Place Attachment and the Value of Things

During class today two of my classmates presented on the topic of Place Attachment and the Value of Things.  It was an intriguing presentation and I really enjoyed our class discussion today.

According to our lesson, place attachment “is a set of feelings about a geographic location that emotionally binds a person to that place as a function of its role as a setting for experience.” Many of us are attached to places that have meaning to us.   Some of my places, past and present, for example are my parent’s home in Augusta, GA, the dogwood tree in the front yard that I could be found in almost every single day until the sun came down, and the back bar of my favorite pub.

Factors of Place Attachment:

• Time spent in the space with family/friends
• Familiarity (ex. finding light switches in the dark; it’s second nature)
• Routines and Rituals anchors people to their environments.
• Privacy allows us to be at ease
• Territoriality provides freedom for expression
• Personalization allows us to express our own style
• Possessions represent memories and can provide a sense of belonging

Do any of you have a routine unique to a certain place? Where I’m currently living temporarily, I have a few small routines.  For example, when I come home… I unlock the door, immediately place my keys in the basket right next to the door, close the door behind me and lock it. Then I take my purse or bag and place it on the same chair in the dining area.  After I do this, I walk towards the back of the condo, taking my coat off if I am wearing one and if I am I lay it on the bed, and then I come back to the front of the condo to get a drink from the kitchen.  I’ve noticed this that I usually do this without fail.  I imagine once I move into a place of my own that I will develop stronger routines – I will also have the benefit of several other factors!

Object attachment is an emotional attachment to someone or something in the environment.  Objects can have no meaning to somebody and be very meaningful to another.  Objects obtain meaning by several means including acquiring (a gift), associating (it’s associated with a person, place, event, etc.), perceiving, making,and self-presenting.  It’s interesting to note that possessions are not only utilitarian but are also a means of communication with oneself or others because they can convey information.  This information may be read as either positive or negative.  House forms, interior decoration and personal possessions are mediums enabling people to articulate their interpretation of their identity.

And what’s with the picture from Pixar’s movie “Up?” Well, during class today we watched a small clip from the movie that helped reinforce what we learned about the factors of place attachment.  It was so interesting to see it included in the movie – it was also torturous, too, because I’ve never seen the whole movie.  I plan to rent it very soon though!

Sources:

Caplan, R. (2005) The Way Things Mean. By Design: Why there are no locks on the bathroom doors in the Hotel Louis XIV and other object lessons, 2nd Edition. New York: Fairchild Publications. 51-79.

Herring-Dar, B. (1993) A Preliminary Study of the Process of Object Meaning, EDRA 24 Proceedings. Edmonton, OK: Environmental Design Research Association.

Lawrence, R.J. (1987). Social, Spatial and Temporal Factors. In M. Taylor and J. Preston (Eds.) (2006) Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Up movie (image)

Filed under: Theory, interior design, object attachment, object meaning, place attachment, possessions, the value of things

Ecological & Restorative Theory

For class, my classmate Ashley and I partnered up to discuss Ecological and Restorative Theory.  I was happy to present on the topic because I honestly didn’t know much about it.  I’d like to present some of the topics we presented to our class and what I found particularly interesting.

Despite the fact that we are facing increasing environmental problems, we continue to behave in ways that are damaging to our own health and to the planet.  It is argued by many that our disconnection with the natural world may be contributing to our planet’s destruction. Global warming, pollution, species extinction and other environmental problems do not just happen.  Arguments of Global Warming aside, the point is this: human beings release chemicals into the land, air, and water every minute of the day and most of us do it without any thought of possible consequences.

The fact that people do not always behave environmentally does not necessarily mean they are not concerned. Although many people are aware of and care about environmental problems, this just isn’t always reflected in their behavior.  In an effort to understand this discrepancy, psychologists have examined the…

• Motivation,
• Attitudes
• Values
• and Beliefs

…of why some people engage in environmentally responsible behavior and why others do not.

Arguments exist stating that humans possess an innate need to affiliate with other living things. The biophilia hypothesis attempts to explain the human desire to relate to the natural environment. Humans began living in cities, separated from the natural world, relatively late in our history.  It is considered unlikely that we have erased all the learning about nature’s value embedded in our biology.  Evidence of the biophilia hypothesis lies in the popularity of outdoor wilderness activities and our fondness for natural scenery. Despite this evident attraction, there is considerable variability in the extent to which individuals are drawn to nature.

The understanding of our interconnectedness with the earth and sense of inclusion in nature is often referred to as our ecological identity or ecological self.  The easiest way to explain this is that damage to the planet is seen as damage to the self.

The Importance of Nature

Benefits of nature date back centuries and crosses all cultures.  The use of nature as a healing mechanism has only recently been applied to the healthcare environment because healthcare is becoming much more patient centered.  Researchers have discovered that environmental features can play a significant role in health outcomes by:

• Reducing anxiety
• Lowering blood pressure
• Lessening pain
• Shortening hospital stays

Ecological restorative theory is an emerging study, so researchers are searching for sound and credible information that proves gardens as an efficient and cost effective way to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction.  However, it is believed that nature helps health outcomes by providing restoration from stress.  Stress is typically an outcome itself and can affect other outcomes as well.

Unfortunately, stress is considered a major problem in healthcare.  Patients, visitors and staff can all suffer from stress, sometimes due to the physical environment itself.  Hospitals are usually thought of as uncomfortable and unpleasant, which can add additional stress.  How many of you feel that hospitals are unpleasant?  I’ll admit that I typically find the environment within a hospital uncomfortable and bland aesthetically.  Typically I’m overwhelmed by how dreary and dated the environment feels… and that only makes me want to get out of there as soon as possible!

Sources:

Dancoff, J. (2000) Healthy Seniors: Gardening for Health. Retrieved from <http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1738.50891&gt;

Marcus, C. C., Barnes, M., & Ulrich, R. (1999). Effects of Gardens on Health Outcomes: Theory and Research. In Healing gardens. John Wiley and Sons.

Nisbet, Elizabeth K., John M. Zelenski, and Steven A. Murphy. “The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior.” Environment and Behavior 41.5 (2008): 715-40. SAGE Publications. Web. <http://online.sagepub.com&gt;.

Zeisel, John. “Treatment Effects of Healing Gardens for Alzheimer’s: A Difficult Thing to Prove.” Edinburgh Garden Paper: 1-6. Print.

Filed under: Environment, Theory, Architecture, biophilia hypothesis, ecological theory, healing gardens, interior design, landscape design, restorative theory

Community, Interaction, and Gathering Spaces

Truth be told that I didn’t really know much about Social Justice before covering it in our class.  I found the topic really interesting and thought Ashley and Ashley (yes, there’s two of them!) did a good job presenting the topic.

Defining Social Theory

Social theory is the use of a theoretical framework to study and interpret social phenomena and social relationships.  Social justice and interior design focuses on the ways in which social exclusions are performed in relationship to the built environment and works to create interior spaces that enhance the qualities of spatial experience for all people.

Incorporating social justice into the design process may seem like one more item on an already lengthy to-do list, but the reality is that most projects already involve social components.  Accomplishing social justice isn’t a matter of changing everything about a design but rather adjusting the way we look at the design decisions we make.

Ways to incorporate Social Justice into Interior Design

• Getting the community’s opinion
• Choosing the right location
• Considering the physical form and shape of the building
• Considering exterior elements added (tree, benches, etc.)
• Specifying sustainable materials with social equity values
• Building the project and increasing local jobs

I found it really interesting that in American culture, in contrast to European culture, does not emphasize community.  I’ve never really noticed before, but after thinking on it for a little bit, I think that that’s a fairly accurate statement.  Evidence is cited in our new urban developments and suburbs that are fragmented and disconnected from our neighbors and the the rest of the community.  “Suburban dwellers are bored, isolated, preoccupied with material things: large homes, yards, and cars.”

One solution is the Third Place (something Starbucks strives to be for almost every human being it seems).  These places support and provide for social interaction and celebration of community – which is considered an integral part o a healthy and full life.

Sources:

McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of Community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14 (1), 6-23.

Oldenburg, R., & Ph.D, R.O. (1999). The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community (3rd ed.). Da Capo Press.

Sarason, S.B. (1974). Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology. Proquest Info & Learning.

Filed under: Theory, community, gathering spaces, interior design, social justice

Applying Queer Theory + Feminist Theory to Environments

Queer Theory is relatively new (within the past 20 years or so) and, in my opinion, quite the complex subject. What I basically gathered from our readings in class is that we don’t fully know what queer theory is.  As designers we understand that it these difference make an impact on how a person perceives an environment, but there isn’t a pattern or prescriptive design titled “queer” because it doesn’t exist (nor should it).

“Queer theory is a set of ideas based around the idea that identities are not fixed and do not determine who we are. It suggests that it is meaningless to talk in general about ‘women’ or any other group, as identities consist of so many elements that to assume that people can be seen collectively on the basis of one shared characteristic is wrong. Indeed, it proposes that we deliberately challenge all notions of fixed identity, in varied and non-predictable ways.”

The appeal of “queer theory” has outstripped anyone’s sense of what exactly it means.  The term “queer” focuses on mismatches between sex, gender and desire.  Institutionally, queer has been associated with most prominently with lesbian and gay subjects, but its analytic framework also includes such topics as cross-dressing, hermaphroditism, gender ambiguity and gender-corrective surgery.

“Queer is always an identity under construction, a site of permanent becoming: utopic in its negativity, queer theory curves endlessly toward a realization that its realization remains impossible…. Queer is not outside the magnetic field of identity.  Like some postmodern architecture, it turns identity inside out, and displays its supports exoskeletally.” (Jagose 1996)

(Pompidou)

We can no longer says that women need “x,y,z” and men need “1,2,3” – there are no rules.  Our designs should be based off of user-based needs which are unique to each individual.

Sources:

Agrest, D.; Conway, P.; and Weisman, L.K. (1996) Introduction. The Sex of Architecture. New York: Harry Abrams. 11-13.

Jagose, A. (1996) Queer Theory. Australian Humanities Review. Retrieved from http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-Dec-1996/jagose.html

Filed under: Theory, feminist, gay, homosexual, interior design, lesbian, queer theory

Masculine and Feminine Perspectives

For class, my classmate Heather and I partnered up to discuss Gender Theory & Environments: Masculine and Feminine Perspectives.  I’ve always been interested in gender differences and how they relate to design, so I was thrilled we actually got to present on the topic.  In this blog post, I’d like to present some of the information we covered, particularly what I found to be especially interesting.

“In the 19th century the private interior space of the middle-class home was increasingly defined as feminine territory, the antithesis of the public, external world of work peopled by men.  Within the domestic arena, however, the key rooms tended to be further grouped to either side of a male-female divide.”

The middle-class culture that came about in Britain and America as a result of urbanization, industrialization, and strong economic growth imagined itself as existing in two complementary, but separate spheres: the public and the private. These spheres were roughly commensurate with binary gender distinctions. The public sphere belonged to men: it was the sphere of business and money-making, of politics and empire building, of industry and struggle. The private sphere, on the other hand, was considered to be a feminine preserve: it was the space of the home and the hearth, of sympathy and nurture, of simple piety and child-rearing.

Within the private home, rooms begin to take on gender identities as well.  For both masculine and feminine, each room-type was minutely codified in terms of its function, contents and décor.

• Masculine Rooms included the hall, library, business, billiard and smoking rooms.  The characteristics of such spaces were serious, substantial, dignified (but not ostentatious) and dark toned.
• Feminine Rooms included the boudoir, music room, morning room and bedroom and were characterized as lighter or colorful, refined, delicate and decorative.

The next generations of women in the modern period were the suffragettes of the first two decades and then the flappers of the twenties. This was a period when women finally saw the political implementation of a number of equal-rights issues, particularly the vote.  The Jazz Age of the twenties followed, a time when women began to rebel against earlier conventions for proper female behavior, a rebellion exemplified in both changing fashions and changing manners (smoking, drinking, sexual experimentation, etc.).

Also of importance at the end of the nineteenth century is the rise of the New Woman as a recognizable type. The “New” Woman saw herself as overturning a number of the stereotypes associated with the “old” Victorian model for femininity: the New Woman is intellectual (as opposed to emotional); quite public (as opposed to private and domestic); active (as opposed to passive); and, in most cases, non-reproductive (as opposed to maternal). She caused a stir not only because she rejected the traditional female role but also because she seemed to appropriate a male one.

Sources:

Allen, Emily and Dino Felluga. “General Introduction to Theories of Gender & Sex.” Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. February 3, 2010. <http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/genderandsex/modules/introduction.html&gt;

Kinchin, J. (1996). Interiors: Nineteenth-Century Essays on the ‘Masculine’ and the ‘Feminine’ Room.  In M. Taylor and J. Preston (Eds.) (2006) Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader.  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

Filed under: Environment, Environment, feminine, gender, interior design, masculine

Designing Work Place Environments

In class we recently discussed the design of office environments and how they impact us.  “Current office planning concepts have developed over a long period from the time that people first organized themselves into business units.  Thus, observation of historical trends in working practices and workplace environments is a good starting point for developing an appreciation of how social and technological change impacts working patterns.”

