Architectonic Modes of Collective Existence. Comparative Sociology of Architecture

该项目在比较研究方法的框架内探索建筑的社会相关性。它为未来的跨学科项目奠定了基础，旨在通过建筑探讨社会的当前和历史变革。例如，要通过欧洲建筑师来把握中国人生活方式的变化，或者要理解当今欧洲社会中前卫派所引起的社会变化，首先必须了解建筑在不同社会和集体存在模式中的作用。这也意味着探索与游牧社会的移动的和水平建筑相比，垂直城市建筑建立了哪些社会差异。作为建筑社会学，本研究项目将自己定位在文化社会学领域，因为它对文化现象与社会的关系感兴趣。此外，它旨在为社会理论做出贡献。鉴于建筑在所有社会中无处不在，许多理论问题必须重新考虑：什么是“社会”？“社会”是如何构成的？我们生活在哪个社会？在解决这些问题时，申请人关于建筑作为社会媒介的构成性作用的（已经被广泛认可的）理论工作以一种关键的方式在经验上得到了丰富。在这样做的过程中，该项目旨在发展一个跨学科的建筑社会学，这是理论和经验感兴趣的非欧洲中心和比较的角度。这项工作既有规范性的原因，也有经验性的原因：面对建筑的非语言逻辑，它与身体的关系，以及与自己的建筑文化往往不存在的距离，该项目分析了一系列理想的典型和不同的案例。这些案例是在对现有民族志工作进行二次分析的基础上研究的。本文探讨并比较了以下案例：1）当代城市和高度基础设施化的集体和社会（图斯克、加塔尔霍于克和德国）; 2）社会集体，其建筑促进了游牧生活（帐篷社会：图阿雷格人，蒙古人）; 3）分散他们的建筑物以分散自己的集体（住宅原子主义：阿丘阿尔）;和4）社会，实现他们的建筑地下（Sociétés à maisons creusées：耀东，Zentralchina）。该项目通过调动跨学科和跨文化的视角丰富和扩展了建筑社会学。它既关注社会群体的差异或特殊性，而不局限于西方和现代建筑模式，也关注建筑的共同社会逻辑。在这样做的过程中，它的目的是提高建筑学科以及公众对建筑的社会力量的敏感性。

The project explores the social relevance of architecture within the frame of a comparative research methodology. It lays the foundation towards future interdisciplinary projects aiming to inquire into current and historical transformations of societies through architecture. For instance, in order to grasp the current change of the Chinese way of living through European architects; or in order to make sense of the social changes caused by the avant-gardes in European societies today - one first has to understand the role of architecture for different societies and modes of collective existence. This also means exploring which social differences are established by a vertical urban architecture compared to the mobile and horizontal architecture of nomadic societies.As a sociology of architecture, this research project positions itself in the field of cultural sociology, as it is interested in the relations of cultural phenomena to the social. Furthermore, it aims to contribute to social theory. Given the omnipresence of architecture within all societies, many theoretical questions have to be reconsidered: What is a 'society'? In which way is 'the social' constituted? And in which society do we life? In tackling these questions, the (already widely recognized) theoretical work by the applicant on the constitutive role of architecture as a medium of the social is empirically enriched in a crucial way. In doing so, the project aims to develop an interdisciplinary sociology of architecture which is both theoretically and empirically interested in a non-Eurocentric and comparative perspective. There are both normative and empirical reasons for this undertaking: In face of the mostly nonverbal logic of architecture, its relation to bodies and the often non-existing distance to one's own architectural culture, the project analyzes a series of ideal-typical and divergent cases. These cases are studied based on a secondary analysis of already existing ethnographical work. The following cases are explored and compared: 1) contemporary urban and highly infrastructured collectives and societies (Uruk, Catal Höyük, and Germany); 2) social collectives whose architecture fosters a nomadic existence (societies of tents: Tuareg, Mongols); 3) collectives who scatter their buildings to disperse themselves (Residential Atomism: Achuar); and 4) societies who realize their architecture below ground (Sociétés à maisons creusées: Yaodong, Zentralchina). This project enriches and expands the sociology of architecture by mobilizing an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspective. It is both interested in the differences or particularities of social collectives, not limiting itself to the western and modern modes of architecture, as well as in the common social logics of architecture. In doing so, it aims to sensitize the discipline of architecture as well as the public for the social force of architecture.