Culture, Lifestyle and the

Meaning of a Dwelling
Henny Coolen and Ritsuko Ozaki
Henny Coolen
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
Delft University of Technology
Jaffalaan 9
2628 BX Delft
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 15 278 2747
Telefax: +31 15 278 4422
E-mail: [email protected]

Ritsuko Ozaki
Tanaka Business School

Imperial College London

South Kensington Campus
London SW7 2AZ
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 20 7594 5942
Telefax: +44 20 7594 5915
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
The meaning of a dwelling, sometimes called the meaning of “home,” has been studied from
many different perspectives. In our research we use a conceptual framework that is based
on two theoretical distinctions. The first theoretical distinction concerns the concept of
dwelling, defined as a system of settings in which a certain system of activities takes place
and makes a distinction between fixed features (physical aspects), semi-fixed features
(furnishings) and non-fixed features (activities and behaviour). The second one concerns the
concept of meaning, distinguishing between high-level meanings (e.g. world views), middle-
level meanings (e.g. values) and lower-level meanings (e.g. manifest functions). The focus
of our own research is on the middle-level and lower-level meanings of fixed features. Our
conceptual framework seems to have several interfaces with the more familiar notions of
culture and lifestyle, which are quite frequently used in studies on the meaning of a
dwelling. Although these notions have been touched upon in our research, their possible
role as analytical concepts has not clearly been indicated. The purpose of the paper is
therefore to find out whether the notions of culture and lifestyle can become an integral part
of our conceptual framework, and what the added value of integrating these notions is for
understanding the meaning of a dwelling. This venture will be illustrated with empirical case
studies, many from our own research.
Keywords: Meaning of a dwelling, lifestyle, culture, “home”

1. Introduction

The meaning of a dwelling, sometimes called the meaning of “home,” has been studied from
many different perspectives in sociology, psychology and environment-behaviour studies
(Després, 1991; Moore, 2000). These studies, however, have mainly investigated the
concept of home holistically, not the features of a dwelling. It is, nonetheless, important to
explore these aspects of a dwelling, because meaning provides much of the rationale for the
ways in which dwellings are shaped and used. This means that their occupiers attach
meanings to dwelling features, which, when shared and recognized by others, communicate
their identity, status and values.

Drawing on Rapoport’s theoretical discussions on the meaning of a dwelling (Rapoport,

1981; 1988; 1990) and on Hall’s distinction of different features of a dwelling (Hall, 1966),
this paper will present a conceptual framework that we are using for our own research on
the meaning of a dwelling (e.g. Coolen en Hoekstra, 2001; Ozaki, 2003). This framework
has several interfaces with the more familiar notions of culture and lifestyle, which are quite
frequently used in studies on the meaning of a dwelling. However, although these notions
have been touched upon in various housing research, their possible role as analytical
concepts has not clearly been indicated.

The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to find out whether the notions of culture and
lifestyles can become an integral part of our conceptual framework, and what the added
value of integrating these notions is for understanding the meaning of a dwelling.

The present paper first discusses Rapoport’s three levels of meanings and Hall’s three types
of features, and then introduces our conceptual framework based on these two theoretical
distinctions. Next, it discusses the notions of culture and lifestyle, and their role in our
conceptual framework, and presents case studies from our own research to illustrate our
arguments. Finally, the paper will draw conclusions on the way in which the notions of
culture and lifestyle have been integrated in, and can contribute to, the studies of the
meaning of a dwelling.

2. Levels of meaning and types of features

2.1. Three levels of meaning

The starting point in the discussion of meaning is the view that people pursue certain goals
and values. This assumption can be found in studies, for instance, of the meaning of
material objects (Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton, 1981) and of the instrumental
value of consumer goods (Gutman, 1982). Goals and values also play an important role in
the behaviour and preferences of people (Rokeach, 1973; Bettman, 1979). People’s
preferences for certain objects, for example, are not neutral. People prefer certain objects
because they believe these objects contribute to the achievement of their goals and values.
So, the preferences people have and the choices they make are considered to be functional
for the achievement of their goals and values. The meaning an object has for people lies in
this functional relationship between the object on the one hand and the goals and values of

2
people on the other. This view of the functional relationships between the two seems closely
related to Weber’s concept of “Zweck Rationalität” – goal rationality (Weber, 1972).

At first sight, this conception of meaning does seem at odds with many studies on the
meaning of a dwelling. Nevertheless, there are some striking parallels with the approaches
of two eminent scholars who have paid close attention to the relationships between people
and environments. One of these scholars is Gibson whose Theory of Affordances has a lot in
common with our conception of meaning. The other scholar is Rapoport, whose ideas about
both the meaning of the built environment and about the levels of meaning in the built
environment have, at least partly, shaped our ideas as put forward in this paper.

According to Gibson (1979), the affordances of the environment are what it offers to the
human being, what it provides or furnishes, either good or ill. What an object affords an
individual is what the individual might be able to do with that object. The affordances of an
object are its potential functions. Affordances are relative to the individual. An affordance is
neither a property of the environment nor a property of the individual, but a relation
between an individual and its environment. Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) suggest that unlike
the affordances offered by objects, the issue with respect to the environment is what an
individual can do not with it, but in it.

Rapoport has written numerous publications about the meaning of the built environment.
Several of these are relevant from the perspective of this paper (Rapoport, 1988, 1990,
1995). According to Rapoport (1988), meaning is an important mechanism linking
environments and people. All environments are critically related to meaning, which provides
much of the rationale for the ways in which they are shaped and used. He also makes an
important remark that the common distinction between function and meaning is misguided.
Meaning is not only part of function, but it is often the most important function of the built
environment. In this context, Rapoport (1988) distinguishes three levels of meaning in the
built environment. High-level meanings are related to cosmologies, world views,
philosophical systems, etc.; middle level meanings convey identity, status, wealth, power,
etc., which are also called latent functions; lower-level meanings are everyday and
instrumental meanings, such as accessibility, seating arrangements, movement, etc., which
are also called manifest functions. According to Rapoport, architectural theory has
traditionally emphasized high-level meanings and archaeology has increasingly emphasized
middle-level meanings. However, everyday meanings have mostly been neglected even in
environment-behaviour studies, although they are essential for understanding the built
environment. Lower-level meanings are important in all settings; they may not be sufficient
to grasp the overall meaning of a dwelling, but they are always necessary. People’s activities
and built environments are primarily linked by lower-level meanings, although middle level
meanings also tend to be important.

2.2. Three types of features

A dwelling is a complex product. It comprises many different elements, ranging from

structural frames to interior fixtures and fittings. Moreover, a dwelling is not only a physical
space in which people live, but also a space where social interactions take place. Therefore,
the layout and structure of a dwelling, the use of space, and activities that take place there
all express the meaning of a dwelling as a social unit (e.g. Saunders, 1990; Williams, 1987).

3
Rapoport (1981) defines the concept of a dwelling as a system of settings in which a certain
set of activities takes place. He then classifies, based on a distinction first proposed by Hall
(1966), features of the dwelling (as a system of settings) into three types: fixed-feature
elements, semi-fixed-feature elements and non-fixed-feature elements. First, fixed features
are defined as those that are basically fixed or those that change rarely and slowly, although
these features may also be subjected to surface treatments (e.g. decorative treatments and
finishes). Architectural or structural elements, such as walls, ceilings and floors, are included
in this category. In many industrialized societies, fixed features are under the control of
codes and regulations. It has been argued that, because of the physical, economic, and
political difficulty that an individual faces in changing these conditions, fixed features are
more likely to reflect social, organizational, cultural, and institutional meanings rather than
those of the individual (Ahrentzen, 2002). Second, semi-fixed features are described as
anything from the type and arrangement of furniture and soft furnishings (e.g. curtains) to
more decorative ornaments (e.g. plants), which may change fairly quickly and easily.
Rapoport claims that these semi-fixed-feature elements – i.e. the contents to be used in the
physical setting – are inclined to show, for instance, the identity of the occupiers more than
fixed-feature elements do because they are rich in personal meanings (also see Brown,
1987). Semi-fixed features also include personal objects (e.g. framed photographs and
holiday souvenirs). They carry meanings to the occupiers by printing the identity onto the
place (Becker and Coniglio, 1975; Leavitt and Loukaitou-Sideris; 1995); and a display of
such objects is a reminder of family, friends, groups and other social organisations (Després,
1991). Third, non-fixed-feature elements are non-environmental, behavioural cues. These
include clothing and languages that are used for, and activities that take place in, particular
parts or settings in the dwelling. These non-fixed features communicate the occupiers’ social
identity and status.

3. Conceptual framework

Combining the theoretical distinction concerning the levels of meaning in the built
environment with the one regarding the different types of features of a dwelling results in a
conceptual framework for studying the meaning of a dwelling that is sketched in figure 1.
This framework has been used by the authors in several studies (Coolen and Hoekstra,
2001; Coolen, 2002; Ozaki, 2001; 2002; 2003) and forms the basis for the discussion that
follows. In this framework, the starting point for research on meaning is one of the types of
features, or even a specific feature, of which meanings attached by occupiers one may
discover through, for instance, interviewing. The dotted lines indicate that the relationships
between the levels of meaning and the types of features are manifold. The relationships
between their manifest and latent functions, which are relationships between their lower-
and middle-level meanings, are represented in the vertical links. Horizontal relationships
may also occur when the reasons for preference or choice are given by another feature,
rather than higher-level meanings: for instance, when an apartment (fixed feature) is
preferred or chosen because it has no garden (fixed feature), or when a certain size of living
room (fixed feature) is preferred because of the way it can be furnished (semi-fixed
feature).

4
Figure 1 The conceptual framework for studying the meaning of a
dwelling

Higher-level meanings

Middle-level meanings
(latent functions)

Lower-level meanings
(manifest functions)

Fixed features Semi-fixed features Non-fixed features

Most previous research into the meaning of a dwelling has taken a holistic view of a
dwelling, not looking specifically at features of a dwelling (Rapoport, 1995). However, the
approach of this paper deviates from this conventional practice: we deconstruct the holistic
view of a dwelling. Based on the notion of affordances, we investigate the relationship
between dwelling occupiers and dwelling features, and what the occupiers do, or want to
do, in the dwelling. In order to do so, we need to look at the dwelling in terms of different
types of features and different levels of functions.

This paper focuses on fixed features of dwellings, although references to other types of
features will be made. Fixed features reflect the way in which people live (or intend to live),
and consequently, the manifest and latent functions of the space. For example, to have
more bedrooms expresses the goals and aims that people have in mind. Such a dwelling
attribute as more bedrooms will provide personal spaces for individual family members
(manifest function = everyday, instrumental meaning), and this will make it possible to have
more privacy among the family members (latent function = value). In other words, people’s
beliefs and values are reflected in their evaluation of physical attributes of a dwelling, which
they believe facilitate or hinder the achievement of their goals (Coolen and Hoekstra, 2001).
Similarly, the spatial organisation of a dwelling reflects social relationships in the home
(Rapoport, 1981). The way in which rooms are arranged reflects the use of domestic space,
and therefore, the relationship between people (Ozaki, 2001; 2002; 2003). As Saunders
(1989) puts it, social space has meanings because people attach meanings there; these
meanings do not inhere in the spaces that they occupy, but it is social relations which are
realized within the spaces that have meanings (Saunders, 1989). Therefore, social
relationships in the home (e.g. the relationships between men and women, between adults
and children, and between household members and visitors) classify the space and indicate
the way in which they try to give meanings to a place (Rapoport, 1981). Separating features
of a dwelling by their nature and looking specifically at a type of feature will help us to
understand the manifold, vertical and sometimes horizontal relationships between features
and meanings, which, then, will allow us to explore the meaning of a dwelling in an in-depth
way.

5
4. Notions of culture and lifestyle and their role in our conceptual framework

This framework has a number of interfaces with the more familiar notions of culture and
lifestyle. Although these notions are quite frequently used in the studies of the meaning of a
dwelling and are referred to in various housing research, their possible role as analytical
concepts has not clearly been indicated. Hence, we need to see if the notions of culture and
lifestyle can have a role and add value in our conceptual framework.

First, culture is a relatively organised system of shared meanings (Geertz, 1973). Culture
denotes a historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols. It is a system
of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms, by which people communicate,
perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life. This view is
shared by other scholars. Douglas (1966), for example, sees culture as the public,
standardised values of a group. According to her, culture forms categories, or patterns, in
which ideas and values are tidily ordered; and these categories are public matters and
cannot easily be revised although a challenge is not to be neglected. Similarly, Hall (1997)
says that culture is defined in terms of shared meanings or shared conceptual maps, as
people interpret the world in largely similar ways, and because of that, they are able to build
up a shared meaning and construct a social world which they inhabit together. Thus, culture
can be defined as a system of shared meanings.

This notion of culture helps us to understand the vertical relationship between meanings in
our framework. Both culture and the high-level meanings essentially govern the way in
which people behave (i.e. values and norms = middle-level meanings/latent functions),
which then influences the way in which space is shaped and used in everyday life (low-level
meaning/manifest function). As Rapoport (1990) puts it, the settings and behavioural
repertories are culture specific, and the relationship between activities and settings is
inherently cultural. Furthermore, people are classified into groups based on the beliefs and
ideologies of society or a human group. Such social classification underlies conceptual
boundaries between people, which are then used to define their daily affairs and which
restrict and regulated the interaction of people and the use of space. (Laurence, 1984;
1996) So, the meaning of a dwelling reflects unwritten social rules and conventions, which
constitute a vertical meaning relationship. Culture itself cannot be observed, but is realized
through latent and manifest functions: culture as a system of shared meanings creates
values and norms, which are then embodied in people’s daily activities. In short, the notion
of culture offers a clear vertical relationship between high-, middle- and low-meanings; and
such a relationship provides part of the rationale behind people’s action – i.e. the reasons
for their preference for certain features in their dwelling and their intentions of using the
domestic space in certain ways. It gives insight into the choice and evaluation that people
make by clarifying the cultural factors behind their decisions; and this way, the meaning of a
dwelling feature become clear.

Secondly, lifestyle is a term defined in a number of different ways in literature. It is

therefore necessary to see how each of the definitions works in relation to our conceptual
framework, in order to find out if the notion of lifestyle can be an integral part of our
framework and what would be the added value.

Rapoport propagates since 1977 (Rapoport, 1977) a definition of lifestyle that was put
forward by Michelson and Reed (1970) in an unpublished paper in which lifestyle is defined
as the result of choices on how to allocate resources. Contemporary British sociologists (e.g.

6
Chaney, 1996) share this view. Chaney (1996) considers that lifestyles are based on the way
in which people use means and resources they have, rather than the means and resources
themselves, and puts that this is the reason why lifestyles are seen as a distinctively modern
form of status grouping. These views have a great deal in common with our conceptual
framework. As stated above, we pay close attention to the relationship between people and
built environments and to the way in which they make choices. People make a choice in
order to achieve certain goals and aims and to reflect or construct the desired image of
themselves and their lives. Thus, it is all about allocating their resources (e.g. money, time,
attention, effort, etc.) to their choice(s). In other words, the resources are allocated and
appropriated to the chosen dwelling features in order to achieve the realization of the goals
and aims (latent functions). So, choice does have a functional dimension. In fact, our
conceptual framework has already dealt with what Rapoport and contemporary British
sociologists mean by lifestyle. Our framework allows us to investigate why people prefer,
choose and have particular features in their dwelling and how they allocate and appropriate
their resources to attain these features to realise their goals.

The definition that is used in marketing (e.g. Wedel and Kamakura, 1998) is that lifestyle is
a combination of activities, interests and opinions. However, this is indeed expressed by
“non-fixed features” in our framework. As mentioned above, there is sometimes a horizontal
relationship between features in explaining why certain fixed features are wanted. For
example, a large living room may be required because the occupiers like to throw big parties
in their home. The combination of activities, interests and opinions is already dealt with in
our framework.

Hawkins (1998) sees lifestyle as an outward expression of one’s self-concept, which he says
is the totality of the individual’s thoughts and feelings. This is in fact about making a choice
to realise one’s self-concept. He says that self-concept is formed through social actions; in
other words, lifestyles are determined or influenced by such factors as culture, sub-culture
(e.g. family, social classes, etc.), values and personality. This cause-effect relationship
between self-concept and cultural determinants is exactly what our framework comprises in
the relationship between lower- and higher-meanings.

Similarly, Connell (1998) considers that one’s lifestyle is a function of individual

characteristics that have been shared and formed through social interaction, and is an
expression of one’s attitude towards life. Thus, he says, important human activities are
accommodated in a dwelling, which then expresses their approach to life. This view can also
be seen as a choice to make one’s values represented; and this is again covered by our way
of thinking – i.e. people choose in order to achieve the goals and aims and to realise their
values and desired image, and they allocate and appropriate their resources to make this
choice.

Seen this way, the notion of lifestyle does not seem to have a role in our framework and to
add value to it. Although it is often used in housing research, its definition is not clear. More
importantly, its various definitions are already dealt with in our framework. The bottom line
of the discussion on meaning is the view that people pursue certain goals: their preferences
for certain objects are at least partly explained in terms of the achievement of those goals.
The meaning of dwelling features lies in a functional vertical relationship between features,
lower-level meanings and goals and values (middle-level meanings), which are governed by
high-level meaning (i.e. culture), or in a horizontal relationship between different types of

7
features (fixed, semi-fixed and non-fixed features). So, what the notion of lifestyle could
offer is already included in this framework.

Hence, we conclude that the integration of the notion of culture will offer us a more
contextual understanding of the vertical relationship between meanings of a dwelling that
represents part of the mechanism of the way in which a dwelling is shared and used and
some of the rationale behind people’s choice of dwelling features. However, the notion of
lifestyle is superfluous in our conceptual framework.

5. Case studies

This section presents case studies from our own research. The aim of the case studies is to
utilise the relationship between dwelling features and the meanings in order to illustrate the
above arguments. As mentioned above, our case studies have focused on people’s choices
of, and preferences for, fixed features and explored the meanings, presenting the
relationship between people and the fixed feature (i.e. what the feature affords to people –
what they do in the feature).

The first case comes from the Netherlands. It concerns a study on the meanings of
preferences for residential environment features of apartment dwellers. The data were
collected on two locations: a suburban area on the outskirts of The Hague, and an urban
area located in the centre of Rotterdam. For the purpose of this paper the distinction
between the two sub-populations is irrelevant. A total of 45 semi-structured interviews were
conducted at the respondents’ homes. The convenience sample is relatively old with an
average age of 51 years, and it consists for more than 90% of one and two-person
households without children. The respondents had to select features they considered as
important from two sets of cards – one set containing dwelling features and the other
containing neighbourhood features. Subsequently, for each of the important features, the
preferred level or category was ascertained. For example, if the number of rooms was
mentioned as an important feature, the respondent had to indicate how many rooms s/he
preferred. Eventually, the meanings that were associated with each feature were identified
through a semi-structured interviewing technique called laddering. This interviewing method
makes it possible to construct from the interviews so-called meaning structures that
represent structural relationships between dwelling features and their meanings. A few
examples of such individual meaning structures are given in figure 2. Individual meaning
structures can be aggregated into meaning networks that can be analysed by means of
network analysis methods. This way of looking at the data will not be pursued further here;
the interested reader is referred to Coolen (2004).

For illustrative purposes, only the three dwelling features that were most often mentioned as
important by the respondents are treated here. These features and the meanings that were
associated with these features are presented in table 1. The fixed features are in the
columns and the rows represent the meanings, the numbers in the cells of the table show
how many times the respondents associated each meaning with each feature.

8
Figure 2 Some examples of individual meaning structures

W ell-being Freedom Comfort Social contacts Privacy Clean

Atmosphere

Comfort Furnishings Activities Family Furnishings

Comfort

No garden Space Furnishings M ulti-functionality Space

Health

Apartment Apartment Size of Size of Number of Number of

living room living room rooms rooms

Manifest functions - lower-level meanings - that are frequently mentioned are space and
multi-functionality, while comfort, well-being, freedom, privacy and social contacts are the
most often mentioned latent functions, i.e. middle-level meanings. With respect to the
conceptual framework, not only do vertical relationships occur, but horizontal ones also do.
For instance, the fixed feature, no garden, is considered as a meaning of the fixed feature
apartment; and the semi-fixed feature, furnishings, is mentioned as a meaning of both fixed
features, size of living room and number of rooms. In order to understand many of these
meanings in terms of higher-level meanings, two socio-cultural developments in the
Netherlands seems especially relevant (Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau, 1998). The first one is
the process of individualization that has resulted in on average smaller households and in
more space per occupier in dwellings. The second development concerns the phenomenon
that older people remain active and living on their own much longer, partly because of
changes in their housing preferences. Since the employment of the people between 50 and
65 years of age has strongly decreased, the dwelling has become the centre of their life at a
relatively young age. A large part of their daily life is spent in and around the dwelling,
which forms the centre of their activities, and for which enough space is wanted. Keeping in
mind that our sample consists of relatively old people, several of the meanings that are
found in table 1 can be interpreted against the background of these developments. The
appearance of such meanings as space, activities, multi-functionality, no garden, comfort,
atmosphere, social contacts, health, furnishings, privacy and well-being is well in line with
one or both socio-cultural developments just sketched. In addition to these meanings such
as freedom, family and cleanness have a long tradition in Dutch culture, and are highly
valued especially by the older generations. So, this study shows that people can state which
fixed dwelling features they consider as important and can express what they mean to
them. In terms of the conceptual framework both vertical and horizontal relationships

9
between features and meanings are observed. It has also been indicated that the manifest
and latent functions found in the study can be interpreted in terms of Dutch culture and of
socio-cultural developments that have taken place over the last 25 years.

Table 1 The meanings of three dwelling features

Dwelling type = Size of living Number of Total

Apartment room rooms
Freedom 11 14 25
Privacy 6 3 14 23
Comfort 25 12 14 51
Space 15 21 13 49
Atmosphere 7 5 5 17
inside
Atmosphere 5 5
outside
Enjoying life 4 4
Social contacts 6 9 13 28
Health 11 11
No garden 8 8
Activities 5 5
Furnishings 16 9 25
Multi- 24 24
functionality
Well-being 9 23 9 41
Clean 7 7
Tradition 1 1
Family 9 9
Total 107 108 118 333

The second case study is from England. A study of English culture and house design (Ozaki,
2001, 2002, 2003) reported how the internal layout was linked to cultural norms. The use
and configurations of rooms have changed in accordance with changes in social relations
and family structures. Strict social relationships among household members were reflected
in the way domestic space was used and shaped. For example, with the strict gender
division of labour in the Victorian era, women were confined to the back region of the house
and men in middle-class households had the male sphere in the front region (Williams
1987). With the strict division between adults and children, and between family members
and non-family members, adults and guests were expected to enter the house through the
front door, whereas children, servants and trades people did through the back (Goffman
1959). When middle-class women came to take over the work of servants and play the role
of both a domestic and the hostess, middle-class families developed less formal relationships
between husbands and wives, and parents and children (Burnett 1986; Goffman 1959;
Ravetz 1989, Ravetz and Turkington 1995); and this brought the kitchen-diner where people
ate in the place the meal had been prepared (Burnett 1986; Saunders 1990). In other
words, separate rooms in the dwelling (= fixed feature) expressed separate roles and status
of household members (= values and norms; middle-level meanings), which were governed
by the Victorian middle-class culture (high-level meanings), through people’s daily activities
(= manifest functions; lower-level meanings).

In recent years, a new house type has gained popularity in a certain section of the UK
housing market. Urban developments and industrial building conversion projects typically
have an all-in-one style of the living room (where the kitchen and dining space are

10
integrated into the living room), as can be seen in other cities in the world (e.g. Zukin,
1982). This means the traditional “boundaries” in domestic space (e.g. the front vs. the
back) are no longer valid in this type of housing. These new trends would mark a significant
break from traditional suburban middle-class ideal. Suburban housing with separate rooms
had become a symbol of traditional family values with the separation of home and work and
separate conjugal roles over a century ago, and still remains a model of contemporary
house design (Burnett 1986). In order to explore the meaning attached to open-plan
layouts, a total of 32 in-depth interviews were conducted with residents who lived in the
loft-style flat in the City Fringe area and Isle of Dogs in London, where much former
industrial stock and conversion projects can be found. The request for the interview was
sent to 10 residents committees in the areas, and 32 owner-occupiers from 7 different
schemes responded and offered an interview. Of these 32 respondents, 18 are men and 14
are women; the age groups range from the 20s to over 60. They are either single or
married/co-habiting without children, with the exception of two respondents.

The investigation has found that the residents tend to have “liberal” social relations between
the household members: the communication or interaction between partners is regarded as
vital. Interview respondents stress that they share household chores and that it is important
for one of the partners (usually, the female) not to be excluded from social occasions that
they often hold in their home. They consider “being in touch” to be very important and
therefore chose the open layout. This more equal and social culture in their domestic arena
materializes through integrating everyone and entertaining casually, and underlies their
choice and evaluation of dwelling features (Ozaki, 2004)1. This study presents the vertical
relationship between meanings concerning the open-plan living room: liberal culture (as a
system of shared meanings) – more equal gender relations and non-exclusiveness (values
and norms) – use of the open-plan, such as cooking together, communicating, entertaining
a lot, etc. (manifest functions). The mechanism behind the choice of the open-plan layout is
clearly shown.

6. Conclusion

In our own research on the lower- and middle-level meanings of fixed dwelling features, we
make use of a conceptual framework, which is based on two theoretical distinctions – one
distinguishing types of features and the other distinguishing levels of meanings; and this
framework has several interfaces with the more commonly used notions of culture and
lifestyle. The purpose of this paper was to find out whether the notions of culture and
lifestyle could become an integral part of our conceptual framework, and what the added
value of integrating these notions is for understanding the meaning of a dwelling.

For this purpose, a conceptual analysis, in which several definitions of culture and lifestyle
were considered, was performed first. This analysis made clear that the notion of culture,
defined as a historically transmitted system of shared meanings by which people
communicate and develop their place in and towards life, can easily be integrated in our
framework as a high-level meaning. Culture governs the way in which people think about
and use a dwelling, and as such it influences our preferences for and choices of dwelling
features. It clarifies the relationship between people and the dwelling: why people do what
they do in certain features, how they use them, and consequently, what those features
mean and what at least part of the mechanism behind people’s housing-related activities is.

1
This study is sponsored by the Bernard Sunley Charitable Foundation.

11
Culture therefore provides us with contextual information and helps us to understand the
vertical relationship of meanings of our conceptual framework. The case studies
subsequently showed that the notion of culture has added value if it is used in this way.
Several lower- and middle-level meanings that occurred in our empirical studies could be
better understood if they were considered in the context of cultural developments.

The notion of lifestyle, on the other hand, does not add anything, as we are already looking
at the way people allocate their resources and chose certain features in order to achieve
their goals, values and desired image. The lifestyle issue is already dealt with in our
framework in a systematic way, which makes the notion redundant from the perspective of
this framework.

Finally, the case studies also show that the approach of this paper in which we deconstruct
the holistic view of a dwelling and focus on separate dwelling features, makes sense. People
are not only able to relate themselves to features, but can also express what they mean to
them. This resulted, for the features that were presented in the case studies, in several sets
of meanings that made sense and could be interpreted. The fact that these sets of meanings
were only partly overlapping is an extra reason for focussing on features. By studying the
meaning of dwelling features, we probably discover meanings that may remain hidden in a
holistic study of the meaning of a dwelling.

References

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. and Turner, B. (1984) The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, Penguin Books,
London.

Ahrentzen, S. (2002) Socio-behavioral qualities of the built environment, In R.E. Dunlap & W.
Michelson, Handbook of Environmental Sociology, Greenwood Press, Westport.

Becker, F.D. and Coniglio, C. (1975) Environmental messages: Personalization and territory,
Humanitas, 11, 55 – 74.

Bettman, J.R. (1979) An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Addison-Wesley,

Reading.

Brown, B.B. (1987) Territoriality, In D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental
Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 505 – 531.

Burnett, J. (1986) A Social History of Housing 1815-1985, 2nd ed., Routledge, London.

Chaney, D. (1996) Lifestyles, Routledge, London.

Coolen, H. (2002) The meaning of preferences for features of a dwelling: a conceptual and
methodological framework, paper presented at the IAPS 2002 conference, La Coruña, Spain, 22-27
July.

Coolen, H. (2004, forthcoming) The meaning of preferences for features of a dwelling: a study about
(sub)urban apartment dwellers, paper to be presented at the IAPS conference, Vienna, 7-10 July.

Coolen, H. and Hoekstra, J. (2001) Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes,
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16, 285-306.

12
Connell, J. (1998) Homing Instinct: Using Your Lifestyle to Design and Build Your Home, McGraw-Hill,
New York.

Després, C. (1991) The meaning of home: literature review and directions for future research and
theoretical development, The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8, 96-115.

Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, Routledge
& Kegan Paul, London.

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York.

Gibson, J.J. (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Gutman, J. (1982) A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes, Journal of
Marketing, 46, 60-72.

Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin books, London.

Hall, E.T. (1966) The Hidden Dimension, New York: Doubleday & Company.

Hawkins, D.I., Best, R.J., and Coney, K.A. (1998) Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy,
McGraw-Hill, Boston.

Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R. (1982) Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World,
Praeger, New York.

Laurence, R.J. (1984) Transition spaces and dwelling design, Journal of Architectural Planning and
Research, 1, 261-271.

Laurence, R.J. (1996) The multidimensional nature of boundaries: An integrative historical

perspective, In: D. Pellow (ed.), Setting Boundaries: The Anthropology of Spatial and Social
Organization, Bergin & Garvey, West Port, 9-36.

Leavitt, J. and Loukaitou-Sideris, A.(1995) A decent home and a suitable environment: Dilemmas of
public housing residents in Los Angeles, Journal of Architectural and Planning research, 12(3), 221 –
239.

Michelson, W. and P. Reed (1970) The theoretical status and operational usage of lifestyle in
environmental research, Research paper no. 36, Center for Urban and Community Studies, University
of Toronto, Toronto.

Moore, J. (2000) Placing home in context, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 207-217.

Ozaki, R. (2001) Society and housing form: home-centredness in England vs. family-centredness in
Japan, Journal of Historical Sociology, 14(3), 337-357.

Ozaki, R. (2002) Housing as a cultural representation: privatised living and privacy in England and
Japan, Housing Studies, 17(2), 209-227.

Ozaki, R. (2003) The “front” and “back” regions of the English house: changing values and lifestyles,
Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 18, 105-127.

Ozaki, R. (2004, forthcoming) Loft apartments: new spatial and psycho-social boundaries, paper to be
presented at the IAPS conference, Vienna, 7-10 July.

13
Rapoport, A. (1977) Human aspects of urban form, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Rapoport, A. (1981) Identity and environment: A cross-cultural perspective, In: J.S. Duncan (ed.),
Housing and Identity: Cross-cultural perspectives, Croom Helm, London, 6-35.

Rapoport, A. (1988) Levels of meaning in the built environment, In: F. Poyatos (ed.), Cross-cultural
perspectives in nonverbal communication, C.J. Hogrefe, Toronto, 317-336.

Rapoport, A. (1990) The meaning of the built environment, University of Arizona Press, Tucson
(second edition).

Ravetz, A. (1989) A View from the Interior, In: J. Attfield and P. Kirkham (eds.), A View from the
Interior: Feminism, Women and Design, The Women's Press, London, 187-205.

Ravetz, A. and Turkington, R. (1995) The Place of Home: English Domestic Environments, 1914-2000,
E&FN Spon.

Rokeach, M.J. (1973) The Nature of Human Values, Free Press, New York.

Saunders, P. (1989) Space, urbanism and the created environment, In: D. Held and J.B.Thompson
(eds.), Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his critics, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 215-234.

Saunders, P. (1990) A Nation of Home Owners, Unwin Hyman, London.

Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (1998) Sociaal en Cultureel Rapport 1998. 25 jaar sociale
verandering, Elsevier, Den Haag.

Tekkaya, E. (2002) The image of house in television advertisement, paper presented at the ENHR
2002 conference, Vienna, 1-5 July 2002.

Weber, M. (1972) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft; Grundriss der Verstehenden Soziologie, Mohr,
Tübingen.

Wedel, M. and W.A. Kamakura (1998) Market segmentation. Conceptual and methodological
foundations, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Williams, P. (1987) Constituting class and gender: a social history of the home 1700 –1901, In:
N.Thrift and P.Williams (eds.), Class and Space: The Making of Urban Society, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London, 154-204.

Zukin, S. (1982) Loft Living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change, The Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.

14