Circles, Squares, and Power: What Ancient Architecture Reveals About Democracy

In this Science Friday episode, Flora Lichtman and guest scholars examine how ancient architectural forms such as circular councils and large plazas reflect deliberative governance, and how these patterns relate to autocratic power. The conversation bridges archaeology, architecture, and modern public spaces, arguing that democratic design has deep roots and that today’s public spaces—both physical and online—continue to shape political life.

Origins of democracy in ancient architecture

The podcast begins with Flora Lichtman introducing a study published in Science Advances that looks at how the design of ancient temples, plazas, and cities can reveal governance structures. Dr. Jake Holland Lulowitz, an anthropologist and assistant professor at Pennsylvania State University, explains that in many Southeastern North American contexts, the evidence points to large round structures built to accommodate multiple important families or entire villages. The circle's form is not merely aesthetic; it embodies a social logic in which deliberation and consensus take priority over top-down action. Benches around circular walls allow all participants to see one another, reinforcing inclusive discussion rather than a lecture-style encounter. This, the conversation suggests, is a tangible manifestation of democratic ethos in spatial design. "the circle is really important too, because when you're sitting in a circle and we find evidence for benches around the walls, you can see everyone else. Right." - Dr. Jake Holland Lulowitz

Reading plazas and squares

The discussion then moves to plazas and square grounds, which can reveal who is meant to be in the public space and how many can gather there. Lichtman notes Muskogee Creek Nation sites where square grounds are central to social and political life, used to reaffirm relationships and to host communal events with food and dialogue. The size and arrangement of plazas can indicate whether the space is broadly inclusive or more tightly linked to a palace or elite authority. The conversation highlights that the function of an open space is a window into governance: a palace-adjacent plaza may imply centralized power, while a circle around a council house signals deliberation among diverse groups. "the absence of those kind of big spaces that can fit a huge percentage of the population, and the prominence and centrality of palaces" - Dr. Jake Holland Lulowitz

From ancient to modern governance signals

Turning the lens to contemporary parallels, the hosts discuss how ancient design aligns with or diverges from modern checks and balances. The White House example comes up as a cautionary tale: power can appear evident in grand housing, but context matters, as nearby large buildings and multiple seats within a complex can reveal distributed or plural forms of governance. The discussion notes that the archaeological record can mirror modern governance structures when contextualized with broader social and political dynamics, offering a cross-cultural lens on how societies organize decision making. Lichtman emphasizes that while architecture alone cannot tell the full story, it provides meaningful hints about how communities sought deliberation and consensus. "the design is purposeful, and it's meant to facilitate an idea of a system. why was this structure built?" - Dr. Jake Holland Lulowitz

Autocracy signals in architecture and modern public spaces

The conversation then addresses autocratic design cues, noting the absence of inclusive gathering spaces and the presence of disproportionately large rulers’ residences as potential indicators of centralized power. The panel compares ancient patterns with modern contexts, including the White House and earthen mounds that sit beside round structures, suggesting that similar logic can underlie different political systems when interpreted within their cultural settings. A broader takeaway is that architecture can reflect underlying governance values but does not deterministically fix them; it must be read in its social and historical milieu. "the absence of those kind of big spaces that can fit a huge percentage of the population, and the prominence and centrality of palaces" - Dr. Jake Holland Lulowitz

Public space in the digital age

In a second, later segment, the discussion shifts to the role of public space in democracy today, with Dr. Jeff Howe, head of the Architecture Department at the National University of Singapore, describing how public space now encompasses online forums and social media in addition to physical spaces. Howe argues that digital infrastructure can both enable and constrain democratic assembly: protests and debates may be facilitated online, yet surveillance and shutdowns can suppress gathering. He notes that the online realm is a critical, powerful arena that argues for a broad, inclusive understanding of public space, one that must be defended to preserve genuine democratic discourse. The moderator and Howe reflect on how this expanded public space informs architectural practice and civic life. "public space still play that traditional role, but it's just that public space now does not just include the actual physical space. It also includes the online forum, the social media" - Jeff Howe

Democracy is ancient, not inevitable

The episode closes on a hopeful note. Lichtman and her guests emphasize that democracy has deep, global roots and is not a modern invention. The discussion cites Applebaum’s assertion that autocracy is not a genetic trait but a cultural product shaped by language, religion, and social norms. The archaeology of seated councils and deliberative spaces suggests that communities can choose collective governance in response to migration, diversity, and population growth. The guests argue that societies have long faced the challenge of balancing inclusive participation with effective governance, and that architectural design—when interpreted in its sociopolitical context—offers valuable clues about how to cultivate deliberative institutions in the present and future. "autocracy isn't a genetic trait. It's culture and language and religion. They don't produce autocracy or democracy" - Applebaum

"democracy has really deep roots. It's not a modern invention. But I think the archaeological record shows that people have always worked really hard at this and have been really successful at it" - Dr. Jake Holland Lulowitz

Takeaway and invitation to reading

The final remarks frame a hopeful view: architecture is not destiny, but a meaningful lens through which to understand collective governance and to imagine how design might nurture deliberative, inclusive communities in today’s increasingly complex social landscape.