ABSTRACT
This chapter first situates the source of Critical Theory in Marxism. Following Marx’s view that a philosopher’s roll is not only to interpret the world (as previously held) but rather to change it, Max Horkheimer held that the theorist’s role is one of bringing change from within social contexts. Beneficial results came out of this approach: for instance, the cultural turn in history research; also design ethnography in architectural theory. But the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School fragmented into countless “critical theories” in various disciplinary domains. This chapter critiques the “criticalism” that has dominated architectural theory in the academy since the late twentieth century. The chapter questions the clarity of this view, by considering essays from K. Michael Hays, Bernard Tschumi, Peter Eisenman, and an example of fostering social resistance on the part of architecture students. These examples are reflective of the Postmodern paradigm noted in Chapter 1. Specifically, postmodernism at best yields a vestigial sacramentality in which Uncertainty is actually the larger metaphysical realm in which “communion” takes place. The conclusion questions the sustainability of this outlook for architectural theory moving forward, particularly in preparing student architects in contributing to the health, safety and welfare of general human community.
