Journal of Environmental Psychology (2000) 20, 207^217 0272 - 4944/00/090207 + 11$35.

00/0
# 2000 Academic Press
doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0178, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

PLACING HOME IN CONTEXT1

JEANNE MOORE
University of Teesside, U.K.

Abstract

The concept of home has been the focus of three decades of research within environmental psychology. Despite
this awareness, there has been a lack of `critical or innovative theories and methods' to examine home. In
recent years, there has been a call for a reappraisal of the concept.
Broadly, previous discussions of the concept of home within psychology have tended to focus more on the
experiential and personal aspects of home than the social and cultural aspects. Until recently, sociological
discussions have tended to ignore the experiential signi¢cance of home. The aim of this paper is to broaden
the current debate on home within environmental psychology by examining key themes in the social science
literature on home. It argues that there is a movement away from identifying core sites of meaning, towards a
context-sensitive focus on the experience and use of home. # 2000 Academic Press

Introduction context of home, and development of a contextual

understanding of the concept of home which trans-
The rich psychological meaning of home is evident cends the material characteristics of domestic space
from the range of studies within environmental psy- (Lawrence, 1995; see also Altman & Gauvain, 1981).
chology on the meaning of home over 20 years. There The psychological focus on the concept of home
is a renewed enthusiasm for examining home, which can be explored in terms of inherited `ways of see-
is drawing from decades of psychological and socio- ing' (Berger, 1972).2 While home research has in-
logical exploration. In recent years, the literature cluded ¢ne complex analyses of its complexities
on the concept of home has been moving away from and vagaries, these are often ignored in broad as-
the development of psychological and experiential sessments on home. This paper begins with a view
sets of meanings or `lists', and is moving towards ex- on three key in£uences on current home research:
amining home with particular theoretical, social (i) cultural, linguistic and historical context; (ii)
and cultural contexts. philosophical and phenomenological context; and
Key writers on home within both psychology and (iii) psychological context.
sociology in recent years have recognized the need Following this brief review, and to encourage a
to draw together the personal and the cultural (cf. newly emerging `way' of seeing home, this paper
Gurney, 1990; Benjamin & Stea, 1995; Lawrence, focuses on this emerging complexity through the
1995; Rapoport, 1995; Somerville, 1997; Chapman & diversity and tensions in the contexts and experi-
Hockey, 1999). However, there still remains a broad ence of home. The paper concludes with some sug-
tendency to focus on the more emotive and experi- gestions for ways to place future home research.
ential elements without placing them in their appro-
priate contexts.
Much of the existing literature on the concept of Cultural, linguistic and historical signi¢cance
home needs to be revisited, to draw out its subtle-
ties and contexts. In the rush to develop personal The di¤culty in coming to grips with the concept of
and experiential frameworks, the broader physical home is its increasingly central role in everyday life,
and cultural surroundings were often ignored. This coupled with its rich social, cultural and historical
supports wider calls for a greater focus on the signi¢cance. This is illustrated by a comparison
208 J. Moore

with the concept of family, which while also having broadly described by Benjamin (1995) to include:
historical and cultural associations, does not seem word; descriptive term in the social scienti¢c, huma-
to match the concept of home in depth or levels of nistic and architectural literature; judicial term;
meanings. condition in psychiatric research (i.e. home sick-
The term `the concept of home' is used here, with ness) and cultural phenomenon.
home in italics, to indicate that home is examined In the German language there are di¡erent words
not just as a concrete word but as an abstract sig- to evoke the concept of home. Hobsbawm (1993) dis-
ni¢er of a wide set of associations and meanings. cusses the di¡erence between Heim and Heimat. He
While many psychological, sociological and environ- argues that the concept of home in the wider sense,
mental studies have grappled with the di¡erent Heimat (motherland), is essentially public. It is al-
meanings, there has not been, until recently, any most always a social construction rather than a real
workable de¢nition which is inclusive. It is a con- memory. Heimat is by de¢nition collective, it cannot
cept which is di¤cult to explicitly de¢ne and ma- belong to an individual. Therefore the private, Heim,
nipulate (Benjamin, 1995). It has been described as has become the more common usage. [For a more
ambiguous, not to be taken for granted (Lawrence, detailed linguistic analysis of the word home see
1995), as well as potentially confusing and danger- Beneviste (1973) or Klein (1971)].
ous (Rapoport, 1995). The most comprehensive de¢- There are multiple and disparate references to
nition of home has been put forward by Benjamin home within English and American literature (cf.
(1995, p. 158): Elbert, 1987) and popular sayings spanning over
400 years. The word home can refer to a diverse
The home is that spatially localised, temporally de-
¢ned, signi¢cant and autonomous physical frame range of meanings. The use of home to refer to coun-
and conceptual system for the ordering, transforma- try or birthplace was featured in much ancient lit-
tion and interpretation of the physical and abstract erature and poetry as stories of exodus and exile
aspects of domestic daily life at several simulta- (Hollander, 1993) and the end-phase of a journey
neous spatio-temporal scales, normally activated by (cf. Odysseus returning to Ithaca, cited in Casey,
the connection to a person or community such as a
nuclear family. 1993). One of the oldest references was in relation
to Hestia, the Greek goddess of the hearth, at the
However, this does not re£ect the shared cultural centre of family life, and of household economy in
signi¢cance of home nor does it venture to encom- the broadest sense. To invoke Hestia was to invoke
pass how it is signi¢cant, which has been in many a presence of dwelling and home within the living
ways, the driving force of most psychological discus- quarters.
sion on home. Many of the early quotations3 of home refer to
The di¤culty in de¢ning the concept is in part the country or land: `Keep far our foes, give
due to its many layers of meaning. To borrow peace at home' (Book of Common Prayer, 1627);
Rybczynski's (1986, p. 230) analysis of comfort, un- `England, home and beauty' (Samuel James
derstanding [home] Arnold, 1811). There are many symbolic and
metaphorical meanings which are commonly used
is like trying to describe an onion. It appears simple
on the outside, but it is deceptive, for it has many such as: happiness; belonging; a process of self ful-
layers. If it is cut apart, there are just onion skins ¢lment; and death, the end of life's journey: `Swing
left and the original form has disappeared. If each low sweet chariot, coming for to carry me home'
layer is described separately, we lose sight of the (Early Black American spiritual, 1850); `From God
whole. The layers are transparent so that when we who is our home' (Wordsworth, 1770^1850; Ode,
look at the whole onion we see not just the surface
but also something of the interior. Intimations from Recollection). There are
numerous references to home as the ultimate ¢nal
In this way, the concept of home has to be exam- journey or death. These are still meaningful today,
ined in terms of its parts as well as a whole, mind- which indicates the way in which the concept of
ful that to focus strongly on one part, it is possible home has continued to signify a much wider range
to lose sight of the whole concept itself. of meanings than are commonly used on a day to
It would seem that there is no word as `loaded' as day basis.
the concept of home in the Romance languages This broad sense of home became further compli-
(Hollander, 1993). Even within psychological debates cated with the domestication of the word which be-
there has been a lack of consensus about uses of ter- gan in the 17th and 18th centuries in England.
minology including `home', `housing' and `dwelling' The meaning of home switched from referring to the
(Lawrence, 1995). The range of its meanings was native village, birthplace or country to the
 Placing Home in Context 209

house (Aries, 1962; Janeway, 1971). Since the 19th Philosophical and phenomenological
century movement from using home as birthplace, context
to viewing it as a family dwelling and house, the
concept of home has been featured in much roman- Home and dwelling have a central focus within the
tic literature and poetry. While a literary account of disciplines of phenomenology and philosophy. Per-
the concept is beyond the scope of this enquiry (cf. haps the starting point for their inquiries was
Elbert, 1987; Mack, 1993), it is important to note Heidegger's interest in place and dwelling. Dwelling
that much of the thinking in psychology and phe- identi¢es the essential element of what it means `to
nomenology was greatly in£uenced by the increas- be a human being living in the world' (Heidegger,
ing focus on the domestic hearth as the context 1971, cited in Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995).
and subject of literary writers. These private and Also signi¢cant is the work of Bachelard, for
domestic uses of home are illustrated by literary whom the romance and signi¢cance of home and
quotations: `There is nothing like staying at home place formed the basis of a philosophy of space. He
for real comfort' (Jane Austen, 1775^1817); `Be it ever argued that home is a haven and our corner of the
so humble, there's no place like home' (J. H. Payne, world (Bachelard, 1964). Greatly in£uenced by these
1791^1872). philosophers, the study of place, rootedness and
Domesticity, privacy, comfort, the concept of the home were the focus of a number of humanist geo-
home and of the family are principal achievements graphers and phenomenologists in the 1970s (Relph,
of the Bourgeois Age (Lukacs, 1970). The house 1976; Tuan, 1977, 1980; Seamon, 1979; Buttimer, 1980).
became an essential aspect of the identity and Their work highlighted the human qualities of
self-de¢nition of the middle class (Welter, 1966). places and the bonds that develop. Their focus was
It would seem that the concepts of comfort, on the landscape of place and home rather than the
domesticity and home have been constructed social or psychological processes within. Relph
historically (Rybczynski, 1986). Early 20th- (1976) refers to home places as profound centres of
century quotations also refer to the symbolic and human existence. Their ideas have become strong
ideal use of home: `Keep the Home-Fires burning, features of the psychological literature in relation
while your hearts are yearning, Though your lads to the concept of home (cf. Korosec-Serfaty, 1984,
are far away, they dream of Home' (Lena Guilbert 1985; Dovey, 1985; Smith, 1994). Phenomenology
Ford, 1914). makes home the primary and central point from
However, it is important to recognize that the which the rest of the world is experienced and de-
experience of home was di¡erent for rural and ur- ¢ned (Case, 1996).
ban working class families (Rubin, 1976; Daunton, This understanding of place and dwelling as a
1983; Gurney, 1990). For urban working class fa- wider set of relationships broadened the focus of
milies, home was open to many functions and was psychologists interested in place and home. Further-
not a retreat. For the working classes the home was more, it contributed an approach to home which em-
also a resource for generating income (Hareven, phasized spiritual and existential aspects. Their
1993). It has been argued that home centredness conceptual and symbolic approach to places and
amongst the working class has been a permanent home is metaphorical in nature but has tended to
feature of cultural life since the industrial revolu- be interpreted in a literal way and their use belies
tion, rather than a more recent development (Rybc- the complexity, diversity and relativity of these me-
zynski, 1986). taphors. Most writings on home within environmen-
Amidst the comfort, home has also been repre- tal psychology have cited these approaches without
sented as a place full of obligations and prison: critical examination. In addition, they have contrib-
`Home is the girl's prison and the woman's workhouse' uted to a lack of empirical enquiry on the concept of
(G.B. Shaw, 1903); `The great advantage of a hotel is home.
that it's a refuge from home life' (G.B. Shaw, 1898).
These quotations demonstrate the broad variety of
contexts in which home has been represented and Psychological context
understood. They also indicate the depth of feeling
or desire for home. In today's usage, longing for Early psychological exploration examined the a¡ec-
home has become a central part of our everyday un- tive bonds between people and home places (cf.
derstanding of the word. Home re£ects both reality Fried, 1963). Environmental psychologists began to
and ideal (cf. Hareven, 1993; Neale, 1997; Somerville, focus directly on home in the 1970s (Cooper, 1974;
1997; Chapman & Hockey, 1999). Hayward, 1975; Porteous, 1976; Becker, 1977;
210 J. Moore

Appleyard, 1979). Hayward (1975) drew up the ¢rst The most exhaustive list was produced by Despres
comprehensive list of meanings. The meanings were: (1991) in her critical review of the literature from
home as physical structure; home as territory; home 1974 to 1989. Despres identi¢ed ten general cate-
as locus in space; home as self and self identity, and gories of home from six studies. This list of mean-
home as a social and cultural unit. While Hayward's ings provides a more inclusive pro¢le of home
contribution to the literature was to begin a process meanings as it encompasses both psychological and
of categorization and re£ection, it also resulted in social/cultural meanings.
his `list' being adopted and reproduced by many In general terms, these studies were useful in that
without question. This essentially introduced the they provided a conceptual basis on which later stu-
misconception that one authoritative set of mean- dies could build. Furthermore they provided a lan-
ings was a realistic goal for psychologists to pursue. guage for talking about the concept of home. For
Although empirically based the sample was small example, Putnam and Newton (1990) concluded that
and middle class. The meanings were presented as research into the meaning of home repeatedly
`found' meanings and were not placed in their origi- throws up the same basis terms: privacy; security;
nal context. Hayward (1975) acknowledged that family; intimacy; comfort, and control. However,
further empirical work was needed to examine their the meaning studies were limited. Lists imply all
validity but this was slow to emerge in any systema- meanings are equally experienced, and do not en-
tic or comprehensive way. courage a focus on the relationships between items.
Around the same time, it was argued that home Other di¤culties include the sole use of middle class
is viewed as a symbol of the self, based on populations; a lack of theoretical basis for some;
Jung's theory of the collective unconscious (Cooper, seeming to have universal applicability; lack of a
1974). Widely cited, this paper examined the sym- temporal focus; presenting a largely positive view
bolic and representative nature of home and its sig- of home; tended not to examine core processes or
ni¢cance in our everyday lives. It did not, however, inter-related features of the concept of home and
place this signi¢cance within its particular context presented a static and de-contextualized view of
and was again used and referenced widely as a home.
universal and generalized set of meanings and The focus within psychology has tended to be on
associations. this interaction between the person and home in a
Later, continuing the exploration of home, direct experiential sense. It has nearly always taken
Appleyard (1979), drawing from Maslow (1954), ar- home to mean a person's dwelling or house.
gued that home provides psychological comfort, so- Ironically, the strong link with housing has not al-
cial needs as well as physiological needs (see also ways bene¢ted our understanding of home. Often
Lasch, 1977). Another in£uential study was con- home and house have been used interchangeably
ducted by Sixsmith (1986) who identi¢ed personal, (Rapoport, 1969, 1981, 1985, 1995). Many researchers
social and physical constituents of home, from quali- in this area argue that an emotional based relation-
tative research with students. Drawing from the ship with the dwelling place is what de¢nes the very
Theory of Place (Canter, 1977), the focus was on nature and essence of home, as distinguished from a
their personal experience of home. Although ac- house (Relph, 1976; Tuan, 1980; Horwitz & Tognoli,
knowledging the importance of social contexts, this 1982; Dovey, 1985; Casey, 1993; Hollander, 1993). The
experiential focus obscured the wider cultural con- main focus in relation to the concept of home, as
texts or the socially shared meanings or representa- distinct from housing, has however been in relation
tions which may have shaped, in part, the subjects' to its psychological signi¢cance to individuals.
conceptualizations of home. Forming part of this Emerging from the meanings of home studies and
emerging refocusing on home, more recent work a transactionalist perspective, the main theory in
has broadened this focus (cf. Sixsmith & Sixsmith, use in relation to home is Place Attachment. The
1991; Sixsmith, 1992). Theory of Place Attachment (Schumaker & Taylor,
Another meaning of home study was conducted by 1983; Giuliani, 1991a, 1991b; Altman & Low, 1992) is
Tognoli (1987) who presented ¢ve attributes of home: the study of the a¡ective components of the attach-
centrality; continuity; privacy; self expression and ment bond with places (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995).
personal identity; and social relationships. He ar- People develop a¡ective bonds with places, that are
gued that these attributes di¡erentiated a home in part to do with satisfaction, but also to do with
from a house. Other important work at this time evaluation, and more identity related aspects as
which framed debates included Saegert (1985) and well as objective criteria such as length of stay, in-
Duncan (1981). volvement in the local area, social networks etc.
 Placing Home in Context 211

(see also Giuliani & Feldman, 1993; Feldman, 1990). (Marans, 1976; Smith, 1976; Michelson, 1977, 1980;
Thus while attachment is viewed as an a¡ective Rapoport, 1985). One explanation for this tension is
measure, it is generally calculated from more objec- the di¡erences between home (concept and physical
tive criteria. In this way, rather than identifying entity) and house (rooted in the concrete world)
types of bonds with home places, the attachment ap- (Altman & Werner, 1985).
proach emphasizes the process by which people and
home places develop relationships. The attachment
approach to home has contributed to a focus on the
processes and relationships as well as being an ap- Diversity and tensions in the contexts and
proach which is theory-based. experience of home
The Theory of Place Identity (Proshansky, 1978;
Proshansky et al., 1983; Giuliani & Feldman, 1993) The 1990s continued to demonstrate a more critical
is similar to place attachment in that it concerns focus on home (cf. Gurney, 1990; Despres, 1991;
the bonds between people and places (sense of be- Madigan & Munro, 1991; Lawrence, 1995; Rapoport,
longing). However place identity tends to be con- 1995; Somerville, 1997). Psychological enquiry in-
cerned with the way in which places form part of creasingly focuses on home within particular con-
the self-identity, and less to do with the qualities texts. These include focuses on meanings of home
and evaluation of places. Other aspects of place- to single adults (Horwitz & Tognoli, 1982); older peo-
bonds are urban identity (Lalli, 1988) and social re- ple (Sixsmith & Sixsmith, 1991; Dupuis & Thorns,
presentations of places (Bonnes & Secchiaroli, 1995). 1996; Hockey, 1999); home-based workers (Bulos,
Another transactional approach has also pro- 1990; Ahrentzen, 1992; Randall, 1994); homeless peo-
vided the framework to examine home. The Theory ple (Rivlin, 1990; Moore & Canter, 1991, 1993; Moore
of Place argues that `a place is the result of relation- et al., 1995); shared ownership (Rae, 1992), and di¡er-
ships between actions, conceptions and physical at- ent ethnic groups (cf. Low & Chambers, 1993; Som-
tributes' (Canter, 1977). Sixsmith (1986) examined erville, 1994). However some prominent writers on
home as a set of personal, social and physical con- home are still being criticized for their exclusive
stituents developed from this approach. Giuliani approach. In his review of Cooper-Marcus's (1995)
et al. (1988) have examined place attachment in rela- recent book on home, Cahill (1996) is critical of the
tion to this approach, focusing on the inter-play be- choice of sample, mostly occupiers of architect-
tween the di¡erent aspects of attachment. The main designed hand built houses.
contribution of this place approach to the study of There has also been increasing exploration of the
home has been on the examination of home as a sys- processes by which home comes to have meaning.
tem of key components. Adopting a transactional Case (1996) argues that our concept of home gains
approach has enabled the di¡erent elements of fa- meaning through taking journeys away. Through
cets of home to be explored as part of a single com- the absence of home, home itself gains meaning.
plex process (Moore, 1998). Within sociological debates, there has been a
One of the di¤culties of examining home has been recent focus on more psychological or experiential
a tension between the often intangible phenomeno- aspects (cf. Gurney, 1990; Somerville, 1997). The
logical explorations, developed from earlier work ci- meaning of home is described as deriving from an
ted above, such as the `hermeneutics of dwelling' inter-play of a variety of levels of experience includ-
(Korosec-Serfaty, 1985) and also `the dialectics of ing the personal and the cultural (Gurney, 1990).
home' (Dovey, 1985), and the concrete empirical stu- Somerville (1997) examined the meanings of home
dies on house use, housing satisfaction, place at- and suggested seven dimensions of meaning:
tachment and evaluation. While meaning studies shelter; hearth; heart; privacy; roots; abode and
have tended to be based on people's subjective per- paradise (the ideal). He based these on a phenomen-
ceptions of places, satisfaction studies and evalua- ological approach and concluded that a uni¢cation
tion studies tend to be based on indirect objective of phenomenological and sociological approaches re-
criteria (Hummon, 1992). There has been presents the most promising way forward in home
research which examines home and its qualities studies. Kenyon (1999) describes the four elements
as part of housing and residential evaluation and of home: physical, temporal, social and personal.
satisfaction (cf. Fried, 1963; Canter, 1983; Lawrence, Although welcome, it would seem that this focus
1987; Hummon, 1992). These studies tend to be based on more psychological aspects of home within socio-
on a series of both objective and subjective assess- logical analyses has also contributed to the genera-
ments on the housing and neighbourhood quality tion of more lists of meanings.
212 J. Moore

However, within these debates there is also a ideal and a potent cultural and individual ideal. It
strong focus on the social, cultural and political would seem that our understanding of the concept
contexts within which our understanding of home of home remains as much about the `ideal' as the
is framed (Rainwater, 1966; Rako¡, 1977; Saunders, `real' (Somerville, 1997, Moore, 1998). This can be in-
1989; Gurney, 1990; Richards, 1990; Rywert, 1991; terpreted as seeing the ideal home as a form of so-
Neale, 1997; Somerville, 1997; Chapman et al., 1999). cial control (Chapman et al., 1999) or as a form of
It is argued that home is the product of social and exclusion of older people (Hockey, 1999). Chapman
political construction (cf. Massey, 1992; Somerville, et al. (1999) chart the ways in which people `dare to
1997). More sociological discussion has focused on be di¡erent' and resist conforming to idealized no-
home ownership (cf. Forrest, 1983; Saunders, 1989; tions of home, such as total institutions, religious
Somerville, 1989; Gurney, 1990; Holdsworth, 1990; Ri- communities and nomadic lifestyles (p. 194). Another
ley, 1992) and women, the family and home approach is to view the desire for home as a goal
(cf. Allan & Crow, 1989; Madigan et al., 1990; Madi- towards which people behave purposively (cf.
gan & Munro, 1991). Saegert and Winkel (1990) ar- Canter, 1983). This is supported by Horwtiz and
gue that home exists as a cultural symbol primarily Tognoli (1982) who argued that home `is a living pro-
through its relationship with gendered roles (cf. cess or a construction' (p. 339), and further that peo-
Hunt, 1989). ple have a `vocabulary for talking about an inner
As well as exploring varied contexts of home, and outer movement toward making a home' (p. 339).
there has been an increasing focus on the negative
and darker side of home experience. Home can be a
prison and a place of terror as well as a haven or The placing of home
place of love. (cf. Je¡rey, 1972; Loyd, 1981; Barrett &
McIntosh, 1982; Watson & Austerberry, 1986; Darke, This paper has examined the centrality of the con-
1994; Goldsack, 1999). For the unemployed, life can cept of home within Western contemporary society.
be home-centred in a negative retreatist way (Binns This centrality has been demonstrated by the varied
& Mars, 1984; Sixsmith, 1992) while elderly people contexts in which the concept is explored, demon-
may be homebound (Deem, 1986). The concept of strating its rich and complex set of associations.
home as sanctuary or place of secure retreat does The placing of home to which this paper is dedi-
not necessarily hold true for those in weaker posi- cated refers to the physical, social, cultural context
tions in the domestic power relationships including in which home is increasingly located. Early psycho-
young people (Moore, 1984). logical studies on home were £avoured by a lack of
The concept of home has been used to highlight focus on the context of home both in relation to the
the qualitative aspects of the homeless experience physical aspects, and also to social and cultural as-
(cf. Biebuyck, 1982; Dovey, 1985; Watson & Auster pects. However, the social, cultural and symbolic
berry, 1986; Dant & Deacon, 1989; Garside et al., contexts of home are now the focus of many ana-
1990; Rivlin, 1990; Somerville, 1990; Hill, 1991; Bun- lyses (cf. Gurney, 1990; Despres, 1991; Sixsmith &
ston & Breton, 1992; Thomas & Dittmar, 1995; Neale, Sixsmith, 1991; Sixsmith, 1992; Lawrence, 1995; Hay,
1995, 1997). Passaro (1996) argues that a home is as 1998).
much about exclusion as inclusion: having a home However, there is still enormous scope for
denotes, at the same time, those who do not have a researching the concept of home. A decade ago,
home. The exploration of this particular context has Werner et al. (1988) argued for a focus on both the
highlighted the tension between the real experience physical settings and the psychological and social
of home and its idealized form (Dant & Deacon, processes of home. Home and its particular physical
1989; Somerville, 1992; Neale, 1997; Moore, 1998) form are embodied with emotional, social, physical
and demonstrated that home is a powerful desire and symbolic signi¢cance through patterns of inter-
for many homeless people (Moore et al., 1995; Moore, action over time. They called for research on homes
1998). This desire is shaped by particular goals and as integrated units of physical, psychological and
lifestyles. Moore and Canter (1993) found that sub- temporal aspects. While there is still a need for a
groups of homeless people di¡ered in the qualities greater focus on the temporal aspects and processes
of home they valued and which they considered im- of home, work in this area has examined home
portant for the future (Moore & Canter, 1991, 1993). through autobiographies of place and home, explor-
Wright (1993) argues that there is a complex ideol- ing home through personal histories (Ladd, 1976,
ogy of home which includes our expectations and de- cited in Sixsmith, 1992; Giuliani, 1991a). Others have
sires. She suggests that home is both an imposed examined developmental aspects of home places
 Placing Home in Context 213

(Horwitz & Tognoli, 1982; Hay, 1998) social and within a larger context, an individual's concept of
cultural dimensions of home (Csikszentmihalyi & home is culturally bounded (Case, 1996). This pla-
Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Duncan, 1981, 1985; cing or contextualizing of home is vital if further
Lawrence, 1987; Sixsmith & Sixsmith, 1991; Six- research is to build towards a developing framework
smith, 1992; Pearson & Richards, 1994). Through an or model of home.
emphasis on an almost static and directional rela- Future research could also focus on the explora-
tionship between a person and his/her home, home tion of home meaning. While moving away from the
has often been viewed as a set of psychological pro- earlier phenomenological ideas, such as rootedness,
cesses and meanings which have seemed to trans- placelessness, and a sense of place, home has often
cend the actual physical context. The physical been objecti¢ed and classi¢ed into discrete vari-
aspects of the concept home have been perhaps the ables such as housing quality, levels of attachment,
most assumed and least examined aspects of home satisfaction etc. More focus is needed on the spiri-
(cf. Rapoport, 1995). It is ironic that while home is tual, cultural and symbolic essence of home which
examined largely because it has physical form, this writers in phenomenology and sociology have high-
feature of home has been left relatively unexplored lighted. However, the renewed focus on meaning
in comparison with the personal and psychological will need to focus on the ways in which home disap-
aspects. points, aggravates, neglects, con¢nes and contra-
Research has generally not examined the dicts as much as it inspires and comforts us. The
non-a¡ective types of relationships between people challenge for future research is to empirically
and home, concerning cognitive and instrumental engage with this multifaceted complex concept
processes, a wider conceptual level or in relation to without losing sight of the many layers of home.
national identity (cf. Augoustinos, 1993; Bhabha, In conclusion, the continued examination of the
1994; Billig, 1995; Yuval-Davis, 1997). Furthermore concept of home is of considerable value to environ-
there has been a lack of focus on the di¡erent mental psychology. If all inhabited space bears the
aspects of home, such as process and product essence of the notion of home (Bachelard, 1964),
(Rapoport, 1995). home presents an indisputable challenge to develop
The placing of home, suggested here, not only theoretical frameworks and models with wider ap-
puts the concept of home within a particular social plicability to other places. The growing emphasis
and cultural context, it positions home within a on the di¤culties and varied contexts of home ex-
place or transactionalist perspective (cf. Stokols & perience needs to be encouraged so that environ-
Schumaker, 1981). In this way, home is examined as mental psychology can strengthen its emerging
a holistic entity comprising of inter-related qualities awareness of tension, di¡erence and contradiction
of people, environment and time (Altman & Rogo¡, in relation to all places.
1986; Werner et al., 1988). Transactionalist perspec-
tives on home have fostered a range of studies which
examine the a¡ective bonds between people and
home. These theories of place relationships provide Notes
a useful framework to explore the meanings of
(1) This paper is drawn from a doctoral thesis supervised
home. However, there are gaps in their application by Professor David Canter.
to date in relation to home. Despite providing a con- (2) Guy (2000) has recently applied this to the environ-
textual framework to examine a¡ective relation- ment.
ships to home, there has still been relatively little (3) All quotations taken from Partington (1996).
focus on the cultural role and signi¢cance of home
in contemporary research emerging from a transac-
tionalist approach. One possible framework is one References
which incorporated or included the theory of social
Ahrentzen, S. (1992). Home as a workplace in the lives of
representations (Moscovici, 1981; Bonnes & Sec- women. In I. Altman & S. Low, (Eds), Place Attach-
chiaroli, 1995; Moore, 1998). Drawing on this theory ment. London: Plenum Press.
would contribute to a greater social-psychological Allan, G. and Crow, G. (Eds) (1989). Home and Family:
approach to home. Another theory which could po- Creating the Domestic Sphere. Basingstoke:
tentially contribute to the development of more con- Macmillan.
Altman, I. & Gauvain, M. (1981). A cross-cultural and dia-
text-conscious home research in this area is the lectical analysis of homes. In L. Leiben, A. Patterson &
context model outlined by Clitheroe et al. (1998). N. Newcombe, (Eds), Spatial Representation and Beha-
The implications for the concept of home are that viour Across the Lifespan. New York: Academic Press.
214 J. Moore

Altman, I. & Low, S. (Eds) (1992). Place Attachment. Case, D. (1996). Contributions of journeys away to the de-
London: Plenum Press. ¢nition of home: an empirical study of a dialectical
Altman, I. & Rogo¡, B. (1991). World views in psychology: process. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16,
trait, interactionist, organismic and transitional 1^15.
approaches. In D. Stokols & I. Altman, (Eds), Hand- Casey, E. (1993). Getting Back into Place. Bloomington:
book of Environmental Psychology. New York: Wiley. Indiana Press.
Altman, I. & Werner, C. (Eds) (1985). Home Environments: Chapman, T. & Hockey, J. (1999). Ideal Homes? Social
Human Behaviour and Environment. Advances in Change and Domestic Life. London: Routledge.
Theory and Research, Vol. 8. New York: Plenum Press. Chapman, T., Hockey, J. & Wood, M. (1999). Daring to be
Appleyard, D. (1979). Home. Architectural Association Quar- di¡erent? Choosing an alternative to the ideal home.
terly, 2, 2^20. Clitheroe, H. C., Stokols, D. & Zmuidzinas, M.
Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of (1998). Conceptualizing the context of environment
Family Life. New York: Random House. and behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Augoustinos, M. (1993). Celebration of a nation: represen- 18, 103^112.
tations of Australian national identity. Papers on Cooper Marcus, C. (1974). The house as symbol of self.
Social Representations 2, 33^39. In J. Lang, C. Burnette, W. Moleski & D. Vachon,
Bachelard, G. (1964). The Poetics of Space. New York: (Eds), Designing for Human Behaviour: Architecture
Orion Press. and the Behavioural Sciences. Stroudsberg, Pennsylva-
Barrett, M. & McIntosh, M. (1982). The Anti-Social Family. nia: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
London: Verso. Cooper Marcus, C. (1995). House as a Mirror of Self: Explor-
Becker, F. (1977). Housing Messages. Stroudsberg, Pennsyl- ing the Deeper Meaning of Home. Berkeley, CA: Conari
vania: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Press.
Benjamin, D. (1995). Afterword. In D. Benjamin & D. Stea, Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The
(Eds), The Home: Words, Interpretations, Meanings and Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self.
Environments. Ethnoscapes: Current Challenges in the Cambridge University Press.
Environmental Social Sciences. Aldershot: Avebury. Dant, T. & Deacon, A. (1989). Hostels to Homes: The
Benjamin, D. & Stea, D. (Eds) (1995). The Home: Words, In- Rehousing of Single Homeless People, Aldershot:
terpretations, Meanings and Environments. Ethnoscapes: Avebury/Gower.
Current Challenges in the Environmental Social Darke, J. (1994). Women and the meaning of home. In
Sciences. Aldershot: Avebury. R. Gilroy & R. Woods, (Eds), Housing Women. London:
Benveniste, E. (1973). Indo-European Language and Routledge.
Society. London: Faber and Faber (English translation Daunton, M. (1983). House and Home in the V|ctorian City:
by Elizabeth Palmer of Le vocabulaire des institu- Working Class Housing 1850-1914. London: Edward
tions indo-europeennes. Arnold.
Berger, P. (1972). Ways of Seeing. New York: Anchor Books. Deem, R. (1986). All Work and no Play: The Sociology of
Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. London: Work and Leisure. Milton Keynes: Open University
Routledge. Press.
Biebuyck, T. (1982). Single and homeless: a participant Despres, C. (1991). The meaning of home: literature review
observation study of single homeless people. Working and directions for future research and theoretical
Paper 3. Department of the Environment, HMSO, development. Journal of Architectural Research, 8,
London. 96^155.
Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage Publica- Dovey, K. (1985). Home and homelessness. In I. Altman &
tions. C. M. Werner, (Eds), Home Environments. New York:
Binns, D. & Mars, G. (1984). Family, community and unem- Plenum Press.
ployment: a study in change. Sociological Review, 32: Duncan, J. (1981). Housing and Identity: Cross Cultural Per-
662^95. spectives. London: Croom Helm.
Bonnes, M. & Secchiaroli, G. (1995). Environmental Psy- Duncan, J. (1985). The house as a symbol of social struc-
chology: A Psycho-Social Introduction. London: Sage. ture. In I. Altman & C. Werner, (Eds), Home Environ-
Bulos, M. (1990). The use of space and home adaptations ments. New York: Plenum Press.
by home based workers. In T. Putnam & C. Newton, Dupuis, A. & Thorns, D. C. (1996). Meanings of home for
(Eds), Household Choice. London: Futures. older home owners. Housing Studies, 11, 485^501.
Bunston, T. & Breton, M. (1992). Homes and homeless Elbert, S. C. (1987). A Hunger for Home: Louise May
women. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, Alcott's Place in American Culture. New Brunswick:
149^162. Rutgers University Press.
Buttimer, A. (1980). Home reach and the sense of place. In Feldman, R. M. (1990). Settlement identity: psychological
A. Buttimer & D. Seamon, (Eds), The Human Experi- bonds with home places in a mobile society. Environ-
ence of Space and Place. London: Croom Helm. ment and Behaviour, 22, 183^229.
Cahill, D. (1996). Review of house as a mirror of self: ex- Forrest, R. (1983). The meaning of homeownership. Society
ploring the deeper meaning of home. Environment and Space, 1, 205^216.
and Behaviour, 28, 559^562. Fried, M. (1963). Grieving for a lost home. In L. Dulh,
Canter, D. V. (1977). The Psychology of Place. London: (Ed.), The Urban Condition. New York: Basic Books.
Architectural Press. Garside, P. L., Grimshaw, R. W. & Ward, F.J. (1990). No
Canter, D. V. (1983). The purposive evaluation of placesöa Place Like Home: The Hostels Experience. London:
facet approach. Environment and Behaviour, 15, 659^697. HMSO.
 Placing Home in Context 215

Giuliani, V. (1991a). Autobiographical Reports of Residential (Ed.), The Family Communes and Utopian Societies.
Experience: An Exploratory Study. Presented at the New York: Harper and Row.
IAPS Housing Research and Design Education Sympo- Kenyon, L. (1999). A home from home: students' transi-
sium, South Bank Poly, London July 1991. tional experience of home. In T. Chapman & J. Hockey,
Giuliani, V. (1991b). Towards an analysis of mental repre- (Eds), Ideal Homes? Social Change and Domestic Life.
sentations of attachment to the home. Journal of Ar- London: Routledge.
chitectural and Planning Research, 8. Klein, E. (1971). Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of
Giuliani, V. & Feldman, R. (1993). Place attachment in a the English Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
developmental and cultural context. Journal of Envir- Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1984). The home from attic to cellar.
onmental Psychology, 13, 1^8. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, 303^321.
Giuliani, V., Bonnes, M., Amoni, F. Bernard, Y. (1988). Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1985). Experience and use of the
Home and the Theory of Place. In D. Canter, M. dwelling. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner, (Eds), Home
Krampen & D. Stea, (Eds), Environmental Perspectives. Environments. New York: Plenum Press.
Aldershot: Avebury/Gower, pp. 39^53. Lalli, M. (1988). Urban identity. In D. Canter, J. Jesuino,
Goldsack, L. (1999). Feminist Perspectives and Domestic L. Soczka & G. M. Stephenson, (Eds), Environmental
V|olence. Harlow: Longman. Social Psychology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gurney, C. (1990). The meaning of home in the decade of Lasch, C. (1977). Haven in a Heartless World. New York: Ba-
owner occupation: towards an experiential perspec- sic Books.
tive. Working Paper 88. Bristol: School for Advanced Lawrence, R. (1987). Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Dwell-
Urban Studies. ing Theory, Research and Practice. New York: Wiley
Guy, S. (2000). Framing environmental choices. In S. and Sons.
Fineman, (Ed.), The Business of Greening. London: Lawrence, R. (1995). Deciphering home: an integrative his-
Routledge. torical perspective. In D. Benjamin & D. Stea, (Eds),
Hareven, T. (1993). The home and the family in historical The Home: Words, Interpretations, Meanings and Envir-
perspective. In A. Mack, (Ed.), Home: A Place in the onments. Ethnoscapes: Current Challenges in the
World. New York: New York University Press. Environmental Social Sciences. Aldershot: Avebury.
Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Low, S. & Chambers, E. (Eds) (1993). Housing Culture and
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5^29. Design: A Comparative Perspective. Philadephia, PA:
Hayward, G. (1975). Home as an environmental and psycho- University of Pennsylvania Press.
logical concept. Landscape, 20, 2^9. Loyd, B. (1981). Women, home and status. In J. Duncan,
Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, Language, Thought. London: (Ed.), Housing and Identity: Cross Cultural Perspectives.
Harper and Row. London: Croom Helm.
Hill, R. (1991). Homeless women, special possessions and Lukacs, J. (1970). The Bourgeois interior. American
the meaning of home: an ethnographic case study. Scholar, 39, 620^21.
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 298^311. Mack, A. (Ed.) (1993). Home: A Place in the World. New
Hobsbawm, E. (1993). Introduction to key note speech. In York: New York University Press.
A. Mack, (Ed.), Home: A Place in the World. New York: Madigan, R. & Munro, M. (1991). Gender, house and home:
New York University Press. social meanings and domestic architecture in
Hockey, J. (1999). The ideal of home: domesticating the in- Britain. Journal of Architectural and Planning
stitutional space of old age and death. In T. Chapman Research, 8, 116.
& J. Hockey, (Eds), Ideal Homes? Social Change and Madigan, R., Munro, M. & Smith, S. (1990). Gender and
Domestic Life. London: Routledge. the meaning of the home. Journal of Urban and
Holdsworth, P. (1990). Revaluing the House. New York: New Regional Research, 4, 625^647.
York University Press. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York:
Hollander, J. (1993). It all depends. In A. Mack, (Ed.), Harper Row.
Home: A Place in the World. New York: New York Uni- Massey, D. (1992). A place called home. New Formations, 17.
versity Press. Michelson, W. (1977). Environmental Choice, Human Beha-
Horwitz, J. & Tognoli, J. (1982). Role of home in adult viour and Residential Satisfaction. New York: Oxford
development: women and men living alone University Press.
describe their residential history. Family Relations, Michelson, W. (1980). Long and short range criteria for
31, 335^341. housing choice and environmental behaviour. Journal
Hummon, D. (1992). Community attachment. In I. Altman of Social Issues, 36, 135^149.
& S. Low, (Eds), Place Attachment. London: Plenum Moore, B. (1984). Privacy: Studies in Social and Cultural
Press. History. New York: Sharpe.
Hunt, P. (1989). Gender and the construction of home life. Moore, J. (1998). The placing of home. PhD Thesis. Univer-
In G. Allan & G. Crow, (Eds), Home and Family: Creat- sity of Liverpool.
ing the Domestic Sphere. London: Macmillan. Moore, J. & Canter, D. (1991). Home on the street: an
Hunt, P. & Frankenberge, R. (1981). Home: castle or cage? exploration of street homelessness in London. In
In An Introduction to Sociology. Milton Keynes: Open M. Bonnes, (Ed.), Perception and Evaluation of the
University. Quality of the Urban Environment: Toward Integrated
Janeway, E. (1971). Man's World, Women's Place. New York: Approaches in the European Context. MAB-UNESCO
Bell. Project 11. Rome: MAB-UNESCO.
Je¡rey, K. (1972). The family as a utopian retreat from the Moore, J. & Canter, D. (1993). Home and homelessness.
city: the 19th century contribution. In S. Tesselle, In M. Bulos & N. Teymur, (Eds), Housing, Design,
216 J. Moore

Research, Education. Ethnoscapes Series. London: Rywert, J. (1991). The idea of a home: a kind of space.
Avebury Press. Social Research, 58, 89.
Moore, J., Canter, D., Stockley, D. & Drake, M. (1995). Saegert, S. (1985). The role of housing in the experience of
The Faces of Homelessness in London. Aldershot: dwelling. In I. Altman & C. Werner, (Eds), Home En-
Dartmouth. vironments: Human Behaviour and Environment. Ad-
Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In J. P. vances in Theory and Research, Vol. 8. New York:
Forgas, (Ed.), Social Cognition: Perspectives on Every- Plenum.
day Understanding. London: Academic Press. Saegert, S. & Winkel, G. (1990). Environmental psychology.
Neale, J. (1997). Homelessness and theory reconsidered. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 441^477.
Housing Studies, 12, 47^61. Saunders, P. (1989). The meaning of home in contemporary
Partington, A. (Ed.) (1996). The Oxford Book of Quotations, English culture. Housing Studies, 4, 177^192.
revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schumaker, S. A. & Taylor, R. B. (1983). Toward a clari¢ca-
Passaro, J. (1996). The Unequal Homeless: Men on the tion of people place relationships: a model of attach-
Streets, Women in their Place. New York: Routledge. ment to place. In N. R. Feimer & E. S. Geller, (Eds),
Pearson, M. & Richards, C. (1996). Architecture and Environment Psychology: Direction and Perspectives.
Order: Approaches to Social Space. London: Routledge. New York: Praeger.
Porteous, D. (1976). Home: the territorial core. Geographi- Seamon, D. (1979). A Geography of the Lifeworld. London:
cal Review, 66, 383^390. Croom Helm.
Proshansky, H. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environ- Sixsmith, J. (1986). The meaning of home: an exploratory
ment and Behaviour, 10, 147^83. study of environmental experience. Journal of Environ-
Proshansky, H., Fabian, A. & Kamino¡, R. (1983). Place mental Psychology, 6, 281^298.
identity: physical world socialisation of the self. Jour- Sixsmith, J. (1992). Person Place Transactions: A study of
nal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57^83. Place Meanings and Usage in Unemployment. PhD.
Putnam, T. & Newton, C. (1990). Household Choices. Thesis. University of Surrey.
London: Futures. Sixsmith, A. & Sixsmith, J. (1991). Transitions in home ex-
Rae, R. (1992). The Urge to Own: An Exploration of Home perience in later life. Journal of Architectural and
Ownership in America. Presented at IAPS 12, Greece, Planning Research, 8, 181^191.
July 1992. Smith, C. J. (1976). Residential neighbourhoods as human
Rako¡, R. M. (1977). Ideology in everyday life: the mean- environments. Environmental Planning, 8, 311^26.
ing of the house. Politics and Society, 7, 85104. Smith, S.G. (1994). The essential qualities of a home. Jour-
Rainwater, L. (1966). Fear and house-as-haven in the lower nal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 31^46.
class. American Institute of Planners Journal, 32, Somerville, P. (1989). Home sweet Home: a critical com-
23^31. ment on Saunders and Williams. Housing Studies, 4,
Randall, J. M. (1994). At Home: At Work; A Boundary 113^118.
Crossed. Presented at Ideal Homes? Towards A Sociol- Somerville, P. (1992). Homelessness and the meaning
ogy of Domestic Architecture and Interior Design. of home: roo£essness or rootlessness? Interna-
University of Teeside, 6th^8th September. tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16,
Rapoport, A. (1969). House, Form and Culture. New 529^539.
Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Somerville, P. (1994). The Meaning of Home for African-Car-
Rapoport, A. (1981). Identity and environment. In J. ibbean-British People. Ideal Homes: Towards a Sociol-
Duncan, (Ed.), Housing and Identity: Cross Cultural ogy of Domestic Architecture and Interior Design
Perspectives. London: Croom Helm. Conference. University of Teeside, 6th^8th September
Rapoport, A. (1985). Thinking about home environments: a 1994.
conceptual framework. In I. Altman & C. Werner, Somerville, P. (1997). The social construction of home.
(Eds), Home Environments, Human Behaviour and Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 14.
Environment, Vol. 8. New York: Plenum. Stokols, O. & Schumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places:
Rapoport, A. (1995). A critical view of the concept Home. a transactional view of settings. In J. Harvey, (Ed.),
In D. Benjamin & D. Stea, (Eds), The Home: Words, In- Cognition, Social Behaviour and the Environment.
terpretations, Meanings and Environments. Ethnos- Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
capes: Current Challenges in the Environmental Tognoli, J. (1987). Residential environments. In D. Stokols
Social Sciences. Aldershot: Avebury. & I. Altman, (Eds), Handbook of Environmental Psy-
Relph, E. (1976). Place and Placelessness. London: Pion chology, New York: Wiley Interscience.
Limited. Thomas, A. & Dittmar, H. (1995). The experience of
Richards, L. (1990). Nobody's Home: Dreams and Realities homeless women: an exploration of housing
in a New Suburb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. histories and the meaning of home. Housing Studies,
Riley, R. (1992). Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In 10, 493^515.
I. Altman & S. Low, (Eds), Place Attachment. London: Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experi-
Plenum Press. ence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rivlin, L. (1990). The signi¢cance of home and homeless- Tuan, Y. (1980). Rootedness versus sense of place. Land-
ness. Marriage and Family Review, 15, 3956. scape, 24, 38.
Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of Pain: Life in the Working Class Yuval-Davis, N. (1997). Gender and Nation. London:
Family. New York: Basic Books. Thousand Oaks.
Rybczynski, W. (1986). Home: A Short History of an Idea. Watson, S. & Austerberry, H. (1986). Housing and Homeless-
New York: Penguin. ness: A Feminist Perspective. London: Routledge.
 Placing Home in Context 217

Welter, B. (1966). The cult of true womanhood, 1820^1860. Wright, G. (1993). Prescribing the model home. In A.
American Quarterly, 18. Macks, (Ed.), Home: A Place in the World. New York:
Werner, C., Altman, I. & Oxley, D. (1988). Temporal aspects New York University Press.
of homes: a transactional perspective. Psicologia, 1,
413^430.