ABSTRACT
The discourses of positivist architectural history and post-structuralist theory and criticism discussed in the previous two chapters operate within the same disciplinary space, but from positions that are almost diametrically opposed. For much of its history, writing in the JSAH has remained disengaged from debates in critical theory, not only in other disciplines, but also in related specializations in historical research. Until very recently, there has been little interest in considering the theoretical basis of historical interpretation, and how these have changed over time. By contrast, Assemblage was concerned with “criticism through representations.” It examined how critical thought in architecture was shaped by assumptions, categories, and ways of representing specific to architecture, and argued that history was always theoretical. The question was not whether, but how history was “assembled” as a representation, and according to which interpretive systems.
