This dissertation develops a critical theory of tectonic thinking by deconstructing the discipline's foundational power dynamic: the historical subordination of material producer to governing principle. This struggle is argued to be the basis of modern architectural authority, systematically excluding the producer’s knowledge, agency, and labor. The study argues that existing aesthetic and ontological frameworks are inadequate for contemporary complexities. It employs a unique methodology utilizing three critical lenses: Archi-Tectonic Paragone, Dialectics of Appearance and Disappearance, and Emerging and Proliferating Modalities. These lenses analyze four fundamental domains: Materiality, Morphologicality, Representationality, and Historiographicality. In each, the dissertation diagnoses the governing mind’s hegemony and constructs alternative frameworks: challenging the passivity of matter; reconfiguring form as negotiation; rejecting completion fetishism and emphasizing the life cycle; and critiquing the exclusionary canon of architectural historiography. The primary contribution is the radical politicization of the tectonic debate, in which the dissertation transforms the tectonic from an aesthetic expression into a critical examination of power, knowledge, and labor. The resulting critical theory challenges singular authorship, engages the digital age, and advocates for an ethics of making and care, offering a new foundation for architectural theory.
Ozan Soya (Thu,) studied this question.