Tactical potentials of architectural theory and criticism: Tactical action as liberation potential against instrumentalisation in build environment

The production of the built environment has been intimately related to the capital and the capital owners. This thesis focuses on the problem that although nowadays human being observes an architectural abundance, the accumulation of the architectural projects, which are supposed to serve to the community on cultural, social and vital processes, are not qualified enough because the product is actually determined by the demands of the capital owners with a political economy perspective. The architectural practice, which carries the potential to change the vitality of its sphere of influence in a positive way, has become an instrument that has been used competently by commercial providers motivated by commercial concerns. Therefore the meaning layer of the built environment is ignored and the potentials of the architecture have been suspended. The thesis investigates the plane of thought which can lead to the realization of these potentials and supports this research with the the sample examination of architectural practices. In the second part of the thesis, firstly the forms of domination of the capital on the production of the built environment are examined in order to be able to dismantle the problematic of the instrumentalisation of architecture practice. Following this examination, it is inferred that the capital and its economic policy are capable of reshaping against the contrary ideas, and in response to this situation, the architect's constant awareness and position against the capital's agendas are promoted in the thesis. The determinants of the architect's critical position correspond to architectural theory and architectural criticism in the discipline of architecture, and at this point, the thesis refers to the literature on autonomy discussions in architecture that are shaped by the criticism of the capital in architectural theory. The debate on autonomy in architecture and the criticism possibilities opened by this debate has focused on the question of whether critical action can be taken against the instrumentalisation of architecture by the architects and other space practitioners. Throughout this questioning; the thesis examines possible ways to stand against architecture's instrumentalisation through the discussion of autonomy in architecture. It is deduced that autonomy conception in architecture is polarized and should be evaluated under different headings. It is seen that the concept of architectural autonomy, which is called as aesthetic or formal autonomy treats architecture as a pure object, which leads to produces strict disciplinary boundaries and seems to have limited capacity to produce action against instrumentalisation in architecture. The debate on autonomy in architecture which is motivating by negative criticism has been criticized for being unable to guide action in architecture by being a defensive, reactionary way of thinking and promoting distancing architecture from the commercial outer world. Another sub-title, social autonomy discussions, is not only about critically distancing the capital's instrumentalisation operations but about promoting productive critical action for architectural practices that underpin a positive vigor. In the contemporary theory of architecture, which has intersections with the forms of thinking in the social autonomy debates, the literature examined which focuses on the handling of the theory in order to be freed from instrumentalisation in architectural practice and thus create positive spatial qualities. It is argued that contemporary theory is motivated by the criticism of the negative criticism under the autonomy debates and encourages forms of simultaneous ways of thinking with concern for current realities rather than being adverse. In order to point out the new world order that indicates the context in which architecture is practiced, it is emphasized in the thesis that, in today's world, many realities come together and the realities constantly change. The superstructure of the architectural theory is not valid in the ever-changing realities era, thus it is essential to develop ways of seeing in architecture that can include realities that are changing at any moment on the agenda. It is seen that in the current theory of architecture that examined in the framework of the thesis, there is a channel in the literature which determine theory as is adaptive, agile, applicable, compatible to the complex structure of the new world order simultaneously with the instant reality. On the other hand, in the current literature, there are arguments in the direction of the absence of architectural theory in 21th Century. It is situated against this argument that theory is no longer discernible because it has become intrinsic to all the vital processes, and that the theory has become invisible because it is integrated with the architectural design processes. The thesis deduces that the theory of architecture in this channel is derived from the differences, plus it is noncohesive and micro-politic by having singular political objectives. Therefore the theory which has the characteristics that mentioned here, gaining a structure that is scaled up from the top accounts and becomes vital by acquiring the quality of penetrating into life. The scaling of architectural theory plus the dispersement of theory from books leads to position theory in life; the theory of architecture can settle in physical, spatial, vital, cultural processes and can evolve into having ability to problematize particular situation in the instrumentalised spatial processes which can help destabilizing the present order governed by the capital. The thesis examines the vital problems of political economy with the architect's personal theorizing mechanisms and explores the understandings that will help the architect's concerns to be shaped by theory in order to guide a meaningful architectural practice. These insights have been examined under the headings of projective practice, imaginative realism, and critical agency. The projective practice understanding is based on the realities of today, analyzing the power structures and forming the future predictions; imaginative realism, producing forecasts to change market reality with realistic goals; the critical agency is an approach that prioritizes the architect's actions. Thesis traced the way in which architects have developed architectural attitudes toward problems that are immanent with life, instead of the meta-narrative theories and have been able to be positioned outside of the architectural practice that is instrumentalised by the capital owners and find alternative ways of practising to traditional architectural practice. The practices examined have been selected from practices that develop tactics to achieve project motivations developed with a critical and theoretical background, and try out the possibilities of emancipation from the capital owner's determination in architectural practice. These tactics have been emerging as four criteria (Tactical Organization: Hierarchical / Temporality of tactic: Processual-Intermittent / The Motivation of tactic: Desire to destabilize limits / Tactical Program: Everyday Activities), created by crossing tactical definitions of De Certeau with the approaches in philosophy and architecture. The reviewed practices include Atelier d'Architecture Autogérée (AAA), Kentsel Strategy, Fattinger Orso Architecture, Rozana Montiel Architecture Studio, Marshall Brown Projects, Office for Subversive Architecture (OSA), If _Do, Urban Think Tank (U-TT) and Supermachine Studio. This sample group is examined in two sub-groups as "proactive practices" and "interactive practices" through the operation diagrams by examining the relationship of the operations of these practices with the owners of capital. Critical positions of the practices, their theoretical backgrounds, their way of destabilizing their dependence on the budgetary side of the capital owners with four tactical criteria, and the positive outputs of the projects studied as examples of those practises are examined through the operation diagrams which are determined as the dismantling substructures. In the conclusion section, the model in which the architect first constructs questions and concerns, instead of producing object-buildings by the direction of the briefs of capital owners evaluated as advantageous considering the unfavorable period in which the world is situated.