the home as oppressive?

While reading Rybczynski’s article after our previous readings from last week I must admit my perspective on the notion of the home has really been opened up. On pages 23&24 Rybczynski discusses the oppressive history of housing for the poor. Rybczynski says the poor of the Middle ages were, “extremely badly housed” and elaborates by saying their housing lacked proper sanitation. He even goes on to say that this continued up until the beginning of the 20th century. Such disparate conditions between the rich and the poor transcend the experience of home. The treatment and lack of sanitation stems from a sense of class stigma in which the sentiment was that the poor didn’t need the same sort of standards of sanitation. It’s interesting to look at paired with last weeks readings on the oppressive nature of the family dynamic. In the case of the family dynamic the home was looked at as a place which needed to be shielded from outside society, and often was just used to reinforce outside society. The common idea of home usually isn’t thought of as something that would bring about violence or oppression, yet Rybczynski has illuminated the truth of the matter: the home is not always “comfortable” and it’s not always safe.

february 8th

I found all the readings for this week to be very fluid; they carried on some of the same ideas of sexualized spaces, privacy and intimacy within ones space, and also spaces in a house were a person is put on display, like being on the front porch and the theater box style. Bachelard and Colomina write about spaces that are biased to one sex over another. For example, Bachelard says that the cellar is suited to a man, its the “earth of the house” (75). However, the attic is a womans space where shes collected the memories of the family, he says its the “domain of dry life” (75). Bachelard, in a typical psychological manner, understands the house through movement and his senses. I find that I also understand and remember homes by their particular smell and flow of the rooms within the house. In Beckham’s piece the idea of the front porch being a bridge in between the privacy of the home and the public resonates as a tradition for many generations. Does any one still feel the same way about a front porch, or a stoop in the city?

The American front porch

“For women, kept at home by children in need of care and the labor necessary to keep a household going, the porch functioned as a social place-their own space-at home yet not inside-a space simultaneously work place and salon-where they could visit, keep track of neighborhood activities and exchange news flashes with passers by while they watched their children and performed their more portable and sedentary chores” (Beckham, 90).

This excerpt from “The American front porch” paints a picture of women in this specific time period; interesting in the separation of the front porch versus the back porch which she later elaborates in the text. The front porch was a place of social gathering and small chores, while the back porch was more private, and designated for the use of more undesirable household duties not welcome to the neighborhood eyes.

“…relationships that would be impossible elsewhere can flourish for however brief a time-and they can be spontaneous” (Beckham, 91). This excerpt was interesting as well, in that later Beckham writes that the porch “…established relationships are freed from the constraints and tensions of business on the outside and busy-ness indoors to commune…” I never would have thought the basic porch was such common ground for the coming together of a group of people, a place of mostly relaxation and “chilling out”.

A strange part I pulled from the reading was during the height of the Jim Crow laws, blacks could sit with whites on porches, but never in living rooms. Politically speaking of such racial times, this makes no sense to me whatsoever. If the goal was segregation, why would the law want white and black people to be publicly displayed together, rather than hidden in the confines of the home? The entire concept is morally wrong, obviously, but it’s just a thought that had me a little confused.

In “The American Front Porch”, Beckham repeatedly refers to the front porch as a “liminal space.”  One of the things that I found most interesting in this piece was Beckham’s statement that “The rules that apply to relationships and behavior in the structured environment on either side of the liminal space do not apply within it.” The fact that social norms could be ignored in this one space is fascinating.  As the popularity of the structure of the front porch declines, is there any other structure within the home that could potentially act in the same way as the porch – bridging the gap between public and private, allowing for exceptions from what is socially acceptable?

The discussion of the Hannah’s actions at the window in “Excavation and Reconstruction” I found interesting. She “watched the goings-on of the people along Second Avenue” and the window became “her portal to the outside world.”  This echoes the idea of the porch as a bridge between the intimacy of the home and the publicity of society.  There is more detachment from society in sitting at the window than at the porch, as the window acts as a physical barrier.  Hanna’s elevated view places her in the position of watcher rather than participant.  I find it intriguing that the act of sitting at the window is one of solitude, where Hanna removes herself from the activities within the home, whereas sitting on the porch is a communal activity, one in which all members of the home are expected to partake.

February 8th Readings

One thing that I have found interesting about the readings for today, and a few of the readings for last week, is there dedication to the “standard” idea of house. A few of pieces this week tackled the idea of feminist identity within a masculine outside world and a private home life. Although it was interesting to learn the perspective for which these women tackled the difficulties of womanhood, self-image, and connectivity to the outside world I think it would have been even more enlightening to explore communities and home lives that we may not be familiar with in the Western world. Many communities struggle with the distinction of gender roles in one way or another and I think it would be beneficial in understanding not only the concept of home, but also in comprehending deeper cultural differences to explore a variety of gender and identity issues in different contexts. What was beneficial about having these pieces together was the connectedness that they did have, exhibited by Loeb who quoted from both Beckham and Colomina.

I also appreciated the straightforward manner that these authors used to confront their subject matter. Because they are attempting to talk about home and personal interior spaces, it makes sense to me to discuss them in a more informal manner. The poem that Beckham used to begin her piece created an image for me of the major points of the essay as well as the nostalgia that she wished to convey. The very visual and descriptive styles they used, particularly Bachelard and Loeb, aided in creating a physical space to picture; they were able to successfully lay out the structure that they believed influenced so much the appreciation and usage of the home.

Week 3 Response

When describing his on study room, Rybczynski describes home a “ievidence of human occupation”(Home a Short history of an Idea, Rybczynski). In his research, it seemed like Rybczynski’s was emphasizing on the idea of home being a result of its occupant’s lifestyles, social relations, and interactions within that defined space. He gives example of the idea of comfort, which did not exist in the middle ages, being a particular lifestyle that led to very distinct housing architectures.

This makes me think of  as technology advances and people’s lifestyles change, so do their homes. Take TV and Internet for instance, instead of physically interacting with people, updating each other on events, and experiencing the world outside, we sometimes spend majority of our time watching a screen, typing, or clicking. Family interactions that use to take place in the common room have reduced to greetings and dinner. Not even TV watching is a common experience anymore as many households own several TV sets.

Rybczynski’s research of the idea of home, also ties back to last week’s reading about home being an organism responsive to changes of the outside world, the interaction and structure of a home/household is a direct result of people’s lifestyles and social relations.

Week Three Response

The American front porch is described as a feminine,  ritual space. This is an obvious contrast to the use of the back deck, where the space has traditionally been seen as masculine and more private. Both spaces function as places for social interaction and as a “stage.”

I enjoyed reading Rybczynski’s analysis of intimacy, privacy, and comfort in “Home- A short history of an Idea.” In regards to houses in the Middle Ages, he makes it clear that the lack of comfort and “hominess” was due to cultural preferences and the lack of technology. The idea that homes during this time period were feudal and public prevented any sense of intimacy. It makes sense that these houses lacked personal/private space and therefore were not viewed as having a significant impact in terms of being at home. Rybczynski’s definition of  “comfortable” is interesting, as the word’s evolution throughout time is directly related to how the function of houses and their spaces changed. According to Rybczynski, people “camped” in their houses more than the “lived” in them. When I think of “camping,” comfort is the last thing that comes to mind. When you sleepover at friend’s house or stay at stranger’s home for the night, it’s almost like camping, and many times you don’t feel as comfortable as you would if you were at your own house (obviously). Rybczynski mentioned that all strict rules and customs of the Middle ages indicated the importance that  the “obsessedly ordered society placed on public expression and on formality. (33)” I also found it interesting that it wasn’t until the presence of children in homes in the 18^th century that homes became more intimate.  The presence of children changed the function of spaces and the customs of the home. Likewise, this is true in today’s world. A clean, organized, ikea-like home will mostly become transformed into a cluttered space filled with color, toys, and other infantile items when a baby arrives.

I liked Rybczynski’s statement that “Hominess is not neatness.” But is it possible for people who decorate their homes like museums, which lack possessions with personal value or family history, to actually feel “homey?” Or is “hominess” merely a subjective idea which people prescribe their own meanings too? Can Hominess and comfort be mutually exclusive?

Stimmung

I really enjoyed the Rybczynski reading (although I have NO idea how to pronounce that name!) I enjoyed the comparisons from past to present, and the in depth descriptions of the mid-evil times.

A couple parts that really stuck out for me was the analyzation of the word comfort (on page 20) and the  journey chairs have made over time.

“One spoke of a bed of comfortable width, although not yet of a comfortable bed.” The idea perplexed me, a time when people didn’t really think about comfort?! That seems to be all we ever do today. Although like the reading said we do still use the saying “a comfortable income” which definitely doesn’t mean a luxurious/cozy/homely/laid-back or happy income (all synonyms for comfortable).

“Stimmung-the sense of intamacy that is created by a room and its furnishings.” (pg. 43)

-Jocelyn

week 2

Heidegger wrote about buildings and dwellings in a way that I had never thought of before. He writes about a bridge and how it interacts with the environment around it; “The banks emerge as banks only as the bridge crosses the water.” I always thought of the stream and banks being permanent fixtures in the landscape, not as things only coming into their real definitions by way of a man-made bridge.  Heidegger gives maternal characteristics to the stream, stating that it “gathers the earth as a landscape” and that it acts as a guide for the stream to follow. I never thought of buildings and structures being personified as Heidegger does, I thought of them as selfish creations by man that obstructs or destroys nature, but now I think of them working in harmony with one another.

my question is about Banham’s piece- Why doesn’t he believe in a common ground between a house to conceal our “mechanical pudenda” and a architectually beautiful home?

Week 1

define home and dwelling

home: a home consists of more than one room, family members, food, and forms of entertainment (t.v., video games, etc.)

dwelling: a small space, one major space/ room, more likely to find friends than family

I think of a home as having a more stressful environment, whether its good or bad stress, and having multiple people  that either live there or visit. A dwelling reminds me of my dorm room, a place to escape the outside and also your family.