Construcciones relacionales

In chapter 2 the principal day living rooms were sorted into reception- and service-related cells and room labels translated into the three basic functions receiving, eating and cooking, in order that different use behind common labels could be identified. This chapter focus again on these spaces, viewed as settings where the daily interaction among inhabitants — among family members and between these and servants, whenever applied — occurs, and where encounter between inhabitants and visitors were likely to have been

staged.

Two spaces function as opposite poles for the inhabitants versus outsiders type of interface; the space used for cooking and the room designed chiefly for receiving visitors. In theory, the setting for eating, bridges the two domains, by being both an essential family space and the scenario for entertaining to a meal. However, as has been mentioned in textual references, the room designed for meals-taking may range from the locus of stately interaction between inhabitants and visitors, to a centre of family life, occasionally open to visitors, or perhaps it seems reasonable to suppose, not available to visitors at all, in some cases. It has also been associated with gender differentiation within the household, being referred by many authors as a male setting as opposed to the female-orientated drawing room. Although such issues can hardly be investigated at this general level, a first insight on the way those spaces articulate across class and time might let out some clues for further exploration.

A hurdle to sort out was the merging of functions in the same room. Although the great majority of houses in the sample did have a reception room, in a number of two-living room dwellings, eating was also carried out in this room as was inferred, for example, by the lack of spare space for a table in the other room where the sink and the main cooking apparatus were found. The

functions eating and cooking were also amalgamated in a significant number of cases. In fact, one hundred and thirty-two (26.4% of the sample) dwellings had only one room exempt from any form of service related activity and sixteen had none. It was thus decided that amalgamated functions would be treated as having the same RRA value for the purpose of viewing the entire sample in a first uniform way.

An overview of how much accessibility was generally granted to the three basic day functions before and after 1914 was attempted and results compared

across class. This was thought to be a necessary background for the identification of patterns of hierarchy among these functions which follows.

Table 3.4 displays the average RRA of the three chief day functions for the entire sample and for cases published before and after 1914. Eating is the

most integrated function throughout the time span but whereas before the war eating (1.399 av.RRA) opposes cooking (1.524 av.RRA) as most integrated and most segregated activities, after 1914 the main contrast is between eating (1.300 av.RRA) and receiving (1.417 av.RRA). Another aspect revealed is that in earlier cases each function seems to define a proper configuration niche with a considerable gap keeping them apart in terms of average RRA values, but after 1914, eating and cooking (1.300 and 1.353 av.RRA, resp.) share practically a same integration level and this seems to be a consequence of much more accessibility granted to the latter function over time.

As this might have been an effect of more than one activity being amalgamated in a same space, the sample was sorted according to the most integrated function in each complex. Table 3.5a shows that three hundred and twenty- one cases are ’single-function-centred' whereas in one hundred and seventy- nine others, more than one function share top integrated position or no

functional hierarchy exists at all.

The term 'single-function-centred' (between inverted commas) is being used to differentiate these from 'double-function-centred' cases, the former signifying complexes in which one key day function is more integrated than the others, the latter those systems in which two functions share top integrating position. It should not be mistaken with function-space-centred complexes, which

designate spatial systems in which the most integrated space is a function cell.

Among 'single-function-centred' cases, both reception-centred and eating- centred clusters oppose the kitchen as the most segregated space and define neat gaps between each setting, in terms of average integration. In the former, average mean RRA values are 1.413 for receiving, 1.646 for eating and 1.749 for cooking, and in the latter group values are 1.500, 1.229 and 1.549,

respectively. Cooking-centred cases oppose the setting for receiving (1.441 mean RRA) as the most segregated function but a wide gap in average RRA values also separates the two functions — cooking (1.173 mean RRA) and eating (1.411 mean RRA). This fact reveals a distinct configurational angle as compared to the relationship verified between eating and cooking for the sample as a whole, meaning that the proximity between eating and cooking in

the whole sample was probably being biased by the number of cases in which these functions amalgamate.

In diachronic terms (tab.3.5b/c), it can be seen that eating-centred complexes define a similar average profile before and after 1914, with neat configuration gaps separating each function, the setting for receiving maintaining almost the same integration value (from 1.501 before, to 1.499, after 1914) and those used for eating and cooking becoming more integrated (from 1.258 to 1.204 and from 1.583 to 1.518 mean RRA, respectively).

In reception-centred cases all functions become much more integrated after 1914, with the setting for receiving shifting from an average 1.481 mean RRA to 1.318, that designed for eating from 1.716 to 1.548 and the space designed for cooking, falling from an average mean RRA of 1.868 before the war to 1.583 after 1914, thus approximating the levels of accessibility granted for the meals room.

In cooking-centred complexes the move towards more integration seems to follow an opposite direction in relation to that of reception-centred cases

i cooking and eating apart is widened with receiving

changing from an average mean RRA value of 1.493 to 1.401, eating from 1.452 to 1.378 and cooking from 1.225 to. 1.131.

Again, new aspects of the relationship between the space used for preparing meals and that designed for enjoying them are revealed. Cooking and eating activities are widely separated in configuration terms in prewar homes but after 1914 the syntactic position of the setting used for cooking alters according to distinct patterns: it may bunch together with the room where meals are served, both being withdrawn from the hub of movement (reception-centred cases), or keep well apart from it and from the interaction arena (eating-centres

complexes) or, still, well apart from eating but constituting a focus of integration.

Table 3.6 displays the number of 'single-function-centred' cases for each social group. It can be seen that eating-centred complexes dominate among upper middle class dwellings before (48.6%) and after 1914 (44.7%). Prewar middling plans split chiefly between eating- and cooking-centred categories

05.4% and 40%, respectively), the latter becoming overwhelmingly dominant (54.1%) after 1914. Prewar single-centred-function complexes are too few among small houses which become predominantly eating-centred (55.9%) after 1914.

Receiving-centred complexes are less numerous than the other two, specially after 1914, and tend to associate with upper (19.4% before and 15.8% after

1914) and middling (24.6% before and 19.7% after 1914) houses. They also assemble 14.7% of post-1914 small dwellings. Cooking-centred systems, although predominantly middle middle class, also embody a significant share of prewar (31.9%) and post-1914 (39.5%) upper plans as well as of lower middle class cases (29.4%) published after 1914.

The clear definition of configuration brackets for each function in eating-centred complexes points towards a demarcation of territories for the three

communities of home users —visitors, family and servants or, maybe, visitors, family and women or, yet, visitors, family plus visitors and women (servants) — thus suggesting that the room designed for meals is perhaps an essentially family room. These complexes, which associate chiefly with prewar upper middle class houses (with 56.4% of all eating-centred cases published before 1914), become prevalent among small dwellings after 1914 (53.5% of all cases published after 1914).

Prewar reception-centred plans are also well compartmentalised in terms of niches of accessibility but after 1914 no significant gap separates the settings for eating and cooking, signalling perhaps a shift towards an opposition between a visitors-centred focus of interaction and a more withdrawn

inhabitants' territory, comprising the spaces in which food is prepared and that where it is consumed.

Cooking-centred systems define a circuit which seems to set this space against a withdrawn family-plus-visitors milieu, judging from the gap in mean integration between the kitchen and the two reception rooms and from the syntactic proximity between these two. This may perhaps suggest a territory centred around the piace used for cooking which opposes and reserves the other day rooms for family/guests interaction. Figures suffer no radical alteration

after 1914.

However, as in both reception-centred and cooking-centred systems all functions become a lot more integrated after 1914, this appears to translate a tendency for less privacy and greater interplay between people and activities, a move which although apparently very strong among middling houses (since 42.9% of reception-centred and 48.5% of cooking-centred systems are found within this group after 1914), seems to be also quite evident among the other social clusters.

If the above assumptions are true it may perhaps be inferred that in upper middle class houses, as represented in this sample, the prevailing model throughout the time span is one in which the cell used for gatherings to meals is the locus of family interaction whereas the main reception room and that in which meals are prepared are set aside from the hub of daily contact. This model seems also to have been quite frequent among prewar middling households and, specially, among small dwellings after 1914.

Throughout the time span, the cooking-centred model, which prevails among middling complexes but is also found among upper homes, shows an opposition between an inhabitants-centred interface, spatialised around the act of

cooking, and a withdrawn social sphere embodying the two reception rooms. Although all three principal day rooms become more integrated after 1914, as compared to their prewar counterparts, (from 1.493 to 1.401 for the main

reception room; from 1.452 to 1.378 for the room used for meals; and from 1.225 to 1.131 for the kitchen) the configurational opposition between the main service

room — as locus of inhabitants integration — and the main reception rooms is maintained. (Table 3.5c)

3.2.21. Of functions and general configuration

In order to assess a possible correlation between houses integrated around a given function and the overall pattern of spatial configuration, mean RRA and BDF values in the complexes were compared for each leading function, that is, for houses in which the focus of integration centres in one of the three

functions. Complexes presenting more than one function sharing equal top integrating value were disregarded.

Table 3.7 shows that spatial networks in which the setting used for cooking is the most integrated basic day function present, by far, the highest average mean Integration, being also the most differentiated, on average (1.407 RRA, 0.825 BDF). Those in which the main reception room is more integrated than the other two functions show the highest average mean RRA and BDF values (1.607 and 0.838, respectively), thus suggesting a theme of generalised

segregation, and the systems integrated around the space used for eating rank in-between, in terms of both integration and differentiation (1.514 RRA, 0.829 BDF). T-tests indicate that the variance in integration between the average mean RRA for all 'single-function-centred' complexes and that of each cluster is significant as regards reception-centred (p.= 0.0001), these being more

segregating, and cooking-centred (p.= 0.0001) complexes, more integrating. Reception-centred cases are also significantly (p.= 0.0001) less differentiated, in relation to the average for all groups.

Before the war (tab.3.7b/c), the theme of generalised segregation (1.678 RRA, 0.850 BDF), again, equates with complexes whose main integrated day function is the chief reception room, both measures contrasting significantly

(p.= 0.0001 for RRA and BDF values) with the averages for the subsample of 'single-function-centred' cases. Again, cooking-centred systems are

significantly more integrated (1.444 RRA, p.=0.001) than the subsample, on average, whereas the ones centred around the space used for eating rank in- between, being only slightly more integrated (1.527 RRA) but significantly more differentiated (0.824 BDF, p.=0.0178). Variance in integration among each ‘single-function-centred’ group is significant between reception-centred and both, eating-centred (0.0044) and cooking-centred (p.=0.0001) complexes and less so between eating-centred and cooking-centred cases (p.= 0.0303). Differentiation is also significantly less for reception-centred complexes in relation to the other two (p.= 0.0017 either) but not significant between eating- and cooking-centred cases.

Again, less fragmentation in the circulation network does not guarantee more integration. Reception-centred complexes are significantly more segregated

than eating-centred ones, yet the proportion of transition to function spaces (rounded up in table 3.7) is practically the same for both clusters. The unpaired T-test (two-tail) for both values show a probability of 0.8115.

After 1914 there occurs a significant (p.= 0.0013) increase in the average mean integration for 'single-function-centred' complexes,.in general, as compared to prewar cases. Average mean RRA values are 1.507, 1.503 and 1.377 for reception-, eating-, and cooking-centred cases, respectively. Reception- and cooking-centred complexes become significantly more integrated (p.= 0.0043 and 0.0085, resp.) as compared to their categories before the war. The gain in average integration for eating-centred systems is, T-test indicates, irrelevant (p.= 0.4967). The increase in average differentiation for the two subsamples is neglectable (p.= 0.4783). So is that for each cluster but for the reception- centred group (p.=0.0009).

T-tests (one group, two-tail) also indicate that cooking-centred systems are significantly more integrated (p.= 0.0001) and reception-centred as well as eating-centred ones significantly (p.= 0.0001, both) more segregated than the average for the period. The variance between reception-centred complexes and the other two is only significant (unpaired T-test, two-tails) as regards cooking-centred cases (1.377 RRA, p.= 0.0001) which are also significantly

(p.= 0.0001) more integrated than eating-centred ones (1.503 mean RRA). Differentiation among the three function groups in not significant.

The scattergrams in figure 3.6 illustrate the above described findings. It can be seen that a number of dots migrate from the segregated/non-differentiated to the integrated half, and specially to the integrated/differentiated quarter of the diagram as the variable changes from the setting used for receiving to that for eating and to the one used for cooking, as focal points of interaction in the complexes. This is more evident among earlier cases. After 1914, dots representing reception- and eating-centred complexes tend to concentrate in the intersection point of the average lines whereas cooking-centred systems bunch in the integrated half.

The space designed for cooking presents the widest range of variation in RRA values among the three functions as can be seen in figure 3.7, particularly in

prewar houses. On the other hand, the most stable range is shown to be that of main reception rooms, it thus appears that the alteration in hierarchy among main day functions over time, was chiefly due to changes in the syntactic

position of the other two functions — specially cooking — in relation to main reception rooms and to the whole spatial network.

Although it has been strongly suggested that a larger proportion of transition cells contributes to but does not always increase segregation, it seems worth pointing out that cooking-centred complexes do tend to be more economical in terms of circulation spaces, judging from the data displayed in table 3.7.

The last observations stress the mutating character of the sample and demonstrates that rearrangements in the system associate with shifts in accessibility concerning the rooms used for eating and for cooking. This points towards a restructuring of domestic networks based upon the

inhabitants’ sphere which will become increasingly more accessible at the expense of the visitors’ territory. A strong integrating property of the setting used for cooking which tends to pull the whole system closely together as it moves around the network, was also highlighted.

3.2.2 2 Of fu n ctio n s and hierarchy

If all cases are again viewed in a synchronic perspective and complexes which are not 'single-function-centred' reintroduced, all that can be inferred in terms of a global pattern of functional hierarchy underlying the entire sample is that complexes are centred in the space designed for meals (average RRA =

1.348). Although some differentiation between the average RRA value of the space used for cooking (1.437) — ranking next — and that of the main

reception room (1.443) occur, this difference is neglectable (p.= 0.7071).

This apparent levelling of accessibility between reception- and cooking-related spaces is an effect of the radical alteration suffered by the setting designed for cooking in terms of general accessibility, over time. A brief examination of the way the three functions interrelate across class and time in the sample as a whole might prove useful as a background for the discussion of genotypical patterns of interaction that follows.

Table 3.8 displays mean RRA values of each function for the sample as a whole and according to the social group of potential occupants. As happens with the average values for the whole sample, neither in the upper nor in the medium category clear gaps define a proper niche for all three functions, in terms of average integration values, a fact certainly related to the

configurational development of certain functions over time, as stated above. Among upper middle class cases there is no significant differentiation in the average RRA values between the spaces used for receiving and cooking and among middle middle class dwellings all differences are insignificant.

Among lower middle class dwellings, however, significant inequality gaps set the most integrated space (1.284 av. RRA) — used for eating — from that used for cooking (1.396, av.RRA, p.= 0.0001) and the latter from the main reception room (1.445 av.RRA, p.=0.0104). This pattern has been referred by Millier and Hanson’'^ as an immensely powerful genotypical theme in English domestic space organisation and said to reappear under an enormous number of geometric and syntactic transformations.

The sample was again split into four time periods in order to minimise the effect that changes in the configurational position of each function over time has for disguising functional differentiation viewed in a synchronic perspective.

With the sample split into social and time clusters (table 3.9) it was found that the eating more integrated than cooking more integrated than receiving

theme is not the average tendency in any cluster before 1893 (ta b .3 .9a) and prevails only among lower middle class houses during turn-of-the-century decades (tab.3.9b) whereas that which ranks eating more integrated than receiving more integrated than cooking (eating > receiving > cooking),

dominates the sample, on average terms, until 1914 (tab.3.9a/b), showing an inversion in the relative positions of the settings designed for receiving and cooking, as compared to the inequality expression considered particularly powerful by Millier and Manson. On the other hand, after 1923 (tab.3.9d), the eating > cooking > receiving trend becomes prevalent in upper as well as