Textual Rhetorical Analysis

Sustainability in architecture has long been a point of discussion, though difficult to define. In the article Reinterpreting Sustainable Architecture: The Place of Technology, Simon Guy and Graham Farmer write to the architecture community in an attempt to change the idea of sustainability. They contrast complexity with simplicity in their choice of language and structure, and through this make their argument seem like one that should be obvious and widely accepted.

It is made clear that the intended audience is the architecture community in their plea to change the way sustainability in architecture is defined. Outside of this design field, the definition of sustainability is not really something that is highly sought after. Guy and Farmer believe that people need to stop looking for a concrete definition of sustainability because it is all dependent upon your perspective. 

Furthermore, they call for teachers of architecture to change the way they teach their students and challenge the search for one definition of green. They try to convince teachers to do this by painting it as a means for ore flexibility and reflectivity. They issue a challenge to students to engage their brains and become moral citizens. Naturally, when issued a challenge, people tend to see it as something worth the time and effort to overcome. If this information were to be used for the counterargument, it could easily be spun to make the work necessary to overcome the challenge look like a negative thing. The way Guy and Farmer present it, however, makes it a noble task. They describe the many opinions and perspectives on sustainable architecture as “not only valid but highly desirable (146).”  Their argument is for acceptance and the movement into a more “multivocal world (146).” 

Guy and Farmer achieve their intended purpose by writing their article in a structure that makes the dense subject matter easy to understand. The bulk of their argument is in the introduction and conclusion of the paper. They start of telling you exactly what they want you to learn from reading the article: the definition of sustainable architecture must be much broader and less concrete. They end by stating all the benefits of this new view of sustainability and calling teachers and students to action by changing the way they think. The middle of the article explains all the different logics of sustainable architecture and discusses the validity and importance of each. The simple structure of the article subtly implies that the argument’s validity should be easy to accept. It makes it seem like what they are writing is just common sense with a lot of fancy vocabulary specific to architecture. The contrast between the language used and the simplicity of the structure and argument works well because, rather than having a complex structure combine with language which could sound snooty, or simple language and structure which could sound condescending, the elements they chose balance each other out on neutral ground. This creates an air of humility about the paper that opens the reader up to their point of view. This humility combined with the non-argumentative confidence with which they write gives them a wise voice.

This article uses logic and contrasting elements of writing to convince readers in the architecture community to challenge the way they view sustainable architecture and to stop looking for a singular, concrete definition of green building. They expertly call teachers to action in a way that could change the future of design, and challenge students to open their minds. Guy and Farmer write with a quiet confidence that makes it easy to see the validity in their argument.