A critical review on the power of architect

This study emerges from an attempt to work in the intersection area of architecture and sociology. The exciting idea of intercrossing the contemporary architectural world with the sociological discourse formed the basis of this research. Rethinking the situations, which have always been considered under the context of architectural knowledge, in an alternative frame could bring out a great potential to evaluate our former repertoire in a different way. This work aims to put these potentials on the table for further discussions . First chapter aims to set forth the motives behind this study. Afterwards, it is thought to be necessary to put forward the contemporary situation of architecture, the components and the relationship between the components of the field of architecture, in an architectural context. Second chapter, tries to discover the relations between the main elements of the field of architecture: architect, architectural product, and user. The change in the perception of architecture in time is closely related with the change of the architect's role in the architectural field. And the change in the ways how people experience the architecture reveals the adjustment of the position of user in the architectural field. These changes indicate that the correlations in the field of architecture has been rearranged. The bonds between urbanisation and capital, which has been constructed in a long period of time, come to play an ever increasing role in the multi-faceted architectural field. Because of this situation, the relation between city and capital gains importance. Consequently, in today's urban environment users come to be the consumers of the city. All these changes show us that architect, who is once not recognised in the field of architecture, becomes an important figure, and users, who are the main element of the built environment, now become vague in an architectural context. The growing value of the role of architecture and the evanesce of the user from the equation, creates a scene in which architect and the architectural product are side by side and alone. On the other side, the growing significance of the relation between city and capital causes the relation to dominate the field of architecture. In this way capital emerges as an substantial figure in the field. On the one hand, with the increasing significance of architect, the relation between architect and the architectural product grows strong. On the other hand, the ongoing intervention of capital weakens the very same bonds. Therefore the position of architect in the field of architecture becomes ambiguous. In this way, the dilemma about architect's being alone with its product or not forces us to use other concepts for analysing the architectural environment. Third chapter investigates the alternative ways of understanding. Here, the ideas of Bachelard, Kuhn and Wittgenstein have mind refreshing effects. As for Bachelard, as long as the current theories have the position of absolute truths, the mistake affirms itself all the time. In that case, the outcome of the effort to understand a new situation with the current acknowledgments will be an erroneous outcome which affirms itself all the time. Therefore, the necessity to understand new situations with new methods occur. For Thomas Kuhn, every kind of proof, every attempt to prove or refute an hypothesis, is always already in a system. Again, as for Kuhn's and Wittgenstein's approach, it is impossible to answer the questions which are about an innovation out of our conceptual world. When we start to answer those questions, it means that we have changed our conceptual system. Using these considerations as a base, in this chapter, it is suggested to change our conceptual framework in order to be able for answering new questions, and handling new situations. According to this objective, there are two reason for utilising the sociological approach of Bourdieu: one is relationality, the other is reflexivity. Relationality, as one of the main concepts of Bourdieu's sociology, suggests that, in order to understand the system, it is crucial to focus on elements' interrelations rather than on their intrinsic values. As for reflexivity intends to act with the knowledge that the observer itself is also a part of the system which it observes. With the assertion that in this kind of reflexive vigilance methodology, considering the power, capital and interest relationally may contribute to the field of architecture, in order to analyse its circumstances. With these suggestions in mind, a "sociology of architecture" is proposed as a method in the third chapter. Considering the fact that to be able to read the structure truly, it is necessary to have the knowledge of everyone is a part of that very system, fourth chapter emerges from a question whether it is possible to take a better position after analysing the current situation in the field of architecture, or not. Culture has a tendency to be used as a tool for domination. That is why the architect, producer of culture, and the architecture as a cultural practice willingly or unwillingly interacts with power. This is the reason behind starting the fourth chapter with the concept of power in sociology. Afterwards, again with the help of the terminology of Bourdieu, capital as a way of producing interest, and how types of capital work are examined. As a consequence of these, it is expected to make it easier to analyse the mechanism of interest, and the position of architect in the current situation. Under the light of this expectation, lastly, it is intended to look at architecture as an intellectual practice. It is established that with the help of concepts symbolic capital and symbolic violence, it is possible to help to understand and clarify the position of architect as an intellectual. As a consequence, throughout the study, sociological conceptual framework is created to answer following questions: can architect stay alone with its product?, how architect as a cultural capital holder take a position when he/she confronts with the economic capital holder, or how other positions can he/she takes?. It is believed that another conceptual framework can open up new opportunities to have another vision. This study is also can be considered as an examination of the theory practice contradiction which is valid not only in the field of architecture but more or less in every field. This research strongly suggests that we can use a sociological framework to analyse the current situation better, and take a more powerful position in the field of architecture. For Bourdieu, this kind of revealing and exposition is the only way to defeat domination and overcome power practices.