This article examines the classical architectural order as a material mechanism for ideological production and cultural identity construction in twentieth-century political systems. It analyzes the strategic appropriation of stable classical elements by power regimes to legitimize and spatially implement ideological programs. Architecture is not a passive symbol but active social practice, where ideological constructs materialize in spatial forms and are internalized through bodily and ritual experience of the monumental environment. The framework synthesizes dialectical methodology (Marxist tradition) with the Russian school's activity-based approach, interpreting architectural design as collective activity where ideology is objectified and reproduced. Conceptual enrichment integrates Saint-Girons' aesthetic theory of power and Benjamin's concept of the politicization of aesthetics to analyze visual strategies; Carey's ritual communication model to understand collective identity formation through spatial experience; and Derrida's deconstructivist method to uncover ideological hierarchies in architectural language. The empirical basis is a comparative analysis of three twentieth-century cases of ideological classicism: liberal democratic, fascist, and socialist models. The novelty lies in developing an interdisciplinary framework shifting focus from traditional art historical description to processual analysis of ideological production mechanisms in space. The study demonstrates that the classical order's effectiveness as a power instrument derives not from immanent formal properties but from the dialectic between structural stability and ideological fluidity, resolved in specific socio-historical practice of construction and ritual spatial appropriation. Comparative analysis reveals a universal operational mechanism for working with classical language across heterogeneous political systems through recoding, deconstruction of the original canon, and synthesis with new ideological programs. Monumental architecture functions as political mobilization technology, where aesthetic modes organize collective perception and transform abstract power order into lived, corporeal reality. The results open prospects for critically analyzing contemporary architectural practices in constructing national identity and substantiate architecture as integral to ideological production.
Veichzhen' Chzhan (Sun,) studied this question.