Three Questions of Self-Concept

“We come from a tradition of monument builders, but today we are almost entirely immersed in design for everyday environments.  Where we come from is very different from what we do now.  The way we see ourselves is a product of the past and is becoming increasingly counter productive.”

How do we see ourselves?  Not just as a person who is an architect, but within the role of the profession itself.  Habraken states that the role of the modern architect is one full of contradictions and transformations, yet lacking in a strong, firmly established social and professional identity. Others in this blog have talked about the ‘everyday’ nature of buildings we create.  Office parks, mid-rise apartments, doctor’s offices, commercial strips, and banks all blend and subsequently fade into the background of ‘existing’ buildings, until they become so familiar that you could have sworn that you’ve seen the same thing somewhere else.  I believe this fear of fading, of becoming culturally irrelevant, or worse, indistinct and nondescript, troubles our profession and drives us to truly question our identity.

Carl Rogers, one of the founders of the humanistic approach to psychology, theorized that self-concept has three different components: self image (how you see yourself), self esteem (how much value you place on yourself), and ideal self (what you wish you were really like).  While Rogers approach deals with an individual rather than a profession, it is an interesting exercise to substitute architecture for one’s self and ask the following:

How do I see architecture?

How much value do I place on ‘everyday’ and ‘special’ architecture alike?

What do I wish architecture was really like?