)
  • 5 For literature on Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s activism as a political dissident and her time in i (...)
  • 6 The Austrian Holocaust historian and Resistance Studies scholar Gerhard Botz distinguishes between (...)

1“Dear Colleague, May I turn to you to ask for a favor,” wrote the Austrian architect Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky in a letter to an unnamed female Bulgarian architect, likely in the early 1980s.3 In the letter Schütte-Lihotzky explained that she was desperate to obtain documentation of buildings based on her Kindergarten System, a modular architectural system of plans she designed for the municipality of Sofia, Bulgaria, between 1945 and 1947.4 It was during this time, immediately following World War II, that she was able to reunite with her husband, Wilhelm Schütte, after being imprisoned for more than four years for her participation in the Communist Resistance against the Nazi regime.5 Her engagement in what Holocaust and Resistance Studies scholars have coined “collective opposition to the system” and the solidarity which she experienced among female dissidents during internment made her acutely aware of the risks involved in the labor of political resistance and activism.6 It also impressed upon her the power of feminist strategies of uplift as well as architectural and political narratives of new beginnings.

  • 7 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Programm zur Schaffung eines Zentral-Bau-Instituts für Kinderanstalte (...)
  • 8 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Peter Noever and Renate Allmayer-Beck (eds.), Margarete Schütte-Lihotz (...)
  • 9 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Bauten für Kinder: Referat gehalten von Architektin Grete Schütte-Lih (...)
  • 10 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky was elected the first president of the Bund Demokratischer Frauen Öster (...)

2Indeed, by the late 1940s, Schütte-Lihotzky had dedicated herself fully to bettering the lives of women while arguing for the transformational potential of design. Positing that the advancement of women would benefit society at large, she wrote of her Kindergarten System in Sofia, “The growing percentage of the Bulgarian women in production and in all sectors of the public life of the country will make the establishment of children’s institutions increasingly important in the coming years.”7 Children’s institutions, she contended, could contribute to women’s upward social mobility and their success in the workforce. Upon returning to Vienna in 1947, she helped prepare a national meeting of the International Congress of Modern Architecture in Austria (Congrès internationaux d’architecture moderne, or ciam).8 In her lecture for a meeting of the ciam Austria, which took place in 1951, she insisted that Austria was a country of women because it had been reconstructed by women.9 As the newly elected president of the Federation of Democratic Women (Bund demokratischer Frauen Österreichs, bdfö), she further asserted that women were to be the guardians of not only the postwar neutrality of Austria but also peace across Europe.10 By the early 1950s, it thus seemed as if Schütte-Lihotzky had brought into alignment ideas about architecture, feminism, and the emerging international movement for peace and equality in Europe.

  • 11 The majority of the literature on Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s design work focuses on her achievem (...)
  • 12 For a nuanced account of Schütte-Lihotzky’s work in Turkey see, for example, Bernd Nicolai, Modern (...)
  • 13 In her work on Carola Bloch, Mary Pepchinsky was the first scholar to discuss Schütte-Lihotzky’s p (...)

3Today Schütte-Lihotzky’s work has been canonized in the history of architecture for her interwar contributions to modern housing and educational institutions in the cities of Vienna and Frankfurt, most notably her design of the Frankfurt Kitchen.11 Over the past decade, scholars have thoughtfully considered her collectivized kindergartens and nurseries designed in the Soviet Union as well as her plans for rural schools in Turkey in the 1930s.12 Yet only the most recent scholarship has highlighted that Schütte-Lihotzky’s architectural and political efforts spanned more than eight decades. She was actively involved in the Communist Resistance in the 1940s, as well as the Austrian women’s movement, the international peace movement, and organizational labor for architectural associations, such as ciam and the Union of International Architects (uia).13 This historical and historiographical gap can be attributed to Schütte-Lihotzky’s position of marginality in postwar architectural discourse: an aging woman, a former resistance fighter, a communist, and a fearless activist.

  • 14 New research by Monika Platzer has shown that Schütte-Lihotzky was part of a number of exhibitions (...)
  • 15 For a nuanced reflection of Franz Schuster and Roland Rainer, for example, see Monika Platzer, Geg (...)

4By the 1950s, indeed, her position and cultural, political, and financial capital in Vienna had drastically changed. Schütte-Lihotzky’s letter of the early 1980s to the unnamed Bulgarian colleague was a reflection of the many years she had lived in a conservative architectural and institutional world in Austria. While she had worked for the Viennese municipality in the 1920s with kindred thinkers such as the architect Josef Frank and the Austro-Marxist economist Otto Neurath, some thirty years later she was excluded from civic commissions and exhibitions, even though it was a time of vast rebuilding efforts. Exhibitions such as The Woman and her Dwelling (Die Frau und ihre Wohnung, 1950) and Social Culture of Living (Soziale Wohnkultur, 1952) focused on her realm of expertise, but she was not invited.14 Other colleagues joined the ranks of the Viennese municipality as city architects, advancing despite and even because of their age and experience.15 Schütte-Lihotzky, however, an expert on dwellings and educational buildings with a wide range of built work all across Europe, was granted only two substantial commissions by the Social Democratic municipality between the 1950s and the 1980s.

  • 16 Oliver Rathkolb, “Kalter Krieg und politische Propaganda in Österreich,” in Michael Hansel and Mic (...)
  • 17 In the late 1940s and 1950s, Austrian politicians and the Austrian public utilized the so-called v (...)
  • 18 Schütte-Lihotzky personally experienced being ostracized from the architectural community, stating (...)
  • 19 One of the defining historiographical characteristics that emerged when revisiting the role of fem (...)
  • 20 On multiple occasions Schütte-Lihotzky insisted that she was always interested in the built dimens (...)

5Against the backdrop of a growing Cold War divide, the Social Democratic Party of Austria, for which, according to historian Oliver Rathkolb, was “extremely pro-western” and ideologically “stringently anti-communist,” was wary of employing a female communist.16 In postwar Vienna, in fact, former Nazis retained or quickly re-entered municipal positions of power and not only actively ostracized resistance fighters but in some cases explicitly targeted them as proof of the persistently perpetuated postwar lie of Austria as the “Nazis’ first victim.”17 For Schütte-Lihotzky this meant grave isolation from the architectural and intellectual communities to which she belonged. By 1976, she wrote that despite being a “female expert in housing” she had been officially “sidelined by the municipality.”18 It was only in her capacity as president of the bdfö, the women’s organization of the Communist Party of Austria, that she was able to envision an alternative career as a writer, political organizer, and feminist activist. This role allowed her to travel widely in the socialist and communist world.19 And it enabled Schütte-Lihotzky, who never considered herself a writer, to produce new work in architecture as criticism, theory, and architectural photography.20

  • 21 Marcel Bois’s work focusses on Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky as a communist intellectual. He therefor (...)
  • 22 Sibel Bozdoğan, “Nationalizing the Modern House: Regionalism Debates and Emigré Architects in Earl (...)
  • 23 Edward Said, “Reflections on Exile,” in Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures, edit (...)
  • 24 Edward Said, “Freedom from Domination in the Future: Movement and Migrations,” op. cit. (note 2), (...)
  • 25 Ibid., p. 335-336.
  • 26 Ibid.
  • 27 Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges,” op. cit. (note 1), p. 575-599.

6Her relative isolation in Austria, however, was why historian Marcel Bois, in the first scholarly assessment of Schütte-Lihotzky’s postwar work, argues that her life in Austria after 1945 could be characterized as a “second exile,” the result of her status as a “communist intellectual.”21 In this paper, I acknowledge Bois’s critical evocation of “second exile,” while drawing attention to architectural historian Sibel Bozdoğan’s reminder of the distinction between “émigré” and “exile” in the writing of Edward Said.22 While emigration, according to Said, means to leave one’s home behind, exile implies that what was once home has forever disappeared.23 Said subsequently noted that overcoming the love for a single place on earth was a struggle for liberation.24 “The person who finds his homeland sweet is still a tender beginner,” Said noted, evoking the twelfth-century monk, Saint Victor.25 “He to whom every soil is as his native one is already strong; but he is perfect to whom the entire world is as a foreign place.”26 I want to place this idea of viewing the entire world as a foreign place in conversation with a feminist perspective of situated knowledges and partial perspectives proposed by Donna Haraway, which describes “a more adequate, richer, better account of the world in order to live in it well and in critical, reflexive relation to our own as well as others’ practices of domination.”27 Keeping in mind these two propositions, which take instability, transience, and the resistance to boundedness and fixities as their fundamental points of departure, I discuss if and how we can consider Schütte-Lihotzky’s exile and travel—beyond their content—as a feminist practice of seeing.

  • 28 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, e (...)
  • 29 See Katia Frey and Eliana Perotti’s work on female urban theorists' role in modern city planning, (...)
  • 30 Esra Akcan, who first discussed Schütte-Lihotzky’s work in Turkey in great detail, noted that her (...)

7The experiences of exile and travel, indeed, collided in two extended trips Schütte-Lihotzky made to China in 1934 and 1956, which she reflected upon in the book manuscript entitled Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin (China’s Million Cities: Picture and Travel Diary of a Female Architect) in 1958.28 In this essay, I focus on these trips and the book manuscript in an effort to shift architectural history’s emphasis on and discursive fascination with Schütte-Lihotzky’s kitchens to an exploration of complex cultural and political questions about urbanism, feminism, and activism in the postwar years.29 Building on recent scholarship, which has considered Schütte-Lihotzky’s activities beyond Austria and Germany, I pursue the manifold links between her political and design work in China—first in the Republic of China (roc) in 1934 and then the People’s Republic of China (prc) in 1956. I highlight her role as one of the few émigré architects who questioned “smooth translations,” to use architectural historian Esra Akcan’s term, while I acknowledge her complicity in vast “developmental” undertakings in the Soviet Union and China at a moment of great urban transformation.30

  • 31 The Chinese People’s Association for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries was, as the name su (...)
  • 32 Donna Mehos and Suzanne Moon, “The Uses of Portability: Circulating Experts in the Technopolitics (...)
  • 33 I use the term “multiple modernities” as a reference to Edward Denison’s work, who builds on Shmue (...)
  • 34 Many of the architectural diaries, which turned architectural travel guides, are marred with the e (...)

8Throughout the essay, moreover, I want to offer two glimpses into distinct global geo-spatial imaginaries that coincided with China’s efforts to build relationships with “foreign countries.”31 The first foregrounds the quasi-colonial practices of Austrian, German, Swiss, and Dutch architects in the Soviet Union and China in the 1930s, which were part and parcel of advancing Europe’s violent “civilizing mission” before the Second World War. These histories are complicated by the rise of fascism, including China’s New Life Movement, and many European architects’ own precarious conditions of exile and emigration in the late 1930s. The second discussion examines architects as “circulating experts” in the postwar context yet situates the question of “expertise building” in the communist and non-aligned world.32 By looking at the specific condition of China’s own efforts to increase “exchanges” with countries abroad, I argue, we can study flows of power and influence that were not always one directional and indeed bound up with multifaceted challenges about the potentials of communist internationalism and the dangers of overt state propaganda. Yet which perspectives and histories did communist internationalism truly offer a European woman, even if she was aware of how imperialism and colonialism had affected China? For someone who had fought totalitarianism elsewhere, was there an accessible path to understanding multiple modernities in China? Could a privileged white designer escape essentializing views about a richly diverse country, with a complex and rapidly changing urban history if only known to them through travel?33 These complicated questions, which characterized a number of European architects’ diaries and manuals from the 1920s to the 1960s, became bound up in Schütte-Lihotzky’s manuscript Millionenstädte Chinas.34

Figure 2: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, unidentified woman with toddler, spring 1934 (rural China).

Figure 2: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, unidentified woman with toddler, spring 1934 (rural China).

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/262.

“In Russia, too, a lot of misery”: A Travel Dairy as Recommendation, 1934

  • 35 For those Chinese who were born before 1949 and moved to Taiwan after 1949, we followed the Wade-G (...)
  • 36 See, for example, Federica Ferlanti, “The New Life Movement at War: Wartime Mobilisation and State (...)
  • 37 See Frederic Wakeman, “A Revisionist View of the Nanjing Decade: Confucian Fascism,” The China Qua (...)
  • 38 See the full speech in President Chiang Kai-shek’s Selected Speeches and Messages, 1937-1945, Nanj (...)
  • 39 The kmt began to receive aid from the Soviet Union in the early 1920s.

9When Schütte-Lihotzky visited the roc for the first time between May and June 1934, she was invited as a foreign architectural expert on behalf of a Chinese educational delegation working for the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, or kmt) under the politician and military leader Chiang Kai-shek [蒋介石].35 The year 1934 was a critical moment of modernization debates in the kmt, as it marked the emergence of the New Life Movement [新生活运动].36 Incorporating principles of Christianity with Confucianism under a proto-nationalist agenda, the New Life Movement opposed both communism and liberalism. East Asian historians have suggested that the New Life Movement represented a form of “Confucian fascism,” a pivot to far-right mobilization efforts with severe ramifications for everyday life and the law.37 Chiang Kai-shek’s political doctrines of “proper rite, justice, honesty, and shame,” formulated in September of 1934, for example, prompted the reformulation of policies for sanitation, health, and education (most of them eventually unrealized).38 With poverty still sweeping the country and against the backdrop of growing communist support within China among students and an impending Japanese invasion, the kmt was hard-pressed to recruit specialists from foreign countries, including the Soviet Union.39

  • 40 For a discussion of the May Brigade in the Soviet Union, see Thomas Flierl, “‘Possibly the Greates (...)
  • 41 Also see Thomas Flierl, Standardstädte: Ernst May in der Sowjetunion 1930-1933: Texte und Dokument (...)
  • 42 In an interview with Chup Friemert in the introduction to Schütte-Lihotzky’s Memories of the Resis (...)

10In 1934 Schütte-Lihotzky and her husband, Wilhelm Schütte, were both living in Moscow and were part of a group of European architects—the May Brigade—who worked with German planner Ernst May on a number of vast urban and infrastructural projects in the Soviet Union.40 Schütte-Lihotzky, thirty-seven years old, oversaw a unit within a trust named Standartgorprojekt [Стандартгорпроект], tasked with the standardization of dozens of factory kindergartens, while her husband was responsible for school design (fig. 3).41 She travelled widely from Moscow to many parts of the Soviet Union during this time and identified with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s expansive domestic “civilizing mission” (although she was not a party member), an undertaking that was extremely profitable for foreign architects invited to the Soviet Union.42 As articulated in letters and diary entries, she was fascinated by the vast construction efforts and remained uncritical of the extraction of labor and resources from local populations. In 1933, in a letter from the Ural Mountains to her sister, Adele Hanakam, in Vienna, she conveyed her experience of planning the city of Magnitogorsk:

The whole thing creates an unprecedented impression and one understands, when one sees this undertaking, why the Russians always talk about their new “industrial giants.” It is a huge city, a giant industry, and 3 ½ years ago there was still no single telegraph pole!! And all this takes place with these primitive people and all of the unheard-of difficulties which such a backward country has to contend with. Of my educational facilities, a kindergarten and a nursery are under construction. Many male and female Kyrgyz are working in construction and if you want to talk to them, they will merely utter strange sounds and do not understand Russian. [...]  

  • 43 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Letter to Adele Hanakam, Magnitogorsk, 17 March 1933. Private Archives (...)

The view in the evening is especially beautiful, the whole vastness of the land and in its midst the burning blast furnaces. There are 3 huge iron mountains here (bigger than our Erzberg [open-pit ore mine in Austria]). 2 of them are now being excavated, but with these only one layer has been removed, it will take a long time until they look like our Erzberg.43

  • 44 Schütte-Lihotzky often referred to this idea. In the postwar years, she would insist, like Engels (...)

In line with the view of many of her colleagues—and most Soviet planners and politicians—she considered herself part of an immense “developmental” undertaking that ushered in the modernization of the country under the auspices of the Five-Year Plan. Having moved from Germany to the Soviet Union in 1930, she affirmed both state planners’ and the expats’ versions of “development,” under the banner of alleviating “the plight of working class.”44

Figure 3: “Children’s Institute, Bryansk, Plant 13,” Kindergarten and nursery, Bryansk (Soviet Union), 1932.

Figure 3: “Children’s Institute, Bryansk, Plant 13,” Kindergarten and nursery, Bryansk (Soviet Union), 1932.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, 102/6-7/FW.

  • 45 Wilhelm Schütte first met the educational delegation in Germany. See Margarete Schütte-LihotzkyE (...)
  • 46 For general information about this trip, see Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Col (...)

11At the invitation of a kmt educational delegation to the Soviet Union in 1934, both Schütte-Lihotzky and her husband agreed to participate in the roc’s projected modernization program and to apply their knowledge in kindergarten and school design respectively.45 While they declined the offer to work in the roc permanently—likely for political reasons, as I will further outline below—Schütte-Lihotzky agreed she would draft and present recommendations for the design and construction of children’s institutions during an extended tour through the country.46 Under this purview, during a six-week trip she captured observations in a personal written and photographic diary. This visual and textual document focused on the themes of kindergarten, nursery, and school design, and how addressing standardization would allow rapid modernization while retaining regional specificity. The observations were meant to inform written recommendations advanced to the kmt at the end of the trip as well.

  • 47 For a description of Taut’s first arrival in Japan and his correspondence with Shimomura Shōtarō (...)
  • 48 Ueno’s 1948 book タウト著作集 (Taut Collection), dedicated in part to the question of settlements (ジードルン (...)
  • 49 Bernd Nicolai, Moderne und Exil, op. cit. (note 12).

12Before embarking on the official visit to the roc, however, in April of 1934 the couple traveled with the trans-Siberian railway from Moscow to Vladivostok and then by steamship to Japan, with a stop in Korea. Reaching Kyōto on May 3, they arrived in time to celebrate the birthday of their colleague and friend, the architect Bruno Taut. In Kyōto Schütte-Lihotzky and Schütte stayed with Bruno and Erica Taut, who lived permanently at the home of Shimomura Shōtarō [下村正太郎], an architectural connoisseur and businessman and the president of the upscale Daimaru department store.47 In the following days, the two couples went on a number of short trips, at times accompanied by Japanese architect Ueno Isaburō [上野伊三郎] and another foreign design expert, Mr. Wilson (fig. 4).48 Their visits to temples, palaces, and shrines and their extensive travel through the Japanese countryside were signs of the group’s privilege and the capital both couples had at their disposal. Yet the possibility of spending time together was unique and precarious, since the Tauts had been forced to flee Nazi prosecution in Germany in 1933 and had already been living in exile in Japan for months. When Schütte-Lihotzky and Schütte were forced to emigrate in 1937, Taut took it upon himself to find work for them in Turkey.49

Figure 4: Wilhelm Schütte, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Shimomura Shōtarō, Erica Taut, and Bruno Taut (seated), Mr. Wilson (standing), at the house of Shimomura Shōtarō in Kyōto (Japan), 1934.

Figure 4: Wilhelm Schütte, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Shimomura Shōtarō, Erica Taut, and Bruno Taut (seated), Mr. Wilson (standing), at the house of Shimomura Shōtarō in Kyōto (Japan), 1934.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/1.

  • 50 For literature on Bruno Taut and the Berliner Gross-Siedlungen, see Franziska Bollery and Kristian (...)
  • 51 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Von Moskau nach Japan und China und 22 Jahre später das zweite Mal,” (...)
  • 52 I do not mention Taut and Schütte-Lihotzky’s shared views as an attempt to trace flows of influenc (...)
  • 53 Bruno Taut, Bruno Taut in Japan, op. cit. (note 47), p. 48. “Doch wenn ich nachher die kopierten P (...)
  • 54 Bruno Taut, Bruno Taut in Japan, op. cit. (note 47), vol. 2, p. 140.

13Since their time in Germany, Schütte-Lihotzky and Taut had shared a number of political and architectural interests and perspectives, including an attention to the social and lived dimension of design and urbanism (fig. 5). They were both astute observers of the material world and had been committed tosettlement housing in the 1920s, in particular the creation of standardized building elements based on proven typologies in workers’ dwellings.50 Accordingly, throughout the trip in Japan, Schütte-Lihotzky was fascinated by tatami mats, which she understood as modular measurements made form. She was intrigued by the fact that they differed from place to place and that their dimensions had changed over time; as such, they were distinct from “the abstract theoretical meter,” she wrote in her travel observations.51 Similarly, in his 1937 book, Das japanische Haus und sein Leben (The Japanese Home and Its Home Life), Taut insisted that in illustrating Japanese architecture, he “chose subjects for photography that were not extraordinary, but something quite normal and commonplace.”52 However, Taut would sometimes follow such statements with more telling observations, such as, “when I later saw the copied pictures, I had to admit that in spite of all this it was absolutely impossible to keep my friends at home, from seeing first of all the picturesque, the unusual, and the ‘exotic.’”53 Precisely because of his colleagues’ inability to see through his eyes, Taut was wary of visitors; although he enjoyed the time with the “Schüttes,” he confessed in his diary that he wished he could spend more time with Japanese colleagues.54

Figure 5: Postcard of “Elephant Road,” leading towards Xiaoling Mausoleum (Ming Dynasty) Nanjing, purchased by Schütte-Lihotzky in Nanjing (Republic of China), 1934.

Figure 5: Postcard of “Elephant Road,” leading towards Xiaoling Mausoleum (Ming Dynasty) Nanjing, purchased by Schütte-Lihotzky in Nanjing (Republic of China), 1934.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/118.

  • 55 During the trip Schütte-Lihotzky and Schütte also spent considerable time with Bruno Taut in Japan (...)

14While Schütte-Lihotzky’s architectural photography from the 1934 trip indicated an attempt to contextualize the vernacular architecture and cultural monuments of the past with the lived urbanism of the present, she did not abstain from provincializing written remarks. When she arrived with her husband in Beijing on May 19, she sketched and wrote hastily. In photographs and daily diary entries, she captured the 46-day trip from Beijing to Hangzhou, Shanghai, to the capital, Nanjing. In cities she documented buildings and street life, but also people, clothing, and material culture. She was most moved by the vastness, the materials, the colors, and the animation of Chinese landscapes. Yet upon their return, she assembled the pictures according to rubrics and taxonomies.55

Figure 6: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of West Lake, Hangzhou (Republic of China), 1934.

Figure 6: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of West Lake, Hangzhou (Republic of China), 1934.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/189.

15In a diary entry dated May 25, just a few days after arrival, she conveyed her initial enthusiasm in short annotations, such as a description of a boat ride on Hangzhou’s West Lake (fig. 6):

25th. One-and-a-half to two-and-a-half-hour boat ride on West Lake.

  • 56 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Coll (...)

Beautiful boat―very light roof of canvas on two sides, connected to the boat with laces―bamboo furniture―teapot a[nd] cups―canvas hung―beautiful linen a[nd] cotton fabrics―embroidered not printed―lake’s landscape remarkable―everything vaster and more generous than in Japan―2 rowers―houseboats, an island with temple, everything very serious―so much water! ponds―pond plants―small bridge―few flowers but many stones―outstanding stone temples, only dark wood a[nd] white walls, striking color―signs on tablecloth, signs on cups, signs on helms―fantastic and poetic.56

  • 57 Claire Zimmerman and Eve Zimmerman, “Ethnographic Architectural Photography: Futagawa Yukio and Ni (...)
  • 58 Claire Zimmerman and Eve Zimmerman, “Ethnographic Architectural Photography,” op. cit. (note 57), (...)

