{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017112299465240642, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.281879194630872, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Architecture as a Strong Discipline

In the context of disciplinary blurrings and redefinitions, this essay interrogates the project of autonomy in architecture. It asks whether the need for a strong definition of the discipline of architecture necessarily means that it is defined in the traditional Kantian transcendental sense. Four alternatives to this strong definition are essayed: an appeal to moral autonomy; a rejection of autonomy in the name of cultural and historical continuity; a dialectical or quasi-autonomy; and finally the supposed overturning of critical autonomy in Somol and Whiting’s Doppler-effect paper. All these positions proceed on the basis of the concept of unity, and in conclusion, the work of Deleuze and Foucault is utilized to undermine this prejudice and to suggest another way to define architecture as a strong discipline: as a resilient formation, an open and forever problematic set of relations.