An Introduction to

Deconstruction
Linguistic Analogy or Revivalism?

One of the principal aspects of the Post-modern rejection of the

modernist point of view was the shift from social theory to
literary theory as the paradigm for architectural theory. Robert
Venturi, in his book Complexity and Contradiction in
Architecture, used the literary criticism of T. S. Eliot as a
framework for analyzing architecture. Eliot had pointed out that
poetry is captivating because it is not univalent and clear but
multivalent and layered, filled with many possible readings and
interpretations, i.e. complex and contradictory.
Literary criticism, however, was not the only source of new
architectural thinking in the 1970s and 1980s. Linguistic
theory also rose to prominence as an apparatus for
understanding architecture. Prominent among the linguistic
theories that architects and architectural theorists considered
were structuralism and semiotics, both of which were also
related to anthropology.

Structuralism argues that meaning in language derives from its

internal logic and formal relationships. We can say, I see the
dog, but we cant say, Dog see I the, without leaving a
listener clueless as to what we mean, even though each word is
understandable and familiar. The order of the words and their
relationship to one another, i.e. the structure of the sentence,
conveys the meaning.
Semiotics, on the other hand, argues that language is a system of
signs that may be understood to have meaning through the
convention of social acceptance. The sign (or signifier) is not
the meaning (the signified) but conveys meaning. The word
cat is formed by two consonants and a vowel. It has a sound
that has nothing to do with a furry domestic animal that purrs.
Yet, we agree that when we say cat, we intend to refer to the
category of animal that falls within the feline genus.

In the 1980s, a third linguistic theory emerged in the circles of

literary criticism and was fascinating to a group of architectural
critics and academics: deconstruction. The principal inventor of
literary deconstruction was Jacques Derrida, a French linguist,
who argued that meaning in language is completely unstable. He
argued that a text cannot have any single meaning, certainly not
a meaning that the writer invests in it.
According to deconstruction, meaning is fluid, brought to a text
by its readers as well as by its placement on a page, in a journal
or a book, and by many other factors that affect the way it is
perceived. In fact, these issues are stronger than the intentions
of the author, even to the point of arguing that texts have no
author, once they have been written. The author sets the words
down, but once released, has no more ownership of or control
over the text.

A number of architects whose work came to international

prominence in the 1980s have either been interested in some
version of literary theory or have been described as representing
the general directions of linguistic theory. These include, but are
not limited to, Peter Eisenman, Wolf Prix of the firm Coop
Himmelblau in Vienna, Guenther Behnisch, Frank Gehry, and
Zaha Hadid, the Iraqi-born British architect, currently building
the new Contemporary Art Center in Cincinnati.
The question is: do these architects actually derive architecture
from linguistic theory or is linguistic theory a convenient way to
analyze and discuss architecture? Is their architecture actually
rooted in other sources, which are predominantly formal rather
than theoretical?

In addition to the problem of literary theory, the concept of an

architecture of deconstruction is also related to a broad interest in
and examination of Russian constructivism. This early 20thcentury style was used at some schools of architecture, such as the
Architectural Association in London, to help students understand
transformative design. In fact, a hybrid term evolved from the two
words deconstruction and constructivism: deconstructivism.
Whether conscious or unconscious, the use of this word confuses
the issue. Are the buildings in question derived from an idea about
the relationship between language and meaning or are they a kind
of revival of an early phase of modernism?

Peter Eisenman, Wexner Center, OSU, Columbus, 1983-89

Peter Eisenman, Berlin,

Internationale Bau-Ausstellung
Apartment block
1982-87

Coop Himmelblau (Wolf Prix), Vienna, Attic Conversion, 1984-88