Sanchez Sotes, Guillermo
(2024)
The Appropriation of Autopoiesis in Architecture.
PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.
|
Text
201374243_Feb2024.pdf - Author Accepted Manuscript Download (12MB) | Preview |
Abstract
This thesis investigates the merits of cross-disciplinary appropriations of natural-scientific theory in architecture, particularly of the theory of autopoiesis as appropriated in Patrik Schumacher’s two-volume tome The Autopoiesis of Architecture. This investigation began with an interest in perceived connections between urban dynamics and autopoietic processes in biological cells. In this context, Schumacher’s work was expected to offer, but did not deliver, an explanatory theoretical framework. This raised questions about the role of cross-disciplinary appropriations of natural-scientific theory in architecture in general and the appropriation of autopoiesis in architectural theory in particular. A review of related literature shows that investigations of these questions are confounded by the conceptual broadness granted to theoretical ideas and the indirect route along which autopoiesis has been appropriated in architecture. From its original conception by Maturana et al. in microbiology in the 1970s to its appropriation by Luhmann in sociology in the 1980s, on to the appropriation of its sociological interpretation by Schumacher in architecture around 2011, the phenomena described by the three instances of autopoiesis theory, and their varying grounding in empirical evidence, have changed significantly. Meanwhile, natural-scientific theories inform architectural practice and research across a broad spectrum between metaphorical ambiguity and literal exactitude, from conceptual inspiration in applied design and literal design guidance as is common in biomimicry, to scholarly explanation and empirical prediction. Between these intricacies, the following research question arises: What are the merits of Patrik Schumacher’s appropriation of the theory of autopoiesis from the perspective of academic architectural research? To address this question from an academic architectural research perspective, this study uses a mixed-method approach, drawing on discourse analysis, close reading, visual interpretation, and inference to the best explanation to analyse 16 pertinent samples from The Autopoiesis of Architecture both individually as well as in aggregate, using previously-established categorisations of language use and merits of theory appropriation. It thereby determines how Schumacher’s theory relates “architecture” to prior (i.e., Luhmann’s or Maturana et al.’s) instances of autopoiesis theory, the degree of literality of these references, and their likely beneficiaries. The outcomes of this analysis show that the connections drawn between architecture and autopoiesis in The Autopoiesis of Architecture evoke (or at least do not preclude evoking) biological systems rather than aligning exclusively with Schumacher’s conceptualisation of architecture as a social system. They also suggest that a significant portion of these connections appear to benefit the author (Schumacher) rather than the reader by legitimising and obfuscating rather than providing explanatory convergence. Furthermore, the analysis shows how these connections are not committed to a uniform use of language, ranging across literal, metaphorical, analogical, and similised modes. Schumacher thus seems to operate somewhat ambiguously across all analytical frameworks and distinctions applied in this study, taking an approach that may benefit conceptual inspiration of the design practice rather than rigorous descriptions of academic research his theory purports to do. In this view, Schumacher’s theory appropriation appears to enjoy the conceptual tolerance cultivated on the design practice side of the field but seems unlikely to substantially benefit either the professional practice or academic research arms of the discipline.
| Item Type: | Thesis (PhD) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | autopoiesis, architectural theory, ttheory appropriation, discourse, discourse analysis |
| Divisions: | Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences > School of the Arts |
| Depositing User: | Symplectic Admin |
| Date Deposited: | 04 Apr 2024 13:38 |
| Last Modified: | 04 Apr 2024 13:39 |
| DOI: | 10.17638/03179091 |
| Supervisors: |
|
| URI: | https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/3179091 |
Dimensions
Dimensions