As evidenced by her hollow references to “signs,” at times she ignored cultural nuances and signification. With her focus on vernacular landscapes and material objects, this form of naturalizing culture into landscape, although laudatory in tone, performed the central tenets of the visual-textual genre of “photographic ethnographies of architecture,” a term coined by architectural historian Claire Zimmerman and Japanese Studies scholar Eve Zimmerman.57 Schütte-Lihotzky even participated in what Zimmerman and Zimmerman describe as the use of “architecture and cities or towns as evidence of the coherence of a group of people.”58 The violence with which she had described workers in the Soviet Union, now extended to architectural photography in China.

  • 59 I want to thank Zheng Xiaodong for his notes on the development of Chinese kindergartens at the be (...)
  • 60 Edward Said, Orientalism, New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1979.
  • 61 Despite our best efforts, we have not been able to make out the location of the temple school depi (...)
  • 62 I want to thank Lawrence Chua for his comments on this image and for reading this article in draft (...)
  • 63 Girls’ schools and women’s colleges were popular in the roc, though co-education was promoted.

16As the trip was substantially shaped by tours of existing modern educational facilitates and visits to temple schools, these tendencies were most pronounced when they concerned children, particularly in rural regions, where many kids in the mid-1930s received primary education in the roc (fig. 7).59 In one of her photos Schütte-Lihotzky perpetuated one of the most vicious forms of othering as theorized by Said, as she deployed her camera against woman and children, re-inscribing structures of violence and unevenness.60 The picture captured a group of little girls with their caregivers set against a temple school, who seem to only uncomfortably pose for the photographer.61 Architectural historian Lawrence Chua, a specialist in Asian architecture and urban culture, regards this imagery as evidence of the wide-spread rural poverty plaguing China in the early 1930s.62 The neat line-up of more than forty women and children, doubtlessly compelled by the “visitors” and their accompanying government bureaucrats, likely implied at least a disruption of daily routines, potentially even intimidating to the all-female group.63 As a foreigner engaged in a vast projected “developmental” undertaking, Schütte-Lihotzky produced such imagery frequently and unquestioningly during the entirety of the trip (fig. 8).

Figure 7: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of temple school in unidentified rural area (Republic of China), 1934.

Figure 7: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of temple school in unidentified rural area (Republic of China), 1934.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/323.

17In her recommendations submitted in June 1934 to the kmt, she was adamant, too, that no matter if educational institutions were located in an urban or rural context, it was crucial to create spaces for small groups of children, even in larger kindergartens, with at least one trained pedagogical staff. Due to the dire need to build new kindergartens, nurseries, and even adult education facilities to raise literacy, she gauged the success of design and construction on the degree of achieved systematization, pointing to the schemes she had developed in the Soviet Union. From Nanjing, in a letter to Wang Shih-chieh [王世杰], the minister of education, she wrote:

  • 64 Letter from Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Wang Shi-chieh [sic], June 16, 1934, p. 1. Vienna (Austr (...)

After visiting many kindergartens in various Chinese cities, I have concluded that it will be necessary to review the questions of the organization, construction, and establishment of kindergartens in the near future and to systematically work through design schemes. Only through the systematic execution of all fundamental preparations will the construction of kindergartens with the existing means be truly economical.64

  • 65 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Coll (...)

When displaying confidence as an invited “expert,” Schütte-Lihotzky had in reality only modestly prepared for the trip and had limited understanding of the actualities upon which she was asked to advise. The tightly controlled framework of the trip, with multiple schools visits a day, left little room for critical analysis.65

Figure 8: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of schoolgirls in uniform and modern schools (Republic of China), 1934.

Figure 8: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of schoolgirls in uniform and modern schools (Republic of China), 1934.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/292-295.

  • 66 I want to thank Daniel Talesnik, who lectured on foreign architects in the Soviet Union and noted (...)
  • 67 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Richtlinien für den Bau von Kindergärten in China,” p. 4-5. Vienna (A (...)

18At certain crucial junctures, however, she veered away from the strict universalizing assertions of standardization and claimed that local and collaborative design expertise were cornerstones for the overall success of the projects. She noted, for example, that resident architects, knowledgeable about diverse regional building techniques and existing building typologies, should lead all projects. Drawing on experience from the Soviet Union, she held that types—standardized plans and measurements for nurseries and kindergartens—had to be adapted to local building customs.66 Although she incorporated programmatic ideas she had probed in kindergarten and nursery designs in Russia—a medical station for sick children at the entrance of a kindergarten she had designed for Bryansk, for example—she argued that importing European and American building techniques should be avoided where they meant complicated and costly construction undertakings. Lastly, she focused on architecture’s relationships to existing surroundings and climate. “The old, locally customary construction, which is open to nature yet protects spaces from the sun, will have to form the basis of the architectural design without copying previous styles,” she noted, having analyzed existing courtyard typologies employed in rural school designs.67

Figure 9: Postcard of “Foochow Road” (Fuzhou Road), Shanghai, purchased by Schütte-Lihotzky in Shanghai (Republic of China), 1934.

Figure 9: Postcard of “Foochow Road” (Fuzhou Road), Shanghai, purchased by Schütte-Lihotzky in Shanghai (Republic of China), 1934.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/170.

19By 1934, many architects shared the belief that adapting architecture to local climatic conditions was critical and that vernacular forms of building should be incorporated into the language of modern architecture. It is noteworthy, however, that Schütte-Lihotzky’s photos reveal an additional emphasis on history, culture, and everyday life. Such concerns were not as common in the work of other modern architects in Austria, Germany, or the Soviet Union. To document the immense artistic accomplishments of China, furthermore, Schütte-Lihotzky created series of photos recording monuments, infrastructure, and domestic architecture in urban settings, amidst the traffic and bustle of daily life (fig. 9). She noted how people managed their daily routines in cities and rural regions with conventional means of transportation but also by embracing the newest technologies in bus and rail services. She highlighted the working conditions of urban laborers and those in the countryside and took note of the role of young people and the elderly in the production of housing. Unlike Taut, for whom both high art and architecture’s vernacular simplicity, with an eye towards the aesthetics of craft, were critical, Schütte-Lihotzky was excited about the liveliness of metropolitan life in Chinese cities and technological progress, which by default meant acknowledging the multiplicity of modernity.

  • 68 Claire Zimmerman and Eve Zimmerman, “Ethnographic Architectural Photography,” op. cit. (note 57), (...)
  • 69 See, for example, photos 265-273, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and (...)

20Through this attention to everyday life, she perceived history and culture not as something of the past, but as constantly in flux, changing, and alterable. It is what set her imagery apart from the most severe provincializing assertions of photographic ethnographies of architecture, in which “buildings serve as metonyms for the nameless people who built and inhabited them over time,” as Zimmerman and Zimmerman outline.68 Indeed, even more than musing about future school designs, she studied existing children’s furniture and play structures, as well as the landscapes of childhood as inhabited by grandparents, parents, and kids (fig. 10).69 Bent bamboo furniture for children and strollers with foldable and woven elements from split bamboo seemed to have been of particular interest to her, because they drew on local materials, proven techniques of craftsmanship, and a modern formal vocabulary (fig. 11). The theme of reconciling China’s past and present was thus prominent in her writing, and notably, in a few of her sketches as well. Through them she endeavored to gain insight about the daily experience of children and young people in educational institutions, their workplaces, and their roles in everyday life. Through her focus on the usage of everyday objects by people and through their inclusion in lively photographs, she seemed—if only for a moment—to evade otherwise pervasive forms of objectification and essentializing of people.

Figure 10: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of children, Beijing (Republic of China), 1934.

Figure 10: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of children, Beijing (Republic of China), 1934.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/266, F/CJ/269-71.

  • 70 During the trip she spent considerable time with both the minister of education, Wang Shih-chieh, (...)
  • 71 In a letter to her sister, Adele Hanakam, Schütte-Lihotzky articulated that Wilhelm Schütte was th (...)
  • 72 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Coll (...)
  • 73 Edward Denison, Architecture and the Landscape of Modernity, London; New York, NY: Routledge, 2017 (...)

21Recounting receptions with local, municipal, and state officials, among them a luncheon with the minister of education, Wang Shih-chieh, and a dinner with the minister of transportation and communication, Chu Chia-hua [朱家骅], Schütte-Lihotzky further acquainted herself with modernization and education debates in the roc.70 Chu, who had received his doctorate in Berlin, insisted in a private conversation that students—from kindergartners to college students—should not spend too much time in abstract curricula or abroad.71 Rather they should be quickly tasked with the concrete objectives of building the country. “We could not agree more,” Schütte-Lihotzky noted in her diary, stressing proudly that she was the only female “expert” in the room.72 Although these debates were led in the highest echelons of society and thus cannot be understood to reflect broader societal concerns of ordinary citizens, through these discussions Schütte-Lihotzky was able to engage in existing architectural debates on modernization in the roc. According to architectural historian Edward Denison, among these were how to “pursue modernity in an urban context while retaining Chinese characteristics” and how to “reconcile a modern future with China’s past.”73 Placed before planners and architects that presented the persistent paradox of the time.

  • 74 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Coll (...)
  • 75 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Coll (...)

22Yet it appears that the experience of the sustained visit in the roc facilitated a slight rethinking of the plight of ordinary people—the porters, day laborers, and agricultural workers, whose suffering Schütte-Lihotzky perceived to be insurmountable and not sufficiently addressed by the political representatives. “A meager cow on the street, then again a large boxy building—the new court, etc., appears, then the so-called Potsdamerplatz—some shops in newer houses, more vacant lots in between, temples, then to our hotel,” she wrote, while reflecting on the discrepancy between the urban scenery and her travel to luxury hotels.74 “All austerity and all the chaos that exists in Russia,” she further asserted, “which is the byproduct of any tremendous development is generally accepted [here in China] for [the promise of] a marvelous intellectual and material development of the country—awakening of the masses.”75 This recognition of and solidarity with the plight of Chinese workers did not change the fundamentally colonial world view that structured her thinking, as is evidenced in the use of galling racial epithets in diary notes (which I have left out in the English translation). A few days before departure she described the landscape she saw from the window in transit.

  • 76 In what follows I have chosen to omit the racial epithet Schütte-Lihotzky used, since I am not int (...)

Yet is there a counterbalance that will set the unfavorable record straight? We will see. For the time being, it seems to me that the ****76 of today is just as much the **** of yesterday—with a materially and intellectual reality that is bleak a[nd] without a future. For him nothing is being done directly (merely school construction), no housing is being built, no liberation of the masses, no inclusion in the great tasks of the country.

  • 77 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Coll (...)

“In Russia, too, there is a lot of material misery,” she concluded, “but in Russia there exists a future, an awakening, a counterbalance, a[nd] means for reparation.”77

  • 78 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Coll (...)
  • 79 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Chinareise 1934, Vienna (Austria), University of Appli (...)

23As she departed, she did grow increasingly suspicious of the fascist dimensions of the educational reforms she had herself been part of.78 “Pioneers march in the streets. All boys in schools will become pioneers starting on July 10—they participate in military exercises. Not voluntary,” she added.79 That the endeavor of an atavistic modernization effort in education in itself had potential doctrinaire implications, as the regularized marching of school children in photographs showed as well, did not occur to Schütte-Lihotzky at the time. She only recognized the concept of mass ornament fully, which Siegfried Kracauer had already articulated in 1927, when she witnessed the rise of Fascism in Europe three years thereafter. As a parting gift, her cultural liaison and translator during the trip, who possibly sensed her sobered attitude, asked her not to write anything negative about the roc abroad.

  • 80 Taut’s rhetoric that I described above is evident in this quote as well. Taut’s impression of the (...)

24Taut, who saw the “Schüttes” again when they returned via Japan, remarked in his diary “they are very disappointed, old China is merely a museum (even Beijing, despite its large dimensions).”80 He noted that Schütte-Lihotzky’s impression was of a state that lacked sufficient financial resources and private initiatives. In a letter to her sister, Adele Hanakam, Schütte-Lihotzky confirmed Taut’s impression of the trip, noting that people in China were not willing to take private risks in design and construction.

Figure 11: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, children’s furniture, bent bamboo, Beijing (Republic of China), 1934.

Figure 11: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, children’s furniture, bent bamboo, Beijing (Republic of China), 1934.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/267-68

  • 81 Wang Shih-chieh, The Diary of Dr. Wang Shih-chieh [王世杰日记], edited by Lin Meili, Taipei: Institute (...)
  • 82 Ibid., p. 15-16.

25The minister of education, Wang, conceived the dire financial situation and the resulting problems for the educational system similarly. In his own diary, Wang wrote in 1935, “last year, the total investments in educational facilities were far below my expectations; neither the central government nor local authorities could increase much the budget for education, so it was difficult for any plan to be fully implemented.”81 He admitted that there was a vast discrepancy between higher education and primary education as funds could not be raised to fulfill the promised reforms. “It remains very hard for me to draw up the education budget for the next year; particularly, since each institute of higher education is asking for a strong increase,” he wrote.82

I think the increased education budget from the government should be allocated more to compulsory education in the future. There is no lack of lobbyists for universities and colleges but very few agents for primary schools despite their wider significance; therefore, it is the duty of the Ministry of Education to insist on increasing their budget.

Wang thus articulated a nuanced view that addressed pervasive class differences and social unevenness in education.

26It is not clear if Schütte-Lihotzky’s architectural practice in the Soviet Union upon her return was altered by her insights into the educational reforms in China or the recommendations she developed for Wang. Based on the stark contrast she emphasized between modernization in the ussr and the roc, it seems likely she felt that the latter had still a lot of “catching up” to do. Yet, with her attention to the lived aspects of urbanism, Schütte-Lihotzky did question processes of modernization, transformation, and translation, while considering multiple histories, presents, and futures.

Figure 12: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Hans Schmidt, “Highchair for Children, Convertible into Chair with Folding Table,” Children’s Furniture for Apartments, Moscow (Soviet Union), 1935–1936.

Figure 12: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Hans Schmidt, “Highchair for Children, Convertible into Chair with Folding Table,” Children’s Furniture for Apartments, Moscow (Soviet Union), 1935–1936.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, PRNR 119/11.

27Her trip inspired consequent designs, in an independent commission, outside the Soviet trust, drawing on woven, bent, and foldable bamboo furniture for children she had photographed. In a collaboration with Swiss architect Hans Schmidt for the newly founded Academy of Architecture of the ussr in Moscow [Всесоюзная академия архитектуры], the two May Brigade colleagues combined the stringent standardization of type furniture they had employed in the trusts, now foldable, with the colorful but sober quotidian objects for kids that Schütte-Lihotzky had encountered in that bent bamboo furniture (fig. 12). This furniture, after all, symbolized what Schütte-Lihotzky revered most and through which she had formulated an earnest critique of the roc’s modernization efforts: the ingenuity of citizens, whose creativity, she thought, was necessary in the great tasks required for the transformation of an entire country. Indeed, this was a creativity that she not only benevolently sought to advance on behalf of others in the context of working for government bureaucracies, but in solidarity with them. While such a realization did not change her political view of the Soviet Union’s domestic “civilizing mission,” it foreshadowed her willingness to eventually take action against the state and on her own accord, out of her own volition, and in open resistance with other “comrades.” Only three years later, she joined the clandestine Communist Resistance in Turkey.

  • 83 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “1934 von Moskau nach Japan und China und 22 Jahre später das zweite m (...)
  • 84 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Von Moskau nach Japan und China und 22 Jahre später das zweite mal,” (...)

28Due to the uneven funding for education and the outbreak of war, the kmt’s overall modernization program faltered in the late 1930s, and Schütte-Lihotzky’s recommendations to Wang, as well as the minister’s own plans, remained unrealized.83 On July 7, 1937, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident prompted the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Second World War in Asia; in 1945, the Chinese Civil War begun and lasted until 1949. When Schütte-Lihotzky visited China again in 1956, the roc’s politicians had been driven out of mainland China and had reconstituted themselves in Taiwan, and the country had been dramatically changed through the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (prc). Nevertheless, her observations from 1934 continued to inform her reflections on China in 1956, as her lecture that year, “1934 from Moscow to Japan and China and 22 Years Later the Second Time in China,” would show.84 The eventual book manuscript, Millionenstädte Chinas, which she considered a professional manual for architects in Europe, once again, was not free from the violence of creating learnable formal taxonomies of architecture either. In it, her former focus on children’s institutions, standardization, culture, and regionalism shifted to housing, preservations debates, and urbanization in an even more rapidly modernizing China.

Figure 13: Photo of unidentified woman in a kitchen in Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 13: Photo of unidentified woman in a kitchen in Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, F/CH/316.

“70,000 spindles, almost 200 looms”: Lectures according to Plan, 1956

  • 85 See, for example, “Exhibition of the History of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship wi (...)
  • 86 For all Chinese who stayed in mainland China after 1949, we follow the pinyin system to transliter (...)
  • 87 Recent literature on Zhou Enlai’s approaches to diplomacy has even suggested that for a brief peri (...)
  • 88 With special organizations for China’s “friendship” with India and Burma, China’s goal to gain inf (...)

29Schütte-Lihotzky’s second visit to China in 1956 was part of a vast cultural and diplomatic undertaking spearheaded by the Chinese People’s Association for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (cpacrfc, 中国人民对外友好协会).85 The cpacrfc was founded under the patronage of Premier Zhou Enlai [周恩来] with the goal to bring thousands of politicians, humanists, scientists, and artists to visit China.86 Inaugurated in April of 1954, only a month after the Geneva Conference in Switzerland and just before Zhou’s participation in the Asian African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia, in 1955, the cpacrfc reinforced the Premier’s role as a skilled diplomat on the world stage.87 It boosted China’s role in global diplomacy, allowing it to draw upon the potentials of soft power—like the United States—to foster cultural exchange and international friendships. In an increasingly fraught Cold War context, the cpacrfc strengthened China’s relations with certain Western countries and supported its prominent role in the Non-Aligned Movement (nam).88

  • 89 Anonymous, “庆祝‘五一’国际劳动节 周总理举行酒会招待外宾” [In Celebration of May 1, International Workers’ Day, Prime M (...)
  • 90 Anonymous, In Celebration of May 1, op. cit. (note 89).
  • 91 Anonymous, “国际民主妇联理事会北京会议闭幕 号召全世界妇女在保卫和平和保卫妇女权利的斗争中加强团结和合作” [The Beijing Conference of Women’s Int (...)

30At the national level, the cpacrfc was tasked with inviting cultural and political delegations from all over the world and entertaining them in the prc, particularly during and in anticipation of the holiday festivities of May 1 (International Workers’ Day) and October 1 (National Day of the People’s Republic of China).89 The cpacrfc maintained local chapters in all large cities and upheld networks of representatives in rural areas, which welcomed visitors and lobbied for distinct national and geopolitical issues. In the days leading up to the May 1 celebrations in 1956, for example, over 1,000 people from more than 50 countries participated, although not necessarily all were invited solely by the cpacrfc.90 The All-China Democratic Women’s Federation (acdwf), one of the ten organizations represented in the cpacrfc, held a meeting in Beijing that was attended by 183 guests from 48 countries.91 Its aim was to place the advancement of women in China and globally at the forefront of diplomacy. As president of the bdfö, Schütte-Lihotzky was a special guest of both the acdwf and the cpacrfc.

  • 92 The group included a zoologist, Wilhelm Marinelli, a professor at the University of Vienna, and hi (...)
  • 93 The group departed in Vienna on September 4 with a stop in Moscow, and arrived in Vienna on Octobe (...)
  • 94 For the communication between Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wang Yi (Yee), the designated female (...)

31The Austrian delegation that travelled to the prc in the fall of 1956 consisted of eight people—all relatively prominent scientists, humanists, and artists.92 With the exception of Schütte-Lihotzky, all were men who held tenure at universities and museums. Together they stayed at least three weeks, but Schütte-Lihotzky remained longer than most, from September 8 to October 14—more than six weeks.93 The official end of the multi-week trip was marked by the invitation of all travelers to present lectures on their respective concentrations and fields of expertise.94

  • 95 Christine Zwingl, Werkverzeichnis, Unpublished, accessible only at Vienna (Austria), University of (...)
  • 96 Letter from Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Victoria Maier, December 30, 1956, p. 2. Private archive (...)
  • 97 Please see my forthcoming book on Schütte-Lihotzky’s participation in the Communist resistance for (...)
  • 98 The architect Victoria Ines Maier Mayer went by different names in the 1930s and the 1950s respect (...)

32At the time of the visit, Schütte-Lihotzky had just finished two relatively prominent architectural commissions in Vienna, a municipal kindergarten and the redesign and extension of the Globus Haus with Wilhelm Schütte, the Communist Party of Austria’s official editorial office and publishing house (fig. 14).95 After the early 1950s, such design opportunities became increasingly rare for Schütte-Lihotzky; to obtain architectural commissions became a question of “basic existence.”96 As the marriage with Schütte faltered in 1952, so too did their architectural partnership, slowly. The long separation during World War II and the trauma she experienced in internment had left their marks on the marriage.97 In a letter to her former fellow resistance fighter, the architect Victoria Maier, who now lived in Santiago de Chile, Schütte-Lihotzky confided in 1956,98

  • 99 Letter from Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Victoria Maier, December 30, 1956, p. 2. Private archive (...)

I am content that your life has been happy. This cannot be said for most of us, that is, our friends in suffering. I assume you know that my marriage has fallen apart; I have very difficult years behind me and the prospect of a lonely old age is not a nice one. But my present life, which I fashion as happy and enjoyable as possible, is, of course, 1,000 times more preferable than to vegetate in an unhappy marriage.99

  • 100 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht, Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Appli (...)

33The visit to the prc, a few months before she turned 60, was a welcome distraction, and more importantly, an activity closely aligned with the political objectives of the Communist Party of Austria and the Communist Party of China (cpc). From the outset, the Communist Party of Austria and cpacrfc anticipated forming a Chinese-Austrian Society, whose members would publish and exhibit work about China in their respective fields.100 Schütte-Lihotzky served as the instrumental liaison between the two political organizations, acting both as political organizer and architect.

Figure 14: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wilhelm Schütte, “Globus Haus” Renovation, Print and Publishing House, Austrian Communist Party, Vienna (Austria), 1953–1956.

Figure 14: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wilhelm Schütte, “Globus Haus” Renovation, Print and Publishing House, Austrian Communist Party, Vienna (Austria), 1953–1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Photos, 188/18/FW.

  • 101 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of (...)
  • 102 Hans Schmidt was one of Schütte-Lihotzky’s closest friends in the May Brigade, with whom she was a (...)

34Although the delegation traveled by plane to the prc in 1956, their journey was long and a forty-eight hour stop in Moscow instilled Schütte-Lihotzky with melancholy. “Now, when I am so suddenly flying over Soviet land, it feels as if somehow, after 19 years, I am coming home. On August 12, 1937, I left the Soviet Union in Odessa, and today, after more than 19 years, I enter the Soviet Union again for the first time,” she wrote in her travel diary.101 She then recalled the beginning of her friends’ routes to emigration and how in 1937 her colleague, Hans Schmidt, attempted to look with optimism toward the uncertain future that awaited them:102

  • 103 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of (...)

I remember exactly how the ship in Odessa left from the shores. Hans Schmidt, who stood on deck with me, said ironically: “Well, at least we are done with that,” to cope with the anxiety. And he and I stayed on deck until the city lights disappeared. 7 years of life in the Soviet Union—an era had come to an end. A period of life was now over which was to influence the entire basis of the rest of our lives. One does not live without consequences in another world for 7 years.—And now, after almost 2 decades... memories are mounting. Compared with how it was when I left it, how different is the life-situation, the stage of development, this country, which I again enter.103

She had no words to describe the “mounting memories” of loss she and her friends had endured since. Arguably, the ambiguity of subject in the last sentence was not incidental either—both she herself and the Soviet Union had forever changed.

  • 104 Ibid.

35Once in Moscow, a city with which she was intimately familiar, she was gratified to be needed as a translator for fellow travelers. The group was greeted by the first cpacrfc official, who led the group to the airport and onto the next plane. After a series of flights with almost a dozen stops—Budapest, Lviv, Kiev, Moscow, and then Kazan, Sverdlovsk, Omsk, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, and the Gobi Desert—the group arrived in Beijing on September 8, 1956.104 Normally afraid of flying, Schütte-Lihotzky was ecstatic about the exceptionality of the landscape, while describing the local population she spotted on the desert airfield in the same foreignizing terms as she had portrayed the Kyrgyz laborers in Magnitogorsk in 1934:

  • 105 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956, (6.9.1956),” Vienna (Austria), Un (...)

The plane begins to tremble, then rises higher and higher, up to 3,500 m, and comes out of the storm, but it still trembles intensely despite glorious sunshine and the clearest visibility. No one is nauseous, we are all animated by the beauty of the flight—we approach the Gobi Desert, there are yurts and herds still but then they become fewer and fewer, still a few rivers and streams, then all life stops—and we land in the middle of the desert, where we fill up [the plane]. It is not a real airfield, of course, no air terminal there, we just land on a bit more solid sand—sand, sand, and only sand in sight again—primitive, barrack-like huts, in some distance 2 yurts, but we do not have time to see them, we are dazed by this desert storm, everyone puts a stone of the desert into their pockets as memory, we see some Mongolians and climb as fast as possible into the plane, so we do not blow away.105

  • 106 Donna Mehos and Suzanne Moon, “The Uses of Portability: Circulating Experts in the Technopolitics (...)

This distant and privileged view, a view from above in Donna Haraway’s sense, initially defined Schütte-Lihotzky’s perspective on China as well. Yet, in the following weeks, this world view was complicated by the efforts to build relationships with China as well as the Austrian delegation’s participation in positive messaging about the People’s Republic abroad. Schütte-Lihotzky was adamant, furthermore, about questioning and critically examining China’s semi-colonial subjugation by foreign powers, a lens shaped by communist rhetoric. On the other hand, with the goal to produce a text intended for “professional audiences” in Europe, Schütte-Lihotzky functioned not unlike a “circulating expert”—a term coined by science and technology studies scholars Suzanne Moon and Donna Mehos to denote the widespread deployment of universalizing technopolitical strategies in the decolonizing postwar world.106

  • 107 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht, Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Appli (...)
  • 108 The group arrived in Beijing on September 8 and was officially welcomed by the cpacrfc on Septembe (...)
  • 109 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Zeitschrift Tagebuch (given 14.1.1957),” Vienna (Austria), U (...)

36The five-week trip in 1956 was no less an official affair than the one in 1934. Photographs and journal notes, which all visitors were asked to keep in preparation for lectures to be held in Austria upon return, exposed its overtly political nature. Upon arrival the group was received by Beijing’s cpacrfc organization and assigned an official liaison, Mrs. Lee, as well as three other translators (fig. 15).107 At each consequent stop, from Beijing to Nanjing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Wuhan, and back, the group was welcomed by local cpacrfc organizations and put in touch with additional hosts to show visitors around according to their specific field of expertise.108 Overall, prearranged cultural programming was of such a dizzying intensity—with multiple activities running in parallel each day—that sightseeing tours were scheduled for the morning, the afternoon, and the evening. Visiting cultural institutions, construction sites, and large infrastructural developments, including dams, bridges, and coal and petroleum plants, the Austrian delegation was presented with a plethora of architecture and urban strategies spun in a narrative of communist progress. Schütte-Lihotzky summarized the trips as a slew of quickly altering stimulations: “Architecture and urbanism, buildings, parks, fine arts, academies, exhibitions, museums, visits to scientific institutes, zoological gardens, […], a factory, a village, pioneer houses, Institute for Natural Resources, Institute of National Minorities, etc., etc. In the evening: opera, films, variety shows, performers, national dances, marionette theatre etc.”109

Figure 15: The Austrian delegation with their Chinese liaison in front of the Wuhan Yangtze River Bridge (under construction), among them Schütte-Lihotzky (second from left in the first row), Sergius Pauser (third from left in the back), Viktor Griessmaier (fourth from right), Mrs. Lee (second from right), Wuhan (People’s Republic of China), likely September 27, 1956.

Figure 15: The Austrian delegation with their Chinese liaison in front of the Wuhan Yangtze River Bridge (under construction), among them Schütte-Lihotzky (second from left in the first row), Sergius Pauser (third from left in the back), Viktor Griessmaier (fourth from right), Mrs. Lee (second from right), Wuhan (People’s Republic of China), likely September 27, 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/251.

37Although the trip was highly scripted, each traveler had separate itineraries and routes of travel as well. This allowed the visitors to spend time together and apart, sometimes for hours and other times for a few days. Certain excursions were scheduled to attract multiple people with similar fields of expertise; the two travelers most closely aligned with her own interests—the artist Sergius Pauser and the art historian Viktor Griessmaier—visited multiple sites with Schütte-Lihotzky over a few weeks. Pauser was a professor at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna and Griessmaier specialized in Chinese art and was the director of the Museum of Applied Arts in Vienna. All three of them visited multiple museums and exhibits together, but they were all enthralled by the Central Academy of Fine Arts [中央美术学院] and the Nanjing Institute of Technology [南京工学院]. For the purpose of this essay, in what follows, I focus predominantly on Schütte-Lihotzky’s itinerary.

Figure 16: Children’s Hospital designed by architect Léon Hoa, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 16: Children’s Hospital designed by architect Léon Hoa, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise” 1956, Photos, F/CH/199.

  • 110 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of (...)
  • 111 Over the last years there have been a number of crucial exhibitions and publications that have hig (...)
  • 112 For literature on Léon Hoa see, for example, Luo Zhi, An Alternative Path Architect Léon Hoa and h (...)
  • 113 Shen Bo’s original name was Zhang Yuling [张豫苓]. After joining the CPC, he used the name of Shen Bo (...)
  • 114 Qiran Shang and I were unable to locate records for the female architects Chang Ching Tschan and C (...)

38Aside from the trips with the Austrian cultural group, indeed, the schedule organized for Schütte-Lihotzky targeted three of her main interests specifically: architecture, politics, and women’s rights. In anticipation of the trip, Schütte-Lihotzky had been provided with a document enumerating prominent Chinese architects and urbanists as well as their respective addresses.110 The document clarified the contacts’ educational backgrounds—where they had studied, and in which language to converse (French, English, and German). While the document was meant as a practical outline of the visit, the list also exemplified the international outreach China’s influential cultural actors enjoyed at least since the turn of the century.111 In Beijing, Chinese French architect Léon Hoa [华揽洪], a prominent designer who had trained with Le Corbusier, for example, received Schütte-Lihotzky, and in the following days, she toured Léon’s recently completed modern Children’s Hospital in Beijing (fig. 16).112 Her meetings with other municipal planners further introduced her to the development of new housing projects, educational facilities, and health care institutions. Through extended discussions with the deputy director of the Institute of Architectural Design of Beijing’s City Planning and Administration Bureau [北京市规划管理局设计院], Shen Bo [沈勃], Schütte-Lihotzky was familiarized with ongoing urban planning debates in Beijing, notably questions of the city’s rapid expansion, the appeal for preservation, and the increasing need for housing.113 Two female architects responsible for city planning and educational institutions also showed Schütte-Lihotzky their work (fig. 17).114

Figure 17: Shen Bo (middle), deputy director of the Institute of Architectural Design of Beijing’s City Planning and Administration Bureau with two unidentified planners, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 17: Shen Bo (middle), deputy director of the Institute of Architectural Design of Beijing’s City Planning and Administration Bureau with two unidentified planners, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/260.

  • 115 We have inferred this by cross-referencing Schüte-Lihotzky’s annotations and descriptions of the A (...)
  • 116 For literature on Cai Chang see, for example, Helen Rappaport, “Cai Chang,” Encyclopedia of Women (...)
  • 117 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag (Frauen), Volksbildungshaus (given 10.12.1956),” Vienna (Aust (...)
  • 118 Cai Chang, “How to Develop Women’s Organizations in the Bases of the Resistance against Japanese A (...)

39In her function as president of the bdfö, Schütte-Lihotzky met with Cai Chang [蔡畅], the president of the acdwf, and Zhang Yun [章蕴], the organization’s General Secretary (fig. 18).115 Conversations with these politicians introduced her to the historical struggles and attainments of women in the prc—a theme she would take up in lectures in Vienna upon her return. A women’s rights advocate from an early age, Cai herself had fought for the abolishment of arranged marriage, which was written into a landmark law in 1930.116 By 1956, Cai was one of China’s prominent cultural leaders, heading an organization that—according to the statistics provided to Schütte-Lihotzky—had 140 million members, seven million active organizers, and 125 representatives, forty from China’s ethnic minorities.117 “The All-China Democratic Women’s Federation or the Women’s National Salvation Federation should be the mass organization that unites women from all classes and advocates for the benefits of women from all classes,” Cai had written already in 1942.118 She further outlined the program:

All the work should be based on “fairness and justifiableness” and should both safeguard the rights and interests of the poorest laboring women and recognize those benefits of women from other classes; both focus on the improvement of the living conditions and education of poor women who were oppressed by society and shackled by religion, and promote the improvement of the status of women from other classes.

  • 119 For concise histories in women’s studies focusing on China, see, for example, Gail Hershatter, Emi (...)
  • 120 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag (Frauen), Volksbildungshaus (given 10.12.1956),” Vienna (Aust (...)

40Women’s studies scholars focusing on China, such as Gail Hershatter, Tao Jie, Zheng Bijun, and Shirley Mow, have shown that Mao Zedong’s [毛泽东] own statement that “women hold up half the sky” was indeed fraught, even in the early prc, with complex questions about class, ethnicity, and stark differences between women’s labor and social status in cities and in the country.119 In fact, some of these questions would come markedly to the fore during the visits with women’s organizations throughout the country which the cpacrfc helped organize. While visit to a “pioneer house” in Shanghai, for example, under the patronage of another prominent women’s rights advocate, Soong Ching-ling [宋庆龄], left Schütte-Lihotzky’s deeply impressed with how much had been realized for women and young mothers throughout the prc, other trips were more sobering.120

Figure 18: Schütte-Lihotzky (left) with the president, Cai Chang (right), and the general secretary, Zhang Yun (second from right), of the All-China Democratic Women’s Federation, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), likely September 13, 1956.

Figure 18: Schütte-Lihotzky (left) with the president, Cai Chang (right), and the general secretary, Zhang Yun (second from right), of the All-China Democratic Women’s Federation, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), likely September 13, 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/171.

  • 121 Ibid., p. 3.
  • 122 Ibid.
  • 123 Ibid.
  • 124 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Zeitschrift Tagebuch (Ehrbarsaal),” Vienna (Austria), Univer (...)
  • 125 Ibid.

41A perplexing experience, for example, was the excursion to an agricultural collective, where she learned that many women had turned to self-help, spearheading efforts to create health clinics in rural areas. Overall, she found herself supportive with the women’s spirit of self-help.121 Yet she acknowledged that even if the infant mortality rate had been lowered from 11.7 percent to 4.4 percent between 1950 and 1956, it was still “very high.”122 Schütte-Lihotzky also considered hopeful a ‘small teachers’ campaign,” an effort to organize adult literacy by enlisting young children to instruct their parents.123 Even an inspection in a textile factory in Shanghai with 4,500 workers—64 percent of them women—was cause for excitement: “Belonged formerly to the Japanese,” she wrote, “today nationalized, [this] explains the 6% dividend.” She continued: “70,000 spindles, almost 200 looms―working in three shifts for export to England, Japan, India, Indonesia. Yarns and cloths.” This emphasis on the self-determined relationships with England, Japan, India, and Indonesia indicates Schütte-Lihotzky’s knowledge of the semi-colonial and colonial histories that had characterized modernization debates in the prc. But the limits to the cpc’s willingness to improve the conditions of the working poor should have been clear during that visit to a factory of 4,500 people. “Social Institutions: Since 1951, 500 apartments have been built, a nursery for 400 children / three shifts. Evening schools for illiterate workers,” she wrote.124 As an architect, who had been accustomed to thinking in economies of scale, she must have known that 500 apartments for 4,500 workers were not nearly enough.125

Figure 19: Tanka Prasad Acharya, Mao Zedong, and Sukarno, at Tiananmen (People’s Republic of China), or the Gate of Heavenly Peace on October 1, 1956.

Figure 19: Tanka Prasad Acharya, Mao Zedong, and Sukarno, at Tiananmen (People’s Republic of China), or the Gate of Heavenly Peace on October 1, 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/268.

  • 126 In a note in her lecture, she suggested that Ernesto Rogers was also in attendance. Margarete Schü (...)

42What doubtlessly made the biggest impression on the entire delegation of Austrians in that fall of 1956 were the political spectacles surrounding the visit, culminating in the parades of October 1, following a private but vast reception with Zhou Enlai. The reception took place on the eve of the national festivities on September 30. Cultural delegations from all over the world had come to Beijing for this event. A large group of fifty people accompanied Sukarno, the first president of Indonesia. Tanka Prasad Acharya [टंक प्रसाद आचार्य], the prime minister of Nepal, was in attendance as well. During the reception, Schütte-Lihotzky met a colleague, the Italian architect Ernesto Nathan Rogers, who had come to Beijing with another cultural delegation from Europe, a group from Milan.126 Rogers’s presence at the reception demonstrated how actively and carefully the cpacrfc had selected cultural delegation members, since Rogers, too, had been a resistance fighter and maintained close affiliations with the Partito Comunista Italiano.

  • 127 See note 115. Since Schütte-Lihotzky is using German transliteration of Chinese names we have reta (...)

43Branding Zhou himself as a unique, compassionate leader, Schütte-Lihotzky described the reception somewhat naively: “Tschu En Lai gave a short speech! From it only one sentence: ‘We sincerely ask our friends from different countries to give us suggestions for the improvement of our work, and to criticize us where necessary, so that with us any inclination to the chauvinism and complacency of a big nation will end!’ What foreign minister speaks in such modest words?”127 What made the greatest impression on her was not the ceremony, but Zhou’s geopolitical outlook.

Figure 20: Communist Parade in Beijing celebrating the arrival of new housing, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 20: Communist Parade in Beijing celebrating the arrival of new housing, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/330.

  • 128 For the construction of this colossal architecture, see my notes 158 and 159.
  • 129 I refer here to three intersecting concepts of mass ornament (Kracauer), provincializing (Said), a (...)

44Before the conclusion of the trip, Schütte-Lihotzky had the opportunity to voice her own input in two lectures in Beijing. On October 1, the day after the reception, all of the national cultural delegations, totaling hundreds of people, gathered at Tiananmen Square to witness the CPC’s rallies and parades. These featured dancers, student groups, housing and construction unions, energy companies, and widespread displays of military might and state power (fig. 19). Mao Zedong, flanked by Acharya and Sukarno, greeted participants, guests, and spectators from the recently reconfigured Tiananmen―now part of a colossal east–west axis defining the new Beijing (fig. 20).128 Some members of the Austrian delegation were gripped by the hyper-militarized rallies in which they were encompassed. Schütte-Lihotzky limited her commentary to the dancers, remarking positively that a variety of “ethnic minorities” were represented. In reality, these displays, particularly of dancers, at once overemphasized the government’s acceptance of cultural and ethnic minorities and exoticized these groups, whose political representation remained contested and whose livelihoods in reality were selectively suppressed. Schütte-Lihotzky, however, felt “charmed” by the confluence of mass ornament and an interior version of provincializing women (fig. 21).129

Figure 21: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Dancers,” October 1 Parades, 1956, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 21: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Dancers,” October 1 Parades, 1956, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/331.

  • 130 These sources―likely assembled with the input of Griessmeier―documented the country’s historic dev (...)
  • 131 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of (...)
  • 132 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vorträge über die Reise der Österreichischen Kulturstudiengruppe nach (...)
  • 133 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “An die allchinesische Gesellschaft für kulturelle Beziehungen mit dem (...)

45When she returned home in the fall of 1956, Schütte-Lihotzky began to organize her notes in anticipation of a series of lectures that she would give in Austria. The foundation for many of these lectures became the only walk she ever undertook by herself while in China. During this stroll she visited the traditional siheyuan [四合院] in the hutong [胡同] area in the vicinity of the hotel. The domestic architecture she observed in the hutong area was something she made a priority in both photography and writing. The personal snapshots taken in a few short hours conveyed her impressions of architecture and urbanism in the prc more directly than any other documents. Back in Austria, in the winter of 1956–1957, Schütte-Lihotzky compiled these photographs, along with notes and a small collection of secondary sources, and in the spring of 1957 she delivered nearly twenty lectures based on them.130 At least seven of these lectures were given in workers’ clubs (Arbeiterclubs) and adult education facilities (Volksbildungsheime) in Vienna, three with bdfö women’s groups (including those in the provincial regions of Salzburg and the Tirol), and three in other institutions closely affiliated with the Communist Party of Austria.131 Between the winter of 1956 and the summer of 1957 more than 600 people in Austria saw her lectures, at least three quarters of them in social democratic or communist worker’s organizations or institutions.132 Only a few presentations were held for audiences of architects and urbanists, but prominent Austrian figures, such as Roland Rainer, attended.133

  • 134 For Schütte-Lihotzky’s views on the standing of women in the People’s Republic, the reorganization (...)
  • 135 The architectural historian of modern China, Edward Denison, has argued that it is appropriate to (...)
  • 136 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Urania (given June 1957),” Vienna (Austria), University of A (...)

46Schütte-Lihotzky prefaced her lectures on China with an account of the country’s multilayered political and urban history. Most lectures contextualized the magnitude of the modernization efforts, reminding the audiences of lay people that the population of the prc was almost exactly hundred times that of Austria—approximately 660 million versus 6.9 million. The focal points of her lectures were varied, but the main themes were, not surprisingly, the standing of women in the prc, the transformations of the economy and production under the political leadership of the CPC, and the resulting implications for architecture and urbanism. These themes were entangled, as they had been throughout the trip; she discussed, for example, the reorganization of (female) labor in conjunction with the design of new factories or combatting analphabetism through school design.134 In most lectures she acknowledged how forces of colonial oppression by Western powers had influenced the development of modern China―a debate that had been framed in these terms by the cpc. She talked about how the cpc had theorized modernization and developmental debates in distinction from and against the capitalist West.135 She pointed out how far advanced China was in so many respects. Twenty-four percent of students educated at the seven existing architecture schools in the prc were female, she said, and according to one official, these schools graduated 500 students a year. The official added that this was not enough for the immense need for new housing projects and public institutions.136 It is clear that from these accounts the complicated intersections of class, gender, and ethnicity were not lost on her.

Figure 22: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Grandmother with children,” Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 22: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Grandmother with children,” Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/76-77.

“Luxury that is Hard to Find”: A Manual as Propaganda, 1958

  • 137 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “An die allchinesische Gesellschaft für kulturelle Beziehungen mit dem (...)
  • 138 Ibid., p. 1. “Die Menschen hier, Genossen und Nichtgenossen haben heute grosses Interesse an Cina (...)
  • 139 The Bureau for External Cultural Relations of Ministry of Culture was headed by Chu Tu'nan, who al (...)
  • 140 For more information on Wang Yi, see Zhu Qiangdi, Women Soldiers in the New Fourth Army, Ji‘nan: P (...)

47After her return to Vienna, Schütte-Lihotzky was intent on portraying a distinctly positive image of the prc through her own work and efforts (fig. 23). In April of 1957, after she received a New Year’s greeting card, Schütte-Lihotzky wrote a letter to the cpacrfc about the thirteen lectures she had already held in Vienna. She prudently enumerated the number of attendees and which further talks were already in preparation.137 “The people here, comrades and non-comrades, have great interest in China today and they always leave the lectures enthused. They always say they could listen for hours. Even as the lecture lasts two hours,” Schütte-Lihotzky recounted to officials—“friends” in Beijing.138 A month later, Wang Yi [王仪], a female official working for the Bureau for External Cultural Relations of Ministry of Culture, who was responsible for maintaining cultural relations with countries throughout Asia and Eastern Europe, responded that she was happy about the progress.139 Schütte-Lihotzky should feel free to reach out again, if she wished to obtain more material to publicize the work of the prc abroad.140

Figure 23: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, sanatorium for students in Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 23: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, sanatorium for students in Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/322.

  • 141 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “An die allchinesische Gesellschaft für kulturelle Beziehungen mit dem (...)
  • 142 Ibid., p. 1.
  • 143 Wang Yi, “Liebe Frau Schütte,” [Letter to Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky], October 10, 1957, Unpublish (...)
  • 144 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Peking,” Der Aufbau, no. 2, 1958, p. 55-61.

48Their correspondence, which lasted for a few months in 1957, shaped Schütte-Lihotzky’s talks and reflections in Austria further, particularly as they pertained to debates on urbanism in the prc. Only a few days after she received the letter from Wang, Schütte-Lihotzky asked for illustrations of historic plans of Beijing as well as the new planning proposals for the city, which she wanted to help her complete an article she was writing. She instructed Wang to give these illustrations to members of another Austrian delegation traveling in China at the time. She further requested to be educated on how, officially, “architects had decided to expand the city” and how their proposals addressed “problems of traffic, housing, leisure, and the development of trade and industry.”141 An anticipated exhibition of Chinese ink wash painting, she hoped, would soon come to fruition.142 Wang sent materials in October of 1957, and in December Schütte-Lihotzky thanked her, noting that she had organized a joint event of both cultural delegations in Vienna, which would include the Austrian architect Otto Niedermoser.143 She also reported that her friend, the German architect and city planner Werner Hebebrand, was thrilled about his own visit to Beijing in the spring of 1957 with a delegation from the German Democratic Republic (gdr). The article on urban planning in Beijing was now forthcoming in Der Aufbau, Austria’s most significant postwar architectural journal.144

Figure 24: “Strictly north-south oriented city plan of Beijing (People’s Republic of China), with broad avenues for vehicular narrow streets for foot traffic.”

Figure 24: “Strictly north-south oriented city plan of Beijing (People’s Republic of China), with broad avenues for vehicular narrow streets for foot traffic.”

The plan that headed Schütte-Lihotzky’s book manuscript. Purchased by the architect in 1956 it shows the old city fabric as it existed in the beginning of the twentieth century.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Txt/287 p.57.

  • 145 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Städtebau in China,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Ar (...)
  • 146 Schütte-Lihotzky’s trips to China remain largely under-studied. Karin Zogmayer’s introduction to t (...)

49Published in the spring of 1958, the article, “Beijing” (“Peking”), was the basis for the eventual book manuscript, initially simply titled “Urbanism in China” (fig. 24).145 The manuscript’s overarching narrative followed the route the Austrian cultural group had traveled―cities Schütte-Lihotzky had visited both in 1934 and 1956. Yet throughout the text, Schütte-Lihotzky did not conceal her distinct preference for modernization efforts in the prc and in particular Beijing’s new architecture (half of the book and more than half of its images were dedicated to the capital). This inclination was perhaps not surprising, given the cpc had famously moved the capital from Nanjing to Beijing in 1949, which prompted wide-spread planning debates among Chinese architects. In the manuscript Schütte-Lihotzky distinctly took up both of these issues―the urbanistic debates of planners in China and her own reverence for Beijing’s architecture, particularly traditional housing―while mediating them to European audiences. Her efforts were an attempt to encourage European architects to learn from the immense undertakings in city planning underway in the prc, which she explicitly stated. “This book seeks to be only a small example of how we can learn from each other and become closer on the basis of professional, scientific, and artistic interaction,” she wrote in the eventual 1958 manuscript.146

  • 147 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, o (...)
  • 148 Ibid.

