The paper will argue that it is time for the discipline of architecture to awaken from the slumber of anthropocentrism and shake off the baggage of nature/nurture dichotomies. It will propose that we drop anthropomorphism for geomorphism and reconfigure ethology to become a theory of capacity. Rather than localising it in individuals, behaviour is to be treated epigenetically as a function of condividuation by way of traversing phyletic lineages and organismic boundaries. Against a Darwinian nucleocentric view of evolution as a “struggle for survival,” the paper will build on (still controversial) theories arguing that in most cases an evolutionary novelty arises because of “creative” symbiogenesis. The virtually limitless connectivity between heterogeneous beings puts alliances before filiations, contingency before necessity, and contagion before heredity. Put succinctly, a novelty would be inconceivable were it not for aberrant nuptials.
The recent interest in the brain is not to be dismissed as neuro-reductionism, but as the locus of the most promising research trajectory that places biology and history—nature and culture—on the same footing. After all, only humans are biologically “compelled” to modify and redesign their environment in an innovative and historical manner. The (neo)Lamarckian evolution by other means exposes the vulnerability of exclusively Darwinian explanations. Passive adaptation (evo) is always already complemented by active modulation (evo-devo). While geno-reductionists insist that genes are responsible for our behaviour, it has now become undeniable that the environment itself contributes to the phenotypical expression of genes. The acquired habits may be said to be passed on after all.
The ecological school of perception founded by James Jerome Gibson was ahead of the epigenetic curve by asking not what is inside your head, but what your head is inside of. Epi-genesis is a theory of development in which forms are influenced and modified by environmental factors. No wonder that it should appeal to architects (as quintessential niche constructionists) who could be said to sculpt brains by way of sculpting neither the genetic, nor the epigenetic, but the epiphylogenetic. The distinction urges us to rethink the long-lasting legacy of privileging episteme over tekhne. The “what” invents the “who” at the same time that it is invented by it. Strictly speaking, architecture as a sedimented epigenetic mnemonic device has a higher order of “autonomy,” which makes it epiphylogenetic. If epigenetics is the concept of nongenetic heritability (such as language acquisition), then epiphylogenetic means that the rhetoric of we-build-cities-and-cities- build-us is to be taken not metaphorically but literally. In superfolding, synthesis is not analysis in reverse.
about the author(s)
Andrej Radman, Dir.ir., has been teaching design and theory courses at TU Delft Faculty of Architecture since 2004. In 2008 he joined the section affiliated with architecture theory as an assistant professor. A graduate of the Zagreb School of Architecture in Croatia, he received a master’s degree with honours and a doctoral degree from TU Delft. Radman is a member of the National Committee on Deleuze Scholarship and the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journal for architecture theory Footprint. His research focuses on radical empiricism in general and the legacy of the founder of the ecological approach to perception, J. J. Gibson, in particular. He is a licensed architect and recipient of the Croatian Architects Association Annual Award for Housing Architecture in 2002.