Symbolism and Environmental Design

Author(s): Amos Rapoport

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: 22/06/2009 21:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
Amos Rapoport

Symbolismand EnvironmentalDesign*

Introduction public buildings and specifically of the problems that symbols raise for
excludes all utilitarian buildings, all the designer today.
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 Symbols and Built Form
design fields. When symbols have been there is much evidence, from a number There have been many definitions
considered at all, it was only in one of of fields, which suggests that this is not of "symbol" but many recent
two ways. First, the discussion was the case. I have recently tried to definitions seem to agree about certain
restricted to high style design and to show that this is not true of either features of symbols. Langer (1953)
special buildings within that-religious vernacular or primitive buildings or defines a symbol as "any device whereby
and the like. Secondly, the discussion settlements and tried to make it clear we are enabled to make an abstraction"
formed part of historical studies, the that most designed environments have and distinguishes them from signals
implication being that in the present major symbolic content (Rapoport, and signs:-a signal is comprehended
context symbols were no longer relevant 1969). I have suggested that this applies if it serves to make us notice the subject
to the designer. to dwellings as far back as we can trace or situation it bespeaks whereas a
In the case of these special buildings them, villages, towns and whole symbol is understood when we conceive
the importance of symbols has been landscapes. Innumerable examples can the idea it presents. In this view, the
recognized and well studied. Among be given of the very explicit symbolism function of a symbol is expression of
them, for example, the Byzantine of house forms-the roof as dome, the concepts. Most definitions agree
church seen as Ikon, the Mosque and smoke hole and emerging smoke as (Wolf, 1969) on the communicative
its court in Iran as symbol of paradise, axis mlundi;of symbolic orientations, nature of symbols and their importance
the Roman Pantheon as the ideal dome layout of spaces within the dwelling, in thought and often point out that
of Heaven, and the medieval cathedral furniture arrangements and seating symbols give concrete expression to
as the celestial city. Wittkower (1962) patterns. Similarly the symbolism socio-cultural phenomena (Sorokin,
shows that the Renaissance church, underlying the organization of whole 1947).
far from being purely an aesthetic landscapes (such as the Dogon in In the sense that symbols
creation, is a "visible echo of a celestial in Africa), villages (as in the Solskift communicate, there may well be a
and universally valid harmony . . . a villages of Northern Europe) and of parallel between social structure and
manmadeecho or visage of God's cities (such as those in China, India and space organization which tells people
universe" (p. 8, 23) and is rooted in elsewhere) seems quite clear. something about how to behave and
Neo-Platonic symbolism. Scully (1962) In the modern context the clarity what to expect relative to world view,
sees Greek landscapes as symbolizing of such examples disappear. I would, hierarchies and the like. In fact, Leach
the quality of the various Gods and the however, suggest that many modern (1967) suggests that much of the work
temple as the concrete embodimentof forms of dwellings and other buildings of social anthropology involves the
the particular God in the sacred and settlements can be understood in interpretation of symbolic behaviour.
landscape. this way (Rapoport, 1969). Studies Artifacts generally, and buildings and
Significantly all these studies seem to such as Banham's (1958), for example, settlemlents in particular,can then be
have one thing in common. In each case can also be interpreted as showing seen as one type of symbol-structure,
we find the definition of a special place that the Modern Movement far from making concrete the immaterial,
which is distinguished from, and being "rational" and "functional" is spaceless and timeless nature of values,
separated out of, the generality of space based on symbolism of the machine. mleaningsand norms of a society which
around it. Like the Greek temple it Similarly some current projections of cannot be transmitted directly and need
does not have to be an enclosed space- of the future, of which the English vehicles which externalize, socialize
merely a place fraught with a special Archigram group is only one example, and objecitfy them (Sorokin, 1947).
meaning and of a very special kind, are clearly symbolic reflections of Language, kinship systems and the like
a reflection of a world view. currently fashionable attitudes, world are other such sets of symbol-structures,
In none of these studies however, is examples. Rather I wish to take up the as are various forms of non-verbal
there any attempt to apply the analysis theme of definition of place and behaviour such as posture, tone of
more broadlyto all forms of organized general view-that symbols are an voice and space structuring. In fact,
space, whether buildings or settlements. essential element in the way man buildings and settlements can be seen
Sometimes the discussion is, in fact, perceives, evaluates and shapes his as being partly a form of congealed
explicitly restricted to churches and environment. I will also suggest some space structuring.
*
Reprinted from the International Journal of
Symbology Vol. 1 No. 3 April 1970, with permission
of the International Journal of Symbology.

