Boundaries and the meaning of social space: a study of Japanese house plans

If there was a single best way to design a house to live in, all modern houses would be the same, but they are not: typical modern Japanese houses are not the same as typical modern British ones. As cultural values vary, so do psychological needs; and house form changes accordingly. The basic boundaries in the house are expressions of social classifications which regulate human behaviour, and boundaries are a useful focus when considering the meaning and cultural variation of house design. In the present study, data on spatial boundaries (house plans) are interpreted in the light of the Japanese emphasis on the inside ^ outside classification, which not only forms a physical demarcation in and around the house but also creates and reinforces psychological boundaries in human relationships. The social boundaries which define and maintain this classification are also evident in phenomenological accounts of Japanese people resident in the United Kingdom. DOI:10.1068/d62j (1) Cultures are not homogeneous or monolithic and are subject to constant renegotiation. However, it is still valid to speak of what is typical in a particular culture (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). as a `bar'. Because people recognise and understand the significance of the threshold, it is also a sociocultural boundary; and the significance of this sociocultural boundary (that is, the meaning of the physical threshold) lies in its association with social classifications. In this case, people below a certain age may not go into a bar and buy alcohol in many countries. There is a boundary of adulthood which is understood by adults and children, and this sociocultural boundary marks the particular social classification: adults may cross the boundary, children may not. Children know the bar is a forbidden place for them, so if they do cross the threshold, they are aware of it. There may be associated cognitive and affective experiences: a frisson of excitement, nervousness, etc. The boundary, therefore, also exists at the psychological, phenomenological level: the child is aware of crossing it. Boundaries, thus, exist at three distinct but related levels, and the special qualities of boundaries have commended them to sociological and anthropological scrutiny (Douglas, 1966; Pellow, 1996; Turner, 1967). In the present context, boundaries are salient to an exploration of the meaning (at the sociocultural level) of house plans and to address questions of cultural variation: why, for example, is the internal layout of Japanese houses different from that of Western ones? Furthermore, why has the internal layout of Japanese houses changed over time in some respects but not in others? This paper, by using an empirical study of Japanese houses, focuses on boundaries as a way of gaining insight into the meaning of social space. We briefly consider the significance of boundaries within the social construction of space, then we introduce relevant Japanese values, in particular the emphatic distinction between inside and outside (a classification which creates and reinforces psychological boundaries in human relationships, and forms spatial demarcations in and around the house) and the, much discussed, Japanese concern with dirt avoidance (Hendry, 1992; OhnukiTierney, 1984; 1987). In terms of the above description of boundaries at different levels, published accounts of Japanese values are used to infer sociocultural boundaries with reference to spatial use, and a study of Japanese house plans shows physical, spatial boundaries. Furthermore, phenomenological accounts provide confirmation that the inferred sociocultural boundaries are, indeed, also experienced at the psychological level. By looking at the three levels of boundaries separately, we attempt to demonstrate the interrelationship between them. Finally, we argue that the exploration of boundaries is informative regarding the organisation and appropriation of social space. The socially constructed meaning of space In this paper we take a broadly social-constructionist perspective, whereby people perceive the world the way in which they do because they interact with the world through participation in socially shared practices, which transmit, reproduce, and transform meaning systems through direct and symbolic social interchanges (Dittmar, 1992). Therefore, people's understanding of the world is different across time and culture, and they accept a particular conception of the world not because it is empirically valid but because it seems to work (Gergen, 1985). The way in which people classify themselves, others, objects, settings, events, and periods of time is defined by conceptual categories. Although these classifications may feel natural or appear to be arbitrary, the practice of categorisation is usually consistent with cultural norms in a specific society at a specific time. Boundaries are used to define our daily affairs and restrict and regulate the interactions of people and the use of spaces. Spatial meaning is therefore expressed by unwritten social rules and conventions (Lawrence, 1984; 1996), and a focus on boundaries helps us to understand the way in which people use social space. 92 R Ozaki, J Rees Lewis