1996_1 |
The Responsibility of Architecture for the Lack of Responsibility
1) Introduction
The following perspectives on architecture are predominantly influenced by my background
in psychology. I will discuss the influence of architecture in industrial societies, which
tend to be guided by consumption only and to be rather irresponsible towards environmental
issues.
Nowadays, built and artificial environments as opposed to natural environments are
becoming the characteristic and almost exclusive experience of everyday life. The
guidelines, intentions and interests in the planning stage remain opaque and opportunities
for those not involved in the building process (non-experts) to participate in the
planning of future are increasingly reduced.
There are investors and experts who relieve the ordinary person of responsibility for the
future of the world around us, and consequently also of the experience of self-efficacy
and self-responsibility concerning environmental issues. People retreat and prefer dealing
with fictional worlds instead.
Whereas architecture is discussed as a potential influence on societies and cultures, my
interest is focused on the moderating role of architecture as regards its
consistent impact on the development of identity, expectations of self-efficacy and
interest in the world around us.
First I will consider transactions of people and environment as discussed in psychology.
Then I will talk about the obvious tradition in architecture, assigning the users to a
rather passive role until the building is actually finished. "User" in the
context of this essay refers to the inhabitants of the buildings, those who live in it and
use it (not the real estate company who profits from it financially-this indeed is another
story).
I want to introduce some basics of the model of Transactional Analysis (Berne, E. 1972) in
order to illustrate the characteristic, usually unreflected patterns of transaction
between architecture and users and their impact on the identity of non-experts with the
environment.
2) Psychology and Transactions between People and their Environment
When thinking about people and environment one can distinguish between a built physical
environment (e.g. architecture), a "natural" physical environment (e.g. lakes,
mountains, forests) and a social environment.
Architecture as a built environment has an omnipresent and permanently increasing impact
on people, structuring the spaces in which the main part of life in industrial societies
takes place.
People not only passively adjust to their environment, they equally adapt their
environment actively to their needs. They interact individually with their environment,
leading to characteristic interaction effects which vary over time, situations and
persons. This reciprocal exchange over time is also discussed as transaction (Altman, I.
& Rogoff, B. 1991; Harloff, H.-J. 1989).
Regarding these transactions over a lifespan one can summarize:
Constantly dealing with the environment - from childhood until old age - people test the
range of their abilities: how they can act in the environment, change it according to
their needs and use it most effectively. They permanently test, improve and optimize their
experiences (Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. 1974; Kelley, G.A. 1975; Epstein, S. 1979).
The actual social and physical environment moderates which experiences and which
self-efficacy-beliefs they recall and which intentions they develop (Bandura, A. 1978;
Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. 1981; Hannover, B. 1988; Mischel, W. et al.1973; Sommer
A. & Ermer C. 1994).
In this way one creates his/her concept of the world and his/her self-concept in this
world (including experiences with personal possibilities).
3) Architecture and Transactions between People and their Environment
3.1.Architecture as a Work of Art:
I understand architecture as a work of art not only in a sense of sculpture but as art of
building. Architecture is, on the one hand, considered part of engineering and on the
other hand has traditionally beem part of the Beaux Arts. It is anchored not only in a
discussion about construction but also in the tradition of discussions in art history and
art theory. Architects learn to expect to express their own ideas in a unique, new and
extraordinary construction or design of a buidling. They may be guided by contemporary and
avantgardistic discussions and critics, architectural journals and their own imagination.
Discussing architecture as a work of art expresses personal ideas, attitudes and
aesthetical considerations. The opinions and interests of useres play no significant role.
It is assumed they will somehow adjust to any situation (ct. Führ, E. & Sommer, A.
1996).
3.2.Architecture as "a work to be used"
Architecture is not only perceived as a work of art and intellectually discussed as such
but is also used practically. From the time of Vitruv, "Utilitas" has been one
of the three main functions of architecture. Buildings should be stable, weatherproof and
beautiful but also practical, functional, and they correspond to the actual users' needs.
Therefore architecture has to be conceptualized and discussed as "a work to be
used".
This aspect of architecture has influenced design at last since the 1920s (ct. Taut, B.
1924).
The question of use and function are becoming increasingly self-evident. This approach is
guided by the idea that there is a deterministic, probable or at least possible
relationship between environment and behavior so that the relationship between space and
behavior can be studied and predicted (ct. Bell, P.A. et al. 1990; Koh, J. 1981).
The user in this context is considered to be actively approaching the environment.
With the help of interdisciplinary research (in cooperation with the social sciences) it
is hoped that errors in planning and design will be minimized (Cooper, M.C. &
Sarkissian, W. 1985; Flade, A. 1987; Zimmermann, G. 1993).
Even when scial scientists are involved users are usually only confronted with the
building after it is built and ready to be used. After the planning and building process
is finally finished the users themselves become active - and start to consume the finished
product. The degree to which the building functions successfully could be empirically
studied via so-called post-occupancy evaluations.
It has become evident that it doesn't matter if a distinction is made between architecture
as work of art or a "work to be used" in the sense that the common understanding
of architecture implies a passive, adaptive user. For the common building process this
means building with a user perhaps in mind but not on site. Under this premise the
transactions of people and architecture start only after the built environment is ready to
be consumed.
Considering this premise what consequences can be derived for the users' experience with
architecture?
I have introduced architecture as part of the physical environment. Behind such a building
process we have architects and investors with their attitudes towards planning and
production. Thus the building not only transmits form and material. Architects and planers
communicate and transmit their aesthetic values and attitudes towards the future users
even if there is no direct interaction taking place. In the sense of Watzlawick it is
impossible not to communicate (Watzlawick, P.; Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D.; 1969).
4) Transaction Analysis (TA)
I now want to discuss the possible impact of this particular transaction structure as it
pertains to the users' behavior and sense of responsibility by introducing the Model of
Transaction Analysis. This model includes a considerable amount of psychological findings
regarding personality, social processes and development, helps to illustrate the
characteristical patterns of architect-user-transactions, and may be used to analyze these
with respect to consequences for the identity of the users.
Here we go on our little excursion into TA:
This Model was developed by Eric Berne studying transactions between people. Berne
investigated interactions of everyday life - e.g. what happens after you say
"hello" - and brought it all together in TA, which was then differentiated and
applied in analysis in several areas where social interaction plays a certain role(ct.
Berne, E., 1972; Harris, T.A., 1975; Kottwitz, G., 1987).
4.1. The three Ego-States
I have explained that people in transaction with their environment are influenced by their
social and physical surroundings, perceive their environment refering to their experiences
and expectations, and distribute their attention according to their moods.
Within TA this sum of context, activated experiences and needs are divided into three
distinct phenomenological entities called Ego States. These three Ego States exist
permanently and all are comparatively retrievable and potentially effective yet they
influence transactions in their own way.
Ego States characteristically influence transactions via perception, behavior and
experience. They are not to be understood as types of personality. They describe certain
phenomenological categories based on experiences that are each triggered by different
situations.
I want to distinguish Berne's three Ego States according to their directions of
responsibility (see Fig.1):
a) The first Ego State develops out of experiences with messages and beliefs from external
sources such as Parents or other important people and authorities. We modify these beliefs
through our own experiences and add new beliefs.
Values, norms, knowledge, the ability to nurture and to take care of others, to control,
to criticize and to praise have to be included here.
I want to summarize this Ego State as the tendency, need or ability to take
reponsibility for others.
Berne calls this Ego State "Parent". This doesn't describe a certain type of
personality, but rather is a title for one phenomenologically observable state in
interactions.
b) A second Ego State in this sense is describable as internally experienced wishes and
needs, such as those for approval and esteem, which are most frequently observable in
little children but exist throughout the whole human lifespan in one way or another. Berne
calls this state the "Child". Here we can inlude ideas, phantasies, play,
creativity, adjustment and rebellion.
I want to summarize the quality of this Ego State as the tendency, the ability or the need
to give away responsibility.
c) The last Ego State in TA is the so-called "Adult", which starts to develop at
the age of 10 months or as soon as the individual ability for coordination improves. There
we can include orientation, decisions, problem solving a sense of responsibilty, and
coordination of plans of action. The "Adult" helps to understand and coordinate
the difference between the world one experiences, wishes and dreams it on the one hand and
the world one learns about from other people on the other hand.
I want to summarize the quality of this Ego State as the tendency, ability or need to
take responsbility for oneself , one's needs and values.
There are permanent wishes (Child), beliefs (Parent), and need for decisions (Adult). All
three Ego States are part of an individual. The point is not to overcome one of those Ego
States in order to function e.g. as a real grown-up. The goal is not to act out the
"Adult" all the time, but to use all three Ego Statess appropriately and
responsibly in transactions with the environment. At times it is important to have fun, to
play in some way, as well as to take responsibility for other people. The goal is the
development of a fairly balanced spectrum of experiences in all three Ego States and the
permanent extension and validation of those experiences, so as to be able optimally to
approach any situation.
4.2. Transaction
One of TA's benefits is that it is quite easy to analyze transactions by using the Ego
State concept. Observing transactions through the eyes of TA one can quickly understand
which Ego State is the dominant one for a person at any given time and if a transaction is
complementary or crossing (see
Fig. 2).
Complementary transactions function very well as long as the actors correspond to the
given pattern. If transactions cross it means that there is some sort of conflict or a
changing definition of the situation and that this is challenging the actors to adjust
their attitutes and behavior somehow.
For example, one actor may want to take responsibility for another, make decisions for
him, praise or criticize him or as well cook a soup for him. In this case he is acting out
of the "Parent" and the crucial question for further communication is whether
the other actor agrees to this definition and acts out his "Child", giving
responsibility away to his partner, so we have a complementary transaction pattern
("Parent"-"Child"). If he doesn't agree he has to cross (e.g. act out
the "Parent" himself or the "Adult") and take the consequences in
order to change the pattern.
I want to illustrate some possible transactions with an example.
Let's consider a father cooking soup for his daughter (here we have the nurturing aspect
of the "Parent" adressing the other person's "Child". What could
happen within the daughter? She could react out of the "Child" for example if
she rather rebelliously said, "I don't want to eat this soup, your cooking is
terrible". Here we have a complementary transaction with the father again asked to
decide if he wants to continue this pattern e.g. saying, "but you have to eat
something!". He could just as well cross at this point and say, "do what you
want, I'm going," which would be out of his "Child" (giving away
responsibility for the situation) or he could take responsibility and decide to talk about
was tastes so terrible, how to change it, and maybe find a solution so that he and his
daughter could both still have supper together.
We could also imagine the daughter as disagreeing with the distribution of
responsibilities, so that she could act out of her "Parent" and take over the
cooking herself or out of her "Adult" taking responsibility for not wanting to
eat a soup saying, "nice of you to cook for me, but there may be some essential
ingredients missing in this soup and I don't like it that way. I would rather make mayself
a sandwich." We could keep playing this, but I hope you get an idea of how the TA
concept works.
Berne found out that hardly any transaction is really spontaneous and appropriate to both
situation and actor. Most of the time we use patterns that we are already familiar with,
and we would rather cling to these instead of using the possibilities offered by a new
situation.
If we use characteristic patterns and particular Ego States consistently and over periods
of time, we reduce experiences with the other Ego States and other patterns and therefore
influence our perceptions and self-efficacy expectations in a systematic manner which
makes it even more difficult to cross the familiar patterns and try something new (c.t.
Epstein, S.; 1979 ; Frey, D. & Benning, E.; 1983).
TA is more complex than I just introduced it in this context. I reduced it to several
basics in order to make a first step towards an investigation of the influence of
architecture on architecture-user-transactions.
4.3. Transaction Analysis and Architecture-User-Transaction
Actor 1: The Planner
I will try to describe the behavior of architects and planners based on the passivity
premise in TA terms. The following patterns of transaction may vary with the architect's
personality and emphasis on form or function, but still the main character of transaction
and its impact on the user side remains (see Fig. 3.).
-The architect as a competent expert takes responsibility for the user, finding solutions
for form and function. He may try to consider the user's needs based on his knowledge,
experience and research done by social scientists. In terms of TA he will act out of the
"Parent" and address the user's "Child".
-Being an artist as well, he may also try to find a creative and extraordinary design
solution. This transaction is mainly motivated out of the "Child", needing
approval for what was created.
Actually this transaction is not supposed to take place between architect and user but
between architect and collegues, critics and other experts. Even if he/she doesn't want to
address the user here, the non-expert's "Parent" will somehow be addressed as
well.
-The transaction provoked by an architect's identity as artist is also motivated out of
the artist's "Parent", because he will also try to manifest his aesthetic values
in his design and in that way educate the user.
-An architect (hopefully) also acts quite competently out of his "Adult". He/She
will feel responsible for making decisions, solving problems...although not directly
dealing with actual users (except for the rare occasions with user participation) but with
investors and firms.
The user's "Adult", will be addressed based on their responsibility for the
actual consumption of the building, their orientation in and adjustment to it.
Actor 2: The User
How can we understand the transaction pattern on the part of the user? I want to
illustrate the impact of classical architect-user-transaction patterns giving three
phenomena such as vandalism, conservative aesthetic attitudes and practical lack of
interest in flexible ground plans.
-The user being addressed in his "Child" either does or doesn't feel that his
needs have been satisfied in his needs and therefore might react with adjustment or
rebellion, such as vandalism. This phenomenon pertains not only to questions of function
but also to those of form and aesthetics. Does the user feel that his needs have been
taken into consideration or not? One can see why unconventional or very unusually designed
buildings make users feel ignored in their interests. Such buildings trigger the user's
resentment.
-Lacking a systematically educated understanding of aesthetic values and styles, users are
still asked to react to aesthetic aspects of a building and they will do so on the basis
of their individual experiences. In many cases of modern architecture they miss a sense of
control for the intention behind the art and therefore tend to prefer criteria they can
understand or the ones they are familiar with.
-The "Adult" in the user is characteristically not addressed in a sense of
making descions within the building process. There is no way that users can feel
responsible for what is being built because they get confronted only with the finished
object. Their responsibility lies in the use and consumption of what is there. They can
adjust as well as possible and this is the responsibility they have to take for
themselves. Being confronted with flexible plans that need extra construction therefore
doesn't really offer a choice, because the possibilities have also been planned and are
therefore a question of consumption and adjustment - mostly combined with extra costs,
dirt and complicated transition times.
This application of TA to architect-user transactions illustrates that there is no impulse
from architectural practice that triggers any sense for or identification with
responsibility for the environment, but only one for consumption. Here lies the
responsibility of architeture for the lack of responsibility.
5) Architectural practice and identity - Architecture's Responsibility
I want to summarize: Consistent transaction patterns of people and environment over a
longer period of time lead to identification with those experiences. The experience of
self-efficacy motivates people to improve and extend those efficient experiences, thus
leading to participation in more and more areas, to a feeling of reponsibility and to
actually taking a share of responsibility for the world around us.
Negative experiences in this context or a lack of experiences reduces the expectation for
future self-efficacy and strengthens the tendency to give away responsibility. This
consequently also reduces the motivation to extend participation experiences and leads to
a lack of identification with reponsibility for the environment, deligating this
responsibility to experts (ct. Abramson, L.Y., Seligman M.E.P. & Teasdale, J.D. 1978).
The built environment in its constant presence in everyday life therefore has a rather
significant impact on transactions between people and environment. In the sense of a
self-fulfilling prophecy the architectural practice in the long run was and still is
reinforcing a particular transaction pattern which leads to a consumer-only
identity and a reduction of experiences of self-efficay in taking repsonsibility for the
environment.
The users' creative potentials of the "Child", their nurturing tendencies of the
"Parent" and their ability to coordinate and decide and activly take part in
planning the environment and future ("Adult") exist and should be integrated in
and developed for actual and future architectural practice.
It is time to replace the old premise and start focusing on an activly involved and
participating user in the design and building process in order to enhance everybody's
responsibility for the world around us.
In TA terms this implies the consequent and direct integration of the users'
"Child", "Parent" and "Adult":
a) First the basic attitude of the architect toward the users' integration has to be
checked.
Are there any doubts, a strong need to control the outcomes, and a dominant ego?
b) Integration of the "Child"
With playlike moderation methods creative potential can be drawn upon. Expert and
non-expert could develop and create formal and functional concepts and models together.
c) Integration of the "Parent"
The aesthetic values and beliefs of users have to be taken seriously into account and the
experts should discuss and develop them patiently and directly with the users.
d) Integration of the"Adult"
The experts should more often develop alternatives and give the users a chance to make
their decisions. The non-experts individual experience and knowledge of everyday life
should be asked for and important gaps in knowledge should be filled.
Architecture should use its impact on identity and society and have the courage to replace
the old passivity premise with a more up-to-date premise of participation. In this way it
would be open to new concepts of planning and building processes.
I don't want to basically question the structure of expert and non-expert. As an expert I
have taken certain responsibilities. But I have to clarify what those responsibilities
really imply, and they certainly don't imply that non-experts have no responsibilities
left. It is challenging for the Ego to be in control yet when regarding current
developments in ecology and industrial societies it seems quite imperative to replace some
premises and find new and effective ways to arouse a sense of responsibility in
non-experts too. Obviously this is not only an issue in yet architecture but architecture,
as I have pointed out, has a major and quite consistent influence on everyday experiences
and identifications. I conclude with the conviction that nowadays it is no longer a
question of if but quite practically a question of how this could be done.
References:
Abramson, L.Y., Seligman M.E.P. & Teasdale J.D.; 1978. "Learned Helplessness in
Humans: Critique and Reformulation" Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Altman, I. & Rogoff, B.; 1991. "World Views in Psychology: Trait, Interaction,
Organismic and Transactional Perspectives" in I. Altman & D. Stokols
(Eds.)."Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol 1", Malabar.: Krieger.
Bandura, A.; 1978. " The Self Esteem in Reciprocal Determinism".American
Psychologist, 33, 344-358.
Bell, P. A., Fisher, J. D., Baum, A. & Greene, T. C.; 1990 . "Environmental
Psychology". Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Berne, E.; 1972. "What do you say after you say hello? The psychology of human
destiny." New York.: Grove Press.
Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F.; 1981. "Attention and Self-Regulation: A Control
Theory Approach to Human Behavior". New York: Springer.
Clark, M.S. & Isen, A.M.; 1981. "Toward Understanding the Relationship between
Affect and Behavior". In A.H. Hastorf & A.M. Isen (Eds.), "Cognitive Social
Psychology". New York: Elsevier-North Holland.
Cooper M.C. & Sarkissian, W.; 1985. "Housing as if People Mattered".
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Epstein, S.; 1979. "Entwurf einer integrativen Persönlichkeitstheorie". In
S.-H. Filipp (Hrsg), "Selbstkonzeptforschung: Probleme, Befunde, Perspektiven".
Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Flade, A.; 1987. "Wohnen psychologisch betrachtet". Bern: Huber.
Frey, D. & Benning, E.; 1983. "Das Selbstwertgefühl". In H. Mandl & G.
Huber (Hrsg.) "Emotion und Kognition". München: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Führ, E. & Sommer, A., 1996. "Architekturzeitschriften auf den Zahn
gefühlt". Cottbus: TU-Profil, 1
Fuhrer, U. & Kaiser, F.; 1993. "Ortsbindung: Ursachen und deren Implikationen
für Wohnungs- und Siedlungsgestaltung". In H.-J. Harloff (Hrsg.) "Psychologie
des Wohnungs- und Siedlungsbaus". Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Hannover, B.; 1988. "Determinanten und Effekte von Selbstbewertungen". Frankfurt
a.M.: Lang.
Harloff, H.-J.; 1989. "Grundlegung der Wohnpsychologie. Zuhause/Heim als
transaktionales Konzept". Report Psychologie, 10-15.
Harris, T.A.;1975. "Ich bin ok. Du bist ok - Eine Einführung in die
Transaktionsanalyse." Reinbek: Rohwolt.
Kelly, G.A.; 1955. "The Psychology of Personal Constructs". New York: Norton.
Koh, J.; 1981. "A Theoretical Synthesis of Behavioral Sciences an Environmental
Design. Environmental Design Research Association, 12, S 5-17.
Kottwitz, G.; 1980. "Die therapeutische Beziehung und die Funktion des
Psychotherapeuten in der Transaktionsanalyse" in "Die Rolle des Therapeuten und
die therapeutische Beziehung", Hilarion Petzold (Hrsg.). Paderborn.: Junfermann.
Mischel, W.; Ebbesen, E.B. & Zeiss, A.; 1973. "Selective Attention to the Self:
Situational and Dispositional Determinants". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 27, 129-142.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B.; 1974. "Gedächtnis und Intelligenz". Olten:
Walter.
Sommer, A. & Ermer C.; 1994. "Selbstwert und Kommunikation: Der Einfluß des
situativen Selbstwerts auf Kommunikationsverhalten und -erleben". Berlin:
Diplomarbeit.
Taut, B.; 1924. "Die neue Wohnung. Die Frau als Schöpferin." Leipzig.
Vitruv; 1964 (nach der Übersetzung von C. Fensterbusch). "Zehn Bücher über
Architektur." Darmstadt.
Watzlawick, P.; Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D.; 1969. "Menschliche Kommunikation:
Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien". Bern: Huber.
Zimmermann, G.; 1993. "Der gläserne Nutzer. Zur Funktionalisierung des
architekturpsychologischen Denkens". In H.-J. Harloff (Hrsg.) "Psychologie des
Wohnungs und des Siedlungsbaus". Göttingen: Hogrefe.
|