Thinking architecture through a macro-to-micro understanding

Authors

Keywords:

Architectural Practice, Social, Micro/Macro, Agency/Structure

Abstract

Social architecture debates on rethinking architecture has come to the fore within the field during the 2000s. The prominence of the notion of agency in these criticisms can be seen as a current expansion from architecture to sociology. The study aims to provide a complementary two-way view to this interdisciplinary expansion by looking into the reverse direction and asks: In what way architecture can be approached from a sociological standpoint? For this, agency is treated as a conceptual ground and investigated in the relevant sociological literature. Then, a theoretical-critical framework is formed based on macro/micro, structure/agency notions pertinent to duality problematic. A particular two-fold classification regarding social analyses proposing to overcome dualities is derived. Following a qualitative research approach, text analysis method is adopted. Textual data is compiled from writings of thinkers regarding sociology which deal with architecture. The research, first, scrutinizes the understanding of architecture as a macro structure; and then, within its dissolution, interprets architectural practice. The study advances an interdisciplinary perspective approaching architecture as a network of diverse agencies and relations, which goes beyond questioning inadequacy of architecture against macro level facts and issues. Thus, it makes a theoretical contribution to current criticisms of architectural field.

References

Allen, S. (2010). Field conditions. In A.K. Sykes (Ed.), Constructing a new agenda: Architectural theory 1993-2009 (pp. 116-133). Princeton Architectural Press.

Awan, N., Schneider, T., & Till, J. (2011). Spatial agency other ways of doing architecture. Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (2015). Pratik nedenler (H.U.Tanrıöver, Çev.). Hil Yayın.

Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. HarperCollins Books.

Carpo, M. (2017). The second digital turn: Design beyond intelligence. The MIT Press.

Doucet, I., & Cupers, K. (2009). Agency in architecture: rethinking criticality in theory and practice. Footprint, Spring 2009, 1-6.

Fraser, M. (Ed.). (2013). Introduction. Design research in architecture (pp.1-14). Ashgate Publishing.

Frichot, H. (2017). Mimarî teorinin ölümü ve diğer kuruntular üzerine (G. Yeşildağ, Çev.). Sub Yayımları.

Gribat, N., & Meires, S. (2017). A critique of the new ‘social architecture’ debate, moving beyond localism, developmentalism and aesthetics. CITY, 21, 779-788. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2017.14121999

Gürkan, G. (1968). Ülkemizde mimarlık nerede duruyor? Mimarlık Dergisi, 58, 19-20. http://dergi.mo.org.tr/dergiler/4/377/5541.pdf (29.09.2021).

Hill, J. (2013). Design research: The first 500 years. In M. Fraser (Ed.), Design research in architecture (pp. 15-34). Ashgate Publishing.

Kennedy, N. F. (Ed.). (2012). Mimarlığı sosyolojik olarak anlamak. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi Dosya, 30, 1-6. http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/dosya/dosya30.pdf (20.03.2019).

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford University Press.

Latour, B., & Yaneva, A. (2014). Bana bir silah verin, tüm binaları yerinden oynatayım: Mimarlığa bir aktör-ağ-kuramı (ant) bakışı. Mimarlık Dergisi, 378. http://www.mimarlikdergisi.com/index.cfm?sayfa=mimarlik&DergiSayi=392&RecID=3438 (01.04.2021).

Layder, D. (2013). Sosyal teoriye giriş (Ü. Tatlıcan, Çev.). Küre Yayınları.

Lefebvre, H. (2014). Mekânın üretimi (I. Ergüden, Çev.). Sel Yayıncılık.

Lepik, A. (2010). Small scale big change. New architectures of social engagement. MoMA + Basel: Birkhäuser GmbH.

Mitchell, W. J. (2017). Sınırlar/ ağlar. İçinde A.K. Sykes (Ed.) ve G. Akyürek (Çev.), Yeni bir gündem inşa etmek mimarlık kuramı 1993-2009 (ss. 211-228). Küre Yayınları.

Oosterman, A. (2008). A profession apart. Volume: Unsolicited Architecture, 14.

Rabinow, P. (2012). Michel Foucault ile söyleşi: mekân, bilgi ve erk. TMMOB Mimarlar Odası Ankara Şubesi dosya, 30, 11-18. http://www.mimarlarodasiankara.org/dosya/dosya30.pdf (20.03.2019).

Ritzer, G. (2007). Can globalized commercial architecture be anything but highly McDonaldized? In S. Lee & R. Baumeister (Eds.), The domestic and the foreign in architecture (pp. 123-145). 010 Publishers.

Ritzer, G. (2011). Modern sosyoloji kuramları (H. Hülür, Çev.). De Ki Basım Yayım.

Ritzer, G. (2017). Toplumun McDonaldlaştırılması (A. E. Pilgir, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.

Spatial Agency. (t.y.). About. https://www.spatialagency.net/ (14.09.2021).

Tanyeli, U. (2017). Yıkarak yapmak anarşist bir mimarlık kuramı için altlık. Metis Yayıncılık.

Tapie, G. (2018). Çağdaş yaşamortamın sosyolojisi (A. Tümertekin, Çev.). Janus Yayıncılık.

Tschumi, B. (2018). Mimarlık ve kopma (A. Tümertekin, Çev.). Janus Yayıncılık.

Turğuter, E. A., & Evren, M. K. (2019). Sosyal teoride dualiteleri aşma çabası: Giddens, Bourdieu, Layder. Universal Journal of History and Culture, 1(1), 33-45.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-01