I found it really interesting to learn that during the early 1800’s, “There was no distinction between an office building and a domestic building – the first offices were simply rooms in parts of a house, with the rooms designated as places where work was done.  If the business expanded, more of a house was taken over and used as office space and logically, it is possible to conclude that entire houses would sometimes become buildings dedicated to offices rather than dwelling places.”

(Right Click + View Image to enlarge; 1. Bullpen Layout 2. “Office Landscape” 3. Action Office 4. Cube Farm 5. Networking)

From the early 1900’s  to 1950, management thinking lead to Taylor’s scientific theory of office management.  His management principles were based on the concept of a machine the principles of running a complex organization.  Taylor’s principle layout became known as the bullpen layout and made it possible for supervisors to keep a close watch on employees as they worked as they were seated in an open space with zero partitions and were strictly confined to their job.

The second image above is from Wired magazine and depicts the evolution of office spaces and how they reflect changing attitudes toward work.  We’ve gone from being workers cramped together in a completely open environment (while bosses looked on from private offices) to a new class of employee being created “too important for a mere desk but too junior for a window seat. Facilities managers accommodated them in the cheapest way possible, with modular walls. The sea of cubicles was born.”  In the last decade, furniture designers have begun to redesign the cube farms of past “with movable, semi-enclosed pods and connected desks whose shape separates work areas in lieu of dividers.”

Many of us have worked in an office environment at one time or another during our lives. Naturally our needs within these spaces vary, but researchers have narrowed down some essential factors:

• Territory – we’re territorial beings.  We personalize our spaces with photographs, lamps, etc. We like knowing that we are going to sit in the same spot everyday and find our things there. It’s comforting to us.
• Privacy – either real or perceived – is essential in the office environment.  The right amount of privacy can increase worker productivity (due to limited distractions) and a sense of security as well.
• Community – the majority of us crave privacy and the office setting is no exception.  However, we don’t want so much privacy that we feel isolated from other employees.

As designers we should keep these needs in mind as space plan offices that are functional, effective, productive and flexible working areas that optimize the use of the space within the constraints of the buildings and the offices.

Sources:

Designing for Human Behavior http://designingforhumanbehavior.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/office-space/

Wired Article http://www.wired.com/print/culture/design/magazine/17-04/pl_design

Filed under: Environment, corporate environment, interior design, office, office space planning

Cultural Approaches to Environmental Design

What is culture?

Culture is a term used by social scientists to describe a people’s whole way of life.  To social scientists a people’s culture consists of all the ideas, objects, and ways of doing things created by the group.  Culture consists of learned ways of acting, feeling, and thinking, rather than biologically determined ways.

Cultural Studies of Space

Consider types of environments.  The examples used are usually of housing (in the broad sense of systems of settings for living, including neighborhoods, their urban spaces, other setting types, etc.).   This is because the role of culture there is particularly strong.  Moreover, a large number of these examples tend to be of traditional and vernacular where the role of culture is stronger still.  In this sense, these become model systems for studying culture-environment interaction.

But does culture play a potential role in other types of environments, i.e. the non-residential environment?  In the case of universities, airports, scientific laboratories or even office buildings, the role of culture may be minimal or even non-existent.  According to Amos Rapoport, this raises another issue.  If, for some reason, one wants non-residential environments to express cultural identity, what physical elements would do so?

In non-residential environments, culture plays less of an important role in design.  Whereas in residential environments, culture becomes increasingly more important as the environment becomes more intimate.

“Travel, for me, is an adventure,” Wolf says. “I like very primitive places, I love the sense of exploring cultures that are very different from ours. It’s a way that I have expanded my vision of design by experiencing and understanding how other people live and communicating with them. If you don’t know or you haven’t experienced something, it’s difficult to work with materials and items that have come from those places. It’s very foreign because you don’t feel the dirt, you don’t feel its origin. You have to be immersed  in the culture so you can add to your personality, your range of vision.”

There is another statement that interior designer Vicente Wolf made once about his inspiration for his interiors. He remarked that he wasn’t inspired by cities from all over the world, with globalization in place, he said, “they all look the same.”

Is it possible that culture is disappearing?  During class we discussed several reasons why and how this could be possible.  First,the modern architecture movement brought interiors and buildings that embraced the removal of ornament and detail in favor of a stark aesthetic.  My classmate, Ashley, says it really well in her journal entry:

“Color, a large communicator of culture was also removed, in place of white, which spoke of order and cleanliness. Culture was replaced with the International Style, a modern style of architecture which could be found anywhere, as it speaks of no particular culture or style, which it was said to transcend. Though this stark modern style did not take over, many elements of this style still exist today. It supplies somewhat of a blank canvas, appealing to all, as it speaks of none in particular; a removal of cultural identity.”

Second, we travel much more than we used to and are able to easily move from place to place.  As a result, cultures have begun to merge or blend together – a prime example of this is the United States of America long nicknamed “the melting pot” because of the many varieties of cultures that exist here.  However, some say that the USofA, in fact, has no culture.

Sources:

Vicente Wolf Quote found here.

Day, K. and Cohen, U. (2000, May) The Role of Culture in Designing Environments for People with Dementia: A Study of Russian Jewish Immigrants. Environment and Behavior, 23 (3), 361-400.

Pultar, M. (1997) A Structured Approach to Cultural Studies of Architectural Space.  In S.M. Unugur, O. Hacihasanoglu and H. Turgut, Eds. Culture and Space in the Home Environment: Critical Evaluations and New Paradigms. Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University, 27-32.

Rapoport, A. (2008, March) Some Further Thoughts on Culture and Environment. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research (2) 1: 16-39.

Filed under: Theory, Architecture, culture, interior design, vicente wolf

Personal Thoughts on Home and Identity

(This makes me smile.)

I’ve really enjoyed reading individual perspectives and the different theories about home and identity.  For years I’ve been a fervent believer that my home is an extension of who I am as a person.  Many of you may agree that your home is a place where you feel a sense of identity and ownership, be it the entire dwelling or certain spaces within, and this is something that I’ve often felt I needed in life.  My idea of home and identity hasn’t changed much over the years, but I am beginning to notice a slight shift in ideals.  My best example of this is my lay-off in late 2008.  I was laid off from my full-time design position and, six months later, forced to pack my belongings and move back into my parent’s home in Augusta, GA, some 2.5 hours away, for lack of funds and options.  This was the first time I’d been under their roof since 2004 and it was quite the transition. Though, admittedly, not the end of the world.

Despite being back in the room where I had lived for over a decade growing up, I didn’t feel any ownership whatsoever.  I was in the same room, but it had changed a lot since I lived there.  At the same time, I felt like I had no right to change my environment to feel more like “me” because it wasn’t my home.  I kept up this attitude for a few months – until finally caving and replacing my mother’s framed photographs with some of my art.   I made a few small alterations beyond that, but still couldn’t get the place to feel like home for me.  Perhaps this is because, deep down, I knew it was only temporary.  Perhaps it’s also because many of my belongings remained packed away in boxes in the garage because there was no where to put them. I was using a dresser that didn’t belong to me, a nightstand that I gave away years ago, and sleeping on a bed that also wasn’t mine.  The main piece of furniture that I owned in the room was my desk.  Still, I had privacy and, if I really wanted to, I could change my surroundings.  My mother would have understood completely.

Today, I’m in a similar situation.  I was accepted into SCAD-Atlanta a mere 3.5 weeks before the quarter started and failed to find a home of my own in time.   Sometimes things happen a lot faster than you want them to! Once again, I am residing somewhere temporarily.  This time, however, I don’t even have my own room…  I now have limited privacy, absolutely zero control over the appearance of my environment, and even less of my belongings with me.  Still, I have my desk and computer.

In some ways I have to agree with Barry S. Fogel who writes in his “Psychological Aspects of Staying at Home” that there are specific benefits of home, including: independence, privacy, and control over physical features of the home environment.  When I made my move back to my parent’s home, I also felt that I had lost my benefits related to Atlanta – including my social network of friends, access to interior design events and certain communities that just didn’t exist in Augusta, Ga.  Now that I have returned to Atlanta, I’ve regained those benefits, but lost some essential basics of privacy and control.

At the same time, however, through this experience I can also feel my perspective shifting.  I like the essay “Home: Territory and Identity” by J. Macgregor Wise, particularly the statement: “Home is not an originary place from which identity arises.  It is not the place we ‘come from;’  it is a place we are.  Home and territory: territory and identity.”  It’s been almost a year since I’ve seen all of my belongings.  I often forget what’s really packed away in those boxes.  I wonder if, when I finally have a place of my own again and am unpacking my boxes, if I will still feel a connection to my possessions or not. Or, will I not feel a connection to my new home until my belongings are unpacked and with me?

Sources:

Fogel, Barry S. (1992, Spring) Psychological Aspects of Staying at Home. Generations 16(2), 15-19.

Wise, J.M. (2000). Home: Territory and Identity. In M. Taylor and J. Preston (Eds) (2006) Intimus: Interior Design Theory Reader. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

[Image: Bob’s Your Uncle]

Filed under: Environment, Home, Indentity, interior design, Territory

Class Fieldtrip: Marcel Breuer Exhibit

Marcel  Breuer

I’ve, admittedly, been a fan of Marcel Breuer’s furniture designs for several years now.  So, imagine my delight when I learned that our class was to take a field trip to the Marcel Breuer exhibit at MODA! Finally, I was going to get to go!

The exhibit was small, but very interesting as it traced Breuer’s career evolution from a furniture and interior designer to an architect and called to attention his creativity in all three areas.  We are reminded of Marcel Breuer’s contribution to Modernist architecture with his bold experimentation with forms and materials, particularly tubular steel.  On display were many of his chairs, including the Wassily (pictured above).  I really enjoyed seeing his furniture designs up close and personal – in a setting where I could really study it for a few minutes without looking silly.

I’m not always a big fan of his buildings, particularly because I’m not huge on crystalline forms… but I am, however, one of the first 30 people on the petition to save his library from being torn down here in Atlanta.

[Image: Architectural Record]

Filed under: Field Trip, Architecture, Furniture Design, interior design, Marcel Breuer

Proxemics, Personal Space and Territory

[To Enlarge Image: Right Click + View Image]

Proxemics

I’ve always found the study of proxemics rather interesting.  The idea that body spacing and posture acting as unintentional reactions to sensory fluctuations or shifts is intriguing from a design standpoint. According to Edward T. Hall, the man who coined the term “proxemics,” social distance between people is reliably correlated with physical distance, as are intimate and personal distance, according to the following delineations:

• Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering ranges anywhere between 6 to 18 inches or even closer.

• Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family memebers ranges anywhere from 1.5 feet to 4 feet.

• Social distance for interactions among acquaintances ranges anywhere from 4 to 12 feet.

• Public distance used for public speaking ranges anywhere from 12 to 25 feet.

However, it’s important to note that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. Comfortable personal distances depend not only on culture, but also the social situation, gender, and individual preference.  Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large (“stand-offish”) or too small (intrusive).

Personal Space

Personal Space should not be confused with personalization, which is the marking of places.  Personal space changes depending on culture, upbringing, relationship to the individual and expectations.  Essentially, we have an invisible boundary that allows us to be comfortable because intruders may not enter.  Oftentimes this invisible boundary is perceived to be similar to an aura, but it’s not necessarily spherical in shape, nor does it extend equally in all directions. (Which makes perfect sense when you think about it.)

Territory

Human beings are territorial animals and like to protect and control their space. Have you ever felt angry when you re-entered a room and found “your” seat taken by someone else? Have you felt offended when a relative or friend entered your room without knocking or when you discovered them pawing through your cabinets? The territories we stake a claim to  give us a sense of permanence and control. When that territory is invaded without permission, feelings of loss and anger are typically the result. People value their privacy and personal territory.  I don’t know about you, but if I were to find someone going through my desk, I’d freak out.  Depending on the situation, I may be angry, frustrated, or even hurt that my privacy was invaded.  Also, I do get annoyed when some takes “my seat” when I only left for a few minutes to throw something away or use the restroom.

The 4 Basic Characteristics of Territory include:

1. The ownership or of rights to a place
2. Personalization – the marking of an area; through photographs or objects
3. The right to defend against intrusion
4. The service of several functions ranging from the meeting of physiological needs

For us, territorial control is important because it fulfills several basic human needs: identity, stimulation, security, and provides a frame of reference.

– – – – – – – – –

Also, on a side note, with all this talk about proxemics I have “Don’t Stand So Close To Me” by The Police stuck in my head!

Sources:

Lang, J. (1987). Privacy, Territoriality and Personal Space – Proxemic Thoery.  Creating Architectural Theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in design.  New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 145-156.

Wikipedia

[Image: Wikipedia]

Filed under: Environment, Theory, defensible space, interior design, privacy, territoriality