Tommy S.S. Eisenring
Professor of Architectural Sociology
University of Bosowa 45 Makassar
Introduction
The
development of social sciences in twentieth century and the early of this
century, has fertilized the growing of systems progressively differ with
architecture purposes that have been triggered till this latter. For example,
Wilson, Keenberg, & Loerke (1990:ix)
expresses that architecture has to find an exact idea to express the
esthetics, social, economic, and technical change. In the same way, Hannes
Mayer (in Attoe, 1979:32) also expresses
"Building is nothing but organization: social, technical, economic,
psychological organization". Both of the statements of architecture
purposes, however, imply that, social
aspect in architecture, which formerly tended to be disregarded, now is getting
important attention in considering various architectural designs. Lately,
it has emerged a new idea concerning the
purpose of architecture, especially about the interconnection between social reality and architecture. Architecture
works are lately progressively seen as
means or medium for social construction of reality. One of the social realities
is the appearance of consumptive behaviour. The studies in postmodern social
theory show that, consumptivism is a social reality, it does not
fully base on individual factors.
However, the reality is the
result of global capitalism operating system in a process of accumulating the
capital (see Lash, 2004). The social reality, according to George Ritzer, is
constructed in a process of rationalization through the new
means of consumption, namely the means where people can easily consume anything. The role
of architecture, in this case, is to create the certain design image of the
medium, so that can make the medium conduciveness becomes the effective medium
for any extension of consumer culture and contemporary consumptions. Bourdieu's
conceptual framework explains also about the new middle-class group appearance
into dominant class, especially which happened at urban society. In fact, the new classes coming into the
dominant class or the middle-class appearing in most of all cities in the world
lately, according to Scoot Lash (2004:252-3), was created designedly for the
shake of, and as prerequisite for capital accumulation. Lash also has a notion that the new class has two sides, namely
material enthusiasms (economic) and ideal enthusiasms (cultural), or with other
word, one side is economics, while other
side is symbols, precise as an object with two sides. For Lash, architecture could be seen at two
sides: material, and cultural. Of material side, it has the principle to
arrange its cultural form, and at cultural side it has principle to arrange its
material form. Thereby, an architectural building could be viewed not only as a
medium (material), but also as a symbolic environment (culture). It means that
an architectural environment has two objective values, cultural and material. The question appearing
here, is: “how architecture environment, as objects of cultural and material,
socially, constructs a reality of consumtivism?”. To answer that question, some
theoretical ideas and concepts need to be traced, as to be discussed at following parts.
Social
Constructivism and Social Construction of
Reality
A social construction or
social construct is any institutionalized entity or artifact in a social system
"invented" or "constructed" by participants in a particular
culture or society that exists because people agree to behave as if it exists
or follow certain conventional rules. (Wikipedia, 2008). In philosophy view,
the beginnings of this idea on constructivism was started by Giambatista Vico,
an italian epistemologist. In fact, this idea has emerged even since Socrates
found the soul inside the human body,
and since Plato found 'idea' and 'mind' (see Suryani, 2008). The idea
progressively was to be concrete, when Thomas Khun expressed that the universe
is the result of social construction. Emile Durkheim, then theorized about
social construction in his anthropological work on collective behavior, but did not coin the term. The first book
with "social construction" in its title was Peter L. Berger and
Thomas Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality, first published in 1966. Since
then, the term found its way into the mainstream of the social sciences (see
Wikipedia. 2008).
The
central concept of the Berger and Luckmann’s book, is that actors interacting
together form, over time, typifications or mental representations of each
other's actions, and that these typifications eventually become habitualized
into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other. When
these reciprocal roles become routinized, the typified reciprocal interactions
are said to be institutionalized. In the process of this institutionalization,
meaning is embedded and institutionalized into individuals and society -
knowledge and people's conception of
what reality 'is' becomes embedded into the institutional fabric and
structure of society, and social reality is therefore said to be socially
constructed.
Any component of social reality, according to Peter Berger, is a
‘dialectical phenomenon’. Thus, while
the component emerges out of human beings as part of an ordered and meaningful
social reality, humans — at the very same time – emerge out of this socially —
constructed world and, indeed, are only human because of such emergence (see
Knepper, 2001). This dialectical phenomenon then is parsed out by Berger in
terms of not two, but rather three concepts: Externalization, Objectivation and Internalization.
