Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Disturbing structure : reading the ruins

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Disturbing structure : reading the ruins

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Disturbing structure : reading the ruins. / Dale, K; Burrell, G.

In: Culture and Organization, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2011, p. 107-121 .

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Dale, K & Burrell, G 2011, 'Disturbing structure : reading the ruins', Culture and Organization, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 107-121 . https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2011.544888

APA

Dale, K., & Burrell, G. (2011). Disturbing structure : reading the ruins. Culture and Organization, 17(2), 107-121 . https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2011.544888

Vancouver

Dale K, Burrell G. Disturbing structure : reading the ruins. Culture and Organization. 2011;17(2):107-121 . https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2011.544888

Author

Dale, K ; Burrell, G. / Disturbing structure : reading the ruins. In: Culture and Organization. 2011 ; Vol. 17, No. 2. pp. 107-121 .

Bibtex

@article{9a7198eb76ef4bbeb6a70c154ad5953d,
title = "Disturbing structure : reading the ruins",
abstract = "In this paper, we look at buildings from the {\textquoteleft}disturbing{\textquoteright} perspective of ruin and ruination. The relationship between buildings and ruins appears to be an antithesis, one between organisation and disorganisation: a dyad of mutually exclusive opposites. However, we try to show how the relationship between buildings and ruins is more complex and multifaceted so that rather than being the play of opposites, it is one which is mutually enacting and inextricably entwined. We explore three aspects of the relationship of mutuality between building and ruin. The first is a consideration of ruins and their relationship to structuring and de‐structuring. Second, we look into the multiplicity of meanings that ruins engender, their inherent ambivalence. Finally, we argue that ruin and ruination are as related to construction and re‐ordering as they are to destruction, since they are not the absolute annihilation of building and organisation, but are themselves different forms of organisation and organising. Thus, the paper is not so much about ruins themselves, where ruins are seen as obliteration or the absence of form. Rather, it is about what ruins and ruination tell us about buildings, structure and the processes of organising.",
keywords = "architecture, organisation , ruins , structuring , destructing",
author = "K Dale and G Burrell",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1080/14759551.2011.544888",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "107--121 ",
journal = "Culture and Organization",
issn = "1475-9551",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disturbing structure : reading the ruins

AU - Dale, K

AU - Burrell, G

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - In this paper, we look at buildings from the ‘disturbing’ perspective of ruin and ruination. The relationship between buildings and ruins appears to be an antithesis, one between organisation and disorganisation: a dyad of mutually exclusive opposites. However, we try to show how the relationship between buildings and ruins is more complex and multifaceted so that rather than being the play of opposites, it is one which is mutually enacting and inextricably entwined. We explore three aspects of the relationship of mutuality between building and ruin. The first is a consideration of ruins and their relationship to structuring and de‐structuring. Second, we look into the multiplicity of meanings that ruins engender, their inherent ambivalence. Finally, we argue that ruin and ruination are as related to construction and re‐ordering as they are to destruction, since they are not the absolute annihilation of building and organisation, but are themselves different forms of organisation and organising. Thus, the paper is not so much about ruins themselves, where ruins are seen as obliteration or the absence of form. Rather, it is about what ruins and ruination tell us about buildings, structure and the processes of organising.

AB - In this paper, we look at buildings from the ‘disturbing’ perspective of ruin and ruination. The relationship between buildings and ruins appears to be an antithesis, one between organisation and disorganisation: a dyad of mutually exclusive opposites. However, we try to show how the relationship between buildings and ruins is more complex and multifaceted so that rather than being the play of opposites, it is one which is mutually enacting and inextricably entwined. We explore three aspects of the relationship of mutuality between building and ruin. The first is a consideration of ruins and their relationship to structuring and de‐structuring. Second, we look into the multiplicity of meanings that ruins engender, their inherent ambivalence. Finally, we argue that ruin and ruination are as related to construction and re‐ordering as they are to destruction, since they are not the absolute annihilation of building and organisation, but are themselves different forms of organisation and organising. Thus, the paper is not so much about ruins themselves, where ruins are seen as obliteration or the absence of form. Rather, it is about what ruins and ruination tell us about buildings, structure and the processes of organising.

KW - architecture

KW - organisation

KW - ruins

KW - structuring

KW - destructing

U2 - 10.1080/14759551.2011.544888

DO - 10.1080/14759551.2011.544888

M3 - Journal article

VL - 17

SP - 107

EP - 121

JO - Culture and Organization

JF - Culture and Organization

SN - 1475-9551

IS - 2

ER -