A Cross-Cultural Approach to the Social Functions of Housing

Author(s): John C. Belcher and Pablo B. Vazquez-Calcerrada

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Nov., 1972), pp. 750-761
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/350328
Accessed: 11-03-2015 10:15 UTC

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.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A Cross-CulturalApproach to the
Social Functions of Housing*
JOHNC. BELCHER
Universityof Georgia
PABLOB. VAZQUEZ-CALCERRADA
Universityof Puerto Rico
The dwelling is the arena of most interaction by the family as a group. It is well
establishedthat the family has lost some of its traditionalfunctions. The thesis of this
paper is that family functions are influenced by the characteristicsof the home.
Proposalsto alleviateproblemsof inadequatehousingamong low-incomegroups of the
world fail to consider what functions housing satisfies among various cultures, or
within a given society. Descriptions of the "dream home" by rural residents of
Georgia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic are analyzed to determine the
functions performed by the house. There are culturally specific differences, but in
general, the higherthe level of livingof a group, the morefunctions are satisfiedwithin
the home. The manipulationof "fixed-featurespace" in the form of housingcould be
considered as a mechanismfor giving the family new functions as well as bonds that
hold it together.

Almost completely ignored in the discussions
of the family and its functions is the arena of
most family interaction, the home. The dwell-
ing is the place where family members spend
much of their time, if not most, as an
interacting group. The theme of this paper is
that the structureand functions of the housing
unit mediate in the functioning of the family
group. A changing residential situation may
serve to give the family new functions, and
consequently,new bonds of stability.
The loss of family functions has been a
central theme to many discussionsof the family
ever since Ogburn'sobservationson the subject
nearly half a century ago (1922 and
1929:124-133). There was a time when most
writers on the family asserted that the loss of
functions was an inevitable consequence of
urbanization and industrialization and was
resulting in the disintegrationof the family as
an institution (Leslie, 1967:236). Thus it was
concluded that with the diffusion of Western
*The data used in this report came from a study in
Georgia supported by the Division of Environmental
Engineering and Food Protection (Grant Number
United States Public Health Service, and
EE-00484),
studies in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic,
supported by grants from the Agricultural Develop-
ment Council. In addition, grateful acknowledgement
for their cooperation is given to the Agricultural
Experiment Station of the University of Puerto Rico
and to a large number of organizations in the
Dominican Republic, both governmental and private,
where the scope of the study was increased severalfold
as a result of the unusual cooperative support.
culture the destruction of the family had
become a world-wide phenomenon. More
recently, others have countered that although
the family has lost some of its traditional
functions, it has garnered new ones (Winch,
1964:4-32). Clark Vincent has insisted that an
outstanding characteristic of the family is its
ability to adapt to changing conditions. He
states, "The traditionalfunctions of the family
have not been lost, but have changed their
content and form. The family serves as a
mediator by translating change in the larger
society into the on-going child and adult
socializationprocess"(1966:29).
Initially Ogburncautiously stated that tradi-
tional family functions were being replaced
(Vincent, 1966:29). This early formulation
could imply that other functions were being
acquiredwithin the place of residence.Parsons
has observed that the family is the unit of
Americansociety; he reasons that if the family
were breakingup there would be a decline in
the importanceof the "family home" as a place
to live (Parsons and Bales, 1955:7). The
tremendous increase in the percentage of
people residing in single person dwellings has
occurred since Parsons made the foregoing
observations.Still, it may be emphasized that
there is much evidence that the dwelling does
have increasing importance to the public and
society (Lasswell, 1965:232-235). There is
evidence that the house is takingfunctions that

