Tommy S.S. Eisenring
Professor of Architectural Sociology
University of Bosowa 45 Makassar
Till today we recognize architecture general purpose into two forms, namely general statement of architecture's works and the special statement on relationship of what wanted between architecture and other phenomenons. Statement of earliest architecture general purpose which was recognized widely is what which expressed by Vitruvius: ”Architecture depend on order, arrangement, eurythmy, symetry, propriety, and economy” (see Attoe, 1979:32). In statement of architecture's purpose that way, social purpose of architecture is not expressed at all, while, practically, architecture is always created for purpose of human and social. At the end of twentieth century and at the start of this century, the new growings of social sciences have fertilized the growing of systems which rather differ with the purposes of architecture which used to be recognized. For example,
Theory Construction of Symbolic Interactionism.
The Basic Principles of Symbolic Interactionism.
An
uniquenees of symbolic interactionism theory,
as expressed by Paul Rock (1979, 18-9 in Ritzer and Goodman, 2004:289),
is that this theory "intentionally is construct hazyly" and
"refusing the systematic way".
In consequence, it is hardly difficult to classify all of symbolic
interactionism ideas into a theory entity, in general meaning. Even though,
some figures of Symbolic Interactionism after Mead, such as Blumer ( 1969),
Sweet and Meltzer (1978), Rose (1962), and Snow ( 2001), as mustered by Ritzer and Goodman (2004:289), has tried
to elaborate a number of elementary principles from the theories of Symbolic
Interactionism, as follows: (a) Not like animal, human being is supplied an ability to
think; (b). Ability to think
is formed by social interaction; (c). In
social interaction, human learns of any meaning and symbol enabling them to apply their special ability to think; (d). Meanings and
symbols enable human to continue a special action, and interacting mutually; (e). Human can change
meanings and symbols they apply in their action and also in their interaction
based on their interpretation toward any situation. (f). The ability of human to make any
policy of modification and alteration, partly because of their ability to
interact with themselves, what enables them to test a set of action opportunities,
assess relative advantage and disadvantage of the opportunities, and then
chooses one of the set of those action opportunities; and (g).
Action
pattern and interaction that is interconnected mutually would form society
group and society.
George Herbert Mead’s ’Action’ Concept.
With
based on George Herber Mead's book, Mind,
Self and Society, Ritzer and
Goodman ( 2004) elaborates seven points from Mead's ideas, namely, social
periority, action, cue-attitude,
significant symbols, mind, self, and
society. By referring to the seven points, his action concept then might
give an understanding about how a
symbolic environment influences behavior
of individual. In analyzing action, Mead applies approach that much the same
with the approach of behavior, and focus
at stimulus and response. Mead imagines stimulus as an opportunity
or opportunities to act, not an enforcing or a command. Mead (1938/1972, in
Ritzer & Goodman, 2003:274-6), then identify four baseses of interaction,
and action phases, namely: Impulse, Perception, Manipulation, and Consummation.
Impulse—the first
phase—is impulsion of what covers spontaneous stimulation relating to censor
equipment and reaction of actor to
stimulant, requirement to do something
toward the stimulant. In
his book, Mead gave an example of
'peckish taste' as an impulse. Peckish taste possibly comes from the self of an
actor or from presence of food around the actor, or a real possibility, the peckish taste may come from both. Accross
the board, impulse entangles actor and environment.
Perception is the second phase of
the four baseses identified by Mead. At
this phase, actor investigates and responds to stimulant relating to impulse,
that is ambition of consumption, as well as various equipments available to
gratify the activities of consumption. Actor usually is confronted with many
different stimulants and the actor has a capacity to choose.
The third phase is: Manipulation.
Soon after impulse express itself, and the object has been comprehended, then
the next step is manipulation of object or taking an action refers to the
object. Action to consume the object
becomes a kind of experiment where actor mentally develop hypothesis on what
would occur when she or he consumes the
object.
Consummation is the last phase of
the four bases of Mead. Consummation is taking action to gratify or depress the
real impulsion—from consumption enthusiasm.
John Baldwin’s Analysis:
Redefining Mead’s Idea.
