4.3 Latour’s Concepts at Work
I
approached the relationship between the architecture and technology of Paimio Sana-
torium through the perspective of the French sociologist Bruno Latour’s actor-network
theory. Like Latour, I have understood technological systems as being heterogeneous,
and not merely social or mechanical. Social actors, such as individuals, companies and
institutions, are parts of technological systems, as well as the material world. Moreover,
the social stakeholders represent different values and attitudes, which also form a part of
technological systems. A building was approached as a technological system. It followed
that the theory and ethics of an architect, which come to life through his activities as the
innovator of the process, become a part of a technological system, that is, architecture.
One of the key issues in this study was to delimit the object of study. According
to the definition of technology that I have adopted, the set of objects under scientific
enquiry may contain any entities. Along with Latour, I have followed an anthropolog-
ical approach, allowing the research object itself to direct me to the salient themes of
study. By analysing Aalto’s writings as well as his drawings, I have formed an opinion on
which approaches were important for him from the perspective of architectural theory.
In addition, I also tracked the decision-making process of the Building Board and iden-
tified a number of topics that it discussed intensely, and that caused conflicts. I followed
these points of disconnect, which Latour has dubbed trials.
I also applied Latour’s theory in a critical discussion of the delimitation of the research
object and the nature of the groups affecting decision-making.^1010 My aim was to reveal the
interrelations within the technological systems at Paimio Sanatorium to the extent that they
affected the architectural solution. My intention was to reveal the movement of a building,
how it constantly changed.^1011 However, the material posed certain challenges. The Building
Board recorded most of the decisions it made, but only few debates or discussions were
documented. In addition, there were several decisions made on issues that raised conflicts,
and yet no discussion or decision has been recorded. An example of such an issue is the
suspended intermediate floor in the dining hall, which the medical experts unanimously
opposed in their statements in spring 1929, but which remained in the designs, from com-
petition to execution. In this particular case, Aalto succeeded in translation, in other words,
to persuade the physicians by way of his section diagrams, which showed daylight penetrat-
ing the room to the furthest corner of the space, a desirable feature from the perspective of
health. Again, Aalto did not justify his design through aesthetic considerations, which
nonetheless played a role in his highly tectonic solutions. By cross-referencing different
sets of materials I could make conclusions on the course of events.
1010 In his work Reassembling the Social, Latour argues that, instead of preconceived theories and methods, research-
ers ought to pay attention to oppositions and uncertainties, the five most salient of which according to Latour
are the nature of groups, the nature of action, the nature of objects, the nature of knowledge and the nature of
sociological research. Latour 2007 [2005], pp. 21–22.
1011 See Latour and Yaneva 2008, especially pp. 85 and 88.