CLASSICAL AND MODERN SOCIOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE
Classical sociology doesn’t have concepts which allow a sociological analysis of architecture as artifact, as art in terms of creativity and affectivity. Nevertheless one can find in French and German sociology case studies which can be considered as veritable “classics of architectural sociology”. This article brings together these texts, and interrogates their implicit theories and their conception of relations between the architectural and the social. With respect to the currently emerging sociology of architecture, the article stresses the effectivity and positivity of the architecture within the social. Architecture should not be understood only in terms of “representation” or “expression” of a given society (of their social strictures, relations of power and so on). On the contrary, architecture makes a “difference” within the social sphere.The initial conviction is that architecture not only reflects or reproduces what almost “exists”. Rather, it gives a society a symbolic form in which it “institutes” itself as a certain “society”. And it creates spaces for everyday living, coexists with human body, enables his affects, movements, views, actions and interactions. In its creative architecture a society has a chance to see itself in a way that is partially new. Particularly in case of modern architecture, architecture pushes social things rather that is only an “expression” of them. So, the aim of that work is to say that architecture is not merely an expression, a mirror, a symbol of a given society or given social structures: it is their “medium”. It has a social activity or positivity. Classical sociological theory conceptualized the social sphere too restrictive for such a theoretic sociology of architecture. Sociological thinkers conceived the object of sociology as a sphere of pure “sociological facts”; as social, and particularly “interaction” or as “communication”. In these basic concepts of sociology...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document