A Method for Examining the Merits of Theory Appropriation in Architecture

In the process of extending its conventional boundaries, architecture has been observed to continually appropriate concepts from other fields [1]. Such appropriations include terminology, methods, and theories. The natural and social sciences are particularly rich sources for such acquisitions [2]. Cross-disciplinary appropriations of scientific concepts often occur as a matter of course, gravitate toward biological ideas and theories, and provide stimuli for the creative development of architectural projects and the architectural discipline itself. Utilising such “unauthorized jargon” [3], architects establish a “metalanguage” for the proactive exploration of new conceptual connections, thereby enabling the formulation of design proposals and theories [4].

Scientific theories thus inform architectural practice and research in a variety of modes and contexts, ranging across metaphorical ambiguity and factual exactitude, from conceptual inspiration in applied design across literal description and guidance (as is common, for example, in biomimetic design) to scholarly explanation and empirical prediction. While appropriations of scientific theory are integral to the creative and intellectual cross-pollination of architecture as a whole and encountered in both its practice and its academic quarters, architects rarely explore the mechanics and consequences of such adoptions beyond vague and superficial narratives of creative inspirations and conceptual underpinnings. What do we mean, and what do we gain, when we say, for example, that urban life is like a metabolism? Do such appropriations of biological notions help explain, describe, or predict as theories commonly do? What justifies such adoptions? We consider these questions fundamental to how architects inquire into and theorise about architecture and the built environment. Yet, methods for analysing the merits of theory appropriations in architecture are rare. The following pages outline a method we developed for this purpose, and its application to the architectural appropriation of the theory of autopoiesis.

The theory of autopoiesis was initially proposed by the Chilean neuro-biologists Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela, and Ricardo Uribe in the early 1970s to describe the organisation of living systems [5]. The team describes living systems as closed networks of invariant, circularly causal relationships between their various kinds of constituent components. From resources available in their environments, these networks can produce and incorporate further components, allowing living systems to regenerate and reproduce while (and despite) also being subject to disintegration (ibid.). Since its inception in biology, the theory of autopoiesis has been used to describe a range of phenomena beyond biology. Most prominent among these appropriations is Niklas Luhmann’s use of autopoiesis to describe social processes of communication [7]. Luhmann [7] characterises social systems such as art, science, or politics as autopoietic closed systems of self-referential communications that re-constitute and reproduce themselves.

Based on Luhmann’s academic theory, Patrik Schumacher, the principal architect of Zaha Hadid Architects and an educator at multiple architecture schools, has appropriated the concept of autopoiesis in architecture. In 2011 and 2012, Schumacher published his self-proclaimed “opus-magnum” [8] – a two-volume treatise on The Autopoiesis of Architecture [9, 10]. Reading this work, we found ourselves uncertain in three regards: (1) While Schumacher positions his theory as a subset of Luhmann’s appropriation of autopoiesis rather than as a direct descendant of Maturana, Varela, and Uribe’s theory of living systems, his appropriation does not break away unequivocally from the biological origins of autopoiesis theory. Multiple passages of Schumacher’s work left us wondering to what extent it explains architecture in terms of living systems, in terms of communicating social systems, or both. (2) Schumacher [10] presents his theory of autopoiesis as an ostensibly rigorous academic “discourse analysis”. Yet, he proposes it in conjunction with his own architectural “epochal style”, with the ambition to push the current convergence in architecture’s avant-garde – Parametricism – into the mainstream as an inevitable long-term stylistic successor to Modernism, concluding with a call to readers to “join Parametricism’s drive to conquer the mainstream of world architecture!”, leaving us wondering whether Schumacher contributes to a theoretical discourse, promotes a personal agenda, or both. (3) Further compounding (1) and (2), Schumacher does not seem to commit clearly to either the ambiguous, evocative, and metaphorical modes of writing that architects tend to use to inspire, or describe creative practice or to the analytical and unambiguous modes of writing academic researchers tend to use in their formal communications. On the one hand, for example, Schumacher describes architecture in terms of a theory of communication, which, in turn, was formulated in terms of a theory of living systems. On the other hand, he also claims to proceed from a “data set” of patterns of architectural communication and “moves on to the abstract level of concept formation and proposes theoretical formulas that serve as axioms of a comprehensive theoretical system” [10]. Facing these ambiguities, we asked: What are the merits of Schumacher’s appropriation of the theory of autopoiesis? The following sections outline the methodological approach we developed to address this question.

