My poster entitled as "Transmodern Paradigm As A New Approach in Housing" has been published in Archtheo'12 Theory of Architecture Conference organized by Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University (MSFAU) and Eastern Mediterranean Academic Research Center (DAKAM) between 31.10-03.11.2012 in Istanbul.
Link: Archtheo'12
Transmodern
Paradigm As a New Approach in Housing
Author: Esen Gökçe Özdamar
Today, a paradigm shift in the scientific method is occurring, which
displays a new set of values. This shift has paralleled discoveries in quantum physics,
relativity theory, and thermodynamics. These discoveries have changed and been
changing the definition of the scientific method in sciences. Observation and
subjectivity have begun to change the condition of the experiment, and this
feature of science becomes a poetic approach of reality (Ghisi, 2010).
Paradigm was addressed
by Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” as a
disciplinary matrix that defines a discrete and culturally-based set of values
instead of theories. Through
paradigm, there is a tacit knowledge whereby the researcher takes a step into
further understanding the phenomena derived from the nature of it (Kuhn, 1962).
However, today, the definitions of time and space are changing and are now based
on a different epistemology. As a new approach of knowledge, “Transmodern
paradigm” defines a moving, changing, and transforming nature. This paradigm
has been defined by the mathematician, philosopher, linguist, and theologian Marc
Luyckx and educator Harlan Cleveland in 1998 as a new way of thinking. It involves
a critical approach towards modernity and a welcoming of hybridization in
society, as it is mainly used as a term in politics, economy, and religion (Ghisi,
2010).
In terms of
architecture having an important role in society, we can observe that current contemporary
approaches in housing theories reflect common aspects and tendencies, which may
be discussed under the transmodern paradigm. The transmodern paradigm in housing
is slightly different than housing theories of the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries. In the twentieth century, housing and space
were dependent on the creation of the void and the abstract concretization of
the void. In the twenty-first century, this perception changed to an open perception
of reality, and although the meaning of space was negotiating contradiction and
complexity, the weakening of the idea of providing or creating solutions to
housing problems initiated the development of different approaches (Ngo and
Zion, 2005).
The contradiction and complexity in the twenty-first
century has been affected by the tension between the modern and the
”transmodern” views towards life. According to Luyckx, this tension defines a
new world that is open to new definitions and approaches, and which the past
and present definition of the Other can exist in this world (Luyckx, 1999). Thus,
the Other transforms to a fused form or a hybridized form within the context of
the transmodern paradigm. The engagement with the Other in housing demands a
more holistic view of life and approach in housing policies, planning on an
urban level, and design process. The value and the focus is more on the human
interaction with space.
The transmodern paradigm has differentiated
from the pre-modern and modern eras in terms of scientific, economic
organization, societal relations, and urban patterns together with their complex
and multi-layered structures. The transmodern paradigm has emphasized new
approaches and combined different methods in housing. New approaches not only
depend on the views of the perceivers, but also a more complex set of variables
in the changing world, such as globalization, chaos, dissapative structures,
and self-organization, which are terms defined by Prigogine.
The transmodern paradigm defines a new
spatiality of growing relations of globalization in urban design and housing.
It refers to economic growth factors and multiple relations. According to
Novak, this paradigm includes a flexible
multiplicity that is relatively open and leads to the emergence of a new
horizon between reality and virtuality (Novak, 1998). It is a translation of a world
of new ways of existence between mind, intuition, and new information
technologies
In the transmodern paradigm, new possibilites
exist within juxtapositions. There is a focus on experimentation,
differentiation, and plurality that are operative terms in new urban
narratives. This approach can be evaulated as a pre-conception in contemporary
housing research as well as a new way of constructing an interactive relationship
between the designer and the dweller. The use of this paradigm by actors in
housing and other related disciplines is important. In architectural research,
this paradigm means the acceptance of the un-idealization of the world and
complexity of life in a more concrete manner than before. It provides an
openness to creative and innovative approaches in housing and opens new doors
to the narrative of space and time.
Although there are
positive aspects of the transmodern paradigm, there is a risk of repetition and
fetishization of architectural approaches in housing. In the transmodern
paradigm, each situation or approach should articulate a new paradigm or
theory. A negative trait of this paradigm may result if its evolving content is
disregarded. Yet, there is a risk of fetishizing the problem of housing in
terms of articulation problems. Articulation has an evolving, self-organized
character and defines a close relationship between housing, dwellers, and urban
space. It can be regarded as one of the main problems of contemporary housing. However,
within the paradigm’s open and flexible approaches, connectedness of a dweller
or a community may be aimed to capture global housing trends, which may result in
the loss of the contextual character of housing and consequently the standardization
of housing production.
References:
Ghisi, M. Luyckx., 2010.
“Towards
a Transmodern Transformation of our Global Society: European Challenges and
Opportunities” 2010, Journal of Futures
Studies, 2010, 15(1): 39 – 48.
Kuhn, T., 1962. The Structure of Scientfic Revolutions, Chicago:
The University of Chicago
Press.
Luyckx, M., 1999, “The transmodern hypothesis:
towards a dialogue of cultures” Futures 31, 971–982, Forward Studies Unit, European Economic Community, Brussels, Belgium, Available at: < http://www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
> [Accessed 10 October 2009].
Ngo, D. and Zion,
A.S., 2005. Open House, Unbound Space and
the Modern Dwelling, London: Thames and Hudson.
Novak, M., 1998. Transarchitectures
and Hypersurfaces: Operations
of Transmodernity, in Hypersurface
Architecture, 68, 5/6, 85-89.
Keywords: transmodern paradigm, contemporary
housing
Contact: E. Gökçe Özdamar,
gokceozdamar@gmail.com
Comments