ABSTRACT
In the first chapter I argued that Irigaray’s fluid ‘subject to subject’ relations are
valuable for architecture because they reconfigure it into irreducible (i.e. infinite)
and complex relationships. Irigaray’s ideas are also reflected in recent
architectural theory and practices that have sought to challenge formalist
accounts of architecture that privilege static material spatial organisation. These
post-structuralist approaches show that architectural design and its uses are
composed of dynamic psychic and material processes which are embodied in
the architect, collaborator and user; for example, requiring that the designer
develop a flexible range of practical and theoretical aesthetic, social, technical
Certainly, the architectural design profession can be defined by its need to
manage and implement large amounts of technical information and materials
correctly; especially when such knowledge and skills relate to structural aspects
of design, which are legally required to meet statutory regulations. However, in
addition to being able to make accurate and precise judgments about the
relevant materials, geometries, scales or magnitudes used in the process of
designing and fabricating a building, post-structuralist feminist and Marxist
architects, historians, theorists and critics have shown the benefits to society
and the profession when the architect also designs through the negotiation of
skills, knowledge and materials, in conjunction with other professionals and
with clients.