Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: Architectural history in recent centuries has been predominantly explained through grand narratives, stylistic classifications, and the linear continuity of architectural developments. Within this approach, architectural works are regarded as manifestations of the “spirit of the age,” and their value and meaning are interpreted within a continuous historical system based on architectural styles. In contrast, post-structuralist thought, particularly the ideas of Jacques Derrida and Bernard Tschumi, has challenged grand narratives and opened up the possibility of rereading history in terms of discontinuity, multiplicity of meaning, and the absence of a central signifier. Drawing on the concepts of deconstruction, discourse, signifier, signified, difference, trace, absence, and critical history, the present study examines the formation of the discourse of deconstructive architectural history and seeks to demonstrate how architectural history can be understood not as a fixed and closed narrative, but as a dynamic network of meanings, readings, and continuous reinterpretations. The main research problem concerns how deconstructive architectural history rereads the architectural past and how this approach differs from conventional narratives of architectural history. Accordingly, the study aims to explain the theoretical foundations of the discourse of deconstructive architectural history, identify its fundamental components, and compare this approach with classical architectural historiography. The study also seeks to demonstrate that deconstruction is not merely a formal or aesthetic approach, but rather a theoretical framework for rethinking the concepts of history, meaning, and the identity of architectural works.
Methods: The research adopts a qualitative, descriptive-analytical methodology based on discourse analysis. Data were collected through documentary research, including books, scholarly articles, and theoretical writings on deconstruction, architectural history, and contemporary architectural theory. The analytical framework is primarily derived from Jacques Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction, while also incorporating discussions of discourse and architectural criticism found in contemporary architectural literature. The study systematically analyzes concepts such as discourse, différance, trace, absence, presence, floating signifiers, binary oppositions, and the critique of metaphysics. These concepts are then examined within the context of architectural historiography to identify their influence on historical interpretation. Moreover, selected architectural works, particularly those designed by Peter Eisenman, are examined as practical manifestations of deconstructive thought in architectural design and historical representation.
Findings: The findings demonstrate that deconstructive architectural history fundamentally differs from conventional architectural historiography. Instead of presenting history as a chronological sequence of styles and movements, it interprets history as a plurality of competing discourses whose meanings remain unstable and continuously open to reinterpretation. Architectural history, therefore, becomes a textual field in which no single narrative can claim absolute authority. The study reveals that Derrida’s critique of metaphysical presence undermines the assumption of fixed and permanent historical meanings. Architectural works are consequently understood as systems of signs whose meanings emerge through relationships of difference rather than through essential or original identities. Accordingly, historical interpretation shifts from the discovery of an objective past toward the production of multiple critical readings of architectural texts. The research further indicates that deconstruction emphasizes marginalized narratives, neglected architectural traditions, and overlooked historical voices. Rather than reinforcing dominant historical accounts, deconstructive historiography seeks to expose hidden assumptions and reveal the ideological structures underlying established historical narratives. As a result, architectural history evolves from a closed and hierarchical discipline into an open interpretive process.
Conclusion: The study concludes that deconstructive architectural history provides an alternative theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between architecture and history. By rejecting fixed historical narratives and embracing multiplicity, ambiguity, and critical interpretation, deconstruction reconceptualizes architectural history as an open discourse rather than a definitive historical record. This approach expands the scope of architectural historiography by incorporating forgotten narratives, questioning dominant historical assumptions, and emphasizing the interpretive nature of historical knowledge. It also demonstrates that architectural meaning is never fixed but is continuously reconstructed through cultural, social, and intellectual contexts. Ultimately, the discourse of deconstructive architectural history offers significant theoretical potential for contemporary architectural research, criticism, and historiography. It encourages scholars to reconsider the foundations of historical interpretation and provides new methodological possibilities for investigating architectural texts beyond conventional stylistic and chronological frameworks.