Normative vs. Positive Theory

To better prepare myself for graduate school and academic research, I’m taking a course this semester called “Design Theory and Research.” As part of the course requirements, we’re to write reflective journals on the readings assigned every week, so I thought I’d include my thoughts for that class in this blog, and try and relate the readings to my work in studio.

The first reading, “The Nature and Utility of Theory” delineated the difference between normative and positive theory.

• Normative theory: theory that is a “prescription for action.” Examples given: design principles, standards, manifestos, ideology on “good architecture”
• Positive theory: “a mental schema…that is believed to describe and explain a phenomenon or a group of phenomena.”

From my understanding, the key difference between normative and positive theory is that positive theory does not make value-judgments. The reading states that this view of positive theory has been refuted, noting that researches choose to pursue positive theory in a subject of their interest (implying an intrinsic value-judgment on what is interesting). However, when speaking comparatively, positive theory seems to offer less good vs. bad solutions. For example, Kahn’s statement on doing to the brick what the brick wants to be is a normative theory: it is a manifesto that implies that pursuing this theory will result in “good” architecture. On the other hand, a query into the reasons for circulation in Kahn’s Exeter Library, would be a positive theory that can be extended to other designs (without judging the original or the new as “good” or “bad”).

Brick.
Exeter Library.

I think the problem with design research is that most of it seems to be normative; every architect seems to write a manifesto, every design book delineates design principles. Some are helpful: understanding proportion, contrast, unity, etc. are essential to a field that is dependent on visual communication; these are tools that allow a rational analysis of intuitive gestures (ex: placing a large white square in opposition to a small dark square might be an intuitive act, that can be rationalized as an attempt at achieving balance). However, the manifestos, I think, is where you need a grain of salt. Which is where I’m running into issues with my thesis.

I’ve read four books so far, each offering a different normative prescription for good architecture. Downing’s book suggests that good architecture is the result of tapping into place archetypes (domains). The Architecture of the Everyday has several essays, each offering a slightly differing perspective on essentially the same viewpoint: good architecture is architecture that makes anonymous the architect. The work of contemporary Starchitects stands in direct opposition to this normative theory: the goal of the architecture is first to provide the client with the image requested (a Gehry, a Hadid, etc.), i.e. to fulfill the architect’s normative theories on what constitues “good” architecture, and secondly to address the program (positive theory). What happens, then, is precisely what the reading states:

“…in discussing architectural matters, we rarely achieve anything but a quarrel about what you like and what I like.”

Which begs the question: does normative theory matter? Is it worth discussing? Shouldn’t we focus on positive theory for discussion (since it can be disproven through real-world examples) and allow each his own normative theory? The benefit of discussing normative theory, I think, is to allow students/designers to develop their own thoughts on what is “good” architecture, for their own practice. And as long as they practice what they preach (theorize), the synthesis of postive and normative theories in the designer’s work will produce something, whether good or not, that incorporates theory in an efficient manner.