It is, by now, commonplace to refer to the practices of reading, writing, and thinking about architectural production as the “history and theory of architecture.” Now a fundamental part of the discipline, this phrase is accepted—even taken for granted. It can refer to subjects offered to architecture students as part of their professional training, such as courses with titles like “Architectural History 1,” or “The History of Architectural Theory.” It might also refer to a more focussed understanding of disciplinarity—to the discourses that take architecture as their object. So much (and more) can be said for the history and theory of architecture. But the articulation of history and theory becomes more complicated when we consider other possible conjunctions: history or theory; history of theory; perhaps even history as theory.

....

Many would object to the and/or scenario of the history/theory of architecture I have just sketched out. The ways architectural historians approach their subject has been enriched by robust theoretical engagement. Likewise, most theorists work with a self-conscious understanding of the historicity of thought. The task of history for today is neither the defence of properly architectural territories, nor is it to process the backlog of empirical evidence. At the same time, the conditions and preoccupations that made architecture theory such a productive discourse may no longer hold. Instead, the discourse of theory and its subjects are now becoming the objects of historical scrutiny, which will inevitably be accompanied by a re-evaluation of the efficacy and validity of its propositions. My hypothesis is that the specific discourse of “architecture theory,” in its Anglophone variant at least, will prove to be inextricably linked to, and in part determined by the cultural, political, and economic configurations of the late Cold War. To remain relevant to a younger generation of citizens, scholars, and architecture, the field of the history and/or theory of architecture requires a new sense of scale and a new territory of investigation, both of which demand historical and theoretical consideration. It is no longer possible to speak of architecture in the singular. We know that even within a global framework there are multiple and competing world-making agendas at play. What is more, we are becoming increasingly aware of the tension between the histories and theories of architecture we write and teach to our students and the non-synchronous worlds of architectural production. We are still faced with the project of delivering, in Tafuri’s words, a “historical assessment of the present contradictions.”4 This requires that history and theory be “thought” together so that we can understand how architecture has been, and might be thought otherwise. Maybe this adds up to history as theory; or possibly theory as history. Which exactly is up for debate.