50The manuscript was divided into three sections that were interspersed with a rich selection of photographs (projected were ninety) as well as a few drawings Schütte-Lihotzky produced in Austria of Beijing’s siheyuan and hutong architecture; the general introduction, about “the old Chinese dwelling” and “new city planning in Beijing,” was succeeded by a chapter on Beijing, and then a section synthesizing discussions about Nanjing, Shanghai, and Wuhan. All three chapters treated questions of rapid modernization, but in her view, the city of Beijing best exemplified the “uniquely Chinese” relationship between the city of the past and that of the present. In contrast to Beijing, Nanjing was a city of education and leisure, with an intimate relationship to nature, but one that did not bear the same power of renewal and reinvention. Wuhan was praised as a contemporary economic emblem and the productive engine of the communist transformation. Shanghai, the great port city of the past, was the metropolis where the interests of “extraterritorial ‘international’” powers and capitalism had reigned supreme.147 “With the intrusion of foreigners, the city completely lost its Chinese character from an architectural perspective, and if Chinese people did go about their business here and if there were no Chinese inscriptions to see, you would not know, for vast stretches, that you were in China,” wrote Schütte-Lihotzky of Shanghai.148 She continued:

  • 149 Ibid., p. 89.

The city is architecturally a chaos, structurally an indescribable mish-mash, something completely without character, that only thereby re-acquires character―namely one of complete lack of character. There are whole streets, where you would expect to be in England, others where you think you are walking around in the banlieues, the suburbs of Paris, in others you are in Holland. You will find French mansard roofs next to baroque balcony buildings, typical English settlements next to twenty-story skyscrapers, ancient Buddhist temples next to new Christian churches, and on the outskirts, factory chimneys, factory chimneys and once again factory chimneys.149

This passage, doubtlessly critical of past European interference in China, displayed her familiarity with the political and economic debates in the prc which criticized foreign intervention, feudalism, imperialism, and capitalism. Looking back on the past, in the opening at the Conference of Asian Women’s Delegates in 1949, Cai Chang, for example, had outlined that,

  • 150 Cai Chang, “Opening Speech by Cai Chang at the Conference of Asian Women’s Delegates” [蔡畅在亚洲妇女代表会议 (...)

these three decades were extremely difficult, but Chinese women learnt from actual experience that only after overthrowing the rule of imperialism and its henchmen can women be liberated; therefore they fought bravely and persistently in the fights for national independence and people’s democracy, and the women’s movement has risen along with the development of the whole enterprise of revolution […] All the countries that are liberated from colonialism and semi-colonialism have proved a truth: women’s liberation movement is a part of the nation’s liberation movement.150

  • 151 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, o (...)
  • 152 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Urania (given June 1957),” Vienna (Austria), University of A (...)

As an overt advocate of communism, Schütte-Lihotzky, similarly remarked in her speeches and texts written in Vienna that she could no longer find the “horrific poverty” next to “indescribable luxury,” which she had observed in Shanghai in 1934. “There is only one thing you cannot see anymore: the indescribable luxury that I saw during my first trip to China in 1934, a luxury that was hard to find in Europe at the time. And right next to it, the most terrible poverty, ragged beggars, and *****, who ran barefoot through the streets on the glowing asphalt,” she wrote, repeating her observations of 1934.151 Contrary to this statement in writing, she did, however, document the widespread assignment of day-laborers, especially on constructions sites, in her second trip to the prc and reflected on these very images in the captions for lectures (fig. 25). “Impression: Massive earth movements, everything on bamboo rods and on the shoulders [of people]. [The] issue is not lack of people,” she wrote in a note for a lecture at the Viennese adult education facility Urania.152 While in China, when she asked if prefabricated buildings were projected, one chief planner of Shanghai noted that while experiments had been made, it was economical to utilize widely abundant human labor.

Figure 25: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Everything on the shoulders [of people],” new settlement in Shanghai for 30,000 people with woven bamboo fence, and bamboo scaffolding, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 25: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Everything on the shoulders [of people],” new settlement in Shanghai for 30,000 people with woven bamboo fence, and bamboo scaffolding, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/307.

  • 153 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Urania” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Co (...)

51This convenient omission of more critical observations may have been because she found the transformations in housing and construction particularly necessary and exciting. Each city―Beijing, Nanjing, Shanghai, and Wuhan―had experimented with different typologies, she wrote, which created a richness of responses and proposals for modern housing. While planners in Beijing were thinking seriously about inserting tall towers into its existing courtyard typology, in Wuhan architects designed new multi-story dwellings, and Shanghai offered promising new settlements with two-story houses. Chinese planners had experimented with combining concrete construction with craftsmanship and local building techniques. Schütte-Lihotzky herself was passionate about the future possibilities of working with bamboo-concrete, as well as chemically softened bamboo, which was to be used for flooring. These efforts had been shown to her in a new settlement outside Shanghai for 30,000 people (fig. 26).153

Figure 26: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, A new settlement in Shanghai for 30,000 people with woven bamboo fence, and bamboo scaffolding, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 26: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, A new settlement in Shanghai for 30,000 people with woven bamboo fence, and bamboo scaffolding, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, F/CH/309.

  • 154 See, for example, photos 245-293, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and (...)
  • 155 Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotz (...)
  • 156 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag (Bauen), 9.12.1956, Volksbildungshaus Ottakring,” (given 10.1 (...)

52Aside from discussions of housing, by far the most space of what would eventually become Millionenstädte Chinas was allotted to discussing the reconciliation between past and present, ancient and modern architecture, and broader urban histories and modernization efforts.154 Indeed, by 1956, Schütte-Lihotzky was chiefly concerned with situating the development of cities in the prc in the context of the city’s living past. In writing about Beijing, Schütte-Lihotzky arrived at the thesis―if not completely made explicit―that China had always been uniquely modern, which was perhaps a flattening of complex questions about climatic, vernacular, and cultural relationships.155 But this approach to modernity could continue to be instructive, if only solved within the general economic and political framework of the prc, she argued. Two striking examples, in this regard, were her discussions of the ancient city walls of Beijing and once again the city’s domestic architecture, the siheyuan. Already during the flight to the prc, she had observed, “from the Chinese Great Wall to protect the northern borders of the country, to the perimeter walls of districts―walls around every city―of the 1,800 Chinese cities almost all have surrounding walls.”156 She continued,

Walls around every palace

Walls around temples―walls around monasteries

Walls around nearly every village

Walls around every yard―a habitation without walls is unthinkable

Walls around every property in cities as well

Walls to bound the street, left and right―they are ground floor height and without windows

Walls to ward off the evil spirits―in gardens and parks―

Walls in gray bricks, walls in red bricks, walls in beautiful natural stone and

Walls plastered with the beautiful Chinese red paint―Walls with gray or yellow and blue ceramic roof tile―

Walls and more walls as design medium for garden spaces and squares in intimate connection with nature and the plant world―Walls to limit their own life to the outside, whereby just this particular lifestyle is heightened, increased, and fostered.

  • 157 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, o (...)

Tall city walls, she argued in her article, were an integral part of Beijing’s lively urbanism that connected the ancient with the contemporary city equally. Unlike in Europe, where city walls were zigzagged garrisons, in Beijing they appeared as perfectly perpendicular orientation systems that regulated and systematized the interior life of the city (a three-dimensional axis mundi of sorts).157

Figure 27: “New Buildings in Beijing,” aerial view illustrating the principles of Beijing’s urbanism, purchased by the architect in 1956 as frontispiece of Millionenstädte China's, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 27: “New Buildings in Beijing,” aerial view illustrating the principles of Beijing’s urbanism, purchased by the architect in 1956 as frontispiece of Millionenstädte China's, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

The picture also showcases new governmental buildings in Beijing.

Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/369.

53A second example was the walled domestic courtyard architecture of the siheyuan, which followed the pattern of the regulating system on a smaller scale (figs. 27 and 28); the courtyard typology, according to Schütte-Lihotzky, allowed for social and communal life to grow and reinvent itself over generations. Being distinctly urban, it shielded the family from public view, while allowing people to shape the fabric of the city, by subdividing and inhabiting the large courtyards over time. For Schütte-Lihotzky the siheyuan could thus be understood as a type —a form of housing with ideal, similar, but ever-varied measurements, proportions, and plans. In contrast to the types she had herself been involved in designing in Vienna and Frankfurt throughout the 1920s and 1930s as housing units, the architecture of the siheyuan had not arrived in the present at the hand of a number of architects; it had developed into a type over time based on the ingenuity of designers, craftsmen, builders, and inhabitants. It thus more fully embodied Schütte-Lihotzky’s long-held ideal that architecture always had to be attuned to local conditions, customs, and most importantly the habits of its inhabitants.

  • 158 See, for example, Liang Sicheng and Chen Zhanxiang, 方案与北京 [Liang-Chen Scheme and Beijing], edite (...)
  • 159 In addition to preserving the fundamental structure of the historic center of Beijing, the Liang-C (...)

54Indeed, the axiality of the city of Beijing at large, Schütte-Lihotzky contended, was based on the siheyuan, which had given the city its rhythm and its pace and ultimately defined its urban morphology. As Beijing modernized, it had to prudently insert high-density housing in the form of towers―that was her recommendation―so as to retain this unique fabric of the city. Buildings of only three to five stories would destroy the effect, and the long-standing relationship with nature that made Beijing entirely unique could be lost. With these suggestions, she clearly responded to the debates taking place intensely and publicly in Beijing between 1949 and 1958, famously culminating in the opposing Liang-Chen and Zhu-Zhao schemes.158 As architectural historian Yu Shuishan and others have discussed, the Liang-Chen Scheme, put forth by renowned architect, architectural historian, and preservationist Liang Sicheng [梁思成] and urban planner Chen Zhanxiang [陈占祥] advocated for retaining Beijing’s strong historic north-south axis, and essential landmarks, which had defined the city since the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing Dynasties (1644–1911).159 The Liang-Chen Scheme also proposed refraining from inserting tall and large buildings into the existing fabric of the city, and to create a second administrative center, including industry and housing, in the west. The Zhu-Zhao Scheme, by contrast, advanced by the two Beijing-based architects Zhu Zhaoxue [朱兆雪] and Zhao Dongri [赵冬日], projected underscoring a new powerful east-west axis south of the Forbidden City―as a distinct break with the dynastic past. With a series of modern government buildings reinforcing this east-west axis south of Chang’an Avenue, the Zhu-Zhao Scheme became the model preferred by Mao Zedong. It is significant that against the backdrop of these large-scale urban planning debates focusing on axiality, Schütte-Lihotzky argued that the smallness, the modularity, and the aggregation of units actually characterized Beijing’s urbanism and urbanity.

55When Schütte-Lihotzky arrived in Beijing in 1956, the endorsement of the Zhu-Zhao Scheme was a fait accompli, and the reconstruction of Chang’an Avenue well on its way. Some sections had already tripled in size to a width of 50 meters, multiple government buildings had been erected, most of them five stories tall. Tiananmen Square itself was unprecedented in scale and had become an architecture of spectacle as the stage for the national celebrations. Yet quarrels over preservation and conservation, including the destruction of walls to make way for traffic arteries, persisted up to 1956, and when prompted to weigh in on these discussions while in Beijing, Schütte-Lihotzky indicated a general preference for Liang’s proposals to preserve city walls. To her, only modernization efforts that took the ancient tradition of the city seriously and sought to preserve its unique fabric, including the city’s walls, monuments, and even Beijing’s strong former north-south axis, were desirable. It was not arbitrary that she chose a map of old Beijing, emphasizing its former north-south axis, as the frontispiece of the manuscript.

Figure 28: Beijing’s hutong and siheyuan area, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 28: Beijing’s hutong and siheyuan area, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/28.

56Yet in other instances she emphasized that nowhere else than in Beijing had the modernization of the old been so successful―and arguably radical―as was evidenced in the opening of the city walls, where traffic now entered freely into a modern city. Preservation debates could not be led for preservation’s sake, but only in the context of political, economic, environmental, and social transformation. Should the familial structures and the demographics of the siheyuan change, for example, the siheyuan could be utilized for collective workshops, artisan workshops, and small businesses, she thought (fig. 29).

  • 160 Most historians think that the First Five Year Plan is essential for understanding many activities (...)
  • 161 Harvard University and Joint Center for Internal Affairs and the East Asian Research Center, “Docu (...)

57Nevertheless, in the article for Der Aufbau and her eventual book manuscript, she did not make her familiarity with the Liang-Chen and Zhu-Zhao proposals explicit―although she had clearly inquired about them in her letter to Wang. Rather, she cited a third source that had not necessarily been clearly connected to architectural-urbanistic debates. This was the “Report on the First Five Year Plan,” by Li Fuchun [李富春], the powerful deputy head of the Central Economic and Financial Commission and husband of Cai Chang.160 His report was considered the determining outline for the economic foundation of the prc, even by economists from the United States at the time.161 It articulated the pronounced anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist world view that Schütte-Lihotzky herself subscribed to, as member of the Communist Party of Austria and an intellectual subscribing to the idea of Communist Internationalism. Ironically, Li’s report was by all standards an economic, political, and ideological text that treated urban morphology nowhere directly. It did, however, condemn all the systems in China until the moment of revolution, from feudalism to foreign intervention. “The Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Chinese Communist Party falls into two stages, the New Democratic Revolution and the Socialist Revolution,” Li wrote.

  • 162 Ibid.,p. 45.

The first stage of the Chinese Revolution has as its task the overthrow of the rule of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism in China by the broad masses of the people led by the working class, and the transformation of a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society into a democratic society. This task has already been successfully accomplished. The founding of the People’s Republic of China marked the basic completion of the first stage of the Chinese Revolution. The task in the second stage of the Chinese Revolution is to build a socialist society in China.162

  • 163 Ibid.
  • 164 [Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky], “Ein Architekt des Volkes,” Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (ed.), (...)

It is unclear if Schütte-Lihotzky read the full report, but she cited it as having articulated a slow path to modernization that she believed the prc was wise to adapt. In distinct passages, Li indeed highlighted gradual processes of modernization: “As Marxism-Leninism teaches, no state can ever build a socialist society at one stroke; there is a necessary time of transition from the time the proletariat overthrows the rule of reaction and the revolution is victorious, to the time the socialist society is attained.”163 Schütte-Lihotzky would later often claim that the “primary goal for the architect must be the struggle for a social structure without which his architectural ideas cannot be realized.”164 Had the question of modernization become primarily ideological and secondarily architectural?

  • 165 The First Five Year Plan year was completed in 1957, the year after the visit. More importantly, i (...)
  • 166 For a discussion of China and the “Great Leap Forward,” see Roderick MacFarquhar’s first volume of (...)

58Another way of reading her citation of Li’s report is that in light of her clear architectural endorsement of Liang’s nuanced proposals on modernization and preservation, which she knew had fallen out of favor, the pivot to the political party line was a safe third choice. After all, since the 1920s her architectural inclination had been toward modernization debates that were conscious of vernacular architecture, which she had found best exemplified in the domestic architecture of the siheyuan in Beijing. It is critical to note that Schütte-Lihotzky had visited the prc, in 1956, seven years after the founding of the prc and two years before the pronouncement of the “Great Leap Forward” in a time of transition.165 The introduction of the Great Leap Forward would prompt an even more forceful economic and social order, collectivization, which, in the words of the Chinese studies scholar Roderick Macfarquhar, attempted to tackle the critical problem of a “lagging agriculture which was unable to keep industry supplied and to feed the rapidly growing population.”166

  • 167 See the section on Dorf (Village), Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection an (...)

59In contrast to photographs taken in 1934, the imagery Schütte-Lihotzky selected for the eventual manuscript placed the construction of new schools, hospitals, and factory nurseries in a larger institutional and economic context, framing their role in the overarching process of modernization in Communist China. While she traced the rapid production of new housing on the ground within the greater economic transformations, which were already set in motion in urban areas, she did not capture how they started to deplete the resources, human and environmental, of a vast countryside. Indeed, in one lecture she delivered in January of 1957 in Vienna, she uncritically lauded the achievements of collectivization, which she had been able to observe. She argued that the collectivization provided land for 60 percent of the country’s formerly dispossessed people and created new opportunities for the employment of women.167 Therefore, while by 1956, Schütte-Lihotzky had a more informed perspective on China, in certain ways her political views had grown more stringently communist and politically less nuanced after the trip.

Figure 29: View of the Peace Hotel rising behind Beijing’s siheyuan area, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Figure 29: View of the Peace Hotel rising behind Beijing’s siheyuan area, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/196.

60The attention to the cultural construction of the siheyuan as type and city walls as the regulating lines creating an axis mundi in a way also confirmed privileged ways of seeing that she had been trained in at least since the 1920s in Europe. By heightening cities’ differences and by applying distinct functions to them―Beijing, the ancient and modern city; Nanjing, the center of learning and repose; Shanghai, the city of trade and foreign intervention; and Wuhan, the epicenter of commerce, resource extraction, and development―the book manuscript overall conjured a strict form of functionalism and a regionalism, both universalizing and essentializing, not unlike photographic ethnographies of architecture. But ultimately Schütte-Lihotzky’s attention to the lived practice of Chinese urbanism and her complete resistance to foreign developmental debates by the mid-1950s fundamentally set her ideas apart from the building manuals of “circulating experts,” such as those about tropical architecture, for example, which were produced within the logic of foreign aid in a slowly decolonizing world.

  • 168 Essentialization has been described as one of the key features of Orientalism, within a framework (...)

61Moreover, the book manuscript she began to compile in 1956, which emphatically highlighted China’s artistic, scientific, technological, and economic achievements, demonstrated that Schütte-Lihotzky escaped those provincializing views to a degree, although they had characterized some of her 1934 photographs.168 By placing herself in the vulnerable position of a curious person, a learner, as she had outlined, who was exploring a topic such as Chinese contemporary urbanism that was not yet widely studied in Europe, she accepted and was honest about her partial perspective. She acknowledged in the introduction to Millionenstädte Chinas,

  • 169 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, o (...)

There are hardly any works written from the point of view of the architect or the city planner who today has to make decisions about the further development of the big cities. Work that sheds light on urban planning but also the way of life of Chinese people in the context of current social and economic realities, in the context of rapidly advancing changes in social life, in the life of women and families and in the context of great industrialization, in short with the current transformation of the entire country. However, this is especially necessary if one wants to have an overview of the tasks of urban planning and to do so in such a way that these views can be instructive and fruitful for our work in Europe.169

  • 170 Carla González Maier, “Antecedentes Biográficicos de Victoria Maier Mayer,” Private archives of Ca (...)
  • 171 Letter from Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Victoria Maier, December 30, 1956, p. 2. Private archive (...)

She thus insisted that China’s modernization hinged on collaboration and forms of visual and architectural translations, and from now on they would also flow from Beijing to Vienna. “I myself have just had a great experience,” she wrote to Victoria Maier, her friend and former fellow resistance fighter in Chile in 1956.170 “In the fall I was in China with a cultural group, a total of 8 people, scientists and artists. Flew by air via Moscow‒Irkutsk‒Mongolia‒Beijing on 4 IX [September]. I spent exactly 5 weeks in China, on 17 X [October]. [H]ere we were again. The strength of the impression, of both the old culture and the new achievements, the landscape and above all the people, is unforgettable. It is the big bright spot in these times so difficult and dangerously close to war. My fellow travelers were also interesting people, so that I had a very nice time free from concern. At the moment it does not look great in terms of work, even though the last few years have been very good for me.”171

  • 172 Karin Zogmayer, “Vorwort der Herausgeberin,” op. cit. (note 146), p. 11-30; Marcel Bois, “‘Bis zum (...)

62It has previously been remarked that Schütte-Lihotzky believed in the transformational potentials of communist ideology, even as its limits had already become increasingly clear.172 Considering the vast enforced collectivization in the prc by 1958, one could posit the question of how somebody who resisted totalitarianism and had been forced into emigration could condone the normalization of millions of people being dehumanized elsewhere. This question is further complicated by the fact that upon returning from her 1956 trip, Schütte-Lihotzky issued a confidential report to the kpö that analyzed the degrees to which her travel companions might be suitable for further communist work.

  • 173 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applie (...)
  • 174 In the 1970s, Canadian historian Michael H. Kater was the first to fully reveal the extent to whic (...)
  • 175 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht Chinareise 1956 (Charakteristik Dr. Tratz Salzburg),” Vi (...)
  • 176 Ibid.
  • 177 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht Chinareise 1956 (Charakteristik Dr. Tratz Salzburg),” op (...)
  • 178 In Kulturkreisen ist unsere Reise allgemein bekannt und man kommt sich schon wie eine wandelnde Ch (...)
  • 179 Letter by Franz S**bacher to Schütte-Lihotzky, June 15 1957, Vienna (Austria), University of Appli (...)

63In this report, which she called her “Travel Diary and Report,” she noted that upon arrival in Beijing she had been able to consult with “Chinese comrades” about the “participants, their outlooks, the distinctive interests, their position in Austria, influence etc.”173 These consultations in China were repeated approximately once a week and opinions about further work with liaisons and translators were exchanged. Schütte-Lihotzky’s willingness to put party before all else is troubling, moreover, in regard to her connection with Eduard Paul Tratz, an Austrian zoologist, who was part of the Austrian delegation. By 1956 Schütte-Lihotzky knew that Tratz had links to the National Socialist Party or nsdap during World War II.174 In her “Travel Diary and Report,” she wrote that it would be “important to deal with him further,” —she emphasized these words —because she thought it might be possible “to create clarity in his head.”175 The full extent of Tratz’s activities during World War II were then not known to Schütte-Lihotzky, yet historians since the 1970s have documented them.176 A further note in her report did, however, acknowledge that Tratz “maintained many relationships to people particularly in former circles of the nsdap, to whom we do not have access easily.”177 Although further plans were not yet well defined, the Communist Party of Austria asked Schütte-Lihotzky in 1957 to formalize the process of selecting “experts” for other Austrian delegations. She closed her 1956 report by jokingly stating that she felt like a “walking propaganda for China.”178 “Dear Comrade Schütte,” begins a letter addressed to her written by a colleague in the Communist Party of Austria, inviting her to give another lecture.179

Figure 30: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Letters, 1934 and 1956.

Figure 30: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Letters, 1934 and 1956.

Letter to Minister of Education Wang Shih-chieh, Nanjing (Republic of China), 1934 (left) and Envelope of letter by Wang Yi to Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Beijing (People's Republic of China), 1956 (right).

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934 and 1956, Txt/235/4 (left) and Txt/423/a (right).

“Living Not Without Consequences in Another World”: A Historical Document or a Global Architectural History, 200X

  • 180 Marcel Bois, “‘Bis zum Tod einer falschen Ideologie gefolgt,’ Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky als kommu (...)
  • 181 In 1995, at ninety-eight, Schütte-Lihotzky and four other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Jörg (...)
  • 182 Wolfgang Neugebauer, The Austrian Resistance, op. cit. (note 6), p. 81.

64Based on the historical evidence, it would be going too far to call Schütte-Lihotzky’s work—architectural and political—as doctrinaire, let alone Stalinist, as has recently been suggested by the German Right.180 It is true that Schütte-Lihotzky did not leave the Communist Party of Austria in 1968 during the Prague Spring or in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall, when many “comrades” in Western Europe did. But I would argue that Schütte-Lihotzky’s life-long commitment to the Communist Party of Austria had as much to do with her espousal for its sets of values as it did with her personal battle against the far right, in particular the rise of neo-Nazism and the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, fpö) in the 1980s and 1990s.181 Her unwavering commitment to anti-fascism was conditioned by long histories and contingencies specific to the Communist Party of Austria and its central role in the Austrian resistance. The Communist Party of Austria had indeed been the only political party to vehemently oppose the “Anschluss” since the 1920s—a euphemistic term for the unification of Austria with Nazi Germany in 1938. Members of the Communist Party of Austria, moreover, made up two thirds of all of the resistance fighters in Austria against the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s.182 This is not to qualify or minimize Schütte-Lihotzky’s commitment to communist ideology, as others have, but, quite to the contrary, to point out that from her point of view, anti-fascism corresponded with communism, which paradoxically prevented her from recognizing subjugation in China. This ideological blind spot is perplexing, when considering that one concern of Millionenstädte Chinas was deeply devoted to building solidarity with “power-different communities,” as Haraway understood it.

  • 183 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Frauen – Volksbildungsheim, 10. XII. 1956,” Volksbildungsheim Ottakri (...)
  • 184 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Dorf―Vortrag Ehrbarsaal, 14. I. 1957,” Lecture organized by the journ (...)
  • 185 Linda Martín Alcoff, “A Place in the Rainbow,” The Future of Whiteness, New York, NY: Wiley, p. 19 (...)

65This solidarity was epitomized by Schütte-Lihotzky’s close reading of the role of women in Chinese society and the condition of working-class people overall, despite its obvious failings, as outlined above. In a lecture delivered at a local adult education facility in Vienna upon her return in December 1956, Schütte-Lihotzky discussed the position of Chinese women in the former feudal system and how they were able to now attain equality both in marriage and in the labor market.183 She closely examined the abolishment of prostitution, the role of women in public life and public office, and the creation of nurseries and children’s institutions to combat infant mortality and analphabetism, the latter a problem that disproportionately afflicted elderly women. While she celebrated the effects of collectivization based only on the group’s visit to one village outside Beijing, she also contended that in some cases “equal pay for equal work” had not been attained in the rural cooperatives.184 What is critical here is that she strategically crafted a narrative—a message to Austrian women about how they could learn from the social uplifting of Chinese women and attain these and similar goals in their own realms. This attempt to contextualize, theorize, and provide tools to organize was not a mere act of appropriation, but one of solidarity, taking action, and translation—not to join the fight benevolently on behalf of others (to paraphrase philosopher Linda Martín Alcoff), but on one’s own accord and reasoning, recognizing difference in solidarity.185

66This narrative paralleled the larger project of architecture and urbanism governing Schütte-Lihotzky’s manuscript, which clearly regarded the strategies Chinese city planners had developed to decentralize and modernize agglomerations as being instructive for European designers. Her own commitment to building community through recognizing difference was nowhere clearer than in the repeated assertion that architects in Vienna and the general Austrian public might learn from urbanism in Chinese cities not only from the top down, but from the interventions of the inhabitants of large cities who had built and enlivened their own communities in the siheyuan and hutong areas. Ultimately, this insistence on both the political attainments of communist China and on building solidarity with Chinese citizens—Communist Internationalism—was distinct in Schütte-Lihotzky’s writing.

  • 186 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Peking,” Der Aufbau, no.  2, 1958, p. 55-61.
  • 187 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Pechino Anticha e Nuova,” Casabella, no. 225, March 1959, p. 19-24.

67This writing was—not unexpectedly—unpopular with Austrian and German publishers in the intensifying Cold War climate. An opportunity to publish the manuscript in Germany ultimately dissipated, and from the effort of putting together the fifty-page manuscript, only two short articles were published.186 Aside from the publication in Der Aufbau, Schütte-Lihotzky published her article in one other international setting; with the help of Rogers, the former Italian resistance fighter and fellow traveler in China, she published the essay “Pechino Antica e Nuova” (Beijing, Antique and New) in Casabella.187 Despite this achievement, Schütte-Lihotzky’s position in architectural discourse by the late 1950s was one of decided marginality.

68Although the whole manuscript of Millionenstädte Chinas was not published, in the following years Schütte-Lihotzky, left to her own devices, began crafting an even larger architectural book project, entitled A Better Life through Urbanism (Besseres Leben durch Städtebau). In this manuscript, she set herself the goal of writing a global history of architecture, past and present, that offered an account about the development of cities and architecture in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Rome, Greece, the Middle East, Japan, and China, from the past to the twentieth century. Today, not much more than notes remain, but from these documents it is clear that her plan was to divide each of the historical sections into essays on urbanism, housing, and religious architecture. Further sections discussed themes that mark a distinctly ideological outlook, such as collective living across geographies and time.

69While this project, too, did not materialize due to its complexity and scope, it is here that I would like to return to the question of exile. Even the scant surviving materials of A Better Life through Urbanism offer a glimpse into what could be considered an attempt to give up one’s love for a single spot on earth and instead embrace a view of the entire world as a foreign place. Almost three decades after 1938, the country of her youth had long since ceased to exist, and Schütte-Lihotzky’s closest friends, collaborators, intellectual contemporaries, and “fellows in suffering” (as she phrased it in a letter written to Maier) were still in exile or were no longer alive. Schütte-Lihotzky found her own way to confront the perpetual instability of looking and being, a path once put into words by her friend, Otto Neurath, in a letter exchange with her closest architectural colleague in Vienna of the 1920s, Josef Frank.

70Both Neurath and Frank, who were Jewish, had been forced to emigrate in the 1930s. Frank fled to Sweden and Neurath, under horrible conditions, to Holland and, subsequently, to England. In 1944, while still in Sweden, Frank wrote to Neurath of his sorrows and about the brutality and cruelty which they had witnessed. In consoling Frank, Neurath wrote to his friend with words of reassurance:

  • 188 Otto neurath, “Letter to Josef Frank,” 20 November 1944, Unpublished Typescript, Vienna (Austria), (...)

I think that people, who have been adapted to a certain type of life and never thought of another type, may have difficulties in new environments. [...] Our advantage is that we never felt ourselves fully attached to any definite environment and therefore, we changed, as it were, only the corner of our realm—called the world. And we think our corner now is a nice one, but we might like the USA, too, or Mexico, or—we do not know, […] perhaps China.188

Neurath’s words were an attempt to comfort his friend, to make meaning and to begin new lives in the conditions of exile they both found themselves in. Yet, it would be improper to equate the experience of exile and emigration of Schütte-Lihotzky’s Jewish friends with her own. In fact, Schütte-Lihotzky never knew of this letter exchange, and she would only learn after 1945 that Neurath had begun to raise money among exiled friends to support her in internment. When she returned to Vienna in 1945, she found that the place where she had grown up still existed, but it was devoid of any of the people who had lived in this world with her. Thus, although she never experienced emigration, the retrenchment into the communist world was part of what could therefore be understood as an experience of exile, in Edward Said’s sense.

  • 189 Cole Roskam’s work has been one of the pioneering works in this regard, but many more like it are (...)
  • 190 As noted above the unpublished manuscript was edited for publication by Karin Zogmayer in 2007. Ka (...)

71Her writing did not, as she had hoped, become a global architectural history, and it is debatable whether it allowed for a truly feminist practice of seeing. Trapped between the violence of the “travel diary” and “the photographic ethnography of architecture,” Schütte-Lihotzky avoided the perpetuation of the distinctly universalizing viciousness of the “circulating manual” of the postwar years only by virtue of her own position of marginality. Yet it would also be too easy to dismiss her merely as “walking propaganda” as she did write out of conviction, from her own position, not out of benevolence, but in solidarity with others (fig. 32). In addition, her manuscript Millionenstädte Chinas shed as much light on her world views as it illuminated two geopolitical paradigms in the 1930s and the 1950s, in which China built strong global relationships through cultural diplomacy and soft power, relationships whose connection with architecture have yet to be fully examined by architectural historians.189 These had, perhaps, as lasting an impact on the pedagogical and urbanistic transformations within China itself as they did on reifying communist networks in the West and bolstering the Non-Aligned Movement. For Schütte-Lihotzky the building of these geopolitical relationship meant the possibility of developing her architectural ideas about children’s institutions in the 1930s into deliberations on the city from the perspective of domestic architecture and urbanism in the 1950s. As only one architect in an entire generation of artists, humanists, and scientists who traveled between Europe and China in the 1930s and the 1950s, her example—of being first an invited expert in China and then a cultural liaison promoting Chinese urbanism in Europe—may also serve as a glimpse into the politics of exchange that were never one-directional. Like most of her other writing, Schütte-Lihotzky’s Millionenstädte Chinas remained unpublished—eventually edited and distributed as a historical document, seven years after her death, in the year 2007.190 The mental exercise, to imagine a global architectural history along the lines of Communist Internationalism as Schütte-Lihotzky articulated in her manuscript—futile in its own time—might from today’s point of view not be an endeavor entirely without future.

Figure 31: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Worker at “Globus Haus,” Vienna (Austria), 1956.

Figure 31: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Worker at “Globus Haus,” Vienna (Austria), 1956.

Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Collection, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, 1956, Photo, 188/20/FW.

72I want to thank Ph.D. students and architectural historians Qiran Shang and Zhengyang Hua (University of Pennsylvania), Irina Chernyakova (Columbia University), Kevin Berry (University of Pennsylvania), and Sang Pil Lee (University of Pennsylvania) who provided translation and editing help from Chinese to English (Shang and Hua), Russian to English (Chernyakova), German to English (Berry) and Japanese to English (Lee). This article would not have been possible without their assistance. I would also like to thank Lenore Hietkamp for editing this essay, Maria Diavolova for the preparations of images and permissions, and Maya Alam for many critical conversations. Special thanks to Lawrence Chua and Zhonjie Lin for comments on drafts of this article.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective,” Feminist Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, Autumn 1988, p. 589.

2 Edward Said, “Freedom from Domination in the Future: Movement and Migrations,” in Culture and Imperialism, New York, NY: Knopf, 1993, p. 334.

3 This letter is undated, but it was likely written by Schütte-Lihotzky as she sorted her archive, which she did between the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Sehr geehrte Frau Kollegin,” undated letter, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers.

4 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Schema für Kindergarten System, Sofia, Bulgaria, 1946,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Plan Archives, PRNR 148.

5 For literature on Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s activism as a political dissident and her time in internment, see her Erinnerungen aus dem Widerstand [Memories from Resistance]. Memories from Resistance was first written as a 14-page memo in the summer of 1945. In 1965, Schütte-Lihotzky gave a more in-depth interview to the newly founded Documentation Center of Austrian Resistance in Vienna (Austria). Finally, from 1978 to 1981 she collaborated with the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich and the Research Foundation in New York to provide a fuller account of the anti-fascist resistance. Her book was first published in 1984, with the help of Chup Friemert, by Konkret Literatur Verlag in West Germany and in 1985 by Volk und Welt Berlin in the German Democratic Republic. After quarrels between Konkret Literatur Verlag and Friemert, the book was acquired by the Austrian left-wing publisher Promedia and re-published, in 1995 and 2015, with the slightly altered title Erinnerungen aus dem Widerstand: Das kämpferische Leben einer Architektin von 1938-1945 [Memories from Resistance: The Dissident Life of a Female Architect, 1938-1945], sanctioned by Schütte-Lihotzky. For different versions of the book, see Margarete Schütte-LihotzkyErinnerungen aus dem Widerstand, 1938-1945: Mit einem Gespräch zwischen Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky und Chup Friemert, Hamburg: Konkret Literatur Verlag, 1984; IdemErinnerungen aus dem Widerstand: 1938-1945: Mit einem Gespräch zwischen Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky und Chup Friemert, Berlin: Volk und Welt, 1985; IdemErinnerungen aus dem Widerstand: Das kämpferische Leben einer Architektin, 1938-1945, edited by Irene Nierhaus, Vienna: Promedia, 1995; IdemErinnerungen aus dem Widerstand, Das kämpferische Leben einer Architektin, 1938-1945, Vienna: Promedia, 2015. Also see Berlin (Germany), German Federal Archives, Files R3017-17434, R3017-24835; Vienna (Austria), Documentation Center of Austrian Resistance, Reservat, Files 788, 7195, 10724 and Files 20100/10724. For a close reading and theorization of Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s political dissidence, see my forthcoming introduction to the translation Memories of the Resistance, first presented as “Memories from Resistance: Women, War, and the Making of Spaces for Dissent” at the Society of Architectural Historians Annual Meeting in Saint Paul, 2018; see Sophie Hochhäusl, “Memories from Resistance: Women, War, and the Making of Spaces for Dissent,” Histories of Architecture Against (Session Chair: Ana María Leon), Society of Architectural Historians (Saint Paul, MN, April 2018). Also see Thomas Flierl’s forthcoming edition of letters between Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and her husband, Wilhelm Schütte, written in internment.

6 The Austrian Holocaust historian and Resistance Studies scholar Gerhard Botz distinguishes between three categories of resistance: political resistance (collective opposition to the system), social protest, and divergent behavior. Gerhard Botz, “Methoden- und Theorieprobleme der historischen Widerstandsforschung,” in Herbert Steiner, Helmut Konrad, Wolfgang Neugebauer and Dokumentationsarchiv des Österreichischen WiderstandesArbeiterbewegung, Faschismus, Nationalbewusstsein: Festschrift zum 20jährigen Bestand des Dokumentationsarchivs des österreichischen Widerstandes und zum 60. Geburtstag von Herbert Steiner, Vienna: Europaverlag, 1983, p. 137-153. For the history of scholarship on the Austrian resistance also see, for example, Wolfgang Neugebauer, The Austrian Resistance, 1938-1945, Vienna: Edition Steinbauer, 2014.

7 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Programm zur Schaffung eines Zentral-Bau-Instituts für Kinderanstalten (BKI),” November 1945, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, 1 TXT. “Durch den wachsenden Anteil, den die bulgarischen Frauen an der Produktion und am öffentlichen Leben des Landes haben, wird die Errichtung von Kinderanstalten beim Aufbau in den nächsten Jahren einen besonders wichtigen Platz einnehmen.”

8 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Peter Noever and Renate Allmayer-Beck (eds.), Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky: Soziale Architektur: Zeitzeugin eines Jahrhunderts, Vienna: Böhlau, 1996, p. 274.

9 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Bauten für Kinder: Referat gehalten von Architektin Grete Schütte-Lihotzky auf der Tagung der ciam-Austria,” March 1951, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, ciam Papers, Text Archives, TXT/323.

10 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky was elected the first president of the Bund Demokratischer Frauen Österreichs (bdfö) in June 1948. Henceforth, she participated in multiple conferences and lectures in this function.

11 The majority of the literature on Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s design work focuses on her achievements in Frankfurt, including the design of the Frankfurt Kitchen. Recent scholarship has shown her work in the context of housing and educational facilities and has made accessible a theoretical reading of a greater variety of geographic, cultural, and political contexts in which she worked. For a general literature on her life and work, see Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Peter Noever (eds.), Die Frankfurter Küche von Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Berlin: Ernst & Sohn, 1992; and Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Peter Noever and Renate Allmayer-Beck (eds.), Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, op. cit. (note 8). More recent work focusing on Vienna includes Eve Blau’s groundbreaking The Architecture of Red Vienna, as well as my own essay on her Wohnküche and Spülküche for the Viennese Kernhausaktion. Eve Blau, “Learning How to Live,” in The Architecture of Red Vienna, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999, p. 88-134; Sophie Hochhäusl, “From Vienna to Frankfurt Inside Core-House Type 7: A History of Scarcity through the Modern Kitchen,” Architectural Histories, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013, p. 1-19, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ah.aq. Multiple authors have also written on Schütte-Lihotzky in Frankfurt. See Lore Kramer, “Rationalisierung des Haushaltes und Frauenfrage,” in Rosemarie Höpfner and Volker Fischer (eds.), Ernst May und das Neue Frankfurt 1925-1930, Berlin: Ernst, 1986, p. 74-88; More recent historiography includes Martina Hessler, “The Frankfurt Kitchen: The Model of Modernity and the ‘Madness’ of Traditional Users, 1926 to 1933,” in Ruth Oldenziel and Karin Zachmann (eds.), Cold War Kitchen: Americanization, Technology, and European Users, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009 (Inside technology); Susan Henderson, “Housing the Single Woman: The Frankfurt Experiment,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 68, no. 3, September 2009, p. 358-377; Susan Henderson, Building Culture: Ernst May and the New Frankfurt Initiative, 1926-1931, New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 2013 (Studies in modern European history); Esra Akcan, “Civilizing Housewives versus Participatory Users: Margarete Schütte Lihotzky in the Employ of the Turkish Nation State,” in Cold War Kitchen, p. 185-207.

12 For a nuanced account of Schütte-Lihotzky’s work in Turkey see, for example, Bernd Nicolai, Moderne und Exil: Deutschsprachige Architekten in der Türkei, 1925-1955, Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1998; Esra Akcan, Architecture in Translation: Germany, Turkey and the Modern House, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012. Also see Thomas Flierl’s forthcoming work on Schütte-Lihotzky’s work in the Soviet Union.

13 In her work on Carola Bloch, Mary Pepchinsky was the first scholar to discuss Schütte-Lihotzky’s postwar work. The first in-depth discussion was Marcel Bois’s “‘Bis zum Tod einer falschen Ideologie gefolgt,’ Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky als kommunistische Intellektuelle,” Jahresbericht der Forschungsstelle für Zeitgeschichte in Hamburg 2017, Hamburg: Forschungsstelle für Zeitgeschichte, 2018, p. 66-88. A catalog by Marcel Bois and Bernadette Reinhold is in production, which includes a number of essays on Schütte-Lihotzky, including a few on her postwar work. As a contributor and participant in the conference dedicated to her work “Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky. Architektur—Politik—Geschlecht,” I had access to the papers of Günther Sandner and Antje Senarclens de Grancy, whom I wish to thank.

14 New research by Monika Platzer has shown that Schütte-Lihotzky was part of a number of exhibitions, in which she focused on the achievements of communist organizations. Under the increasing leadership of Franz Schuster in the Viennese municipality—with whom Schütte-Lihotzky collaborated on one exhibition—these curatorial projects, many of them on women’s issues, were curated almost exclusively by men. See Monika Platzer’s forthcoming article in the aforementioned publication resulting from the conference “Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky. Architektur—Politik—Geschlecht.”

15 For a nuanced reflection of Franz Schuster and Roland Rainer, for example, see Monika Platzer, Gegen den Kanon erzählt: Positionen, Akteure und Netzwerke der Wiener Nachkriegsarchitektur im Kalten Krieg, PhD Dissertation, Wien Universität, Vienna, 2017.

16 Oliver Rathkolb, “Kalter Krieg und politische Propaganda in Österreich,” in Michael Hansel and Michael Rohrwasser (eds.), Kalter Krieg in Österreich. Literatur—Kunst—Kultur, Vienna: Paul Zsolnay Verlag, 2010, p. 11-34.

17 In the late 1940s and 1950s, Austrian politicians and the Austrian public utilized the so-called victim theory to postulate that Austria was the first country to have fallen “victim” to the National Socialists’ foreign aggression. This blatant lie found its way into Austria’s declaration of independence and severely stifled the process of denazification in the postwar years in Austria. It was not until 1991, under the chancellorship of Social Democrat Franz Vranitzky, that Austria acknowledged the atrocities committed by Austrians in the Third Reich and during World War II in an official capacity. The work of resistance fighters was thus a taboo subject, at least in the first three decades of Austria’s Second Republic. For literature on collective memory in Austria’s Second Republic, see Gerhard Botz, “Geschichte und kollektives Gedächtnis in der Zweiten Republik. ‘Opferthese,’ ‘Lebenslüge,’ und ‘Geschichtstabu,’ in der Zeitgeschichtsschreibung,” in Wolfgang Kos and Georg Rigele (eds.), Listing 45/55. Österreich im ersten Jahrzehnt der Zweiten Republik, Vienna: Sonderzahl, 1996, p. 51-85; Günther Sandner, “Vergangenheitspolitik im Kabinett. Die Debatten um die österreichischen Kriegsopfer am Beginn der Zweiten Republik,” in Oswald Panagl (ed.), Text und Kontext. Theoriemodelle und methodische Verfahren im transdisziplinären Vergleich, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2004, p. 131-147. Also see Wolfgang Neugebauer, “Widerstandsforschung in Österreich,” in Anton Pelinka and Erika Weinzierl (eds), Das große Tabu. Österreichs Umgang mit seiner Vergangenheit, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Staatsdruckerei, 1997, p. 163-173.

For the rise through the ranks of former Nazi architects in Austria’s Second Republic, including the prominent designers Roland Rainer and Franz Schuster see Monika Platzer, “Interview with Klaus Steiner,” in Ingrid Holzschuh, Monika Platzer and Architekturzentrum Wien (eds.), Wien. Die Perle des Reiches: Planen für Hitler, Exhibition Catalogue (Architekturzentrum Wien, 19 March-17 August 2015), Vienna: Zolnay, 2015; Sophie Hochhäusl, “From Siedlung to Suburb: Exhibiting the Austrian Prefabricated Home—Technological Transfer, Americanization, and the U.S. Economic Mission in Vienna, 1952-1955,” Buell Dissertation Colloquium, 2015.

18 Schütte-Lihotzky personally experienced being ostracized from the architectural community, stating that Social Democratic senate and building councilor, Rudolf Böck, had once confided to her that party members had decided not to award commissions to “the architect Schütte-Lihotzky, as a member of the Austrian Communist Party and in particular as president of the Federation of Democratic Women.” See Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Berufsverbote; Beispiel: Berufsverbot in Österreich. Wie eine Expertin für sozialen Wohnbau von der Gemeinde kalt gestellt wurde,” Volksstimme, 1976, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Politik, Text Archives, TXT/499; Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Berufsverbote auch in Österreich praktiziert,” September 1976, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Vienna, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Politik, Text Archives, TXT/508.

19 One of the defining historiographical characteristics that emerged when revisiting the role of female architects in the history of modern architecture is that their professional work was often fragmented and their archives seemingly more dispersed than those of their male counterparts. While many women, including Schütte-Lihotzky, Lilly Reich, Catherine Bauer, Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, Elizabeth Mock, and Lina Bo Bardi, to name but a few, remained firmly committed to their works as architects, they had to re-envision their careers multiple times, working as curators, writers, and consultants. For a number of artists and architects this situation was aggravated by forced migration and exile. See, for example, Hilde Heynen, “Anonymous Architecture as Counter-Image: Sibyl Moholy-Nagy’s Perspective on American Vernacular,” The Journal of Architecture, vol. 13, no. 4, 2008, p. 469-491; Robin Schuldenfrei, “Images in Exile: Lucia Moholy’s Bauhaus Negatives and the Construction of the Bauhaus Legacy,” History of Photography, vol. 37, no. 2, 2013, p. 182-203. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/thph20/current. Accessed 25 March 2020; Anooradha Iyer Siddiqi, “Crafting the Archive: Minnette De Silva, Architecture, and History,” The Journal of Architecture, vol. 22, no. 8, 2017, p. 1299-1336; Erin McKellar, “Tomorrow on Display: British and American Housing Exhibitions 1940-1955,” PhD. Dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA, 2018.

20 On multiple occasions Schütte-Lihotzky insisted that she was always interested in the built dimensions of architecture. One could argue that Millionenstädte Chinas was dedicated decidedly to architects―not art historians―precisely in a moment when she found professional commissions dwindling.

21 Marcel Bois’s work focusses on Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky as a communist intellectual. He therefore draws on the concept of “second exile” advanced by the historian Thomas Kroll, who proposed it as a broader framework by which to study the lives of communist intellectuals of the postwar era in Western Europe. Bois’s work is a crucial contribution to the larger analysis of the Schütte-Lihotzky’s fields of engagement, including politics and activism. Marcel Bois, “‘Bis zum Tod einer falschen Ideologie gefolgt,’ Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky als kommunistische Intellektuelle,” op. cit. (note 13), p. 66-88; I also want to acknowledge that as I am completing final revisions for this article, a catalog by Marcel Bois and Bernadette Reinhardt is in production, which includes a variety of essays including a few on Schütte-Lihotzky’s postwar work including an article by Helen Chang on Schütte-Lihotzky’s work in China. As a contributor and participant in the conference dedicated to her work “Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky. Architektur–Politik–Geschlecht,” I had access to some papers in advance, but not all.

22 Sibel Bozdoğan, “Nationalizing the Modern House: Regionalism Debates and Emigré Architects in Early Republican Turkey,” in Bernd Nicolai (ed.), Architektur und Exil: Kulturtransfer und architektonische Emigration von 1930 bis 1950, Trier: Porto Alba, 2003, p. 197.

23 Edward Said, “Reflections on Exile,” in Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures, edited by Richard Ferguson, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990, p. 357-366.

24 Edward Said, “Freedom from Domination in the Future: Movement and Migrations,” op. cit. (note 2), p. 334.

25 Ibid., p. 335-336.

26 Ibid.

27 Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledges,” op. cit. (note 1), p. 575-599.

28 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, edited by Karin Zogmayer, Vienna; New York, NY: Springer, 2007.

29 See Katia Frey and Eliana Perotti’s work on female urban theorists' role in modern city planning, which argues that urbanism is one of the neglected domains of feminist architectural histories. Katia Frey and Eliana Perotti, Theoretikerinnen des Städtebaus: Texte und Projekte für die Stadt, Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag, 2017.

30 Esra Akcan, who first discussed Schütte-Lihotzky’s work in Turkey in great detail, noted that her designs for rural schools questioned the notion of “smooth translations” of design, in contrast to the work of some other émigré architects. Indeed, in Schütte-Lihotzky’s proposal to the Ministry of Education, she worked on forty-nine variations of school buildings that could be chosen by local inhabitants. Akcan highlighted that while she conceived of herself as a design expert in the employ of the Turkish National State, she actively invited inhabitants into the design process. Esra Akcan, “Siedlung in Subaltern Exile,” in Architecture in Translation: Germany, Turkey, and the Modern House, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012, p. 206-213: “[…] it would be a mistake to see Schütte-Lihotzky as a heroic Westerner, a missionary seeking to civilize the rural inhabitants on the premise of smooth translatability. […] In a way, Schütte-Lihotzky advocated the agency of the subaltern in shaping the environment.”

31 The Chinese People’s Association for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries was, as the name suggests, founded with the distinct goal to increase China’s influence abroad. Because of the American sanctions against the prc, in the 1950s, the cpc attempted to seek all sorts of support—financial, technological, material, etc.—from western countries.

32 Donna Mehos and Suzanne Moon, “The Uses of Portability: Circulating Experts in the Technopolitics of Cold War and Decolonization,” in Gabrielle Hecht (ed.), Entangled Geographies: Empire and Technopolitics in the Global Cold War, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011, p. 43-74.

33 I use the term “multiple modernities” as a reference to Edward Denison’s work, who builds on Shmuel Eisenstadt and―maybe in a wider sense―Jonathan Spence, to grapple with the complex flows of modernism, modernization, and modernity.

34 Many of the architectural diaries, which turned architectural travel guides, are marred with the embrace of an essentialized “other,” which has been most amply and fully discussed and theorized in regard to Le Corbusier’s “Voyage d’Orient.” See, for example, Sibel Bozdoğan, “Journey to the East: Ways of Looking at the Orient and the Question of Representation,” Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 41, no. 4, Summer, 1988, p. 38-45; Zeynep Çelik, “Le Corbusier, Orientalism, Colonialism,” Assemblage, no. 17, 1992, p. 58-77; Francesco Passanti, “The Vernacular, Modernism, and Le Corbusier,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 56, no. 4, 1997, p. 438-451.

35 For those Chinese who were born before 1949 and moved to Taiwan after 1949, we followed the Wade-Giles system to transliterate names. For those Chinese who stayed in mainland China after 1949, we follow the pinyin system.

Schütte-Lihotzky’s trip to China spanned five weeks, from May 19 to June 20, 1934. The total trip, departing from Moscow to Vladivostok, with a prior stop in Japan and Korea, lasted from April 18 to June 30. Overall, Schütte-Lihotzky spent ten days on the trans-Siberian railway, arriving in Kyōto on May 3 in time for Bruno Taut’s birthday on May 4. The couple consequently spent two weeks in Japan. It also took them two weeks to return to Moscow from China at the end of the trip.

36 See, for example, Federica Ferlanti, “The New Life Movement at War: Wartime Mobilisation and State Control in Chongqing and Chengdu, 1938-1942,” European Journal of East Asian Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, 2012, p. 187-212.

37 See Frederic Wakeman, “A Revisionist View of the Nanjing Decade: Confucian Fascism,” The China Quarterly, no. 150, 1997, special issue Reappraising Republic China, p. 395-432.

38 See the full speech in President Chiang Kai-shek’s Selected Speeches and Messages, 1937-1945, Nanjing: China Cultural Service, n.d.

39 The kmt began to receive aid from the Soviet Union in the early 1920s.

40 For a discussion of the May Brigade in the Soviet Union, see Thomas Flierl, “‘Possibly the Greatest Task an Architect Ever Faced’: Ernst May in the Soviet Union, 1930-1933, in Claudia Quiring (ed.), Ernst May 1886-1970, Munich: Prestel, 2011, p. 157-196.

41 Also see Thomas Flierl, Standardstädte: Ernst May in der Sowjetunion 1930-1933: Texte und Dokumente, Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2012.

42 In an interview with Chup Friemert in the introduction to Schütte-Lihotzky’s Memories of the Resistance, she stated that the work, both in Frankfurt and the Soviet Union, was very profitable and that she and Schütte lived a very comfortable life. See Margarete Schütte-LihotzkyErinnerungen aus dem Widerstand, op. cit (note 5), p. 31-32.

43 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Letter to Adele Hanakam, Magnitogorsk, 17 March 1933. Private Archives of Michael Stransky. “Von der ganzen Sache hier hat man schon einen unerhörten Eindruck und man versteht, wenn man das sieht, dass die Russen immer von ihren neuen “Industriegiganten” sprechen. Es ist eine Riesenstadt, Riesenindustrie und vor 3 ½ Jahren stand hier noch keine Telegrafenstange!! Und das alles mit diesen primitive Menschen und unter den ganzen unerhörten Schwierigkeiten, mit denen eben ein so rückständiges Land zu kämpfen hat. Von meinen Kinderanstalten ist ein Kindergarten und eine Krippe im Bau. Am Bau arbeiten viele Kirgisen und Kirgisinnen und wenn man mit ihnen sprechen will, stoßen sie ganz komische Laute aus und verstehen kein Wort russisch. […] Der Blick am Abend ist besonders schön, die ganze weite Gegend und da mitten drinn [sic] die brennenden Hochöfen. Es gibt hier 3 riesige Eisenberge (größer wie unser Erzberg). 2 davon werden jetzt abgetragen, aber bei jedem ist erst eine Stufe abgetragen, es wird noch lang lauern, bis sie so aussehen, wie unser Erzberg.”

44 Schütte-Lihotzky often referred to this idea. In the postwar years, she would insist, like Engels suggested in The Condition of the Working Class in England, that architects had to fight for the transformation of the economic framework upon which any architectural work would rely. Friedrich Engels, Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England, Leipzig: O. Wigand, 1945.

45 Wilhelm Schütte first met the educational delegation in Germany. See Margarete Schütte-LihotzkyErinnerungen aus dem Widerstand, 1938-1945, op. cit. (note 5), p. 36. For a discussion of the modernization debates within the kmt, see, for example, Terry Dwight Bodenhorn, Defining Modernity: Guomindang Rhetorics of a New China, 1920-1970, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Chinese Studies, 2002.

46 For general information about this trip, see Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise, 1934; also see Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Von Moskau nach Japan und China und 22 Jahre später das zweite Mal,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/418A.

47 For a description of Taut’s first arrival in Japan and his correspondence with Shimomura Shōtarō, see Bruno Taut, Bruno Taut in Japan: Das Tagebuch, Zweiter Band 1933, edited by Manfred Speidel, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 2015, p. 9. The book is known in English as Houses and People of Japan. Bruno Taut and Estille Balk, Houses and People of Japan, Tokyo: Sanseido, 1937.

48 Ueno’s 1948 book タウト著作集 (Taut Collection), dedicated in part to the question of settlements (ジードルング / Siedlung), remains an important understudied text about architectural concepts in translation. For other accounts of Bruno Taut and Erica Taut’s exile in Japan, see Manfred Speidel, “Bruno Taut in Japan: Exil und Kulturkritik,” in Bernd Nicolai (ed.), Architektur und Exil, op. cit. (note 22), p. 199-225. Also see Bruno Taut, Bruno Taut in Japan, op. cit. (note 47), p. 9.

49 Bernd Nicolai, Moderne und Exil, op. cit. (note 12).

50 For literature on Bruno Taut and the Berliner Gross-Siedlungen, see Franziska Bollery and Kristiana Hartmann, “Bruno Taut: Vom phantastischen Ästheten zum ästhetischen Sozial(ideal)isten,” in Kurt Junghanns (ed.), Bruno Taut 1880-1938, Berlin: Deutsche Bauakademie; Schriften des Instituts für Städtebau und Architektur, 1970, p. 15-85; Kristiana Hartmann, “Bruno Taut: Der Architekt und Planer von Gartenstädten und Siedlungen,” in Winfried Nerdinger, Kristiana Hartmann, Matthias Schirren and Manfred Speidel (eds.), Bruno Taut 1880-1938, Architekt zwischen Tradition und Avantgarde, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 2001, p. 137-155. For Taut’s political ideas, see Iain Boyd Whyte, Bruno Taut and the Architecture of Activism, Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1982. For a nuanced reading of Taut’s expressionism, see Rosemarie Haag Bletter, Bruno Taut and Paul Scheerbart’s Vision Utopian Aspects of German Expressionist Architecture, Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 1973.

51 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Von Moskau nach Japan und China und 22 Jahre später das zweite Mal,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive Plan, Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/418A.

52 I do not mention Taut and Schütte-Lihotzky’s shared views as an attempt to trace flows of influence from the senior architect, Taut, to his junior colleague and friend, Schütte-Lihotzky, as so many popular narratives about female architects do. Rather, it is to show that Taut and Schütte-Lihotzky shared certain objectives about architecture and urbanism, which were rooted in their joint commitment to the social dimension of architecture, attention to the everyday, and people’s habits and customs. By 1934 Taut had already published Nippon mit europäischen Augen gesehen for Meiji-Shobo, and by 1935 he was working on the book manuscripts Japans Kunst mit europäischen Augen gesehen—also for Meiji-Shobo—and Das japanische Haus und sein Leben for Sanseido. For literature on Taut’s publishing endeavors in Japan, see Manfred Speidel, “Anmerkungen,” in Bruno Taut, Das japanische Haus und sein Leben, edited by Manfred Speidel, Berlin: Gebrüder Mann, 1997, p. 322-328.

53 Bruno Taut, Bruno Taut in Japan, op. cit. (note 47), p. 48. “Doch wenn ich nachher die kopierten Photos sah, so mußte ich mir sagen, daß es absolut unmöglich ist, meine Freunde in der Heimat davor zurückzuhalten, trotz alledem darin zuerst das Pittoreske, Ungewöhnliche und ‘Exotische‘ zu sehen.”

54 Bruno Taut, Bruno Taut in Japan, op. cit. (note 47), vol. 2, p. 140.

55 During the trip Schütte-Lihotzky and Schütte also spent considerable time with Bruno Taut in Japan. In her introduction to Modern Architecture in Translation, Esra Akcan has argued that Bruno Taut’s work in Turkey captured what she considers a “cosmopolitan ethics,” in the Kantian sense, as a true translation. Schütte-Lihotzky’s work in China could arguable fall within this framework as well; however, her stringent communist world view also pose a set of political-intellectual questions that show her political evolution to more doctrinaire ideas over the 1950s and 1960s.

56 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Text Archives, TXT/237 (25.5. 1934). “25.1/21-1/2 2 h Bootsfahrt auf dem Westsee. Schönes Boot―ganz leichtes Dach aus Leinwand auf zwei Seiten mit Schnüren mit dem Boot verbunden―Bambusmöbel―Teekanne u. Tassen―Leinwand aufgehängt―schöne Leinen u. Baumwollstoffe―Muster eingewebt nicht gedrückt―schöne Landschaft auf dem See―alles größer und großzügiger als in Japan―2 Ruderer―Hausboote, Insel mit Tempel alles sehr ernst―viel Wasser! Teiche―Seepflanze―Brückchen―wenig Blumen viele Steine―phantastische Steine―Tempel nur dunkles Holz u. weiße Wand sehr schön farbig―auf Tischtuch Zeichen, auf Kanne Zeichen, auf Ruder Zeichen―alles phantastisch und sehr poetisch.”

57 Claire Zimmerman and Eve Zimmerman, “Ethnographic Architectural Photography: Futagawa Yukio and Nihon no minka,” The Journal of Architecture, vol. 20, no. 4, September 2015, special issue Modern Architecture and the Book, p. 718-750. Zimmerman and Zimmerman explain that one of the origins of photographic ethnographies of architecture were the photographic books from 1920s and 1930s Germany that often essentialized people and populations as architectural and urban form. Taut is cited specifically as one of the first to attempt a photographic ethnography of architecture, but his overemphasis on the vernacular can be considered a form of provincializing. At the time of Schütte-Lihotzky’s writing in the 1950s, the most widely known and studied photographic ethnographies of architecture appeared, among them Sibyl Moholy-Nagy’s Native Genius in Anonymous Architecture and Bernard Rudofsky’s Architecture without Architects. For in-depth discussions of these photographic narratives, see Hilde Heynen, “Anonymous Architecture as Counter-Image: Sibyl Moholy-Nagy’s Perspective on American Vernacular,” The Journal of Architecture, vol. 13, no. 4, 2008, p. 469-491; Felicity Scott, “Bernard Rudofsky: Allegories of Nomadism and Dwelling,” in Sarah Williams Goldhagen and Réjean Legault (eds.), Anxious Modernisms Experimentation in Postwar Architectural Culture, Montreal: CCA; Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000, p. 215-238.

58 Claire Zimmerman and Eve Zimmerman, “Ethnographic Architectural Photography,” op. cit. (note 57), p. 722.

Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, op. cit. (note 28), p. 99-100.

59 I want to thank Zheng Xiaodong for his notes on the development of Chinese kindergartens at the beginning of the twentieth century. According to his notes, the first private kindergarten of China was founded in Xiamen in 1898 by English missionaries. By 1903 the Chinese government had published the first education charter that included rules on kindergartens, and some public kindergartens were founded in larger cities in the following years, which remained accessible only to elites. By 1930, however, most common families continued to educate their kids at home and in rural regions, and many children attended traditional education in temples.

Also see Wilma Fairbank, Liang and Lin: Partners in Exploring China’s Architectural Past, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994; Jonathan SpenceThe Search for Modern China, New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 2012; Liang Sicheng, A Pictorial History of Chinese Architecture, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984; Ronald Knapp, China’s Traditional Rural Architecture, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1986.

60 Edward Said, Orientalism, New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1979.

61 Despite our best efforts, we have not been able to make out the location of the temple school depicted in the photograph. Zhengyang Hua, who edited this article, noted that the building looks like an ancestor shrine or a temple of genius loci. But its name, “Baoji An,” indicates that it was a Buddhist temple, or more precisely, a Buddhist convent. “Baoji” refers to a Buddhist scripture, which literally means the accumulation of those precious Buddhist things, or talismans. The building was likely not located around Hangzhou, Shanghai, or Nanjing, and surely not around Beijing. There are a number of temples named “Baoji” in China. There was a famous “Baoji An” in Nanjing, but it was destroyed.

62 I want to thank Lawrence Chua for his comments on this image and for reading this article in draft form.

63 Girls’ schools and women’s colleges were popular in the roc, though co-education was promoted.

64 Letter from Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Wang Shi-chieh [sic], June 16, 1934, p. 1. Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Text, 235/5. “Sehr geehrter Herr Kultusminister! Nach Besichtigung vieler Kindergärten in den verschiedenen Städten Chinas bin ich zur Überzeugung gekommen, dass es notwendig sein wird die Frage der Organisierung, Erbauung und Einrichtung von Kindergärten in nächster Zeit eingehen zu prüfen und systematisch durchzuarbeiten. Diese gründliche Durcharbeitung wird am besten im jetzigen Stadium vorgenommen, in einem Zeitpunkt in dem man noch ganz am Anfang einer baulichen Entwicklung dieser Anstalten steht, gerade jetzt, bevor man Kindergärten in größerem Umfang im Lange errichten wird. Nur durch gründliche Erledigung aller grundsätzlichen Vorarbeiten, wird man bei Herstellung von Kindergärten mit den vorhandenen Mitteln wirklich sparsam und ökonomisch umgehen können.”

65 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Text Archives, TXT/237 (30.6.1934). “Um 2h Abfahrt. Noch genau 48 Stunden―7 Schulen u. eine Universität besichtigt―also alle 6 Stunden eine Schule.”

66 I want to thank Daniel Talesnik, who lectured on foreign architects in the Soviet Union and noted that they generally traveled with translators.

67 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Richtlinien für den Bau von Kindergärten in China,” p. 4-5. Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Text Archives, TXT/235/1.

“Die an sich zur Natur geöffnete, dabei vor Sonne schützende alte landesübliche Bauweise wird die Grundlage der architektonischen Gestaltung bilden müssen, ohne jedoch alte Stilarten zu kopieren.”

68 Claire Zimmerman and Eve Zimmerman, “Ethnographic Architectural Photography,” op. cit. (note 57), p. 722.

69 See, for example, photos 265-273, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Photo Konvolut.

70 During the trip she spent considerable time with both the minister of education, Wang Shih-chieh, and the minister of transportation and communication, Chu Chia-hua. In her diary note she mentions Chu frequently, albeit not by name. Both men were trained abroad—Chu had spent considerable time in Germany, where he received a doctorate in geology. He was a kmt official, serving first as minster of education (until 1933) and then as minster of transportation and communication. He was educated in Tongji University from 1908 to 1914, but his education was interrupted for a year by the Revolution of 1911 when he joined the revolutionaries. Before and after World War I he went to Germany and graduated with a Ph.D. at Berlin University. Upon his return to China in 1924 he became professor of geology at Peking University. In the early 1930s, he became president of Central University and secretary general of the National Economic Committee. During World War II he was special envoy to Europe and America. See Committee on International and Regional Studies, Harvard University (John Fairbank), Biographies of Kuomintang Leaders (Confidential), Cambridge, MA: Publication Information Association, not paginated (Chu Chia-hua). Wang Shih-chieh was education minster of the kmt from 1933 to 1938. He was educated in the last years of the Qing Dynasty and graduated from Peiyang University. In 1913 he went to England, where he graduated from the London School of Economics and Politics with a Doctor of Economics. In 1917 he went to Paris, where he received a Doctor of Law in 1920 at the University of Paris. Upon return he was professor of constitution and dean of the School of Law of Peking University. He also served as president of Wuhan University. From 1945 to 1948 he was the foreign minister, and attended the Paris Peace Conference in 1946 as head of the Chinese delegation. See Committee on International and Regional Studies, Harvard University (John Fairbank), Biographies of Kuomintang Leaders (Confidential), Cambridge, MA: Publication Information Association, not paginated (Wang Shih-chieh).

Also see Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Text Archives, TXT/237 (17.6.1934). “Im ganzen 10 Herren. Ich die einzige Frau.”

71 In a letter to her sister, Adele Hanakam, Schütte-Lihotzky articulated that Wilhelm Schütte was the center of attention at this dinner party, having been celebrated as “quasi ‘the greatest builder of schools in the world.’” See Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Letter to Adele Hanakam, Nanjing, May 29, 1934. Private Archives of Michael Stransky.

72 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Text Archives, TXT/237 (30.6.1934).

“Um 2h Abfahrt. Noch genau 48 Stunden—7 Schulen u. eine Universität besichtigt—also alle 6 Stunden eine Schule.”

73 Edward Denison, Architecture and the Landscape of Modernity, London; New York, NY: Routledge, 2017, p. 182-185.

74 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, (30.6.1934). “[…] eine magere Kuh auf der Straße, auf einmal wieder ein risen Kasten―Reichsgericht u.s.w. dann kommt der sogennante Potsdamerplatz―dann einige Geschäfte in neueren Häusern dazwischen wieder Baulücken, Tempel etc. dann zu unserem Hotel―unendlich viel Personal stürzt wieder über einen her. Zimmer mit fl. Wasser ohne Bad aber alles sehr unkultiviert―dann Frühstück ebenso―faules Ei―ugeheures Kontrast zu Japan―alles atmet Unkultur―von alter Kultur ist gar nichts zu spüren―alles was neu gebaut ist, ist gemeinster europ. oder amerikanischer Import.”

75 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934 (30.6.1934).

“Alle Primitivität―alle Unkultur die sich in Russland ebenfalls durch ungeheures Wachstum dort zeigen nimmt man da gerne auf sich für den herrlichen geistigen u. materiellen Aufbau des Landes―Erwachen der Massen―Ist hier auch so ein Gegenpol der das wieder ausgleicht? Wir werden sehen.“

76 In what follows I have chosen to omit the racial epithet Schütte-Lihotzky used, since I am not interested in perpetuating violence in translation. As a historian, taking seriously the texts of historic actors and how they reflect the conditions of their time, I have retained the original German in the transcription in the note. The term, mostly unknown to young German speakers today, is extremely derogatory in English and still widely known. Although Schütte-Lihotzky’s positioning of the porter’s role in the vast development of the country points to empathy with the plight of workers and the potential of their creativity, maybe even anticipating debates in subaltern studies, her use of racial epithets show the ultimately colonial world view in which she was embedded and which she, too, perpetuated.

77 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Text Archives, TXT/237 (30.6.1934).

“Vorläufig scheint mir, dass der Kuli [sic] von heute noch genau so der Kuli [sic] von früher ist―materiell und geistig trostlos u. ohne Zukunft, für ihn geschieht nichts unmittelbar (bloß Schulbau) keine Wohnungen werden gebaut, keine Befreiung der Masse durch Heranziehung zu den Aufgaben des Landes.―In Russland materiell auch viel Elend aber Zukunft, Ewachen, Ausgleich u. Entschädigung!”

78 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1934, Text Archives, TXT/237 (17.6.1934).

79 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Tagebuch MSL,” Chinareise 1934, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/237 (30.6.1934).

“Pioniere auf der Straße marschiert. Alle Jungen in der Schule sind von 10. Juli Pioniere―machen militärische Übungen―nicht freiwillig.”

80 Taut’s rhetoric that I described above is evident in this quote as well. Taut’s impression of the trip is consistent with Schütte-Lihotzky’s letters to her sister, although not as openly racist in tone. In her diary, however, Schütte-Lihotzky was decidedly more enthusiastic. Bruno Taut, Bruno Taut in Japan, op. cit. (note 47), vol. 2, p. 166.

“Am 26. [6.] morgens reisten Schüttes von Nara her durch, wo sie sich von China erholten: sind sehr enttäuscht, das alte China nur noch Museum (selbst Peking trotz seiner großen Dimensionen), Shanghei und Nanking scheußlich und die modernen Chinesen weich degeneriert, ohne Initiative. Sie müßten bauen, aber der Staat hat kein Geld und seine Privatleute riskieren nichts.” See Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Letter to Adele Hanakam, Nanjing, May 29, 1934. Private Archives of Michael Stransky.

