ABSTRACT
We have to look no further than Thomas Kuhn’s use of the word “paradigm” in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to recognize that ambiguous and inconsistent uses of critical terms are common. While Kuhn’s view introduced revolutionary insight to the activities of the discipline of science and helped to change the perception of its operations, his application of the term “paradigm” is loose: at times it seems to infer particular scientific models, yet it is also employed to indicate the general state of the profession as well as other related inferences. Such approximation is able to be tolerated-even overlooked-because it still provides a wealth of material, but Kuhn himself attempted to clarify his terminology in a subsequent postscript.1 The complexities of grappling with the inexact nature of a language should not surprise or dismay any of us as this has been accepted as commonplace since the early part of the twentieth century and even celebrated in certain philosophies of recent decades.2 The opportunities for rich, deep understandings and discussions of our concepts are only made possible by scrutinizing the nature, limits and characteristics of such terms, helping to clarify the subjects and rescue them from mystery and reduction. Like Kuhn’s “paradigm,” the term “theory” is used in many ways. In architecture,
it is identified in everything from the basic rules of plumbing logistics to discussions of the latest and most compelling direction for the entire profession. It can be understood to be its own topic or part of any topic in the discipline. It is linked to minor tasks or major ideas, speaks to both general and specific situations, and can be broad or deep. The diversity of uses of the term does not introduce significant complications, but it does not aid in its comprehension either. If we take the
opportunity to study the subject and the variety of circumstances in which it is found, we can begin to shed light on its position, use and power in architecture. To define “theory” and describe how we find it, it is possible to look widely at the field and the historical events that helped shape our current understandings of the topic and its associations. By better understanding this subject and its many uses and contexts, it follows that our employment of the term and everything it encompasses will be clearer, stronger and more easily communicated. While we will never achieve complete agreement and this exploration has no intention of pursuing the establishment of a strict consensus regarding the term “theory,” framing its possibilities can-and needs to-be discussed intelligently. To proceed otherwise would be to dismiss the nature of theorizing while attending to the subject, which creates a curious situation for this topic. Theory has been a subject that various thinkers have analyzed throughout many
disciplines. Probably the most notable and widely referenced is Kuhn, who discussed many ideas about the general nature of the topic. His work removes distinctions between theorizing in the sciences and other disciplines, supporting a universal view of the subject. Another philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper, complemented Kuhn’s work by advancing positions such as the “theory of falsification” wherein theorems cannot be proven to be true, methodologically speaking, but are provisionally held as true until they are proven false. Literary theorists such as Hilary Putnam and Paisley Livingston also add significant observations about theory. From these thinkers and others, many aspects of the subject of theory have been widely, if somewhat loosely, discussed. By assimilating these observations, it is possible to construct a description of theory, noting its elements and characteristics in order to begin to frame a clearer, more definitive understanding of the subject. This type of comprehension creates a basis for further discussion, use and analysis. Taking work from a wide range of fields helps to establish a broad view of theory that applies to architecture as well as to other disciplines.
