Deneyimin Sınırları ve Mimarlık: Bilgi, İktidar ve Kendiliğin Mekânsal Düzenekleri

Abstract

Bu makale, mimarlığı bir çerçeveleme teknolojisi olarak kavramsallaştıran tarihsel-eleştirel bir çerçeve vasıtasıyla, mimarlık söyleminde deneyim sorununu ele almaktadır. Bernard Cache’nin mimarlığı üretken bir çerçeveleme sistemi olarak ele alan yaklaşımından ve Michel Foucault’nun bilgi, iktidar ve kendilik teknolojilerine ilişkin analizlerinden hareketle çalışma, mekânsal konfigürasyonların deneyime yalnızca ev sahipliği yapmakla kalmayıp nasıl farklı tarihsel katmanlara özgü deneyim alanları ürettiğini inceler. Yöntem itibarıyla yazarlar Foucault’nun arkeoloji, soykütük ve sorunsallaştırma başlıklı üçlü yöntembiliminden faydalanarak karşılaştırmalı bir analiz matrisi geliştir ve bu matrisi üç mekânsal düzeneğe uygular: karanlık oda, toplama kampı ve günah çıkarma odası. Her örnek, tarihsel özgüllüğü, mimari diyagramı, hakikat rejimi, özne oluşumu, ilişkisel yapısı ve deneyimsel çıktıları olmak üzere altılı bir şema vasıtasıyla analiz edilmekte ve nihayet mikro-operasyonları itibarıyla incelenmektedir. Bulgular, bütün tarihsel ve işlevsel farklılıklarına rağmen bu düzeneklerin ortak bir diyagramatik yapıda birleştiğini; üçünün de kendi bağlamlarında bedenleri çevrelerinden yalıtan, bedenler arası temas rejimlerini düzenleyen ve algıyı, tahakkümü ve öznenin kendisiyle ilişkisini organize eden özgül bedensel repertuarlar teşkil ettiğini göstermektedir. Mimarlığın “olası deneyimin tarihsel önkoşullarına” cisim kazandırmaktaki rolünü öne çıkaran makale, mimarlık tarihyazımında tipolojik ve temsilî analizlerden uzaklaşıp mekânsal diyagramlara ve işleyiş mekanizmalarına odaklanan bir yaklaşıma geçmeyi savunur. Çalışma, mimarlığın hem mevcut deneyim rejimlerini kurup sabitleme hem de (eleştirel sorgulama ve tasarım pratikleri vasıtasıyla) bu rejimlerin dönüşümüne önayak olma yönündeki ikili kapasitesini vurgulayarak sonlanır.

Keywords

• Deneyim
• dispositif
• Foucault
• mekânsal diyagram
• özne oluşumu

Supporting Institution

Yazarlar, bu çalışmanın herhangi bir finansal destek almadığını beyan etmiştir.

Ethical Statement

Çalışmada herhangi bir canlıya ait veri kullanılmadığından dolayı, TR Dizin Etik İlkeleri Akış Şeması gereği, Etik Kurul İzin Belgesi gerekmemektedir.

Thanks

Yazarlar, bu çalışmanın temel öncüllerinin ve argümanlarının ilk kez formüle edilmesi ve geliştirilmesi sürecindeki önemli katkılarından dolayı Gülsüm Baydar ve Andreas Treske’ye içten teşekkürlerini sunarlar.

Architecture and the Limits of Experience: Spatial Apparatuses of Knowledge, Power, and the Self

Abstract

This article examines the problem of experience in architectural discourse by proposing a historico-critical framework that reconceptualizes architecture as a technology of framing. Drawing on Bernard Cache’s approach to architecture as a generative system of frames and Michel Foucault’s analyses of technologies of knowledge, power, and the self, the study examines how spatial configurations produce historically specific fields of experience rather than merely accommodate them. Methodologically, the authors use Foucault’s tripartite framework of archaeology, genealogy, and problematization to develop a comparative analytical matrix applied to three spatial dispositifs: camera obscura, concentration camp, and confessional booth. Each case is analyzed through a six-part schema addressing their historical specificity, architectural diagram, regime of truth, subject formation, primary relational structure, and experiential output, followed by their micro-operational logic. Findings show that, despite their historical and functional differences, these dispositifs share a common diagrammatic structure in that they all isolate bodies, regulate regimes of contact, and generate distinct corporeal repertoires that organize perception, domination, and self-relation. By foregrounding architecture’s role in materializing the “historical a priori of possible experience,” the article argues for a shift in architectural historiography from typological and representational analyses toward a focus on spatial diagrams and operative mechanisms. The study concludes by emphasizing architecture’s dual capacity to stabilize existing experiential regimes and to open possibilities for their transformation through critical inquiry and design practice.

Keywords

• Experience
• dispositif
• Foucault
• spatial diagram
• subject formation

Supporting Institution

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

Ethical Statement

The authors declared that an ethics committee approval certificate is not required.

Thanks

The authors extend their grateful thanks to Gülsüm Baydar and Andreas Treske for their immense contributions throughout the original formulation and development of the major premises and arguments of this work.

References

1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press.
2. Agamben, G. (1999). Remnants of Auschwitz: The witness and the archive. Zone Books.
3. Agamben, G. (2005). State of exception. University of Chicago Press.
4. Agamben, G. (2009a). The signature of all things: On method. Zone Books.
5. Agamben, G. (2009b). What is an apparatus? And other essays. Stanford University Press.
6. Anderson, B. (2009). Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society, 2(2), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2009.08.005
7. Anson, P. F. (1948). Churches: Their plan and furnishing. Bruce Publishing Company.
8. Arendt, H. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

9. Aristotle. (2011). Problems. Harvard University Press.
10. Arnheim, R. (1977). The dynamics of architectural form. University of California Press.
11. Azarby, S., & Rice, A. (2022). Understanding the effects of virtual reality system usage on spatial perception: The potential impacts of immersive virtual reality on spatial design decisions. Sustainability, 14(16), 10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610326
12. Bachelard, G. (1994). The poetics of space. Beacon Press.
13. Banham, R. (1980). Theory and design in the first machine age. MIT Press.
14. Barthes, R. (1997). Semiology and the urban. In N. Leach (Ed.), Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural theory (pp. 158-172). Routledge.
15. Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Cornell University Press.
16. Behne, A. (1996). The modern functional building. Getty Research Institute.
17. Besley, A. C. (2005). Self-denial or self-mastery? Foucault’s genealogy of the confessional self. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880500179582
18. Bossy, J. (1975). The social history of confession in the age of Reformation. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 25, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/3679084
19. Böhme, G. (2017). Atmospheric architectures: The aesthetics of felt spaces. Bloomsbury Academic.
20. Broadbent, G., Bunt, R., & Jencks, C. (1980). Signs, symbols, and architecture. John Wiley & Sons.
21. Brown, P. (1988). The body and society: Men, women, and sexual renunciation in early Christianity. Columbia University Press.
22. Cache, B. (1995). Earth moves: The furnishing of territories. MIT Press.
23. Carter-White, R., & Minca, C. (2025). A spatial theory of the camp: Geopolitics, biopolitics, and the immunitarian state. Edward Elgar Publishing.
24. Cassian, J. (1997). The conferences. Ancient Christian Writers.
25. Colquhoun, A. (1981). Essays in architectural criticism: Modern architecture and historical change. MIT Press.
26. Crary, J. (1992). Techniques of the observer: On vision and modernity in the nineteenth century. MIT Press.
27. Daly, A., & Smith, C. L. (2011). Architecture, cigarettes and the dispositif. Architectural Theory Review, 16(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13264826.2011.560388
28. Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. Zone Books.
29. Davila Delgado, J. M., Oyedele, L., Demian, P., & Beach, T. (2020). A research agenda for augmented and virtual reality in architecture, engineering and construction. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 45, 101122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2020.101122
30. De Boer, W. (2000). The conquest of the soul: Confession, discipline, and public order in Counter-Reformation Milan. Brill.
31. Deleuze, G. (1988). Foucault. University of Minnesota Press.
32. Deleuze, G. (1992). What is a dispositif? In T. Armstrong (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Philosopher (pp. 159–168). Routledge.
33. Delumeau, J. (1990). Sin and fear: The emergence of a Western guilt culture. St. Martin’s Press.
34. Des Pres, T. (1980). The survivor: An anatomy of life in the death camps. Oxford University Press.
35. Descartes, R. (2001). Optics. In Discourse on method, optics, geometry, and meteorology (pp. 65-148). Hackett Publishing.
36. Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (1973). Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Aldine.
37. Dreyfus, H. L., & Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. University of Chicago Press.
38. Dunn, G. D. (2004). Tertullian. Routledge.
39. Dwork, D., & Van Pelt, R. J. (1996). Auschwitz: 1270 to the present. W. W. Norton & Company.
40. Eco, U. (1997). Function and sign: The semiotics of architecture. In N. Leach (Ed.), Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural theory (pp. 173-193). Routledge.
41. Eder, J. M. (1945). History of photography. Columbia University Press.
42. Feig, K. G. (1981). Hitler’s death camps: The sanity of madness. Holmes & Meier.
43. Fiorentini, E. (2006). Camera obscura vs. camera lucida: Distinguishing early nineteenth-century modes of seeing. Max Planck Institute.
44. Firey, A. (2008). A new history of penance. Brill.
45. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. Tavistock Publications.
46. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. Pantheon.
47. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon.
48. Foucault, M. (1984). Space, knowledge, and power. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 239–256). Pantheon.
49. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. University of Massachusetts Press.
50. Foucault, M. (1991). Remarks on Marx: Conversations with Duccio Trombadori. Semiotext(e).
51. Foucault, M. (1997). Polemics, politics, and problematizations. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Ethics: Subjectivity and truth (pp. 111–119). New Press.
52. Foucault, M. (2014). On the government of the living: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1979–1980. Palgrave Macmillan.
53. Frampton, K. (1995). Studies in tectonic culture: The poetics of construction in nineteenth and twentieth century architecture. MIT Press.
54. Fraser, D. (1999). Dead man walking: Law and ethics after Giorgio Agamben’s Auschwitz. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 12, 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008926224876
55. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
56. Gorman, M. J. (2007). Projecting nature in early modern Europe. In W. Lefèvre (Ed.), Inside the camera obscura (pp. 31–48). Max Planck Institute.
57. Greenough, H. (1947). Form and function: Remarks on art, design, and architecture. University of California Press.
58. Griffero, T. (2017). Quasi-things: The paradigm of atmospheres. SUNY Press.
59. Gutting, G. (1989). Michel Foucault’s archaeology of scientific reason. Cambridge University Press.
60. Gutting, G. (2002). Foucault’s philosophy of experience. boundary 2, 29(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1215/01903659-29-2-69
61. Hadjri, K., & Crozier, M. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation: Purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities, 27(1–2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770910923063
62. Hamilton, D. K., & Watkins, D. H. (2009). Evidence-based design for multiple building types. Wiley.
63. Hammond, J. H. (1981). The camera obscura: A chronicle. Adam Hilger.
64. Han, B. (2002). Foucault’s critical project. Stanford University Press.
65. Hay, R., Samuel, F., Bradbury, S., & Tait, A. (2018). Post-occupancy evaluation in architecture: Experiences and perspectives from UK practice. Building Research & Information, 46(6), 698–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1314692
66. Heidegger, M. (1971). Building dwelling thinking. In Poetry, language, thought (pp. 143-162). Harper & Row.
67. Heidegger, M. (1977). The age of the world picture. In The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 115–154). Harper & Row.
68. Heiner, B. T. (2003). The passions of Michel Foucault. differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 14(1), 22–52. https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-14-1-22
69. Hilberg, R. (2003). The destruction of the European Jews. Yale University Press.
70. Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., & Pérez-Gómez, A. (2006). Questions of perception: Phenomenology of architecture. William Stout.
71. Humphreys, S. (2006). Legalizing lawlessness: On Giorgio Agamben’s State of Exception. European Journal of International Law, 17(3), 677–687. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chl020
72. Ihde, D. (2000). Epistemology engines. Nature, 406, 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/35017666
73. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
74. Jaskot, P. B. (2000). The architecture of oppression: The SS, forced labour and the Nazi monumental building economy. Routledge.
75. Jay, M. (1994). Downcast eyes: The denigration of vision in twentieth-century French thought. University of California Press.
76. Jencks, C. (1977). The language of postmodern architecture. Rizzoli.
77. Jencks, C., & Baird, G. (1969). Meaning in architecture. George Braziller.
78. Judovitz, D. (1993). Vision, representation, and technology in Descartes. In D. M. Levin (Ed.), Modernity and the hegemony of vision (pp. 63–86). University of California Press.
79. Kalyvas, A. (2005). The sovereign weaver: Beyond the camp. In A. Norris (Ed.), Politics, metaphysics, and death: Essays on Giorgio Agamben’s Homo Sacer (pp.107-134). Duke University Press.
80. Kaplan, S. (1973). Cognitive maps in perception and thought. In R. M. Downs & D. Stea (Eds.), Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behavior (pp. 63–78). Aldine.
81. Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
82. Koopman, C. (2013). Genealogy as critique: Foucault and the problems of modernity. Indiana University Press.
83. Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. Liveright.
84. Laclau, E. (2007). Bare life or social indeterminacy? In M. Calarco & S. DeCaroli (Eds.), Giorgio Agamben: Sovereignty and life (pp. 11–22). Stanford University Press.
85. Lea, H. C. (1968). A history of auricular confession and indulgences in the Latin church. Greenwood Press.
86. Lee, J. G., Seo, J., Abbas, A., & Choi, M. (2020). End-users’ augmented reality utilization for architectural design review. Applied Sciences, 10(15), 5363. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155363
87. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell.
88. Levi, P. (1988). The drowned and the saved. Michael Joseph.
89. Lindberg, D. (1976). Theories of vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler. University of Chicago Press.
90. Locke, J. (1979). An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford University Press.
91. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
92. Lyotard, J.-F. (1988). The differend: Phrases in dispute. University of Minnesota Press.
93. Mallgrave, H. (2013). Architecture and embodiment: The implications of the new sciences and humanities for design. Routledge.
94. Markus, T. A. (1993). Buildings and power: Freedom and control in the origin of modern building types. Routledge.
95. Mbembe, A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-15-1-11
96. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. Routledge.
97. Meyer, H. (1970). Building. In U. Conrads (Ed.), Programs and manifestoes on 20th-century architecture (pp. 117–119). MIT Press.
98. Moloney, J., Globa, A., Wang, R., & Khoo, C. K. (2018). Pre-occupancy evaluation tools (P-OET) for early feasibility design stages using virtual and augmented reality technology. In Proceedings of the 52nd International Conference of the Architectural Science Association, p. 717–725.
99. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1974). Existence, space & architecture. Praeger.
100. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. Rizzoli.
101. Norris, A. (2000). Giorgio Agamben and the politics of the living dead. Diacritics, 30(4), 38–58. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dia.2000.0032
102. O’Leary, T. (2008). Foucault, experience, literature. Foucault Studies, 5, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i5.1407
103. Otero-Pailos, J. (2010). Architecture’s historical turn: Phenomenology and the rise of the postmodern. University of Minnesota Press.
104. Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin. Wiley.
105. Paranandi, M., & Sarawgi, T. (2002). Virtual reality in architecture: Enabling possibilities. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2002), p. 309-316.
106. Pati, D. (2011). A framework for evaluating evidence in evidence-based design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 4(3), 50–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758671100400305
107. Pérez-Gómez, A. (2006). Built upon love: Architectural longing after ethics and aesthetics. MIT Press.
108. Pevsner, N. (2005). Pioneers of modern design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius. Yale University Press.
109. Pløger, J. (2008). Foucault’s dispositif and the city. Planning Theory, 7(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207085665
110. Portman, M. E., Natapov, A., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2015). To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 54(4), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.05.001
111. Preiser, W. F. E., & Vischer, J. C. (2004). Assessing building performance. Routledge.
112. Preiser, W. F. E., Rabinowitz, H. Z., & White, E. T. (1988). Post-occupancy evaluation. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
113. Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., & Rivlin, L. G. (1970). Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
114. Rabinow, P. (1984). The Foucault reader. Pantheon.
115. Rabinow, P. (1989). French modern: Norms and forms of the social environment. MIT Press.
116. Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man–environment approach to urban form and design. Pergamon Press.
117. Rapp, C. (2005). Holy bishops in late antiquity: The nature of Christian leadership in an age of transition. University of California Press.
118. Rasmussen, S. E. (1964). Experiencing architecture. MIT Press.
119. Rayner, T. (2003). Between fiction and reflection: Foucault and the experience book. Continental Philosophy Review, 36, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025166608906
120. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. Pion.
121. Rivière, J.-P., Vinet, L., & Prié, Y. (2024). Towards the use of virtual reality prototypes in architecture to collect user experiences. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 192, 103342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103342
122. Robinson, S., & Pallasmaa, J. (2015). Mind in architecture: Neuroscience, embodiment, and the future of design. MIT Press.
123. Rowe, C., & Slutzky, R. (1963). Transparency: Literal and phenomenal. Perspecta, 8, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1566901
124. Sabra, A. I. (2007). Alhazen’s optics in Europe. In W. Lefèvre (Ed.), Inside the camera obscura (pp. 53–57). Max Planck Institute.
125. Schnabel, M. A., & Kvan, T. (2003). Spatial understanding in immersive virtual environments. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 1(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1260/147807703773633455
126. Seamon, D., & Mugerauer, R. (1985). Dwelling, place and environment: An introduction. Martinus Nijhoff.
127. Shirazi, M. R. (2014). Towards an articulated phenomenological interpretation of architecture. Routledge.
128. Sofsky, W. (1997). The order of terror: The concentration camp. Princeton University Press.
129. Stafford, B. (1994). Artful science. MIT Press.
130. Sullivan, L. H. (1896). The tall office building artistically considered. Lippincott’s Magazine, 57(340), 403–409.
131. Sumartojo, S., & Pink, S. (2018). Atmospheres and the experiential world. Routledge.
132. Tafuri, M. (1987). The sphere and the labyrinth: Avant-gardes and architecture from Piranesi to the 1970s. MIT Press.
133. Ulrich, R., Zimring, C., Zhu, X., DuBose, J., Seo, H., Choi, Y., Quan, X., & Joseph, A. (2008). A review of the research literature on evidence-based healthcare design. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1(3), 61-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/193758670800100306
134. URL-1. Naturae pictricis operae, from Ars magna lucis et umbrae by A. Kircher, retrieved from https://archive.org/ (last access: 05.07.2026).
135. URL-2. Concentration Camp Dachau Aerial View. From Wikimedia Commons, by Wiggum, retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Concentration_camp_dachau_aerial_view.jpg (last access: 05.07.2026).
136. Van Pelt, R. J. (1994). Auschwitz: From architects’ promise to inmates’ perdition. Modernism/Modernity, 1(1), 80–120. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mod.1994.0013
137. Venturi, R., Scott Brown, D., & Izenour, S. (1977). Learning from Las Vegas: The forgotten symbolism of architectural form. MIT Press.
138. Vischer, J. C. (2001). Post-occupancy evaluation: A multifaceted tool for building improvement. In Learning from our buildings (pp. 23–34). National Academies Press.
139. Vitruvius. (1914). The ten books on architecture. Oxford University Press.
140. Wachsmann, N. (2015). KL: A history of the Nazi concentration camps. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
141. Wertheimer, M. (1923). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301-350. https://doi.org/10.1037/11496-005
142. Whyte, J. (2002). Virtual reality and the built environment. Architectural Press.
143. Wigley, M. (1998). The architecture of atmosphere. Daidalos, 68, 18–27.
144. Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behavior research. Brooks/Cole.
145. Zumthor, P. (2006). Atmospheres: Architectural environments, surrounding objects. Birkhäuser.