Separated Spaces

This week's readings had the common theme of separation of space. The deliberate separation of space is a deeply psychological  mechanism which reinforces the ideologies of the time. In each of the three readings I chose, the separation of space in both public and private were ways in which the social hierarchy was acted out through architecture. Typically the highest social status was that of a white man; who always sat in the front of the theater, had the most domestic-like office space, and had full authority over every room in the home. Here I will be talking about spaces designated to white men, white women, and black men and women. The spaces of interest for this week are the segregated spaces of the Jim Crow era, the gendered spaces within corporate offices, and the socially separated spaces within the private home.

The first space I will concentrate on is the hallway, and also the hallstand - a large piece of furniture which was popular during the Victorian era. "Meaning in Artifacts: Hall Furnishings in Victorian America", by Ken Ames, focuses on the hallway as a space which preserved privacy within the home, and the hallstand, which was the ultimate status symbol within the rising upper-middle class. According to Ames, within the hallway "social peers of the homeowner could visit in the formal spaces of the home while social inferiors remained in the hall or were directed elsewhere and kept from intruding upon the family or its guests" (28). The hallstand also recreates the symbolic hallway effect. 

The hallstand was a large piece of furniture with spaces for umbrellas, a large mirror, hooks for coats and top hats, and a marble table surface. Each of these features held meaning which would have been immediately accessible to the average visitor. Umbrellas were a middle class status symbol: the family was not wealthy enough to be chauffeured, but were wealthy enough to afford umbrellas for rain and also to keep sun off of the women of the house. Top hats were highly fashionable, and the guests of a middle class family would likely have them. Mirrors were fancy as well - personal appearance was important at this time, and plate glass was finally affordable for those outside of the wealthiest class. Finally, the marble table top was a luxury at the time - "marble-mania" was happening during the Victorian era. Each of these features were part of a larger ritual of the hallway, and also visitation (calling). "The hallways was neither wholly interior nor exterior, but a sheltered testing zone which some passed through with ease, and other never went beyond" (46).

This is an example of "Typewriter Erotica" from 1920s France
showing that women had been sexualized in the workplace from the beginning
Photo courtesy of {http://www.vintag.es}

The next contested space belonged to the corporate world. This reading reminded me of the first few episodes of Mad Men, and the treatment of the secretaries as pseudo "office wives" in the 1960s.  "The Gendered Environment of the Corporate Workplace 1880-1930", by Angel Kwolek-Folland, discussed the assimilation of women into the highly masculine environment of business. In office spaces, furniture was placed strategically to divide space in gendered ways. This was considered to "protect" women from the advances and distractions of men in the workplace. The office actually began to replicate the gender arrangements of private families - "den-like" male offices complete with fireplaces and over-stuffed chairs, office mothers and office wives, and special eating spaces and expectations for female workers. The most fascinating quote from this reading dealt with the specific roles that women were expected to play both inside and outside of the private home: "the image of women as symbolic housekeepers governing the tempers of messy, childlike men emphasized the traditional definition of women as wives, mothers, and homemakers" (174).

The final separated space investigated was the architecture of Jim Crow era racially segregated spaces. "The Architecture of Racial Segregation" The Challenges of Preserving the Problematic Past", by Robert Weyeneth, looked mainly to South Carolina to discuss the different ways in which races were kept separate in America. While it is seemingly obvious that we should preserve the different spaces which were once segregated, Weyeneth explains how these spaces are actually quite invisible to the modern eye. These places are both invisible, and have also altogether disappeared. Many of the formerly segregated spaces simply lost their economic rationale for existence one segregation was no longer mandated. Pick-up windows for black food orders were boarded up, old black-only hospitals, which were often already in disrepair, were torn down, and "white only" signs have been covered or taken away. Another way in which these places have become invisible is a result of those same signs being taken down. Most people today were not around during segregation, therefore they have no memory (or reminders) of what used to happen in the spaces they use every day. Weyeneth notes that this is one of the main reasons why oral history is so important. Oral history aides in the preservation of these places - at least in our collective memory. He also notes that it is easier to preserve buildings of "triumph", such as black-owned and operated shops and businesses - places of resistance. These spaces are known as "Heroic Architecture". It is much more difficult to gain support for the preservation of the flip side - spaces of segregation which show the "darker", more troubled side of history. It is my opinion that difficult spaces are often the most beneficial to preserve. We are able to learn a lot from spaces of which we are the most ashamed. I'll end with a question which Weyeneth posed in the article:

Should places associated with white resistance to the civil rights movement be preserved in some way?