Externalization is a process — which emerged from a human instinctive motivation -
creating the 'world' by an individual, and creating himself or
herself inside the 'world' he or she creates.
Externalization of a meaningfully ordered world view is compelled by the
nature of human biological constitution.
Berger explained that the weak instinctual nature of human beings
necessitates the externalization of a social world.
Objectivation is the process where the reality is constructed as a facticity. World created by the human becomes
something outside himself/herself - becomes an objective reality. Therefore,
Berger argued that, the society is constructed in a dialectical phenomenon.
Externalization and objectivation are
steps where the dialectical process happen, and Internalization, according to Berger, is phase where the objectivated world is reabsorbed into the
subjective awareness structure of the individual. Individual studies the
objectivated meaning, so that the objectivated meaning is re-formed by the
individual, then to reidentify himself
or herself with the objectivated world. The 'meaning' of the object then come into the self of the individual, and the individual accepts it
as him/her own property. Moreover, the individual is not only merely owning the
object's meaning, but also represents the object’s definition. In short,
through the process of internalization,
'objective fact' of social world is reconverted by individual to become
'subjective fact'.
Consumptivism as a Result of Social Construction
In the studying of postmodern social theory, you could find two concepts which seem
interconnected each other: First, the concept of 'consumptivism',
and the second, the concept of 'new means of consumption' (Ritzer, 2002,
2004, 2005; Ritzer,G. & Stillman,T., 2001; Ritzer & Goodman, 2004).
But, before discussing both of the concepts,
you need to differentiate between
'consumptivism', and 'consuptivism'.
Simplely, consumptivism is understood as consumptive life, or luxuriant
life style. or consumption culture. This clearly differs from the understanding
of 'consuptivism' — which is the
movement to fight for the importances of consumers. Even though, in various
references, the term of consuptivism is still often used to explain everything
concerning the consumptive culture and life style, which is more precise to
define consumptivism. This article would discuss consumptivism as an ideology
or an concept of the consumptive life, and as a social reality.
The first concept,
consumtivism, can be traced from Jean Baudrillard's explanations. According to
Baudrillard (1991, 2004), modern culture lately has entered into the
consumption era which is yielded from West World (see Rapport & Overing,
2000). Consumptivism is a contemporary life style and culture which is
socialized among the urbanist clans in this time in most of all metropolises or
cities in the World. In many things, consumptivism is absolute condition for
continuity of life style and status business.
Competition to obtain the status,
and status legitimation has become an important factor in life of economics,
which strengthen the consumptive behavior and the ideology of consumptivism.
Thus, the fundamental issue of consumptivism is the ownership of status,
comfort, and self confidence (see Tumenggung, 2005:68; see also Korten,
2002:38). Consumptivism is not only concerning the process socio-psychologies,
but also can be viewed a symptom of economic-politics. At the study on
neoliberalisme and global capitalism, consumptivism is considered as global
capitalism product, that is an market
strategy of global capitalists for selling their abundant products.
The second concept, 'new means
of consumption'. By starting from the view of World System theory, a
contemporary sociologist, George Ritzer,
explained about the appearance of new
means of consumption. This concept is one of three paradigms forming what
is defined by Ritzer as 'structures'. That is a structure to streamline extension
of cultural of contemporary consumption and consumer culture. Besides 'new means of consumption', the structure
is composed and formed by two other paradigms, namely, 'Fast Food Restaurant', or 'McDonaldization
of Society' and 'Credit Card'. Paradigm of 'Fast Food Restaurant' is more familiar and conceived as the
paradigm of 'McDonaldization of Society', because processes of McDonald’s
franchise restaurant network, for Ritzer, is the most precise to represent the
paradigm of 'Fast Food Restaurant’. (see Ritzer, 2002; 2005). At this paradigm,
Ritzer focuses his attention at formal rationality. But the formal rationality
he defines exceeds the Max Weber's version
for it — namely bureaucracy. In this case, Ritzer developed four
dimension of formal rationality: increasing
efficiency, calculability; predictability,
more emphasizing at quantity then at
quality, and control through the
replacement of human with non-human
technology — these dimensions tends causing something irrational from something
rational (the irrationality of
rationality). Similarly, a strong case can be made that, Visa is the
paradigmatic credit card company (Ritzer & Stillman, 2001:83). Processes
such as increasing consumer debt, fraud,
invasion of privacy, and rationalization,
that forming the paradigm of
"Credit Card" are best exemplified by Visa. While shopping mall, the
mega mall, (e.g. Minneapolis's Mall of America), the Superstore (e.g. Toys R.
