Chapter 2

Chapter 2: AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF ARCHITECTURE

1.      Architecture as Culture

Architecture is one form of cultural activity amongst many others that together make up the expressive or phenomenal aspect of a society. It is one of the systems through which humankind can explain, describe or materially express the social relations and institutions which collectively can be referred to as ‘society’. The difference between these different forms of cultural activity - different cultural systems - may be seen as a matter of the medium which is used within the system, whether music, scientific theories, moving images or the spatial, tactile and iconic aspects of built form. It may also involve non-material information such as the particular behavioural forms which make up social customs. Underlying these differences in the medium of expression however are basic similarities of process which involve communication and exchange between the agents of these various systems. It is they who, by mutual selection and combination of elements already available within each system produce transformation, change and the evolution of cultural forms. The history of cultural systems such as architecture can, in this sense be defined as an evolutionary process written out or expressed in particular times and places and using a particular medium of expression.

In this chapter we will propose a general evolutionary model of such cultural processes which when applied to the particular case of architecture will seek to explain the mechanisms which produce stylistic transformation - the fundamental aspect of architectural history. In doing so other issues will be explored such as the periodic emergence and disintegration of dominant architectural styles or paradigms and the effects such periods have on the specific character of architectural form. Firstly, however we must look at the processes which are general to all cultural systems.

2.     Cultural Systems

The following basic operational definition of culture is proposed, namely that:

Culture is a recognisable uniformity of behaviour or material artefact, which can be identified within a given geographical or discursive domain.

Culture in this sense is a COLLECTIVE phenomenon defined by the regularities of behaviour or form found amongst the activities of the many individual agents who make up a society. In this context, society itself may be defined as a definite set of relations between a group of individuals. These regularities of form are distributed throughout the many different kinds of activity to be found within society. In this sense culture may be regarded as a constellation of domains of activity such as art, architecture, science, social customs, religious and political organisation and so on. Within each of these domains or cultural systems, systemic activity - the collective action of many individuals - is centred on the representation or modelling of the environment that exists outside the system. Representation can be proposed as the function of the system and it does so with material or symbolic forms characteristic to the cultural system itself - its particular ‘language’ or means of expression. If, for instance, architecture can be said to represent society - its environment - it can only do so with the material at its disposal, namely built form. The product of this collective mapping of the environment is the production of coherent and reliable models that will serve as constraints on its future behaviour in the form of more or less useful precedents. These models however are not abstract ideas, but concrete artefacts, like buildings or distinct modes of behaviour configured for particular circumstances. It is at the level of the particular that the act of representation takes place in the form of buildings, social behaviour, books, musical works or any other form of productive activity. The collective or systemic dimension of experience can only be understood or defined by noting the regularities of form or process which exist amongst many individual works; regularities which arise from communication and exchange between many individuals. In other words, the ‘collective’ or the ‘system’ does not have a separate identity or reality. It remains a classification of many different individual acts of representation. From the communicational perspective offered here, the terms, ‘representation’, ‘modelling’ and ‘mapping’ are synonymous with ‘behaviour’ in the sense that the model or map is written out as the system’s behaviour and using its particular material or symbolic language. Equally, from an evolutionary perspective one can view the act of representation as a form of adaptation when a system such as architecture adapts its forms to suit the state of its environment at a given time. Clearly this is the case when architectural forms are combined (adapted and customized) to represent the organizational state of a particular institution or project in the form of a building. 

The model of experience produced in the act of representation is not a separate entity. It is the way the system ‘sees’ its environment - the referent system - and represents it by configuring the material at its disposal. At the level of the individual agent, the nature of this activity is the production of characteristic forms that seek to represent that environment as it is reflected at particular times and in particular places. For architecture this would be the production of an individual building that represents in built form a particular set of social or institutional relations. At the collective level, and through communication between individuals within the system, the result of this activity is the production of typical or general models of the environment, which are expressed as an observable uniformity of behaviour in the mass of individual works. In architecture this uniformity of behaviour amongst a large number of buildings would be termed a ‘style’.

This can be looked at in another way: the multitude of forms produced by the individuals who act within a cultural system are not infinitely diverse in character but can be grouped into sets of more or less probable forms of behaviour. There are, in other words, collective similarities of expression, which seem to arise out of a multitude of individual actions. Without recognising the regularities, which inform behaviour in this way, it would be impossible to speak of culture or society at all. There is always some degree of uniformity of behaviour within each cultural system. There are always a number of styles in existence at any given time. At the individual level of activity there may be a large number of possible ways of doing the same thing, - different ways of representing the same set of institutional relations with different combinations of the same elements. At the collective level, however, one can note that behaviour is always constrained around a limited number of seemingly preferred combinations of the same material. In other words there are collective similarities between these individual acts of representation. Uniformity of behaviour can be regarded as the defining characteristic of social organisation and its cultural expression as form. Quite simply it the means by which we recognize the existence of a society or culture. The terms usually used to denote such collective regularities within different cultural systems include styles, fashions, types, customs, genres, stereotypes, theories, ideologies, belief systems, and so on. The fact that  such cultural paradigms arise in the midst of a multitude of individual actions points to the self-organizing tendency of cultural systems and to the mechanisms of communication and exchange between practitioners which produce them. Yet is it only through similarities  between individual works that these stylistic unities can be observed at all. There is no ‘platonic realm’ above the level of the many individual works. If we speak of an architectural style or literary genre as a singularity, this is only a matter of classification, not of ontology. It is a way of referring to a similarity between many individual items. It is the form of the individual work which acts as the fundamental category by which styles or cultural paradigms can be classified.

The dynamic nature of cultural systems arises through the continuous production of such works. They are produced by individual agents selecting elements from a repertoire of previously-produced statements and combining them to represent a particular new context. There are, of course, constraints on the final form of these works. In the first place there is the vocabulary of forms available at a given time and place – product of past acts. Secondly, the grammar, syntax or code that defines the number of permissible ways the medium can be legitimately configured in terms of the syntactic regularities prevailing in the mass of previous-produced statements. This is the denotative constraint on what can be said. In other words, the history of the system acts as a constraint on its current and future behaviour by defining a range of legitimate combinations. Thirdly, the connotative constraints imposed by the referent system, context or environment. That is, whether, (by association or expectation) the form is probable or meaningful in terms of its application in a particular place or time. This issue is again a matter of the history of the system. In this case the continued or expected character of its forms in particular environments. Once produced, an individual work becomes part of the repertoire or archive of works available as a source of elements and possible combinations for future acts of representation within that cultural system.

