11/3/15, 7:03 PMUnified Architectural Theory: Chapter 2B | ArchDaily

Page 1 of 6http://www.archdaily.com/439498/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-2b

ArchDaily | BroadcastingArchitecture Worldwidethe world's most visited architecture website

About Contact Submit Advertise

Unified Architectural Theory: Chapter 2B

We will be publishing Nikos Salingaros’ book, Unified Architectural Theory, in a series ofinstallments, making it digitally, freely available for students and architects around theworld. Part one of Chapter Two outlined the scientific approach to architectural theory; thefollowing, part two of Chapter Two, explains why Salingaros considers this approach to besuperior to that taken by deconstructivists. If you missed them, make sure to catch upon the introduction, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2A.

Some traditions are anachronistic and misguided, but as reservoirs of traditional solutionsagainst which to check new proposals they are of immense importance. A new solution mayat some point replace a traditional solution, but it must succeed in reestablishing theconnections to the rest of knowledge. In the context of social patterns, architecture, andurbanism, new solutions are useful if they connect to traditional social, architectural, andurban patterns (i.e., all those before the 1920s). If there is an obvious gap where nothing ina discipline refers to anything outside, then there could be a serious problem.

Recently, Edward Wilson has introduced the notion of “consilience” as “the interlocking ofcausal explanations across disciplines” (Wilson, 1998a). Consilience claims that allexplanations in nature are connected; there are no totally isolated phenomena. Wilsonfocuses on incomplete pieces of knowledge: the wide region separating the sciences fromthe humanities. He is happy to see it being slowly filled in by evolutionary biologists,cognitive neuroscientists, and researchers in artificial intelligence. At the same time, he isalarmed by people in the humanities who are erasing parts of the existing body ofknowledge. These include deconstructive philosophers. Wilson characterizes their efforts asbased on ignorance.

On Derrida’s work, he writes: “It … is the opposite of science, rendered in fragments withthe incoherence of a dream, at once banal and fantastical. It is innocent of the science ofmind and language developed elsewhere in the civilized world, rather like thepronouncements of a faith healer unaware of the location of the pancreas.” (Wilson, 1998b:p. 41).

Unfortunately, most of the humanities today subscribe to belief systems that damage the

Frank Gehry's Vitra Design Museum is an example of the kind of architecturedeconstructivist thinkers praise. In this chapter of Unified Architectural Theory, Nikos

Salingaros argues why the scientific approach is superior to that of the deconstructivists .Image © Liao Yusheng

MORE ARTICLES »

MOREARTICLES

MOSTVISITED

Famous LandmarksReimagined with PaperCutoutsArchitecture News

House in Toyonaka / TatoArchitectsSelected Projects

Elementary School in TelAviv / Auerbach HalevyArchitectsSelected Projects

MOST VISITEDPRODUCTS

Bookmark this picture!

20 OCT2013

by Nikos Salingaros

News ArticlesUnified Architectural Theory

Nikos Salingaros

Bookmark

33

TweetTweet

22

37

LikeLike

Projects News Articles Materials Interviews Competitions Events Classics More Log in | Sign upSearch ArchDaily

World

11/3/15, 7:03 PMUnified Architectural Theory: Chapter 2B | ArchDaily

Page 2 of 6http://www.archdaily.com/439498/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-2b

web of consilient knowledge. Although never directly expressed, the goal of deconstructionis to erase institutions of knowledge. What Derrida has said is alarming enough:“Deconstruction goes through certain social and political structures, meeting with resistanceand displacing institutions as it does so … effectively, you have to displace, I would say‘solid’ structures, not only in the sense of material structures, but ‘solid’ in the sense ofcultural, pedagogical, political, economic structures.” (Norris, 1989: p. 8).

Many people crave novelty without regard for possible consequences. This craving is oftenmanipulated by unscrupulous individuals. Not everything that is novel is necessarily good.An example of this is a new, artificially-developed virus unleashed into the world. Becauseof the immense destructive power that humanity now possesses, it is imperative tounderstand possible consequences.

In a hilarious hoax, Alan Sokal developed a nonsensical deconstructive critique of wellknown scientific claims in an article submitted for publication to a pretentious,deconstructive academic journal (Sokal, 1996). None of the referees for that journalchallenged Sokal’s account before accepting the article as worthy of publication. Sokal wasso obvious in his deception that he assumed it would have been exposed; but it was not.

Subsequently, Sokal and Jean Bricmont (1998) exposed deconstructivist criticism asnonsensical and showed that several respected deconstructive texts are based onnonsensical scientific references. This is only the most famous exposure of nonsensicaldeconstructive writings; there are many others (Huth, 1998). In a debunking ofdeconstructivist texts, Andrew Bulhak codified the deconstructivists’ literary style into acomputer program called Postmodernism Generator (1996). It is remarkably successful ingenerating nonsensical texts that are indistinguishable from those written by revereddeconstructivist philosophers.

Putting aside the question of truthful content, a discipline is not valid unless it rests on asolid intellectual edifice. One characteristic of a coherent discipline is hierarchicalcomplexity, in which correlated ideas and results define a unique internal structure. Like avalid bank note, this structure should be extremely difficult to counterfeit. That is not thecase with deconstruction. Thus, a phony article in Statistical Mechanics, using all theappropriate words and mathematical symbols in a nice-sounding but scientifically-meaningless jumble, would be detected instantly.

