Researching this topic gradually resolved my puzzlement as to the factual cir-
cumstances of this absence of exchange. My fascination for the related theoretical
questions nevertheless remained, as may be judged from the material presented in
this book. I still consider it exceptionally intriguing to see how many divergent posi-
tions have been developed with respect to the question of what architecture is sup-
posed to be and how it should relate to societal conditions brought about by
modernity. It was my aim in writing this book to clarify several of these positions and
to highlight in what respect precisely they differ from one another.
The book thus discusses the relationship between modernity, dwelling, and
architecture. Modernity is used here in reference to a condition of living imposed
upon individuals by the socioeconomic process of modernization. The experience of
modernity involves a rupture with tradition and has a profound impact on ways of life
and daily habits. The effects of this rupture are manifold. They are reflected in mod-
ernism, the body of artistic and intellectual ideas and movements that deal with the
process of modernization and with the experience of modernity.^1
Modernity is understood in different ways by a wide range of authors and crit-
ics. One can see it as determined by the opposition between a capitalist civilization
and its cultural, modernist counterpart. The relation between these poles, however,
is conceived of in divergent ways: some perceive them as not related at all; for oth-
ers there is a dialectical relationship at stake in which modernism consciously or un-
consciously, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively reflects the effects of
capitalist development. Further distinctions and specifications can be made: one can
discern an avant-garde attitude that aims at the reintegration of art and life; one can
moreover distinguish between programmatic and transitory conceptions of moder-
nity, as well as between “pastoral” and “counterpastoral” modernisms.
Within the fields of philosophy, sociology, and cultural theory, such issues are
indeed extensively discussed. Critical theories such as those of the Frankfurt School
gave birth to a complex and sophisticated discourse concerning modernity and mod-
ernism. The history and theory of twentieth-century architecture on the other hand
developed rather independently from this rich tradition; even many of the more re-
cent developments in architecture went along without taking into consideration crit-
ical positions such as those of the Frankfurt School. This book aims at facing this rift.
It tries to interrelate both strings of intellectual discourse. On the one hand it dis-
cusses architecture from the perspective of critical theory, and on the other hand it
modifies positions within critical theory by linking them with architecture.^2
The book should operate on two levels. First, it contains a theoretical discus-
sion of the relation between architecture, modernity, and dwelling. There is a line of
argumentation spanning the whole book, which is basically structured according to
a dialectical triad. Chapter 1, “Architecture Facing Modernity,” formulates the prob-
lem: how does architecture relate to modernity? Chapter 2, “Constructing the Mod-
ern Movement,” gives the thesis: the first answer to this question as it was given by
major representatives of the modern movement. The antithesis is found in chapter
Introduction