3.   Cultural Systems as Networks of Communication and Exchange

The boundaries of a cultural system are ultimately defined by the nature of the medium that is used by the agents of the system. Communication and exchange between those agents takes place through a process of mutual selection and combination of the forms available in many individual works. This sharing of experience is not therefore abstract since it involves the selection of real and observable elements drawn from other peoples work and combined in new contexts. These elements are the means of communicatýon within the system. It is out of this network of exchanges taking place within a cultural system that stylistic paradigms emerge which act as representative models of collective experience.

This continuous exchange of individual experience between a limited number of agents in a geographically or discursively confined environment ultimately leads to an increasing similarity of behaviour between them.. Quite simply, the possibility of selecting different forms or combinations is inherently limited. If forms were to be selected from other environments outside the conventional boundaries, they would be regarded as meaningless since they would not conform to the prevailing grammar or connotative constraints. They would not be extensively selected and their effect on the whole of production would be minimal. In architectural terms, they would be seen as follies or eccentricities. To put this more generally: style, in the sense of a uniform mode of behaviour cannot arise in a limitless environment. There are simply too many formal possibilities for the selection combination process to integrate such diversity into a single coherent type. The same problem would arise with an unlimited number of agents in communication with one another. The number of possible combinations becomes almost infinite and no uniformity of behaviour can be achieved. In both these cases, the result in systems (and stylistic) terms is chaos in the sense that there would be little or no regularity of characteristics within the system. In this theoretical situation there would be a collapse of meaning since it would become impossible to predict the form of individual works or the behaviour required for different circumstances.

Stylistic paradigms (uniformity of characteristics, in other words), arise in the area between the rigidity produced by minimum communication and the chaos of infinite possibilities. Within this space they act as the collective memory of the system which is written out and retained in the uniformity of behaviour and material artefact which they represent and reinforce. In effect, the paradigm is a collective classification of experience in terms of the similarity or difference between a group of previously-produced individual works.

The result of this combinatory process is that over time styles – similarities of characteristics - emerge from the diversity of experiences within a given environment. From this point of view cultural systems can be regarded as machines for the production of uniformity of behaviour. Yet the history of any cultural system shows that in some periods there are several different and equally-valid sets of behavioural routines in existence for handling the same type of representational problems. That is, that there are several different possible answers for any given problem. In architectural terms for instance, there are periods where there are several styles in existence at the same time. In other periods there is the emergence of a single dominant routine or style which is deemed capable of representing many different problems with a single style. Since cultural paradigms refer to similarities of form between a group of individual works, one can refer to the dominant paradigm of a particular period as that similarity of form that links the largest number of individual works within one set. The number and relative dominance of the various paradigms that exist within a cultural system at any given time may be seen as a function of its connectivity. That is, the communicational and exchange possibilities between groups of individuals within the system. While this might vary during the history of a system, there is never a period when there is only one paradigm in existence within a system – one answer to all problems - or, when there are an infinite number of answers for a limited number of problems.

4.      The Evolution of the Cultural System Towards a Meta-System State

Theoretically, the result of these cultural processes of selection and combination means that over time and in a stable environment there are, less classes of behaviour than there are individuals who act out that behaviour. More generally of course there are less classes of things than there are things classified. In evolutionary terms, this convergence of characteristics within the cultural system based on a selective grouping and re-grouping of similarities and differences can be regarded as a change of organisational state. That is, a change in the number and relations between the elements of the system. While the number of agents acting within the system may remain the same or even increase, there is a definite convergence in their behaviour towards a single behavioural style. While the number of individual works produced may stay the same or increase, they become increasingly similar to one another in the sense that their components now seem to be selected from a single and very specific stylistic set. The results of this convergence in the sciences, for instance would be that a single unifying theory would replace several competing theories as an explanation for physical phenomena. In religion it might mean a shift from polytheism to monotheism, while in architecture for instance, a dominant style might emerge such as Classicism or Modernism. This greater uniformity of behaviour and material artefact indicates that a dominant paradigm has emerged out of the several styles of the previous organisational state.

The emergence of a dominant paradigm within a particular cultural system may be defined as the formation of a meta-system. The definition of a meta-system would be: a single behavioural set  projected out of a number of diverse behaviours which existed in the antecedent system. That is, the emergence of a new level of organisation in the system.

 While each stylistic paradigm represents the cumulative experience of many individual acts of selection and combination, the meta-system represents the cumulative experience and essential characteristics of the several paradigms that existed in the antecedent state. Given the existence of several paradigms within a cultural system, purely systemic processes within a confined environment will produce the meta-system state by a selective classification and re-classification of the characteristics of the different paradigms. While individual paradigms reflect the experience of different groups of agents or constituencies within the cultural system, the meta-system theoretically reflects the experience of the cultural system as a whole. This can be quite clearly seen in the history of architecture where a period of stylistic diversity is replaced by a period where a single style dominates the whole of architectural production.

The concrete reality of the emergence of a meta-system is that it produces a decisive convergence of characteristics in products and behaviour throughout the cultural system. The meta-system is a single behavioural set which includes the essential characteristics of the group of styles which existed previously.

Over time and based on exactly the same selective operations, a clear organizational hierarchy emerges within a cultural system ranging initially from groups of individual works through various self-contained stylistic paradigms which express a growing similarity between those works to the occasional emergence of a meta-system or, in cultural terms, a ‘classical’ state. Again, through the same processes of communication and exchange between many individuals, the most probable or recurrent characteristics of these constituent or antecedent styles are assimilated into the Meta-System state. The differences between the styles which are merged into a meta-system are usually based on the geographical dispersion of groups of agents who work within the system. There is in effect a communicational barrier between these groups which leads to a ‘variety of different ways of doing the same thing'. That is the same processes of selection and communication of the same material are applied within a different cultural, geographic or social context resulting in the creation of differences forms. However, increased communication (connectivity) between these diverse groups by means of new technologies, trade, cultural exchange, voluntary integration or imperial acquisition establish the basis for their integration into a single cultural form. The various elements of the original paradigms are classified (selected) in terms of their fundamental similarities and differences. The ‘almost similar’ becomes the ‘similar’ in an essentially economic typological process where the most representative and TYPICAL routines which underlie circumstantial differences become the single behavioural set which one can call the Meta-system. By definition, these circumstantial differences of form or behaviour are a result of a system’s adaptation to the very particular cultural or geographical contexts of the originally dispersed groups of agents. The cultural meta-system is not in this sense the imposition of a whole new way of doing things, but rather the integration of similar ways of doing the same thing into a commonly understood or accepted set of forms or practices. With the emergence of a meta-system state it is the contextual or circumstantial aspects of the original forms form that are eliminated or repressed in favour of a single comprehensive routine which can be applied across a wide range of contexts within the same cultural system. The resulting meta-system or dominant paradigm is thus able to represent or model a larger number of different contexts than its constituent styles with a fewer number of more essential (that is, typical) elements assimilated from those styles.

5.      The Characteristics of a Cultural Meta-system

As collective entities, cultural systems have no conscious or intentional aspects to their behaviour. The characteristics of the meta-systemic or classical states which occasionally emerge in the history of such systems do not arise as a result of some supposedly inherent value, beauty or fitness for purpose displayed by the dominant behavioural routine. In this sense, historically significant ideologies, theories, belief systems, or dominant architectural styles are purely the result of the impartial combination and re-combination of preceding patterns of behaviour. It is these prevailing patterns or ‘attractors’, created by previous acts of combination and re-combination that act as the raw material for the establishment of the dominant paradigm in a cultural system such as architecture Yet this change of organization within a cultural system at certain points in time from, say many styles to one or from one to many cannot simply be a product of the workings of the system itself. Without the presence of environmental constraints, this continuous transformation of forms would never produce major changes of organization. Things would remain more or less the same with an undifferentiated aggregate of individual works with varying degrees of similarity to one another. The shift in organisation within the system from an aggregate of characteristics to a single coherent mode of behaviour is not the product of a simultaneous change of behaviour on the part of the agents who work in the system. There are no collective revelations involved in this. They continue to do what they have always done, namely model particular contexts with the forms at their disposal. For architects this means representing the organisational and symbolic relations of particular institutions with built form. Barring the occurrence of strange phenomena such as Zeitgeists, ‘contagions’ or other collective delusions one can suggest in more realistic terms that it is changes in the environment within which these ‘normal’ operations are taking place which changes their character. At random points in time, the environment of the system - defined as the combined activities of all the other cultural systems - locks these systemic processes into the production of coherent behavioural sequences. On can suggest that social, political or technological changes in the environment of a particular system do not alter the normal practices of the agents of a system, but rather it is the sets of relations which they are called upon to model which are changed.

In systemic terms, the environment of a system has been defined as the cumulative effect of all other systems each with its own behavioural and material forms, organisational states and developmental timescales. The variation in these factors between systems means that they are usually out of phase with one another in the sense that the relations between them are uncoordinated. They are not dependent on one another for their functioning. They are autonomous systems.  However, given the complexity of exchanges within each cultural system, at unpredictable points in time and provoked by unforseen events such as the ‘accidental’ invention of new technologies or some radical social reorganisation, different systems may brought into a coordinated relationship with one another. The effect of new technologies for instance may link several systems together. In effect, through a process of entrainment different systems begin to behave as one. Environmental change in its broadest sense may be described as the shift between two theoretical states of organisation. In the first there are several different concentrations of socio-economic power coexisting within a society. In the second these are locked together into what appears to be a dominant socio-economic power co-existing with a number of less significant remaining power centres.

Changes occurs throughout time by the interaction of one system with another. In organisational terms this would be seen as a change in the status of existing institutions (more centralised or more dependent) or the emergence of the new and unforseen social institutions or collective behaviours. This might in some cases involve an increasing connectivity between diverse cultural groups with the resultant assimilation of diverse practices into a single meta-system as described above. Along the same lines one can say that the term ‘meta-system’ does not refer to a separate system or entity that is somehow detached from an original system. It does not exist ‘somewhere else’. The term ‘meta’ identifies a relationship between two different organisational levels of the same system. In concrete terms it defines the name for  the emergence of a more integrated state between several systems and describes a new level of control or co-ordination established between their different characteristic behaviours. For this reason one can state that the meta-system is not a ‘thing’, but an evolving relation between a group of systems in close and continuous communication with one another. It is an organisational state. If we want to 'see' the meta-system, we must look at the similarities of form which exist between the constituent systems. The meta-system is the ‘name’ for the collective characteristics of a number of systems that are linked by changing environmental conditions – increased connectivity - into a coherent network of exchange. It describes the results of that exchange, namely the increasing similarities between those formerly autonomous systems and the emergence of a single behavioural template through which their diverse experiences can be effectively and more economically modelled.

In historical terms the emergence of a meta-system would be recognised as the establishment of  unified systems of thought and behaviour. Its full significance would be realised in terms of its comparison with the diversity of theory and practice which existed in the previous historical period. It would be regarded as a major Event in the history of the system. In historical terms the communication and exchange processes which would bring about such an integration of behaviour would be, for instance, trade, war, travel, intellectual and cultural exchanges of various kinds and the exchange of ideas and technologies through books and other communications media. The actual degree of integration achieved at any time is dependent on the previous state of the system. For instance, in the history of religious systems, the result of such communication and exchange processes (cumulative selection) acting on a pantheistic religious system would produce polytheism. The same processes acting on the polytheistic system would produce the emergence of a monotheistic religion where a single deity can represent the whole of creation. It is also worth noting that in both pantheism and polytheism, the spirits or deities are derived from particular contexts, locations or tribal histories. Monotheistic religions are essentially context free. So too are classic architectures which come to dominate production over long periods of time where the characteristic elements of local architectures are assimilated into a classic type - a global architecture. The principle here being that the process of integration strips form of its contextual or local characteristics by selection of the most probable elements from a wide range of diverse practices. Only the most typical elements remain and these in the form of a single set can be combined to represent many different institutional arrangements and give each a coherent public or commonly-accepted meaning. This of course applies to all kinds of behaviour from social customs to architecture through which individuals communicate with one another.  

In this sense, the meta-system may be described as a code in terms of its communicational role and its organisational properties. The individual work may be seen as a message or report about the state of relations in a particular context. It represents that context in the language of the system. At one level, the code may simply be regarded as the statistical regularities that inform an ensemble of such messages. At another level it can be seen as a constraint on the configuration of such messages by defining their semantic probability in terms of those syntactic regularities. It is the collective resource from which the agents select the elements of their messages. The meta-system as code, is therefore distributed throughout the many individual messages that are created within the cultural system. The code in this sense may be seen as the ‘map of a territory’. In the case of architecture, the territory is the number and range of characteristic architectural forms available at any given time. It is a digital representation of this territory since it expresses only the most probable and significant features. 

Over time, and under selective pressure induced by changing environmental circumstances, there may be less variation in the character of messages produced. There is an increasing predominance of regularity over diversity of expression. While the reality of the world outside the system remains as complex and diverse as ever, the means of expressing that diversity in the language of the system is being progressively reduced. There is a predominance of code over message and a shift of control from system to meta-system. With the emergence of a meta-system, the semiotic freedom of the cultural system is reduced making it more difficult for its agents to directly and flexibly represent the complexity of relations within a referent system. In strictly architectural terms this would mean that buildings become increasingly similar to one another no matter what their function or circumstance. The compensation for this seeming inflexibility of response is that the few highly-charged linguistic elements which remain are semantically powerful and capable of representing a wide variety of different contexts. As a compression of experience within a cultural system, the meta-system exemplifies the process of representation whereby a selective reduction in the number of elements produces an increase in their signifying power as the form of each element is an assimilation (a compression) of many previous acts of representation.

6.      The Evolution of Architecture

If we now translate these systemic processes into the particular case of architecture one would define it as a dynamic system, driven by the processes of communication and exchange between its agents and constrained in its behaviour by changing conditions within its environment (other systems). In this sense one can note that while historically the shift in the characteristics of styles over time is significant in terms of indicating consistent process of change, this cannot by itself offer a complete explanation of architectural history. Taken on its own it would only provide a `flat' theory of continual gradual change which could not account for the obvious fact that history does not show such a consistent and gradual increase in stylistic uniformity but rather considerable variations in the degree of uniformity which exists at any given time. (Sometimes there is a single dominant style while at other times there are numerous equally-valid styles). In some periods there seems to be an actual reversal of the system's integrative tendency and a consequent disintegration of earlier uniformities of style such as the collapse of classical architectures. While it has been pointed out that communication and exchange processes between the agents of a system in a confined environment will integrate diverse practices into uniform modes of behaviour this is not reflected in the history of architecture itself. While this process may be invariant in character, the results of its application in different environments are not.. It is the emergence and dissolution of uniformity at apparently random points in time which must be accounted for in the history of architecture. On a more general level it also points to the fact that one cannot assume that either the rate of change or the kind of change which takes place in a system's history is constant. Both of these dimensions are variable. In order to examine this idea we may briefly outline these different possible states of architectural history as follows:

a)         That, stylistically the character of the repertoire is sometimes extremely diverse while at others it is almost completely unified around a particular style.

b)         The emergence of global similarities of form - the great classical styles or paradigms - which can dominate architecture for long periods of time.

c)         The disintegration of classical architectures into several equally-valid styles.

d)        The sometimes considerable variation in the timescale between one style and another with some lasting a decade while others last a millenium.

The question is why these variations should occur in history. There is no mechanism in the typological (selection-combination) process itself nor in the form of any particularly style which would produce such events at apparently random points in history including the formation of meta-systems discussed above. Again we must exclude simple deterministic relations by which one of these architectural states or another is said to be directly 'caused' by the state of another system. Also, histories which suggest that the inherent characteristics of a style, its beauty or its functionality, allowed it to become dominant at a particular time merely justify its 'success' after the fact, apart from the quasi-biological determinism implicit in the argument itself (`survival of the fittest'). It has already been pointed out that the character of particular architectural forms which exist at any point in time, say Graeco-Roman or Modern are not in any sense synchronized or derived from the prevailing social or cultural conditions. These are a product of numerous previous recombinations of elements in the same way that spoken or written language is not a direct product of the social or economic circumstances of the time. So too, the relation between environment and the state of architectural form  at any given time is purely coincidental given their different timescales. All that can be said is that while the normal processes of selection and combination ensure a certain degree of uniformity and change, other factors must control how far this stylistic uniformity will be allowed to extend throughout the repertoire as single or multiple styles. In other words how diverse or uniform architecture will appear to be at different times.

The only factor which can explain this variable is the effect of some constraint on the `behaviour' of architecture as a whole which would reinforce or reduce its tendency towards uniformity of characteristics. Such global limitations can only arise outside the architectural system itself, in its environment. This environment, defined previously as the  constellation of other systems will indeed constrain the development of architectural style, by limiting how far it can move along the same developmental path. That is, how far it can integrate the diverse practices and forms upon which different styles are based and, at a higher level, integrate diverse styles into a meta-system  or classical style for the whole of architectural production. One can suggest that the effects of any constraints would be to reinforce or retard the integrative tendencies of the system itself, constraining it to produce more or less uniformity in style. In this way one could maintain the invariant nature of the typological process which integrates diverse forms into typical sets while still producing the stylistic variations which are found in the history of architecture. As mentioned above, it is the same process operating in variable conditions which produces variable end results. The state of the environment changes from time to time producing symmetrical changes in architecture in terms of uniformity or diversity of styles. The question is what form would such constraints take in architectural terms or, more specifically, how would these constraints be transmitted to architecture from its environment? While the environment in this case is a collection of other systems, one can use a single general category to define it, namely the prevailing socioeconomic system.

Given the immense diversity of institutions which make up the environment, this single category allows one to refer to the state of the environment as a whole. That is as a notional connecting network within which a multitude of institutions exist. However this overall system must be understood as a virtual entity insofar as its effects can only be perceived through the relative status or power of the institutions themselves. It is not a separate parallel reality but rather a description of the relations between a number of institutions. It is an organisational map which represents the functional and symbolic organisation of society into groups of hierarchies, concentrations of power, dependencies, autonomous and semi-autonomous units at any given time.  It is these relationships which are reflected in the organisation of the architectural system. The specific mechanism by which these relations are mapped on to architecture is the system of patronage in existence at the time. This can be precisely defined as the institutions or individuals who have the economic power to commission buildings. The motivating force and the very existence of architecture depends entirely on the production of buildings. These are social and economic relationships of the time realized in built form and represent the varying degrees of economic power of different institutions. A power which is realized in the large concentrations of capital required to build buildings.

The system of patronage can be seen as the interface between the socioeconomic system and architecture. In terms of the system, it is not a group of individuals who weild arbitrary power, but rather represents the number and relative power of the institutions within a society. It is this relationship between the different parts of a society - its systems - which is mapped on to architectural production and acts as the primary constraint on its development. One must be clear however that these constraints are not in terms of the kind of architectural forms that architects will use. This is a matter of the repertoire of forms made available by the history of architecture itself - the combinations and recombinations of past forms. Socioeconomic constraints are by definition from outside the architectural system and have nothing to do with the forms or practices which architects use. They are essentially organizational since they define the relative power and number of patrons who will commission buildings. It is this constraint acting on the current state of diversity or uniformity of styles in architecture which alters the map of architectural production. It does so by requiring that buildings are commissioned and built  either for a small number of powerful patrons (such as corporations or governments) or a large number of less powerful patrons (such as an emerging middle class or a group of decentralized institutions). It is this concentration or dispersal of power throughout history which in turn emphasizes the diversity or uniformity of prevailing styles. Analogous to the issue of connectivity described previously, large concentrations of commissioning power will link the work and practices of many architects together while a dispersed patronage will maintain the diversity of architectural practice The ability of the architectural system to integrate the diversity of experience of its agents into typical sets of forms (styles) is dependent on the variety of relations which architects will be required to represent with those forms. A diversity of institutions each with its own unique internal relationships will more easily be represented by a diversity of styles reflecting the functional and symbolic differences between the institutions. However, these strictly organisational or even numerical constraints on architectural production will have decisive formal consequences which will be discussed in some detail later.

7.      Integration and Plurality.

The variation in the number and importance of styles throughout history is an effect of changing relationships within the economic system transmitted through to architecture by a corresponding change in the number and commissioning power of the patrons. Like any other dynamic system, the socioeconomic state of a society changes from time to time. For example:

a)                 The total wealth of a society may be centred on a small number of large institutions. This can be referred to as an Integrated state. In this the various cultural systems which make up a society are in some sense coordinated with one another and appear to act as one single system.

b)        The total wealth of a society may be dispersed amongst a large number of small institutions. This can be referred to as a Plural state. In this the various systems within a society are autonomous and have random or variable relations with one another. They are in a sense ’out of phase’ with one another and this produces an essentially variable or unstable environment.

The socioeconomic system moves between these two poles of organization with a consequent change in the number and relative power of the patrons who will commission buildings. Within this and producing a second variable in the system is the occurrence of economic recessions and expansions which affect the overall number of buildings that will be produced during certain periods. While this latter constraint may slow down or speed up the evolving relationship between architecture and its environment, it does not alter the processes involved.

Architectural activity, acting within one or another of these socioeconomic states - of integration or plurality - will produce different degrees of uniformity of style in the repertoire. That is, the same process acting within different environments will produce different end results. The mechanism for this is as follows:

a)         In an integrated system of patronage, a few large and powerful institutions will each commission a large number of buildings similar in character and requirements.

b)        In a plural system of patronage a large number of less powerful institutions will each commission a few buildings similar in character and requirements.

One system of patronage will tend to concentrate a large number of similar buildings within a few styles, thereby increasing the relative significance of these styles in the repertoire. (In purely numerical terms, other styles will be marginalized). The other will disperse a large number of buildings throughout many styles. The prevalence of one or the other poles of the socioeconomic system will therefore tend to magnify or reduce the number of styles available for future acts of selection and combination. The existence of a limited number of styles opens up the possibility that the integrative effect of communication and exchange between architects will, over time assimilate their diverse characteristics into a single set of forms. That is, into a single dominant style. On the other hand, the co-existance of a large number of styles maintained and reinforced by a Plural socioeconomic state will not offer that possibility for the simple reason that there are more differences of character to assimilate into single generic types. The continuity of socioeconomic conditions over long periods of time ensure that an emerging uniformity or diversity of style is continually reinforced by the prevailing state of patronage in the socioeconomic system. In both cases however, what is transmitted into architecture from its environment has nothing to do with the formal content of architecture, but everything to do with the organization of that content - the number and relative significance of the styles which exist and the semiotic freedom which architects have in their attempts to represent the complexity of their environment.

This environment also has its own time scale and history quite independent of any developments taking place in architecture. This means that the point in time at which Plural states become Integrated or vice versa is entirely unpredictable and random when seen from within the architectural system. Historically, therefore the point in time when architecture is constrained by its environment to become more diverse or more uniform is equally unpredictable.

From the above one can summarize the effects of the socioeconomic system and patronage on architecture as follows:

           

a)         Integrated systems of patronage reinforce the tendency of the architectural code to produce uniformity in the repertoire.

b)         Plural systems of patronage retard the tendency of the architectural code to produce uniformity in the repertoire.

c)         The activity of the code - the collective typological process - is invariant no matter what the current state of the system of patronage.

 

8.      Permutations

In order to produce an evolutionary model of architectural history and architecture as a cultural system one can permutate the relations between architecture and its variable environments. The two initial components for this model would be as follows:

a)                 The constant factor - the collective algorithm of selection and recombination of architectural form taking place through communication and exchange of experience between a large number of architects.

b)        The variable factor - two possible socioeconomic states, whether Integrated or Plural and their equivalent systems of patronage.

From the interaction of these two factors over time one can suggest three possible historical states for architecture. These states will affect the degree of diversity or uniformity of style within architecture at any given time and ultimately through the semiotic freedom made available to architects, the kind of formal characteristics which will be exhibited within each period. Along these lines one can suggest the results of various possible interactions in the following way:

A)                The collective typological process plus a Plural socioeconomic state will produce an Evolutionary state in architecture. That is continuous undifferentiated change.

The same communication and exchange processes acting within a variable or unstable environment will produce a continuous diversity of style. The character of architecture in an Evolutionary phase may be suggested as follows:

1.                 The continuous production of different behaviours, styles and sets of forms. There is a rapid mutation of styles as the integrative action of communication and exchange between architects attempts to merge the most typical elements of each styles. Given the instability of the Plural environment this is an impossible task since the number and relationships between cultural systems keeps changing. The only thing that can be achieved is the creation of temporarily stable groups of forms produced by local circumstances. The lifespan of these styles will be limited.

2.                 Several equally valid styles co-existing during the same period. This is consistent with the diversity of the socioeconomic system which architecture represents. Architects in this situation have a choice of styles which they can use to represent different social institutions. There are in a sense more (stylistic) answers than there are questions and always several different ways of doing the same thing - of representing the same experience. 

3.         Since the same institution can legitimately be represented by different and equally valid stylistic means, the prevailing trait of the Evolutionary phase is ambiguity. There is a crisis of meaning since it is impossible to establish and maintain a coherent and generally accepted set of typical forms for similar situations. The key semiotic aspect of the Evolutionary state is that it cannot represent the similarities between different experiences.

B)        The typological process plus an Integrated socioeconomic system will produce a Developmental state in architecture. That is, the formation of a single stylistic paradigm or meta-system out of the last set of current styles.

The same collective processes acting in a stable (integrated) environment will produce an increasing convergence in the characteristics of different stylistic paradigms within architecture This may be called the Developmental or Paradigmatic phase where the interchange and combination of elements underlying different paradigms results in this case in the formation of a simple, global routine or predominant style. In systemic terms this is the Meta-system - which can be applied to all representational problems. The Meta-system therefore is the syntactic response to an increasing similarity of experience in the environment which the system must model. A similarity brought about by the coordination of relations between different cultural systems and their temporary, integration into a virtual single system. This coordination can be seen in the emergence of new and more centralised institutions, During this period, the typical set of forms of the paradigm are established by de-selecting statistically-irregular practices or forms. These are marginalized into a secondary classification. In concrete social and political terms the establishment of uniform standards of behaviour in different fields can be seen at the time to be an attempt to resolve contradictions arising from the apparently disruptive effects of new social or technological events emanating fom the environment.  The result over time is that within the cultural system there is the emergence of a meta-system with semantically-speaking a few highly charged elements used across a wide range of contexts to produce a recognizable uniformity of behaviour. In systemic terms there is a shift from the evolution of new forms of behaviour to the development and elaboration of a single behavioural program. The characteristics of architecture in the Developmental state can be outlined a s follows:

1.         The convergence of several antecedent styles into a single global style which can be used to represent a large number of institutions and contexts with a limited number of forms. Concentration of patronage derived from more integrated relations between different parts of the socioeconomic system allows the establishment of a typical set of forms drawn from the diverse experiences of different architectural constituencies. Locked together into a set of dependencies, different cultural systems function as a single stable environment for architecture. Increased connectivity between the agents of the system brought about by an increased concentration of patronage and the normal processes of communication and exchange between architects results in the identification of the elements and geometries which underlie different styles. Of equal significance, the stability of the Integrated state over time allows for the development of this embryonic typical set into a coherent type of representation.

2.                 The first stage of this synthesis may be recognized as a period of eclecticism where the forms drawn from different styles are combined while still retaining their own stylistic identities. Further typological activity (continuous exchanges) in the context of a stable environment reduces these identities to their most fundamental or typical characteritics and these are essentially geometric in nature. That is, they define the spatial relationships between the component elements of the various original styles. For instance, the orthogonal grid of Classicism or the so-called ‘free plan’ of Neo-Gothic. The continuity of the Developmental state produces a typical set of forms which can be seen as a single (stylistic) answer to a number of different representational problems.

3.                 Apart from the economics of this state, the meta-style which emerges establishes a clear public meaning to architectural form. The ambiguities of the Evolutionary phase are resolved since there is a single but flexible instrument of expression which can be adapted to suit different contexts and yet maintain  its stylistic identity. It is able to represent both the similarities and the differences between different institutions with various combinations of its generic typical set.  There is no further need to invent new solutions for different problems. Buildings are now seen to be similar to each other, combined as they are from a recognizable set of forms and, by implication, they can represent a single public domain. The Developmental phase accurately represents the increasing unity of the socioeconomic system. From an historical point of view, this unity of form centred around a limited set of elements and syntax is eventually recognized as a ‘classical’ architecture which comes to be closely associated with a particular historical and social era. 

C)        The typological process plus a continuous Integrated state will produce an Involutionary phase in architecture. That is, over time it will produce a fragmentation of the Developmental synthesis.

The continuity of the Integrated state leads to ultra-stable environmental conditions where change can only be an emphatic and recursive application of ‘more of the same’. Yet the same systemic processes acting within an ultra-stable environment produce entirely different and apparently contradictory end results, namely the fragmentation of the Meta-system itself. Cultural evolution, in other words involves different kinds of change at different and unpredictable times. These are a product of the system-environment ecology where variable environmental states (relations between cultural systems) intersect invariable systemic processes at random points in the history of architecture. During an Involutionary period the quite natural tendency of architecture to produce uniformity (driven by communication and exchange between its agents) is reinforced by the effective integration of its environment into a virtual single system. In cybernetic terms this is the equivalent of positive feedback which allows an unconstrained articulation of the most probable forms of behaviour within the system. While in the Developmental period this process meant that the ‘almost similar became the similar’, in the Involutionary period of a system ‘the similar’ becomes ‘the identical’. In the Involutionary phase systemic processes trapped within a highly-integrated and seemingly 'immortal' socio-economic environment subject the cultural Meta-system itself and its uniformity to selective re-combination. The architectural characteristics of the Involutionary phase can be outlined as follows:

1.                 There is an increasing disarticulation of architectural form. The classical set is fragmented into a number of variations on its own theme. While the selection-combination mechanism inevitably articulates architectural form around its most probable elements, in the Involutionary phase this results in the disarticulation of the classical set. There is a tendency to integrate what is already integrated, to clarify what is already clarified and to further articulate the most probable elements of the classical (Developmental) paradigm. The result is to stereotype the elements of the classical set by identifying and fixing their most probable characteristics. In effect the set is bureaucratized and made inflexible.

2.                 The ability to customize the elements of the Developmental or classical set within limits is now prohibited. Only the most precise characteristics of forms can be legitimately selected.. Buildings become increasingly similar to one another to the point where they can be termed identical and in a reversal of the Evolutionary semantic problem, architecture is unable to represent the differences between different contexts. This results in an inevitable crisis of meaning - of a different kind. The Involutionary architecture - which we can also define as a’post-classical’ state - cannot represent the diversity of experiences it is called upon to represent. It can only speak of what is similar between different contexts. In this sense there is a drastic reduction in the semiotic freedom of the architectural language. While its function as a cultural system demands that it represent the full complexity of relations in the environment - its referent system - it no longer has adequate means of doing so. It has been rendered inarticulate 

3.         During this period architectural canons, standards and practices are precisely formulated by finally eliminating contextual or circumstantial characteristics. All are fixed and categorized and in social and institutional terms given the authority of law. Given the semantic crises which arise with the stereotyping of form, decoration becomes a predominant visual feature of the Involutionary architecture. It is used as a remedial device to resolve current semantic problems by introducing an apparent diversity of form to the primary (but inflexible) elements of the typical set. Given the rigidity of Involutionary forms and their inability to represent differences of context, decoration in the Involutionary phase must be fluid and diverse in character (to compensate for the rigidity of the primary forms). So too during this period, proportional systems are introduced as a remedial device to ensure the visual coherence of increasingly disrticulated forms. The stereotyping of architectural form means that the character of the elements used in a building will be precisely defined. They will not be adapted to suit their particular location in a building or their relationship to other elements. The building in this case becomes an assemblage of self-referencing parts which only the superimposition of proportional rules or decoration can organise into a coherent whole.

It should be remembered that the periodic changes in architecture outlined above are in no way a matter of choice for architects. They are purely the results of the same collective processes of communication and exchange of experience being played out in different environmental circumstances. In a more concrete sense they can also be seen as the results of articulation of the elements of architectural form. An articulation brought about by the selection and combination mechanism which informs individual action, where architects select elements from the experience of all other members of the recognized group or constituency and combine them in the form of a single building. In order to achieve a recognizable and meaningful form requires that the selected elements are the most recurrent and probable since, as suggested earlier meaning is defined by probability. The continued selection of the most probable forms within a given repertoire inevitably results in the emphasis of these forms rather than others. It is these which are regularly combined into individual buildings. In this way the prevailing repertoire is articulated into primary and secondary classes of elements and ultimately into styles. The emergence of a style does not in any way stop the process of articulation but simply redefines or narrows the boundaries within which it will take place. In the inescapable environment of an Integrated state, the process of articulation is focussed on finding the most probable and precise identities of the already established classical set. In doing so it removes the last vestiges of flexibility in these forms and inevitably their capacity to represent complex relationships. These overly precise identifications result in the disarticulation of form and its reduction to an aggregate of elements. These syntactic changes in architecture towards a reduced semiotic state are the basis of an Involutionary period. One can summerize this process by noting that:

a)                      The later forms of a style are more articulate, rhetorical and exaggerated than those of the earlier phases. (The circle becomes the ellipse in Baroque terms and in Modern architecture a new formalism of texture and shape replaces classical restraint. Even so-called ‘Functionalism’ requires the exaggerated emphasis of particular forms at the expense of others for spurious ideological reasons. The syntactic results are the same).

b)           Details are emphasised at the expense of wholes as the character of particular elements are ever more precisely defined to the point where the whole becomes an assemblage of parts. (In communicational terms the analogue continuity and complexity of the original elements is split or punctuated into several  discrete and precise elements).

c)                      There is a tendency towards decomposition of the whole into distinct volumes or assemblies as each part of the building becomes a self referencing identity.

d)           There is a greater use of decoration and proportional systems as a means of maintaining the unity and the meaning of the forms used in a building.

e)                      There is a tendency towards irony, parody, play, illusion and self-reference in Involutionary or ‘post-classical’ architecture. At one level these may be seen as ‘language games’ made possible when the system is freed from any dependence on context. It is the language itself which becomes the subject of experiment and further coodination rather than its relation to the reality outside the system itself. At a more basic level however, these games are the collective result of strenuous efforts on the part of architects to make architecture, with its now limited vocabulary of legitimate forms, represent the complexity of experience.

While architects will continue to select forms from the available repertoire for their individual works, they will find that the degree of semiotic freedom they have to do so changes over time. It is their ability to represent both the general and particular nature of contexts by rendering their buildings both similar and different to each other which becomes the central issue of meaning in architecture. In a previous section it was pointed out that  the meaning of a form is determined by it probability relative to other forms and the associative context in which these forms are used. The overly flexible repertoire of the Evolutionary period eliminates the regularities of form which define what is probable or what is general. The rigidity of form during an Involutionary period cannot represent any particular context. It cannot represent the particular. Apart from the Developmental period described above, in the other two phases architects are forced to add determinative clues to their buildings to indicate the precise meaning of the forms used. Thus decoration - a secondary formal language derived from the past is now used to maintain the necessary ‘quota’ of meaning required by architectural form. In practical terms, decoration in the Evolutionary period provides a fictitious unity of form while in the Involutionary period it provides a fictitious diversity of form. In each case the semantic crisis revolves around this problem of adequately representing the general and particular meanings of buildings.

The Involutionary phase of an architecture with its unique range of symptoms offers the most interesting example of the effects of semantic crises on the shape of architectural form and the systemic processes involved in producing these conditions.

9.      The Meta-system in Crisis

The effect of Involution on a cultural system is to stereotype the canonical elements of the prevailing Meta-system - the classical paradigm - by precisely fixing its most probable characteristics and further reducing any residual diversity of behaviour or form. The Meta-system, as suggested above is bureaucratised. With further selective compression of the few canonical forms at its disposal, the 'post classical' paradigm can no longer represent the diversity of experiences which it is called upon to represent. It is worth noting at this point that the uniformity of behaviour imposed by the emergence of a Meta-system does not in any way reduce the actual diversity of experience that architecture as cultural system exists to represent.  This remains as complex as ever. What has changed is the ‘linguistic’ means by which that complexity can be modelled. The progressive reduction in the number of permissible sub-routines within the available repertoire gradually limits the semiotic freedom available to the agents of the system. They cannot adequately represent the differences between similar experiences since the permissible language is now incapable of representing what is unique and essentially, what is improbable about those experiences. In a sense, the increasing rigidity of the Meta-system as code produces messages which all seem to say the same thing. In this sense, the pragmatics of communication has been reduced to the ritual behaviour of an ideology with the result that the cultural system is thrown into crisis. It can no longer match its behavioural strategies to actual circumstances. In ecological terms, this is the terminal state of the Meta-system. At this point in its history it enters a reflexive stage where the exact combination of its elements for particular circumstances is dictated not by sets of relations in the referent system (such as social institutions) which it must represent, but purely by its own syntactic regularities.

Theoretically, the Meta-system at this point in its history has no referent system which constrains its behaviour. Its is context free. In the extreme conditions of the Involutionary state it can no longer refer to particular times and particular places since its uniformity is based on the continuous repression of contextual or circumstantial elements. For this reason in its final stages, the Meta-system begins to display pathological symptoms. These take the form of multiple images, superimposition, repetitions, rhetorical or ritualistic gestures and self-reference as the agents of the system attempt to find appropriately complex responses to particular circumstances with the severely limited set of permissible forms available to them. The result is a superficial complexity of behaviour which, however cannot disguise the ultimately inarticulate state of the system at this time. There is no way that these aggregates of highly probable and rigid forms can be modulated to represent the analogue complexity of particular circumstances. The contextual elements which in the past allowed such representation are no longer part of the repertoire. In communicational terms, this pathological state is equivalent to schizophrenia where disparate behavioural fragments are ‘assembled’ to meet complex social situations. The inevitable differences of form which must occur in the system over time in order to cope with complex realities are now  dealt with by the production of decorative `fictitious' differences. Locked within an Integrated environment they are simply ever more precise variations on the now inert and stereotyped forms of the Meta-system and are themselves subject to continuous articulation.

The Meta-system disintegrates into variations on variations of itself giving rise to an allegorical or ‘scholastic’ phase where a superficial plurality of behaviours emphasised by decoration betray the existence of a singular presence at their centre. In concrete terms, overwhelmed by the decorative devices required to maintain its semantic credibility, the single dominant style seems to fragment into a series of different but related sub-styles. These processes provide architecture with an image or (fake) identity which appears to respond to the particular needs of each context while, at the same time maintaining the uniformity and coherence of the typical set of forms which lie at the core of the architectural language itself. Forms which have been rendered inarticulate.

The historical point at which these essentially remedial processes will cease is not predictable nor under the control of architects no matter how motivated. The timing of environmental change from Integrated socioeconomic conditions to Plural is to all intents quite random relying as it does on the accidental or coincidental coordination between the activities within various cultural systems. Thus the process of fragmentation of the Developmental paradigm and the production of fictitious sub-styles will continue until a new wave of institutional diversification occurs in the environment which breaks the linkages between different cultural systems.

10.    Ambiguity and the Production of the Marginal

The communicational and semantic crises which plague the Meta-system in its terminal stages stem from its inability to define the context of its messages (similarity or difference of experience). During the Developmental phase this context-sensitive aspect of behaviour was integral to the forms themselves. That is, they were flexible enough represent the diversity of experience since initially at least they were derived from the compression or assimilation of this diversity from separate constituencies. With Involution, this flexibility disappears. No amount of manipulation of the standard elements of the repertoire can compensate for this fundamental and cumulative lack of meaning in the dominant paradigm. Yet the inescapable function of the cultural system such as architecture is to authentically represent experience and this requires that in Involutionary conditions the agents of the system must utilise contextual clues or determinative signs that can locate their actions in a particular time and place. (The primary or most typical forms are no longer capable of doing this). This decorative activity provides the connotative dimension of meaning that has been erased over time by cumulative selection and allows the system to function in the possibly endless lifespan of an Integrated environmental state. This decorative or secondary zone of activity can be termed the ‘Para-system’ which can be defined as a parallel universe of behavioural forms which now act as remedial devices for the inadequacies of the Meta-system in its Involutionary phase.

The source of these secondary semantic devices lies outside the typical forms of the Meta-system itself in that area of behaviour which has been previously classified as improbable or untypical during the Developmental phase. By a principle of exclusion, the Meta-system establishes a singular order out of a previous diversity of behaviours. It does so by gradually stripping away the contextual or circumstantial aspects of its constituent paradigms. These circumstantial and thus context-dependent forms which cannot be incorporated within the standard or typical sets of behaviour are extruded into a secondary classification: the Para-system. In terms of the prevailing dominant paradigm these forms are unusual or accidental because they refer to very particular instances of behaviour and are thus irreducable to general statements. More precisely, they cannot be integrated with other ‘almost similar’ statements and formulated into a general rule or classified in terms of standard practice. This is because a Meta-system emerges out of the most recurrent practices within a group of constituent systems. The Para-system represents the residue of that emergence. It is what is ‘left over’ when the typical or recurrent is identified by cumulative selection. Since the complexity of communication and exchange and the production of many individual works involves the continuous production of improbable statements (relative to the typical set), the emergence of the Meta-system automatically brings about the establishment of a Para-system - that repertoire of untypical or non-canonical forms. During the Developmental period, the role of the Para-system is minimal since the Meta-system is at that point a flexible instrument of representation. With the advent of an Involutionary phase however, the Para-system takes on an increasing significance in the pragmatics of communication. It provides a repertoire of sub-routines which identify the meaning of actions ‘in this place and this time’ and which are used to give context to the rigid  of the Meta-system.

The emergence and maintenance of a classical state in architecture (and indeed the formation of architecture itself) involves a continual definition or classification of the standard case, the style, paradigm or norm. That is, the order of things which arises when the random event is excluded from the synthesis of experience which the cultural system or institution represents. In order to produce order and to establish its very existence as a repertoire of probable or permissible behaviours, an emergent architecture must exclude the non-typical. Indeed a possible definition of system or organisation is: the set of typical behaviours or routines for a particular discipline or activity. At its simplest, in order to create organisation in the form of risk-free routines and behavioural templates one must exclude the disorganisation which by definition involves ambiguous or unclassifiable forms of experience. Those that are 'almost this' or 'almost that'.  In other words, those that cannot be precisely named since they are the product of circumstantial events. The system in its most classical phase - dissipates the marginal and the ambiguous and in doing so clarifies the standard forms within its boundaries. In thermodynamic terms, therefore, ambiguity and the marginal are the 'dissipated heat' of the system - the entropy or disorganisation which is ejected from the emergent order of cultural and social systems. In a linguistic sense - the cultural system 'clears the space' between the elements of its own language, thus making communication - the shared/transmissible experience - possible by removing the ambiguity which would confuse meaning.

In communicational terms, ‘noise’ is unclassifiable information and ambiguity can be defined as the systemic noise of the processes of communication and exchange which drive the cultural system. Ambiguity can be regarded as an inevitable by-product of the multiple exchanges which take place within the system as its elements are combined and recombined to model an infinite number of different contexts. In terms of the prevailing Meta-system or predominant architectural style many of these combinations will be highly improbable due to the complexity of relations which they seek to represent. However, during the Involutionary phase, the definition of what is ‘probable’ becomes much more rigid. By this stage the virtual set of elements which make up the architectural code is much too precisely defined to allow for any contextual adaptations (ambiguity) of its forms. In a sense nothing is permissible. Meaning is increasingly displaced into peripheral or marginal categories as the Meta-system in its final stages substitutes syntactic clarity for semantic flexibility. There is an increasingly obvious split between the ritual and pragmatic aspects of behaviour. In order to accurately model a particular context with the inert forms of the Meta-system,  individuals must now use the forms of the Para-system as a secondary language which can contextualise the general truths of the Meta-system. That is, to make it speak of particular things. In aesthetic terms this involves the use of decorative devices which provide the classical forms with associative or connotative meaning.

11.    The End of the Meta-system and the Triumph of the Marginal

In seeking to represent all possible contexts with a single precise formula, architecture in the Involutionary state succeeds in representing none of them in particular. The fluid and diverse forms of the Para-system provide a spurious although effective compensation for its overwhelming uniformity. However, the continuity of integrated environmental conditions means an increasing tendency to resort to Para-systemic forms in order to represent anything. The systemic drive for syntactic clarity ends in a state of total ambiguity. Architecture as Meta-system collapses under a welter of decorative and contextual forms in the attempt to confirm the authenticity of its routines. In psychological terms, this can be seen as a ‘return of the repressed’ where the diversity of behaviour originally extruded from the repertoire with the emergence of the Meta-system is now the dominant feature of the Involutionary period. Quite simply these residual forms are now re-cycled to allow the Meta-system to function at all. Theoretically, there is no limit to this permutation of contextual and canonical elements which can be used to represent the environment of the cultural system. The duration of the Involutionary period is unpredictable since it is determined by forces external to the cultural system itself. The subsidiary formal mechanism of decoration will allow the Type to continue to function for as long as it necessary until the break up of the highly integrated state and the consequent dispersal of socio-economic power defines the end of a full stylistic cycle in the history of the cultural system. The multiplying networks of power which arise beside the highly-centralized institutions of the integrated state do not introduce new forms of behaviour or new architectures. What they do is to reinforce the disintegration of the prevailing Meta-system – the classical architecture. They speed up its fragmentation into multiple variations of itself., variations which become increasingly autonomous and self-referential. In this way, the Involutionary phase of cultural system merges smoothly into the full diversity of forms apparent in a new Evolutionary period as the fragments of the late Involutionary period become the numerous autonomous styles of the Evolutionary period.