Rapoport - The Meaning of the Built Environment a Nonverbal Communication Approach

5/14/2018 Rapoport - The Meaning of the Built Environment a Nonverbal Communication Approach - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rapoport-the-meaning-of-the-built-environment-a-nonverbal-communication-approach 1/251

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Am os Rapo por t is Distinguished Professor in the Scho ol of Architecture a n dUrban Plann ing at th e University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. H e h as taugh t atth e Universities of M elbo urne an d S yd ne y in Australia, at th e University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, a n d a t University College, L on do n, a n d h as held visiting

appointments in Israel, Turkey, Great Britain, Argentina, Brazil, Canada,

India, an d elsew here. H e ha s also lectured b y invitation a n d be en a Visiting

Fellow in m any countries .Professor Rapopo rt is o n e of th e found ers of th e new field of E nvironm ent-

Behavior Studies . His work h as focused mainly on th e role of cultural vari-ables, cross-cultural studies, a n d theory develop m ent a n d synthesis. In add i-

tion to the present book, h e is the au thor of H ou se Form an d Culture (origi-nally published in 1 9 6 9 an d translated into five langua ges), H um an Aspectsof Urban Form (19771, an d History a n d Prece de nt in Environmental Design

(1 99 0) . In addition, he has published over two hun dred papers, chapters, an d

essays, m any of th em invited, an d is the editor or coeditor of four book s.H e ha s be en the ed itor in chief of Urban Ecology a n d associate editor of

Environment an d Behavior, an d h e ha s bee n on the editorial boards of man yprofessional journals. In 1 9 8 0 the Env ironmen tal Design Research Associa-tion honored him with its Distinguished Career Award. Professor Rapoport

has b een the recipient of a Se nio r Fellowship from the National E ndow me nt

for the Arts an d a G raham Foundation Fellowship. D uring the academ ic year1982-8 3 he w as a Visiting Fellow of Cla re Hall, Cam bridge University, of

which h e is now a Life Mem ber. H e has also been a m em ber of the programcomm ittee (198 7-19 88) an d the jury (1 98 9) for the International City Designcompeti t ion.



The Meaningof the Built Environment



A M O S R A P O P O R T

The Meaning ofthe Built Environment

A NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION APPROACH

With a New Epilogue by the Author

THE UNIVERSITYOFARIZONA PRESS TUCSON



T he University of Arizona Press

Copyright 0 982 , 19 90 by Amos Rapoport

All rights reserved

M anufa ctured in the United St ate s of Am erica

@ This book is printed o n acid-free, archival-quality pap er.

94 9 3 9 2 9 1 9 0 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rapoport , Amos.

Th e meaning of the built environmen t : a nonverbal com munication

approach /A m os Rapoport ; with a new ep ilogue by the auth or.

p. cm.

~ e p r i n t . riginally published: Beverly Hills : Sa ge P ublications

~ 1 9 8 2 .

ISBN 0-81 65-1 176- 4 (alk. pap er)

1. Environmental psychology. 2. Meaning (Psychology)

3. Nonverbal communication. I. Title.[BF353.R36 19901

155.9-dc20 90-10742CIP

British Library Ca taloguin g in Publication da ta are availab le.



CONTENTS

Preface

1 T h e Im po rtan ce of Meaning

T h e Meanrngs of En v~ ro nm en ts0 Users ' Meanings and

Designers' Meanrrlgs Perc eptual an d Asso clatrona l

A s p ec ts o f t h e E n v ir o n m en t

2 I h e Stu dy of M ean ingT he Semrotrc Approach Th e Symbo l lc Approach @

T h e Nonverba l Com mu n ica t lon Approach

3 Elnvironmental Meaning. Preliminary Considerations

for a Nonverbal Com municat ion A pproa ch

Enculturatron and Env ironm ent Socral Co mm unica t ion

and C on tex t T he Mnem onrc Function of Enurronnlent

4 Nonverbal C omm unicat ion an d Environmental Meaning

Fixed-Feature Elem ents Semrfrxed-Feature Elem ents 0

Non f ixed -Fea ture E lemen ts 0 Th e Nonverba l

Cornmunlca t ion Approac h

5 Sm all-Sca le Ex am ples of Applications

6 IJrban Ex am ples of App lications

Redundancy and Clai rty o f Cues U r ba n C u e s

Suburban Image

7 Environment, Meaning, and Com mun ication

T h e Nature of "Enulronment" Or gan lza t~ on

o f s p a c e O r ga niz atio n o f Time Organization

ofCommunrca t ion 0 Organizat ion c$ Meanrng The

Relat ionship Between Meaning and Cornmunlcat ion

Conclusion

References

Epilogue 219

Index 249

UNIVERSITY 1.IBRAEI"IES

MPNEGBE-MELLON UNIVERFiS'fY



For Dorothy



PREFACE

After long neglect, the subject of me aning in the built env iron m en t

began to receive considerable attention when this book was com-pleted in 19 80 . This interest has continued, a n d indee d g rown , sincethen. It is a subject that ha s con ce rn ed m e on a n d off for a n um be r ofyea rs. In this bo ok I use my ow n work an d much other material to show

how a particular se t of id eas a n d a particular point of view can provide

a framew ork tha t m ak es se nse of a highly var ied se t of material:;.

I approach the problem from the perspective of environmerrt-be-

havior studies (EB S ),which I se e a s a new discipline, at on ce hum an-istic an d scientific, conce rne d with deve loping a n ex planatory theory

of e nv iron m en t-be havio r relations (ERR). As usual, I emphasize th erole ol cultural variables an d u se exa m ples from diverse cultures an dperiods, a s well a s a variety of env ironm ents an d so urce s, to allow for

m ore l~ al id eneralizations than ar e possible if o n e considers only the

high-style tradition, only th e recen t p ast, only the W estern cultural tra-dition, and only the formal research literature. At the same time, Iemph asize the con tem por ary United S tate s bec ause it also seerrls im-

portant to consider the usefulness of this approach to the present.Although I ha ve a dd ed new material, m uch has also be en left ou t be-

ca us e details an d exa m ples can be multiplied endlessly. Th e attemp t isto provide a framew ork fo r thinking ab ou t the topic and also both toillustreite an d to recrea te so m e of th e reasoning a n d working processes

a s a n ex am ple of a particular way of a pp roa ch ing problem s. This in-volve: working with small pieces of information a n d ev ide nc e fromvaried fields an d disciplines that u se different appro ach es. H ow these

intersect an d bec om e mutually relevant is important-both generally(Koestler, 1 9 6 4 ) a nd in EBS m or e specifically. Th e test of an y validap pr oa ch o r m od el is, in th e first instance, precisely its ability to relate

a n d bring tog ether previously unrelated findings a n d facts. Since ma ny

were a dd ed in O ctober 1 9 8 9 ( in the Epi logue), the approach seem s tob e working as intended . Sinc e both the n um be r an d the diver:,ity o fstudies that a particular approach can subsume is important, a large

nu m be r of references were a dd ed in t h e Epilogue, altho ugh this review



10 THE MEANING OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

of the literature also is neither systematic no r com plete. This has impli-

cations fo r how to rea d this boo k. It can b e re ad a s a narrative, describ-

ing the a rgum ent in concise form, and an y section can b e e xp an dedby following th e references-or all th e references could b e followed

to elabo rate a nd ex pa nd the argu m ent, revealing its full complexity.Sinc e the new references have not be en integrated with the old, bothsets of references ne ed to be u sed.

Frequ ently it is th e un foreseen an d no t always intuitively obvious

relationships tha t a re imp ortant, in the environment itself (se e, forexample, Rapoport , 1 96 8a , 19 7 7) an d in the d evelopment of new

fields. Th ey ar e frequ ently at the intersection of two o r more previously

unre lated disciplines-from social psychology an d biochem istry tomolecular biology, sociobiology, a n d EBS. I appro ach the topic from

the latter trad ition, recent a s it is, an d em phasize th at it is significant

more for how one thinks and what one considers than for specificinformation. I sugges t tha t the w ay of thinking described in this bo ok isof inte res t in this connection. It is al so of in terest bec au se it is relatively

direct a n d sim ple, unlike othe r a pp roa ch es to mean ing. It is also appli-

cable to a wide rang e of environm ents (preliterate, vernac ular, po pu -lar, a n d high-style) an d topics (lan dsc apes, urb an forms, buildings,furnishings, clothing-even social beh avio r a n d the bod y itself). It isalso applicable cross-culturally an d , wh en da ta are available, histori-

cally. W e m ay well be dealing with a process that is pancultural bu t in

which the specificsare related to particular cultures, periods, an d c on -texts. It also seem s, a s the Epilogue suggests, that m echanisms are

being discovered that may explain how th e processes that a re post-ulated work.As the dates of some of my earlier articles suggest, the ide as dis-

cusse d in this book have be en developing for som e time. T he specific

formulation a n d basic arg um ent, how ever, w ere first stated very m uchin the form in which they appear here in an invited lecture at theD ep ar tm en t of Architecture of th e University of W ashington in Se att lein November 19 75. I further de velo ped this at a n um be r of pre senta-tions at various universities between 1 9 7 6 an d 19 78 , began the m anu -script in mid-19 78, an d worked o n it in my spa re time until completion

of t h e final draft in March 1980.T h e Scho ol of A rchitecture an d U rbanPlanning at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee helped with thetyping. S o m e minor revisions an d bibliographic additions were m ad e

in m id-19 82. In O ctob er 1 9 89 , in addition to preparing the Epiloguea nd the references for it, I corrected a nu m be r of typographical erro rs

a n d upda te d a few entries in the original bibliography.



THE IMPORTANCE OF MEANING

In wh at ways an d o n w hat basis d o peo ple react to environments?

This is clearly an asp ect of o n e of t h e three basic qu estio ns of m an -

environment s tudies , tha t which ad dresse s the nature of th e m ech a-

nisms that link people a nd environments ( see Rapopor t, 1 9 7 7 : 1-4).

This book a s a w hole will discuss th e nature of o n e such m echanisma n d suggest a specific app ro ac h useful in that analysis Within t h eframework of that approach a number of specific methods can be

used . O n e can use o bservat ion of behavior ; o n e can u se interviews,quest ionnaires , a n d o the r ins truments ; o n e can analyze his torical a n d

crosscultural examples and trace patterns, regulari t ies , a n d c o n -s ta nc ~e s ; n d s o for th . O n e can a lso analyze written an d pic toria l

mater ial that ha s not b ee n produ ced consciously to evalu ate environ-m en ts but in a n unstructured, unself-conscious m an ne r for ot he r pur-

poses. Th es e m ay include, am on g m an y others, travel t lescriptions,novels, stories, songs, n ew sp ap er reports, illustrations, se ts for film o r

televis ion, and adver t isements . Such mater ial tends to show howpeo ple s e e environments , how they feel abo ut them, what they like or

dislike a bou t them , an d which at ti tudes se em t o b e self -evident (s ee

R a p o po rt , 1 9 6 9 b , 1 9 7 7 ) .O n e of my earliest published articles is a n ex am ple of this t yp e of

analysis , an d m ake s a useful s tart ing point for th e argum ent. This is

be cau se i t fits into th e m odel ev en tho ug h it clearly wa s not in tend ed to

d o so . Using it a s a starting poin t reinforces o n e imp ortan t princ:iple-that rnodels of e nv ironm ent-b eha vior interaction m ust not on ly allowfindings to be cum ulative an d allow us to m ak e predictions (a t least

eventually); they m ust a lso m ak e se n se of a large variety of findings




a nd stud ies do ne ove r long period s of time, in different disciplines an d

for different pu rpos es.

In 1966 ca m e across several sets of co m m en ts by stu de nt teachers

of English and by tea chers of English participa ting in a sum m er institute,

both at th e University of California a t Berkeley. T h e pur po se of th eproblem set was a w riting exercise w ithout any instructions othe r than

that th e im m ediate reactions w ere to be given to wha tever was being

discussed. Writing was th e es se nc e of th e problem-no t th e subject

mat te r. S o m e exercises were about apples a nd pa in tings, abo ut the

cam pus , a n d th e Berkeley Hills. Bu t sev eral sets w ere w ritten in class-

rooms that ha d n o windows and thus used the built environment as

their subject m atter in th e indirect way describe d abo ve .T he se descript ions (a swell as ph oto gra ph s of th e three classrooms)

a re given in full e lsewhere (Rapopor t , 1 9 6 7 a ) .Here a selection will

be given.

By stu de nt tea ch er s of English (first-year gr ad ua te stud ents) :

Tha t t he ro om was used fo r musical pu rposes was obv i ous f rom t h e

pian o in the corner , music o n th e walls an d t h e var ious ins t rumentshaphazard ly sca t t e red abou t ; bu t what was a l so noti ceable an d con -

t radictory to this musical, sen sual confusion was t h e oper at ing-roo m

green walls, the bar e surg ical- like a tmos phe re fur ther enc our age d by

th e plain, long tables, auste re, uti litarian chairs a n d t h e ha rsh , glaring

white light.

O ur c laus t rophobic tr ip le h ou r seminar roo m conta ined by fou r per fec t

walls w ho se m on ot on y is relieved by cru de mura ls, e a ch let ting in a little

of t he out s ide , sur r ou nds a b leak spac e aro und which em bryo ideas

op enly float.

T h e low-hanging ph os ph ore sce nt lights di ffuse a n uncomfortably re-

veal ing glare upon the myriad of objects which, in conglomerate

dissaray, gives the large room a close, clut tered, mult ipurpose

a p p e a r a n c e .

T h e ro om is t oo c l ean , t o o la rge, t oo mo dern , t o o Amer i can ; every th ing

in it cou ld b e m a d e of plastic.

Th e va ri ous b right co lo r s found on t he m ap s an d cha r t s hu ng o n t he

walls a p pe ar in s h ar p cont rast to th e s tark cool lines of t h e furniture of

this roo m , ther eb y giving it th e feel ing of a p leas an t tho ug h businesslike

place in which to c on du ct class.

T h e ro o m is a cluttere d gr ee n b ox of institutional furniture lit by

fluorescent l ights and decorated wi th too many blotchi ly executed

juvenile m ap s.



The Importance of Meaning 13

O the r p assage s not included ar e purely descriptive or s tress sterility,

flickering lights, color, peac efulness, an d s o forth. S o m e can be inter-preted as negative, while other s se em positive. T h e com m ents by a

gro up of English teach ers ten de d t o be m or e uniformly an d strongly

negative. A selection follows:

T h e rectangular room wa s clearly a ste rn exam ple of functionalism, the

colcl grey steel c ab ~ n et s, scet ic light f ix tures an d th e s ~ m p l epa re tables

a n d chairs-enlightened in a dull fashion by th e blond fi n ~ shf t h e c u p -

boar ds a n d c loset-were a s tern pron oun cem ent of the th re at en ~ ng

creatlve sterdity of co nt em po ra ry society.

The large a n d almost em pty windowless roo m with i ts s turdy enclosingand barre n walls inspired neith er disgust no r liking; o n e might easily

have forgo tten how t rapped o n e was.

Up on e n te r ing the doorway on e mus t com m ent upo n th e tasteless a rray

of greys, gre ens an d browns which form a n appare ntly purposeless air-

less chamb er .

It wa sver y long a n d grey, that r o om with its yellow-grey walls, grey m etal

cabinets , long si lver an d brown chairs an d tables, a n d th e bullet in boardw h ~ han the length of it; all lit by na rro w o ve rh ea d lights which reveale d

it a s a fit p lace to spe nd s o many long grey hours.

T h e desc ription s in bo th sets d ea l mostly with color, light quality, air-condit ioning hum, and furnishings; the reactions seem to stressm on oton y, sterility, stark nes s, em ptine ss, isolation from th e wprld, a

boxed-in quality. W hat is of primary interest, ho we ver, in the presentcontext, is the hea vy load of affective a n d m ea nin g-la de n term s used

in th ese descriptions, a s well as indications tha t pe op le use various

environmen tal eleme nts to identify th e purpo se of th es e room s aswell

as their character a n d mo od .

The meanings of environments

It ap pe ar s tha t peo ple react to environments in term s of th e m ean-ings the environme nts h ave for them . O n e might say tha t "environ-men ial evaluation, then , is m ore a m atter of overall affective respo ns e

than of a detailed analysis of specific aspects, it is more a matter oflatent than of manifest function, and it is largely affected by images

an d rdeals" ( Ra pop ort , 1977:60).In a recent s tudy that d oe s what Idid for room s ab ov e, but a t th e scales of cities a n d thro ug h active




probing, th e findings ar e very similar an d s o m e of th e phras es even

echo those above. In that case, the images held of Phoenix and

Tu cso n, Arizona, while containing descriptive an d e valuative elem ents(which, in themselves, clearly h ave m eaning fo r pe op le), stress affec-

tive a spects a n d associations (Jackovics an d Sa arin en , n.d.). Similarly,in a re ce nt stud y of t h e descriptions of t h e m ean ing of u rba n p lace in

Britain, most responses consisted of affective words (Burgess,1 9 7 8 : 17).

This a lso se em s to apply to th ings other th an environments . T o givejust o n e rec ent example-affect is m ost im por tant in th e interper son al

relations involved in health care (Di M atteo, 19 7 9 ) .This, as w e shall

see , is a n issue of great im po rtan ce for my argum ent, since affect isread on th e basis of the nonv erba l messag es projected by th e actors.

It ca n therefore be sh ow n that peop le react to environm ents globally

an d affectively before they analyze the m an d evaluate the m in m orespecific term s. Th us th e whole co nc ep t of environ m ental quality is

clearly an aspec t of this-people like certain urb an are as, o r housingforms, bec ause of w hat they m ea n. In Britain, places cons idered t o b e

industrial, an d he nc e smoky, un healthy, dark, a nd dirty a re disliked;places with a rural character, and he nc e quiet, healthy, and gentle, areliked (Burgess, 1 9 7 8 ) .T hu s trees a re highly valued not least becau sethey ind icate high-quality ar ea s an d evok e rural associations.

Material objects first a ro u se a feeling that p rovides a ba ckg rou nd for

m or e specific images, which a re th en fitted t o th e material, "an d in th eca se of en viron m en ts affective images play th e m ajor role in decisions"

(R a po p o rt , 1 9 7 7 : 50). This applies equally to classrooms, student

dormitories, wilderness areas, housing, cities, recreation areas, a n d s oon . In th e ex am ple of th e ro om s with which I began, no t only d o we find

this ha ppe ning , but we could also ask the question, "What is t he mean-

ing of these rooms in terms of what they communicate about theattitudes of various actors in the design process, the university as

client, an d s o on?" In all the se cases th e initial affective a n d globalresp ons e governs the direction that su bseq uen t interactions with t heenvironment will take. It is a basic argument of this book that theseglobal, affective responses are based on the meaning that environ-

m ents, an d particular aspe cts of th em , hav e for pe op le. (Although,clearly, th es e m ean ings a re partly a result of pe ople 's interaction with

the se environmen ts,) T hu s it beco m es extremely impo rtant to studysuch m eanings.

M eaning als o gains in im po rtanc e wh en it is realized th at th e con -

cept of "function," s o im portant in th e m ode rn m ove m ent, goes far




beyo nd purely instrumental o r manifest functions. W he n latent asp ects

of fun ction s ar e cons idere d, it is quickly realized tha t meanin g is ce n-tral to an understanding of how environments work. This gains in

im po rtan ce w he n it is realized th at latent aspects of function m ay b e

the most important , an d tha t this appl ies to economics, to consum p-tion, to all artifacts a nd social posse ssions, ev en to fo od (s ee Do uglas

and Isherwood, 19 7 9 ) .Any activity ca n be analyzed into four comp one nts:

(1) the activity proper;

(2) the specificway of doing it;

(3) additional, adjacent, or associated activities that become part of theactivity system; and

(4) the meaning of the activity.

It is thevariabil ity of 2,3,a n d 4 ha t leads to differences in form, th e dif-ferential suc ces s of v ariou s designs, acceptability, a n d judg m ents ofenv iron m enta l quality. N ote th at this typology relates in a n interesting

way to the hierarchy of levels of m ea nin g, ranging from th e co nc rete

object th rou gh use object, value object to symbolic object (Gibs on,

1 9 5 0 , 1968;se e a lso Rapopor t, 19 77 ) .This suggests that m ean ing is not s om ething apa rt from function,

but is itself a mo st im portant asp ec t of function. In fact, th e m eaning

asp ec ts of th e env ironm ent are critical an d central, s o tha t th e physicalenvironm ent-clothes, furnishings, buildings, ga rd en s, stree ts,

neighb orho ods, a n d s o on-is used in th e presen tation of self, in

establishing gr ou p identi ty (R apo por t , 1 98 1 ), an d in th e en culturationof children (Ra pop ort , 1 9 7 8 a ) .This imp ortan ce of m ean ing can alsobe argued on t h e basis of th e view that t h e hu m an mind basically w orksby trying to im pose m ean ing o n th e world throu gh th e u se of cognit ivetaxonomies, categories, a n d sch em ata, an d that built forms, like oth er

aspec ts of m aterial culture, a re physical express ions of t he se sc he m ataand domains (Rapoport , 1 9 7 6 a , 1 9 7 6 b , 1 9 7 9 a , 1 9 7 9 b ) . Physical

elements not only make visible and stable cultural categories, theyalso have meaning; tha t is, they ca n be dec od ed if an d when theymatch people's schemata.

Users' me anings and designers' m eanings

O n e of t h e hallmarks of m an -en vir on m en t researc h is th e realiza-tion that designe rs an d users a re very different in their reactions to

environments , their preferences, a n d s o on , part ly becaus e their




s c h e m a ta v a y . It is th us users' meaning th at is imp ortant, not architects'or critics'; it is the meaning of everyday environments, not famous

buildings-historical o r m od er n ( s e e Bonta, 19 79 ;J en c ks , 1 9 8 0 ; an d

many others). It is users' mean ings that explain why nineteenth-centu ry

houses being restored in Wilmington, Delaware, have their porchesremoved (al though they ar e par t of the s tyle) an d shu tters ad de d

(although they are no t ) . T h e meaning of "desirable old house" ma tches

th e sch em a "colonial." This also he lps explain the u se of imitation

Am erican colonial furniture in th e NASA luna r reception building in

Hou ston (Time, 19 67 b: 34)-it me ans"h om e." A similar phen om enon

is the use of th e then -ne w material aluminu m in a n adv ertisement by

Reynolds Aluminum (Time, 1 9 6 7 a ) o reprod uce "colonial" elements(see Figure 1).

This advertisemen t shows 49 uses of a luminum a n d the man y ways

in which this new metal can provide "handsome classic columns infront," siding, shutters , shingles o n th e roof, an d so on. T h e basic

arr an ge m en t itself, the total image, is traditional t o an extrem e deg ree.

Note also the front doo rs, the deco rative handles, the landscaping, the

gas lamp o n the lawn, the two w elcome m ats ,and

other elements.Similar elem ents se e m to b e involved in t h e cas e of low-cost hous-ing in Britain, where people were said to prefer and to be buying

private ho use s that were of lower stan da rd tha n public housing. O n e

reas on was ow nership itself; an othe r, I would a rgue , is th e pre se nc e of

elem ents tha t remo ve th e "stigma of being a council tena nt" (Hillman,

1 9 7 6 ) . If w e look a t suc h hou sing (which, incidentally, costs less to

build th an public housing) in S ou thp or t, th e mo st striking eleme nts

that se em to rem ov eth e s tigma are th e small-paned windows, classical

doorways, a n d small front yards with low fences (s ee Figure 2). It is

these stylistic elem ents that help c om mu nicate the appro priate m ean-

ings. Also, clearly, latent r ather th an instrumental or manifest func tionsseem dom inan t.

Co mp arable kinds of elements ar e found in m uch m ore expensivehousin g in th e Un ited Sta tes. In this cas e we find the use of traditional,

local elem en ts in new hou sing, the recently c om ple ted Victoria Mewsin S a n Francisco (by Barov etto, Ruscitto an d Barov etto): baywindows, pane ls, bracke ts, railings, th e overall shape-ev en constr uc -

tion techn iques of ninetee nth-c entury h ou ses (Architectural Re cord ,1 9 7 9 ) . In fact, th e who le c urren t "neovernacular," "historicist," an d

"postmodernist" m ovem ents can be seen in the se terms, al though




Figure 1

these also represent designers' rather than users' meanings so that the

elements used may not necessarily communicate (see Groat, 1979;

Groat and Canter, 1979) .This may be because of their metaphorical

.meritsse, the excessively subtle and idiosyncratic nature of the elc-

used, the nature of the relationships among them, or their context,




which may be inappropriate-or neg lecte d. This lack of com m unica-tion of m ea nin g su pp orts th e view tha t mea nings a re in peop le, no t in

objects or things (se e also Bonta, 1979).However t h i n g s d o elicit

me anrng s, the questio n is how they elicit or activate the se m eanin gs

an d guide them an d, thus , which things or objects "w o r k best . Put dif-ferently, the q uestion is how ( an d, of course , wh ether) mea nings canb e en co ded in things in such a way that they can b e dec oded by theintended users. I ssum e, for the m om en t, that physical elements of

the environment do en co d e information that p eop le de cod e. In effect,while pe op le filter this information and inte rpre t it, th e actu al physical

e lements guide and channel these responses .

An ana logo us situation occurs in oth er dom ains. Th us while o n espe ak s of crowding or stress a s being subjective reactions, t he se a re

related to, and evoked by, physical (a nd other) environm ental ch ar-acteristics. In the perceptual realm, the experience of complexity is

subjective, but clearly environments possess certain characteristics

that pro du ce th e expe rienc e of complexity m uch m or e reliably an dunequivocally than others. The se characteristics ca n, in fact, be specified

and designed (see Rapoport, 1977: ch . 4). Yet, in sp ite of the appa re n tim portanc e of m eanin g-and particularly users' meaning-it is fair t osay that the mea ning aspec t of t he en vironm ent has been neglected in

th e recen t past-particularly users' m ea nin g ha s be en neglected-an d cont inues to be neglected (se e Jencks , 1 9 77 ) .

Ironically, the de ve lop m en t of m an -en viro nm en t studies, at least in

their early days, led to an even greater neglect. The attempt to be"scientific," to apply positivistic approaches, led to a neglect of the

fuzzy, "soft" aspec ts of th e environ me nt su ch as me aning .

Perceptual and associational aspects of the enuironment

T o use a distinction be twee n perceptual an d associa t ional aspectsof the environment ( se e Rapopor t , 1 9 7 7 : ch. 6),o n e could argue that

in ma n-environ me nt research, perceptual aspects have be en s tressed

O n e could a rgu e further tha t th e differential reactions of design ersterms:n d th e lay public to environm ents c an b e interpreted in the sc

Designers ten d to react to environmen ts in perceptual terms (whichar e theirme aninys) , wh ereas th elay public , th e users , react to environ-

m en ts in associational terms. A recent e xa m ple of this is H ertzb erger'sold people's home in Amsterdam (Architectural Review, 1976; s e e

Figure 3).This was d esigned in perce ptual term s by th e architect, but




k w b d OL-* 760fCE\S HOME , AY q e a m ~ , SGJW BY CLE~=BGRC;ZR

LW 0fi P M ~ o ~ A p u 5i0 w m UEVlEd, VO L C7 L X , No 448, FEB 19 76)

~ 0 F o-r

Figure 3

was evaluated in associational terms by th e users, w ho saw the white

fr am e a n d black infill ele m en ts in term s of crosse s an d coffins, that is,a s having highly negative associations. Thus, eve n if on e accepts theimportance of meaning, o n e still ne ed s to ask which grou p we ar e dis-

cussing, particularly since both designers and users are far fromhomogeneous groups . One thus needs to ask whose meaning i s

being considered.In 1 96 7 , I wrote a n artic le o n m eaning that was to ha ve a ppe ared as

part of a special issue of th e A rchite ctura l Asso ciation J ou rn a l that

wa s laterpublished, in revised form, as a n early book o n m eaning froma semiotic perspective (Jenc ks an d Baird, 19 6 9 ). Both the specialissue and t h e book stressed architects 'meaning; my article (Ra pop ort ,19 67 b) ques t ioned tha t focus an d proposed tha t users ' meaning was

the more importan t. Th e argument of this boo k hinges o n this distinc-




t ion. T h e basic question-mea ning for W HOM ?-continues to dis-

tinguish the present work from most work on meaning; what has

general ly been considered is the meaning environments have for

architects, or at least for the cogn oscen ti, th e critics, tho se in th e know .

T h e quest ion that m ust be addresse d is: What m eaning d oe s the builtenvironment have for the inhabitants and th e users , or the public o r ,

m or e correctly, th e various publics, since m eanin gs, like th e environ-m ents tha t co m m unicate them , are culture specific an d he nc e culturally

variable?T h e point m ad e is that the m eaning of m any environrnents is gen-

erate d through personalization-through taking possession, com -

pleting it, changing it. Fro m th at po int of view th e m ea nin g des ignedinto an environment (even if it ca n b e re ad , which is far from certain)may b e ina ppro priate, particularly if it is a single meaning. What is

wrong, I arg ued , is th at we tend to overdesign buildings an d othe r

environm ents. T ha t argu m ent was based o n a cas e study of a single

major building (Saarinen's CBS building) as a n exem plar (although

reference was m ad e to seve ral other cases). It relies o n acc ou nts in th e

nonp rofessiona l press (new spapers an d magazines) , s ince the univer-ses of discourse of designers an d th e public te nd to b e q uite different.T h e published material stresses t he dissatisfaction of use rs with "total

design" a s opp os ed t o th e lavish praise this idea h ad received in the

professional press. T h e nonprofessional ac cou nts recount t he dissent,

opp osition, resistance, an d conflicts gen era ted by th e designers' p ro-

hibition of th e use of any person al o bje cts or ma nipu lation of furniture ,

furnishings, or plants in o rde r to preserv e a n overall aesthetic ideal.The newspaper and magazine accounts s tressed this e lement of

conflict between users an d th e designers representing the c om pan y

(an d, o n e might suggest, their own values; see R apop ort , 1 96 7b ).T h e

com pany a n d its designers wished t o preserve uniformity, to sa fegua rdthe building a s a "harmo nious environment." They w anted t o prevent

a "kewpie doll atm os ph ere ," t o avoid having "things thrown all over"

an d" ha ph az ar d things all o v er th e walls" thu s turn ingth e building intoaUw al l o wall slum" (Rapopor t 1 96 7 b:44).An aesthetician was pu t incharge t o ch oo se ar t , p lants , colors , an d the like to be compatible withth e building, that is, to c om m unic ate a particular m eaning. T h e userssaw things rather differently an d resisted. Th ey tried to bring i r ~heir

own objects, to pu t u p pictures a n d calendars, to h ave family ph oto-

graph s on desks, to introduce their own plants . S o m e even brought

suit against the co m pany I knew so m e peo ple in the Columbia RecordsDivision w ho foug ht th es e attem pts at control-and wort. In that case




they saw the environm ent they wished a s comm unicating that theyw ere creative peop le, artists. This implied a setting that co m m unic ated

that message, and that meant a cluttered, highly personalizedenvironment .

This conflict described in the journalistic accounts can be inter-preted in terms of a single designers' meaning conflicting with the

various me anings of users. T h e argu m en t in th e article then shifts to adifferent, al though related, issue having t o d o with th e n atu re of

design-of unstable equilibrium that ca nn ot tolerate ch an ge (typical

of high-style des ign) a s op p o se d to th e stable equilibrium typical ofvernacular design, which is additive, changeable, and open-ended

(Rapopor t , 19 69 c , 1 9 7 7 , 19 81 ) . Th is then l eads to a conclusionrelated to th e ne e d for unde rdesig n ra ther tha n overdesign, of loo se fit

a s o p p o sed to tight fit, which is partly a n d im portantly in term s of t he

ability of users to communicate particular meanings through per-

sonalization, by using objects and other environmental elements in

orde r to t ransform environments s o that they might com m unica te dif-

ferent meanings particular to various individuals and groups. The

question then becom es how o n e can design " frameworks" that m akethis possible-but that is a different topic.

Two things se em clear from th e abo ve. First, tha t m uch of t h e m ean -

ing ha s to d o with personalization a n d he nc e perceived control , withdecoration, with movable elements rather than with architectural

elem ents. Se con d, that architects generally hav e tended to be op po sed

strongly to this concept; in fact , the whole modern movement in

archi tecture can be se en as an at tack on users ' meaning-the at tacko n o rna m ents , o n decoration, o n "what-nots" in dwellings a n d "thing-

am abobs" in th e ga rde n, a s well as the proce ss of incorporating th eseelemen ts in to th e environment.

This argum ent can be appl ied with e ven greater s trength to housing,wh ere users' meaning is clearly m uch m ore central a n d whe re theaffective co m po ne nt generally can be expected to be m uch m ore

significant. "In th e ca se of housing, giving m ean ing bec om es p ar-ticularly im porta nt b ec au se of th e emotional , personal an d symbolic

conno tation of th e ho us e a n d the primacy of thes e aspects in shapingits form a s well a s the impo rtant psycho-social co nse qu en ces of th e

house" (Rapoport , 19 68 a: 300). n the s tudy just cited, many exampleswere given showing th e imp orta nc e of personalization an d ch ang es a s

ways of establishing an d expressing m eaning, ethnic a n d oth er gro up

identity, status, an d the like. Su ch ch an ge s se em ed imp ortant in estab-lishing and expressing priorities, in defining front and back, in in-




dicating degrees of privacy. A number of theoretical, experimental,

a n d cas e studies were cited, an d hou sing in Britain over a period of 10

years was evaluated in the se terms. A series of ph oto gra ph s of h ousin g

in L on do n, tak en specifically for this article, show ed t h e im po rta nc e of

th e po5,sibility of making chan ges, a n d it was arg ue d that no t only weredesigners oppo sed to ope n-en ded ness a nd seeking to ta l cont rol overthe housing environmen t; they se em ed systematically to block various

form s of exp ression available t o u sers until no ne were left. Finally, it

was argu ed th at when flexibility an d o pe n- en de dn es s were co n-sidered by design ers it ten de d t o be at the level of instrum ental func-t ions (what I would now call "manifest" function s) rather th an at th e

level of expression (lat en t functions). In o th er words , designers-evenwhen I hey stres sed physical flexibility-seemed strong ly to resist giv-

ing up control over expression, that is, over meaning. Thus, for

exam ple, award juries p raised th e us e of few materials, th e high d eg re eof integration, a n d th e high d eg re e of consistency, tha t is, high levels of

control o ver the to ta l envi ronment (Rapopor t , 1 9 6 8 a : 303).It is in this s en s e tha t th e discussion of o p en -e nd ed n es s in h ousin g is

related to issues su ch a s the im po rtan ce of me aning , its variabilityam o n g groups, the distinction b etw een designers' m ean ing an d users'

meanings. This argum ent a lso re i tera ted and s tressed th e im portanceof decorative elements, furniture and its arrangement, furnishings,

plants, objects, colors, materials , an d the like, a s op po sed to s pa ceorganizat ion a s such , al though that could be important by allowing

specific e lem en ts to cha ng e. An exam ple is squ are roo m s, which allow

many arrangem ents of furniture that long narrow room s m ake impos-sible. It was also suggested that different elements, arranged differ-ently, might be significant an d important t o various g rou ps a n d th at

this relative imp ortance could be stud ied . This would th en prov ide twoim po rtan t related pieces of inform atio n. First, it could reveal "which

elements, in any given case, ne ed to b e cha ng eab le by th e users inorder to establish and express important meanings, that is , which

ch an ge s achieve personalization a n d w hat different individuals an dgroups und erstan d by this term. Se co nd , this would then define th eless important , or unimportant , elements that could consti tute the"frameworks" t o b e designed . T h e very definition of framew orks, itwas further suggested, could b e base d o n an analysis of various formsof expression in different situations.

HOW hen could frameworks be defined? Th ere may be cons tantne eds c om m o n t o hum a ns as a species a n d a great range of different

cultural expre ssions th at ch an ge a t a relatively slow rate. T he re a re




also rapidly changing fashions, fads, and styles. Frameworks couldth en possibly be defined in term s of t he relative rate of cha ng e base d

o n a n analysis of past exa m ples, particularly in th e vern acu lar tradi-

tion. O th er possible ways ar e in terms of th e impo rtance of th e m ea n-

ing attached to various elements; what is actually regarded as per-sonalization, what de gre e of o pe n-e nd ed ne ss is ne ed ed , and h en ce

which ar ea s an d elemen ts nee d changeability. It may be fo un d that

few a re as a re critical, an d ch an ge ab le parts may be relatively few in

num ber. The se are, at any rate, a ll researchable quest ions (R apop ort ,

1 9 6 8 a : 305).

T h e result of this argu m en t, in addition to a set of design implications

a n d guidelines that d o not con cern us h ere, is that ch anges in expres-s ion by personalization may be mo re important than chan ges ma defor practical or instrumental functions; tha t they a re not only na tural

but essential to the way in which peo ple mo st commonly (although not

universally) establish meaning.

Consider a recent example that both stresses this latter point andsh ow s con tinued refusal by designers to a cce pt this process. A se t of

chan ges an d addit ions were m ad e to Chermayeff 's hou se a t BentleyW ood; thes e ch ang es were described a s a "tragedy" (Knobel, 1 9 7 9 ).

All of th e chan ge s have to d o with th e meanings of ele m en ts that indi-ca te hom e, as well as th e m eanin g implicit in th e process of cha ng e a n d

persona lization itself. N ote that n o n e of t he c hanges a re for practical o r

instrumen tal functions: arc he s in the hallway, ela bo rat e wallpapers, afireplace with historical associations, a dor ic entry portico, an e lab orate

fro nt d o o r with d ecorative d oo r handles, a decorative rose trellis, a nd

s o o n . T h es e a re all clearly associational elem ents. T h e criticism of

the se c ha ng es reflects different sc he m ata a n d is co uc h ed in typically

perceptual te rms: "des t royed. . . sense of equilibrium," "disrupts

inside-outside flow of th e facade," "n o longer as strong a se n se of t heopennes s of the house," loss of "simple, understated entrance"

(Knobe l, 197 9 : 311).The last criticism is particularly interesting in

view o f th e historically an d cross-culturally pervasive tradition of

emphas i z i ng entry.T h e changes docum ented in th e cases of o ther modern houses , not

a s large o r lavish, can be interpre ted in similar term s. For exa mp le, in

th e case of so m e of M artienssen's ho us es in S ou th Africa (H erbert,

1975), they also consist of adding porches, pitched or hipped tileroo fs, chimneys, "softening" ga rde n landsca ping, and s o on . In the

cas e of Le Corbusier's ho use s at Pessac (Bo ud on , 1969),o n e finds




pitched roofs, chimneys, shutters , porches, hedges, f lower boxes,

small rtx tan gu lar window s instead of horizontal ba nd s. indivition of fa ca d es , traditional fac ad es , an d t h e like.

T h e meaning underlying su ch chang es beco m es clear in a recent

detective novel in which the whole plot hinges on a modern housebuilt by an architect Oth er res idents ar e upset; th e ho us e has a 78 -fo ot

long blank wall of rough reddish boards, hardly any windows gen-

erally, a n d a flat roof, a n d it is co m po sed of tw o cu be s. It con trasts with

other houses such a s a barn- red , whi te- tr imm ed ranc hho use o n a n

im m acu late lawn bord ere d by ne at flower be ds Not only is it se en a s

an eye sore threatening t h e neigh borhood and a n insult, "It's not: even

a house ! You can' t call th at thing a house! I'm d a m n ed i f 1 know whatyou could call it" (C row e, 1 9 7 9 :4).T h e m aterials a re "junk," without

windows it looks like a tom b. Feelings run high: "Two o ra ng e crates

would look better" (C rowe, 1 9 7 9 :5). t's nothing but "d am ne d cubes"an d "boxes." T h e neighbors se e it as crazy ideas, a s op pos ed to "good

normal homes" (Crowe, 1979: 7), and want i t pul led down and a

"regular" house built. What is a "good, normal home" or "regular

house"? The modifications they would accept define it . "Put inwindows, maybe a porch and a peaked shake roof. Paint i t white,

lan ds ca pe heavily an d it wouldn't look th at different from a n ordinarytwo s torey house" (Crowe, 1 9 7 9 : 1 2 ) .

Thitj is clearly related t o a sc he m a, to t h e concept of a ho us e. 'There

ar e m any ways of defining it (Ra pop ort , 1 9 8 0 a ) ,and many of theseinvolve m ean ing a n d associational e lem en ts as central, for exam ple as

Bachelard ( 19 69 ) suggests . Hayward (1 9 7 8 )discovered, arnong you ngpe op le in Ma nh attan , nin e dimen sions of ho m e, including relation-

ship s with oth ers, social netw orks, s ta tem en t of self-identity, a p lace of

privacy a n d ref ug e, a plac e of stability an d con tinuity, a pers on alized

place, a locus of everyday behav ior an d b ase of activity, a childhood

h om e a n d p lace of upbringing, an d , finally, shelter an d physical struc-

ture. Given t he po pulation a n d locale, th e fact tha t most of th es e hav e

to d o with m eanings an d associations is most s ignificant, s ince on e

m ay ~ x p e c these to be s t ronger am on g othe r populat ions a nd in o ther1ocalc:s (see C o o p e r , 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 8 ; -a dd , 1 9 7 6 ) O n e m ay su gg es t t ha t

an important component of the associational realm is precisely themeaning the environment has for people, how these meanings are

cons t rued and w hat thes e meanings communicate .

How ever, partly as a result of considerations such a s th e ab ov e, th eneglect of m ea nin g in env ironm ental design resea rch is beginning to




change. The growing concern about perceived crowding, density,crime, or environmental quality implies, even if i t does not make

explicit, th e central role of subjective factors, many of which a re based

o n the associations a n d m eanin gs that particular aspec ts of environ-

m ents have for people, which a re partly d u e to repeated an d con-sistent use an d enculturation interacting with any pan-cultural a nd

biological, species-specific consta ncies that may exist (se e R ap op ort ,

1 9 7 5 b , 1 9 7 9 a ) .

T h e variability of stand ard s, ev en th e subjectivity of pain (R ap op or tan d W atson, 1 9 7 2 ) an d th e subjective effects of s tress (Ra pop ort,

1 9 7 8 b ), eads to the inescapable conclusion tha t all stimuli ar e mediated

via"symbolic" interpretation ; tha t is, they d ep en d o n the irm ea nin g, s othat me aning bec om es a most important variable in o ur un ders tand-ing of the environment, preferences for various environments and

choices am on g them, the effects they have o n people, and s o on .

It should be noted that perceptual and associational aspects arelinked: T h e form er is a nece ssary con dition for th e latter. Before any

m ea nin g can be derived, cue s m ust be noticed, tha t is, noticea ble dif-ferences (Rapoport, 1977: ch . 4) ar e a n ecessa ry precondition for the

derivation of m eaning. T he se differences are ne ed ed an d a re useful

fo r association s to deve lop. It is therefore interesting to no te th at

am on g Australian Aborigines m eanings o f place are frequently strongeran d clearer in locales w here the re ar e s tr iking an d noticeable environ-menta l fea tures (Rapopor t , 19 75 a) .T hu s while the m eaning of placeis associational, hav ing to d o with significance, noticeable differences

help identify places an d act as mne mo nics (Ra pop ort, 1980b).

In a ny c ase, however, th e increasing interest in m eaning is d u e t o th eoverwhelming and inescapable evidence, from many cultures and

per iod s, of its central im po rtan ce. C on sid er just a few exa m ples .

(1) When "primitive" art and, particularly, buildings of preliteratecultures are co nsidered, they ar e generally co nsidered perceptually.For example, the North West Coast Indian Dwellings and "Totem

poles," Yo ruba o r Nubian dwellings, Sep ik River H au s Ta m ba ran in

New G uinea , or Maori buildings a re evaluated in terms of their "beauty,"their aesthetic quality. If we wish to be more "scientific" we mayevaluate their elabo rate decorations perceptually a nd argu e that theycreate a r iche rand m ore com plex environment . Yet these decorat ionsare significant an d meaningful-their primary purpose is asso cia tional




in that they communicate complex meanings. This also applies tojew ely , body decorations, clothing, an d oth er elem en ts of material

culture. Even th e sp ac e organization of suc h buildings an d their rela-tions to the larger environmen t ( th e hou se-sett lem ent system) hav e

m eaning and op erate in the associational as well as , o r m ore th an, inth e percep tual realm . This, of course, m ak es their real complexity

gr ea te r still-their complexity is bo th pe rceptu al and associational.Th u s in order to understand "primitive" and vernacular environ-

ments, we must consider the meanings they had for their users

( R ap o po rt, 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 7 9 a , 1 9 7 9 b , 1 9 8 0 b ) .

For ex am ple, in th e ca se of In dia, it has b een sho w n that all tradi-

tional built environm ents ar e basically related to m ean ing t ha t ( a s intha t of most traditional cultures) is sacred meaning. Architecture is

best un de rstoo d a s a "symbolic technology"; it is describe d a s vastu-

vidya, th e "scienc e of t h e dwelling of th e gods," so that cosm ology isth e divine mode l for structu ring space-cities, villages, tem ples, an d

houses (Lannoy , 1 9 71 ; Sopher , 19 64 ; Gho sh and M ago , 19 7 4 ;Rapopor t, 19 79 b) .

Of course, oth er traditional settleme nts a re only com prehensib le interms of their sacred m eanings, for examp le, ancien t R om e (Rykwert,

19 76 ) , medieval Europe (Muller, 19 6 1 ) , China (Wheatley, 1 9 7 1 ) ,

Cambodia (Gi teau , 1 9 76 ) , an d m any o the rs ( s ee Rapoport , 197 9b ) .(2 ) I hav e previously referred t o the M osque co urtyard in Isph ahan

as an exam ple of complexity and s e n s o y opulence in the p erceptual

realm ( R ap o po rt , 1 9 6 4 - 1 9 6 5 ; 1 9 7 7 : 188,23 9) . Yet th e purpo se of

this remarkab le m anipulation of th e full potential range of percep tual

variables in all sen sory modalities-color, materials, sca le, light a n dsha de , so un d, kinesthetics, tem peratu re, smell, an d so on-was forth e prlrpose of achieving a m eaning, a n associational goal. Th at goal

was to give a vision or foretaste of paradise, both in terms of thecharacteristics imputed t o that plac e a n d in term s of t h e contrast withth e characteristics of t h e sur ro un din g urba n fabric. T h e full app recia -

tion a nd evaluation of th e quality a n d success of that design de pe nd s

o n a n und erstand ing of its m eanin g an d th e way in which perceptualvariables ar e used t o achieve a nd com m unicate it.A similar problem arises with th e medieval cathedral, which designers

ha ve te nd ed to evaluate in perceptu al terms-space, light, color,structure-yet th e main significance of which a t th e tirne was in its




meaning as a sacred symbol and summa theologica-a fortn of

encyclopedia of theological meaning (see von Simson, 1953). Many

more examples could be given, but the principal point is that historical

high-style examples, as well a s the preliterate examples described in

point 1above, must be evaluated in terms of the meanings they had fortheir designers and users a t the time of their creation. This point was,

of course, made with great force for a whole generation of architects

and architectural students in connection with Renaissance churches,

when they were shown not to be based on purely "aesthetic" con-

sideration-that is, to be in the perceptual realm-but to be important

sources of meanings and associations expressing important ideas of

neoplatonic philosophy (Wittkower, 1962).Unfortunately, the lessonseems to have been soon forgotten, even though its significance

seems clear fo r various types of environments. Consider two such

types-urban space and vernacular design.

Urban Space. Regarding urban space, it can be pointed out that

since sociocultural determinants are the primay (although not the

sole)determinants of such organizations, it follows that meaning must

play an important role in mediating between the stimulus properties of

the environment and human responses to it (Rapoport, 1969e ).This

applies not only to built environments but to standards for tempera-

ture, light, sound, and so forth-even to pain. The reason, and the

result, is that images and schemata play a major role in the interpreta-

tion of the stimulus properties of the environment. Wittkower's (1962)

point about Rennaissance churches is applicable not only to various

high-style buildings, but also to space organization on a larger scale-

regions and cities (or, more generally, settlements). Sociocultural

schemata are the prima y determinants of form even on those scales

and in turn affect the images and schemata that mediate between

environments and people.

Urban form (and whole landscapes) can thus be interpreted. In

many traditional cultures sacred schemata and meanings are the most

important ones, and cities in those cultures can be understood only in

such terms. In other cultures health, recreation, "humanism," egalitar-ianism, or material well-being may be the values expressed in schemata

and hence are reflected in the organization of urban environmerits.

Hence the widely differing nature of settlements and cultural land-

scapes in Spanish and Portuguese South America, in New England and

the Virginias in the United States, in the United States and Mexico.

Hence t h e differential impact of past or future orientation on English

as opposed to U.S. landscapes and cities. Hence also the possibility.




over long t ime periods, from Plato through Botero to the Utopian

cities of o u r ow n d ay , of discussing th e city a s a n ideal, a vehicle for

expressing complex m eanings. This also helps explain the transplant-

ing of u rban forms by colonial po wers a s well a s by various imm igrant

grou ps. T h e centrality of sch em ata a n d images e nc od ed in settle-m ents an d bearing m ean ing is con stan t; what varies is th e specific

meaning or schem a e m phasize d or th e elements used to comrnuni-ca te th is mean ing (Rapopor t 1 9 6 9 e :128-131). his also explains th edifferent role of cities in various cultures, th e p res en ce or a b se nc e of

civic pride, th e varying urban hierarchies, a n d t h e very definition o f a

city, that is, which elements are n eed ed before a set tlement can be

ac ce pte d a s a city. Similar co nc ern s influence the way in which urbanplans ar e made-and wh ether they are then accepted or rejected-an d a lso th e differences a m o n g plan ners in different cultures qn d at

different periods as well a s th e differences between planners an d

various groups of users (R apo port , 1 9 6 9 e : 131-135).Wlthoutelaborating the se points any further, I would just a d d that further workhas only st rengthene d, reinforced, a n d elabo rated these argum ents

ab o ut th e primacy of m ea nin g in th e und ers tan din g of settlem ent form(see Kapoport , 1 9 7 6 a , 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 9 b , 1 9 7 9 c, an d s o o n) .VernacularDesign. In th e case of preli terate an dv er na cu lar design

similar points n ee d to b e m ad e, a lthoug h clearly t h e specifics vary. Infact, th e very distinction betw een verna cular an d high-style de sign is

partly a ma tter of th e m ean ing attach ed t o th e two types of design ( se e

R ap op or t, forth com ing a) . In the cas e of traditional vernac:ular tile dis-

t inction, for examp le, between sac red a n d pro fane is far less markedtha n in co nte m po rary situations, since it is the sa cre d th at gives m ea n-

ing to m ost things. Yet e ven in th os e si tuations the re we re a re as ofspecial sanc tity-landscapes, trees , groves, hills, rocks, rivers, w ate r-

holes-or sac red built environm ents of so m e sort . A m on g th e latter,sacred buildings o r shrines hav e b ee n imp ortant carriers of particularkinds of meanings-although not th e only one s. Co m m on ly suc hbuildings h ave b ee n a ssu m ed to b e part of t h e high-style tradit ion an d

have be en studied a s high-style elem ents contrast ing with the matrixm ad e up of vernacular e lements arou nd them. Yet even a m on g the

verna cular buildings them selves it can b e sho w n that, first, m ea nin gplays a m ost important role; o n e can hardly und erstan d suc h buildings

or t h e larger system s of w hich they form a par t without c onsid eringmeaning. Se co nd , am on g vernacular buildings o n e finds cues thatindicate that the re ar e buildings having differing de gre es of imp or-

tanc e or sancti ty; in other words, am on g vernacular buildings the re are




sacred buildings, although they d o differ from t he corresp onding high-

style equivalents (Ra poport , 196 8b ). At the sam e t ime, the cues that

comm unicate the se varying de gree s of importance or sancti ty am on gvernacular designs tend to be rathe r subtle. This is because the mode ls

used in the design of s uc h buildings a n d the elem ents used t o com-mun icate tend to be very widely sh ared a n d hen ce easily un ders tood .S u ch c ue s can consist of any form of differentiation th at mark s th e

buildings in questio n a s being in so m e way distinctive. W here build-ings a re colored it may be the abse nc e of color-where they are not,

th e u se of color; w hen othe r buildings a re whitewashed, it may be th eab sen ce ofwhitewash-where they a re not whitewashed, it may be th e

use of whitewash; it may be size, sh ap e, decoration (or its abs en ce ),degree of modernity or degree of archaism, or many other cues

(Rap oport , 19 68 b) . In th e case of vernacular design, as for urbansp ace , it se em s clear th at later work h as greatly strengthen ed, rein-forced, and elaborated these arguments about the importance of

m ean in g ( see Rapo po rt, 1 9 6 9 c , 1 9 7 5 a , 1 9 7 6 b , 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 a , 1 9 7 8 c ,

1 9 7 9 a , 1 9 8 0 b , 1981,an d so on ) .T h e importan ce of associational aspects continue s in o u r ow n cul-

ture-even i f th e specific variables involved may have ch an ge d. Anenviron me nt may no longer be a m odel of th e universe-as a Na vaho

ho ga n o r D ogo n dw elling o r village are-but it still reflects mean ings

a n d associations that a re central, an d e ve n explains particular percep-

tual fea tures (se e Rapoport, 19 69 c, 1 9 7 7 ) .

(3) In U.S. suburbs, hou ses must not be to o different-a m ode rn

ho us e in an ar ea of tradit ional ho uses is se en as a n aesthetic intrusion,but th e aesthe tic conflict mainly ha s to d o both with the m ea nin g ofstyle an d with th e deviation from t h e no rm . This also applies to exces-

sive uniformity, a s in o n e legal suit that arg ue d tha t a particular ho us ewas too similar to th e o n e next do or (Milwaukee Journal , 1 9 7 3 ; se eFigu re4) . It is th e meaning of th e sub tle differences within a n ac ce pt ed

system t ha t is impo rtant in com mu nicating grou p identity, status, an doth er associational aspects of th e env ironm ent while accep ting th e

prevailing norms ( se e Rapoport , 1 9 8 1 ).(4) In evaluating stu de nt halls of residen ce, it was fo un d tha t overall

satisfaction was relatively independent of satisfaction with specificarchitectural features a nd ha d to d o m ore with th e character a nd feel

of the building, the general image, an d its positive o r negative symbolicaspects or m eanings (Davis an d R oizen, 19 7 0 ) , hat is, the associations




it ha d for stu de nt s, which se em ed to be related mainly to the n otion of"institutional character." T h e important quest ion, of course, that this

book a dd res ses (a t least in principle) is which physical elem ents in th e

environment will te nd to c om m unicate that chara cter or image defined

as "institutional" by particular u ser grou ps .(5) In a large study in Fr an ce of reaso ns for th e preferen ce for small,

de tac he d single-family dwellings, res po nd en ts saw n o contradiction

in saying they preferred suc h dwellings bec aus e they pro vide d "cleanair" an d, later in the s am e interview, complaining that washing h un g

o u t o n th e line got dirty be ca us e of th e dirt in t h e air. Clearly it was t h e

meaning of the sp ace around the ho use that was important and that

was exp ressed in term s o f th e im age of "clean air" (R ay m on d et al.,1966; com pare Cowburn, 1966).Tw o interest ing, an d mo st impor-

tant quest ions concern th e m inimum sp ac e necessary for the m eaningof "d etached " to persist a nd th e possibility o f oth er elem ents c om -

municating m eanings that are a de qu ate substitutes (s ee Figure 5).

(6) In a recent major study of th e resistance of su bu rb an ar ea s inNew Je rse y to multifamily housing, particularly high-rise apa rtm ents,

it was fo un d that the r eas on s given w ere based o n e cono m ic criteria,

for exam ple, they cost mo re in services ne ed ed than they brou ght in intaxes. Yet, in fact, particular mixes of h ou sing could b e ad va nt ag eo us

fiscally. T h e comm ission stu dy ing this prob lem , consisting of ec on o-mists, political scientists, go vern m ent peo ple, an d s o on , finished up

by discussing percep tions an d m eaning s. T h e percep tion of th esedwelling form s as b ad had to d o with their meaning.They a re seen a s

negative, as symbols of und esirable peo ple; they are se en a s a sign of

growth, w here as subu rban are as wish to maintain an image that isrural. T h e obtrusiven ess of ap artm en ts, particularly high-rise apart-m ents, destroys this rural self-image. Also, peo ple m oved to su bu rbs

to flee th e city an d its problems-they s e e th e ap artm en ts as tentaclesof th e city that they fled an d th at is pursu ing them . Th e m eaning s ofthe se buildings are also se en a s reflecting social evils, a s indicating aheterogeneous populat ion, whereas the residents wish to l ive in

hom oge neou s a reas (New Je rsey C ounty a nd Munic ipal Governm entStud y Comm ission, 1 9 7 4 ) . In othe r words, it is the m eaning of pa r-ticular building types that influences policy decisions.

Many o ther exam ples could be ci ted an d ca n b e foun d in th e l itera-

ture (for example , see R apoport, 1 9 7 7 ). But there is an importantm ore general an d theoretical a rgu m ent that also stresses th e impor-

tan ce of meaning-this ha s to d o with th e distinction alrea dy intro-




h.11LWAU N A ~W ' L 3 - 5 Fr. FIG 27)

-- ---D(

Figure 5

du ced betwee n manifest a nd latent functions a n d , m o re specifically,th e distinctions am o n g a n activity, how th e activity is d on e, asso ciatedactivities, a n d th e m ea nin gs of th e activity. It ap p ea rs that th e m ea nin gof act~vitiess their mo st imp ortant characteristic, cor resp on din g to th efinding that symbolic asp ects are the mo st impo rtant in the s eq ue nc e

of co nc rete o bject, us e ob ject, value o bject, symbo lic objec t (G ibson ,1 9 5 0 , 19 6 8 ; Rapo port , 1 9 7 7 ) . Thus, even in " functionalis t" terms,

m ea nin g be co m es very critical.




T o us e a n urban exam ple of this ( t o be elaborated later), o n e finds

that parks have im portant meaning in th e urban environm ent. Theirvery pre se nc e is significant, s o tha t e ven if they a re em pty-that is, not

used in a manifest or instrumental sense-they com m unica te m ea n-

ings of positive en viron m en tal quality of th e are as in which they a reloca ted (Rapopor t, 1 9 7 7 ) .This is clearly th e reason for th e imp ortanceof recrea tional facilities-which a r e desir ed by th e majority but a re

used by very few (Eichler an d Kaplan, 1 9 6 7 : 1 1 4 ; Ra pop ort , 19 7 7 :52-53).Similarly, while most people express a need for commonpublic op en sp ac e in residential areas , it is beca use th es eU inc re as e h eattractiveness," "increase th e sp ac e betw een units" (th at is, lower per-

ceived den sity),an d s o o n , rather than forawalking around," "using forrecreation," a n d so on-in fact, they a re not s o used (see Foddy ,

1 9 7 7 ) . They all have t h e latent function of acting as social and

cultural markers.

S u ch m eanin gs, like m ost others, are evalu ated in terms of th e pur-

poses of sett ings an d how they m atch particular schem ata related toparticular lifestyles a n d h en ce , ultimately, culture. Bu t th e principal

point has been m ade . Meaning generally, an d specifically users' m ean -ing, has tended to be neglected in the study of man-environmentinteraction, yet it is of central importance to the success of such a

study.



THE STUDY OF MEANING

T here is increasing interest in the study of m ea ning in a nu m be r ofdisciplines. W ithout reviewing th e large a n d com plex literature, a few

exam ples can b e given. In a nthropology o n e finds th e deve lopm ent ofsymbolic anthropology so that the " idea of m ea ni ng . . . provides a n

effective rallying point for m uc h tha t is new and exciting in a nthr op ol -

ogy" (Basso an d Selby. 1 9 7 6 : vii); th er e is also a n interest in t h e studyof met , lpho r( s eeF e rnandez , 19 74 )an d, m or e generally, . the develop-men t of structuralism. Meaning is als o becom ing m ore imp ortant in

geography, with th e growth of interest in phe nom eno logy and "pla ceU( se eT u an , 1 9 7 4 , 1 9 7 7 ;Relph , 19 76 ) . t IS, for example, proposed that

th e hum an world can be studied in te rms of signs (which guide behavior),affective signs (which elicit feelings), a n d sym bol s (which influence

though t; T uan , 19 78 ) .Ho we ver, in term s of th e discussion in Ch ap te r1, he first two of th es e ca n certainly b e c om bined ; th e third will b e dis-

cussed shortly in a b roa de r c ontex t. In psychology, also, th e stud y of

meaning is reviving and ha s been ap pro ac he d, to give just o n e example,

through th e concep t of "affordance" (Gibson, 1 9 7 7 ) ,which dea ls withall th e po tential uses of objec ts a n d t h e activities they can afford.

Ho we ver, th e poten tial uses of objects ar e rath er extensive, par-

ticularly o nc e o n e leaves th e purely instrumen tal a n d m anifest aspectsan d includes the latent ones. The se a re closely related to culture, yet

that is neglected; in any c ase , th e notion of m ea nin g in term s of p ote n-tial uses is rather am biguous. M oreover, this co nce pt h as not be enused in environm ental rese arch , an d t he question still remains: Whichcharacteristics of en viro nm en ts sugg est poten tial uses?

Meaning has also been app roa ch ed throug h part icular meth odol-

ogies. Most used has been the semantic differential (Osgood et a1 ,



36 THE MEANING OF THE BUILT ENVIRON MENT

1 9 5 7 ) ,which has spaw ned a great num ber of env ironmental research

efforts. More recently, o n e finds th e related but com pe ting u se of th e

repertory grid, based on personal construct theory (Kelly, 1955).These , be ing l'exp erim ental" in n atur e, limit th e kind of work that can

be do ne , w ho ca n d o it, a n d w here. F or ex am ple, it is very difficult tostudy m eaning in o ther cultures, to u se ev idence from the past, to use

alrea dy published material-all im po rtan t in th e de ve lo pm en t of validdesign theory. Such theory clearly must be based on the broadest

possible sam ple in s p ac e a n d time: o n all forms of environ m ents, allpossible cultures, all accessible periods. Moreover, these methodol-ogies a re partly in de pe nd en t of particular theoretical orien tatio ns of

how environments and meaning a re related.From a mo re theoretical perspective, it would a pp ea r that environ-me ntal me aning can be studied in a t least three major ways:

(1) Using semiotic models, mainly based on linguistics. These are currentlythe most common.

(2) Relying on the study of symbols. These are the most "traditional."(3) Using models based on nonverbal communication that come from

anthropology, psychology, and ethnology. These have been least usedin studying environmental meaning.'

It is th e third of th ese o n which I will be co ncen tra ting. Th is is partly

becau se these models a re the simplest , th e m ost direct, an d the mostimm ediate a nd they lend themselves to observat ion and inference as

well a s t o relatively easy interpre tation of many oth er studies. Th er e

a re also so m e other, although related, reaso ns that will em erg e grad-ually as the su bject is explo red .Let m e begin by discussing, very briefly ind ee d, so m e of t h e prob-

lems presente d by th e first two ways of studyin g enviro nm ental m ea n -ing before turning t o a preliminary, a n d then m ore d etailed, discussionof t h e third.

The semiotic approach

Even if o n e were no t critical of this app roa ch , o n e could justify

exploring others d u e to their much less com mo n use. Th e widespreadus e of t h e semiotic ap pr oa ch m ake s it less imp ortant to review it again

(se e Duffy an d Freedm an, 1 9 7 0 ; Jencks an d Baird , 1 9 6 9 ; Barthes,1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 ; C h oa y, 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 ; B o nta , 1 9 7 3 , 1 9 7 5 , 1 9 7 9 ;



The Study of Meaning 37

Preziosi, 1 9 7 9 ; Se b eo k , 1 9 7 7 a ; E co , 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 3 , 1 9 7 6 ; Gre imas e tal., 19'70; Groa t, 19 7 9 ; Dunster , 1 97 6 ; Jencks , 19 77 ; Rroadben t,

1 9 7 7 ; Bro adb ent et al., 1 9 8 0 ; Wallis , 1 9 7 3 [although Walli: actually

overlaps the semiotic an d symbolic approa ches , stressin2 th e latter] ;

and many others [see also the International Bibliography onSemiotics, 1974 1).

Yet I h e use of semiotics in th e study of en vironm ental m ean ing canbe crit icized. For o n e thing, the re h as b ee n little ap pa ren t adv anc e

since its use began (se e Bro adb ent et a!., 1 9 8 0 ) .A no th er criticism isthat even w hen interesting empirical work on m ean ing is d o n e ap-

parently within th e sem iotic tradition (for exam ple, K ram pe n, 19 -79), t

do es no t really ne ed , nor d oe s it relate to, semiotic theory. M oreover,:;I lca-n that case m uch of w hat that theo ry is m eant to d o ( such as c las ' f '

t ion) is do n e better by other a ppro ach es, su ch a s cognitive anthro pol-

ogy, ethnoscien ce, cognitive psychology, an d s o on . Similarly, oth erpromising stu dies of m ea ning appa rently w ithin th e semiotic tradition

(for instance, Preziosi, 1 9 7 9 ; Bo nta, 1 9 7 9 ) would d o a s well withouttho se theoretical underpinnings.

Moreover,if

everything can b e a sign, th en the studyof

signs be-co m es s o broad as t o b ec om e trivial. (This, a s we shall se e below, is alsothe problem with symbols. It also weakens the applicability of the

struct~~ralistodel when o n e tries to apply it to th e built environment.)

While in th e long run suc h linguistic m od els m ay pr ov e extremelypowerful and possibly even useful, and some potentially hopeful

examples can be found (Preziosi, 1 9 7 9 ;R o n ta , 1 9 7 9 ) ,a t t h e m o m e n ttheir usefulness is extremely limited and their use may even create

problem s. O n e suc h problem with se mio tic analysis, which is a par-ticular case of the use of linguistic models more generally, is theextremely high level of abstraction a n d t h e rather difficult a n d esoteric

vocabulary full of neologisms, which m ak es m uch of it virtually un re ad -able. I must confess that I personally find th es e as pec ts of sem iotic

analysis extrem ely difficult t o un de rst an d a n d e ve n m o re difficult touse. While this may b e a p er so na l failing, I have found tha t many o ther

researchers an d practit ioners, an d most stud ents, hav e also ha d gre atdifficulty with t he m . T hu s a recent gra du ate thesis o n rnea ning by a

mature student who was a faculty member referred to the "r igidtheoretical f ra m ew o rk of semiotics, its "very com plex techn ical jargon"andG' i t serminology usually s o com plicated th at it is totally beyon d th egrasp of th e uninitiated a n d app arently b ecom ing m or e so'' s o tha t it is

"hopelessly unintelligible" ( d a Koch a Filho, 19 79 )--a nd this was




ab ou t o n e of t he m ore re adab le efforts. As a result, it would a p pe ar

that d esigners will enco un ter serious problems with s uch ap pro ach esa n d will resist tackling th e im po rtan t topic of m eanin g. Th is resistance

will be co m p ou nd ed by th e ev ident difficulty of applying semiotics-

clear exam ples of actual enviro nm en ts an d their analysis in reasonablystra igh tfo w ard term s ten d to be singularly lacking.

If we acc ept t h e view that semiosis is the " proc ess by which so m e-

thing fun ctio ns a s a sign," an d he nc e tha t semiotics is th e study of

signs, then semiotics contains thre e main com po nen ts:

the sign vehicle (wh at acts as a sign)

the designation ( to what the sign refers)th e interp retant ( th e effect on the interpreter by virtue of which a thing is

a sign)

This formulation ignores ma ny com plex an d subtle arguments a bo ut

index, icon, an d symbol as op po se d to sign, s ignal, an d symbol, an d

their definitions, relationships, an d hierarchies (s ee o n e review inFirth, 1973). n fact, discussions of this app arently simple point can

be co m e almost impossible to follow, nev er really clarify t h e a rgum ent,

an d neve r help in the understanding of en vironm ental mea ning.

Sem iotics, a s the stud y of t h e significance of elem en ts of a struc-tured system, can also be unde rstood a s comprising thre e major

imp ortan t co m po ne nts ; the se , in my view, help us both in un derstan d-ing some of the problems with semiotics and in taking us further.They are:

syntactics-the relationship o f sign to sign within a system of signs, tha t

is, th e study of struc ture of the system .

sem antics- the relation of signs to things signified, tha t is, how signscarry mean ings, th e property of th e elem ents.

pragm atics-the relation of signs to the behavioral responses ofpeo ple, tha t is, their effects of th os e who interpret the m a s

part of their total behavior; this, then, deals with thereferen ce of the signs an d th e system to a reality externalt o th e system-in a word, their mean ing.

Generally, in semiotics, m eanin g h as be en regard ed as a relativelyun im po rtant , special, an d utilitarian fo rm of significance. Yet m ean ing,

a s those associational, sociocultural qualities en co de d into environ-me ntal elem ents, characteristics, o r attributes, would se em t o b e pre-




cisely th e m ost interesting question. An oth er major problem, therefore,

with sem iotic analysis is that it ha s ten de d to conc entrate o n t h e syn-

tactic level, that is, th e m ost abstract. Th er e ha s be en som e, although

not eno ug h, attention paid to th e semantic-but hardly any at all to

th e pra gm atic . Yet it is by exa m iningw hich elem ents function in w hatways in concrete situations, how they influence emotions, attitudes,

preferences , and behavior , tha t they can bes t be unders tood and

studied.This boo k is precisely ab o u t this-about prag m atics. In a se ns e, o n e

could arg ue that the s t ress has be en o n la langue, ra ther than o n la

parole-which is wh at any given environm ent rep rese nts a n d which

sho uld , in any c ase, be th e starting point. It is not m uc h us e studyingd ee p gramm ar when o n e wishes to unders tand what part icu lar pe ople

a re saying. Yet, in ter m s of o u r conc ern with th e interpretation of how

ordinary environments com m unicate meanings a n d how they affect

behavior , th e pragm atic aspe cts are th e m ost important , a t least in t he

initial stages . At tha t level, it is th e e m b ed d ed ne ss of t h e elemenfs (an dtheir meaning s) in th e context a nd t h e situation that a re important-

a n d tha t will be elab ora ted later. At this point, let m e give a n e xam pleI

have used before (Rapopo r t , 1 9 6 9d ) . We observe groups of peo plesinging an d sowing grain in two different cultures. In o rd er t o know t h e

imp ortance of the se two activities to th e peo ple conc erned , we ne ed to

know th at in o n e culture th e sowing is important a n d th e singing isrecreational; in t h e oth er, th e singingis sac red an d ens ure s fertility an d

go od crops-the sowing is sec on dar y. T h u s in o n e cas e sowing is th e

critical thing; in th e ot he r, th e singing. Alternatively, if we see a g roup

of p eop le standing a ro un d, yelling, an d running, they m ay be doing

o n e of m any things. Th e si tuation a n d th e context explain th e events ;

know ing th a t it is a baseball g am e will put a different cnn struciion o nth e m ean ing of th e actions. T hu s it bec om es impo rtant to define th e

situation a n d situational context a n d to realize that thes e a r e culturally

def ined an d learned.Co nsider an environmental example-the important m eanin g

communicated through the contras t of humanized and non-humanized space (Rapoport , 19 69 c , 1976~1,977).This frequentlyha s to d o with th e establishing of place, a n d is often indicated by th e

contrast betwee n t h e presen ce of trees a n d their ab sen ce. However, in

a heavily forested area , a clearing bec om es th e cue, th e ele m ent com -municat ing tha t meaning; o n a t reeless plain a t ree o r grou p of t rees isthe cue (se e F igure 6).




Figure 6

T h e reversals between th e relative m ean ing of town (good) and

forest (wild, bad) s o co m m on in early colonial Am erica a n d t he present

m eaning of forest (goo d) an d town (bad; s e e Tu an , 1974),while they

have to d o with changing values, can ,I

believe, a lso be interpretedpartly in term s o f conte xt. In th es e terms a stee ple m arking a small,

wh ite town in its clearing of fields am o n g th e ap par ently end less forest,

dark and scary, full of wild animals and unfamiliar and potentially

da ng er ou s Indians, is th e equ ival ent of a small re m na nt of unspoiled

forest in an urban, o r at least urbanized, lan dsc ape that cove rs most of

th e land a nd is believed full of crime an d dan gero us gangs. T h e con-text of ea ch is quite different; th e figure/grou nd relations hav e, as it

were, chang ed.

In a tow n of m ud brick in th e Peruv ian Altiplano t h e use of white-

wash, reinforced by a n arched d oo r an d a small bell tower, marks a

special p lace-a church. In Ta os Pueblo, th e s a m e cues are used toidentify th e chu rch , in ad ditio n to a p itche d roof con trast ing with flat

roofs, a free stan din g building contrasting with clu ster ed buildings, an d

the use of a surround ing wall an d gateway (s ee Figure 7).In the ca se of

a settle m ent tha t is largely whitewa shed, it may b e t h e use of color ( a sin s o m e of t he Cycladic islands o f G ree ce ), reinforced by size, th e u se

of do m es , an d so on. Alternatively, it c an be th e use of natu ral materials,

such a s stone , in Ostuni o r Loc oroton do, in Apulia (S ou the rn Italy). In

that cas e th e cu e is also reinforced by oth er cu es, suc h a s size, location,

dom es, polychromy in the dom es, special elements such as classicaldoorways or co lumns, and s o on , to ach ieve the requisi te redundancy

(se e Figure 8).