58
 It seems that it is this insight into allocation and furnishings and status in behaviour is seen as the essence of both
the essentially symbolic nature of all offices, reaching the stage where it is animal and human societies, defining
building, the building as the concrete clearly and carefully specified in the status, territory, etc. (Hediger, 1955).
expression of a culture and world view British civil service manual. In fact, The distinction between man and
which unifies this aspect of the work of Beshers (1962) points out the animals may lie in Royce's (1965)
Eliade (1961) and Langer (1953). importance of symbols in providing distinction between a sign which has
That they should both reach a similar information regarding social structure one-to-one correspondence (which
conclusion starting, as they do, from and behaviour. Hazard (1962) has done seem to correspond more closely to the
very different viewpoints seems rather this for courtrooms, and Goodman animal examples) and symbols which
significant. Langer's view is that (1959) for seat groupings. have one-to-many correspondence.
symbols in art express the idea of an To the extent that designed Alternatively, the distinction may lie in
emotion rather than the emotion itself environments are symbols, they reflect von Bertalanffy's (1966) definition of
and that architecture makes visible the and abstract the structure and ideals symbols as signs which are freely rather
ethnic donmin-something purely of a society and culture. They can be than biologically created, represent
imaginery and conceptual. The symbolic seen as artifacts giving conventionalized some content and are transmitted by
function of built form is then, I would information about status, territory and tradition. That man is unique in the
suggest, to place man in contact with an the like. As examples note the recent scope of his symbols, the creation of
ideal universe, an ideal environment- controversy about seating arrangements a universe of symbols and the
the idea of a "good place." This seems and table shape at the Paris Vietnam dominance of symbols in his life is
like a more general statement of talks (Time, 1968), as well as a recent undeniable. The importance of the work
Eliade's view that building among photograph (the source of which I was on animals lies in showing man's
primitive people is an expression of an unable to trace) showing two statesmen continuity with them in this respect
imago mIundiwhich he also regards as signing a treaty on a bridge-each as in so many others and hence the
a way of taking possession of a piece sitting on his territory, the border being antiquity and fundamental nature of
of the world by placing it in contact between them. symbolic behaviour, specifically in
with an ideal universe. The examples One possible reason for this very defining status, territory, and so on.
they both give-a circle of stones strong tendency to symbolize in this So far I have discussed space
severing holiness from the profane, or a way may be found in some recent views organization and designed environments
single stone marking the centre or on animal behaviour. While the as forms of symbolic expression. But
axis mundi-demonstrate the symbolic uniqueness of man is most often defined one can also think of symbols as being
process of making visible a sacred place. in terms of his use of symbols-as by involved in the perception and
The specific high culture expressions, von Bertalanffy (1966) and many comprehension of the environment.
of mosque, church or temple, which I others-some writers suggest that After all, the perception of a problem
discussed above, can also be seen as animals show the essential and the definition of environmental
specific cases of this more general view. characteristics of a society, that of goals must precede any design activity.
Langer (1953) makes one more providing conventionalized competition. Cultural variability seems to be found
important suggestion, that there must They point out that conventions and even in visual perception (Segall,
be some congruence between the logical conventionalized behaviour are in the 1966) ; if one accepts the Whorfian
structures of symbol and object nature of artifacts which become hypothesis it may be related to the
symbolized. This then means that in symbols with arbitrarilydefined symbolic system par excellence-
the making concrete of the ethnic meaning. (Wynn-Edwards, 1962) language. In any case, the perception
domain or the iimagomundi the Threats are often made through purely of the environment depends on the
resulting space organization must be formalized acts or postures showing definition of categories. Bruner (1968)
logically related to what is being off a structure or other signal harmless considers perception to involve an act
symbolized no matter how difficult this in itself but made formidablepurely of categorization based on a model of
correspondencebetween built form and through association (for example the world and hence related to values.
culture may be to demonstrate in antlers seen as symbolic structures This categorization employs designata
specific terms at this stage of our (Hediger, 1955)). Animals are also which symbolize.
knowledge. Yet some demonstration is said to accept decisions reached This process of categorization
possible. One need only remember the through purely symbolic methods involves the "breakingup" of the world
close correspondence between space (Wynne-Edwards, 1962) and ritualized 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.
Symbols and Designers
If symbols are so important at all
levels of design and built form, why
then have they received such minimal
attention from modern designers and in example, pubs in England and our
design theory? The reason, I would
suggest, is the difficulty in the conscious with drink, although a New Guinea
60
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
of ends by the manipulationof low level
meanings. In simple terms, the
perceptual world can be designed, the
associational world cannot. For
culture, generally, are always associated
1. This example, and parts of this portion of the
argument, were developed with Dr. Ron Hawkes,
Bartlett School of Architecture, University
College, London.
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
symbolized the devil's work. With the which are lexical and socially shared condition. In design this has led to a
start of the Renaissance these same and non-discursive (idiosyncratic) "pathological"condition where the
ruins suddenly took on vastly ones, I would argue that in the past personal idiosyncratic symbols of
heightened meaning and shifted from there was a much wider area of social designers are used in design and these
the perceptual to the associational agreement and less idiosyncratic do not at all coincide with the public's
world with a new set of associations variation. Symbols in a given culture associations and symbols.
symbolizing a golden age, although the were fixed, known and shared, both by
forms remained the same. To give the public and the designers. A given Conclusion
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 Any attempt to design for associations
them forming part of the perceptual (i.e. the designed one)-or at least at levels below the personal will require
world. They have some associational within a narrow range of acceptability. research in the area of symbols, the
aspects which are linked to their form- The choices were greatly limited by the relation of forms to ranges of responses,
Amsterdam, Holland, Eighteenth culture and these limitations accepted. the existence or otherwise of universal
century. Their associations may be This was so in primitive and vernacular or at least transcultural symbols,
more variable at higher levels- situations and also in high style means of developing shared symbols,
charming, dull, desirable, undesirable. design. For example Giedion (1963) and so on. That certain associations
The Anna Frank house has very points out that the ancient Egyptians, are still shared in a given culture is
powerful associations for some people although familiar with the arch and clear. "There is always an intimate
which do not at all depend on the vault, only used them where they could connection between a dwelling and the
physical form of the house. From this not be seen, since they did not match kind of existence led by those who live
point of view the separation of the symbolism of the building. Under in it. 'Suburban semidetached,' 'slum,'
perceptual and associational worlds is those conditions the associations were 'country house,' and so on, signify for
almost complete and one cannot design much more closely matched to forms Britons not just architectural styles
for associations in that sense. The than is the case today. but different positions in the social
designer in general, therefore, has little Today it is far more difficult, if system and different styles of life"
control over the meaning which will not impossible, to design in the (Middleton). It may be possible to use
attach to certain situations and which associational world since symbols are these, and to investigate the underlying
give additional levels of meaning and neither fixed nor shared. As a result associations of different forms.
significance. designers have eliminated all concern In any case there is a wide range of
It is the symbolic nature of buildings, with the associational world and groups for which one must design
or rather the lack of acceptable restricted themselves to the perceptual today and frequently the users are also
symbolism, which is at the back of the world. This is linked with many aspects unknown. The solution may then lie
public's complaintthat modern of modern life. Eliade (1961), for in openendedness-not just of function
buildings do not look like churches, example, contrasts the religious but of meaning, so that people can
houses, or others. In these cases the experience of sacred space, which is take possession by personalizing since,
public is, in effect, complaining about a structuredand shared, with the profane as we have seen, man takes possession
break between the perceptual and experience of space which is amorphor- of the world through symbolic means. I
associational worlds rather wider than ous and personal. Similarly the religious have argued elsewhere that since
was the case in the past; they are experience of time is shared while meanings attached to buildings vary
complaining about the fact that the personal subjective time is not shared. we need to have "loose fit" so that
forms do not match even the low level Shared and structural associations multiple meanings can be attached to
associations and do not guide them. can be designed for, the personal ones them without being out of touch with
At this point we realize why symbols cannot. Analogies may be dangerous form and the designers' meanings
in environmental design have been but one is remindedof Hediger's (1955) (Rapoport, 1967). We therefore need
regardedonly historically and neglected description of domesticated animals much work on domains of significance,
by the designers. In the past it was as those which have lost their on ranges of symbols for different
possible to design for many associations, ceremonial, space, and time systems. groups in connection with built form,
although not the personal ones. If we They have become aspatial and the degrees of freedom desired and
accept Hayakawa's (Royce, 1965) independent of their environment. needed in order to be able to
distinction between discursive symbols, Hediger regards this as a pathological 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.
Beshers, J.M. Urban Social Structure. New York:
The Free Press, 1962.
Bruner, J. On Perceptual Readiness. In R. N. Haber ?,
**??*
(Ed.) Contemporary Theory and Research in
Visual Perception. New York: Holt, Rinehart ....... **
1968. *?r*??*?-?r?*
*r I?nr*l
r??a?l??r'?
run I *
Dubos, R. Man Adapting. New Haven: Yale ua-*rv?*????r*
University Press, 1966.
Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane. New L6P??I
??? n,,
fl?????I*a*??
York: Harper & Row, 1961. " rS
(r?l u? ??lt??iC?v,,
Gibson, J.J. The Perception of the Visual World. ?r.?*?r
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950.
Giedion, S. The Eternal Present. In Volume 2, The
Beginnings of Architecture. New York: Pantheon,
1963.
Goodman, P. The Meaning of Functionalism. Journal
of Architectural Education, 1959, XIV, 32-38.
Hazard, J.N. Furniture Arrangement as a Symbol
of Judicial Roles. ETC: A Review of General
Semantics, 1962, XIX, 181-188.
Hediger, H. Studies of the Psychology and Behaviour
of Animals in Zoos and Circuses. London:
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.

,Ii'il
Moles, A. Information Theory and Aesthetic
Perception.
1966.
Urbana, Illinois: University

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

Hague: Moulton, 1968.
Press,
MiM
a i

Rapoport, A. Whose Meaning in Architecture?

Interbuild/Arena. London, 1967.
1i1n 1 l' '

111 ltiiiii 11 1111t .1" 111111 ti

Rapoport, A. House Form and Culture. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Royce, J. (Ed.) Psychology and the Symbol. New
York: Random House, 1965.
Scully, V. The Earth, the Temple and the Gods. New
Haven: Yale University Press. 1962.
Segall, M.H. et al. The Influence of Culture on
Visual Perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill,
1966.
Sonnenfeld, J. Values in Space and Landscape.
Journtal of Social Issues, 1966, XXII, 71-83.
Sorokin, P.A. Society, Culture and Personality.
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.
Wittkower, R. Architectural Principles in the Age
of Humanism, London: Tiranti, 1962.
Wolf, A. On Graphic Symbols. International
Journal of Symbology, 1969, 1, 13-19.
Wynne-Edwards, V.C. Animal Dispersion in Relation
to Social Behaviour. Edinburgh and London:
Oliver and Boyd, 1962.

62
....
B-. E
??wt .R
^f^ : "'*-
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

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

..~ ? ... .

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

i?: ~iiia..~
i6

i :;;;~ ~~6