Examine the relationship between culture and environment
Answers
Answered by
0
Major emphasis is placed on clarifying the concepts used and making the concepts and the relationships among them more operational. This is essential in order to make it possible to use these concepts in both analysis and design. A major goal here is to make the topic more concrete, specific and manageable since at the moment it is rather vague. It is like the weather: Everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it-mainly because they do not know how. At the same time the discussion is kept general to make it applicable to all cultures, all types of environments, all types of problems and so on. Examples will be found in the further readings.
Over the past few years culture-environment relations have been among the most active and lively areas of environment-behavior studies (EBS). Not only has this topic been prominent at meetings of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA), but there are two series of conferences devoted specifically to this topic. This is also the case in other fields where the role and effects of culture, previously unrecognized, neglected, or minimized, have become influential. This is the case in areas as diverse as developmental disorders, sport, employment, development policies, language development, medicine and medical practice, and psychology (with cross-cultural psychology as a major field). One also finds the concept of culture and cultural approaches being applied to institutions, as in the use of "corporate culture" in office studies, and to professions (including architecture).
The reasons for these developments have to do with the inescapable and central role that culture plays in all aspects of human behavior, cognition, affect, preference, and meaning (although how central it is, the extent and strength of that influence, are empirical questions).
At its most basic, the centrality of culture involves an apparent paradox. On the one hand the possession of culture is typically seen as the defining attribute of humans, defining the species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). As a defining attribute culture is an inescapable aspect of any human phenomenon, including how people shape environments, use them and interact with them. At the same time the possession of culture divides the single biological species into groups that are so different and varied that they can be seen as "pseudo-species." This variability of groups is also a very important attribute of humans and also central to understanding EBR and design properly conceived. These groups are defined by culture.
Note that this involves different user groups which are highly variable in their wants (and to a lesser extent needs). It also involves the meanings they give to environmental elements, their preferences and notions of environmental quality, images, ideals, and schemata. In addition, it applies to users as a whole, as opposed to designers who constitute a very specific, highly idiosyncratic group; they often do not share any of the above characteristics with most users. This also has major implications for design.
It is important to note that the nature of relevant groups is a rather under-researched topic. I have argued that children, the elderly, the urban poor in the third world, the handicapped, single parents and other "special user groups" encountered in literature may not be useful or appropriate. In some way "culture" is more relevant, cross-cutting the characteristics of such groups.
Over the past few years culture-environment relations have been among the most active and lively areas of environment-behavior studies (EBS). Not only has this topic been prominent at meetings of the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA), but there are two series of conferences devoted specifically to this topic. This is also the case in other fields where the role and effects of culture, previously unrecognized, neglected, or minimized, have become influential. This is the case in areas as diverse as developmental disorders, sport, employment, development policies, language development, medicine and medical practice, and psychology (with cross-cultural psychology as a major field). One also finds the concept of culture and cultural approaches being applied to institutions, as in the use of "corporate culture" in office studies, and to professions (including architecture).
The reasons for these developments have to do with the inescapable and central role that culture plays in all aspects of human behavior, cognition, affect, preference, and meaning (although how central it is, the extent and strength of that influence, are empirical questions).
At its most basic, the centrality of culture involves an apparent paradox. On the one hand the possession of culture is typically seen as the defining attribute of humans, defining the species (Homo Sapiens Sapiens). As a defining attribute culture is an inescapable aspect of any human phenomenon, including how people shape environments, use them and interact with them. At the same time the possession of culture divides the single biological species into groups that are so different and varied that they can be seen as "pseudo-species." This variability of groups is also a very important attribute of humans and also central to understanding EBR and design properly conceived. These groups are defined by culture.
Note that this involves different user groups which are highly variable in their wants (and to a lesser extent needs). It also involves the meanings they give to environmental elements, their preferences and notions of environmental quality, images, ideals, and schemata. In addition, it applies to users as a whole, as opposed to designers who constitute a very specific, highly idiosyncratic group; they often do not share any of the above characteristics with most users. This also has major implications for design.
It is important to note that the nature of relevant groups is a rather under-researched topic. I have argued that children, the elderly, the urban poor in the third world, the handicapped, single parents and other "special user groups" encountered in literature may not be useful or appropriate. In some way "culture" is more relevant, cross-cutting the characteristics of such groups.
Similar questions