‘Discuss the relationship between edifice, home and the impression of ‘home, ‘ pulling on ethnographic illustrations, ‘
‘Discuss the relationship between edifice, home and the impression of ‘home, ‘ pulling on ethnographic illustrations, ‘
Understanding edifice as a procedure enables architecture to be considered as a signifier of material civilization. Procedures of edifice and home are interconnected harmonizing to Ingold ( 2000 ) , who besides calls for a more centripetal grasp of brooding, as provided by Bloomer and Moore ( 1977 ) and Pallasmaa ( 1996 ) who suggest architecture is a basically tactile experience. A true dwelt position is hence established in appreciating the relationship between brooding, the impression of ‘home ‘ and how this is enframed by architecture. We must believe of brooding as an basically societal experience as demonstrated by Helliwell ( 1996 ) through analysis of the Dyak Longhouse, Borneo, to enable us to harbor a true grasp of infinite devoid of western ocular prejudice. This prejudice is found within traditional histories of life infinite ( Bourdieu ( 2003 ) and Humphrey ( 1974 ) ) , which do nevertheless show that impressions of place and later infinite are socially specific. Life activities associated with home ; sociality and the procedure of homemaking as demonstrated by Miller ( 1987 ) let a impression of place to be established in relation to the ego and tactile architectural experience. Oliver ( 2000 ) and Humphrey ( 2005 ) demo how these relationships are apparent in the failures of reinforced architecture in Turkey and the Soviet Union.
When discoursing the construct of ‘building ‘ , the procedure is twofold ; ‘The word ‘building ‘ contains the dual world. It means both “ the action of the verb physique ” and “ that which is built ” … both the action and the consequence ‘ ( Bran ( 1994:2 ) ) . With respects to edifice as a procedure, and handling ‘that which is built ; ‘ architecture, as a signifier of material civilization, it can be likened to the procedure of doing. Building as a procedure is non simply enforcing signifier onto substance but a relationship between Godhead, their stuffs and the environment. For Pallasmaa ( 1996 ) , the creative person and craftsmen engage in the edifice procedure straight with their organic structures and ‘existential experiences ‘ instead than merely concentrating on the external job ; ‘A wise designer works with his/her full organic structure and sense of ego… In originative work… the full bodily and mental fundamental law of the shaper becomes the site of work. ‘ ( 1996:12 ) . Buildings are constructed harmonizing to specific thoughts about the existence ; incarnations of an apprehension of the universe, such as geometrical comprehension or an grasp of gravitation ( Lecture ) . The procedure of conveying constructions into being is hence linked to local cultural demands and patterns. [ 1 ] Thinking about the edifice procedure in this manner identifies architecture as a signifier of material civilization and enables consideration of the demand to build edifices and the possible relationships between edifice and home.
Ingold ( 2000 ) highlights an established position he footings ‘the edifice position ; ‘ an premise that human existences must ‘construct ‘ the universe, in consciousness, before they
can move within it. ( 2000:153 ) . This involves an imagined separation between the percipient and the universe, upon a separation between the existent environment ( bing independently of the senses ) and the sensed environment, which is constructed in the head harmonizing to informations from the senses and ‘cognitive scheme ‘ ( 2000:178 ) . This premise that human existences re-create the universe in the head before interacting with it implies that ‘acts of brooding are preceded by Acts of the Apostless of world-making ‘ ( 2000:179 ) . This is what Ingold identifies as ‘the designer ‘s position, ‘ edifices being constructed before life commences inside ; ‘ … the designer ‘s position: first program and construct, the houses, so import the people to busy them. ‘ ( 2000:180 ) . Alternatively, Ingold suggests the ‘dwelling position, ‘ whereby human existences are in an ‘inescapable status of being ‘ within the environment, the universe continuously coming into being around them, and other human existences going important through forms of life activity ( 2000:153 ) . This exists as a pre-requisite to any edifice procedure taking topographic point as portion of the natural human status. ; it is because human existences already keep thoughts about the universe that they are capable to brooding and do dwell ; ‘we do non brood because we have built, but we build and have built because we dwell, that is because we are inhabitants… To construct is in itself already to brood… merely if we are capable of brooding, merely so can we construct. ‘ ( Heidegger 1971:148:146, 16 ) ( 2000:186 ) ) .
Pulling on Heidegger ( 1971 ) , Ingold ( 2000 ) defines ‘dwelling ‘ as ‘to occupy a house, a dwelling topographic point ( 2000:185 ) . Brooding does non hold to take topographic point in a edifice, the ‘forms ‘ people build, are based on their involved activity ; ‘in the specific relational context of their practical battle with their milieus. ‘ ( 2000:186 ) . A cave or mud-hut can hence be a home. [ 2 ] The built becomes a ‘container for life activities ‘ ( 2000:185 ) . Building and brooding emerge as procedures that are necessarily interconnected, bing within a dynamic relationship ; ‘Building so, is a procedure that is continuously traveling on, for every bit long as people dwell in an environment. It does non get down here, with a pre-formed program and stop at that place with a finished artifact. The ‘final signifier ‘ is but a fugitive minute in the life of any characteristic when it is matched to a human intent… we may so depict the signifiers in our environment as cases of architecture, but for the most portion we are non designers. For it is in the really procedure of brooding that we build. ‘ ( 2000:188 ) . Ingold recognises that the assuming edifice position exists because of the occularcentristic nature of the laterality of the ocular in western idea ; with the guess that edifice has occurred concomitantly with the designer ‘s written and drawn program. He inquiries whether it is necessary to ‘rebalance the sensorium ‘ in sing other senses to outweigh the hegemony of vision to derive a better grasp of human home in the universe. ( 2000:155 ) .
Understanding brooding as bing before edifice and as procedures that are necessarily interconnected undermines the construct of the designer ‘s program. The laterality of ocular prejudice in western idea calls for an grasp of brooding that involves extra senses. Like the edifice procedure, a phenomenological attack to brooding involves the thought that we engage in the universe through centripetal experiences that constitute the organic structure and the human manner of being, as our organic structures are continuously engaged in our environment ; ‘the universe and the ego inform each other invariably ‘ ( Pallasmaa ( 1996:40 ) ) . Ingold ( 2000 ) recommends that ; ‘one can, in short, dwell merely as to the full in the universe of ocular as in that of aural experience ‘ ( 2000:156 ) . This is something besides recognised Bloomer and Moore ( 1977 ) , who appreciate that a consideration of all senses is necessary for understanding the experience of architecture and hence home. Pallasmaa ( 1996 ) argues that the experience of architecture is multi-sensory ; ‘Every touching experience of architecture is multi-sensory ; qualities of infinite, affair and graduated table are measured every bit by the oculus, ear, nose, skin, lingua, skeleton and musculus… Architecture strengthens the experiential experience, one ‘s sense of being in the universe and this is basically a reinforced experience of the ego. ‘ ( 1996:41 ) . For Pallasmaa, architecture is experienced non as a set of ocular images, but ‘in its to the full embodied stuff and religious presence, ‘ with good architecture offering enjoyable forms and surfaces for the oculus, giving rise to ‘images of memory, imaginativeness and dream. ‘ ( 1996:44-45 ) .
For Bloomer and Moore ( 1977 ) , it is architecture that provides us with satisfaction through wanting it and brooding in it ( 1977:36 ) . We experience architecture tactually ; through all senses, affecting the full organic structure. ( 1977:34 ) . The full organic structure is at the Centre of our experience, hence ‘the feeling of edifices and our sense of brooding within them are… cardinal to our architectural experience ‘ ( 1977:36 ) . [ 3 ] Our tactile experience of the universe and the experience of brooding are necessarily connected ; ‘The interplay between the universe of our organic structures and the universe of our home is ever in flux… our organic structures and our motions are in changeless duologue with our edifices. ‘ ( 1977:57 ) . The dynamic relationship of edifice and home deepens so, whereby the centripetal experience of architecture can non be overlooked. It is the experience of brooding that enables us to construct, and pulling and Pallasmaa ( 1996 ) and Bloomer and Moore ( 1977 ) it is edifices that enable us to keep a peculiar experience of that home, amplifying a sense of ego and being in the universe. Through Pallasmaa ( 1996 ) and Bloomer and Moore ( 1977 ) we are guided towards understanding a edifice non in footings of its exterior and the ocular, but from the interior ; how a edifice makes us experience. [ 4 ] Taking this dwelt position enables us to understand what it means to be in a edifice and facets of this that contribute to set uping a impression of ‘home. ‘
Early on anthropological attacks researching the interior of a home gave rise to the acknowledgment of peculiar impressions of infinite that were socially specific. Humphrey ( 1974 ) explores the internal infinite of a Mongolian collapsible shelter, a household home, in footings of four spacial divisions and societal position ; ‘The country off from the door, which faced south, to the hearth in the Centre, was the junior or low position half… the “ lower ” half… The country at the dorsum of the collapsible shelter behind the fire was the honorific “ upper ” portion… This division was intersected by that of the male or ceremonially pure half, which was to the left of the door as you entered… within these four countries, the collapsible shelter was further divided along its interior margin into named subdivisions. Each of these was the designated dormant topographic point of the people in different societal functions. ‘ ( 1974:273 ) . Similarly, Bourdieu ( 2003 ) analyses the Berber House, Algeria, in footings of spacial divisions and two sets of resistances ; male ( light ) and female ( dark ) , and the internal administration of infinite as an inversion of the outside universe. ( 2003:136-137 ) . [ 5 ] Further to this, Bourdieu concentrates on geometric belongingss of Berber architecture in specifying its internal as opposite of the external infinite ; ‘ … the wall of the stable and the wall of the hearth, take on two opposed significances depending on which of their sides is being considered: to the external North corresponds the South ( and the summer ) of the interior… to the external South corresponds the inside North ( and the winter ) . ( 2003:138 ) . Spatial divisions within the Berber house are linked to gender classification and forms of motion are explained as such ; ‘ … the hearth, which is the umbilicus of the house ( itself identified with the uterus of the female parent ) … is the sphere of the adult female who is invested with entire authorization in all affairs refering the kitchen and the direction of food-stores ; she takes her repasts at the hearth whilst the adult male, turned towards the exterior, chows in the center of the room or in the courtyard. ‘ ( 2003:136 ) . Patterns of motion are besides attributed to extra geometric belongingss of the house, such as the way in which it faces ( 2003:137 ) . Similarly, Humphrey ( 1974 ) argues that persons had to sit, eat and slumber in their designated topographic points within the Mongolian collapsible shelter, in order to tag the rank of societal class to which that individual belonged, ; spacial separation due to Mongolian social division of labor. ( 1974:273 ) .
Both histories, although foregrounding peculiar impressions of infinite, adhere to what Helliwell ( 1996 ) recognises as typical structuralist positions of brooding ; organizing peoples in footings of groups to order interactions and activities between them. ( 1996:128 ) . Helliwell argues that the unifying thoughts of societal construction and the construction or signifier of architecture ignores the importance of societal procedure and overlook an bing type of fluid, unstructured sociality ( 1996:129 ) This is due to the occularcentristic nature of western thought ; ‘the prejudice of visualism ‘ which gives prominence to seeable, spacial elements of brooding. ( 1996:137 ) . Helliwell argues in conformity with Bloomer and Moore ( 1977 ) who suggest that architecture maps as a ‘stage for motion and interaction ‘ ( 1977:59 ) . Through analysis of Dyak people ‘s ‘lawang ‘ ( longhouse community ) societal infinite in Borneo, without a focal point on geometric facets of longhouse architecture, Helliwell ( 1996 ) foreground how dwelling infinite is lived and used twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours. ( 1996:137 ) . A more accurate analysis of the usage of infinite within brooding can be used to better understand the procedure, peculiarly with respect to the significances that it generates in relation to the impression of place.
The Dyak longhouse is a big construction built at up to three and a half meters above land with a thatched roof stretching up to eight meters in tallness. Within the longhouse are a figure of flats side by side. These are seven names infinites running the length of the longhouse which are described as the “ interior ” country of the longhouse ; the cookery, eating and kiping country. An “ outer ” gallery are can be used by anyone, freely at anytime. ( 1996:131-133 ) . Previous structuralist classification of these inner and outer countries as ‘public ‘ and ‘private ‘ spheres have led to deceit of dealingss between single families and the wider longhouse community ( 1996:133 ) . Spatial separation lies between ‘us ‘ the longhouse community ( ‘lawang ‘ ) and those outside of the longhouse community ‘them. ‘ ( 1996:135 ) . Helliwell ‘s acknowledgment of the deficiency of spacial division within the longhouse community is the primary index of a more unstable type of sociality for the Dyak people. She highlights that old structural attacks denoting each flat as ‘private ‘ has left small consciousness of societal relationships that operate between flats, and considers the longhouse as a individual structural entity, irrespective of the individual flats that it is composed of ; ‘ … relationships are clearly marked: neither the seven infinites, nor the wall between ‘swah ‘ ( the universe ‘out there ‘ ) and ‘lawang ‘ , halt at the borders of any one flat. Rather, they continue in indistinguishable signifier, into those on either side and so on down the full length of the longhouse. ‘ ( 1996:137 ) .The divider between flats in the longhouse marks the border of one flat from another which visually appears to divide. However, Helliwell points out that they are composed of weak bark and stuffs stacked against one another, go forthing spreads of all sizes in the dividers. Subsequently, animate beings pass through, people manus things back and Forth and neighbors stand and speak to one another ( 1996:137-138 ) . She describes the dividers as ‘a extremely permeable boundary: a assortment of resources moves through it in both waies. ‘ ( 1996:138 ) .
It is the permeable divider that is hence the nucleus of longhouse sociableness ; its belongingss stimulate sharing in conformity with a flow of light and sound from one terminal of the longhouse to the other. ( 1996:138 ) . ‘A community of voices ‘ exists within a longhouse, fluxing up and down its length as unseeable talkers appear in soliloquy. The Dyak people, although unseeable to one another, speak to their neighbors through these permeable boundaries in continual duologue ; ‘ … they are deeply present in one another ‘s lives. Through the sounds of their voices, neighbors two three, four or five flats apart are tied into each other ‘s universes and each other ‘s company every bit closely as if they were in the same room. ‘ ( 1996:138 ) . These voices create what Helliwell describes as ‘a tapestry of sound, ‘ incorporating descriptions of a twenty-four hours ‘s events, feelings of single adult females shared whilst they are entirely in her flat, later confirming and animating societal connexions across each flat and reaffirming their portion within the longhouse community. ( 1996:138-139 ) . In add-on, Helliwell high spots that their voices were non raised ; ‘ ( their ) really mutedness reinforced, the sense of rank in an confidant, privileged universe… soft and generous in their reminder of a company invariably at manus. ‘ ( 1996:139 ) . Here we begin to see Helliwell ‘s impression of unstable sociality and the experience of brooding as a whole a societal 1. In add-on to sound, the societal fluidness of brooding in a Dyak longhouse is reinforced by visible radiation from single flats and their fireplaces fluxing up and down the longhouse at dark. Each individual is cognizant of their neighbors ‘ presence, with the absence of visible radiation from an flat provoking concern. ( 1996:139 ) .
In kernel, Helliwell stresses the sociality of home, aside from spacial grasps of the architecture in which it takes topographic point. Although dividers mark the infinite of a Dyak family, they concomitantly incorporate a family into the wider longhouse community ; ‘It is this double flow ( sound and visible radiation ) which constitutes each ‘independent family ‘ as coextensive with all others and with the longhouse community as a whole. ‘ ( 1996:138 ) . This creative activity of community brings to illume the ways in which people use architecture, non merely to tag divisions of infinite, but to implement and enable sociality. This is extremely relevant for a true anthropological grasp of brooding and in peculiar its relationship with the impression of ‘home. ‘ Dwelling is necessarily connected to the procedure of homemaking through its facets of sociality as a physical and bodily experience within ‘the built ‘ ( Brand 1994:2 ) and as a basically societal experience. Architecture as a physical signifier of shelter that enframes the procedure of homemaking ; what Ingold ( 2000 ) footings ‘life activities ‘ ( 2000:185 ) and the coming together of people. Through recognition of the societal facets of brooding we can set up impressions of ‘home, ‘ which are chiefly constructed on the dynamic relationship of edifice and home and the facets of sociality that occur through the home procedure ; ‘life activities ‘ ( Ingold ( 2000:185 ) and home-making, affecting, affinity, memory, drama, eating, ritual, and birth among other anthropological subjects.
A relationship emerges so, between brooding and the impression of ‘home, ‘ a dynamic relationship facilitated by ‘the built, ‘ ( Brand ( 1994:2 ) ) taking topographic point within architecture. Houses are defined by Carsten and Hugh-Jones ( 1995 ) as ‘places in which the to and fro of life unfolds, built, modified, moved or abandoned in agreement with the altering fortunes of their dwellers. ‘ ( 1995:1 ) . ‘Home ‘ emerges as an architectural infinite which enframes the procedures and features associated with home. Ingold ( 2000 ) suggests that a house is made, non constructed ( 2000:175 ) . More specifically, Miller ( 1987 ) draws attending to the procedure of home-making through which “ the built ‘ becomes a ‘home ‘ by a procedure of ingestion and appropriation by renters on a London council estate in England. He argues that through ingestion and appropriation of their domestic infinite, renters are able to develop and set up a sense of ego ( 1987:354 ) . This is in response to feeling like “ inactive receivers ” of lodging, alienated from society by being perceived as a peculiar category and at a degree of poorness. ( 1987:357 ) . Miller argues ; ‘on the whole… there was considerable grounds to propose that the white population felt a deep malaise about their family ingestion position as renters, reflected in bitterness and feelings of being stigmatised. Furthermore they clearly associated the fitments provided in the kitchen with the council, as objects incarnating in their materiality the intrusive meaning of their position. ‘ ( 1987:365-366 ) .
In response, renters transformed and changed their kitchens in different ways after holding been given the same basic installations by the council. ( 1987:356 ) . This included changes and redevelopments to fitted closets, standard plumbing and energy supplies and original black lino floors in add-on to ornaments, drapes and new white goods ( 1987:357 ) . For Miller, kitchens became ‘canvases ‘ ( 1987:360 ) for the renters ; ‘The largest bunch comprised kitchens where significant alterations had been made to the cosmetic order… these kitchens retained the original field white surfaces. Alternatively, a big figure of extra objects had been brought in and used, as it were, to cover the closets up… .teatowels, bread boards, teacosies and trays were really common and frequently associated with a peculiar aesthetic of big bold flowers, cats, Canis familiariss and bright forms. Equally good as being placed on surfaces, bread boards and trays were typically placed vertically against the walls with their face frontward to underscore their cosmetic nature. Post-cards, keepsakes, film editings from magazines and pictural calendars might be hung or stuck on the walls… there was besides the ‘biographical form ‘ … each piece appeared to be a momento of household or vacations, as in the commercial nostalgia manner in which the relation between objects was maintained in the memories of the residents but non expressed visually. ‘ ( 1987:361-362 ) . Tenants ‘ belongingss later became individualized, replacing and deviating attending from facets of their kitchens they saw as indexs of their negative lodging position ( 1987:362 ) . [ 6 ] The execution of kitchen aesthetics and other manners of creativeness is one manner of home-making, set uping a impression of ‘home ‘ in conformity with set uping a sense of ego. Connected to this, is the sociality of place devising ; facets of matrimony and affinity besides highlighted by Miller, with females directing and viewed as ‘recipients of outgo ‘ and males set abouting redevelopments ; ‘In two instances it was peculiarly clear that the twosomes were seen as coming together to get the better of their position as renters, and confirming the power of affinity and matrimony in this battle. ‘ ( 1987:367 ) . [ 7 ]
The impression of ‘home ‘ reaffirms the construct that infinite is socially specific ; the procedure of homemaking as an facet of home, related to how we live within clip and infinite. When professional designers and builders ignore the demands, duties and beliefs of socially specific people, the impression of ‘home ‘ going disrupted, the consequence is an unsuccessful home topographic point. Oliver ( 2000 ) underscores that when the Kutahya Province in Turkey suffered an temblor in 1970, 50 thousand homeless people were accommodated in 15 thousand freshly built homes. ( 2000:121 ) . He remarks that the adjustment, designed by designers, was ‘suitable for the British 2.2 atomic household ‘ as three room, individual floor houses, ‘quite ill-sorted to the drawn-out provincial households, ‘ who were used to populating on the upper floors of big two floor houses, storage, harvests and cowss underneath them. ( 2002:121 ) . A upper limit of 18 people lived in a house at one clip, parents busying one room, boies, their married womans and kids in others. The couch was a communal infinite for repasts, and privateness was ‘strictly guarded. ‘ ( 2002:121 ) . The exigency lodging was little and unsuitable for the big peasant households ; big Windowss caused them to be on show, there was no couch and the life room opened on to the sleeping rooms. The lavatory was ‘external and public ‘ even though the people were ‘discrete about bodily maps. ‘ ( 2000:121-122 ) . In supplying unsuitable edifices inconsiderate towards socially specific thoughts of infinite, temblor victims had no pick but to accept the offered lodging or receive no other aid. ( 2000:122 ) .
Oliver ( 2000 ) shows the designer ‘s failure, who ; ‘may design responsibly, but the procedure fails when he ignores the values, ethical motives, edifice accomplishments, experience and wisdom of the civilizations whose lodging demands are to be met. ‘ ( 2000:125 ) . Impressions of ‘home ‘ can be varied, [ 8 ] but ‘home ‘ and brooding are necessarily connected through experiences and peculiar constructs of how to brood in footings of appropriate infinite and related activities. Other province built places have caused the impression of ‘home ‘ and its relationship with home and architecture to be affirmed. Soviet building of communal homes during the 1920s onwards attempted to enforce intending on dwellers ; that of socialist substructure to bring forth socialist work forces and adult females devoid of individualism and a bourgeois manner of life ( Humphrey ( 2005:40 ) ) . The consequence was unsuccessful, dwellers non following socialist ways of being, but the significances the architecture was intended to enforce being subverted in Russian fiction and memoirs ; illustrations of Russian imagination. ( 2005:43 ) . [ 9 ] This Soviet illustration illustrates that intending can non be made through architecture and emphasises Miller ( 1987 ) and the procedure of place devising. It is the procedure of home-making ; the activities associated with home and the sociality that it generates that establishes a ‘home, ‘ a edifice being simply a container in which this takes topographic point. The relationship between edifice and ‘home ‘ therefore involves how we live in clip and infinite, the procedure of homemaking disputing the constructions that we build.
Ingold ( 2000 ) suggests that brooding is something that enables edifice. The opposite point of view would be that it is constructing that enables human existences to brood within architecture. Whatever one ‘s position, it is inevitable that brooding takes topographic point, and finally continues to take topographic point within architecture, whether this is in common signifier ; a cave, hut or a barn, or provided by the state province. It is a societal fact that human existences physique and dwell. Building and home are necessarily interconnected, bing in a dynamic relationship with one another. Understanding this from a point of view lacking in western ocular prejudice, it is the procedure of brooding ; ‘life activities ‘ ( 2000:185 ) , its sociality and inevitable connexion with edifice that exists in relation to the impression of ‘home. ‘ Meaning is non made in the construction of a edifice – it is brooding ; activities and societal dealingss that creates and enables a significance of ‘home ‘ to be established in conformity with the ego through tactile architectural experience and the home-making procedure. Pallasmaa ( 1996 ) argues that the significance of a edifice is beyond architecture ; ‘The ultimate significance of any edifice is beyond architecture ; it directs our consciousness back to the universe and towards our ain sense of ego and being. ‘ ( 1996:42 ) . The relationship is apparent when socially specific constructs of infinite and necessarily peculiar impressions of ‘home ‘ are ignored ; the architecture being unsuitable for brooding, or neglecting in its primary intent of enforcing significance. It can be said that edifice, brooding and impressions of ‘home ‘ are united in an overarching relationship between human existences and their lived environment ; the hunt for significance and constitution of the ego, in this instance through signifiers of architectural experience.
- Bloomer, K. & A ; Moore, C. ( 1977 ) ‘Body, Memory and Architecture, ‘ Yale University Press
- Brand, S. ( 1994 ) ‘How Buildings Learn: what happens after they ‘re built. ‘ Phoenix, London
- Carsten, J. & A ; Hugh-Jones, S. ( 1995 ) ‘About the House, ‘ Cambridge University Press
- Heidegger, M. ( 1971 ) ‘Building, Brooding Thinking ‘ in ‘Poetry, linguistic communication thought, ‘ trans. A. Hofstadter. New York, Harper and Row in Ingold, T. ( 2000 ) ‘The Percept of the Environment ‘ Routledge, London.
- Helliwell, C. ( 1996 ) ‘Space and Sociality in a Dyak Longhouse ‘ in Jackson, M. ( ed. ) ( 1996 ) ‘Things as they are ‘ Bloomington: Indiana University Press
- Humphrey, C. ( 1974 ) ‘Inside a Mongolian Tent ‘ in New Society 235-275
- Humphrey, C. ( 2005 ) ‘Ideology in substructure: architecture and Soviet imaginativeness, ‘ Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 11 ( 1 ) 39-58
- Ingold, T. ( 2000 ) ‘The Percept of the Environment, ‘ Routledge, London.
- Kahn, L. ( 1973 ) ‘Shelter, ‘ Bolinas, Shelter Publications.
- Miller, D. ( 1987 ) ‘Appropriating the State on the Council Estate, ‘ in Man ( NS ) 23, 353-372
- Oliver, P. ( 2000 ) ‘Ethics and Vernacular Architecture, ‘ in Fox, W. ( ed. ) ( 2000 ) ‘Ethics and the Built Environment, ‘ Routledge, London.
- Pallasmaa ( 1996 ) ‘The Eyess of the Skin, ‘ Academy Editions
Bourdieu, P. ( 2003 ) ‘The Berber House, ‘ in Low, S. & A ; Lawrence-Zuniga, D. ( explosive detection systems. ) ‘The Anthropology of Space and Place ‘ Blackwell, Oxford