Social, Spatial and Temporal Factors

Author: Roderick J Lawrence Year: 2006 (Intimus excerpt of pp. 116–18 of Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice, John Wiley & Sons, 1987; © David Fulton Publishers, reprinted by permission of John Wiley and Sons Ltd) Source type: chapter (from Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader, eds. Mark Taylor & Julieanna Preston, Wiley, 2006, pp. 184–186) Raw file: raw/chapters/lawrence-2006-social-spatial-temporal-factors.md

Summary

Lawrence's excerpt — the Intimus anthology's sociological pole, drawn from his 1987 monograph Housing, Dwellings and Homes — argues that the domestic consumption, decoration and equipment of homes cannot be accounted for by the manifest, utilitarian functions of objects alone: in Veblen's sense, possessions also serve "manifest, intentional and latent unintended functions," and it is the latent ones (status, communication, self-definition) that explain the prevailing pattern of domestic consumption. Drawing on the empirical literature of domestic symbolism (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton's 315-person Chicago study, Douglas and Isherwood, Kron, Laumann and House, Pratt), Lawrence holds that house forms, interior decoration and personal possessions are the media through which people articulate their identity, their role relationships, and the "unequal power of individuals to attribute symbolic meanings to domestic space and objects" — while the house itself is doubly attributed as "a haven for withdrawal from society and as a credential for esteem and the respect of others." The editors' headnote frames the wider chapter: Lawrence's historiographic-ethnographic method examines the social variables ordering domestic space, "with particular emphasis on rooms for eating and preparing food in Australian and English households"; modernism brought "aesthetic resolution to the kitchen and dining room" but failed to address these rooms' need to adapt "to demographic shifts in family constitution and population"; and dwellings — "ordered by long-standing habits in building and living patterns" yet "responsive to social influences" — may be remade "outside of a static framework of living standards," with ecological reflection pointing toward designs "attuned to the dynamic processes that occur within them."

Key Claims

The manifest/latent distinction is the chapter's analytic frame: household objects "serve a range of manifest, intentional and latent unintended functions in the sense used by Veblen"; any object may carry multiple functions, and any single function may be fulfilled by different objects — domestic function is many-to-many, not one-to-one (p. 184).
Manifest functions do not explain domestic consumption: a series of studies (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, Douglas and Isherwood, Furby, Kron, Laumann and House, Lawrence, Pratt, Weisner and Weibel) shows that "by themselves, manifest functions do not fully account for the prevailing pattern of domestic consumption, or the decoration and equipment of homes" (p. 184).
Veblen's latent functions: consumption research must "go on to consider the latent functions of acquisition, accumulation and consumption," which are "remote from manifest functions" (Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class, 1912, quoted p. 184) — the status/symbol dimension of possession predates and underwrites the modern consumerist reading of the home.
Possessions are communication: "Many possessions do not serve only utilitarian purposes but are a means of communication with oneself, between members of the same household and with the public, including both friends and strangers" (p. 184) — the three addressees (self, household, public) give the domestic interior its communicative geometry.
The Chicago finding: in Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton's study of 315 persons in metropolitan Chicago, respondents cherished personal possessions "not only for monetary or use values, or the material comfort they provide, but primarily because they convey information about themselves and their relationships with other people" (pp. 184–185) — the empirical basis Lawrence shares with the wiki's symbolic-ecology cluster.
Living standards as non-verbal cues: "expected standards of living assume an important role as cues for non-verbal communication" (p. 185) — the standardized decor of a class transmits its position before anyone speaks (see interior-as-biography).
Kron's system of symbols: "The furnishings of a home, the style of a house, and its landscape, are all part of a system – a system of symbols. And every item in the system has meaning. Some objects have personal meanings, some have social meanings which change over time!" People desire things "not for some mindless greed, but because things are necessary to communicate with" — and what is remarkable is the capacity "to comprehend and manipulate all the elements in this rich symbol system" (Kron, Home-Psych, quoted pp. 185) — social meanings change over time, making the symbol system historical, not static.
Identity, roles, and unequal symbolic power: "House forms, interior decoration and personal possessions are mediums enabling people to articulate their interpretation of their identity, how they relate to others in the same household and to friends and strangers" — and simultaneously the media of "the unequal power of individuals to attribute symbolic meanings to domestic space and objects, in order to express both private/personal and public/shared domains" (Bernard and Jambu; Hansen and Altman; Pratt) (p. 185) — the power to define what things mean is unequally distributed within the household itself.
The house's double attribution: "the house is attributed personal and social functions; as a haven for withdrawal from society and as a credential for esteem and the respect of others" (p. 185) — refuge and status-display in one building, the classic private/public double of domesticity.
A comparative research agenda is overdue: there is "still a scarcity of research" identifying which objects are more highly valued by different groups, "in the same location, at the same or different times" — comparative, cultural, social and psychological studies of domestic objects and processes are called for (p. 185).
Affluence as control and choice, not mere quantity: "affluence is not merely an indicator that the wealthy own more possessions than the poor; it also implies that the former have a relatively greater degree of control and choice that can reflect and reinforce personal preferences and identity" (p. 185) — wealth buys symbolic latitude, and the latitude feeds back into identity.
The status-claims gap: there is "still no comprehensive understanding of the functions of status claims"; Lawrence asks what indicators measure them and "are there penalties for possessing household objects that are attributed contradictory social values?" — the question of symbolic contradiction (objects carrying incompatible meanings) posed as open research (p. 185).
The editors' frame — method: "Housing and health expert Roderick Lawrence uses a historiographic and ethnographic method of inquiry to examine social variables relative to ordering domestic space, with particular emphasis on rooms for eating and preparing food in Australian and English households" (p. 184) — the method pairs historical pattern-tracing with observational study.
The editors' frame — the modernist audit: "although modernism brought aesthetic resolution to the kitchen and dining room, it failed to address a need for these rooms adapting to demographic shifts in family constitution and population" (p. 184) — aesthetic closure without temporal adaptability; the kitchen/dining pair as modernism's domestic test case.
The editors' frame — the dwelling's double temporal order: "while houses and their internal activities are ordered by long-standing habits in building and living patterns, they remain responsive to social influences in ways that have the potential to remake and reform them outside of a static framework of living standards" (p. 184) — habit and responsiveness held together, against the static standard.
The editors' frame — ecological design: "When such issues are considered within ecological reflection, house and housing designs that are attuned to the dynamic processes that occur within them may be produced" (p. 184) — the ecological register: design for the processes a dwelling undergoes, not for a fixed standard of living.

Connections

Concepts: manifest-and-latent-functions, consumerism, symbolism, connotative-symbolism, symbolic-capital, taste, interior-as-biography, domestic-interior, housing, dwelling, kitchen, dining-room, habit, habitus, flexible-interior, temporality, ecology, sustainability, empirical-methods, typology, building-genotype, privacy, semiotics, symbolic-ecology

Authors: lawrence-roderick-j, csikszentmihalyi-mihaly, taylor-mark-preston-julieanna

Debates: static-vs-dynamic-architecture — the editors' "static framework of living standards" against dwellings remade by dynamic social processes; theory-of-the-everyday — the domestic-habit and consumption strand of everyday-life sociology

Related source notes: Design and Order in Everyday Life (Csikszentmihalyi 1991) — Lawrence's key citation, the Chicago symbolic-ecology research; Woman's Domestic Body (Gordon 1996/2006) — the status-display economy whose consumer position Lawrence's latent functions generalize; Proximities (Taylor & Preston 2006) — taste's "alliance to consumption and the acquisition of possessions as a symbol of social status" (p. 12), the anthology frame this chapter sustains; Structures of Atmosphere (Baudrillard 1968/2006) — the interior as sign-system, the structuralist counterpart of Kron's system of symbols; Consumerism and Identity (Zepf 2010) — consumption as identity-formation, the psychoanalytic register of Lawrence's self-communication claim; Movement and Myth (Croft 2000/2006) — family-life change forcing spatial issues of segregation and enclosure, the built-case counterpart of the editors' demographic-shift thesis; From Wiener Kunst im Hause to the Wiener Werkstätte (Houze 2002/2006) — the domestic interior as purchasable status-ensemble, the marketing pole of the same status economy

Direct Quotes

"Households possess a range of domestic and personal objects which serve a range of manifest, intentional and latent unintended functions in the sense used by Velben. Any object may be attributed multiple functions, and a specific function may be fulfilled by different objects." (p. 184) — "Velben" [sic] = Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1912), source note 1

"These studies therefore confirm Velben's statement that 'we must go on to consider the latent functions of acquisition, accumulation and consumption,' which are 'remote from manifest functions.'" (p. 184)

"Many possessions do not serve only utilitarian purposes but are a means of communication with oneself, between members of the same household and with the public, including both friends and strangers." (p. 184)

"…the respondents cherished personal possessions not only for monetary or use values, or the material comfort they provide, but primarily because they convey information about themselves and their relationships with other people." (pp. 184–185)

"In this respect, expected standards of living assume an important role as cues for non-verbal communication…" (p. 185)

"The furnishings of a home, the style of a house, and its landscape, are all part of a system – a system of symbols. And every item in the system has meaning. Some objects have personal meanings, some have social meanings which change over time! People understand this instinctively and they desire things, not for some mindless greed, but because things are necessary to communicate with … And what is truly remarkable is that we are able to comprehend and manipulate all the elements in this rich symbol system." (Joan Kron, Home-Psych: The Social Psychology of Home and Decoration, 1983, pp. 19–20, quoted p. 185)

"House forms, interior decoration and personal possessions are mediums enabling people to articulate their interpretation of their identity, how they relate to others in the same household and to friends and strangers. They are a means of self-expression, of role relationships, and also of the unequal power of individuals to attribute symbolic meanings to domestic space and objects, in order to express both private/personal and public/shared domains…" (p. 185)

"Simultaneously, the house is attributed personal and social functions; as a haven for withdrawal from society and as a credential for esteem and the respect of others." (p. 185)

"In this respect, affluence is not merely an indicator that the wealthy own more possessions than the poor; it also implies that the former have a relatively greater degree of control and choice that can reflect and reinforce personal preferences and identity." (p. 185)

"Moreover, what indicators enable us to measure these functions, and are there penalties for possessing household objects that are attributed contradictory social values?" (p. 185)

"Housing and health expert Roderick Lawrence uses a historiographic and ethnographic method of inquiry to examine social variables relative to ordering domestic space, with particular emphasis on rooms for eating and preparing food in Australian and English households." (editors' headnote, p. 184)

"Lawrence points out that although modernism brought aesthetic resolution to the kitchen and dining room, it failed to address a need for these rooms adapting to demographic shifts in family constitution and population." (editors' headnote, p. 184)

"His text reminds us that while houses and their internal activities are ordered by long-standing habits in building and living patterns, they remain responsive to social influences in ways that have the potential to remake and reform them outside of a static framework of living standards." (editors' headnote, p. 184)

"When such issues are considered within ecological reflection, house and housing designs that are attuned to the dynamic processes that occur within them may be produced." (editors' headnote, p. 184)

Open Questions

Lawrence's own research agenda: "what indicators enable us to measure these functions [of status claims], and are there penalties for possessing household objects that are attributed contradictory social values?" (p. 185) — how would a household object's contradictory social value be observed, and who pays the penalty?
The elision "(… p 118)": the excerpt reproduces only the frame and closing of the original argument (excerpt pp. 116–18 of the 1987 book). What case material on Australian and English kitchens and dining rooms — the editors' stated emphasis — is lost to the elision, and does the chapter's comparative evidence survive in the omitted middle?
The "unequal power of individuals to attribute symbolic meanings to domestic space" (p. 185): does this intra-household symbolic power map onto the decorator's professional power to define taste (taste, symbolic-capital) — and whose attribution wins when occupant and decorator disagree?
If "expected standards of living" are the cues for non-verbal communication (p. 185), is the modernist standard (the "aesthetic resolution" of kitchen and dining room) one more standard of living — a norm that itself becomes the latent-function cue — and does standardization homogenize the symbol system Kron describes?
How do "long-standing habits in building and living patterns" (editors, p. 184) relate to Bourdieu's habitus — are building habits incorporated dispositions, institutionalized typologies, or both? See habit, typology.
Kron's symbol system carries "social meanings which change over time" (p. 185): what is the time-scale of that change — fashion's seasons (fashion), generational turnover, or the demographic shifts the editors name — and does the dwelling remade "outside of a static framework of living standards" (p. 184) track one or all of these clocks?