Landscapes of Home
Landscapes of Home
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/9780470996515.ch25
复制
发表时间：
2007-11
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Duncan;D. Lambert
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Duncan;D. Lambert
家是一个复杂而模棱两可的词。因为它在日常生活中承载着如此多的意义，它可以被认为是英语中最具情感和力量的单词之一。正如Gathorne-Hardy(1999：124)指出的那样，“家”这个词可以被看作是一个容器，在其中发现了一堆抽象的、文化的概念。人们很难想到对人们来说比家更重要的想法(索菲尔，1979)。人们可以从无家可归的概念中读到这种重要性；这个术语已经成为一种卑微的状态，是对富裕社会的控诉，这些社会如此冷漠，以至于允许如此多的公民无家可归(Somerville，1992)。具有讽刺意味的是，考虑到这个概念的情感意义，直到最近，与致力于公共领域的关注相比，住宅在学院中只受到了适度的关注。人们似乎仍然有一种挥之不去的感觉，即作为繁衍或资产阶级快乐的场所，家与商业、政治甚至公共娱乐的公共世界相比微不足道。Staszak(2001 B)认为，地理学家很少关注家庭，因为他们在如此小的规模下工作不舒服。或者，或许是因为这个术语本身的模糊性，学者们对此避而不谈。正如本杰明(1995：2)所指出的，家是“既具体又抽象”的地方；一个人居住的地方，也是一种舒适的感觉--宾至如归的感觉。此外，它被谈论的方式，没有矛盾感，范围从精神状态，到房子，到一个大陆(Bowlby，Gregory，&McKie 1997)。一个用来做这样的工作的术语，如果被延伸到这样一个程度，很可能会在智力上松懈(Rapoport 1995)。然而，对于学者来说，以学术严谨的名义限制它的使用将是徒劳的，因为这样做他们将失去它的大部分社会意义(Lawrence 1995)。现在，人们对日常生活的兴趣与日俱增，全球化世界中的空间生产(Massey 1994)，女权主义破坏了公私二分法(Duncan 1996；Bondi 1998)和无偿家务劳动的理论化(Christie 1999)，以及对身体(Nast&Pill 1998)、情感(Anderson&Smith 2001)和精神分析(Sibley 1995；Bordo，Klein&
Home is a complex and ambiguous word. Because it bears such a weight of meaning in everyday life it can be considered one of the most emotive and powerful words in the English language. As Gathorne-Hardy (1999: 124) points out,“the word home can be seen as a vessel in which a tangle of abstract, cultural concepts are found.” One would be hard pressed to think of a more important idea to people than that of home (Sopher 1979). One can read this importance in the notion of homelessness; a term which has come to stand for a condition of abjection, an indictment against affluent societies that are so uncaring as to allow so many of their citizens to go homeless (Somerville 1992). It is ironic, given the affective significance of the concept, that the home has until recently received only a modest amount of attention in the academy relative to that devoted to the public realm. There still appears to be a lingering sense that the home, as a site of reproduction or bourgeois pleasure, is trivial compared with the public worlds of business, politics, or even public pleasures. Staszak (2001b) argues that geographers have paid little attention to the home because they are uncomfortable working at such a small scale. Or perhaps academics shy away because of the very ambiguity of the term. For home, as Benjamin (1995: 2) points out, is “at once both concrete and abstract”; a place where one lives and a feeling of comfort–of feeling at home. Moreover, it is spoken of in ways that, without a sense of contradiction, range in scale from a mental state, to a house, to a continent (Bowlby, Gregory, & McKie 1997). A term that is made to do such work, which is stretched to such an extent, is probably going to be intellectually flabby (Rapoport 1995). And yet, it would be unproductive for academics to narrow its usage in the name of intellectual rigor, for in doing so they would lose much of its social meaning (Lawrence 1995). Now with increased interest in the everyday, the production of space in a globalizing world (Massey 1994), with feminist destabilizing of the private–public dichotomy (Duncan 1996; Bondi 1998) and theorizing of unpaid domestic labor (Christie 1999), as well as renewed interest in the body (Nast & Pile 1998), emotions (Anderson & Smith 2001), and psychoanalysis (Sibley 1995; Bordo, Klein, &