Introduction,
Deconstructive concepts have been transferred to architecture through the dominance of written form. In other cases, these concepts have been indirectly adapted and reconfigured within architectural practice, shedding their original verbal and textual functions. This means that the transmission of deconstructive ideas into architecture has not been literal or direct; rather, some concepts have been modified or renamed to better suit architectural contexts. Moreover, deconstructivist architects were not committed to all aspects of deconstruction. Instead, they focused on one or two key concepts and adapted them according to the foundational principles of their personal architectural styles. For example, Peter Eisenman emphasized notions such as presence, sign, paradox, and the emergence of the interior. Daniel Libeskind focused on absence, while Frank Gehry explored binary oppositions and the sources of representation.
In this regard, the multifaceted relationship between deconstructive philosophy and architecture offers an opportunity to rethink structure, construction, and tradition within the discipline. This is particularly relevant because of the parallels between the two in terms of structure, form, and historical continuity. This research investigates the various modes of interaction between the philosophical movement of deconstruction and architecture. To achieve this, the study poses the following central questions: – How and to what extent are deconstruction and architecture interconnected? – Which elements of deconstruction are applicable to architectural practice? – How, and based on which concepts or themes from deconstructive philosophy, can traditional architectural models be reinterpreted? The study is based on the hypothesis that this approach, by challenging traditional models, structures, and constructions, enables a deeper understanding of architectural content and form.
 
 
Material and Methods
This article adopts a theoretical-analytical approach, drawing upon the philosophical concepts of Heidegger and Derrida, to critically examine the intersection between deconstruction theory and architecture. It aims to demonstrate how the principles of deconstruction can challenge and reinterpret traditional notions of form, structure, and function.This study, using an analytical-interpretive method and based on documentary sources, examines the relationship between philosophy and architecture with a focus on the deconstructive elements in Eisenman’s works, and by presenting an analytical model, analyzes the application of these concepts in the façades of Iranian-Islamic schools and proposes design suggestions.
Discussion and Result
In the philosophical thought of Martin Heideger, the concept of the “house” becomes a fundamental site for human dwelling within Being. Heidegger introduces language as the “house of Being” suggesting that true building is not merely the act of erecting physical structures, but rather an manifestation of authentic dwelling in the world. For Heidegger, dwelling precedes building; it is through language and being that humanity inhabits the world.
However, Jacques Derrida, through a critical reading of Heidegger, argues that despite Heidegger’s efforts to break from the metaphysical tradition, he remains within its structures. Derrida, with his theory of deconstruction, seeks to dismantle the established foundations of the philosophy of presence, introducing concepts such as différance, deferral, and trace into philosophical discourse. In this approach, meaning is never fixed or final; it remains perpetually suspended and deferred. Presence is never complete or absolute but always intertwind with absence and traces of the past.
These philosophical developments have significantly influenced the field of architecture as well. Just as deconstruction disrupts stabilized meanings in philosophy, it challenges the unity of form, certainty of structure, and clarity of function in architecture. Derrida’s notion of presence as always already marked by absence finds resonance in architecture, where invisible traces reshape our experience of space and time. This logic is particularly evident in the works of architects such as Peter Eisenman. Projects like the Waxner Center for the Arts and Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe embody principles of fragmentation, suspension, and instability, redefining architectural identity through disruption and dislocation.
In this context, linking Iranian architecture with deconstruction theory provides an apportunity for critical rethinking of traditional concepts. Iranian architecture, historically grounded in geometric coherence, spatial hierarchies, and symbolic functionality, when engaged with deconstruction, moves toward fragmentation, multiplicity, and ambiguity. Fragmented forms, asymmetrical compositions, the use of unconventional materials, and the deliberate subversion of conventional expectations become hallmarks of this approach, generating fluid and multulayered spatial experience. One specific domain where this fusion proves particularly transformative is the design of educational spaces. Traditionally, schools have been conceived as highly stryctured, orderly, and conservative environments. Under a deconstructive lens, however, they transform into open, dynamic, and interactive spaces. Instead of rigid compartmentalization and linear pathways, there emerges a natural, flowing connection between interior and exterior, an abundant presence of natural light, and movment pathways characterized by nonlinearity, ambiguity, and multiplicity.
Moreover, the facades of schools designed under deconstructive principles break away from symmetry and simplicity. Irregular forms, fractured surfaces, and the application of unconventional materials such as raw concrete, layered glass, or broken bricks create new visual and semantic challenges.These architectural experssions destabilize perception, inviting users to rethink traditional structures and experience space as an open-ended, evolving phenomenon.
In this trajectory, the concept of “trace”, central to Derrida’s deconstruction, acquires special significance. The trace—representing the absent presence of the past—can serve as a subtle yet powerful guide for reinterpreting Iranian architectural heritage. Educational spaces inspired by deconstruction can maintain a latent connection to history without resorting to direct imitation, embodying a suspended dialogue between the past and the future. Thus, architecture becomes neither a mere replication of tradition nor a complete severance from it, but an ongoing negotiation across temporal boundaries.
Conclusion
Ultimately, deconstruction does not signify the destruction of tradition, but rather the opening of hidden layers of meaning. It represents a process through which both architecture and philosophy move away from fixed representations toward experience that are open, multilayered, and dynamic. In this view, the fusion of Iranian architecture with deconstruction not only challenges conventional boundaries of form, function, and structure but also creates spaces for continual dwelling, experiencing, and rethinking.
From this perspective, the synthesis of Iranian architecture and deconstruction theory offers a potential starting point for creating works that exist on the thresholds between past and future, stability and instability, meaning and ambiguity. These architectural experiences remain perpetually open, unfinished, and in a state of becoming— inviting occupants not merely to inhabit space, but to engage with it critically and creatively.