Between hopeful performativity and non-performativity: affective economies of awards in architecture

Purpose This article examines how values are constructed and circulated in architecture through the lens of awards. Historically, architectural success has been measured through awards, project scale, progression to leadership, citations and jury participation. These entanglements between architecture and awards are examined by considering how awards shape architectural culture and what is valued within the field. The aim is twofold: to offer an overview of how current practitioners' perceptions and feelings oscillate between viewing awards as forms of “hopeful performativity” and “non-performativity”; and to consider how fostering positive change could become a shared agenda for the profession across Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Design/methodology/approach Qualitative interviews with architects across diverse practices and contexts are drawn upon to provide insights into how awards are experienced, interpreted and emotionally invested in. A feminist and intersectional framework, informed by Sarah Ahmed's work, is utilised to analyse these insights in terms of both structural inequalities and lived experience. Findings Findings suggest that awards act as affective mechanisms through which respondents oscillate between hope for change and a sense of frustration or ambiguity about what awards ultimately achieve. Originality/value This article contributes new empirical insights into the affective and institutional dimensions of awards in architecture. By situating professional recognition within the framework of “hopeful performativity” and “non-performativity”, it advances understanding of how emotion, value and privilege intertwine in shaping architectural culture.