750 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1972

This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
used to be satisfied elsewhere in the com-
munity. It would, therefore, seem possible that
the loss of traditionalfunctions by the family is
being compensated by the dwelling acquiring
new functions. These new functions of the
home may very well be bonds that hold the
occupantstogether.
In a recent study, Farber (1964:322-323)
indicated various types of family organization,
including child-oriented, parent-oriented, and
home-oriented. He characterized the home-
oriented family as one that gives "priority to
social-emotion (by personal relations) norms
and values over instrumental(family as institu-
tional) norms and values." For this type of
family, the home life commitments have more
weight than the community status commit-
ments. A strong case could be made that the
trends are to be increasingly of this home-
oriented type.
The concept of "fixed-feature space" in
organizing the activities of individuals and
groups has been developed by EdwardT. Hall
(1966:96-97). He explains the concept with
illustrations of housing patterns. Hall stresses
that territorial behavior at any given stage of
life is quite fixed and rigid. Not only are the
boundariesof the territoriesrelativelyconstant,
but also the locations for activities such as
sleeping and eating within the territory. It
would follow that one must be cognizantof the
differentials in the structure and functions of
housing and the associatedsocial values if he is
to have adequateunderstandingof the changing
family.
Hall (1966:98-100) points out that the
internal differentiationof sections of a house is
a recent development. Rooms in early Europ-
ean houses had no fixed function, unlike those
of today, which have specific functions such as
eating, entertaining,rest, sanitation, etc. How-
ever, in the eighteenthcentury, the form of the
house was altered. Rooms were arrangedto
open into a corridor or hall, and it was no
longer necessary for the occupants to pass
through one room into another. The family
pattern began to stabilize and was expressedin
the internal structure of the house as people
were protected by new spaces and the railroad
station atmosphereof the home was lost. There
is a nexus between housing and family life
patterns. Among the French,the home tends to
be reserved for the exclusive use of family
members. Recreationis found elsewhere;social-
izing and entertainment, for example, often
are found at restaurants(Hall, 1966:135).
A great deal is known about the relative
qualities of building materials,cost of installa-
November 1972 JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY
This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tion, and, in general, the engineeringaspects of
housing. Yet, little information is readily
available on the nonengineeringaspects except
for such descriptions as cited above. Nearly a
quarter of a century ago Louis Wirthwrote an
article entitled, "Housing, as a Field of Socio-
logical Research" (Reiss, 1964:292-303). He
pointed out that housingis a social activity and
succinctly stated the problem with which we
are concerned as follows: "It is rathershocking
to find out how little is known about the
various ways in which housing as a social value
has been defined by different civilizationsand
by different groups in society." (Reiss,
1964:293-294).
One well known study of housing (Beyer,
1958:174) pointed out that a knowledge of
human values should ultimately permit more
satisfactory planning and house design than
studying what families say they prefer, their
buying habits, or even time and motion studies
of people's activities in the artificial environ-
ment of the laboratory.
HOUSINGFUNCTIONS
AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
Several studies provide some evidence that
the functions of the home vary with socio-
economic position. In a recent work, one of the
authors of this paper generalized that "as
socioeconomic status increases, the number of
functions fulfilled by the home increases.The
dwelling unit, thus, seems to be an important
adjunct in the life styles of those with higher
than with lower statuses" (Belcher, 1969:241).
Another writer describinghouses in a country
with one of the lowest levels of living in the
world states, "For the Haitian ruralmassesand
urban slum dwellers, that is, for over 90 per
cent of the population, a house is little more
than a shelter. It is a place to sleep, to get away
from the inclemency of the weather,to prepare
food, and store a few worldly possessions"
(Wingfield, 1966:119). There are some homes
in tropical sections of the world that do not
provide shelter from the weather. Their shelter
function is little more than givingshade when
the sun shines in as much as they neither keep
out rainnor serveas a barrierto winds.
In the United States others have found few
functions for the homes among poorer people.
Warnerstated in his "Jonesville"study (1949)
that lower classes are most dependent upon
clubs for social life because they do little
entertaining on their own. Hollingshead de-
scribed the homes of the lowest social class in
Elmstown's Youth as being undifferentiatedas
to functions with entertainmentlargelyoutside
751
the home (Hollingshead, 1949:114-116). On
the other hand, upperclasseswith largerhouses
and incomes entertaintheir friendsin the home
(Warner,1949:117).
Mitchell (1971:26-27) found in a study of
housing density in Hong Kong that among
families with inadequate space in the dwelling
children tended to be pushed from the house
for play and that families were less likely ever
to entertainfriendsin the home.
Lee Rainwater stresses that the prime pur-
pose of the residence is "the provision of
shelter, which is protection from potentially
damagingor unpleasant trauma or other stim-
uli" (1966:23). Among middle classes he feels
that the battle to make the home a safe place
has been won, and that the home has thus
taken on other functions of self-expressionand
self-realization.He states that among the lower
classes the principalconcern for the home is as
a place of security (Rainwater, 1966:23-30).
Support for this conclusion is the finding by
Cagle and Deutscherthat the main disadvantage
expressed by the residentsof public housing is
the lack of privacy(1970:25 1).
Any person who has visited both the
residential area of an underdevelopedcountry
and the United States could have observedthat
few people are to be seen on the streets of
American residential areas, but there seems to
be a torrent of humanity on 'the streets and
roads of the underdevelopedcountries. One, if
not the major, reason for such behaviorcould
be that human aspirationsare satisfied in pub-
lic areasin many countries,while in the United
States they are fulfilled in the homes. To illus-
trate, in most Americanhomes one can have an
unlimited supply of water by turning a tap or
clothes may be washed by tossing them into an
automatic washer and pushing a button. Else-
where in the world one can see people trudging
along the roads with containers on the head or
in the hand to meet the continual demand for
water. Others may be seen carrying a load of
"wash" along the road or washingclothes in a
stream. Obviously, the way of life of these
people would requireless physicaleffort if they
had piped running water in the home along
with automatic washingmachines. However, it
must be noted that the social organizationof a
community might also disintegrate.Many peo-
ple leave the home to go to the river for water
or to wash clothes. The chores may providean
opportunity for companionship. Loring has
noted that, "The very frequency of participa-
tion in group activity with others seems to be in
part determinedby physical designof neighbor-
752 JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY
This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
hood layout and location of one's residence"
(1964:166).
In the United States the home has acquired
several functionswhich are outside of the realm
of providingsimple shelter. According to some
observers, the home has supplanted the auto-
mobile as the status symbol most favored by
Americans with a penchant for social climbing
(Packard, 1959:61; Vidich and Bensman,
1960:58). Libraries,utility rooms, work shops,
and exercise rooms reflect some of the new
functions that may be found in the home of the
affluent. Goffman hints at the newly defined
functions of the home in the United States
when he states, "We lead an indoor social life.
We specialize in fixed settings, in keeping
strangersout, and in givingthe performersome
privacy in which to preparehimself for show"
(Goffman, 1958:244).
In contrast, Goffman cites an old description
of housing in China: "Fortunately the Chinese
do not believe in the privacy of the home as we
do. They do not mind having the whole details
of their daily experience seen by everyone that
cares to look. How they live, what they eat, and
even the family jars that we try to hush up
from the public are things that seem to be
common property, and not to belong exclu-
sively to this particular family who are most
concerned"(Goffman, 1958:244).
THEORETICALORIENTATION
There are obviously many variations in
housing structures among societies and even
within societies. That the functions of housing
may vary just as much as the structures has
tended to be ignored. One major factor in this
situation is that planners, housing officials,
architects, and others whose careers are con-
cerned with houses tend to be obsessed with
constructing carefully engineered "shelters"as
efficiently as possible.
There is considerable fragmentaryinforma-
tion in the literature which suggests that
housing functions vary by socioeconomic status
as well as cross-culturally. Much has been
written recently about the unhappiness of
many groups with public housing that is a vast
improvementin terms of shelter over what the
occupants had previously (for example, see
Bryce-Laporte, 1970:85-97; Turner,
1967:167-181; and Cagle and Deutscher,
1970:243-256). The works of Hall and Goff-
man provide new perspectives for viewing the
home and the functions it fulfills.
There is, however, no simple solution to the
problem of securing empirical data on the
functions satisfied by the house in the daily life
November 1972
of its occupants. The senior author of this
paper made a systematic attempt to question
directly a poor, uneducated group in Georgia
regardingthe desiredfunctions of their dwelling
units. The level at which the questioninghad to
be done was too abstract for successful inter-
viewing. Such questions would probably elicit
even less reliableinformation in an underdevel-
oped country. The interviews did reveal an
enthusiasm for describing the kind of home
family membersaspired to own. Almost all had
ready answersfor all the materialcharacteristics
of the "dreamhome" (Belcher, 1970).
This paper assumesthat the functions people
want their homes to fulfill are reflected in
descriptions of the dream home. Extensive
cross-culturalsurveys and participant observa-
tions by the authors convince them that the
characteristics of the dream home give an
accuratepicture of the differentialfunctions of
housing. Other indications of the functions of
the home may be inferredfrom the presenceor
absenceof facilitiesin the home plus answersto
questionsabout where selected tasksare accom-
plished.
The present analysis is not concerned with
attributes of the dream home that reflect
climatic and geographicdifferences.This analy-
sis presentscomparisonsof the dreamhomes of
ruralresidents of Georgia,Puerto Rico, and the
Dominican Republic in an effort to determine
differential functions of housing. Winter heat-
ing is not needed in Puerto Rico or the
Dominican Republic. Air conditioning would
be superfluous in the mountainous regions of
the Dominican Republic where it is never hot.
Basements are not feasible in the swampy
Georgia county where survey data were col-
lected because the water level is but a few
inches below the surface in much of the area.
Only characteristicsof homes were studied that
reflect cross-cultural,or subcultural,differences
in functions ratherthan climaticvariations.
SOURCESOF DATA
The data for this study are from surveys in
three-different countries. The interviewsched-
ule was essentially the same on the housing
questions for all three studies. Field work was
done in south Georgiain 1965, Puerto Rico in
1966, and the DominicanRepublicin 1967.
Although all three surveyswere made among
ruralpopulationsand are consideredrepresenta-
tive, the samplingproceduresvaried.In Camden
County, Georgia,every structurein the county
was mapped and its characteristicsnoted in a
ledger. The 1965 sample was obtained by
systematically selecting every fifth occupied
November 1972 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY
This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
dwelling as listed. The Puerto Rican surveywas
based on a five per cent cluster sampleof all the
homes in three municipios.1 The three munic-
ipios were selected becauseeach was considered
by agriculturalexperts to be typical of one of
the three major agricultural areas of the
country: sugar cane, tobacco, and coffee. The
Dominican survey was based on'a three-stage
cluster sample of the rural areas of the entire
country. There were twenty-one sample areas
allocated to provincesbased on the percentage
of the nation's total rural population in each.
Twenty-one municipios were then randomly
drawn within the selected provinces. Finally,
five clusters of 10 homes each were randomly
selected within the municipios--ordinarilyone
village in each of five secciones2 of the
municipios.Six hundredscheduleswere secured
in Georgiain 1965, 800 in Puerto Rico in 1966,
and 2,100 in the Dominican Republic in 1967.
ANALYSIS:THE DREAMHOME
Respondents in each of the surveys were
asked to describe the characteristics of the
home they would like, assuming they had
sufficient money to purchaseor build the house
of their dreams. The interviews were semi-
directed in order that all respondentsdescribed
the construction materials,numberof rooms in
the house, names or uses of the rooms,
facilities, plus other characteristics desired.
Practically all persons interviewedappearedto
enjoy answeringsuch questions. Carehad to be
exercised in order that respondents did not
interpret the purpose of the survey as the
provision of new homes. The following analysis
is based on those housing questions considered
indicative of functions of the home in the three
societies.
Size of Home
The functions that can be fulfilled by the
home are in part determinedby the numberof
rooms. Table 1 shows there are great differ-
ences in the size of the house to which
respondents aspire in the three countries. The
modal size of the dream home is four rooms in
the Dominican Republic, six in Puerto Rico,
and nine or more in ruralGeorgia.All of these
figures represent a considerable increase over
present levels. In the sample from the Domini-
can Republic, for example, 53.1 per cent of the
homes had two rooms, 3.3 per cent had one,
IMunicipios are political subdivisions comparable to
counties in the United States.
2Seccion is somewhat analogous to township or
militia districts in the United States.
753
TABLE 1. NUMBER OFIROOMS IN DREAM HOME: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS

Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rural Dominican

Number of Rooms 1965 Rico, 1966 Republic, 1967

One 0.2 0.0 0.5

Two 0.0 0.0 1.6
Three 0.0 0.4 10.9
Four 0.9 2.0 42.2
Five 1.5 15.2 13.8
Six 5.8 39.6 22.3
Seven 25.1 29.6 2.8
Eight 30.7 8.0 3.5
Nine or More 35.8 5.2 2.5
Total Answering
Questions 537 699 1781
and only 7 per cent had five or more rooms at the least. Most rural Georgians interviewed
the time of the surveyin 1967. wanted two or more bathroomscomparedwith
Bedrooms: Much of the variation in size of about one out of every eight rural Puerto
desiredhomes can be attributed to the number Ricans. At .the other extreme, Dominicans in
of bedrooms.In fact, in Puerto Rico, the size of ruralareasjust do not think in termsof a home
homes initially tends to be givenin termsof the with more than one bathroom. In fact, nearly
number of bedrooms ratherthan a total of all one-fifth (17.8 per cent) desiredno more than a
rooms. Table 2 shows very clearly that the specialhole in the groundor a ditch.
number of bedrooms in the dream house
follows the same general pattern as the total Special PurposeRooms
number of rooms. The modal number of Most rooms in all three countries are named
bedrooms in the dreamhomes of ruralGeorgia by the functions they fulfill. Almost all larger
is four, drops to three in Puerto Rico, and is homes have bedrooms,a kitchen, a living room,
only two in the Dominican Republic. Separate and a diningroom in addition to the bathroom.
tabulations show that within each of the Respondents in both Puerto Rico and Georgia
cultures studied, the larger the averagehouse- were asked what rooms they would like in their
hold, the smaller the desired home, whether homes other than the above. Table 4 presents
measuredin terms of total rooms or of number the major categories of response. Practically
of bedrooms. Size of the family, apparently, every largernew home in the Georgiacounty at
has an inverse relationship to housing aspira- the time of the study had a "family room"
tions. which is generallyan informalliving areawith a
television set. Almost all (94 per cent) of the
SanitaryFacilities intervieweeswanted one. Othermajordemands
There are also great differences in the were for the "breakfast room" where most
aspirations for toilet facilities. Table 3 shows meals are taken but in more relaxed surround-
that Georgianswant the most and Dominicans ings than in the dining room. About one family

TABLE 2. NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN DREAM HOME: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS

Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rural Dominican

Number of Rooms 1965 Rico, 1966 Republic, 1967
% % %
One 0.0 1.1 3.7
Two 6.1 12.9 48.5
Three 39.5 43.8 30.3
Four 41.3 29.7 12.4
Five 8.9 7.6 2.3
Six 3.2 3.7 2.1
Seven 0.2 0.6 0.4
Eight or More 0.7 0.6 0.4
Number Answering
Question 537 707 1752

754 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1972

This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 3. DESIRED SANITARY FACILITIES IN DREAM HOME: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS

Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rural Dominican

Item 1965 Rico, 1966 Republic, 1967

% % %
Toilet Facilities
None 0.0 0.0 0.0
Special Hole in Ground 0.0 0.0 17.8
Privy 0.0 0.7 9.1
Number of Bathrooms
One 20.7 87.6 73.1
One and a half 12.5 0.7 0.0
Two 46.8 10.8 0.0
Two and a half 5.6 0.0
Three or more 14.3 0.1 0.0
Number Answering 536 683 2016

TABLE 4. SPECIAL PURPOSE ROOMS IN DREAM HOMES: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS*

Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rico,

Number of Rooms 1965 1966

% %
Florida Room 1.3 0.0
Family Room 94.2 0.2
Den, Study, Library 10.1 0.0
Play Room 11.6 0.0
Patio or Terrace 5.4 5.1
Breakfast Room 9.0 0.0
Utility Room- 0.0 2.7

*Question not asked in the Dominican Republic.

in ten specifically listed a den or library, and
slightly more (11.6 per cent) wanted a play
room. This play room was usually in addition
to the family room. Although the question
specifically referredonly to kinds of rooms, 5.4
per cent of the respondentsalso listed a patio as
a feature of the dream home. The authors
believe that if a direct question had been asked
about aspirations for a patio, almost all
respondentswould have wanted one.
Comparablequestioning in Puerto Rico also
brought forth a strong inherent demand for
patios, although again, the questions were
about the rooms desiredin the dreamhome. No
"room" approached the patio in popularity
among "the special purpose rooms." When
asked to list rooms wanted in the dream home
other than dining room, kitchen, living room
and bedrooms, 2.7 per cent of respondents
mentioned a utility room. Only two people
wanted a family room. In fact, for Puerto Rico,
there were only nine other choices given for the
entire sampleother than those listed above.
In the Dominican Republic no questions
were asked about special purpose rooms be-
cause there was no evidence of a significant
demand for them among ruralresidents.Special
purpose rooms seem to be outside the realmof
both possibility and experience for most people
at this moment.
Number of Porches
The number of large porches desired is
presented in Table 6. The porch in the southern
United States has played an important role in
the lives of people in the past. During the
interview people were asked if they wanted
porches on their dreamhomes, and if so, how
many. One person in five (20.8 per cent) in
Georgia did not care for such a feature. The
other 79.2 per cent were fairly evenly divided
between wanting one porch and two or more.
By contrast, 95.1 per cent of all respondentsin
Puerto Rico wanted a single porch. Although,
again, there was no questioning about porches
in the Dominican Republic, the writers are
convinced that practically no ruralinhabitants
there would want two porches. Most would
want one porch, but many would not desire
any. The kind of porch that exists in Puerto
Rico or the United States is not found in many
ruralsections of the DominicanRepublic. Even

November 1972 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY 755

This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 5. VALUE OF DREAM HOME: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS

Estimated Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rico, Rural Dominican

Value 1965 1966 Republic, 1967

Under $250 4.3

$250-499 8.3
0.2 4.6
$500-749 14.1
$750-999 4.3
$1000-2499 0.5 12.6 40.5
$2500-4999 1.4 19.2 15.1
$5000-9999 13.7 30.6 13.4
$10,000-19,999 34.9 28.0 0.0
$20,000 and over 49.2 4.0 0.0
Total Answering
Question 437 478 1691

TABLE 6. NUMBER OF LARGE PORCHES ON DREAM HOME: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS*

Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rico,

Number of Porches 1965 1966

% %
None 20.8 0.4
One 40.8 95.1
Two 36.8 4.4
Three or more 0.8 0.3
All Around House 0.8 0.0
Number Answering
Question 529 696

*Question was not asked in the Dominican Republic.

TABLE 7. LOCATION OF KITCHEN IN HOME: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS*

Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rural Dominican

Item 1965* Rico, 1966 Republic, 1967

A Special
Room of House 76.2 72.3 4.0
An Extension
to the House 0.0 13.9 5.9
In the Living
Room 3.7 5.9
In the Dining
Room 23.8 1.8 0.8
Unspecified
Location in
the House 0.8 0.2
Separate Structure 0.0 7.5 73.2
Number Answering
Question 403 775 2004
*The Coding of answers in Georgia did not provide all the alternatives.

756 JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1972

This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
a door stoop is not a featureof a home with an
earthen floor, and 48.4 per cent of the houses
had floors of dirt or parchedclay.
Valueof DreamHome
The Dominicanpeso is legally at par with the
U.S. dollar which is used in both Puerto Rico
and Georgia. Consequently, information given
by the respondents on the estimated costs of
the dream homes are comparable. Table 5
shows tremendous differences in the value of
the dreamhomes. In fact, there is little overlap
between the value of the poorest dreamhomes
in ruralGeorgiaand the best in the Dominican
Republic. Nearly half of the Georgia(Camden
County) respondents (49.2 per cent) want
dreamhomes valued at $20,000 or more. Over
seventy per cent (71.2) of the ruralDominicans
would be content with houses valued at $2,500
or less. Puerto Rico is intermediate with few
wanting homes valuedat over $20,000 or under
$1,000. The majority would fall within a broad
category with values between $5,000 and
$19,999.
ANALYSIS:CURRENTFUNCTIONS
Aspirationsfor housing reflect the functions
of the home. The perspective of housing
fuctions is made more complete by examining
survey data on the manner in which selected
family universals as food preparation,eating,
and bathingmay be satisfiedin the home.
Food Preparation
In the Dominican Republic nearly three-
fourths (73.2 per cent) of the cooking is done
in the yard, usually in a partially enclosed
structure made of noncommercial materials.
Only four per cent of the homes have a special
room of the house devoted to kitchen functions
(Table 7).
At the other extreme it is generallyassumed
that all family dwelling units in the United
States have a kitchen. It may at times be small
and not completely detached from, say, the
living area of a small apartment,but it is there.
In ruralareasit may be combined with a dining
area or the living room. At the time of the
survey in Camden County, however, 78 per
cent of all dwellingshad separatekitchens.
Cooking is also a function of the house in
Puerto Rico where 72 per cent of the rural
homes had a room of the house devoted
primarilyto cooking. However, approximately
14 per cent had constructedan extension to the
house which was used for cooking, and 7.5 per
cent had a separate structure from the house
which was used as the kitchen.
November 1972 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY
This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Eating
The American norm is for members of the
family to eat at least some of their meals
together. Most familieshave sufficient flatware
and silverwarethat all members of the family
and several guests may eat at the same time,
each with a ratherelaborateplace setting.
In Puerto Rico one family in a hundreddoes
not have enough eating utensils for all mem-
bers. In other words, there are not enough for
all to eat at the same time even if some have
only knives and others spoons or forks. Still,
about 60 per cent of households have at least
one matched set of knife, fork, and spoon for
each member of the family. In the Dominican
Republic only one family in eight is so
prosperous. More important for this study is
that approximately the same percentage (See
Table 8) does not have enough utensils for all
to eat at the same time. A large number of
families have neither table knives nor forks and
not enough spoons for each member of the
family. Slightly over half of the rural popula-
tion (51.3 per cent) has only one or two
utensils per person and twelve per cent less than
one.
Functions of LivingRoom
Approximately 85 per cent of all living
rooms in Georgiawere classed as havingjust the
one major function. The presence of beds,
dining tables, or cooking equipment indicates
the living room has functions other than those
of a living room. Table 9 shows that nearlyhalf
the time in the Dominican Republic (48.3 per
cent) the living room also serves as the dining
room. In general, the so-called living room had
a specializedfunction in Georgia,whereasit has
more diffuse functions in the Dominican
Republicwith Puerto Rico intermediate.
Bathing
Table 10 indicates that very few Dominican
homes have permanent bathing facilities and
that approximatelyone-third of the population
leaves the home for bathing, compared with
about five per cent in Puerto Rico and
practically no one in Georgia. In fact, 85 per
cent of the Camden County homes had
bathrooms.Slightly over 60 per cent of Puerto
Rican homes had showers or bathtubsbut only
one home in fifty in the Dominican Republic
had them. Most bathing in the Dominican
Republic is done in rivers or other streams.
Public faucets are often used in Puerto Rico by
those without bathrooms.
757
TABLE 8. EATING UTENSILS IN HOMES: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS

Number per Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rico, Rural Dominican

Person 1965* 1.966 Republic, 1967

less than one

per person 1.2 12.0
One or two
per person 13.5 51.3
Unmatched set:
Knife, fork, &
spoon 26.3 25.0
Matched set:
Knife, fork, &
spoon 2.1 1.3
One to 1.9
matched sets 28.9 7.0
Two or more
matched sets 28.0 3.3
*All households in the Georgia sample had at least an unmatched set of utensils for all members. Most
families had matched place settings for all members. Tabulations not available in this specific context.

TABLE 9. FUNCTIONS OF LIVING ROOMS: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS

Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rico, Rural Dominican

1965" 1966 Republic, 1967

% % %
Living room only 84.2 58.8 34.0
Living room plus
bedrooms 2.9 4.2
Living room plus
dining room 31.3 48.3
Living room plus
kitchen 15.8 1.0 0.4
Living room plus
other combinations 3.1 7.8
Total Answering
Question 403 767 2021
*The coding of answers in Georgia did not provide all the alternatives.

TABLE 10. BATHING FACILITIES BY HOUSEHOLDS: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISONS

Rural Georgia, Rural Puerto Rico, Rural Dominican

Facility 1965 1966 Republic, 1967
% % %
Bathtub and shower 65.8 19.3 0.3
Bathtub only 15.2 0.0 0.0
Shower 0.0 42.4 2.1
Metal Tub 19.0 17.8 27.6
Wash pan 0.0 15.9 32.8
Public Faucet
or Aqueduct 0.0 0.3 3.4
River, stream, lake 0.0 2.0 27.7
Other 0.0 2.4 6.0

758 JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY November 1972

This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 CONCLUSIONS
Vast segments of the world's population do
not have adequatehousingfor the maintenance
of physical or mental health (Mitchell,
1971:18-20). Various proposals have been
made to alleviate these housingproblems.Such
proposals have failed to consider basic cultural
differences in the functions satisfied by the
family dwelling. There is the basic assumption
among housing authorities that "the function
of the house is, above all, to provide a hygenic
and comfortableshelter"which can be achieved
by adherenceto minimummodernstandardsof
construction(Turner, 1967: 167).
Survey data from rural areas of Georgia,
Puerto Rico, and the DominicanRepublicshow
significant differences in the functions the
house provides for the family. There are also
distinctions in aspirationsfor functions to be
fulfilled by the "dream home." No conclusive
evidenceis presented,but a plausibleinterpreta-
tion of the data is that the home may provide
functional bonds to hold the family system
together. Certainly, consideration of the func-
tions to be fulfilled by the home would appear
neglected by the construction industry. The
ruralhome in Georgiais larger,more expensive,
and has many features not possessed by those
in Puerto 'Rico. In turn, the Puerto Rican
homes have many material advantages over
those in the Dominican Republic. Data from
the three surveys discussed in this paper show
the relative levels of aspiration for housing
featuresfollow the same patterns.
Haglundlisted a numberof activitiesthat she
felt should be carried on in the home. These
activities included: sleeping, preparation of
meals, eating of meals as a family unit,
companionshipwith family and friends, wash-
ing and bathing, laundering,storageof clothing
and personal effects, disposal of wastes, and
supplyingsafe and accessiblewater(1958:4-5).
All of these functions could be satisfied with
the facilitiesavailablein most Georgiahomes. A
majoritycould be performedin the majorityof
Puerto Rican homes. At the other extreme,
only one or two could be satisfiedin the poorer
Dominicanhomes.
Still, Haglund has a cultural bias that
conforms to the United States pattern of
housing. For example, the Dominican pattern
of separationof the kitchen from the house is
highly functional in many ways. Heat from
cooking is not spread into other rooms of the
house where it is not needed in the Caribbean.
The isolated kitchen gives a vantage point to
watch children at play or the approach of
November1972 JOURNALOF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY
This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
visitors. It is a way to keep fire out of
extremely combustible houses. However, the
entire patternof householdactivitiesis changed
when the kitchen is separated.
Companionship, laundering, bathing, and
many other activities can be satisfactorily
fulfilled away from the home. Much of the
social activity in the Dominican Republic is
found at the comnmunal pumps or water holes.
A fabric of Dominicanlife would be changedif
piped water suddenly were availablein every
home. None of the specific activitieslisted by
Haglund necessarily must be fulfilled in the
house. Of course, if none were, therewould be
no individualdwellings.
There are great differencesamong the three
areas in the extent to which the home is a
public place. In Georgiathe home tends to be
inaccessible to those outside the immediate
household. Knockingon the door is a prerequi-
site to admission. In the rural Dominican
Republic, on the other hand, the home may be
considered a public place accessible to all
membersof the community;especiallyone may
enter the detached kitchen, or even the living
room of the two-room house itself. The
bedroom is generally considered private, but
not to the extent as in the United States. The
privacy of the home is somewhatintermediate
in Puerto Rico.
Yet, when a neighborwalksinto the Domini-
can home unannouncedhis presence may not
be acknowledged. If a person in the home is
eating, for example, the guest will sit down
until communicationis startedby an occupant.
At times he will come into the home and then
leave without his having been, in Goffman's
terms, "socially present." In the home, thus,
may exist the manifestationsof what Goffman
aptly terms Behavior in Public Places
(1966:3-12).
The rules of trespassaremorelikely to apply
elsewherein the community than in the home.
A section of the community is often reserved
for excretory activities for each sex. No one
would approach a person in one of these
restricted areas. One portion of a streammay
be limited to bathingactivitiesfor females and
others for males. There are often places near
ruralstores whereonly malescongregateand no
femalewill approach.
Privacy, thus, is not a universalfunction of
the home. Americansociety does have rather
rigid codes, but the Dominican Republic does
not. This finding is not unique. Members of
Europeanfamilieshad no privacyas we know it
today duringthe eighteenth century. Strangers
tended to come and go at will.
759
 The level of living is much higher in rural
Georgia than the Dominican Republic with
ruralPuerto Rico intermediate.The numberof
functions fulfilled by the home is ordered in
the same way. Some of these differencesreflect
cultural variation, but level of living is also an
importantfactor.
Those who lament the loss of traditional
functions of the family might be heartenedby
the fact that with technologicaladvancesin the
affluent society the familyhome may be taking
on functions that were satisfied by outside
agencies.One might hypothesize that the more
functions the house has, the closer the family
livingthereinis bound together.
On the other hand, the satisfaction of these
functions may be superficial adjuncts in the
lives of the occupants of the modern, carefully
engineered home. For example, two writers
contrasted the uses of the old-fashionedAmeri-
can kitchen with the new efficiency models as
follows:
The kitchen is the room in the house most
celebratedin song and story. In [the] continental
United States, it is the room for which most
adults cherish the fondest memories, for the
kitchen in their childhood was the busiest and
pleasantestroom in the house. It was the place
where the mother was usually to be found, busy
with the cooking, baking, preservingand other
household tasks; where children played and
began to help their mother in various tasks
almost.as soon as they could walk; where the
family gathered to sit and talk, and often ate
their meals as well. The modern kitchen has
changed and become an efficient, well-equipped
laboratory,with ample cupboards,and working
space, and the newest equipmentfor makingthe
household tasks easierand pleasanter.It has lost
some of its charm,but has gained a new one of
spotless cleanlinessand efficiency. [Robertsand
Stefani, 1949:55]
Another work states that the urbanhome has
lost functions as people no longer visit in the
home, that the whole family is seldom together
to eat and usually obtains meals in restaurants,
and that recreationis divorcedfrom the home
(Anderson and Lindeman, 1928:346-348). The
existence of facilities in the house does not
necessarily mean they are used. Perhaps new
facilities and rooms in the American home
reflect status-seekingjust as did the unused
"parlor"of the past.
We may generalize that there are major
differences in housing functions among under-
developed countries. The evidence does not
support the assertionof OscarLewis that there
is a culture of poverty which transcends
nationaldifferencesand resultsin cross-national
760 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY
This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
similarities in family structure, interpersonal
relations, value systems, spendingpatterns,and
housing (Lewis, 1968:4). Utilization of space
varies too much cross-culturally among low
income groups for a universal subculture of
poverty to exist.
The proponent of specific social changes
might more readilyachievehis objectivesby the
manipulationof the housing, ratherthan other
social or culturalvariables.The ramificationsof
fixed-feature space as reflected cross-culturally
in housing functions providea model of further
investigation. No longer can the simple provi-
sion of shelterbe consideredthe majorfunction
of a dwelling. Rather, housing needs to be
considered as a possiblemolder of the structure
and functioning of the nuclear family as the
basic unit of society.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Nels and Edward C. Lindeman
1928 Urban Sociology. New York:Alfred A.
Knopf.
Belcher, John C.
1970 "Differential aspirations for housing be-
tween blacks and whites in rural Georgia."
Phylon 21 (September):231-243.
Beyer, Glenn H.
1958 Housing: A Factual Analysis. New York:
The Macmillan Company.
Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon
1970 "Urban relocation and family adaptation in
Puerto Rico." In William Manglin (ed.), On
Peasants in Cities. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
Cagle, Laurence T. and Irwin Deutscher
1970 "Housing aspirations and housing achieve-
ment: the relocation of poor families."
Social Problems 18 (Fall):243-256.
Farber, Bernard
1964 Family: Organization and Interaction. San
Francisco:Chandler Publishing Company.
Goffman, Erving
1958 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Garden City, New York:Anchor.
1963 Behavior in Public Places. Glencoe, Illinois:
The Free Press of Glencoe.
Haglund, Else
1958 Housing and Home Improvement in the
Caribbean. The Food and Agicultural Orga-
nization of the United Nations and the
Caribbean Commission.
Hall, Edward T.
1966 The Hidden Dimension. New York:John
Wiley and Sons.
Hollingshead, August B.
1949 Elmtown's Youth. New York:John Wiley
and Sons.
Lasswell, Thomas E.
1965 Class and Stratum. Boston:Houghton Mif-
flin.
Leslie, Gerald R.
1967 The Family in Social Context. New York:
Oxford University Press.
November 1972
Lewis, Oscar
1968 A Study of Slum Culture: Backgrounds for
La Vida. New York:Random House. i ( 'r"
Mitchell, Robert E.
1971 "Some social implications of high density
I

O!-~
housing." American Sociological Review 36
(February): 18-29.
Ogburn, William F.
1922 Social Change. New York:Viking Press.
1929 "The changing family." Pp. 124-133 in
Publications of the American Sociological
Society.
Packard, Vance
1959 The Status Seekers. New York:David
McKay Company.
Rainwater, Lee
1966 "Fear and the house-as-haven in the lower
class." Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 32 (January):23-30. ativ
Reiss, Albert J., Jr.
Fr todays c
1964 Louis Wirth on Cities and Social Life.
Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, Lydia S. and Rosa Luisa Stefani
1949 Patterns of Living in Puerto Rican Families.
Rio Piedras:The University of Puerto Rico. 11 i . l ~lfCItfllr]~
1r.L, teacher]I••-.,J
[ii~• "g '
Smith, Wallace F.
1970 Housing: The Social and Economic Ele-
ments. Berkeley:The University of Califor-
nia Press.
Turner, John C.
1967 "Barriers and channels for housing develop-
ment in modernizing countries." Journal of
the American Institute of Planners (May):
167-181.
Vidich, Arthur J. and Joseph Bensman
1960 Small Town in Mass Society. Garden City,
New York:Anchor Books.
Vincent, Clark E.
1966 "Familia Spongia: the adaptive function."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 28
(February): 29-36.
Warner,W. Lloyd
1949 Democracy in Jonesville. New York:Harper
and Brothers. tPI.re•]•iI~_nilll~~;Z:ilrTT ?PTCri
r• ••
Winch, Robert F.
1964 The Modern Family. Rev. Ed. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wingfield, Roland
1966 "Haiti: a case study of an underdeveloped TIME
A
CHOICE
FOR
area." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Loui-
siana State University, Baton Rouge.

ISMS

Topreviewtransparencysets andforordersof free

LifeCycleCenterbooklets,writeto TheLifeCycle
Center,KOTEX? FeminineProducts,Kimberly-
ClarkCorp.,Dept.JMF,Neenah,Wisconsin54956.

November1972 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGEAND THE FAMILY 761

This content downloaded from 188.25.161.133 on Wed, 11 Mar 2015 10:15:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions