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

The ways in which success is defined within architecture, often through awards programmes, reveal underlying tensions in how the profession defines value and recognises achievement. Heslin (2005) highlights a central difficulty in the discourse of “success”: it is often assumed to be a shared and universally understood concept. Within architecture, this assumption becomes especially problematic. Success metrics in the field – awards, publications or leadership positions – are shaped by markers that privilege a middle-class, male and, in many contexts, white demographic. The persistence of these markers underscores how identity is embedded in prevailing definitions of professional achievement (Heynen, 2012).

Interrogating the idea of success therefore aligns with wider critiques of architectural culture. For instance, Fowler and Wilson's (2004) analysis of the “gentlemanly artist” and Heynen's (2012) critique of the star system both examine how masculinity functions as a normative construct that carries claims to universality. Similarly, Bastian (2013) points to the ways in which such universalist assumptions mask their gendered biases. Together, these studies demonstrate how the profession's norms and values are regulated by cultural expectations of masculinity, which in turn shape everyday practices, outputs and – in the present research – how reputations are measured against gendered standards of success. Thus, recognition and advancement are more readily conferred upon those who align with normative masculine ideals, those who present as coherent, stable and neutral subjects of the discipline. By contrast, individuals and practices that do not resonate with this construction of identity, including, but not limited to, those shaped by gender and working-class identities risk marginalisation and invisibility (Miller, 2019). Linking these ideas is an understanding that in architecture the worth of one's self and one's firm is proven by winning awards (Chattopadhyay, 2019).

A further dimension to these limiting ideas of success can be found in research by Cimpian and Leslie (2017), who demonstrate that women remain underrepresented in fields where success is associated with innate brilliance. Architecture is frequently framed as requiring genius, however clichéd this notion may appear. Yet continuing to measure success primarily through prestigious awards, influential publications, or large-scale commissions, creates a narrative that risks those from diverse backgrounds to doubt their chances of belonging or achievement. Leslie and Cimpian's proposal to reduce the emphasis on brilliance offers a useful way of thinking about more inclusive approaches to architectural success, broadening the profession's capacity to recognise different forms of contribution and participation. There is growing attention to the ethical values of architectural practice. Gillon et al. (2025) show that architects' responsibilities are becoming more complex, with environmental and social concerns increasingly embedded in professional codes. These values shape education, accreditation, practice and the criteria by which work is assessed and awarded. Notably, they highlight that since 2023, the Australian Institute of Architects has required all National Award entries “must meet basic sustainability standards” (Gillon et al., 2025, p. 103, see also Australian Institute of Architects, 2024). We therefore consider awards to be an important site for studying architectural values; they show how cultural ideals are linked to visibility and professional gatekeeping.

This article forms part of a larger project examining intersectionality and architecture (reference removed). Combining both feminist and anti-racist discourses, Crenshaw (1989) coined the term “intersectionality” as a way to name and address the exclusion of women of colour, particularly in relation to violence against Black women (1991). To fully understand women's experiences, she argued that both gender and race must be considered. For Crenshaw, intersectionality's value lies in its potential to advance social justice:

Since Crenshaw's initial definition, intersectionality has sparked ongoing debates regarding its meaning, use and agenda. Collins (2015) broadens the concept, describing it as the interdependent relations among multiple identity categories, where “race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation, ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather as reciprocally constructing phenomena” (2015, p. 2). This perspective shifts from a single- or double-axis paradigm towards a multidimensional understanding of identity. A key development is the recognition that identity categories are embedded within power structures (Else-Quest and Hyde, 2016). As Ásta articulates, “while social categories can be a positive source of identity and belonging,” the inequity of power means “they often are oppressive, and membership in them can put serious constraints on a person's life options” (2018, p. 4).

We acknowledge these varied interpretations and position ourselves within the debates, mobilising intersectionality beyond its initial theorisation and contributing to discourse on its application in architecture. This article's focus, within the larger project, is on architects' personal reflections on the nature and meaning of architectural awards. This approach emerged in response to reviewer feedback on the project, which encouraged exploration of how success, values and awards might be reimagined or reworked rather than simply critiqued. Accordingly, the 33 architects (Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom) interviewed (from a total of 57 academics and practitioners) were asked to consider whether awards are shifting and how they might be reimagined.

This article is structured as follows. We first review literature at the intersection of awards and architecture focusing on two sets of challenges: diversity and what the awards represent. We then outline the theoretical framing, drawing on Ahmed's work on affective economies. Following the qualitative methods section, we present our findings through an overview of current perceptions and feelings about awards, captured through voices in practice that reveal an oscillation between seeing awards as forms of “hopeful performativity” and as “non-performativity”. It is through their “non-performativity” that we address how overlapping identities shape their experience of awards. Finally, we consider how positive change might be generated as a shared agenda for the profession.

Within architectural discourse, much attention has been paid to awards and their inequities – primarily through the lens of gender. Denise Scott Brown, in her 1989 essay, reflects on her experience of being overlooked for the Pritzker Prize, despite her deep collaborative partnership with Robert Venturi. Heynen (2012) further unpacks the Pritzker Prize through a gendered lens, arguing that the “star architect” archetype disproportionately favours masculine-coded qualities, reinforcing a gendered bias in award recognition. This suggests a direct link between awards and structural bias, grounded in the assumption that architectural achievement can be attributed to a singular creative author – a hero narrative that privileges men, and hampers the progress of women and others who do not conform to the image of intersectional privilege. Stratigokas highlights how Zaha Hadid, for example, is framed within media attention around awards, often in opposition to masculine-coded language: she is described as “difficult” and a “diva”, suggesting “a female excess and instability of emotion” (2016, p. 51). Stratigokas exposes journalistic bias and how women's recognition in awards is qualified by gender. Awards can significantly shape the extent to which individuals experience a sense of belonging to the profession and how they construct their professional identities. Marks reflects on her role in the “Architects' Journal's Women in Architecture campaign” (2011), which introduced an award for women and asked whether such prizes are “great or ghettoising” (2016, p. 132). She now raises more critical questions as the number of women in the profession continues to lag. Interviews with winners suggest that while such awards can raise visibility and reassure clients they had “backed the right horse” (Von Preussen, in Marks, 2016, p. 134), they also elicit ambivalence:

Von Preussen adds that “the profession seems to still suffer from the same problems: a lack of female role models, a glass ceiling, and female architects leaving the profession” (in Marks, 2016, p. 134). Marks concludes by questioning whether such awards designed to generate role models merely “glorify the work of already prominent individuals,” reinforcing architecture's myth of the lone genius and raising “a question of recognition – not just of women architects, but the status of the award, too” (2016, pp. 135–136). These considerations are critical as MacManus and O’Donnell (2024) found, the expectation of winning awards becomes a normative emotional standard that architects feel compelled to live up to – failing to meet it can shape how individuals come to value and interpret their own work.

Recognition in awards is not only gendered; it also intersects with other identity markers, such as race, class and geography. Wijetunge et al. (2025), in their consideration of the Pritzker Prize, move beyond gender-only critique. In their study, they focus on class and geographic location. The authors' main conclusion, however, is that the Pritzker Prize and similar accolades are not tied to elite socio-economic affiliations, as they identify only two winners as “elite”. They therefore argue that the Pritzker Prize “does not clearly perpetuate elitism within the architectural profession” (2025, p. 10). However, the vast majority of their study recipients come from middle-class backgrounds, precisely the group most often centred in class analyses. This suggests that their definition of “elitism” may overlook other forms of privilege, such as educational and cultural capital, which also shape access to recognition in architecture.

While Wijetunge et al. note limitations in their study, such as the fact that some from working-class backgrounds attended prestigious institutions, they do not, following Stevens (1998), consider familial connections. For example, they identify Japanese architects Kenzo Tange, Kazuyo Sejima and Tadao Ando as coming from working-class backgrounds, yet all had fathers who were carpenters. What remains unaddressed is how this early exposure to building trades may have plausibly shaped their structural and material design sensibilities. This points to a gap in the research considering the broader social pipeline into architecture, where connections between craft, familial experience, professional networks and eventual recognition shape who enters and succeeds in the field. Nevertheless, Wijetunge et al.'s (2025) study is unique in addressing class in architecture, a topic that has historically received little attention. In addition, Wijetunge et al. (2025) also highlight that most Pritzker Prize winners from the broader Asian region are Japanese (9 out of 14), showing how recognition in architecture is not only gendered but also geographically concentrated, reinforcing patterns of visibility and prestige that favour particular regions and social networks.

Another approach to challenging awards shifts from identities to what awards represent. Stratigakos (2016), for example, argues that they distort professional values by privileging individuality over collaboration, social impact and long-term importance. Similarly, the authors of Spatial Agency note that architectural culture, expressed through reviews, awards and publications, often prioritise “aesthetics, style, form and technique” (Awan et al., 2011, p. 27), rather than the collective nature of practice. Levinson offers a sharper critique of awards such as the Pritzker, arguing that it serves less to recognise true architectural excellence and more to reinforce existing power structures, functioning as a self-validating institution that brings fleeting public attention to an otherwise overlooked field (2013). In response, new awards have emerged outside traditional architectural prizes to recognise and celebrate more diverse and engaged forms of practice (Brown et al., 2020), for example, the AIA's Community Engaged Design Awards and the Great Diverse Designers Library. Shifts are also visible within mainstream awards, including the recognition of practices such as MUF, whose work centres on collaboration, social inclusion, care, sustainability and participation. Another notable shift has been the increasing emphasis on the client's role in architectural production, recognised through the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Client of the Year Award (Samuels, 2018). Alongside these developments sits the work of Parlour, a platform that further extends visibility and recognition beyond conventional metrics of success.

These evolving approaches to awards reveal how institutional practices shape visibility, inclusion and hierarchies of value within architecture. Architectural awards can also be understood as mechanisms of critical production, in which processes of judgement – by both expert and public audiences – actively shape how architectural value is constructed and disseminated (Tempestini, 2025). Tempestini (2025) highlights how the increasing reliance on visual content in online architectural awards is altering the structure and dynamics of award processes. Notably, however, none of the participants in our survey raised concerns about online awards or the broader shift towards digitalised award processes. Hence, we turn to Sara Ahmed's work on the institutional politics of affect and diversity, which offers a lens for understanding awards as oscillating between “hopeful performativity” and moments of “non-performativity”.

Architecture can be understood as a structure of feeling – an affective economy. Ahmed (2010, 2012) draws on the notion of “affective economies” to describe how emotions circulate in public life, directing our orientations towards or away from others and, in doing so, construct and maintain social order, particularly through norms, ideology and identity. Emotions, Ahmed argues, do things; they do not reside inside individuals but circulate between bodies, texts, objects and awards – they construct and sustain collectives. Architecture's awards orientation both shapes expectations of practice and raises questions about what follows from this focus. Awards operate as markers of who and what can “come into view” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 30), while simultaneously obscuring other possibilities. Linking awards to affective economies allows us to speak to how access to these forms of recognition is not universal – not everyone is afforded the space to feel at home within these structures – as well as how awards shape and orientate our own behaviour. Moreover, this habitual knowledge around awards is charged with emotions and affects. As Ahmed (2010, p. 26) notes, the things emotions do “work to align individuals with collectives – or bodily space with social space – through the very intensity of their attachments”. Certain bodies, she explains, are “stickier” than others, participating in affective economies in specific ways. The “stickiness” of objects, connections and associations is a vital part of the affective economy, as these spaces “become sticky, or saturated with affect, as sites of personal and social tension” (2014, p. 111).

When we consider awards in this light, we see how the discipline attaches specific values to them, reflecting our attachment to disciplinary ideals and making both professional and personal investments visible (see MacManus and O'Donnell, 2024). Awards, particularly when hope circulates around them, function as mechanisms drawing individuals into the architectural imaginary, promising progress, success or justice. In doing so, they orientated people towards imagined futures. Crucially, Ahmed reminds us that emotions are not inherent properties of people or objects – or awards; rather, they arise through our interactions with them and are shaped by social and cultural histories. Our encounters with awards and the histories they carry “impress” upon us, just as we impress upon them and the wider system. Architectural awards thus become incorporated into our emotional labour, shaping how we come to feel the expectations of the discipline. Further, we might consider how certain bodies are more closely aligned with award systems, and how these are structured around broader notions of masculinity, whiteness and class. The focus, then, is not merely on how specific objects or figures “stick together”, but on how the power of these alignments operates affectively, how this economy of recognition moves us, orientates us and shapes what (and who) is valued within architecture (Ahmed, 2014a, b). Awards, in this sense, also operate to constitute a group as a collective – to represent that we will have feelings-in-common.

Although Ahmed does not directly connect her concept of “affective economies” with her exploration of “hopeful performativity” or “non-performativity”, this article brings both into conversation to examine how the circulation of feeling around architectural awards oscillates between optimism for change and scepticism about its possibility. In this sense, awards can be understood as performative acts animated by affective economies, where hope and recognition circulate alongside exclusion and repetition. Ahmed describes a “hopeful performative” as the “hope that the repetition of the word happiness will make us happy. We hope that the word happiness will deliver its promise” (2010, p. 199). She later develops this point, emphasising how “hopeful performativity” rests on the belief that “we can talk ourselves into feeling better by talking about feeling better” (2014, p. 23), aligning the concept with the broader logics of positive psychology. In a more recent text, Ahmed defines “hopeful performative” as a:

Ahmed's description of the “hopeful performative” as a form of “polishing,” the creation of a shiny surface, offers a particularly evocative parallel to the culture of architectural awards. In this context, the award itself becomes both the object and the effect of this polishing: the promise of transformation gleams on the surface even as deeper exclusions remain intact.

Linked to “hopeful performativity” is Ahmed's writing on “non-performativity,” developed in relation to universities and their public commitments to equality. Drawing on J. L. Austin's theory of performative speech acts, Ahmed (2006, p. 105) describes “non-performatives” as declarations that “work precisely by not bringing about the effects that they name”. Such statements, she argues, enable institutions to represent themselves as progressive while relieving them of the obligation to enact material change. Extending this idea, architectural awards can similarly be understood as failing to bring about promises. While they gesture towards values such as innovation or disciplinary progress, they often reproduce a narrow and exclusive vision of the profession, one that reflects the interests and identities of those already privileged within it.

Awards, then, function as affective sites where hope, inclusion and exclusion are simultaneously produced, circulated and felt. Before turning to the key findings, we outline the methods used to gather the voices of practitioners, whose insights oscillate between viewing awards as forms of “hopeful performativity” and “non-performativity”.

For the larger ongoing project investigating intersectionality within architectural and academic cultures, an iterative literature review was conducted, engaging continuously with existing scholarship to identify relevant approaches, themes, precedents and methods (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). Drawing on insights from 57 academics and architects based in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, data collection concluded in late 2024. For the purposes of this article, analysis focuses on participants from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, where participant numbers were comparable. Responses from the United States were too few to include, though preliminary findings indicate similar themes were emerging.

Data collection involved structured and semi-structured interviews, with participants able to respond in writing or via recorded and transcribed Zoom interviews to accommodate different schedules and time zones. A range of themes were covered; this article focuses on responses related to values, particularly awards, situated within broader reflections on culture and experience. Questions were reviewed by a neutral academic, a professor of psychology, to refine framing and a pilot study confirmed their relevance and clarity. The interview process allowed participants to articulate, in their own words, how they assign meaning within architectural and academic contexts (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2015). Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, supplemented by snowball sampling and direct referrals to reach senior figures – especially directors in larger firms, where this approach proved most effective (Noy, 2008; Palinkas et al., 2015). Interviews were analysed thematically using an abductive approach, iteratively moving between data and theory (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012). To ensure systematic rigour, the thematic analysis followed a structured coding process through which interview data were iteratively and progressively categorised into recurring patterns, as well as points of convergence and divergence across responses. Rather than aggregating responses by demographic variables, the analysis prioritised relational and thematic consistencies, allowing patterns to emerge across contexts while remaining grounded in participants' self-articulated positions. Rigour was further strengthened through a two-stage process: both authors independently analysed the data in the first instance, followed by a collaborative synthesis to refine and consolidate the emergent themes. Analysis was guided by a feminist and intersectional framework attentive to both structural inequalities and lived experience (Ahmed, 2012; Crenshaw, 1991). As researchers within architectural academia, we acknowledge that our positionality as academics within the profession shapes the framing and interpretation of data, which we regard as both constraint and strength (Berger, 2015). In the discussion that follows extracts are accompanied by codes indicating each participant's country (AUS for Australia, NZ for New Zealand, UK for the United Kingdom) and gender (“F” or “M”) to distinguish female or male voices. Each participant is also assigned a number (1, 2, 3, etc.) to ensure anonymity.

The prompt and question were informed by existing research in the field. The Pritzker Prize was used as an initial point of discussion, although participants were free to reference awards within their own country. Both prompt and question were situated within one of the four themes of the broader project and framed as: The Pritzker Prize has recently awarded a diverse range of architects, in terms of gender and ethnicity of winners, and recognition of design partnerships. Do these shifts change the conditions of the profession in terms of diversity, gender and backgrounds? The question wording was retained from the original instrument, though participants were free to interpret it in context.

While there are many internationally significant architecture prizes, including the RIBA Royal Gold Medal, AIA Gold Medal, UIA Gold Medal, RAIC Gold Medal, Alvar Aalto Medal, Aga Khan Award for Architecture and the Mies van der Rohe Award, the Pritzker Architecture Prize occupies a uniquely dominant position in both professional and academic discourse. Often described as the “Nobel Prize of Architecture”, the Pritzker functions as a global shorthand for architectural pre-eminence, shaping career trajectories, historiography and professional canons in ways unmatched by other awards. Its focus on individual architects and lifetime achievement consolidates authorship, visibility and authority, making it particularly analytically revealing as an object of critique. For these reasons, the Pritzker Prize was used in the question not as an exclusive case, but as a representative and indicative lens through which to examine the broader cultural, institutional and political work performed by architectural awards.

The prompt and question have clear limitations and were intentionally structured to invite both reconsideration and critique. Embedded within them is the assumption that awards possess influence or significance, which most responses engaged with, often critically. Many noted the changes to the Pritzker remain largely symbolic: while such recognition may carry cultural weight, it does not necessarily translate into improved workplace conditions. For many, awards were seen as tokenistic, signalling progress without effecting substantive change. Across the interviews, responses coalesced around two overarching orientations: awards as sites of “hopeful performativity,” signalling potential for change, and as “non-performativity”, where such promises fail to materialise in practice. These positions were not mutually exclusive but often coexisted, revealing shared patterns and divergences across contexts. This thematic synthesis provides the foundation for the findings presented in the following section.

One key finding is that respondents saw awards as having the “potential to signal what is possible” and to “encourage change”. In this sense, awards were often described as hopeful. Some responses were explicitly positive, referencing the Pritzker Prize or other awards that have recognised diversity as powerful indicators of change within their own contexts. This sense of possibility reflects hope, which, following Ahmed, we describe as a “hopeful performative” (2012, p. 67; 2010). As AUS F4 highlighted, this extends beyond questions of identity to encompass what the profession values and how it understands and enacts its own practices:

For those who viewed awards positively, their value lay in recognising a wider group of people and in the potential to shift how the profession sees itself or is seen by others. Participants emphasised the importance of bringing people together and acknowledging the contributions of clients, builders, consultants and others whose work underpins architectural practice:

Here, awards can operate as “hopeful performative”: we hope they will foster diversity, that “hope … will deliver its promise” (Ahmed, 2012). Many respondents viewed that more diverse awards would orientate the profession towards more diversity praxis. As expressed by NZ F1, awards hold the potential to signal change, yet she also emphasised the importance of visibility, raising a critical question: are awards truly visible?

A closer look suggests that visibility is limited. New Zealand's Architectural Awards are promoted primarily through the NZ Institute of Architects website and covered by architecture-focused publications such as Architecture Now and Architecture New Zealand. Similarly, national awards predominantly feature on the Australian Institute of Architects' (AIA) website and in Architecture Australia (AA). These platforms are firmly embedded within the architectural establishment, meaning that recognition and promotion are largely directed inward, towards the very group from which the awards are drawn. Practitioners reflected this insularity; as NZ M6 observed, knowledge and understanding of major prizes are “a bigger thing at university/amongst students than it currently feels in practice”, especially for larger international prizes such as the Pritzker.

Respondents' reflections highlighted the boundaries of hope and the limits of this “hopeful performative”. AUS M2 acknowledged recent changes but questioned how the profession engages with the public:

Similarly, Samuels is critical of the criteria of awards, arguing that “[c]redible criteria are needed to enable projects to be compared on evidence rather than on aesthetic wow” (2018, pp. 184-185). The insular nature of architecture awards was a recurring theme in participants' critiques, as indicated by UK M4:

A recurring critique of architectural awards in these responses is that they remain insular, celebrating peer recognition, design quality and the “wow” factor, rather than public reception or community impact. Francis Kéré’s work is often cited as challenging this paradigm by foregrounding community engagement and social responsibility. Yet, viewed through an intersectional lens, the picture becomes more complex. Anthony (2001) has shown how gender, race and social position shape both material and symbolic access to architectural resources, noting that Black architects are often made visible primarily through their community work, a form of recognition limited by identity. While Anthony focuses on a particular cultural context, her insights highlight broader intersectional expectations that structure architectural visibility. Thus, even Kéré’s celebrated community work may not signal true inclusion but instead represents, following Hall (1993, p. 107), a “carefully regulated, segregated visibility” that maintains the boundaries of who is seen and valued within architecture.

The boundaries of “hopeful performativity” frequently emerge in respondents' accounts, shaped both by media and architectural language. As AUS M2 observes, the language of awards is often inaccessible or irrelevant to non-architects, confirming their position as insider discourse contributing to social closure (Stevens, 1998). Awards can be seen as operating within a prestige loop: they reinforce professional networks and accumulate symbolic value while contributing little to architecture's broader social or cultural relevance (Samuels, 2018). This insularity not only limits public engagement but also narrows which identities and practices are visible or legitimised as excellent’.

The attempt to make the RIBA awards visible, although not directly prompted by our research question, highlights the connection between awards and the public while raising issues of social closure within architecture. From 2015 onward, the RIBA House of the Year Award partnered with Kevin McCloud's Grand Designs, strategically leveraging the presenter's popularity and credibility to increase public visibility of architectural awards. However, this more public format also attracted criticism for celebrating private wealth rather than addressing broader social needs (see Samuels, 2018 on the perceptual gap). Critics argued that showcasing lavish villas during a housing crisis reinforced elitism and exclusion (Speed, 2021). Together, these examples, though not strictly academic, demonstrate how awards, even when made more publicly visible, can perpetuate privilege and maintain a disconnect between architecture and wider intersectional concerns such as housing, equity and public value.

Moreover, the lack of engagement with these issues in peer-reviewed discourse underscores a particular attitude towards television and the tension between high and low culture (Rattenbury, 2002). The Architects' Journal addressed this in a (2017) article titled “RIBA House of the Year: Does TV trivialise architectural awards?” The piece questions the reduction of awards to entertainment, where architectural critique is secondary to storytelling or spectacle. It further argues that the television format diminishes architectural values and trivialises professional seriousness and significance. What becomes evident in this denunciation of the televised awards, along with the RIBA president's dismissal at the time of communities secretary Sajid Javid's comment that the houses on the show did not represent the average build (Braidwood, 2017), is a privileged and insular defence of professional authority, reflecting exclusivity and class privilege (Stevens, 1998; Parkin, 2018). In line with Rattenbury's (2002) analysis of architecture's cultural hierarchies, debates around televised awards expose the discipline's discomfort with popular visibility and its lingering attachment to notions of exclusivity. Moreover, neither the article nor the president's response engages with, or suggest ways to reimagine, representation and visibility in more inclusive and equitable terms.

We have so far explored how the “hopeful performativity” relies on the visibility of awards to enable a new generation from diverse backgrounds to imagine themselves belonging to the profession. In this sense, awards do not describe reality; rather, they signal an orientation towards possibility without necessarily translating into changes in practice. Experiences of architecture are shaped by emotion and affect, the feeling that one can take up space, or not. In the context of awards, which are primarily symbolic events, a key question arises: can the emotions and affects generated by these awards be harnessed to transform architectural practice? “Hopeful performatives” are one way that emotions circulate within affective economies. Architectural practice is imbued with affects, producing an economy in which certain affects rise to visibility and, by extension, surface the subject. As Ahmed observes, “[p]erhaps lightness and buoyancy are the affects of privilege – the affective worlds inhabited by those whose bodies don't weigh them down or hold them up” (2012, p. 181). How, then, does one occupy the space of architecture, when one's body is not held up?

Although this section has highlighted the positive perceptions of awards, most participant responses regarding their impact suggested that change is “slow-moving” or only “moderately effective”, with few architects viewing awards positively. Moreover, the public resonance of awards remains unclear, as discussions rarely include community-impact metrics. This absence points to a structural blind spot that limits the role of awards as a public-facing instrument. It also reflects the affective economies in which awards circulate, where symbolic value, professional sentiment and emotional investments reinforce existing norms as opposed to redirecting them.

Our awards question and prompt aimed to explore whether greater diversity might potentially reshape the state of the profession in terms of diversity. The majority of respondents framed awards as “non-performative”; that is, “they do not bring into effect that which they name. A commitment might even be named not to bring it into effect” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 119). Participants emphasised that awards alone are unlikely to dismantle systemic issues within the profession or architectural education. Moreover, a common observation was that diversity at the top does not necessarily translate into equity at the grassroots. As Hill and Sobande (2018) argue, “without transformational and structural changes, increased surface-level representation is meaningless” (p. 109).

In alignment with the majority of respondents, awards are not determinative of change, affect or action. Following Bell's notion of performativity as “the deliberate, self-conscious ‘doing’ of highly symbolic actions in public” (Bell, 2009, pp. 159–160), awards function less as drivers of transformation and more as reflective mechanisms of broader socio-cultural structures. Respondents recognised the potential of awards but emphasised that they operate within an “echo chamber” of the profession. Within this space, awards do not exert direct influence; rather, they mirror and normalise existing affective economies. As noted by UK F1:

Respondent UK F1 navigates between extrinsic and intrinsic rewards and differing notions of success, linking internal rewards to the capacity to effect real change and emphasising that awards themselves do not determine impact. As NZ M6 further observed, awards often make visible a narrow conception of success; in many respects, awards are performative of architecture's historical and symbolic values rather than “non-performative” acts in relation to questions of diversity: “However, many design/architecture awards rounds tend to be considered as somewhat trivial/shallow/contentious”. At the same time, NZ M6 suggested ways awards could be improved: “Many could be improved by opening challenging, thinking and focusing on what the awards are seeking to recognize and why in a more comprehensive and inclusive way”. He further questioned the process alongside the values that underpin it: “It's always difficult when professional bodies set their own agendas/selection criteria from within, which too easily can fall into the trap of perpetuating self-referential/circular thinking which is loaded towards normative, historical and biased baggage”.

What NZ M6 makes clear is that awards are symbolic, forming part of an affective economies that generates particular dispositions within the profession. Awards impress upon us how architectural recognition is experienced as emotional labour, shaping how practitioners feel and react to the expectations of architecture itself (Ahmed, 2014a, b). Responses suggest a broader pattern in which symbolic structures, such as awards, influence social contexts, group dynamics and cultural formations, in turn shaping individual and collective emotional states, motivations and behaviours (Ahmed, 2014a, b). In this sense, awards crystallise affective charge within these affective economies, linking ambition and desire to recognition. As NZ M6 indicated, and as echoed by several respondents, the symbolic value of awards is narrow. However, their reflections also point to the potential for these values to be reoriented towards community and relational connection, rather than prestige-bound notions of architectural achievement. As an UK architect reflected:

Similarly, a New Zealand respondent commented:

What this response signals, in alignment with Berlant, is the “cruel optimism” fuelled by awards; that is, the affective attachment to “[t]he exhausting repetition of the politically depressed position that seeks repair of what may be constitutively broken” (2011, p.227). In this sense, NZ M2 reiterated what has surfaced throughout this study: the persistence of hopeful attachment despite its recognised futility.

Several responses provided multiple-identity vantage points, including those reflecting Indigenous intersectionalities. This perspective draws attention to how neo-colonial values continue to privilege systemic individualism. Respondents described their student or practitioner experiences as shaped by intersecting identity factors, such as ethnicity, gender and class, which can accentuate, complicate, intensify and sometimes unsettle one another (Ulturgasheva, 2023). Critical questions were raised around how awards are framed, how they act as gatekeepers and what constitutes knowledge, including who is recognised as a knower and who is made known (Ulturgasheva, 2023). Many suggested that recognition and redistribution could be better achieved through relational approaches that emphasise networks and community support rather than symbolic accolades. For example, NZ F4 critiqued the current awards and the hierarchies of value they reproduce, proposing instead relational forms of practice that prioritise supporting community over pursuing awards themselves.

AUS F3 engaged with awards directly but raised concerns about the exclusionary and boundary-marking process inherent in architectural awards:

These accounts highlight a tension within awards structures: while special categories (e.g. for Indigenous projects) create space and opportunity, they can also feel divisive and isolating. This generates an affective conflict between recognition and marginalisation within the broader field, that is, seen through the sole lens of identity rather than as an architect in one's own right. AUS F3 pointed to the need for critical balance – to support difference without reducing people to that difference, while also acknowledging that, for many, identity holds deep personal significance. Its erasure can feel akin to historical acts of exclusion and control (Manning, 2019).

Although the challenges resonate with other architects of colour, Indigenous architects frame their position as inseparable from sovereignty and decolonial practice. The sharpest scepticism towards awards came from participants with multiple overlapping marginalised identities. Indigenous architects, person of colour and those from working-class backgrounds often described awards as divisive, tokenistic or ineffective. For many, awards were not even “hopeful performatives” but rather an entanglement of an extractivism-performative (the act of institutions or workplaces to extract value from inclusion talk without real institutional change) and “non-performatives” (Ahmed, 2012) – critical perspectives that highlight how lived experience shapes affective orientations. Ambivalence towards awards is widespread, yet scepticism is most pronounced among those most subject to exclusion; while awards may offer symbolic visibility, they often fail to address structural barriers. As UK F5 highlighted the limits of awards in producing substantive change:

It is evident that respondents from more privileged intersectional positions tended to align with a more “hopeful performative” perspective. This divergence suggests that architecture is experienced differently depending on one's positionality, with privilege shaping the capacity to perceive awards as generative rather than extractive:

Assuming that all architects experience the profession in the same way overlooks existing differences and consequent inequalities. As Ahmed notes, “[i]nstitutions are oriented around the accumulation of some bodies rather than others, and those who inhabit the dominant body are treated as the norm” (Ahmed, 2012, p. 11). This highlights how dominant perspectives, often aligned with white male norms, are positioned as neutral or universal, masking the specific barriers faced by others. Those respondents who negated the impact of difference may be well-intentioned, yet a lack of awareness of systemic inequalities reproduces exclusion and maintains existing hierarchies within the profession. In other words, lack of diversity in the context of professional recognition, such as the Pritzker Prize, is not merely a matter of representation.

Overall, the findings indicate that intersectional differences were more evident in respondent discussions about professional practice than those regarding awards. This is perhaps unsurprising: awards are structured around a logic of exclusion that affects all architects. With few winners, the affective responses of visibility and futility are shared across groups, reinforcing the largely symbolic nature of awards. A professional culture that normalises awards without interrogating their purpose contributes to a collective affective atmosphere in which ambivalence is a common experience across groups. Intersectionality remains important, but its effects are mediated within the broader affective economies of awards.

Moreover, awards do not address the critical issue of poor workplace conditions, which are experienced differently and unevenly due to structural inequalities associated with identity categories and backgrounds. Toxic cultures, long-hour expectations, pay equity and job precarity persist in both award-winning firms and those that have not received recognition. Either way, celebrating diversity among award winners does not guarantee better treatment for employees or more inclusive leadership. As such, many respondents expressed the view that awards are tokenistic. Operating with the profession's affective economies, this tokenism generates feelings, such as prestige, aspiration, belonging or exclusion, which reinforce rather than unsettle existing hierarchies. What is clear is that awards are “non-performative” in terms of diversity, but respondents also questioned the very purpose of having awards within the profession.

Awards are often considered a “nice to have”, occupying a normative yet non-essential role within architecture. They are socially expected signifiers of achievement, yet architectural practice continues independently of them. As one respondent noted, awards both reflect existing values and identities and reinforce particular ambitions; therefore, they contribute to the affective economies of the profession even if they are not essential. Respondents consistently argued that genuine transformation occurs on the ground; a sense of belonging in the workplace cannot be created through occasional accolades, but through a shift in the structures of feeling of the everyday. The narrow and conditional forms of visibility conferred by awards equate to a recognition risk – they are empty symbolic gestures rather than indicators of substantive change. As AUS M4 observed: …

And, similarly:

A clear theme emerging from responses, and transformation from the current approach to awards, was the call to redirect award resources towards socially embedded initiatives, or to couple awards with meaningful impact metrics. This is particularly important given the substantial resources consumed by architectural awards – 20% or more of an institute's annual budget, thus a structural commitment rather than a discretionary spectacle or nice-to-have. As AUS M2 pointed out: “It's incredibly expensive. If you're a humble person, you might feel intimidated by the glitz and glamour of it all, and it doesn't really feel very interactive.” Given that awards are experienced and felt – extending beyond symbolic recognition – they form part of the affective context of architecture, shaping how architecture circulates, how architects feel they can take up space (or not) and how they engage with award processes or events.

This account raises questions about whether awards should do more than reproduce prestige and reinforce professional echo chambers, suggesting that resources could be redistributed. For instance, funding currently allocated to annual awards, potentially reduced by shifting to a biennial cycle, could instead support scholarships, mentorships, accessibility initiatives or participatory design projects. This would reframe the discussion as one of recognition versus redistribution (Fraser, 2008). However, architectural awards are deeply embedded within the profession's affective economies: they circulate feelings of aspiration, legitimacy and belonging, shaping how architects understand value and success. All architects contribute financially through registration fees, further entangling them in the system's emotional and economic logics. Openly addressing the tension between recognition and redistribution could help shift the profession towards collective thriving, moving from competitive affects to more inclusive structures of feeling. As Fraser reminds us, the challenge is not choosing one or the other, but reconfiguring both together: “Justice today requires both redistribution and recognition; neither alone is sufficient” (2008, p.22). In this light, the question is not simply how awards might better balance recognition and redistribution, but whether they remain the appropriate vehicle for achieving either in their current form. The findings suggest that meaningful transformation may require reconfiguring, or partially decentring, awards in favour of structures that embed redistribution within everyday practice rather than exceptional recognition. Redistribution simply means that the institutes of architecture use the funding in this area to support architects from diverse backgrounds more directly. Here, redistribution refers to the reallocation of resources by architectural institutions towards more direct and sustained support for architects from diverse backgrounds. This reframing deliberately remains grounded in patterns emerging across interviews rather than in the formulation of a single, unified model and is intended to open a space for further empirical and institutional experimentation rather than to prescribe a definitive pathway.

To conclude this discussion, a limitation of our study is that we did not explicitly examine who is able to access and navigate these award systems, particularly from an intersectional perspective. Questions remain about the circulation of privilege within the awards process: are nominees and those submitting entries primarily from large white male-led firms or from practices with sufficient financial and temporal resources? Not all architects experience the profession equally. Further, it is important to consider “epistemological reflexivity” (Dowling, 2006, p. 11). Our question and prompt assumed that awards were important, which may have shaped responses to frame them positively before critiquing them.

Further research could explore alternative uses for award resources. In discussion with NZ F7, we considered what an award might look like if it recognised problem-solving, negotiation and relational practices rather than prestige alone. This opens the possibility for awards that are socially embedded while retaining value for the profession. Respondents noted that awards often fail to resonate with the broader public, raising questions about redirecting resources towards inclusivity, impact research and social relevance. Potential initiatives include funding participatory design projects for marginalised communities, public and social housing, scholarship and mentorship for underrepresented groups, educational workshops to build design awareness accessibility and sustainability research, evidence-based design promotion and mechanisms for user feedback. Reimagining awards in these ways could shift the focus from spectacular objects to meaningful impact, though questions would need to be addressed as to who would benefit and how the profession could facilitate such a change.

Despite metrics around awards starting to shift, a stickiness remains: an attachment to normative orientations, the affective economies of architecture and cultural conformity tied to particular affects around awards (Ahmed, 2014a, b). Awards are embedded within architecture's existing cultural framework, reinforcing existing professional norms. While some respondents were hopeful that awards might drive change, this “hopeful performativity” is constrained by visibility: awards can be effective if those outside the discipline understand architecture's work, thus aligning recognition with the public good. For most respondents, however, this “hopeful performativity” remains limited. Awards were described as “non-performative” in terms of diversity, and discussion frequently questioned their purpose, including whether the resources devoted to them might be better redistributed. This opens the possibility of a model of architectural awards integrating both recognition and redistribution. This suggests that any meaningful transformation of architectural awards lies not in their incremental reform alone, but in reconfiguring their role to more directly integrate redistribution within the everyday practices they seek to recognise.

Taken together, the findings illustrate how “hopeful performative” and “non-performative” orientations operate simultaneously within architecture's affective economies, showing that emotional investments sustain existing structures even as desires for change emerge. In unpacking these economies, this article points to the importance of centring the voices of practising architects in relation to awards, and, equally important, understanding the profession's relationship with the public, a critical yet often overlooked metric. Finally, intersectionality was less pronounced in this study than in the broader project. Nevertheless, patterns that emerged are telling: participants expressing more hopeful views were predominantly white, while those advocating recognition beyond awards were primarily participants of colour. Though not definitive, these tendencies indicate how experiences and feeling about awards, and the imaginaries they sustain, remain unevenly distributed along intersectional lines.