Following architecture’s earlier prioritisation of applied building over “talk”, it is today recognised that, as Markus notes, “[l]anguage is at the core of making, using and understanding buildings” [cited in 2]. In this sense, our investigation into the above research question is situated well within the scope of contemporary architectural research. Yet, the accumulation, formalisation, and differentiation of text-based research methods have so far received limited attention within architectural research. This warrants the development of a purpose-designed method, leaning on approaches established in the social sciences which have a longstanding tradition of scrutinising textual data – particularly content analysis, argumentation analysis, rhetorical analysis, and, encompassing these and other text analysis methods, discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis emerged from a conception of language not solely as a means of representation but rather as “a form of social practice” that constitutes and shapes our social and mental realities [11]. Accordingly, discourse analysis is argued to encompass four fundamental principles: Firstly, it adopts a critical position toward knowledge that is otherwise taken for granted. This entails scepticism towards the idea of an objectively observable world. Secondly, discourse analysis recognises that the world is historically and culturally relative to its observers. Thirdly, it asserts that knowledge is socially constructed and that, in turn, social processes dictate understandings of the world. And fourthly, discourse analysis is committed to exploring the connection between knowledge (i.e. the social construction of people, phenomena, or problems) and actions/practices [12]. Its constructivist foundation sets discourse analysis apart from most other qualitative research methods. Discourse analysis commonly requires adaptation and extensions for specific contexts and purposes. The analysis of Schumacher’s appropriation of autopoiesis theory is no exception. The adaptations and extensions of our text analysis approach for this purpose are presented in the following subsections.

The constrained space available here limits us to present the analysis of no more than one indicative sample. We have chosen Schumacher’s [10] Thesis 39 for this purpose. In this thesis and its central message, Schumacher examines the design process within the architectural discipline. Schumacher argues that the architectural design process can stimulate and direct itself without external assistance. Specifically, he states:

Self-determination is depicted here as a form of autonomy that corresponds with “the autonomy of architecture as autopoietic subsystem of society.” We read the word “as” in this sentence not as indicating a figurative speech but in the literal sense of considering architecture alongside other subsystems of society. Characterising the discipline of architecture as a literal subset of the social communication systems described by Luhmann, Schumacher explains the design process as independent from “determinate constraints” and asserts the independence of the discipline in general and of the “distinguished” avant-garde architect in particular. This proclamation of disciplinary closure, in terms of autonomy and decision-making and the framing of design as “not prefigured or constrained” along the lines of the notion of occupational closure, is, at the least, debatable. Arguably, political influence is exercised even on high-profile projects by external decisions such as the implementation and enforcement of building regulations, through invitations of practices to participate in and submit proposals to design competitions, and through the selection and funding of winning designs. In any case, Schumacher appears to interpret the notion of “systemic closure” as isolated from external influence. He moves on – apparently to legitimise the rejection of external influence – by explaining the design process in terms of the interpretation of “systemic closure” as proposed by Maturana and Varela [16], and appropriated later by Luhmann [6], which describes systems whose outputs affect them as inputs, resulting in circularly causal feedback loops by which systems may respond to effects of their own (past) actions, i.e. self-regulate. For instance, Schumacher refers to “a certain degree of circularity between the problem and its solution” [10]. In essence, Schumacher uses the circular relationship between problem and solution in the design process to then put forward an argument for the independence of (the avant-garde of) the architectural profession – a conflation of two different interpretations of the term closure, which may coincide in particular instances without necessarily being causally connected. The right-hand image of Fig. 2 shows the first author’s visual interpretation of this description. With this transition, Schumacher switches from offering a descriptive theory (describing observable phenomena) to offering a prescriptive theory (putting forward value-laden assertions). This approach deviates from Maturana’s and Luhmann’s theories as these two preceding theories refrain from introducing value-laden assertions and instead describe observable phenomena that naturally allow discussion about biological and social processes.

We have outlined a method for examining the merits of cross-disciplinary appropriations of scientific theory in architecture, with a focus on Patrik Schumacher’s appropriation of the theory of autopoiesis. Our application of this method to analyse one exemplary text sample shows that Schumacher’s theory appropriation equivocates the dynamics of social communications (previously examined by Luhmann in terms of biological dynamics) with the social self-assertion and the self-distinction of (some parts of) the architectural profession. Our analysis of all 16 text samples shows a broader pattern of ambiguities that frequently legitimise, obfuscate, and equalise. Where we initially expected biologically informed explanations of urban dynamics, we find somewhat self-serving legitimisations of a particular view of the profession and of the theory appropriation itself. As Ostwald [1] – building upon Sokal and Bricmont’s [18] observations in the domain of philosophy – argues, “nothing productive can result from appropriations motivated for these [legitimisation, obfuscation and equalisation] reasons”. Otherwise, they appear to benefit the author rather than clarify understanding on the part of the reader. In light of our analysis, Schumacher appears to operate somewhat ambiguously, seemingly enjoying the conceptual tolerance that is cultivated in design practice, and offering a perspective that may benefit conceptual inspiration in design. Yet, his theory appropriation falls short of the formal rigour it purports to offer and seems unlikely to substantially benefit more academic architectural research.