Us), the cruise ship, and the theme park (e.g. Disney World) show the processes
formed the paradigm of new means of
consumption, namely: rationalization, disenchantment, re-enchantment,
spectacularization, implosion, and
manipulation of time and space (see also Keel, 2006).
At some stage, the term of New Means of Consumption is also conceived as Cathedrals of Consumption. Both can be exchanged each other. (see
Eisenring, 2008). In George Ritzer’s explanation, new means of consumption or cathedrals
of consumption has been existed
since mid of last century, in final of World War II. The means of consumption that Ritzer defines is a medium or means refer to environment
setting where people could consume
easily and comfortable. In correlating the both concepts — consumptivism and new means of consumption, the question
can be asked is "how is a new means
of consumption construct behavior of its visitor up at consumtivism?". To
answer that question, you can use the perspective of architectural sociology that
focus on study concerning of how designed physical environment influences
and influenced by society and human behavior (see Smith & Bugni, 2002a:1;
see also Beaman, 2002).
Architectural Sociology and the
Role of Architecture
As one of the
new sociology areas, Architectural Sociology
tries to answer out the questions of what disregarded
in fields of sociology and architecture, such as: “what is the relationship between the individual and
his or her designed environment or social setting?”; “what is the relationship
between an organization and the building
wherein it resides?”; and approaches these questions in examining how architectural forms both influence and react to sociocultural phenomena (see Beaman, 2002-a:1).
Ronald Smith, chair of the
sociology department at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
and Valerie Bugni, an organizational and social researcher for Lucchesi, Galati
Architects, Inc., in Las Vegas, are two fugures who are developing the
studies on architectural sociology nowdays.
They define architectural sociology
as:
“…the study of how designed physical
environment influences and is influenced by society and human behavior.
Sociological theories that focus on cultural patterns, social relationships,
and social psychology are especially used to explain and interpret
architectural design” (Smith & Bugni, 2002a:1).
The definition indicates that, sociology
architectural can be studied as a pure science or an applied science. At the
aspect of applied science, architectural sociology assists architects to
comprehend the social behavior of human and to lay open the clue about the
social interaction that happened in various social settings (see Smith &
Bugni, 2002-b; see also Beaman, 2002-a & 2002-b). But, at the aspect of
pure science, it implicates an basic assumption: "a designed physical
environment or an architectural environment can influence and be influenced by
society and human behavior". The assumption might be able giving a new
direction for various research on sociology science and architectural science
(see Eisenring, 2006;2007-a).
Hereinafter, starting from the assumption you also get the picture of
how architecture, at new means of consumption, constructs a consumptive
behavior. One of the ways to comprehend deeply how architecture socially takes
a role in construct the reality of consumptivism at a new means of consumption
is, through Michel Foucault's explanation about relation between 'power' and
'discourse'.
Discourse,
Power, and Architecture
The term of discourse,
in fact, is not as simple as ordinarily it is used. Foucault, has used the term
with new way. In explaining the masterpieces of Foucault, Yasraf Amir Piliang (
2003) tries to define 'discourse' as
follow:
".....a
certain way in conceptioning and act to social objects, that generating an
implication at subjects. It is manifested into social practice of physical
formation (or structure) and also in the form of oral and writing. For example,
usage the body, usage the space and object, transfering the knowledge,
forwarding the information" (Piliang, 2003:106/ translation).
