When contributing to the 'theory of design' discussion, I did not see my
language as aggressive. I felt I was indicating my viewpoint. In this
regard Wolfgang Jonas wrote:
> Remarks as yours concerning Herbert Simon are turn-offs
> indeed. Maybe you should reflect your own blind spots?
It would seem that my comment:
>First, let me say that reference to Simon is for me a turn-off. The last,
>absolutely last, person I'd cite as a reference for either theory or design
>would be Simon; primarily because of the structuralist and positivist
>premise.
has been interpreted as aggressive, and somehow not indicating my bias. So
be it.
In respect to positivism and structuralism, Ken Friedman's (long) response
illustrates his preference for this approach. While not spelling the fact
out, my views were situated in a post-structuralist genre. The war of
words between positivists and post-structuralists is sufficiently long to
not need any comment from me.
There are two points I'd like to add:
1/. In respect to a post-structuralist perspective for (of?) design theory,
a recent article by William Outhwaite ("The myth of modernist method",
1999, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 5-25) was
extremely impressive. Outhwaite argues that while the prejudices of
positivism and structuralism are cause for concern, the research methods
of modernism cannot be discarded merely on this premise. His conclusion
is, I suggest, extremely pertinent to this discussion (I'll leave a
summary to
others).
2/. The idea of a theory of action informing a theory of design (proposed by
Lubomir Savov Popov) is an important suggestion. The literature on a
theory of action is not recent (even though some in the tourist industry
have been trying to re-invent the subject). In fact, the 'theory of action'
or VERSTEHEN (using the Germanic term) literature dates back to the
late 18th century. While it was initially embedded in the (Kantian)
Idealist
philosophy, it has moved much. Though probably still more structuralist in
focus than I care to accept, I view this sociological approach as seeking to
link the motivations, constraints (values), and contexts of social action
into
some theoretical form. Of course, Weber's 'ideal type' (or Idealtypus)
is perhaps
the most well known 'social action' theory.
Regards
ps. I'd like to say that I really appreciated Michael Mullins' recent
contribution. I felt it sought to expand rather than pontificate and/or
limit.
Bruce Moon
School of Planning, Landscape Architecture & Surveying
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane Q 4001
Australia
tel: +61 [0]7 3864 1731
fax: +61 [0]7 3864 1809
eml: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
