Econ Notes #3: After Work, p. 150
Content:
I - INTRODUCTION
II - TECHNOLOGIES
III - STANDARDS
IV - FAMILIES
V - SPACES
VI - AFTER WORK
IV - SPACES
This is the last "historical" chapter, but with its portrayal of different communal spaces (Sowjet, Anglo-American, Viennese, Frankfurt Kitchen) it already serves as a link to the last chapter which aims at utopian fantasies of communal spaces.
Domestic Realism:
"Whether one embraces it [the single-family residence as a norm] wholeheartedly or attempts to resist it, the conventional family home shapes the possibility space of our intimate lives. We call this tendency ‘domestic realism’ – the obstinacy of domestic imaginaries in the face of otherwise extensive visions of sociotechnical overhaul." 112
The term is borrowing from Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism" - both terms hint to an important fact of realism (which is in line with the Realism Switch/ Realism's witch): Realism is not real. But not in an asymptotical "almost" - not in the stupid thought of "we never experience reality fully/really", no, realism is rather the opposite of reality. It is, more precisely, a genre of certain fantasies specifically designed in such a way (fitting perfectly into the material realities of a certain time and target group) to reduce the space of imagination itself. (Or, put differently: Realism creates an imagination that is blind to the (reality of the) Obvious and is exactly missing it, while simultaneously producing it, because - and this is what HTO purports - it is a fantasy that does not take itself into account: the reality which realism portrays is one devoid of fantasy, and therefore not even close to reality.)
LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS (this subchapter recounts the history of the first communal living projects in the early twentieth century, two parts: the Russian Commune and the Anglo-American Home)
A) The Russian Commune in the Early Twentieth Century
"The Soviet regime had inherited a vast housing crisis from its Tsarist predecessor."114
The communes, called "novyi byt", should serve as the foundation of the "new socialist person" .
"According to many of its theorists and advocates, the new socialist byt involved three crucial spatial components: communal laundries, communal childcare facilities, and communal kitchens." 114f.
The first buildings, starting in Moscow from 1929, were equipped with such scalable facilities like a communal kitchen, laundry, "a stage for amateur theatre productions" 115, library, hairdresser and a solarium (!)
As housing space was much too scarce (the above mentioned crisis), such buildings were difficult to find.
"In response, the government tried to get people to see the entire ‘socialist city’ as their home: ‘Citizens were encouraged to stroll en masse through their city parks, squares and boulevards, make use of communal recreational facilities, and see their “living space” as simply somewhere to sleep.’ Public resources, such as the Moscow Metro and its impressively spacious stations, became showpieces of public luxury." 116
Narkomfin Communal House (1928-1930) in Moscow:
Plan for 4 buildings:
- living block,
- communal block with gym, kitchen etc,
- laundry,
- living place for the children with professional staff while parents work (this one was never built)
The political reversal started with the first Five-Year-Plan (1928-1932): "In May 1930, the Central Committee of the Communist Party decisively pivoted, issuing a directive condemning the ‘full socialization of family life’ and ‘fully communalized living patterns’. By the time of its completion, the Narkomfin Communal House was already being ‘relegated to the dustbin of history as a peculiar and archaic manifestation of a bygone era’." 118
Always interesting how fast things become bygone in Sowjet Russia (remembering Bini Adamczak).
"A new vision of the Soviet good life emerged, centred upon the conjugal heterosexual couple and their children, which was reflected in the 1937 tightening of restrictions on divorce and abortion."118
B) The Anglo-American Home in the Early Twentieth Century
Of course the suburbanisation and the idea of solving household problems with infrastructural technologies instead of communal labour is prevailing in the Anglo-American homes. But the "idea of shared domestic infrastructure enjoyed considerable popularity during the early decades of the twentieth century"
120
Ansonia building:
"The Ansonia building on New York’s Upper West Side, for example, was erected between 1899 and 1904, and offered high-end residential spaces with a collectivist bent. It was made up of kitchenless suites of various sizes and boasted considerable amenities. These included everything from healthcare facilities (a doctors’ surgery, dental office, and pharmacy) to an on-site florist, barbershop, and tailors. There was even (for a time, at least) a city farm on the roof, providing residents with fresh eggs free of charge each morning. At the same time, a great deal of domestic labour was outsourced to an expert, professionalised workforce, to whom the residents could pass messages via pneumatic tubes in the walls."
Finnish Women's Co-Operative Home (in the US):
"In the early 1900s, ‘a group of enterprising Finnish immigrant women, working as domestic servants … pooled their wages to rent an apartment to use on their days off’. Over time, this modest initiative grew into the Finnish Women’s Co-operative Home – ‘a four-storey building with sleeping accommodation, lounges, club rooms, a library, a restaurant and an employment agency’." 121
Feminist Apartment House (1914):
"Within the Feminist Apartment House, ‘all corners would be rounded, all bathtubs would be built in, all windows would pivot, all beds would fold in to the walls, and all hardware would be dull finished’ in order to reduce the labour of dusting, sweeping, polishing, and so on." 123f
These plans had the specific anglo-american twist that they were seldomly targeted against gendered labour divisions and were often (except the Finnish... House) built for the affluent. Worth mentioning is how legal policies were again the nail in the coffin:
"A series of lawsuits in mid-1920s New York sought to cut down on the competition posed by apartment hotels; the industry argued that such complexes could not be considered real hotels since they had permanent, not transitory, residents." 125f.
HOUSING FOR THE MASSES (this subchapter adds Europe to the mix: one part on the Frankfurt Kitchen and one about the communal housing projects in Vienna)
A) The Frankfurt Kitchen
Margarete Schütte-Lihotzky in 1926 designed the Frankfurt kitchen, which was meant to be implemented in the most housing units built in Frankfurt by Ernst May. It was a designated kitchen place - but not as a heart of the home, but a Taylorized workplace. Schütte-Lihotzhky had the clear goal of liberating women by efficiency. But this kitchen was not transformable and only created for use by one person (woman) at the time.
B) Red Vienna
Municipial reforms between 1919-1934 initiated by the Social Democratic Party
These new buildings were (like the Frankfurt kitchen) explicitly meant to empower working class women to engage politically.
Several 'smaller' inconveniences turn out to be huge problems: the timetables of the nursery for example or the laundry. "What’s more, the only men permitted to enter these spaces were those employed as laundry supervisors. While this rule was in place so that women could remove outer clothing so as to wash them at the same time, the effect was to enforce a rigidly gendered division of labour." 132
Fascism destroyed the most radical projects, but Vienna continues to build municipal buildings every year.
SHELTER AGAINST COMMUNISM (this subchapter focusses on the second half of the Twentieth Century, it has one part: Exporting the Home)
"In the nineteenth century, with the exception of the wealthy, most people rented their homes. And in the immediate aftermath of World War II, home ownership remained a minority position in most countries. Yet by the end of the century, home ownership had become the dominant form of dwelling in nearly every rich country." 133f.
"As many have noted, the rise of home ownership has been crucial to contemporary capitalism because of its role in speculative finance, property development, and, more recently, asset-based welfare. But there is another less-remarked-upon reason home ownership has been promoted under neoliberal capitalism. As 1940s property magnate William J. Levitt pointed out, ‘No man who owns his own house and lot can be a Communist. He has too much to do.’", 134
Mowning the lawn as the classic specific standard of the home-owner.
A short recounting of the automobile, the rise of the suburb (as unplanned design) follows.
A) Exporting the Home
"Kitchen debate" between Khruschev and Nixon in 1959:
"In a famous 1959 meeting, Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev visited a model ranch house – typical of American dwellings at the time – included in a Moscow exhibition demonstrating the American way of life." 136
"Khrushchev highlighted the in-built obsolescence of American design: ‘Your American houses are built to last only twenty years so builders could sell new houses at the end.’ Nixon, meanwhile, stressed capitalist individualism, consumer choice, and labour-saving innovation, declaring that ‘in America, we like to make life easier for women’." 136 (right...)
This hints at the ideological weaponization of the kitchen (and housing) against communism:
"Interventions into housing were chosen on the basis of their strategic importance in the battle against communism. Taiwan, for instance, was deemed a key bulwark against Chinese communism. Here, American-supported housing aid was structured in ways which were supposed to jumpstart a local housing industry as a foundational sector that might lead to more capitalist development. [...] Central to the planners’ vision was the idea that home ownership would instil a self-help mentality in owner-occupiers that would foster a capitalist culture of individualism and self-reliance." 137
The authors also mention merits of this housing ideal: stability, space, autonomy and privacy. But their access was restricted by class and especially race ("white flight").
And again, capitalist policies:
"For example, ‘the focus of single-family zoning laws shifted from the use of the land to the identity of the users’, resulting in zoning authorities defining the family (and therefore those people who were permitted to live together) in terms of blood, marriage, or adoption relations. Some laws went so far as to describe the degree of relatedness or consanguinity that would be required: for example, some allowed nuclear family members and a grandparent to constitute a family, but not adult siblings or cousins. The postwar years, then, can be seen as a time of opportunity foreclosed – a period in which American culture laboured to construct and consolidate domestic realism in the sense we experience it today."
COMMUNAL COUNTER IMAGINARIES (this subchapter adds the classic communes of the 1970s)
A) Exodus and the Countercultural Commune: Drop City
Drop City as an example of empowerment: building and design by the people who lived there.
Still, "hippie as a fundementally middle-class male phenomenon" (they quote Mark Fisher). "I never saw a guy wash a dish", said one women from Drop City. 143
B) Exodus and Separatist Communities: The Landdyke Movement
Lesbian separatism - not post-work, but changing work by breaking out of gendered division of labour. Not liberation from work, but from "women's work".
"In Womanshare (a lesbian separatist community in Oregon in the mid-1970s), residents 'wanted to share all forms of labour, enabling each woman to gain a diversity of land skills and allowing her time and space for creative pursuits as well as ditch digging.'" 145
Still, separatism is not a feasible option for community, the authors argue. "This limit of exodus is apparent in both the mixed hippie communes and the separatist landdyke communities of the rural Unites States, where taking off inevitably involves leaving people behind." 148
However, this communes had a huge impact on the imaginaries of the home, also because they were linked with things like publishing networks.
CONCLUSION
"Housing today has become first and foremost a financial asset, whose function ‘bears little or even no relation to its ability to perform as a dwelling, any more than a collectible car’s value is related to its usefulness as a means to go shopping’." 150
Costs of these assets inhibit experimentation and very few have a say about design and architecture. In this contexts, the single-familiy household is not unreasonable, still those are "not only economic assets but also subjectivity-producing technologies." 151 (They do not seem to use this term ever again in the book.)
"The rich moment of possibility at the turn of the twentieth century, when housing seemed open to fundamental rethinking, is largely over and done with. [...] We will need to undermine the various cultural, political, and legislative supports that artificially bolster" this domestic realism. 152