Symbolism and Environmental Design Author(s): Amos Rapoport Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Architectural Education (1947-1974), Vol.

27, No. 4 (1974), pp. 58-63 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1423934 . Accessed: 12/11/2011 14:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Architectural Education (1947-1974).

http://www.jstor.org

Amos Rapoport

and Design* Symbolism Environmental

public buildings and specifically excludes all utilitarian buildings, all The study of symbolism has not played vernacular architecture and even much a major role in the environmental of high style design (Prak, 1968). Yet there is much evidence, from a number design fields. When symbols have been considered at all, it was only in one of of fields, which suggests that this is not two ways. First, the discussion was the case. I have recently tried to restricted to high style design and to show that this is not true of either vernacular or primitive buildings or special buildings within that-religious and the like. Secondly, the discussion settlements and tried to make it clear formed part of historical studies, the that most designed environments have implication being that in the present major symbolic content (Rapoport, context symbols were no longer relevant 1969). I have suggested that this applies to the designer. to dwellings as far back as we can trace In the case of these special buildings them, villages, towns and whole the importance of symbols has been landscapes. Innumerable examples can be given of the very explicit symbolism recognized and well studied. Among of house forms-the roof as dome, the them, for example, the Byzantine church seen as Ikon, the Mosque and smoke hole and emerging smoke as its court in Iran as symbol of paradise, axis mlundi;of symbolic orientations, the Roman Pantheon as the ideal dome layout of spaces within the dwelling, of Heaven, and the medieval cathedral furniture arrangements and seating as the celestial city. Wittkower (1962) patterns. Similarly the symbolism shows that the Renaissance church, underlying the organization of whole far from being purely an aesthetic landscapes (such as the Dogon in creation, is a "visible echo of a celestial in Africa), villages (as in the Solskift and universally valid harmony . . . a villages of Northern Europe) and of manmadeecho or visage of God's cities (such as those in China, India and universe" (p. 8, 23) and is rooted in elsewhere) seems quite clear. Neo-Platonic symbolism. Scully (1962) In the modern context the clarity sees Greek landscapes as symbolizing of such examples disappear. I would, the quality of the various Gods and the however, suggest that many modern forms of dwellings and other buildings temple as the concrete embodimentof the particular God in the sacred and settlements can be understood in this way (Rapoport, 1969). Studies landscape. such as Banham's (1958), for example, Significantly all these studies seem to have one thing in common. In each case can also be interpreted as showing we find the definition of a special place that the Modern Movement far from which is distinguished from, and being "rational" and "functional" is separated out of, the generality of space based on symbolism of the machine. around it. Like the Greek temple it Similarly some current projections of does not have to be an enclosed spaceof the future, of which the English merely a place fraught with a special Archigram group is only one example, are clearly symbolic reflections of meaning and of a very special kind, a reflection of a world view. currently fashionable attitudes, world In none of these studies however, is examples. Rather I wish to take up the there any attempt to apply the analysis theme of definition of place and more broadlyto all forms of organized general view-that symbols are an space, whether buildings or settlements. essential element in the way man Sometimes the discussion is, in fact, perceives, evaluates and shapes his environment. I will also suggest some explicitly restricted to churches and
* Reprinted from the International Journal of Symbology Vol. 1 No. 3 April 1970, with permission of the International Journal of Symbology.

Introduction

of the problems that symbols raise for the designer today. Symbols and Built Form There have been many definitions of "symbol" but many recent definitions seem to agree about certain features of symbols. Langer (1953) defines a symbol as "any device whereby we are enabled to make an abstraction" and distinguishes them from signals and signs:-a signal is comprehended if it serves to make us notice the subject or situation it bespeaks whereas a symbol is understood when we conceive the idea it presents. In this view, the function of a symbol is expression of concepts. Most definitions agree (Wolf, 1969) on the communicative nature of symbols and their importance in thought and often point out that symbols give concrete expression to socio-cultural phenomena (Sorokin, 1947). In the sense that symbols communicate, there may well be a parallel between social structure and space organization which tells people something about how to behave and what to expect relative to world view, hierarchies and the like. In fact, Leach (1967) suggests that much of the work of social anthropology involves the interpretation of symbolic behaviour. Artifacts generally, and buildings and settlemlents in particular,can then be seen as one type of symbol-structure, making concrete the immaterial, spaceless and timeless nature of values, mleaningsand norms of a society which cannot be transmitted directly and need vehicles which externalize, socialize and objecitfy them (Sorokin, 1947). Language, kinship systems and the like are other such sets of symbol-structures, as are various forms of non-verbal behaviour such as posture, tone of voice and space structuring. In fact, buildings and settlements can be seen as being partly a form of congealed space structuring.

58

allocation and furnishings and status in It seems that it is this insight into the essentially symbolic nature of all offices, reaching the stage where it is the building as the concrete clearly and carefully specified in the building, British civil service manual. In fact, expression of a culture and world view which unifies this aspect of the work of Beshers (1962) points out the Eliade (1961) and Langer (1953). importance of symbols in providing information regarding social structure That they should both reach a similar and behaviour. Hazard (1962) has done conclusion starting, as they do, from this for courtrooms, and Goodman very different viewpoints seems rather (1959) for seat groupings. significant. Langer's view is that To the extent that designed symbols in art express the idea of an environments are symbols, they reflect emotion rather than the emotion itself and abstract the structure and ideals and that architecture makes visible the of a society and culture. They can be ethnic donmin-something purely imaginery and conceptual. The symbolic seen as artifacts giving conventionalized information about status, territory and function of built form is then, I would suggest, to place man in contact with an the like. As examples note the recent ideal universe, an ideal environmentcontroversy about seating arrangements and table shape at the Paris Vietnam the idea of a "good place." This seems talks (Time, 1968), as well as a recent like a more general statement of Eliade's view that building among photograph (the source of which I was unable to trace) showing two statesmen primitive people is an expression of an which he also regards as signing a treaty on a bridge-each imago mIundi a way of taking possession of a piece sitting on his territory, the border being between them. of the world by placing it in contact One possible reason for this very with an ideal universe. The examples strong tendency to symbolize in this they both give-a circle of stones severing holiness from the profane, or a way may be found in some recent views on animal behaviour. While the single stone marking the centre or axis mundi-demonstrate the symbolic uniqueness of man is most often defined process of making visible a sacred place. in terms of his use of symbols-as by von Bertalanffy (1966) and many The specific high culture expressions, others-some writers suggest that of mosque, church or temple, which I animals show the essential discussed above, can also be seen as characteristics of a society, that of specific cases of this more general view. Langer (1953) makes one more providing conventionalized competition. They point out that conventions and important suggestion, that there must be some congruence between the logical conventionalized behaviour are in the nature of artifacts which become structures of symbol and object symbols with arbitrarilydefined symbolized. This then means that in the making concrete of the ethnic meaning. (Wynn-Edwards, 1962) Threats are often made through purely domain or the iimagomundi the formalized acts or postures showing must be resulting space organization off a structure or other signal harmless logically related to what is being in itself but made formidablepurely symbolized no matter how difficult this correspondencebetween built form and through association (for example antlers seen as symbolic structures culture may be to demonstrate in (Hediger, 1955)). Animals are also specific terms at this stage of our said to accept decisions reached Yet some demonstration is knowledge. through purely symbolic methods possible. One need only remember the close correspondence between space (Wynne-Edwards, 1962) and ritualized

behaviour is seen as the essence of both animal and human societies, defining status, territory, etc. (Hediger, 1955). The distinction between man and animals may lie in Royce's (1965) distinction between a sign which has one-to-one correspondence (which seem to correspond more closely to the animal examples) and symbols which have one-to-many correspondence. Alternatively, the distinction may lie in von Bertalanffy's (1966) definition of symbols as signs which are freely rather than biologically created, represent some content and are transmitted by tradition. That man is unique in the scope of his symbols, the creation of a universe of symbols and the dominance of symbols in his life is undeniable. The importance of the work on animals lies in showing man's continuity with them in this respect as in so many others and hence the antiquity and fundamental nature of symbolic behaviour, specifically in defining status, territory, and so on. So far I have discussed space organization and designed environments as forms of symbolic expression. But one can also think of symbols as being involved in the perception and comprehension of the environment. After all, the perception of a problem and the definition of environmental goals must precede any design activity. Cultural variability seems to be found even in visual perception (Segall, 1966) ; if one accepts the Whorfian hypothesis it may be related to the symbolic system par excellencelanguage. In any case, the perception of the environment depends on the definition of categories. Bruner (1968) considers perception to involve an act of categorization based on a model of the world and hence related to values. This categorization employs designata which symbolize. This process of categorization involves the "breakingup" of the world into different "bits" and "chunks"

59

(as G. A. Miller calls them) while Moles (1966) suggests that one way of dealing with the bewildering amount of sensory and other information is by grouping it into ever larger units, the largest of which are symbols. It has also been widely held that messages only become meaningful when they are received and recognized. Symbols have been proposed as one of the most important ways of changing the world of signals into a world of meanings and values. Symbols therefore help man to understand the world and to form it into a meaningful cultural pattern which is given physical embodiment through built form as well as being expressed through written records, graphic symbols, song, myth, and many other symbol structures. Symbols seen as that which organizes and gives meaning seem to be related to concepts such as images and schemata. It seems that the way we perceive reality and assess the quality of the environment is by matching it against schemata. It has even been suggested that we do not react to environmental stimuli as such but rather to our symbolization of them (Dubos, 1969). At the same time the relative importance attached to various categories and features of the environment leads to both selective perception and differences in design solutions. Symbol structures therefore, we can suggest, affect the perception of the environment, our reaction to it, perception of problems in it, solutions to the problems and evaluation of the failure or the success of any environmental solution; i.e. environmentalquality.

use of symbols in design, and manipulation of the unconscious symbols involved in the creation of vernacular and designed forms. This suggestion requires some elaboration which is best begun by making an essential distinction between the perceptual and associational worlds and developing an argument from that distinction, as first proposed by Gibson (1950). To an extent it is one of degree rather than of kind, for there is a hierarchy of levels of meaning, ranging from concrete meaning (the ground), activity oriented meaning-the ground as something to be walked upon, through value and other meanings to the other extreme of symbolic meaning -the ground as homeland,for example. This notion, and the greater importance of symbolic as opposed to concrete meanings has, in fact, been useful in the study of landscape and landscape preferences. (Sonnenfeld, 1966). It is important to note that the perception of an object becomes more and more culturally determined as it possesses ever higher levels of meaning. For example a plank raised a small distance above the ground is seen by all, can be perceived as a potential seat by most, but a throne can only be perceived as a throne by someone familiar with the concept of monarchy." The concrete and even use-meanings of objects and environments are shared by a wide variety of people; the higher levels of meanings are far more personal and hence unpredictable. To the designer this means that the achieving of ends by the manipulationof high level meanings, those in the associational world, is more difficult and liable to chance than the achieving Symbols and Designers of ends by the manipulationof low level If symbols are so important at all meanings. In simple terms, the levels of design and built form, why perceptual world can be designed, the associational world cannot. For then have they received such minimal attention from modern designers and in example, pubs in England and our culture, generally, are always associated design theory? The reason, I would suggest, is the difficulty in the conscious with drink, although a New Guinea

tribesman would not have that association. Whether this has positive or negative associations, whether it is seen as pleasurable or otherwise, to be welcomed or avoided, is variable. Even more variable are one's own associations with a specific pub-its meaning for the group or the individual cannot be designed at all. As we have seen above, attitudes and schemata seem to affect the perceptual world but to a much smaller extent than they affect the associational world which has much higher variability. The perceptual and associational worlds are linked; we must have the former before we can have the latter. The perceptual world is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the associational world. One cannot perceive a building as a suitable place for prayer before one has perceived it as a building. In the past there were many more fixed associations which could be manipulated because they occurred in traditional cultures with shared values and symbols. Today this works far less successfully because we have a culture with multiple and shifting occasions. There may still be some very strong shared associations with form in a given culture or even across cultures such as the association of roof with "Home." It may also be possible that if certain forms were always used in association with certain activities, associations as low hierarchy levels would accrue; but this would not work for higher level meanings. Historical, patriotic and personal associations attach to buildings and urbanareas independentlyof the form and become increasingly variable and unpredictable. This was the case even in the past. As an example, ancient ruins were visible in Rome throughout medieval times. They formed part of the perceptual world and their use meaning was related to providing stone for building. Any associations were negative-they

60

1. This example, and parts of this portion of the argument, were developed with Dr. Ron Hawkes, Bartlett School of Architecture, University College, London.

which are lexical and socially shared symbolized the devil's work. With the and non-discursive (idiosyncratic) start of the Renaissance these same ruins suddenly took on vastly ones, I would argue that in the past there was a much wider area of social heightened meaning and shifted from the perceptual to the associational agreement and less idiosyncratic world with a new set of associations variation. Symbols in a given culture were fixed, known and shared, both by symbolizing a golden age, although the the public and the designers. A given forms remained the same. To give another example, Amsterdam has many element would always, or at least in most similar houses, along the canals, all of cases, elicit the "right" responses them forming part of the perceptual (i.e. the designed one)-or at least within a narrow range of acceptability. world. They have some associational The choices were greatly limited by the aspects which are linked to their formculture and these limitations accepted. Amsterdam, Holland, Eighteenth This was so in primitive and vernacular century. Their associations may be situations and also in high style more variable at higher levelscharming, dull, desirable, undesirable. design. For example Giedion (1963) The Anna Frank house has very points out that the ancient Egyptians, powerful associations for some people although familiar with the arch and which do not at all depend on the vault, only used them where they could not be seen, since they did not match physical form of the house. From this the symbolism of the building. Under point of view the separation of those conditions the associations were perceptual and associational worlds is almost complete and one cannot design much more closely matched to forms than is the case today. for associations in that sense. The Today it is far more difficult, if designer in general, therefore, has little not impossible, to design in the control over the meaning which will associational world since symbols are attach to certain situations and which neither fixed nor shared. As a result give additional levels of meaning and designers have eliminated all concern significance. It is the symbolic nature of buildings, with the associational world and restricted themselves to the perceptual or rather the lack of acceptable world. This is linked with many aspects symbolism, which is at the back of the of modern life. Eliade (1961), for public's complaintthat modern example, contrasts the religious buildings do not look like churches, houses, or others. In these cases the experience of sacred space, which is structuredand shared, with the profane public is, in effect, complaining about a break between the perceptual and experience of space which is amorphorassociational worlds rather wider than ous and personal. Similarly the religious was the case in the past; they are experience of time is shared while personal subjective time is not shared. complaining about the fact that the forms do not match even the low level Shared and structural associations can be designed for, the personal ones associations and do not guide them. At this point we realize why symbols cannot. Analogies may be dangerous but one is remindedof Hediger's (1955) in environmental design have been regardedonly historically and neglected description of domesticated animals as those which have lost their by the designers. In the past it was possible to design for many associations, ceremonial, space, and time systems. They have become aspatial and although not the personal ones. If we independent of their environment. accept Hayakawa's (Royce, 1965) distinction between discursive symbols, Hediger regards this as a pathological

condition. In design this has led to a "pathological"condition where the personal idiosyncratic symbols of designers are used in design and these do not at all coincide with the public's associations and symbols. Conclusion Any attempt to design for associations at levels below the personal will require research in the area of symbols, the relation of forms to ranges of responses, the existence or otherwise of universal or at least transcultural symbols, means of developing shared symbols, and so on. That certain associations are still shared in a given culture is clear. "There is always an intimate connection between a dwelling and the kind of existence led by those who live in it. 'Suburban semidetached,' 'slum,' 'country house,' and so on, signify for Britons not just architectural styles but different positions in the social system and different styles of life" (Middleton). It may be possible to use these, and to investigate the underlying associations of different forms. In any case there is a wide range of groups for which one must design today and frequently the users are also unknown. The solution may then lie in openendedness-not just of function but of meaning, so that people can take possession by personalizing since, as we have seen, man takes possession of the world through symbolic means. I have argued elsewhere that since meanings attached to buildings vary we need to have "loose fit" so that multiple meanings can be attached to them without being out of touch with form and the designers' meanings (Rapoport, 1967). We therefore need much work on domains of significance, on ranges of symbols for different groups in connection with built form, the degrees of freedom desired and needed in order to be able to personalize and take possession. In

61

order for symbols to be clearly evoked they require shared knowledge. There must, therefore, be a greater sharing and understanding of the respective value and symbol structures of the designers and the public who now constitutes two cultures with few such shared values, meanings and symbols. Only if designers understand the role of symbolism in design and also have some mutuality of symbols with at least some of the public, can the growing gap between the perceptual and associational worlds be narrowed. References
Banham, P.R. Theory and Design in the First
Machine Age. London: The Architectural Press, 1958. Urban Social Structure. New York: Beshers, J.M. The Free Press, 1962. Bruner, J. On Perceptual Readiness. In R. N. Haber New York: Holt, Rinehart ....... Visual Perception. 1968. Man Adapting. New Haven: Yale Dubos, R. Press, 1966. University

(Ed.) Contemporary Theory and Research in

?, **??* ** *?r*??*?-?r?* *r I?nr*l ?r'? * run r??a?l? I ua-*rv?*????r* L6P??I fl?????I*a*?? ??? n,, " (r?l u? ??lt??iC?v,, rS ?r.?*?r

Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane. New

York: Harper & Row, 1961.

Gibson, J.J. The Perception of the Visual World.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950. Giedion, S. The Eternal Present. In Volume P. The Meaning Furniture of Functionalism.

1963. Goodman, Hazard,

Beginnings of Architecture. New York: Pantheon,

2, The

of Architectural Education, 1959, XIV, 32-38.

J.N. Arrangement 181-188. 1962, XIX,

Journal

of Judicial Roles. ETC: A Review of General

Semantics,

as a Symbol

Butterworth, 1955. Langer, Suzanne. Feeling and Form. New York: Scribners, 1953. Leach, E. In John Middleton (Ed.) Myth and Cosmos. Garden City, New York: Natural History Press, 1967.

Hediger, H. Studies of the Psychology and Behaviour of Animals in Zoos and Circuses. London:

Moles, A. Information Theory and Aesthetic

Perception. 1966. Hague: Urbana, Illinois: University Press,

Prak, N.L. The Lenguage of Architecture. The

Moulton, 1968.

MiM
a

Rapoport, A. Whose Meaning in Architecture? Interbuild/Arena. London, 1967.

Rapoport, A. House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

1i1n

l'

'

111

ltiiiii

,Ii'il
11

1111t

.1"

111111

ti

Royce, J. (Ed.) Psychology and the Symbol. New

York: Random House, Haven: 1965.

Scully, V. The Earth, the Temple and the Gods. New

Yale University Press. 1962. Visual Perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. Sonnenfeld, J. Values in Space and Landscape. New York: Harper, 1947. Time, December 5, 1968, p. 15; December 13, 1968, p. 20-21. Von Behtalanffy, L. The Tree of Knowledge, in G. Kepes (Ed.) Sign, Image, Symbol. New York: Braziller, 1966. of Humanism, London: Tiranti, 1962. Wolf, A. On Graphic Symbols. International to Social Behaviour. Edinburgh Oliver and Boyd, 1962.

Segall, M.H. et al. The Influence of Culture on

Journtal of Social Issues, 1966, XXII, 71-83. Sorokin, P.A. Society, Culture and Personality.

Wittkower, R. Architectural Principles in the Age

Journal of Symbology, 1969, 1, 13-19. Wynne-Edwards, V.C. Animal Dispersion in Relation

and London:

62

.. ..
?? wt ^f^ :

B-.

E
.R "'*-

i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.... ? ~~ ~? 1 !?

^ r <F:' ' ttiBB -*::"

..~ ? ... .

?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?~ ??:i;:?: ?.

i~? ?"

i?: ~iiia..~
i6

:;;;~

~~6