Violence of architectural design and counter strategies

In the field of architecture, the definitions of violence are on a very volatile basis. This notion brings up some other strong notions such as power, control and norm. However, components of these notions sometimes exhibit an unstable attitude when they are evaluated in the historical framework. Therefore, to understand its production and systems properly we cannot make clear distinctions such as violence produced in the context of social institutions or role of the architect or ideological aspects. Relations between things correspond to a considerable intricate network in the context of violence as well. Its definition changes direction and meaning in every field, scale and different viewpoints. Likewise, the correspondence of these notions does not only change with the circumstances but also with the criteria we evaluate according to the instincts, spatial and social reflexes we have developed while living in a city, society and space. For this reason, this study considered transitions between scales were significant when researching how architectural design produced violence through design and how it developed strategies against this violence. The definition of violence has been made separately for each topic and the position of the architect and the space has been researched in cases where it's more implicit. The main aim is to analyze how architectural design produced violence through its own tools and notions rather than where it stands in some power related structures. For instance, the role of architectural program has not been researched to disclose how it mediates production of violence in the context of social institutions. However, the aim was to reveal the control which the architectural program built on the user. Another situation that needs to be taken into consideration is that, the aim of the study is not to reach a dual situation decoding spaces with or without violence. And there is no assertion that the "counter strategies" defined by the study correspond to "non-violent" spaces. Each counter strategy is positioned in the exact opposite position of the violence defined in related section. However, it is also possible that selected critical productions or notions may be involved in some other violence mechanisms when different definitions of violence are derived. In addition, there are no chronological links between the counter-strategies and they vary in the historical context. In the second section of the study, different violence definitions were identified and the production mechanisms of these violence descriptions were discussed through body, action, object and program. The body has been read through the "designed" bodies. Body representations which are produced by Neufert, Le Corbusier and Henry Dreyfus, should be evaluated in their own contexts. The discourse of the theoretical field about these standard bodies is shaped around the frame which the bodily diversity is ignored and limited. However, when considered individually, standard definitions of these body representations have significant differences. The standard body representations produced are defined as geometric, absent and fragmented bodies. The body described by Neufert was interpreted as a productive mind-set succession after the Industrial Revolution, resulting in the reduction of the body's geometric prisms. In this era, all spatial representations and therefore practices are designed not according to bodily diversity but as extensions of these geometric forms. As opposed to Neufert's body representation, Modulor emerges as a contemplated proportional body. The complexity of the metric system has created a requirement for a universal proportional system among architects and site management. The motivation of this grid system is based on the body and golden ratio. The standard body produced by Henry Dreyfus is based on the design of industrial products and described by fragmented body. For this reason, when considering the bodily diversities that are ignored, it constitutes a stricter norm than the other normative bodies mentioned. The next section focuses on the design of "action" through architectural design. For this reason, it is argued that the action is multi-layered by factors such as sociological, individual and gender roles. It can be said that when the action samples are examined, they are only shaped around individual habits and a unique body. On the contrary, habit is defined as a collective phenomenon. Therefore, violence defined as the action representations of architectural design subtract the actions. Another definition of violence is overdesign of the action. This definition was opened by focusing on the kitchen space, the role of the woman in the kitchen and at home, which ise considered as an efficiency stage. In this context, approaches have been developed for women to complete their work with minimum labor force and time. For this reason, this situation is treated as a situation which articulates action. In the following section, the structure of the debate is proceed through two parallel notions. The first one of these notions is architectural program. On the urban and spatial scale, the program is defined as a set of description which accumulates actions in certain ways and controls spontaneous behaviors. Later, the evaluation of objects as "functional probabilities" as the introduction of the structuralist approach has been discussed through areas such as archeology and architecture. Contrary to the structuralist approaches, the post-structuralist approaches points out multifunctional meaning and contextual relations. This chapter explores how objects build the program and where they stand in programmatic flexibility approaches which is developed in theoretical field. The discussion proceed in the frame of a triple reading which are the transformational, spatial, and programmatic sequence concepts described by Bernard Tschumi, soft-hard use programmatic flexibility approaches developed by Jeremy Till and Tatjana Schneider and Jonathan Hill's creative user definitions. As far as the initial meanings of objects are concerned, the implications of their connotations are also important for the architectural program and everyday life. This situation, discussed under the representational objects. The representative object is based on the connotation which the signifier is concerned. Objects often reveal many things beyond their functions as a product of a collective memory. Different meanings can occur in global scale, with localities and cultural differences. Sometimes it can coincide with the influence of popular culture and as an extension of the function of the object in its historical context. Spatial responses of these representational objects and their significance in the program have been opened by different approaches that focus on Villa Savoye. In this sense, the main aim was to disclose strategic positions of objects that represent modernism in construction of the architectural program. In conclusion, it is necessary to re-emphasize that study is not focused only to violence which is produced by architectural design. As well as the diversity of the spatial practice that produces violence, counter strategies are also important and dominant in architecture theory. These thresholds are often regarded as systems that have not been produced "directly" against the defined violence. However, the study also contains productions that are intended to produce a discourse of direct opposition to violence. For this reason, the creative domain of these counter approaches can be traced through production of violence. Therefore, not only spatial violence but also counter productions and their critical mechanics play an important role in the study.