SE562-ENVIRONMENT BEHAVIOR RESEARCH

HEIDI KORSAVONG

November 19, 2012

Mini Paper: Private and Public Space

The nature of power is complex and its application can be interpreted in numerous ways.  Power and how it relates to designers, architects, and scholars with relation to private and public space lies in examining social norms and the language used to define it.  It can be a strong tool for manipulation and employed on both micro and macro scales.  In three articles on private and public space, I will examine how power is used to control and frame perceptions of occupants in their space.

In, People Who Live in Glass Houses: Edith Farnsworth, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and Philip Johnson, Friedman chronicles the events surrounding the conception and construction of the Farnsworth House, an iconic architectural work by Mies van de Rohe.  The home was designed in 1960 and conceived as a modern glass structure.  The client, Edith Farnsworth, an unmarried doctor in her mid forties, commissioned the home as a weekend retreat.  What is architecturally unique about the building is its thin, transparency curtain wall.  The openness of the structure draws attention the private space: and inner activities of the occupant.

Mirroring the physical transparency of the building, the different structures of power at work against the client, Edith Farnsworth also became exposed.  First, the client found herself at the mercy of the architect’s vision.  He was unconcerned with her programmatic needs and what she actually needed to live functionally and presented her with essentially an open plan, arguing that it was a demonstration of minimalism. In this case power is gained by positioning design decisions as a “choice between taste and mediocrity.”[i]  Using the form of the structure rather than any sensitivity to human activity resulted in a lifeless space devoid of any personalization and what Proshansky termed as place identity: a physical realization of one’s sense of identity and place in the world.

In addition to the uneven distribution of power between the client and architect, the glass structure revealed the  friction between the client’s lifestyle and socially acceptable norms of that era.  Being unmarried and without children, Farnsworth became the victim of public judgment.  The fact that the client was able to commission her own home is ironic because it is in keeping with the 1940s idea of success, but the fact that she was an unmarried woman, the popular sentiment at that time was that she, “forfeited her place, both physical and symbolic, within American Society.”  The concept of voyeurism was also brewing at the  was also catching on with the popularity of TV as a medium for consumption by disrupting the traditional divisions between the public and private spheres.  The glass walls of the Farnsworth home, sparked public interest and curiosity and allowed little control over the public gaze.

In, “Introduction: The Global and the Intimate,” authors Geralding Pratt and Victoria Rosner use feminism to cast light on the power of language at work in defining “global” and “intimate.”  Traditionally, these two terms are thought to be in on two ends of the spectrum and can be used as a way to exclude.  However, the authors argue that these terms are in fact intertwined and politics can be a motivating factor in having them be in opposition to one another.

When discussing the global sphere impersonal, abstract terminology is used.  The idea is that it is meant to be ungendered, which is assumed to embody the male persona.  Global terms cover concepts such as economics, globalization, and capitalism.  Here women are portrayed as passive bystanders, or even worse as victims in globalization scenarios.  By contrast, the inimate realm embodies traditionally feminine associations of the body, emotion, and attachment.  The authors point out that applying these associations to more global terms can help paint a more comprehensive picture.  Emotion can be a strong tool for analysis.  In binary opposition, objectivity is given over in favor of comprehension. Abstract terminology and language can only provide a framework, but cannot encompass individual experience.  Furthermore, using intimate terms has often been given negative connotations as a way of positioning and legitimizing restructuring policy.

Finally, in Putting the Public Back into Public Space,  Kurt Iveson discusses four models of public space: the ceremonial, the community, the liberal, and the multipublic. The ceremonial model of public space encompasses the conventional notion of public squares.  The spaces are embued with a processional quality and are thought to be state owned and provided to the public.  In this model, the agenda of the state is to encourage people to gather, but to always maintain some level of control over their socialization.  In the community model of space, the space is thought to be designated for the public to encourage community participation and attendance.  The success of the community model of public space lies in its effectiveness of providing the community with what it needs.  Typically, it is placed in a centralized location and embodies and individual’s positive place identity requirements: by fulfilling individual needs, rights, and meaning.  The liberal model of public space is conceived to be a multifunctional space where rational discourse and diversity are encouraged. Private individuals are thougth to come together and form this public space.  Iveson’s criticism of this is that the ideals set up in the liberal model of public space are in fact exclusionary because only the participants interests are represented as they will ensure their needs are met before others.  The last model Iveson examines is the multi-public model of public space.  He calls for the existence of a number of publics that are adaptable and mutable and will arise to accommodate a diverse group of publics.  It is in these models that power is achieved through perception and application.  those who own or indabit the space are able to control it.

In the case of my research question, language and perception are there key tools to the discussion of power.  For instance, there is not a single agreed upon definition of sustainablity.  The question is who defines it and what rules and regulation should follow it.  A common language and set of principles is needed to study and organize this framework. The private and public sphere are both affected by setting up these guidelines.  In my case, I am focusing on local artisans and small businesses.  It is on a small scale, with very little global impact.  However, within this microcosm there is a large potential to influence artisans to adopt sustainable practices in the materials they use and the waste from their production processes.  The obstacles to this are many as it is difficult to regulate and standardize.  Additionally, these guidelines need to be flexible or broad enough to adapt to each product. Finally, economics also comes into question.  By adopting sustainable pracices, do these small businesses and artisans gain a significant financial advantage?  Is their customer even interested in this shift?  Can you motivate change even if there is very little financial incentive?