In all th es e ca ses on e's atten tion is first dra w n to elem en ts thpt differfrom th e context. They t hu s be com e noticeable, strongly suggestingthat they have special significance. The reading of the meaningsrequires so m e cultural knowledge, which is, how ever, relatively simple;

for exam ple, the pre sen ce of th e schem a"church" (or, m ore generally,"im portan t buildings," "sac red buildings," an d so on) .

It is also context that he lps explain ap pa ren t anom alies, su ch a s th ehighly positive m ean ing , an d h e n c e desirability, of old forms an d

materials su ch a s ado be , w eathere d siding, half-timbering, thatch , an d



4 2 THE MEANING OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

*e*l*cu* l * D L c k W 8 9 LL . - - ~ -M J t ( ~ W A W , j hULLYh l e , I~~ECCL(LAFZ$N

DMP- FG 7 )

*%?o e-r

Flgure 8

so o n in Western cul ture an d t he equivalent meanings given new

forms and materials (galvanized iron, concrete, tile, and the like) indeveloping countr ies (se e Rapop ort , 1 9 6 9 d , 1 9 8 0 b , 1 9 8 0 c , 1 9 8 1 ) .

This contextual m eanin g m ust be con sidered in design, a n d the failureof certain p ropo sals in th e Third W orld, for example, can b e inter-

pre ted in th ese terms-that is, a s being du e t o a neglect of this impo r-tant asp ect (for instance, Fathy, 1973, can be so interpreted).




In linguistics itself, th e re h a s been inc rea sin g criticism of th e neglect

of pragmatics (se e Bates, 19 76 )-th e "cultural prem ises ab ou t th eworld in which s pe ech takesplace" (Keesing, 1 9 7 9 : 1 4 ) .T he deve lop-

m en t of sociolinguistics is part of this reevalu atio n, th e point is m a d e

that th e nature of any given sp eec h eve nt may vary depe ndin g o n th ena ture of th e participants, t h e social setting, th e situation-in a wo rd,the contex t ( see Gum perz an d Hymes, 1 9 7 2 ; Giglioli, 19 72 ) .

In any event, it ap pe ars that th e neglect of pragmatics an d th e con-

centration o n syntactics almo st to t h e exclusion of everything else ar e

se r io i~ s hor tcomings of the semiotic app roach.

The symbolic approach

Even if o n e includes so m e m o re recent versions, derived from struc-

turalism, symbolic anthropology, and even cognitive anthropology,this is a n ap pro ac h th at traditionally ha s bee n u sed in th e study of his-

torical high-style architecture and vernacular environments. It also

ha s suffered from a n excessive de gr ee of abstraction an d complexity.

It also has stressed structure over context, but even in that case itymioticeem s more approac hable an d m ore immediately useful than sc,

analysis ( see Basso and Selby , 19 7 6 ; Leach , 19 7 6; Lannoy, 1 9 7 1 ;

G e e lt z, 1 9 7 1 ; Tu an , 1 9 7 4 ; R apo po rt, 1 9 7 9 b ; am o n g many o th ers ).

This approach has proved particularly useful in those situations,mair~lyn traditional cultures, in which fairly strong a n d clear s ch em ata

ar e expressed throu gh th e built environm ent-whether high style o r

vernacular . Many examples can be given, such as the case of th eRenaissance churche s already m entioned (Wittkower, 19621,o therchu rche s a nd sacred buildings generally (Wallis, 1 9 7 3 ) o r the

P an the on (MacDonald, 1 9 7 6 ) , the layout of lowland M aya set-t lements at th e regional scale (Marcus, 1 9 7 3 ) ,an d th e study of tradi.

tional urba n forms (Miiller, 1 9 6 1 ;Wheat ley, 1 9 71;Rykwert, 1 9 7 6 ) . tha s also proved illuminating in th e frequently cited c as e of t he Do gon(see Gr iau le and Pie ter len , 1 9 54 ) or th e B ororo (Levi-Strauss 1 9 57 ) .It ha s also be en useful in th e study of t he spatial organ ization of t h e

T em ne h ous e (Littlejohn, 19 6 7) , he orde r in th e Atoni hou se (Cunning-ham , 1 9 7 3 ) , th e Ainu house, v illage, a nd larger layouts (Ohnuki-Tierney , 1 9 7 2 ) , he Berber house (Bourdieu , 1 97 3) ,o r th eTh a i h o u s e(Tarnbiah, 1 9 7 3 ) . O ther examples , am on g the many availab le , a reprovided by the study of the relation between G re ek tem ples an d their

surround ing landscapes (Scully , 1 9 6 3 ) an d m ore recent com parable

examples f rom Bali a nd Pos itano (James , 1 9 73 , 19 7 8) . Note th a t in




these lat ter cases th e mean ing f irs t beca m e a pp are nt through observa-

tion-the locations of the buildings drew attention to som ethin g special,

an d hen ce impo r tant, going on within th e con text o f the landscape in

ques tion. This was then check ed m ore m ethodically; the interpreta-

t ion of th e m ean ing of th ese special elem en ts required so m e culturalknowledge. In this way the se ex am ples com e closer to the ap pro ach

being ad vo ca ted in the bo dy of this book . Sim ple observation revealed

quickly that som ething was h app enin g. (This could h ave b een checked

in th e ca se s of Bali an d Po sita no by o bserv ing be hav ior.) By classifica-

t ion a n d m atching against sch em ata the c o de was the n read relatively

quickly a n d easily.

I ha ve used th e symbolic ap pro ach in a relatively simple form . O n eexample has a l ready been d iscussed (Rap opo r t , 1 9 6 9 e) ; two m ore

related ex am ples will now be d evelop ed in som ew ha t mo re detail .

In t h e first (R ap op or t, 1 9 7 0 b ), it is pointed ou t that th e stud y of

symbolism (I would now say "meaning1')ha s not played a m ajor role in

the environm ental design f ield. W hen symbols have b een considered

at all, it was only in o n e of two ways. First, th e discussion was restricted

to high-style design and to special buildings within that tradition.Se co nd , the discussion form ed part o f historical studies, th e implica-

t ion being that in th e present contex t symbo ls were n o longer relevant

to the designer .

In th e ca se of t h e s e special high-style, historical buildings, th e im-

po r tance of symbols has b een recognized an d well studied; exam ples

ar e sufficiently well known an d s o m e ha ve already b een discussed

briefly. B ut this kind of analysis ha s not b een app lied to env iron m entsm ore generally. In fact, th e discussion is som etim es explicitly restricted

to special buildings, specifically excluding "utilitarian" buildings,

ve rna cu lar buildings, a n d , in fact, m ost of t h e built en vir on m en t. Yet it

is clear , a n d eviden ce ha s already be en ad d uc ed , that this is not th e

case : Sym bolism (tha t is, m ean ing ) is central to all en viro nm ents.

T h e definition of "symbol" pre sen ts difficulties. T he re hav e be enmany such definitions, all with a number of things in common

(see Rapoport , 1 97 0b : 2-5) , al though these need not be discussed

here. T h e question that se em s of m ore interest is why, if they a r e so

important, they h ave received such minimal attention in design, design

theory, and environmental design research. Many answers can be

given; o n e is the difficulty in t h e co nsc iou s us e of sym bols in design

a n d th e m anipulation of th e less self-conscious sym bols involved in

the creation of vernac ular forms. Th at difficulty stem s from a nu m be r




of sources-some very general (t o be discussed later), oth ers m or especific.

Tw o am on g th e latter a re significant at this point-and a re related

T h e first is th e distinction pro po sed by H ayaka wa (Roy ce, 1965)be-

twee n discursive symbols, which a re lexical a nd socially sh ar ed , an dnondiscursive symbols, which ar e idiosyncratic. T h e a rgu m en t followstha t in th e past th ere was a m uch w ider area of social agree m ent abo ut

sym bols an d few er idiosyncratic variations. Sy m bols in a given cultu rewere f ixed, known a n d sha red by the public and t h e designers.A given

environm ental e lem en t would always, o r a t least in m ost ca ses, elicitth e "right" respo nses ( that is, those intend ed by the design) or a t least

respon ses within a narrow range. T h e choices w ere greatly limited bythe culture and the se l imitations were accepted. This was s o in p re-

literate, vern acu lar, an d traditional high-style desig n. U nd er all th es econditions th e associations were mu ch m or e closely ma tche d to various

forms an d ele m en ts tha n is th e cas e today . Tod ay it is far m or e difficult,if not impossible, to design in th e associational world, sin ce sym bols

are neither fixed nor sh ared. As a result designers hav e te nd ed to

eliminate all co nc ern with t h e associational world a n d ha ve restrictedthemselves to t he perceptual w orld; w here they have no.t, th e resultshav e be en less tha n successful .

Any atte m pt to design for associations at levels abo ve i e personalar e thu s difficult. This is o n e reas on for th e im po rtan ce of personaliza-tion an d o pe n- en de dn es s discusse d earlier. Yet in any given cultural

realm there ar e s om e shared associat ions that could b e reinforcedthrough consis tent use . T he re may e ven b e s om e pan-cultural sym-

bols (Rapoport , 19 7 0b : 7-8);yet variability tod ay is th e m or e striking

p h e n o m e n o n .This b rings m e to th e seco nd , re la ted s tudy (Rapopor t , 1 9 7 3 ) .This

stud y begins by suggesting that t h e translation of sy mbo ls into form

h as certain com m on featu res in all form s of design-high style, ver-nacular , a n d popular . W hat se em s to vary is the na tur e of th e criteria

used in m aking choice s am o n g alternatives that, used systematically,

result in recognizable styles (Rap oport, 1 9 7 3 : 1-3;com pare Rapoport,1 9 7 7 :15-1 ;1 9 8 0 ~ ) .his involves a proce ss of im age m atch ing thatat tempts to achieve congruen ce between so m e ideal concepts an d the

corres pon ding physical environments.T h e question is the n raised a s to why po pu lar design is disliked by

des igne rs ev en t ho ug h it works well In m an y ways. In fact, o n e of t h eways in which it works particularly well is in th e consistency of u se of




m odels, particularly in chain o pe ratio ns. Given people's mobility a n d

th e n eed for environments that can be "read" easily so that com -

prehensible c ues f o r approp r ia te behavior can be comm unicated,

chain operations indicate very clearly, explicitly, and almost auto-

matically wh at t o exp ect. Se ein g the relevant symbols, peop le know,without thinking, w hat beh avior is expe cted of them , wh o is welcome,

w hat level of "dressing up" is accep table , an d wh at food an d services

are available at what p r ice s2 T he cues are a s c lear, consis tent, an d

comprehensible as in a tribal society and, in this way at least, such

design is extremely successful an d sophisticated. T h e ques tion, then,

of why su ch design is so strongly disliked by des ign ers an d oth er

group s m ust b e reiterated. T h e answ er, in brief, is that th e ideals incor-porated in these images an d sc hem ata, that is, the values an d m eanings

that a re expre ssed, a re fo un d unac cepta ble. Th e result of this analysis

is, ther efo re, tha t t h e problem is th e variability in th e sym bols, imag es,

an d m eanings held by different groups. Th ese a re not sha red a nd , infac t, elicit very diff ere nt reactions from various grou ps; m ism atche s

an d m isunderstandings then follow.As a result, there a re problems with this approa ch. T h e ab ov e dis-

cussion deals with a specific problem: In nontrad itional cultures such

as o ur ow n it is difficult to use sym bols w he n they ar e ever less sh are d

an d he nc e ever m ore idiosyncratic. This specific problem may, how-ever, also affect othe r ap pr oa ch es to t h e study of mea ning, al though it

se em s to be exac erbated by relying o n the n otion of "symbol." But the

use of t he symbolic app roac h also presents m ore gen eral problems to

which I ha ve a lready briefly referred a n d which I will now d iscuss.

The se problems have to d o with th e com m on distinction betweensigns andsym bols . Signs are su ppose d t o b e univocal, that is, to ha ve a

one - to-on e cor respondence t o what they s tand for because they are

related to those things fairly directly, eikonically or in other ways;hen ce they have only o n e proper m eaning. Symbols , on the other

hand , a re supposed to be mult iuocal , that is, they ha ve a on e-to-m any

correspondence and are hence suscept ible to many meanings ( for

example , see Turner , 1968: 17). In this case correspondence isarb i t r a ry an d any part may stan d for th e whole. This then com po und s

th e specific problem raised ab ov e since it co m po un ds th e difficulty of

using sym bols in analyzing o r designing env iron m ents in th e pluralis-

tic si tuations that are now typical . T he re is also an even m ore general

a n d basic question ab o ut th e exten t to which "symbolism" is a usefulsep arate category, given tha t all hu m an com mu nication, an d in so m e

views much of hu m an behavior generally, is symbolic. S o m e definitions




of symbols tend, then , to be s o gene ral that, in effect, since symbolsystems define cultu re ( see Geer tz , 1 9 6 6 a , 19 66 b ; Basso an d Selby,

1 9 7 6 ;S chne ide r, 19 76 ; L each, 19 76 ) ,everything becom es a symbol

(a s in semiotics everything b eco m es a sign!).Thu s symbols have been

defined a s "any object, act, even t, quality o r relation which serves a s avehicle for a conception" (Gee rtz , 1 9 6 6 a : 5) an d also as any "objects

in experience upon which man has impressed meaning" (Geertz ,1 9 6 6 b ) .As we shal l se e below, o n e can look at environmental cu es

and analyze their meaning without getting into the whole issue of

symbols, which can, an d does, be co m e fairly abstract (see , for example,

Leach, 1 9 7 6 ) . n m any cases , wh at used t o be an d is called symbolism

can also b e studied by th e analysis of sch em ata a nd theirrneanings, forexam ple by using cognitive a nthropology app roa che s, so that sett ings

can b e see n a s expressions of dom ains (see Rap opo rt , 19 7 6 a , 1 9 7 7 ;

Douglas, 1 9 7 3 b ; Leach, 1 9 7 6 : 33 -41 ) . Th ese in themselves, while

simpler, a re still complex. M oreover, o n e ca n frequently reinterpret

major prono un cem ents o n symbolism in term s of co m m unication by

substituting o ther terms in t h e text o r leaving ou t th e wo rd "symbol"

(as in Du nca n, 1 9 6 8 ). n a way, from a different perspective, th e sa m epoint is m ad e by th e suggestion that symbols are neither s igns no r

som ething that represents o r s tan ds for som ething else; rather, they

are a form of comm unicat ion (McCully, 1 9 7 1 : 2 1) . T o say that A is a

sym bol of B do es not help us much; th e mea ning of that symbol an d

what elements communicate that meaning s t i l l remain to be dis-

covered.Many analyses (for example, Lea ch, 1 9 7 6 ) ,while discu ssing sym bol

sys tem s (in this c as e from a structuralist position), in fact d ea l with cul-

ture as communication. What concerns them, basically, is that the

"com plex in terco nn ecte dn ess of cultural eve nts [which includes

env ironm ents a n d their contexts] itself conv eys information t o tho se

w ho participate in these events" (L each, 1 9 7 6 : 2).T h e question is not tha t comm unicat ion con tains many verbal an d

non verb al com pon ents-the que stion is how unfamiliar information

is decoded, particularly expressive functions. Leach tackles thisthr ou gh signals, signs, a n d symbo ls tha t hopefully will reveal th e p at-

terning an d information en co de d in th e no nverbal dimensions; of cul-

tur e, s uc h a s clothing styles, village layouts, architecture , furniture,

foo d, cooking, music, physical g estures, posture, an d s o o n (L each,1 9 7 6 :10).H e assu m es that it will belike language without argu ing this

any further. Actually, we d o not know tha t it is like langua ge. Even i f it is

like languag e, we can begin with a simple, descriptive ap pr oa ch a n d




get to structural analysis later. My a pp ro ac h will be to a ccep t th e task,

ab ou t which w e agree , t o con centra te on built environments an d theircontents , an d to try to ap proach the analysis m ore s imply a nd m oredirectly. This is, in fact, the major thrust of this book, that simpler

ap pr oa ch es can be used to achieve m ore useful results in studyingenv ironm enta l mean ing-at least in th e beginning ph as es of thisrather large-scale an d long-range undertaking.

Interestingly, s o m e studies of symbolism ha ve m ad e suggestionsthat I interpret as very close to my a rg um en t in this book. T he se sug -

gestions a re ab ou t th e ne ed to red uc e the arbitrariness of symbolicallocation, which requires a stress o n th e social elem ents in sym bolism

an d an interest in th e processes of hu m an thought an d the role ofsymbols in com mu nication (Firth, 1 9 7 3 ) .While this particular study

does not even mention the buil t environment, the basic point thatsymbols communicate, that they ar e social, that they are related to

status an d represen t th e social orde r a n d th e individual's place in it, a reall notion s tha t can be studied in oth er ways-notably throug h no n-

verbal communication. If cultu re is, inde ed , a system of sym bols a n dmea nings that form important determinants of action a nd social action

a s a meaningful activity of h um an beings, this implies a com monality

of understanding, that is, com m on cod es of communication (Schneider,

1 9 7 6 ) . T h e ques tion then is how we can bes t deco de th is processof communicat ion.

The nonverbal communication approach

W hile this app ro ac h will be discussed in considerab ly m or e detail in

th e c ha pt er s that follow, a brief discussion a t this point will he lp in com -

paring it with th e ot he r two app roach es.

T h e study of n onv erbal behavior ha s deve lop ed greatly in recentyea rs in a n um be r of fields, particularly psychology a n d an thropo logy

(see Birdwhistell, 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 2 ; Eibl-Eibesfeld , 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 9 ;Mehrab ian , 19 7 2 ; Sche fl en , 19 7 2 , 19 7 3 , 19 74 ; Hall, 1 9 6 6 ; Kauf-

m an , 19 7 1; Ekm an, 1 9 5 7 , 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 6 , 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 7 8 ;E km an a nd F riesen, 1 9 6 7 , 1 9 6 8 , 1 9 6 9 a , 1 9 6 9 b , l 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 4 a ,1 9 7 4 b , 1 9 7 6 ;E k m an e t al., 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 6 ; o h n s o n e t al.. 1 9 7 5 ;Davis, 1 9 7 2 ; Argyle, 1 9 6 7 ; Argyle a nd Ingham, 1 9 7 2 ; Argyle e t a].,

19 73 ; Hinde , 19 72 ; F r iedman, 1 9 7 9 ; Weitz, 19 79 ; S iegman andFeldste in , 1 9 7 8 ; Harper e t a]., 1 9 7 8 ) .

T h e concern ha s been mainly with th e subtle ways in which pe op le

indicate o r signal feeling states a n d mo ods, o r chan ges in thos e states




or moo ds. T h e interest has be en o n their meta-communica t ive~func-

tion a n d its role in ch an gin g the quality of inte rpers on al rela*tions,forms of co -action, an d t he like. Stud ied ha ve b een th e face an d facial

expressions, a wide variety of body positions and postures, touch,

gaze, voice, so un ds , gestures, proxemic spatial arran gem ents, tem -poral rhythms, and so on .

It hiis be en pointed ou t quite clearly that p eo ple c om m un ica te ver-

bally, vocally, a n d nonverbally. Verbal behavior is m uch m o re codifiedan d used m or e "syn~bolically" han either vocal o r no nverbal behavior

It thus seems incorrect, on the face of it , to argue that "language

dominates all sign systems" (Jen cks , 1 9 8 0 : 74 ; emphas is a dde d) ,par-

ticularly in view of evid enc e that ev en la ngu age may b e m o re iconic,and hence related to nonlinguistic reality, than had been thought

(Lan dsbe rg, 1 9 8 0 ) . Be th at a s it ma y, how ever, all three-verbal,vocal, an d nonverbal-act together; they may "say" th e sa m e thing or

contrad ict each oth er, tha t is, reinforce o r w eaken th e messa ge. In an yca se , they qualify the inte rpre tation of verbal dis cou rse since they ar e

less affected tha n verbal ch an ne ls by attem pts to ce ns or information

(s ee E:kman an d Friesen, 1 9 6 9 a ) . T h us o n e finds that nonlinguist icsomatic aspects of speech (paralanguage )greatly clarify spoken language.T o n e of voice, fa c~ a lxpress ions , and share d habits such as the mean-

ing of relative physical positions, sta nc es , an d relatiorlships of p ar -ticipants all help to clarify th e m eanin g of spo ke n lan guage well be yond

the formal study of gram m ar, structure, an d s o o n. In fact, it has b een

suggczsted that t h e soc ioco ntex tual as pe cts of com m un icatio n, which

are , of co urse, what o n e calls nonve rbal, ar e the mo st im portant in thesens e that they ar e the most immediately n oted , that is, they are th e"louclest" (Sarles, 1 9 6 9 ) .

Verbal a n d vocal behavior is received by th e auditory se ns e, while

non verbal be havior te nd s to be p erceived mainly visually, althoughauditory, tacti le (Kaufm an, 1 9 7 1 ) , olfactory (Largey an d W atson,

1 9 7 % ) , n d o th er sen sory cu es ma y be involved-basically it is mul-t ichannel (see Weitz , 1 9 7 9 ,Ekm an et a l. , 1 9 7 6 ) . t is thus necessary tostudy avariety of o therc han nels, al thou gh, s o far, this has tend ed to be

neglected (se e Weitz , 1 9 7 9 . 352). Note that in the study of man-environ m ent interaction itself, suc h a s environm ental percep tion, a n

analogous si tuation obtains: The visual channel has been stressedalmost t o th e exclusion of all ot he rs , an d th er e is ev en less stvess o n

mult~sensory,multichannel perception (Rapoport, 1977: ch. 4).

I would a rg ue that o n e such cha nne l is the built environ m ent Yet, in

many recent reviews of nonv erbal com m unication (for exam ple, Sieg-




m an and Feldste in , 1 9 7 8 ; Harper e t a l., 19 7 8 ; Weitz, 19 7 9 ) , her e isnothing o n th e built environm ent, and eve n clothing an d settings havet en d ed t o be ignored (see Fr iedman, 1 9 7 9 ) . Even if the role of the

environ me nt is not ignored , it is confined to sp ac e organization at the

interp erso nal, proxemic, extrem ely microscale level. At best, o n e findsscattered m entions of th e built env ironm ent (se e K en do n et al.,

1 9 7 5 ) .

T h e con cep t of no nverbal commun ication in the environment can

b e used in a t least two different ways. T h e first is in t h e se n se of ana logy

or metaphor: Since environments apparently provide cues for be-

havior but d o not d o it verbally, it follows th at they mu st rep rese nt a

form of nonv erbal behavior. T h e sec on d is mo re directly re lated towhat is commonly considered nonverbal behavior. Nonverbal cuesnot only themselves comm unicate, they hav e also bee n shown to be

very im portant in helping o the r, mainly verbal, com mu nication. Th eyalso greatly h elp in co-a ction, for exam ple by indicating th e e n d s of

verbal statements. In that sense, the relationship is very direct and"real)' environments both communicate meanings directly and also

aid other forms of meaning, interaction, communication, and co-action. T he re are also methodological suggestions here for th e study

of en vironm ental m eaning . In nonverbal communication research,

th e links betw een different form s of com mu nication have been studied

by observing (o r recording o n film o r videotap e) cu es an d th en makinginferences. For example, how head and body cues communicate

affec t Ekman, 19 65 ;Ekman and Friesen, 1 9 6 7 )or how kinesic signals

st ructure conversat ions am on g children (De Long, 1 9 7 4 ) . O ne canalso study t h e am o u n t of inform ation prov ided by different cues-forexam ple, by getting peop le to interpret ph oto gr ap hs of situations, or

th e situations themselves.

Unfortunately, ev en in t h e study of nonv erbal behavior, the stresshas often bee n o n i ts natu re a s a "relationship language" (Ekm an andFriesen , 1968: 180-181),hat is, on syntactics. Yet, because non-

verbal behav ior lacks th e linearityof

language, there ha s always bee nm 6re aw are ne ss of pragmatics-both conceptually a n d me thodo log-ically the re has always been a "simpler" ap proach roo ted in pragmatics.

Th ere has a lways se em ed to be an awareness tha t nonverbal com-mu nication could be stu died eithe r structurally, looking for th e under-

lying system o r set of rules som ew hat an alog ous to language, or bystressing pragmatics, looking for relationships between particular

nonverbal cues and the si tuation, the ongoing behavior, and so on




( Dun can, 1 9 6 9 ) . T h u s in the study of nonverbal behavior both a p-

proaches have been used.

T he stress, however, o n t h e linguistic ap pro ac h, with its high level of

abstraction, has been unfortunate. Early in the development of thestudy of no nverbal com mu nication t h e distinction w as m ad e between

language a s digita l a n d deal ing with denotat ion a n d nonverbal com-munication as analogic and dealing with coding; the analyses also

nee ded to be d if ferent (Ruesch and Kees , 19 5 6 : 1 89 ) .Th us environ-mental meaning, if it is to be studied a s a form o f nonverbal com -

m un icati on, is likely t o lack t h e linearity of lang ua ge (in sem iotic term s,it is not "syntagmatic"). Env ironm ental m eaning , there fore, probably

d o es not allow for a clearly articulated s et of gram matical (syntactic)rules. Ev en in the ca se of body langu age, it ha s b ee n sugg ested th at

the re are a few aspects tha t may b e co de d in such a way that mostm em bers in a given com munity unders tand them . Most such cues ,

however, need a great deal of inference. This can be difficult, butguesses can b e go od if the cues add up In oth er words, d u e to th e

ambiguity of cu es their red un da nc y m ust be great-as I have argued

elsewhere regard ing th e environment (Rapopor t , 19 7 7) .A role would a lso b e played by people 's readiness to m ak e such

guesse s. This suggests tha t th e insights of signal detection th eory m ayusefully b e a pp lied t o this typ e of analysis (see Daniel e t al., n.d.;

Murch, 1 9 7 3 ) .This argu es tha t all perception involves judgments. Inmaking judgments, two elem en ts play a role--the na tur e of th e stimuli

a n d o bserver sensitivity o n t he o n e ha nd , an d a person's will ingness to

m ake discriminations (his o r he r cri terion state) o n th e othe r. Stnc e allenvironm ental cue s ar e inherently am bigu ous to an extent-that is,there is uncertain ty ( se e Rapopor t , 1 9 7 7 : 1 1 7 , 150 )- - the cri te rion

state, th e observer's willingness t o act o n th e basis of "weak" o r am -

biguous c ue s, beco m es significant. At th e sa m e time, of course , signalstrength a n d clarity, an d he nc e thresholds, are s till important; a s w e

shalA se e, s o a re contexts-they help in drawing inferen ces from

abiguous cues. Sin ce designers ca nno t ch an ge the criterion state, theyne ed to m anipulate those aspects they can control: redun dancy , clear,

not iceable differences , an d approp riate contexts (Rapop ort , 1 9 7 7 ) . t

also follows that s ince enviro nm ents are inherently am biguous, they

m ore closely resemble nonverbal comm unication tha n they d o lan-guage. H en ce nonverbal analysis provides a m or e useful mo del thando es language.



52 THE MEANING O F THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Environm ents a n d nonverbal com mu nication also lack the clear-cut lexicons with indexical relationships to referents that languagepo sse sse s. Bu t it is freq uently for go tten that in linguistics lexicons exist

be ca use of th e efforts of desc riptive linguists ov er long per iod s of time;linguistics began with dictionaries. It may b e useful, the ref ore , to start

with c om para ble ap pr oa ch es in s tudying environme ntal mea ning by

trying t o relate certain cu es to particular behaviors a nd interpreta-tions-a point t o wh ich I will return. It is possible that "dictionaries"

can be developed , as has been the case in the s tudy of facial expres -s ions (Ekman et a l., 1 9 7 2 ; Ekm an an d Fr iesen, 1 9 7 5 ) , k inesics

(Birdwhistell, 1 9 7 0 ,1 9 7 2 ) ,body m ovement(Davis , 19 72 ) ,proxemics

(Hall, 19 6 6 ) , gestures (Efron , 1 9 4 1 ; Morris e t a l., 1 9 7 9 ) , and o the rtypes of n onv erbal cues.

If w e wish to study m eanin g in its full, natural context, we n ee d t obegin with t he w hole, naturally occurring p h en o m en on . This is whatnonverbal s tudies have tend ed to do; so h ave ethological s tudies. In

ethology, the view has bee n th at a priori o n e canno t decide what torecord an d what to ignore: T h e important aspects are unknown. T h e

firs t s tep is to describe the repertoire; the data themselves, then,inform subsequ en t research. Bo th conceptually an d methodologically,

the over lap between ethology an d hu m an nonverbal comm unicationstud ies is very close.3For o n e thing, th e behavior ethologists study is,

by definition, nonverbal!! It is th us qui te app ro pr iat e an d significantth at in ethology t h e first, a n d critical, st ep is to rec ord rep erto ires a n d

constru ct catalog ues of behaviors-much a s I a m advocat ing here. In

any c ase, such a n effort, stressing seman tics a n d pragmatics, se em spotentially both m ore useful a n d m ore direct, particularly at th e begin-ning, tha n a linguistic a pp ro ac h stressing structu re a n d syntactics.

No te that all of th ese th ree a pp ro ac he s to the study of m eanin g, dif-feren t as they se em to be, d o have a numb er of gene ral characteristicsin com m on . T he se follow from th e fac t that in any com m unicationprocess cer tain elements ar e essential ( se e Hymes, 1 9 6 4 : 21 6) :

(1) a sender (encoder)

(2 ) a receiver (decoder)

( 3 ) a channel

(4) a message form(5) a cultural code (the form of encoding)

( 6 ) a topic-the social situation of the sender, intended receiver, place, the

intended meaning




(7) th e con tex t o r scene , which is par t of what is being c om mu nicat ed but 1s

partly e xternal t o it-in any case , a given

This comm onality links th e thr ee a pp ro ac he s described a t a high level

of generality. It sugg ests tha t in starting th e study of e nviron m entalme aning through th e use of nonverbal communicat ion models , o n e

does not preclude t h e others. Eventually, should this prove necessary o rdesirable, it may b e possible to m ov e to th e u se of linguistic models.

S o far , however, environmental m eaning has not bee n s tudiedusing nonverbal models, nor has the analysis of nonverbal com-

munication really dea lt with built env iron m ents a n d their furnishings,

Notes

1 Note, ho wev er, th e existence of a new journal (1976),EnorronmentalPsvchology

and Non -Verbol Behavior, whlch may begin t o redress thls gap

2 W hlle m a k ~ n g s o m ed~to r i a lh an ge s t o t h ~ s a n u s cr ~ p tn m ~ d - 1 9 8 2 , lam e across

a post ca rd ~s s u ed y Holiday Inn that ~llustra tesmy argu m ent perfectly In brg letters, ~t

says, "The best surprlse is no su rp ns e "

3 1w ~l l ot , how ever, review the l i terature on ethology generally or on its re la t~ o no

hu m ans o r tts relevance to m an-env ironm ent research



ENVIRONMENTAL M EANING

Preliminary Considerations for

a Nonverbal Communication Approach

In line with th e particular app roa ch described in the preface, I will

begin with a n apparently very different an d unrelated topic-one ofth e three basic question s of m an-en vironm ent studies: th e effirct ofenviron m ent o n behavior (Rap opo rt, 19 7 7) . This is a very large an d

com plex topic on which the re a r e different views a n d of w hich the rear e many aspe cts that cann ot be discussed h ere ( se e Rapoport , 1983).But o n e distinction tha t se em s extrem ely useful, which will co m e u p

several times, is that b etw een w hat could b e called direct an d indirecteffects. Th e bes t way t o clarify this distinction is through th e use of two

studies a s examples.

In th e first (Maslow a n d Mintz, 1956;Mintz, 1956),people wereask ed to perform various tasks-rate ph ot og ra ph s of faces alon g

various dimensions, grad e examinat ion papers , an d s o on--in a"beautiful" a n d a n "ugly" room . Disregarding th e m ean ing of th es eterms, a n d th e validity a n d replicability of th e findings (o n which th ere

is a sizable literature, of n o interest to us he re), it is foun d th at h u m anreactions an d perform ance c ha ng e in response to th e effects of th e

characteristics of the two rooms: that is, these environments have

so m e direct ef tect o n the p eop le in them .In t he s econd s tudy (Rosen tha l, 19 66 : 98 -1 01 , 24 5- 24 9) , h e con-

cern is; with th e effect of laboratory settings o n how pe op le perform inpsychological tests. Only a few pages of a large bo ok de al with thistopic, but I foun d them seminal, since they got m e s tar ted o n this who le

topic. In th es e studies there w ere still two room s, but they w ere n ot"ugly" andU bea utiful,"but rather impressive andun imp ressive. 'Therew ere also exp erim ente rs present-dressed in certain ways, of certain

age, mien, an d dem eanor-corresponding to the room that was their




setting. In brief, o n e situation was of high sta tus, th e o th er of lowstatus-and th es e influenced th e test results o n th e highly stan-

dardized sam ples used.

T h e critical point is th at th e effects a re social but th e c ues o n t he

basis of which th e social situations are judged a re env ironm enta l-thesize of t h e room , its location, its furnishings, th e clothing an d o th ercharacteristics of th e expe rim en ter (which ar e, of cou rse, a part of th e

environm ent). Th ey all com m unicate identity, s tatus, a n d t h e l ike an dthrou gh this they establish a context a n d define a situation. T h e sub -

jects re ad th e cu es, identify th e situation a nd th e context, a n d actaccordingly. T h e proce ss is rather an alo go us to certain definitions of

culture that stress its role in enabling pe op le t o co -act throu gh sharingnotions of a pp rop riate behavior. T h e question then becom es o n e ofhow th e environment helps peop le behave in a m ann er acceptable to

th e me m ber s of a gro up in th e roles that th e particular gro up accepts

a s appro priate for the context an d t he s ituation def ined.

In all th es e cases, cu es ha ve th e pu rp os e of letting peo ple kno w in

which kind of do m ain o r setting they a re, for exam ple, in co nce ptua l,

taxonomic terms whether front/back, private/public, men's/women's,high status/low status; in m or e specific term s wh eth er a lecture hall o rsem ina r roo m , living room or be dro om , library or d iscotheque, "good"

or "ordinary" sh op o r res taurant , a n d s o on.Th at this is th e ca se beco m es clear from studies such a s that of

offices in th e British Civil Service (Duffy, 1969),w he re it was foundthat t h e size, carpeting, n um be r of w indows, furnishings, a n d o the r

elements of a room are carefully specified for each grade of civilserva nt. While this may ap p ea r nonsensical at first, o n fu rther reflec-

tion it m ake s extremely g oo d s ens e. In effect, onc e the c o d e is learned,

o n e knows w h o o ne's inter locutor is, and is helped to act appropri-

ately. T h e proc ess is, in fact, universal, th e m ain difference be ing tha tgeneral ly the rules are "unwritten" (Goffman, 19 59 ,19 63 )-w he rea sin th e ab ov e ca se they a p p ea r in written form in m anu als. Gen erally in

offices location, size, controlled access, furnishings a nd finishes, de greeof personalization, a n d o th er elements co m m un icate status. An inter-esting question is w hat h ap p en s in o p en -s p ac e offices. In fact, oth er

sets of cu es te nd to develop.O n e can suggest that position, distance, a nd decoration in offices

comm unicate social information abo ut the occ upan t and abo ut how



Environmental Meaning 57

h e or sh e would like othe rs to beh ave w hen in his o r her room Ho w an

occupa nt organizes th e office comm unicates meanings abo ut thatoccupa nt , about private a n d publ ic zones, an d he nc e about behavior.

Business executives an d academ ics, forexample, arrange these z ones

vey differently, s o that status a n d d om inanc e a re m uch less impo rtantin acaclemic offices tha n in bu siness o r go ve rnm en t offices (Jo ine r,1 9 71 , 1 9 71 ). Location w ithin a n office building a s indicating sta tus

seem s s o se lf -ev ident tha t it is used in a whiskey advertisement (see

Figure 9 ) , which s ho w s a se qu en ce of lighted windows in a n pffice

building a s showing " the way to th e top" s o that o n e can now enjoy

Brand X. O th er adv ertiseme nts also frequently us e office settings with

particular sets of ele m en ts t o co m m un ica te m eaning s very easily an dclearly a n d h en ce t o provide an app rop riate sett ing for the particularpro duc t being advertised.

It se em s significant th at , with relatively little effort, a wh ole set of

cu es can easily b e d escribed for this o n e type of setting 'These c ue sprovide information that constrains and guides behavior, influence

comm unication, a nd generally h ave meaning; they provide sett ings

for behavior see n a s approp riate to t he s ituation.This point requires elaboration T h e conclusion of th e argum ent

ab ou t indirect effects is tha t in man y c ases th e environment acts o n

behavior by providing cues whereby people judge or interpret the

social contex t or situation a n d act accordingly. In o the r words, it is th e

socialsi tuation tha t inf luencespeop le's behavior, but it is thep hys ical

enuironm ent tha t prov ides th e cues . A n u m b er of p oints that will be

dev elop ed later will now be introduced; they a re base d o n R apo port( 1 9 7 9 e ) .

People typically act in accordance with their reading of environ-

mental cues. This follows from th e observation that t he sa m e peop leact q uite differently in different settings. This su ggests tha t th e ie set -

tings so m eho w com mu nicate expected behavior i f the cues can beunders tood. It follows th at th e "language" used in the se en vironm en-

ta l cues must be und ers tood; the co de need s to be read (see Bernstein,1 9 7 1 ;Douglas, 197 3a ) . f th e design of th e environm ent is se en partlya s a p rocess of enc odin g information, then th e users c an b e sc-en asdec odin g it. I f th e cod e is not shared o r understood, the environment

doesnotcommunicate(Rapoport, 1 9 7 0 b , 1 9 7 3 , 1 9 7 5 b , 1 9 7 6 b ) ; his




QMbi-b(h.

Figure 9

si tuation corresponds to the experience of being in an unfamiliar

cultural context , culture shock. However, when the environmentalco d e is known, behavior can easily b e m a d e ap pro pria te to th e sett inga n d t h e social situation t o which it corresponds. Of course, before cue s



Environmental Mean ing 59

can b e understood they m ust b e noticed, an d after on e has both

noticed an d un ders tood the cues , o n e must be prepared to obey them.This latter co ns ide ratio n did not exist in traditional s ituations a n d is a

recent problem. M oreover, it is o n e over which designers have n o con-

trol, althou gh they ca n un de rsta nd it. Designers ca n, how ever, haveso m e control over th e oth er two aspects-they can ma ke cues notice-able and com prehensib le. People need to be see n a s behaving in

places that have meaning for the m (se e Birenbaum an d Sagar in,

1 9 7 3 ) , hat def ine occasions (Go ffman, 1 9 6 3 ) or s ituations (Blumer,1 9 6 9 a ). In term s o f behavior in environm ents, si tuations include

social occasions and their settings-who d o e s what, where, when,

h o w , a n d including or excluding whom. O nc e the co de is learned, theenv ironm ent a nd its mea ning play a significant role in h elping us judgepeo ple a nd situations by m ean s of th e cue s provided an d interpreted

in term s of one's culture or particular subcu lture.I t would appear that the sociological model known as s y m b o l i c

interactionism (Blumer, 19 6 9 a ), which dea ls with t he interpretationof th e situation, offers o n e useful startingp oint for an und erstan ding of

how peo ple interpret social situations from th e environm ent an d th enadjust their behavior accordingly. Note that I a m not evaluating this

model vis-a-vis others and that it is also clear that it needs to be

modified for th e pu rpo se by considering s o m e anthropological ';ideas

an d s om e not ions a bou t nonverbal com municat ion with which thisbook deals. Th e specific question to b e a dd ress ed is how enyiron-

m ents help organize people 's percept ions a n d m eanings an d howthe se environments, which ac t as surrogatesfor their o ccup ants an d a s

mnemonics of acceptable interpretations, elicit appropriate socialbehavior. In fact, it can b e sugg ested tha t situations ar e best un de rsto odand classified in terms of the behavior they elicit (Frederiksen,1 9 7 4 ) .

~ h cymbolic interactionist ap pro ac h to th e definition of th e situa-tion can be summarized in three simple proposit ions (Blumer,

1 9 6 9 a : 2):

(1)H um an beings act towards things (both objects a n d people) on th e

basis of th e mea ning s which these ha ve for the m . [This central point is

sha red by o th er app roac hes , such a s cognitive anthropology.](2) The meanings of things are derived from, or arise out of, th e social

interaction proc ess. This is claimed t o b e specific t o symbolic inter-actionsim. [Cognitive anthropology suggests that a basic hu m an nee dis to give th e world m ean ing an d that this is do n e by classifying it into




various relevant domains and naming those. These domains oftencorrespond to the settings of everyday life; Rose, 19 68 ;Tyler, 1969;Spradley, 1972; Rapoport, 197 6a , 1976 b.l

(3) These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an inter-pretative process used by people in dealing with the things which theyencounter. Meaning is thus not intrinsic and interpretation plays acritical role [although. I would add, the interpretation is frequently"given" by the culture].

It is the position of social interactionism that human groups exist

through act ion; both cul ture and social s tructure depend on what

peo ple do: Interact ion forms con duc t . This view ten ds t o neglect pre-

vious tradition (w hat we call culture) whereby we a re sho w n a n d toldhow to interact, what is expec ted of us, an d wha t the relevant cu es ar e.

We are told how to behave partly through the environment-the

objects of t h e world ar e given me anin g partly by o th er peop le's

actions encoded in them.

Blum er ( 19 6 9a : 1 0 -1 1 ) spea ks of physical , social, an d abstract

objects , but in th e built environ m ent thes e a re com bined a n d interact;

mo st co nce ptua lizatio ns of t h e built enviro nm ent stress this point-that en vironments are m or e than physical (s ee review in R apo port ,

1 9 7 7 : 8).T hu s o n e acts toward objects in terms of m eaning , that is,

objects indicate to p eo ple how to act; social organization an d culture

supply a fixed set of cue s, which a re use d to inte rpret situations a n d

thus help people to act appropriately. In this connection the built

env ironm ent pro vide s an im porta nt se t of su ch cues; it is partly a

m ne m on ic device, th e c ue s of which trigger ap pro pria te behavior.As already suggested, m ore s tress ne eds to b e given to t he routiniz-

in g of b ehav ior, the formation of habits, which is o n e thing culture is

about . It is this process that an swers the quest ion (Blum er 1 9 6 9 a : 1 3 6 )

abo ut h ow acts of interpretation can b e given th e constancy they ne ed .O n e answ er, to b e d ev elo pe d later , is that this is part of th e encultura-

tion proc ess inw hich t h e en viron m ent itself plays a role (se e Sherif a n d

Sherif, 1963;Rapoport , 19 78 a ) . It d o es this throu gh th e association

of certain en vironm ental cues an d elem ents with certain peo ple a nd

behaviors; this is assimilated into a sch em a whereby t he se elem ents

co m e to st an d partly for the se pe op le an d behaviors; finally, the se cu es

can b e use d t o identify unkno wn peo ple pr ior to any behavior-or

even w he n t he pe op le a re no t there. At this point we begin, in fact, to

get a com bination of symbolic interactionism, environm ent a s com-

m unic ation , cognitive anth ropo logy , th e notion of b ehavior settings,




indirect effects of environment on behavior, and other important

env ironm enta l themes-clearly t h e beginnings of a fairly large con -

ceptual sch em a. Without considering tha t an y further, let us contrnue

with o u r them e: th e insights tha t symbolic interactionism a n d its ap-

proach to th e definition of t he situation ca n provid e.T h e consta ncy of in terpre tation is partly th e result of joint action

th at is repetitive, stable , a n d essential in an y settled society (B lum er,

1 9 6 9 a 1 7 ): M e m be rs of a culture k now how to act appropriately invarious settings; in fact, o n e definition of cul ture is in terms of people 'sability to co -act effectively (G oo de no ug h, 1 9 5 7 ). M em bers of a cul-

ture also know the settings and the situations with which they are

associated; different cultures have different settings, an d th e be havior

appropriate to apparently similar settings may vary in different

culturc!s.T he f ixed cues a nd meanings enco ded in the environment of any

particillar culture he lp m ak e behavior m ore co nsta nt, th at is, they help

avoid t h e problem of totally idiosyncratic interp retatio n. This wouldnot only m ake an y social s tructure or cultural agree m ent impossible

and hence make any social interaction extremely difficult, it is also

likely tha t it would d e m a n d s o m uc h information processing a s t oexc eed hu m an chan nel capacity for such pro cessin g(see Miller, 1 9 5 6 ;Milgram 1 9 7 0 ; Rapoport, 1976b , 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 1 ).

In effect, in a dditio n t o t h e psychological a n d cultural filters peo pleuse to red uc e alternatives a n d information, o n e impo rtant function of

th e built en vironm ent is to m ake certain interpretations impossible or,a t least, very unlikely-that is, t o elicit a predisposition t o ac t in ce rtain

predictable w ays. Settings, if pe op le notice, properly interpret , an d areprepared to "obey" the cues, elicit appropriate behavior. Environ-

m en ts in traditional cultu res ha ve d o n e this extremely effectively a n dwith very high probability of success. In the ca se of ou r own culture

(with so m e exceptions, already discussed above), th e d eg ree of idio-syncrasy h as greatly increased , ma king th e process less certain a n d

less successful. En viron ments a n d settings, how ever, still d o fulfill that

function-people d o act differently in different settings a n d theirbehavior te nds to b e con gruent; environments d o redu ce th e choice oflikely in terpre tation s.

C on side r theoretical suggestions from two different fields. Reg ard-ing art, it ha s bee n su gge sted (Wollheim, 1 9 7 2 :124) hat th e observerdoes no t d o all of the interpretat ion. T h e better so m eo ne unders tandsa work of art , the less of the content h e or sh e imposes an d th e m or e is



62 THE MEANING OF THE BUILT ENVIRON MENT

com mu nicated: "The work of art should b e to s om e extent a straight-

jacket in regard t o th e ev en tua l ima ges tha t it is m ost likely to induce."

If we su bstitu te "en viro nm ent " for "work of art" th e parallel is very

close, a n d th e co nc ep t of culture shock followed by learning o r accul-

tura tion parallels tha t o f aes thetic learning. It is also instructive t o co m -pare the traditional situation in art, with a fixed canon and lexical(shared) meanings a n d great persis tence over t ime, with t h e con-

temporary situation, with highly idiosyncratic and rapidly changing

m eanings, s tressing novelty an d in-group meanings. T h e parallel to

en viro nm ental design is very striking.

In a m or e sociological co ntex t a useful suggestion h a s recently bee n

m ad e a long the sa m e lines that well com plem ents Blumer 's model .This is th e suggestion that th e definition of th e situation is most usefully

unde rstood in term s of the dram atu rgi ca l view (Perinba naya gam ,

1 9 7 4 ;se e also Britten, 1 9 7 3 ; Go ff man , 1 9 6 3 ) .This is useful b ec au sethis perspective inevitably includes a sta ge, an d h en ce a setting, props,and cues. This also makes i t useful to combine the notion of the

behavior set ting (Barker , 1 9 6 8 )with th at of t h e role setting (Goffm an,1 9 6 3 ) :T h e idea of "setting" becom es m uch m or e concrete.

T h e proble m is always on e of c on gru en ce betw een th e individual'sidiosyncratic definition of the situation and those definitions that

society provides-and tha t ar e en co de d in th e cu es of th e various

places a n d settings within w hich action is alway s situa ted . "Parties an drailway stations did not just ha p pe n t o be th ere: they were established

a s ways of eliciting a particula r definition [of th e situation] from who -

ever may com e along" (Per inbanayagam, 1974: 52 4) . T he re is, of

course , always s o m e flexibility, so m e ability t o redefine th e situation,a nd the situation itself always presents so m e choice, but a n a ppr o-priate setting restricts the ra ng e of choices (Perinba naya gam , 1 9 7 4 :5 2 8 ) . S u c h definit ions ar e greatly con straine d by enuironmen t, an dth es e constraints often a re enforced throu gh both formal an d informalsanction s. This is th e critical point, a nd th e o n e o n which this inter-

pretation differs from Blumer's. Meanings are not constructed de

novo throu gh interaction in eac h case. O nc e learn ed, they be co m eexpectations an d norms an d op era te semiautomatically.

Much of culture consists of habitual, routinized behav ior tha t oftenis almo st au tom atic; since the rang e of choices is greatly restricted intraditional cultures. the respo nse te nds to be m ore automa tic, consis-

ten t , and uniform (Rapopor t , 1 96 9c , 19 75 b, 19 76 b, forthcoming ) .

O nc e the rules operating in a setting ar e widely known a n d the cue s




identify that setting without ambiguity and with great consistency,these then elicit appro pria te m eanings (Douglas , 19 73 b) , appro pria te

definitions of t h e situation, a n d , he nc e, ap pro pria te behavior.T h e definition of a situation can thu s only arise w he n t h e parties to a

transaction are at least minimally familiar with the customs df th egro up an d have eno ug h kn owledge to interpret the situation in term s

of the cues present (Per inbanayagam, 1 9 7 4 : 5 2 4 ) . In o ther words ,

people must be able to interpret the code embodied in the bui l tenvironment . In the current context they must be able to operateam on g different coding systems ( se e Bernstein, 1 9 7I), n d th is com-

p ou nd s th e problem: O pe ratin g in pluralistic contex ts can b e very dif-

ficult indeed. Also, rapid culture change, modernization, develop-m ent, a n d th e like can lead t o ex trem e difficulties in this d om ain a n dthu s constitute a variable to b e considered in policymaking, p lanning ,

an d design ( se e Rapopor t, 19 79 c , for thcoming \ .

In this conn ection beh avio r, clothing, hairstyles, a n d o ther simiiar

elem en ts ca n also elicit app ro pri at e be ha vio r in similarwa!ls. In fact, allcultural material can act as mnemonic devices that communicate

e xpec te d behav io r (Ge e rt z, 1 9 7 1 ; Fe rna nde z , 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 4 , 197 7) .

T h u s in th e case of t h e Fang in Africa, th eAba Eboka, areligious struc-ture for the syncretic religion know n a s the Buiti cult, form s a settingfor a situation that is a min iatu re of t he wh ole cultura l system : It is a

paradig m , o r miniaturized setting, that rem inds participants of a who lecultural system. By recre ating a setting th at is disapp earin g in its full-

size form , it elicits app rop riate behavior an d pro pe r respon ses. In thisse n se it rem inds participants of a whole se t of s ituations (F ern an de z,

1 9 7 7 ). Fron t lawns ca n play a similar role in o u r culture (Sherif an dSherif, 1 9 6 3 ; W erthm an, 1 9 68 ); s o can location, vegetation, materials,

and o the r env ironmenta l e l ement s (Royse, 1 9 6 9 ; Duncan , 19 73 ) .

This last po int will b e discussed later in m ore detail. Fo r no w let uscons ider clothing, m en tion ed ab ov e. W he n clothing's role in provid-

ing identity a n d thu s helping to define social situations break s dow n

d u e to lack of consistency, it be co m es difficult t o plac e p eo pl e in to

categories, th at is, to interpret their identities o n t h e basis of cos tum e; italso becomes more difficult to act appropriately (Blumer, 1969'0).Traditionally, co stu m e played a n imp ortant role in this process ( R oa chan d Eicher, 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 7 3 ), a s did facial scars , hairstyles, an d ma nyot he r similar physical, a s well a s beh avio ral, variables. This is imp or-

tant: W hen peo ple can be identified a s to type, potential si tuat ions are

m or e easily define d; suc h peo ple ar e n o longer fully strangers (Lofland,

1 9 7 3 ) ,an d appropr ia te behavior becom es much easier .




Clothing is still used to classify pe op le an d is often sele cted to be

con gru ent with given situations (Re es et al., 1 9 7 4 ) ,but th e consistencya n d predictability of s uc h cu es is now greatly re du ce d co m pa red t o

traditional situations, in which co stum es a n d o the r suc h markers h ad

almo st com ple te predictability; mo d e of d re ss was often laid dow n bylaw a s well a s by custom. U nde r these new conditions oth er cues,including th e built environment, b ecom e m ore important (see Lofland,

1 9 7 3 ;J o h ns to n , 1 9 71 ) .This also applies w he n know ledge of peop le(say within a small gro up ), ac ce nt, "old schoo l ties," a n d oth er similar

devices cease t o op erate . U nder all th es e conditions, a s w e shall se elater, people's location in physical a n d social sp ac e be co m es m or eimp ortant-and is often indicated by th e settings in which they ar e

found. These settings themselves are identified by various cues-if

these c an be "read."

Set t ings thus need to comm unicate their in tended na ture an d must

be co ng rue nt with th e situation s o as to elicit congru ent acts. Settings,however, can also be und erstoo d a s cognitive dom ains m ad e visible.

This conceptualization ha s two co nseq uen ces: First, there ar e impor-tant, continuing relationships to culture and to psychological

processes, such as h e use of cognitive sche m ata an d taxonom ies, thatte n d t o be n eglected in th e sociological literature. Sec on d, conflicts

ca n easily a rise in pluralistic co nte xts whe n se ttings may elicit differentm eanin gs a n d behaviors-or w he re particular group s may reject

m eanin gs th at they in fact fully un de rsta nd .Thus , a t the sa m e t ime that environments becom e m ore important

from this point of view, they also tend to lose clarity a n d h av e less co n-

gru en ce with o the r aspects of culture; m eanin gs b ecom e idiosyncratican d nondiscursive rather than share d an d he nc e discursive o r lexical

( see Hayakawa, in Royce, 19 65 ) . T o co m pou nd these problems ,env iron m ents also be co m e less legible-various cognitive do m ainslose their clarity a n d b ec om e blurred, their in tend ed o ccu pan ts an drules of inclusion o r exclusion b ec om e less clear; co de s multiply a n dare thus unknown to many. Environments cease to communicate

clearly; they d o not set the sc en e or elicit approp riate behavior (se ePe to n n et , 1 9 7 2 a ) .While th er e ar e also clear co nse qu en ce s of culturalan d subcultural specificity an d variability (Pe ton net , 1 9 7 2 b ; Rap oport,

1 9 7 6 b , 1 9 7 7 ; Ellis, 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 4 ) ,o n e finds, in broader terms, m ajordifferences between traditional (mainly vernacular) and contem-

porary environm ents. T h e con grue nce pre sent in traditional culturesa nd environm ents, th e rules of th e organization of the environment-




of space, t ime, meaning, an d comm unicat ion-have ten de d t o disap-

pe ar. The se rules were c on gru ent with e ac h oth er, with th e unwrittenrules o f culture , with t h e ways in which situation s we re defin ed, with

th e ways in which settings w ere d efin ed , a n d with th e rules of inclusion

or exclrlsion of pe op le. As a result they elicited th e expec ted behaviors.Tod ay these processes d o not work near ly as well-there a re major

incongruences al l a long the l ine among var ious cul tures and sub-

cultures an d, not least , between planners a nd designers on the o n e

han d an d th e various publics o n th e o ther .T h e significant point for th e p ur po se of this arg um en t is that th e role

of t h e built env ironm ent in limiting res po ns es ha s b ee n m ost impo r-

tant in the definition of the situation and thus in helping people to

be hav e appropriately. Like culture, env iron m en ts have traditionally

had the ro le o f helping people to be hav e in a m ann er app ropr ia te to

the n orm s of a group. Without such help behavior beco me s m uchm ore difficult an d dem and ing . A better u nde rstan din g of this process

sho uld ena bl e us to m ake gre ater use of this role of env ironmen ts;

he nc e this book.

M any of t h e poin ts just raised will b e el ab or at ed later. I will al so dis-

cuss the ways in which environm ents transmit those m ean ing s thatdefine situations an d, in turn, influence beha vior a n d com mu nication.

At this point, howeve r, o n e issue briefly m en tion ed ab ov e requires

ela bo ra tion, particularly sin ce it is intimately related t o t h e wholcb issu eof how meanings a nd lea rned b ehavior beco m e habitual an d routinized.

This is the issue o f enculturat ion ( an d acculturat ion) an d t h e role of theenvironmen t in that process (Rapop or t , 19 7 8 a) .

nculturation and environment

T h e question is basically how th ose co de s are learn ed that allow the

deco ding of t he c ue s presen t in th e environment. It seem s clear that

com mo nly m uc h of this learn ing occ urs q uit e early in life, tha t is, du r-ing encu lturation . Fo r imm igrants an d du ring periods of rapid cultu re

ch an ge o r culture contact, this process m ay occur later in l ife an d isthe n known a s acculturation. T h e s tress in social science has b ee n o n

l.he role of verbal m es sag es of pa ren ts, caretakers, a n d tea ch ers ; of

reward an d punishment. How ever , it seem s clear that th e environ-men1 plays a role. While little resea rch exists o n t h e role of t h e physical

environment in the process of enculturation, some suggestive

exanlples f rom varied cul tures can b e fou nd (Ra pop ort , 197 Ha : 55-




5 6 ) . While m any sett ings play a role in enculturation, the role of the

dwelling and how it is used is primary in influencing small children,

often a t th e preverbal level.

It se em s intuitively likely th at th os e dwellings in which th er e a re dis-

tinct male/fem ale dom ains, clear rules abo ut th e inclusion o r exclu-sion of certain gro ups , a clear relation between roles a n d various

set tings , an d a clear an d unam biguou s use o f various se ttings will con-vey different m essage s a n d h en ce teac h different things to children

tha n will tho se w he re all th es e ar e blurred-or absen t. For exam ple,we find the insistence on a front parlor in the rather small Englishworking-class ho us e an d eve n in th e barriadas in Lima, w here sp ac e

an d resources a re scarce (Turner, 19 6 7) ;at the sa m e time, we find thatw he n th e possible effects of re du ce d dwelling size in th e U nited S tate s

ar e being discussed it is sugge sted t ha t th e first thing t o b e eliminated

sho uld b e t he formal living room (Milwaukee Journ al, 1976).T h e

effects of su ch decisions, an d of t h e lifestyles an d va lues they e nc od e,

should be considerable . It ha s also be en suggested (Plant, 1 9 3 0 ) an d

even dem onstrated (Whiting, 1 9 6 4 ) tha t children w ho s leep in the

sa m e room with their m oth er (o r parents) de velo p differently fromtho se w ho hav e their own room early. Similarly, on e could posit that

order versus disorder, or formality as opposed to informality-asind icate d, for exam ple, by th e pre sen ce of living ro om s ve rsus familyroom s, dining rooms a s opp ose d to eat ing in th e kitchen, or eat ing

anywhere-would also hav e con sequ enc es an d effects o n children's

enculturation.T o use a n example I hav e used before: T h e differences between a

family that takes formal meals together a n d o n e in which m eals a regrabbed informally at o d d times ar e l ikely to be important (R apo port,

1 9 6 9 ~ ) .n fact, it has been suggested that a meal contains a great

am ou nt of information tha t is culturally lea rne d an d ca n symbolize

mu ch (Douglas, 1 9 74 ).Meals are, a fte r all, social occasions tha t includeapp rop riate settings, occ ur at appro priate t imes, occur in app ropria teways, include appropriate foods in the r ight order, and include or

exclude certain categories of pe op le an d behaviors. In othe r words,they have certain rules associa ted with the m . All the se things childrenlearn d uring the r ep ea ted p rocess of participating in suc h occasions.

The distinction between such formal meals and grabbing food atvarious times is precisely th e difference betw een th e restricted a nd

elabora ted co des (Berns te in, 19 7 1) . T h e relationship betw een th esecod es an d th e organiza t ion a nd use o f the dwelling has been sketched




ou t suggestively a n d persuasively by Mary Dou glas (1 9 7 3 a ).S h e su g-gests tha t spatial layouts that co nvey a hierarchy of ra nk a n d sex , in

which evey event is s t ructured to express and support the socialord er, will pr od uc e a very different child th an o n e in which n 9 su ch

hierarchy exists, in which e a ch child's n ee d s are m et individually, a n din which ea ch child eats whe n his or her sc hed ule dictates (D ouglas,

1 9 7 3 a : 55 -5 6 ) . In o n e case the environment, in effect, impo ses an

orde r, a way of classification, th e lea rnin g of certain systems, behaviors,

a n d acc ep tanc e of social dem an ds. In the o th er cas e no ne of this isde m an d ed or learned-a very different ord er is learned (Douglas ,

1 9 7 3 a : 81),and we would then expect different enculturation pro-

cesse s an d results.T he English working-class dwelling clearly em bod ies, tha t is, enco des,

m an y of th e characteristics of th e restricted c o d e in th e sa m e way th e

elabo rate d c o de of middle-class families is em bo di ed in their dwfllings(Douglas, 1 9 7 3 a : 1 9 1 ) an d a lso expressed th rough them . Cer ta in

middle-class families an d dwellings ha ve tak en th e e lab ora ted c o d e interms of individualized routines, mealtimes, a n d s o o n t o tha t very

ex trem e posited a s hypothetical by M ary D ouglas. T h e relationship ofthis to c han ges in the social ord er a n d co nsen sus offers m any interest-

ing questions. As just o n e example-- Would o n e se e in this th e conflict

betw een t h e op en p lan of t he architect a n d th e resistance t o it by m an y

users? A related point was made by Rosal ie Cohen at an €LIRA 4

wo rksho p (n ot published in t h e proceedings) . This referred to th e

possible effect o n th e c on ce ptu al styles of children of t h e very different

social, orga nizatio ns enc od ed in th e physical env ironm ents of scho ols,specifically, th e likely imp act o n th e cognitive styles of children of o p e nclas sroo m s, with sim ultane ou s activities, lack of classification a n d

nonlinearity, as op po se d to traditional classroom s-separate sett ings,

ea ch for a specific pu rp os e, with its label a n d co nsec utive, linear use.S h e suggested th at this would greatly influence th e process of cate-

gorization of activities, simultaneity or sequential thinking, linearity

versus nonlinearity, work habits , behav ior a n d rules ab ou t ignoringco nc urr en t activities, a n d s o on . In oth er w ords, different rules wouldbe learn ed in th es e two settings, an d th e learning of s uc h rules is an

imp ortant part of th e learning of culture, o r enculturation.

In its most gen eral term s th e enviro nm ent can then be seten a s a

teaching medium. Once learned, i t becomes a mnemonic devicereminding o n e of app ropriate behavior . If o n e accepts the view that

envi ronments a re som ehow related to cu lture an d tha t thei r codes




Figure 10

hav e t o be learn ed , s ince they are culture specific, the n th e role of t he

env ironm ent in e ncu lturation ( a n d acculturation) follows a s a verylikely consequence. In turn, this learning influences the degree to

which environmental cu es can be decod ed easily and behavior adjusted

easily to various settings. T h e topic of enc ulturation th us form s a n

impo rtant link in the d eve lop m ent of t h e argum en t ab ou t how sett ings

com mu nicate meaning.T o summ arize: H u m an behavior, including interaction a nd com-

munication, is influenced by roles, contexts, and situations that, in

turn , a re frequently com m unicated by cu es in the settings making u p

th e environment; th e re la tionships am on g a ll thes e are learned as par tof enc ulturatio n o r acculturation. T h e fact is that w e all rely o n s uc h

cues in order t o act appropriately, al though clearly so m e pe op le a re

m ore sensit ive tha n others. A p ersonal ane cd ote, relating to offices,may help to m ak e this clear.

This exam ple concern s a n architect in Sy dney, Australia, w ho ha dha d training in social science. His office was s et u p a s show n in Figure

10.After they h a d b ee n us ed by visitors, chairs w ere always repla cedat point A. T h e architect the n observed ho w entering visitors ha nd led

th es e ch airs an d w he re they sat. Th re e possibil it ies existed: A visitorcould sit o n a chair in place at location A; h e o r sh e could move it forwardpart way toward th e architect's de sk o r all th e way right u p against hisdes k; o r thev isitor could eve n le an ove r th e architect's desk , with his orher elbows o n it. T h e architect felt tha t the se thr ee behav iors com-

mu nicated ever higher de gre es of status an d self-confidence, an d h e

acte d accordingly. H e felt that th e results supp orte d his assum ptions

an d he fou nd th e system most helpful. In ter m s of o u r discussion, h e




clearly used th es e c ue s to identify th e po tential situation a n d modified

his beh avio r accordingly.T h e relationship between behavior an d seating ha s long bee n known

an d can be intepreted both as comm unicating roles, s tatus, an d s o on

an d a s being de pe nd en t o n context, as, for example, in th e case ofvarious tasks (Som m er, 1 9 6 5 ) , jury tables (Strod beck an d I-Iook,1 9 6 1 ), eminars (De Lo ng,19 70), an d other group processes (Michelin

e t al., 1 9 7 6 ) , am ong m any o the r s.All i es e indirect effects op er ate by establishing the context: Before

elabo rating this poin t it is useful to n o te tha t this h as m etho dolo gicalimplications regarding the possibility of establishing "lexicons" dis-

cussed a bo ve . In ef fec t, h e study of m eaning, considered as pragmatics,ca n best o ccu r by cons idering all its occ ur ren ce s in context . Th e a rray

of different meanings associated with a ny given c ue c an only be dete r-m ined by surveying th e possible kinds of c on tex ts in which it oc curs.

This point has been made about symbols. The meaning of a givensymbol or cluster of sy mb ols can no t b e d eterm ined simply by asking,

"What is th e m ean ing of A as a symbol?"; rath er, it is nece ssa ry "to

inspect the norm ative usag e of A a s a symbol in t h e widest array ofpossible contexts" (Sch neide r, 1 9 7 6 : 21 2-2 13 ) . Clearly , o ne can sub-stitute "cues" for "symbols" without loss of clarity an d d o s o for elements

in the built environment.Sin ce all behavior occurs in s o m e context, a n d th at context is based

o n m ean ing, it follows that p eo ple be ha ve differently in different con -

texts by deco ding the avai lable cues fo r their meaning-and the se

cues may be in the physical env ironment . T hu s context beco m es animp ortan t consid eration for th e stud y of m ea nin g an d is, in fact, bein gstressed more and more in various fields; here again the different

app roa che s to the s tudy o f mean ing over lap to so m e extent. Thisoverlap is d u e not only to th e increasing interest in co ntext in various

disciplines but also to t h e fact that it has be en discussed in gen era l

terms. Thus furni ture arrangement , posture, conversat ional style,

kinesics, a n d nonv erbal behav ior in general ha ve bee n used t o illus-t ra te the importance of context an d at tempts have b een m ad e to applycon textual logic t o analyzing th es e at a high level of abstraction (D eLong, 1978).Regardless of th e particular form ulation an d a pp roa ch ,

a stron g argu m ent is ma de fo rth e high general impo rtance of context-

although I will use it, o n ce aga in, mu ch less abstractly. This ha s longbe en known from perception-for exam ple, th e impac t of context o n

changing the value of different colors, as in th e work by Albers S i z e ,




height, a n d other such variables ar e contextual-as in th e Am es per-

spec tive roo m illusion a n d o th er optical illusions. This is also sho w n byth e well-known ex perimen t in which th e sa m e water may be experi-

enced as both hot and cold depending on previous exposure. An

urba n an alo gu e of w hat a re essentially a da pta tion effects is th e findingthat th e sa m e city can be experienced a s ei ther drab o r interesting,

de pen din g on which cities were ex perienced before (Campbell , 1 9 6 1 ) .

Similarly, th e s am e town can be se en as clean, safe, an d quiet , o r dirty,

dangerou s , an d noisy , depending on w hether o n e came to it from a

metropolis o r a rural a rea (Wohlwill an d Kohn, 1 9 7 3 ).

So cia l comm unication and context

Behav ior vis-a-vis other s, social com m un icatio n, is ofte n a result of

judg m ents of oth ers base d on physical cues-such as dwellings, fur-

nishings, consumer goods, food habits, or clothing. For example,

clothing ma y h ave a st igma effect a n d thus red uc e com m unication,

but th at effect of clothing will d ep en d o n th e context-dirty o r to rnclothing worn while working o n a ca r or in th e g ar de n will b e ev aluated

quite differently tha n would th e s a m e clothing worn at a party o r in a

restau rant. This will hav e furth er differential effects de pe nd ing o n th e

subg roup a t the party an d th e type of restaurant .That clothing communicates and is used to project quite explicit

me ssages a bo ut identi ty, status, gro up m em bership, an d s o on is clear

from the recent sp ate of book s an d articles o n how t o dress for success,including th e dev elopm ent of com puter-p rogra m me d "wardrobeengineering" for success. O n e consultant advises people, a t $50 per

hour, how to dress for success-he points out that w he n a person

enters a room m any decisions are m ad e abo ut him or her based solelyo n appearance-mainly clothing. T he se judgm ents include econo mican d e du ca tional levels, social position, sophistication, heritage, cha r-

acter, a n d success. H e stresses that man y peo ple feel that it is unfair tojudge peo pl e by ho w they d res s, bu t it is a fact (Tho urlby, 1980).T h eimplication is th at particular suits or d res ses , eyeglasses, colors, ties,shirts, and so on, their organization, and arrangement make a dif-

ferenc e in th e m essages comm unicated an d he nc e success in business(Molloy, 1976).T h e specificity of th e re co m m end ation s also suggests

tha t this is co nte xt specific-a sugges tion th a t is quickly con firmed.

T hu s a New York ap peals court barred a Ro m an Cathol ic priest fromwea ring clerical garb while serving a s a lawyer in a criminal trial; it was

held that this m o d e of dress would b e a con tinuing visible com m unica -



Environmental Meaning 7 1

tion to the jury that would prevent afair trial(Hiz, 1977:40).Clearly, in

other contexts the use of such garb would be appropriate Note also

that to communicate particular ideological, religious, and social

stances some priests and nuns dispense with clerical garb altogether.

Clothing generally has been used to communicate identity and has

clear meaning. There is a large literature on dress, clothing, and

fashion and their meanings which offers a useful paradigm also re-

garding the environment. Like built environments, dress has many

purposes, one of which is to communicate status (meaning);other pur-

poses include self-beautification and magico-religious requirements

(both involving meaning), protection from the elements, and so on

(Roach and Eicher, 1965, 1973).Dress indicates identity, roles, status,and the like and changes in fashion indicate changes in roles and self-

concepts in society (Richardson and Kroeber, 1940).Dress is related

to ideal body types, to activities, and to posture, all of which are

culturally variable. Fashion communicates meaning by color, line,

shape, texture, decoration, value, and so on and is used to communi-

cate group identity. This it did particularly well in traditional societies

in which it expressed ethnic and other forms of group identity and wasused to place people in social space; it was frequently prescribed for

different groups (Lofland, 1973). Clothing was thus dependent on

culture, an important form of context.

There were also proscript ions about its use-sumptuary laws-

applied to dwellings as well as to clothing, the purpose of which was to

prevent the use of particular elements by various groups as a way of

preventing them from expressing high status. This works much less

well in modern societies, where meaning generally cannot really develop

due to wide choice, mass production, haphazard use, rapid change,

and so on (much as in built environments). But this very rapidity of

change may, in fact, add importance to fashion as a way of defining

particular elite groups-taste leaders (Blumer, 1969b). t is the ability

of clothing to communicate meaning in traditional societies and its

much lesser (although still present) ability to do so in modern societies

that have led to the disappearance of the ability to place people in

social space (Lofland, 1973) ,a process also helped by hairstyles, body

marltings, and many other variables (Rapoport, 1981).When all these

cues disappear, as we shall see later, environmental cues gain in

importance.

In all these cases, however. context plays a role; the meanings are

influenced by the setting. For example, wearing a tie (or not wearing

one) depends on the context. In the case of students in Britain, where




dre ss style has imp ortant me aning, wearing a tie was se en a s having

different meanings depen ding o n w hether the s tud ent was e n route to

a class or a n interview ( R ee s et al., 1 9 7 4 ).More gen erally, th e clothingworn a nd th e context are manipulated together, to establish or eliminate

social distanc e, to exp ress conform ity, protest, o r whatev er. T hu sbright clothing worn by experim ental subjects led to grea ter person aldistance (Nesbitt and Steven, 1 9 7 4 ) .This ca n be interpreted a s being

due , at least partly, to judgments m ad e ab ou t the wearers. For example,

informal clothing will b e re ad a s ap pr op ria te in a n informal situation

bu t will be viewed qu ite differently in a formal con tex t, w he re it may

co m m un ica te prote st, lack of care , o r ignorance ; oth er cu es will, in

turn , help d efin e the context. In th e study cited ab ov e, in a So uth ernCalifornia amusement park the bright clothing probably had less

effect than it would have had in a variety of other situations; the

cultural co ntext will also play a major role.Wristwatches also ha ve latent meaning s qu ite inde pen den t of their

role in show ing time. Th ey se em to com m unicate sexual stereotypes,for exam ple, the m ale as s trong an d function-related, t h e female a s

del icate a n d aes thet ic (Wagner , 1 9 7 5 ) . If and when sex roles and

stereotypes ch ange , tha t is, new sc hem ata develop, the dec odin g ofthe se mean ings will chan ge an d o n e can predict chan ges in watchstyles an d in their meanings-that is, th es e, to o, ar e con text specific.

Most generally, o n e can argu e that all goods an d consum er items have

m eanings th at organ ize social relations (Dou glas an d Isherw ood,

1 9 7 9 ) ; this is, in fact, their latent, a nd ma jor, function.

In social psychology, also, one finds that the willingness to help

othe rs is s trongly controlled by the setting a n d th e context that th e set-t ingspecifies (Sadalla, 1 9 7 8 :2 7 9 ) .This also plays a n im portant role in

eva luatin g a n d judging edu catio nal levels or med ical state s. In fact,eve n self-definition can de pe nd o n context!!! (S e e S h an d s an d M eltzer,1 9 7 7 :87-88.) ubjec tive definitions of crowdingalso depe nd o n con-text, s o hat th e sa m e num ber of p eople in the sam e s ize area is judged

quite differently de pe nd in g o n th e context-wh ether it is a library, a n

airport waiting room, a cocktail party, a conversational setting, orwhatever (Desor, 19 72 ) .Th is is particularly significant for o u r discus-sion since, in effect, up o n ente ring a setting con tainin g a given num be r

of peo ple in a given space, a judgment is m ad e whether it is "c ro w de d-that is, subjectively uncomfortable-or not, de pe nd in go n th e ap pro p-

riaten ess in term s of an identfication of t h e situation th ro ug h a set of



Environmental Mea ning 73

cues that indicate "library." "waiting room," "cocktail party." or

whatever .

In anthropology there has been increasing emphasis on context

( s e e S p ir o, 1 9 6 5 ; H all, 1 9 7 6 ;D e Long, 1 9 7 8 ) In psychology this has

also been the case . s o that "o ne of th e most re pl~ ca ble ~ n d ~ n g sn psy-chology is th e fact tha t o u r evaluatio n of virtually any even t is partly

determined by the con text in which th e even t app ears" (Manis , 1 9 7 1 :

153)- which is, of co ur se , also the thru st of B arker's wo rk, as w e shall

see below (for examp le , s ee Barker , 1968) In th at c ase , th e co ntext is

t h e b e h a v ~ o retting. In th e ca se of perception, learning, an d s o on , th e

impordance of context in noticing, recognizing, and understanding

various a m b ~ g u o u s ue s in d ifferent sensory modali ties is quite clear(Nelsser, 1 9 6 7 ) It is also quite clear that inference also increases an d

improves when context exists (Bruner , 1 9 7 3 ) . Th us miss ing sou nd s

are res tored in sen tences using context (Warren an d W arren, 19 7 0 )

and w ords and sou nd s genera lly a re m ore comprehensible in rnean-

irlgful con texts Subliminally flashed le tters ar e noticed , recogn ized,

and remem bered much be t te r wh en em bed ded in words an d rnean-

ingful syllables tha n w hen they form part of n o n se n se syllables (Kraus sand Glucksberg , 1 9 7 7 ) . At th e s am e time, while the importance of

conte xt is acc ep te d in psychology a n d is growing , m ajo r interest in it isreally only just beginning (s e e Ro sch an d Lloyd, 19 7 8 )

T he im portanc e of co nt ex t in te rm s of signal detection theory is,of

cou rse, that it makes it easier to m ake rel iable judg m ents abo ut

am big uo us stimuli. This is d u e to th e pre sen ce of preexisting, learned

"intern al contexts," which p rovid e th e ability to m atch perce pts withsche m ata; the context co m m unicates th e m ost l ikely sche m ata , it is

predictive. T h e resem blan ce to th e action of sett ings a s a type of c o n -

text seem s c learIn th e case of nonv erbal b ehavior , as in the case s discussed a bo ve ,

context seem s impor tant . T hu s th e role of th e s o c ~ a le tt ing ( or con -text) is ex t~ em ely mpor tant, s ince no hum an behavior ev er occurs

outs ide a social se tt ing, s o that spo ken langu age, nonverbal behavior ,an d cu lture all play a role bo th in th e prod uction of behavior an d tts

perception (s ee v o n Raffler-Engel, 1 9 7 8 ) . n linguistics, also, context isincreasingly stres sed (s ee Giglioli, 1972).T h e arg um ent is , basically,

that pragmatics must b e stressed-that is , that m eanings mu st be

s tudled in contexts , cons ider ing the su r r o u n d ~ n g i rcumstances or

"situation " Similarly, it ha s be en arg ue d tttat contex t is most Im po r.



74 THE MEANINGOF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

ta nt in th e sensible construing of m eanin g in lang uage . T h e con text

provides a pool of sto red inform ation on which bo th parties t o a co n-

versation can draw. This information, contextual and general, that

spe ak ers believe listeners shar e with the m con stitutes th e cognitive

background to th e ut terances (Miller an d Johnson-Laird , 1 9 7 6 : 1 2 5 ) .It is pointed ou t th at children learn no t just langu age but socialspeech,which takes into accoun t knowledge and perspective of ano the r person

(Krauss an d G lucksberg, 1 9 7 7 ) This , then , leads adults also to beinfluenced by th e conte xt a n d th e situation-so that directions ask ed

by a "stranger" o r a "native" elicit very different resp on ses; n ot e tha t

"native" o r "stranger" is co m m un icate d by a set of c ue s, m any of

which, such as accent, clothing, a nd s o on , a re physical a n d , certainly,nonverbal (Co ok, 1 9 7 1 ). Thus. in th e ca se of language, context is

established to a great extent by nonverbal elements (Sarles, 1969),m an y of which may be physical. Bilingualism provides a g o o d exam ple

of c on text a n d of t h e po tenti al relationship of linguistic analysis t o o u r

subject, if it is ap pr oa ch ed in term s of pragm atics, that is, lan gu ag e asparole, not as langue. La ngu ag e, like behavior, varies with context. It

not only varies with th e social characteristics of th e sp ea ke r, suc h a sstatus, ethnic grou p, age , sex, an d the like, but also according to th e

social context. Different con tex ts elicit different linguistic usages. T heseno t only involve rules of ap pro pria te or inapp ropriate (right or wrong)

usage , bu t also a ssu m e certain cultural kno wle dge, the ability to elicit

und erstandin g with minimal cu es, suc h as th e "shortha nd" of pro-

fessionals o r th e special sp ee ch patterns o f in-groups, based partly o n

the role, th e au die nc e, a n d s o on . In s o m e cultures, this is informal, in

m any othe rs it is formalized (s ee Trudgill, 1 9 7 4 ). Again, this distinc-tion is found in environments; in some cases formalized and in

others not .

The parallelism between sociolinguistic approaches to languagean d th e approa ch to environments here being developed go es fur ther.It ha s bee n argu ed convincingly (Douglas, 1 9 7 3 a ) that th e u se of

linguistic c o d es a n d th e u se of dwellings parallel e ac h o th er closely in

English working a n d midd le classes. This is also implied in t h e findingthat the re a re correlations, in Britain an d th e United States, betwe en

language a nd social s ta tus an d group mem bership (Trudgill, 1 9 7 4 :

44-45) and the corresponding finding that different s tatus groupshave differentenvironm ental quality p references, evaluating the s am e

cu es differently a n d , while c ap ab le of m aking social inferences by




reading environmental meanings, interpreting cues differently (see

Royse, 19 69 ) . While I know of n o research trying to relate th es e two

sets of findings, th e relationship is rath er likely a s a h ypothesis. N ote,

how ever, tha t w e a re using sociolinguistic, co ntextual, pragm atic ap-

pro ache s t o language, rather th an the formal, syntactic, abstract ap -proaches criticized before.

Analogously, the cognit ive background to a ppr opria te behavior is

provided by designed sett ings and th e cues that co m m unicate appr o-priate m eaning s. O n c e a g ro up is know n, its lifestyle (in th e s e n s e of th e

choicesm ade) and behavior can b e observed and the sett ings in whichactivities occu r c an be identified. This proc ess ca n be quite straightfor-

wa rd. It is ofte n d o n e informally in descriptions, novels, a n d t h e waysettings are used in films, television, and the like, and can be dis-

cove red by various form al o r informal forms of co nte nt analysis; o n e

brief example has already been given and more wil l be used later

(Ra pop ort , 1 9 6 9 a , 1 9 7 7 ). Frequently, a simple inventory of objects,

furnishings,materials, an d s o on will reveal their mea ning a nd the way

in which they o pe ra te to let pe op le know in which setting or do m ain

they Find them selves (s ee Zeisel, 1 9 7 3 ; Jopling, 1 9 7 4 ) . It is strikinghow quickly, alm ost instantaneo usly, this process of reading occu rsa n d how frequently novelists ha ve take n it for granted.

Clearly, in th es e pro cesses it is neces sary t o lea rn t h e cultural knowl-ed ge ne ed ed to interpret the cues-very m uch as, in the case of

analyzing language, one needs to consider the cultural knowledgenecessary to make language work. In all ca ses of com m unication,

"pragm atic knowledge" is ne ed ed for such comm unication to work.T h e actors must hav e cultural knowledge upon which t o draw in o rde r

to em be d m essages in social contexts; tha t is , even language utter-an ces can no t be analyzed a s an abstract system but must be con-

side red within t h e conte xt of t h e "culturally def ined universe in which

they a re uttered" (Keesing, 1979: 3 3 ) .

This cultural pragm atic context often provides th e know ledge ne ed ed

to relate perceptual a n d associat ional aspects. For ex am ple , irk m anytradit ional cultures there is a relat ionship between the noumenalworld of invisible spiritual beings a n d th e phe no m en al, physical worldof perception. These may coincide at specific places, which thenbe co m e sac red . This relation may be "invisible" to ou tsiders ( as in th eca se of A borigines, Eskimos, a n d others) an d m ust be known; it may,

however, be indicated by various cu es that can b e learne d (R apo por t ,




1 9 7 5 a , 1 9 7 7 ) .This learning for m em be rs of a culture is th e pro cess

of enc ultura tion, for outsid ers (including resea rche rs) it is o n e of

acculturation.

Co nsider a m ore "concrete" exam ple-the m osq ue courtyard s of

I sp h ah an a lread y men t ion ed ( R ap o p o rt 1 9 6 4 - 1 9 6 5 , 1 9 7 7 ) . Th es ecan b e experienc ed a nd described in term s of their perceptual charac-

teristics in all senso ry m odalities, th e transitions em plo yed t o reinforce

these , and so on . In those te rms they can be unders tood as the

m anip ulatio n of noticeable differences in th e perc eptu al realm to

define a distinct place. This place is specia l, how ever, in a ssociation al

terms ( as already discussed) an d this m eaning, the k now ledge how to

beha ve, w hat to do-a whole set of ap pro pria te rules-to en ab le o n eto act appropriately and co-act effectively requires much cultural

knowledge. Th is last po int is basic, particularly if culture itself is defined

in term s of w hat a strang er to a society would n e ed t o know in o rd e r

app ropria tely to perform an y role in an y scen e stage d by that society

( G o o d e no u g h , 1 9 5 7 ) .T hu s in Q ue be c, at the m om en t, the re is great interest in verna cular

architectu re an d use of th e "style neo -Quebe cois" for sub urb an ho uses

using e lem en ts of th at vernacu lar such a s particular roo f forms, porch es,

windows, facades , and s o on. T o und ers tand its meaning, however, so

a s not to misinterpret it, de m an ds cultural knowledge-an aw areness

of th e curre nt cultural contex t, nationalism, se para tism , strivings for

ethnic a nd linguistic identity, a n d s o o n. Similarly, the imp act o n the

de ve lop m en t of Bo ston of neigh borho ods like B ea co n Hill an d sacred

sites , such as the Boston C om m on , churches , an d burying ground s

(Firey, 1 9 6 1 ) , d em a n d s a knowledge of the cultural context within

which th e environmental cues comm unicate .

N ote th at gen erally this process works m uch m or e easily for users of

"vernacular" environm ents in traditional societies . T he se co m m uni-

cate m uc h m ore clearly b ec au se the contexts an d cultural knowledgeare m uc h m or e shared-in de gre e of sharing, extent of sharing, an d s o

o n ( R ap o p o rt , 1 9 8 0 b , 1 9 8 0 c , 1 9 8 1 , fo rth co min g ). Recall that we

ha ve already se en that design ers an d users , an d different user groups,perceive and evaluate environments differently so that meanings

inte nd ed by designe rs may not be perceived; i f perceived, not unde r-

s to o d ; an d , f both perce ived an d un ders tood , may be re jec ted ( see , o rex amp le, R ap o po r t, 1 9 7 7 ) . In this process the understanding and

acc ep tan ce of cultural know ledge and contexts are most im portant.

Yet, as a!ready pointed out, and to be elaborated later , given the




ap pr oa ch he re being deve lope d, th e discovery of cultural knowledgeis posstble a n d no t to o difficult.

The notion of role sett ings and the dramatic analogy of human

behavior (Goffman, 1 9 5 9 ,1 9 6 3 ) can easily be ex tended to the com-

municative and mnemonic function of sett ings and environments,which h ou se app ropriate behaviors an d also remind people how tobehave. T hu s, considering sett ings as expressing do m ains (R apo por t,

1 9 7 6 a , 1 97 6b , 1 9 7 7 ) an d consider ing the d istinction be tween f rontan d back, o n e f inds markedly different behaviors in front an d back

regions. A particularly striking example is provtded by the changedbehavior of a waiter moving thro ug h the swinging doo r betw een res-

taurant dining room an d kitchen (Goffman, 1 9 6 3 ) .1will hav e m ore tosay later about th es e important cognitive dom ains, which lend ih em -selves to very dif ferent behaviors (s ee also Rap oport , 1 9 7 7 ) . H er e itmay suffice to rem ark o n a n ex perien ce in Baltimore, w he re similar

urban renew al projects, based o n clearing out th e interiors of blocksa n d rc?placing them with parks a n d playgrounds, worked as inte nde d

in s o m e cases an d failed in oth ers (Brow er a n d W illiamson, 1974;

Brower, 19 77 ) .t

is m os t likely th a ta

major pa rt of this differen ce ha sto d o with front/back behavior, since in th e sec ond case designs that

helped p eop le use th e street worked well an d transformed th e environ-

m en t No te th at th e definition of front a n d back dom ains, identifiedwith public an d private an d associated with ap prop riate behaviors ,

de pe nd s o n par ticular cues .Given t h e ab ov e discussion, it is clea r th at in te rm s of t h e effect of

environm ent on behavior, enviro nm ents a r e mo re tha n just inhibiting,faciliiating, or e ven catalytic. Th ey not o nly rem ind, they al so predict

a n d prescribe. Th ey actually guide responses, tha t is, they m ak e cer-tain re sp on se s mo re likely by limiting an d restricting t h e ran ge of likely

a n d possible respo nses without being determining (Wollheim, 1 9 7 2 ;Per ir ibanayagam, 1 9 7 4 ) .N ot et ha t is ord er to guide responses--to tell

people th at they should act in such a nd such a way-the cond itions w ehave be en discussing m ust be met . Note also tha t Goffman (1963:3)

begins by reminding us that mental d isorders are of ten def~ned nterm s of behavior th at is "in ap pro pri ate t o th e situation." Clearly th e

app ropria tene ss of b ehavior an d th e definition of the situation areculturally variable. My in terest he re, h ow ever, is in th e process w herebysettings com m unic ate th e situation a n d thereby t h e rules that elicit theapprop riate behavior This is do ne through inference(as n much non-verbal comm unication),whereby settings a re identified a s stages w he re

cohere nce prevails am on g set ting, appe ara nc e, manne rs , behavior,




a n d s o o n (G offm an , 1 9 5 9 : 3 , 2 5 ) .T h e rules linking thes e ar e unwrit-

ten , an d m ay be "tight" in s o m e cultures an d contexts an d "loose" in

others (Gof fm an,1 9 6 3 : 19 0- 20 0) . t is he re where in fe rence becomesimportant; for i t to work the inference must be easy to make and

shou ld be m ad e in th e sa m e way by all tho se involved, he nc e the needfor cultural specificity, clarity, stron g notice ab le differences, ad eq ua te

redu nd anc y, a n d s o on. Note, f inally, that the s am e physical spa ce m ay

be co m e several different sett ings, housing differe nt occasions, an dh en ce eliciting different behavior tha t is ap pro pria te (Go ffm an, 1 9 6 3 :

21 ) . Th us the sa m e op en space may successively ho use a marke t, asoccer gam e, a performance, a riot, an d so o n , each with appro pr ia te

behaviors. Similarly, a s so m e stud en ts of m ine fo un d in Haifa, Israel, asingle street corner may become a series of settings for different

grou ps; in this case it is th e people w ho elicit the approp riat e behaviors.This has a lso been shown to hap pe n in H yderab ad, India (Dun can,

1 9 7 6 ; c om p a re Rapo po rt, 1 9 8 0 b , 1 9 8 0 ~ ) .he co nsequ ence is thatthe uses of sett ings an d a pp rop riate behavior ca n b eco m e difficult

sinc e their invariance is destro ye d. In gen eral, successful settings ar eprecisely those that successfully reduce the variance by clear cues

a n d con sistent use, which increase their predictability.I hav e already co m m ente d on s om e of the rea son s for the success of

chain operations-they ar e am on g the m ost predictable sett ings inour environment. A similar observation was recently made startingfrom a very different perspective: that fast food restauran ts, such a sMcDonald's, are settings for rituaI behaviors with "an astonishing

de gre e of behavioral uniformity" tha t may hav e b ee n remarkably suc-

cessful in p rodu cing behav ioral invarian ce (Kottak, 1 9 7 9 ) . n terms ofmy p a p e r o n t h e definition of t h e situation, such settings restrict th eran ge of beh aviors a pp rop riate in th e setting, and d o s o effectively,

bec aus e they are legible-their m eanings are clear an d unambigu ous.In this legibility the consistency of use of various design elements ism ost im portan t in achieving a de gre e of predictability u nkn ow n sincetribal architectu re. At a different level, oth er ch ain ope rations, s uc h as

hotel chains, achieve the same effects by providing the uncertaintraveler with certainty as to price, food, service, layout, mattresses,l anguage , and s o on .

In this proce ss th e u sers play a n active role: Th ey interp ret th e cues.While they m ay be unable to notice the c ues or , if they perceive them ,t o interpret the m , an d while they m ay be unwilling to act approp ri-

ately, in most ca ses when cue s are noticed an d u nd erstoo d peo ple will




act accordingly-the interpretation is restricted in ran ge a m o n g m em -

bers of a particular group sharing a culture, that is, i t depends onsha red cultural know ledge an d behavior . T h e evidence is all aroundus tha t settings work-people know how to behav e a n d ar e able to co-

act effectively in sh op s, classroom s, discotheq ues, a n d s o on . In effect,pe op le enter set tings m any t imes a day, identify them an d th e relevantinformation, draw u po n t h e applicable rules, an d act appropriately.

A rather interest ing a n d very gen eral argu m ent that bears o n my dis-

cussion h ere has recently be en m ad e. This pro po ses that th e notion of

"aesthetics" be dispensed with and that, in effect, art be definedcontextually-those objects a n d behaviors a re artistic tha t occu r in

settings defined a s having th e purpo se of housing works of art: museums,galleries, theater s, conce rt halls , a n d the like (Peck ham , 497 6) . Thus,

althoug h Pe ck ha m starts from a totally different perspective, his con -clusion is qu ite similar. W hile the re is mu ch in Peckham 's b oo k withwhich I disa gre e, this particular aspect-which I cam e across in 1 9 7 8 ,

a f te rdeveloping my argu m ent independently-seems to fit th e m od el

ba sed o n a very d ifferent position, an d h en ce starting point.

Note tha t in this view art objects ar e such because they elicit aesthe ticbehavior, that is, we play a role involving socially standardized behav ior

determined by convention: "A work of ar t is an y artifact in th e

pre se nce of w hich we play a particular social role, a culturalIy transm it-

ted com bination of pat terns of behavior" (Pe ckh am , 1 9 7 6 :49).Both

in th e specific arg um en t a n d generally, playing a role involves a setting-

in this c ase o n e that defines th e si tuation a s "aesthetic." O n ce th e

situation h as b ee n d efined, th e ap pro pria te beh avior follows This isn o different from th e process th at takes place in a mark et, tribal da n ceground, c lassroom, res taurant, or whatever (see Goffman, 1 9 5 9 ,1 9 6 3 ;

Rapopor t, 19 80 b , 1 9 8 0 ~ ) . sing the d ramatic analogy , in all t hesecases we have a n actor , an audience, an d a s tage. Tha t this concep t

can help in connection with very different problems indeed is illus-

trated by a case in which t h e n atu re an d origin of megalithic tom bs inBritain w ere greatly clarified by an alyz ing th em in just th es e terms-assettings that h ou sed ritual perform ances involvingactors a n d au die nc e

and tha t thus had both communica t ive and mnemonic func t ions ,

eliciting app rop riate behaviors (Fleming, 1 9 7 2 ).

T h e form of th es e tom bs was best und erstoo d by considering the mas settings for rituals involving actors a n d spectators. T h e requ irem entsof settings can the n b e specified an d th e actual forms tested againstthem-and un de rsto od . Clearly th es e are culture specific. In an y given




case, o r for cross-cultural analysis, a kno w ledge of th e rituals, their

actors, and audiences an d h ence their requirem ents would be necessary

to un ders tand th e m eaning of the space organization an d furnishings

of suc h sac red sp aces. Clearly, also, the se settings are m uch easier to

interpret wh en the actors an d audiences , the behaviors, are present . Itis thu s the total s ituation-the setting, th e furnishings, a n d the pe op le

in them-that explicates the mean ing, partly throu gh increasing re-

du nd an cy , partly by providing referents an d "lexicon" items (a s dis-cussed before). In oth er words , there are shared , negotiated m eanings

that follow certain rules. T he se involve certain social con ven tions a n d

form a cultural co de . This was o n e of my criticisms of t h e symbolic

interactionist mo del discussed above-that the me anin gs ar e notnegotiated afresh eac h time.

Clearly, cue s are clearer an d meaning s m ore widely sha red in so m e

situations tha n in o the rs: for exam ple , in traditional (vernacu lar) situa-

t ions m ore than in contemporary one s (Rapopor t , 1 9 8 0 b , forthcom-

ing ).

Sin ce th e "objective" and"subjective" definitions of situa tion s may

differ, ap pro pria te rules a n d b ehaviors may be incongruen t with ea choth er. T h e setting, while permitting a variety of respo nses, con strains

them . O nc e the situation is defined culturally, behavior is limited i f th e

cues are noticed, read a n d unders tood, an d i f o n e is pre pa red to obey

them ( that is, environments cann ot determ ine behavior s ince o n e can

refuse t o ac t a ppro priately ). T h e possibility of refusal to act ap pro -priately is a new problem that was never encountered in traditional

contexts; in tho se contexts, peo ple ten ded to respond appropriately

a n d almost automatically. Also, designers ca nn ot influence this ele-

ment , as they can th e othe r two: The y can m ake cer tain tha t cues ar e

noticed a nd , on ce noticed, unders too d.

The mnemonic function of environment

Th e environment thus comm unicates , through a w ho le set of cu es ,the most app ropriate choices to be m ade: Th e cues are me an t to elicit

ap pro pria te emotions, interpretations, behaviors, an d transactions by

sett ing up the app ropriate s ituat ions an d contexts . T he environment

can thus be said to ac t as a m n e m o ni c ( R ap o po rt , 1 9 7 9 a , 1 9 7 9 b ,

1 9 8 0 b , 19 80 c) reminding peo ple of the behavior exp ected of them ,the l inkages an d separat ions in space an d time-who do es what ,




where, when, an d with w hom . It takes the rem em bering from the per-son and places the reminding in the environment . If this processworks, and this de pe n ds o n t he cues being culturally com prehensible,being learned through encul turation (or accul turation in so m e cases) ,

it reduces the need for information processing, it makes behavioreasier , since o n e d oe s not h av e to think everything ou t from scratch. Ineffect, on e ca n routinize man y beh aviors an d m ake th em habitual-which is one of the functions of culture generally. B y suggestingsimilar, an d limited, ra ng es of behavior, this proce ss also helps prev entpurely idiosyncratic interpretations, responses, and behaviors thatwould ma ke social com m unica tion a n d interaction impossible--or at

least very difficult.This m nem onic function of th e environmen t is equivalent to grou p

m e m oy an d con sen sus . In effect, th e setting"freezesM ategories a n ddo m ain s, o r cultural conv ention s. In effect, information is en co de d inthe envi ronment and needs to be decoded. But envi ronments canonly d o this if they communicate-if t h e en co d ed information $:an bedecod ed ( see F igure 11 ) . This is usually con sidered o n small scales,

but wh ole lan dsc ape s a n d cit ies can have that function, a s in th e ca seof th e C uz co ar ea of p re-Colum bian Pe ru (s ee Isbell, 1 9 7 8 ). 1 havealready suggested that in traditional, particularly preliterate andvernacu lar environments, this process w orked particularly well, where-a s in m any c o n te m p o ra y environments it works less well (Rap oport ,forthcoming b).

Ho w well this process works can b e very imp ortant in de ed . It h as

be en a rg u ed tha t anxiety ("the diseas e of o u r age") is ge ne rate d in anindividual wh en h e or s h e ha s to ch oo se courses of action without hav-ing sufficient grou nd s on t h e basis of which t o m ak e u p his or he r mind.At th e sa m e time, con tem pora ry environm ents, physical a n d social,provide ever less information to help peo ple m ak e up their minds-less social information ("knowing yo ur place," "family," a n d s o on ),less environmental information, less cultural information (Madge,

19 68 ) These a re linked, since envi ronmental cues and m ne po ni cscom m unica te social information a n d he lp make behavior m ore habitual(Rapopor t , 1977).

T h e imp ortance of deco ding is also d u e to th e fact tha t i.t is intimatelyrelated to cul ture an d suggests th e idea that environments, if they areto work, must b e cu l tu re specific. Th is coding is also part of t h e ge ne ra lidea of ordering systems, cognitive sc he m ata , an d taxo no m ies th at ar every important-but the se form a different topic (Ra po port , 1 9 7 6 a ,




1 9 7 7 ) . How ever, it should be p ointed o ut that thes e schem ata, being

part of the cul ture core (Ra popo rt , 1 9 7 9 c , forthcoming ), help strut-

con-ure n ot only environ me nts but a lso many behaviors. H en ce th c

cep tual similarity between an environmental (for example, architectural)

style an d a lifestyle-both rep res en t a set of con sistent cho ices a m o n gth e alternatives available a n d possible.

This I hav e called th e choice m od el of design, w her e alternatives ar e

chosen o n th e basis o f schemata (Rapopor t, 1 9 7 6 b , 1 9 7 7 ) t ha t c or-res po nd t o th e notion of lifestyle a s a cho ice a m o n g alternatives in

allocating reso urc es (Michelson an d Reed , 1 9 7 0 ) . It is interesting t o

note tha t this mo del developed f rom reading a pap er on archaeology,

in which it was p oin ted ou t tha t an y artifact (in tha t c ase a po t) is th eresult of a set of cho ices a m o n g alternatives b ase d o n a "template"

(Deetz, 19 68 ) . It thus en co de s th e tem plate via a series of choices, s o

that a ny artifact en co de s me anings, priorit ies, s che m ata, a n d t h e l ike,s ince it is th e nature of t h e hu m an mind to im pose or de r on th e world

(Rapoport , 1 9 7 6 a , 1 9 7 6 b ) by workingthrough form (Douglas , 1 9 7 5 ) .s eenhu s artifacts give expression t o cultural systems that can b t

primarily a s informational systems, s o tha t all go od s a r e part of a ninforrnation system (Douglas an d Isherwood, 1 9 7 9 ) ; material an d

nonmaterial culture can b e see n a s congealed information (Clarke,1968), th at is, artifacts a s ou tc om es of cultural proc esses e n c o d e

inforrnation.In archaeology , where t h e basic process is precisely o n e of "read -

ing" m aterial elem ents, th e imp ort an ce of "co ntextua l analysis" h as

recently bee n s tressed (se e F lannery , 19 7 6 ) . Th us th e meaning ofarcheological ele m ents can b e derived only if th e context is known.

This works o n two ways: th e objects, an d th e beh aviors if known, help

define th e n atu re of th e setting (on th e difficulty of inferring beha vior

from archaeological da ta s e e Douglas, 1 9 7 2 ; Miner, 1956); he se t -

ting, on ce a nd if known, can help define the nature of the objectsfound in it. I will return to th e question of archaeology bec aus e th edecoding of it is significant. Fro m o u r perspe ctive h ere , ho we ver, am ore important con seq ue nc e of th e cong ruenc e of , an d relat ion be-

twee n, patterns of b eha vior a n d those artifacts called built env iron-m ents is that the la tter guide th e former; they remind pe op le how t o

act, how to co-act, what to do . They guide, constrain, an d limit behavior

without being determining.W hen similar sch em ata co ntrol behavior a n d environm ents, we find

maximum congruence between th e meanings com mun icated by en -




vironmen ts an d th e behaviors: culture a s habitual behavior. In t he

sa m e way we know how to dress , eat , use voice an d body, an d whatm ann ers to use, we also know how to use the environment-in fact,

th e environment helps us e ng ag e in th ese behaviors appropriately.

T h e appropriate information a nd meanings red uce information loadsby structuring t he e nviron m ent ( a known env ironm ent is a simplifiedenv ironm ent) and by structuring behavior correspondingly.

If , however , many c ontem porary environmental meanings are notclear, and if deco ding (unders tanding the cues) becomes mo re dif-

ficult, w ha t can b e d on e? O n e im portan t an sw er is that by increasing

redundancy, t he likelihood of messages a nd meanings getting through

is greatly increased (R apo port , 1 9 7 7 , 1 9 8 0 b , 1 9 8 0 ~ ) .he m ore dif-ferent system s com m unic ate similar messag es, th e m or e likely they

a re to be noticed an d und ersto od . This is imp ortant in langu age (whichis highly r ed un da nt) but e ven m ore s o in non verba l o r nonlinguistic

m ess age s, which te nd to be less explicit, less clear tha n o thers .W e can s e e this operating in u rban environm ents in two senses. T h e

first is th e finding (Steinitz, 1 9 6 8 ) ha t when sp ac e organization, build-

ing form, sign system s, an d visible activities coincide, me an in g is m uchclearer a nd urban form m uch m or e legib le a nd memorable . T he o ther

is that a s th e scale an d complexity of social systems hav e go ne up, the

nu m be r of specialized settings, ea ch with its special cu es a n d a pp ro-priate behaviors , has gon e u p a nd t he num ber of m essag e systems has

also gon e up (Rap opo rt , 19 80 b) . This helps us to interpret th e point

m a d e by Venturi et al. (1 9 7 2 ) abo ut th e separation of s pa ce organiza-

tion an d the eikonic an d verbal me ssag e systems in m od ern cit ies an dCarr 's ( 1 9 7 3 ) argum ent a bout their proli feration a s m eanings com-

mu nicated by spa ce organization have bec om e less clear, as they co m-m unica te less effectively a n d surely th an traditional urban a n d archi-tectural spatial organizations. In th o se latter, location, height, dom aindefinition, scale, sh ap e, color, a n d th e like all have une quivo cal m ea n-ings In m od ern environm ents, w here they are m uch less clear, addi-

tional mes sage system s of verbal signs, eikonic signs, an d s o on hav ehad to be a dd ed and super imposed. This point has a lso been m ad e by

others ( for example, Choay, 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 ) on the basis of semioticanalyses. Th ese eikonic a n d verbal systems work best whe n they are

clearly related to th e sp ac e organization-that is, wh en redu nd an cyis increased

Also important is consistency of use, which, in fact, explains theeffectiveness of traditional spatial organizations in communicating




clear me anings. Tradit ional spatial organizations ten de d t o b e u sed inth e s a m e way in similar con texts a nd situations. Recall that this was

also th e point m ad e ab ov e ab ou t the hypothesis that part of the suc-

cess of chain op era tion s of various type s is precisely t ha t they ar e us ed

consistently a n d he nc e be co m e highly predictable; they co m m un icatevery effectively. In o th er word s, particular na m es a n d signs de fine no tonly env ironm ents but w hat they contain-types of beds, foo d, how

o n e ne ed s to dress , prices to be expe cted, what behavior is appro-priate. They define beha vio r settings in th e full se ns e of t h e word-

milieu a n d th e ongoing patte rn of b ehavior (Barker, 1 9 6 8 ), hat is, theenvironment , the rules that apply, a n d th e approp riate behavior . Note

tha t mu ch of this is d o n e thro ug h physical cues.No te a n interesting point. Much of w hat I ha ve be en sayin g is, in fact,

also th e point m ad e implicitly by Barker (1 9 6 8 ).Recall that a principal

point of his work is th at th e s a m e pe op le be ha ve very differently in dif-

ferent be havio r settings. B ut wh at d oe s this different behavior imply?A lthoug h h e d o es no t m ak e this p oint explicitly, it implies tha t settings

co m m un ica te ap pro pri ate beh avior In fact, it is almost a corollary. In

effect, w hat B arker is saying is that w hen pe op le e n te r a setting, tha tsett ing provides cue s that they und erstan d, that they know wh at the

context an d the s ituation are, a n d h en ce what the ap propriate rules ,an d behavior , are. This h ap pe ns s o natural ly, an d frequently, dur ingo u r regular activity system s, tha t we ta ke it very m uc h for g ran ted . W e

only not ice th e process w hen it ceases t o work, wh en we d o notund ersta nd the cue s, th e rules, the expec ted behavior-for exam ple,

in a stran ge culture (part of t h e process known as "culture shock") Inthat case, we cannot draw on the avai lable cul tural knowledge

necessary.At th e sa m e time biculturalism, in enviro nm ental term s as in o thers,

is possible-peop le ca n act differently, yet appro priate ly, in sottingsbelonging t o differen t cultures. This is, of cou rse, th e env ironm ental

equivalent of knowing a nu m ber of languag es This ha s be en d ocu -

mented for Arabs in the United States and in their own hom<!lands(Hall, 1 9 6 6 )a n d for Pu erto Ricans in New Y orkCity in settings belong-ing to their own an d to Anglo cul tures (Hoffman an d Fishman, 19 7 1 ) .

In t h e latter case , it is clear that settings, defining situations, play a mostimportant-if no t crucial-role. It is the si tuation that determines

behavior, but th e setting defines the si tuation.T h u s a bodega, a Puer to

Rican grocery store , elicits P ue rto Rican behavior, an A nglo su pe r-market m ore Anglo behavior, the Anglo work situation (a nd setting)




totally Anglo behavior. Note that in these bicultural cases, settings

often elicit both behavior an d the co rresponding languag e.

A mos t striking exa m ple of b iculturalism is prov ided by a stu dy of

children involved in th e cyclic migration of t h e Abalyia subc lan of t he

B an tu in w estern Kenya. In this case, the se children sp en d s o m e timein a traditional, agraria n sociophysical setting in th e "bush" a n d p art of

their time in an urba n setting. Th e children be ha ve quite differently in

th e different settings (W eisner,1974)a n d ea ch se t of behaviors couldbe interpreted a s appr op riate to th e particular setting. In th at s tudy,

th e particular role of environmental cue s was not co nsidered in any

detail, yet th es e be hav ior shifts d o m ak e th e basic point, particularly

since th e env ironm ental cue s we re qu ite distinct. T h e specific role ofenv ironm enta l cu es is sh ow n by th e c as e of th e Lardil tribe of Aus-tralian Abo rigines o n M ornington Island. Th ere, in th e early da ys of

acculturation, th e m ission station, described a s "the co m po un d," was

clearly de m arc ated by fences. T he se fences be cam e places a t which

"bush behavior" cea sed a n d th e new c od es of mission be havior wereobserved (Mem mott , 1979: 251).Tw o things m ay be note d: first, the

different behavior in the different settings and, second, the role offenc es a s indicating places of transition a n d ch an ge . Aboriginal behavior

also cha nge s, to this day, w he n in a w ork setting o r a residential setting,in a bush ca m p o r a city, in a white pu b o r an Aboriginal on e, an d

SO o n .

Th ese ar e special cases . Yet, a s already n oted, m any t imes every daywe enter set t ings and places , pick up the cues encoded in them,

decode the meanings , match them to the re levant and congruentsch em ata a n d cultural knowledge, an d act appropriately. As we mov e

from lecture hall to se m ina r room , from cafeteria to elegant restaurant,

we adjust ou r behavior in respo nse to c ue s in th e environment thatdef ine th e s i tuation a nd context for us an d help guide ou r behavioralong predete rmin ed paths . Th e cue s even act in a predictive sense:We ant icipate behavior and , for example, dress accordingly an d a p-

propriately befo re ente ring particular settings. T h e ques tion, given th e

a p pr o a ch being discussed, is basically how w e know that a setting iswhat it is, that is, which environmental and social cues specify the

na ture of th e setting s o that th e a pp rop riate behaviors ar e elicited. It isin dealing with this question th at th e no nverbal m odel s ee m s useful,s ince the cue s a re clearly neither verbal nor vocal.



NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION AND

ENVIRONMENTAL MEANING

I take the nonverbal communicat ion approach to environmental

m eaning t o b e som ething conceptual ly ra ther s imple, which is th erea son for using it. In ord er to ke ep it simple, th e extensive literature o n

nonv erbal com m unication, so m e of which is beco m ing very sophis-ticated a n d so m e of which is also a t a high level of a bs tractio n, will no t

be reviewed in an y detail . For example, by 1 9 7 2 , an ann ota tedbibliography o n only so m e asp ects of th e subject con tained 9 3 1 i tems

(Davis, 1 9 7 2 ) an d th e rate of publication ha s increased greatly since

then .I tal ie three points of dep arture : T h er e ar e nonverbal behaviqrs tha t

are both extremely prevalent and extremely important; these bothprovide the contex t for o the r behaviors an d a lso occur a nd are to be

understood in contexts; nonverbal behaviors hav e be en studie d pri-marily by observation and recording and subsequent analysis and

interpretation. Basically, the use of nonverbal models in studying

environ m ental m ea nin g involves looking directly a t various environ-m ents a nd sett ings an d observing th e cu es present in them , identifying

how they ar e interpreted by users-that is, th e particular m eaning sthe se cu es have for hum an behavior, affect, an d s o on . This can bedone easily and directly even without a major consideration of

theoretical aspects of nonverbal com m unication.Th is discussion, on c e again, is best b eg un by referring to a set of dis-

t inctions that apparently ar e unrelated t o th e topic a n d that w ere f irstpropos ed by Hall (19 66 ). Th ese comprise fixed-feature,semifixed-feature, an d informal (better nonfixed-feature) elements.




Fixed-feature elements

Fixed-f eature elem ents ar e tho se that a re basically fixed, or thos e

that change rarely and slowly. Most of the standard architectural

elements-walls, ceilings, an d floors-belong to th at do m ain , as d ostree ts an d bu ildings in cities. Clearly, th e ways in which th ese elem en ts

a re organ ized (their spatial organ ization), their size, location, se qu en -ce, arran gem ent, an d s o on, d o comm unicate meaning, part icularly in

traditional cultures, bu t in all cases they a re sup ple m en ted by o the relem ents. Th er e ar e cases, however, wh en they still tell us m uc h. Forexamp le, on e can suggest that in an y given c ase there a re core ele-

m en ts (corresp ond ing to elem ents of t h e culture core) that will persistwhile others, m or e peripheral, ch an ge (Rapop ort , 1 9 7 9 c , forthcom-

ing ). Applying this notio n to th e Navah o, it is fou nd that th e settle-me nt pat tern see m s more important than the dwelling ( the hogan ); a t

the s am e time , the hogan is invested with m uc h m eaning a n d is often

used to identify the g roup s o that i ts pres enc e o r absen ce is a good

indicator of t h e deg re e of acculturation (Sn yde r et al., 19 7 6 , 1 9 7 7 ) .

This is particularly interesting since that d ispe rsed se ttlem ent p atternis derived from th e Navaho's Athapascan (C ana dian) forebears an d is

both characteristic of th em a n d differs in imp ortan t resp ects from boththeir Pueblo neighbors and the dominant Anglo-American culture

( Je tt , 1 9 7 8 ) .T hu s this sett lemen t pattern both relates to th e co re values of the

culture a n d contrasts with th e o the r pattern s a ro u n d it. Interestingly,

w he n in 1 7 5 0 a nativistic revival of Atha pa sc an culture oc cur red , itwas marked by the introduction of the Blessingway as the centralce rem on ial ritual of N av ah o religion; this specifically prosc ribed th e

building of com m unal, Pueblo-like structures an d favored a return t o adispersed set t lement pattern (Jet t , 1 9 7 8 ).At th e sam e time, of cours e,o th er rituals, langua ge, an d a variety of no nenv ironm ental m ea ns areused. M oreover, ho ga ns a re typical of less acculturated Nav aho an d

hav e, in an y case, not b een given u p completely. Even individuals liv-ing in An glo-type dwellings often build ho ga ns in their backyards, par -ticularly for tho se ce rem on ies ( including Blessingway) m ost identifiedwith N avaho culture. Clearly, th e co mb ination of settlemen t patterns

an d dwellings (which in th e ca se of the P ue blo ar e insepa rable) com -mu nicates clear meaning s a bo ut g rou p identity that a re reinforced by

many o ther, nonenvironm ental , elements.Am ong the B edouin, also, the dispersed sett lement pattern se em s

more important than the dwelling; al though I have not seen any



Nonverbal Communication and Environmental Meaning 89

studies dealing with the m ean ing of th at pat tern , k probably ha s such

m eaning . W hat this sugge sts, how ever, is that th e o rdering principlesof f ixed-feature a rrang em ents h ave m eaning, a lthough o n e group 's

ord er may b e another ' s d isorder . Th us o n e finds U.S c ities described

by French observers as having n o orde r while U S.observers make th esa m e comm ent abou t Moslem citie s (Rapopor t , 1 9 7 7 ) .T h e pattern of

a "l ibertarian s u b u r b in California, which h as im portant ideological

m essages for the bu ilders an d users (Barne t t 1 9 7 7 ) , undoubted ly is

see n by t he sur rounding res iden ts as comm unica ting d isorder an d

m essiness T hu s the order ing sche m ata a re cul turally variable an d

the ir" read ingn in ea ch cas e draws o n cu ltural schem ata T h e peo ple in

th e a rea s ee it as positive; the peo ple outside s e e ~ta s negative, a s astigma, an d th e a rea a s a s lum. With changing values it could b e se en

as a special place, an d n ot negative, even by outsiders Similarly,traditional African cities w ere often s ee n a s disorganized by Eu ro pe an s

be ca us e their o rd er reflected h u m an relationships-social, religious,

ethnic, occupational, kinship and l ineage, hierarchical (Hull , 1976.

122 )-rather than geometrical .

Semifixed-feature elements

Semif ixed-featuree lem ents range a ll the way f rom th e a r rangem ent

an d type of furni ture , cur ta ins a n d otherfurnishings, p lants an d N w h at -

nots," screens and clothing to street furniture, advertising signs,windo w displays in sho ps, gard en layouts an d lawn decorat ions, an d

other urban elemen ts (including th e verbal a n d eikonic me ssage systems

discussed abov e). T he se ca n, an d d o , ch an ge fairly quickly a n d easily.

Note tha t these beco m e particularly impo rtant in e nviron m ental m ea n-

ing in ou r ow n contex t, w here they tend to com m unica te mo re than

f ixed-feature e lem ents . Most peop le m ove in to read y-m ade environ-

m ents an d f ixed-feature e lem ents a re rarely a l tered. Th ey ten d t o form

a given, a l though th e par ticular choice m ad e d oe s a lready com m uni-

ca te, in a n d of itself. Fixed -feature elem en ts are also un de r t h e control

of co de s, regulations, a n d the like While personalization a n d ev en

gard ens a re control led t o a n extent , the control is m uch less than for

f ixed-feature elements. Also, environmental preferences are fre-

quently related to the degree of lack of outside control over per-

sonalization T h ~ ss o n e importan t (althoug h obviously not th e only)

reaso n for the c lear-cut prefere nce for detache d houses ove r o the r




forms of housing, of ow nership as op po se d to renting, of to w nh ou ses

as opp osed to h igh-rise apar tments , an d so o n .

T hu s it ap pe ar s that semifixed env ironm ental elem ents ar e of par-ticular im portanc e in studying m ean ing in o u r curren t environ m ent. At

the s am e t ime, these e lements have bee n used to establish m eaningfrom earliest times. For exam ple , in Catal Hiiyiik, o n e of the ea rliesturban settlements, the distinction between residential rooms and

shr ines o r ritual ch am be rs is indicated primarily (a lthou gh no t exclu-

sively) th ro ug h semifixed elem ents o f various sorts-that is, they are

"furnished" differently a n d m o re lavishly th an dwellings. If th e "fur-nishings" were removed, they would convert back to "ordinary" room s

and dwellings (Mellaart, 1 9 6 4 , 1 9 6 7 ; Todd, 1 9 7 6 ; Rapoport , 19 79 a) .Also, w hen Pizarro first reach ed S ou th America, h e "knew" tem ples

even thoug h they were the s am e height and s ize, and of th e sam ematerials, as the dwellings. This w as b eca us e they w ere covere d injewels an d gold. N ote th at this wa s in a very different, nev er b efo re

se e n, culture! O nc e these decorations w ere rem oved, th e buildings

wou ld, in effect, revert back t o dwellings.

An even more striking example is provided by the Ashanti Fetishho us es in Africa, which a r e identical to dw ellings in p lan, construction,

an d even decora tions. W hat is different ar e (1) he contents (sacred

objec ts of v arious kind s), (2) th e uses of s pa ce , (3) h e activities tha toccu r within, an d (4) he occupa nts (Swithebank,1969).This stres sesthe importance of semifixed and nonfixed elements, but also re-

emphas izes the impor tance of context . It is th e relationships of t h es e

objects, behaviors, an d pe ople to the sett ing that have m eaning a ndcan be "read."

T h e use of fixed-feature an d sem ifixed-feature eleme nts to m ak e

inferences ab ou t behavior (tha t is, ab ou t nonfixe d-feature elem ents) isthe rule in archaeology, al though we have seen that this presentsproblems; it is particularly difficult to read fixed-feature elementsalon e in term s of their m eaning, al though s o m e inferences can be

made. Yet archaeology does provide a most useful paradigm sincem ea nin g mu st be derived from artifacts al on e in m aking inferences

ab ou t behavior. Thu s, in th e case of anc ient Tollan, in Hidalgo, Mex-ico, o n e could distinguish between front d oor s (de corated ) an d interior

doors ("modest"). Decorative facings were used differentially andse em to indicate status; status indications ar e reinforced by th e width

of entran ces, the use of porch es consisting of roof an d posts, withpainted floors and wall plaster and decorative elements, and with




spacious rear room s almost identical to tem ple structures at Teo tihuaca n.

Since, however, these room s include utilitarian-nonritual-objects,

o n e is dealing with a dwelling (He ala n, 1977).H er e it is th e pres enc eo f semifixed-feature e lem ents tha t clarifies the m ea nin g of th e sp ac e;th e ho us e groupings themselves, with hou ses with an d without thes e

status-indicating elem ents, sugg est social relationships.

Ho w mean ing can be read from archaeological data is shown v e y

clearly by the Maya C en te r of L ub aan tun in British H on du ra s (H am -mo n d , 1972).First, it prove d possible to s e e that overall plann ing wa s

involved, since a prodigious am ou nt of labor an d material resources

were used to modify the topography in or de r to implement the plan.

Since the p lanne d layout was clearly im portant to th e builders, on ecan co nc lud e tha t the layout itself h ad imp ortant m eaning . In this case,

the sup erstru ctures h ad walls of pole s a n d roofs of palm th at ch , likeMaya dwellings. All that w as left w ere th e s to n e bases, which w ere of

varied sizes an d heights. O n th e basis of these variables, th e structureswere classified into large religious, ceremonial, elite residential, and

residential; that is, th e m ea nin g of structures was judged o n t he basis of

size an d the height to which s to ne exten de d Locat ion also seem edimportant , since not only were structures aro un d any o n e plaza of o n ecategory, bu t centrality wa s relate d t o importance-a religious co re

was surrounded by a ceremonial zo ne a nd a resident ia l -center zone.

T he se z o n e s could be cro ssch eck ed by accessibility criteria, providing

another instance of meaning in terms of public/private domains.

W here cerem onial ar ea s had low accessibility, it suggested that th ese

particular activities we re con fined to special, elite gro up s.T h e specifics are less important th an the fact that , as is co m m on in

archae ology, th e site could b e re ad o n th e basis of its fixed-featureelements, although this was greatly helped by semifixed-feature ele-ments. As already pointed out, in traditional societies fixed-feature

elements com m unicate mu ch m ore clearly , as c ities such a s lspha han

o r Marrakesh will show; th e hierarchy is easily re ad .

T h e difficulty of m aking behavioral inferences from archaeo logicalda ta has a l ready been ment ioned (se e Douglas, 1972;Miner, 1956).This difficulty ha s to d o with t h e prob lem s of interpretation w he re

m any elem ents a re missing an d cultural knowled ge is ab se nt. It als o

ha s to d o with th e existence of cultures with few fixe d-feature or e ve nsemifixed-feature elements, such a s Australian Aborigines a n d t he

like. In the ca se of t h e Aborigines, not only a re im portant a re as suc h a s

sacre dpla ces, story sites, a n d da nc e a n d initiation gro und s often indis-




tinguishable from the surrounding milieu, or the cues are so subtle that

they are difficult for outsiders to see, they also disappear rapidly. Yet

while these cues are present and these places are being used, their

meaning can often be read quite clearly (Rapoport, 1975a).Therefore,

conceptually, the argument stands: It is possible to read the meaning

of the environments, including space organization, even among

Aborigines (Rapoport, 1979a). Among Aborigines, as among other

nomadic groups (seeRapoport, 1978c), t is also frequently necessary

to keep spatial relationships fluid deliberately, to preserve avoidance

and other interaction rules. This may prevent "freezing" the environ-

ment, so that even today this inhibits the use even of furniture among

Aborigines-it is easier to shift position when sitting on the ground

(Memmott, 1979).Yet while these behaviors occurthey can be read so

that the meaning of spatial organization can be decoded and under-

stood, since it reflects sacred schemata, social structure, and hierarchy

(such as among the Swazi people in Africa; Kuper, 1972).

Another, contemporary example in which the semifixed elements

disappeared when the event ended not only shows the meaning of

space but also the significance of boundaries. This is a photograph of

two Latin American presidents, Carlos Lleras Rostrepo of Colombia

and Raul Leoni of Venezuela, meeting in the center of a bridge span-

ning a river along their border. They embraced while toeing the border,

then ate lunch at the precise center of the bridge, without leaving their

respective countries (Time, 1 9 6 7 ~ ;ee Figure 12 ) .

In our own culture, there is another possible reason why semifixed-

feature elements may be more important, which has to do with the dif-ference between designers and users. Thus it has been suggested that

designers' stress on users' participation in the original design may be

due to their own professional bias and training. Users, it is suggested,

may be much more interested in decisions about furnishings, arrange-

ments, and the like (Becker, 1977: 13)-precisely those elements that

are here termed semifixed.

Thus in our own culture, both in domestic and nondomestic situa-tions, semifixed-feature elements tend to be used much-and are

much more under the control of users; hence they tend to be used to

communicate meanings. Yet they have been ignored by both designers

and analysts who have stressed fixed-feature elements. For example,

among Nubians, traditionally, both house form and decorations were

important (Fernea et al., 1973; Lee, 1969a ). Upon the population's

relocation after flooding due to the Aswan Dam, new, and mostunsuitable, house and village forms were provided. These could not




--Figure 12

be changed; however , colors and other external decorat ions were

cha ng ed immediately (particularly aro un d doors; L ee , 1 9 6 9 a ;Ferneae t al., 19 73 )-a suggestive point regarding me aning.

In o u r ow n culture, in th e ca se of dom estic situations, w e find th ewhole ran ge of elem ents s ub su m ed un d er "personalization"-inter-

nally, t h e u se of colors, materials, pictures, curta ins, furnishings, a n ds o on ; externally, of colors, trim, shutters, m ailboxes, street nu m be rs,

decorations, planting, a n d t h e like. In no nd om estic si tuations, we find

th e cha ng es occurring in urban sh op s an d in roa dsid e str ip buildingswhere t he sa m e f ixed-feature e lements can act a s se ttings for do zen s




of uses and activities through changes in the semifixed elements-

de co r, decoration s, signs, an d th e like. Very few longitudinal studiesha ve be en don e , but it is easy to think of ex am ples if we ha ve observeda sh op pin g street or se gm en t of roads ide strip for any length of time.

Increasingly, for exam ple, on e can observe gas stations converted foroth er uses. In o n e case, a gas station was turne d into a n Italian res-taura nt thro ugh so m e minor c han ges in a l imited num ber of semifixed

el em en ts in plaster, ch ipboa rd, lighting (internally), and a sign a nd

front d o o r (externally) . A noth er exam ple might be a gas station con-verted t o a ban k through th e addition of a m an sa rd roof (a s flimsy a s a

sign), a sign, a front do or with deco rative walls, an d s o m e dec orative

window panels.The distinction proposed between "duck" and "decorated shed"

architecture (Venturi et al., 1 9 7 2 ) ca n be inter pre ted in term s of fixeda n d semifixed elem ents: A "duck" relies on fixed elem ents to co m -

municate its meaning; a "decorated shed" relies on semifixed andchan geab le elements . This , of course, also has t h e econ om ic adva n-

tage of be ing reused easily (se e Rubin, 1 9 7 9 :354ff).N ote also tha t in

non do m estic situations the m ean ing of particular elements b eco m esparticularly easy to study: O n e can observe which elem ents ar e usedfor what an d which are changed how when uses cha nge. This cor-

res po nd s t o the obs ervation , in n onv erbal analysis, of facial expres-sions, gestures, an d body p ostures a n d relating them to th e context of

particular situations, behaviors, interactions, an d s o forth; it is a verydirect a n d easy m ethod to use.

Given the fact that today most pe ople move into ready -ma de environ-m ents , for exam ple , housin g, th e study of m ean ing will necessarily be

primarily in t h e semifixed-feature re alm . For exam ple, considerin g ag ro up of Pu erto R icans inhabiting public housin g in th e S o ut h End ofBo ston, it w as fo un d tha t a particular "aesthe tic complex" was devel-o p ed internally, which c om m un icated ethnic an d ot he r identi ty, that

is, ha d m ea ni ng for th e group . This consisted of t h e selection of certain

deco rative objects (often brou ght from P ue rto Rico) arra ng ed in cer-tain ways, the use of specific colors, the use of particular furnituregrouped in particular ways (space organization) and so on. Sinceexternal personalization was impossible, clothing, cars, and otherdevices were used a s ways of comm unicating meanings having to d o

with g ro up identity, a n d respectability-with "maintain ing front"

(Jopling, 1974).Note th at it was observation-of roo m s, their con -tents , people's clothing, cars, a n d s o so-that first led to th e notion o f-th e m e a n i n g of th e particular cho ices m ad e.



Nonverbal Com munication and Environmental Meaning 95

Similarly, for th e s a m e ethn ic grou p, but in New York City, it wa s

throug h t h e observation of semifixed e lem en ts in living roo m s (a n

inventory) tha t a n und erstand ing of th e m ean ing of th ese settings was

derived-that they repres ented "sacred spac es" (Zeisel, 1 9 7 3 ) .This

m eanin g h ad clear design implications. In th e sa m e study, in th e cas eof kitchens, it was the observation of women's behavior in kitchens

(nonfixed-fe ature elements) a n d t h e a ppliances in kitchens that clearly

indicated the meaning in this culture of kitchens and their latentfunctions-very different to th o se of Anglo kitchens. In th e cas e of th e

Pu ert o Rican culture, sta tus is gaine d during a party th roug h a ho stessbeing seen to pro duce food, being see n in the kitchen, a n d "perform-

ing" in front of a n au d ie n ce of he r peers; in Anglo culture, a w om an isseen as a good hos tess when sh e apparently doe s n o work , yet food

appears as though by magic. The design implications were quiteclear-an efficiency kitchen is un su itab le in this particu lar Puer to

Rican hou sing beca use of t h e mea ning of tha t setting.Similar exam ples can b e given from oth er cultures. In th e ca se of t he

Apache, cooking involves the presence of others, with much social

interaction (associated activities). T h e co operative effort an d t h e socialaspects a n d com panionship ar e th e imp ortant (latent) aspects of t heaction of cooking . Du ring holidays, feasts a r e held th at involve th eentire comm unity. A great dea l of roo m is nee de d to p rep are th e food.Similarly, th e living s p a c e setting h as m eanin g in te rm s of th e behavior

exp ected of guests. O n arrival, o n e expec ts to sit peripherally aro un dth e room, far from o thers, with n o conversation. W hen fo od is ready,

and eating begins, talk and interaction also begin (Esber, 1972).

W ithout large kitchens a n d l iving rooms, p eop le could not beh ave

appropriately. Again, observation was th e key to discovering th es emeanings.

In Kenya, a com plex se t of culturally specific m ean ings at tac he d todifferent rooms-the living ro om a s "semipubiic sp ac e, " bedrooms a s

"private," an d lavatories, bathrooms, an d kitchens as "hiddenv-werecom m unicated by furniture a n d furnishings a s well as by visibility. C ur -

tains over doorways, ty pes of furniture a n d their arran gem ent, an d thelike clearly co m m unica ted the ab ov e meanings, as well a s dom ains ofm entwom en, posit ivetnegative, a n d provided cu es as to where o n eshou ld sit while entertaining an d being entertained, wh ere to ea t, an d

so forth (Kam au, 19 78 t79 ). A clear distinction in me an ing was fou ndbetw een eating a s a social activity involving en tertaining visitors a n deating for nourishment. This was clearly indicated by th e zoning w ithin

th e living roo m , which stressed the m axim um possible spatial sep ara -




tion betw een furniture groups: m atched sofa a n d chairs (un m atch ed =less prestige), coffee table , en d tables, an d s o on , on the o n e h and, anddining table an d chairs on th e o ther. Again, l iving room s a re furnished

in specific an d distinct ways in te rm s of furniture, objects, ar ra ng e-

ments, colors, and the like, which provide information about theincome of th e m en, the hou sek eepin g abilities of th e wom en, an d thest at us of th e family; it is a p rojection of t h e way in which they wish

others to think of them and of the ways in which family membersinteract . Among bedrooms, rank is shown by the master bedroom

being larger an d having a better a n d larger bed , use of a b eds prea d,higher degree of c leanl iness , a n d s o on . Bathro om s an d kitchens are

regarded as unclean a nd shameful , and therefore are hidden; they arealso the women's dom ain.

Note that the positive/negative nature of spaces reflecting the

dom ains of m en/w om en is foun d m ore generally, an d is ec ho ed in the

corresponde nce between right/left and men/w om en (N eed ham ,1973).

Note two more things: First, in all these cases, we are dealing with

laten t asp ects of activities-how they ar e d o n e, associa ted activities,

a n d , particularly, their meaning-so that th es e ar e critical in th e con-gr ue nc e of s etting an d activity; se co nd , th es e comp lex findings, re-

sembling semiotic an d structuralist analysis in s o m e cases, is d o n erathe r simply a n d in straightforward ways by ob serv ation of semifixed-

fe atu re elements an d behavior-nonfixed-feature elements.

Nonfixed-feature elements

Nonfixed-feature e lements are re la ted to the hum an occup ants or

inh ab itan ts of settings, their shifting spatial relations (prox em ics), theirbody positions an d posture s (kinesics), ha nd a n d a rm gestures, facial

expressions, han d a n d neck relaxation, he ad nodding, eye contact,spe ech rate , volume and pauses, a nd m any o ther nonv erbal behaviorsdiscussed previously. In fact, th e study o f nonv erbal behavior ha s be ende ve lo pe d in, an d a lm ost entirely restricted to, this do m ain; it is th e

nonfixe d-feature elem ents that form th e subject of nonv erbal com-munication studies. T h e questions comm only asked c onc ern what is

being com m unicated, o r hidden, by such behaviors a s anger, revul-sion, fear, or whatever, and also what role these behaviors play ininteraction.

T he task in applying the nonverbal m odel to environm ental m ean -ing is thus to m ove from the nonfixed-feature realm to t h e semifixed-




an d fixed-feature elements, but asking c om para ble questions: W hat is

being com m unicated? Why and by what m eans? W hat role d o thecu es play in behavior, social interaction , a n d s o on ? It is my ar gu m en t,

following what ha s already be en said ab ou t semifixed e lem ents, th at

th e m ost productive first s te p is to try to bridge th e g a p between thework o n nonfixed an d semifixed elements, a n d to d o it in th e simplesta n d m ost direct way-by assum ing, o n th e basis of th e discussion th u s

far , that th e environment acts a s a form of nonverbal com municat ion,

a n d pro ceed ing from the re by direct observ ation, th e analysis of exist-

ing studies, th e c on ten t analysis of descriptions, an d th e like.S o m e suggestions for the validity of this ap pr oa ch ca n b e fo und in

nonverbal com m unication studies in th e non fixed-feature realm. Forexample, on e can use m ore than facial express ionsof em otion a n d useth e face itself-as a n out co m e of facial expre ssions over years. T hu s it

has been suggested (E km an, 1 9 7 8 ) that face information consis ts of

facial sign vehicles tha t ca n be:

b statrc-These cha ng e, but very slowly Included are bo ne structure, th esize, sh ape , an d location of eyes, brows, nose , mo uth , or skinpigmentation-what o n e could call featu res.

slow--These cha ng e m ore rapidly an d include bags, sags, po uch es,

creas es, wrinkles, blotches, an d th e Irke.

raprd-These cha ng e very rapidly an d Include m ovem ents, skin ton e,coloration, sweat, an d cues such as eye gaze direction, pupil size,

head posi t~oning , nd s o on .

artif~c[al--These include glasses , cosm etics, face lifts, wigs, and the

like.

T h e last categ ory, of course , relates to clothing, settings, a n d fur-

nishrngs tha t, with th e face an d body, lead to judgm ent of peop le-person perception, s tereotypes, a nd th e l ike (Warr an d Knapper ,

1 9 6 8 ;Ekrnan , 1 9 7 8 ) .Like the se oth ers , facial characteristics a re used

to judge personal identity (race, gen der, kinship), tem pe ra m en t, per-sonality, beauty, sexual attractiveness, intelligence, state of health,age , mo od , emot ions , and s o on . While the face is sa id to b e th e m os tcom m only em ploye d identity sign, clothing, furnishings, a n d setting s

ar e also thu s used N ote also th e interesting similarity of th e divisionab ov e into static, slow, a n d rapid with fixed-fea ture,semifixed-feature,an d nonfixed-feature environmental elements .

For o n e thing , there h as been a t leas t som e work on the meaning of

semifixed elements, a l though not near ly a s advanced a s tha t on non-



96 THE MEA NING O F THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

fixed. I ha ve alread y referred t o th e use of inventories. Th ese h av e long

bee n used in anthropology. Also, a s early as the 19 3 0 s, th e condition

a n d cleanliness o f living room s, furniture, a nd furnishings, their

"orderliness" a n d impression of "good taste," which a p p ear sub jec-

tive, pro ved t o be very effective indicators of social statu s (Chapin .1 9 3 8 : 7 5 4 , n ote 8)an d , indirectly, lifestyle an d t h e effect of reh ou sing .

Althoug h this finding was repo rted only in a footnote. it see m s generally

accepted a n d ag reed tha t com binations of intentional a n d uninten-tional displays of material things, including hu m an s, set th e sc en e for

social enc oun ters . In judging public h ousing a n d oth er en vironmen ts,the negat ive me aning of t rash, bad m aintenanc e, vermin, and other

objects that co mm unicate st igma h as been used for so m e t ime (Rain-wate r, 1 9 6 6 ) . T h e contrary is a lso t rue-good m aintenanc e an d up-keep, cleanliness, underground wires, greenery, and the like all

communicate posit ive messages and result in perceptions of high

environmental quality, desirability, and satisfaction. This will be dis-

cussed in so m e detail la ter (see also Rapoport , 1 9 7 7 , ch. 2; Burby etal., 1 9 7 6 ) .T h e fact th at physical elem ents in th e environm ent ar e read

easily a n d directly a s indicators of social characteristics, a n d he nc eguides for behavior , h as no w been confirm ed amply (Royse, 1 9 6 9 ) .

Note also that in discussing th e u se o f pho togra phy in the socialsciences (W agner, 1 9 7 9 ), it is taken fo r granted an d self-evident tha tph otog raph s ( th at is, visual images of n onfixed-sem ifixed-and fixed-

feature e lem en ts of th e world) ca n be interp reted. Th us in studies ofskid row, shabby p ersonal ap pea ranc e, drinkingin public, a n d the se t-

t i n g o f d o o r s t o o p s a n d alleys in a dirty part o f th e city (Wagner, 1 9 7 9 :

31; emphasis added) match the public image of derelicts. In otherwords, they co m m un icate "skid row" by being co ng ruen t with people's

cognitive schemata. Photos of skid row settings communicate thisthro ug h t h e typ es of pe op le (their fac es, clothing, postures , activities,

a n d s o o n ), t h e ambi e nc e , signs (such a s signs saying "loans," "barbe rcollege," "B rea d of LifeMission," type of ho tel sign), an d a lso th e type sof othe r sh op s visible. "

O n e ca n clearly identify tow ns by t h e kind of clothing pe op le w ear,build ings, sh o p s igns , an d so on (Wagner, 1 9 7 9 : 1 4 7 ) .A photographicrecord of a h o m e setting wo uld reflect religiosity, ethnicity, a n d e le-

m en ts of history, and might provide insights into psychological processesby revealing orde r o r disorder (m or e correctly th e nature of th e orde r)

throu gh t h e artifacts a nd their arrang em ent, the inhabitants, their age,an d "p assa ge of life" (a s show n by face, hand s, an d posture). Clothing




would indicate ec on om ic well-being, taste, a nd possibly profession ,while th e m an n er in which it is worn a n d th e po stu re might indicate

psychological a n d emotional s ta tes (W agner, 1 9 7 9 : 27 3 ). In o ther

words, th e nonfixed-semifixed- an d fixed -feature eleme nts would tell

us mu ch. In fact , such cultural inventories are s o useful that , in t h e ca seof Native Americans in cities, th e success of relocation can be m easu red

reliably by the s tyle an d ord er of each h o m e (W agner, 1 9 7 9 : 2 8 1 ).

T h e analysis of U.S. urban land scap es an d sub urb an dwellings also

involves as pe cts of this kind of an alysis altho ug h t h e ap p ro ac h is dif-

fe ren t (Ven tu ri e t a l., 1 9 7 2 ,1 9 7 6 ;Venturi and Rauch, 1976). tartingfr o m a very different philosophical, ideological, a n d me thodo logical

position, Baudrillard (1 9 68 ) ha s de veloped t h e notion tha t significantly,h e calls le systeme des objects-"the system of objects." This co r-responds to th e notion of "t h e world of gootis" (Do uglas a n d Isher-wo od, 1 9 7 9 ) an d to the notion of a n "object language" (Ruesch an d

Kees, 1 9 6 5 ) that describes the messa ges enc od ed in mater ia l form,an d that com m unicate their m eaning bo th by their na ture (m ater ial ,

sha pe , color , an d so on ) an d throu gh their arrangem ent , that i s, their

relationship to oth er elem ents (w hat I ha ve called "context").In fact , Ruesch and Kees 's very early book on nonverbal com-

mu nication is still possibly th e m ost u seful for o u r pu rp os es . S inc e it is

priorto most rese arch in th e field, a n d t h l s lacks so m e of th e theoreticaland methodological sophistication of more recent work, i t comes

closest to applying this ap pr oa ch t o th e en vironmen t, particularly tosemifixed elem ents. It explicitly con cen trate s o n pragm atics an d s tresses

visual cu es, observation, a n d context , emp loying both descript ionsan d p hotographs . A mon g i ssues cons idered a r e how roles a r e judged

thr ou gh clothing, activities, back grou nd an d props; ho w g roup s, from

dy ad s up, ar e identified by th e settings a n d clothing th at indicate th esocial situation; a n d how th e rules of action a re sugg ested by settings.

Examp les of sh o p window s, which indicate value a n d price throu gh

display techniques, hou ses , an d neighb orho ods a re given. T h e s tressis on the atmosphere or ambience of set t ings that indicates theactivities in th em , s o that urb an are as c an b e identified a s comm ercial,industrial, o r tourist. Similarly, th e s tatu s of districts ca n b e read a n d

sho ps, bars, an d restaurants p r o v ~ d e ue s for part icular clienteles-boh em ians, gou rmets , neighb orho od regulars , or connoisseurs. T h ebook discusses how physical arrangements of settings guide, facili-tate, and modify social interaction; how the physical environmentexpre sses various identities-individual a n d of g ro ups It rela tes sign




language (gestures) , action language (walking, drinking, an d s o o n) ,

a n d object an d spatial language ( that is, nonfixed-, semifixed-, a n d

fixed-feature elemen ts). It con cen trate s on semifixed-feature e lem ents

(al though it doe s not use th at term),an d s t resses th e nonverbal aspects

of verbal messages, for example, the nature of lettering in terms ofstyle, materials, color, a n d s o on . It even ad dr es se s th e issue of the

interplay of biology a n d c ulture in nonverbal com m unic ation1 an d

also has mu ch t o say about th e importance of redun dan cy (which is

called "m utua l reinforcement"). All in all, Ru esch an d K ees's b oo k is

no t only still th e m ost relevan t published application of nonv erbal c om -

mu nication to env ironm enta l m eanin g, it is also a veritable ag en d a for

much research. It is a pity that it was not really followed up in thefurther dev elop m ent of nonve rbal com mu nication research. Bu t even

that provides a m ethodological approach based on observation, whlch

is a lso su m m arized elsewhere, for aw ide range of behaviors , including

nonverbal , spatial , a n d oth ers (s ee Weick, 1 9 6 8 ) .

C on tex t greatly influences social interaction. While social con text

ha s ra ther dramatic an d important ef fec ts upon in terpersonal in ter-

action , they ar e rarely ta ke n into acco un t; similarly, physical a n d oth erasp ects of th e total environmen tal contexts tend to b e ignored (La m be t a l., 19 79 : 265, 2 6 9 ). N ote th at social interaction is studied by

observation of no nfixed-feature elem ents a n d their su bse qu ent anal-

ysis. T h e transfer of this a pp ro ac h t o ana lyze semifixed- a n d flxed-

feature elem ents m ake s things easier: th e problem of the te m po ofeve nts, th e fleeting yet critical cue , is missing. O n e h as m ore time.

T he re a re also m any stud ies tha t, while nonexplicitly in this tradi-

tion, can easily b e in terprete d in this way; w e h av e already discussed

so m e, othe rs will be discussed in m o re detail later.

T h e approach ado pted here begins with an emphasis on semifixed-

feature elem ents (although it is not con fine d to those ) . S o m e reas on sfor this h ave already been given. T he re is anoth er: It can be show n tha t

nonfixed and semifixed elements tend to covary, while the f ixed-fea ture e lements remain unch ange d in th e sa m e situat ion. Consider

an example of a con ference that was pho tograp hed over a per iod ofseveral days (Collier, 1967).At the beginning, people sat around

maintaining formal body posture, formally dressed, wearing theiridentity labels. Th ey m aintain ed formal prox em ic distance a n d their

body language co m m unica ted com parab le messages. They held coffee

cups a nd sau cers on their knees. At th e e n d of several days all th es e

nonfixed cu es had changed-no thing was formal, personal distance




was greatly red uce d, body c onta ct was often present, body postu re

was extrem ely informal, clothing exp resse d relaxed informality, coffee

cu ps an d other e lem ents we re scat tered all over. T h e m eaning of the

nonverbal m essa ges was qu ite clear. But it sud den ly struck m e tha t the

furniture arrangements, the coffee cups, ashtrays, and the l ike, bythemselves-that is, without th e pe op le present-would ha ve com -

municated almost the whole s tory; a great deal o f the m eaning hadbeen encoded in the semifixed realm. Nothing, however, could be

de du ce d from th e fixed-feature elem ents-the walls, floors, a n d ceil-ings. N ote also tha t, at least initially, t h e a rran ge m en t of th e semifixed

elements ( furni ture) had an impact on human communicat ion and

interaction an d g uid ed it in specific ways.Since o u r task is t o apply t o semifixed- a n d f ixed-feature elem ents

the no nverbal comm unication a pp ro ac h deve lope d primarily in the

nonfixed-feature realm, it is useful to begin with a brief review of

that.

The nonverbal communication approach

In th e nonfixed-feature realm man y lexicons of t h e me anings of

animal express ions an d act ions hav e been compiled, for exam ple, ofdogs,gulls an d oth er birds, primates, an d s o on (for a recent review of

so m e of these , se e Sebeo k, 1977b) . n the caseo f hu m an s th e work of

Ekman and his collaborators, Eibl-Eibesfeld, Birdwhistell, Hall, and

others show s tha t a s tart has bee n m ad e. Given th e exis tence of so m elexicons at least, th e q ues tion is really twofold: Is th e lexicon itself, th atis, th e se t of possible devices, cultu re specific or universal? A nd , eve n ifth e lexicon is universal, d o sets get picked t ha t h av e universality ( o r

comm onality) o r ar e they culture specific?

T he re ar e three m ajor views ab ou t nonvertjal com mu nication in the

nonfixed-feature realm:

(1) Th at it is an arbitrary, culture-specific system, he nc e s~ m il a ro language

in that respect For exam ple, ther e is an assumpt ion of an analogy be-

twe en kinesic behavior a n d lang uag e ( se e Birdwhistell, 1970, 1972)

An e xtreme sta tem en t is that non verbal behavior may be a s culture

bo un d as I~riguistic ehavio r (Lloyd, 1972: 2 5 ) .

(2) Tha t i t is a pa n-c ultu ral, species-sp ecific system a n d t hu s very dlfferenf

from lang uag e ( se e Eibl-Eibesfeld, 1970, 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 9 )




( 3 ) A resolution of these conflicting views in an interesting model that,while rejecting the linguistic approach and concerned with how non-verbal behavior communicates feeling states, actually incorporatesaspects of both (Ekman a n d Friesen, 1969b;Ekman, 1972).

In t he ca se of th e first two of t he se views, th e ar gu m en t is essentiallyabout evolutionary versus linguistic models (Eibl-Eibesfeld, 1972;

Leach, 1 9 7 2 ) . So m e of the different f indings may be d u e to th e

exam ina tion of different activities, for exam ple , gestu res versus facial

expressions, which may hav e different d eg rees of cultural a n d biologi-

cal comp onen ts .

Cross-cultural studies by Eibl-Eibesfeld and Ekman and his col-laborators indicate the existence of certain universal pan-culturalelem ents in facial expressio ns th at se em universally, or at least v e y

widely indeed, recognized. These, the n, see m t o b e nonarbitray and

biologically based (s ee Darwin, 18 7 2 ) .W hat the n is th e role of culture?T he model proposed ( the "neuro-cultura l" model ; Ekman, 1 9 7 7 )

resolves the se two points of view in o n e way (th e third a p pr o ac habove; Ekman a nd Fr iesen, 1 96 9b ; Ekman, 19 7 2) .T h e suggestion is

th at in t h e ca se of facial expressions, ther e is a universal, pan -cu ltura laffect pr og ram involving facial muscles an d their mo vem ents in asso -

ciation with stat es such as hap piness, an ge r, surprise, fear, disgust,

sadn ess, interest , a nd s o on. T h e elicitors of these , based o n setting,

expectation, m em ory, s ituation, a n d s o on , a re culturally variable a sar e the display rules, tha t is, wh at is allowed w he re a nd w hen. T he se

amplify or intensify, deamplify or deintensify, neutralize, blend, or

mask the affect program. The outcome is a particular facial display,which, wh en interpreted, ha s affect an d behavioral con sequ enc es insocial interaction. The cultural differences, then, are due to differ-

en ce s in elicitors an d display rules, an d h en ce th e blend, althou gh t h ee l e m e n t s of expression a re universal (s ee Figure 13).

This is clearly n o t a languagelike system. Note tha t not only are theelicitors of fac ial expression socially learn ed and culturally variab le,

but s o are many consequence s of an aroused emotion (such as whetherit is expressed or hidden). At the same time, however, the facial

mu scular movem ent for a particular emotion, if it is displayed ( th at is, ifdisplays rules d o no t inte rfere and inhibit it) ar e dictated by a n affectprog ram tha t is pa n- hu m an an d universal.

T h e conflict betw een th e two points of view can b e ap pr oa ch ed in

aq ot h er way. Nonverbal be havio r in th e nonfixed-feature realm in-

volves origins, or how these behaviors bec om e part of a person's




repertoire (which is not o f major interest h ere); usage, th e circum-

stanc es of its use; a n d codin g, th e rules that explain ho w the beh avior

conveys informat ion (Ekman and Fr iesen, 1969b).T h e a r g um e n t

abo ut wh ether such behavior is innate , pa n- hu m an , or culture (o r

oth er gro up) specific applies m ainly to origins. Usage se em s clearlyculture specific since i t deals with the external conditions such as

environmental sett ings, si tuations, roles, relationship to associated

verbal a n d vocal behaviors , aw are ne ss of emitt ing th e behav ior an d

intent ion to communicate feedback f rom others , and whether the

information is sh a re d or idiosyncratic. Co din g varies in te rm s of uni-

versality ve rsu s cultural specificity, a n d is of t h re e types: intrinsic,

which is eikonic and the act is the meaning; eikonic but extrinsic,al though th e ap pe ar an ce of the behavior is like wh at it means; an d

arbitrary, culture-specific extrinsic c od es with n o visual resem blan ce

to w ha t they signify.

O n the bas is of he three types ofcoding, o n e th e n f inds three c lasses

of nonverbal behaviors ( for exa m ple, hand ges tures) : adap tors ,

i l lus t ra tors , and emblems (Ekman and Fr iesen, 1972; J o h n s o n e t

al., 1975).

adaptors-These are the least intentional, most intuitive, exhibitingleast awareness (no te hat one can have objectadaptors-apotential link to our subject).

illustrators-These augment or contradict what is being said, but haveless precise meanings than emblems.

emblems-These have exact verbal translations ,with precise meanings

known to all, or most, members of a group, and are delib-erately used for m essages, so that the sender takes respon-sibility for them. These can also be described as "symbolicgestures" (Ekman, 1976) and are the most "languagelike"(Ekm an, 1977), or culture specific.

T he se tend to b e s tudied using pro cedu res der ived f rom social psy-

chology a n d linguistics. Different gro ups ha ve dif fe ren t em blem

repe rtoires, for exa m ple, varying in size (Ekm an, 1976),which tend sto cor respond to l anguage as in the case o f "e labora ted o r " re -

s tr icted" co de s (see Be rnstein, 1971).

Th us em blem s, being closer to lang uage than illustrators or ada pto rs,

show more influence of cul ture. Although even here one expects

so m e comm onal i ties across cultures, based on biology, these tend to

be hidden by t he cultural differences; th e further from lan gu ag e, as in

th e ca se of ad ap tor s an d il lustrators, th e m or e th e influence of biology




an d th e less cultural variability is to b e exp ected (Ek m an, 1 9 7 7 .Hinde ,

1 9 7 2 ) .

This, th en , provides a n ot he r way of resolving th e argu m ent-

contradictory f indings may be d u e to th e a n al y s~ s f different be-

haviors: adaptors, illustrators, or emblems. While these distinctionsare proposed within th e d om ain of gestures , o n e would expect them to

be even more significant across types of nonverbal behaviors, forexam ple, facial exp ressions versus gestures.

It se em s intuitively likely th at body positions (Birdwhistell, 1 9 7 0 ,

1972), spa tial relations (H all, 1966),an d gestures (Efron, 1941)arem ore arbitrary, emblemlike, an d culture specific tha n facial expressions.

O n e woultJ also expect emb lematic ges tures to b e m ost languagelike,particularly if stud ied verbally This is, in fact, th e ca se .

Recently an a t tempt ha s been m ad e to s tudy what are c learly em -

blematic gestures mainly through ~nterviews-that is, verbally-

although direct observation, st i l l and cine photography, and the

analysis of historical illustrations a n d d escrip tions we re a lso u sed

(Morris et al.,1979).A total of2 0 of th ese gestures and their meanings

were studied cross-culturally in 40 localities in 2 5 co un tries ofWestern an d Sou thern Eu ro pe an d the M editer ranean region, using15 ang uag es. In effect, th e at tem pt was to build a lexicon of m ean ing sby compiling diag ram s of ge stures bo th illustrated an d described-the

basic m orpho logy, distinctive fea ture , selective symb olism, genericm eaning , and specific m ess ag e of e ach .

T h e gestures s tudied wer e assum ed t o vary f rom cul ture to culture.

Since they can stand for abstract quali ties, they therefo re de p en d onconvention, are culture specif ic , and may be meaningless in some

cultures; their distribution m ay b e w ide o r may be restricted to smallgroup s (their geog raphic distribution was plotted s o th at th e lexicon

also s ho w s spatial distribution).

Findings indicate that most of the gestures studied have several

varied m ajor m eaning s (s om e ev en in a single region); so m e of th es eme aning s may b e in conflict in different places S o m e gestures hav e

truly national m eaning s, oth ers e xte nd across national a n d linguisticbou nda ries, still others hav e bound aries w i t h i n linguistic ar eas (ofte nd u e to identifiable historical even ts), an d still oth ers ar e restricted topart icular subg roup s in a given population. Ge stures cha ng e with t ~ m eat different rates.

Ap art from th e fact th at a lexicon can be p repared, and apar t frommethod ological implication, so m e of th e f in d ~ n g s re signif icant for

o u r purposes. While m eanin gs clearly d o vary, an examination of the




histograms shows that many gestures have much more commonmeanings than others: constancy seems to be a matter of degree

rather tha n being an either/or situation.

Sec on d, ha nd gestures-particularly the se emblematic ones-seem

m o re variable tha n facial expressions, which have also been studiedcross-culturally. Thu s a s o n e m oves from facial expressions an d adap torsthrou gh illustrators to e m ble m s, th e cu ltural variability a n d specificity

tends t o increase . T he ques t ion , then , is what ha ppen s as o n e movesinto th e dom ain of semifixed- an d fixed-feature elements-that is, areth es e e lem en ts primarily ada ptorlik e, illustratorlike, o r emb lemlike? In

t y i n g to apply this m odel to env ironmental cue s in th e semifixed- or

fixed-feature realms, ar e there any universals-or are they all culturallyvariable? This is difficult to answer: S o far the re ar e n o lexicons a n d

hardly any rese arch (which is urgently ne ed ed ). But o n e may ex am ine

so m e of the ev idence an d so m e of what is known in a speculative

mode. That evidence seems somewhat equivocal , but there does

s e e m t o b e considerablevariability; o n e cannot , however, say wh etherth e elicitors an d display rules alone ar e variable or whe ther the e lem ents

a re a lso. Put differently, th e q ue stio n is twofold: Is th e set of elementsconstituting noticeable differences in th e environm ent, an d up on

which the designer in the broadest se ns e (Rapoport , 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 7 )canpotentially draw , universal or culture specific? Within that set, ev en i fth e form er applies, are ther e a re com m onalities in which specific cues

get selected to comm unicate particular m eanings (or are used to infer

m ean ings ), o r is th at pa rticular rep ertoire cultu re specific?

A list of possible potential c ues is easily liste d(R apo port, 1 9 7 7 :2 2 9 -

2 3 0 ) .A m on g these o n e ca n suggest the following as being particularlyrelevant (altho ugh this is not a n exh aus tive list):

physical elementsvision: shape, size, scale, height, color, materials, textures, details,

decorations, graffiti, furniture, furnishings, etc.

spaces: quality, size, shape, enclosing elements, paving, barriers

and links, etc,

light and shade, light levels, light quali ty

greenery,presence of planting, controlled versus natural, type of

planting, arrangem ent

age-new versus old

type of order, order versus disorder




perceived density

level of maintenance

topography-natural or hum a n- m a de

location-prominence , centrality ve rsu s pe riph ery , hills orvalleys, exp osed or hidd en, etc.

s o u n d sound quality-dead versus reverberant, nolsy versus quiet,hum an-m ade sounds (indus ty . raffic, music, talk, laugh ter, e tc )

versus natural soun ds (wind, trees, blrds, water, etc.); tem pora l

changes In sound

smells hum an -m ad e versus natural, such as industry, traffic, etc versusplants, flowers, the se a, etc.; "pleasant" versus "unpleasan t,"

foods an d th e type of foo d, etc

socral elem ents

p e o p le languages spok en, behavior, their dress, physical type, occu pa-

tion, ag e, and sex, etc.

actlvrtles

a n d uses lntenslty, type-such as industry, clubs, restaurants, residen-t ~ a l ,ellg~ous, airs, mark ets, sho ps, recreatron, sep ara ted an d

un ~f or m versus mtxed, cars, pedestrians, or other travel

m odes, co o k ~ n g , atlng, sleeprng, playlng, etc

objects signs, advertisem ents, foods, de co r, fences, pla ntsa nd garden s,possessions, etc

temporal differences of various kinds

For example, i f we consider planting, the very fact that different

plant com plexes in ga rden s ar e easily identifiable with particular ethnic

groups, a s we shall se e later , suggestsculturalvariability. If w e consider

height, it is usually rela ted t o statu s, a n d is th us fairly com m on-the

higher off t he gro un d, either in pers on or in building form, th e higher

th e status-but so m e interesting reversals can occur, a s for exam ple,

between North an d So uth Indian temples , where th e height gradientin its relation to t h e d eg re e of sanctity is reversed (s e e Figu re 14).Yetthe imp ortance and sancti ty of the t emple as a whole is expresse d in

term s of height in both c as es (s e e Figure 15).

T hu s height, in th e s en se of above/be low (in context) , may well be

an important universal category for indicating the meaning impor-tan ce ; certainly in th e s en se of relative size o r scale, that is, th e tem ple

a s a whole vis-a-vis th e house s a n d o the r urban elements . This use of



108 THE MEANIN G OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

$ o m P.do 5 0 l - K ~ I N ~ t k O T5hl\fI-f55

~prpoi t>fa-

Figure 14

height is s o co m m o n cross-culturally (bo th in building elements and

location) that examples so on be com e to o num erous to handle ; con-

sider just the cathedral in a medieval city, churches in towns and

neighborhoods, o r the H au s Tamb aran in a Sepik River village in New

Gu inea (see F igure 16).



Nonverbal Communication and Environmental Meaning 1 1 1

No te also that in tradit ional Thailand, co m m on er s always ha d to be

lower th an nobles, and n o o n e could b e higher than the king, withimplications for th e design of buildings a n d s ettlem ents . Similarly, in

Cam bodia, nobles ha d raised h ou ses an d s laves w ere a l lowed only o n

th e gr ou nd floor; red un da nc y was increase d by restricting th e use oftile roofs to nob les; co m m on ers w ere restricted to leaves o r thatch

(Git ea u , 1 9 7 6 ) .T h e use of podia , thrones, the "high table ," and s o onin th e sem ifixed-feature do m ain a n d of bowing, kneeling, genuflect-

ing, and even crawling on one's belly in the nonfixed domain also

com e to mind.

If we consider centrality, we find that while in most traditional

societies central location is re la ted to high s tatus , ther e ar e ca ses inwhich this d oe s not se em to be t he case ( that is, where there is n o rela-t ion) an d still othe rs (such as th e c onte m por ary U nited States) in which

reversals occur (Rap oport , 1 9 7 7 : 49).T h e differences, even today,between th e Uni ted States andl ta ly (or even France) consti tu te almost

a reversal (Rapoport , 1 9 7 7 ; Schna pper , 19 71 ) . Yet th e constrast be-tween central versus peripheral locat ion see m s so w idespread as t o be

almost universal. It is also fou nd t h at th e distinction o r oppo sition be-tween right a n d left, although universal-possibly related to o u r bodies'bilateral symmetry-is m o re variab le in te rm s of m eanin g. W hile in

m ost ca ses right is se en as positive a n d left a s negative, th er e d o exist

rar e cas es of reversals (a s in th e ca se of C hin a; Ne e d h am, 1 9 7 3 ) ;o n c e

again, th e co ntext plays a role.

It may be useful to consider color in more detail , since there is

eviden ce that it is o n e of th e clearest noticeable differences (Rap op ort ,1 9 7 7 ) .S o m e recent evidence suggests tha t color is mu ch m or e clearly

located in semantic space than are, for example, spatial relat ions,which tend to b e m ore am biguous (Miller an d John son-Lai rd , 1 9 7 6 ) .

Th is may partly h elp exp lain th e gr ea ter utility of semifixed-featureelements for com m unicating m eaning: Spatial relat ionships, p er se ,

while critical in the organization of the perceptual world, are inher-ently am bigu ous by themselves an d a lso ope ra te m uch less effectivelyin th e associat ional realm. They a re also m uch less noticeable a s cues,w he rea s color is highly n oticeable.

T h e que stio n of specificity o r universality in color applie s to its per -cep tion a nd naming as well a s the m ea nin g. While this discussion is not

directly relevant to th e qu es tio n of m ean ing, t h e centrality of color insemantic space mbkes this question worth addressing briefly, par-ticularly since tha t which is not n am ed , an d he nc e no t perceived con




sciously, is unlikely to have major meaning and hence to be used

as a cue .In this a rea th er e also ha s been mu ch arg um ent, particularly whether

the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that language influences perception)

applies at all an d , if so , whether in t he strong, weak, or w eakest form(for a good brief review, see Lloyd, 19 7 2 ) .T h e whole rang e of positions

ha s been taken, but it ap pe ar s tha t, while all hu m an beings can dis-

criminate color, the nu m be r of na m ed categories, th e salience of color,an d t he persistence of color as an attention-eliciting dim ension vary

with culture (Lloyd, 1 9 7 2 : 1 5 0 ) .Color'sposition in th e deve lopm entalsequ ence am ong children a lso varies (S uch ma n, 1 9 6 6 ) .

T he re do es seem to be a universal, pa n- hu m an inventory of elevenbasic percep tual color categories, from which various cultu res draw all

eleven o r fewer. All lang uag es, how ever, h av e tw o of th e categories-black an d w hite. If three ar e used, then red is next, i f four, either gree n

or yellow (but not b oth), an d so on . Th ere thus see m s to be a clear ,f ixed seq uen ce of evolutionary stages thr ou gh which langua ges m ust

pass a s their color vocabulary increases; there ar e two tem por al orde rs

in this evolutionary seq ue nc e (Berlin an d Kay, 1 9 6 9 ) .If, however, o n e accepts th e increasing variability as o n e go es frommanifest to latent functions (that is, meaning) a n d from th e con crete to

th e symbolic object, on e would expe ct to find m ore variability a ndgreater cultural specificity for meanin g tha n for percep tion o r naming.

At first glance, this see m s to be t he case. T h u s th e color of mo urning

can be w hite, black, or purple ; th e Nazis used yellow a s a stigma color,whereas it has the oppo si te meaning in Buddhism, and s o on. In so m ecultures, such a s the United States, color u se se em s to b e arbitrary or

rand om , whereas am on g the Navaho , colors are explicitly ranke d in

terms of go od lba d (Hall, 1961: 104). n th e latter ca se this may berelated t o th e identification of colors with directions, which ar e clearlyran ked . W hite is identified with ea st, blue with so uth , yellow with w est,an d black with n orth. Each is also related t o specific ph en om en a, par-

ticular m ountains , jewels, birds, an d s o on. Also, east a n d s ou th (white

an d blue) a r e male, w here as west a n d no rth (yellow an d black) ar efem a le (Lam p he re , 1 9 6 9 ) .This relation betw een colors an d cardinaldirections is form ed also in oth er cultures, ev en in the United S tat es ,wh ere, how ever, th es e relations a re no t explicit and he nc e no t widelyshared and more idiosyncratic; for example, there are regional dif-

fe rences (Som mer and Es tabrook, 1 97 4 ) .B ut th e evid enc e for th e g reate r variability an d cultural specificity

between color and m eaning is somew hat equivocal a n d am biguous.




Th us th e pract ice of using colors an d color na m es to com mu nicate

affective m ea nin g is fou nd in m any widely different cultures. More-

over, white is very com mo nly s ee n a s positive a n d black a s negative,

not only in W estern cu lture but a m o n g Siberian tr ibes, M ongols, so m e

Africans, an d Am erican Indians. Althoug h there may be exceptions,the evidence suggests considerable cross-cultural generality in the

me anin g of black a nd white an d o the r colors an d color na m es (Williams

e t a l., 19 70 )

Black artd wh ite thu s ev ok e positive a n d n egative affective associa-

t ions and m eanings Th ese are m ore polar ized in the West , wh ereblack ha s extremely negative m ean ing , than , for exam ple, in J a p a n ,

where b lack a nd white t end to harmonize more a nd a re seen mo re interms of a complementary balance of opposites, although even in

J a p a n w hite is still pre ferre d. Wh ite is ra ted positively by H on g K on g

Ch inese, Asian Indians, Danes, English, Ge rman s, a n d white Am ericans,

wh erea s black 1s uniformly negative. T h es e two colors se em t o involve

universal meanings (Goldberg and Stabler , 1973) modified by cul-

ture. Sim ~la rly, oth white an d black children in th e United Sta tes

attach n egative meaning s to black a n d positive m eanings t o white( Stabler and J o hns o n , 19 7 2 ) .Th us , while a few exce ptions exist, blackgenerally h as negative c on no tation s, white positive (Stabler a n d

G o ldber g, 19 7 3 ) .

It is quite clear, tho ug h, that colors generally d o have m ean ing, b oth

in the m selv es, by contra st with nonco lors , and in term s of inc reasing

th e redu nd an cy of o the r cue s. For exa m ple, in ancien t Peking, most of

th e city was low a n d gray; th e sac red a n d hierarchically impo rtantsection was centrally located, larger in scale, more elaborate, and

higher, an d t h e u se of colors was restr icted t o tha t section.

Th us , generally, o n e finds m any exa m ples of explicit color m ea n-

ings. O n e exam ple is th e com plex color symbolism of medieval times2based on the notion that every object has mystical meaning. The

colors used h ad four sources: (1) nc ient religious archives a n d cere-

monies of Iran, India, C hina , an d Egypt, (2) the Old Tes tament , (3)

G reek and Rom an mythology, an d (4)based o n the other three, color

mean ing of na tur e This included red for pow er (b loo d), yellow forwarm th an d fruitfulness (su n) ,green for youth an d hopefulness (spring),

a n d s o on . T h e re were clear a n d explicit rules for using color: (a) only

pu re colors were to be used, (b) com binations of colors to give tints cor-

respo nde d to c om pou nd meanings, a n d (c) th e rule of opposi tes , tha t

is, reversing th e "natural" meaning-thus green, which normally stood

for youth a nd hop e, could b ecom e despair (Blanch, 1 9 7 2 ) .T hus the




use of color constituted a n arbitrary system that n ee de d k nowledge of

the cultural context to be read .Althoug h it se em s rath er equivocal, the cross-cultural generality of

the meanings of colors other than black and white has also been

strongly ar g u ed (for exam ple, s e e Williams et al., 1970).W hile everyculture ha s had its own expressive system of color meanings, an d the rewere h en ce so m e varia tions , these have been widely s har ed am o ng

cultures (Kaplan, 19 75 ) .Yet m any suc h arg um ents ar e not fully con-vincing. T he re is also the fact that colors se em to hav e s o m e striking

com m onalities in their physiological effects, su ch a s levels of arou sal.

B ase d o n this, it ha s bee n sugg ested th at since in all cultures colors are

related to affect an d m oo d , an d since m uc h of this relation is based o nassociation w ith natu ral p h e n o m e n a an d th e physiological impa ct of

colors, th e result is a wid espread stereotyp ing of colors (Aaro nson ,1 9 7 0 ) .

M ore impo rtantly, an d m ore generally, it is th e presen ce or abs en ceof color in a context-color a s a no ticeab le difference-that is imp or-tant. It usually indicates som eth ing special or important; thu s th e role

of co lor in a m on o ch ro m e or natural (for exam ple, m ud brick) environ-m ent, a s in th e case s of P eking or Isphaha n already discussed. In suc han environm ent a w hitewashed building, such a s a church, may stand

ou t, as in th e Altiplano of Pe ru o r th e Pu eblo s in New Mexico. Alter-

natively, a m o no ch ro m e building ( a church ) reinforced by a c ha ng e ofmaterials , such as natural stone, may stand out in a polychrome,

stu cco ed setting (such as Mexico) o r in a w hitewashed setting (as n th ecase of Astuni in Apulia, already discussed) where it is further rein-

forced by location, size, height, form (d o m es an d towers), and e labora-tion. In t h e ca se of materials or forms, age-old or new-also may

indicate im po rtance o r status. T hu s in t h e ca se of R um anian villagechurc hes, em phas is, vis-a-vis dwellings, was ob tain ed by th e us e ofnew materials; in th e cas e of P ueb lo Kioas, the contrast is achievedthrough th e use of a n archaic form.

T he re is clearly so m e uncertainty ab ou t th e d egre e of co nstancy

eve n in th e n onfixed-feature realm, that is, nonverbal co mm unicationpro pe r. It s ee m s partly a m atter of th e kinds of cues, such a s emblem s

o r ada pto rs, gestures o r facial expressions. In a re as of overlapbetw een nonfixed features a nd semifixed- o r fixed-feature elem ents,the same condition exists. For example, male genital displays are

extremely com m on am on g infrahuman primates. O n e a lso f indsaco r-respondingly co m m on reflection am on g hum an s in the widespread




use of phallic figures a s gu ardia n f~ g u re s n d m arke rs (Eibl-Elbesfeld,

1 9 7 9 :43 -4 6) found In m any pe r iods and am on g cu l tu res a s d~ v e r se s

Euro pe, Ja pa n , Africa, New Gu inea, Polynesia, Indonesia, and a n c ~ e n t

S ou th America, to m ention just a few

In gen eral , thou gh . the survey abov e an d o ther evidence suggeststhat in the case of env ironm ents, w h ~ le onstancies exist, the repertoire

or pale tte grows a nd there is m ore variability a n d cultural specificity

T hus th e reversals on e finds In th e me aning of env ironm ental elem ents

ar e s triking M ountains that were desplsed bec om e subl ime with th e

rise of th e Ro man tic M ovem ent (Nicolson, 1 9 5 9 ) ;Roman ruins that

were pag an , an d hen ce evil, bec om e rem nan ts of a golden ag e with the

R e n a i s s a n c e ( a s d e s c ri b e d in R a p o p o r t , 1 97 0b , a b o v e ) ; t h eurban center has highly posit ive meaning in I taly and France, and

nega tive m eaning in the Uni ted S ta tes(R ap op or t , 1 9 7 7 ) ; h e m e an in g

of urb an settlem en ts vis-a-vis wilderness com pletely rev erses in th e

United S ta tes in a comparat ively brief t ime (Tu an , 1 9 7 4 : 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 ) Ifwe c om pa re Austra lian A bor igines an d Northwest C oast Ind ians of

North Am erica , we f ind that am o n g the la tter th e se t t lem ent pat tern is

dete rm ined by ecological an d eco no m ic con side ration s; it is th e dwell-ings, determined by r i tual considerations, that are the bearers of

meaning. Am ong the former , however , dwellings seem to respond

mainly t o instrum ental forces (al though this h as recently been qu es-

t ioned; Reser, 1 9 7 7 ) while the se t t lem ent pat terns , in thls ca se th e

m ovem ent pa t te rn a nd relat ionship to th e land (in themselves highlyculture specific) , ar e ba sed o n r itual an d a re mo st m eaningful (R ap o-

port, 1 9 7 5 a , forthcoming c) .It thus ap pea rs tha t as o n e moves f rom the nonfixed rea lm, throug h

clothing, to the semifixed- an d finaliy f ixed-feature elem en ts, th e

repertoire, or palette, grows and there is ever more variability and

specificity related to culture. In other words, the trend is to a more

"languagelike" model, but one that is less arbitrary than language.

Ekm an's neuro-cul tura l m odel , however. compris ing both constant

an d variable elem ents, see m s useful, as do es th e notion of a global lex-

icon, which may be broadly l~m ited o certain types of elem ents; from

that, different group s m ay select repertoires m ore or less restricted in

size a n d m or e or less con stant in usa ge We will know m ore wh en lex-

Icons a rc deve loped and cues a re s tudied historically and c ross-

culturally

At the s am e t ime , on e can see a con s tan t tendency to s t re s s differ-

ences-height, color , ag e, location, materials , layout, sh ap e, or w hat-




ever are used to establish and stress differences. In most cases, a

distinction o r noticeable difference ten ds to be established betw een

various elements; i t is these that express meanings. For example,

dom ains , such a s sacred jprofane , f ron t jback , tnen /women, public /

private, a n d s o o n , ar e distinguished; distinctive c ues indicate that . T h eprocess seems universal , the means var iable . There are probably

limits to th e m ea ns av ailable an d c ertain likely, or e ve n alm ost inevi-

table, things might hap pen . H eight will te nd to be used a n d in mos t

cases do es indicate imp ortance or sacredness; color will ten d to be

used even i f specific colors vary; orien tation t en d s to be significant,

even if specific directions vary; centrality (for example, navel of the

world, axis m undi) is comm on-although its m eaning may b e reversed;s ize o r deg ree of e labo ratenes s an d other co m parab le e lements will

tend to recur and even ten d to be used in cer ta in ways ra ther than

others . Th us height in th e North an d So uth Indian Te m ples is , in o n e

sen se, used in o pp os ed ways in m aking sacred ne ss within the tem ple,

but in opposing tem ple/tow n height is still used to m ark the sa cre d.

This corresp onds , for example, to th e rela tion of u p d o w n = sacred:

profan e or pure:pol lu ted found am on g the Kwaio in the Solo m onIslands (Keesing, 1979) and many o ther cu ltu res .

It is interesting to e xam ine sta tus, hierarchy, prestige, a n d pow er.

For o n e thing , they are re la ted to soc ia l rank o r dom inance an d the se

ar e almo st universal , not only in hu m ans but am on g many animals. In

higher animals, status is related t o atte nti on . Hu m an prestige striving

is hom olo go us with primate self-dom inance, but the primate tenden cy

for seeking high social rank is transform ed into self-este em , which is

m aintained by se ekingprestige; the self or gro up is eva luated as higher

( a significant word!) tha n oth ers . T o get attentio n, distortions of per-

cep tion a nd cognition a re u sed . In traditional cultures, culturally pat-

tern ed strategies a re us ed for this; culture contact o ften destroys the se(Barkow, 1975).T h e built env ironm ent is on e of th es e strategies, a n d

in trying to establish prestige, height is, in fact. a very commonly

used cue.

If we examine how sp ac e and physical objects com m unica te rankan d pow er, w e find height frequently use d, altho ugh clearly this can

only be understood in context. Many examples can be found. One

very striking on e has to d o with th e way ran k was com m unicated in

palaces. I t ap pe ars that the Em peror of Byzantium had a th ron e that

rose through mechanical means while those before him prostrated

themselves (s ee Can ett i , 19 62) -a real-world analo gue of the well-



No nv erbal Comm unication and Environmental Meaning 1 17

known sc en e in Ch arlie Chaplin's The GreatDictator Other examples

from Ban gkok, Ca m bod ia, an d oth er places hav e already bee n given.This klnd of cue is, I sus pe ct, almo st universally un de rstoo d.

Horizorltal space can also be used in this way, as in Versailles,

Hitler's chancery (Blomeyer , 1 9 7 9 ) ,or in t h e well-known ex am ple ofMussolini 's office; m any executive offices also use this. Re du nd an cy is

also used clearly to communicate rank and power clearly-height,

horizontal sp ace, decorat ion, materials, guard s, an d s o on . Th us o n e

can consider the p alace of th e ph ar ao h in ancient Egypt as a "rulingmachine" ( U ph~ l l , 9 7 2 ) .H e r e a wide variety of architectural manip-

ulat ion a nd orn am en t was u sed t o produ ce a sui table feeling of aw e in

visitors. N ote th e implication th at it w as self-eviden t to all an d tha t weca n still s o interpret it. T h e palace was a se t of m essages to com m uni-

cate aw e a nd subservience: abso lute s ize, scale, sett ings, approach ,

spatial seq ue nc e, color , doorways, panel ing, an d other d ecora t ion,

courtiers, co stum es, furnishings, an d many o ther e lements were used

t o cre ate a setting overwhelm ing in itself-and eve n m o re s o in th e

con text of t he typical mud-brick villages a n d ev en larger hou ses. Th is

con textua l im pac t is, of c ours e, critical in un de rsta nd ing any e nviro n-ment-a New En glan d tow n in th e se ve nte en th cen tury in its clearingof fields con trasting with th e dr ea d forest; any h um an ize d a re a in a real

wilderness (such a s a v~ l l agen prehistor ic t imes; Ra pop ort , 19 7 9 b );major mon um ental complexes o r spaces, such a s the Acropolis in th e

context of ancient Athens or the Maidan-i-Shah in the context of

seventeenth-century Isphahan .

While in all thes e case s th e m eanings described would ha ve be en,an d still are, imm ediately comp rehensible s ince s o not iceable d u e toredun dan cy, context , an d th e use of "natural" c ues, th e specif ic read-

ing of th e m eanings requires so m e cul tural knowledge. T h e co de s

must be known in order for the meaning of the order under lyingbuildings, cities, a nd wh ole co untries to b e un de rstoo d. This was th e

case in Ancient Cam bod ia (se e Giteau, 1 9 7 6 ) an d in the layout of t he

entire Maya lowlands, to give just two e xam ples. T he se latter ne ed tobe interpreted in terms of a sac red mod el base d o n the quadriparti teview of th e universe an d th e co ns eq ue nt use of fou r capitals. This

organization pe ne trat es do w n to level of t h e villages, which a lso con-

sist of fo ur w ards (Marcus, 1 9 7 3 ) .This is, of cou rse, an a nc ient a ndco m m o n pattern ; o n e of t h e earliest cities, Ebla, was s tructure d in thisway (Berman t and W eitzman, 19 7 9 : 155, 1 6 7 ) , as were m any o ther

cities (Rapoport, 1 9 7 9 b ) . Similar mod els under l ie Y oruba environ-




m ents (K am au, 1 9 7 6 ) a n d Mexico, where a know ledge of ancientAztec organization can help in read ing th e me an ing of th e organiza-

tion of a contem porary small town suc h as Tlayaca pan (Ingham ,

1 9 7 1 ) .T hu s knowing th e underlying sche m ata, having internal con-

texts, he lps in reading t h e m eanings.I hav e b ee n discussing the fact that al though context an d cultural

knowledge a re important , many of the se c ues se em to be almost self-evident, although from th e distant past a nd from very different cultures.

This suggests th e n ee d briefly to consider again th e suggestion m a d eab ov e that there may be regulari ties in the m ea n s available that may

be likely, "natural," a n d alm ost inevitable. This may b e inte rpe ted in

term s of th e notion of e volutionary ba ses for behavior. O n e suggestionis th at a m on g m or e or less widely sha red associations, the re may b earch etyp al associations-that is, certain c o m m on res po ns es to certain

stimuli, o r archetype s defined a s th e m ost l ikely schem ata (se e McCul-

ly, 19 7 1) .A no the r app roa ch is that, du e to evolution in particularcon-

ditions, th e h um an species exhibits constancies in behavior, ne ed s,an d th e ways th ings tend to b e d on e, s o that there a re limits to th e

ran ge of possible ways of doing things (Ra po po rt, 1 9 7 5 b ; Ha mb urg,1 9 7 5 ; T ig er a n d S h e p h e r , 1 9 7 5 ; Tiger, 1 9 6 9 ; T iger an d Fox , 1 9 7 1 ;

Fox , 1 9 7 0 ; Boyden , 1 9 7 4 ; Rossi, 1 97 7) .It may also well be th at n ot o nly is th e rep ertoire o r palette limited,

but t h e rules of com bina tion m ay b e similarly limited. H er e again,there may eventual ly be an area of overlap between the s tudy of

environmental meaning in terms of n onverbal cues an d m ore formal

structuralist, semiotic, symbolic, linguistic, and cognitive anthropol-ogy models . Note that many of these are based on the notion of

oppositions-that is, contrasts-so that m an y theorists in th e ar ea

arg ue that symbols occur in sets an d tha t the meaning of part icular

symbols is to b e fo un d in th e contrast with o the r symbols rather tha n inthe symbol as su ch , s o that individual symbo ls have layers of m ean ingthat d ep en d upo n what is being contras ted with what (se e Leach,

1 9 7 6 ) . This no tion of contrast o r opposition see m s basic to dis-crimination or meaning, and forms part of the context that I havebeen stressing.

O n e of these c om m on processes discussed abo ve was the tendencyof the hu m an mind t o classify the world into dom ains such a s nature/culture, us/them, m en lw om en , private/public, frontlback, sacred/profane, go o dl b ad , an d so on ; built environments of ten give physical

expression to t hes e domains (Rapoport, 1 9 7 6 ~ ) . ote tha t recently th estrict binary nature of such oppositions has been modified by the



Nonverbal Communication and Envlronrnental Meaning 119

realization that frequently a n im portant m iddle term (o r terms) existsthat m ediates o r resolves the opposition. O n e exam ple is provided bythe conc ept of "field" as mediating between "village" a n d " b u s h invarious cultures; also, in the opposition "sa~ red /p o l lu t ed ,~ 'he re is

th e middle term "ordinary" (Keesing, 1 9 7 9 : 23; Fernandez , 1977;Rapoport , 197 9b ) .Am ong th e Z apotec, o n e finds the graveyard usedas the category m ediating between t h e wild (field) an d th e dom estic(hous e) domains; there o n e finds a whole gradation o r continuum ofterms defining dom ains that a re expressed in terms having to d o with

fields, villages, house s, patios, a n d s o on, a n d with concepts su ch a ssacred, profane, good , bad, safe, dangerous, an d s o on. Knowing

these clarified the environment and its meanings (El Guindi andSelby , 19 76 ) .Con trasts a re thu s often am on g expressions of do mains;while the results may vary, the proc esses a n d rules ar e constant.

In defining dom ains, an d in grou ping environm ental elem ent s intodom ains, it is necessary t o judge whe ther, a n d how, eleme nts ar e th esa m e or different. It has been suggested th at there a re five main m ode sof equivalence: perceptible (color, size, sh ap e, position, a n d s o on);

functional (for what it is used); affective (emo tion al response su ch a sliked or disliked); nominal (based on ready-made names in thelangu age) ; an d by fiat, that is, arbitrary (Olver a n d Hornsby, 1972).T h e use of equivalence criteria an d their types a re constant; thespecific typ e used varies a m o ng different cultures (see Greenfield et al.,1 9 7 2 ; S u ch m an , 1 9 6 6 ) .

Once domains are defined, and their equivalence or difference

established, cue s ne ed to be used to m ake them visible. This is the rolean d purp ose of th e contrasts we hav e be en discussing. For exam ple,the modern movement in architecture, modern art , and all avant-garde in itself ha s meaning simply by contrast with what is no t av an t-garde, through being identified with an elite minority. This is, of course,the role of fashion today, as we have already seen (Blumer, 19 69 b) .Equivalerlt to these is being modern in Third World environmentsthrough th e use of m ode rn materials, sha pes , or gadgets, which wehav e already discussed; it is, in fact, a perfect a na log ue th roug h con-trast with th e context, for exam ple, "m odern" hou ses, conc rete floors,cem ent blocks, galvanized iron, an d w ood fram e as o pp ose d t o U b u s hhouses with mud floors, mud and stick walls, and thatched roofs.Recall that in a se tting of g alvanized iron roofs it is th e th at ch ed roofthat may h ave special me aning.

Without noticeable differences-contrasts-meaning is more dif-

ficult to read. For example, in C am p o Rugia, a traditional neighborho od




in Venice, windows v a y greatly in size an d form; this com mu nica testh e social m ea ni ng of dwellings. In th e new ne ighb or ho od of Villaggio

S an Marco, th e windows a re all of th e sa m e size a n d form; they th us allseem to have the sam e impor tance and d o not comm unicate (Chen u

e t al., 1 9 7 9 : 1 0 6 , 1 1 0 - 1 1 1 ) .W e ha ve already see n tha t differences beco m e m ore noticeable,

a nd mean ings clearer, wh en they ar e uniqu e ( o n e clearing in a forest,

o n e colored building). Scarcity value is th us im portan t in e mp hasizing

abse nce o r presence through contrast . For example , the shabby, non -manicured landscaping of upper-class are as (Du nc an , 1973) com-

mun icates not only thro ugh matching the sch em a of "wilderness" and

"simple, natura l things," bu t by co ntrast with th e pre va il~ ng ub urb annorm of man icured lan dsca pe This landscaping bec om es a marker.

Similarly, since Venice h as few arca de s, they have a special m eaningthat indicates special areas of social importance, of interaction and

meeting; they physically de fin e th e m ost im portan t public places in th eurban fabric T h e two main one s ar e th e Rialto-the business an d

financial center-and th e Plaza S an Marco-the political and rel~gious

cente r (Ch enu e t a l. ,1979:76).Clearly, in B ologna, where arca des ar eth e norm , their abse nc e may h ave equivalent meaning.

Much w ork n ee ds to b e d o n e in reviewing all these issues historicallyan d cross culturally. At th e m om en t it still se em s unresolv ed, but

Ekman's model see m s t o be applicable whether semif ixed- an d non-

fixed-feature e lem ents te nd to b e m ore like em ble m s, illustrators, oradaptors; w heth er they ar e mo re like gestures or facial expressions

( see F igure 1 7 ) .I t thus appears that this approach, derived from nonverbal com-

mun ication, can usefully b e applied to environmen tal m eaning, avoid-ing th e pro blem s pr es en ted by formal linguistic, semiotic, o r symbolic

approaches. Recall , however, the suggestion already made, rein-

forced by the above discussion, that by starting with this relativelysimple, straightforward, an d largely observ ational a pp ro ac h, o n e is in

n o way blocking its even tual integration with, an d relation to , mo reformal linguistic, structuralist, semiotic, a n d symbolic analy ses.

Notes

1 Interestingly, th e au thors ruere t h e n a t t h e S a n F ra n ci sc o r n e d i ~ a l c h o o l of t h e

Un~vers l tyof C a l ~ f o r n i a , h e r e E k m a n , w h o s e w o rk I w ~ li hort ly d iscuss , has be en

w o r k ~ n g




2. Note that this a nd many o the r s tud ies o n co lor ar e d iscussed in terms of

"symbolism." As pointed ou t in Cha pte r 2, t h e r e is n o loss in clar ity whe n t he conc ept

"symbol" is omitted a n d the question, "What is th e mea ning of colors?" or "What d o

colors communicate?" is substituted.



SMALL-SCALE EXAMPLES OF

APPLICATIONS

Although many varied examples hav e be en used in the discussion

s o far, it now se em s useful to exa m ine ex amp les of th e application of

the ap pro ac h advo cated in m or e detail. While, in general, the examples

will concentrate on our own time and Western culture, occasionalm o re "exotic" exa m ples will be us ed t o stress specific points. In this

ch apte r, smaller-scale exam ples will b e exam ined; in th e next, those at

the u rban scale.

As already p oin ted o ut, th e adv anta ge of this ap pr oa ch is th at it is

relatively sim ple an d straightforward, involving observ ation a n d inter-

pretatio n. No te that th e early work of Ru esch a n d Kee s, Hall, Bird-

whistell, Ek ma n, an d oth ers involved observation and /or pho tograp hy

followed by analysis. This led to a n in dex o r catalo gue of cue s, which

led to hy potheses tested by further observa tion o r experiment. In this

book, th e suggest ion is m a d e tha t this early, relatively simple ap pr oa ch

is extremely useful. Basically, one begins by looking and observing;

o n e sensitizes oneself to s ee , observe, an d understand: It is not a linearprocess, bu t o n e involving a n intuitive "creative leap" o n c e o n e ha s

satu rated oneself in th e information (Ra po po rt, 1 9 6 9 d ) . This is , of

course, also a n analo gue of design a n d of the u se of m an-en vironm ent

studies in desig n.T h e observation itself a n d th e understanding be co m e easier with

practice, that is, a s on e develops this m o d e of th ou gh t. Clearly, o n e

need s t o intuit the m eanin g of w hat o n e sees; that intuition th en ne ed s

to b e ch eck ed systematically a nd in a more "linear" fashion. In both

proc esses, of co ur se, knowing t he cultural con text is extremely useful,

bu t even that ca n be sugg ested by observation. In conven tional n o n .

verbal commu nication s tudies in the nonfixed-feature area , on e can




study both the encoding a n d decod ing of th e behaviors in a n inter-action (Ekm an an d Fr iesen, 1 9 7 2 ) . n applying the app roach to semi-

fixed ( a n d f ixed-feature) eleme nts o n e can also study the encoding

(wh at sett ing would o n e provide for X) and decoding (what doe s th is

setting sugge st o r me an ). O n e description of how this process mightoc cu r is given in th e h ypothe tical ex am ple of how o n e might gradually

co m pre hen d th e m eanings of various elemen ts in S pa in, beginning

with obs ervatio n (Poy atos, 1 9 7 6 ) . Clearly, this process of g radu al

com prehe nsion implies, as a lready pointed out , th e n eed to acquire

th e cultural knowledg e necessary to interpret th e cue s, that is , th e con -

text available to th e users. At the sa m e time, how ever, the early stage s

described involve a person, newly arrived in Spain, observing andrecord ing various fe at ur es n the en viron m ent: blending of offices an d

dwellings, the signs attached to balconies, film placards, sidewalk

cafes, o pe n -d oo r bars, traffic, proxem ic beh avio r, various sm ells, an d

s o on ; meanings can then be inferred an d checked.

Spatial organization at small scales can c om mu nicate m eanings a t

th e level of semifixed elem ents. For ex am ple, i f o n e considers court-

roo m s in several cultures (H aza rd, 1 9 7 2 ) , the suggestion is that byobserving th e spatial relationships am o n g five elements-judge's se at,

def end an t 's sea t , jury 's seats, defending attorney's seat , an d prose cut-

ing attorney's seat-the major and essential fea tur es of th e criminal

justice system can be determ ined s o that even a n em pty courtroom

tells o n e a great deal (se e Figure 18).W he the r this is, in fact, th e ca se is

less important than the point that we can judge relative position,

status, a n d th e whole situation through such cu es that, effectively, are

in th e semifixed realm , which is extremely significant for my arg um en t.

Th ese c ues m ay be very subtle, a s a saw-cut in the bench behind which

judge a nd prose cutorsit in P oland to m ake them distinct. Fo rexa m ple ,

th e jury is sep ara te from t h e judge in th e Un ited S tate s an d Britain, and

they retire separa tely to different places. In G en ev a, the judge an d jury

retire togethe r; in that case , th e pro secu tor is higher spatially tha n th e

defense a t torney, accu sed, an d witness s tand. In o th er p laces, o ther

variants are found . A significant point a bo ut th e jury/judge re!ationab ov e is th at how a n d w he re they retire is significant. Th is clearly su g-

gests th at with pe op le pres ent, their dress, behavior, an d interaction

will com m un icate even m or e. For ex am ple, th e na ture of th e judge's

seat-its size, de co ra tio n, location, w he th er it is raised-will co m -

m unicate m uc h. T h e judge's dress-robes, wigs, chains, or sashe s of



Small-Scale Examples of Applications 125




office-will ad d m ore; th e nonfixed featu res, such a s th e usher's cry of

"all stand" a n d the crowd's behavior, all a d d even m ore d ata .

Note that, moreover, one finds that clothing style, behavior, and"th e subtle differences in t h e way lawyers a n d witnesses spe ak in the

courtroom can have a profound effect o n the ou tco m e of a criminaltrial" (New York Times, 1 9 7 5 ). Th us th es e m or e typical nonverbalcue s also play a role. T h e report also com m ents tha t the Am erican

criminal trial is a pub lic ritual th at is us ed t o reso lve conflicts. This is, ofcou rse, typical of all cultures; th e discussion h er e bears on th e setting

for these rituals an d it reflects th em . N ote th at, on ce again , th e fixed-

feature elem ents com m unicate mu ch less.

T h e adv anta ge of such a n ap proa ch is that it is s imple en ou gh con-ceptually to be used quickly an d easily by practitioners a n d stud ents.

Basically o n e identifies sets of noticeable differences am o n g environ-m ents a nd m akes inferences abou t them. O nc e a single case is analyzed

and relationships established, other comparable cases allow infer-enc es to be m a de m ore easily, a s we shall see below. O n e can also

observe overt behavior and obtain demographic characteris t ics of

populations to help interpret these mean ings m or e fully.It even be co m es possible to disprove hyp othese s in this way. Thu s,

for example, o ne s tudent ( Janz , 19 7 8 ) com pare d semifixed elem ents

in several hun dre d dwellings in an a re a on th e So ut h sid e of Milwaukee

(a white ethnic , blue-collar area ) with a n are a o n th e East s ide (a

profession al-acad em ic, fairly high-status a re a, with a sub sam ple ofarchitects ' dwellings there). He a ssu m ed t ha t personalization would

be higher on the East side. In addition to field analysis, he photo-

grap hed the hou ses for further analysis. It soo n bec am e clear that per-sonalization th rou gh semifixed elements w as very mu ch higher on t he

S o ut h side-in fact, wh at w as typical of th e East side was th e absence

of personalization. In other words, two different subculture codeswere being used to which people conformed. The meanings com-municated-"I am a go od person who belongs hereu-were com -

municated through both the presence and absence of personaliza-

tion externally.Various qu estions an d sub hyp othe ses could quickly be formulated.

Was the lack of personalization on th e East side d u e to lifestyle variables

am on g th e inhabitants so that t he population established identity inothe r, nonenvironmen tal ways, fo r exam ple, through professional

achievem ent (se e Rapop ort, 1 9 8 1 )? Alternatively, o ther environ-men tal m ea ns might be involved, for example, a g roup identity achieved




thro ugh th e architec tural quality of th e dwellings a n d overall cha racte r

of th e ar ea tha t at tracted p eo ple th ere in th e first place and that would

b e d a m a g e d by major cha nge s in th e semifixed e lem ents Was thelocation of t h e ar ea a n d residenc e in it sufficient to co m m un ica te a

particular social identity th at, on t h e S ou th side, ne ed ed to b e achievedthrou gh personalization? T he se questions, too, could b e answered

relatively easily.

It was also n ot t o o difficult for a s tud en t to begin to list the elem en tsto be exam ined ( that is, th e palet te):

external materials

colorsfencesplanting and landscapingvisibility of house from streetvisibility into houseshuttersawnings and decorations on themmailboxes

street numbersnewspaper holdersexternal lightshandrail:;signs on front of houseflagpoles and their locationair conditionersstorm doorsother objects

For e ac h of t he se elements, m any specific que stions can easily belisted.

Similar ques t ions an d ap proa ches can be used t o s tudy front jback

distinctions. T hu s lists of noticeab le differences can b e no ted a m o n g

fixed an d semifixed ( a n d eve n nonfixed) features that a re us ed to

indicate front or back. T h es e can be, an d hav e b ee n, applied easily inthe field by researchers , pract i t ioners , and s tudents One can look

a t

the state of lawnsmaintenance of housescolors

presence and absence of porches




locat~on f garages and carsvarlous uses and how treatedvarious objectslocatlon of paths

landscapingabsence or presence of people, th e~ r ress, and behav~orpresence, absence, or treatment of fences

a n d m an y othe rs. (Inventories of this kind ca n also be u sed, bo th ex-

ternally and internally, for man y o ther studies.)An example of o n e such s tudy do n e by s tudents examined the

object language in two subculturally different residential areas in

Urb ana, Illinois (An derson a nd M oore, 1972).T h e study investigated

th e demarcation of sp ace throug h planting a nd fences, an d bega n byobserving and recording objects; a classification an d typology easily

followed. T h en , qualitative evaluations an d quantitative differences

were stud ied. T h e process was direct, straightforward, and easy, an d

results were enlightening. T h e eleme nts constitutingthe m essage con-tent of th e barriers used to de m arc ate sp ac e were also quite easily

derived: location, materials, type, size, continuity. Other forms ofboundary ph en om en a, such a s markers (equivalent to point barriers),

are quickly no ted ( ev en f not studied); hey ca n then quickly b e seen torelate to oth er studies of such m arkers. T h e presen ce or abs enc e of

semifixed-feature elem ents su ch a s othe r planting, chairs, tables, sunumbrellas, o r barbecues, and nonfixed-feature elemen ts such a s people

a n d their activities could also be o bserve d an d u sed to clarify the issue.

T h e study, like th e Milwaukee exam ple abo ve, was d o n e as project fora term p ap er an d would hardly hav e bee n possible with m ore "sophis-

ticated" means.

Another advantage of this app ro ac h is tha t m any studies exist thatcan be interpreted in the se terms: Th es e begin to show patterns a n dexhibit relationships, enabling o n e t o work in the m an ne r described in

th e preface, that is, relating many dis pa rate studies a nd integrating

them into larger conceptual systems. An example is provided by acom parison of hou ses in so m e parts ofAfrica with thos e in th e S ud an .In th e form er case, o n e finds grana ries a s major elements-in size,

sh ap e, color, decoration, location, an d s o on . Th ese clearly a re impor-tant in th e meanings they have for people. In the S u d an , bec ause of

Islam, it is G o d wh o is hon ored ra the rth an grain. H en ce grain is s toredin simple an d unobtrusive grana ries; it is m osq ue s a nd tom bs of sa ints

that, in form, size, color, a n d s o o n , do m ina te th e m ud-brick villages



Sm all-Scale Examples of Applications 129

(Lee , 1 9 7 4 ) .T h e differences are clarified using cultural know ledge, but

simple obs erva tion a nd listing of elem ents m ak es th e point quickly

a n d forcefully In West Africa both elem ents are stressed -the m ea n-

ing of gr an arie s reflects th e essential na tu re of grain a n d is ex pre sse d

thro ug h m ost e lab ora te craftsman ship a n d use of th e highest skills; th em os qu e ha s m eaning as a n expression o f spirituality as the granary is aspiritual expression of m aterial well-bein g. In o th er pa rts of W est

Africa, however, for example, among the Dogomba, i t is not the

granary but the doorf ram e of th e com po und portal tha t has the m ost

mean ing; am on g the M ossi, it is the d oorway a n d lock (Prussin, 1 9 7 2 )-

all judged o n th e basis of em ph asis an d elaboration. T hu s, in th e case

of each of th e W est African grou ps, a different elem en t co m m un ica tesm ean ing; this is reve aled th ro ug h noticeable dif ferences :elaboration,

location, materials, decorat ion, an d s o on . On ce noted , inferences can

be made, the elements analyzed and interpreted, and the relevant

cultural, contextual knowledge relatively easily obtained to check

th es e Interpretations.

Front lawns in our own culture provide a good example. Shortly

after I arrived in Milwaukee in 1 9 7 2 ,a rathe r interesting cas e occurredin the su bu rb of W auw atosa, Wisconsin Given th e local climate, a n d

th e particular or ientation of h er ho use, a wom an decid ed that s h e

wou ld ha ve he r veg etab le ga rd en in front-where a lawn is normally to

be found in Anglo-American culture. T h e municipality was outr ag ed ,

and many special council meetings were held. Court act ions took

place a nd the ca se eventua lly reached the W iscons in S up re m e Cou r t .

In th e e nd , the w om an was al lowed to grow he r vegetables , but wh at isfar mo re interesting is the obviously strongly affec tive reaction to t h e

att em pt. Obviously a front lawn is ind ep en de nt of sp ac e organiza-

tion-it is m or e th an a cer tain n u m b e r of sq u a re feet of grass. It m us t

m ea n some thing very important-as we would also suspect f rom the

ane cdo tal m aterial o n social pressures for well-maintained laws. Bu t

can one find more "scientific" evidence? It is, in fact, difficult to

avoid it.The central role of the lawn in communicating meanlng is con-

firmed by stud ies do n e in new com m unitie s in California. In th es e new

communities, after the purchase of the house, l i t t le money often

rem ained available to residents Y et, frequently, a lawn was put in an d

maintained while th e ho us e lacked ad eq ua te furni ture (Eichler an d

Kaplan, 1 9 6 7 ; W er th man , 1 9 6 8 ) .T h e imp ortanc e of the se lawns was

in their m eaning; they com m unica ted ad he ren ce to a part icular imag e




tha t established a g ro u p identity a n d certified the worthiness of theindividual to inhabit the particular are a. Parenthetically (a n d to be dis-

cussed la ter) , the w hole area, an d t he m eaning an d p urpose of plan-ning, we re s ee n a s the crea tion of a particular im age certifying a n d

maintaining status, self-worth, and self-identity. In effect, the lawnbe co m es a n expression of a particular message-the front region

par excellence.In a lmo st all studies having to d o with th e env ironm ental quality of

residential area s, ma i n t e n an c e plays a m ost im po rtan t role, that is, it isa m ost important com po nen t of that ra ther com plex conce pt (for a

review, see Rapoport , 1 9 7 7 : ch. 2) . A most important (a l though, cer-

tainly, not t h e only) aspec t of m ain ten an ce is th e quality of t h e frontlawn. Th e front yard an d its lawn, its up ke ep an d layout, are indicators

of the taste, status, and lifestyle of the family who owns it. The

presence or ab senc e of fences a lso h as m eaning , a s we h ave a lreadyse en . In the U nited Sta tes, fences used t o be com m on , but then disap-

pea red. T hey w ere, and are, see n as com m unicating self-sufficiency,

individualism, and nonconformity (Jackson, 1951).N ote th e role of

context: Fen ces clearly m ea nt so m ethin g different before an d aftertheir general disap pearan ce, and they m ean som ething different in

th e United Sta tes than they d o in Britain an d oth er places whe re theya re co mmo n .A fence where there are no ne or few has different m ean-ing tha n a fenc e that is o n e a m o n g many: It is noncon form ing in the

former, highly conforming in the latter; in the former case it com-

m unica tes attitudes ab ou t privacy, interaction, and boun dary contro l,

while in the latter it doe s not ( se e Figure 1 9 ) .There a re , of course , are as of th e United S tate s wh ere fe nces a re still

co m m on and, a t the m om ent, they see m t o be proliferating general ly

in th e U nited States. Their pers is tence, disappearanc e, and reap-

pea ranc e, an d cha nge s in their height, solidity, an d s o o n, all hav emo re t o d o w ith mean i ng than anything else; an d so d o the mater ia ls

used o r chang es in their use (Anderson an d Moore, 1 9 7 2 ) .

We already have s een that thes e meanings are part of th e encultura-tion process and occur very early in life, providing the cues andstan dards for social comp arison processes whereby p eop le a re judged.In Texas, for exam ple, w here both lawn a nd country g arde ns (ba re

earth and flowers) existed, quite young children judged people bythe se, with lawns se en as indicating higher-status and better-quality

people (Sherif an d Sherif, 1 9 6 3 ) . In oth er cultures, d iffe ren t devices

are used to achieve similar ends. For example, in the Barriadas of




FEPJR? ~d TLVO , , . c ~ L * T ~ ~ Q T O-* t

Figure 19

Lima, Peru, a n elabo rate front d o or is purch ased often before a roofcan be afforded-in a climate wh ere roofs are , to put it mildly, anecessity (Tu rner, 1 9 6 7 ). n oth er cases, front fences ar e used, such asin Puerto Rico, where elaborate wrought-iron grilles may cost more

than th e dwelling they en clos e. T h e false fronts of frontier settleme ntsin the United States and th e false fronts am o n g the Maya of C ozu me l

an d generally in Pu tun-d om inated Yucatan (Sabloff an d Rathje, 1 9 7 6 )

are o ther examples am ong many others that can b e given (Rap oport ,




1 9 7 9 a ) .W hat they all show is th e im portan t m ea nin g of "front region"being com m unic ated by th e use of various devices.

An exam ple of c ue s com pa rable to lawns an d fences in a different

culture is provided by th e head -high, im pen etrable beec h he dg es in

front of ho use s in Denm ark. T he se ar e grown from scratch an d takebetween eight an d seve nteen years to m ature; n o in terim boundary

definers o r privacy screens are used (Sel igm ann, 1 9 7 6 ) .T he primacy

of the m e a n i n g of this elem en t, its laten t rath er th an m anifest function,

is clear: T h e pur po se is to establish front an d com m unica te self-worth

in th e culturally a pp rop riate way, even tho ug h Sel igm ann arg ues that

in D en m ar k generally, front definition is of m uch lesser im po rta nc e

tha n in th e U nited States. T h er e ar e also oth er grou ps for which this isof less im po rtan ce a s pa rt of a ge ne ral lack of atten tion to dw ellings

and other environmental means general ly to communicate s ta tus ,

identity, a n d s o o n ( D u n c an a n d D u n c a n , 1 9 7 6 ; R a p o p o rt , 1 9 8 1 ) .

W hen fron tlbac k reversals occur, we f ind "inapprop riate" behavior , as

in th e ex am ple of B altimore cited abov e. Alternatively, an ar ea may be

defined as aU slu m " n the basis of behav iors classified by o n e gr ou p as

belong ing in back reg ions occ urring in front regions. Exa m ple s of howarea s are rea d as urban s lums in th e Anglo-American realm might be

th e pres en ce of g arbag e c an s o r pe op le sit ting in their unde rshirts

drinking b eer; in rural are as, th e pre sen ce of str ipp ed a n d cannibalized

cars visible from t h e ro ad (th at is, a front region for m ost Am erican

travele rs ; se e R apopor t , 1 9 7 7 : ch . 2, especia lly pp. 9 6 -1 0 0 ) . Th ese

larger scale examples will be discussed in more detail in the next

chapter .T h e analysis of lawns, country gard ens, an d he dg es is base d o n th e

fact th at o n e of th e easiest ways of ch ang ing m ean ing is by th e u se of

semifixed-feature elem ents su ch a s planting. T h e very com m on use of

such elem ents leads to their expressing mean ing, and he nc e the use of

gardens and plant complexes by cul tural geographers as a cul ture

indicator is significant (Kimber, 1 9 6 6 , 1 9 7 1 , 1 9 7 3 ; Wilhelm, 1 9 7 5 ;

A n d e rs on , 1 9 7 2 ; S im o o n s, 1 9 6 5 ) .T h e implication of this is, of co urse ,that garde ns and planting p at terns hav e meaning an d, to those w ho

can d eco de the m eanings , can com munica te e thn ic and o the r g roupidentities. T h e cultural specificity is striking, s o tha t traditional C hi ne se

garde ns are of two types and , if the c o d e is understood, can b e shown

to sum marize an d express Taois t an d C onfu cian philosophies, respec-

tively (Moss, 1 9 6 5 ) . n th e forme r, m an is se en as a natural being; in th e

latter , as a social being. Each of th es e positions ha s environ m ental



Sm all-Scale Examples of Applications 133

implications. Thus the Taoist garden stresses irregularity, lack ofsym me try, avo idan ce of axial vistas o r av enu es, a sea rch for surprise,

and intimacy rather tha n m onumentality. In the Confucian view, gardens

are less important than hou ses , palaces, temples, a n d othe r official or

cerem onia l settings-that is, th e do m ain of culture. Co nfuc ian ga rdensalso com m un ica te that: hierarchically arra ng ed a n d explicitly define d

spaces, symmetry, rectangularity, and rectilinear direction change

an d axiality we re so ugh t; curvilinearity w as a vo ide d. In both cases, th e

specifics--layout, us e of p lan t materials, rocks, water, an d s o on-follow from th es e ideals.

In the United States, also, the landscaping of dwellings can be

"read" quite easily. It ca n b e sug gested th at planting lawns, flowers,an d the like is a mo de of comm unication a bo ut th e own ers an d the

social situation. This, the n, b ec om es theU chie f, l though no t only, pu r-po se of garde n planning" (An derson , 1 9 7 2 : 181).Again, th e front/

back dis tinction of ten s ee m s basic even w hen both yards are s ee n.O ther binary opp osit ions ar e fou nd : lawn/ground cover, cult ivatedflowers/wildflowers ( = we eds) , a n d s o on . While in this case a semi-

structuralist analysis is made, the "reading" is straightforward andsimple, s tart ing with th e o bserved elements; th er e would b e n o less ofclarity in using the nonverbal communication approach. It is signifi-

cant that two subcultural groups, Mexican-Am ericans a n d Jap an es e-

Am ericans in Los Angeles, transfo rmed previously identical residential

area s throug h planting a nd gard en design: In th e former case, withwalled ga rd en s, patios, little o r n o grass, bright flowers an d flowering

trees, cacti a n d s o on ; in t h e latter cas e, with grass, rocks, bon sai trees,s tone l an te rns , and s o on (Rapopor t, 1 9 6 9 c : 131,note 15).

Other e lements of environments , such as suburban houses , can a lso

be "read" in this way. Thus early twentieth-century U.S. popularho us es w ere an alyze d directly using th e con ce pt of au dicule an d try-

ing to identify wh at was b eing co m m un icated , th e cultural meanings

(Sel igmann, 1975) T he se mean ings a re interpreted in terms of th e

interaction a n d conflict betw een co m m un al roles a n d private identity,an d o the r meanings . While the task of unders tanding the h ou se a scom m unica ting certain life value s by "d ec od ing a s et of signs" s o u n d s

semiotic ( and does not use the app roach of this book), it is d on e directly,

straightforwardly, by beginning with observation and by identifyingthe elements . Th e analysis IS concrete, clear, an d, he nce , useful

Similar analyses have b een d on e for the New Zealand sub urban

hou se (whichI

d o not have) an d th e Vancouver ho use (Holdswor th ,




1 9 7 5 ) . n this case also, although the nonverbal comm unication modelis not used formally, th e a pp ro ac h is effectively th e o n e being ad -

vocated-observation a n d analysis. T h e use of wo od, for exam ple, is

not d u e just to its local availability, but also t o t h e fact th at t h e brick

urban world had negative connotations related to the nineteenth-century industrial city (Holds wo rth, 1 9 7 5 : 4).T h e mean ing of the

de tached ho use as home,of th e fireplace a n d other elements, becom eclear from a n analysis of adv ertisem ents . Individuality was im por tant

(again, partly in c ontrast to th e English urban landsca pe, from w here

the inhabitants came) and th e overal l ap pea ran ce of th e ho use was

influenced by th e West Coast lifestyle-thus the impact of th e So uth ern

California bungalow in a very different setting and climate. Differ-ences can be found between the working-class "hqme" and eli tedwellings. T h e meanings of the latter can be s o easily read, understood,

an d illustrated tha t they ar e used in adve rtiseme nts (s ee Figure 20).

T h e task is fairly straightforward and , given ev en a m inimal kn ow ledg e

of th e con text, can b e relatively easily ach iev ed .

T h e attemp ts to achieve the image of the freestanding hou se a t high

densities helps explain the use of narrow lots in nineteenth-centuryMilwaukee (Beckley, 1 9 7 7 ) ,where th e spacing between houses m ay

be a s little a s four feet. In P ittsburgh, on the co rne r of Ha mlet a n d

Op helia streets (in South O akland), I recently saw h ou ses abo ut eighteeninch es apart-they w ere still freestanding! (Recall th e saw-cut in thePolish courtroo m described ab ove.) A no the r exam ple of the m eaningof fre estanding h ou ses in nineteenth-cen tury working-class U.S. are as

is provided by th e "three-decker" house in Worcester, Massachusetts-itis a com prom ise between th e econom ics of urban lan d an d th e ideal ofth e free stan ding , single-family dwelling (Barnett, 1 9 7 5 ) . It is th e

meaning rath er than t he reality of the de tac he d ho us e that is impor-tant. Interestingly, with changing contexts and images, these samedwellings now often com municate negative meanings, and new elem ents

are used in redevelopment in Milwaukee to communicate positive,

an d he nc e appropriate, meanings, a s we shall see in the next chapter.Similarly, by observ ing th e spatial re lationships of just two peo p le

(patien t an d therapist) in a psychiatric situation in a n um ber of "schools"of psychiatry-Freudian, Ju ng ian , Reichian, Gestalt, an d s o on-

often expresse d an d expressible in furniture arrangem ents, o r th eabsence of furniture, one can determine equally well the essential

philosophy of th e particular schoo l (G oo dm an ,1959).O ne could addto this oth er exam ples, such a s Morita thera py in Ja p an an d various




ethnopsychiatric situations. This argu m en t can also be ex ten de d torestaurants an d t o parliamentary institutions, where a comparison of

the F rench Assemblke Nationale, the British H ou se of C om m on s, an d

the U.S. S en a te prov es m ost instructive in th e way me an ing is com -

municated by the location of seating as expressing politicalphilosophies.

Note that in many, i f not most , of these cases , the cues a re in th e

semifixed realm (an d in the nonfixed realm w hen people a re present)-th e fixed-feature elements co mm unicate m uch less.



URBAN EXAMPLES O F APPLICATIONS

Many dwellings together become residential areas and many

gard ens toge ther beco m e hn ds ca pe s . More genera lly , cul tura l land-

scapes are t h e results of m an y artifacts gro up ed to ge the r in particular

relationships. Th ey a re als o th e result of th e decisions of innum ,erable

individuals. It is mo st striking tha t they ca n, a n d d o , ta ke o n clear

character . This suggests, of course, th e prese nce of s ha re d sche m ataam ong part icular g roups (Rapop or t , 1 9 7 2 , 1977, 1980b, 1 9 8 0 ~ ) .t

a lso sugges ts tha t o nce th e schemata or cod es a re known, such land-

sc ap es have m ea nin g in term s of various forms of gr ou p identity a nd ,

moreover , that they c an be read in th e s am e way as smaller-scale

exam ples-instantaneously. Also, sinc e it is mainly, alth oug h notexclusively, semifixed- and nonfixed-feature elem ents that com mu ni-

ca te meaning , the developm ent of specific character at t h e a real levelde pe nd s on so m e level of homogeneity . In a hom oge neo us a rea , per -

sonalizations a n d h um an behavior "ad d up" to p roduce s t rong, c lear,

an d red un dan t cues; in highly h etero gen eou s are as they result in ran-

do m variations with little or n o m ea nin g at th e scale of t h e a re a. Also,particularly fo r residents, o r users, th e cultural knowledge ne ed ed to

decode nonverbal behavior in the nonfixed- and semifixed-feature

dom ains is much clearer in the o n e case than in th e oth er (seeFioure 21 ) .

All th e se characteristics play a role in t h e relatively gre at er effective-

ness of traditional env ironm ents in com m unicatin g to their users vis-a-

vis contemporary situations. But even the latter frequently exhibit

clear m ean ing s given th e persisting clustering of pe op le in cities a n dregions by perceived homogeneity and the result ing cultural land-

scapes (Rapoport , 1977) Note that the main dif ference between




Figure 21

the se cases an d the smaller-scale on es is that c ue s are collective rather

than individual. Redu nda ncy bec om es ev en m or e imp ortant for clarity

sinc e eve n with ex tre m e hom oge neity a d eg re e of variability is inevi-

table. Thu s, a t th e a re a level, judgm ents are, theoretically, m or e dif-ficult to make-more potentially disco rdant m essage s ar e present.Yet, a s we shall se e, judgments ar e m ad e constantly, quickly, a n deasily. Possibly, given th e im porta nce of suc h cu es in cities m a d e u p of

very diverse individuals an d gro ups, obs ervers are pre pa red to act o n

th e basis of very limited inform ation; in te rm s of con tem pora ry U.S.

cities, fo r examp le, observers ar e ready to m ake judgments o n th ebasis of m inimal o r uncerta in cues.

Note, o nc e again, that t he process o f understanding cultural land-scap es is very analo gou s to that pertaining to interperson perceptionstudied in psychology. Th ere, individuals a re requ ired to m ak e s n a p

judgm ents ab ou t strange rs o n th e basis of limited information-they



Urban Examples of Applications 139

m ake inferen ces on t he basis of rules that see m q uite regular a nd are

based on the nonfixed-feature elements already discussed-facial

expressions, skin, dress, speech, and so on. Often, stereotypical

sche m ata a re u sed t o evalua te the se perceived characteristics (Warr

a n d K n a p pe r, 1 9 6 8 ; M a n n, 1969:especially pp. 9 2 -1 0 0 ; referencesin R apoport , 1 9 7 7 ; an d m any others) . In th e cases being discussedhere, a wider rang e of cue s, fixed, semifixed, a n d nonfixed fe atu re, a re

being used t o judge areas, and through the m the character of groups.

An exam ple of this process, an d of th e schem ata u sed t o stereotyp ean d judge peop le, is provided by a gr ou p of architects who, in a pa r-

ticular c ase, classified large are as a s slum s ev en th ou gh , in fact, they

were highly maintained an d greatly improved T h e judgments werem ad e o n th e basis of t he use of part icular materials (such a s fake sto ne

an d plastic s he etin g imprinted with brick patterns) that t h e architects

dis liked an d despised (Saue r , 19 7 2 ) ; heir comparison s tand ard was

based o n different cues-materials replaced lawns-but th e processwas s imilar a n d s o was th e o utcom e. A different form of cultural

land sca pe (in th e con text of architects' images) was judged negatively.

Since peo pl e ar e judged by w he re they live, th e gr ou p identity wasnegative or s tigmatiz ing: S lums ar e inhabited by " b a d people .T h e use of materials com mu nicates me aning over an d ab ov e spa ce

organization. Th us , in stud ying the early Me soam erican village, o n efinds a d ob e f irst us ed in public buildings, replacing wattle a n d d au b,

an d the n gradually beco ming use d for houses-first elite a n d the n

noneli te. Th us, at that m om en t in time, ad ob e was e qu ate d with high

status. In o the r cases, it may b e brick or sto ne, h um an -m ad e materialsgenerally, an d s o on. T h e insistence o n m ode rn materials in th e Third

World already discussed is an exam ple. But sh ap e may also comm uni-ca te in this way. For e xam ple, in large parts of th e Middle Eas t, flat

roofs a re no w reg ard ed a s a m ark of poverty. Pitched, tile roofs havebe co m e virtually a statu s sym bol-people giving u p nec essary instru-

mental a n d m anifest functions, such a s work sp ac e an d night sleepingspace, for th is purpos e (Hodg es, 1 9 7 2 ; for o ther examples, se e

R apoport, 1 9 6 9 ~ ) .Th us people read environmental cues, mak e judgments abo ut th e

oc cu pa nts of settings, an d the n act accordingly-environments com -mu nicate social and ethn ic identity, status, a nd s o on. Fo r exam ple,

environm ental quality is often judged throu gh m ainte nan ce (R apo port,1 9 7 7 ) .M ain ten anc e itself is judged thro ug h a wh ole se t of cu es, which




will become clearer shortly. In terms of identity and how it is com-

municated by grou p landscapes (se e Rapoport , forthcoming a ) , t is of

interest to examine immigrant grou ps in new environm ents. It is widelybelieved tha t, first, they ten d to select lan dscap es like th os e "back

hom e" be cau se they h av e affective meanin g, although this view ha srecently bee n challenged (see McQuillan, 1 9 7 8 : 1 3 8 -1 3 9 ) .Be that a sit may, they d o frequently transform th e landsca pe through layout,

space organization, buildings, plants, and so on. Thus one f indsUkrainian, G erm an , Ja pa ne se , and otherculturai landscapes in S outh

America (Stewart, 1965;Eidt, 1 9 7 1 ) . Frequently , those groups tha tuse familiar, traditional elements and that are able to create cor-

respond ing la nd sca pe s ten d to be m ore successful in their settlemen tattempts (Eidt, 1 97 1 ).This can be interp reted partly in te rm s of m ea n-

ing: T he se environments are supp ortive bec ause they ar e familiar,beca use they express elem ents of th e culture core (Ra pop ort , 1979c ,forthcoming a) .

T he ca ses of A ustralia an d, particularly, New Zea land ar e ev en m ore

striking: The re, English landscap es have be en recreated over largeareas of th e country (She pard , 1 9 6 9 ) .Early topogra phic drawings of

Australia an d descriptions of o th er unfamiliar env ironm ents (such asth e G rea t Plains o f th e U nited States) also clearly show the inability

even to perceive th e alien landscape an d t he negative c onn otation s ithas; the urge t o transform it, to give it mea nin g thro ug h th e u se of

familiar cues, becom es unde rstandable.It is also fascinating to study the landscapes created by various

ethnic an d cultural groups at sm aller scales, for exam ple, in t he Middle

East. Thu s, in H aifa, Israel, are as settled by G er m an s in the ninetee nth-century a re quite different from others-they contrast ho us e forms,

s h a p e an d m aterial of roofs (pitched an d red tile versus flat) , d o o r

details, and so on, establishing a "European" meaning. Similarly,vegetation is different ( a s o n t he G erm an Carm el). In th e co ntext ofthat rather wild a nd rem ote place, a t the t ime th e ar ea was sett led the

m ean ing was clearly imp ortant an d very strong . In th e plain of S ha ro n,

descendants of Bosnian settlers in the village of Yamun, East ofNablus, can still be recognized throu gh th e fact that their ho us es ha vered tile roofs (Ilan, 1 9 7 8 ) . This differentiates the m fro m their A rabneigh bors, w ho live in traditiona l, flat-roofed ho uses. As a final se t ofexamples, we find th e treatm ent of various religious enclaves in the

Sinai, Jerusalem, and the Judean desert . Their origins are clearlycomm unicated-whether G reek, I talian, or Ethiopian.



Urba n Examples of Applications 141

All th es e are, of course, ex am ple s of th e notion of cultural lan dscape s

in geography as capable of comm unicat ing m eaning a nd thu s of being

read. The se not only e m bod y values an d ideals, but influence hum an

behav ior; they a re system s of settings de vel op ed to elicit ap pro pria te

behaviors. T o d o th at , they must be read. Similarly, archaeology, as wehav e se en , relies o n th e fact that th e physical en vironm ent ca n be seenas en coding information, thus it can b e dec ode d or read even if that

reading m ay be difficult o r inaccurate in s om e cases, as we hav e se en .Note th at in archaeology also th e reading can occur at the urban scale

a s well a s at sm aller scales. T h u s in M onte A lban (O ax aca , Mexico), a

com bination of fixed-feature an d sem ifixed-feature ele m en ts we re

used in a su rface survey to m ake inferences about th e population,social struc ture, uses of are as , political organization, history, an d s o o n

(Blan ton , 19 78 ) .Also, as alread y stressed, th e extent to which environ-m ents com m unicate these messages effectively de pe nd s on red un-

dancy. In most cases, therefore, o n e f inds multiple cue a nd m essa gesystem s co-acting in o rd er to provide sufficient red un da nc y for th e

m essage t o g e thro ugh . This works particularly well in traditional an d

vernacular environments, w here, for ex am ple, s ta tus an d impo rtancein a So uthern I talian town such a s Ostuni (s ee Figure 8 in C ha pt er 2) is

indicated by location of buildings, their size, fenestration, features

such a s do m es, towers, a n d pediments , mater ia ls , colors , and s o onBu t ev en in o u r culture this still works a n d is used for intergroup co m -munication. Recall th e exa m ple of W estchester Cou nty , w he re twodistinct c~ iltu ra landscap es were fo un d that well com mu nicated group

identity (D uncan, 19 7 3 ) .C ue s included street paving, street lighting,

na tur e of planting (clipped or na tural), h o u se visibility, th e pre se nc e o r

ab se nc e of colonial eagles, a n d th e us e of ela bo rate mail boxe s or of

rural mail boxes. While th e respective landscap es w ere partly cou nte r-intuitive--the m o re "scruffy" o n e indicated th e high er-sta tus group-

the correlation between cultural landsca pe an d gro up identity was

extraordinarily high; on ce th e c od e was known , memb ership could be

read very easily and effectively. Note also the likelihood that the

counterintuitive na ture of t h e high-status land sca pe was a "cunning"way of ma rking tha t gr ou p an d a su btle, a n d effective, way of exclud-

ing th e lower-status group.

Befo re returning to the United S tate s to consider a ran ge of examples,let us see how such codes work in different cultural milieus. Forexam ple, in O ld Nubia, different groups along th e Nile u sed tom bs ofsaints to id en t~ fy roups that also h ad different hou se an d village




forms. All houses, however, were decorated in very striking ways.

When rehoused in uniform and highly unsuitable houses after the

building of t h e Aswan D am , th e first thing th e Nub ians did was to beginto d ecorate the hou ses (Fernea et al., 19 7 3 ).Th ese decorations becam e

the elem en t com m unicating ethnic identity, that is, a specific me aningvis-a-vis th e o th er inhab itants. A clear contrast was se t u p with th e con-

text . T hu s noticeable cues are created-knowledge of the co d e thenenab les th e m eanin g ("Nubians") t o be read . In this ca se the cues are

traditional; th e con trast with the co ntex t of traditional environ m entsmay be se t u p through th e use o f mo dern mater ia ls an d colors.

T h u s a village may b lend in with th e local color (bein g built of m ud

brick) a n d look like a rock outcrop; houses m ay b e beehive shaped -as in N orth Syria. M ore substantial dwellings of co ncrete o r sto ne , with

balconies o r with grilles, an d pain ted, indicate high er status , higherincom e, or contact with ov erseas relatives, even th ou gh the y may b e

less comfo rtable, hotter in s um m er, an d colder in w inter. This is no tunlike the distinction in India between houses of mud brick (kufcha)

a n d of b urn t brick (pukka); th e me anin g of th e latter is clear from th e

English term pukka sahib. In Mexico and other countries of Latin

Am erica, an d in m any Indian o r eve n Mestizo (o r Ladino ) villages, th edouble-story or painted (or both) dwellings will have similar com-municative function (s ee Figure 22 ). This corresp on ds to th e use ofwhitewash for a cha pe l in th e Altiplano of P eru or the red or blue

do m es o n churches in Mykonos ( to which I refer in Rapop ort , 19 6 8 b ;s ee also Figure 7 in C ha pt er 2). In th e case, how ever, in which th e

env iron m ent generally-that is, th e context-is polychrom atic ( a s in

s o m e G re ek Islands, Italy, or M exico), color will not ha ve that role.C ha ng es in traditional environm ents also ne ed t o be u nde rstoo d in

this way. For exam ple, th e c ha ng e to W estern, freestanding, "outward

facing," Eu ropean -style bungalows, new "suburban" location, th ead op tion of W estern dom estic furniture, furnishings, an d eq uip m en t,an d t he co ns eq ue nt behavior in India w as an indication of status: Itwas a m ark er. It bega n w ith elites, being a way of m arking the m , dis-

t inguishing between them and others (King, 1 9 7 7 ) . Th e s e c h an g e swere assertions ab ou t changing values and attitudes; they were m arkersof a particular g ro up m em bership . Th eir major significance wa s in th e

rea lm of meaning. Note that these chan ges correspond to chang es inth e na ture of t h e elite groups: Traditional elites d o not n ee d visible

manifestations-the ir quality is known (see Dun can an d Duncan,1 9 7 6 ) .Clearly, all exam ples of th e stress o n new materials and forms




T ~ ~ P ~ O ~ A L -W DDEeN lnC?h3F~L-lfi~5td \I(U&(*EhND T O ~ J ,MExlLO %+b%ch

Figure 22

are to be se en n ot in term s of com fort, im provem ent in livability, a n d

th e like, but as statem ents of m eanin g, abo ut "modernity." Th ey a re inth e associational realm.

In the S u da n, houses m ad e of flimsy wood an d grass a re consideredold fashioned a n d symbolic of t he lowest econ om ic an d social classes;a s soo n a s on e can afford them, m ud dwellings a re used (Lee, 19 69 b) .Similarly, th e choice of house form, m aterials (suc h a s red brick), a n dlarge windows (uncom fortable, but indicating modernity) all indicate

prestige, which is equated with an identification with elements themeaning of which is u r b a n life; t h e hierarchy, in ascen ding o rde r, is




wood an d thatch, mu d, and red brick. This se qu en ce , which can b einterp reted in terms of increasing distanc e from "nature" toward "cul-

ture" (Vogt, 1970), s particularly clearly developed into a code in

Latin America.

In m an y parts of Latin Am erica, th e scattere d, "ha pha zard " layoutof Indian o r rural area s, th e proliferation of v egetation, a nd th e us e of"natural" materials contrasts with urban landscapes, which stress

rectilinear, grid layouts, human-made materials forming what one

could call an "urban wall," and an absence of vegetation, which is

inside courts. The vegetation in plazas is controlled, for example,ple ac he d, stressing its belonging to the dom ain of culture. Paren theti-

cally, this vegetation the n be co m es a clear cue indicating"plazaV (thatis, important p lace), which is reinforced through church steeples,

arca des , light quality, activity types a n d levels, an d s o on . As a villagebecomes modernized an d urbanized, the se types of ch ange s occur

(Rapoport , 1977:348).All relate to U d is ta n ce o nature" as identifyingstatus an d mem bership in th e two major groups: Indian an d L adino (or

Mestizo), w ho also h av e clear sta tus, low a n d high, respectively. In astudy of S a n Pedro, Colombia (Richardson, 1974),a nu m ber of such

cue s indicated relative status: location-central as high statu s, periph-

eral a s low; sp ac e organization-ordered a n d rectilinear a s high status,scattered and straggly as low status; the presence of visible large

masses of natural vegetation versus clipped vegetation localized inplaz as (a n d in cou rt interiors); m ateria ls-hu m an-m ade (tile, brick,

an d s o on) as h igh s ta tus , na tural tha tch , bam boo, an d s o on a s lowstatus.

No te thre e things. First, the se a re all environm ental quality cues.Sec ond , in other cultures, such a s h e United State s or Australia, many

of the se cu es a re reversed: irregular layout, natural v egetation, an dperipheral location would generally indicate higher status than an

ur ba n wall, ab se n ce of vegetation, a n d c entral location (w e will returnto this point later).Third, the cue s described would, of cou rse, be rein-forced by o the r cues such as the types of peo ple enco unte red, their

dress, their behavior, th e langu age s po ke n, th e kinds of s ho ps an dwhat they c ontain ed, th e presence o r absen ce of markets, sound s,smells, a n d so on-that is, th er e would b e a large ran ge of noticeabledifferences (R apo port , 1977) that would indicate sta tu s an d , in thiscase, ethnicity. Also note that, first, while each cue by itself would

hardly d o it, all acting together an d congruently could no t fail to g et the

m essage across, be cau se red un da nc y is high. Se co nd , consistent an drepe ated use would lead to grea ter clarity of mean ing since the response



Urb an Examples of Applications 145

would t en d t o be co m e almost a utom atic. In fact, th e clarity of this co d e

in Latin America m ay be d u e t o th e prev alenc e of this pattern.

In Las Ro sas, C hiap as (Mexico), h e ce nte r with w hitewash ed walls

an d red tile roofs un sh ad ed by ve getatio n con trasts with th e outskirts

with thatch ed roo fs, m ud walls, an d m asses of gree nery Pe op le alsoact, behave, a nd dress differently, an d Indians in th e center "do not

belong" an d a re unacknow ledged by non-Indians (Hill, 1 9 6 4 ) .Th is isalso clear from stud ies o n th e village of Ixtepeji (Kea rne y, 1 9 7 2 ) , for

instance. In Latin Am erica, these pattern s (a n d othe rs, such as u npa ved

streets versus paved o n es , animals in th e st reet, an d s o on ) clearlycom m un icate mo dernity, status, at t i tudes, a n d culture-a large set of

basic attitudes (se e Figure 2 3 ). Indians clearly use m or e natural featurestha n Lad inos be ca us e they also con ceive of their habitat differently in

term s of ide as, beliefs, religion, social relations, a n d atti tud es tow ardnatu re T h e latter, for Indians, is s o mystical, powerful, an d co m -

pelling, th at o n e tam pe rs with it a s little a s possible-it is do m in an t. ForLadino s, na ture is mo re objective, a "thing" that o n e can control ,

do m ina te, an d exploit (Hill, 1 9 6 4 : 1 0 0 , 1 0 3 ) .T hus o ne can r ead mor e

tha n just gro up m em be rship a nd relative status; th es e cultural land-scap es can b e read t o help d ec od e m ajor cul tural at t itudes.

Note th at these p atterns ar e formed elsewhere a nd may carry similar

but no t identical m ean ings, a s in th e ca se of Zanzibar, with th e Moslem

Stonetow n an d African Ng am bo dis tric ts (Rapop or t , 1 9 7 7 : 2 3 3 ) . In

term s o f my principal arg um en t, th e significant poin t is tha t it is po s-

sible to look at the se cultural lan dsc ap es, notice differences, an d inter-

pret them fair ly easily without any complex symbolic or semioticanalysis. No te also th e g reater importance of redundancy a n d multiple

cues in urban examples.In simpler cultures, v e y subtle cu es m ay suffice-or even n o cu es at

all, tha t is, o n e may know what is necessary, but even th en the mnem onic

function of th e env ironme nt may be useful. O n e exam ple is provideti

by M 'Buti pygmy ca m ps , w here , given th e small size of th e ba nd , social

relations a re well kno w n. Yet th e direction of do orw ays com m unic atesshifting social relations, which are changed overnight. In addition,spite fe n ce s ar e bullt to reflect ch an ge s in social relations (Turnbu ll,

1 9 6 1 ) O n e k n o w s these social shifts, but one is reminded by the

environm ental cues, which also tell returning mem ber s wh at ha s be engoing on . In add ition, of co urse, ch an ge s an d shifts in ba nd com pos i-t ion reflect this in th e nonfixed-feature d om ain . Similar events a n d

dev ices a r e f ound am ong the Had za ( see W oodburn , 19 7 2 ) . To




reiterate: In all these cases, the social relations are k n own , but the

environmenta l cues ac t as mnem onics for those w ho a re there a nd asindicators for tho se returning af ter an abse nce.

Similarly, in the cas e of a !Kung Bu shm an cam p, o n e knows w he re

th e fronts of dwellings are-they face th e fire a n d th e co m m on space .At the sa m e time, h ou se s a re built a t least partly t o indicate this. Thisbec om es clear from th e fact that som etime s hou ses a re not built, but a

h o op in pu t in the grou nd to indicate th e location of t he do or an d

hen ce th e front. Som etim es even with th ese h oo ps a re not used. Afterall, th e small gro up in qu estion k n ow s wh ere the f ront is an d how to

behave . Yet, the house , o r the h oop , he lps remind peo ple whe re m en

an d wo m en sit, what behavior is app ropriate, and s o on. Equivalentsof th e hoop-a freestanding gateway in an Arab village o r Ja p a n e sefarm-may indicate front o r entry, th e t ransi tion a m o ng dom ains , an d

he nc e behavior shif ts ( se e Figure 24).In oth er cultu res, directions o r orien tation may indica te front-east

am ong the Navaho o r Bedou in , o r west am on g the W odaabe o f Africa(S tenning , 1 9 5 9 ) .Clear ly, such m eanings need to b e k n own , but th e

know ledge ca n be gained easily through observation. Privacy gradients,th e m ean ing at tached to var ious do m ains , can be indicated in very

subtle ways: a c ha ng e in g rou nd surface, a small cha ng e in level, abea d curtain. In ot he r cas es m uch clearer barriers-that is , m uc h mo re

not iceable cues an d greater redundancy-are nee ded (Rapopo r t ,

1 9 7 9 a , 1 9 8 0 ~ ) .learly, th e a bs en ce of cu es or the use of very subtle

cues , such a s the us e of swept ea r th a m o ng Australian A borigines to

indicate th e pr ivate zo ne a rou nd th e dwelling o r a par ticular b eam toindicate th e private are a within a Norwegian farm ho use (R ap op ort,1 9 7 9 a ) ,d e p e n d s o n consistency of use c om bin ed with consistency of

location. T h e clear unde rstan din g of th es e subtle cues also involves aknow ledge of t he rules regarding b ehavior defined by th e situation

an d a w illingness to follow the se rules. Without all these con ditions,

th e system would not work.

In ot he r words, indication throu gh physical cu es may be less im por-tant in traditional cu ltures be ca us e things a re k n own , partly throughconsistent use a n d partly thro ug h consistent, rigid, an d sh are d rules. In

o u r cities, know n social as pe cts a re still im porta nt but clear physicalcue s ar e ne ed ed In traditional sett lements, for exam ple, cue s ar eoften no t visible t o th e outsider at first glance, either being know n an d/

or indicated by subtler cues. They can, however, be discovered by

observing behav ior (w ho do es what , w here, wh en, an d including or




Figure 24

excluding whom) and also through more systematic studies. Thisapplies to sett lements of m an y groups-Porno Indians (R apo po rt,

19 69 c) , Queb ec Ind ians (Rapopor t, 19 7 7 ) , Apaches (Es be r, 19 72 ) ,Australian Aboriginal camp s (M em mott, 1 9 7 9 ),an d precontact Africancities, wh ere what ap pe are d a s rand om disorder , in fact, was organ iza-tion based o n social relationships (Hull, 1 9 7 6 : 1 2 2 ). All th es e cas es

can be i llustrated through a g eneralized diagram ( se e Figure 25 ).




/I

Figure 25

Redundancy and clarity of cues

Note, however, how m uc h clearer a Yo ruba city m a d e u p of com -

po un ds o r a Moslem o r C hin ese city m a d e up of well-defined qu arters

is-particularly w hen th e physical definition is reinfo rced by a ho st of

semifixed- and nonfixed-feature elements. Physical cues, such as

walls, gates, colors and materials, and house styles, reinforced bykinds of p eo ple , their dres s, lang uag e, activities, so u n d s a n d smells,an d many other var iables, com bine to com mu nicate socia l meaning.

In cities of m ore c om plex an d pluralistic societies, with weake r rulesystems, such cues are even more important, thus higher levels of

redu nda ncy ar e necessary. For exam ple, being able to orient oneself ina city, in term s of center-periphery an d knowing wh ere o n e is located,

is easy in a small, trad ition al city. In a large U S. city, this is m uch lessc lear. However, as o n e moves toward th e (o r a) cen te r, o n e would




generally expe ct gr ea ter traffic density, greate r difficulty in parking ,

m or e trafficlights, narrowerstreets , m ore sh op s, m ore signs (n eo n an d

s o o n ), higher levels of activity, older buildings, run -do w n areas, tallbuildings, an d s o on .

If all thes e cues a dd up, an d reinforce o n e anothe r , the indicationscould be quite clear; if not, less clear or unclear (Rapopor t, 19 7 7 ;Steini tz, 1 9 6 8 ) . This type of ap pro ac h ha s even b een used in sug-

gestions regarding how clear cue s an d sufficient red un da nc y could be

used to c om m un icate suc h locational meanings in ideal urban trans-

por ta t ion systems (Appleyard an d O kam oto, 19 6 8 ) .Th us, a s o n e go es from preliterate, tribal (primitive) env ironm ents

through t radi t ional vernacular ones to modern ones , one couldhyp othe size tha t a curvilinear relationship would be fou nd rega rding

th e levels of red un dan cy a n d clarity of cu es as op po se d to a l inearrelationship a m o n g levels of red un dan cy an d clarity requ ired, thu s

defining a problem are a (se e Figure 26 ) .

Clearly, th e m or e co m plex a n d culturally pluralist th e setting, th e

greater th e req uired r edu nd an cy to pro du ce sufficiently clear cues,

particularly since many people are then "outsiders." In fact, mostexam ples in suc h situations involve large nu m be rs of cu es s o that

noticeable differences are present; o nc e one 's attention is drawn t othe m , interpretation c an follow. This interpretation requ ires cultural

knowledge, but , as I have been arguing, this is not too difficult toobtain either by sensit ive observation o r oth er m eans. Consider the

judgments about "overriding poverty" in the Kowloon City area of

H on g Ko ng m ad e by a n English observer . Th ese judgments werem ad e o n th e basis of th e general a pp ea ra nc e of th e area , which is said

to be fully compatible with that hypothesis (Leem ing, 1 9 7 7 : 15 6 ) .N ote tw o things: First, th er e is a m atchin g of perceived characteristicsagainst a sch em a or image, an d se con d, these c ues a re sufficientlys t rong and redundant to draw attention to th e ar ea vis-a-vis oth er

area s, that is, th e context.

Am ong th e cues making u p that "general appearance" are :T h e "extrem e antiquity" of th e ar ea ( tha t is, ag e, with th e notion t ha t

old = bad).

This, in turn , is indicated by narrow stree ts a n d narrower lanes, freq uen t

corne rs, a n d c ha ng es in level, including short flights of step s in th e

street.




mmba-I,

Figure 26

Other cues include open drains, noise from factories, piles of rotting

refuse in unfrequented spots, and lack of street lighting.

In urban parts of Kowloon City: overhanging buildings, lack of light,

gentle curves in most streets, high walls and gates in traditional building

types, such as the Yaman and Temple.

In village areas within Kowloon City: irregular placing of low buildings,

occasional patches of vegetation.

In th e case of North Carolina in the 1920s, a contrast developed

(with social conflict consequences, that is, related to the organization




of com munication am ong people) between millvillages an d new subu rbs(Glass , 1 9 7 8 : 148 ) :

mill villages new s ubur bs

scruffy tall housesdingy colorsparched serniforest of cool green foliageno cars (or old cars) wide lawns[unpaved streets] trim hedges

spacious, winding avenuesmany (and new) cars[paved streets]

Urban cues

M any suc h cue s are still use d in U.S. urban areas , an d I will tu rn totho se after com me nting o n graffiti. Th ese ar e interesting be cause they

have become major indicators of urban meaning yet are relatively

new. Th ey thu s show that new ty pes of semifixed-feature cue s can

develop and acquire meaning relatively quickly and easily. It has

recently b een n ot ed (in conn ection with the u se of a graffiti-coveredwall in a Volvo advertisement) that graffiti are well known to have

become associated with juvenile gangs, urban poverty, alienation,lawlessness, a n d racial minorities-all th e "stereotypic co m po ne nt s of

th e uncivilized world" (Rubin, 1 9 7 9 : 3 4 0 -3 4 1 ) . am not concerned

with t he specific study, particularly s inc e different inte rpre tatio ns ar e

possible ( as we shall se e later) . What seem s im portant h er e is that

many pe op le wou ld, in fact, quickly a n d easily m ak e su ch inferencesfrom th ese urban cues: It is clearly a m ajority view. Th ey w o ~ ~ l dse

graffiti t o judge enviro nm en tal quality an d h en ce desirability of areas,

crime levels, and he nc e safety, th e natu re of resident groups, and s o

on . A v e y high correlation can be predicted betw een graffiti an d nega-tive jud gm en ts a b o u t a la rge set of urb an characteristics. Sin ce differ-

ing int erp ret ation s of graffiti a re possible-for ex am ple, a s signs of

appropriation a nd as "territorial markers" (Ley an dcy briw sky , 1 9 7 4 ) ,red un da nc y usually reinforces the se judgm ents. Th is involves add i-

tional c ues, suc h a s location, cleanliness an d litter, mai nte na nc e levelsgenerally, lawns, ho uses, pollution levels, grilles on sh op s, boa rd ed -

up buildings, em pty lots, mixed use s, ab sen ce of trees, an d m any o the r

noticeable differences. Th es e ar e all used t o judge th e na tur e of are as




a n d their environmen tal quality, w heth er they are upgrading, stable,or declining

How easily, quickly, a n d naturally these judgm ents ar e ma d e can be

seen initially from three examples: from scholarly research, a news-

pap er s tory , an d a novel. F or example, a t a sem inar a t th e Depar tm ent

of Geog raph y, Heb rew University, Jeru sale m , o n De cem ber 26, 1979,Julian Wolpert was reporting on a m ajor neighborhood study. Part of

th at stud y con siste d of a windshield survey of env ironm enta l quality,improvements, and so on. This involved those cues that could be

obs erve d while driving dow n th e stre et. Tw o things we re of interest in

terms of our discussion: first, the extremely high correlation of such

judgments, m a d e o n th e basis of a ten-m inu te trip per street, withhou seho ld surveys involving a great dea l m ore effort; an d seco nd, t he

selection of items or cue s to b e ob served, th e assum ptions underlyingtheir choice, an d th e fact that they se em ed s o self-evident as not torequi re comment . The cues observed inc luded abandoned shops ,

quality of ga rb ag e pickup, up k ee p of h o u se fac ade s, quality of lan d-

scaping ( i f any) , gangs ofyoung peop le hanging aro und corners , and

th e like.In describing part of downtown Milwaukee that, according to a

new sp ape r story, is "sagging," a se t of c ue s is describe d tha t tell even acasual observe r tha t "things ar e not a s nice as they m ight be, whlle th e

visitor with a keen ey e a n d u nderstan ding feet might co m e away with a

much m ore negative impression" (Manning an d Aschoff , 1980).Thus ,

while facades along W est Wisconsin Av enue between N 4 th a n d N 9 th

streets have b een spruced up, a lleys a nd back st reets show th e backsof th es e sa m e buildings with rusting fire esc ap es , dirty a n d crumb lingbricks, unlit electric signs, o r failed o r mo ved businesses. T h e cha r-

ac ter of t h e ar ea is also indicated by

t rans ien t com me rce

f la tt ened b ee r can s

broken wine bot tles

" t he l ~ t t e r f l oser s w h o p a s s t h ro u g h t h e a rea"d ru n k s o n t h e s t re e t a n d o t h e r "ch arac te rs " (w h ~ ch r e ju d ged by cues)

vulgari ty-adult bookstore s an d tawdry bars (w h ~ ch ,h em se lv e s a r e

i n d ~ c a t e d y c u es )

surface p arking lots

vacan t buildings with "sq ua t, ugly faces"




inco ngru ous , ill-advised use s of land that should b e most valuable ( th at

is, a mismatch with expectations; s e e Rapoport , 1977)

genera l a tm osphere tha t sca res peop le , who d o no t l ike the way

dow nto wn "looks"-that is, w hat th e physical cues indicate

Note how self-evident all these se em to the journalists con cerne d.

Equally self-evident an d taken for granted ar e the cu es used to com -munica te meaning an d to se t a sc en e in th e next example, from a

detective novel. Both of th ese exam ples, of course, ar e related t o theargument I have made before about the importance of analyzing

novels , newspapers , and th e like (R apoport , 1 9 6 9 b ) , which can be

used without engaging in formal con tent analysis (Rapoport , 19 7 7) .In this case (Childs, 1 9 7 9 : 9 0 -9 2 ,9 8 ) , he a t tempt is to describe an

are a of down town Los Angeles. T h e contrast is m ad e between a streetof beautiful nineteenth-century houses shaded by pale green trees

an d a different a re a to which it sudd enly gives way. T h at latter are a

has:

n o t r ee s

wea ther -bea ten o ld house s

ch eap marke t s (Note tha t these a r e in ferences themse lves

f leabag hote ls 1 m ad e o n th e basis of se ts of cues.)

kids batting a softball aro un d

graffiti on t h e sides of buildings

lit ter o n th e sidewalks

drifters an d out-of-work labore rs ambling in th e streets,

gathering in aimless gro ups

m en with stubb led chins drinking ch ea p red wine an d muscatel

from bottles in p ap er bags

peo ple in ragged, dir ty overcoa ts huddling on benche s

p awn sh o p s

hotel with w indows o n th e first two floors cov ered with heavy

wire scr een s

grimy shops , som e vacan t, o thers with ch ea p secon dha nd go ods

a jeweler specializing in75C

repairs on$5

watchesa d ress sh o p with adver t isements that n o i tem is above $10

a bar with continuou s topless ent ert ain m ent

T h e description of a ho tel lobby an d hallway is similar, alth ou gh o n asma ller scale:

a motley collection of c ou ch es in t h e lobby with stuffing pok ing o u t

of h ole s in plastic cov ers




smell of decaydim hallway with narrow strip of worn c arpe t running down th e cen ter

stale air

smell of a ged urin e

peeling brown do ors

The se ad d u p to a U hi gh lass flophouse" (Childs, 1 9 7 9 :98).This term

is clearly a'n ima ge o r sc he m a against which t h e perceived cu es ar e

matched .T h e basic agreem ent between the se three descr ipt ions of are as o n

th e basis of se ts of cues, all from t h e United S ta te s, is extrem ely striking

a n d impressive. S o is the implicit fact that no t only ar e the cue s take nto be self-evident, but all that is involved is observation and fairly

direct-and very rapid-interpretation. It is a sim ple pro cess. It ca n be

show n t o work, an d specific cue s identified, through m ore systematic

work. Conside r two exam ples: th e use of rem ote sensing, o r of drawings

or re touched pho tographs .T h e very fact is significant that re m ote sensing techn iqu es ca n be

used to identify physical surrog ates, which, in turn , se em t o b e go odindicators of social an d ec on om ic con ditions of a given pop ulation

an d their area . In o n e s tudy, n ine such surrogates were fou nd:

(1) land crowding

(2 ) condition of private free space

(3) nonresidential land uses

(4) litter

(5) condition of landscaping(6) noise, hazards, an d nu isance from transpo rt systems

(7) nonresidential activities

(8) hazards an d nuisances

(9) architectural styling-which nee ded to be checked o n the ground

T h e last variable in tu rn in clud ed n ine characteristics, including

eight design features, as surro gate s for the age, condition, and size

of housing:

(1)variety of housing, that is, higher quality tha n subdivision(2) block size or shape

(3) presence or absence of alleys, and sidewalk location(4) lot sh ap e, size of lot, site coverage, and setback

(5) orientat ion, sh ap e, an d spacing of hou ses(6) garbage an d driveway location

(7) roof design a n d materials




(8) ocat ion an d design of ch i m n ey s an d f lu e s

(9) pre sen ce o r absen ce of minor a rch i tec tu ra l fea tu res such as

porches, s t eps , patios, e tc. (How ard et al., 1974)

Basically, th e high-quality e nv iron m en t is well m ain tain ed , ha s well-m aintain edv ege tation, little litter, few vacan t lots, go od street up ke ep ,

ad eq ua te but not t oo luxurious vegetation (D unca n, 1 9 7 3 ; Royse,

1 9 6 9 ) , a n d few com mercial structures. T h e opposite s et of cu es in-

dicates a low-quality enviro nm ent; clearly all these c ue s are remarkab ly

similar to tho se alread y described-and still to be discu ssed .

T hro ug h the u se of drawings o r retou che d ph oto gra ph s, it is pos-

sible t o identify specific cue s m ore rigorously. T h e form er were used inBaltimore, w he re drawings of street fac ad es had additions-such a s

pe op le performing various activities, children playing, an d s o on , in

th e street or on th e steps, occupying various locations in th e street ,

window flower boxes an d th e like we re added-an d people m a d e

clear and explicit social judgments on that basis (Brower, 1977).

G enerally, th e pres en ce of recreation in th e street was se en a s a nega-

tive, low-status indicator (even w hen the pe op le them selves actuallyen ga ge d in such behavior-a difference betw een cultural knowledge

a n d behavior; se e K e es in g, 1 9 7 9 ) .This influence of s tree t recreation

o n a re as being identified a s slums h as already be en i llustrated an d is

fou nd genera lly (Rapopo r t , 1 9 7 7 ) .

An exa m ple of th e latter is a major s tudy by Roy se ( 1 9 6 9 ) . By

retouching pho tograp hs o nev ar iable a t a t ime a nd showing the results

to thre e popu lation groups-upper, middle, an d lower socioec onom ic

levels-it be ca m e possible t o discover their prefere nces , but also how

easily they judged th e social mea ning of areas , their status, the context

an d si tuation, and how thes e interacted in com plex ways. It w as quite

clear that a large n um be r of noticeable differences in th e environm ent

act as cu es an d allow pe op le to m ak e social inferences easily and to

predict their likely actions a n d beha viors o n th e basis of th ose . N ote

that th e thre e gro ups differed in th e consistency of their inferences, the

upp er gro up being the most consis tent a nd the lower group being theleast. It wa s als o fairly easy to discov er th e n at ur e of specific cues-the

presen ce of p eople an d animals , types of pe op le and animals pre sen t,

planting, topo grap hy, a nd litter. garba ge, m aterials, architectural d e-

ta ils , an d s o on . Context w as important on ce again . For exam ple, a

hors e in a sub ur ba n setting ha d very negative me aning; in an exu rban

setting, th e m ea nin g was very positive, indicating high sta tus throu gh




inferred recreational patte rns, implied density, an d spatial cues, a n d ,

hence, ty pe s of p eop le. No te that "suburban" or "exurban ," tha t is ,

these contexts, were themselves inferred from cues present in a

single pho tog raph

A m on g th e variables that c ha ng ed th e m eaning of par ticular set-tings were: vege tation, which re du ced th e pe rcenta ge identifying public

housing (which has negative meaning) a s such; an d black chi ldren,

which led to th e identification of public hou sing as such ( the p resence

of white children h ad n o impact) . A pp eara nc e was important an dexterior maintenance influenced judgments greatly. Fences influ-

en ce d quality a n d "friendliness," but co ntex t ("app ropriate ness" ) was

impo rtant. Materials such a s asphalt shingles an d alum inum screendoo rs reduce d th e at t ractiveness for the kp pe r a nd middle groups , but

no t for t h e lower; all groups, how eve r, identified th em a s indicating

lower-class peop le. Lower density was important to the upp er group ,

but no t to th e lower.T h e form of planting also ha d mea ning, but different mea nings for

different groups. Th us the m iddle gro up ev aluated highly m anicured

planting positively an d wild, natu ral la nd sca pe negatively. T h e highgroup , on the co n t ra y , s aw the na tu ra l l andscape as hav ing m uch

m or e positive m eanin g. Th is fits in well with th e different lan dqcapes

fou nd in Wes tches te r (Duncan , 1 9 7 3 ) a n d o ther high-s tatus enclaves ,suc h as River Hills , Wisconsin (R apo po rt, 1 9 8 1 ) . t suggests that the

distinction betwe en n eat an d u nk em pt land sca pes is interpreted in

two ways in the United States and that specific subcultural group

characteristics need to be considered; that is, meaning, like designneed s a n d environmental quali ty , is cu ltu re specific. It also reinfo rces

the m ajor poin t tha t, generally, notio ns of env ironm ental quality h av e

to d o with th e meanings they have.

For exam ple, th e rural image, which we have already discussed, iswh at gives extremely different mea nings, an d he nc e environm ental

quality ratings, to a village a n d a housing estate. th e form er being posi-

tive, the latter negative. In Britain, a vlllage environment implies a

variety of arch itec ture an d a deg re e of "incohe rence": different styles,ma terials, roof pitches, buildings a t different angles, "interesting" and

"intimate" groupings (in themselves inferential judgments), natural

vegetat ion such a s gorse an d h eath grasses , mixed ag e an d inc om e of

peop le, a n d lack of uniformity generally (ArchitectsJ ou rna l, 1 97 9 ) . n

othe r words, we find a series of cu es that m e a n "village" since they a re

co ngru en t with th e im ag e of village-positive in this ca se , unlike, for




exam ple, in a Third W orld context, w he re such cu es may b e see n as

negative. In th e ca se being discussed, a sales broch ure m ak es clearth at it is th e "village image" that is being sold; it us es a n affective evoca -tive q u o te from C ra bb e (withou t defining "village"): "Thy walks ar e

eve r pleas ant; everything is rich in be auty , lively or ser en e" (ArchitectsJ ou rna l, 1 97 9) .

No te how frequently planting an d vegetat ion en ter into the readingof m ean ing. In t h e United States general ly, an d t he A nglo-Am erican

culture a re a m or e broadly, lush vegetation h as a very different m ean -ing t o that traditionally fou nd in Latin Am erica, generally being iden-

tified with high status (R ap op ort, 1 9 7 7 ) .Th us a s tud ent was able to

show in a term p ape r that wh en t rees are removed, for example du e toDutch elm disease, in the Midwest and in this case in Milwaukee,

proper ty va lues tend t o go down comp ared to com parable a reas with

n o tree loss; pop ulation decline is also greater in th e form er th an in th ela tte r (Schroeder , 19 7 6 ) . At the sam e time, as we have seen , sub-

cultural differences are fou nd relating to the a m ou nt of vege tation andits naturalne ss. However, e ve n h ere th e differences ar e smaller tha n in

th e ca se of oth er elem ents. Generally, in th e Un ited S tates it is fo un dthat ther e is m or e agree m ent abo ut environm ental quality of natural

landscapes an d na ture than a bo ut hum an-m ade landscapes (Craik

and Zube, 1 9 7 6 : 53)-a lthough the evidence he re being presented

suggests that even in th e h um an -m ade environment ther e is muchagre em ent. This suggests that n ature forms a do main sepa rate from

the hu m an-m ade an d is evaluated separa te ly (Rapop or t , 19 7 7 ) .T h u s

nature/cu lture a s a distinction se em s alm ost universal a n d is often

expressed throug h the contrast natural /hum an-m ade or control led;

th e positive o r negative m ean ing o f these , however, ca n c han ge. Itsch an ge s can be stu die d historically-and have be en . O n e exam ple is

the major ch an ge in th e m eanin g given wild mo untain scenery with th eRom ant ic Movem ent (Nicolson, 1 9 5 9 ).Similarly, in th e U nited S tate sover the pas t 200 years, a co m plete reversal ha s occurred between themeanings of city an d wilderness. T h e form er, o n ce s ee n a s posit ive,

ha s be co m e negative, an d vice versa-their m eaning s as "sacred" a n d"profane" ha ve reve rsed (T ua n, 1 9 7 4 ) . It is also possible to find

adjoining cultural gro up s giving con trary mean ings to en vironm ents.Th us, the M'Buti pygmies regard th e forest as goo d, the plantat ions

an d fields as bad , whereas th e adjacent B antu farm ers se e th e la tter a sgood and the fo rmer a s bad (Turnbull, 19 6 1 : 53-54).T h e pygmies

also g o through rites of pass age as they m ov e from o n e of the se worlds




to th e other-for th em t h e village is profa ne; for th e Fang , it is th e

bush, o r wilderness, that is pro fan e a nd th e village hu m an ized a n d

habitable (Fernand ez, 19 77 )-a contrast s imilar to th e two per iods in

the United S tates discussed abo ve.

In term s of o u r earlier discussion, th en , we find the us e of a c o m m onset of variables setting up contrasts (in this case, natural/human-

ma de) but with different me aning s at tached to th em . But even here

o n e f inds som e regularity . T hu s i f o n e considers h igh-income groups ,

wh o have maximum choice, o n e do es find differing choices made ;

upper-class are as can hav e different environment quality variables, a s

was th e case between W ah roo ng a an d Vaucluse, in Sydney, Australia

( Rapopor t, 1 97 7 : 88-89).Yet, generally, in t h e Anglo-American cul-i.ure, such choices tend t o be closer to th e W ahroo nga , or rural image,

m ode l a n d it is su ch a re as that w e m ost easily a n d typically identify a s

" g o o d a reas in ne ighborhoods in s t range cities (Rapopor t, 1 9 7 7 :3 2 ) .

T hus in D etroit, historically, high-income are as can be identified throu gh

privacy, large lot size, accessibility t o de sired use s (recre ation, parks,

an d th e l ike) a n d dis tance from undesirable uses ( th e nature of th es e

an d th e proximities can a lso be s tudied; Peterson an d W orall, 19 6 9 ) ,ch ar ac te r of h ou se s, exclusion of undesirable pe op le , exclusive golfand county clubs, many recreational facili t ies generally, natural

ameni ties, vegeta t ion , an d s o o n (Backler, 19 7 4 ) .

Underlying mu ch of o u r discussion her e, an d man y of t h e specificcue s indicating environm ental quality, is th e ge ner al notion of m ain -

tenance, which influences ap pea ranc e . O n e could arg ue that in m any,

although not all, of th e c ase s un der consideration, th e m ean ing of th eare a is related to ma intenan ce in i ts broadest sense. Thu s, a t th e urban

scale, changes indicating negative qualit ies include reduced main-

tenan ce an d h en ce deterioration of houses, increased no ise, increased

traffic congestion, industrial and commercial development, s treet

cleanliness, outmigration of "good" pe op le a n d inmigration of "bad"

pe op le ( for example, peo ple manifes ting del inquency o r hippiness),

s igns indicating cr ime, violence, a n d del inquency ( bo ard ed -up shop s,

grilles o n sh op s, graffiti, a n d s o on ), loss of services, an d , ab ov e all,r educed g reen op en space . The se a re all s een as u rban th rea ts an dha ve neg ative me aning; they lead t o a fear tha t crowding will deve lop

( Cars on , 19 72 ) .Note th at many of th ese quali ties are based on main-

ten an ce . Also, as w e shall see , high perceived density is based o ninferences m a d e by match ing perceived characteristics, many of which

ar e related to m aintenance, against certain contexts, images, sch em ata ,




NEW CtU ~ e e L ~ T Y i i ~ ~ ~ ~ r i i r ,ILUAU%% c' p k g d d ~ ~ w )

L u 5 CAM[L" Q-w

Figure 27 Continued




and norms. Similarly, the sensory cues indicating positive environ-

m ental quality often include ap pe ar an ce o f new ness (tha t is, low per-

ceived ag e and n o obsolescence), ap pe ara nc e of expensiveness, highlevels of m ain ten an ce with no deterioration or disorder, an d h arm ony

with na ture, such as greenery, op en spac e, naturalness, and privacy(Pe te r son , 1 9 6 7 a , 19 67 b) . Greene ry seem s to be rathe r le ss impor-

tant in th e case of o the r countries, for exam ple, the N etherland s (s ee

Ja an us an d Nieuwenhuijse, 1 9 7 8 ) . In this case, while green spac esh ad little influence on positive m eaning , th e ab se n ce of sh op s an drestaurants, road and site layouts that communicate a feeling of

spaciousness and privacy, an absence of monotony, and newness

w ere imp ortant. Th e last was sufficiently imp ortant t o lead t o a higherran kin g being given t o high-rise de ve lo pm en t vis-a-vis old, traditional

enviro nm ents that design ers would rank m uc h m ore positively.

Suburban image

In th e United S tates , the basic positive mean ing of residential environ-

m ents is still su m m ed u p by th e subu rban image. T h e variables thatcom m unicate that image ar e clearly revealed by n ew center-city ho us -ing in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; this imag e also explains th e form of th at

development. The context is of two-story, nineteenth- and early-

twentieth-century frame h ous es o n narrow lots (see Beckley, 1 9 7 7 ) ;th e street pattern is a grid. T h e new hou sing is clearly m ea nt to be

"suburban," contrast ing with th e negative co nno tat ions of th e a bov eurban environment.

This subu rban image, contrast ing with the urban, includes the n am e"Parkview" (f or dow ntown housing!; see Rapop ort , 1 9 7 7 : ch. 2);curved streets a s op po sed to th e grid; "superblocks" with culs-de-sac

a s op po sed to "pa ss-t hro ug h streets; low perceived density a s oppose dt o high p erceived density; a m ixture of on e- and two-s tory houses asop po se d to all two-story; mixed forms of housing as op po sed t o asingle type, b ut of th e "universal" su bu rb an ranch-style variety rath er

than th e midwest fram e; ow degree of enclosure versus high deg ree ofenclosure; absenc e of corn er sho ps, churches, a n d th e like versus theirpresen ce; su bd ue d colors as op p os ed to bright colors; low complexityversus high complexity: lawns, shrubs, and a variety of trees freelyarran ged versus large elms in l ines along the streets (now gon e d u e to

Dutch elm disease). Note two things: th e na tur e of th e c ue s as well a sth e high level of r ed un da nc y; th e use of m an y cues. This unmistakable

m ess ag e is reinforced in the actual expe rience of the se environm ents,




th e transit ions, an d contrasts as o n e moves through them This helps

us fur ther to u nders tand t he in tended m eaning and how it is com-

mu nicated (se e Figure 27).Note that in th e a bov e cas e, f ixed-feature elements play an impor-

tant role in establishing meaning, although semifixed-feature ele-ments-particularly vege tation-are im po rtan t. M oreover, it is inter-

esting t o no te tha t m any of t h e cu es ag re e well with a list of cu es

pro po sed a s indicating low perceived density. T h e notion of tha t con-

cept is th a t a variety of physical, associational, a n d sociocu ltural cu esare used to make inferences about the density of areas. It is these

inferences, no t actu al density in peo ple per unit area, that are ma tched

against norm s an d ideals to m ake judgments of acceptability a n d desir-ability (Rapoport, 1 9 7 5 ~ ) . partial list of these hypothesized cuesfollows (from Rapopo rt, 1 9 7 5 c: 138-140; eference cites delete d); h esuggestion is that not all need be present for environments to bejudged as o n e or th e o ther . Clearly th e list of cues , th e nu m be r ne ede d

to infer densit ies an d he nc e the m eanin g of areas, and how thes e cues

reinforce or cancel eac h other a re subjects for research. At the s am e

time, o u r discussion so far an d th e Milwaukee example supp ort thisnotion (s ee also McLaughlin, 1976,which car] b e inte rprete d partly in

these terms)

Den s e

tight spac es

Not De nse

Perceptual

ope n spaces

intricate spa ces simple spa ce s

T he se term s are, of cou rse, difficult to define at th e m om ent.

Th ey ca n be discussed in term s of com plexity. The y also se emintuitively clear t o m ost people-admitting that they a re a matter

of de gre e an d a ffected by cu lture, ada ptation levels , an d s oforth.

large building height to s pa ce low height to sp ac e ratio (i.e.,

(i.e , a large am ou nt of su b- little su b te n d ed building in

te n de d building in th e field the field of vision)

of vision)

m any signs few signs

many lights and high artificial few lights an d low artificial

light levels light levels




D e n s e Not Dense

many pe op le (o r their t races) few p eo ple (ox their traces)visible visible

mostly hu m an -m ad e (little mostly natural (much gr ee ne y)greenery)

high noise levels low noise levels

many h um an-m ade sme lls few hum an-m ade sme lls

m any cars-high traffic den sity few cars-low traffic de nsi ty

an d m uch park ing a n d little parkingGen erally t h e n um be r of physical, senso ry stimuli that indicate

th e prese nce of peop le .

tall buildings, ap ar tm en ts, or low buildings may indicate lowoffices m ay indica te high densities eve n if other cues

densi ty even when spaces and indicate the oppo si teother perceptual cues indicate

low density

in residential ar ea s th e in residential are as the pre sen ceab se nc e of pr ivate ga rden s of gard ens and ent ran cesan d en t rances

T h e re la tive impa ct an d importance of perceptual an d associa-t ional /symbolic cu es ar e impo rtant quest ions.

T e m p o r a l

fas t tem pos an d rhythms of slow tem po s a n d rhythms ofactivity activity

activities ex ten din g ove r activities re du cin g o r ceasing

24 hours per day at certain t im es

th e abse nc e of "defenses" th e pre sen ce of "defenses"allowing the control of allowing the con trol ofinteraction interaction

General ly , then, the sam e num ber of p eop le in a n environmen-

tal configurat ion that expo ses th em to others , o r isolates the m ,would be read v e y differently (e.g. , the presence of fences, court-

y a rd s, c o m p o u n d s , a n d t h e like).




Dense Not De nse

high levels of "attractive low levels of "attractive

stimuli" stimuli"

th e abse nc e of othe r adjacent th e presence of o ther adjacent

places for use-streets, plac es for use-streets,

mee ting p laces, an d s o on meeting p laces , and so on

T h u s th e availability of m any nond welling places-pubs, sh op s,

streets , parks, an d the like-that can be used by pe op le an d

whether they are actually used (i .e ., th e hous e-se t t lementsystem) will affect the perception of density. Where they arepres ent a n d u sed extensively, a n a rea would b e perceived a s less

de ns e beca us e m or e effective ar ea is available for use an d activi-t ies an d gro ups may be se pa ra ted in sp ace an d t ime.

th e presenc e of nonresidential the ab sen ce of n onresidential

land uses in a residential area land uses in a residential area

an d mixed land uses generally an d abs en ce of m ixed landuses generally

This is in a p p ar en t conflict with t h e pr evio us characteristics. In

this case the presence of nonresidential uses leads to higher

rates of information from the environment itself, m o r e peoplevisible, m or e traffic , an d s o forth. T h er e a re th us tw o con tradic-

tory effects with complex results.

Sociocultural

high levels o f social interaction low levels of social interaction

leading to social overload an d a bs en ce of social overload

This depends on culturally (and individually) defined desiredlevels as well a s th e form an d effectiveness of defens es.

feeling of lack of control, feeling of p re se nc e of con trol,

choice, o r f reedom, l ea d ~ n go choice, and f reedom, l e ad ~ n g

judgments of less effective to jud gm ents of m o re effective

sp ac e being available an d spac e being available an dh en ce of highe r densities; h e n c e of lower densities; c o n -

control by envi ronment trol of environment




T h e alternative hypo thesis, th at lack of control m ea ns lack ofpressure to m ake decisions and he nc e th e perception of lessdensity , is unlikely in view of ev id en ce that lack of con tro l isassociated with increased stress an d with th e gen eral argum ent

th at dens ity is related t o interaction a n d tha t privacy is th e abilityto control unw anted interaction.

T h es e feelings m ay differ for various groups-by culture, age ,

sex , and s o on .

De nse Not Dense

social heteroge neity alongso m e subjectively defineddimensions-hence increased

unpredictability, reduced re-

du nd anc y, and higher effectivedensity in terms of information-

processing ne ed s, the inabilityto read symbols an d cues, not

sharing rules, and hen ce acting

inappropriately

social homogeneity along so m esubjectively defined dimen-sions-hence increased pre-dictability a n d red un dan cya n d lower effective density

in term s of information-processing ne ed s, ability to

read cue s an d symbols, sharing

of rules, a n d he nc e actingappropriately

O n e exam ple might be agre em ent ab out rules regarding private/

public and front/back dom ains, nonverbal behavior, an d s o on.This sugg ests that density an d c rowding a re related via privacy,defined a s th e control of unw anted interaction an d alsov ia social

norms defining behavior appropriate to various density situations.ab se nc e of culturally sh ar ed presence of culturally sharedan d accepted nonphysical an d accepted nonphysical"defenses" and control "defenses" a n d controlme chanism s for regulating mechanisms of regulatingsocial interaction social interaction

previous experience, sociali- previous exp erien ce, sociali-zation, an d s o forth a t low zation, a nd s o forth at highdensities (i.e., ad ap tat ion level densities (i.e , ,adaptation levela t low densities) a t high densities)




T h e impact of po or m ain ten an ce , litter, graffiti, reduction of greenery ,

high pollution levels and noise, untidiness, poor road surfaces, in-

dustrial invasion, a n d s o on also fit into this framework. The ir m ea nin gis d u e to th e fact th at they ar e sur rog ate s for people-or for particular

types of pe op le. M oreov er, m ost of th e studies dealing with environ -m ental quality in Anglo-Am erican culture a re remarkably consistent,

as we hav e se en , in at taching posit ive m ean ing to tho se c ue s that indi-

cate low perceived densi ty. This bec om es even clearer w hen w e con -s ider sugges t ions for making townhouses and condominia more

acceptable, that is, hav e them com m unic ate m or e posit ive m eanings.'These a re all related t o indicating th e lowest possible perceived de n-

sity ( an d th e associated higher s tatus): th e pre senc e of recreat ionalfacilities (recall, how ever, tha t it is th e la tent a spe ct, th e im age a n d

m ean ing of recreat ion, rather than use, or manifest aspects , that areimportant); go od m ainten anc e of land scap e, dwellings, yards, a nd

streets ; ho us es not crow ded an d to o close together, or spaciousness;goo d privacy; hom ogeneity with " g o o d peo ple; low child density (an

important variable in m any studies, associated b oth with m ainten anc e

an d perceived density); low noise levels; a s m uch o pe n s p ac e as pos-sible, m any trees, shrubs, lawns, a n d natural features; ab se nc e of no n-residential uses; ab se nc e of nuis anc es; plea san t views; sh or t dwelling

rows an d individuality of dwellings, hen ce variety rath er than m on oto nyin des ign , an d s o on (see Norcross , 1 9 7 3 ; Errnuth, 1 9 7 4 ; Burby et al. ,

1976).T ha t this inte rpre tation is tr u e is confirmed by th e finding inBritain, a m o n g others, tha t th e b est predictor of satisfaction in re siden-

tial ar ea s is low perceived density-for exa m ple, exp resse d in ter m s o f

average num ber of stories of dwellings a n d th e nu m be r of dwellings

visible within 150 m ete rs (Metcalf, 1977).W hat the M ilwaukee housing an d t he o the r examp les try t o do,

then , is to co m m unic ate as many a s possible of th e posit ive mea ning s

associated with residential ar ea s a n d a s few a s possible of t h e neg ative

ones : meaning a n d image a re being ma nipulated in a particular way

(al though o ther w ays are possible) .

C on sid er a study in Atlanta in which well-being in residential ar e aswa s correlated with various e nvironm ental characteristics (Ja m e s et

a l., 19 74 ) .Th es e characteris tics can be intkrpreted as cues, the m ean -

ing of which d ep en d s on a contrast between those se en a s positive an dthose s ee n a s negative.




Positive Negat ive

much op en space

residential pocket away from

the bustle of urban activitysep ar a te d from traffic, rail-

road s, a n d public facilities

distant fr o m arterial streets

an d hen ce public t ranspor t

ab se nc e of outsiders

m uch grass, well-maintainedlawns, uniform lands caping

o p e n sp ac e with natural vistas

views of attractive human-

m ad e fea tures

few paved are as

well-maintained landscaping

many t rees

congested

proximity t o libraries, public

health centers , schools, sportsfields, freew ays

high pede strian densities a n d

m an y visitors

bare dirt; n o lawns between

buildings an d streets

heavy litteringpresence of weeds

fro nt areas with vegetables,

etc., rather tha n lawns an d

sh rub s (i.e. , diverse landscaping)

little effort a t land sc ap ing

unkem pt, vacant lotsfew trees, bush es, o r flowers

off-street parking many parked cars (n o off-street

parking)mainly private dwellings

pre sen ce of comm ercial,qui et industrial, fringe com me rcial,

narrow streetsfew traffic lights

parking, a n d oth er nonresiden-tial uses

new ness , indicated by "con- noisy

tem porary street patterns," one-w ay streets

i,e., curv ed Streets. culs-de-sac, deterioration a n d po or state of

etc. repair of sidewalks

many "fo r sale" a n d "for rent"signs

I: se em s clear that these elements c orres pon d to notions of highenviron m ental quality already discussed rep eatedly in this boo k (s ee




a lso Rapopor t , 1 9 7 7 : ch . 2). It is also clear that th e m ea nin g of th es e

e lemen t s has t o d o with th e inferences m ad e abo ut th e k inds of people

living th er e a n d t h e pote ntial in teraction s (since well-being is clearly

correla ted with social relations a n d in teraction ).W e thus begin to s ee a

potential relation b etwee n environm ental m ean ing a nd social inter-action o r com mu nication-a topic to be discussed in C h ap te r 7.At thispoint, it may be sufficient to su ggest that th e inferences m a d e about

pe op le by reading physical environm ents influence an d help organize

social relations a n d interaction. I have argu ed in a n um ber o f p laces

that interaction best occurs in what I call neutral p laces a m o n g

hom ogen eous , owned a reas (Rapopo r t, 1 9 7 7 ) . But two ques tions

ca m e u p First, w hat cu es indic ate neutrality-location, use, territorya n d s o on7 This clearly requ ires cultural kn ow ledg e, slnce it may be a

grocery, a teah ou se, a me n's hou se , or whatever . Sec on d, what cue sindicate "owned" areas , o r defensib le spa ce (New ma n, 1 9 7 1 ; Sut tles,

1 9 6 8 , 19 72 )? In this connec t ion , much is made of "symbol~c"

boundaries, which, however , need to be not iced, understood, and

"obeyed."

Actual physical boundaries are also important, particularly sincemovement and mobility, particularly their latent aspects, also havemeaning. I have pointed out elsewhere that many tradit ional cit ies

restrict mobility w hile t h e U.S. city s tresses it a n d facilitates it in prim

ciple ( Rapopor t, 1 97 7 :2 1 ) . How ever , o n e finds that parks ar e see n a:;

desirable not only becaus e they ca n be used an d, even m ore, beca use

they a re the re a s cu es of positive env ironm enta l quality, neig hbo rhoo d

stability, low pe rceive d density, an d , generally, desirable are as . Th eyare seen as des i rable a lso because they can become a "no-man ' ! ;

land," keeping strangers ou t of neighbo rhoods. Recall th at o n e set ofcue s of en vironm ental quality had t o d o with the a bs en ce of

strangers.

A striking ex am ple of t h e relation of this to mobility a n d its m ea ni ng

is provided by a rece nt rep ort that a federal appe als court refused a six.

ye ar long attem pt by white residents of th e Hein Park neighbo rhood inMem phis, T en ne ss ee , to block a s treet called West Drive at i ts northen d, w here a large black a rea begins (Milwaukee Journ al , 1 9 7 9 ) .

While this would, of co urs e, red uc e ac tua l mobility an d pe ne tratio n,

I wou ld a rg ue that th e major pu rp os e of this atte m pt was"symbolic"--

it was at th e level of m ean ing. W hat it tried to co m m un ica te was: This




neighb orho od is ho m og en ou s, "closed"; it was, if you will, th e equiva lentof walled de ve lop m en ts (Ra po po rt, 1 9 7 7 ) . Significantly, th e court'srefusal was also on s uc h gro un ds of m eaning; the closure would, th e

court said, be a "b ad ge o f slavery." Th us m obility a n d eq ua l access to

all parts of th e city, a s well a s their op po site s, are s ee n a t th e level ofmeaning, as being about hum an comm unicat ion or social relat ions,rather t ha n in purely instrumental o r man ifest terms.

This relates to the discussion above of the environment as a

mn emonic. O n e could argue that the blocked street is a boundary cue ,

marking perceived differences among two groups and sett ing up

social boundaries, that is, at tempting t o exclude particular groups (s ee

Barth , 1 9 6 9 ;Wellman, 19 7 8 ;R a p o po rt, 1 9 7 7 , forthcoming ) . Socialbou nda ries, o f cou rse, a re not necessarily spatial or physical but, on ceagain, their perception, which m ust prece de u nderstanding an d be-

havior, is help ed by clear a n d una m bigu ous markers-noticeable dif-fe re nc es of all kinds. This is, of cours e, related to o u r earlier discussion

ab ou t boun dary markers as objects (fixed feature o r semifixed fea-ture ) , boun dary-m arking rituals (nonfixed feature in t ime or s pac e),

doorways an d thresholds, an d s o on. All comm unicate meanings th ebasic func tion of which is to reinforce basic cultural categories. T h u s

th e w ho le notion of indicating bo un dar ie s by m e an s of noticeable dif-

ferences to delineate social groups, dom ains, an d their spatial equiv-

alents, an d to define entry o r exclusion, be co m es very significant.

Co ntex t, on ce aga in, is im po rtant. Co nside r fences. Clearly, while allcultures distinguish a m on g dom ains, and mark boun daries, th e use of

fences is much m ore variable. Th e question ha s bee n raised a s to whyfences ar e s o com m on in M ormon areas. In that ca se, th e analysis offenc es tells m uch ab ou t Morm on culture (a s can th e analysis of o the r

artifacts). As one subtle point: The number of gates indicated the

num ber of wives a man had (Leone, 1 9 7 3 ) .Also, it is clear that in aplace such as England o r Austral ia , o r so m e areas of the United States,where fences are common, they have dif ferent meanings than in

places w he re they ar e rare. In th e latter, again d epe nd ing o n con text,they may indicate appropriation, con cern, an d g oo d upk eep , or highcrime-rates that m ak e their use necessary. Their a bse nc e can similarly

have two an alogo us, contrasting meanings.It is important to m ark bou ndaries, how ever this is do ne , an d t o c on-

trast wh at the se b oundaries define or contain. By marking them , andthe corresponding domains, noticeable and recognizable effective

reminders a nd warnings ar e created. These tend to red uce or eliminateconflict , w he ther ab ou t app rop riate behavior o r appropriation.



Urban Examples of Applications 17 1

Much is m a d e of ow nership an d app ropriation of sp ac e in co nn ec-

tion with crime control through defensible sp ac e (s ee N e w m an , 1 9 7 1 ) .

While m any of the c ues having to d o with m aintena nce a n d the like

communicate this, there is a question about how appropriation is

indicated Regarding m aintena nce, for example, we have s ee n howparticular forms of landscaping can be m isinterpreted as neglect (Sherif

an d Sherif, 19 6 3 ) . As an oth er exam ple, it is of ten suggested tha tappropriation is indicated by p erso na l~z ation , he p rese nce of p er-

sonal objects and the l ike. Yet these cues can be ambiguous: The

pr es en ce of a se t of obje cts su ch a s "junk" a nd str ipped cars , motor-

cycles, refr igerators, or washing m achines o n p orches, a n d t h e like can

indicate either appropriation o r th e existence o f a "slum"; o n eperso n's lived-in ar ea is an o th e r person 's slum . Given o u r discussion

in this ch ap ter , th e latter interpretation is m or e likely since am big uo us

cues are matched against a shared schema of "appropriat ion" or

"slum," a n d th e cues just described generally indicate "s lu m " T hu sthe meaning o f cu es is related to culture a n d context-they ares ub jec-

tively def ined and in terpre ted Th us meaning dep end s on so m e

knowledge o f the context an d th e cul ture, its rules an d sche m ata. T h ecu es will elicit app rop ria te res po ns es if unders tood.

In this con ne ctio n w e c an return t o graffiti. W e have se en tha t fre-

quently they a re s ee n a s signs of highly negative environmental quality,of cr ime, vandal ism, a nd s o on . The y can also be se en a s an ar t form,

an at tem pt to ove rcom e anom ie, o r as s igns of appropriation, that is,

"territorial markers" (s ee Ley an d Cybriwsky, 1 9 7 4 ) . n this latter ca se

they can be read: their quality and location display regularities andindicate t h e distribution of social attitudes a s well a s predicting su bs e-

qu en t behavior in spa ce. For exam ple, they com m unica te the ow ner-sh ip of territories an d turfs to tee na ge rs a nd gang s-that is, they ar e

markers of grou p boundaries, of defen ded neighborhoods, a nd he nc elead to social behaviors. T o m ost others, however , they d o not com -

municate tho se meanings but others, such a s high crime rates, an d

lead to behavior such a s general avo idanc e of s uch areasIn s t ~ ~ d y i n gr ime a n d defensible spa ce on the neighborhoo d level(Taylo r et al., 1 9 7 9 ) , t is clear tha t signs of disintegration of th e social

ord er, including physical d eteriora tion, signs of vandalism, a n d litter,

ar e extremely impo rtant in fear of crime. In o th er words, de terioration

in the physical environment and signs of lack of caring about it are

interpreted a s signs of erosion of th e social or de r a n d h en ce perceived

as crime, with res ultant fear. Perceiv ed crime a n d its fear ha s low cor-respo nde nce to actual crime. Th us all th e signs we hav e be en dis-




cussing th at sta nd for slum also imply crime: th e two m eaning s ar e

l inked. This , then, has clear behavioral consequences, such as

avoidance.T h e m eaning an d role of all such c ue s helps to explain th e increas-

ing stress on the im portance of m an ag em en t in housing (s ee Fran-cesca to e t a l. , 1 9 7 9 ; Sau er , 1 9 7 7 ; Brower, 1 9 7 7 ; Ahlbrand t and

B ro ph y, 1 9 7 6 ;H o le , 1 9 7 7 ;Beck and Teasdale , 1 9 7 7 ) an d, by exten-

sion, of urban m an ag em en t. This ha s to d o with the role of m an ag e-

ment in ensuring good maintenance, low child density, vandalism,

litter, and so o n. It thus influences the cue s present an d hen ce t he

meaning of areas : G oo d man agem ent leads to good m aintenance and

is com m unic ated th ro ug h it. It is interesting tha t in judging a n a re a as a"mess" in o n e such s tudy (Sauer , 1 9 7 7 : 26) th e now familiar cu es are

used: garbage an d t rash s trewn a rou nd , vandalism, an ab an do ne d car

in th e m iddle of th e site, bad up ke ep , ba re earth . As in all ot he r cases, it

is clear tha t thes e cu es com m unicate environ m ental quality not only

directly but also by indicating th e pres en ce of a bs en ce of " g o o d or

"bad" people, that is, by inferences regarding the definition of the

social situation. This is th e significance of th e a rg um en t ab ov e ab ou tthe differing interpretations of th e l ibertarian su bu rb (Barne tt , 1 9 7 7 ) ,

w he re the particular cue s indicate a particular grou p of pe op le w ho

are , in tu rn, evalua ted as "good1' an d "bad." In oth er words, in Anglo-

Am erican culture, a n d increasingly elsew here , rural ima ge, low per-

ceived density, privacy, g oo d m ain ten an ce a nd ap p ea ra nc e, variety

a n d complexity in de sign , social ho m og ene ity, an d high social statu s

indicate goo d peo ple a n d he nc e high en vironmental quality: They arepositive meanings.

T he physical elem ents of suburbia-winding roads, lawns, de tach ed ,

varied h ou ses, types of front do or s an d mailboxes, rom antic rooflines,

garden yrna m ents, coach lanterns, an d man y others-all com mu ni-

cate social status, social aspirations, personal identity, individual

freed om , nostalgia, an d s o on . T h e elements co m e from history, rural

life, patriotism, a n d th e estate s o f th e rich (Ventur i and Rauch , 19 76 ) .This is, of cou rse, th e point stressed through out: env ironm ental quality

variables a re such be ca us e they hav e social mea ning. Th us , disregard-

ing major disag reem ent o n e may h av e abou t th e validity of m eaning s

of su bu rbia discussed by Perin ( 1 9 7 7 ; se e a review by Rapoport ,

1 9 7 9 d ) , h ere is considerable agreemen t about the elements (detacheddwellings, social hom og ene ity, purely residential uses, an d th e like)




a n d th e fact tha t it is th e m ean ing of th ese th at is mo st important. It is

mean ing th at is th e raison d'&tre for th e particular definition of env iron-

mental quality. T h e suburb an env ironment is intended to m aintain the

distinctions a m o n g groups, which a re judged in term s of t h e environ-

m ents in which they live, a n d the se groups, o nc e mark ed, are includedor ex cluded. All th e cu es indicate status a n d lifestyle s o that lawns,landscaping, variety of house styles, special recreational facilities,

ab se nc e of mixed land uses, c orn er sho ps, even religious buildings,

ar e all ways of establishing an d ma intaining a p articular imag e, that is,of co m mu nicating social m eanings an d identity, th e m ain ten an ce of

which is se en as th e role of plann ing [ see Werthm an, 1968)

As p eop le m ove throug h cities (a s well as landscapes), they tend totravel alo ng w ell-defined route s As a result, there fore, they frequently

m ak e judgments o n th e basis of w hat is perceived along that route.

Th us o n e frequently judges a reas through shopping streets and arterialsa s "bad" or "good," deteriorating or upgrading based o n sets of cues

such a s types of shop s, boa rded u p or em pty shop s, protective metalgrilles, litter, a n d s o forth. O n e also infers th e et hn ic character of ar ea s

behind th ese arterial s treets. For exam ple, in O m ah a, Nebraska, at th elurn of th e century, it w as fou nd that althou gh the prop ortion of anethnic group living in particular areas was significant in judging its

ethnic character, even m or e impo rtant was the location of th at group'sbusinesses an d social a n d religious institutions-the chu rche s, clubs,

bakeries, groceries, butcher sh op s, restaurants. The ir prese nc e along

particular stretches of ro ad s led to th e identification of th e surr ou nd -

ing neighbo rhood as be lon gin gto Boh em ians, Italians, or Jews-even

if they co ns ti tu ted a minority of that ar ea : T h e visibility of th e cuesalong th e arterial routes was significant (Chudacoff , 1 9 7 2 , 1 9 7 3 ).

In th e case of an a re a in M atappan , M assachuse tts, chang ing frombeing a Jewish ar ea to becom ing a black are a, it was found that th e

peo ple remaining b ecam e aw are of the c han ge when certain s toresan d institutions disap peare d from t he shopping are as. Th ese sett ings

did m or e tha n fulfill th e ne ed s of peo ple ; they sto od for th e na ture of

th e area-they com m unic ated its meaning, as did the natu re of th enew shop s, how late they stayed o pe n, which d ays they closed, an d s oo n (Ginsb erg, 1 9 7 5 ) . Similarly, business strips often define ar ea s as"skid rows" a n d as deteriorating, or as high class-or ev en as backareas , which may exist a t the neighborhood scale (for examp le, lanes),




at the urban scale, regional scale, an d so o n . They have major functions

in communicating tneanings and they can also define the ethnic,income o r racial character o f areas. Thus business tho roug hfares not

only co ntrast with residential are as, but with eac h o the r, a n d ca n be

interpreted as expressions o f culture since their material features ha vecultural m ean ings . In th e cas e of a black business stre et in Chic ago(Pred, 1963), it proved possible to identify those cues that char-

acterize low-income shopping streets generally as o pp os ed to thos e

that characterize black shopping streets as opposed to those of

othe r groups.This could b e d o n e impressionistically, that is, throu gh observation,

in t h e wayI

have bee n describing. C ue s observed included:

so un ds generally, noise levels, musical sou nd stypes of peo ple (e .g .. color), their clothing (style, colors, etc.),

vocal and other nonverbal behaviors

th e variety of varied uses (which could b e cou nted)

types of shopsfacad es of shop s, such as shopfronts

types of carssmells

th e visible presence of many activities (as oppo sed to the abse nce ofvisible activities in comparable white areas)

As in ot he r ca ses that we h ave already discussed (e.g. An derson a n d

Moore, 1972), it was then possible to move easily to a moresystematic, quantitative comparison of the distribution of different

uses, service establishment, and shops; to compare specif ic com-binations of uses; an d t o identify w hat was sold in groceries o r serv ed

in restaurants. O n e could co m pa re main tenan ce levels of sho ps,number of vacant shops, empty lots, storefront churches, how bar

facades are treated (open versus closed), and many other specif icvariables. One could clearly discriminate between various types ofshopping st reets and make judgments and inferences abou t them an d

the peo ple in them.Note, once again, the redundancy of cues in a range of sensory

modalities. I would suggest that we customarily use them in verysimilar ways to judge all kinds o f en viro nm en ts in ou r daily lives. As

o n e example, we u se suc h cues to judge the takeover of areas byethnic groups. T hu s in Sou thall, an ar ea of Lo nd on , signs advertisingparticular kinds of fo ods he types of p eop le encountered, their behavior,



Urba n Examples of Applications 175

and how they a re d ressed all quickly suggest a n Asian takeover. Atypical

English pub , with a heavy woode n b ar , pitted plastic tile floor, jukebox,

a n d rigid divisions am o ng "public," "saloon," a n d "private bars" be-

com es a different place beca use all the pe op le are Asians, there are n o

w om en , t h e music o n th e jukebox is Indian. At a larger scale, in a walkthrough Southa ll (o r o ther comparab le a reas), we pass the Kenya

Butchery, th e oriental store , th e Pu njabi grocers, Indian driving sch oolsand insurance offices, the Bank of Baroda branch office, posters

advertising Indian enterta inm ent. O n e se es hardly a ny white faces,

new spa pers on the back seats of p arke d cars are in Punjabi, Hindi, o rIJrdu; new spaper sh op s a re full of A sian papers an d magazines, cinem as

sh ow Indian films. Sm ells are of curry, spices, a n d Indian fo od ; cloth-ing in s ho ps is different; the re ar e temples; sup erm ark ets carry a wide

variety of Asian foods. T ho se d oors that are o pe n reveal, behind th efac ad es of typical English su bu rb an arch itectu re, a totally d ifferent cul-

ture (Sydney Morning Herald 1 9 7 2 ;person al observation in Sou thall,Be thnal G reen , and so on ) .

This is clearly merely a m o re extre m e version of w hat we h av e been

discussing. Moreover, most of the cues are in the semifixed- andnonfixed-feature realm: T h e streets and t he buildings have not c han ged

Also, a stroll thr ou gh th at are a by any observer-designer, journalist,

or layperson-allows th e cue s a n d their meanings to be read easilyM any of th es e notic eable differences in various sen so ry modalitiec;

are cu es that ca n be s ee n a s examples of erosion or accretion trace1;used in unobtrusive measures (s ee W ebb et a l.. 1 9 6 6 ) . T h e s e c o m -

m unic ate a variety of m ean ings . Exterior physical signs in t h e fixed-

a n d sem ifixed-feature dom ains, where peo ple live an d their location

in public s pa ce , that is, wh ere they ar e found an d their temporal d is-tribution (w ho do es w hat, where, wh en, a nd including o r excluding

w ho m ), heir expressive move m ents, langu age, activities, clothing an dpossessions, an d many others, communicate urban meanings and ar e

accessible throug h observation. In M iami, Florida, two yearsfollowingCastro 's takeove r of C ub a, cues such a s bilingual street signs, th e use

of Spanish by half the people in streets, signs in shops saying "SeHabla E spanol," 'stores with S pa nis h nam es, Latin Am erican foods o nrestaurant m enu s, C ub an fo ods sold in superm arkets. the m anufac-

ture o f C ub an types of cigarettes, Span ish radio broadcasts, Sp anishnew spapers an d S pa n~ sh - la ng ua ge ditor ia ls in English- languagenew spape rs, S pa nis h services held in forty Miami ch urc he s, an d s o o n

(Webb et a1 , 1 9 6 6 : 119) all clearly communicated social change



176 THE MEANING OF THE BUILT ENVIRONM ENT

Within tha t city, certain a re as with particularly high con ce ntr atio ns of

Cu ban s, such a s that called Habana Chica (t h e n a m e itself is a cue!)

could b e identified by a g reater density of th e a bo ve cue s an d also the

type and volume of music heard, the presence of men conversing

aro un d coffee stan ds a n d th e type o f coffee served, the use only ofSpan ish, arom as of spices, an d th e general a tmosp here a nd ambience

(Rapopor t , 1977: 152-153). he strength of such cue s would m ak e

them difficult to m iss and would influence hum an behavior a n d com -

munication, encouraging s o m e a n d discouraging othe rs from enter-

ing or penetrating such areas.W hat is striking in all th e se analyse s a n d descriptions is how easy it

seems to be, by using one 's senses and thinking about what onenotices, to read the environme nt, derive mean ings, an d m ake social

inferences. T h e similarity of this t o the pro ces ses of no nv erb al com -

munication as comm only un derstood doe s, inde ed, see m striking.



ENVIRONMENT, MEANING, AND

COMMUNICATION

Sin ce traditional nonverba l com mu nication studies in th e nonfixed-

feature realm have largely been concerned with the role nonverbal

behavior plays in human interaction and communication (see

Abrahamson , 1966,Sc h e f l e n ,1974;Sieg m an an d Feldste in , 1978),

i i seem s useful to ask w hethe r environmental m eaning, as a form ofnonverbal communication, can also be considered in such terms-tha t IS , w he ther ther e is a relationship betw een env ironm ental m ean -

ing and those behaviors re lated t o in teraction an d comm unicat ion

am on g pe op le This question is also most relevant given ou r stress o n

contex t and p ragm at~cs .

Toward the end of Chapter 6, and scattered elsewhere in this

volume, there h av e bee n s om e hints tha t this is, ind eed , th e case It isalso generally the anthropological view that in all cultures, material

objects and ar t~ fa ct s re used to organize soclal relations throu gh

forms an d nonverba l comm unica t ion , tha t the in form at~o n nco ded in

artifacts is used for social marking a n d for the c on se q u en t orga niza-

tion of com m unication am o n g pe op le I thus now turn to a c o n s ~ d e r a -

t ion of t h ~ soptc A s usual, how ever, I begin with an apparen tly d ~ff ere nt

topic--the na tu re of "en viro nm en t "The nature of "environment"

I have been discussing meaning in th e environment , but o n e need <;

to as kw ha t is m ea n t by "environment"? In dealing with this qu estion in

a par t~ cu la r ay , I will also ad dr es s th e issue of th e distinction be tw ee n




mea ning an d com mu nication an d, finally, try to relate the se threeterms.

T he re a re different ways of conceptualizing "t he environment,"

which is to o broad a term t o be use d successfully (as are"cu lturen an d

m any others; s e e R a po po rt, 1 9 7 9 a , 1 9 7 9 b , 1 9 7 6 b , 1 9 8 0 b , 1 9 8 0 ~ ) .Different conceptualizations of the term "environment" have beenproposed ( Ittelson , 1 9 6 0 ; Lawton, 19 70 ; Moos, 1 9 7 4 ; Rapoport ,1 9 7 7 ) , all of which d iscuss possible com po ne nt s of this term .

Before discussing these, it can b e suggested tha t the environm ent

can be se en as a series of relationships betw een things an d things,things an d people, a nd people an d p eople. Th ese relationships are

orderly, tha t is, they hav e a pattern a n d a structure-the enviro nm entis not a rand om assemblage of things an d peo ple any m or e than a cul-

tu re is a r an do m a ssem blage of behav iors or beliefs. Both a re guided

by sch em ata t ha t act as templa tes, as it were, organizing both peop le's

lives and th e settings for their lives. In t he ca se of t he en viro nm ent, th erelationships a re primarily, altho ug h not exclusively, spatial-objects

and peo ple a re related through various deg rees of sep aratio n in an d

by space . But when environm ents are being designed, four elementsare being organized (Rapopo rt , 19 77 ):

space

t ime

communication

meaning

T he re is so m e de gre e of ambiguity in the u se of t he term s "com -munication" and "meaning." "Communication" refers to verbal ornonverbal com municat ion among people, while "m eanin g" refers to

nonverbal com munication from the environment to people. However,these terms still seem the best available to describe what is beingdiscussed.

While all environments constitute complex interrelationships am ong

the se fou r elemen ts, it is useful conceptually to sep ar at e th em an d dis-cuss them a s though they were sepa rate, s ince this leads to a better

understanding of th e natu re of environm ents an d th e relationshipsbetween m eaning an d com municat ion. Since, for ou r purposes her e,the relationship between these two is the most important, I will first

briefly discuss spa ce an d tim e (for a m ore com plete discussion, se eRapoport , 1977, 1 9 8 0 ~ ) .



Environment, Meaning, and Communication 179

Organization of space

P l a n n ~ n g n d design o n all scales-from regions to furniture group -

ings-can be see n as th e organization of sp ac e for different purp ose s

and according to different rules, which reflect the activities, values,an d p urp os es of t he individuals or groups do ing th e organizing At th e

sa m e time, spa ce organjzation also reflects ideal ima ges, represen ting

the congru ence (or , in cases where the system ceases to work, the lack

of co ng ruence ) between physical sp ac e an d social space. It is of interest

to n ot e that o n e can describe a great variety of "types" of s pa ce(Rapoport 1970a) This variety and the fact that different groups,

whether cultures or subcultures suc h a s designers an d t h e lay public,"see" an d ev aluate sp ac e differently ma ke a ny definition of spa ce dif-

ficult. Intuitively, how ever, s pac e is the three-dim ens ional extensionof the world around us, the intervals , distances, and relationsh~ps

between people an d peo ple, people an d things, things and things .Sp ac e organization is, th en , th e way in which th es e sepa ration s (an d

linkages) occu r a n d is central in unde rstanding , analyzing, a n d co m -

paring built enviro nm ents.

Organization of time

Pe op le, however, live in time as well as space -the env ironm ent isa lso temporal, an d can , therefore , a lso be see n as the organization of

t i m e reflecting a n d influencing beha vior in time This may be un de r-sto od in at least two m ajor ways, T h e first refers t o large-scale, cogni-

tive structuring of time suc h as linear flow (typical of o u r ow n culture )versus cyclic tim e (m uch m ore typical of man y traditional cultu res);future orientation versus past orientation; th e future as an improve-

m en t o ve r the p ast versus t he future as likely to b e w orse. This influ-ences behavior an d decis ions an d, through those, environment Th us

in India, th e cyclic view of time (a s op p os ed to ou r linear conce ption)

has helped preserve elem ents (plants an d animals, for example) that

otherwise would have disapp eared, an d ha s also helped sh ap e th echara cter of cities (S op he r,1964) In th e cas e of th e United Sta tes an d

Britain, th e respectw e futu re an d past orientations hav e also led tovery different cultural lan dsc ap es (Low enthal. 1968,Lowenthal andPrince, 1964, 1965).

Su ch t ime s tructuring also influences how l ime ~ sv a lu e d nd , hence ,

how finely it is subd ivided Into limits. T hus we advertise w atch es a s




being a ccu rate within o n e secon d a year, w hereas in tradit ional Pueblo

culture, a week was th e sm allest relevant t ime unit (Ortiz , 1 9 7 2 ) .Such

cultural differenc es clearly influence t h e sec on d m ajor way in which

cultural differences in the organization of time can be considered-

th e tem po s an d rhythm s of hu m an activities, that is, th e nu m be r ofev en ts p e r unit time a n d th e distribution of activities in time (d ay a n d

night, w eekday an d rest day, seasonal , sacred a nd profane t imes, and

s o on ) , respectively. Tem pos an d rhythms dis tinguish am on g grou psan d individuals w ho have different temp ora l "signatures" a n d they

may a lso be cong ruen t or incongruent wi th eac h o ther . T hu s peo ple

may be sep arate d in t ime a s well as, or instead of, sp ac e an d gr ou ps

with different rhythms occupying the s am e sp ac e may never m eet .G ro up s with different tem pos may never com mu nicate . G ro up s with

different rhythm s may also be in conflict, a s w he n o n e gro up , in this

cas e the Swiss, regards a part icular t ime as quiet a n d for sleep, a n d

an ot he r group (in this case S o ut he rn Italians) regard it as a t ime for

noise an d boisterous activity (R apo po rt , 1 9 7 7 ) .Cultural conflicts an d

problems may often be m ore sev ere at th e temp oral level than a t the

spatial, although clearly spatial and temporal aspects interact andinfluence o n e ano ther: People live in space -t ime .

Note a lso that many behaviors (nonfixed-feature e lements) tha t are

used to es tablish bou ndaries , asser t or de f in e identity , and so on , are ,

in effect, temp oral , a l thou gh while they ar e happ en ing they n ee d a nd

us e settings an d o the r physical elem ents. This applies to pilgrimages

a n d o the r ritual m ove m ents, carnivals, festivals, an d o th er rites (se e

Rapoport , 1981).O n e exam ple o f this is provided by Scot land, where

periodic, recurrent ceremonial assemblies based on pilgrimages are

used to o rganize th e links betw een urban centers and hinterlands. At

th e sa m e time, however , these a lso nee d se tt ings . T he highland c lan

gatherings use ancestral castles, highland ga m es an "aren a"; lowlandSco ts of t h e southw est use the ch urch , while in the B ord ers ar ea of

lowland Sco tland the town is th e significant setting (Neville, 1 9 7 9 ) .

T hu s the m eaning of thes e e lemen ts dep en ds on the temporal use

they receive-the period ic gatherin gs.

Organization of communication

T h e organization of sp ace an d t ime are both aspe cts of the ge neral

question on e can ask abo ut h um an activities-who d oe s what, includ-

ing or excluding w hom , wh en, an d where-they ar e th e w h e n and

where . T h e who doe s wh at with whom is the organization ofcom-



Environment, Mean ing, and Comm unication 181

rnunication am on g people . W ho com munica tes with wh om , under

what cond it ions, how, when, w here, an d in what co ntext an d si tuation

is an important way in w h ~ c h om m unicat ion a n d the built environ-

m ent ar e re la ted Environm ents both ref lect com m unicat ion a nd

m od ul at e it, ch an ne l it, co ntro l it, facilitate it, inhibit it B oth e nv iro n-m ents a n d co m m un ~c atio n r e culturally variable; th e nature, intensity,

ra te , an d direct ion of interact ion v a y a s d o the sett ings appro priate to

it. Privacy, as a system of ~ n t e r a c t ~ o nn d w ithdrawal, is also relate d to

it-one can study the various individuals a n d gro up s w ho are l inked or

sep arated , the sensory modalities involved, and th e m ech anism s used:

sep aration in s pa ce ; physical dev ices su ch a s walls, do or s, a n d th e like;

organization of t ime; rules; m an ner s; a n d av oid an ce an d psychologi-cal withdrawal (Rapoport, 1 9 7 6 b , 1977).

W e hav e bee n discussing meaning for so m e t ime, bu t it may be use -

ful to res tate th e principal fe atu res of its orga niz atio n, after reiterating

that meaning is communicat ion from the environment to people ,

w hereas com munication, as used here, refers to com munication am on g

people , w hethe r face to face or in other ways.

Organization of meaning

S pa ce organiza t ion , as I have u sed it abo ve, is a m ore fun dam ental

pro perty of th e en viron m ent th an is sh ap e, th e materials that give it

physical expression a n d otherc hara cteristics, which can m or e usefully

be see n as an asp ect of th e organlzat lon of m eanin g T h e organization

of meaning can then be separated from the organization of space,bo th concep tually an d in fact, a s already n ote d

While space organization i tself expresses meaning and has com-

municative propert ies, meaning is often expressed through signs,

materials, colors, forms, sizes, furnishings, landscap ing, m ain tena nc e,

a n d th e like-as we hav e already seen-an d by peo ple them selves

T hu s spatial mea nings can be Indicated by walls o r other sh ar p breaks,

or by grad ients or transitions Th ey ca n b e indicated by sanctity (th epresence of religious sym bols) , by p lanting , by various o bjec ts or

furnishings-of buildings o r urb an spa ce s, by tre at m en t of floor or

gro un d surfaces or level ch an ge s, by th e pre sen ce of particular pe op le,

an d so on-that is, by fixed-, sem ifixed-, a n d nonfix ed-f eatur e ele-

m ents (see Figure 28) .T hu s both spat ia l an d oth er system s of cues m ay identify se t t~ ng s,

which then be co m e indicators of social position, ways of establishinggr ou p or social identity, ways of defining situations a n d h en c e indicat-




-f'of2~

Figure 28

ing expected behavior-but only if the cues are comprehensible a nd

can be dec ode d, a lthough, as I ha ve tried to show , this dec odin g is not

usually too difficult.T he pu rpose of structuring sp ac e an d t ime is to org anize a nd struc-

ture comm unication ( interact ion, avoidance, dom inance, an d so on ),



Environment. Meaning, and Communication 183

a n d this is d o n e partly throug h organizing m eaning. T h e organization

of com mu nication also influences th e organization of t he oth er thre e

variables-in fact, all four interact in many, interesting, an d com plex

ways.

The relationship b etwe enmeaning and commu nication

T h e relationship of th e last two, m ean ing a n d com mu nication, as

aspec ts of the e nviron me nt is our principal them e. T h e argum ent ha s

bee n that m eaning of ten com mun icates th e context (who shouldinteract with w hom , w hen , un der w hat conditions), tha t is, it com-mu nicates how. Meaning, as we h ave se en , also provides information

ab ou t status, lifestyle, ethnicity, a n d oth er variables. Th es e a r e a n

impo rtant part of both t h e context an d th e situation tha t influencescom m unic ation. It do es this in a way we ha ve not yet discussed-the

m ean ing inherent in settings popu lated by particular gro up s a n d of

communicating lifestyle, s tatus, and the l ike has the purpose of

locating people o n e doe s not know in social spa ce an d, throug h t h a t

me chanism , influencing com mu nication.

In this latter connection, an interesting and important question

arises : U nd er what conditions would th e environment be m ore lor ess

important regarding the meanings it provides? Let us pose this

qu es tion in term s of wh en it is less imp or tan t. A nu m ber of conditions

immediately co m es to m ind. For example:

(a ) Environm ental mea nings a r e less imp ortant in small places

wh ere eve ryon e is kno wn , su ch a s in a village, a small com m unity, a naboriginal cam p, or the like. Even in s uc h cases, however, su ch environ-

m ental m ea nin g ma y b e useful. For exa mp le, in th e mill villages in

North Carolina, th e distance from th e mill and topograph ic elevation

com mu nicated perceived distance in statu s betw een overseers' hous esa n d workers' hou ses, which was further reinforced by th e former being

larger , having porches , a n d s o o n (Glass, 1978: 147);yet , the com -munity was small enough for these differences to be known to all.

Similarly, we ha ve s ee n tha t in t h e ev en sm aller M'Buti ca m p, physical

cues , such a s changed entra nce d irec tions, houses turned arou nd, and

th e building of spite fences (Turnbull,1961), re used to indicate shift-

ing communication and interaction patterns. People know which

relationships hav e chan ged, but the se mne mo nics help everyone a nd

certainly help new arrivals or pe op le returning to th e c am p after a nabsen ce to unde rs tand th e current s ituation. However , they ar e cer .




tainly less important than in larger-scale, more complex environ-

ments. This se em s clear on intuitive grounds an d has already been

discussed above ( see a lso Rapopor t, 19 79 a , 19 79 b) .T h e significance

of scale in this con ne ction is beg inning to receive recognition in soc ial

science (se eB e r re m a n , 1 9 7 8 ) ,althoug h it has not been much studiedregarding environm ents. It do es se em clear that cultural homo geneity

is gre ate r in small-scale societies a nd it therefo re follows that the role

of physical e lem ents to locate peop le in social sp ac e can not be as

important as it is in larger-scale situations.

(b) Environmental cue s are less imp ortant whe re there ar e rigid,

known, and widely accepted social hierarchies. Under those con-

ditions comm unicatio n is highly predictable a nd cu es from settings areless imp ortant. S o m e ways of com mu nicatingstatus an d hierarchy are

still ne e d e d , howev er. It th us follows that:

(c) Environmental cues are less important when other cues and

indicators ar e pr es en t a n d work well-accent, clothing, "old sch ool

ties," a n d th e like. An ecdotally, I was o nc e told by a grad uate stude nt

who had been a taxi driver in New York City tha t th e na tu re of brief-

cases a n d atta che c ases provided a set of cue s that helped taxi driverslocate peop le in social sp ac e a n d thus dec ide whether to pick them u p

o r no t.

Given these conditions, one might then conclude that such cues

would be more important in the United States and similar places:

Accents tend to be mainly (althoug h not entirely) regional an d d o not

locate peo ple in social sp ac e; clothing is m ass pro du ce d an d its use is

rather com plex an d nonsystematic; the society is large and complex;cars are available o n credit or can be leased-many peo ple hav e

expe nse accounts . Und er those condi tions, o n e would expect thatenvironm ental indicators would bec om e m or e imp ortant th an else-

where . It is difficult to obtain a h o u se of a certain type w ithou t a s et of

particular educational, occupational, economic, and social charac-teristics, and even m ore difficult to "fake" location-the ne ighborhood

o r a r e a of th e city in which o n e lives. This m ay be a n e nv iron m en tal

equivalent of the differential difficulty of hiding emotions through

nonverbal expression in t h e nonfixed-feature realm.

T he se hypotheses, or guesses, are partly sup porte d by an ecd otalan d personal evidence that in the U nited Sta tes o n e is often ask ed

up on me eting people, "What d o you do?" (which defines educa tion,

occupational status, lifestyle, and possible income) and "Where doyou live?" which help s define th e rest. This receives passing su pp or t in




s o m e of the literature dealing with social ar ea s In cities (s e e Timm s,

1 9 7 1 , J oh n sto n , 1 9 7 1 a , 1 9 7 1 b ; Peach , 1 9 7 5 ). In other words, loca-

tion in physical sp ac e be co m es an indicator of location in social sp ac eAt smaller scales, the presence of people in particular shopping,

recreational, dining, and other settings also locates them in socialspace. Recall , also, that these settings In turn communicate their

character via environmental cues.O nc e th e c ue b ecom es known, and the part icular regulari ties in

given cu ltures un ders tood , this be com es easier. Th ere are also so m ecross-cultural regularities regardin g en vironm en tal quality of residen-

tial areas-a ltitude, views ( i f not of industry), w ater -ed ge location ( i f

nonindustrial), location in ce nt er o r per iphery , th e known status of ana m ed are a (which may be associat ional rather tha n perceptual; seeRapopor t, 1 9 7 7 31-3 2) At the pe rcep tua l level, we have seen re-

pea tedly t h e role of lawns, m ain ten an ce , litter, kinds of hou ses, a ndm any o th er variables. T h e arg um en t implicit in all this is tha t ~f people

can be located in social sp ac e, an d he nc e in a likely context a n d situa-tion, that is, if they can be categorized, this m ake s things m ore pre-

dictable ( o r less unpred ictable) an d o n e is m ore likely to interact withsuch people than ~f they cannot be located in social space and

rem ain "strangers."T h ~ srgum ent , based o n ap rior i groun ds derived from th e evidence

reviewed, receives strong supp ort from a study by Lofland (1 9 7 3 )

Whereas my argument h as dealt mainly, although not exclusively,with residential locations, Lofland's dea ls mainly with public pla ce s

T h e quest ion is how o n e can locate pe op le encoun tered in publicplaces in social sp ace , given that o n e do e s not interact with strang ers,

that is, pe op le wh om o n e canno t s o locate. Lofland argues that in

traditiorlal societies there was a wid e ran ge of cue s, both traditionalan d prescribed by law (recall o u r discussion of su m pt ua ry laws earlier),having to d o with clo th~ ng , airstyles, s ho es, body scars, tatoos an d

decora t ions , and so on tha t have di sappeared. Under those con-

ditions, the re is only on e mechanism available--public settings be com eless public an d m or e gr ou p specific Th es e sett ings provide the con -

texts; by seeing p eop le fre qu ent thes e sett ings, we can locate the m insocial sp ace . He nc e th e proliferation of group-speciflc settings tha ttraditionally were public.

Lofland's hypothesis was tested, although briefly, by a student ofmine (Plwoni, 1 9 7 6 ) . H e co m pare d illustrations a nd descript ionsmainly of m edieval public sp ace s a n d ~d en tifiedhe rather wide rang e




of peo ple w ho were present, accepted , an d involved. H e the n exam ined

a se t of con te m po ra y U.S. public places. It do es see m a s tho ug h the se

places are becoming m ore a nd m ore specialized an d grou p specif ic:

Each o n e provides a set of cue s th at com mu nicates m eanings telling

peo ple to s tay o ut o r enter a nd , to s om e extent , predicts th e kind ofbehaviors to be expected an d appropriate .

Yet the dis tinction may be drawn too acutely and m ad e to o con-

trasting. Although th e cu es ma y be m ore subtle, or not present physi-

cally, most traditional env ironm ents d o provide settings tha t are gr ou p

specific and the character of which is given by physical cues that

remind p eo ple of th e expected behavior, so that they act almost

automatically. O n e exam ple is the men 's sa cre d building in th e S epikRiver are a of New G uinea known a s the Ha us Tamb aran, where

height, sh ap e, dec oration , an d o th er strikingly noticeable differencesclearly distinguish it f rom the surrounding dwell ings (Rapoport ,

1 9 6 9 c : 44; 197910). In fact, m en 's ho us es ar e fou nd all over New

Guinea (Rapoport, 19 8 1 ) , n Afghanistan, India (Singh an d Cha ndh oke ,

1 9 6 6 , 1 9 6 7 ) ,Africa (Fernande z, 1 9 7 7 ),an d elsewhere, an d ar e usually

clearly distinguished from o th er buildings. A m on g Turkish no m ad s,also, men's an d wom en's tents can be fou nd (see Cuisenier , 1 9 7 0 ) ,

thu s helping structure com mu nication ev en th ou gh sex identity is easy

to distinguish w ithout th e ten t or ho use .

Note that in all the se c ase s, while th e difference is noticeable even t o

th e ou tsider, th e com plex of relevant behaviors a n d th e social inter-

actions an d comm unicat ions enco urage d, discouraged, or prevented

ar e culture specific an d can only occur if th e cultural c o de is known.Location, height, size, and decoration d o not indicate, for example,

social sta tus but sexua l a n d ritual differences, ea ch with their ap pro -priate behaviors le arn ed thro ug h enculturation generally an d taug ht

thr ou gh initiation specifically.In A frica generally, we find settings with se ts of cu es t ha t identify

app rop riate behaviors in terms of th e distinction betwee n m en an d

wom en (se e Levin , 1971;F ernandez , 19 77 ) .That these are not con-fined only to preliterate culture c an be see n from a nu m be r of examples

from Anglo-American culture. In many o f the se cases , th e cu es that

indicate th e "belongingness" of ei ther m en o r wo me n may b e v e ysubtle-or ev en nonexistent. In this respect, they a r e v e y similarto th e

traditional exam ples given above . At the s a m e time, they te nd to be

primarily-although no t exclusively-in th e semifixed- (o r nonfixed)feature realms.




T hu s we find in certain a re as of Chic ago an d East Lon do n th at the

dwelling is very m uch th e wom an's dom ain, w here m en feel i l l at eas e

(Suttles, 1968;Young an d Wilmott, 19 6 2 ) .This was mainly kno wn.

but was also indicated by th e pres en ce of c ue s suc h a s lace curtains

an d doilies, furniture covers, an d m any delicate "w hat-nots," whichwere se en a s being at od ds with th e "crude" nature of m en . For me n

there we re othe r settings-such as tavern s a nd pub s, as well a s street

settings, which were much more important parts of their house-sett lement system (see Rapoport , 19 7 7, 198 0a , an d 19 82 ) . In Aus-tralia, traditionally, in hotels the public bar was for men only, andw om en, alo ne or accompanied by m en, drank in " lounges. " This was

known, bu t was also indicated by t he g eneral decor. Bars fronted thestreet, w ere large, cavernou s, tiled, with no seating, noisy, und eco rated

except by beer a n d l iquor advertisements, stressing sports. Th ey h av e

b ee n generally des cribed a s looking like large public urinals. Lo un ge sten de d to be in th e interior , carpe ted, havingchalrs a nd tables, deco ra-

tions-all pro du cing a softer, m or e "feminine," or at least ge nteel,

image. Thus what was known was reinforced by physical cues-by

m nem onics, which were further reinfoiced by th e nonfixed eleme nts.th e purely masculine crow d, their beh avior, noise levels, a n d clothingin th e o n e case , the mixed crowd with v e y d if ferent dress code s an d

very different behav ior an d noise levels in t h e o ther. O n e easily a n d

quickly ad jus ted o ne 's be havior ac cordingly. Kno wing the se things is

important. If o n e is hungry, o n e wa nts to be able easily t o identify aplace to ea t , know t h e price range, type of food, how o n e nee ds to be

dressed, an d how m uch it will cost before o n e wants to know w here toente r. As already sug ges ted, th e succ ess of chain o pe rat ion s is fre-

quen tly a function of the ir grea t predictability; th e tradition in ce rtainplaces of displaying m en us ou tside a n d allowing views into th e estab-

l ishment ar e devices used to co m m unica te the se desired meanings.

T h e forme r m eth od , how ever, is m ore interesting theoretically.T h e effectiveness of these-as of m an y oth er syste m s of cues-

dep end s no t only on ade qua t e r edundancy ( so t ha t cues a r e no ticed ).Their unde rstand ing de p en d s o n predictability, which, in turn, d ep en d s

no t only o n e ncu lturation, but consiste ncy of use. This is possibly th em os t imp ortant characterist ic that m ak es chain op eratio ns successful.

Each t ime a particular sign, roof s ha pe , building s ha pe , a n d s o o n

(McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, Hilton, Heritage

Bank, or whatever) is used to predict fully and successfully the

services, produc ts, behaviors, prices, an d s o on , the cu es reinforce




their predictability a n d h en ce their effectiveness. They b ec om e m or e

suc cessful in prod uc ing beh avio ral invariance-that is, in ter m s of th e

argu m ent earlier o n , in restr ic ting th e ra nge o f acceptable an d app ro-

pria te behaviors (s ee a lso Kot tak, 1 9 7 9 ) . In a se nse, when the lay

public com plains tha t churc hes , pos t offices, banks, and s o on 110

longer look like church es, post offices, o r w hatev er, o n e of th e things

they ar e saying is that the e xpected behav iors are not clear, an d also

that the des igne rs hav e neg lected meaning-particularly users'

meaning .

The above discussion relates to the interaction of meaning and

communication. In many traditional societies, the effectiveness of

subtle cues d ep end s o n their consistency. S o m e examples have alreadybeen given. Co nsider another-am ong th e Bed ouin, th e typical ten t

always has th e s am e divis ions in the sa m e ord er so that o n e knows

where m en , wo m en, and an imals a re loca ted . Ten ts a re a lso ar rangedin sta nd ard ized ways an d, in Israel, face ea st ( = fr on t) . It is of in terest

to note th at wh en m ore perm anen t dwellings are f irst constructed,

they rep eat this order-the s am e sp ac e organization persists.

T h e m en's section (which is also th e gu est roo m ) is further indicatedby other external cues. O n e that I have obs erved is a ch an ge in the

"floor" surface, with sa nd o r other m aterials al tering theR na tura l" tate

of the ground. Note that , parenthetically, frequently one finds the

equat ions men = culture an d w omen =na tur e in various societies. A n

ex am ple already discu ssed is provid ed in th e ca se of urba n ho using in

Ugan da. Here the distinctions between semipublic, private, and hidden

rooms are based o n this basic dis tinction (s ee Kam au, n .d .) an d thenature of these three domains is communicated through physical

cues. Thus semipubl ic spaces, used for enterta ining and men, are

indicated by dec oratio ns, furnishings, an d so on-which also indicate

social status . In fact, inventories of objects an d their ar ra ng em en ts canbe made, and the e lements and arrangements a lso indicate s i t t ing

versus eat ing areas. Private spac es ar e mainly be droo m s a nd , again ,

are indicated by furnishings. Different be dro om s (such as the m asterbe dr oo m ) ar e indicated by th e quality of furniture, its a m ou n t, an d its

cleanliness. H idde n spaces-kitchens, show ers, an d lavatories-are

clearly show n by th e eq uip m en t they c onta in. In th e cas e of a Maya

house-a very small sp ac e, 20 feet by 15 feet-the clea r division into

m en's a n d wom en's d om ain s is indicated b oth by consistent location

within the spa ce a n d by cu es such as hear th and m eta te for wom en

an d al tar for men (see Rapoport , 1979a).Note that in all the se c ase s,




communication and interact ion are great ly influenced by sex dlf-

ferences .

T h e se co nd addi t ional cu e for the m en's /guest part of th e tent used

am on g Bedouin is a h ea p of a she s ( from the f ire used to m ake the

inevi table tea an d coffee or , in so m e cases , th e foo d accom panyinghospitality). In villages or tent clusters, w he re on ly o n e me n's section

serves as a guest room , th is ash h ea p becom es impor tant O ther cues

used a re th e relative o p en n es s of th e sections, the furnishings, the

peop le se en , an d so o n. T h e ash h eap , which indicates "gues t room,"

"intercepts" visitors, tha t is, stran ger s, an d in this way con trols co m -

mun icat ion (see Figure 2 9 )

In this case, as in that of an A borig inator N avah o cam p, th er e is alsoan invisible , but k now n, bo un dary a t whlch o n e ne ed s to wait in o rd er

to b e ad mit ted to th e c am p o r se tt lem ent in the f irst place; com mu nica-

tion is controlled at various places. All of th es e d ep en d o n con sistency

of u se a n d of location within t h e tent an d en cam pm en t. as well as a

know ledge of th e rules regarding b e h a v ~ o r ef ined by the situation

a n d a willingness to follow th es e rules. W ithout all th es e co nd itions,

the system would not work in o rgan izing cornmunicatlon.In th e ca se of a n Anglo-Am erican ho us e, there is a w ho le set of

cues-fence, porch, front doo r, living roo m do or, an d s o on-that

indica tes how far o n e pene t ra tes depe nding o n w ho o n e is; corn-

m unication is controlled (se e, for exam ple, my interp retatio n of

Ha rr ing ton , 1 9 6 5 ; in Ra popor t , 19 7 7 : 20 0 ) . O t he r e xa m ple s c a n be

given, including comparison of fence locations (Rapoport , 1 9 6 9 ~ ;

Ande r s on a nd M oore , 1 9 7 2 )an d m any o the r cues For examp le , t hetraditional Russian house is commonly divided into a "clean" half,

w here g uests ar e recetved, a n d a "dirty" half , w here cooking an d oth er

similar work takes place. The division is indicated by location-the

form er being off th e street, th e latter off th e yard-reinforced by

sepa ra te en t rances, with th e f ron t en trance b e ~ n gurth er stress ed by a

small por ch ; th e "clean" half is als o ind icated by displays of th e famlly's

"bes t goods" (Du nn and D unn , 1 9 6 3 ) . Such sys tems of cues c learlyguide and inf luence communicat ion pat terns . These kinds of cues

generally m ay b e very su btle yet con trol privacy gradients a n d h e n c e

com m unication very effect~v ely, art icularly in ca ses w here t h er e ar e

c l ea r and unambiguous ru l e s , homogeneous populations, clear

hierarchies , an d con sis tent use of the se devices (R apo po rt , 1 9 7 9 a ) .

At a la rg er scale , m eanings can be com rnunicated throu gh m ater ia ls

in very culture-specific ways, whlch, o n ce kno w n, en ab le a n u nd er-




I W O U ~ ~hh(9 OUT pb ~ N L T JEC~~,JCe ( y h n l l Z * q d/ &~~?oPo~T

Figure 29

standing of larger-scale com mu nication patterns. For example, am ongthe B edouin, s ton e or oth er perm anen t materials ar e only used in the

dwell ings replacing tents w hen thes e a re built o n land belonging to th etribe o r su bg ro up of which th e individual in q uestion is a mem be r. In

oth er cases, less du rab le materials ar e used. This then indicates the

relation of individuals to th e grou p. A m on g Bed ouin also, tom bs of

sheikhs or saints are o ften used to establish ownership of land (a s isfou nd , for exam ple , in Wadi Firan in th e Sinai). This role of tom bs is,




o n c e again , culturally specific a n d neithe r intuitively clear n or "leg-

ible" unless o n e knows th e co de . Their importance is, howev er, stressed

thro ug h location, form, an d color (whitewash) as well a s the pres en ce

of offerings, occupational debris , an d s o o n Also, on ce th e c od e is

know n, th e mean ings can be u nd ersto od easily. O n e the n quickly dis-covers that such tombs , am on g the Bedouin g roups in th e southernSinai, act a s mee ting places (show n by having co oking a n d dining

facilities adja cen t, c ook ing utensils, a n d s o on ) that reinforce tribal

identity an d fos ter interaction an d com mun ication am o ng dispersed

an d no m adic groups . Th ese meetings reaffirm the se groups ' mem -

bersh ip in th e tribe a n d their right to use its resou rces; they ar e also

occ asion s for m eeting friends, relatives, a n d visitors from o th er tribes:"T he holy to m b is a very pre cise im age of territorial claims o n th e land

and of the Bedouin's conception of territory as embodied in th e

group" (Marx , 1 9 7 6 :25).As su ch it clearly stru ctures com m unic ation.

Th ese two func tions of to m b s o r shrine s of saints-of marking ow ner-

ship an d structuring interaction and com mu nication-were also found

among the Nubians along the Nile before their relocation in New

Nubia (Fe rnea et al., 1 9 7 3 ) .Note that many of these cues com mu nicate meanings in culture-

specific ways in ord er to structure a n d co ntrol interaction an d co m -

mun ication. Note also tha t th e rules a re social, but th e c ues a re f re-

que ntly physical. W hat they d o, in effect, is to loc ate pe op le in par-ticular settings that a re equ ivalent to p ortions of social sp ac e an d th us

define a context an d a situation a s w e sa w earlier in t h e c ase of offices.

In s o doin g, they ca tego rize peo ple. By categorizing pe o p e in this way,interaction and communication are clearly l imited in some way-

so m e forms of interaction a n d comm unicat ion beco m e inappropriate .

S o m e groups may even be excluded-that is, if the particular form o f

categorization is stigmatization, ther e is n o interaction. B ut th e argu-

m en t is that i f the re is no categorization, interaction is likely to b ec o m e

even less since o n e d o es not interact with strangers (Lofland, 1 9 7 3 ).

I have previously discussed conditions under which physical cuesf ro m the environment may becom e mo re or less impor tant . T he re is

o n e other such condit ion not yet discussed. I have argued e lsewherethat u nd er con ditions of high criticality, physical en vir on m en ts ge n-

erally becom e impor tan t (Rapopor t , 1 9 7 7 ,1 9 7 9 c , 19 80 c , fo rthcom-in g ). This also applies t o th e role of m eanin g in controlling interaction

and communication. A particular form of heightened criticality isenvironmental s tress, and a particular response is what has been



192 THE MEANING OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMEN T

called defensive s tructuring (Siegel,1970).O n e of th e characteristicsof this particular respo ns e is th e gr ea terr elia nc e on particular environ-

men tal cue s that indicate identity a n d thus h elp chann el comm unica-

tion processes.

Consider two examples am on g the many available ( for others , andm ore details, se e Rapoport , 1981). m on g the Maori in New Ze aland,

m any traditional cultural elemen ts have bec om e co nde nsed or con-

centrated in a space , the Marae , th e im portan ce of which h as beenlittle noticed by whites precisely because it is a space rather than abuilding o r object. It is a sp atial-sym bolic realm , a spatial expression of

a n imp ortant set of cognitive dom ains, categories, an d e lem ents of th e

culture, a "rem nan t m icrocosm of traditional culture" (Austin, 1 9 7 6 ) .It also provides the app ropr iate sett ing f o r a rang e of critically impor-

tant behaviors, a m on g them rituals , ritual meals, an d meetings a m on gvarious groups . The M a r a e a re se en as "symbols of M aoritanga

(Maoriness),""of being a Maori," s o that "to be a Maori m ea ns to havea h o m e Marae" (Austin, 1 9 7 6 : 2 38 -2 3 9 ). Increasingly, Maori ar e

calling for the provision of Marae , with their accom pany ing gateways,

meeting houses, and dining halls , in urban areas where they canbec om e indicators of Maori identity an d focal points. O n e could ev en

predict that in time, if no impediments are placed in their way bygo ve rnm en t policy, Maori would ten d increasingly t o con ce ntra te in

specific urban neigh borh oods, lea ding t o th e dev elopm ent of specificinstitutions an d othe r forms. While the se an d many othe r semifixed-

a n d n onfixe d-feature elemen ts will all help to express an d maintain

ethnic identity, th e M a r a e see m s to b e th e single most important, coreelem en t. It sho uld be stres sed th at it plays a role in structuring inter-action a n d com mu nication in two domains-among Maori an d be-

tween M aori a n d nowM aori.

Am ong th e M ayo Indians of So no ra, Mexico, a num ber of elementsare also used to define the ethnic identity of th e group: the settlem entpattern, churches, cem eteries, an d others. T h e key elements, however,

ar e th e ho us e crosse s tha t identify Mayo dwellings ( a s well a s oth er

crosses tha t m ark boundaries an d important s ites o r settings). T he secrosses a n d th e sac red p aths linking the m , which are used for periodicritual m ovem ent, ar e th e strongest indicators an d definers of ethnic

identity am on g that group (Crumrine, 1964, 1 9 7 7 ) . In effect, theylocate people in social space and, in this way, clearly influence the

ex tent an d form s of com m un icatio n a t th e highest level of generality ofgrou p m em bers versus n on-g roup m emb ers, that is , us versus them. It



Environment. Meaning, and Communication 193

has been argued, in fact, that this is a primary function of culturege ne rally Th rou gh this distinction, culture both preve nts (o r limits)an d encourages communication -the former am on g groups, the secon d

within groups.

It will be no ted tha t after discussing th e role of public sp ac es (whichar e stressed by L ofland, 1973), retu rne d to exam ples of residentialsett ings (al though a s part of the hou se-se tt lem ent system). This is

be ca us e it se em s tha t in cities, th e m ost im por tant way of locating

pe op le in social sp ace is thr ou gh w here th ey live: their neig hb orh oo d,

address, associational an d percep tual characteristics of the a rea , street,

house, garden, an d other elem ents all comm unicate and locate people

in social space.I will thus c onc lude this ar gum ent with a n exam ple from C an ad a dis-

cussed in so m e detail. In this study, interaction (th at is, com m un ica-

t ion) was compared in detached houses and apartment bui ldings

(Reed ,1974).T h e finding w as th at, counterintuitively, interaction wa sh ~ g h e rn ho use s. At this poin t, I d o n ot wish t o discuss th e validity of

this finding or th e su pp ort it might receive from o th er studies. Wh at Iwish t o d o is to accept the f inding, a n d com par e th e rea sons given toth e argum ent of th is mo nograp h.

Five sets of re aso ns a re given fo r th e h igher levels of interaction a n d

communication in detached dwellings, which can be described (in

so m ew ha t modified form ) a s follows:

( I ) the physlcal structure or layout of the residential type

(2) the symbolic (better, commun~cative) spects of the residential units(3) the relative homogeneity or heterogeneity of the respective populations(4) the nature of the information control provided by the respective units(5) the mobility of the respective populations and the~rength of res~dence

I will now interpret these findings in term s of so m e of o u r discussion.

O n e can a rg ue that , with th e ex ception of point 1,all of th em relate

to my argument . O n e can further argu e that (a) even the first pointlea ds to higher probabilities of ch an ce e nc ou nte rs, that is, we a re de al-ing with a direct effect of t h e sp ac e organization o n organ ization of

comm unicat ion, an d (b) several of the othe rs d ep en d o n t h e particularform of hous ing a n d its spatial organ ization. T h e oth er points all repre-

sen t mo re lndirect effects an d can be u nde rstoo d in term s of t h e dis-tinction be twee n wan ted an d unw anted interaction, that is, in term s of

pnvacy defined as the control of unwan ted interaction ( se e Rapoport ,



194 THE M E A N IN G O F THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

1 9 7 6 b , 1 9 7 7 ) . Let us exam ine the remaining four reasons in som e-

wha t m or e detail .

(2) If , in ord er to interact with people, o n e nee ds to locate the m in

social space , then it follows that o n e nee ds information a bo ut people.

Location an d t h e n ature o f the residential s tructure, th e quality ofstreets , a n d oth er associational an d perceptual cue s already discussed

allow some general inferences to be made. In addition, however,

ho us es also allow persona lization, th at is, th e m anipulation of a large

number of cues in the semifixed realm that communicate specific

information ab ou t people-their prefe rence s, status, lifestyles, a n d s o

o n. In ap art m en ts, which a re identical an d h av e little or n o possibility

of pers onaliz atio n, this information is lacking. This could be o ve rc om epartially if th e popu lation we re highly ho m og ene ou s, but this is wh ere

the next poin t c om es in .

(3) It is found that apar tments tend t o ho use m or e heterogeneous

populat ions tha n d o groups of houses . This makes peop le in the m not

only less identifiable by physic alcues, but also less predictable socially.T h es e two also interact-one way of judging the hom oge neity of a

population is precisely through semifixed-feature elements-main-tainance, lawns, personalization, planting, colors, and so on-par-

titularly if they add up to a recognizable character, that is , are notrandom.

(4) In ap ar tm ents , d u e t o the form of the s pa ce organization (point

1)a n d particularly th e lack of co m m on o p e n sp ac e, it is m o re difficult

to obse rve t he comings a n d goings of pe op le t o specific dwellings-of

visitors , deliveries, time s pe nt o n m ainte na nce an d gardening, t imesp en t o n recreation-and th e forms of recreation. T he re is th us dif-ficulty in judging lifestyles,a n d he nc e th e location of pe op le in social

spa ce again bec om es m ore difficult-a problem com po un de d by the

greater heterogeneity, or diversity o f lifestyles. This lack of visualinformation ab ou t how to place peop le in social space is co m po un de d

by the reverse p he no m en on in othe r sensory modalities: In ap artm ents

it is m o re difficult to co ntro l unw an ted inform ation th ro ug h olfactoryan d a ural chann els . As a result, unw anted information may be com -

municated that might be embarrassing. This further inhibits inter-

action . T h u s it is th e control over th e cues that see m s signif icant: On e

might almost say tha t while hou ses allow "front" meanings, apartm en tsreveal "back" m eanings.

Since the com municat ion of m eanin g through en vironmental an doth er cu es is a n asp ect of th e ma na ge m en t of th e flow of inform ation,




we are generally discussing fron t rath er than back behavior. Many of

th e e xam ples of th e negative identity (stigma) attributed t o pe op le via

enviro nm ental cu es (for ex am ple , th e definition of slums) is frequentlyrelated to frontlback reversals, s o that m eanings culturally defined as

inappropriate by th e receiving grou p ar e pres ent.(5) T h e high rate of mobility in apa rtm en ts m ea ns no t only greater

uncertainty ab ou t w ho p eo pl e are , an d thu s g reate r unpredictabil ity; it

also m ea ns th at th er e 1s less opp ortunity both to establish informal

normative structure and to maintain it by the socialization of new-

com ers through sanct ions.

Gen erally, the n, four of thes e f ive points (a nd many ar e related to

the first) ar e d u e t o m eanings being co m mu nicated, mainly by semifixedand nonfixed elements, which then influence interaction, that is,

comm unication-which is, of cours e, w he re we ca m e in.



CONCLUSION

W hat se em s significant abo ut this last exa mple, th e m any othe rs

given, an d still oth ers tha t could h av e be en used, but w ere not, is tha tsuddenly a considerable num ber of things fit into place . A large frame-

work begins to em erge, linking many apparently diverse and unrelated

con cep ts, theo ries, disciplines, an d findings, which w as, in fact, o n e ofth e objectives describe d in th e preface. In fact, this fram ew ork beginsto predict things tha t existing empirical studies confirm. Clearly, studies

specifically set u p to test predictions, a nd t o study this whole a pp ro ac h,would prov e even m ore useful.

O n e different way of con ceptua lizing s o m e of th e a rgu m en ts in thism on og rap h is as follows:

Percep t ua l*

AssociationatnoticeabIe differences (reinforced th e decodlng of the m eaning of

by red un da nc y) tha t In thems elves eleme nts, their associations with

have s om e signif icance a n d m ean - use a n d behavior, derlved partly

ing by dr awing at tent ion to them- from consistent use, partly from

selves throu gh contrast a n d th e cultural rules associa ted with

thro ug h th e selection of which set tings, tha t is, th e contex t an d

cues a r e m ad e not iceable . th e s itua tion

def~ni t ionof th e set ting , the mne monic

functions of which activate subroutines for

cultural ly ap pro pria te, m or e or less routin-

]zed behav i or , i nc l ud ~n gh e location of

people In soc ia l spa ce an d hen ce com mun l -

c a t ~ o n , enc e the importance of th e built

environment a n d ~ t sarly a ppe ara nce int h e d e v e lo p m e n t of t he hum an spec ies

197




Clearly , the goal has b een to set ou t th is a pproach an d f ramework a sclearly a n d succinctly as possible. As a result, I hav e left out m uch, a nd

simplified conside rably . Yet I ho pe the utility of th e ap proa ch has b eendem onst ra te d . Its utility, in my view, is twofold. First, it is specific.This

h as t o d o with th e relative simplicity of using t he non verba l com -munication model. In fact, the very criticism occasionally leveled

against no nv erb al com m un icatio n research-that it lacks theory, isoverly simple, an d so on-is, in so m e ways, a n advantage. It ap pro ach es

suc h behavior in th e f irst instance th roug h observation, recording, an d

the n analysis. It is th us relatively sim ple a n d straigh tforward t o use . It is

also relatively easy to transfer th e a pp ro ac h fro m purely nonfixed-

fea tur e elements to semifixed- an d f ixed-feature elements. At thesa m e time, the re is sufficient theory , both in n onv erbal com m unica-

tion an d m an-env ironm ent s tudies , to enable conceptual s t ructures to

develop. It is also a n ap pr oa ch that lends i tself to com parative an d

cross-cultural approaches and that makes i t easier to broaden the

sa m ple by using historical, archaeological, and eth nograph ic material.

For ex am ple, o n c e a g ro up a n d its profile in te rm s of lifestyle a n d

environmental quali ty preferences have been established, one canfreque ntly define the group's activity system s an d th e system s of set-

tings, dom ains, an d s o on that accom m odate them . Through observa-

tion a n d analysis of the se settings a n d th e behaviors occurring in the m

(wh o do es what , where, when , a nd including o r excluding whom ), the

relev an t cu e s c an q ~ c k l y e discovered and understood. They can

then be provided or it can b e m ad e easy for the grou p to provide the se

fo r themselves. O n e could study th e pe rcentage of sett ings with grea tpredictability in eith er satisfactorily o r unsatisfactorily com m un ica ting

both th e exp ected beh avior an d i ts permitted rang e or lat itude.Se con d, the utility of his app roac h isgeneral . This has to d o with the

fac t tha t it fits into th e way o f thinking d escribed in t he preface. This

ap pr oa ch , which is basically hu m anistic, ha s t o d o with all pro du cts of

hu m an culture. Its me tho d is interpretive, being base d o n the work of

m any o thers. O n e thus uses m any small pieces of information fromdiverse so urc es to show how th ey interrelate, o r how different fields

a n d disciplines interrelate, revealing unsuspected connections. Th us

o n e can build f ramew orks an d conceptual m odels that se em valid

cross-culturally and historically and thus help relate primitive,vernacular , and high-style environments, tradit ional and modern

examples.



REFERENCES

Aaronson K S (1 97 0 ) "S om e affectlve stereotypes of colo r" lnternatlonal Journ al of

Symbology 2 (August) 1 5 - 2 8

Ab raham son, M (1 96 6) Interpersonal Accomm odation New York Van Nostrand

Relnhold

Ahlbrandt, R S a n d P C Brophy (19 76 ) "M anagem ent an Important elemen t of the

houslng environm ent" Envlronment an d Behavlor 8 (Decem ber ) 50 5- 52 6Anderson, E N (1 9 7 2) "On t he folk art of lan dsca ping " W estern Folklore 31 (July)

1 7 9 - 1 8 8

Anderson, J R and C K M oore (1 9 7 2 ) "A study of object la ng ua ge In residentla1

areas " (mimeo)

Appleyard, D and R Y Okamoto (19 68) Environmental Cr~te r laor Ideal Trgnsporta-

tlon Sy stems Berkeley In st ~ tu te f Urban and Regtonal Dev elopm ent, Unlversity

of C,illfornia

Architects ,Journal (1 97 9) "Martlesham He ath selling th e village ima ge" Vol 1 7 0

(S ep tem be r ) 485-503Archltec tura l Record (19 79 ) Vol 1 6 6 (September) 1 2 6 -1 2 9

Archltectural Revcew (1 97 6 ) Vol 1 5 9 (February)

Argyle, M (1 96 7) T he Psychology of Interpersonal Be ha v~ orNew York Penguln--- nd R Ingham (1 97 2) "Gaze, mutual gaze and proximity " Semlutlca 6, 1

1 9 - 3 2

Austln, M R (1 97 6) "A description of the Maorl Marae." p p 22 9- 2 41 In A Rapopori(ed ) Th e Mutual Interaction of Pe ople an d Thew Rullt Envlronmen t Th e Hag ue

MoutonBachelard, G (1 96 9) Th e Poetlcs of Sp ac e Boston Beacon

Backler, A L ( 1 9 7 4 ) A Behaworal Study of Locational Changes In Upper Clas,

Resldentlal Areas T h e Detrolt Exam ple Bloomington De partm ent of Ge ogra phy ,

Indiana University

Barker, R G (1 968) Ecological Psychology Palo Alto, CA. Stanfo rd Un~versityPress

Barkow, J H (1 97 5) "Prestige and culture-a b~os ocral~nte rpre ta t ion Cur rent

Anthropology 1 6 (December ) 55 3- 57 2

Barnett , P M (19 75 ) "The Worcester three-decker a study in th e pe rc ep t~ on f form "

Deslgn and Envcronment 6 (Winter)




Barnett, R. (1 97 7) "The l ibertarian sub urb: deliberate disorder." Lan dscap e 22

(Summer): 44 -48 .

Barth, F. (1 96 9) Ethnic Gr oups and Boundaries. Boston: Lit tle, Brown.

Barthes, R. (19 70 ) Elements of Semiology. Boston: Beaco n.--- 19 70 -1 97 1) "Semiologie et urbanisme." Architecture d 'Aujourd 'hui 4 2

(Decemb er / J an u ay ) : 1 1 -1 3 .

Basso, K. H. an d H. A. Selby [eds.] (1 97 6) Meaning in A nthropology. Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press.

Bates, E. (1 9 7 6 ) La ngu age a nd C ontext: Th e Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York:

Academic.

Baudrillard, J. (1968) Le Systhme des Objects. Paris: Denael/Gonthier.

Beck, R. J. an d P. Teas dale (1 7 7 ) User G ene rate d Program for Lowrise Multiple Dwell-

ing Housing: S u m m a y of a R esearch Project. Montreal: Centre d e Recherches et

d'lnnovation Urbaines, U niversitL de Montrdal.Becker, F. D. (1 97 7 ) User Participation. Personalization and Environm ental Meaning:

Th re e Field Studies. Ithaca, NY: Program in Urban an d R egional Stud ies. Cornell

University.

Beckley. R. M. (19 77) AC om par ison of MiIwaukee'sCentral City Residential Areas an d

Co ntem por ary Dev elopme nt Stan dar ds: An Exploration of Issues Related t o Bring-ing the Area Up to "Standard." Milwaukee: Urban Research Center, University

of Wisconsin.

Berlin, B. an d P. Kay (1 9 6 9 ) Basic Co lor Terms: Their U niversality a nd Evolution.

Berkeley: University of California Press.Bermant , C. an d M. Weitzman (1 9 7 9 ) Ebla: A Revelation in Archaeology. N ew York:

Times Books.

Bernstein, B. (1 97 1) Class, C od es a nd Control , Vol. 1: Theoretical Studies Towards a

Sociology of Language, Lo ndon: Rout ledge & Kegan Paul.

Berreman , G . D. (19 78 ) "Scale a nd social relations." Current A nthropology 1 9 (June ):

2 2 5 - 2 4 5 .

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1 9 7 0 ) "Kinesics," pp . 37 9 - 3 8 5 in D. Sills (ed.) International

Encyclopedia of t h e Social Scienc es, Vol.8.

ew York: Macmillan.--- 1 97 2) Kinesics a n d Contex t. Philadelphia: University of Pen nsylvania Press.

Birenbau m, A. an d E. Sagarin [eds.] (1 9 7 3 ) Pe ople in Places: Th e Sociology of the

Familiar. New York: Praeger.

Blanch, R. J . (1 97 2) "The origins an d use of medieval color symbolism." International

Journa l of Symbology 3 (D ecem ber): 1- 5.

Blanton, R. E. ( 1 9 7 8 )MonteAlb6n: Sett lement Pattern sat the Ancient ZapotecCapital .

New York: Aca dem ic.

Blomeyer, G . ( 1 9 7 9 )"Architecture as a political sign system." In terna tional Architect 1 ,

1 : 5 4 -6 0 .Blumer, H. (1 96 9 a ) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Me thod. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.--- 1 9 6 9 b )"Fashion : from clas s differentiation to collective selec tion." Sociolog ical

Quarterly (Summer):2 7 5 - 2 9 1 .Bonta, J . P. (1 97 3) "Notes for a theory of me aning in design." Vs. Qu adern i d e Studi

Semiotici 6 : 26-58.--- 1 9 7 5 ) An A natom y of Architectural Inter pretatio n: A Sem iotic Review of th e

Criticism of M ies Van Der Rohe's Ba rcelon a Pavilion. Barcelona: G us tav o Gili.




Cowburn, W. (1 9 6 6 ) "Pop ular housing." Arena: Jour na l of the Architectural Associa-

tion of Londo n (Septem ber/Oc tober) .

Craik, K. H. an d E. H . Zube [eds.] (1 9 7 6) Perceiving Environm ental Quality. New

York: Plenum.

Crowe, J . (1 97 9) Close to Death. New York: Dodd , Mead.

Crum rine. N. R. (1 9 6 4) T he Ho use C ross of the Mayo Indians of So no ra , Mexico: A

Sym bol of E thnic Identity. Anthropology Pa pe r 8.Tucson: University of Arizona.--- 1 9 77 ) T h e Mayo Indians o f So no ra . Tu cso n: University of Arizona Press.

~ u i s e n i e r , . 19 7 0 ) "Un e tente turque d 'Anatol ie centrale." L'Homme 1 0 (Apr i l l June) :

5 9 - 7 2 .

Cunn ingham, C . E. ( 1 9 7 3 ) " O r d er in the Atoni house," pp. 20 4 -2 3 8 in R. Ne edha m

(ed .) Right a nd Left. Ch icago : University o f Chic ago Press.

Daniel. T. C, et al. (n. d.)"Qu antitative eva luation of lan dsca pes: a n application of signal

detection analysis to forest management alternatives." (rnimeo)da Rocha Filho, J . (1 97 9) "Architectural m eaning: th e built environm ent as an e xpres-

sion of social values and relations." Master's thesis, University of Wisconsin-

Milwaukee.

Darwin, C. (1 5 7 2 ) T h e Expression of the Em otions in Man a nd Animals. Lo ndon:

<JohnMurray.

Davis, G. an d K. oizen (1 9 7 0 ) "Architectural d eterm inants of s tud en t satisfaction in

college residence halls." pp. 28-44 in J . Archea an d C . Eastman (eds.) EDRA 2.

Pittsburgh: Carnegie.Mellon University.

Davis. M. [ed.] (1972) Und erstanding B ody Move men t: An Annotated Bibliography.New Y ork: Arn o.

Deetz, J. ( 1 9 6 8 )"Cultural patterning of behavior as reflected by archaeological materials,"

p p 3 1- 3 2 in K. C. Ch an g (ed.) Set t lem ent Archaeology. Palo Alto, CA : National

Press.

DeLong , A . 5. ( 1 9 7 0 )"D om inan cein territorialrelationsin asm all group." Environm ent

and Behavior 2 ( Sep temb er ): 1 7 0 - 1 9 1 .--- 19 74 ) "Kinesic signals at uttera nce bou ndarie s in preschool children." Semiotics

1 1 , 1 .--- 1 97 8 ) "Context, structures an d relationships," p p. 1 8 7 -2 1 4 in A. H. Esser an d

6. reen bie (ed s.) Designing for Comrnunality a nd Privacy. New York: Plenum .

Desor, J. A. (1 9 7 2 ) "To wa rds a psychological theory of crowding." Jo urn al of P er-

sonali ty a nd Social Psychology 2 1, 1 : 79 -8 3.

Di Matteo, M. R. (1 9 7 9 ) "A social-psychological analysis of phy sician-p atient rapp ort:

toward a scie nce of th e art of m edicine." Jou rnal of Social Issues 35 , 1: 12 -3 3 .

Douglas, M. (19 72 )"Symbolicorders in th eu se of dom est icspac e," pp. 5 1 3 -5 2 2 in P. J.

Ucko e t al . (eds.) Man, Set t lem ent an d Urbanism. Londo n: Duckworth.--- 19 7 3 a) Natural Sym bols. New York: Vintage.--- ed.] (1 97 3b ) Rules an d Meanings. New York: Penguin.--- 19 74 ) "Deciphering a meal," pp . 61 -8 1 in C. Gee rtz (ed.) Myth, Symbol a nd

Culture. New York: W. W. Norton.--- 19 7 5 ) Implicit M eanings: Essays in A nthropology. Lon don : Routledge &

Kegan Paul.--- nd Baro n Isherwood ( 19 79 ) T he W orld of Go ods. New York: Basic Books.

Duffy, F. ( 1 9 6 9 )"Role a n d s tatus in the office." Architectural Association Quarterly 1 , 4 :

4 - 1 4 .



References 203

and J F reedman (1 97 0) Pa t te rns and sem~ology ," p 60 -7 2 in H Sanoff an d S

Cohn ( e ds ) EDRA 1 C ha pe l Hill, NC EDRA

Duncan , H D 1 9 6 8 ) Sym bols In Soclety Lo ndo n Oxford Unlverslty Press

Duncan , J S (1 9 73 ) "Lan dscape taste as a symbol of grou p identity" Geographical

Revlew 6 3 (J uly ) 3 34 -3 55--- 197 6) "Landscdpe and the communicat ionof social ldentlty " p p 3 9 1 - 4 0 1 ~nA

Rapoport (ed ) T he M utual Interaction of Peo ple an d Thelr Built Environment The

Hague Mouton--- n d N G Du ncan (1 97 6 ) "Social worlds, s tatus passage and environmental

perspectlves," pp 2 0 6 -2 1 3 In G T Moore and R G Colledge (eds ) Env~ronme n t a l

Knowlng Stroudsburg. PA Do wde n, Hutchlnson & Ross

Duncan, S (1 96 9) "Nonverbal communication " Psychological Bulletin 7 2 (August)

1 1 8 - 1 3 7

Dunn, S P an d E Dunn (1 9 6 3) The great R us s~ an easant culture change or rultura ldeve lopment " Ethnology 2

Dunster, D (1 97 6) "Slgn language " Architectural Design 4 6 (November) 66 7- 66 9

Eco, U (1 9 7 2 ) "A com pon entia l analysis of t he architectural slgn " Semlotlca 2 4 97 -

1 1 7--- 1 9 7 3 )"Function a nd slgn semlotlcs of architecture," p p 1 3 0 - 1 5 3 , 2 0 0 - 2 0 3 n

J B y a n and R Sauer (e d s ) S truc tures lmpllclt and E xp l~ c~ to l 2 P h ~ l a d e l p h ~ a

Falcon--- 197 6) A Theory of S em ~o t ic sBloomlngton Indiana University Press

Efron, D (194 1) G es tu re a nd Environment New York Klng's Crow n (New edition,

1 9 71 Ges ture , Race and Cul ture Th e Hagu e Mouton )

Eibl-Elbesfeld,1 (1 7 0 ) Ethology Th eRio logy of Behav lor New York I-Iolt. Rine hart &

W ~ n s t o n

(1 9 72 ) "Sim~larlties nd dlfferences between cultures In expressive movements,"

In R A Hin de (e d ) Nonverba l Comm un~ca t lon Cambridge C am br ~ dg e n lver -

slty Press

(1 9 79 ) "Slmllar~ties nd dlfferences between cultures In expresstve m ovements,"

pp 3 7 - 4 8 In S Weltz (ed ) Nonverba l Com mu n~ca t lonNew York Oxford Unlver-slty Press

Elchler, E P a nd M K a pla n (1967 ) Th e Community Bullders Berkeley University of

Cal~fornrdPress

Eldt, R C (1 97 1) Ploneer Sett leme nt in Northeast Argentlna M ad ~ so nUnlverslty of

Wisconsin Press

Ekman, P (19 57 ) "A methodological d~ scu sslo n f nonverbal behavlor " Journal of

Psy ch olog y 4 3 1 4 1 - 1 4 9--- 1 9 6 5 )"Differential c om m un ~c ati on of ffect by head an d body cues " Journalof

Person,i l~ty nd Soctal Psychology 2 , 2 7 2 6 - 7 3 5--- 1 9 7 0 ) "Universal facial expressrons of emotion" California Mental Health

Research Dlgest 8 ( A u t u m n ) 1 5 1 - 1 5 8--- 1 9 7 2 ) "Universals an d cultural diffe ren ces n faclal exp re ss~ on s f emotion," in

J Co le ( e d ) Nebraska S ym po s~ um n Motivation Lincoln Unrverslty of Nebraska

Press--- 19 76 ) "Movem ents with precise meanings." Jou rna l of Com mu nication 2 6

(S umme r) : 14 -26 .



204 THE MEANING OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT--- 19 77 ) "Biological an d cultural contributions to body an d facial mov eme nt," pp .

3 9 - 8 4 in J . Blacking (ed .) Th e Anthropology of t he Body. Lon don : Academic.--- 1 9 7 8 )"Facial signs: facts, fantasies an d possibilit ies," pp. 1 2 4 - 1 5 6 n T. S e b e o k

(ed .) Sight , So un d an d Sen se. Bloomington: Indiana Universi ty Press.--- nd W. V. Friesen (1 96 7) "H ead an d body cues in the judgement of emotion: a

reformulation." Perceptual an d Motor Skills 24 : 7 1 1 - 7 2 4 .--- 19 68 ) "Nonverbal behavior in psyc hothe rapy research." Research in Psy-

c h o th e r ap y 3 : 1 7 9 - 2 16.--- 19 69 a ) "Nonve rba l l e akage and c lues to decep tion ." P sych ia ty 3 2 (F ebr uay ) :

8 8 - 1 0 5 .--- 196910) "T he repertoire o f non-verb al behavio r: categories, origins, usage an d

coding." Semiotica 1,1:4 9 - 9 8 .--- 19 71 ) "Constants across cu l tures in the face and emot ion ." Jou rna l of Per-

sona li ty a nd Social Psychology 1 7 , 2 : 1 2 4- 12 9.--- 19 72 ) "H and movements." Jo urn a l of Comm unica t ion 22 (December): 353-

3 7 4 .--- 1 9 7 4 a )"Nonverba l behavior an d psychopathology," pp . 20 3 -2 32 in R. J . Fried-

m a n a n d M . M. Katz (ed. )ThePsycho logy o f Depression: C on tempora ry Theo ryand

Research . Washington , DC: Winston & Sons .--- 1 9 7 4 b )"Detect ing deception f rom he body o r face." Jo ur na l of Personality a nd

Social Psychology 2 9 . 3: 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 .--- 1 9 7 5 ) Unmasking th e Fa ce. Englewood Cliffs , NJ: Prentice-Hall .--- 19 76 ) "Measuring facial movement." Environmental Psychology an d Non -

verbal Behavior 1 (Fa ll ): 56 -7 5 .--- nd P. Ellsworth ( 1 9 7 2 ) Em otion in t he H um an Face . New York : Pe rgamon .

Ekman P., W. V. Friesen, an d K. R. Sche re r (197 6) "Body mov emen t andv o ice p i tch in

deceptive interaction." Semiotica 16, 1:2 3 - 3 7 .

Ekm an, P . , W. V. Friesen, an d S.S. T o m ki ns ( 1 9 7 1 )"Facial affect scoring tech niq ue: a

first validity study." Sem iotica 3 , 1: 3 7 - 5 8 .

Ekm an, P . , E. R. Soren son , and W. V. Friesen (1 9 69 ) "Pan-cultural elem ents in facial

displays of emotion." S cience 1 6 4 (Apri l) : 8 6 -8 8 ,

El Guind i, F. a n d H. A. Selby (1 97 6) "Dialect ics in Zapo tec thinking." pp , 18 1 - 1 9 6 n K.H. Basso and H. A. Selby (eds.)Mean ing in Anthropology. A lbu que rqu e: University

of N ew M exico Pres s.

Ellis, W. R., Jr . ( 1 9 7 2 ) "Planning, design a nd black comlnunity style: the problem of

occasio n-ade quate space," in W. Mitchell ( e d ) Environmental Design: Res earch

an d Pract ice (EDRA 3).1.0s Angeles: University of California, Los Ar~geles.--- 19 74 ) "Th e enviro nm ent of h um an rela tions: perspectives an d problems."

,Journal of Architectural E ducation 2 7 (J un e) : 1 1 f .

Erm uth, F. (1 97 4) Satisfact ion a nd Urban Environmental Preferences. Downsview,

On tario: A tkins on Co llege , York Univt?rsily.

Esber , G . S. (1 97 2) "Indian hous ing fo r Ind ians. " The Kiva 3 7 (Spr ing ): 14 1- 14 7

Fathy, ) I . (1 9 7 3 ) Architecture for th e P oor. C hicago: Universi ty of Chic ago Press.

Fauque . R. (1 97 3) "Pour une nouvel le npprochc semiologique d e la ville." Es pa ce s et

S o c i e t t s 9 (July): 15-27.

Fernandez , J .W.1 9 7 1 ) "Persuasions an d perfo rma nces: of th e beast in everybody . .and the me taphors of every marl," pp. 39-60 in C. Ceer tz (ed . )Myth, Symbol and

Culture New York. W W Norton.



References 205

--- 1 9 7 4 )"T he mlsslon of m etap hor ~nexpressive culture " Curre nt Anthropology

1 5 ( Ju ne ) 1 1 9 - 1 4 5

- - (1977) fa n g Archltectonlcs W or k~ ng aper 1 Ph ~ l ad e l p h l aInstitute for the

Study of Human Issues

Ferne a, R A et al (19 7 3 ) N u b ~ a n sn Egypt Austln [Jnlvers ~ty f T ex as PressFlrey, W (1 96 1) "S en t~ m en t nd symbolism as ecologicdl variables," p p 2 5 3 - 2 6 1 in

G A The odorso n ( e d ) Studles In Hu ma n Ecology Evanston, IL Row Peterson

Flr.th, R W (19 7 3 ) Sym bols Public an d Prlvdte lthaca NY Cornell University Press

Flclnney, K V (1 97 6) "Contextual analysls of r itual parap hernal ia fro m form at~ ve

Oaxaca " p p 3 3 3 - 3 4 4 in K V Flannery (ed ) T he Early Mesoamerican Village New

York Academlc

Fleming, A (19 72 ) "Vls lon and deslgn approaches to ce re m on ~a lm o n u m e n t

typology" Man 7, 1 5 7 - 7 3

Foddy, W H (1 97 7) "Th e use of com mo n res ~d en tial rea ope n spac e In Austral la "Ekis tics 4 3 (February) 8 1 -8 3

Fox R (1 97 0) "Th e cultural anlmal " En co un te r 3 5 (July ) 3 4 - 4 2

Francescato, G et al (1 9 7 9 ) Restdents' Satlsfactlon In HUD-A sslsted Ho usrng Deslgn

and Management Factors Washtngton. DC U S Depar tmen t of Hous ing and

Urban Development

Fxederlksen, N (1 97 4) "Toward a taxonomy of s~ tu at ~o ns ."p 29 -44 In R H Moos and

P M Insel (e ds ) Issues In Social Ecology H u m a n M ll~e usPalo Alto , CA N at~ on al

Press

F r ~ e d m a n ,H S (1 97 9) "Nonverbal communlcat lon between pattents and m ed ~c alpractit~oners Journal of Social Issues 35 1 8 2 - 9 9

Geer tz , C (19 66 a) Person. Tlme an d Cond uct In Ball New Ha ven, CT Yale Unl-

verslty Press

( 1 9 6 6 b )"Rellgron as a cultural system," pp 1 - 4 6 n M Banton ( e d ) Anthropolog-

lcal Ap pro ach es to the S tudy of Religlon New York Pra ege r

[ed ] (1 97 1) Myth, Symbol an d Culture New York W W Norton

Ghosh , I3 an d K C Mago (19 74 ) "Sr lrangam urban form an d pat tern lr a n a n c ~ e n t

lndlan town " Ekistlcs 38 3 7 7 - 3 8 4

Glbson, J J (1 95 0) T he Perception of the Vlsual World Boston Ho ugh ton M ~fflrn--- 196 8) Th e Se nses C on s~ de re d s Perceptud l Systems London Allen &

Unwin--- 1 9 7 7 )" Th e t h e o y of affordance," In R Sh aw an d J Bransford (ed s ) Percerv~ng

Actlng a n d Knowlng New York Halsted

Glgholi. P P [e d ] (19 72 ) Language and Socla l Con tex t New York Pe ng u~ n

Ginsberg , Y (19 75) Jew s in a Chang ing Ne~ ghborho od New York ~ a c m l l l a n

G ~ t e a u ,M (19 76) Th e Clv~ li7a t1onf Angkor New York R lz ~ o li

Glass, I3 (1 9 7 8 ) "S ou the rn Mlll hills deslgn In a 'pubhc' place, ' pp 1 3 8 - 1 4 9 in DSwaim (e d ) Carollna Dwelllrq Towards Preservation of Place Celebration of tho

North Carol ina Vernacular Lan dscap e Stude nt Pub l~cat ion 6 Raleigh Sch ool of

Deslgn, North C arolma State U n~ ve rs~ ty

Goffman. E ( 1 9 5 9 ) T h e Presentation of Self in Ev eryd ay L ~ f eG a r d e n C ~ t y NY

Doubleday--- 1 9 63 ) B ~ h a v l o rn Publlc Pldces Notes o n the So c ~ a l rg anlz at~o nf Gather~ng.,

New York Macm lllan

Goldberg, F J an d J R Stabler (1 97 3) "Black an d whlte symbolism In Japan " Inter-

national Journa l of Symboloqy 4 (No vem ber) 37 -4 6




G old m an , 1. (1 9 7 5 ) T he M outh of Hea ve n: An Introduction to Kwakiutl Religious

Thought. New York: John Wiley.

Goo denou gh , W. G . (1 95 7) "Cultural anthropology an d linguistics," pp. 1 6 7 -1 7 3 in

P. . Garvin (ed .)Rep ort of the 7 th Annua l R ou nd Tab le Meeting on L inguistics and

La ngu age Study. Washington, DC: George town University.

G o o d m a n , P. ( 1 9 5 9 )"Th e m eanin g of functionalism." Jour na l of Architectural Educa -t ion 1 4 (Autumn). (Reprinted in RIBA Journa l [I97 31 8 0 [February]: 32 -3 8. )

Greenfield. P., L. Reich. and R. Olver (1 97 2) "On cul ture an d equivalence." pp. 2 17 -

2 3 5 in P.Adarns (ed .) Lan guag e a nd Thinking. New York: Penguin.

Greim as. A. J . et al. (1 97 0) Sign-Language-Culture. Th e H ague : Mouton.

G r ~ a u l e .M. and G . Dieterlen ( 1 95 4) The Dogon," pp . 83 -11 0 n D.Forde (ed . )African

Worlds: Studies in the Co sm ologica l Ideas a n d Social Values of African Peo ples.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Groat, L. N. (1 97 9) 'A study of me aning in con tem porary archi tecture: do post-

contemporaly buildings really exist for anyone besides architectural critics?"

Master's thesis, University of Surrey.--- nd D. Canter (1 97 9) "Does post-modernism cornmunicate?'Progressive

Architecture (December): 8 4 -8 7 .

Gumperz , J. J . an d D. Hym es [eds.] (1 9 72 ) Directions in Sociolinguistics: T he Ethnog-

raphy of Com mu nication. New York: Holt , Rinehart & Winston.

Hall, E. T. (1 96 1) Th e Si lent Language. G reenwich. CT: Fawcett .--- 19 66 ) Th e Hidden Dimension. Ga rden City , NY: Doubleday.--- 19 7 6 ) Beyon d C ulture. G arde n City, NY: Doubleday.

i-iamburg. D. A. ( 1 9 7 5 ) Ancient m an in th e twentieth cen tury," in V. Go oda ll (ed .)The

Quest for Man. New York: Praeger.

H ammo n d , N. 19 7 2 ) he p lann ingof a ~ a ~ aerem onial c enter." Scientific Am erican

2 2 6 (May): 82 -9 1 .

Ha rper, R. G . ,A. N. Wiens, an d J . D. M atarazz o(197 8) Nonverbal Comm unication: Th e

Sta te of t he Art. New York: Jo h n W iley.

Hayward, D. G . ( 1 9 7 8 )"An overview of psychological concepts of hom e," pp . 4 1 8 -4 1 9

in R. L. Brauer (ed.) Priorit ies f o rEnvironm ental Design Research , Part 2: W orkshop

Sum ma ries. EDRA 8 . W ashington, DC: EDRA.Hazard ,J. ( 1 9 7 2 )"Furniture arra nge m ent as a symbol of udicial roles," pp. 2 9 1 -2 9 8 in

R . G u t man ( ed . )People and Buildings. New York: Basic Books.

Healan , D. M. ( 1 9 7 7 )"Arch itectural implicationsof daily life in an cient Toll6n. Hidalgo.

Mexico." World Archaeology 9 (October): 1 4 0 -1 5 6 .

Herbert , G . (1 97 5)Martienssen a nd the International Style. Ca peto wn a nd Rotterdam :

A. A. Balkema .

Hill. A. D. (1 96 4) T he C hang ing Landsca pe of a Mexican M unicipio: Villa h s Rosas.

Chiapas. Research Paper 91. Chicago: Departm ent of Ge ogr aph y, University rf

Chicago.Hillman. J. (19 76 ) "The f 4 5 0 m . cu t in s tandards. " T he Guard ian (February 16).

1-linde,R. A. [ed.] (1 7 2) Non-Verbal Com mu nication. Cam bridge: Cam bridge Unirrer-

sity P ress.

Hiz, 1-1. ( 1 9 7 7 ) Logical basis of semiotics." pp. 4 0 - 5 3 in T. A. S e b e o k ( e d . )A P erfusion

o f Signs. Bloo m ington: Indiana University Press.

Ho dyes. H .W M. (1972)"Domestic building materials and ancient settlements," pp.

5 2 3 - 5 3 0 in P. Ucko et al . (eds .) Man. Settlement an d Urbanism. L ondon:

Duckworth.



References 207

Hoffman, G a n d J A Flshman (1 97 1) "Life In the nerghborhood a factor-analytic

study of P ue rto Rlcan male s rn th e New York Area " lnternatronal Jo ur na l of C om -

parative Soc~o logy 2 ( June ) 85 -1 00

Fioldsworth, D W (1 97 5) "Ho use an d h om e in Vancouver" Presented at the Bntish-

CanadIan Symposlurn on Hlstorlcal Ge ogra phy , Klngston Ontario. Se pte m be r(mrmeo)

Hole, V (1 97 7) "Local housrng strategies " BRE News 40 (S umm er) 2 - 5

How ard, W A et al (1 9 74 ) Residentla1 Environme ntal Quality in Denver Utll i~i ng

Remote Senslng Techniques De nver De pa rtm en t of G eo gra ph y IJnicerslty of

Denver

tlull R W (1 97 6) Afrlclan Cit ies and Tow ns Before the Europ ean Con quest New

York W W Norton

I-lymes, D [ e d ] (1 96 4) Lang uage in Culture and Soclety New York Harpe r & Row

Ilan, Z (1 97 8) "B os n~ an et tlers In the Plarn of S h a ro n " Israel Land and Ndture 3(Spring) 102

Ingham, J M (1 97 1) "Trme a nd space In anclent M ex~ co he symbollc dlmenslon of

clanshlp " Man 6, 4 6 1 5 - 6 2 9

In terna t~onalBlbl~ography n Semiotics (1 97 4) in Vs Quadern1 di Studr Semlottc~

Vols 8-9

Isbell, W H (1 9 78 )"T he pr eh lsto r~ c round drawlngs of Peru " Sclentlflc Am encan 2 3 8

(October ) 140-153

Ittelson, W H ( 1 9 6 0 )" Some fac to rs ~n f lu en c~ nghe deslgn an d functlon of psychlatrlcfacilltles " Brooklyn College, De pa rtm en t of P sychology

,laanus, H an d B Nieuwenhuijse (1 97 8) "D ete rm ~n ants f houslng preference in asmal l town," p p 25 2- 27 4 In A H Esser an d B B Greenble (eds ) D e s ~ g nor Com -

munality an d Prlvacy New York Plenu m

,Jackov~cs , W a n d T F Saarlnen (n d )"The sen se of place rmpre ss~ons f Tucson an d

Ph oen ~x , rrzona " ( m ~ m e o )

Jackson , J B (19 51) "Ghos ts a t the doo r" Landscape 1 (Autumn) 3-9J a m e s , J ( 1 9 7 3 )"Sac red geom etry o n th e Island of Ball " Jo urna l of th e Royal Aslat~c..

Socrety 141 154--- 19 78 ) "Srgn~ficance n sacred srtes th e churche s arou nd Posltano " Annals of

S cie nce 3 5 1 0 3 - 1 3 0

James, L D et al (19 74 )Community Well-Belng as a F actor In Urban Lan d U se Plannlng Atlanta E nv ~r on m en tal esources Cen ter, Ge orgia Institute of Technology

Janz , W (197 8) "Th e extension of self Into hou se fronts " Ter m pap er, llnlverslty of

Wisconsin-MilwaukeeJencks , C (1 97 7) Th e Langu age of Post-Modernrst Architecture New York R I Z L O ~ I---

19 80 ) "The archrtectural srgn." p p 7 1 - 11 8 In G Broa dbent et al (e d5 ) Srgns,Sym bols and Archltecture Chrchester J o h n Wlley--- nd G Raird [ ed s] (1 96 9) Meanlng In Architecture London Barr~e& Rockl~ffe

Je tt , S C (1 97 8) "The origins of Navaio settlement patterns" Annals, Assocla-

t ion of Amerlcan G eographers 6 8 (September) 35 1- 3 62

,Johnson,H G , P Ekman, and W V Fr ~e sen 19 75 ) "Cornmun~catrve ody movements,

A m ~ r l c a n m b le ms " Semlo tlca 1 5 , 4 33 5 - 35 3

Johnston, R J (1 97 1a ) Urban Residential Patterns Lond on G eor ge Bell--- 1 9 7 1b) "Mental ma ps of the city surb urba n prefe renc e patte rns " Environment

an d Plannrng 3 6 3 - b 9




Joiner . D. (1 9 71 a) "Office territory." New Society (O ctober 7 ): 6 6 0 -6 6 3 .--- 1 9 7 1 b ) "Social ritual an d architectural space." RIBA Jou rna l of R esearch an d

Teaching 1 (April): 1 1 -2 2 .

Jopling, C.F. ( 1 9 7 4 ) "Aesthetic behavior a s an ad aptive strategy." Prese nte d at the XLI

Congreso International de Am ericanistas, Mexico, D. F., September 2- 7. (mimeo)

Kamau, L. J. (1 97 6) "Conceptual patterns in Yoruba culture," pp. 3 33 -3 64 in A.Rapoport (ed . )T he Mutual lnteraction of P eo pl e and Their Built En viron me nt. Th e

Hague: M outon.--- 1978179)"Semi-public, private and hidden room s: symbolicaspec tsof domestic

space in urban Kenya." African Urban Studies 3, 105-115.

Kaplan, P. P. ( 1 9 7 5 )"The symbolism of color." Intenational Jou rna l of Symbology 6

(March): 1 -9 .

Kaufman, L. (1 9 7 1 ) "Tacesics, the stud y of tou ch: a m ode l for proxemic analysis."

Semiotica 4 , 2: 1 4 9 - 1 6 1 .

Kearney, M. (1 97 2 )T h e Winds of Ixtepeji: World View an d Society in a Zap otec To wn .

New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston.

Keesing. R. M. (1 9 7 9 )"Linguistic knowledge a nd cultural know ledge: so m e d oub ts an d

specula tions." American Anthropologis t 8 1 : 1 4- 36 .

Kelly, G . (1 9 5 5 ) T he Psychology of Personal Con structs. New York: W. W. Norton .

Kend on, A.. R. M. Harris, an d M. R. Key [eds.] (1 9 7 5 ) Org aniza tion of Behavior in Fa ce

to F ace Interaction. T h e Hague: M outon.

Kimb er, C. (1 6 6 ) "D oory ard g ard en s of Martiniquc." Ye arbo ok, Association of Pacific

C oas t Ga rdene rs 28 : 97 -1 18 .--- 19 71 ) "Interpreting the use of space in doo ryard gardens: a P uerto Rican

example ." (mimeo )

--1973) "Spatial patterning in the doorya rd gardens of Pu erto Rico." Geo graphical

Review 6 3 ( January) : 6 -2 6 .

King, A. D. (1 9 7 7 ) "T he westernization of dom estic architecture in India." A rt and

Archaeology Research P apers (Jun e) : 32 -4 1.

Knobel, L. (1 9 7 9 ) Th e tragedy of Bentley Wood." Architectural Review 16 6 ,9 9 3 : 2 7 5 ,

3 1 0 - 3 1 1 .Koestler, A. (1 9 6 4 ) T h e Act of Crea tion. New Y ork: Macmillan.

Kottack, C. P. (1 9 7 9 ) "Rituals at M cDonald's." Natural History 8 7 (J anu ary ): 75ff.

Krampen, M. (1 9 79 ) Meaning in the Urban Environment. Lon don : Pion.

Krauss, R. M. and S. Gluck sberg (1 9 7 7 ) "Social a nd non-soc ial speech." Scientific

A m erican 2 3 6 ( F e b r u a y ) : 1 0 0 - 1 0 5 .

Kuper, H. (1 7 2 ) "T he language of sites in th e politics of space." A merican A nthropologist

7 4 ( J u n e) :4 1 1 - 4 2 5 .

Ladd, F. (1 9 7 2 ) "Black youths view their environm ent: so m e views on housing." AIP

Journal 38 (March): 1 0 8 -1 6 .--- 1 9 7 6 ) Residential H istory: A Persona l Elem ent in Planning an d Environmental

Design. Urban Planning, Policy Analysis, and Administration Policy Note P76-2.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of City and Regional Planning.

Lamb, M. E., S. J. Suomi , and G. R. Steph enso n [ed s.] (19 79 ) Social lnteraction

Analysis: Methodological Issues. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Lam phere, L. ( 19 69 ) "Symbolic elemen ts in Navajo ritual." Southw estern Journal of

Anthropology 2 5 (Au tumn):279-305.



References 209

Landsberg , M E (19 80) "The Icon In s e m ~ o t ~ cheory" Current Anthropology 2 1

(February) 93-95

I-annoy, R (1 97 1)T h e S p e a k ~ n g T r ~ eS tu dy o f l n d ~ an u lture an d So c ~ e tyLondon

Oxford University Press

I-aryey, G P and D R Watson (197 2) "The soc~olog yf o d o rs " A me r~ ca n o u rn a l o f

So c~ o lo g y 7 (M ay) 1 0 2 1 -1 0 3 41 awton , M P (19 70) "Planning envtron me nts for older peop le " A IP J ou rn a l 3 6 1 2 4 -

1 2 9

Leach, E (197 2) "Th e Influence of cul tural context o n non-verbal co m m u n~ ca t~ onn

man," In R A H ~ n d e e d ) N onverbal C o m m u n ~ c a t ~ o n ambridge C a m b r ~ d g e

Unlvers~tyPress

( 1 9 7 6 ) C ultu re a n d C o m m u n ~ c a ti on T h e L o g ~ y Whlch Sy mbo ls Are Co n-

nected Cambrtdge Unlvers~tyPress

Lee, D ( 1 9 6 9 a )"The Nublan house pers~s tenc e f a cu ltu ra l t r a d ~ t~ o nL an d scap e 1 8

(Winter) 36-39--- 1 9 6 9 b ) "Village mo rp h o lo g y an d g ro wth in No r th e rn Su d an " P ro ceed ~ n ~ s ,

A s s o c ~ a t ~ o nf American Geographers 1 80.84--- 1 9 6 9 ~ )Factors lnfluenclng cholce of ho us e type a ge o gr a p h~ c nalysis from

the Suda n " Profess~onalG e og ra ph er 2 1 ( N o v e m b ~ v ) 9 3 - 3 9 7

(197 4) 'Geographlcal Record Af r~ca G eographical R ev ~e w 4 , 4 5 7 7 - 5 7 9

L e e m ~ n gF (1 97 7) Street Studies In H on g Kong Locdlrttes In a Chlnese C ~ t yHong

Kong Oxford Un~versttyPress

Leo ne, M P (1 97 3) "Archaeology as the sclence of technology Mormon town plansan d fences," p p 1 2 5 -1 5 0 In C L Red man ( e d ) Research an d T h e o y in Current

Archaeology New York Jo h n Wiley

L ~ v I -S t ra u s s , (1 9 5 7 ) T rlste s T r o p ~ q u e sPans Pion

Levin, M D (1 97 1) "House form and soclal s tructure In Ba kos~ ," p 14 3- 1 52 in POltver (ed ) Sh elter In Afrlca Lo ndo n Barrie & Jenktns

Ley, D an d R C y b r ~ w s k ~1 97 4 ) Urban graffltl as te rr~ tor ~a larkers "Annals , As soc~ a-

t ~ o n f Amer~ canGeo g rap h e rs 6 4 (Decemb er ) 4 9 1 -5 0 5

Lltttelohn, J (19 67 ) "The Tem ne house ," p p 33 1- 34 7 in J Mldd le ton (ed ) Myth an d

C o s m o s G a r d e n C ~ t y , Y Natural History Press

Lloyd, B l3 (1 9 7 2 ) Pe rcep t~ o n n d Co gn ltl on A Cross-Cultural Perspective New

York Penguln

Lofland L H (1 97 1) A World of Strangers Or der and Act ~o nn Urb an Pu b l~ c p ace

New York B a s~ c ooks

1.owenthclI. D (1 9 6 8 ) " T h e Amen can s cen e" Geog raph lcal Rev ~ ew 8 , 1 6 1 - 8 8--- nd H C Prlnce (196 4) "The English landscape " Geo g rap h ~ ca lR ev ~e w 4 , 3

3 0 9 - 3 4 6---1 9 6 5 ) English landscape tas tes '' Geographical Revtew 55, 2 1 8 6 - 2 2 2

McCully R S (19 71) Rorschach Theory and Sym bol~sm Bal t~m ore Wl l l~arns&

Wilklns

MacDonald, W L ( 19 76 ) Th e Panth eon Cambrtdge, MA Harvard Un~versltyPress

McLaughlin, H (19 76 ) "Den s~ ty he a rch itec t's u rban c ho ~c es n d a t t~ tu d es Arch ~ tec -

tural Record (February) 9 5 - 1 0 0M ~ Qu r l l an , A ( 1 9 7 8 )"Territory an d enthnic ~de nt l ty om e new measures of an o ld

them e In the cultural geography of the U n ~ te d tates." p p 1 3 6 -1 6 9 in J R G ~ b s o n(ed ) European Set t lement and D eve lopm ent In North A m er ~c a oron to Unlvers~ty

of Toronto Press




M a dg e, J . ( 1 9 6 8 )"T he social sou rce s of anxiety." A ngst 6 (M arch): 1 - 4 .

Manis, M. (1 9 7 1 ) An Introduction to Cognitive Psychology. Belmo nt, CA: Brooks/

Cole.

Mann, L. (1 96 9) Social Psychology. S ydney: Jo hn Wiley.

M an ning , J , an d L. Aschoff ( 1 9 8 0 ) "Seam y side: a polluted potential." Milwaukee

Sentinel (Janu ary 2).Marcus, J. ( 1 9 7 3 ) "Territorial organization of th e lowland Maya." Science 1 8 0 (Ju ne) :

9 1 1 - 9 1 6 .

Marshall , L. ( 19 60 ) "!Kung Bushm an bands ." Africa 3 0 (October) : 32 5- 35 5.

Marx, E. ( 1 9 7 6 )"Holy tom bs as political rallying po int sa m on gB ed ou in of So uth Sinai."

Presented at the ASA Conference on Regional Cults and Oracles, Manchester,

England, March-April . (m ime o)

Maslow, A. H. and N. L. Mintz (19 56 )"Effects of aesth etic surrou ndin gs I: initial effects

of three aesthetic surroundings upon perceiving 'energy' and 'wellbeing' in faces."

Journ al of Psychology 41 : 24 7 -2 54 .

Mehrabian, A. (1 97 2) Nonverbal Com munication. C hicago: Aldine.

Mellaart , J . ( 19 64 ) "A neolithic city in Tu rkey ." Scientific Am erican 2 1 0 (A pril): 9 4 -

1 0 4 .--- 1 9 6 7 ) Catal H iiyiik: A Neolithic Town in Anatolia. Lo nd on : Th am es &

Hudson .

Memmott , P. C. ( 1 9 7 9 ) "Lardil prope rties of place: an ethnological study in ma n-

env ironm ent relations." Ph .D , dissertation, University of Q ue en sla nd .

Metcalf, J . (1 97 7) "Stan dards for older housing an d its surroundings." BRE News 4 0(Summ er) : 6 -10.

Michelin, R. L. et al. (1 9 7 6 ) "Effects of seati ng arran gem ent o n group participation."

Journ al of Social Psychology 99 : 17 4- 18 6.

Michelson, W. and P. Reed ( 1 97 0 )Th e Theoretical Status and O perational U sage of

Lifestylein Environm entalRese arch. Re search Paper 36.Toro nto:C enter for Urban

a n d Com mu nity Studies. University of To ron to.

Milgram, S. (1 9 7 0 ) "T he experienc e of living in cities." Sc ience 1 6 7 (March): 1 4 6 1 -

1 4 6 8 .

Miller, G. A. (1 56 ) "The magical num ber seven plus o r minus two: som e limits on our

capacity for processing information." Psychological Review 6 3 : 8 1 -9 7 .--- nd P. N. Johnson-La ird (1 97 6) Langua ge a nd Perception. Cambridge. MA:

Belknap.

Milwaukee Journ al ( 19 73 ) "H om eow ner wants a different view." Se ptem ber 2 6.--- 19 76 ) "Is the l iving room on the way out?" N ovember 2 1 .--- 1 9 7 9 ) "Cou rt says blocking street would be 'bad ge of slavery." N ovem ber 6 .

Milwaukee Sentinel (1 9 7 8 ) "Residen ts disagree o n bicycle path." M arch. 1.

Miner, H. (1 95 6 ) "Body ritual am on g the Nacirema." American Anthropologist 5 8 :5 0 3 - 5 0 7 .

Mintz, N. L. (1 9 5 6 ) "Effects of aesthetic surround ings 11: prolonged and repeated

experienc es in a 'beautiful ' a nd an 'ugly' room." Jou rna l of Psychology 41 : 4 5 9 -

4 6 6 .

Molloy, J. T. ( 1 9 7 6 ) "Which twin gets the best job?" Milwaukee Jou rna l (No vem ber

2 1 ) .Moos, R. H. (1 9 7 4 ) "System s for th e assessmen t a nd classification of h um an environ-

ments: an overview." pp. 5-28 in R. H. Moos and P. M. lnsel (e ds .) Issues in So cial

Ecology: H um an Milieus. Pa lo Alto, CA: National Press Book s.



References 21 1

Morris.D P Collett , P Marsh and M O 'Shaughnessy (1 9 79 ) Ge stures Their Origins

and D iqtribut~onNew York Stein & D a y

Moss. L (1 96 5)"Sp ace and direction in th e Ch tnese garden " Landscape 1 4 (Spring)

2 9 - 3 3

Miiller, R (1 9 61 ) Die Heilige S tadt Ro ma Q uadra ta, Htmrnlisches Jerusale m und di

Mythe des Weltnabel S tuttgart K oh lha nn erMurch, G M (1 97 3) Vlsual an d Auditory Perception Indianapolis Bobbs-Merrill

Nvedham , R [e d ] (1 97 3) Right an d Left Essays on Symbollc Class~ficationChicago

Unrvers~ty f C hicag o Press

N ~ ls se r, (1 9 6 7 ) Co gn it~ ve sychology Englewood Cliffs, N.1 Prentice-Hall

Nesb~ t t , D and G Steven (19 74 )"Personal spa cea nd stim ulu s intensity at a Sou thern

Cal~ forn la musement p a rk " Sociometry 3 7 , 1 1 0 5 1 1 5

Nc.v~lle,G K (1 9 7 9 ) Com munity form and cerem onial life in three reglons of S cotlan d "

American Ethnologist 6 (February) 93-109Ncw Jersey County and M un~ cipa lG overnm ent lannlng Com miss~ on 19 74 )Housing

and Suburbs Trenton Author

Newman, 0 ( 1 9 7 1 )Crime Preventio nT hrou gh Architectural Deslgn Washington. DC

U S De partm ent of Jus tice, Law Enforcement Assistance A dm ln~s tration

New York Times (1 9 7 5 )"Verdlcts linked to sp eec h style anthropo logists say pat tern s

influe nce juries " December 1 4Nicolson, M H (19,59) Mountain G loom an d Mountain G l o y Ithaca. NY Cornell

Untvet sity Pre ss

Norc ross, C (197 3) Townhouses and C o ndo m ~ nium sRestdents ' Likes and pisl~kesW ashington DC Urban Land lnstltute

O h n ~ ~ k r - T ~ e r n e y ,(1 9 7 2 ) "Spatral co nce pts of th e Ainu of the n orthwest coast of

Southern Sakhalin " American Anthropologist 7 4 ( Ju n e ) 4 2 6 - 4 5 7

Olver, R and J Hornsby (19 72 ) "On equtva lence ," pp 3 0 6 -3 2 0 In P Adams ( e d )

L an gu ag e In Thlnking New York Pen guin

Ortiz, A (1 9 7 2 ) "Rltual dram a an d the Pueb lo world view" In A Ortiz ( e d ) New

Perspectives on the Pueb los A lbu qu erq ue University of New Mexlco Press

Osgood. C G Suci, andP

Tan nenb aum (19 57 ) The M easurement of MeaningU rb an a University of Illinois Pre ss

P e ac h , C [ e d ] (1 9 7 5 ) Urban Social Segregation 1-ondon Longm an

Peck ham , M (1 9 7 6 ) Man's Rag e for C ha os Biology, Behavior an d the Arts New

York Schocken

Perin, C (1 9 77 ) Everything In I ts Place Social O rde r and L andu se in Ame nca

Princeton, NcJ Pr ~ n ce to nUniversity Press

Pennbanayagam, R S (19 74 ) "The def in lt~onof th e sttuatio n an analysts of th e

ethno me thod olog ~cal nd dratnaturgical view " Sociological Quarterly 1 5 (Au tum n)

5 2 1 - 5 4 1Peterson, G L ( 1 9 6 7 a )"A m od el of pref eren ce quantltatlve analysis of th e perception

of re s~d entta l e ighborhoo ds " Journa l of Re g~ on a l c ience 7 1 1 9 - 31--- 1 9 6 7 b ) "Measuring visual preferences of residential n eig hb orh oo ds " Ekistics

2 7 ( M arc h) 1 6 9 - 1 7 3

--- n d R D Worrall ( 1 9 6 9 ) "O n a theory of accessibility preference for sele cted

neighborho od servires " Presented a t the J o ~ n t a tiona l Meeting Opera t ions Re

search Soclety (3 5 th Annual M eeting)/American Astronautical Societv (15th Na-

tional Meeting), J u n e ( m i m e o )




Pktonn et , C. (1 97 2a ) "Reflexions a u sujet d e la ville vue par en dessous ." I 'Annee

Sociologique 21 : 151-185.--- 1 9 7 2 b )"Espace, dis tance e t dimens ion da ns unesocie td musulmane." I 'Homme

1 2 ( Ju ne ): 4 7 - 8 4 .

Piwoni, J . (1 9 76 ) "Forms of urban plaza s in th e U.S." Term pap er, University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Plant , J . (1 9 30 ) "S o m e psychiatric aspec ts of cro wd ed l iving conditions." Jo ur na l of

Psychiatry 9, 5 : 8 4 9 - 8 6 8 .

Poyatos, F. (1 9 7 6 ) "Analysis of a culture thro ug h its culturernes: the ory a n d method,"

pp. 2 6 5 -2 7 4 in A. Rapo port (ed. ) T h e Mutual Interact ion of People an d Their Built

Environment. T he H ague : Mouton .

Pred, A. (1 96 3) "Business thorough fares a s express ions of urban Negro cul ture ."

Ec onomi c G e ogra ph y 39 ( Ju ly): 21 7 -2 33 .

Prezios i, D. (1 9 7 9 )T h e S emiotics of th e Buil t Environment: An Introduction to Archi-

tectonic Analysis. Bloom ington : Indian a University Pre ss.

Prussin, L. (1 97 2) "Wes t African m ud granaries ." Pa ideuma 1 8: 14 4- 16 9 .

Rainwater, L. (1966) "F e a r a nd hous e -a s -ha ve n in the lower class." AIP Jo ur na l 3 2

(January): 23-31 .

Rapo port , A. (1 96 4- 19 65 ) "The archi tec ture of Isphahan." Landsc ape 14 (Winter):4-11.

- --(1967a) "S om e con sum er com me nts o n a des igned environment ." Arena: Jour-

nal of th e Architectural Associat ion of Lon don 8 2 (Jan uary ): 1 76 -1 78 .

--- 1 96 7 b) "Whose me anin g in architecture?" InterbuildIArena (ArchitecturalAssocia tion, Lo nd on ) , Interbuild 1 4 , 10 ; Arena 83 (Oc tober ) :4 4 - 4 6 .--- 1 9 6 8 a )"The personal elem ent in housing-an argu me nt for op en -e nd ed design."

Jo ur na l of th e Royal Institute of British Architects (J uly ):3 0 0 - 3 0 7 .--- 1 9 6 8 b )"S acr ed sp ac e in primitive an d vernac ular architecture." Liturgical Arts

3 6 ( Fe br ua ry ): 3 6 - 4 0 .--- 1 96 9 a) "Th e notion of ur ban relat ionships." Area: Jou rn al of t h e Insti tute of

British G eog rap her s 1,3: 1 7 - 2 6 .--- 19 69 b) "An a pp roa ch to the s tudy of environmenta l quality ," pp. 1-3 n H.

Sanoff an d S . C oh n (eds . ) EDRA 1. Chapel Hill, NC: EDRA.--- 1 9 6 9 ~ ) ou se Form an d Cul ture . Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prent ice-Hal l.--- 196 9d) "Fa ct s a nd models ," pp . 1 3 6 -1 4 6 n G. Broadb ent a nd A. Ward (eds .)

Design Meth ods in Architec ture . Lo nd on : Lund Humphries.--- 1969,) "S om e aspects of th e organizat ion of urban space ," pp. 12 1 - 1 3 9 nG . J .

C o a t e s a n d K. M. Moffett (eds .) Res pon ses to E nvironment. Raleigh: Sch ool of

Design, North Caro lina St at e University.--- 19 70 a) "The study of spatial quality." Jo urn al of Aesthetic Ed ucation 4 (October);

8 1 - 9 6 .--- 19 70 b) "Symbol ism a nd environm enta l des ign." International Jou rna l of

S ym b olo gy 1 , 3 : 1- 9 . (Repr in ted , Journ a l of Archit ec tura l Educat ion 2 7 , 4 [1 975 ] ;

par tly summ arized, Ekis tics 3 9 , 23 2 [19 75 ] . )--- 19 72 ) "Environment and people ," pp . 3- 2 1 in A. Rapoport (ed. ) Aust ra lia a s

Hu m an Se tt ing . Sydney: Angus & Rober t son .--- 19 73 ) "Images, symbols and popu lar des ign." international J ou rna l of

Symbology 4 , 3 : 1 - 12 . (Summar ized , Ekistics 3 9 , 23 2 119751.)



References 213

--A ( 1 9 7 5 a )"Australian Aborigines an d th e definition of place, pp . 7- 3 7 in P Oliver

(ed.) Shelter, Sign a nd Symbol. London: Barrie & Jenkins.--- 1 9 7 5 b )"An'anthropologtcal ' approach to env ~ro nm enta l esign research," pp

14 5- 15 1 n B Honikman (ed ) Respondtng to Social C h a n g e EDRA 6. Stroudsburg,

PA Dowdun, Hutchinson & Ross--- 1 9 7 5 ~ )Towards a red efin it~o n f density " Environment and Behavior 7 (June)

1 3 3 - 1 5 8--- 1 9 7 6 a ) "Environmental cognition In cross-cultural perspective," p p 2 2 0 - 2 3 4

in G T Moore and R G Gollege (ed s ) Envlronmental Knowing Stroudsburg, PADowden, Hutchlnson & Ross--- 19 76 b) "Socio-cultural aspects of man-environm ent studies," pp 7 - 3 5 ~nA

Rapoport (ed ) Th e Mutual Interaction of Peo ple and Their Built Environment T h e

Hague Mouton

--- 19 77 ) H um an Aspects of Urban Form Oxford Pergamo n--- 1978 a) "The environment as an encul turat lngmed~um,"Part 1,p p 5 4 - 5 8 In S

Weidemann and J R Anderson (eds ) P n o n t ~ e sor Envlronmental Design Re se ar ch

EDRA 8 Washington, DC EDRA--- 197813) "Culture an d th e subjective effects of sti es s" Urban Ecology 3 2 4 1 -

2 6 1--- 1 9 7 8 ~ )Nomadtsm as a man -environment system " Environment and B eh av ~o r

1 0 ( Ju ne ) 2 1 5 - 2 4 7--- 19 79 a) "On the cultural orlglns of architecture," p p 2 - 2 0 in J C Snyder and

A J Catanese (e ds ) In troduction to Arc h~tec tureNew York McGraw-Hill--- 1 9 7 9 b )"On th e cultural origlns of settlem ents," pp 31-61In A J Catanese an d

J C Synder (eds ) Introduc tion t o Urban Pla nning New York McGraw-H111--- 1 9 7 9 ~ )An app roac h to designtng Thtrd World environmen ts " Thlrd World

Plannlng Revlew 1, 1 2 3 - 4 0

---(1979d) "Revrew of Pe rm 's E u ey th in g In Its Place" Journal of Architectural

Research 7 (M arch)---- 1979e) "On the environment a n d t h e definition of t h e s ~ t u a t ~ o n "nternattonal

Architect 1,1 2 6 - 2 8--- 19 80 a) "Toward a cross-culturally valld deflnltlon of housing," p p 3 1 0 - 3 1 6 in

R R Stough an d A W andersm an ( e ds ) Optrmlztng Environments. Research,

Practlce an d Pollcy EDRA 11 Washington, DC EDRA--- 198 0b) "Vernacular architecture and the cultural determtnants of form," tn

A I3 Klng(ed ) Buildings an d Soclety Essays on the Social De velopm ent of theRuilv

Envlronment London Routledge & Kegan Paul--- 1 9 8 0 ~ )Cross-cultural aspec ts of environm ental design," in I Altman et a1

(ed s Envlronment an d Culture New York Plenum--- 1 9 8 0 - 1 9 8 1 )"Neighborhood hetero gene ~ty r homogeneity " Architectureand

Behavtor 1,1 6 5 - 7 7--- 198 1) "ldenttty and e nv ~r on m en t cross-cultural perspective," in J S Duncan

(ed ) Houstng and lde nt~tyCross-Cultural Perspectives London Croom-Helms

(1 98 2) "Urb an design an d hum an systems-on ways of relating b ~ il ld ~ n g so

urban fabric," pp 161.184 In P Laconte et al (e ds ) Hum an a nd Energy Factors

In Urban Planning A Sy stem s Appro ach Th e Ha gue Nllhoff




--- 19 83 ) "The effect of en vironme nt on b ehavior," pp. 2 00 -2 01 in J . B. Calhoun

(e d. ) Environment an d Po pulation: Problems of Adaptation. New York: Praeger.--- nd N. Watson (197 2) "Cultural variability in physical standards," pp. 33-53 n

R. G ut m an (ed .) Pe ople a nd Buildings. New York: Basic Book s.---forthcoming) "Defining vernacular design," in

M.

Turan (ed .) On VernacularArchitecture: Para digm s of Environmental R espo nse. Aldershott, Eng.: Go wer.

Raym ond, H. et al. (1 9 66 ) L'Habitat Pavillonnaire. Paris: Ce ntre d e Re cherche

d'urbanisme.

Reed, P. (1 9 74 ) "Situated interaction: norma tive and non-norm ative base s of social

behavior in two urban residential settings." Urban L ife an dc ul tu re 2 (January):4 6 0 -

4 8 7 .

Rees. D. W., L. Williams, a n d H . Giles (1 97 4) "Dressstyle a nd sym bolicmea ning." Inter-

national Jou rna l of Symbology 5 (March): 1-8 .

Relph, E. (1 9 7 6 ) Place a nd Placelessness. L ond on: Pion.Reser, J . (1 9 77 ) "The dwelling a s motif in Aboriginal bark painting," pp. 2 10 -2 1 9 in

P. J. Ucko (ed.) Form in Ind igenous Art. Canberra , Australia: Institute of Aboriginal

Studies.

Richardson, M. (19 74 ) "Th e Spa nish American (Colombian) settlement pattern as a

societal expression and as a behavioral cause," pp. 3 5 -5 1 in H. J.Walker and W. G.

H aa g (Eds.) Man a n d Cultural Heritage: Pa per s in H ono r of Fred B.Kniffen.G eo -

science and Man, Vol. V. Baton Rouge: Sch ool of G eosc ience, Louisiana State

University.

Richardson, J . an d A. L. Kroeb er (1 9 40 ) "Three centuries of wom en's dre ss fashions."

Anthropological Records 5, 2.

Roach , M. E. a n d J . B. Eicher[eds.] (1 65 ) Dress, Adornme nt an d the Social Order. NewYork: Jo h n Wiley.--- 19 7 3 ) T h e Visible Self: Perspectives o n Dress. Englew ood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Rosch , E, an d B. B. Lloyd [eds.] (1 97 8) Cogn ition an d Catego rization. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rose,D.

M. (1 96 8) "Culture an d cognition: so m e problems an d a suggestion."Anthropological Quarterly 4 1 (Janua ry): 9-2 8.

Rosenthal, R. (19 66 ) Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-

Century-Crofts.

Rossi, A. S. (1 9 7 7) "A biosocial perspective o n parenting." Dae dalus 1 0 6 (Spring):1-3 2 .

Royce, J. (1 96 5) Psychology an d th e Symbol. New York: Ran dom Ho use.

Royse, D. C. (1 9 6 9) "Social inferences via environm ental cues." Ph.D. dissertation,

Ma ssachuse tts Institute of Technology.

Rubin,8.

1979)"Aesthetic ideology and urban design." Annals, Association of Am ericanGeographers 6 9 (September ): 33 9-3 61 .

Ruesch, J , a n d W. Kees (1956 )Nonverbal Comm unication: Notes o n the Visual Percep -

tion of Human Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Rykwert, J. (1 9 7 6) T h e Idea of a Tow n. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sabloff, J. A an d W. L. Rathje (1 9 7 6 ) "T he rise of a Maya m erc han t class," Scientific

American 2 37 (October): 72 -8 3.

Sadalla, E. K. ( 1 9 7 8 ) "Population size, structural differentiation, an d h um an behavior."

Environment and Behavior 1 0 (June) : 271- 291 .



References 215

Sarles, H (19 69 ) "The study of language an d com mu n~ca tion cross species "Cu rrent

Anthropology 1 0 , 1 -2

Sauer , L (1972) "The architect and user needs," pp 1 47 -1 7 0 In W M Smlth ( e d )

Behav~or .Destgn a nd P ol~cyAspects of Hum an H ab ~t a t sG re en Bay Untverslty

of W~sconstn--- 19 77 ) "D~ffertng ates for two nearly ide nt~ cal ouslng developm ents" AIA

Journal (February) 26

Scheflen, A E (19 72 ) Body Language an d the S o c ~ a l rd er Englewood Clrffs , NJ

Prentlce-Hall( 1 9 7 3 )The S t ream and S truc tu re of C om m un ~c a t~ on a lehavlor Bloomtngton

Unrverslty of I n d ~ a n a ress--- 1 9 7 4 ) H o w B e h a v ~ o rMeans G ar de n City, NY Doubleday

Schnapper ,D 1971) talle Rouge e t Notre Les ModBles Culturels d e la Vie Quo ttdlen ne

A Bologne Pans Gal l~mardSchnetder , D M (19 76)"Notes toward a theory of culture," p p 1 9 7 - 2 2 0 n K H Basso

and H A Selby (e ds ) Meanlng In Anthropology Alb uqu erqu e Untvers~ty f New

Mexico Press

Schroder , J T (1 97 6) "The Impact of tree removal o n netghborho ods" Term paper,

Un~verslty f W~sconstn-Milwaukee

Scully , V (19 63 ) Th e Earth, the Temple and th e Go ds New H aven, C T Yale Unl-

vers~ty ress

Sebeok, T A [e d ] (1977a ) A Perfusion of Stgns Bloomlngton Indtana Unlvers~tyPress--- ed ] (1977 b) How Antmals C om m un ~c a teBloomtngton lndtana Untvers~ty

PressSeltgmann, C ( 1 9 7 5 )"An aed~ cularsy stemn a n early twentteth century Am ertcan pop-

ular hous e " Architectural A s s o c ~ a t ~ o nuarter ly 7 (Apr ~l lJ une ) 1 - 17--- 19 76 ) "A vtslt to Den ma rk so m e speculations on symbolic aspects of the

en v~ ron m en t Arkltekten (Copenhagen) 7 8 (Apr116)

Shands, H C a n d J D Meltzer (19 77) "Unexpected semiottc tmpl~ca ttons f me d~ ca l

tnqu~ry ," p 77 -89 InT A Sebe ok(ed ) A Perfuslonof Signs Bloom lngton lndlan a

Un~versltyPress

Sh epa rd, P (1 96 9) Engltsh Reactton to the New Zealan d Landscap e Before 1850Pa c~ flc lewpotnt Monograph 4 Wellington V~ctorraUn~versity

Shertf, M a n d C W S h e r ~ f1 9 6 3 )"V arlet~ es f social strmulus situattons," p p 8 2 - 1 0 6 In

S B Sells ( e d ) St ~m ul us eterminants of Behavlor New York Ronald Press

Stegel, B J ( 1 9 7 0 )"Defenstve structu r~ng nd env~ ronm ental tress " A m e r ~ c a n o u r-

nal of Soc~ology 6 1 1 -4 6

S ~ e g m a n , W and S Feldstetn [eds ] (197 8) Nonverbal Behavtor a nd C om mu n~c a-tlon Htllsdale, NJ Law rence Erlbaum

Slmoons, F J (1965) Two E t h ~ o p ~ a nardens " Landscape 14 (Sprtng) 15-20

Slngh. K B and S K Cha ndho ke (19 66 ) "Vtllage ho us ~ ng chem e in Lalgarh-anassessment "New sletter, Rural Houslng Wtng, Schoo l of Plan ntng and Arc h~te cture ,

U n ~ v e r s~ t yf New Delht 6 (July)--- 1967) "Bhawanpura research-cum-demonstration project-an assessment "

Newsletter , Rural H o u s~ n gWtng, School of P la nn ~n g nd Arch~tecture,Universtty of

New Delh~ ( January)




Snyder , P. Z., E. K. Sadal la , an d D. S te a ( 19 76 ) "Socio-cultural modif icat ions an d user

ne ed s in Navajo housing." Jo ur na l of Architectural R esear ch 5 (December ) .--- 1 9 7 7 ) House form and cul turerevis i ted," in P . Suedfeld an d J . A. Russell (eds.)

T he B ehavioral Basis of Design: EDRA 7 . Stroud sbu rg, PA: Dow den , Hu tchin son

& Ross.

Som me r , R. (19 65 ) "Fur the r s tud ies in small g rou p eco logy ." So c io m ety 28 : 3 3 7 -

3 4 8 .--- nd M. Es tabrook ( 19 74 ) "The colored compass ." International Jou rna l of

Symbology 5 ( Ju ly): 37 -5 2 .

S o p h e r , D. (1 96 4) "Landscapes an d seasons : man a nd na ture in Ind ia." Landscape 13

(Spr ing) : 14- 19 .

Spir o, M. E. [ed.] (1 9 65 ) Co ntex t a nd Me anin g in Cultural Anthropology. N ew York:

Macmillan.

S p r a d l e ~ ,. P. [ed.] (1 97 2) Cul ture a nd Cogni t ion: Rules , Map s an d Plans. S an Fran-cisco: Ch and ler.

Stabler, J . R. a nd F. J . Go ldbe rg (1 9 7 3) "Th e black an d white symbolic matrix." Inter-

national Jou rnal of Symbo logy 4 ( Ju ly) : 27- 35 .

Stabler, J . R. an d E. E. Joh nso n (1 97 2) "The mean ing of black an d white to children."

International Jo ur na l of Symb ology 3 (D e c embe r ) : 11 -21 .

Ste initz, C. (1 9 6 8 )"Meaning a nd c ong ruen ce of urban form a nd activity." A IP Jo ur na l

3 4 ( Ju ly ): 2 3 3 - 2 4 8 .

S tenning , D. J . ( 19 59 ) Sav ann ah Nom ads . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

S tewart , N. R. (19 65 ) "The mark of the pioneer ." Land scape 15 (A u t umn) : 26 - 28 .

Strodtbeck , F. L, and L . H. Ho ok (1 96 1) "The social dimens ions of a twelve m an j u y

table." Sociom etry 24 : 3 9 7 - 4 1 5 .

S uc hm a n . R. G . (1 96 6 ) "Cultural differences in children's color and form preferences."

Jo ur na l of Social Psychology 7 0 : 3 - 1 0 .

Sutt les . G . D. (1 9 6 8 ) T he Social Or de r of the Slum . Chicago: Universi ty of Ch icago

Press.--- 1 9 7 2 ) Th e Social Construction o f Com munities. Ch icago: University of Chicago

Press.Syd ney Morning Herald (1 97 2 ) "Lo ndo n's 'Li tt le Asia. ' " S e p t e m b e r 6 .

Swithebank, M. (19 6 9) Ashanti Fetish Houses. Accra: G h an a Universi ties Press .

Tam biah, S . J . (1 97 3) "Classi fica tion of animals in Thailand," pp. 1 2 7 - 1 6 6 in M.

Douglas (e d. ) Rules an d Meanings . New York: Penguin.

Taylor, R. et a l. ( 19 79 ) "Towards a resident-based mo del of com munity crime preven-

tion: urb an territoriality, social netwo rks a nd design." C en te r for Metropolitan Plan-

ning an d R esearch, Jo h ns H opk ins Universi ty. (mim eo)

Thourlby. W. (19 80 ) You A re What Y ou W ear . New York: S ignet .Tiger, L. (1 96 9) Men in Grou ps . New York: Ran do m H ou se .--- nd R. Fox l ( 1 9 7 1 ) T he Imperial Animal. New York: Del ta.

Tiger. L. a n d J. Sh ep he r (19 75 ) Wo me n in the Kibbutz New York: Harconr t Brace

Jovanovich .

Time (1 96 7a ) Reynolds Aluminum adver ti sement , May 5.--- 1 9 6 7 b ) S e p t e m b e r 2 9 : 2 3--- 1 9 6 7 ~ )Space: q uarant ine for mo on t ravel lers ," Decembe r 2 9: 34.

Timms. D. (1 9 71 ) T h e Urban Moseic. Cambridge: Ca mb ridge Universi ty Press .

Todd , I. A. (1 9 76 ) Catal Hiiyiik in Perspective. Menlo Park, CA: Cum mings.Trudgill, P. (1 9 7 4 ) Sociolinguistics-An Introdu ction. New York: Peng uin



References 217

T u an , Y F (1 97 4) Topophl lia Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall- (1 9 7 7 ) Sp ace an d Place T h e Pe r sp ec t~ v ef Experience Minneapolis Un~versity

of M ~n ne so ta ress- ( 1 9 7 8 )"Sign a nd metaphor " Annals, Assoclatlon of Am encan G eo gr ap he rs 6 8

(Sep temb er ) 3 6 3 -3 7 2Turnbull, C M (1 96 1) The Fores t People London Reprin t Soclety

Turner , J ( 1 9 6 7 ) "Barriers and channels for houslng development In modernlzlng

countries " AIP Journa l 33 (May)

Turner, V (1 9 6 8 ) Dru ms of Affllctlon A Stud y of Rellglous Process Am ong th e Ndem bu

of Zamb~aLondon Oxford Universlty Press

Tyler, S A [ e d ] ( 1 9 69 ) Cognitive Anthropology? New York Holt, R ~n eh ar t&Wlnston

Uphill, E ( 1 972 )"The con cept of the Egyptlan pa lace a s d rulingmachine,' " p p 7 2 1 -

7 3 4 In P Ucko et al (e d s ) Man, Set t lement an d Urbanism London DuckworthV e n t u r ~ , a n d D R au ch ( 1 9 7 6 ) S ~ g n sf Llfe Sym bols In the Am erlcan Clty Publlca-

t lon accompanylng exh~b~t lonf the same name at the Renwlck Gallery of the

Natlonal Collection of Flne Arts, Sm lthsontan Instltutlon, W ashrngton, D C ,

February-September

V en tur ~, e t al (1 97 2) Learnlng from Las Vegas Cam brtdge MIT Press--A (1 97 6) "A hou se 1s more tha n a h o m e " Progressive Archrtecture (August) 62-

6 7

Vogt, E Z (1 97 0) "Lev]-Strauss am ong the Maya " Man 5 (Sep temb er ) 3 7 9 -3 9 2--- 1 9 7 6 ) Tortillas for the G od s A Symbollc Analysis of Zlnacan teco Rltuals C am -

bridge, MA Harvard University Press

von Raff ler-Engel, W (1 97 8) "On the s t ructure of non-verbal b eh a v~ o r" Man-

Environment Systems 8 (March) 60-66

von S ~ m s o n , (1953)The Gothlc Cathedral New York Panth eon

Wagner, J (1 97 5) "The sex of time-keeplng" lnternatlonal Journal of Symbology 6(November) 23-30

-Mu [ e d ] (1 9 7 9 ) Imag es of Information St111 Ph otog rap hy In the Social Sciences

Beverly Hills, CA Sag eWallis, M ( 1 9 7 3 )“Semantic a n d symbolic elem ents in architecture lconology as a flrst

s tep towards a n architectural s e m ~ o t ~ cS e m l o t ~ c a ,3 2 2 0 - 2 3 8

Warr, P B a n d C Kn ap p er (1 9 6 8 ) T h e Perception of People an d Events Lo nd on

Jo hn Wlley

W arren, R M a n d R P W a rre n ( 1 9 7 0 ) " A u d~ t or y l l ~ ~ s ~ o n sn d confusions " Sclentiflc

Amerlcan 2 2 3 (Decemb er) 3 0 -3 6

Webb, E J e t a l (19 66 ) Uno bt rus~veMeasures Nonreactive Research In the Soclal

S c l e n c e s C h ~ c a g oRand McNallyWelck, K E (1 96 8) "Systematlc observat tonal methods ," p p 3 5 7 - 4 5 1 In G Llndzey

(ed ) H an db oo k of Soclal Psychology Read lng, MA Addlson-WesleyWeisner. T (1 9 7 4 ) "Perlodlc m lgla t~o n nd chlld behavlor " Presen ted a t the C on

ference o n Psychosocla l Conseq uences of S ed en ta r~ za t~ onf Nomads, UCLA,

Decemb er 1 2 -1 4

Weltz, S [ e d ] ( 1 9 7 9 ) N on ve rb al C o m m u n ~ c a t ~ o neadlngs wlth Commentary New

York Oxford Universlty Press

Wellman. S (1 97 8) "The boundaries of race process of ethmcity In England " M an 1 3

( J u n e ) 2 0 0 - 2 1 7




We r t h m an , C . ( 1 9 6 8 )"The socialm eaning of the physical environment." Ph.D. disserta-

tion. University of California, Berkeley.

Wheatley. P, (19 711 Th e Pivot of th e Four Quarters. Chicago: Aldine.

Whiting. J .W.M. ( 1 9 6 4 ) Effectsof climate o n certain cultural practices," pp. 511 - 5 4 4 n

W.I + .

Go od en ou gh ( e d ) Explora t ions in Cul tura l Anthropology. New York:McGraw-Hill

Wilhelm. G . (19 75 ) "D oo ya rd ga rdens an d ga rden ing in the Black community of

Brushy. Tex as " Geo graph ical Review 65 (January) : 73-92.

Williams. J . E ., J. K. Morland. and W. L. Underwood (19 70 ) "Conno ta t ions of color

names in th e U.S . , Eu rop e an d Asia." Jou rna l o f Soc ial Psychology 8 2 (October) :

3 - 1 4 .

Wittkower. R . (1 96 2) Architectural Principles in th e Age of H um anism . Lon don:

Tiranti.

Wohlwill . J . F. a n d I . K o hn ( 1 9 7 3 ) "The environment as exper ienced by themigrant : anadaptation-level view." Reprints of R esearch in Social Psychology 4 (Ja nua ry) :135-

1 6 4 .

Wollheim. R. [ed ] ( 19 7 2 ) T he Image in Form: Selecte d Writ ings of Adrian Sto kes. New

York Penguin.

Woodburn . J . (1 9 7 2) "Ecology, nom adic m ovement an d the composit ion of the local

gr ou p am on g hunters an d gatherers: a n East African example a nd its implications,"

pp. 193-206 in P. Ucko et a l. (eds.) Man. Set t lem ent and Urbanism. London:

Duckworth.

Young. M and P. Wilmott (1 9 6 2 ) Family a nd Kinship in East Lo nd on . New York:P e n g u ~ n

Zeisel, J . (1 97 3) "Symbolic m eaning of sp ace a nd the physical dimension of social

relations." pp. 2 5 2 - 2 6 3 in J . Wa lt on a n d D. E. Car ns (eds.) Cities in Cha nge-

Studies on t he Urban Condi t ion Boston: Allyn & Ba c o n .



EPILOGUE

This book was originally published at the end of 1982, though it

was completed in 1980. In conn ection with its reissue it se em ed se n-sible briefly to review th e de ve lop m en ts in the literature, in oth er rele-van t fields, a n d in my thinking since tha t time. It also seem ed sensible

to d o so by m eans of an epilogue s o that the book could b e brought u p

to d at e without rewriting it. This offered n ot only practical bu t also con -ceptual ad van tag es: If it proved possible to a d d a n epilogue withoutrewriting the book, that would suggest that the basic argument has

stood u p, an d it has in fact proved possible to d o so.S pa ce limitations m ea nt that I had to b e selective. This epilogue is

therefore limited to three principal themes. First, I summarize and

further dev elo p a n argu m ent , published in a chap ter in 1988,which

qualifies an d partly modifies s om e of th e arg um en t in C ha pt er 2 . Se c -ond , I refer to som e m ore recent work o n m eaning that seem s gener-ally to support , complem ent, exp and , an d even strengthen the overallarg um ent of t h e book . This also serves to up da te th e bibliography with

a list of new references, fou nd a t th e en d of th e Epilogue. Third, I elab-ora te, albeit in a very preliminary an d brief form, two suggestions that Im ad e almost offhandedly in th e original book a n d that I did no t pursueat the time. These concern possible general mechanisms, proposed

in other fields, which make more plausible the suggested processeswh ereby cu es in settings guide beha vior a nd wh ereby global affectiveresponses t o environments a re primary.

A ch an ge in the argument in Cha pter 2Th e change in C hapter 2 is be st se en in th e wider context of t he

possible approaches discussed in that chapter. In it I refer only briefly




to method -driven studies of meaning (e .g ., the u se of sem antic differ-entials, personal constructs, a n d the like), which have no strong con-ceptual or theoretical bases (pp. 35-36). Because they are eclectican d fairly straightforward in ap pr oa ch , these ca n be "claimed" by the

nonv erbal communication (NVC ) appro ach, e ven though they neveruse o r even refer to it (e.g. , Lee, 19 82 ; Hucek, 198 3; Nasar, 1 98 8,

1 9 8 9 ). Using th e distinction (p . 38) between syntactics, semantics,

a n d pragmatics, on e can argue that the "eclectic" a ppro ach a nd NVCessentially add ress pragmatics (a n d possibly so m e sem antic s), thatsymbolic approaches essentially deal with semantics, and that semi-otics largely dea ls only with syntactics. Of co urse, bo th NVC a nd sym-

bolic app ro ac he s addre ss structure. Con text is critical, an d a s I arguethrough out this boo k, the m eaning of elem ents de pe nd s o n contexts

(both cultural and of other elements) and contrasts and noticeabledifferences am on g elements. M oreover, the H ymes (1 96 4 ) model of

communication (p . 5 2 abov e) can be reduced to a minimal s et tha t all

sou nd app roac hes to meaning, however identif ied, share: send er, re-ceiver, chan nel, an d context.

Following th e brief men tion of me thod-d riven ap proach es,Iidentifya n d discuss the three ap pro ac he s mentioned ab ov e: semiotic/linguis-

tic, symbolic, and nonverbal communication. Further considerationof th e latter two, stimulated by so m e questions raised by a stud ent, led

m e to a rather significant revision (Rap oport, 1 9 8 8 ) .Two things ar einvolved. T he first propo ses that the term "m eaning " is too global; o n e

nee ds to distinguish am o n g types or levels of m ean ing. It follows tha tbuilt env iron m ents , an d material culture generally, m ay com mu nicate

several distinct types of meaning. Given that, the second change re-considers the evaluation of symbolic appro ache s presen ted o n page s43-48 of this book.

T he description and criticism of semiotics, an d the linguistic approachfrom which it derive s,' still se em valid a s written. F irst, semiotics is evenmore dom inant , an d it has beco m e almost synonym ous with the studyof meaning in the built environment. Almost everyone uses it-or

claims to-pays lip service t o it, an d pu ts ev en nonsemio tic work in asemiotic framew ork or "deco rates" the work with refe rences to semi-otics. In the text I refer to exam ples (e.g., Bonta, 19 75 , 197 9; Krampen,1 9 7 9 ) an d suggest that in them references to semiotics can be elimi-nated, a n d that this not only doe s not w eaken the argument o r findingsbut in fact strengthens them. This also applies, for example, to one

study a m on g others tha t 1 discuss below (Du ncan , Lindsey, a n dBuchan , 1985) ,which was originally pre sen ted a t a sem iotics confer-



ence and which contains quite unnecessary references to semiotics

(see also Lang, 19 82 ) . In my copy I hav e, in fact, crossed ou t every

mention of semiotics an d refer to an d use th e pap er frequently.Second , I still d o no t know of a n y g oo d empirical or oth er study that

really uses semiotics t o study built environm ents ( bu t see G ottdien er

and Lagopoulos , 1 98 6) .This is be cau se, third, as argued in the bo ok ,it see m s essentially un usab le a nd is almost impossible t o un derstan d. Iargued (on p. 37) tha t the re had b een n o advance be tween 19 69 an d

19 80 , a n d this still se em s to b e the case (althou gh work is certainly

being d o n e an d published). At best this ap pr oa ch is stagnating; in fact,it seem s to be a n exe mp lar of w hat Lakatos (19 71 : 100)calls a " de ge n-

erating research prog ram . "2In retrospect, ho w ever, the criticism of th e symbolic ap pr oa ch (pp.

43-48) may ne ed to b e qualified in o n e sense, although it is indeed not

useful for und erstan ding users ' m ean ings in everyd ay environ m ents,the domain of this book. Such meanings are most usefully studied

using NVC app roa che s (particularly because the m ore ge neral prob-lems with the study of symbols also see m valid). Sym bolism, however,

may represent a different type of mea ning that s o m e built environ-me nts may com mu nicate, a n d it may be most relevant regarding those

othe r type s of me anin g in certain env ironm ents. T h e term "symbolic"refers, th en, not s o much to a n app roa ch a s to a distinct type o r level

of meaning.In fact, it seem s tha t o n e is typically dealing with several distinct levels

of m ean ing, s o that "m ean ing" is too global a term regarding built en -

vironments a n d m aterial culture generally. These se em t o comm uni-ca te m ean ing at th ree distinct levels, which ne ed to b e clearly distin-guished, although they are ideal types structuring a continuum (for

analogous cases , see Rapoport , 197 7: 37 , Fig. 1.1 3; an d Rapoport , in

press b: Figs. 2, 3) . They a re :

(1) "High-level" meanings related to, for example, cosmologies, culturalschemata, worldviews, philosophical systems, and the sacred.

(2) "Middle-level" meanings, those communicating identity, status, wealth,power, and so on-that is, the latent rather than the instrumentalaspects of activities, behavior, and settings.

(3) "Low-level" everyday and instrumental meanings: mnemonic cues foridentifying uses for which settings are intended and hence the socialsituations, expected behavior, and the like; privacy, accessibility; pen-etration gradients; seating arrangem ents; movement and way-finding;and o t h e r information which enables users to behave and act appro-

priately and predictably, making co-action p~ s s i b l e . ~




This boo k is con cern ed primarily with ( 2 )a n d ( 3 ) , lthough unfortu-nately it do es not explicitly distinguish b etw een them . N onverbal m od-

els are m ost useful for th e study of the se m eanings. W hat I call sym -bolic approaches may, however, refer to high-level meanings, what

they a re an d how they a re comm unicated; they may need other ap -proac hes, although as I will argue later, these still ne ed to b e relativelystraightforward, a nd t he gen eral approac h adv ocated in this book maystill be qu ite relevan t.

The re s ee m to b e suggestive links between these levels of m eanin gan d G ibson's (1 96 8) hierarchy ranging from the c onc rete object

through the use object, value objec t, an d symbolic object (p .15above

an d Rapoport , 197 7, esp. pp . 19-20). T he re is also a suggestive a ndinteresting link to Binford's discussion in a n um ber of publications, th e

first in 196 2 , of thr ee levels of function: technom ic (instrum ental ortechnical u se ), socio-technic (u se in a social rather than a technical

se ns e) , a n d ideo-technic (ideology, symbolism, etc.). How ever, h erestricts " m ean ing" to the ideo-technic, w here as I pro pose three levels

of m eaning.4

This point can be elaborated, an d m any an d varied exam ples can b egiven of how th e sa m e buildings o r other settings may com m un icateall, two , or-even just o n e of these m ean ings, a nd how useful this dis-

tinction a m ong levels is likely to be ; read ers a re referred to th e chapte r

in question, which also provides relevant references (R apop ort, 1 9 8 8 ).Tw o conclusions shou ld, however, b e discussed.

T h e first is tha t typically in an y given case only a few pe op le know

the high-level meanings even in traditional contexts. All, however,need to unde rstand low-level meanings in ord er to be ha ve app ropri-

ately an d to co-act. (T o m ake th e point, I use a nu m be r of exa m ples ofreligious buildings, in which high-level meanings can be expected tob e a t their m axim um .) It follows that n o m atter w hat high-level, sym -bolic m eanings may b e present, an d how important they m ay be , andn o matter how imp ortant ( or unim portant) middle-level meaning maybe , low-level m eanin gs m ust be present i f the enviro nm ent is to work

for users, visitors, and the majority "not in the know "; all nee d to knowhow to b eh av e o r act. Th e reverse is not the case: high-level meaningsd o not ne ed to b e known for settings to work. It follows that low-levelmeanings are always present-they are th e o n e constant, while the

other two levels ten d to be much m ore variable.T he se co nd point conc erns th e relationships am on g levels of m ean-

ings. In som e cases-many small-scale, prelitera te groups, for exam -

ple-middle-level meanings may b e relatively un im portan t, a s this



Epilogue 223

bo ok suggests; only low-level a n d high-level mean ings m ay b e pres-

ent. In others, only low-level meanings may be present. Also, one

might hypothesize m or e generally that a s other symbolic systems be-co m e m ore widely available-writing, for exa m ple (G oo dy , 1 9 7 7 ),or

wh at ha s be en called World Th ree (Po pp er, 1972)-high-level me an-ings in th e built enviro nm ent may beco m e less important .

This question of the possibly greatly reduced importance of high-level syrnbolic meanings in present-day environments is briefly dis-

cussed below . More generally, th e significant point is th at it be co m esrelatively easy to begin to think of which meanings are likely to be

important in which cases, as are the likely courses of change (i.e.,

prediction).For example, middle-level meanings often tend to increase in im-

portance in present-day environm ents du e to the scale, complexity,and heterogeneity of the system. Since people are not known, andsocial hierarchies ar e m ore fluid, com mu nicating sta tus, identity, an d

the l ike through environmental cues m ay bec om e m ore important.Low-level mean ings m ay also gain in im portance b eca use behav ior is

less routinized an d b ec au se cu es in co m plex systems with m or e heter-og ene ou s populations require higher redunda ncy in ord er to remind

people how to beh ave (see pp. 149-152 abo ve; cf. Rapoport , 19 77 ) .Low - an d middle-level meanings also gain relative prominence if high-

level mean ings bec om e less important.

In studying an y built env ironm ent (in the br oa d s en se used in thisbook , i .e. , including semifixed an d nonfixed elem ents) o n e ne eds to

ass um e that all three levels m a y b e present. In an y given case it m ayev en b e possible, a s already su gg ested, to "predict" their relative im-portance; which are present an d how im portant these are becom e

empirical questio ns. Also to reiterate, low-level, ev ery da y instrumental

mea nings are always present in an y built en vir on me nt, although thecues m ay be very subtle (see, e .g. , pp. 183-193 above) .

in order clearly to understand the relation between built environ-

m ents an d h um an behav ior over the full ran ge o f environments, cross-culturally an d historically, all th re e levels of m eanin g n eed to b e con -sidered, s tudied, an d unders tood; they are co mplem entary rather thanconflicting o r com peting. In starting ou t to stu dy an e xa m ple of that

co m po ne nt of m aterial culture that is the built env ironm ent, o n e mustno t prejudge which of th e three levels of m ean ing will be pre sen t, ev enif hy po the ses ar e ma de. In most traditional environm ents-those

studied by historians, archaeologists, a n d anthropologists-high-levelmeanings can be expected to be important or significant. In most




present-day environments, I would suggest, high-level meanings are

likely to b e a bs en t, or at least relatively unim portant. Th us the th reelevels of m eaning can vary independently of o n e ano the r (o r partly

SO).Their presen ce or ab se nc e a n d their relative impo rtance could b e

profiled. For exam ple , I hypothesize that in th e co ntem pora ry UnitedS ta te s, high-level meanings a re generally a bsen t, middle-level m ean-

ings tend to be extremely important and prominent, and low-levelmeanings are "normal," although expressed with very high levels of

redundancy.A contrary view ha s bee n put forward, arguing that cosmological

structures are still presen t in con tem pora ry en viron m ents (Do xtater

1981). n my view, howev er, the exa m ples h e gives are in fact exem -plars of middle-level meanings, such a s identity, status, an d th e natu re

of social units a n d their values (Doxtater, 19 8 1 : 3 8 ) . T hr ee s tuden ts ina session of the d octoral prosem inar a t which I talked ab o u t this topicrecently pro po sed a n alternative hypothesis-that rather than high-level meanings disappearing or becoming unimportant in contem po-

rary situations-in the United S ta te s, for example-as I suggest, it is

their con ten t that cha ng es. For exam ple , the types of high-level me an-ings I described earlier-cosmologies, cultural sche m ata , worldviews,

philosophical systems, the sacred , and s o o n , are replaced by th e

im po rtan ce of t he individual, equality, health, comfort, mas tery ove r

natu re (o r partnership with it), a n d the like. In fact, und er that h ypoth-esis one could argue that status, individual or group identity (see

Rap oport , in press d ) ,wealth, p ow er, a n d the like ar e som e of the new

high-level meanings rather than what I call middle-level meanings.This is an intriguing suggestion that, in time, one might pursue,

althou gh there is a n imm edia te problem with such a "flexible" defini-

tion a n d use of a conce pt. If a co ncep t can acqu ire ever new an d differ-en t con ten t, it beco m es difficult, i f not impossible, to use it. It may thu s

b e preferab le to k ee p my original definition of high-level meanings, al-thou gh its constituent elem ents certainly n ee d to b e br oa de ne d. Also,

in a ny case , on e will not be dealing with a mo nothetic se t bu t ratherwith a polythetic set-only so m e of th e multiple attributes n eed be

represented in a ny given case (Clarke, 19 78 : 36 ; Rapopo rt , in press b) .O n e would a l s m x p e c t cross-cultural variability.

Moreover, at the m oment I still believe that th e decline of high-levelmeanings in t he United States (a n d m ore generally with "moderniza-tion") is real. This is how I interpret two recent studies. Jackson (1 9 8 4 )

com pares two U.S . ideal landscapes-those of th e 19 th an d 20 thcen turies. It se em s clear from his analysis that the cha ng e is essentially



Epilogue 225

o n e of progressive loss of symbolic con tent , w he the r sac red (for parks,

road s, crossings, a n d s o forth) o r political (for public sp ac e or country

cou rthou ses). This symbolic co nte nt is replaced by w hat I would calllow-level meaning s, of which th e "highest" is a n "agreeab le en viron-

mental experience" (Jackso n, 19 84 : 20).T h e who le analysis, involv-ing m an y o the r type s of settings in the U.S. cultural land sca pe , can alsobe interpreted a s a reduction in high-level m ean ings an d conco mitantgreater e m pha sis on , as well a s an actual increase in, low-level m ea n-ings and, as in suburbia and in office environments, middle-levelmeanings ( see Rapoport , 19 85 a , 19 85 b) .A similar interpretation also seem s to apply to a m or e detailed study

of political m eaning involving a n ana lysis of 75 U .S city council ch am -bers. Over time there has been a clear loss of symbolic, high-level

meaning s in favor of low-level meanin gs (Goodsell, 1 9 8 8 ) . This can

adm ittedly be interpreted in terms of the alternative hypothesis, a s anew set of high-level meanings-dem ocracy a n d egalitarianism, for

example.

I also interpret a s the loss of high-level meanings a recent s tu dy of

housing in Singapore in relation to the religious practices of threegroups: C hinese, Malays, an d H indu Indians (C hu a, 1 9 8 8 ) . Thoughthe study clearly shows that meaning is, indeed, a most important

function of housing, these s ee m to b e low-level meanings, such a s cu es

ab ou t how t o beh av e, rathe r tha n high-level philosophical or cosm o-logical me anings, which ar e clearly a b s e n t 5

It would clearly be w orthwhile t o test the se tw o alternative hypo th-

eses. W hichever is correct, generally or in an y given case, h ow eve r,the idea of levels of meanings remains. It is, I believe, important anduseful, not least in generating hypotheses to be tested. It is also the

major cha ng e in this book.I have no t yet discussed the third app roa ch , nonv erbal comm unica-

tion, with which this book is con cern ed. Sinc e, how eve r, this ap pro ac h

is not modified in any way but rather supported and confirmed by

m ore recen t work, it will b e discussed in th e nex t section.

Review of so m e mo re recent work

The first and most important point is that further work seems not

simply to sup po rt bu t to stren gth en the centrality of m ean ing in envi-ronment-behavior relations as a most important mechanism linkingpeople an d environments. It see m s clearer than eve r that, a s I sug-geste d, m ean ing is no t som ethin g additional to "function" but is pos-




sibly the most important function. All the material reviewed in thissection n ee ds t o be se en in this light. An other of m y main points that

receives su pp ort is th e centrality of culture, the fact tha t meaning mustb e studied within its appro pria te cultural context an d that, within ge n-

eral patte rns , it is culture specific.O n e point tha t is only implicit in th e text n ee ds to b e m ad e explicit.

Although meaning, like all environment-behavior relations, includessubjective exp er ien ce , it is only usefully stud ied or considered if it can

b e adequa tely generalized to grou ps. Purely individual or idiosyncraticassociations or meanings a re of interest only to the individuals con-cerne d a n d are no t part of the dom ain of EBS an d research o n it.

T h e new work, an d earlier work which I only discovered since th ecom pletion of this book , from w hich this limited review draw s followssemiotic, symbolic, a n d non verbal a pp roa ch es to the study of m eaninga n d also includes me thod -drive n, eclectic studies. T h e review is neither

exhaustive no r systematic; for on e thing, it generally d oe s not d ea l withwork in semiotics. I briefly consider so m e studies of symbolism, s om eof which use NVC ap pro ac he s a n d so m e, while they d o not explicitly fit

th e latter, study m ean ing in term s of p ragm atics an d in straightforwardways. They can therefore be incorporated into my approach evenw hen they formally claim allegiance to oth er app ro ac he s, ev en sem i-

otics; this h as be en discussed ab ov e. Recall also tha t in th e text I use avariety of findings from so m e studies claiming allegiance to semiotics

a n d from quite a few com ing from th e symbolic tradition. This is also

the case in this section (e .g., Lang, 1 9 8 2 ; Dun can, L indsey, an d

Buc han, 19 85 ; Broda , Carrasco, an d Matos, 19 87 ; Cherulnik a n dWilderman, 19 86 ; Despres, 19 87 a; Nasar, 19 88 ) . In that sense myap proa ch in this bo ok , a s in m y work generally, is eclectic; I use what-eve r works and makes sense. I only draw th e line a t work I find wron g,incomprehensible, or unusable. In both the positive and negativesenses, the label m ean s less than the c ontent.

This certainly app lies to work on symbolism, which continues-andcon tinues to b e useful in th e sen se that it can b e u sed in conjunctionwith bo th eclectic work a n d work base d o n NVC. This is not surprising,given the discussion in th e first sec tion of this epilogue . Nor is it surpris-ing that most of it do es not seem to be applied to contem porary every-

day settings6 bu t to traditional societies, either in th e past (e .g .,studiesin archaeology; se e R apo port, in press a ) or tho se still in ex istence.

Su ch studies (e.g., Pieper, 1 9 8 0 ; Vinnicombe, 1 9 7 6 ; Lewis-Williams,1 9 8 1 , 1983;Hockings, 19 84 , 19 87 ; Marcus, 19 76 ; Brod a, Carrasco,an d M atos, 1 98 7 ; Isbell, 1 9 7 8 ) can all be incorporated into the co rpus



Epilogue 227

of work on meaning with which this book is concerned. This evenapplies to studies based on approaches even more "remote"--e.g.,

textual analysis, in this case of the urban landscape of Kandy (SriL.anka; se e Duncan , 1 9 8 4 ) , o r a structuralist analysis of Maori art

(Hanson, 19 83 ) .In m ost cas es the ap pro ach is very straightforward a n d direct, what-

ever the theoretical rationale, and it is even possible, post facto, todistinguish a m o n g the levels of m ean ing discussed earlier. Moreover,also a s already men tioned both in th e book an d th e epilogue, th e term

"symb ol" can often easily b e replaced by oth er terms, su ch a s "cues,""indicators," "expression s of" a n d th e like-and then understood in

an NVC framework. This is the case, for example, with "symbolicaesthetics" (Lang , 1 9 8 2 )a n d also with discussions of th e social m ean-ing of dwellings (a n d w ha t I would arg ue is the n ee d to consider thelarger system of settings) in Longana, Vanuatu, in the South Pacific

(Rodm an, 1 98 5 a, 19 85 b). These s tudies a lso reemphasize the impor-tance of th e cultural context in und erstanding the various cues thatare used. This becomes clear from a special issue on home interiors

in E urop e in Environm ent and Behavior (1 98 7) , in which o n e findsdifferences betw een the United S tates an d Western Euro pe generallya n d betw een France an d Italy. O n e also finds differences in the pe r-

ceived residential quality of n eigh bo rho od s be tween t h e United Sta tesan d Sa ud i Arabia (Z ub e et a],, 1 9 8 5 ); that stud y also again illustratesth e difference between insiders a n d outsiders (e.g. , Rap oport , 1 9 7 7 ),

which h as now be en studied empirically ( e.g ., Brow er, 19 8 9 ).In a stud y of th e Gre at Temple of Tenochtitl6n (B rod a, Carrasco ,

a n d M atos, 1 9 8 7 ) the temple is considered a s ritual space em bodyinga cosmic vision ( a typical high-level symbolic m eaning ). Tha t cosmic

vision is then analyzed and shown to be central to the Aztec worldgenerally. Su ch con tinuity also em erg es from a similar analysis of th eMaya (Marcus, 19 7 6 ) which sho ws how a single schema seems to

underl ie , and can be used to understand, environments on manyscales, from the state or realm to the building. Similarly, Nem eth 1 9 8 7

analyzes a cultural landscape tha t reflects neo -Confucian ideology a n dcelestial prototypes no t only o n Ch eju Island, Korea ( th e locale of t hestudy), but also in the past througho ut medieval Ch ina an d K orea.T he sa m e neo-Confucian model , prototype, or schema w as appliedto t h e region, city, tow n, village, farm stead, a n d tom b, again reinforc-ing points ma de in this book (see also W ood, 19 69 ; an d Ingha m,1 9 7 1 ). N em eth's study also confirms that th e settings incorporating

this sch em a acte d a s a mnemonic-a central point of this book. Th e




metaphysical, philosophical, and religious meanings involved are

exam ples of high-level meanings a nd reinforce th e question I raised

abo ut how m any users knew this esoteric material (R apop ort, 19 88 );I susp ect very few did. Non e o f these studies discuss low-level m ea n-

ings. Neither does a study of prehistoric ceremonial centers in theA nd es (Isbell, 19781 , where the concern is with cosmology (a typicalhigh-level m ean ing ), a n d the point is also ma de that symbols (m ean -ings) ar e con tex t specific, Isbell's study em phasizes the g rea t continuity

of these cosmological sche m ata , no t in spa ce (a s in th e previousstudie s) but ov er time. It begins with mo re recent cases (e .g. , 16th -cen -

tury Cuzco, with its pattern of the Puma on the urban scale and a

20th-century ethnog raphic exam ple). Having identified the sch em a,Isbell finds it in two prehistoric ceremonial centers 2500 and 3000years b efo re Cuzco an d the ethnog raphic exam ple, respectively. Al-

though the approach is structuralist, Isbell identifies the symbols instraightforward and direct ways (cf. Flannery and Marcus, 1983;

Rapop ort, in press a).

In the case of nonverbal communication, two doctoral students

have do ne literature reviews as part of ind epe nd en t studies (D espres,1987b ; Devlin , 19 88 ) . Despres (1 98 7b ) concludes that NVC was aprolific area of research in the decade 19 77 to 1986 . S he furthercon clud es that no n e of the studies dea ls specifically with env ironm ents

and objects (semifixed elements), which are generally neglected orignored . While sh e is able to identify 1 9 books an d 36 doc toral disser-tations which h av e so m e potential relevance for th e study of environ-

mental meaning, sh e also f inds that am on g th e 3 6 dissertations, expli-

cit references t o envir onm ents and physical settings comprise only 7percent, and object displays only 4 percent, of the subject matter.While the work includes literature reviews, syntheses, empirical and

methodological work, a n d e ve n textbooks (e.g., Poy atos, 1 98 3; Wie-mann and Harrison, 19 83 ; Kendo n, 19 81 ; Wolfgang, 19 84 ; Katz an dKatz, 1 9 8 3 ), it ignores th e m utual relationship betw een peop le an d

settings a s a form of NVC. In my terms this work is still largely restricted

to non-fixed elements-communication am o ng people. This body ofresearch is very active indeed and is growing. For example, Ekman

an d his group (wh om I discuss on p p. 97ff. an d 10 lff .) have publisheda great dea l since 1 9 8 1 , mainly o n facial expressions (se e Bull andRum sey, 1 9 8 8 ). It is also significant that this work h as now reached

daily newspapers (e.g . , Golem an, 1 98 9b ).

Devlin (1 9 8 8 ) identifies 13 new books a n d pap ers (e.g. , Ridgeway

et al. , 19 85 ; Blanck e t al., 1 9 8 6 ), including a textbook aime d a t high



Epilogue 229

schoo l teachers (Vargus, 19 86 )-a m ost significant deve lopm ent. S h ealso reanalyzes s o m e of Despres ' entr ies (e.g . , Sch erer and Ekm an,

1 9 8 2 ) .Again, with very few excep tions ( e. g .,Ames, 19 8 0; cf. Ames,

1 9 7 8 ) ,material culture is either igno red or explicitly rejected. S h e alsoidentifies 1 2 doctoral dissertat ions o n NVC during 1 9 8 6 an d 19 87 .

Given that thes e two reviews ar e highly selective, it se em s clear that

there is mu ch research in m an y area s of NVC b ut little o r nothing o nth e built environm ent (s ee Poy atos, 1 9 8 8 , in which m y cha pter is th e

only o n e dealing with material c ulture ). T he built env ironm ent is stillbeing n eglected, a s it was w he n this boo k w as written (e.g . , p p 48ff.,esp. p. 50).

S o m e studies ha ve be en influenced, directly or indirectly, by mywork (e.g., Farbstein a n d Kantrowitz, 19 86 ; Goodsell, 1 9 8 8 ). Moststudies, however, d o no t explicitly use NV C bu t confirm m any of the

points made in this book: that settings communicate, that culturalcontexts are critical, and that semifixed elements and their arrange-m ents are dom inant ( i .e . , that the relat ionships are a t least as impor-tan t a s the elem en ts). T o give just o n e exam ple, this is clear from a

special issue of Env ironm ent an d Beha vior in 1 9 8 7 o n h om e interiorsin Europe which implicitly also makes another important point: Al-

though the preface a n d th e six pap ers take different app roach es to the

topic, they can be read together-and their findings can fit into a nNVC framework.

Th ere is also work o n semifixed elements of all kinds ( e.g ., Ames,

1 9 7 8 , 1 9 8 0 ). S o m e of this work u ses the term "symbols" but, likesome described in the text, fits perfectly into my model and can be

rewo rded in the way sugg ested (e.g ., Csikszentmihalyi an d Rochberg-Halton, 19 81 ; Hucek, 19 83 ) .A stud y of clothing (Wo bst, 1 9 7 7 ,whichis discussed o n pp . 63 -64 of th e text) not only puts it into a bro ad

anthropological co ntex t a n d relates it to a large new b ody of work bu talso confirms its im po rtan ce a nd th at of oth er semifixed element:;.M oreover, it supp orts my m ore ge neral theoretical arg um en t for th eimportance of redund ancy (see Robinson e t a l ., 19 8 4 ) .

O n e stud y of dw ellings in Vancouver, which explicitly tak es a semi-otic approach (Dun can, Lindsey, and Buchan, 19 85 ) , makes a num-be r of useful points, and serves to su pp ort two of my major points. T h efirst is that semifixed elemen ts d o indeed see m to be the m ost impor-tan t in com mun icating m eaning both inside the dwelling (e.g., furnish-ings and decorations) and outside ( landscaping an d o utdo or objects) .T h e sec on d is that peo ple a re indeed able very easily to understand

m eaning s com m unicated by dwellings, landscaping, furnishings, an d



230 THE MEANINGOFTHE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

the like. Th e levels of agreem ent foun d (be twee n 5 9 an d 86 percent ,depe nding on cues a n d location) are extremely high-much higherthan I would have e xp ec ted , an d a t the levels of satisfaction with

physical com fort aim ed for in th e design of heating , ventilation, a ndair conditioning.

Very high levels o f agre em ent (betwe en 4 8 an d 5 6 percent) were

also foun d in a study of how dwellings comm unica te identity (Sad alla

et a l ., 19 87 ; cf. Rapoport , 1 981; Duncan, 19 81 ) . Given th e very highlevels of agr eem ent, thes e two studies implicitly see m to contradict theargument (see Bonta, 1 9 7 5 ) hat environments d o not communicatemeanings bu t rather that people project m eanings on to them. O n the

other ha nd , they see m to sup po rt the arg um ent in this book that envi-ronmen ts an d sett ings d o communicate m eanings and, moreover, thatif they do so successfully, they greatly constrain possible meanings(see Wollheim, 197 2: 1 2 3, an d Perinbanayagam , 19 74 , in my discus-

sion on pp . 5 9-63).

Th e two studies (D uncan, Lindsey, an d Buchan , 1 98 5; Sadalla e tal. , 1 9 8 7 ) disagree a bo ut wh ether exteriors or interiors sho w greater

agreem ent, that is, com mu nicate mo re effectively. T he former findsthat exteriors elicit more agreement because it is more important tocom mu nicate m eanings to outsiders tha n to those invited inside, w ho

alrea dy kn ow o n e . Th e latter finds tha t interiors elicit more agre em en tbecau se o n e has more control there. T he rea sons for this differenceare unclear but may include the type of area studied or the culture(o ne study is from Ca na da , the other from the United S tates). They

m ay also be artifacts of th e m etho ds used. Further research to clarify

this disagreem ent would b e useful. '

Both studies ag ree tha t attributes of dwellings, furnishings, an d land-scaping communicate identity and other meanings. They also agree

about the greater importance of semifixed elements vis-2-vis fixedfeatures. This is also the case with a s tud y of Lincoln Park in Ch icago(Suchar and Rotenberg , 1 98 8) .Be cause this is a gentrifying neigh bor-hood, three distinct groups were identified for whom dwellings had

different overall meanings, and hence distinctiveness was achievedthrough objects, that is, semifixed elements. T hes e distinguish am on g

dwellings a s stage s for social performan ce, a s settings for expressinguniq ue individuality, a n d a s providing a n a tm osp here of private familylife a n d domesticity. These beco m e styles a n d se em to co rrespon d to

w ha t Jopling (1 97 4; cited in t he t ex t), in th e ca se of Pue rto Ricans inBoston, calls a n ae sthetic comp lex.

In spite of the em ph asis on semifixed elem ents , the se studies a n d



Epilogue 231

others begin t o consider fixed-fe ature elem ents (se e Ostrowetsky a n dBordreuil, 1980,which discusses the meaning of particular regionalho us e styles in France [cf. Ra pop ort, in press e l ) . This is also the case

with a s tudy that confirms my arg um ent o n p ag e 7 6 on th e meaning

of th e ne o-Qu ebecois style in Q ue be c (Desp res, 1 9 8 7 a ). Parentheti-cally, while this is discu ssed in terms of "sym bolic rep res en tation ," it

illustrates my a rgu m en t, which is co uc he d in terms of NVC an d cues;moreover, the study cites this book. The emphasis on fixed-feature

elements is also found in othe r studies (see Groat, 19 82 ; Cherulnikand Wilderman, 19 86 ; Nasar, 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 8 9 ) .

In all these studies o n e finds an extension from sem ifixed elem en ts

t o fixed-feature elem ents in term s of th e m ean ing s of various dwellingstyles. In other words, the likely temporal sequence that I discuss inthe bo ok see m s to b e starting, a n d the seq uen ce of th e application ofNVC approaches seems to be the one predicted: from nonfixed tosemifixed and eventually to fixed-feature elements. There is alsoan ot he r extension of t h e dom ain t o b e discussed later: from domestic:

settings to other building types.

Th e study by Cherulnik and W ilderman (1 9 8 6 ) emphasizes what Iwould now identify a s middle-level meaning s a n d finds that th e origi

nal fixed-feature elem en ts still elicit judg ments con sistent with the or ig-inal ow ners' socioeco nom ic status; th at is, th e original m ean ing of t h evarious cu es persists, am o ng them size, orna teness , a nd materials (s ee

Barnett , 19 75 ). This study an d those by Nasar (1988, 1 9 8 9 ) all referto "symbols" wh ere I refer to cues, be ca us e they discuss wha t I would

regard a s middle-level meanings, not only the wealth a n d status butalso, in th e N asar s tud ies, th e desirability, perceived friendliness, an dleadership qualities of th e pres um ed residents, which a re interpreteddifferently accordin g to the different styles of dwellings. T h e different

styles a re als o ran ked differently in term s of pre fere nce, an d whilethere see m s to b e n o difference between Los Angeles an d Colum bus,Ohio, judgments vary am on g groups, and a s I arg ued, architects' judg-

m en ts a re very different from nonarch itects'.All studies of this type (se e Nasar, 1 9 8 3 ) no t only se em to b e veryconsistent a b ou t th e positive a n d negative qualities of cues , a t least inthe United Sta tes an d in A nglo-American culture m or e generally, they

also strongly su ggest that w ha t is often called th e "ae sthetic quality"of en viro nm en ts is in fact mu ch m or e an as pec t of meaning. Its co m -ponents (Rapoport , 19 85 a, 1989) ndicate either liked or disliked e n -vironm ents o n th e basis of status, well-being, perceived safety, a n d so

on . Th e attributes of the environm ent are, then, the cu es that com -




municate such meanings to users. This is, of co urse, a n asp ec t of my

distinction between perceptual and associational aspects: this distinc-tion has b een used by oth ers, an d similar points ma de , although usingthe co nc ep t of "symbols" ("symbolic aesthetics") a n d a semiotic ap -

proach (Lang, 19 82 ) .Here again the central substantive point an d th econ tent can be e xpre ssed easily in a n NVC fram ew ork withou t diffi-

culty o r loss; it can also, of cours e, be ex tend ed from "architecture"

to semifixed eleme nts an d material culture generally a nd he nc e to the

cultural landscape.

This is clearly the case in a study of the residential aspects of thenormalization of mentally retarded people (Robinson et al. , 1984).

Th e various architectural elem ents an d w heth er they a re liked o r worka re to b e un de rstood in terms of their meanings. Attributes with neg a-tive meanings ar e associated with th e negative imag e of institutional-

ity; attribu tes with positive mean ings a re as soc iated with positive im-ag es of domesticity ("ho melike"). This is much a s sugges ted in thisbook (o n the basis of Davis an d Roizen's 1 9 7 0 study). Robinson et

al. , 19 8 4 , also emp hasize the importance of redu nda ncy for settings

to comm unicate appropriate meanings.The centrality of the meaning of architectural and other environ-

mental elements usually considered in aesthetic rather than associa-t ional terms, a n d the co nse qu en t differences betw een designers an d

users, be co m e very clear in a study of M aiden L an e, a problem ho us -ing estate in Lo ndo n (H u n t Th om pso n A ssociates, 1 9 8 8 ). In this caseone finds a complete reversal in the interpretation of the look of the

project. T h e features praised by architects a n d the architectural pressare described by 71 percent of the residents in extremely negativeterms-and these are associational, that is, they have to d o with m ea n-

ing. Am ong them are "prison," "concentration cam p, " "battery farm, "

and "mental institution." The feel of the project also elicits negativeemotional terms from 53 percent of the residents: "depressing,"

"closed in," "claustrophobic. " M any of th e m ore specific co m m en ts

ar e clearly con gru en t with my discussion an d illustrations in the bo ok(e .g ., pp . 14-18) . Among the changes recom me nded, many seemclearly m ea nt to c ha ng e those qualities of the project that com mu ni-ca te nega tive meanings (including the institutional charac ter discussedabove; see Robinson et al. , 1 98 4) .

More generally, it is significant that rec om m en ded chan ges in hou s-

ing projects often s e em to involve changing those elements th at havenegative mea nings to ele m ents that h av e positive m eanings. This ismuch the case with Lucien Kroll's work at Perseigne d'Alenqon in



Epilogue 233

France (Revuede / 'habitat social, 1 9 8 1 )a s it is with a project in Boston(Deitz, 1 9 8 4 ) , o mention just two.

All the stud ies cited, an d others, identify th e various a ttributes o r

elements that com mu nicate mean ing. In effect they ar e enga ged in

the development of what in this book I call lexicons, reperto ires, owpalettes of elements. These include, for example, style, landscapinga n d plant materials, ornaten ess , furnishings, size, materials, a n d color.T he latter, which I discuss on pag es 111-114, is clearly a major attri -bute that communicates meaning very effectively, being a major

noticeable difference (Rapoport, 1977).Color has recently received attention. Thus one study of color

(Foo te, 1 9 8 3 ) implicitly discusses red und ancy a n d em phasizes cornmunication. Although it does not adopt an NVC approach, i t caneasily fit into th e framew ork of this boo k. It is al so significant in tha t i t

concentrates o n nondo mestic sett ings (banks; savings a n d loan associ

ations; hotels an d motels; churches ; restaurants; ed ucation al, public,an d governm ent insti tutions; funeral hom es; an d a range of sh op s)Other studies hav e investigated the m eanings comm unicated by the

style of su bu rba n office buildings (N asar a n d Kang, 1 9 8 9 ) .Thus thestudy of me aning is being exte nde d to new types of environm entsWhile this b ook d oes discuss offices, res tau ran ts, an d religious build-

ings, the em pha sis is o n dwellings an d u rban areas.In connection with religious buildings, th e book discusses a n um be r

of elements of the repertoire or palette that can be, or have been,

used ; on e of these is height ( se e pp. 107 -1 11).A striking rec ent example of this is the new church at Yam ouss ouk ro, Ivory C oa st (Bro oke,

1 9 8 8 ), n which size, scale, and ab ov e all, height are emp hasized; th eimportant point se em s to be that th e church is the world's largest an dtallest-significantly larger an d taller th an St . Pe ter 's in Ro me.

Color h as also be en sho wn to com m unica te ethnic identity (in thiscase, that of Mexican Americans) and through longitudinal studies,

ev en to com m unica te levels of acculturation to the U nited Sta tes (Ar-reola, 1984).Also, as discussed in the text, fences are part of thisparticular repertoire. Thu s fences an d fence varieties ca n a lso b e used

as indicators of the Mexican-American identity of residents (Arreola,1 9 8 1 ). In fact, eventually it bec om es ap pare nt th at a whole s et , orsystem, of ele m en ts is involved in com municating Mexican-Americanidentity--what is called a houses cap e (Arreola, 1 9 8 8 ). This includesproperty enclosure, exterior house color, and yard shrines, amongother elem en ts; it is the m ost rece nt evo lution of a historic land scape

that has l inks to pre-Colum bian Mexico a nd to Sp ain. In m y terms,




this once again emphasizes the importance of redundancy. In addi-tion, as I sugg est m ore generally, the m eaning of fences, like oth erattributes or cu es, is contextual (se e p. 1 3 0 and Fig. 1 9 in text). Thisalso applies to color, s o that a given color can b e conforming or no n-

conforming, de pe nd ing o n contex t. This recently led to legal action inBritain, where bright colors on listed buildings (such as the RoyalCrescent in B ath) have b een held by the courts to be "dev elopm ent";

if "inappropriate," con sen t ma y be refused (Practice, 198 3: 3).

O n e of th e first longitudinal studies of vernacular design (in Greec e;Pavlides, 1 9 8 5 ) fou nd that m eaning was a most im portant aspect of

the built environm ent a n d that status was the most important meaning,

especially in m ore recent e nviron ments. This, of course, suppo rts myarg um en t in the first section of this epilogue . M oreover, th e elem entscom municating status ch an ge ov er time-from type of dwelling, size

of house a n d of sp aces, de coration , kind of wall cavities an d protru-sions, de gre e of elabo rateness, an d th e like to degree of m oderniza-tion, that is, the use of m od ern materials such a s cem ent a nd paint,

th e removal of "old-fash ioned " fea tures, a n d the introduction of furni-

ture a n d ap pliances (i.e., semifixed ele m ents) that ar e abse nt an dhe nc e no t very imp ortant in traditional dwellings (se e Rapop ort, in

press d ) , piped water, a n d electricity. T he role played by m odernelem ents in a situation like this an d in develo ping countries generally

is a point ma de in this book (e.g . , pp. 142-1 44) an d has bee n greatlydeve loped since then in R apoport, 19 83 . Tha t paper also furtherdevelops, in a major way, the notion of the culture core, discussed

briefly on p ag e 83 of this book . This has pro ved to be of g reat impor-tance in studying an d unde rstanding m eaning in th e situations of rapidculture change characteristic of developing countries. All these ele-ments, however, a re shown (by Pavlides, 1 9 8 5 ) o be important indi-

cato rs of status, an d it is clearly bo th possible an d essential to beginto dev elop lexicons or repertoires of such indicators. Two o the r pointsin th at study further streng then my argum ent. First, it becom es cleartha t, with a single exception, sets of elem ents a re consistent, a n d he nc ethat redundancy is most important and both reinforces and makes

m ore precise the meanings comm unicated. S eco nd , subgro ups knew

th e hous e features in their own category best. Gen era l status or rankcould be determ ined broadly by eve ryone; subtle distinctions beca m em ore impo rtant within e ach group, w here m inute details were noticed.This tends to su pp ort my argu m ent ab ou t th e im portance of culturalcontext and great cultural and group specificity. It also supports a

point m ad e implicitly in this bo ok an d explicitly elsew here (e .g .,Rapo-port, 1 9 7 7 ) an d already m entioned earlier in this epilogue: that there



Epilogue 235

are differences between insiders a nd outsiders (e.g. , Brower, 1 9 8 9 ).

Sin ce designers a re the quintessential ou tsiders, it follows tha t there

are differences between designers a n d th e lay public (e .g . , Gro at,19 82 ; Lee, 19 82 ; Hunt Thom pson Associates, 1 98 8) .

I myself have considerably exp an de d two othe r points m ad e in thisbook . Th e first is concep tual; the sec on d con cerns a body of e videncea n d exa mples. As part of m y arg um en t for broa den ing t he definitionof the built environment as a subset of material culture, including

semifixed feature elements and also people, I also briefly sugge sted(p p . 88 -89 ) that it b e e xtend ed to include the cultural landscape as

a n ex pression of the system of settings in which sys tem s of activities

take place. This I have since greatly ela bo rated , show ing its impor-tance generally and demonstrating how its various components acttogether to com mun icate various meanings (e.g . , Ra pop ort , 1983,

19 85 a, 19 86 a, in press c, in press e ) .This is also my reading of a nu m -be r of t h e studies reviewed in this epilogu e.

As par t of my redefinition of th e dom ain of EBS, I not only exten ded

it to cover th e system of settings/cultural landscap es b ut a lso to include

all types of enviro nm ents, all cultures, a n d mo st recently, th e full timesp an . As pa rt of th e latter I had be gu n to use archaeological evidence

a n d material in this boo k. I further dev elop ed this in th e cha pter deal-ing with levels of mean ing (R ap op or t, 1 9 8 8 ) , a n d it plays a major rolein a forthcom ing bo ok o n the relation betwe en EBS a n d historical da ta

(R ap op ort, in press a , especially C hap ter 5).

There are two reasons for using this evidence. The first is that it

greatly exp and s the time de pth of th e evidence o n e can u se, an d thishelps to make the evidence broader a n d more diverse, a n d hen ce anygeneralizations m ore valid. T he s eco nd reason concern s th e relationbetween the study of m eanin g a n d archaeology. If meanings can b e

identified in archaeological m aterial, when s o little is left, then o n e canha ve g reater confidence in th e approa ch. C onve rsely, if en vironm ent-behavior studies an d archaeology can be used together, they can help

to interpret archaeological data in term s of m ean ing (their ideotechnicfunction [Binford, 196 21). Ethnoarchaeology is on e such attemp t,which unfortunately has had little interaction with EBS (Kent, 1984,

19 87 ; Rapo port , 1 98 8, in press a , in press c) .

Some preliminary ideas on mechanisms

In de aling with th e scientific und erstanding an d explanation of an yphen om eno n, o ne 's analysis an d proposals become much more con-vincing if plausible general m echanism s can b e identified o r prop ose d.



236 THE M EANING OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

This is beca use they can help to explain how an y suggested processeswork. Thu s an y findings bearing o n m echan isms hav e major implica-tions, a n d th e identification of possible mechan isms bec om es a m ostimp ortant task.

The major process proposed in this book is that i f cu es in settingsar e noticed a n d u nde rstoo d, the social situation appropriate to that

setting is identified, an d appropriate (i.e., exp ected or c ong ruen t) be-havior is brought to attention and elicited. In effect a repertoire of

ap pro pria te behav iors is retrieved from sto rage; th e setting is seen asacting as a mnem onic activating all this culturally acq uired know ledge.While settings d o not determine appropriate behavior, there are major

pressures to conform, and appropriate action is amazingly often theresult, making co-action possible. This is not surprising; after all, amajor function of culture is to routinize behavio r, reserving cognitive

channe l capacity for more important matters ( se e Rap oport, 19 86 b) .This process is elaborated in the text, and m uch eviden ce is ad du cedto suggest that it is very likely an d, in deed , probable: it se em s to b e

th e bes t exp lanatio n of a grea t variety of findings, otherw ise puzzling

occurrences, an d so on . How ever, n o mechanism w as identified th atmight make this process work.

S o m e suggestions ab ou t a possible mechanism com e from work in

artificial intelligence a n d cognitive science-a large, interdisciplinary,increasingly sophisticated, a n d rapidly growing field. In it, so m e m ech -anisms have been proposed in different connections which work

in ways analo gou s to wha t is pro po sed in this book. T he coincidenceand overlap is, at the very least, intriguing and promising. Should

these suggested mechanisms be confirmed, it would make my pro-posed process that much more likely and convincing. It also mean sthat a whole new large bod y of work-conceptual, theoretical, a n dempirical-becom es potentially relevan t; this in itself is most impor-tant a n d promising.

Clearly this will be a very brief and preliminary discussion, without

the topic being deve lop ed to any significant extent, a s it deserves tobe. T he purpo se of this discussion is merely to point ou t the existenceof this congruence with work in cognitive science and hence of a

possible mech anism. It is also enco uraging that after develo ping thismaterial my attention was drawn to some work from Germany(Kaminsky, 1987; Kruse, 1988).'While rather different in detail and

not drawing th e interpretation I d o , it is broadly similar in em phasizingth e link with B arke r's concept of b ehavio r settings, a s I d o o n p ag e 85

of this book.



Epilogue 237

Th e mechanism that I prop ose is bas ed o n the concepts of "frames"

(Minsky, 19 75 ) an d "scripts" (Schan k an d A belson, 19 77 , 1 97 9;

Abelson, 197 6, 19 8 1) an d how they are related (e .g . ,Mandler, 19 84 ).Thro ugh the se it is also related to the conc ept of sc hem ata m or e gen-

erally, of which they ar e a specific type (Bre we r a n d Nak am ura, 1 9 8 4 ).T he re is a very large literature o n sch em ata in psychology, which goback a t least to Sir Frederick Bartlett in 1 9 3 2 (Bartlett, 1 9 6 7 ) a n d o nwhich Lewin, To lm an, Piaget, Kelly, Bou lding, and o the rs based their

work. Moreover, I hav e long argued that the conc ept of sche m ata, not.necessarily a s defined in psychology bu t also in their anthropologicalmeaning, is central in EBS (s ee Ra pop ort, 1 9 7 7 , a n d references in it)

Schemata are very important in cognitive anthropology and in an-thropology more generally if o n e se es culture, the m ajor concern ofanthro polog y, as a framew ork within which particulars ta ke o n m ea n-

ing as a way of life, as a blueprint or design for life, and hence as

leading to routinized behavior (se e Rapo port, 1 9 8 6 b ).T h e pa pe rs by Minsky, Abelson, a n d S ch an k ar e still referred to in

all discussions in th e literature a n d h av e be en use d extensively for all

kinds of purposes. For example, Thagard ( 19 88 : 1 9 8 ) points out thatsc he m a theory, while n ot universally ac ce pte d, is supp ort ed by a great

deal of evide nce that people proce ss information by using som ethinglike sche m ata , which help to e nc od e an d retrieve information. Further

m ore, schem ata see m to b e framelike structures (Minsky, 1 9 7 5 ) an d

have been postulated to play an important role in perception, dis-course understanding, learning, remem bering (s ee Bartlett , 1 9 6 7 ) ,

an d p roblem solving, am on g othe r things.T he concept of scripts (Schan k an d Abelson, 1 9 7 7 , 19 79 ; Abelson,

1 9 7 6 , 1 9 8 1 ) , which ar e related to frames, introduces behavior anc!involves a typical and organized sequence of events. An individual

expe cts these to occu r on the basis of prior learning and expe rience,a n d enculturation, a n d they typify w hat in this boo k I call a situa tionT he point is m ad e that well-learned scripts lead to a "mindless" state--

peo ple re spo nd automatically with behaviors expe cted in th e situa--tion. Schank and Abelson (1977: 5) use a restaurant visit as theirexample: the visit elicits a restaurant script, which has other scriptsem b ed de d in it an d is itself e m be d de d in the ge neral frame o r schem afor a restaurant.

T he co ngru ence with my postulated process is almost com plete. I r lmy case the frame is th e situation identified by users o n th e basis of

cu es in th e setting, which acts a s a m nem onic. This then rem inds usershow to act, the script is then the appropriate behavioral repertoire




drawn up on to match the situation, an d the autom atic o r "mindless"res po ns e is culturally routinized behav ior.

T h e ideas of s che m a or frame theory h ave also bee n applied to part

of th e built en vi ronm en t an d material culture-industrial des ign, that

is, various artifacts and machines, equipment, light switches, doorhandles , an d the like (No rm an, 19 88 ) . In this application thre e pro po -sit ions are m ade (p p. 115-1 1 6 ) :

(1) There is a logic or order to individual structures in the human mind;these are "schemas" or "frames."

( 2 ) Human memory is associative-each schema points and refers tomany others to which it is related and which help define the compo-nents or "network."

(3) Much of the human power of deductive thought comes from using theinformation in one schema to deduce properties in another.

Th e m any exam ples in N orman 1 9 8 8 which d eal with small-scaleelem en ts of the built enviro nm en t closely resem ble my arg um en ts in

this book, a n d his analysis of industrial design ex ten ds an d com ple-

m en ts mine of lan dsc ap es, settlements, buildings, a n d interiors.Th us, without further elaboration a n d pen ding further research a n d

develop me nt, en ou gh has bee n said at least to mak e a case that the

process by which settings com m unic ate meaning an d how this influ-en ce s behavior, which I develop ed in this bo ok quite indepen dently,

fits perfectly into a powerful mechanism being uncov ered by resea rch

in cognitive science.

There is another aspect of meaning that I propose in this book. Ibegin with the argument that a global affective response, sometimes

base d o n subliminal perception, typically preced es an y m or e detailedanalysis an d ev en sets the to ne or feeling for mo re conscious percep -tion (se e Russell a n d S no dgra ss, 1 9 8 7 ). It follows that environm entalevaluation and preference are more a matter of overall affective re-sp on se than of detailed analysis; they are m or e a matter of latent tha n

of manifest functions, and they are largely affected by images andideals, in the sen se that the "success" of environm ents de pe nd s o ntheir congruence with appropriate images (Rapoport , 197 7: 5 0 ,6 0 ) . n

this book (p p. 14-15) I then arg ue that the se global affective respo nsesare based on the meaning that environmen ts, an d particular aspe ctsof them, have for people. I ad d u ce m uch evid enc e for this position,which is als o discu ssed in th e prev ious sec tion of this epilogue.

Once again, more recent work in psychology, brain science, andcognitive science has made available two developments which



Epilogue 239

strengthen th e postulated process . T he first is tha t there is now much

additional ev iden ce of th e importance of affect generally (for o n e re-view, s ee Russell an d Snodgrass , 198 7; see also n. 8 ) . Th e second

again concerns possible mechanisms at the level of brain structure,

neuro transm itters, a n d th e like. T he literature on both th es e topics isvoluminous a n d can not possibly b e reviewed he re, although it wouldb e bo th interesting a n d u s e f ~ l . ~ll I will d o , there fore, is to refer to arecent n ew spap er acco unt that, in popular form, sum marizes so m e ofthe research (Goleman, 198 9a ) .This research strongly argu es for th eprimacy of affect an d its ability ev en t o override though t an d to op er at e

independently of it. It also confirms th e role of sublim inal perception,

understood as affective reactions that occur prior to thoughts beingprocessed, or even before having registered fully what causes the

em otional reaction. It also begins to describe, an d eve n diagram , th eparts of the brain involved (e.g. , the thalamus an d amygd ala) an d thepathways be tween them , which avoid the neoco rtex a n d which pro-

vide the mechanism for the global affective response. What seemsimportant is that there is a vast amount of work in brain anatomy,

neurobiology, neurophysiology, neurochernistry, cognitive neurobi-ology, an d s o on which provides the base s for a m echanism to explainth e process that I postulated , a n d m uch empirical evidence in its favor.

This on ce again strengthens the likelihood th at the particular processesprop ose d, or som ething very muc h like the m , ar e in fact thos e op erat-ing in th e way m eanin g from the built env iron m en t influences prefer-

en ce an d behavior.

Conclusion

This epilogue is relatively brief, a n d althou gh it up da tes th e discus-sion throug h th e middle of 1 9 8 9 , the updating is neither systematic

nor com plete. This is partly becaus e work a n d publication co ntinue,a n d at an accelerating ra te, in an y field that is alive an d progressing,

a n d partly be causeto

be thoroughI

would n ee d to review quite a fewdifferent fields. Also, while m any references could b e a d d ed , it do esno t se em tha t they would ch an ge anything-they would just providefurther su ppo rt, exam ples, a n d elaboration, a n d this se em s unneces-

sary. T he re was a lso a limit se t for th e size of this epilogue; a co mpletean d systematic review cou ld have dou bled th e size of t h e boo k.

There is also ano the r reason. O ver the years I hav e tended to usemy earlier work a s "predictions" tested to th e ex tent that my conclu-

sions, proposals , an d hypo theses have be en suppo rted. It thus see m s



240 THE MEANINGOFTHE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

qu ite in order to leave this ongo ing proc ess at the point it ha s reache dan d to h op e that this new edition of th e boo k will be u sed in the sa m e

way , no t just by m e bu t by o thers.T he material I hav e reviewed in this epiloqu e suggests that although

so m e significant modifications to a part of C ha pt er 2 p roved neces-sary, these d o no t seem to invalidate a ny o f the central argum ents ofthe book. T he concept of levels of m ean ing as briefly described a boveactually helps to clarify the central argument and is also helpful in

identifying the likely meanings in given situations.It see m s clearer than ever that peop le see m to obtain meanings from

the en vironm ent and to u ndersta nd it directly an d easily. In m ost case s

people notice and interpet cues in settings in straightforward, effort-less, a n d simp le ways an d t o act appropriately. This process is usuallyself-evident and unproblematic, at least in a given cultural context.

This is shown by my u se, in earlier work a n d in this bo ok , of m aterialfrom television a n d film, new spapers, magazines, novels, advertising,

an d th e like. I have continued to collect and analyze such material,a n d it con tinues to show this self-evident use of meaning (e .g .,Rapo-

port, 19 85 a, 19 85 b, in pressf ) .

As just o n e exa m ple, a recent news-paper story described the "symbolic" lowering of the special, higherdais for prosecutors in Italian courts, which will now be at the samelevel as that of the defen se counsel (H offm ann , 19 89 ). This cha ng e

reflects major change s in Italian law a n d clearly illustrates an d rein-

force s the discussion of courtroom s in four oth er societies in this book(on pages 124 -126 an d in Fig. 1 8 ). It is no tewo rthy tha t a grea t manyresources a re being e xp en de d to lower the dais a few inches. It is also

of intere st that this chan ge is traced to the im pact of th e "Perry M ason "television series. More than ever it se em s that attem pts to com plicate

the issue, to m ak e it esoteric, difficult, a n d ar ca ne , are par t of a g ene raltendency toward obfuscation in both the social sciences and the hu-manities. B ut that is a topic for an oth er day .

Given all this, it follows tha t the s tud y of th ese p rocesses and m ea n-ings should b e equally simple, easy , an d straightforward. This justifies

my em phasis on the metho dological simplicity an d directness of theNVC ap pr oa ch a s o n e of its m ajor attractions. This is desirable con cep -tually b ecause it is "natural" in the se nse that it is like th e way u sersinterpre t environmental cu es in their everyday use of settings. It is alsodesirable pragmatically for the reasons given in this book. This does

not m ean that the full repertoire of m ethod s ca nn ot, a n d sho uld not,b e u sed , including cognitive mapping, projective tests, studies of e n-



Epilogue 241

vironmental mem ory, observation, experiments , an d s o on. M ethod-

ological soph istication can g o with simplicity of ap proa ch ev en in thestudy of high-level mean ings. T h us nonve rbal com mu nication is the

preferred, although pe rhap s not th e only, app roa ch for the study of

the every day low- an d middle-level meanings that built enviro nm entsha ve for users, which is th e subjec t of this book. In ad ditio n, not onlyis NVC clearly a progressive research program but, both inherently

an d se en broadly a n d eclectically a s I suggest, it is ab le to accomm o-

date much work that seem s to use o ther approaches .These arguments for a relatively straightforward and direct ap-

proa ch to the study of meanings-as con trasted with, say, the su p-

posedly theory-driven ap pro ach of semiotics-does not m ea n, a s o n ereviewer of this book th ou gh t, tha t I was opp osed to theory (Bedford,

31984). Tha t is, of co urse , th e exa ct op po site of m y position. W ithou t

eng agin g in polem ics, I will m ak e just tw o points. T h e first is that th er e

is explanatory theory, which is based o n research an d su ppo rted by

empirical da ta a n d which leads to understanding an d prediction, and

then there is "theory," which is really nothing more than opinion,

ideology, a n d the like. I was criticizing th e latter, wh at passe s for the oryin to o m an y fields. Se co nd , the construction of exp lanato ry theory

cannot begin until there is sufficient empirical data to suggest direc-tions a n d t o constrain su ch theory construction. This, I argue in the

text, is th e c as e with linguistics, in which it is often necessary to ha ve

a "natural history" sta ge (se e Ra pop ort, 1986b).Su ch data ar e clearlybest obtained using th e NVC approach as I have dev eloped it.

Th e discovery of possible m ech anism s for the processes pro po se d,by research in neuroscience, cognitive science, and related fields, isalso impo rtant. It a t least begins to suggest possible explanations fo r

how the processes that I postulated work a nd thu s should be most

helpful in theory deve lop m en t. It will b e worthwhile to look for further

work along these l ines an d t o d o a m or e thorough a n d explicit job in

relating the se different bo die s of w ork. F urth erm ore , this also suggests

that t he s tudy of m ean ing is not only straightforward bu t can a lso b eexplicitly scientific and that it benefits from work in other sciences.Th ere a re clearly oth er views; in fact, they m ay eve n b e d om inant

(e.g.,H odder, 1986 ) ,bu t in m y view, they d o not s tan d u p to analysis

(se e Rapoport , in press a ) .It also con tinues to b e th e ca se tha t very little NVC work concerns

the built environment and material culture. This is clear from the re-views by Despres (1 9 8 7 b ) a n d Devlin (1988),and from the book




edited by Poyatos (1 9 8 8 ), in which my chap ter is the only o n e toaddress those domains (Rapoport , 1 9 88 ). I thus end with a plea that

those interested in studying meaning in the built environm ent, a n d i t

is central in a n y understanding of env ironm ent-behav ior interaction,

try using nonverbal comm unication approa ches .

Notes

1. I realize tha t there is disagreem ent w ith "lum ping" semiotics and linguis-tics togethe r, and there are, in fact, som e differences betw een the two fields.

It see m s to m e, how ever, tha t the starting point of semiotics is linguistics an d

that major linguistic influences pe rm eate the former.

2. My use of this con cep t in this connection d oes no t mea n tha t I necessarily

acce pt Lakatos' more general views abo ut scien ce, the history o f science, an dSO on.

3. T he point has been m ad e to m e that the terms "high-level," "middle-

level," and "low-level" present a problem by implying some hierarchy ofvalue. While not intende d, this may b e so , but I have been unable to comeup with better term s.

4. Th ere is also a possible link with T uan 's (1 9 78 ) distinction between

signs, affective signs, an d symbols, although I have not pursued this. In anycase, and in the light of this discussion, my suggestion o n page 3 5 that the

first two should be com bined now se em s inappropriate. This is, however, arelatively minor po int an d d oe s not invalidate the rest of my argu ment.

5. Note that ev en in the examples of traditional religious settings tha t Idiscuss where high-level meanings hav e been shown to be present, my argu-

m en t is that mo st users utilized very similar low-level cues (Rapop ort, 19 8 8 ).Admittedly, these settings accom m oda te users' need s rather better than thehousing in Singapore-as did traditional culture-specific dwellings. But thatis anoth er topic.

6. W hen "symbols" ar e mentioned or used in studies of contem porary

everyday settings, they see m to be used as a synonym for "meaning" ratherthan in any technical sense.

7. These were drawn to my attention by a Visiting Fellow in our depart-m en t, Fridrich Dieckmann.

8. A recent review of the literature by o ne of my doctoral stud en ts, PaulMaas ("Aesthetic emo tions," com pleted in late Se pte m be r 1 9 8 9 ), contains4 6 5 references covering both aspects, of which ab out 40 0 a re directly relevantto th e point 1 am making here.



Epilogue 243

References

Abelson, R P (1 97 6) "Scnp t processing in attitude formation an d decislon ma king,"

m J S Carroll an d J W Payne (eds ) Cognition an d Social Behav ior Hillsdale, NJErlbaum--- 1981)"Psychological s tatu s of scnpt concep t "American Psyc holog~ st 6. 715-

729Ames, K L (1978)"Meaning in artifacts hall furnishings in Victorian Amerlca "J ou rn al

o f Interdisciplinary H~st or y (1). 9-46--- 19 80 ) "Material culture a s nonv erbal comm unication. a historical case study "

Journal of American Culture 3 (4 ) 619-641.

Arreola, D D (1981)"Fences a s land scap e taste: Tucson's Barrios "Jou rnal of Cultural

Geography 2 (1) 96-105---198 4) "H ou se color in Mexican-American barrios " Presented a t a conference

o n Bullt Form and Cultu re Re search, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 18 -2 0 Oc to-

ber (mimeo)--- 1988)"Mexican American townscapes "Geo graphica l Review 7 8 (3 ):2 9 9 3 1 5 .

Bartlett, F (19 67 ) Remembering Cambridge Cambridge University Press, originally

published 1932Bedford, M (1 98 4) "Analyzing the built form." RIBA Journa l 9 1 (3 ) 1 6

Binford. L R (1 96 2) "Archaeology a s anthropology." American Antiquity 2 8 (2 )

217-266

Blanck, P D R Buck, an d R Rosenthal [eds ] (1 98 6) Nonverbal Comm unication inthe Clinical Co ntex t. University Park: Pennsylvania St at e University Press

Brewer, W , and G Nakamura (1 98 4) "T he na ture an d function of schem as," pp.

119-16 0 in R Wyer an d T Srull (e ds ) Handbook of Soclal Cognltlon Hillsdale,

NJ Erlbaum

Broda, J , D Carrasco, and E Matos (1987)T he Gre at Temple of Tenochtitldn Ce nter

an d Periphery in the Aztec World Berk ele y University of California PressBrooke, J (1 98 8) "Ivory Coa st church to tower over S t Peter's," N ew York Times

December 19

Brower, S (1 98 9) "Residents' an d outsiders' pe rceptions of the env ironm ent," pp

189-203 in S M Low and E Chambers (eds ) Housing, Culture and DesignPhiladelph~aUniversity of Pennsylvania Press

Brower S , K Dockett, an d R. B Taylor (1 98 3) "Residents' perceptions of territorial

features and perceived local threats "Environ me nt an d Behavior 15(4) 419-437

Bull, R , an d N Rumsey ( 19 88 ) T he Social Psychology of Facial App earanc e New

York Springer Verlag

Cherulnik, P D , and S K Wilderman (1 986 ) "Symbols of status in urba n neighbo r

ho od s con tem porary perceptions of nineteenth-century Boston " Environment an dBehavior 18 ( 5 ) 604-622

Chua, B. H (1 98 8) "Ad~u stlng eligious practices to different h ouse forms in Sin ga -

pore " Arch~tecture nd Behavior 4 (1) 3-25

Clarke, D L (1 97 8) Analytical Archaeology. 2d ed Lond on MethuenCsikszentmihalyl, M ,an d E Rochberg-Halton (1 98 1) The Meaning of Things. Dom es-

tic Sym bols an d the Self New York Ca mbridg e University Press

Deitz, P (1 98 4) "A gentle redesign for a 1 9 4 9 project," New York Times, Ju n e 2 1

Despres, C (1 98 7a ) "Symbolic representations of the suburba n house the case of the

Neo-Que becois hou se," pp 152-159 in J Harvey an d D Henning (e ds ) PublicEnvironments EDRA 18 . Washington, DC. DRA.




--- 198 7b) Nonverbal Communication as Applied to ~ nv ir on m en ta lMeaning: An

Anno tated Bibliography o f Recent Publications (19 77- 198 6). Unpublished pape r,

Department of Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (February).

Devlin, K. (19 88 ) "Nonve rbal Comm unication: An Approach to Environmental Mean-ing (Anno tated Bibliography an d Discussion)." Unpublished pape r, D epar tme nt of

Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (May).Doxtater, D. (1981) Ac osm osin the corporation," pp. 36 -45 in A. E. Ostenberg, C. P .

Tiernan , a n d R. A. Findlay (e ds .) Design Research Interactions. EDRA 12 . Washing-

ton, DC: EDRA.

Duncan, J. S . (19 84 ) "Texts a nd contexts in eighteenth century Kandy." Presented a t

the C onf ere nce on Built Form a nd Culture R esearch, University of Kansas, Law-rence, October. (mim eo)--- ed .] (1 98 1) Housing a nd Identity: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Lo ndo n: Croom

Helm.Duncan, J. S . , S . Lindsey, an d R. Buchan (1 98 5) "Decoding a residence: artifacts,

social co de s an d the construction of the self." Espaces et societes No. 47 : 29- 43.Environm ent an d Behavior ( 19 87 ) "H om e interiors: a E uropean perspective," special

issue, 1 9 (2): 147-262.

Farbstein, J., and M. Kantrowitz ( 198 6) "The image of post office buildings: first find-

ings-focus grou p," pp. 25 9-26 4 in J. Wineman et al. ( ed s. ) The Costs of N ot

Knowing. EDRA 1 7 . Washington, DC : EDRA.Flannery, K. V., and J. Marcus [e ds.] (19 83 ) Th e Cloud People: The D ivergent Evolu-

tion of th e Zapotec an d M ixtec Civilizations. New York: Academic Press.Foote, K. E. (1 98 3) Color in Public S pace s: Toward a Comm unication-Based Theory

of th e Urban Built Environment. University of C hicago, Depar tme nt of Ge ography

Research Pape r, no. 205 . Chicago.Goleman, D. (1989a)"Brain's design eme rge s as a key to emotions. " New York Times,

August 15.--- 19 89 b) "Sensing silent cues eme rges a s a key skill." New York Times, Octo-

ber 10 .

Goodsell,C. T. (1988)T he Social Meaning of Civic Space : Stud ying Political Authority

Through Architecture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Goody, J. (1 97 7) Th e Domestication of the Sav age Mind. Cambridge: C ambridg e

University Press.

Gottdiene r, M., and A. Ph. Lagopo ulos (1 98 6) The City an d the Sign: An Introduction

to Urban Semiotics. New York: Co lumbia University Press.Gr oat, L. (1 98 2) "Meanings in post-modern architecture: a n examination using the

multiple sorting task." Jour na l of E nvironmental Psychology 2: 3-22.

Ha nso n, F. A. (1 98 3) "When the ma p is the territory: art in Maori culture," pp. 74-89

in D. K. W ashburn (e d .) Structure a nd Cognition in Art. C ambridg e: Cambridge

University Press.Hockings, J. (1 98 4) Built Form and Culture: A Ca se Stud y of G ilbertese Architecture.

Ph.D. diss., Department of Architecture, University of Queensland (Australia).--- 19 87 ) "Built form an d culture." Architecture an d Behavior 3 (4 ) :281-300.

Hodder, 1. (1 98 6) Read ing the Past: Curre nt A pproach es to Interpretation in Archaeol-

ogy. Ca mbridge : Ca mbridge University Press.Hoffman, P. (1 98 9)"In Italy 'Perry Mason' is inspiring," New York Times, Octo ber 16.

Hucek, A. (1 98 3) "Domestic Objects an d the Presentation of Self: A Stud y of Designers

an d Non-Designers." S en ior thesis, Minneapolis College of Art an d Design (Fall).



Epilogue 245

Hu nt Tho mp son Assoclates (1 98 8) Matden Lan e Feaslk)ll~ty tudy for the Lo ndo n

Borough of Ca m den Londo n Hu nt Thom pson AssoclatesIsbcll, W H (19 78 ) "Cosmolog~cal rder expressed in prehistoric ceremonial centers,"

pp 26 7-2 97 In Actes du 42 Congres lntern at~o nal es Am er~canistes, ol 4 Pan s

Jackson, J B (1 98 4) Dlscoverlng the Vernacular Lan dsra pe New Haven, CT Yale

Un~versityPressKamtnsk~,G (19 87 ) "Co gn~ tlve ases of situation processing and beh av~ or e tt ing

partlcipatlon," p p 21 8- 24 0 in G R Semen] and B Krah&(eds ) Issues In Con te m -

porary Germ an So c ~ a l sychology Beverly Hllls. CA S ag e

Katz, A M , an d V T Katz (198 3) Fou nda t~on s f Nonverbal Com mun~ cat lon Read

mgs, Exercises an d Comm entary Carbond ale and Edwardsvtlle Sou thern Ill~nors

Unlversity Press

Kendon, A [ed ] (19 81 ) Nonverbal Communication, lnteractlon and Gestures Selec

tions of Semiotlca New York Mo utonKent, S (1984) Analyzing Actlvrty Areas An Ethnoarchaeolog~cal tudy of the Use of

Sp ace Albuquerque Unlverstty o f New Mextco Press--- 1987) "Understanding the use of space a n ethnoarchaeologlcal persp ect ~v e,"

pp 1-60 In S Kent (ed ) Metho d an d Theory for Activlty Area Research AnEthnoa rchaeological Approach New York Colum bla Unlversity Press

Kruse, L (19 88 ) "Behavlor settings, cognltlve scripts, I~n gw stic rames " Presented a t

the Symposium on Ecological Psychology, 10th IAPS Confere nce, Delft, T he

Netherlands, July (mlm eo)

Lakatos, I (1 97 1) "Hlstory of science an d ~ t sat ~ on al econstructton," pp 91-136 InR D Buck and R S Cohen (eds ) Bos ton S tud~esn the Philosophy of Sc~ence,

vol 8 Dordrecht Retdel

L ang, J (1982)"Symbolic aesthet~ csn architecture," p p 172 -182 In P Bart, A C he n,

and G Francescato (eds ) Knowledge for Deslgn EDRA 13 Wash~ngton,DC

EDRA

Lee, L -S (1 98 2) "The Image of clty hall," p p 310 -31 7 In P Bart, A Ch en, an d GFrancescato (eds ) K ~ n w l ~ d g eor Des ~a n EDRA 1 3 Washlngton, DC EDRA

I-ewts-Willtams, J D (1981) Believing and Seeing S ym bol~ cMeanings In Southern

S a n Rock Patntings Lon don Academic Press--- 1 98 3) Th e Rock Art of Sou thern Africa Cambridge Cambridge Unlvers~ty

Press

Mandler, J M (19 84 )Stories, Scrlpts an d Sce ne s Aspects of Sc he m a The ory Hlllsdale

NJ Erlbaum

Marcus, J (19 76 ) Emblem an d S tate in the Class~cMaya Lowlands W ashington, DCDumbarton Oaks

Mlnsky, M (1 97 5) "A framework for representing knowledge," p p 211-277 In P H

Wtnston (ed ) T he Psychology of Co mp uter Vi s~ onNew York McGraw-H111

Nasar, J 1 (1 983 ) "Adult vlewers' p references in rc*sldent~alcenes a study of therelatlonshtp o f attributes to preference " Envrronment a nd Behavlor 15 (5) 5 89 -6 1 4--- 1988 ) "Architectural symbolism a study of house-style meanings," p p 163-

1 7 1 In D Lawrence et a1 (e ds ) Paths to C o ex~ s tenceEDRA 1 9 Washlngton, DC

EDRA--- 19 89 ) "Symboh c m eanings of ho use styles " Environment and B ehavior 2 1 (3 )

235-257

Nasar, J. L ,and J Kang (19 89 )"Symbolic meanings of building style m small suburb an




offices." Prese nted at the 20th EDRA Con ferenc e, Black Mountain, NC, April.

(mimeo)Nem eth, D. J. (1987)The Architecture of Ideolog y: Neo-C onfucian Imprinting on C heju

Island, Korea . University of California, Publications in Ge ogr aph y, no. 2 6. B erkeley.

Norm an, D. A. (1 9 8 8) The Psychology of E veryday Things. New York: Basic Book s.

Ostrowetsky, S., and J . S. Bordreuil ( 19 80 ) Le Nbo-Style Regional: Reproduction

d'une Architecture Pavillonnaire. Paris: Dunod.

Pavlides, E. (1 98 5) Vernacular Architecture a n d Its Social Context: A Ca se S tud y from

Eressos, G reece. Ph .D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.

Pieper, J. [ed.1 (1 98 0) Ritual Spa ce in India. AARP, 17 . Lo ndo n.

Po pp er, K. R. (1 97 2) Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Ap proac h, Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Poyatos, F. (1 98 3) New Perspectives in Nonverbal C om mu nication. New York: Perga -

mon Press.--- ed .] (1 98 8) Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal C om mu nication. To-

ronto: C. J. Hogrefe.Practice (1 98 8 ) "Pla nnin g." Jou rna l of th e Royal Institute of British Architects, supple -

ment 9 5 (October) : 3 .

Rapoport, A. ( 19 83 ) "Developm ent, culture chan ge and supportive design." Habitat

International 7 (516): 249 -26 8.--- 1 98 5 a) "Thinking abo ut ho m e environments: a conceptual framew ork," pp.

255-286 in I. Altman and C . M. W erner (ed s.) H om e Environments, vol. 8 of

Hu m an Behavior and Environment. New York: Plenum.--- 19 8 5 b) "On diversity" an d "Designing for diversity, "pp. 5- 8,3 0- 36 in B. Ju dd ,

J . D ea n, a nd D. Brown (ed s.) Ho using Issues I: D esign for Diversification. Canberra :

Royal Australian Institute of Architects.- -A (1 98 6a ) "The use and design of op en spa ces in urban neighborhoods," pp.

159-175 in D. Frick (ed.)The Quality of Urban Life: Social, Psychological and

Physical Conditions. Berlin: de Gruyter.--- 19 86 b) "Culture an d built form-a recon sideration," pp. 157-17 5 in D. G.

Saile ( e d .) Architecture in Cultural Chang e: Essays in Built Form an d Culture Re-

search. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.--- 1988) Levels o f mean ing in the built environment," p p. 317 -336 in F. Poyatos

(e d. ) Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Com mun ication. Toronto: C . J ,

Hogrefe.--- 19 89 ) "Environmental quality and environmental quality profiles." Prese nted

at the s em inar Quality in th e Built Environm ent, University of New castle up on Ty ne

(Gre at Britain), July. (to app ear in proceedings)--- in press a ) History a nd Prec eden t in E nvironmental Design. New York: Plenu m.--- in press b ) "Defining verna cular design ," in M. Tu ran (e d. ) On Vernacular Ar-

chitecture. A ldershot: Gow er.--- in press c) "Systems of activities and systems of settings," in S. Kent (ed..)

Dom estic Architecture a n d Useof Sp ac e. Cam bridge: Cam bridge University Press.--- in press d l "On th e attributes of 'tradition,'" in N. Alsayyad an d J. P. Bourdier

(e ds .) Dwellings, Settlem ents a nd Tradition. La nh am , MD: University Press of

America.--- in press e ) "On regions an d regionalism," in N. C. Markovich, W.F.E. Preiser,

an d F. A. Stu rm (e ds .) Pueb lo Style a n d Regional A rchitecture. New York: Van

Nostrand Reinhold.



Epilogue 247

--- in press f ) "indirect approaches to environment-behavior research " Natlonal

Geograph rcal Jou rnal of Indta, 1 9 8 9 specla1 rssue o n 'Literature a nd HumanisticGeography," 35 (pts 3-4)

Revue d e I'habltat social (1 9 8 1 ) " A le n ~ o n I'rmpossrble rehabllitatron d e Persergne "No 6 3 (May) 32-47

Rldgeway, C L ,J Berger , and L S m ~ th 1 9 8 5 )"Nonverbal cubs an d s tatus an expec-

tatron states appro ach " Amerlcan Journal of Sociology 9 0 (5 ) 9 55 -97 8

Robtnson, J W , et dl (19 84 ) Towards an Arch~tectura lDefrnltlon o f N ormalrzation

Destgn Pr tnc ~p les or Housrng Sev erely and P rofoundly Reta rded Adults Mln-

neapolls Unlvers~tyof Mrnnesota (September)

Rodman, M C (19 85 a) "Contemporary custom redefining domestic space In Lon

gan a, Vanuatu " Ethnology 2 4 (4 ) 269-279

(1 98 5b ) "Moving houses res~dentralmobility and the mobllrty of residences rn

Longana, Vanuatu " American Anthropolog~st 7 56-87Russell, J A , and J Snodgrass (19 87 ) "Emotion and the environment ." p p 245-280

in D Stokols and 1 Altman (e ds ) Han dbo ok of Environmental Psychology, vol 1New York W ~ley

Sadalla, E J ,et a1 (1 9 8 7 )"lden t~ty ymbolrsm In h ou s~ n g Environment and B ehavlor

1 9 (5) 569-587

Schan k, R C , and R P Abelson (1 97 7) Sc r~ pts , lans, Goals an d Understandrng An

lnqurry Into Hu m an Know ledge Structu res Hlllsdale, NJ Erlbaum

- - -(197 9) "Scripts , plans and knowledge," pp 421 -432 In N Jo hn so n-L a~ rd nd

P C Wason (eds ) Thlnklng Readrngs In Cognttrve Scie nce C am b r~ d g e Ca mbridge University Press

Scherer, K R , and P Ekman [eds ] (1 9 8 2 ) H an db oo k of M ethods In Nonverbal Be-

havror Research Cam brrdge Ca m brtdg e Unrversity Press

Suchar , C S , an d R Ro tenberg (19 88 ) "Judg lng the adeq uac y of shelter a case from

Lrncoln Park ' Prese nted at the m eetlng of the Soclety for Applied Anthropo logy,

Ta mpa , FL, Aprll (mlmeo)

Thag ard, P (1 98 8) Cornputattonal Ph ~lo sop hy f Science Cam bridge, MA MIT Press1Bradford Books

Varady, D P (1986 ) "Ne~ghborhoodco nf ~ de nc e a cr~trcal actor In nerghborhoodrevrtallzatlon " Envlronment an d Behavror 18 (4 ) 480 -501

Vargus, M F (1 98 6) Lou der than Words An lntroductlon to Nonverbal Com mu nica-

tlon Am es Iowa Sta te Unlversrty Press

V~nntcombe,P (1 97 6) Peo ple of the Eland Rock Pa in t~ ng s f the Drakensberg

Bu shm en as a Reflectron of Thelr Lde and Tho ugh t Prete rm anb bu rg Unlversity of

Natal Pres s

Wremann, J M , and R P Harrison [ed s ] ( 1 9 8 3 )Nonverb al Interaction Beverly Hllls,

CA SageWobst, H M (1 97 7) "Stylrst~c ehavror an d information exchange," pp 317 -342 tn

C E C leland (e d ) For th e Director Rese arch Essays In Ho no r of Ja m es B Grlffrn

Unlversity of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropolog~cal apers, no 61

Wolfgang, A [ed ] (1984)Nonv erbal Behavior Perspectrves, Applications, Intercultural

Insights Lewis ton , NY Ho gre fe

Wood, D (19 69 ) "The Image of Sa n Cr~s tobal Monadnock 4 3 29-45

Zube, E H ,J Vlnlng, C S Law, and R B Be chtel(1 985 ) "Pereerved urban resrdent~al

quallty a cross-cultural blm odal study " Envlronment and B eha v~ or 7 (3) 3 2 7 -

3 5 0



INDEX

NOTE- The following index IS eproduced from the original e d ~ t ~ o n .t covers subjects

only an d includes neither na m es found in the text nor references to the n ew epilogue

Aborigines, Australian, 26, 75, 86, Britain, 14, 16, 23, 24, 130, 174-175,

91-92, 115, 147, 148 179, 180, 187

Aesthetics, 21, 26, 72, 79, 94 Build~ngs, , 15, 16, 27, 30, 43, 140,

Affect, 13, 14, 87, 114, 140 154, 155Affordance. 35

Africa, 43, 89, 90, 92, 95, 115,

128-129, 145, 146, 148, 158-159,

186

Ainu, 43

Amsterdam, 19

Anthropology, 35, 36, 37, 43. 47, 48,

60, 73, 98, 118Archaeology, 82, 90, 91, 141, 198

Architect, 16, 19, 20, 25, 139

Associational, 14, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26,

27, 30, 45, 75, 143, 164, 185, 197

Atoni, 43

Back, 22, 56, 77, 116, 118, 127, 173,

195; see also Front

Bali, 43Bedouin, 88, 147, 188-189, 190-191

Behav io r ,9 , 52, 55, 58,60,61,62,

63, 65, 75, 77, 80, 82, 86, 87, 90,

92 ,9 4, 95 ,9 6, 104, 105, 107, 118,

124, 125, 137, 147, 180, 186

Berber, 43

Bicul tural~sm,85-86

Rororo. 43

Cambodia , 27, 111, 117

Catal Huynk, 9 0

Cathedral , 27

Ch ain operations, 45-46, 78, 85, 187

C h i n a , 2 7 , 111, 114,132, 133,1 49,

150-151

Church, 40, 43, 162, 173, 175Cities; see U rban

Clothing, 9 , 15, 27, 47, 56, 63, 64,

70-72, 94, 97-98, 117, 124, 139,

174, 184

Code (includes coding, encoding,

decoding, etc.), 15, 19, 43-44, 5 1,

56, 57, 59, 65, 67, 74, 80, 81, 82,

104, 124 ,126 , 137, 140, 142, 177Cognit ion, 15,43, 4 7,6 4, 67, 75, 116,

118

Color, 27, 30, 40, 84, 93, 96, 99,

11 1 116, 117, 119, 127, 128, 142,

162, 181, 191

Communication, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,

52, 56, 57, 64, 70, 96, 137, 141,

152, 170, 177-195




Complex i ty , 19, 26-27, 150, 163, 172,

184

Content analys is , 1 1-13, 21-22, 75,

97, 134, 154

C o n t e x t , 4 0 , 4 1 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 4 9 , 5 2 , 5 6 ,57,

69, 70-71, 73, 74, 82, 99, 100,

107 ,111 ,114 ,117 ,118 ,124 ,141 ,

156, 157, 170, 171, 181, 182

Cour t rooms , 124-125

Crime , 26,4 0, 152, 170, 17 1-17 2

Cross-cultural , 9, 24, 26, 36, 89, 102,

105, 106. 108, 112-114. 115, 121,

124, 198

C rowding , 19, 26, 72. 159C u e s , 26, 30, 40, 46, 51, 56, 57,

58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 68, 70, 77, 84,

106-107, 112, 117, 119, 123, 131-

132, 138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 147-

153, 156-157, 163-168, 170, 171,

172, 173, 174, 182, 183-185, 187,

188, 189, 191

Cul tura l l andscape , 137-141, 145, 179

Cultu ra l specific i ty , 81, 101, 104, 106,

111, 112, 115, 191

C ul tu ra l un~ v e r s a l s ,10, 26, 101, 102,

104 ,106 ,111 ,112

Cul ture , 9, 15, 30, 34, 35, 39, 43, 44,

47, 52, 56. 58, 59,60,61,62,67,

74, 75, 76, 85, 95, 102, 143, 145,

171, 178

Culture core , 82, 88

Decora t ion , 22, 23, 92, 113, 117, 124,

128-129, 142, 186

Defe ns ive s t ructur ing, 192

Dens i ty , 26, 134, 155, 156, 157, 163

Den si ty , perceived, 34, 107, 159, 162-

167, 169, 172

Des igners , 15, 16, 19, 21-23, 38, 45,

5 1 , 59, 65, 92, 106, 162

Dogon , 30, 43

D o m a i n , 15, 19, 47, 56, 63, 64, 66,

77, 91, 96, 118, 119, 137, 147,

158, 170, 192

Dwel ling ; s ee Hous e

Encul tu ra t ion , 15, 26, 65-70, 76

Envi ronment , 9, 11, 19, 22, 23, 26,35, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,52, 53, 56,

59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 140, 177-183;

direct effects of, 55-56; indirect

effects of, 55-56

Envi ronmenta l des ign , 9, 44, 62

Environmenta l qual i ty , 15, 26, 34, 98,

129-130, 144, 152, 153, 156, 157,

158, 159, 162, 167-169, 172, 173,

198

Ethology, 36, 52, 53, 101, 116

Europe, medieval , 27, 1 13

Evolu t ion , 102, 115, 118

Fang , 63, 158

F e n c e s , 16, 86, 127, 128, 130, 131,157, 170,189

Fixed-fea ture e lements , 87-90, 124,

136, 141, 170, 181

F r a n c e , 24, 32, 1 1 1, 115

Front , 22, 56, 77, 94, 116, 118, 127,

130, 131, 132, 147, 188, 195; see

also Back

Furnishings, 9, 15, 21, 23, 56, 89, 90,

93, 95. 97, 117, 142, 181

G a r d e n , 1 5 , 22, 24, 89, 107, 130,

132-133, 137, 164, 193

Generalization, 9, 32

Ge ogra phy , 35, 132, 140

G r e e c e , 40, 43, 117

G r o u p , 20, 22, 23, 39, 60, 65, 76, 79,

94, 99, 107, 126, 127, 129, 132,133, 139, 140, 144, 145, 152, 156,

157, 159, 170, 173, 180, 185, 192,

193, 198

Gro up iden t ity , 15, 71, 76, 88, 94, 99,

126, 132, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142,

181

High style, 9, 21, 27, 29, 42, 44, 45,

198

Homogene i ty , 32, 137, 166, 167, 170,

172, 184, 189, 193

House ( inc ludes hous ing) , 14, 16, 22,

23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 32, 66, 67, 76,

89 ,9 1, 92 ,9 5, 115, 119, 126, 128,

132, 133-134, 137, 139, 142-143,

147, 156-157, 162, 167, 172, 188-

189, 193-195House-se t t l ement sys tem, 27, 187, 193



Index 251

Ideal, 21, 28, 45, 46, 133, 141, 179

Identity, 22, 56, 63, 70, 71, 97, 99,

126, 139, 172, 173

Image, 14, 29, 32, 45, 46, 129, 134,

139, 150. 155, 157, 158, 159, 162-

168, 172, 173, 179

India, 27, 107, 116, 142, 179, 186

Inference, 51, 73, 77, 90, 129, 139,

156, 163, 169

Information, 8, 19, 47, 49, 61, 66, 74,

82, 84, 139, 183, 194

Isphahan , 27, 76, 91, 114, 117

Italy, 27, 40, 43, 111, 114, 115, 119,

121, 141

Landscape, 9, 28, 29, 40, 43, 121,

134, 137, 140, 156, 157

Landscaping, 24, 120, 12 1, 127-128 ,

153, 155, 162, 171, 173, 181

Latent , 15, 16, 23, 33, 35, 72, 95, 96,

132, 167, 169; see also Manifes t

Latin America, 92, 144, 145Lawn, 25, 63, 89, 127, 129-130, 131,

132, 139, 152, 162, 167, 173

Lexicon, 52, 69, 80, 101, 105, 115

Lifestyle, 34, 66, 75, 82, 98, 126,

134, 173, 183, 184, 194, 198

Linguistics (includes language), 36, 37,

38, 43, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 72, 74,

102, 104, 112, 115, 121

Location, 56, 57, 68, 84, 88, 91, 107,

108, 111, 114-116, 119, 127, 129,

144, 152, 159, 184, 185, 186, 188,

189, 191, 194

Man-environment studies, 9, 1 1, 19,

34. 55, 123, 198

Manifest , 15, 16, 23, 32, 35, 132; see

also LatentMaori , 26, 192

Marrakesh, 9 1

Materials, 16, 27, 40, 93, 117, 119,

127, 129, 134, 139, 142, 143, 144-

145, 156-157, 188, 189-190

Maya , 43, 91, 117, 131, 188

Meals, 66, 67, 95

Meaning; environmental, 37, 55-86,

87-121 ; importance of, 26-34;

organization of, 178, 181-183;

study of, 35-53

Methodology, 11, 36, 50, 52, 69, 98,

100, 105, 123-124, 126-127, 155-

156, 174, 198

Mexico, 28, 90, 118, 141, 142, 145,

192

Middle East , 140

Milwaukee, 30, 126, 129, 134, 153,

162-163, 167

Mn emonic function of environment,

26, 67, 77, 80-81, 145, 170, 187,

197

Model , 9, 11, 30, 36, 37, 51, 53, 80,87, 102, 118, 198

Moslem clty, 89, 149

Mosque, 27, 76, 128-129

Navaho , 30, 88, 112, 114

Neighborhood, 15, 99, 126, 153, 169,

171, 174-175, 184, 192, 193

Neutral place, 169New Guinea , 26, 108, 115, 186

Nonfixed-feature elements, 87, 96-

101 ,123 ,136 ,137 ,139 ,170 ,177 ,

181, 184

Nonverbal communication, 14, 36, 47,

48-53, 72, 73, 84, 86, 87, 94, 96,

97, 99, 110-121, 134, 137, 176,

177, 198

Nonvisual senses, 27, 49, 76, 107,

144, 155, 163-164, 168, 174, 175

North Wes t Coas t (U.S.), 26, 115

Noticeable difference, 106, 108, 114,

116, 117, 119, 121, 126, 127, 129,

142, 144, 150, 152, 170

Nubia , 26, 92, 141-142, 191

Open-endedness, 22, 23, 24, 45Ornament ; see Decorat ion

Overdesign, 21, 2 2

Pantheon, 43

Parks, 34, 77, 169

Pat tern, 11, 128, 145

Perception (includes perceptual), 19,

24. 26. 27, 45, 49, 69, 73, 75, 112.

114, 116, 138, 140, 164, 170, 173,

185, 197




Personalization, 21, 22, 23, 24, 45,56, 89, 93, 94, 126-127, 194

Peru ,40 ,41 ,66 ,81 , 114, 131, 142Phenomenology, 35Place, 26, 35, 39, 40, 121, 185, 186Plants (includes planting), 21, 23, 63,

89, 107, 127, 132, 133, 141, 144-

145, 152, 154, 156-157, 158Popular design, 9, 45-46

Pragmatics, 39, 43, 50, 52, 69, 75, 99,177

Preliterate, 9, 26, 27, 28, 29, 150Private, 23, 56, 77, 91, 118, 147, 188,

193; see also PublicPsychology, 35, 36, 48, 73, 139Public, 56, 77, 91, 118, 147, 188; see

also PrivatePueblos, 40, 41, 88, 114

Quebec, 76, 148

Recreation, 14, 34, 156, 159, 167,173, 185, 194

Redundancy, 4 0 ,5 1, 84, 100, 1 17,138, 141, 145, 147, 149-152, 162,

174, 187Relationships, 9, 124, 177, 178Renaissance church, 28, 43

Repertory grid, 36Rules, 56, 62, 65, 67, 78, 119, 147,

171, 191Rural, 14, 32, 157, 159, 172

Sacred, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39, 40, 43, 75,92, 95, 116, 118, 119, 158, 181,186

Schema, 15 ,25 ,28 ,2 9,4 1,4 3, 44,46, 47, 83, 89, 92, 118, 120, 137,139, 150, 155, 159, 171

Semantic differential, 35Semantics, 38, 52Semifixed-feature elements, 87. 89-96,

124, 126, 127, 132, 136, 137, 139,

141, 170, 181Semiotics, 36-43, 84, 96, 118, 121,

133,145

Setting, 34, 47, 50, 56, 57, 61, 64, 66,

67, 73, 77-79, 85-86, 95, 97, 124,180, 185, 191, 198

Shops (includes shopping), 85, 93, 94,

99, 144, 152, 153, 154, 159, 162,173, 174, 175, 185

Sign, 35, 37, 46, 133Signal detection theory, 5 1, 73Situation, definition and interpretation

of, 56, 57, 59, 62, 63, 65, 80, 181South Africa, 24

South America, 28, 90, 115, 140Space organization, 27,50 , 80,84-85,

88, 92 ,94, 116-117, 124, 129,134, 136, 140, 142, 144-145, 178-

179, 188, 193

Standards, 26Status, 22, 48, 56, 57, 68-69, 70, 71,

90, 98, 99, 116, 132, 139, 141,144, 145, 172, 183, 184, 194

Street, 15, 77, 78, 88, 93-94, 141,145, 150, 152, 153, 156, 162, 169,

170,173, 174,187, 193Stress, 19, 26, 191Structuralism, 35, 37, 96, 118, 121,

133Suburb (includes suburban), 30, 32,

89, 99, 121, 142, 152, 156, 157,

162-168, 172-173Symbol (includes symbolism), 26, 27,

32, 33, 35, 36, 37,43-48, 66, 69,115, 118, 121, 145, 169, 181

Symbolic interactionism, 59-61, 80

Syntactics, 38, 43, 50, 52, 75

Taxonomy, 15, 56, 67, 118Temple, 27, 43, 90, 91, 107, 116, 175Territory, 152, 169, 171, 191Thailand, 43, 11 1Theory, 9 , 32, 36, 37, 61, 197, 198Time, 65, 80, 105, 164, 178, 179-180

Tombs, 79-80, 128, 141, 190-191Trees, 14, 29, 39-40, 107, 152, 154,

158, 162,167,168

United States, 9, 14, 16, 28, 30, 32,40, 89, 94-95, 99, 11 1, 112, 115,117, 128, 130-131, 134, 141, 144,149, 151-153, 155, 156, 157, 158,

159, 169, 170, 175-176, 179, 184,186, 187



Index 253

U rb an , 9 , 2 7 , 2 8 - 2 9 , 3 4 , 4 0 , 4 3 , 7 0 ,

89 , 90 , 98 , 99 , 134 , 141 , 137 -176

Users , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 34 , 76 ,

9 2 , 1 8 8

Values, 21 , 40 , 88 , 89 , 141 , 142 , 17 9Vegetat ion; see Plants

Vernacu lar , 9 , 22 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 29-30 ,

4 3 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 6 4 , 7 6 , 8 0 , 1 4 1 , 1 5 0,

1 9 8

Vil lage, 27, 30, 70, 117, 119, 1 3 9 ,141-142 , 145 , 157 , 158 , 159 , 183 ,

1 8 9

W i ld e rn e ss , 1 4 , 4 0 , 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 9 ,

121 , 158 , 159

Yoruba , 26 , 11 7 , 14 9

Rapoport - The Meaning of the Built Environment a Nonverbal Communication Approach

Documents

Transcript of Rapoport - The Meaning of the Built Environment a Nonverbal Communication Approach