The Debate: Interior Design vs. Interior Architecture

Within the field of interior design, there is continuous concern regarding the title of the profession and its perceived connection to decorating.

Thus, the debate over the nomenclature is more than just a semantic exercise; it encapsulates a broader struggle for identity, prestige, and recognition within the professional landscape. According to Cuff (1992), an individual’s role and identity are intrinsically linked to their job title. This notion is particularly significant for professions like interior design, which find themselves in marginal positions, often engaged in power struggles with other more established occupations such as engineering and architecture (Wilensky 1964).

The Push for ‘Interior Architecture’

In recent years, there has been a growing movement among theorists and practitioners to rebrand ‘interior design’ as ‘interior architecture’. Wild (2019) highlights this trend as a potential opportunity for the discipline to enhance its public perception. The strategy is immediately appealing; Martin (1998) argues that architecture enjoys a high-status position within society, which could lend increased credibility and prestige to interior design if it adopts this new title (Carll White 2009; Cuff 1992).

The term ‘interior architecture’ could also help distinguish the profession from mere ‘decoration’, leveraging the implied association with the rigor and sophistication of architecture (Havenhand 2004; Königk 2011).

The Critique of Nomenclature

Despite its appeal, the nomenclature strategy has its detractors. Wild (2019) and Hildebrandt (2004) argue that renaming the discipline does little more than add to the existing confusion about what interior design entails, potentially restricting the profession from developing its own unique identity. Cys (2006, 2009) points out that while ‘interior architecture’ might describe the capabilities of practitioners, it fails to provide a clear understanding of what exactly constitutes this field.

Carll White (2009) further criticizes this approach, describing it as “yet another threat to a profession that others would argue has constantly had to defend itself since the title interior design was adopted in the 1960s”. This sentiment reflects the ongoing identity crisis within the profession, where every title change risks diluting the core essence of what interior design truly represents.

The Futility of Title Change

Havenhand (2004) argues that the nomenclature strategy might perpetuate interior design’s perceived inferiority to architecture by emphasizing its similarities to the latter, a comparison that hinders interior design from achieving distinctiveness and a satisfied social identity. Renaming interior design as ‘interior architecture’ becomes, in Havenhand’s words, “a futile game of ‘passing’” rather than a genuine step toward independence. Königk (2011) agrees, suggesting that this strategy implies a reliance on architecture for definition, undermining interior design’s potential as an independent discipline.

The Social Identity Perspective

From the perspective of Social Identity Theory (refer to previous blog Are You in the INGROUP?), the nomenclature strategy may only increase uncertainty about interior design’s societal position, eventually leading the discipline to seek optimal distinctiveness from architecture. Furthermore, as a high-status group, architecture is likely to protect its social status and resist comparisons with lower-status groups like interior design (Tajfel and Turner 2004). This dynamic could exacerbate existing tensions between the two fields.

Conclusion: Beyond Nomenclature

My study of this strategy has led me to conclude that nomenclature does not address interior design’s identity crisis, as it fails to tackle critical issues such as title and practice protection or correcting media misrepresentation (refer to previous blog Does Interior Design Have an Image Problem?)

Thus, while rebranding as ‘interior architecture’ might seem like a promising route to enhanced prestige and credibility, it ultimately falls short of resolving the deeper identity and practice issues within interior design. The discipline should rather strive to carve out its unique identity, separate from the shadow of architecture, to truly thrive and be recognized for its distinct contributions.

^References