Architecture can communicate many things about a society. Although anthropologists have long been interested in the forms that humans create, in the last few decades, anthropologists have become increasingly concerned with "analysis of symbolic meanings as expressed in architectural form" (Tomasi). For example, the materials and shapes used in a design can tell us about a society's aesthetic preferences, local resources, and geography. Anthropologists have also gained interest in what architecture can tell us about "political contestation, ethnic identification, or social gentrification" (Tomasi). Altogether, the analysis of structure can tell us about a society's traditions, artistic biases, allocation of resources, tools, proceses of construction, ethnic and political identities, and social issues.
Owen Hatherley says that brutalism was, at its peak, “a political aesthetic, an attitude, a weapon, dedicated to the precept that nothing was too good for ordinary people.”
The architectural style of brutalism originated in Britain in the 1950s; the first brutalist work of architecture is considered to be the Secondary School at Hunstanton in Norfolk, England by Peter and Alison Smithson in 1954. Brutalism as we consider it was born out of post-World War II European struggles, as the war wreaked havoc on many cities, and buildings had to be constructed under monetary and resource budgets. Brutalism as a style represented an ethical and practical approach rather than one obsessed with aesthetics.
Since in many communist countries, function was highly prioritized over form, funding for government buildings was sparse, and brutalism was mostly employed in urban settings and thus centered community, brutalism came to be culturally synonymous with Soviet ideals, despite the architectural style being utilized across the world. However, brutalism as a dominant architectural style did indeed last longer in the USSR than anywhere else (into the 1980s) due to the “slow pace of Soviet construction, a shortage of materials and labor, and not a little corruption” (Heathcote). In the Soviet Union, brutalism came to popularity alongside “a new reliance on technology and a faith in the future” (Heathcote), as the Soviet Union embraced atheism and participated in the arms and space races. Architecture that invoked mathematics, utility, and efficiency were thus popular not only for their practicality, but for their aesthetics; although brutalism seemed to reject aestheticism, it too served to symbolize the Soviet Union’s ideology and cultural and political aims. Nevertheless, many brutalist buildings in the Soviet sphere of influence such as in the Eastern Bloc were designed to represent diverse ideas, such as religion, success in sports and the arts, local leaders, ecological pride, et. cetera.
Physically, the characteristics of brutalist architecture are the “use of concrete, blunt geometric forms, [...] and rough and unfinished surfaces.” Other commonly used materials are “brick, glass, steel, and rough-hewn stone” (Les Collection). Typically, brutalist buildings are either large or give the impression that they’re larger than they are through their blocky appearance. Attractive materials, colors, and symmetry are not prioritized (Heathcote, 20th Century Architecture, Finn, Les Collection).