MAPPING PROFESSIONAL DISCOURSE THROUGH "THE OTHER":
ARCHITECTURE VS INDUSTRIAL DESIGN IN TURKEY

Professions are not independent entities that develop and create a history of their own in a vacuum, conversely they form an interdependent system. In this system, struggle for the control of knowledge, interactions between the professions and the jurisdictional disputes are the most important factors that determine the history and discourse of professions. (Abbott, 1988)

Historically, there had been many professions which had conflicting professional interests with industrial design such as mechanical engineering, graphic design, architecture and interior design. These conflicts inevitably led to discursive and jurisdictional disputes. However, especially in Turkish context, architecture can be set apart from all others.

The reasons of the relative importance of architecture in development of industrial design education and profession can be found in the historical background of industrial design in Turkey: Industrial design education started long before the actual needs of the Turkish Industry materialized because of various reasons (Er, 1995). In the beginning, industrial design was introduced as an side-course in existing architecture and interior design programs. Later, independent departments were established, either as extensions of interior design programs or under the architecture faculties. Most of the instructors and founders were architects and interior architects who generally had no serious practical experience in the field.

As a result, Turkish industrial design has established itself an eclectic discourse, mostly under the heavy influence of architecture which nearly continued till late 90’s. Today, as Turkish industrial design struggles to found itself a consistent and independent discourse, the struggle over knowledge and jurisdiction with architecture still continues especially in discursive and ideological levels.

Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze the nature of this ideological conflict in discursive level with particular reference to its historical background.  As stated above, no profession –thus no professional discourse-, can be understood without understanding its disputes with neighbour professions.  Hence, understanding Turkish industrial design discourse is only possible if the perception of industrial design through the professional ideological perspective of Turkish architecture is realized. To this end, critical discourse analysis will be applied to the outcomes of the 15 open ended interviews with Turkish architects.  These interviews will be built around the opinions of these architects about industrial design profession, professionals and discourse.

As how we talk about design shapes design discourse and vice-versa, to give answers to the questions about the definition of design (especially in a country where the profession is relatively young), it is crucial to be able to draw a map of the discursive domain. The intended research is aimed to fill some of the gaps on the very fabric of this map while analyzing through the eyes of “the other”.

References:
Abbott, A. (1988) The  System of Professions, An Essay on the Division of Expert Labour. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
Er,H. A. (1995) “The State of Design: Towards an Assessment of the Development of Industrial Design in Turkey” , METU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, Vol. 13, n 1-2