In Ritzer and Goodman's view ( 2004:311), Mead likely has not give a fully attention to
phenomenon at macro level, but they also
confess that in Mead's idea about mind, self and society, we could find many
things show the existence of sociology theory integration. In this case, Ritzer
and Goodman refers to an analysis made
by John Baldwin ( 1986) about Mead's idea, in the form of theoretical orientation model
of Mead, as seen at Figure 1.
In his analysis, Baldwin shows the broader aspect, till including
phenomenon at macro level. Factors
of physical environment and macro
society, according to Baldwin , are as important as
the factor of micro society, in the relation of influencing mutually
with individual's behavior (opened and
closed). By this model, Baldwin expects the symbolic interactionism theory of Mead would be easier to be integrated with
various new streams in social sciences.
In the following description we
would explore the position of symbolic
interactionism theory—especially which steming from George Herbert Mead's
opinion—in explaining position of architecture at the scope of social
interaction and the alteration of human behaviour.
Architecture in Symbolic Interactionism Perspective.
Symbolic interactionism views individuals as living in
a symbolic environment and constantly interpret symbols around them. Any member
of society developes the transmitted meanings by the existing
symbols around them. Hereinafter, by
connecting themselves with certain
symbols, people then could depict themselves with others (see Mowen & Minor,
2002:271). Then, what is
relation between 'symbolic interactionism' and architecture?. Actually, when
at the beginning the theory of symbolic
interacsionism was built, this theory
had referred to the importance of non-human objects, and placed for
"self".
In his essay, The Metropolis
and Mental Life, Georg Simmel—who often also called as a symbolic
interactionist—describes the correlation between 'self' and 'space', which can be considered
to be the starting point of the study development of Architectural Sociology
(see Smith and Bugni, 2002b:4), a study area focused at the influence relation mutually between
designed physical environment with
society and human behaviour (see Smith
and Bugni, 2002a:1; see also Beaman, 2002a; 2002b).
In his special contributions to the theory of symbolic interactionism and in his description
about 'meaning', Erving Goffman also
focuses at usage of meaning of designed forms. He mentions that building, object and place laying open any
prestigious life style; are status symbols. The status symbols represent
position of high social from a group of society and the symbols can also be used to cast aside the other
group.
One of
the ways of people communicate mutually, is through symbols. Symbolism
of architectural is one of a set of
non-verbal mechanism applied by people to communicate message about themselves,
their reasoning, their social's status, and their world views toward others (
Lang, 1992:15). Moore
Thereby, an architectural building is also a symbolic environment,
and with it, one can depict his or her self-concept with others in interacted. Through architectural building, someone's
self will be easier to be reflected from
the others, especially when the building is entangled in their interaction.
them. In this process, the certain symbols which
emerged at the building might
stimulate the alteration of
behaviour at any interacting individual.
The Symbolism and the Meaning of Architecture.
For human being, meaning and symbolism in
architecture are the ways to recognize their environment. Human
responds their environment through the meaning of the environmental, and
meaning of existing symbols at the environment. For example at natural
environment, we recognize a tree, a
stone, a creavasse, a hill, a forest, or a horse, because these entities
naturally submit its meanings to us
through natural symbols or its physical natures. We
can give meaning at a tree, because we recognize its symbols, like its branchs, its sticks, its leafs etcetera.
We also able to give meaning to a horse by its physical symbols.
The
architects, especially at the beginning of modern architecture era, tended to
give an architectural meaning at the building they designed, from their own
aspect, rather than from the owner aspect or the consumers aspect. But
architecture masterpieces lately, through studies on
behaviour-environment, have started
specifies an empirical basic which is oriented at consumers aspect , in giving the meaning of architecture,
which finally would lead the
forming a language of environment
setting (see Moore,1979 ) .
All
types of building have a different
latent meaning for different consumer group. Environment is a platform for
communications among people through existing symbols at the environment.
Symbolizing in architecture enables
human to express a certain purpose. Designer
architects, and usually also the owners of a project expresses their intention
through an architecture masterpiece. Thereby,
symbolism in architecture can be categorized as a way of communication (see Siregar, 2006:53).
Scott
Lash ( 2004:41) in his book, Postmodern Sociology, explains that
architecture has two sides: material and cultural. At material side, it has principle to arrange its cultural form, and at cultural side it
has principle to arrange its meterial form. He explains that any object type,
either having the cultural nature or having the material nature can be told as
"principal arranges" to its own. According
to him, architecture, as well as town, exists in a real twinning situation because it has two
functions at the same time, material and cultural. At an aspect, its material
function sets its cultural form, and at other aspect, its cultural function
sets its material form. From material aspect, symbolizing
in architecture has meaning as cultural object.
’Designed Physical Environment’ As A Determinant For The
Alteration of Behavior.
Architectural Determinism.
Architecture theorist, Jon Lang, in his
book, Creating Architectural Theory:
The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design (1979), explains three determinisms of the
alteration of social behaviour which related to physical environment aspect,
those consist of environment
determinism, physical determinism, and
architectural determinism. All of these three determinism refer to alterations in environment settings
which would lead to the alterations of
social behaviour and aesthetic values of people who life in the
environment.
Determinism of environment assumes that
the alterations happened at geographical area, cultural and social, would form
behavior of human existing in the environment. However, determinism of
environments of geographycal, social, culture is more related to the
arrangement of nature, or descendant genesis, in forming values and behaviors
of us. Determinism
of physical, has a
confidence that alterations in geographical environment, and
physical order yield the
alterations in behavior of man. Followers
of the determinism of physical emphasizes that the stronger position to
influence human is man-made environment.
Determinism of architectural
(designed physical environment)
convinces that the form of buildings structured by elements of nature or
elemens of man-made would lead to alterations in behavior of people. Moore
Understanding the Determination of
'Designed Physical Environment' toward
Social Behavior, through Mead's Theory, and Baldwin 's
Scheme.
Although the theory of Symbolic Interactionism does not refuse assumption that, architectural building is also as is
symbolic environment which can give
picture about 'self-concept', and 'self-reflection' of interacting individuals,
but this theory is not directly refering of how an architectural
building—designed physical
environment—can influence and be influenced by society and human behavior.
The scheme developed by Baldwin
toward George Herber Mead's theory as
described at the initial part of this article showed clearly correlation between behavior and
physical environment (see Ritzer &
Goodman, 2003:274-6; also Ritzer,2005:50-1). And with the scheme, the four
stages - impulse, perception,
manipulation, and consummation -
introduced by Mead, likely can assist us in comprehending the relationship of influencing mutually between behavior of individual and designed physical environment. The following simple analysis shows how designed physical environment—far
example, shopping center facilities—influences consumption behavior of people.
Firstly,
same as at example of from Mead about "peckish taste", consumption
enthusiasm is also impulse. Consumption
enthusiasm possibly comes from the actor's self or from the availability of
various consumer goods in the shopping
facility environment. Accross the board, the impulse entangles actor and area. Secondly, apart from at available consumer goods, designed physical
environment, especially public facilities like department stores, shopping
malls, recreation objects, casino resorts or any other physical environment can
also stimulate impulse; Thirdly, physical environment, in this case, plays an
important role to give consideration to the actor. Stimulation like color, voice, lighting, atmosphere of
space, location, and architectural appearance
of the shopping facility, for example, is the real space of the
environment which can influence decision making to impulse in the form of
consumption enthusiasm of the actor.
Fourthly, because the place for shopping
is a symbolic environment, hence through the place, the consummation of an
actor will also influence the consummation of other. In this process, a group
of society will experience the alteration of behavior in consuming.
In symbolic
environment, like at shopping malls, where people interacts, certain social
action can change behavior of consumption of people. This happened when a consummation action of an
individual doing consumption in an certain symbolic physical environment is stimulated by the appraising the influences mutually of the
interacting individuals.
Intrinsically, not only to alteration of
consumption behavior an architectural symbolic environment can influence, but also to alterations of other social
behavior, such as behavior of job activities, behavior of organization,
behavior of observance, etcetera. This argument clearly supports the basic
assumption of architectural sociology, as described by Smith and Bugni ( 2002) : ”....designed physical environment
influences and is influenced by society and human behavior….” .
Conclusions and Proposition.
Conclusions.
By the theoritical exploration above, we could make
some conclusions, started from conclusion about the symbolic interactionism
theory, then some ideas about symbolic function of architectural building and
its influence to behavior alteration of individuals and social groups in
society.
(1) Big
frictions in the field of architecture study, have pushed the understanding
into the relation of human, society, and designed physical environment. These
frictions have generated a dichotomy in looking at architecture. Some have a notion that architecture
intrinsically is an technical area, while others sees the social aspect as an
important aspect should be packed into any purpose of architecture. Though
actually both should be viewed as a
inwrought consideration element and
be required at every architecture theory
in the relation with other phenomenons.
(2). In Interactionism Symbolic's view, symbolism
of architecture is a set of
non-verbal mechanism applied by people to communicate message about themselves,
their background, their status in society, and their world views toward others. Thereby,
an architectural building is also a symbolic environment in which one can
depicts their self-concept with others in their interaction. In this
process, certain symbols sticking
in a building would stimulate the
alterations of behavior of every
interacting individuals in it.
(3). In a symbolic
physical environment, especially at common buildings, where people interacts,
certain social action might change behavior of people in certain group, that is
when consummation act of individuals
done at the symbolic physical
environment is stimulated by atmosphere
of space created by certain design and by appraise influences mutually
among the interacting individuals.
Proposition.
Discussions in this article has laid open several
ideas from symbolic interactionism theory which
peculiarly correlating designed
physical environment, as a symbolic environment, with alterations of behavior of individuals
and groups in society. As a closing and final conclusion, we can express a
proposition which might be useful to any research correlating between
designed physical environment, and behavior alterations of individuals and groups
in a society, as follows: ”People
who interact at a designed physical environment
find their 'sense of self' , as led by design image of the environment. Directly
or indirectly, individual is
always impelled to appraise, to
evaluate and to observe behavior of others, under certain image of the
designed physical environment. The
design image, in fact, is obyectivation emerged from collective meaning of
symbolic environment constructed in the cicle of a group of category in a
society”.
References
Attoe, W.O., (1979). “Theory, Criticism, and History of Architecture”,
in Snyder J.C. and Catanese, A.J. (eds)
Introduction to Architecture. New York
Beaman, J., (2002-a).
”Architectural Sociology”, in Footnotes. Online (http: //www.asanet.org/
footnotes/dec02/fn17.html).accessed: October, 11, 2006.
--------------, 2002-b.
”Sociology in Architecture”. Online (http://strata.unlv.edu/smith-bugni/ studentsoc.pdf.),
accessed: October, 11, 2006..
Eisenring,
T.S.S., (2006). ”Arsitektur Posmodern dan Konsumerisme (Sebuah Kajian Sosiologi
Desain Arsitektur)”. Prospek,
Scientific Journal, 39th Edition, September 2007. ISSN O. 0852-9790. pp. 8-14.
--------------------,
(2007). ”Posmodernisme Arsitektur dalam Perpektif Sosiologi Arsitektural”. Prospek, The Scientific Journal, 40th
Edition, Februari 2007. ISSN O. 0852-9790. pp. 407-14.
Lang, J., (1999). Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of
the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New
York
Lash, S., (2004). Sosiologi Posmodernisme (traslater: A.
Gunawan Admiranto/ Original title : The
Sociology of Postmodernism, London Yogyakarta : Kanisius.
Ritzer,
G., and Goodman, G.J., (2004). Teori
Sosiologi Modern. (translating) Edisi ke-6 Jakarta : Prenada
Media.
Ritzer, G.
(2004). Sosiologi Ilmu Pengetahuan
Berparadigma Ganda (Original title: Sociology:
A Multiple Paradigm Science
/ Traslated by Alimandan). Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada.
-----------.
2005. Teori Sosial Postmodern (traslater: Muhammad Taufik/ Original title: Postmodern Social Theory. Yogyakarta : Kreasi Wacana.
Siregar,
L.G., (2006). Makna Arsitektur: Suatu Refleksi Filosofis. Jakarta : Penerbit Universitas Indonesia
Smith, R., and Bugni,V.,
(2002a). ”Defining Architectural Sociology”, in AIA Las Vegas
-----------------------------,
(2002b) ”Symbolic Interaction Theory and Architecture”, in Symbolic
Interaction. May 2002. Online (http://strata.unlv.edu/smith_bugni/ smithbugni2006.pdf), accessed: October, 11, 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment