Architecture as a Social Science? – Architecture and Education
Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self- . Sociology and/or Psychology were lyzed her relationship with her father in or-. If you're deciding between pursuing a degree in psychology or sociology, the first step is knowing the difference between the two fields. Also a bit on why the social sciences seem to ignore architecture. effect on the relations between people, or organise people in certain ways according to . nor a sociology of urbanism and not environmental psychology.
Buildings are big sculptures, often made of lots of expensive materials so it is completely appropriate that they are studied and designed within the disciplines of art and engineering.
But they are much, much more than sculptures. Yet it is often the sculpture-liness of buildings for which they are best recognised and sought after. Architecture is not a passive background. It is strange then that whilst the social sciences focus on studying social joinings and divisions, their interrelations, their performances, their urban and rural groupings and whilst architecture focuses explicitly on space, what happens inside buildings is dealt with so unsociologically by architecture and so unspatially by the social sciences.
And where we spend so much of our time, inside, is where architecture classifies, hierarchizes, gives space, denies space, structures lives and their dis connections to other lives, resources, knowledge, opportunities, we tend to forget its workings. What a building does in terms of shaping social relations is still under-considered in both architecture and the social sciences.
It should at least be suggested then that practising architecture and studying architecture are forms of social science. Science in the sense that they are always being explored and require constant research to be effective by whatever definition you want.
Science as ways of knowing that are repeatedly put to the empirical test of one kind or another every time you step into and around a building. One reason might be that whilst social theories brought, belatedly, space into their accounts of social life from the late s onwards Jessop, Brenner and Jones, In the social sciences, though space, social relations and the mostly implicit or ignored relations between the two came to be explored in ever more interesting ways.
In recent times it was geographers who got the ball rolling and then it rolled more widely across and between the humanities and social sciences. These disciplines and research interests took on space and so had both the social and the spatial, crowding out or at least depriving architecture of an incentive to invest in taking social theory seriously.
What was architecture to do? Experiment with form and aesthetics — things that no-one could take away from it. Perhaps the social sciences, even after their spatial turn or turns, left architecture its monopoly anyway. Space in the social sciences is rarely that which lies between four walls nor even the socially produced space of domestic or institutional interiors.
Architecture as a Social Science?
The above is of course a very broad brush sketch. Paul Jones writes interestingly about the effects of architectural symbols in eliciting social responses eg Bourdieu did write a bit eg the Kabyle house and social and economic disruptions to life effected by the move to modern apartments from the Casbahparticularly I wonder how this sense of doing architecture could translate into schools and other sites for children, learning or not — that keenness to find out, to understand and then to respond.
Important to think too about how that work could be supported by a government genuinely interested in providing the financial support for architects to work more pre-emptively and creatively.
It has happened before, it is possible. References Bo Bardi, L.
The Semiotics of Architecture. A Reader in Cultural Theory.
Selected Essays by Robert Gutman. Princeton Architectural Press, pp.
Sociology of architecture
Society and Space, 26 3 pp. The Discursive Construction of Ground Zero. Once you learn a new word you start hearing it repeatedly over the next few days at least I do and in the same way I started coming across lots of references to sociology and architecture and the sociology of architecture. A large proportion of our human experience and social interaction occurs in the buildings in which we live and work.
Therefore, architectural sociologists use sociological perspective to enhance building design. She and Ronald Smith, chair of the sociology department at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, have worked to spread the knowledge of this emerging field and educate sociologists and architects to the benefits of working together to better connect people to their designed environments.
The person in the building is just as important as the building itself, according to their perspective. It provides quantitative and qualitative research tools to anticipate how designs impact people on a variety of levels.
The people who use these buildings, however, are seldom if ever shown! Even if architectural sociology is an emerging subfield, it draws on the existing fields of environmental psychology, ecological sociology, organizational ecology, organizational sociology, and community sociology. In practice, architectural sociology builds upon social design theory and uses research methods such as survey research, Internet research, interviewing, field observation, secondary data sources, and unobtrusive measures.
Sociology informs architecture in all phases of the design process, including the predesign and programming, design, construction, and post-construction phases. For example, currently her firm is designing a senior center in a rural Nevadan community.Sociology and Psychology What's the Difference Between Them