Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF HOME

Author(s): Peter Somerville
Source: Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 226-
245
Published by: Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030210
Accessed: 09-06-2015 16:18 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43030210?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Locke Science Publishing Company, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 226

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF HOME

Peter Somerville

An adequate theoryof the meaningof home mustexplain it as a complex , multi-leveled or

multi-dimensional constructwitha specificinternalunitydetermined by relationsat and among
levelsor dimensions
different . Home is physically , and sociallyconstructed
; psychologically in both
"real"and "ideal"forms,and thedifferent typesof construction
always occur in combination, as part
ofa singleprocess. Beginning witha reviewofempiricaland theoretical literatureon themeaningof
home, thispaper developsa multi-disciplinaryhybridapproachwhicĶit is argued, is necessaryfor
theformulation of such an adequatetheory.FollowingthisapproacĶ an attemptis made to show
how each individualmeaningof home, such as privacyor identity or familiarity
, can be internally
explicatedas a physical/psychological/social
constructand relatedto thewidercomplexofwhichit is
an integralpari

© 1997,
Copyright LockeScience
Publishing Inc.
Company,
IL,USA
Chicago, AllRights
Reserved

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal
ofArchitectural
andPlanning
Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 227

INTRODUCTION

Therehas been a strongdivergencein theliterature on themeaningof thehome,betweenbroadly

and
psychological phenomenological on
approaches theone hand,and sociologicalapproacheson the
other. In an earlierliterature
review,Després(1991) acknowledged thattheformer approacheshad
tendedto neglectwhatshe called the societaldimensionof home,but her reviewitselfcontained
scantreference to thesociologicalliterature,
and is therefore incomplete
substantially and one-sided.
The mainpurposeof thispaperis to addressthedivergence in questionand to beginto developan
integratedapproachwhichwillresolvetheproblemsofdisciplinary bias.

The firsttaskis to providea morecomprehensive and up-to-date and thiswill

reviewof theliterature,
be attempted in thenexttwo sections. Buildingon thisreview,thepaperarguesforan approach
whichconsciouslyincorporates spatial,psychologicaland social dimensionsof reality. In orderto
demonstrate theutilityof thisapproach,threeconceptsassociatedwithhomeare selectedforanalysis,
namelyprivacy,identity, and familiarity.Each of theseconceptshas a special ontologicalsig-
nificance:privacyforspatialrelations,identityforpsychological and familiarity
relations, forsocial
relations.The interrelatednessof theseconceptsat all levelsof realityoffersstrongsupportforthe
validityof an integrated
approach.

The approachadvocated in this paper is not new - it has much in commonwith the social
phenomenology of Schutz(1962) and thesocial constructivism of Bergerand Luckman(1966); also,
in a ratherdifferentcontext,it sharesmanyof theassumptions madeby theheterophenomenology of
Dennett(1991). In housingstudies,too, therehave been attempts to combinepsychologicaland
sociologicalapproaches,thoughnotin a consciouseffort to developa constructivistproject;forex-
ample,in describingtheirstudyof homelessnessin London,Moore and Canterhave written:"In
someways thisstudymaybe seen as a marriageof thetraditional sociologicalmethodof exploration
of homelessnesswiththeuniquelysocial psychological" (1993:97). Whatis new,then,is theapplica-
tionof earliertheoretical
approachesto thinking aboutthemeaningof homein orderto improvethe
qualityof theoryon thisparticular it is arguedthatourunderstanding
subject. Essentially, of homeis
constructed boththroughdialecticsof phenomenology and through dynamicsof social relations,in
processeswhichcannotbe brokendownintoseparate"phenomenological" and "social"constituents.

MEANINGS OF HOME

The non-sociologicalliterature
on themeaningof homehas been well reviewedby Després (1991)
and will not be repeatedhere. Briefly,Desprésidentifies
tencategoriesof meaning,rangingfrom
physicalsecurityand controland materialcharacteristics
of thedwellingand neighborhood through
legal and economicmeaningssuch as ownershipand investment; culturaland symbolicmeanings
associatedwithself-expression, and social status;and temporalmeaningsof per-
emotionalsecurity,
manence and continuity; to social meaningsconnotingfamilyand friendsand social activities
(Després,1991:97-99). Thesecategoriesof meaning, and are not
however,aremoreor less arbitrary,
generatedby any particular of
body theory. The theoretical
approaches consideredby Després(dis-
cussedin thenextsection)are evaluatedseparately
fromthiscategorization.

thecategoriesof meaningfoundin thesociologicalliterature

Interestingly, bearmanysimilarities to
thoseidentified by Després. Broadlyspeaking,thisliterature consistsof microsociological studies,
concentrating on social relationsin smallareas,mostlyin theUSA (Zweig, 1961; Rainwater,1966;
Seeley,et al, 1956; Gans, 1962; Suttles,1972; Ineichen,1972; Thorns,1976),and macrosociological
studies,generallyinvolvinglarge-scalenationwide surveys,mainlyin Britain(Marshall,et al, 1988;
Saunders,1989, 1990). In addition,therehave been studiesof relationswithinhouseholdswhich
touchon therealityof homeforhouseholdmembers(Hunt,1989; Mason,1989; Craik,1989; Munro
and Madigan,1993). All typesof studyhave revealedthesamerecurrent meaningsof homeas the
centerof familylife;a place of retreat,
safetyand relaxation,
freedom and independence; self-expres-
sionand social status;a place of privacy,continuityand permanence; a financialasset;and a support

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal
ofArchitectural Research
andPlanning
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 228

forworkand leisureactivities.Thereis just one new categoryof meaning,inventedby Saunders,

reminiscent
(Saunders,1984),buteven thisis strongly
whichis thatof "ontologicalsecurity" bothof
ideas of homeas therootof authentic
existentialist humanexistence(Heidegger,1966; Laing, 1960)
and of Jungian theories
psychoanalytic of theselfas reviewedbyDesprés(Cooper,1972, 1974).

The similarity in thefindingsof thesociologicaland non-sociological

literatureon themeaningof
home suggeststhata cross-disciplinary approachwouldbe mostappropriate here. At present,how-
ever,thereis a considerabledivergencein how such findingsare interpreted, withsociologicalap-
proachesfocusingon issuesof class, gender,tenureand age, whilenon-sociological approachesem-
phasize issues of territoriality, and phenomenological
needs and attachments,
psychological connec-
tedness(Dovey, 1985). The different approachescould be broughttogether if therewere a real or
theoreticalobjectcorresponding to thehome,butas Gurney(1990:28) has pointedout,thisis notthe
case. The task,then,is to showat leasthow thedifferent approachesare inextricablyintertwined,
and indeedcomplementary to one another.Beyondthat,a searchcan be made fora possiblecom-
mon theoretical basis,forexamplein termsof sharedontologicalor epistemological
or philosophical
assumptions.

Turningfirstto thecontributions of thesociologicalliterature,themainrecurrent themeis thatof the

social variabilityof themeaningof home. In relationto social class, earlierstudiespurported to
detectclear class differences on thisissue. Seeley,et al ., (1956), forexample,foundthatforthe
middle class in Canada the home playeda centralrole in confirming theirstatusand helpingin
upwardmobility.In contrast, Bergerfoundthatworking class peoplein theUnitedStates"apparently
do not thinkof theirhomes primarily as statussymbols"(1968:48-49). Many othercommunity
studiesof the1950s and 1960shave attestedto thislack of individual(as distinctfromgroup)status
consciousnessamongthe workingclass, withYoung and Willmott(1957) and Gans (1962) being
perhapsthemostwell-known (see also Gans, 1974). Since the1960s,however,ithas been suggested
thatthe workingclass has becomemorelike themiddleclass in seeingtheirhomesas symbolsof
individualacquiredstatus(Rubin,1976; Thorns,1976; Holme,1985). This could explainwhymore
recentstudieshave foundlittleevidenceof variation by social class (Marshall,et al ., 1988; Saunders,
1990). Nevertheless, in spiteof thesefindings, thereare strongindicationsof continuing important
class differencesin theexperience of home,especiallyforwomen(Hunt,1989).

In the case of gender,thepictureis extremely complex. The generalverdictseems to be that,al-

thoughmenand womenhave similarviewson themeaningof homein manyrespects,menare more
likelythanwomento see thehomein termsof statusand achievement, whilewomenare morelikely
thanmento perceivethehomeas an emotionalrefugeor havenor sourceof protection (Seeley,et al .,
1956; Rainwater,1966). Thereis evidencethatwomencare moreabout the home thanmen and
derivemore satisfaction fromit (Saegert,1980:S101; Mason, 1989). The 19thcentury"cult of
domesticity" (Davidoff,et a/., 1976; Hall, 1979; Zaretsky,1986) and ideologyof separatespheres
identifyingwomenwith"thehome"(homeliness)and men with"theworld"(worldliness)(Elshtain,
1981; Siltanenand Stanworth, 1984; Coontz,1988) have no doubtcontributed to thesegenderdif-
ferences.Thereis also evidencethata similardivisionof genderrolesexistsin manyothercultures:
women"tendto be moreintimately linkedto thedwellingin termsof theirself-identity" (Rapoport,
1981:23). More recentworkon genderand themeaningof thehomehas attempted to discoverhow
domesticideologyis embodiedin everydaydomesticpractices;forexample,in thechanginguse of
thekitchen(Craik,1989) and in thedailyworkof caringforthehomeand itsoccupants(Hunt,1989;
Mason, 1989). The mainconclusionthatcan be drawnfromall thisworkis thatthemeaningof the
home,howeverconstituted, is nevergender-neutral (Madigan,et al., 1990).

With regardto tenure,attentionhas focusedmainlyon owner-occupation (Saunders,1990). In

America,forexample,it has been claimedthattheword"home"is "used in everydayspeechas a
synonym fortheownedsingle-familyhouse"(Agnew,1981:94-97). In thissense,whilein thepastto
have "a home of one's own" meantto live in self-containedaccommodation(Rosser and Harris,
1965), now it means which
something is not fullyachievedwithoutownershipof a dwelling(Pähl
is therefore
and Wallace, 1988). Owner-occupation morestronglyassociatedwithhome-buildingand

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 229

putting downroots,especiallyin the"newworlds"of Americaand Australia(and similarly Israel;see

Sebba and Churchman, 1983). As Perin(1977) has said: "To theextentthatrenting is acceptable,it
is a stage one passes throughbefore'settlingdown' and becomingan owner"(quotedin Agnew,
1981:75). In addition,in capitalistcountries
generally,home-owners are morelikelythantenantsto
see theirhome as an indicatorof social status(Ineichen,1972; Kemeny,1981; Hamilton,1967;
Pawley,1978; Schlay,1986), to display"prideofpossession"(Gurney,1990:15),to value theprivacy
and freedomfromthe controland intrusion of otherswhichowner-occupation provides(Rakoff,
1977; Roberts,1989), and in generalto feeltheyhavemorescope formakinga dwellingintoa home
(Allan and Crow, 1989:9). Finally,of course,althoughnotall owner-occupiers see theirhome as a
financialasset,especiallyin thesetimesof negativeequity,it is clearthatno tenantcan view their
home in thisway. All of theseassociationsthengive rise to thegreateraffection and attachment
whichowner-occupiers in generalhave towardstheirhomes,a phenomenon whichhas been notedin
particularby Saunders(1990:294-295).

One usefulfindingof recentstudiesis thatattachment to one's home increaseswith lengthof

residence(Gurney,1990:15; Giuliani,1991:141-142;Sixsmithand Sixsmith,1991). This is mainly
the resultof the home being an "embodiment of past memories"(Saunders,1989:182). As these
memoriesaccumulate,so thesignificance of thehomefortheindividualincreases.The reality,how-
ever,is morecomplicatedthanthis:it is notso muchage whichis therelevantfactoras "stagein the
life cycle" (Csikszentmihályi
and Rochberg-Halton, 1981), and thisfindingstronglysuggeststhat
householdtypemay be thekey variablehere. Such a suggestion by researchon older
is supported
ever-singlewomen, who do not perceive theirhomes as storesof past events in theirlives
(Armstrong, 1993).

Understandably, therefore, the sociological literatureinterprets

the meaningof home through
sociologicalcategoriessuch as class, gender,and tenure,withprospectsforfurther interpretations
usingconceptsof domesticrelationsand householdstructure.In the future, applicationsof other
sociologicalcategoriescould be fruitful,such as those of ethnicityand nationality (Somerville,
1994c). These uses of categories,however,do notamountto a theoretical approachto themeaning
of home. They take us beyondmere"checklists" of meanings(Gurney,1990:30),but theydo not
to
point any particularsystematic way explainingtheresearchfindings
of in thisarea. As withthe
therefore,
non-sociologicalliterature, thereis a significantgap betweenempiricalanalysisand the
formulationof theory.

THEORIES OF HOME

Non-sociologicaltheoretical approachesto thestudyof themeaningof homehave been substantially

reviewedby Després(1991). These approacheshavebeencalledterritorial, psychological and social-
psychological,and phenomenological and developmental, and will be describedonly brieflyhere.
Each one characteristically emphasizescertainmeaningsof homeand neglectsor downplaysother
meanings. The territorial approach,forexample,givespriority to thedefinitionof thespatialboun-
daries of the dwelling,of familyterritory, withinthe dwelling. The
and of individualterritories
emphasisin thisapproachis therefore on controland security, operatingat differentsocio-spatial
levels (person-room relations,household-dwelling and family-neighborhood
relations, relations),and
expressedin physical,psychological, and socio-spatialterms.Much of theliterature on thistheme,
however,is "social" and therefore not citedby Després: forexample,Taylorand Brower(1985),
Allan (1989), Richards(1989), and Munroand Madigan(1993). Recently,it has been claimedthat
thesocializing-privacy dimensionis themainone in theordering of domesticspace (Giuliani,et al. ,
1993), and thiscan be regarded as evidenceof thecontinuing importanceof theterritorial
approach.

The psychologicaland social-psychological

approachesattempt to explainthemeaningof thehomein
termsof deep-rootedpsychologicalneedsforidentity,control,
privacy,security,
intimacy,and social
in Després,1991). The underlying
status(see references theoriesof needs,however,remainweak
and undeveloped, actuallyoverlapswiththeliterature
and muchof thisliterature so it
on territoriality,

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 230

is questionablewhether thereexisttwotheoreticalapproachesat all. Giuliani'sapplicationof attach-

menttheory, however,is perhapsworthy of further consideration.Accordingto thistheory, people
are said to construct of theworld(Giuliani,1991:136). People thenbecome
mentalrepresentations
attachedto certainobjectsin theworldinsofaras theytendto identify themselveswiththoseobjects
and attemptto preservethissense of identity in theireverydaylives (Bretherton, 1985). Whenthe
object to whichone is attachedis a place, we have "place-identity"(Proshansky, et al ., 1983), and
when it is a place whichis centralto the individualconcerned,we have "home" (Tuan, 1980;
Giuliani,et al , 1988).

Finally,thephenomenological and developmental approachemphasizesthemeaningof homeas per-

manenceand continuity and seeks to understand thechangesin the meaningof home duringthe
courseof a person'slifetime in Després,1991). Such changesare producedby means
(see references
of a self-object
dialectic,therepetition theuse of ritual,theinvestment
of specificactivities, of value
(throughfinancialexpenditure, domesticworkor sentimental and,in general,thetrans-
attachment),
actionsbetweenindividualand home environment over periodsof time. These transactions are
unifiedby processesof social and culturalregulation(Rapoport,1982), by affordances(Gibson,
1979), and by practicesof appropriation(Furby,1978). Thereis no sociologicalcounterpart to the
phenomenological approach,¿thoughstructuration theoryis perhapsthenearestequivalent(Duncan,
1985).

On thewhole,sociologicalapproachesto studying themeaningof homelack any coherentor unify-

ing theory:theyremainat thelevelof analysis(see previoussection). One exceptionis structuration
theory(Giddens,1984), whichhas been arguedto be relevantbecause of its conceptof locale
(Saundersand Williams,1988). This theory, however,is of onlylimiteduse fortwo mainreasons:
becauseit is putforward
firstly, as a solutionto a problemwhichdoes notexistforphenomenological
theory,namelyan allegeddivorcebetweenstructure and action;and secondly,because,as has been
shownelsewhere(Somerville,1992), homecannotbe adequatelyconceptualizedin termsof space
and time. Home is in partan ideologicalconstruct (Gurney,1990),and ideologyrecognizesno mere
spatialor temporalboundaries!By restricting hometo a locale,structurationtheorycutsoutmostof
its meaningand determines a priorithegeneralcharacter of domesticrelations.In contrast,
an ap-
proachwhichsees realityas "symbolically" constructed (Cohen,1985) is likelyto provemorefruit-
ful.

The keydividebetweenphenomenology thoughrathercrudely,in

and sociologycan be represented,
distinction.Broadlyspeaking,phenomenology
termsof thesubjective/objective proceedsfromcon-
whilesociologymovesfromtheenvironment
sciousnessto theenvironment, to consciousness.Their
are therefore
perspectives butitis possibleforphenomenologists
different,
entirely and sociologiststo
share commonontologicaland epistemological assumptions.An important task in developingan
integrated theory
phenomenological/sociological wouldbe to identify
suchassumptions.

At this point, it seems pertinentto consideran approachwhich focuses on the (subjective)

phenomenological worldbut does it fromthedirectionof the (objective)observerin the external
environment. This approachis called "heterophenomenology" (Dennett,1991), and has notyetbeen
explicitlyapplied to thinkingabout the meaning of the home. Essentially,heterophenomenology
involvesthird-person interpretationof thecontentof communication.The textcommunicated by a
subject to an observer/listeneris said to constitute
thatsubject's heterophenomenological world.
Heterophenomenology differssharplyfromtraditional phenomenology by attempting to explaincon-
sciousnessfromthe "outside"ratherthanfromthe "inside":in bothcases, the transaction between
subjectand object is seen as a productof intentionality,but whereasautophenomenology accords
special epistemologicalstatus to the subject's meaningsand experience,heterophenomenology
remainsresolutely claims.
neutralwithregardto all ontologicaland epistemological

One way of clarifying the meaningof heterophenomenology is by referenceto the approachof

suchas Cohen(1985). Thesewriters
anthropologists makea distinctionbetweenthe"form"of sym-
and
bols, myths rituals
and the of
"content" thesesocial Whereas
productions. themeaningof these

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 231

structuresmayvaryfromone individualto another, theformalidentity

of thestructures themselvesis
agreedand sharedby everyoneconcerned, and as suchis moreeasilyaccessibleto outsideobservers.
Now, a non-phenomenological approach(forexample,structuralism) wouldbe one whichdid notgo
an
beyond investigation of the structures
and of the processeswhich give rise to thosestructures,
whilea phenomenological approachwouldbe one whichexplicitly set out to discoverthesemantic
contentof thosestructures.Further, whereasan awtophenomenologist would give primacyto the
meaningof structural elementsforindividuals,a toerophenomenologist (as manyanthropologists
are, unconsciously)would treateach individual'saccountas a textualvariation,or seriesof varia-
tions,on a numberof commonthemessetbycomplexsocialandculturalrelations.

The distinction
of heterophenomenology fromautophenomenology is importantforthispaperbecause
autophenomenology is incompatible withsociology:the"subjectivism" of theone cannotbe recon-
ciled withthe"objectivism" of theother.Fortunately,muchof thephenomenological on the
literature
meaningof home appears(unselfconsciously) hetero(a good exampleis Dovey, 1985), so an in-
tegratedtheoryis at leastpossiblein principle.The claimed"neutrality"of heterophenomenology is
also significant
because it enablesa responseto be made to Després' accusationof interpretivebias:
fortheheterophenomenologist, all heterophenomenological
worldsare theoreticalfictions,as also is
the world of the heterophenomenologist herself/himself.By this argument,the world of the
sociologistwouldbe simplyanotherheterophenomenological world,withitsown characteristic texts
and themes.

Thereare limitsto theneutrality of heterophenomenology. Ontologically,primacyis givento dis-

courseand thesymbolicconstruction ofmeanings, so thereis a tendency towardsculturalism(Somer-
ville, 1994b). As a result,theeconomicand materialdetermination of meaningmay be relatively
neglected. For example,phenomenological connectedness is seen as constructedby the intentional
acts of individuals,but social relationsmay be formedunintentionally and may be inexplicablein
phenomenologicalterms (on the other hand, of course, it may not be possible to explain
phenomenological connectedness in sociologicalterms).Epistemologically, theheterophenomenologi-
cal approachassumesthatknowledgecan be gainedthrough thestructuring recordsand
of narrative
thetestingof thoserecordsby thirdparties,and a similarassumption is madein ethnographicstudies
(see, forexample,Cohen, 1994): such are
assumptions strictly speaking notneutral,butratherrepre-
sentpartof an attempt to substitute scientific
meaningsof truth and knowledgeformoresubjective
ones.

The scientificproject of the heterophenomenologist has much in common with that of the
sociologist/anthropologist.Formanyof thelatter, however,socialrelationsare ontologically crucial,
and such relationsare notlimitedto theproductsof intentionality. Class relationsand genderrela-
tions,forexample,cannotbe satisfactorily explainedin termsof theheterophenomenological worlds
of intentionalsubjects. because
Nevertheless, of itspretended neutrality,heterophenomenology holds
and thekindof interpretation
itselfopen to sociologicalinterpretation, whichseemsmostrelevantis
theone whichsees heterophenomenological worldsas essentially sociallyconstructed.To achievea
fusionof heterophenomenology withsociology,therefore,all thatis requiredis to be able to represent
intentional
production processesas social processesand vice versa. This fusionis whatI call "social
phenomenology."

PRIVACY, IDENTITY, AND FAMILIARITY AS DOMESTIC CONSTRUCTS

Buildingon thearguments of thelastsection,thissectionbeginsto developa social phenomenology

of home. Specifically,threekey concepts(privacy,identity, and familiarity) are examinedand
elucidatedin termsof theirhistorical,geographical, and social construction.These conceptsare
chosenbecause of theircharacteristicallydifferent emphases:privacysuggestingspatialrelations,
identity social relations.It is argued,however,thatit is the
psychologicalrelations,and familiarity
sametypeof relationin each case, and thereforethatphenomenological and sociological(and histori-
cal and geographical)researchare bothrelevantformakingsense of all threeconcepts. What is

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal
ofArchitectural Research
andPlanning
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 232

in termsof phenomenology
requiredis not separateexplanations or sociology,but a singleunified
explanationin termsof socialphenomenology.

Privacy

Literatureon domesticprivacytendsto be one-sided,concentrating on thephysicalconstruction of

boundaries(Newman,1972; Coleman, 1985), the psychologicalestablishment of personalspace
(Duncan, 1981; Franklin,1986:31),or thesociologicaldualismof private/publicrelations(Benn and
Gaus, 1983; Pateman,1987). The divergence in theliterature
reflectstheseparationof theacademic
disciplinesof geography,psychology, and sociology,or more specifically,humangeography, en-
vironmental psychology,and the sociologyof the family/city (and politicaltheory/philosophy is
something different
again).

Historically,the meaningof thehome as privacyarose in Europein the seventeenth century.As

Arièshas written:"jusqu'à lefindu XVII siècle, personnen'étaitseul" (1973:299). Beforethistime,
domesticspace had a publicand multi-functional (Loyd, 1981:191),furniture
character was notspe-
cialized,and everything
was opento thepublicgaze (Korosec-Serfaty, 1991). "Home"was notiden-
tifiedwith one's dwellingbut withone's native village or birthplaceor country(Ariès, 1962;
Janeway,1971). Since then,however,privatespecializedspaces have been createdwithindwellings
(Mumford,1961; Girouard,1978; Carlisle,1982),and thehomehas becomea place of intimacy and
personalfulfillmentforwhichprivacyis essential(Hayward,1975).

The causes of whatcouldbe calledtheriseof privacylie withthechangesin state-family

relationsin
Europe duringthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As LawrenceStone has pointedout, the
nuclearfamilyhouseholdbecame increasingly predominant in sixteenthcenturyEurope due to its
supportfromthestate(Stone,1975:55),and itis theseparationof thistypeof householdfromtherest
of societywhichhas beenassociatedwiththedemandforprivacy(Janeway,1971). Since thosedays,
thestatehas neverceased to regulatedomesticand familylife,guaranteeingtheprivacyof thehome
onlyon conditionof its"normality"
(Land,1978; Donzelot,1980).

In the second half of thenineteenth Europeandomesticprivacybecame increasingly

century, ex-
pressedthroughthe installation of rigidboundariesbetweenthe inside and outsideof the home
(Daunton,1983; Williams,1987; Davidoffand Hall, 1987). Althoughthischangeis typicallyas-
sociatedwiththeVictoriansin England(Hall, 1979), it was if anythingmorepronouncedin France
(Carlisle,1982). In all countries,
thechangecorresponded to thechangingdefinition
of thefamily
and of women's role in society(Korosec-Serfaty, 1991:56). The new divisionbetweenfeminine
domesticity andmasculineurbanity remainswithus to thisday (Saegert,1980).

Historicalconsiderations therefore suggestthatit is politicaland familialstructures which have

predominated in determining themeaningof homeas privacy,ratherthanphysicalor psychological
factors. In general,the historicalchangesin dwellingformand design have resultedfromthe
economic and social changeswhichoccurredin Europe over the same period. Physically,late
nineteenth centurydomesticprivacywas manifested in a distinction
between"front"and "back"
regionsof thehome(Goffman, 1959). In France,thiswas achievedby meansof theentréeand the
salon (Carlisle,1982),whilein Englandthiswas theroleof theparlorroom(Burnett, 1986; Madigan
and Munro,1991). In suchconceptions, a semi-public area is introduced
or semi-private withinthe
dwelling in order to ensurea complete absence of contact
between whollyprivate and whollypublic
areas. Such ideas corresponded to a rathermore rigid demarcationof genderroles (and also
master/servant roles) thanexiststoday(Delamontand Duffin,1975; Lewis, 1984, 1986; Roberts,
1984). The decline of the parlor/salon since thattimeand the corresponding rise of the living
room/salon are similarlyrelatedto the shiftin emphasistowardsfamily"togetherness" and "com-
panionatemarriage"(Young and Willmott, 1975; Clark,1991). In muchthesame vein,thoughlater
in historicaltime,thenatureof thekitchenhas changed(or is changing)frombeing a specialized
back-region"cookingkitchen"(Craik, 1989:55) to being the housewife's "panopticon"(Craik,
1989:61).

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 233

The establishment of domesticprivacyin thenineteenth centurywas usuallytheproductof class-

based familystrategies(Coontz, 1988). In the firsthalfof the century, the middleclass sought
and "propriety"
"gentility" (Davidoffand Hall, 1987) in emulationof the landedgentrywho had
createdtheprivatehouses of theprevioustwocenturies.By thelatterhalfof thecentury, working
class familiesin Europeand in the"New World"wereemphasizing theprivacyof theirhomesas a
meansto achieve,maintain, (Daunton,1983),as well as a space to
and enhancetheir"respectability"
be freefrommiddleclass interference (Coontz,1988:300)and at a safedistancefromnosyneighbors
(Bulmer,1986). Working-class practicesof excludingnon-kinfromtheback regionsof thehome
continueduntilwell aftertheSecondWorldWar (Hoggart,1958; Youngand Willmott, 1957; Klein,
1965), but have since declinedfora varietyof reasons;forexample,close kin have become less
availableduringthedaytime(Allan,1989),and theold tight-knit neighborhood networks of acquain-
and
tanceship knowledge have ceased
largely to exist(Abrams,1980).

In thetwentieth century,theprivacyof theindividualhouseholdhas becomeless rigidlydemarcated.

In conditionsof extremeovercrowding, thereis generallyintensedesireforexclusivity
of domestic
space (Franklin, 1986; Watson,1987). As overcrowding was reduced this
during century, however,
householdscould affordto become more relaxedabout the maintenance of domesticboundaries
(Daunton,1983). As thehomebecamea moreprivateplace, separateand self-contained, underthe
of theoccupyinghousehold,at thesame timeit becamemoreopen to outsidersfor
sole jurisdiction
thepurposesof public displayand publicrecognition of thehousehold'sprivateidentityand social
status(Duncan, 1981:51; Allan, 1989:157). The increasedprivatization of the home is therefore
clearlyassociatedwiththegrowingpublicization ofdomesticlife.

Similarlyin thetwentiethcentury, theprivacyof individualpersonswithinthehomehas also become

less clearlydefined,due to thedisappearanceof master/servant to thetrendtowardsopen
relations,
plan (Craik,1989:58) associatedwiththeemphasison familytogetherness to above, and to
referred
changesin parent/child relationswhichhave involved"thesubstitution of morepseudo-democratic
formsof controlfor 'traditional (Jamiesonand Toynbee,1990). This does not mean,
authority'"
however,thatpowerrelationsbased on genderand generation have changedfundamentally sincethe
nineteenth (Somerville,1994a).
century
in a dialecticalinteraction
All thisindicatesthatprivacyis constructed betweentheinsideand outside
of a boundaryof a particulartype(Altman,1975). For personalprivacy,theboundarycould be that
of a roomwithina house (Munroand Madigan,1993), whileforfamilyor householdprivacy,the
boundaryis likelyto be thatof thedwellingitself(Allan, 1989). The spatialrepresentation of the
boundary maybe clearenough(fences,walls,doors,etc),butthecontroloftheboundary is subjectto
continualnegotiationbetweeninsidersand outsiders(Dovey, 1985). The negotiationprocess is
dialecticalin the sense thatincreasein boundarycontrolforinsiders(greaterprivacy)resultsin
greaterpermeability of boundariesby outsiders(reducedprivacy).On theotherhand,greaterviola-
tionof privacyby outsidersresultsin closureof boundariesby insiders(Walsh, 1980; Taylorand
Brower,1985).

Sociologicaland phenomenological approachesare thereforebothrelevantforan understanding of

privacy,but both also have theirlimitations. have
Sociologists not understood
sufficiently the con-
structionof privacyas a dialecticalprocess,while phenomenologists have not sufficientlyplaced
privacyin its social context. Sociologistsgenerallytake the view thatprivatedomesticroles are
sociallyascribed(Hunt,1989:69), so thatdomesticprivacyis essentiallyconstructed by outsiders.
This,however,is onlyone side of thestory:theotherside is thatinsiderscreateand maintaintheir
own roles and boundariesand therefore establishtheirown formsof privacy. Sociologiststherefore
emphasizethe actionof externalforces,whereasphenomenologists give priorityto internalforces.
The realityis a combination of both:domesticity of externalwithinternal
is causedby theinteraction
forces,and theoutcomeof suchinteraction is indeterminate.

Phenomenologists,on the otherhand, have tendedto ignorethe social relationsin which the
dialectic
private/public is embedded,especiallygenderand powerrelations.For example,Pauline

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal
ofArchitectural
andPlanning
Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 234

Hunt'sobservationsaboutthelack of personalprivacyavailableto housewives(Hunt,1989:72) can-

not be explainedwithoutreference to such social structures.Whatis needed,therefore,is a social
phenomenology whichwill place thedialecticof privacyin its social context,forexampleby refer-
of privacyin thehomeon thepartof thehousewifein returnfora rightto deny
ringto a surrender
the privacyof everyoneelse in thehome(Craik,1989:61), a transaction whichis specificallyen-
dorsedby domesticand familialideology(Crowand Allan,1990).

Identity

Identityis strongly linkedwithprivacy. For an individualhumanbeing or fora household,the

dialecticbetweenselfand other,whichcreatespersonalor domesticidentity (Dovey, 1985), is essen-
tiallya dialecticof boundary control.Phenomenologists and sociologists,however,conceiveof this
dialecticin characteristically
different ways. Phenomenologists talkabouta dialecticsof appropria-
tion(Heidegger,1967),whichis concernedwiththeacquisitionof symbolicmeaningthrough chang-
ing transactionsovertime,and consequently emphasizeswhatcouldbe called theinternal meaningof
identity.Accordingto thismeaning,identity fromthepointof view of theconscious
is constructed
subject. In contrast, sociologistsreferto processessuchas a "deferential dialectic"(Bell and Newby,
1976), whichis moreto do withthenegotiation of boundaries
betweenmoreand less powerful actors,
and therefore withissuesof externalidentity and status.Identityin thissenseis constructed through
thearticulationofpre-existing socialrelations,especiallythoseof class,status,and power.

Anotherway of approachingthisissue is to focuson groupidentity ratherthanself identity.In

for
anthropology, example, thereis a long of
tradition defining ethnicidentity in termsof therelation-
ship betweenone's own social groupand otherswithwhichone interacts(Barth,1969). This
relationshipis not conceivedas dialectical,but the emphasison mechanismsof boundarymain-
tenanceis similarto thatfoundin phenomenological accountsof selfidentity.The constructions of
group and selfidentitythereforeexhibit similar
patterns,and both involve the demarcation of boun-
daries: in one case personal,and in the othersocial. The tradition is continuedin the workof
anthropologists who have adopted,thoughratherunselfconsciously ( !), a heterophenomenological
standpoint (Cohen,1985,1994). Accordingto thisapproach,groupidentities are seen as definedand
maintainedthroughthe use of boundaries, and thisview is heterophenomenological because it at-
temptsto explainidentity throughthethird-person recordingof the intentional applicationsof in-
dividuals. The projectsof a givenhumansubjectin relationto selfidentity and groupidentity willbe
quite different,but therewill be manyoverlapsand analogies. For example,thedomesticprivacy
requiredforselfidentity is analogousto thesocial closurerequiredforgroupidentity, and thedialec-
tic of appropriationwhichdetermines selfidentitycould at àie same timeestablishthecohesionof
thegroupto whichtheindividualbelongs:theforging of a subject'sidentity could involvethecrea-
tionof an intersubjectivity.

Phenomenological dialecticsand anthropological

"culture"can thereforebothprovidea basis forthe
construction of identity.This findingsuggeststhatan integrated social phenomenology of identity
may be feasible. The anthropological approachconsideredabove, however,is not the same as a
sociologicalapproachwhichconstitutes identity
through dynamicsof social relations(thedifference
is akin to thatbetweenhermeneutics perspectives).This pointcan perhapsbe il-
and structuralist
lustratedin relationto theissue of "caring"(Dalley, 1988), whichhas bothphenomenological and
sociologicalinterpretations.
Froma phenomenological caringforsomething
perspective, or someoneinvolvesalso appropriating it
or themto one's own being(Relph,1981). Caringthereforetransforms a house intoa homeor an
acquaintanceintoa memberof one's family,and theidentity boundup
of thecareris inextricably
withthehomeor familyin question. The phenomenological perspectivethereforehelps to explain
why it shouldbe women,as the main carersof the home (Leonardand Speakman,1986), who
identifymorecloselywithit (Rapoport,1981). Whatsociologiststhenpointout is thatsuch iden-
and meaningfulness
attachment,
tification, is producedby processesof verytime-consuming manual
labor(Finchand Groves,1983),by sociallyascribedand individuallynegotiatedobligations(Finch,

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 235

1987, 1989; Graham,1991), and also by incalculableamountsof mentallabor(Mason, 1989:119).

Caringis therefore
a complexsocial productionprocesswitha phenomenologically
fundamental out-
put,namelythesustenanceand growthofhumanidentity andhumanlife,bothpersonaland social.

Caringis therefore a process whichcan be adequatelyexplainedonly througha combinationof

phenomenology and sociology,or whatI havecalledsocialphenomenology. Ironically,in viewof its
the
other-directedness, identity which is createdand sustained
by such a is
process primarily the
identityof theself(Rochberg-Halton, 1984). Similararguments can be madein relationto whathas
more generallybeen describedas "emotionwork"(Hochschild,1983; Duncombeand Marsden,
1993); in orderto understandtheprocessesinvolved,thesociologyof emotionsneedsto be integrated
witha phenomenology of affectivetransactions.Discussionof such a possibility,
however,would
takeus beyondthescope of thispaper.

Historically,therehas been a linkbetweenthegrowthof certainformsof self-identity and particular

formsof groupidentity.For example,theincreasingpowerof individualheads of nuclearfamily
householdsin somepartsof modernEuropeis commonly knownas theriseof individualism (Macfar-
lane, 1978), and thisindividualism in theriseof privacydiscussedearlier)has been strong-
(reflected
ly associatedwithnationalism fora varietyof reasons(Smith,1991). The identity of a humanbeing
(or morespecifically, a white,male,property-owning adult)as an autonomous individualhas become
boundup withhis membership of a bodyof citizenswhoall ownproperty, eithermaterialor intellec-
tual,accordingto thesame set of rulesand laws. Individualism is irrevocablyunderpinned by the
rule of law, and in muchof modernEurope therule of law has been thatof nation-basedstates.
Individualist self-identityhas thereforebeen essentiallycomplemented by nationalist
groupidentity.
The anthropological approachdiscussedabove cannotalone explainthislink because of the un-
selfconsciousness of its heterophenomenology (as a resultof whichit tendsto subsumeself-identity
undergroupidentityor vice versa). A social phenomenology, however,can help to explainthe
enduringpowerof nationalismas the consequenceof theoperationof a complexdialecticsof ap-
propriation withincore ethniccommunities whichhave a sharedhistoricalexperienceand shared
associationwitha specifichomeland.

Familiarity
The maintenance of identityrequirescontinuityand stability
of experienceand thereforefamiliarity.
forexample,as experienced
Loss of thefamiliar, by refugeesdrivenfromtheirhomesand fromtheir
homeland,meansto some extenta loss of identity.Forphenomenologists, theself/other
dialecticis a
processwherebystrangeobjects,places,and peoplearemadeto seemfamiliar: whatwas wild,unpre-
dictable,and threatening
becomestame,controlled, and domesticated.The construction of familiarity
one and thesame withtheconstruction
is therefore and so also withtheconstruction
of identity, of
privacy. Subjects,whether theybe individual persons, ethnic
households, or
groups, are
nations, at
homeif theycontroltheirown boundaries, if theycan be themselves withinthoseboundaries,and if
theworldwithinthoseboundariesis one whichtheyhavemadeor aremakingforthemselves.

For anthropologists,theclassic case is probablythatof Lévi-Strauss(1955). The familiaris simply

seento be in logicaloppositionto theforeign or alienor exotic,and dialecticsare understood onlyin
notin phenomenological,
structural, terms(Lévi-Strauss, 1963). Consequently, is held to
familiarity
be determinedby structuresof kinship (Lévi-Strauss,1949). A more self-consciously
heterophenomenological approachwouldsee familiarity as producedby repeatedintentional transac-
tionswithingroups,wovenintopatterns forthesake of posterity:in anthropological terms,it would
be said thatfamiliarityis producedby ritual(repeatedacts) and by myth(intergenerationally trans-
mittedinterpretive recordsor narratives).This seems to be the directionin whichsome recent
anthropological work is heading(Cohen, 1994). For heterophenomenologists, therefore,subjects
make themselvesat homeby markingand safeguarding theirown boundaries, and theymanagethis
partlythrough repetitivebehaviorand story-telling. Aspectsof theworldbecomefamiliarto them
becauseof theregularity of theirappearanceandbecausetheyfeature in a discursiveorderwhichalso
the
interpolates subjectsthemselves.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofArchitectural
Journal andPlanning
Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 236

Sociologistshave tendedto focuson issuesnotso well coveredbyphenomenologist accounts,suchas

thelinksbetweendomesticand familyrelations(Allan and Crow, 1989). Thereare overlaps,how-
ever,withregardto theemphasison the locationin space and timeof the regularactivitywhich
createsfamiliarity;forexample,the"sociological"conceptsof locale (Giddens,1984) and everyday
return(Heller, 1984) bear a familyresemblanceto thephenomenological conceptof place (Tuan,
1975). The maindifference withthesociologicalaccountswouldappearto be theexplicitattention
and prioritywhichtheygive to kinshiprelations.Only in the extremecase of structuralism (dis-
cussedabove) does thismeanthatfamiliarity is seenas actuallycausedby kinshiprelations.In other
cases, kinshiprelationsare seen as partof a widernetworkof social relationships whichare as-
sociatedin a varietyof wayswiththegeneration of familiarity
(Abrams,1986). Broadlyspeaking,
thestabilityof thenetwork membership is correlated withthedegreeof mutualfamiliarity amongits
members. Frequencyand regularity of intra-network transactionsthroughwhole stagesof the life
cycle is thereforethekey to thedetermination of familiarity.Childrenare domesticatedby being
"familialized,"thatis throughrelationships with membersof theirimmediatefamily,and their
familiarworld is extendedthroughcontactswiththeirwiderfamily,neighbors(especiallyother
children),and keyadultssuchas teachers.Thisprocessof socialization, however,is nota matterof a
childreactivelyaccommodating itselfto its environment: rather,thechildactivelyshapes its world
accordingto itsown lights,makingitsown space withinitsparents'home,and eventually makingits
own way in theadultworld. Thisactivity, however,is perhapsbetterunderstood phenomenological-
iy.

Familiarityshouldnotbe confusedwithsociability.I havearguedelsewhere(Somerville,1994a) that

domesticrelationsare characterized
by exploitationand oppression,so thattensionand conflictare
inherentin householdstructures.Boundarymaintenance is a struggleforall typesof subjects,but
withina familythereis no respitefromit. The degreeof sharingwhichexistswithinfamilies,like
thecaringdiscussedearlier,needsto be reviewedcritically,and phenomenology lacks sucha critical
In
approach. principle, of and
practices caring sharing can form the basis fora stableand fairsociety,
butthisideal remainsUtopianunlesstheobstaclesto liberationare identifiedand removed.

The arguments aboutthedomestication of childrencan be extendedto applyto thehouseholdas a

whole. Each householdmakes its own worldwithinboundarieswhichit erectsagainsttheworld
outside. At thislevel,familiarityis moststrongly linkedwithprivacy,because thepowerto exclude
othersis essentialin orderto securea place forone's own, thatis, close kin,withsharedpersonal
activities, decorations,
furnishings,
lifestyles, how-
etc. Successin creatingsuchdomesticfamiliarity,
ever,requirescertaineconomicresourcesand legalrights, thatis themeansto supportand managea
household,and thesecurity of possessionof a dwellingforthathousehold. Lack of suchmeansor
securitywill resultin homelessness, and in suchconditionsdomesticfamiliarity and privacytendto
breakdown,and theidentity of thehouseholdunitis also weakened.A reasonablelevelof household
incomeand security of tenureare therefore and familiarity.
essentialfordomesticprivacy,identity,

Privacyis in factnecessarynotonlyforfamiliarity butforsociability.Thismayappearcontradictory

because of theassociationof privacywithsolitude.In reality, however,privacyprotectspeoplefrom
becoming lost in a crowd of and
strangers signifies theirpowerto determine whetheror not they
engagewithsuchstrangers, and to whatextent.Withouttheboundariesbetweenselfand otherthere
would be no basis forsocializationas genuinely freeassociation. At thelevel of thehousehold(or
possibly head of the
household), processcorresponding to the socializationof childrenis one of
repeated transactionswithin networksof social relationsas discussedabove. Crucially,thesenet-
workscontaineconomicrelationsand legal relations,fromwhich are derivedcertaineconomic
benefitsand legal rights.In theabsenceof (domestic)privacy,suchnetworks woulddissolve,and the
consequence would be not greatersociability,but homelessness and vagrancy,lawlessnessand
totalitarianism.

At the level of an ethnicgroup,the familiarworldwhichis createdis thatof a culture,thatis

whicharepeculiarto thatgroup. It is thislevel of familiarity
practices,customs,and traditions which
is the focus of anthropological as discussedabove. Again, it is the sharingof the
investigation,

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 237

culturewhichcauses thefamiliarity, althoughthepossessionof thissharedculturecan also serveto

alienatethosewho do notshareit. Ethnicgroups,however,cannotcontroltheirboundariesas effec-
tivelyas can individualsor households,unlesstheyhave nationalistaspirationswhichbecomereal-
ized in successfulpoliticalprojects.Withoutsuchprojects,thefamiliarity
and identityengenderedby
ethnicity are fleetingand ephemeral,and verymuchsecondaryto thosecreatedby domesticand
kinshiprelations.People mayfeelmoreat homein a certainneighborhood, forexample,because of
the culturewhichtheysharewiththeirneighbors, but neighborhood is perhapsjust as
familiarity
likelyto derivefrompatternsof transaction betweenculturallydifferent
neighbors.Multi-cultural
neighborhoods are notnecessarilyless cohesiveor moreanomicthanmono-cultural ones,and by the
same token,social integration is notincompatible (exceptin thecase of
withculturaldiversification
certainformsof fundamentalism andculturalintolerance).

is encouragedby sharedpatriotism
Finally,at the level of the nation,familiarity (love of one's
homeland)and sharedcitizenship(formalequalityunderthelaw). The boundariesof nation-states
have been createdby historiesof war and struggle,conquestand rebellion,diplomacyand negotia-
tion. Such boundariesare capable of beingextremely durable,and theidentitiesthereby conferred
maybe unusuallystrongand deep-rooted.Fellownationalsare almostinvariably referredto as "we,"
whileall othersare describedas "foreigners."
Beyondthehousehold, thenationis themostimportant
unitforconstituting and
privacy,identity, familiarity because it provides,in themodernworld,the
mainpoliticaland institutional
frameworks withinwhichhumantransactions can takeplace.

By considering all aspectsof familiarity together, therefore,at thelevelsof theindividual,household,

ethnicgroup,and nation,by takingaccountof phenomenological, anthropologicaland sociological
and by integrating
literature, all of thiswiththeearlierdiscussionof privacyand identity, a social
phenomenology can help to explainmanythingswhichwould otherwiseremainmysterious.For
example,thefrequently notedstronglinkbetweenhomeand family(Allan and Crow,1989) can be
explainedas follows. Familyconsistsof thosepersons(or surrogate personssuchas pets) who are
closestand therefore mostfamiliarto oneself. The construction of homeas a familiarplace is then,
by extension,theconstruction of a place forone's family, howeverthatfamilyis conceivedor per-
ceived. Consequently, householdswhichare notseen as families,eitherby themselves or by others
(forexample,one-personhouseholds),may be less likelyto feel at home in theircurrentabodes
(WatsonwithAusterberry, 1986; Stockley,et al., 1993). It is notjust thatdomesticrelationsare
dominatedby familialstructures (Somerville,1994a), but also thatthe process of domestication
necessarily involves familialization, that is the process of creatingand maintaining permanent
of and
relationships caring,sharing, solidarity of feelingand action. Onlya socialphenomenology of
homepostulatesan indissolubleunityof domestication (a processof assimilation by a subjectof its
environment) and socialization(a processofaccommodation of a subjectto itsenvironment).

CONCLUSION

This paperbegan witha reviewof theliterature on themeaningof homeand on theoriesof home.

The acknowledgedbias in theliterature (Després,1991) was attributed largelyto a divisionamong
academicdisciplines,especiallybetweenpsychology and sociology.If furtherprogressis to be made
approachis essential.The provisionalview takenin thispaperhas
in thisarea,a multi-disciplinary
been thata unificationof phenomenologicaland sociologicalapproachesrepresents themostpromis-
ing way forward. In explainingthedetailed dynamics of domestic
life, phenomenology focuseson
the constructionof experienceand action,while sociologyconcentrates on the creationof social
relations.WhatI have called a social phenomenology, will look at domesticrelationsas
therefore,
entirelyconstituted and
by experience action, and vice versa,domesticexperienceand actionwill be
viewedas issuingfromthematerialand socialrealitiesofdomesticstructures.

Thereis moreto social phenomenology, however,thana combination of complementarytheoretical

approaches. This is because in some respects approaches phenomenology sociologyare
the of and
incompatible,so thata processof theoreticalselectionmustoccurin orderto achievea degreeof

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal
ofArchitectural
andPlanning
Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 238

theoretical integration.Specifically, strainsin muchof thephenomenological

thesubjectivist litera-
turecannotbe reconciledwiththedominant objectivism of sociologicalperspectives.This paperhas
shown,however,thatso-calledheterophenomenological accountsof consciousnessand actionmaybe
entirelyharmonious withsociologicalexplanationsof thesocial structures producedby suchaction.
Still, thiscan happenonly if the differentperspectives concerned share the same ontologicaland
epistemological assumptions.
In a differentcontext,I have drawna distinction betweenculturalistand realistontologiesand epis-
temologies(Somerville,1994b). Bothculturalism and realismhold thatrealitycontainssocial rela-
tions(relationsbetweenpurposiveagents),but theydifferas to the natureof the remainingcom-
ponentsof (social) reality.Realistsmaintainthatthereexistsyntheticallynecessaryrelationsbetween
social relations,thatis relationswhichmustexistbutwhichcannotbe reducedto relationsof logical
necessity.Culturalists, on theotherhand,arguethatapartfromlogicalrelations, all (social) relations
are contingent,thatis theyare constructed by theintentionalactivityof freeagents. In thelightof
suchanalysis,itcan be seenthatphenomenologists tendtowardsculturalism, whereassociologistsare
morelikelyto be realists.Nevertheless, bothrealistphenomenology sociologycan and
and culturalist
do exist:dialecticaloperations,forexample,can be representedas articulations
of synthetically neces-
saryrelations(a formof dialecticallogic), while sociologicalcategoriessuch as social class and
gendercan be heldto be determined projectsof humanbeings.
by identifiable
entirely
This discussionenablesus to excludeone possibleontologyfora social phenomenology. A syntheti-
cally necessaryphenomenological dialecticwouldnotbe compatiblewitha sociallyconstructed so-
cial reality,so thephenomenology in social phenomenology cannotbe a realistone. On theother
hand,theheterophenomenology whichis compatiblewithsocial constructivism
does nothave to have
a culturalistinterpretation.Similarly,a sociologicalrealism,forexamplewithregardto theeffec-
tivityof class forces,cannotbe reconciledwitha rigorousheterophenomenological approach,butfor
sociological culturalism thereis no fundamental conflict. The ontologyof social phenomenology,
therefore, cannotbe realist,thoughit appearsthatit can be culturalist,or can be represented as
culturalist;as such,it wouldamountto a unionof heterophenomenology withconstructivistsociol-
ogy.
As a firststeptowardssucha social phenomenology, thispaperhas examinedthemeaningof home
as privacy,as identity,and as familiarity.Usingthesethreeconcepts,an attempt has been made to
place themeaningof homein itshistorical, geographical,cultural,and social context.In each case,
therelevanceof bothphenomenological and sociologicalapproacheshas been emphasized,and it has
been arguedthattheone approachhas to be complemented by theotherin orderto make sense of
each of the threedimensionsof home. More strongly, the thrustof the argumenthas been that
adequateexplanations and familiarity
of privacy,identity, mustbe simultaneously phenomenological
and sociological,and thata theoryof domesticprivacymustbe one and thesame witha theoryof
domesticidentity and a theoryof domesticfamiliarity: in otherwords,theremustbe a singletheory
(or a singletheoryof themeaningof home),and thattheory
of domesticprivacy/identity/familiarity
mustbe social phenomenological. Whetherwe are talkingaboutnationalidentity, community care,
decor,itis theapplication
or interior of thesameintegrated theorywhichis requiredin orderto strike
at theheartof thematter.

REFERENCES

AbramsP (1980) Social change,socialnetworks care.Social WorkService22:12-

andneighbourhood
23.

AgnewJ(1981) Homeownership in capitalistsocieties.In JSDuncan(Ed.), Housingand

and identity
: Cross-cultural
identity perspectives.London:CroomHelm,pp. 66-109.

AllanG (1979) A sociologyoffriendship . London:Allen& Unwin.

and kinship

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 239

AllanG (1989) Insidersand outsiders:Boundariesaroundthehome.In G Allanand G Crow (Eds.),

Homeandfamily:Creatingthedomesticsphere. Basingstoke: Macmillan,pp. 141-158.

Allan G, Crow G (Eds.) (1989) Home andfamily:Creatingthedomesticsphere. Basingstoke:Mac-

millan.

AltmanI (1975) Theenvironment CA: Brooks/Cole.

and social behavior.Monterey,

, vol.8.
Humanbehaviorand environment
AltmanI, WernerCM (Eds.) (1985) Home environments:
New York:PlenumPress.

ArièsP (1962) Centuriesofchildhood.London:Cape.

ArièsP (1973) L'enfantet la viefamilialesous L'AncienRégime

. Paris:Seuil.

V (1993) Themeaningofhomeforever-single
Armstrong of
olderwomen.Master'sthesis,University
Keele.

: The social organisationof culturedifference.

BarthF (Ed.) (1969) Ethnicgroupsand boundaries
Scandinavian
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, UniversityPress.

Bell C, Newby H (1976) Husbandsand wives: The dynamicsof the deferentialdialectic.In DL

in workand marriage. Lon-
Barkerand S Allen (Eds.), Dependenceand exploitation
don:Longman.

BennS, Gaus G (Eds.) (1983) The publicand theprivate.Publicand privatein social life. London:
CroomHelm.

BergerBM (1968) Workingclass suburbs:A studyof auto workersin suburbia.Berkeley,CA:

of CaliforniaPress.
University

BergerP, LuckmanT (1966) Thesocial construction Harmondsworth:

ofreality. Penguin.
I (1985) Attachment
Bretherton theory:Retrospect and E Waters(Eds.),
andprospect.In I Bretherton
Growingpointsin attachment theoryand research.Monographsof theSocietyforRe-
searchin ChildDevelopment50 (1-2,Serialno. 209), pp. 3-35.

BulmerM (1986) Neighbours:TheworkofPhilipAbrams.Cambridge: Press.

CambridgeUniversity

ofhousing,1815-1985.London:Methuen.
J (1986) A social history
Burnett

CarlisleSG (1982) FrenchhomesandFrenchcharacter.

Landscape26(l):13-23.

ClarkD (Ed.) (1991) Marriage, domesticlifeand social change.London:Routledge.

CohenAP (1985) Thesymbolicconstruction London:Routledge.

ofreality.
: An alternative
CohenAP (1994) Self-consciousness London:Routledge.
ofidentity.
anthropology

ColemanA (1985) Utopiaon trial.London:HilaryShipman.

CoontzS (1988) The social originsofprivatelife: A history

ofAmerican 1600-1900.Lon-
familiesy
don: Verso.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 240

CooperC (1972) The houseas symbolof theself.Designand Environment

3:30-37.

Cooper C (1974) The houseas symbolof theself.In JLang,C Burnette, W Moleski,and D Vachon
(Eds.), Designingfor human behavior : Architectureand the behavioral sciences.
Stroudsberg,PA: Dowden,Hutchinson & Ross,pp. 130-146.

CraikJ (1989) The makingof mother:The roleof thekitchenin thehome.In G Allan and G Crow
(Eds.), Home and family:Creatingthe domesticsphere. Basingstoke:Macmillan,pp.
48-65.

thedomesticsphere:The emergenceof themodernhome in

Crow G, Allan G (1990) Constructing
post-war In
Britain. H Corrand L Jamieson(Eds.), Politicsof everydaylife: Continuity
Macmillan.
and changein workand thefamily.Basingstoke:

M, Rochberg-Halton
Csikszentmihályi : Domesticsymbolsand the
E (1981) The meaningof things
Cambridge
self.Cambridge: Press.
University
Macmillan.
Dalley G (1988) Ideologiesofcaring.Basingstoke:

Daunton MJ (1983) Public place and privatespace: The Victoriancity and the working-class
household.In D Frazerand A Sutcliffe(Eds.), The pursuitof urbanhistory.London:
EdwardArnold.

: Men and womenof theEnglishmiddleclass, 1780-1850.

DavidoffL, Hall C (1987) Familyfortunes
London:Hutchinson.

DavidoffL, L'Espérance J, Newby H (1976) Landscape with figures:Home and community in

Englishsociety.In J Mitchell
and A Oakley (Eds.), The and
rights wrongsof women.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.

DelamontS, DuffinL (Eds.) (1975) Thenineteenth woman:Her culturaland physicalworld.

century
London:CroomHelm.

explained.Harmondsworth:
DennettDC (1991) Consciousness Penguin.

reviewand directionsforfutureresearchand
Després C (1991) The meaningof home: Literature
theoretical
development. and PlanningResearch8(2):96-114.
JournalofArchitectural

DonzelotJ(1980) Thepolicingoffamilies.London:Hutchinson.

In I Altmanand CM Werner(Eds.), Home environments:

Dovey K (1985) Home and homelessness.
Humanbehaviorand environment,vol.8.New York:PlenumPress,pp. 33-64.

perspectives.London:CroomHelm.
: Cross-cultural
DuncanJS (Ed.) (1981) Housingand identity

Duncan JS (1985) Individualactionand politicalpower:A structuration In RJJohnston

perspective.
(Ed.), Thefutureofgeography.London:Methuen,pp. 174-189.

The genderdivisionof emotionand 'emotion

DuncombeJ,MarsdenD (1993) Love and intimacy:
work/Sociology27(2):221-241.

Oxford:Martin
ElshtainJ (1981) Publicman, privatewoman:Womenin social and politicalthought.
Robertson.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 241

FinchJ (1987) Familyobligationsand thelifecourse.In A Bryman, P Allattand T Keil

B Bytheway,
thelifecycle.Basingstoke:
(Eds.), Rethinking Macmillan.

PolityPress.
FinchJ(1989) Familyobligationsand social change. Cambridge:

Fine HJ,GrovesD (Eds.) (1983) A labouroflove: Women

, workand caring. London:Routledge.

FranklinA (1986) Owner-occupation : A criticalreformulation

, privatismand ontologicalsecurity .
WorkingPaper62. Bristol:School of Advanced
Urban Studies,Universityof Bristol.

FurbyL (1978) Possessions:Towardsa theoryof theirmeaningand functionthroughout the life

and behavior,vol.1. New York:
cycle. In PB Battes (Ed.), Life span development
AcademicPress,pp. 297-336.

Gans H (1962) The urbanvillagers

: Groupand class in thelifeofItalian- New York:Free
Americans.
Press.

Gans H (1974) Popularcultureand highculture.New York:Basic Books.

Boston,MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
GibsonJJ(1979) Theecologicalapproachto visualperception.

house.New Haven:Yale University

GirouardM (1978) Lifein theEnglishcountry Press.

to thehome.Jour-
of attachment
GiulianiMV (1991) Towardsan analysisof mentalrepresentations
and PlanningResearch8(2): 133-146.
nal ofArchitectural

GiulianiMV, BonnesM, AmoniF, and BernardY (1988) Homeand thetheoryofplace. In D Canter,

M Krampen,and D Stea (Eds.), Environmental
perspective.Aldershot:Avebury,pp.
39-53.

The Italian
of thedomesticinterior:
GiulianiMV, Bove G, Rullo G (1993) The spatialorganisation
home. In EG Arias (Ed.), The meaningand use of housing.Aldershot:Avebury,pp.
117-134.

E (1959) Thepresentation
Goffman life.London:Mayflower.
ofselfin everyday

GrahamH (1991) The conceptof caringin feminist

research:The case of domesticservice.Sociology
25(l):61-78.

GurneyC (1990) The meaningof homein thedecade ofowner-occupation. WorkingPaper88. Bris-

of Bristol.
tol: School of AdvancedUrbanStudies,University

of Victoriandomesticideology.In S Burman(Ed.), Fit workfor

Hall C (1979) The earlyformation
women.London:CroomHelm.

HamiltonR (1967) Affluenceand the Frenchworkerin the FourthRepublic.Princeton:Princeton

Press.
University

concept.Landscape20:2-9.
andpsychological
HaywardG (1975) Home as an environmental
New York:Harper& Row.
HeideggerM (1966) Discourseon thinking.

HeideggerM (1967) Beingand time.JMacquarrieandE Robinson,tr.Oxford:Blackwell.

HellerA (1984) Everydaylife.London:Routledge.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ofArchitectural
Journal Research
andPlanning
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 242

HochschildAR (1983) The managedheart:Commercialisation

of humanfeeling.Berkeley:Univer-
sityof Press.
California

HoggartR (1958) Theuses ofliteracy:Aspectsofworking

class lifewithspecial reference
topublica-
. Harmondsworth:
tionsand entertainments Penguin.

Holme A (1985) Housingand youngfamiliesinEast London. London:Routledge.

of homelife.In G Allanand G Crow (Eds.), Home and

HuntP (1989) Genderand theconstruction
family:Creatingthedomestic
sphere. Basingstoke:
Macmillan,pp. 66-81.

IneichenB (1972) Home-ownership SociologicalReview20:391-412.

andmanualworkers'lifestyles.

JamiesonL, ToynbeeC (1990) Shifting patterns 1900-1980.In H Corrand L

of parentalauthority,
life. Basingstoke:
Jamieson(Eds.), Politicsofeveryday Macmillan,pp. 86-113.

JanewayE (1971) Man's world, woman'splace. New York:Bell Publishing

Co.

KemenyJ (1981) The mythof homeownership:Privateversuspublic choices in housingtenure.

London:Routledge.

, vol.1.London:Routledge.
KleinJ(1965) SamplesfromEnglishcultures

Korosec-SerfatyP (1991) Le public et ses domaines:Contribution de l'histoiredes mentalitésà

l'étudede la sociabilitépubliqueet privée.Espaces et Sociétés62:29-65.

Laing RD (1960) Thedividedself London:Tavistock.

Land H (1978) Who caresforthefamily?

JournalofSocial Policy7(3).

LeonardD, SpeakmanM (1986) Womenin thefamily:Companionsor caretakers? In V Beecheyand

(Eds.), Womenin Britaintoday.MiltonKeynes:Open University
E Whitelegg Press.

C (1949) Les Structures

Lévi-Strauss de la parenté.Paris:Seuil.
élémentaires

Lévi-StraussC (1955) Tristestropiques.Paris:Seuil.

Lévi-StraussC (1963) Structural Harmondsworth:

anthropology. Penguin.

Lewis J (1984) Womenin England, 1870-1950: Sexualdivisionsand social change.Brighton:

Wheat-
sheaf.

Lewis J (Ed.) (1986) Labourand love: Women'sexperienceofhomeandfamily

, 1850-1940. Oxford:
Blackwell.

Loyd B (1981) Women,homeand status.In JS Duncan (Ed.), Housingand identity

: Cross-cultural
London:
perspectives. Croom Helm, pp. 181-194.

Oxford:Blackwell.
MacFarlaneA (1978) TheoriginsofEnglishindividualism.

Madigan R, MunroM (1991) Gender,houseand home:Social meaningsand domesticarchitecture.

and PlanningResearch8:116-132.
JournalofArchitectural

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 243

MadiganR, MunroM, SmithSJ (1990) Genderand themeaningof thehome.International

Journal
of Urbanand RegionalResearch14(4):625-647.

MarshallG, Newby H, Rose D, and Vogler C (1988) Social class in modernBritain.London:

Hutchinson.

thepublicand theprivate:The homeand marriagein laterlife.In G

Mason J (1989) Reconstructing
Allanand G Crow(Eds.), Homeandfamily:Creatingthedomesticsphere. Basingstoke:
Macmillan,pp. 102-121.

Moore J, CanterD (1993) Home and homelessness.In M Bulos and N Teymur(Eds.), Housing:
Designyresearch
, education.Aldershot:
Avebury.
MumfordL (1961) The city in history
: Its origins , and its prospects.Har-
, its transformations
mondsworth:Pelican.

MunroM, MadiganR (1993) Privacyin theprivatesphere.HousingStudies8(l):29-45.

NewmanO (1972) Defensiblespace: Crimeprevention urbandesign.London:Macmillan.

through

Pähl RE, Wallace CD (1988) Neitherangelsin marblenorrebelsin red: Privatisation and working-
and economicchange. Lon-
class consciousness.In D Rose (Ed.), Social stratification
don: Hutchinson.

PatemanC (1987) Feministcritiquesof thepublic/private In A Phillips(Ed.), Feminism

dichotomy.
and equality.Oxford:Blackwell.

PawleyM (1978) Homeownership. Press.

London:Architectural

Princeton
in itsplace: Social orderand land use in America.Princeton:
PerinC (1977) Everything
Press.
University

ProshanskyHM, Fabian AK, Abbe KF, and KaminoffR (1983) Place-identity: Physicalworld
socialisationof theself.JournalofEnvironmental 3:57-83.
Psychology

in thelowerclass.AmericanInstitute
RainwaterL (1966) Fear and house-as-haven ofPlannersJour-
nal 32:23-31.

RakoffR (1977) Ideologyin everydaylife:The meaningof thehouse.Politicsand Society7:85-104.

RapoportA (1981) Identity

and environment:A cross-cultural In JSDuncan(Ed.), Hous-
perspective.
ingand identity
: Cross-cultural London:CroomHelm,pp. 7-37.
perspectives.

London:Sage.
RapoportA (1982) Themeaningofthebuiltenvironment.

RelphE (1976) Place andplacelessness.London:Pion.

in Australia:The nexusof ideologies.Marriageand
RichardsL (1989) Familyand homeownership
Family Review14.

, 1890-1940.Oxford:
RobertsE (1984) A woman'splace: An oral historyof workingclass women
Blackwell.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 244

and domesticlife. In G Allan and G

RobertsM (1989) Designingthehome:Domesticarchitecture
Crow (Eds.), Home andfamily:Creatingthedomesticsphere.Basingstoke:Macmillan,
pp. 33-47.
E (1984) Objectrelations,
Rochberg-Halton rolemodelsand cultivation
of theself.Environment
and
Behavior16(3):335-368.

RosserC, HarrisCC (1965) Thefamilyand social change.London:Routledge.

family.New York:Basic Books.

RubinLB (1976) Worldsofpain: Lifein theworking-class

suburbs:Polarisedideas,contradictory
SaegertS (1980) Masculinecitiesand feminine realities.Signs
5:S96-S111.

SaundersP (1984) Beyondhousingclasses:The sociologicalsignificance rightsin

of privateproperty
meansof consumption. Journalof Urbanand RegionalResearch8(2):202-
International
227.

Saunders P (1989) The meaningof 'home' in contemporary

English culture.Housing Studies
4(3): 177-192.

SaundersP (1990) A nationofhomeowners.London:UnwinHyman.

SaundersP, WilliamsP (1988) The constitution

of thehome:Towardsa researchagenda.Housing
Studies3(2):81-93.

Schlay AB (1986) TakingaparttheAmericandream:The influenceof incomeand familycomposi-

tionon residential
evaluations.
UrbanStudies23:253-270.

SchutzA (1962) CollectedpapersI: Theproblemofsocial reality.The Hague: MārtiņusNijhoff.

Sebba R, Churchman A (1983) Territories in thehome.Environment

and territoriality and Behavior
15:191-210.

Seeley JR,Sim RA, LoosleyEW (1956) CrestwoodHeights:A studyofthecultureof suburbanlife.

Press.
Toronto:TorontoUniversity

M (1984) The politicsof privatewomanand publicman. In J Siltanenand M

SiltanenJ,Stanworth
(Eds.), Womenand thepublicsphere.London:Hutchinson.
Stanworth

in homeexperiencesin laterlife.JournalofArchitec-
SixsmithAJ,SixsmithJA (1991) Transitions
turaland PlanningResearch8(3): 181-191.

SmithAD (1991) Nationalidentity.

Harmondsworth:
Pelican.

SomervilleP (1989) Home sweethome: A criticalcommenton Saundersand Williams.Housing

Studies4(2):1 13-118.

SomervilleP (1992) Homelessnessand themeaningof home:Rooflessnessor rootlessness?

Interna-
tionalJournalofUrbanand RegionalResearch16(4):529-539.

HousingStudies9(3):329-349.
SomervilleP (1994a) Tenure,genderand householdstructure.

of housingpolicy.ScandinavianHousingand PlanningRe-
SomervilleP (1994b) On explanations
search11:211-230.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Journal andPlanning
ofArchitectural Research
14:3(Autumn,
1997) 245

people. Paperpresentedto
SomervilleP (1994c) The meaningof homeforAfrican-Caribbean-British
Conference ofTeesside.
on Ideal Homes,University

StockleyD, BishoppD, CanterD (1993) Youngpeopleon themove.Guildford: of Surrey.

University

StoneL (1975) The rise of thenuclearfamilyin earlymodernEngland:The patriarchalstage.In C

Rosenberg (Ed.), Thefamilyin .
history Philadelphia: of
University Press.
Pennsylvania

SuttlesG (1972) Thesocial construction

ofcommunities. of ChicagoPress.
Chicago:University

In I Altmanand CM Werner(Eds.),
TaylorRB, BrowerS (1985) Home and near-hometerritories.
Humanbehaviorand environment
Home environments: , vol.8.New York:PlenumPress,
pp. 183-212.
. London:Allen& Unwin.
ThornsDC (1976) The questforcommunity

Tuan Y-F (1975) Place: An existential GeographicalReviewLXV:151-165.

perspective.

Tuan Y-F (1980) Rootednessversussenseofplace.Landscape24(3).

WalshD (1980) Break-ins fromprivatehouses.London:Constable.

: Burglary

of housingforms.In M Loney (Ed.), The

WatsonS (1987) Ideas of thefamilyin thedevelopment
stateor themarket.London:Sage.

A feminist
H (1986) Housingand homelessness:
WatsonS, Austerberry London:Rout-
perspective.
ledge.
WilliamsP (1987) Constitutingclass and gender:A social historyof thehome, 1700-1901.In N
Thriftand P Williams(Eds.), Class and space: The makingof urbansociety.London:
Routledge.
P (1957) Familyand kinshipin East London.London:Routledge.
YoungM, Willmott

Young M, WillmottP (1975) The symmetricalfamily:A studyof workand leisurein theLondon

region.Harmondsworth: Penguin.

fthefamilyandpersonallife, reviseded. New York:Harper& Row.

ZaretskyE (1986) Capitalism

Zweig F (1961) Theworkerin an affluent

society New York:FreePress.
: Familylifeand industry.

Additionalinformation
maybe obtainedby writing to theauthorat theDepartment
directly of Con-
structionand Surveying,University College Salford,FrederickRoad, SalfordM6 6PU, England.
Telephone:+44 161 745 3415; fax:+44 161 745 3475; e-mail:peter.somerville@ucsalf.ac.uk.

SKETCH
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL
Somerville
Peter hasa bachelor's
degree anda DPhilinthehistory
in Philosophy-with-Social-Science andphilosophy of
hemanaged
science.Fornineyears public
housingfora numberofdifferent andheis a professionally
authorities,
municipal
member
qualified oftheChartered
Institute
ofHousing. Since1984hehasbeena SeniorLecturer
inHousing Studies
at
University Salford
College andhaspublished
widely onhousing
topics, homelessness,
including housing
policy,housingtenure
change,
housingandgender,
housingandrace,andthemeaning research
ofhome.Hiscurrent include
interests thenature
of
communityandtheroleofhousing
management initscreation
andsupport.

This content downloaded from 141.210.2.78 on Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:18:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions