_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fam Proc 16:49-66, 1977

Architecture: Effect of Territory, Boundary, and Orientation on Family Functioning SUZANNE H. CROWHURST LENNARD, PH.D.a HENRY L. LENNARD, PH.D.b aDepartment of Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, State University of New York, Buffalo, and Center for

Policy Research, New York. bCenter for Policy Research, and the Ackerman Institute for Family Therapy.

Most students of family process and family therapy practitioners have failed to pay sufficient attention to the importance of the physical home environment. The thesis of this paper is that the physical home environment may facilitate or constrain inter- and intrafamily interaction, role relationships, values, and identities. The paper presents a comprehensive review of the status of current knowledge concerning family interaction and the home environment. We propose a conceptual framework to facilitate discussion of the nature of man-environment relationships and focus attention on those aspects of the physical environment that have been noted as profoundly influencing family life. These are illustrated by three brief vignettes drawn from case studies of families in their home environment.

I. REVIEW OF LITERATURE This paper provides a theoretical background for the study of family and home environment interrelationships. The built environment does not only serve functional requisites but also facilitates or constrains the relationships and interaction patterns of those who inhabit it. A shift in attention frequently results in new lines of inquiry. When, in the study of personality, attention was shifted from the conscious process to the "unconscious," new approaches to the study of personality became feasible. In similar fashion, social group behavior gained in legibility when sociologists such as Durkheim called attention to the patterns in social process that constrain and influence group behavior, patterns that group members themselves could no more make explicit than could most persons report on the syntax of their spoken language. To the extent that the interrelationships between a family and its environment are made manifest and the constraints imposed by specific environmental arrangements made explicit, the family's area of freedom and control is enlarged. This article reviews and summarizes relevant theoretical and empirical work that clarifies the subject of the study and sets forth a conceptual framework and vocabulary that encompass both family interaction and the physical environment. The literature is summarized under the headings of: 1. Physical Arrangement in the Home Environment 2. Relationship Among Dwellings 3. The man-Environment Fit.

Physical Arrangements in the Home Environment A way of life and its setting comprise an interdependent unity. Either is regarded as extrinsic to the other only at the peril of overlooking the interrelations on which depends the stability of the system as a whole. [18, p. 69] Observations by Hall (33), Goffman (29), Sommer (68), and Scheflen (63) illustrate the ways in which interpersonal relationships are defined by relationships individuals assume in space (distance, posture, seating arrangement, etc.). Most observations have been made in institutional settings rather than in home environments, but they appear relevant to the study of furniture arrangements in the home. Of special interest here is the research that has been conducted on the relationship between seating arrangements and extent of interaction. Sommer (68) has shown that women in a hospital day room almost never speak to each other when the seating is arranged in rows along the walls but that conversation is facilitated when seats are grouped together. He also reports that the volume of communication in classrooms, seminar rooms, and cafeterias is clearly related to seating arrangements. The style and size of a chair, as well as its distance from other chairs, has been pointed out by Bettelheim (10) as significant in expressing self-image and in structuring relationships. Bettelheim found that if children arriving in the hospital waiting room for the first time are given the freedom to choose a seat from a variey of seating options (such as a

1

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

high wooden throne set above and apart from other furniture, a comfortable couch, or a formal arrangement of chairs) the child's selection may express what the child expects the structure of the relationship with staff to be. Ruesch and Kees (61) pointed out some of the ways in which interaction in the home is controlled by the arrangement and style of the furniture. Phenomenological studies of families in their homes have drawn attention to the ways in which family members take possession of furniture, especially chairs, and may enforce regulation as to the use of their "territory" by other members (Scheflen, 64). In the field of family therapy, Behrens, Meyers et al. (7) made a number of home visits in the process of a research project to assess family structure and functioning in families with a "schizophrenic" child. One case study, in particular, clearly illustrated how furniture arrangement reflected the family's disturbed pattern of interaction: The parents, unable to respond to the child's restless behavior, avoided direct confrontation with his demands for attention; expressing this response also in their environment, most of the furniture was tied down, taped shut, or removed to the basement. Bateson, who has made similar observations on the importance of the physical environment in the family's life described the home of one of his patients as "not a house furnished to live in, but rather furnished to look like a furnished house" (6, p. 198). The shape and geometry of spaces has been shown in some studies to carry significant implications for the family. A report from the Building Research Station, London (35) notes that the shape and size of the living room are important to families, since the dimensions of the living room determine whether or not furniture can be arranged in the manner felt to be suitable to the family's accustomed pattern of interaction. During the evaluation of a community mental health center, Kaplan and McLaughlin (37) discovered that many users felt the unconventional and informal geometry of the spaces expressed an acceptance of unconventional and informal style of interaction. Bachelard makes the point that the geometry of the house provides a structural framework for our memories: "... thanks to the house, a great many of our memories are housed, and if the house is a bit elaborate, if it has a cellar and a garret, nooks and corridors, our memories have refuges that are all the more clearly delineated" (4, p. 8). Searles (65) has suggested that the nonhuman environment may be as significant in the individual's mental development and sense of identity as is social contact. Cooper (14) also has explored the thesis that the individual identifies the house as an extension of himself The plan of a dwelling-that is, the spatial relationship of rooms to each other-has been noticed by many observers to carry important interactional implications for the family. Recommendations as to how to design a suitable house plan for family living have been advocated by numerous architects and writers. The recommendations, however, frequently provide more information about the writer's assumptions as to prevailing and preferred patterns of family interaction than provide guidelines useful to a range of families. Most of the work in this area deals primarily with functional housekeeping issues.1 Field (22) suggests that a family should chart its zones of activity and zones of quiet and group them in such a way that noisy activities do not disturb more peaceful activities; Hole and Attenburrow (35) suggest that change in family size, nuclear composition, role relationships, and parent-child attitudes have serious implications for design; Gutheim (31) points out that each of his designated four stages of family life (couple, couple with children to age 12, with children 12 to 17, and after children leave home) involves significantly different life patterns, values, activities, and role relationships and that these require substantially different environmental arrangements. Alexander and Chermayeff (1) offer guidelines as to how to maximize individual privacy and privacy of the family from its neighbors in order to encourage concentration, contemplation, and self-reliance in family members. This can be achieved, they propose, by careful organization of the plan of the dwelling, placement of the windows to avoid surveillance, and the provision of buffer zones, or "locks," at the entrance to private spaces. Smith (66) discusses the interactional implications of F. Lloyd Wright's designs of open-plan houses and of Alexander and Chermayeff's house plans; she also presents information from a wide range of anthropological studies to illustrate the ways in which cultural differences in family patterns are accommodated in suitably different plan arrangements. Of special importance to the proposed study is Kennedy's book, The House and the Art of Its Design (38), which represents a synthesis of concepts from psychology, sociology, and child development within a "humanistic" approach to the design of dwellings. Yet, since Kennedy's book (1953) there has been little published that synthesizes in a similar manner the more recently developed behavioral science concepts. Kennedy looks at the family through a number of different lenses and defines those aspects of the dwelling that are most relevant in supporting particular aspects of the family. For example, he regards family members as separate individuals, each with his own age-specific needs, and discusses the relevant environmental requirements. Next, he views the family as

