The architecture profession has opposed the
licensure of interior designers in most states, believing that the granting of
licenses to interior designers is unnecessary and anti-competitive. Many in the
interior design community have argued, instead, that architects’ opposition
amounts to little more than turf protection, combined with a degree of
condescension and gender bias on the part of a predominantly male profession
toward a predominantly female one. Which side is right?
Architects and interior
designers both determine the location of walls, and while that activity unites
these two fields, it has also become a metaphor for what divides these two
professions in their battle over licensure. Because it remains difficult to
sort out the differences between what architects and interior designers do in
terms of the design and detailing of building interiors, architects have
claimed that any effort to define that difference – to build a clear separation
between their respective responsibilities - becomes impossible. Further, architects
have argued that since they already have legal responsibility for the entire building,
inside and out, licensing interior designers becomes unnecessary and redundant.
Walls look different,
though, depending upon which side you are on. What may look, to architects,
like an attack on the wall around their profession often looks, to interior
designers, like an effort to keep them out and to monopolize an area of
activity over which architects have never had complete control. Electrical,
mechanical, and structural engineers, for example, often work extensively on
the inside of buildings and architects have not questioned the legitimacy of
engineers’ licenses. Why then do architects question the expertise of interior
designers whose knowledge of furniture, fixtures, and finishes often extends
far beyond that of most architects?
This dispute has become
more heated as the global economy has increased competition between the two
fields. As design services have become readily available from almost anywhere
around the world, the urge to protect one’s turf becomes ever stronger as free-trade
fervor seeks to override all such protections. This has led, in the case of
interior design licensure, to the decidedly odd situation of libertarian groups
opposed to professional licensure altogether joining licensed architects trying
to prevent their interiors colleagues from becoming so. How long will it take
before these same libertarian groups to turn on architects? As Aesop famously
said, “we often give our enemies the means of our own destruction.”
While politics has
dominated the battle over interior design licensure, ethics may offer more help
in sorting out which of the antagonists in this situation have right on their
side. Duty ethics has certainly played a major role in this dispute. Both
architects and interior designers claim to have the best interests of the
public in mind and we have no reason to doubt their well-intentioned desire to
do what they believe to be right. However, duty ethics hasn’t helped us resolve
this conflict, since both groups have pointed to their duty to protect public
health, safety, and welfare as the reason why they have taken opposite
positions.
Utilitarian ethics may
provide more useful path forward. When we look at this situation in terms of
what would bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people, it becomes
hard to support either side, for internecine war between two professions does a
lot of damage to the reputation of both and very little to help anyone else. If
anything, the growing belief that the greatest good comes from a much more integrated form of practice, in which
architects, interior designers, engineers, and contractors work more closely
together, makes this dispute over licensure seem like a battle left over from
the last century. A more creative solution, and one that would allow both sides
to transcend this self-defeating fight, might involve the licensing of the
integrated teams that will increasingly create our built environment. We can
become so intent on protecting our turf that we don’t notice that the ground
has shifted and that the turf we have so long protected may no longer matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment