With this special issue of Architectural Theory Review, we set out to discuss theory (of architecture) as a practice. In order to resist what we perceive to be the persistent division of labour between theoria and praxis, we want to expand and reclaim what can be included under these rubrics.1 And we want to do this in such a way as to draw attention to the specificity of situations. Practices (of space, of architecture) are always entangled with the lives of people, places, and things. They refer to specific, situated problems in response to which we believe it is crucial to resist ready-made answers and to accept the constraints of the milieu in which we find ourselves. We thus call for situated, relational, and embodied perspectives in architectural scholarship rather than distant, autonomous, and authoritarian ones. But we also ask how, in undertaking this work, we can strive to reclaim a capacity for agency in situations that have become oppressive or where power relations have become imbalanced. We feel confronted with the difficult task of resisting how the situations we study are presented to us (through theory) and of speculating instead on how these situations might be envisioned otherwise by reclaiming other (forgotten, inconvenient, odd…) versions of such situations. We draw our inspiration from radical (feminist) thinkers, including Donna Haraway, Isabelle Stengers, Jane Bennett, Rosi Braidotti, Maria Puig de la Bellacasa, and Karen Barad. The relevance of these perspectives for architectural and urban studies—and more specifically, Donna Haraway’s “situated viewpoints” and Isabelle Stengers’ “ecology of practices” and “cosmopolitics”—are becoming increasingly evident.2 With this special issue, we ask explicitly how such approaches can inform new critical engagements with architecture and the city. Through slowing down, hesitation, and “category work”,3 we have invited scholars to resist the taxonomies and conceptual categories with which they have become accustomed, or feel obliged, to think. Our proposal for this special issue also reads as an invitation to reconnect with (hi)stories and (radical) imaginations that tell alternative stories. And through reconnecting with situated stories, we argue that other forms and imaginations of engagement, of resistance, can emerge. Hence our cry: Resist, Reclaim, Speculate! In asking how theory “as a practice” can respond to our cry, we believe three moves are necessary. Firstly, we ask: What are the methodological and ethical consequences of considering theory as a practice? Secondly, we take this challenge as an invitation to expand our understanding of what should be included in the discussion of architecture, which is also to ask what “matters” to the understanding of architecture? Finally, what kinds of stories emerge when we respect the situated nature of the spaces, buildings, plans, and issues we study? And how do these stories make a difference?

中文翻译：

---

抗拒、回收、推测：对建筑和城市的定位视角

在这一期《建筑理论评论》特刊中，我们着手将（建筑）理论作为一种实践进行讨论。为了抵制我们所认为的理论和实践之间持久的分工，我们想要扩展和收回可以包含在这些标题下的内容。 1 我们希望以这样一种方式来做到这一点，以引起人们对情况的特殊性。实践（空间、建筑）总是与人、地方和事物的生活纠缠在一起。它们指的是特定的、情境化的问题，我们认为，抵制现成的答案并接受我们所处环境的限制是至关重要的。因此，我们呼吁建筑学术中的情境、关系和具体化的观点，而不是遥远的、自主的和专制的观点。但我们也问如何，在开展这项工作时，我们可以努力恢复在变得压迫或权力关系不平衡的情况下的代理能力。我们感到面临着一项艰巨的任务，即抵制我们研究的情况如何（通过理论）呈现给我们，并通过回收此类情况的其他（被遗忘的、不方便的、奇怪的……）版本来推测这些情况可能会以其他方式被设想。我们的灵感来自激进（女权主义）思想家，包括 Donna Haraway、Isabelle Stengers、Jane Bennett、Rosi Braidotti、Maria Puig de la Bellacasa 和 Karen Barad。这些观点与建筑和城市研究的相关性——更具体地说，唐娜·哈拉维的“情境观点”和伊莎贝尔·斯滕格斯的“实践生态学”和“世界政治”——正变得越来越明显。2 在本期特刊中，我们明确询问这些方法如何为建筑和城市的新批判性互动提供信息。通过放慢脚步、犹豫和“范畴工作”3，我们邀请学者们抵制他们已经习惯或感到不得不思考的分类法和概念范畴。我们对本期特刊的建议也可以看作是重新连接讲述另类故事的（hi）故事和（激进）想象的邀请。通过与情景故事的重新联系，我们认为可以出现其他参与、抵抗的形式和想象。因此我们的呼声是：抵抗、收回、投机！在询问“作为实践”的理论如何回应我们的呼声时，我们认为有必要采取三个措施。首先，我们问：将理论视为实践的方法论和伦理后果是什么？其次，我们把这个挑战当作邀请来扩展我们对建筑讨论应该包括什么的理解，这也是问什么对理解建筑“重要”？最后，当我们尊重我们研究的空间、建筑、计划和问题的情境性质时，会出现什么样的故事？这些故事有何不同？和我们研究的问题？这些故事有何不同？和我们研究的问题？这些故事有何不同？