【作者】 戚广平；

【导师】 莫天伟；

【作者基本信息】 同济大学 ， 建筑设计及其理论， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 这篇论文出于我在研究当代“建构”思想时所感到的困惑，此一困惑与“建构”观念在不同时期，不同立场的表述有关。为此，论文首先将“建构”视为一种“知识状况”，并将关于“建构”的各种言论、观念置于现代性的背景中加以检视，即以一种“建构的现代性视野”作为论文的切入点。法兰克福学派的批判理论，尤其是阿多诺的“非同一性”的哲学思想为论文提供了具有指导意义的方法论基础。因此，本论文的研究目的也在于：试图通过“建构”的现代性的批判建立一种所谓的“非同一性”的“建构星丛”，并以此作为探索中国特殊现代性语境下的“建构”策略。“建构”的现代性批判遵循一种“平行结构”的研究模式进行：全文研究的框架共分为三个部分。其中上篇《透支的想象》主要籍由“启蒙现代性”的立场，探讨了“建构”观念的形而上学研究、“建构”观念的“滑移”以及启蒙现代性对“建构”话语的重构，从而揭示出“建构”对于现代建筑学所具有的“建设性”作用，同时也得出这样一个结论：即当代的“建构”观念是被现代化主义所高度整合后的结果。论文的中篇主要从“文化现代性”的立场出发，通过对散普尔、路斯、塞克勒以及弗兰普顿等“建构”学者的批判性言论进行分析后表明：“建构”作为一种批判的实践策略，其作为“文化现代性”的“批判潜质”是一直伴随着“建构”作为启蒙现代性的“建设作用”而同时产生和发展的。论文的下篇《危险的边缘》可以被看作是对“启蒙现代性”和“文化现代性”两方面的“建构”话语进行联结的尝试。其中籍由阿多诺的“非同一性”哲学思想衍生出的“建构星丛”，为我们突破传统形而上学的本体论原则提供了“契机”。使我们能够将困惑我多时的那些不同时期，不同立场的“建构”言论得以完整表述，并从中发展出这样一种关系：这些“建构”言论既相互关联，又彼此参照，共同构成一种开放的、非压抑的、非同一性的“建构”体系。论文的最后，我将“建构”的现代性批判从理论转向了实践，并从两种后现代性语境中发展出两种“后现代建构学”的话语：一种是从散普尔到德勒兹，其中对“集群建构”的探索揭示了“建构”在当下西方建筑学中的发展趋势；另一种是从“建构”到“营造”，其中将“营造”作为一种“建构”的边缘性话语”既向我们揭示出中国现代性语境的特殊性，同时也作为我的“建造活动”的理论基础和行动指南，从而为“建构”的现代性批判增添了更多的实践活力和现实意义。我相信，“建构”的现代性批判能够产生出这样一种观点，出自现代性，但同时也产生于对现代性的批判。更多还原

【Abstract】 The topic of this dissertation comes from my puzzlement when I am researching on thepresent theories of "tectonic". This confusion is related to the different indications of"tectonic" in different times and different positions. Therefore, in this paper, "tectonic" isfirstly regarded as a kind of "condition of knowledge", and at the same time, the variousopinions and ideas of "tectonic" will be examined in the context of modernity. That is tosay, "the perspective of modernity in the perception of tectonic" is the entry point of thispaper.The critical theory of Frankfurt School, especial the philosophy of"nonidentity" fromAdomo provides a significant foundation of methodology for the dissertation. Therefore,the research paper aims at establishing the so-called "tectonic constellation" of"nonidentity" through modernity as critique of "tectonic", and furthermore, exploring thestrategies of"tectonic" under the special Chinese discourse of modernity.The research on modernity as critique of "tectonic" is carried out by the researchframework of "parallel structure" which can be divided into three parts.The first part of this paper, "Overdraft of Imagination", based on the position of"enlightenment concept of modernity", discusses the metaphysic study on "tectonic", the"slippage" of "tectonic" and the restructuring "tectonic" discourse via enlightenmentconcept of modernity. Therefore, it unfolds the contributive key of "tectonic" for modernarchitecture. Simultaneously, a conclusion can be drawn that: the contemporary concept of"tectonic" is the highly assimilative results of modernization.The second part of this paper is involved with the position of "culture modernity".Through analyzing the critical opinions of"tectonic" by scholars, such as Gottfried Semper,Adolf Loos, Eduard Sekler and Kenneth Frampton, it indicated that: "tectonic" is apractical strategy of critique. Its critical potential as "cultural modernity" constantly relatedto the initiation and development of "tectonic" concept as a contributive process ofenlightenment of modernity. The third part of this paper, "Dangerous Frontier", can be regarded as an attempt tointerrelate both discourses of "tectonic" based on "enlightenment modernity" and "culturemodernity". Especially, the "constellation of tectonic", derived from Adorno’s philosophyof "nonidentity" provides us the moments to break through the traditional metaphysic ofontology. Therefore, it helps us integrally discern the ideas of "tectonic" in different timesand different positions which puzzled us for a long time. Besides, it also help to develop arelation which presents that these concepts of "tectonic" are interrelated andinter-referenced to each other so as to provide an open-ended, un-repressive, nonidentitydiscourses of "tectonic".The last part of this dissertation is devoted to shifting from the theoretical to thepractical issues of modernity as critique of "tectonic". It also develops two themes aboutpostmodern tectonics based on two discourses of post-modernity. One is derived from thetheories from Gottfried Semper to Giles Deleuze, which unfolds the development tendencyof "tectonic" theories in western architectural realm through exploring the concept ofswarm tectonic. The other is based on the thinking from "tectonic" to "yingzao"."Yingzao" regarded as the kind of frontier discourse of "tectonic" uncovers theparticularity of Chinese context of modernity. Simultaneously, "yingzao" is alsoemphasized as the theoretical foundation and practical guidelines so that the practicalsignificances and contemporary value of modernity as critique of "tectonic" can bearticulated and stressed.I believe that the modernity as critique of "tectonic" can inspire the intention whichstems from the modernity and also provide critique of modernity.更多还原