In Foucault's opinion,
discourse and power are complementary. On one side, 'power' creates some
discourses to make the 'power' continue, on the other side 'discourses'
might shape new powers. In his book, The
Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault explains that discourse is not exist in
a history continuity context, but in discontinuity context. According to
Foucault, every period in history is
arranged by what he call 'episteme'
(see Adian, 2006). Episteme he
intends is to express periods of history, and to explain with reference to, the
world views and existence of certain discourses. Episteme is distinguished by various
institutions, discipline, knowledge, order and activities the consistence with
the certain world views. The ups and downs of Episteme don't chime in with any idea concerning the natures of
continuity, progressing or growing, rather it
emerge at unforeseen circumstances and random (Dahaner, Schirato & Webb, J., 2000). By
refering to Foucault's concept on 'Episteme'
and 'discourse', you can easily to comprehend about the separation of two
periods of time (or Epistemes)
between modernism and posmodernism, especially in the fields of architecture
and art. Hereinafter you can study of how discourse and power operate in the
both Epistemes of modernism and
postmodernism. Symbolically, some
pioneers of postmodernisme architecture
idea claim the date of July 6, 1972, at 15.00 o'clock — when some blocks of
housing of Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis, Missoiri (United States) was demolished —
as the birth of new movement in architecture. Thus, it was the starting point
of postmodernism era in architecture. In this era, any masterpiece of
postmodern architecture seems to be existing in an episteme inside the World
history, where the 'discourse' of
postmodernism ideas sticks (or be stuck) in it. There is a signficant
difference between modernism discourse and postmodernism on architect
authorities, and authenticity of their works. In modernism discourse, a
masterpieces in architecture is often considered as the result of the architect's
genius or intelligence. Sidney Opera House, for example, is inseparable with Jorn Otzon's big name; Frank
Lloyd Write, has been very famous because of his masterpiece "Falling Water"; Alvar Aalto was
recognized by many of junior architects clans in his periode, because of his
personal techniques which creating the certain forms — such as seen at his Town Hall, in Seinajoki, Findand; or Le Corbusier that expressing
his mind content and his specification
in sense of architecture finally resulted a typical style at his masterpieces,
such as seen at Ronchamp Champel, French.
The concept of architect's authority as subject, in the
periode of modern architecture, likely
had taken the philosophy idea of Rene Descartes. As you know, Descartes (1596-1650) has been very famous
untill now with his 'modern philosophy',
that is "subject's authority, as a thinker, as a sparker of ideas, and as
a creator", and remember of his
famous statement: "cogito ergo sum"
— I think, hence I exist. According to
Descartes's philosophy, subject is the center of minds, ideas, and knowledges.
The model of subjectivity like this then was become an ideology for importances
of the West capitalism during the episteme
of modern age, and this gave the
certain prestige space and authority in any individual's field, especially for
the professionals.
That way also architects
took discourse of architecture in their works at the period of time. In
postmodern condition, an architect shall no longer have any space in discourse. Today you will very often to meet various of
aesthetics language codes at various masterpieces in architecture, without
attendance of the architect. For example, at Tea & Coffee Piazza (1979-83) — an architectural building
designed by Charles Jencks, a sparker of postmodernism ideas in architecture —
seen is not Jencks who converse through the object of his own masterpiece, however the language that emerge at the
masterpiece are aesthetics language of Doria, Ionia, and Korintia — they are
former languages. In this case, Jencks is not
a true architect as you recognize in modern architecture era, he is only
an operator gave the opportunity for these languages to converse (see Piliang,
2003:119).
A postmodern architecture
masterpiece now can no longer be categorized
the same as at understanding of modernisme that owning the intact and
single meaning. In postmodernism era, architecture emerges in multifariously of
the fragmented language, giving the opportunity for its “readers” to yield various meanings defined plurally
under the postmodernism discourse. This plural definitions then drags the
“readers” to a dialectic situation, looking for
the truth, something impossible
to be found at the fragmented design like that.
As the result, it is formed
pseudo-opinions, pseudo-values, and opinions which finally generating
the social differensiation that oriented at selfregard and prestige.
Thereby, at the episteme of postmodernism, the discourse
operating at architectural works — especially
at common commercial building — has been no longer been predominated by
the architect, as at episteme of
modernisme. Postmodernism doctrine, as a part of discourse from the global
capitalism, continuely look for, dig and
explore the new power forms, namely the power of commodity, the powers of sign
and symbolic, and through these powers they construct the society at the
ideology of consumptivism.
The second thing can be
drawn from Foucault's concept concerning 'dicourse' is that at the other side
of disclosure or uttering, or more
special, at the other side of the arrangement
of space and architectural object stem from the idea of postmodernism, there is
a certain form of power that operate. Architecture in capitalism era lately has
taken the vital role in creating the social differentiation system through its
signs and symbols. The social differentiation itself, in fact, is one of
the power forms created through arts and also architecture. The mixed
style at postmodern architecture is oftentimes interpreted wrongly as the new
freedom for architects the living in the 'reflection society'. Modern
architecture is often considered as giving the space for architects to secede
from norms or rules of modern architecture with stiff philosophy doctrine, drag
on, and which handcuff freedom to create. However intrinsically they oppositely
have been re-tied by a new doctrine that come from posmoderisme discourse, as
shown by Robinowitz's statement as following:
“In the privat sector, there
are a number of large-scale economic and social forces that influence the
potential for development and even the type and shape building” (Robinowitz, 1979b: 100).
This
statement implies that a number of large-scale economic and social forces would
limit the movement space for
architects in developing their own ideas. As one of the mechanisms in the
global capitalism discourse, the role of architects in creating their
architectural works has been intervenced, manipulated and defined by powers
operating in the global capitalism society, without caring about the norms and
the rules of architectural that very recognized at modern architecture. On the
contrary, applying the architectural design at various new means of consumption, results the new powers. They are the
power of commudity, and the power of
signs and symbols that socially can
construct individual into the order of consumptivism ideology.
Wheale (1995:34) depicts that, postmodern, on one hand as the
movement to blur or to wipe out the differences between the cultural
hierarchies, but on the other hand — according to his assumption — this
movement is followed by introducing and also inculcating the prestige into the theme and image of
mass/ popular culture, or consumer culture in the form of architecture and art.
In their essay about architecture postmodernism, and seen from the perspective
of architectural sosciology, Smith and Bugni ( 2002-a) express that, Las
Vegas's postmodern image depends even on the architecture, which have been
created to promote its important industry. In the eyes of social theory
posmodern, the birth of posmodernisme idea in architecture refusing the
aesthetics and artistic style of modern architecture era, can be related with
importance of global capitalism power. At one side, the design style of
postmodern in architecture and art stimulates the growing of new life style of
society refusing the bore modern culture (see Sachari, 2005a:124). And on the
other hand it constructs consumptive life style in society, that beneficial for
effort of extension the market for capital accumulation.
Architectural Symbolic Environment and
Consumptivism
People not
only see the physical environment of buildings and react to what they see, but
they also have memory images of the environment, and their behavior as strongly
affected by these images (see Moore, 1979:60). Images can be created by the
architectural symbols. These symbols is used by people to communicate the
message concerning themselves, their economic background, their social status,
and their 'world view' toward the others (see Lang, 1992:15). The statement
implies that, symbols in architecture can be arranged in such a way by the
party taking the control on a 'means of consumption', and
communicate the messages to construct
people at consumptive behavior and construct a social reality — ideology of
consumptivism. By using some basic assumptions of the theory of symbolic
interactionism, you would understand this phenomenon in micro context (see
Eisenring, 2007-b).
Symbolic interactionism
theory rests on three basic. First, social reality as it is sensed, known, and
understood as a social production. Interacting individuals produces and affirms the definitions of their
own definition of situations. Second,
humans are assumed ready to involve the behavior of self-reflexive in
their mind. Third, in specifying their own standpoint and fitting that
standpoint to the behaviors of other, humans interact mutually. Interaction is
seen as an emergent, negotiated, often unpredictable concern. Interaction is symbolic because it involves
the manipulation of symbols, words, meanings, and languages (see Denzin,
1989:5).
The perpective of symbolic
interactionism views individuals, as living in a symbolic environment and
constantly interpret any symbol or sign
existing around them. Each person develops
the meaning of symbols that
existing at the surroundings.
Hereinafter by connecting themselves with a certain symbol, people can depict
their self-concepts with others (see Mowen & Minor, 2002a:271). In broader
understanding, architectural environment or designed physical environment is
also a symbolic environment where people can depict their self-concepts with
others. Since early its constructed,
the theory of symbolic
interactionism has referred at the important of non-human objects and the place
for "self". In his essay, The Metropolis and Mental Life, Georg
Simmel — who often also is called as a symbolic interactionist — several times
try to relate between "self" and "space". Simmel's efforts
then become the starting point for the
forming of achitectural sociology study
area (see Smith and Bugni, 2002b:4).
Among several special contributions of symbolic interactionism in
giving the understanding of meaning, especially which related with
architectural design, Irfing Goffman has also focused the usage of the meaning
attached at designed forms. He mentioned that "status symbols" at a
building, an object, and the place laid open the prestigious life style, the status symbols represent a high social position of a person or a group
and it also can be used to eliminated
other groups or other individual.( see Smith & Bugni, 2002b:13).
Thereby,
an architectural building is also a symbolic environment, in which, people can
depict their self-concept with the
others in the interacting. By entangling the architectural building into the
interaction, then someone's self would
be easier to be reflected by other's self.
In this process, signs and symbols at a certain architectural building
would stimulate the behavior change of an individual or a group through the
phases of externalization, objectivation, and internalization. At this way, architecture plays its role in social construction of consumptivism.
Conclusion
By the theoritical
exploration above, could be developed
the idea in two dimension of sociology, micro and macro. The idea at macro
dimension refers to the concept of 'new means of consumption' (George
Ritzer), and the concept of 'acummulation
context" (Scoot Lash). Concept
of postmodernism that applied into the architectural design of a 'new means of consumption' such as a
shopping mall is inspired by discourse of postmodernism in architecture related to the new power of global
capitalism, that is the power of commodity, the powers of sign and symbolic.
Discourse of posmoderisme in architecture implying the power of sign and symbolic at the common
commercial buildings, is a form of the
process of rationalization, in Ritzer's
concept. That is process of rationalization of the paradigmatic structure for
the extension of contemporary consumption and social construction to the
idelogy of consumptivism, while the final purpose is to accumulate capital and
distrubute the abundant production results.
Micro dimension,
explains what is not explained at macro dimension, that is how the power of
sign and symbol from architectural discourse influences human behavior toward consumptivism. To
explain this phenomenon, the environment of a consumption means such as a
shopping mall has to be viewed as an
architectural symbolic environment
influencing the society and its visitor's behavior (architectural sociology assumption).
How symbolic physical environment
influences visitors behavior, is
determined by how visitors subjectively define the meaning of architectural
symbols existing at the the designed environment. Social interaction, taking place inside or outside
the architetural environment, in this
case, creates the processes objectivation and internalization on the meaning of the symbols and signs at the
environment. Architectural design creating the symbols at the environment designed by the inspired of
postmodernism discourse then guides the visitors into dialectics situation the
process of externalization, objectivation, and internlization, then guide the visitors at consumptive behavior.
In the same way, the
other 'new means of consumption’ -
and also the other 'paradigmatic structure', namely McDonaldization of Society
and Credit Card — togetherly
construct society at the consumptive behavior, then to become a life style and
so on, finally, to make it become a social reality.
References
Adian, D.G. (2006) Percikan Pemikiran Kontemporer:
Sebuah Pengantar Komprehensif. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.
Attoe, W.O. (1979) Theory, Criticism, and History of Architecture. In
Snyder J.C. and Catanese, A.J. (eds) Introduction to Architecture: 21-45. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Baudrillard, J. (1991) Simulacra and Science
Fiction, Science Fiction Studies.
Volume 18, Part 3, Nopember 1991. [Accessed: January 16, 2007]. http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/55/baudrillard_55art.htm.
Baudrillard, J.P. (2004) Masyarakat Konsumsi (translated by Wahyunto/ original title: La societe de consommation, 1977.
Yogyakarta: Kreasi Wacana.
Beaman,
J. (2002-a) Architectural Sociology. Footnotes. [Accesed: October 11,
2007. http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/dec02/fn17.html..
Beaman,
J. (2002-b) Sociology in Architecture. [Accesed: October 11, 2007] Online:
http://strata.unlv.edu/ smith-bugni/studentsoc.pdf.
Dahaner, G., Schirato,T., and Webb, J. (2000) Understanding
Foucault. Sydney: Docupro.
Denzin,
N.K. (1989) The Reaseach Act: A
Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New Jersey : Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Firdusi, F. (2007) Realitas sebagai Hasil Konstruksi, Perspektif: Bisnis-Politik-Komunikasi,
[Accesed: Februari 28, 2008] http://fahri99.wordpress/2007/
06/26/relitas-sebagai-hasil-konstruksi-2.
Eisenring, T.S.S. (2006) Arsitektur Posmodern dan Konsumtifisme
(Sebuah Kajain Sosiologi Desain Arsitektur), Prospek 39: 9-14..
Eisenring, T.S.S. (2007-a) Posmodernisme Arsitektur Dalam
Perspektif Sosiologi Arsitektur, Prospek
40: 407-14.
Eisenring, T.S.S. (2007-b) Interaksionisme Simbolik dan
Arsitektur (Memahami Arsitektur sebagai Lingkungan Simbolik, dan Perubahan
Perilaku Sosial). Jurnal Ilmiah MULTEK
Multiteknik, Vol. 2. Edisi ke 3 Oktober 2007:63-74.
Eisenring, T.S.S. (2008) Studi Metaforis Lingkungan
”Sakral” Konsumtifisme, Kasus Mal Panakkukang Makassar: Evaluasi Terhadap
Paradigma Katedral Konsumsi, Masyarakat
Kebudayaan dan Politik. Tahun XXI, Nomor 1, Januari-Maret 2008: 1-8.
Keel, R. (2006) The McDonaldization of Society.
[Accessed: July 2, 2007] http://www.umsl.edu/~
rkeel/010/mcdonsoc.html.
Knepper,
T. (1967) Review on Peter Berger’s The Sacred Canopy: Elements of Sociological
Theoery of Religion, Fall. [Accesed:
Februari 28, 2008. http://people.bu.edu/wildman/weirdWildWeb/courses/exp/resour
ses/exp/ resourses/reviews/review_berger01.htm.
Korten,
D.C. (2002) The Post-Corporated World:
Kehidupan Setelah Kapitalisme. (translating).
Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Lang,
J. (1998) Creating Architectural Theory :
The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Lang,
J. (1992) Symbolic Aestetics in Architecture: Toward a Research Agenda”. In
Nasar, J.L. (ed.), Environmental
Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Aplications. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lash,
S. (2004) Sosiologi Posmodernisme
(translated by Gunawan Admiranto/ original title: The Sociology of Postmodernism, London: Rodledge). ISBN
979-21-0762-2. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Moleong, L.J. (2005) Metodologi
Penelitian Kualitatif. ISBN 979-514-051-5. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.
Moore,
G.T. (1979) Environment-Behavior Studies, in Snyder J.C. dan Catanese, A.J.
(eds) Introduction to Architecture:
46-73. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Mowen,
J.C., and Minor, M. (2002) Perilaku
Konsumen Jilid 1, edisi ke-5 (translated by Lina Salim/ original title: Consumer Behavior). Jakarta: Penerbit Erlangga.
Piliang, Y.A. (2006) Dunia yang Dilipat: Tamasya Melampaui Batas-batas Kebudayaan. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra.
Rapport,
N. and Overing, J. (eds).(2000) Social
And Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts. London & New York: Roudlegde.
Ritzer, G., and Stillman, T. (2001) “The Modern Las Vegas Casino Hotel: The
Paradigmatic New Means of Consumption”. In Evan, M. & Forgues, B. (eds) Management, ISSN: 1286-4892. [Accessed:
October 11, 2007] http://www.dmsp.duphine.fr/management/PapersMgmt/43Ritzer.pdf.
Ritzer, G. (2002) Ketika
Kapitalisme Berjingkrang: Telaah Kritis terhadap Gelombang McDonaldisasi
(translated by: Solichin/ original title: The
McDonaldization of Society/ Penerjemah: Solichin). Yogyakarta: Pustaka
Pelajar.
Ritzer, G. (2004) Sosiologi
Ilmu Pengetahuan Berparadigma Ganda (translated by Alimandan/ original title: Sociology: a multiple paradigm science).
Jakarta : RajaGrafindo Persada.
Ritzer, G. (2005) Teori
Sosial Postmodern (translated
by Muhammad Taufik/ original title: Postmodern Social Theory), Yogyakarta : Kreasi Wacana.
Ritzer, G. and Goodman, G.J. (2004) Teori Sosiologi Modern (translated by Alimandan/ original title: Modern Social Theory). Jakarta: Prenada Media.
Robinowitz, H.Z. (1979) Development and Building Economics. In Snyder J.C. and
Catanese, A.J.(eds) Introduction to
Architecture: 99-118. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Smith,
R., and Bugni,V. (2002-a) Defining Architectural Sociology. AIA Las Vegas:
Forum Newsletter, May 2002. [Accessed: August 19, 2007. http://strata.unlv.edu/smith_bugni/smithbugni.pdf.
Smith,
R., and Bugni,V. (2002-b) Symbolic Interaction Theory and Architecture, Symbolic
Interaction. May 2002. [Accessed: October 11, 2007]. http://strata.unlv.edu/smith_bugni/smithbugni2006.pdf.
Tumenggung, A.M. (2005) Kebudayaan (para) Konsumen. In Sutrisno, M. &
Putranto, H. (eds) Teori-Teori Kebudayaan: 257-70.
Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Wikipedia.
(2008) Social Construction. [Accesed: February 28, 2008]. Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Construction).
Wilson,
F.; Keenberg, R.; and Loerke, W. (1990). Architecture
Fundamental Issues. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Wheale,
N.C. (1995) The Postmodern Arts: An
Introductory Reader. London & New York : Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment