UNBUİLT

Deconstructivism is the philosophy that scrutinizes the concept of the “unbuilt” in the most profound manner. In Derrida’s writings, the translations between architecture, philosophy, and deconstruction are of paramount significance. As such, according to Derrida, architecture can only be comprehended through deconstruction, and deconstruction through architecture. In this context, Mark Wigley’s The Architecture of Deconstruction serves as a notably competent resource. At the time of its publication in 1993, the relationship between contemporary philosophers and architects had reached a point where prominent architects such as Tschumi and Eisenmann were engaged in collaborative projects with Derrida. In his book, Wigley first focuses on the architecture of traditional philosophy and metaphysics. Then, he examines how deconstruction disrupts or dismantles them.

Traditional philosophy and architecture

Philosophy frames its discourse with certain architectural terms: ground, edifice, construction, foundation, structure… Heidegger “identifies thinking with building.” The reason philosophy employs these terms is not due to a necessity to reference tangible, material, or visible forms in establishing its discourse. Rather, philosophy draws an architecture, presents a certain understanding — a theory — of architecture. Architecture thus becomes a metaphor for philosophy. And not just any metaphor, but a foundational one. “The production of architecture is at the same time the production of the space of philosophy.” Heidegger posits that philosophy cannot be considered outside of art and architecture, because the truth that philosophical tradition pursues manifests itself in art. “In these terms, any translation between deconstruction and architecture does not simply occur between the texts of philosophical discourse and those of architectural discourse. Rather, it occupies and organizes both discourses. Within each, there is at least an ongoing architectural translation of philosophy and a philosophical translation of architecture.” “Deconstructive discourse can never be detached from architecture.” 

The ground of philosophy

The most critical term that philosophy has adopted from architecture is “ground.” Traditional philosophy has long conceptualized itself as a structure or an act of construction. Thus, it necessitated a sound structure built on a secure ground. Kant, as René Descartes, held this view. For Kant, a philosopher is, above all, an architect — one who seeks structures founded on a solid ground.

When translated from architecture to philosophy, terms such as “ground,” “edifice,” and “construction” lose their straightforward material connotations and become profoundly complex, abstract concepts. Terms like “ground-foundation-structure-construction” that signify solidity detach from architecture. “Architecture” acts as a cover or shell that obscures them. It constitutes an addition, an ornament. “Ground” is transformed into a metaphor for rationality and reason, while ornamentation becomes a metaphor for the arts. In Heidegger’s philosophy, “the principle of ground” is “the principle of reason.” In Kant’s aesthetics, constructional and load-bearing elements are regarded as the lowest form of art due to their purely functional and rational nature. In contrast, ornament is regarded as the highest form of art because of its autonomy from function and utility. Philosophy, like architecture, is associated with this form of art: “The unique authority of the tradition of philosophy... derives from its implicit theory of ornament.” Metaphysics (philosophy) becomes the veiling of the ground rather than its investigation. Architecture is a cover, and philosophy takes cover in architecture.

Unbuilding

Unbuilding is the removal of this cover. It refers to the deconstruction of the aforementioned architectural philosophy theory that is inherent to traditional philosophy and metaphysics. This theory posited that architecture serves as a metaphor for philosophy and acts as a cover and an ornament, indicating that philosophy is founded on a solid ground (i.e., solid concepts and premises). In other words, it maintained a separation between structure and architecture.

Deconstruction displaces this theory; it analyses, examines, interrogates, and transforms it. The term “deconstruction” derives from Heidegger’s concepts of destruktion and abbau. According to Derrida, these concepts mean “not a destruction but precisely a destructuring that dismantles the structural layers in the system.” It involves unearthing what structure conceals. As such, unbuilding corresponds to deconstruction or de-struction.

While rejecting the architectural metaphor that has ‘constructed’ Western metaphysics from Plato to Hegel, Derrida establishes a counter-architecture peculiar to his philosophy. This architecture is not a matter of constructing a structure but of its demolition. And it is in this sense that it is most obviously architectural. “To translate deconstruction in architecture does not simply lead to a formal reconfiguration of the architectural object or architectural theory.” Instead, it leads to unearthing what is hidden by the prevailing metaphysical discourse that treats architecture as a metaphor for the solidity of philosophy.

Institutionalization of architecture and deconstructive politics

For Derrida, the deconstruction of architecture is profoundly political; it is materialist and historical. It challenges the institutions that sustain and perpetuate the rationalist accumulation of architecture, particularly the university. “The questioning of the very idea of building is aligned with a questioning of institutional authority. It is the rethinking of architecture that defines the politics of deconstruction.” However, institutions hinder this.

Institutionalism is predicated on rationalism. Kant posits that “all artificial institutions... are grounded in reason.” Rationalism, which underpins the discourse of the university, also serves as the principle of prevailing architectural thought. Derrida terms this rational institutional architecture discourse as “architectonic.” What truly defines architectonic is the dogma that architecture is a metaphor for philosophy. Indeed, deconstruction “attacks” this architectonic and “questions the very idea of architecture.” Deconstructive discourse constructs an architecture by deconstructing architecture and a philosophy by deconstructing philosophy.

Unbuilding is not merely a philosophical issue limited to the reconceptualization of architecture. Since Ancient Egypt, there have been architectural experiences driven by imagination rather than reason or function. Through these experiences, which were particularly influential up until the Age of Enlightenment, architecture has created highly magical, poetic, mysterious works. It envisions spaces without ground, edifice, or construction. In a time when structures increasingly dominate our environment and lives, these experiences are reawakening. They embody the idea of unbuilding.