ESQUEMA DEL SEGMENTO PID

The concept of home is very lightly touched upon by the literature in hospitality. The home has been under-explored in relation to small accommodation units. However private homes have been considered by a number of authors. The following section will explore chronologically the literature on private homes. Table 3 shows the different concepts of home.

Table 3. Concepts of Home

Year Author Concept of home

1903 Gilman Offers rest, peace, quiet, comfort, health, personal expression

1959 Goffman Front, back regions

1986 Saunders & Williams Social meanings. Peace and tranquillity but also conflict violence and tension

1988 Saunders & Williams Setting for social, political and economic relations

1991 Douglas Tyranny of home

1993 Gullestad Express self identity through home decoration

1994 Boym Not the space but how it is inhabited

1995 Marcus Mirror of self

1996 Darke House is a back region

2000 Wise Territory, bi-polar.

2001 Miller, Clarke Objectify self identity through home decoration

2002 Chowers Memories of self, evoke emotions

Gilman (1903:82) defines home as ‘a human institution which offers rest, peace, quiet, comfort, health and personal expression’. Gilman acknowledges the linked

social and spatial dimensions of the home. Saunders & Williams (1986:82) leading on from this, identify the home as:

A place invested with special social meaning and significance where particular kinds of social relations and activities are composed, accomplished and contextualised. Peace and tranquillity may pertain for some at some times but conflict, violence and tension are also characteristics of the home.

It is recognised that although the home can be a safe haven for some, for others it can be a place of violence and pain. Home means something different to each individual depending on socio-cultural context. The home carries psychological significance.

Saunders & Williams (1988) emphasise the home as a key setting in which broad social, political and economic relations link to the personal, sexual and emotional lives of individuals, households and kin.

Douglas (1991) reflects on the tyranny of the home in contrast to the affectionate images associated with the home. She suggests that the regularity of doing things is one of the distinguishing features of the home. Douglas also comments on the front back regions of the home, and furthers this idea by suggesting that there are four axes,

‘back-front, up-down, two sides, and inside-outside’. Douglas provides a deep understanding of what constitutes a home and makes some contrasts with the hotel:

For Douglas (1991:289) the idea of the hotel is a perfect opposite of the home, not only because it uses market principles for its transactions, but because it allows clients to buy privacy as a right of exclusion. This offends doubly the principle of the home whose rules and separations provide some limited privacy for each member (Douglas, 1991).

Gullestad, (1993:146) established that people ‘express their self identities through visual/visible and material/tangible practices of home decoration’. The décor people choose will convey messages about their identity. Boym (1994:299) argues that it is

‘not the space itself, not the house, but the way of inhabiting it that made it home’.

Similarly to Gullestad, Marcus (1995) has identified the home as a mirror of self. In

her study of people’s relationship with their home, she identified the home as fulfilling many needs. She sees the home as a reflection of one’s self.

Wise (2000:295) identifies territory in the home; “home is a territory, an expression”.

He describes the home as a collection of milieus, the organisation of objects and the formation of space. Although he insists that this is not all that makes up a home, and agreeing with Boym (1994), Wise (2000) states that home is also the presence of other people and habits. Wise also explores ways of marking that establish personal territories in a search for a place of comfort. He explores the nature of these markings, of this territorialization, and how such processes are cultural. He argues that identity is territory and thought establishes the home, ‘home is not an ordinary place from which identity arises. It is not the place we come from, it is a place we are’ (Wise, 2000:298).

The home may be a space of violence and pain: ‘home then becomes the process of coping, comforting, stabilizing oneself, in other words: resistance.

But home can also mean a process of rationalization or submission, a break with the reality of the situation, self-delusion, or falling under the delusions of others.

(Wise, 2000:301)

Home therefore can be bi-polar. It can have different meanings for different people (Wise, 2000). Hosts will have different relationships to their commercial homes.

Some may see it as a home first and business second or as a business first and a home second. Each person will have their own emotional ties and memories bound up in their own home.

Miller (2001a) and Clarke (2001) concur with Gullestad (1993). Although rather than

‘express’ they believe people ‘objectify’ their self identities through visual/visible and material/tangible practices of home decoration. Therefore Gullestad believes people show or reveal their identities whereas Miller and Clarke believe people take this a step further and represent themselves concretely.

Chowers (2002) believes the home where we grew up can remind us of who we are.

He argues that it can evoke memories of childhood, the sound of neighbours, the smell of cooking, and the sight of particular trees: ‘A part of the human soul is drawn to the sensual, and this part is mostly space-specific, it presupposes an ongoing access to and conversation with a particular location’ (Chowers, 2002:235). Figure 2 demonstrates the author’s suggestions of different dimensions of the home.

Figure 2. Dimensions of Home

Cultural

Conversation Territory