2

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a collection of interacting subgroups-husband and wife, parents and children-and proposes the organization of the plan in zones to reflect these patterns of family structure. A house is, first and foremost, an attempt to influence benignly its tenants' living patterns. It can foster or inhibit relationships within and between subgroups. Its power to do this lies in the fact that its plan has a great effect on the amount of privacy the family can attain, and on the ease with which its various members can get together. Inadequate provisions for privacy and communication lead to conflict, adequate provisions foster cooperation. The fundamental scheme of the house grows out of such considerations as these. A good plan reflects a family's social organization. [38, p. 105] He goes on to look at family activities and their environmental requirements, not only as observable behavior but also as meaningful inner experiences: Entering is an emotionally difficult experience. It puts many people at a disadvantage, particularly if it is for the first time. The process at best is fraught with hazards. Invisible street numbers, inimical dogs, unexpected steps, and hidden bells can make it immeasurably more difficult. Having braved and conquered such unfamiliar obstacles, the great question remains, "How will I be received here? Will they be friendly?" Most of us as we approach an unfamiliar entrance search for clues to these questions. [38, p. 157] The second half of the book deals with the design process, architect/client relationships, and a discussion of the significance of various aspects of the physical environment-style, site, structure. The final chapter, titled "Expression: The excitement of architecture is the result of analogies we make between buildings and ourselves," offers an account of the intellectual and the emotional modalities through which meaning is perceived in the environment and describes what he considers to be "powerful symbols" in the language of architecture. Since Kennedy's book, there has been little published work that exhibits a similar breadth of concern with the role of environmental settings in different aspects of family life. An increasing body of work growing out of the study of family interaction, communication, and relationship has so far not been synthesized within an architectural framework. There is considerable literature on the effects of the amount of space available, or lack of it, on family interaction. De Lauwe (17) argues that the habitable space per person in a dwelling unit has a strong effect on the levels of tension among the members of the family. Bernstein (9) suggests that levels of congestion within the household affect children's language behavior and their perceptions of their environment. Mitchell (49) indicates that congestion is directly related to family and individual stress. In a study of families who moved to smaller apartments in Vienna, the psychoanalyst Strotzka (69) found that members spent more time than before out-of-doors but that, if the outside facilities were inadequate, family members' neurotic symptoms were aggravated. In a study of families with two children occupying a two-bedroom apartment, Blood (12) found that traditionally strict families suffered no undue stress but that permissive families exhibited a high degree of tension. Other researchers have argued that crowding in a dwelling unit has demonstratably contributed to mental illness (16, 42, 79). Hall (32) found that small kitchens created problems for housewives trying simultaneously to cook and cope with children or other adults. Other studies (3, 58) have suggested that for many families the kitchen is the most important room in the house, being a place of important interaction as well as meal preparation. Kira has contributed studies of privacy requirements and bathroom design (39). There is considerable literature on human territoriality (20, 5, 13, 60) that demonstrates that individuals and groups habitually take possession of places (chairs, rooms, buildings, neighborhoods, etc.). Parr defines territory as "... a space which a person as an individual, or as a member of a close-knit group (e.g., family, gang) in joint tenancy, claims as his or their own, and will 'defend'" (54), p. 14. Smith's definition of territory, "encapsulated zones of autonomy," (66) captures the sense of individuality that may be fostered by possession of a territory. Many anthropologists and cultural historians have pointed out that the territory of the home environment was originally so important that it was considered sacred (Lord Raglan, 56). The rituals involved in building a house, similar to the rituals involved at childbirth, symbolize the creation of a new center of life and an emotional center of the universe for the forthcoming family (Eliade, 19). Kurt Lewin, in the development of field theory (44), appears to have anticipated an awareness of the relationship between families and their space. Lewin is the first behavioral scientist to discuss family members' social life in spatial terms. He describes the manner in which each member inhabits a "life space"; he discusses "overlapping life spaces" and the individual's "space of free movement" (life space uninfluenced by the overlapping of others' life space). Lewin also uses the concepts of "barriers" to refer to difficulties lying between the individual and his goals and of "outer barriers" that

3

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

constrain the individual's freedom of movement within his life space. Although Lewin uses these spatial terms primarily to refer to social processes, he appears, in our view, quite close to the next step, that is, describing their equivalents in the physical environment. While many studies have been carried out to look at use of space in the home and activity patterns-Sauer and Marshall (62), Scheflen (64)-few researchers have taken a specifically interactionist approach and looked at the influence of the home environment on role relationships and on the flow and volume of communication. Smith's analysis of how spatial arrangements structure the ways in which people become directly accessible to each other approaches some of the issues proposed here. In the field of family therapy, only a few researchers take the family's home environment into account. Jules Henry's (34) phenomenological study of families in their homes, however, includes many sensitive observations on the ways in which a family's dysfunctional pattern of interaction was reinforced by features of physical environment; Bloch (11) stresses the significance of the family's home environment for the analysis of a family's in-teractional problems. Bloch describes the family's environment as being like a painting that the family creates as an expression of itself: The physical and social space available for the family's use and display is a multidimensional canvas on which the family represents its structure, its inner world. The physical household, its contents, and the social arrangements for their use are a vast, living, and changing representation of the psycho-social life of the family. [11, p. 39] Territories require boundaries for definitions as well as for defense purposes. Smith sees boundaries primarily as barriers blocking the flow of information about the individual and preventing unlimited access: Boundaries limiting accessibility as a feature of household organization influence the ease with which persons may meet, both inside the house and outside. They limit the fullness of information about the current state of the person. [66, p. 4] Boundaries are generally thought of as walls, partitions and fences; they do not always provide a complete visual or sound barrier, but by social convention people learn to act as though they did indeed prevent all communication and do not under normal circumstances deliberately try to communicate through them (Goff-man, 30). Boundaries are not always as obvious as a wall or partition. Sometimes objects are placed around a territory to mark its boundary (Sommer, 68). Even an imaginary boundary will be recognized by owner and neighbor and treated as if it were indeed as solid as a wall.

Relationships among dwellings The decisions of the architect in designing the house, in laying out the site plan for a group of houses, determine to a large extent the nature of the group memberships which will be imposed upon the residents of the houses. When a person moves into a house, his social life and the group membership that will be attributed to him by outsiders will already have been determined to some extent by these decisions [Festinger, 21, p. 155] Research relevant to the study of relationships among families was initiated by Festinger in 1950 in his analysis of friendship patterns among students in a married student housing project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Festinger found that orientation, accessibility, functional and physical distance influence friendship patterns. A connection between proximity and friendship was reported by Form in 1951 (24) and by Whyte in 1956 (76). Gans (26) has noted great homogeneity in the communities he studied and suggests this fact to be more significant to patterns of association than environmental features. Gans also noted, however, that the physical environment of Boston's West End strongly supported the social structure and dominant life style (27). In a number of English studies, the effects of proximity on friendship patterns were investigated. Mogey's (50) study of workers living in slums showed that the close proximity of neighbors and relatives fostered frequent contacts, a deep involvement in one another's family life, and considerable closeness to the larger community of people. Studies of the formation of large and small groups on new estates in Liverpool and Sheffield (52) showed that while large-group formation depended on the existence of "issues," such as rent problems, the formation of small groups was promoted by physical proximity. Both of these studies conducted by Willmott and Young (78, 80) observed that in the slum areas where there was high density and propinquity, interaction with relatives living in the area was frequent and consistent. Wallace (72) points out that proximity may increase enmity as well as friendships and discusses the importance of designing for privacy in a neighborhood. In her study of row housing at Easter Hill Village, Clare Cooper found that families wanted more privacy from neighbors. Generally, residents felt that the streets provided greater privacy because of the screen of traffic and passing strangers, while the more secluded courts were less private, and, as a result, those residents would more often draw their shades or screens. Nevertheless, Cooper's study does show that propinquity fosters the development of friendships: 4

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The most common means by which people appeared to get to know each other when they first moved into the project was by talking with their next door neighbor while hanging out clothes or emptying garbage in the backyard, or while cutting the lawn in the front yard, or through their children. [15, p. 28] The location and orientation of the major openings (doors, windows) are shown by Festinger (21) to be important in friendship formation. Kuper (41) emphasizes the significance of the placing of the major entry and exit in friendship with neighbors. The social significance of the window is pointed out by Goffman: Windows ... may provide an opportunity for partial participation in a situation and are typically associated with an understanding that such a possibility will not be exploited. [30, p. 152] A number of writers (Gans, 27; Jane Jacobs, 36) document the role of the window in facilitating social interaction. Some of the results of the lack of social contact through windows are documented in the studies on high-rise apartment buildings: Wallace (73) shows that high-rise apartments do not allow for easy interaction through the windows and hence create problems in the supervision of small children. Not only is the child out of calling range, but the mother's anxiety is also increased by the fact that she can see if the child gets into difficulty but is too far away to give immediate assistance. Hall (33) also points out that the proliferation of unsupervised areas in high-rise apartment buildings (corridors, stairs, elevators) means that young children may often be anxious or may not be allowed to go out on their own. Reinforcing this observation, Kumove (40) indicates that children below seven years old living in high-rise apartments are more tied to their homes, though after the age of seven they become more independent than children raised in single-family homes. Moreover, it has been observed that crime and vandalism (such as was rampant in the Pruitt-Igoe housing [Rainwater, 57]): ... occur in the visually deprived semipublic interiors of buildings: the lobbies, halls, elevators and fire stairs. However, it is possible, through the relative juxtaposition of apartment windows with stairs and corridors, as well as with the outside, to ensure that all public and semiprivate spaces and paths come under continual and natural observation by the project's residents. [Newman, 53, p. 79] Where boundaries (walls and floors) are shared, as in multi-family dwellings, and do not allow for natural and pleasant interactional links between dwellings, a variety of problems have been seen to develop. More annoying than the noise made by neighbors is the feeling that residents report of not being able to be noisy themselves (Raven, 59). Willis has found that children may be prevented from making noise and feels that such constriction placed on the child may affect his mental health (77). The character of the public and semi-private territories, the function and quality of the shared facilities, and the general physical relationships between dwellings are cited by a number of researchers as significantly related to the social structure of its inhabitants and to the patterns of interaction among families. The architect Aldo Van Eyck (71), in his analysis of Dogon architecture, asserts that the relationships among buildings can be interpreted to represent the social organization of the Dogon people. Similarly, the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (43) describes how the village layout in many of the communities he studied reflected the villages' social organization. In a paper entitled, "On the Geometry of Culture, Cities and Change," (70) Sim Van der Ryn describes the geometry inherent in the social structure of the tribe, the empire, and the democracy and shows how these forms (the circle, the triangle, and the square) are reflected in the architecture of each social organization. Petonnet's study of family structures, family and social relations, values and life styles in a multi-cultural, transitional housing project clearly illustrates how the public and semi-private areas (stair-wells, doorways, basements, and public benches) were used to support a rich public and clandestine social life (55), even though the environment was not designed for that purpose. The inhabitants of Petonnet's housing project were mostly recent immigrants from African countries and still retained much of the vivacity of their native life style. To the majority of the poor housed in low-income, mass housing in this country, however, the institutional image of the public housing schemes in which they live has a more devastating effect, for it reinforces a negative self-image, sense of institutional helplessness, and separation from others that they may well associate with the vicious cycle of being poor (Newman, 53). A number of studies have been conducted on areas in city "slums" indicating that the location of facilites and arrangement of the buildings are supportive of complex and intensive sets of social relations. Gans (27) described the residents of Boston's West End as strongly person-oriented rather than goal-oriented, and deeply involved in a complex peer group society in which there was continuous mutual monitoring and reinforcement of social patterns. He found the physical environment strongly supportive of this social structure. The density was high enough for many related families to live in close proximity; the relationship of apartment windows to the street allowed people to see and to talk to each other in the street; the relationship of apartment buildings to each other allowed people to see and talk with each other in adjacent

5

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

buildings; and the location of facilities, the scattered stores throughout the neighborhood, allowed a great deal of spontaneous interaction while walking around. The studies of Young and Willmott (78, 80) and of Firth (23) indicate similarly supportive environments. In the families they studied, the social networks were multi-generational within the extended family, but the close proximity of related families within a ten-minte walk, together with the need for family members to walk through the neighborhood on shopping errands, reinforced the strong kinship structure. Fried and Gleicher propose that ... the interweaving and overlap of many different types of interpersonal contacts and role relationships, and.... the organization and concrete manifestation of these relationships within a common, relatively bounded spatial region ... [25, p. 311] are characteristics peculiar to working-class areas. Michelson (47), in a review of the literature on the sociology of the urban environment states that, in all the studies of urban ghettos, a common finding is that ... an emphasis on the life style which includes very strong, frequent and intensive interaction with a large number of relatives seems to require that they live in some arrangement of buildings, streets and open spaces (or the lack of them) that promotes the easy availability of person to person. Jane Jacobs' powerful argument (36) for the renovation of low-rise, high-density urban areas is based on similar observations. Her experience of New York's Greenwich Village showed her that a viable social milieu was supported by an environment in which people lived above their stores to a maximum of five stories, where the streets were narrow, and where open spaces were few or non-existent. In environments that follow this pattern, shopkeepers know the residents and can act as informal guardians and social facilitators, and residents know each other well enough to be neighborly. An interesting study of housing in Lagos (Marris, 45) showed that the communal, multi-family, patriarchal system common in the slums was supported by the family-sectioned compounds that families built for themselves. When this was replaced by row houses in suburbs, designed for nuclear families, residents were very upset and complained bitterly that they were not able to continue communal living. Both Marris and Berger (8) noted also that moving to the suburbs necessitated role changes. The women in the multifamily compounds in Lagos could share their home duties and thus were free to work as traders most of the time; when they moved to the new houses, they had to become housewives. Similarly, working-class wives who had previously held jobs found that moving to the suburbs prevented them from working and enforced "housewife" roles. The studies of life style in suburban settings show a very different pattern of interfamily relationships from those prevalent in the ghettos. The studies of families who moved from the slums to the suburbs (Willmott and Young, 78, 80; Mogey, 51) show that in each case their extended family interaction patterns were destroyed. These families began to develop an emphasis on the nuclear family and on the enhancement of the family's home; this focused attention on possessions, which required money, which meant work became more important. Thus, not only was the family's kinship pattern broken down but their whole value system was restructured. While a great deal of information has been gathered concerning the effects of moving to the suburbs on intra- and inter-family relations, few studies have been conducted on the influence of high-rise apartments on family life. Most early studies of high-rise apartments focused on physical and mental morbidity; Michelson (48) and Zito (81) both found a high degree of anonymity and isolation within the high rise complexes studied. In summary, the studies have tended to show a pattern of congruence (or isomorphic fit) between housing type and social interactional structure. Even when families move to a new housing type they appear to take the "path of least resistance" (Michelson, 47) and adapt their interaction to fit the new environment. Some of the problems of adjustment have been noted in these studies (Mogey, 51; Berger, 8; Gans, 28), but few researchers have turned their attention to the specific ways in which families have altered features of their physical environment to support the interactional patterns to which they are accustomed.

The Man-Environment Fit In "Notes on the Synthesis of Form" (2), Christopher Alexander proposes that the goal of the designer or architect is to achieve a fit between the "form" being designed and its "context." The relationship between "form" and "context" may be defined in a multitude of ways, depending on one's definition of these terms. In architectural terms, if the house is considered to be the "form," the "context" may be defined as the family's physical requirements or the family's network of

6

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

communications or the physical location of the site, etc. Alexander argues that the "goodness" of fit will be greater if there is seen to be a fit between "context" and "form", no matter how the "ensemble" is divided: We must also recognize that no one division of the ensemble into form and context is unique. Fitness across any one such division is just one instance of the ensemble's internal coherence. Many other divisions of the ensemble will be equally significant. Indeed, in a great majority of actual cases, it is necessary for the designer to consider several different divisions of an ensemble, superimposed, at the same time. [2, p. 17] In order to discover the degree of "internal coherence" in the ensemble of "family-in-environment," it may be useful to divide the ensemble in a number of different ways: family mode of interaction and environmental mode; family assumptions (rules) and environmental assumptions; interactional patterns and furniture layout and plan; individuals and individual spaces, etc.

CONCEPTUAL ISSUES Alexander (2) uses the term "fit" in the general meaning of "going together with," much in the way that a tie may be said to go with a suit. Our use of the term is derived from systems theory, which has contributed two concepts of particular interest and usefulness in the notion of "fit." Isomorphism refers to the similarity or analogy of shapes or patterns in a range of biosocial units (e.g., from the cell to society as a whole). Complementarity signifies that the internal structure of one unit complements or balances the internal structure of another. We use the concept of isomorphic fit to mean that both family interaction and environment exhibit similarities in shape, pattern, or form and thus achieve similar effects. By complementary fit we mean a balance of opposites between aspects of family interaction and home environment. A family may be said to "fit" its home environment isomorphically when aspects of that environment are clear expressions of the family's identity, of its members' way of relating to each other, or of its orientation to the extrafamilial world. This kind of fit is more likely to occur when a home has been designed for a family or a family has lived in it for a number of years. The home environment may be termed complementary to the family when it expresses relationship patterns, modes or styles of interaction that are opposite to those pertaining in the family. This kind of fit sometimes reflects a pattern of complementarity within the family itself or may be consciously selected by a family to balance or counteract some special feature of its family life. The home environment may be termed "non-fitting" when it is unsuited to the family's pattern of interaction, role relationships, values, etc. Lower income families, ethnic groups with minority cultural values, and families with unique family structures are more likely to have to accept living in a non-fitting environment. Brief illustrations of each kind of fit and of lack fit follow.

Isomorphic Fit Family "A" is an example of a family that lives in an isomorphically fitting environment. The family, consisting of parents and two school-age children, have few social contacts, seldom entertain or encourage friends to drop in for coffee. The children are not expected to bring friends home to play. The house they live in supports their social life  it is in an isolated neighborhood, difficult to find, and the entrance to the house is hidden. The family's strong sense of its unique family identity is expressed isomorphically by the powerful geometry of its free-standing house and the physical separation of its house from others by the high-walled and tree-lined garden. The house has an open plan, areas and territories merging into each other and overlapping with no clear boundaries between them. Individual family members have no private territory; even sleeping areas are communal. This family is extremely interdependent; its members lack a clearly defined sense of their individual identity. The family has a markedly rational intellectual mode of interaction  the parents discuss school work with their 10- and 12-year-old children, talk at mealtimes is about mathematics and physics, books and politics. The style of the house isomorphically fits the family's way of interacting  it is an ultra-modern design, based on efficiency and economy, and is constructed largely from industrial design elements. The father is the decision-making head of the household, and as such he has a stronger sense of personal identity, though he is accessible at all times to the demands of other family members. His position in the family is expressed spatially by the location of his study at the top of the house, and his accessibility is reflected in the fact that his study is actually a loft, under the same roof as, and open on three sides to, the family living and dining areas.

Complementary Fit Family "B" made the decision a few years ago to move into a house that would help to balance and enhance their way of life by providing a complementary fit for their style of interaction. There are four children ranging in age from 9 to 15. They are extremely close with a very strong sense of family identity, 7

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

interact volubly together, and are deeply involved in doing things with and for each other; yet they live in a house that has minimal family areas, and very separate, isolated, but well-equipped private rooms: they told the interviewer-observer that they thought these arrangements would aid the family to develop separate identities and generate self-reliance. Their style of interaction is emotional and sensual. They often hug or pummel each other, frequently laugh, shout and sing together. Their house provides a complementary, non-emotional background for them  it is modern, functional, monotonal in color, and texturally bland.

Non-Fit Family "C" illustrates the ways in which an environment may be non-fitting to the style of interaction and needs of the family. This family consists of the parents, their two small boys ages 3 and 5, and the father's 19- and 20-year old daughters by a former marriage. The house the family lives in was designed and built for them before the boys were anticipated, when the girls were 13 and 14. The dramatic style of the house and arrangement of rooms were moderately well suited to the original family structure but are totally non-fitting to their present needs. The kitchen is small and isolated from places where the children play, so contact between mother and children is hindered at an age when both young children seek reinforcement from parents. The boys' bedroom and playroom are on a separate floor from the rest of the house, reached up a long, straight, steep, and rather dangerous flight of uncarpeted stairs culminating in a narrow landing open to the living room but 12 feet above it. This vertiginous climb makes both boys anxious, and the older boy always insists that his brother accompany him when he goes upstairs. The living room itself is very open, high-ceilinged and oriented outward to a panoramic view through one window-wall. Yet, the mother has told us that she wishes to be able to curl up with the children and read to them; she wants a soft, cushiony place where they can romp unharmed. Yet it seems difficult to create any womb-like spaces in such a cathedral-ceilinged room. The father spends all his free time building additions and alterations to the house but still the result of this lack of fit between the environment and the family's needs results in visible stress. The mother is anxious about the children when she cannot see or hear them, and she feels that the house is dangerous. The two children are overly noisy and demanding of attention when they are with people and anxious when they are alone.

Concepts that Describe the Topography of the Environment In the study of geography, three concepts are used to describe three aspects of the topography of the land as they are relevant to man. Territory refers to a piece of land belonging to, or identified with, one people, race, or nation. Boundaries, both man-made political frontiers and natural boundaries such as mountain ranges and coast lines, not only show where one territory ends and another begins but also provide barriers that must be overcome to allow communication between territories. The orientation of a country generally refers to the direction of trade or lines of communication with another country. The following definitions of the concepts are proposed for purposes of analyzing home environments. A territory is a volume of space (such as a room or a house), the outer limits of which are defined by a boundary. A territory is identified with an individual or with a family, and is subject to his or their control. A boundary is the "skin" of a territory  it defines the outer limit of a territory and separates one territory from another. It may be a wall several feet thick, or it may be a piece of fabric, or it may be an imaginary line depending for its existence or consensus. A boundary creates a barrier of variable impenetrability that must be overcome for communication to occur. The orientation of a territory is the direction in which that territory faces. If the territory is a house, the major orientation of the house will be the direction in which the front door and the majority of windows face. If the territory is a room, the orientation will consist of the directional arrangement of the seating and the direction of the view from the window. The orientation provides the primary focus of attention outside the territory. Territories A territory can express the individual's or family's predominant mode of "experiencing" the world. If sensations are predominant, the territory may accentuate sculptural, visual, tactile qualities. If cognitive functions are valued by the family, linear and rectilinear organization of spaces and furniture may prevail. If emotions are the predominant mode of experience, colors, decorations, textures, and dramatic and romantic relationships are emphasized in the territory. A territory can express emotions or the family's basic emotional assumptions (in the sense of W. Bion). If the predominant emotions are nurturing or dependent in quality, the territory may be comfortable, inward-oriented, warm, with warm colors, soft textures. If the predominant emotions are aggressive or defensive, the materials may be impervious, cold, uncomfortable, challenging; the furniture arrangement may be oriented outward toward the boundary, the territory may provide many corners, niches, and hiding places. If the predominant emotions are anticipatory, hopeful, enthusiastic, or creatively oriented, the territory can express this through a romantic or eclectic style, a bringing together of disparate 8

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

functions and objects, a celebratory use of colors, decoration. Territories can express an individual's role in a family or the role the family feels it has in society. Equipment, or the functional aspect of the furniture and objects, will express the primary patterns of behavior of the individual or the family and, hence, will express their role. Identities, which are more than the sum of the individual's or family's roles, may be expressed by the style, in addition to the function of the territory, furniture, and equipment. Communication patterns  who interacts with whom, how much, whether in a manner that reinforces or obstructs relationships, etc.  may be expressed by the arrangement of furniture in the territory. Boundaries Every boundary may also be viewed as a resolution of a specific tension that exists between individual and family, between family and community, between community and individual. Many aspects of the nature of this resolution can be elucidated further. We suggest that two kinds of experience may be defined by boundaries in families: 1. The experience of being an individual, separate and independent (for which the supporting environmental boundary is the wall of one's room, the stairs to the rest of the house, the bookcase that separates one's desk from the rest of the family room, or the edge of the pool of light that falls on one's favorite reading chair) 2. The experience of being part of a family, interdependent, in communion with the other members of the family (for which the supporting boundary is the outer wall of the house, the garden fence, the edge of the light from the fire) Tension always exists across these boundaries  the family may want to draw the individual into participating, the individual may want to be independent. (The same tension exists between family and community.) The degree to which the individual feels inaccessible to the family (or family to the neighborhood) may be expressed in the thickness of the boundary, its degree of imperviousness, the distance from family spaces. The degree to which the individual feels accessible to the family (or family to the individual) may be expressed in these physical boundaries by the degree to which the boundary is broken by doors, windows, its proximity to family spaces, etc. The point at which this boundary can be crossed and the way in which this transition is made from one state to another may express how one experiences the inner change from being independent to being dependent, etc.  whether there is a major difference felt, whether some rituals of separation and incorporation are necessary. The threshold, the main entrance to the house, is the place at which passage between two different worlds (of experience of self and relation to others  alien to member, stranger to friend)  becomes possible. To cross the threshold is to unite oneself with a new world. The degree of ritual necessary may express the degree of difference experienced by the family between inside and outside. Separation rituals include brushing feet, removing shoes, coat, hat, washing. Incorporation rituals include shaking hands, embracing. From the outside, the boundary may also express the image of the family that the family wants to communicate to the outside. Orientation The orientation of a house can be expressive in many different ways of the family's focus of experience. Orientation can express the degree to which one looks outside oneself for stimulation and the degree to which one is open to influence from outside the immediate family system. If there are a great many large windows, one's attention may frequently be oriented toward events or objects outside the boundary of the house. Very few and tiny windows would tend to restrict one's attention to what is happening within the house. The distance of the view from the window can be expressive of how far outside the family situation one looks for stimulation and what kind of stimulation is perceived to lie outside the family. Views onto busy streets full of people may direct one's attention to social matters, mundane considerations. Great vistas across wide valleys allow one's thoughts to drift into abstract considerations. Views of trees, nature, the sky allow the changing patterns of seasons and daily rhythms to influence the experience of the family and may formulate ideas as cyclic patterns. The comparative orientation of family spaces and individual spaces to sun and view may be expressive of how the individuals feel their experience of being separate is different from their experience of being a family. If the family feels energized and forward-looking when together but isolated when alone, the family spaces may be sunny, open to a view, and the individual spaces dark and viewless. The feelings that the family has about its orientation toward its neighbors and its neighborhood may be expressed by the orientation of the front door (toward or away from the street) and in the relationship between the house itself and its neighborhood (attractive or exciting places nearby).

9

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alan Watts, in his autobiography, "In My Own Way," expresses beautifully the importance to him of the orientation of the house he lived in as a child: It is important that this magical room was on the southwest of the house, although its ornaments were Oriental, for it was here that I acquired an interior compass which led me to the East through the West. I suppose I am some sort of human sunflower, for I always want to follow the sun.... Like a moth drawn to the high, I had to go west and south, following that interior compass which was aligned by the very topography of the place in which I was born  the southest room of the house, and the southwest pleasantness of the village. Moving in that direction, I always felt elated, and returning, depressed.... Letters, excitement, friends, everything new came in by the western front door. But everything normal and regular came in by the eastern back door of the kitchen. [74, pp. 25, 29]

APPLICATION In this paper we have introduced a series of concepts we believe useful in the analysis of family/home-environment relationships and offer a series of hypotheses on aspects of family process and experience reflected in specific environmental arrangements. Our hypotheses are subject to confirmation or modification on the basis of studies whose results and methodology will be described in subsequent papers. Systematic attention to the physical aspects of family environments is much overdue. It is clear that the environment constitutes a communication modality equal in importance to linguistic, paralinguistic, or kinesic modalities. Concepts describing the relationship among these communicational modalities ("double bind," incongruence, etc.) can be enlarged to include the environment. One can, for example, consider the incongruence between parental verbal messages and home environmental messages. Examples of 'incongruous' messages abound: the parents who assign one child to a small dark room and another to a large light one while assuring both of their equal devotion and treatment; parents who punish a child for leaving toys lying around yet provide no spaces to keep them. Such incongruence within families is matched by the contradictory, if not mystifying, actions of housing agencies and county officials who promise "decent" housing for low-income families only to manifest in the choice of site, selection of building materials, size of windows, provision of space, sameness of design, etc., a contempt for the families assigned to inhabit the houses. Environmental messages may be more potent in their impact, just as paralinguistic messages are considered to take precedence over linguistic ones in that they are not made explicit and bad intent cannot be easily ascribed. They thus become more difficult to articulate, question, or oppose. The study of family life may, in our view, be illuminated by an approach that incorporates attention to the relation between family and home environment. Analysis of the family home environment may provide additional significant information in the study of disturbed families and of family members with psychological or physical impairment. Including environmental arrangements, messages, and meanings within the scope of family process analysis may yield as much incremental understanding as the "leap" from linguistic to kinesic analysis of family behavior. We also need to learn how particular home environments serve to mitigate or reduce strains in family life or contribute to improvement in the well-being of family members. The study of environments requires the development of a methodology that includes the inspection of the family's physical surroundings (photographs and drawings of plans), observations of the family's behavior within its environment, and interviews with the family as a whole and with individual members, focused on their use and reaction to their environment and conducted by investigators with clinical skills.

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10

Alexander, C. and Chermayeff, S., Community and Privacy, New York, Doubleday & Co., 1963. Alexander, C. and Chermayeff, S., Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1964. Allen, P., "Meals and the Kitchen," Housing Center Rev., 5, 14-17, 1955. Bachelard, G., The Poetics of Space, The Orion Press, 1964. Bakker, C. and Bakker-Rabdau, M., No Trespassing: Explorations in Human Territoriality, San Francisco, Chandler & Sharp Publishers, 1973. Bateson, G., Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York, Ballantine Books, 1972. Behrens, M. L., Meyers, D. I., Goldfarb, W., Goldfarb, N. and Fieldsteel, N. D., "The Henry Ittelson Center Family Interaction Scales," Genetic Psychol. Monographs, 80, 203-295, 1969. Berger, B., Working Class Suburb: A Study of Auto Workers in Suburbia, Berkeley, California, University of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

42.

11

California Press, 1960. Bernstein, B., "Some Sociological Determinants of Perception: An Inquiry Into Sub-Cultural Differences," in J. A. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language, The Hague, Mouton, 1968. Bettelheim, B., A Home for the Heart, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1974. Bloch, D. A., "The Clinical Home Visit" in D. A. Bloch (Ed.), Techniques of Family Psychotherapy, Grune & Stratton, 1973. Blood, R., "Developmental and Traditional Child-Rearing Philosophies and Their Family Situational Consequences," Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1952. Colman, A. D., "Territoriality in Man. A Comparison of Behavior in Home and Hospital," Am. J. Orthopsychiat., 38, 464-468, 1968. Cooper, C., "The House as Symbol of Self," Working Paper No. 120, May, 1971, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California-Berkeley. Cooper, C., Easter Hill Village: Some Social Implications of Design, New York, Free Press, 1975. Degroot, I., et al., "Human Health and the Spatial Environment, Mimeo, prepared for Environmental Control Administration of the Department of HEW and the American Public Health Association, 1970. De Lauwe, P. C. and de Lauwe, M. C., Famille et Habitation, Paris, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1967. Duncan, O. D., "Social Organization and the Ecosystem," in R. E. L. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of Modern Sociology, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1964. Eliade, M., The Sacred and the Profane, New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1964. Esser, A. H., Chamberlain, A. S., Chapple, E. D. and N. S. Kline, "Territoriality of Patients on a Research Ward," J. Wortis (Ed.), Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry, 7: 36-44 1965. Festinger, L., "Architecture and Group Membership," J. Soc. Issues, 7, 1 and 2, 152-163, 1951. Field, D. F., The Human House, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1939. Firth, R. (Ed.), Two Studies of Kinship in London, London School of Economics Monograph on Social Anthropology, No. 15, 1956. Form, W., "Stratification in Low and Middle-Income Housing Areas," J. Soc. Issues, 7, 1 and 2, 109-131, 1951. Fried, M. and P. Gleicher, "Some Sources of Residential Satisfaction in the Urban Slum," J. Am. Inst. Planners, 27, 4, 305-315, 1961. Gans, H., "Planning and Social Life: Friendship and Neighborhood Relations in Suburban Communities," J. Am. Inst. Planners, 27, 134-140, 1961. Gans, H., The Urban Villagers, New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Gans, H., The Levittowners, New York, Pantheon, 1967. Goffman, E., The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1959. Goffman, E., Behaviour in Public Places, New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. Gutheim, F., Houses for Family Living, New York, Woman's Foundation, 1946. Hall, E. T., "The Language of Space," J. Am. Inst. Architects, 13, 71-74, 1961. Hall, E. T., The Hidden Dimension, Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Co., 1966. Henry, J., Pathways to Madness, New York, Random House, 1965. Hole, W. V. and J. J. Attenburrow, Houses and People: A Review of User Studies at the Building Research Station, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1966. Jacobs, Jane, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York, Random House, 1961. Kaplan and McLaughlin, An Evaluation: Marin Community Mental Health Center, Unpublished paper, August 1969. Kennedy, R. W., The House and the Art of its Design, New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1953. Kira, A., The Bathroom: Criteria for Design, Ithaca, New York, Center for Housing and Environmental Studies, 1966. Kumove, L., "A Preliminary Study of the Social Implications of High-Density Living Conditions," Toronto, Toronto Soc. Planning Council of Toronto, 1966. Kuper, L., "Blueprints for Living Together," in L. Kuper (Ed.), Living in Towns, London, Cresset Press, 1953. See also Caplow, T. and R. Forman, "Neighborhood Interaction in a Homogenous Community," Am. Soc. Review, 15: 357-366, 1950, which emphasizes that it is not so much the physical distance between dwellings that is significant but rather the orientation of, and functional distance between front doors. See also, Merton, R. K., "The Social Psychology of Housing," in W. Dennis (Ed.), Current Trends in Social Psychology, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1948, which also stresses the importance of the proximity of doors in the formation of friendships. Lemkau, P., "Position Paper on Mental Health and Housing," Mimeo prepared for Environmental Control

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

12

Administration of the Department of HEW and the American Public Health Association, 1970. Levi-Strauss, C., Structural Anthropology, New York, Basic Books, 1963. Lewin, K., "The Background of Conflict in Marriage," in M. Jung (Ed.) Modern Marriage, New York, F. S. Crofts, 1940. Marris, P., Family and Social Class in an African City, Evanston, Illinois, Northwestern University Press, 1962. Michelson, W., "An Empirical Assessment of Environmental Preferences," J. Am. Inst. Planners, 32, 355-360, 1966. Michelson, W., Man and His Urban Environment, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970. Michelson, W., "The Reconciliation of 'Subjective' data on Physical Environment in the Community: The Case of Social Contact in High-Rise Apartments," Paper read at American Sociological Association Conference, New York, 1973. Mitchell, R. E., "Family Life in Urban Hong Kong," Hong Kong Urban Family Life Survey, 1969. See also "Levels of Emotional Strain in Southeast Asian Cities," Hong Kong, Urban Family Life Survey, 1969. Mogey, J., "Changes in Family Life Experienced by English Workers Moving from Slums to Housing Estates," Marr. Fam. Liv., 17, 123-128, 1955. Mogey, J. M., Family and Neighborhood, London, Oxford University Press, 1956. Mogey, J. M., Neighborhood and Community: An Enquiry into Social Relationships on Housing Estates in Liverpool and Sheffield, Liverpool, University Press of Liverpool, 1954. Newman, O., Defensible Space, New York, MacMillan, 1972. Parr, A. E., "In Search of Theory VI," Arts and Architecture, 82, 14, 1965. Petonnet, Colette, Those People: The Subculture of a Housing Project. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1973. Raglan, Lord, The Temple and the House, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964. Rainwater, Lee, "Fear and the House-as-Haven in the Lower Class," J. Am. Inst. Planners, 32, 23-37, 1966. Rainwater, L. and Handel, C., Status of the Working Class in Changing American Society, Chicago, Social Research Inc., 1961. Raven, J., "Sociological Evidence on Housing, 2: The Home Environment," Arch. Rev., 142, 236-240, 1967. Roos, P. D., "Jurisdiction: An Ecological Concept," Hum. Rel., 21, 75-84, 1968. Ruesch, J. and Kees, W., Nonverbal Communication: Notes on the Visual Perception of Human Relations, University of California Press, 1956. Sauer, L. and Marshall, D., "An Architectural Survey of How Six Families Use Space in their Existing Houses," Environmental Design Research Assn, 1972. Scheflen, A. E., How Behavior Means, New York, Gordon and Breach, 1973. Scheflen, A. E., "Living Space in an Urban Ghetto," Fam. Proc., 10, 429-450, 1971. Searles, H. F., The Nonhuman Environment, in Normal Development and in Schizophrenia, New York, International Universities Press, 1960. Smith, D., Household Ecology, Unpublished paper, University of California-Berkeley, c. 1965. Smith, D., "Household Space and Family Organization," in D. I. Davies and K. Herman (Eds.), Social Space: Canadian Perspectives, Toronto, New Press, 1971. Sommer, R., Personal Space, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969. Strotzka, H., Cited in Chapin, "The Relationship of Housing to Mental Health," Working Paper 3A for the Expert Committee on the Public Health Aspects of Housing of the WHO, Geneva, 1961. Van Der, Ryn S., "On the Geometry of Culture, Cities, and Change," Architectural Design, 43, 619-620, 1973. Van Eyck, A., "A Miracle of Moderation," in C. Jenks, and G. Baird (Eds.), Meaning in Architecture, New York Braziller, 1970. Wallace, A. F. C., Housing and Social Structure: A Preliminary Survey with Particular Reference to Multi-Story, Low Rent Public Housing Projects, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Housing Authority, 1952. Wallace, A. F. C., "Planned Privacy: What's Its Importance for the Neighborhood," J. Housing, 13, 13-14, 1956. Watts, A., In My Own Way, New York, Pantheon, 1972. Werthman, C., et al., "Planning and the Purchase Decision: Why People Buy in Planned Communities," University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development Research Reprint No. 10, 1965. Whyte, W., The Organization Man, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1956. Willis, M., "Living in High Flats," London, County Council, 1955. Willmott, P. and Young, M., Family and Class in a London Suburb, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969. Wilner, D. M. and Baer, W. G., "Sociocultural Factors in Residential Space," Mimeo prepared for Environmental Control Administration of the Department of HEW and the American Public Health Association, 1970. Young, M. and Willmott, P., Family and Kinship in East London, London, Routledge and Kegan, Paul 1960.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

81.

Zito, J., "Social Ecology of an Urban High-Rise Complex," Unpublished paper, 1975.

Reprint requests should be addressed to Suzanne H. Crowhurst, Ph.D. Center for Policy Research, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, N.Y. 10027. 1One significant tradition in architectural literature is the book of house plans, which explains the function advantages to the

family of each plan type. An early version of this is: Gibson, L. H., Convenient Houses: With Fifty Plans for the Housekeeper, New York, Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1889.

13

Architecture: effect of territory, boundary, and orientation on family functioning.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Fam Proc 16:49-66, 1977 Architecture:...
57KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views