History and theory 121the humanities more generally at the end of the twentieth
century. Ian Hunter describes this moment as follows:
Unlike natural scientifi c theories, the theory that emerged in
the humanities and social sciences in the 1960s was not defi ned
by its object because it surfaced in disciplines with quite
divergent objects: linguistics and legal studies, literature and
anthropology, the study of folktales and the analysis of eco-
nomic modes of production. Further, the theoretical vernacu-
lars that emerged at this time differed signifi cantly, sometimes
in accordance with the university faculties where theorists
were employed, but also in accordance with divergent (or only
partially overlapping) national intellectual contexts.^8When Vidler asks, then, ‘What kind of work does or should
architectural history perform for architecture, and especially
for contemporary architecture?’, he raises a question with
deep repercussions for the organization of architectural
history among what have more recently and more generously
been termed (principally in Britain) the ‘architectural human-
ities’ – the history, theory and criticism of architecture as a
broad category of intellectual and analytical activities that
gravitate, though not exclusively, to curatorial, editorial and
written expression. This has naturally impacted on the ambi-
tions and tenor of many forms of architectural historiogra-
phy and on the intellectual and institutional possibilities
available to the historian of architecture.
What is architectural history and theory?
Iain Borden uses a telling conjugation in the Bartlett Book
of Ideas when he asks, ‘What is Architectural History and
Theory?’ He places this humanities arm of architecture fi rmly
in the realm of ‘theory’ when he writes, ‘Architecture becomes
a provisional entity, held out for preliminary inspection like
the fl y caught in a spider’s web, only to be captured again
with every new dawn. Architecture becomes certain and
unknown, and herein lies its beauty.... And through a
self-conscious refl ection on this process, architectural history
and theory must in turn be similarly subjected to equal re-
examination.’^9 This is architecture’s contribution to the form