Positions 1996_1

Anette Sommer


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.

Subject