Faculty Member, Department of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (303 Views)
“Doubt” in the process of theorization can both provide a basis for rethinking and transformation and, when extended without limit, challenge conceptual stability and the possibility of theoretical judgment. Accordingly, this study critically examines the role of “doubt” in the formation of contemporary architectural theories and seeks to clarify the extent to which doubt can function as a productive force in the rethinking and transformation of theory, as well as the conditions under which it may lead to the weakening of shared foundations and theoretical instability. Drawing on epistemological and theoretical literature from Cartesian methodological doubt and Popperian fallibilism to Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts and contemporary architectural theory the research critically addresses the two opposing dimensions of doubt. The analysis shows that doubt possesses theory-generating potential when it leads to questioning established assumptions, redefining problems, and formulating defensible positions and criteria. By contrast, when doubt turns into the permanent suspension of any foundation or criterion, theory’s capacity to explain, judge, and guide architectural practice is diminished. On this basis, the distinction between “productive doubt” and “destabilizing doubt” is formulated not according to the intensity of doubt, but according to its consequences for the process of theorization. The critical analysis concludes that, in order to remain dynamic, architectural theory requires neither immutable certainties nor a continuous negation of all foundations; rather, it needs a form of critical, provisional, and revisable stability. This framework can provide a basis for evaluating theoretical positions and examining the relationship between critique, theory, and practice in future architectural research.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2026/09/15 | Accepted: 2026/09/26 | Published: 2026/11/1
Received: 2026/09/15 | Accepted: 2026/09/26 | Published: 2026/11/1
References
1. گیدیون، ز. (۱۴۰۰). فضا، زمان و معماری: رشد یک سنت جدید (م. مزینی، مترجم). انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
2. لوکوربوزیه. (۱۳۹۷). به سوی معماری جدید (م. جودت، مترجم). آرمانشهر.
3. ونتوری، ر. (۱۳۸۹). پیچیدگی و تضاد در معماری (م. منوچهری و س. ع. میرترابی، مترجمان؛ س. جعفری، ویراستار). انتشارات سمیرا.
4. Crysler, C. G., Cairns, S., & Heynen, H. (2012). Introduction-1: Architectural theory in an expanded field. In C. G. Crysler, S. Cairns, & H. Heynen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of architectural theory (pp. 1-22). SAGE Publications. [DOI:10.4135/9781446201756.n1]
5. Davidovici, I. (2024). The autonomy of theory: Ticino architecture and its critical reception. gta Verlag. [DOI:10.54872/gta/4708]
6. Descartes, R. (1998). Discourse on method and meditations on first philosophy (D. A. Cress, Trans.; 4th ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.
7. Eisenman, P. (1984). The end of the classical: The end of the beginning, the end of the end. Perspecta, 21, 154-173. [DOI:10.2307/1567087]
8. Hays, K. M. (1984). Critical architecture: Between culture and form. Perspecta, 21, 14-29. [DOI:10.2307/1567078]
9. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press. [DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001]
10. Lefebvre, P. (2017). What difference could pragmatism have made? From architectural effects to architecture's consequences. Footprint, 11(1), 23-36.
https://doi.org/10.59490/FOOTPRINT.11.1.1174 [DOI:10.7480/footprint.11.1.1174]
11. Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286-302.
12. Pérez-Gómez, A. (1983). Architecture and the crisis of modern science. The MIT Press.
13. Popper, K. R. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (2nd ed.). Routledge.
14. Somol, R. E., & Whiting, S. (2002). Notes around the Doppler effect and other moods of modernism. Perspecta, 33, 72-77. [DOI:10.2307/1567298]
15. Tafuri, M. (1976). Architecture and utopia: Design and capitalist development (B. L. La Penta, Trans.). The MIT Press.
16. Till, J. (2009). Architecture depends. The MIT Press.
17. Venturi, R. (1966). Complexity and contradiction in architecture. Museum of Modern Art. [DOI:10.2307/1566911]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |