In social sciences, including sociology, gender studies and economics, housework is routinely understood as gendered reproductive labour, which unequally hinders women’s options in life. Based on qualitative interviews with Finnish emigrants, this article shows that we may need a more nuanced understanding of how people experience household chores. Housework sits, inconspicuously yet interestingly, at the intersection of many topical discussions, including migration, transcultural life, self-identity, sense of agency and technological advancement. Yet societal narratives of reproductive labour as something negative or nugatory tend to dismiss and devalue in particular women’s home-related skills, interests and traditions. This article makes a start in exploring how housework in its mundane ubiquity can hold more meaning and existential value than previously recognised: as aesthetic practices that anchor us to the familiar but also allow development of skill, taste and style, supporting self-expression and (re)making of one’s environment.
BeuzelinM (2023) Here’s what the Tesla Bot could mean for your home chores. home & texture, 28December. Available at: https://homeandtexture.com/tesla-bot/
8.
BhattiMChurchAClaremontA, et al (2009) ‘I love being in the garden’: Enchanting encounters in everyday life. Social & Cultural Geography10(1): 61–76.
9.
BianchiSMSayerLCMilkieMA, et al (2012) Housework: Who did, does or will do it, and how much does it matter?Social Forces91(1): 55–63.
10.
BittmanMMahmud RiceJWajcmanJ (2004) Appliances and their impact: The ownership of domestic technology and time spent on household work. The British Journal of Sociology55(3): 401–423.
11.
BoccagniP (ed.) (2023) Handbook on Home and Migration (E-book). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
12.
BrometEAndradeLHHwangI, et al (2011) Cross-national epidemiology of DSM-IV major depressive episode. BMC Medicine9: 90.
13.
CaseyE (2019) From Cookery in Colour to The Great British Bake Off: Shifting gendered accounts of home-baking and domesticity. European Journal of Cultural Studies22(5–6): 579–594.
14.
CaseyELittlerJ (2022) Mrs Hinch, the rise of the cleanfluencer and the neoliberal refashioning of housework: Scouring away the crisis?The Sociological Review70(3): 489–505.
15.
ChristakisE (2017) The Importance of Being Little: What Young Children Really Need from Grownups. New York: Penguin Books.
16.
ConardSGHortonE (2023) Crafting recognition: Understanding gendered and ethnicised experiences in an arts-based integration project. Arts12(6): 227.
17.
CrawfordM (2009) Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work. New York: Penguin Books.
18.
CrawfordM (2015) The World Beyond Your Head. London: Allen Lane.
19.
De BeauvoirS ([1953] 2011) The Second Sex (E-book). London: Vintage Books.
20.
DeutschFMGauntRA (eds) (2020) Creating Equality at Home: How 25 Couples around the World Share Housework and Childcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
DeweyJ ([1934] 2005) Art as Experience. New York: Perigee.
FisherKRobinsonJ (2011) Daily life in 23 countries. Social Indicators Research101(2): 295–304.
24.
ForresterK (2022) Feminist demands and the problem of housework. The American Political Science Review116(4): 1278–1292.
25.
GarberE (2002) Craft education in Finland: Definitions, rationales and the future. International Journal of Art & Design Education21(2): 132–145.
26.
GatesB (2007) A robot in every home. Scientific American296(1): 58–65.
27.
GerodettiNFosterS (2015) ‘Growing foods from home’: Food production, migrants and the changing cultural landscapes of gardens and allotments. Landscape Research41(7): 808–819.
28.
GershunyJHarmsTA (2016) Housework now takes Much less time: 85 years of US rural women’s time use. Social Forces95(2): 503–524.
29.
GibsonJJ (1977) The theory of affordances. In: ShawRBransfordJ (eds) Perceiving, Acting and Knowing. toward an Ecological Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.67–82.
KnudsenKWærnessK (2008) National context and spouses’ housework in 34 countries. European Sociological Review24(1): 97–113.
36.
KoskelaA (2021) Sanna Marin paljasti Maria Veitolalle häpeällisen pakkomielteensä siivota. . . [Sanna Marin revealed to Maria Veitola her shameful obsession to clean and tidy. . .]. Kotiliesi, 17October. Available at: https://kotiliesi.fi/koti/kodinhoito/pakkomielteinen-siivoaminen/
37.
LaitalaKKleppIG (2018) Care and production of clothing in Norwegian homes: Environmental implications of mending and making practices. Sustainability10(8): 2899.
NärvänenEMesirantaNMattilaM, et al (2020) Food Waste Management: Solving the Wicked Problem (E-book). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
OrgadS (2019) Heading Home: Motherhood, Work, and the Failed Promise of Equality. New York: Columbia University Press.
43.
PaastelaK (2021) Psykiatrian erikoislääkärin kova kirjoitus Suomenmaassa kummastuttaa. . . [The Harsh Opinion of a Psychiatrist Published in the ‘Suomenmaa’ Raises Confusion. . .]. Helsingin Uutiset, 21October. Available at: https://www.helsinginuutiset.fi/paikalliset/4339573
44.
PerezCC (2019) Invisible Women: Exposing Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. London: Vintage Books.
45.
Punta-SaastamoinenM-L (2010) Australiansuomalaiset Etsivät Itseään [Australian Finns Searching for Themselves]. Sastamala: Siirtolaisuusinstituutti.
46.
RaiHB (2021) The net environmental impact of online shopping, beyond the substitution bias. Journal of Transport Geography93: 103058.
RuncoMA (2020) Big C versus little c creativity. In: Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1_200060-2
SaitoY (2017) Aesthetics of the Familiar: Everyday Life and World-Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53.
SaitoY (2022) Aesthetics of Care (E-book). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
54.
SaitoY (2023) Aesthetics of doing house chores. In: KvokackaAGiombiniL (eds) Applying Aesthetics to Everyday Life. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.165–175.
55.
SanduA (2013) Transnational homemaking practices: Identity, belonging and informal learning. Journal of Contemporary European Studies21(4): 496–512.
56.
ShaweeshMGreenopK (2020) Aesthetic anxieties in the migrant house: The case of the Lebanese in Australia. Fabrications30(2): 217–240.
57.
SibleyF (2006) Approach to Aesthetics: Collected Papers on Philosophical Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
SilvaE (2010) Technology, Culture, Family: Influences on Home Life (E-book). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
YoungI (2005) House and home: Feminist variations on a theme. In: HardySWiedmerC (eds) Motherhood and Space. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.115–147.
67.
ZulfiqarGPrasadA (2022) How is social inequality maintained in the Global South? Critiquing the concept of dirty work. Human Relations75(11): 2160–2186.
