In the first chapter I argued that Irigaray’s fluid ‘subject to subject’ relations are

valuable for architecture because they reconfigure it into irreducible (i.e. infinite)

and complex relationships. Irigaray’s ideas are also reflected in recent

architectural theory and practices that have sought to challenge formalist

accounts of architecture that privilege static material spatial organisation. These

post-structuralist approaches show that architectural design and its uses are

composed of dynamic psychic and material processes which are embodied in

the architect, collaborator and user; for example, requiring that the designer

develop a flexible range of practical and theoretical aesthetic, social, technical

Certainly, the architectural design profession can be defined by its need to

manage and implement large amounts of technical information and materials

correctly; especially when such knowledge and skills relate to structural aspects

of design, which are legally required to meet statutory regulations. However, in

addition to being able to make accurate and precise judgments about the

relevant materials, geometries, scales or magnitudes used in the process of

designing and fabricating a building, post-structuralist feminist and Marxist

architects, historians, theorists and critics have shown the benefits to society

and the profession when the architect also designs through the negotiation of

skills, knowledge and materials, in conjunction with other professionals and

with clients.