81 Wang Shih-chieh, The Diary of Dr. Wang Shih-chieh [王世杰日记], edited by Lin Meili, Taipei: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica, 2012, vol. 1, p. 4.

“1935 中华民国二十四年 1月13日……在教育方面,这一年中,所有的设施远不足以惬私愿;盖中央与地方,对于教费预算,均不能有大增益,一切计划,自难实现。”

82 Ibid., p. 15-16.

“4月30日 下年度教育预算之编制,极使予感觉困难;以各高等教育要求增加预算至烈。予意政府所可增之教育经费,今后当多用于义务教育,无如高等教育机关不乏人代为说话,而义务教育则以关涉广泛,初无人热烈为之说话;坚决为之主张,其责当在教育部。”

83 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “1934 von Moskau nach Japan und China und 22 Jahre später das zweite mal in China,” undated typescript, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/418A, p. 3.

“Damals, 1934 waren wir eingeladen worden um an der Architekturhochschule in Nanking Vorträge über Erziehungsbauten zu halten. Die Thschang [sic] Kai Schek—Regierung hatte die Absicht ein grosses Erziehungsprogramm durchzuführen. Wir hielten die Vorträge. Ich machte auch für Kinderanstalten ein Bau—und Typenprogramm,—aber nichts davon wurde verwirklicht.”

84 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Von Moskau nach Japan und China und 22 Jahre später das zweite mal,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Plan Archives, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/418A.

85 See, for example, “Exhibition of the History of the Chinese People’s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries.” URL: http://history.cpaffc.org.cn/index.php/index/photo_list/category1/1/category2/9/category3/0. Accessed 1 November 2019.

86 For all Chinese who stayed in mainland China after 1949, we follow the pinyin system to transliterate their names. According to Chinese sources, the Chinese People’s Association for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries was created on the initiative of Premier Zhou Enlai on May 3, 1954, and combined ten large domestic and diplomatic organizations, among them the Chinese People’s Committee for World Peace, the All-China Democratic Youth Federation, the All-China Students Federation, the China-India Friendship Association, the China-Burma Friendship Association, and the Chinese People’s Institute for Foreign Affairs. See, for example, “History of the cpaffc.” URL: http://history.cpaffc.org.cn/index.php/index/photo_list/category1/1/category2/8/category3/0. Accessed 1 November 2019.

“The Chinese People’s Committee for World Peace, the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles, the All-China Federation of Natural Science Societies, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the All-China Democratic Women’s Federation, the All-China Democratic Youth Federation, the All-China Students Federation, the China-India Friendship Association, the China-Burma Friendship Association, and the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs, joined together to establish the Chinese People’s Association for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries (cpacrfc), with Chu Tu'nan [楚图南] as its President.”

87 Recent literature on Zhou Enlai’s approaches to diplomacy has even suggested that for a brief period in the mid-1950s Beijing became a second parallel center “of world revolution.” See Shen Zihua and Xia Yafeng, “The Whirlwind of China: Zhou Enlai’s Shuttle Diplomacy in 1957 and its Effects,” Cold War History, vol. 10, no. 4, 2010, p. 513-535.

88 With special organizations for China’s “friendship” with India and Burma, China’s goal to gain influence in the nam was decidedly pronounced. During the time, the Soviet Union wanted China to play a role of a leader in East and South Asia as well.

89 Anonymous, “庆祝‘五一’国际劳动节 周总理举行酒会招待外宾” [In Celebration of May 1, International Workers’ Day, Prime Minister Zhou Holds a Banquet], People’s Daily, May 1, 1956, p. 2. URL: http://www.laoziliao.net/rmrb/1956-05-01-2#140135. Accessed 28 January 2020.

周恩来总理今晚举行盛大酒会,同来自五十多个国家的一千多位外宾一起 [Prime Minister Zhou holds a grand banquet tonight to receive over one thousand foreign guests from over fifty countries].

90 Anonymous, In Celebration of May 1, op. cit. (note 89).

91 Anonymous, “国际民主妇联理事会北京会议闭幕 号召全世界妇女在保卫和平和保卫妇女权利的斗争中加强团结和合作” [The Beijing Conference of Women’s International Democratic Federation Closes, Advocating for the Unification and Cooperation of Women from the Whole World in the Fight for Peace and Women’s Rights], People’s Daily, May 1, 1956, p. 4. URL: http://www.laoziliao.net/rmrb/1956-05-01-4#140147. Accessed 28 January 2020.

“出席这次理事会会议的,一共有四十八个国家,一百八十三个理事、特邀代表和来宾。她们来自不同的社会阶层,从政府部长、国会议员、大企业负责人、工会工作者、教育工作者、医务人员一直到还没有得到识字机会的家庭主妇。她们中间有许多是国际妇女运动的著名活动家,也有一些是在她们的国家里刚刚建立起妇女组织、第一次被邀请来参加国际民主妇联会议的代表。”

92 The group included a zoologist, Wilhelm Marinelli, a professor at the University of Vienna, and his wife, Martha Marinelli; a geographer, Gustav Stratil-Sauer, also a professor at the University of Vienna and general secretary of the “Notring der Wissenschaft,” which unified 40 scientific organizations; Hans Bayer, an economist, sociologist, and professor at the University of Innsbruck; Sergius Pauser, an Austrian artist and professor at the Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna; Viktor Griessmaier, an art historian specializing in Chinese art history and the director of the Museum of Applied Arts in Vienna. Schütte-Lihotzky was the only professional woman invited to the trip. She was also the only one who did not hold a position at an Austrian university. The delegation also included Eduard Tratz, who was a zoologist, and the founder of “Haus der Natur,” in Salzburg. He was a member of the nsdap and the SS during the Third Reich, and despite his conviction to two years in prison, he evaded serving a sentence and continued his career seamlessly in 1947. See the note in the end of this article about Schütte-Lihotzky’s complicated estimation of Tratz, who was war criminal.

93 The group departed in Vienna on September 4 with a stop in Moscow, and arrived in Vienna on October 8, also making a stop in the Soviet Union.

94 For the communication between Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wang Yi (Yee), the designated female correspondent in the Chinese People’s Association for Cultural with Foreign Countries, see Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Briefverkehr, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/423.

95 Christine Zwingl, Werkverzeichnis, Unpublished, accessible only at Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, p. 290.

96 Letter from Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Victoria Maier, December 30, 1956, p. 2. Private archives of Carla González Maier.

97 Please see my forthcoming book on Schütte-Lihotzky’s participation in the Communist resistance for her and Wilhelm Schütte’s resistance activities.

98 The architect Victoria Ines Maier Mayer went by different names in the 1930s and the 1950s respectively. Today she is sometimes referred to as Victoria Maier González, after her marriage to fellow Chilean architect Jorge Bruno González Espinoza. In Austria in the 1930s she went by the name Ines Maier or Ines Mayer.

99 Letter from Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Victoria Maier, December 30, 1956, p. 2. Private archives of Carla González Maier, p.  1.

“Deine Kinder sehen ja reizend aus und ich bin überhaupt froh, daß sich dein Leben so glücklich gestaltet hat. Das kann man von den meisten von uns, das heißt unseren Leidensgefährten, nicht behaupten. Daß meine Ehe auseinander ist, weißt du wohl, ich habe sehr schwere Jahre hinter mir und die Aussicht auf ein einsames Alter ist nicht gerade so schön. Aber mein jetziges Leben, daß ich mir so fröhlich und genußreich einrichte als nur möglich, ist mir natürlich 1000 x lieber, als in einer unfrohen Ehe zu vegetieren. […] Ich habe momentan für einige Jahre einen 22 jährigen Neffen bei mir wohnen, der Architektur bei Schuster studiert, dadurch habe ich viel Kontakt mit Jugend u. er selbst ist ein sehr aufgeschlossener, gebildeter Mensch, sodaß es bei uns sehr nett zugeht. […] Ich selbst habe gerade ein großartiges Erlebnis hinter mir. Ich war mit einer Kulturgruppe / insgesamt 8 Personen, Wissenschafter und Künstler / im Herbst in China. Per Flug über Moskau―Irkutsk―Mongolei―Peking am 4. IX. abgereist, verbrachte ich genau 5 Wochen in China, am 17. X. waren wir wieder da. Die Stärke des Eindrucks, sowohl der alten Kultur als auch der neuen Leistungen, der Landschaft als auch vor allem der Menschen ist unvergesslich. Es ist der große Lichtblick in den derzeit so schwierigen u. kriegsgefährlichen Zeiten. Auch meine Mitreisenden waren interessante Leute, so daß ich eine sehr schöne, sorglose Zeit hinter mir habe. Für berufliche Arbeit siehts bei mir derzeit nicht großartig aus obwohl es die letzten Jahre für mich sehr gut war. Momentan habe ich nur einen Wohnbau mit etwa 30 Wohnungen für die Gemeinde, aber da kann man nicht viel machen, es ist eine Existenzgrundlage, aber keine interessante Arbeit.”

100 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht, Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/421A (October 1956), p. 3.

101 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/420, not paginated (folio 2).

“Wenn ich nun so plötzlich über sowjetischen Boden fliege, ist es mir, wie wenn ich nach 19 Jahren irgendwie in einer Heimat komme. Am 12. August 1937 habe ich die Sowjetunion in Odessa verlassen und heute, nach mehr als 19 Jahren betrete ich das erstemal [sic] wieder sowjetischen Boden.”

102 Hans Schmidt was one of Schütte-Lihotzky’s closest friends in the May Brigade, with whom she was architecturally, intellectually, and ideologically closely aligned. For literature on Hans Schmidt, see Ursula Suter, Bruno Flierl, Simone Hain, Kurt Junghanns and Werner Oechslin, Hans Schmidt 1893-1972: Architekt in Basel, Moskau, Berlin-Ost, Zurich: gta Verlag, 1993 (Dokumente zur modernen Schweizer Architektur).

103 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/420, not paginated (folio 2). “Ich erinnere mich noch ganz genau wie sich das Schiff in Odessa vom Ufer löste. Hans Schmidt, der mit mir an Deck stand, sagte: ‘Nun das hätten wir also vom Hals,‘ ironisch, um der Aufregung Herr zu werden. Und er und ich standen noch so lange an Deck, bis die Lichter der Stadt verschwunden waren. Ein Lebensabschnitt, 7 Jahre Leben in der Sowjetunion, hatte sein Ende gefunden, ein Lebensabschnitt, der das ganze weitere Leben von Grund auf beeinflussen sollte. Man lebt eben nicht ohne Folgen 7 Jahre in der anderen Welt.―Und jetzt, nach fast 2 Jahrzehnten […] Erinnerungen steigen in einem auf. in welch andern [sic] Lebenssituation, auf welch anderer eigenen Entwicklungsstufe betrete ich dieses Land wieder als es jene war, in der ich es verließ.”

104 Ibid.

105 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956, (6.9.1956),” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/420, 10.

“Das Flugzeug fängt an zu schaukeln, steigt höher und höher um aus dem Sturm zu kommen bis auf 3.500 m, trotzdem es schaukelt weiter, stark trotz herrlichstem Sonnenschein und klarster Sicht. Keinem wird schlecht, wir sind alle ganz aufgewühlt von der Schönheit des Flugs―wir nähern uns der Wüste Gobi, es giebt [sic] noch Jurten und Herden aber sie werden immer weniger, noch einige Wasserrinnsale, dann hört alles Leben auf―und wir landen mitten in der Wüste, wo wir tanken.―Es ist kein richtiger Flugplatz natürlich, auch gar kein Flugbahnhof da, wir landen auf etwas festerem Sand―Sand Sand und nochmals Sand in Sicht―primitive, Barackenähnliche Hütten, in einiger Entfernung 2 Jurten, wir haben aber nicht Zeit hinzugehen, sind ganz benommen in dieser Wüstenei―Sturm, jeder steckt einen Stein zur Erinnerungen an die Wüste ein, sehen einige Mongolen und steigen so schnell als möglich ins Flugzeug, damit uns nicht davon weht.”

106 Donna Mehos and Suzanne Moon, “The Uses of Portability: Circulating Experts in the Technopolitics of Cold War and Decolonization,” op. cit. (note 32), p. 43-74.

107 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht, Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/421A (October 1956), p. 1.

108 The group arrived in Beijing on September 8 and was officially welcomed by the cpacrfc on September 10. Schütte-Lihotzky met with Léon Hoa, Shen Bo, and undertook a visit to the Academy of Fine Arts. She also visited the national newspaper, a hospital designed by Léon Hoa, a printing press, and the All-China Federation of Women. On September 16, the group departed for Nanjing, where they visited the Academy of Fine Arts. In Shanghai, where the group arrived on September 19, they visited a university and a textile factory and visited an old housing district and a newly built settlement. They also visited the director of city planning. On September 24 and 25 they went on leisurely trips in Hangzhou and walked along West Lake. They saw two tea collectives. With a one-day pause in Shanghai on September 26, they made their way back to Beijing via Wuhan, where they saw construction of the Wuhan Yangtze River Bridge. Arriving back in Beijing on the night of September 28, and their visit culminated with a personal meeting with Zhou Enlai on September 30. On October 1 they witnessed the celebratory parades in Tiananmen Square. On October 2, they were received by Beijing’s mayor, Peng Zhen [彭真]. The rest of the time in Beijing, which included a few more leisurely activities, Schütte-Lihotzky spent much time preparing for two lectures she gave on October 11, in both the City Planning Office and the Construction Hochschule. Only on October 3 could she really attend an activity that was not programmed, which she used to photograph the hutongs close to the hotel. The trip ended with a reception of the cpacrfc after her lectures, ensuring that each guest had a lecture prepared once they returned to Austria.

109 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Zeitschrift Tagebuch (given 14.1.1957),” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/415, p. 2.

110 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/420, (folio 1).

111 Over the last years there have been a number of crucial exhibitions and publications that have highlighted these connections.

112 For literature on Léon Hoa see, for example, Luo Zhi, An Alternative Path Architect Léon Hoa and his Career, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 2018.

113 Shen Bo’s original name was Zhang Yuling [张豫苓]. After joining the CPC, he used the name of Shen Bo to evade the persecution of the kmt. Between 1953 and 1964 Shen Bo was the deputy director and then director of biad from 1955-1965, and the deputy director of Beijing City Planning and Administration Bureau. From 1958 he coordinated eight of the “Ten Projects for the National Day in 1959” [国庆十大工程] including the Great Hall of the People, the Museum of Revolutionary History, Military Museum and others. On the basis of these activities he authored the book The Record of the Construction of the Great Hall of the People [人民大会堂建设纪实]. For more information on Shen Bo, see Zhang Lu, “Celebration of My Father Shen Bo’s 100th Birthday.” URL: https://posts.careerengine.us/p/5bb098114f18b171563ef447. Accessed 30 September 2019. Also see notebook, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Material, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/419.

114 Qiran Shang and I were unable to locate records for the female architects Chang Ching Tschan and Chan Shi Yuen, since Schütte-Lihotzky’s transliterations and romanization are likely German oriented and now difficult to trace. Even to Zhou Enlai she refers repeatedly as “Tschu Enlai.”

115 We have inferred this by cross-referencing Schüte-Lihotzky’s annotations and descriptions of the All-Chinese Women’s Movement. The offices of the organization were located at 25 Shijia Hutong [史家胡同].

116 For literature on Cai Chang see, for example, Helen Rappaport, “Cai Chang,” Encyclopedia of Women Social Reformers, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2001, p. 125-126; Jude Howell, “Organizing around Women and Labour in China: Uneasy Shadows, Uncomfortable Alliances,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 33, no. 3, 2000, p. 355-377; Tao Jie, Zheng Bijun and Shirley L. Mow (eds.), Holding up Half the Sky: Chinese Women Past, Present and Future, New York, NY: First Feminist Press, 2004.

117 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag (Frauen), Volksbildungshaus (given 10.12.1956),” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/416, p. 1-5.

118 Cai Chang, “How to Develop Women’s Organizations in the Bases of the Resistance against Japanese Agression into Mass Organizations of Wide-Ranging Participants” [如何使抗日根据地的妇女团体成为更广泛的群众组织], Liberation Daily, 8 March 1942.

“妇联或妇救会应是团结各阶层妇女,照顾各阶层妇女利益的群众组织 […] 一切工作要从‘公平合理’出发,既可确保最苦的劳动妇女的,又要照顾其他阶层妇女的利益;既要着重注意受社会压迫与宗教束缚的贫苦妇女的生活改善、文化提高,又要照顾其他阶层妇女地位的改善。”

119 For concise histories in women’s studies focusing on China, see, for example, Gail Hershatter, Emily Honig, Susan Mann and Lisa Rofel, Guide to Women’s Studies in China, Berkeley, CA: Center for Chinese Studies, Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California, 1998 (China Research Monograph, 50); Tao Jie, Zheng Bijun and Shirley L. Mow, Holding up Half the Sky, op. cit. (note 116); also see Gail Hershatter’s forthcoming work on rural women in China in the 1950s.

120 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag (Frauen), Volksbildungshaus (given 10.12.1956),” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/416, p. 1.

121 Ibid., p. 3.

122 Ibid.

123 Ibid.

124 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Zeitschrift Tagebuch (Ehrbarsaal),” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/415, p. 7.

125 Ibid.

126 In a note in her lecture, she suggested that Ernesto Rogers was also in attendance. Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag Ehrbarsaal, Zeitschrift Tagebuch (Ehrbarssal),” op. cit. (note 120), p. 11.

127 See note 115. Since Schütte-Lihotzky is using German transliteration of Chinese names we have retained her spelling in quotes. Further research in German would necessitate using this German transliteration. Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag Ehrbarsaal, Zeitschrift Tagebuch (Ehrbarssal),” op. cit. (note 120), p. 11.

“Am Vorabend Staatsempfang bei Tschu En Lai. Man hat den Eindruck ‘Die ganze fortschrittliche Welt trifft sich in Peking.’ Alle asiatischen Staaten sind vertreten, meist in ihren farbingen Nationaltrachten, viele Inderinnen, Sukarne mit 50 Indonesiern, Pakistaner, eine japanische Kulturgruppe, Isländer, ich treffen einen italienischen Kollegen, Architekten aus Mailand, der mit einer italienischen Kulturgruppe dort ist, der Ministerpräsident aus Nepal mit einer Menge Nepalesen, ein englischer Lord wegen Handesbeziehungen England―China, fast alle Delegierten des soeben beendeten Parteitags. Die ganze Chinesische Regierung, Maotsetung, die Witwe Sun Yat Sens, heute Erziehungsminister, Frau Passionaria, und Tschu En Lai hälte eine kurze Ansprache! Daraus einen Satz: ‘Wir bitten unsere Freunde aus den verschiedenen Ländern aufrichtig uns Anregungen für die Verbesserung unserer Arbeit zu geben um im besonderen uns streng zu kritisieren, damit bei uns dadurch jede Neigung zu grossnationalem Chauvinismus und zur Selbstzufriedenheit entgegengetreten wird!’ Welcher Aussenminister spricht solch bescheidene Worte?”

128 For the construction of this colossal architecture, see my notes 158 and 159.

129 I refer here to three intersecting concepts of mass ornament (Kracauer), provincializing (Said), and interior colonization (which has never been adequately theorized).

130 These sources―likely assembled with the input of Griessmeier―documented the country’s historic development, art history, and politics.

131 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisetagebuch über Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/420, (folio 1).

132 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vorträge über die Reise der Österreichischen Kulturstudiengruppe nach China gehalten von Architektin Schütte-Lihotzky,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/411B.

133 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “An die allchinesische Gesellschaft für kulturelle Beziehungen mit dem Auslande, Peking” [Letter to the Chinese People’s Association for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries], 28 December 1957, Unpublished Typescript, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/423, 1.

134 For Schütte-Lihotzky’s views on the standing of women in the People’s Republic, the reorganization of work, and the struggle against illiteracy see, for example, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/413, TXT/416, and TXT/416A.

135 The architectural historian of modern China, Edward Denison, has argued that it is appropriate to speak of quasi-colonial powers, since China was never colonized by a single entity and always retained a predominant independence. Both Edward Denison and Cole Roskam have further argued that in the twentieth century a number of terms became adopted in Chinese language to articulate the previously non-existing term “modern.” Edward Denison, Architecture and the Landscape of Modernity, London; New York, NY: Routledge, 2017, p. 182-185.

136 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Urania (given June 1957),” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/413, Section on Nanjing.

137 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “An die allchinesische Gesellschaft für kulturelle Beziehungen mit dem Auslande, Peking” [Letter to the Chinese People’s Association for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries], 11 April 1957, Unpublished Typescript, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/423, p. 1.

138 Ibid., p. 1. “Die Menschen hier, Genossen und Nichtgenossen haben heute grosses Interesse an Cina und gehen aus den Vorträgen immer ganz begeistert weg. Sie sagen immer sie könnten noch stundenlang zuhören. Dabei dauert der Vortrag zwei Stunden.”

139 The Bureau for External Cultural Relations of Ministry of Culture was headed by Chu Tu'nan, who also served as head of the cpacrfc in 1956.

140 For more information on Wang Yi, see Zhu Qiangdi, Women Soldiers in the New Fourth Army, Ji‘nan: Publishing House of Ji’nan: 2004. We have been unable to confirm the extent of Wang Yi’s [王仪] role in corresponding with foreign delegations. It seems that she joined the Communist Party at a young age and participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War. She married Li Yimeng [李一氓], who was an early important figure in the Communist Party, a scholar, and a diplomat. In Chinese sources she is usually referred to as “Li Yimeng’s wife”—an example of the gendered nature and the complex historiographical problems inherent in excavating the attainments of women in China. Working under Chu Tu'nan, Yi was responsible for the cultural contacts to Asia, Russia, and Eastern European countries.

141 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “An die allchinesische Gesellschaft für kulturelle Beziehungen mit dem Ausland, Peking” [Letter to the Chinese People’s Association for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries], May 17, 1957, Unpublished Typescript, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/423 (different document than cited above), p. 1.

142 Ibid., p. 1.

143 Wang Yi, “Liebe Frau Schütte,” [Letter to Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky], October 10, 1957, Unpublished Typescript, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/423 (yet different from the one cited above), p. 1.

144 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Peking,” Der Aufbau, no. 2, 1958, p. 55-61.

145 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Städtebau in China,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Text Archives, TXT/245A.

146 Schütte-Lihotzky’s trips to China remain largely under-studied. Karin Zogmayer’s introduction to the German language book provides important insights into the trip and contextualizes it within the architect’s biography. For further references, see the archival documents at Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts. Karin Zogmayer, “Vorwort der Herausgeberin,” in Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, op. cit. (note 28), p. 11-30; Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956.

147 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, op. cit. (note 28), p. 88.

148 Ibid.

149 Ibid., p. 89.

“Mit dem Eindringen der Ausländer verlor die Stadt baulich vollkommen ihren chinesischen Charakter und würden hier nicht Chinesen gehen und wären keine chinesischen Aufschriften zu sehen, man müsste auf weiten Strecken nicht, dass man sich in China befindet. Die Stadt ist architektonisch ein Chaos, baulich ein unbeschreiblicher Mischmasch, etwas völlig Charakterloses, dass sie dadurch schon wieder Charakter bekommt―nämlich einen der vollkommenen Charakterlosigkeit. Es gibt ganze Straßenteile, wo man glauben möchte in England zu sein, andere wieder, in denen man meint in den Banlieu, in den Vororten von Paris herumzuspazieren, andere in Holland―man findet echt französische Mansardendächer neben ganz barocken Balkonhäusern, typische englische Siedlungshäuschen neben zwanzig Stockwerke hohe Wolkenkratzern―neben neuen christlichen Kirchen uralte buddhistische Tempel―und am Außenrand der Stadt Fabrikschlote, Fabrikschlote und nochmals Fabrikschlote.”

150 Cai Chang, “Opening Speech by Cai Chang at the Conference of Asian Women’s Delegates” [蔡畅在亚洲妇女代表会议上的开幕词], People‘s Daily, December 11, 1949.

“这三十年是极其艰苦的,但中国妇女从实际经验中了解,只有在推翻帝国主义及其走狗的统治以后,妇女才能获得解放,因而她们前仆后继,英勇牺牲,始终不渝地参加了各个时期的伟大的民族独立与人民民主的斗争,妇女运动也随着整个革命的发展而发展起来。……一切从殖民地半殖民地民族地位得到解放的国家,都证明着一个真理:妇女解放运动是民族解放运动的一部分。”

151 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, op. cit. (note 28), p.  89.

“Nur eines sieht man nicht mehr: den unbeschreiblichen Luxus wie er mir noch auf meiner ersten Chinareise 1934 in die Augen sprang, einen Luxus, wie man ihn damals in Europa kaum finden konnte. Und das neben der grauenhaftesten Armut, zerlumpten Bettlern und Kulis, die auf dem glühenden Asphalt barfüßig durch die Straßen rannten.”

152 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Urania (given June 1957),” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/413, Section on Shanghai.

153 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag, Urania” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/413, Section on Shanghai.

154 See, for example, photos 245-293, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Photo Convolute.

155 Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Texte, TXT/412-416.

156 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Vortrag (Bauen), 9.12.1956, Volksbildungshaus Ottakring,” (given 10.12.1956) Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, TXT/414.

“Von der grossen chinesischen Mauer, um die nördlichen Grenzen des Landes zu schützen, angefangen, weiter zu den Umfassungsmauern von Bezirken―Mauern um jede Stadt―von den 1800 chinesischen Städten haben fast sämtliche Umfassungsmauern.

Mauern um jeden Palast

Mauern um Tempel―Mauern um Klöster

Mauern fast um jedes Dorf.

Mauern um jeden Hof―ein Wohngehöfte ohne Mauern ist undenkbar

Mauern um jedes Grundstück auch in der Stadt

Mauern zur Straßenbegrenzung rechts und links―nur erdgeschossig und ohne Fenster

Mauern zur Abwehr der bösen Geister―in Gärten und Parks―

Mauern in grauen Ziegeln, Mauern in roten Ziegeln, Mauern in herrlichem Naturstein und

Mauern verputzt mit dem schönen chinesischen rot bemalt―Mauern mit grauem oder gelben und blauen keramischen Dachziegelabdeckungen―

Mauern, und nochmals Mauern als Gestaltungsmittel von Gartenräumen und Plätzen in innigster Verbindung mit der Natur und zur Pflanzenwelt―Mauern um das Eigenleben nach aussen zu begrenzen, wodurch eben gerade dieses Eigenleben nur noch erhöht und gesteigert wird.

157 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, op. cit. (note 28), p. 37.

158 See, for example, Liang Sicheng and Chen Zhanxiang, 方案与北京 [Liang-Chen Scheme and Beijing], edited by Wang Ruizhi, Shenyang: Liaoning Education Press, 2005; Dong Guangqi, 古都北京五十年演变录 [The Fifty Years of Transformation of the Ancient Capital Beijing], Nanjing: Southeast University Press, 2006; Zhu Tao, 梁思成与他的 [Liang Sicheng and His Era], Guilin: Guangxi Normal University Press, 2014; Wang Jun,  [Beijing Memorabilia], Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2003.

159 In addition to preserving the fundamental structure of the historic center of Beijing, the Liang-Chen Scheme proposed refraining from building tall buildings and instead creating a new city to the west of the ancient city center to house growing populations and industries.

There are a number of important publications on Liang. See, for example, Wilma Fairbank, Liang and Lin: Partners in Exploring China’s Architectural Past, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. For an in-depth discussion of the distinct approaches of Soviet and Chinese planners as well as the opposing objectives of the Liang-Chen and Zhu-Zhao schemes, see Yu Shuishan, “Redefining the Axis of Beijing: Revolution and Nostalgia in the Planning of the prc Capital,” Journal of Urban History, vol. 34, no. 4, May, 2008, p. 571-608.

160 Most historians think that the First Five Year Plan is essential for understanding many activities in the 1950s.

161 Harvard University and Joint Center for Internal Affairs and the East Asian Research Center, “Document 1: Li Fu-ch’un, Report of the First Five-Year Plan, 1953-1957, July 5-6, 1955,“ Communist China 1955-1959 Policy Documents with Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

162 Ibid., p. 45.

163 Ibid.

164 [Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky], “Ein Architekt des Volkes,” Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (ed.), Unsterbliche Opfer. Gefallen im Kampf der Kommunistischen Partei für Österreichs Freiheit, Vienna Buch- und Kunstdruckerei Steyrermühl, 1945, p. 69.

165 The First Five Year Plan year was completed in 1957, the year after the visit. More importantly, in 1956, China and Russia began to fall out after Khrushchev had delivered the “Secret Speech.”

166 For a discussion of China and the “Great Leap Forward,” see Roderick MacFarquhar’s first volume of Origins of the Cultural Revolution.

Roderick MacFarquhar, Royal Institute of International Affairs and Columbia University, East Asian Institute, The Great Leap Forward, 1958-1960, New York, NY: Royal Institute of International Affairs, the East Asian Institute of Columbia University, and the Research Institute on International Change of Columbia University, 1983, p. 1-2.

167 See the section on Dorf (Village), Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/415 and TXT/415A.

168 Essentialization has been described as one of the key features of Orientalism, within a framework of colonial suppression and subjugation. While Schütte-Lihotzky’s writing and photography cannot be said to have always escaped generalization, she largely avoids essentializing views when she writes with the goal of understanding historical patterns and diverse human agency within it. In addition, she distinctly looked at China as an instructive, authoritative, and far advanced country from whose progress European architects could glean important lessons for its cities’ development. See Edward Said, “The Scope of Orientalism,” in Orientalism, op. cit. (note 60), p. 31-73.

169 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Millionenstädte Chinas: Bilder- und Reisetagebuch einer Architektin, op. cit. (note 28), p. 37.

“Es gibt umfangreiche und bedeutende Arbeiten von Kunsthistorikern über chinesische Architektur in der europäischen Fachliteratur. Aber es gibt bis jetzt kaum irgendwelche Arbeiten, die vom Standpunkt des Architekten und Städtebauers, der heute seine Entscheidungen über die weitere Entwicklung der Großstädte fällen muss, geschrieben sind. Arbeiten, welche die Stadtanlagen und die Wohnweise der Chinesen im Zusammenhang mit der derzeitigen sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Gegebenheiten beleuchtet, im Zusammenhang mit den so rasch fortschreitenden Veränderungen im gesellschaftlichen Leben, im Leben der Frauen und im Familienleben ebenso wie im Zusammenhang mit der großen Industrialisierung, kurz mit dem heutigen Aufbau des Landes. Gerade dies ist aber notwendig, will man über die städtebaulichen Aufgaben auch uns einen Überblick und zwar so, dass dieser Überblicke auch für unsere Arbeit in Europa anregend und befruchtend sein kann.”

170 Carla González Maier, “Antecedentes Biográficicos de Victoria Maier Mayer,” Private archives of Carla González Maier.

171 Letter from Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky to Victoria Maier, December 30, 1956, p. 2. Private archives of Carla González Maier.

“Ich selbst habe gerade ein großartiges Erlebnis hinter mir. Ich war mit einer Kulturgruppe / insgesamt 8 Personen, Wissenschafter und Künstler / im Herbst in China. Per Flug über Moskau―Irkutsk – Mongolei―Peking am 4. IX. abgereist, verbrachte ich genau 5 Wochen in China, am 17. X. waren wir wieder da. Die Stärke des Eindrucks, sowohl der alten Kultur als auch der neuen Leistungen, der Landschaft als auch vor allem der Menschen ist unvergesslich. Es ist der große Lichtblick in den derzeit so schwierigen u. kriegsgefährlichen Zeiten. Auch meine Mitreisenden waren interessante Leute, so daß ich eine sehr schöne, sorglose Zeit hinter mir habe. Für berufliche Arbeit siehts bei mir derzeit nicht großartig aus obwohl es die letzten Jahre für mich sehr gut war. Momentan habe ich nur einen Wohnbau mit etwa 30 Wohnungen für die Gemeinde, aber da kann man nicht viel machen, es ist eine Existenzgrundlage, aber keine interessante Arbeit.”

172 Karin Zogmayer, “Vorwort der Herausgeberin,” op. cit. (note 146), p. 11-30; Marcel Bois, “‘Bis zum Tod einer falschen Ideologie gefolgt,’ Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky als kommunistische Intellektuelle,” op. cit. (note 13), p. 86.

173 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht Chinareise 1956,” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/421A, folio 3.

“Rücksprache mit chinesischen Genossen u. ihre Meinung: Am Tage unserer Ankunft hatte ich allein mit den chin. Genossen eine Aussprache über die Teilnehmer, ihre Einstellung, ihre bseondern Interessen, ihre Stellung in Östrreich, Einfluss, usw. gehabt. Diese Besrpechungen wurden etwa einmal wöchentlich wiederholt und Meinungen über die weitere Arbeit mit Betreuern und Dolmetschern ausgetauscht.”

174 In the 1970s, Canadian historian Michael H. Kater was the first to fully reveal the extent to which Tratz was involved in the so-called “SS-‘Ahnenerbe’” and his close personal ties with Heinrich Himmler, who was a main architect of the Shoah. Further scholarship since the 1990s has shed light on Tratz’s membership in the SS, his involvement in promoting a National Socialist racial ideology, and his personal friendship with Bruno Berger, as well as personal contacts with August Hirt and Simon Rascher, who were the perpetrators of the systematic mass murder of hundreds of people in what is today still called euphemistically the National Socialists’ “euthanasia” programs.

For literature on Tratz, see Michael H. Kater, Das ‘Ahnenerbe’ der SS 1935-1945. Ein Beitrag zur Kulturpolitik des Dritten Reichs, Stuttgart: De Gruyter, 1974; Sabine Schleiermacher, “‘Dem Menschen einen Weg in die Natur weisen’−Das naturwissenschaftliche und didaktische Konzept des Museums ‘Haus der Natur in Salzburg’ im Nationalsozialismus,” in Ideologie der Objekte−Objekte der Ideologie. Naturwissenschaft, Medizin und Technik in Museen des 20. Jahrhunderts, Kassel: Wenderoth, 1991, p. 39-45; Gert Kerschbaumer, “Das Deutsche Haus der Natur,” in Herbert Posch and Gottfried Fliedl (eds.), Politik der Präsentation. Museum und Ausstellung in Österreich 1918-1945, Vienna: Turia, 1996, p. 180-212; Andrzej Meżýnski, Kommando Paulsen. Organisierter Kunstraub in Polen 1942-45, Cologne: Dittrich, 2000; Heather Pringle, The Masterplan. Himmler’s Scholars and the Holocaust, London: Hachette Books, 2006. For the fullest account on Tratz and a summary of the historiography, see Robert Hoffmann, “Ein Museum für Himmler. Eduard Paul Tratz und die lntegration des Salzburger ‘Hauses der Natur’ in das ‘Ahnenerbe’ der SS,” Zeitgeschichte, vol. 35, no. 3, 2008, p. 154-175.

175 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht Chinareise 1956 (Charakteristik Dr. Tratz Salzburg),” Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/421A, not paginated.

“War Nazi, scheint sich heute aber deshalb xxxx [strike through] zu schämen. Hat in Salzburg grosses Ansehen, viele Beziehungen zu Menschen besonders in ehemaligen Kreisen der nsdap, zu denen wir nicht leicht Zutritt haben. […] Zusammenfassend: Reaktion auf das Erlebte ausgezeichnet. Ein für uns sehr wertvoller Mensch, erstens wegen seines Ansehens, zweitens wegen seiner vielen Beziehungen, drittens wegen seiner sympathischen Charaktereigenschaften. Es wäre sehr wichtig sich mit ihm weiter zu befassen, ich halte es nicht für hoffnungslos politisch in sein sein [sic] Hirn Klarheit zu bringen. Wer von unseren Genossen in Salzburg könnte sich diese [sic] Arbeit unterziehen? ”

176 Ibid.

177 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Reisebericht Chinareise 1956 (Charakteristik Dr. Tratz Salzburg),” op. cit. (note 175), not paginated.

178 In Kulturkreisen ist unsere Reise allgemein bekannt und man kommt sich schon wie eine wandelnde Chinapropaganda vor.

179 Letter by Franz S**bacher to Schütte-Lihotzky, June 15 1957, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/423.

“Liebe Genossin Schütte! Wir kommen auf unser telefonisches Gespräch zurück, in welchem Du Dich liebenswürdergerweise bereit erklärt hast, bei uns über Deine Reiseeindrücke in China zu berichten.”

180 Marcel Bois, “‘Bis zum Tod einer falschen Ideologie gefolgt,’ Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky als kommunistische Intellektuelle,” op. cit. (note 13), p. 86.

181 In 1995, at ninety-eight, Schütte-Lihotzky and four other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Jörg Haider, one of the most powerful figures in Austrian politics and the party chairman of the far-right Austrian Freedom Party. Haider, at the time also a member of the National Assembly and a parliamentarian, was known for inciting anti-Semitism and Islamophobia throughout his more than twenty years in political office. The lawsuit explains that in a televised session of the National Assembly, Haider had “called concentration camps, erected under the National Socialist dictatorship, ‘Nazi penal camps’” and that he had refused to correct his statement even when challenged. The document “NS victims sue Haider” went on to clarify that “the term ‘penal camp’ is to be understood by the average addressee [...] only as a ‘prison’ in the sense of criminal justice, based on the criminal laws [...]. By designating the concentration camps of the National Socialist dictatorship as a penal camp, the defendant accuses the former inmates of concentration camps and similar internment camps of having committed punishable acts in the sense of an orderly administration of criminal justice sanctioned with imprisonment. It is generally known, and certainly to the defendant, that people were interned and killed in the concentration camps and other internment camps, who were Jews [...] and/or known political opponents of National Socialist tyranny. The plaintiffs were all political opponents of the National Socialist tyranny and for this reason have been held in the above-mentioned concentration camps or similar internment camps. The defendant’s incriminating statement, the allegation that concentration camps are punitive camps, is a false allegation of fact within the meaning of section 1330 of the Austrian Civil Code which severely undermines the reputation of the plaintiffs and seeks to stigmatize them in some form as criminals.” Before going to trial the suit was dismissed on the grounds that Haider “enjoyed immunity as a parliamentarian” even from a civil suit. This event was revealing, however, about Schütte-Lihotzky’s enduring commitment to resistance and political dissent.

See Grete Schütte-Lihotzky, Alois Peter, Edith Schober, Hermine Jursa and Gertrude Springer, “NS-Opfer Klagen Haider, Klage Pressekonferenz vom 13.07.1995, Wien, Pressereaktionen,” Folder without Bin Number, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers; Letter from Andreas Löw to Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Rechtsstreit gegen Dr. Haider,” February 1, 1996, 1. Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, loose folder without bin number.

182 Wolfgang Neugebauer, The Austrian Resistance, op. cit. (note 6), p. 81.

183 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Frauen – Volksbildungsheim, 10. XII. 1956,” Volksbildungsheim Ottakring, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/416.

184 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Dorf―Vortrag Ehrbarsaal, 14. I. 1957,” Lecture organized by the journal Tagebuch, Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Chinareise 1956, Text Archives, TXT/415 and TXT/415A.

185 Linda Martín Alcoff, “A Place in the Rainbow,” The Future of Whiteness, New York, NY: Wiley, p. 192.

186 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Peking,” Der Aufbau, no.  2, 1958, p. 55-61.

“Die Chinesen haben bei ihrer Schrift dasselbe Zeichen für das Wort Wohnung und für das Wort Glück. Und so wünschen wir unseren chinesischen Kollegen, dass sie mit ihrem Städtebau und den neuen, zahlreichen Wohnung in Peking auch am Glück der Menschen bauen.”

187 Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Pechino Anticha e Nuova,” Casabella, no. 225, March 1959, p. 19-24.

“Nel la loro grafia i Cinesi usano lo stesso segno per la parola ‘abitazione’ e per la parola ‘felicita’: noi auguriamo perciò ai nostri colleghi cinesi che con il loro lavoro urbanistico e con le numerose abitazioni di Pechino essi contriscano anche per la felicità degli uomini.”

188 Otto neurath, “Letter to Josef Frank,” 20 November 1944, Unpublished Typescript, Vienna (Austria), National Library, Manuscripts and Folios, Text Archives, 1219/5-3, p. 1.

189 Cole Roskam’s work has been one of the pioneering works in this regard, but many more like it are needed. Cole Roskam, “Practicing Reform: Experiments in Post-Revolutionary Chinese Architectural Production, 1973-1989,” Journal of Architectural Education (jae), vol. 69, no. 1, March 2015, p. 28-39.

190 As noted above the unpublished manuscript was edited for publication by Karin Zogmayer in 2007. Karin Zogmayer, “Vorwort der Herausgeberin,” op. cit. (note 146), p. 11-30,

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky in front of the Trans-Siberian Railway Car in April 1934 before her trip to Japan and China.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise”, 1934, Photos, F/CJ/4.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 116k
Titre Figure 2: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, unidentified woman with toddler, spring 1934 (rural China).
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/262.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 112k
Titre Figure 3: “Children’s Institute, Bryansk, Plant 13,” Kindergarten and nursery, Bryansk (Soviet Union), 1932.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, 102/6-7/FW.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 118k
Titre Figure 4: Wilhelm Schütte, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Shimomura Shōtarō, Erica Taut, and Bruno Taut (seated), Mr. Wilson (standing), at the house of Shimomura Shōtarō in Kyōto (Japan), 1934.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/1.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 155k
Titre Figure 5: Postcard of “Elephant Road,” leading towards Xiaoling Mausoleum (Ming Dynasty) Nanjing, purchased by Schütte-Lihotzky in Nanjing (Republic of China), 1934.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/118.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 111k
Titre Figure 6: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of West Lake, Hangzhou (Republic of China), 1934.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/189.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 195k
Titre Figure 7: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of temple school in unidentified rural area (Republic of China), 1934.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/323.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 182k
Titre Figure 8: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of schoolgirls in uniform and modern schools (Republic of China), 1934.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/292-295.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 122k
Titre Figure 9: Postcard of “Foochow Road” (Fuzhou Road), Shanghai, purchased by Schütte-Lihotzky in Shanghai (Republic of China), 1934.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/170.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 134k
Titre Figure 10: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, photo of children, Beijing (Republic of China), 1934.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/266, F/CJ/269-71.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 170k
Titre Figure 11: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, children’s furniture, bent bamboo, Beijing (Republic of China), 1934.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934, Photos, F/CJ/267-68
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 90k
Titre Figure 12: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Hans Schmidt, “Highchair for Children, Convertible into Chair with Folding Table,” Children’s Furniture for Apartments, Moscow (Soviet Union), 1935–1936.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, PRNR 119/11.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 113k
Titre Figure 13: Photo of unidentified woman in a kitchen in Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, F/CH/316.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 86k
Titre Figure 14: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky and Wilhelm Schütte, “Globus Haus” Renovation, Print and Publishing House, Austrian Communist Party, Vienna (Austria), 1953–1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, Photos, 188/18/FW.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 215k
Titre Figure 15: The Austrian delegation with their Chinese liaison in front of the Wuhan Yangtze River Bridge (under construction), among them Schütte-Lihotzky (second from left in the first row), Sergius Pauser (third from left in the back), Viktor Griessmaier (fourth from right), Mrs. Lee (second from right), Wuhan (People’s Republic of China), likely September 27, 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/251.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 162k
Titre Figure 16: Children’s Hospital designed by architect Léon Hoa, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise” 1956, Photos, F/CH/199.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 124k
Titre Figure 17: Shen Bo (middle), deputy director of the Institute of Architectural Design of Beijing’s City Planning and Administration Bureau with two unidentified planners, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/260.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 129k
Titre Figure 18: Schütte-Lihotzky (left) with the president, Cai Chang (right), and the general secretary, Zhang Yun (second from right), of the All-China Democratic Women’s Federation, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), likely September 13, 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/171.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 97k
Titre Figure 19: Tanka Prasad Acharya, Mao Zedong, and Sukarno, at Tiananmen (People’s Republic of China), or the Gate of Heavenly Peace on October 1, 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/268.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 159k
Titre Figure 20: Communist Parade in Beijing celebrating the arrival of new housing, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/330.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 202k
Titre Figure 21: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Dancers,” October 1 Parades, 1956, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/331.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 164k
Titre Figure 22: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Grandmother with children,” Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/76-77.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 174k
Titre Figure 23: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, sanatorium for students in Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/322.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 149k
Titre Figure 24: “Strictly north-south oriented city plan of Beijing (People’s Republic of China), with broad avenues for vehicular narrow streets for foot traffic.”
Légende The plan that headed Schütte-Lihotzky’s book manuscript. Purchased by the architect in 1956 it shows the old city fabric as it existed in the beginning of the twentieth century.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Txt/287 p.57.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 284k
Titre Figure 25: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, “Everything on the shoulders [of people],” new settlement in Shanghai for 30,000 people with woven bamboo fence, and bamboo scaffolding, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/307.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 140k
Titre Figure 26: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, A new settlement in Shanghai for 30,000 people with woven bamboo fence, and bamboo scaffolding, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, F/CH/309.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 136k
Titre Figure 27: “New Buildings in Beijing,” aerial view illustrating the principles of Beijing’s urbanism, purchased by the architect in 1956 as frontispiece of Millionenstädte China's, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Légende The picture also showcases new governmental buildings in Beijing.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria), University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/369.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 298k
Titre Figure 28: Beijing’s hutong and siheyuan area, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/28.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 203k
Titre Figure 29: View of the Peace Hotel rising behind Beijing’s siheyuan area, Beijing (People’s Republic of China), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1956, Photos, F/CH/196.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 227k
Titre Figure 30: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Letters, 1934 and 1956.
Légende Letter to Minister of Education Wang Shih-chieh, Nanjing (Republic of China), 1934 (left) and Envelope of letter by Wang Yi to Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Beijing (People's Republic of China), 1956 (right).
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, “Chinareise,” 1934 and 1956, Txt/235/4 (left) and Txt/423/a (right).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 86k
Titre Figure 31: Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky, Worker at “Globus Haus,” Vienna (Austria), 1956.
Crédits Source: Vienna (Austria) University of Applied Arts, Vienna, Art Collection and Archive, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Collection, Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky Papers, 1956, Photo, 188/20/FW.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/7169/img-31.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 123k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Sophie Hochhäusl, « “Dear Comrade,” or Exile in a Communist World: Resistance, Feminism, and Urbanism in Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky’s Work in China, 1934/1956 », ABE Journal [En ligne], 16 | 2019, mis en ligne le 06 mai 2020, consulté le 15 juillet 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/abe/7169 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/abe.7169

Haut de page

Auteur

Sophie Hochhäusl

Assistant Professor for Architectural History and Theory, Weitzman School of Design, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
La revue ABE Journal est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page
  • Logo INHA
  • Logo CNRS – Institut des sciences humaines et sociales
  • Logo In Visu
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals