Local, state, and federal housing policies define bedroom and acceptable sleeping arrangements. While often considered universal, such spatial relations actually are inextricably entwined with societal values. Many seemingly neutral housing policies designed to protect health, safety, and welfare, in fact often protect dominant values and morals, not physical or emotional well-being of nondominant groups. Consequently they discriminate against the latter. Here, Mexican and U.S. domestic spatial relations are compared within their larger conceptual frameworks to explain some sociocultural bases for these regulations, questioning their applicability. The study concludes that a combined anthropological/planning approach is important for analyzing and developing policy generally.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altman, I., and M. Chemers.1980. Culture and Environment. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company .
2.
Altman, I., and C.M. Werner.1985. Home Environments. New York: Plenum Press.
3.
American Public Health Association.1939. Basic Principles ofhealthful Houszng, second edmon. Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service.
4.
American Public Health Association.1950. Planning the Home for Occupancy. Chicago, Illinois: Public Administration Service.
5.
Baar, K.1992. The national movement to halt the spread of multifamily housing 1890-1926. Journal of the American Planning Association58:39-48.
6.
Baldassare, M.1988. Residential crowding in the United States: A review of research. In Handbook of Housing and the Built Environment in the U S , eds. E. Huttman and W. van Vliet.
7.
Bourdieu, P.1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bourdieu, P.1979. The Kabyle House or the World Reversed in Algeria 1960 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Social Services.1985. Manual of Policies and Procedures. Foster Family Homes § 87087(a).
10.
Caudill, W., and D.W. Plath.1974. Who sleeps by whom? Parent-child involvement in urban Japanese families. In Culture and Personality. Contemporary Readings, ed., R. Levine.Chicago, Illinois: Aldine Publishing Co.
11.
Certeau, M. de.1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. S. Rendell. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Foster, G.M.1988 [1967]. Tzintzuntzan: Mexican Peasants in a Changing World. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.
13.
Giddens, A.1979. Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: MacMillan.
14.
Giddens, A.1985. Time, space and regionalisation. In Social Relations and Spatial Structures, eds. D. Gregory and J. Urry.New York: St. Martin's Press.
15.
Glasser, I.1991. An Ethnographic Study of Homeless in Windham, Connecticut. Ethnographic Exploratory Research Report #17. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census.
16.
Goffman, E.1959. Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
17.
Gwaltney, J.L.1980. Drylongso A Self-Portrait of Black America. New York: Random House.
18.
Hall, E.T.1966. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Books.
19.
Hendry, J.1986. Becoming Japanese. The World of the Pre-school Child. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
20.
Humphrey, C.1974. Inside a Mongolian Tent. New Society30:273-275.
21.
Kent, S.1982. Analyzing Activity Areas An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Use ofSpace. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
22.
Lawrence, D.L., and S.M. Low.1990. The built environment and spatial form . Annual Review of Anthropology19:453-505.
23.
Logan, K.1984. Haciendo Pueblo The Development of a Guadalajaran Suburb . Birmingham: The University of Alabama Press.
24.
Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services. n.d. Needed: Foster Families.
Low, S. M., and E. Chambers , eds. 1989. Housing, Culture, and Design. A Comparative Perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
27.
Marris, P.1962. Family and Social Change in an African City. Chicago, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
28.
Mirandé A. and E. Enríquez.1979. La Chicana The Mexican-American Woman . Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
29.
Pader, E-J.1988. Inside spatial relations. Architecture and Behaviour4:251-287.
30.
Pader, E-J.1992. Occupancy standards: Discrimination on the basis of national origin. Presented at the National Fair Housing Alliance Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., June 28-30.
31.
Pader, E-J.1993. Spatiality and social change: Domestic space-use in Mexico and the United States. American Ethnologtst20:114-137.
32.
Peattie, L.1990. Anthropology and Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research9:101-106.
33.
Rakoff, R.M.1977. Ideology in everyday life: The meaning of the house. Politics and Society7:85-104.
34.
Rapoport, A.1982The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
35.
Rybczynski, W.1986Home: A Short History of an Idea. New York: Penguin Books.
36.
Santiago, D.1983. Famous All Over Town. New York: New American Library.
37.
Snipp, C.M., and A.L. Sorkin.1986. American Indian housing: An overview of conditions and public policy. In Race, Ethnicity and Minority Housing in the United States, ed. J. A. MomeniNew York: Greenwood Press.
38.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.1985. The Public Housing Modernization Standards Handbook. No. 7485.2 REV-1. Washington, D.C.
39.
U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development.1991. The Public Housing Occupancy Handbook. No. 7465.1 REV-2. Washington, D.C.
40.
Velez, C.G.1978. Youth and aging in Central Mexico: One day in the life of four families of migrants. In Life's Career-Aging Cultural Variations on Growing Old, eds. B. G. Myerhoff and A. Simic.Beverly Hills, California: Sage.
41.
Wright, G.1981. Building the Dream A Social History of Housing in America . Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