Even a single mistake in such an article could not survive unnoticed. It is the function ofreferees to check each and every step in the argument of a scientific article submitted forpublication in a professional journal. The very survival of the discipline depends on a systemof checks that identifies and expels bogus contributions. By contrast, the survival ofdeconstruction — in which there is nothing to verify — depends upon generating more andmore deconstructed texts and buildings.

A well-crafted deconstructive text does make sense, but not in any logical fashion. It is apiece of poetry that abuses the human capacity for pattern recognition to createassociations, employing random technical jargon.

As Roger Scruton has pointed out: “Deconstruction … should be understood on the modelof magic incantation. Incantations are not arguments, and avoid completed thoughts andfinished sentences. They depend on crucial terms, which derive their effect from repetition,and from their appearance in long lists of cryptic syllables. Their purpose is not to describewhat is there, but to summon what is not there … Incantations can do their work only if keywords and phrases acquire a mystical penumbra.” (Scruton, 2000: pp. 141-142).

The use of words for emotional effect is a common technique of cult indoctrination. Thispractice reinforces the cult’s message. Whether in chants that make little sense yet canraise followers’ emotions to fever pitch, or in the speeches of political demagogues thatrouse a wild and passionate allegiance, the emotional manipulation is the message. Evenafter the exposure of the deconstructive philosophers’ fraudulent character, their workcontinues to be taken seriously. Deconstructionist books are available in any universitybookstore, while respectable academics offer lengthy critical commentary supporting thesebooks’ supposed authority. By affording them the trappings of scholarly inquiry, theimpression is carefully maintained that they constitute a valid body of work.

Followers of deconstruction apply the classic techniques of cults to seize academicpositions; infiltrate the literature; displace competitors; establish a power base by employingpropaganda and manipulating the media, etc. They use indoctrination to recruit followers,usually from among disaffected students in the humanities. As David Lehman put it: “Anantitheological theology, [deconstruction] … shrouds itself in cabalistic mysteries and ritualsas elaborate as those of a religious ceremony … it is determined to show that the ideals andvalues by which we live are not natural and inevitable but are artificial constructions,arbitrary choices that ought to have no power to command us. Yet, like a religion-substitute,

Metal 2.0Apavisa

Porcelain Stoneware»

TerraClad™ CeramicSunshade SystemBoston Valley Terra Cotta

Ceramics»

Facade panel lineaEQUITONE

Fiber Cements / Cements»

Receive the best architecture, everyday, via email.

Daily Newsletter Fortnightly Materials Newsletter

YOUR EMAIL SUBSCRIBE

11/3/15, 7:03 PMUnified Architectural Theory: Chapter 2B | ArchDaily

Page 3 of 6http://www.archdaily.com/439498/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-2b

Cite:Nikos Salingaros. "Unified Architectural Theory: Chapter 2B" 20 Oct 2013. ArchDaily. Accessed 3 Nov 2015.<http://www.archdaily.com/439498/unified-architectural-theory-chapter-2b/>

deconstruction employs an arcane vocabulary seemingly designed to keep the laity in astate of permanent mystification. Putatively antidogmatic, it has become a dogma. Foundedon extreme skepticism and disbelief, it attracts true believers and demands their totalimmersion.” (Lehman, 1991: p. 55).

Extracts from: Nikos A. Salingaros, “Anti-Architecture and Deconstruction” (AAAD), ThirdEdition (Umbau-Verlag, Solingen, 2008). Reprinted by permission. This Chapter is alsoavailable in Chinese, French, Italian, and Russian.

Unified Architectural Theory is available in both an International and US Edition.

References

Christopher Alexander (2001) The Phenomenon of Life: The Nature of Order, Book 1, TheCenter for Environmental Structure, Berkeley, California.

Christopher Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-King & S.Angel (1977) A Pattern Language, Oxford University Press, New York.

Andrew Bulhak (1996) “Postmodernism Generator”, available online from<http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern>.

John Huth (1998) “Latour’s Relativity”, in: A House Built on Sand, Edited by NorettaKoertge, Oxford University Press, New York, pages 181-192.

Léon Krier (1998) Architecture: Choice or Fate, Andreas Papadakis, Windsor, England.Retitled The Architecture of Community, with new material, Island Press, Washington, DC,2009.

David Lehman (1991) Signs of the Times: Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man,Poseidon Press, New York.

Christopher Norris (1989) “Interview of Jacques Derrida”, AD — Architectural Design, 59No. 1/2, pages 6-11.

Nikos A. Salingaros (2006) A Theory of Architecture, Umbau-Verlag, Solingen, Germany.

Roger Scruton (2000) “The Devil’s Work”, Chapter 12 of: An Intelligent Person’s Guide toModern Culture, St. Augustine’s Press, South Bend, Indiana.

Alan Sokal (1996), “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneuticsof Quantum Gravity”, Social Text, 46/47, pages 217-252.

Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont (1998) Fashionable Nonsense, Picador, New York. Europeantitle: Intellectual Impostures.

Edward O. Wilson (1998a) “Integrating Science and the Coming Century of theEnvironment”, Science, 279, pages 2048-2049.

Edward O. Wilson (1998b) Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork.