gender, language, architecture
​
the sexual child
​
Why question gendering practices? Why deal with a social condition, which has become so transparent that it is only questioned by a number of political collectives fighting for the equality granted to them through a national declaration.
I question gender because I continually question the social structures that limit my equality as an African descendant or African American or black man. The very equality I write about is based upon the social ideology of Anglo-Saxon males. This idea of liberty is the foundation of the gender space we occupy today. This conception of white male identity is close to the root of the oppressive state of social power structures, which create the spatial environments we inhabit.
Only by breaking down the social practices of spatial bodies can we begin to understand creative or eclectic practices of our designs. Through this paper I intend to use research text to explore the relationship between gender, sexuality and architecture.
In order to more readily illustrate the gender practices mentioned I will be analyzing a piece of literature by Vladimir Nabokov entitled 'Lolita'.
​
As stated, the ideal sponsoring this research is a greater understanding of the social systems that manifest themselves in the physical (architectural) and psychological "worlds" we live in. I say "worlds", precisely because i do not presuppose that we all dwell in the same world socially or psychologically. We do physically inhabit planet earth and therefore bound to a similar physical existence (not physical environments.) Humankind has through cognitive abilities learned to control her/his psychological existence and in doing so manipulated social environments in order to control physical space. Along with control over the physical humankind has learned to control others who choose or are chosen to dwell in said space.
“It is clear that the public –private distinction is gendered. This binary opposition is employed to legitimate and dependence on the basis of gender; it has also been used to regulate sexuality ”
The development of societies throughout the history of western civilization is concretely marked by a masculine ideologue. The notion of gender architecture is an attempted by this author to unravel the tradition of male dominated design as it pertains to the social environment.
The journey to define the built environment in terms of gender will begin with the term ‘gender’. I will begin by exploring the ‘concept’ and ‘idea’ as it is constituted in Nabokov's 'Lolita. Through analyzing
the term ‘gender’ the binary condition of female and male will illustrate how social practices reinforce and equally are reinforced by architecture. This perspective will be posited in relation to a male ‘subject’ condition of human development. I will buttress this position arguments based on ‘other’ marginalized bodies in space (i.e. homosexual, racialized bodies.)
Hence, I return to my identity as man in space. How I am classified as a body is determined by the very same mechanism that determines gender subjectivity in constructed environments. The very context that labels me an African descendent or African American or black man when my given identity is Jason Dwayne Bailey is the very same mechanism, which grants or hinders me with a collective identity. I will here after attempt to display how this representation of gender bodies by the male 'subject' figure predetermines the condition of the female 'other' figure in this political space. The mechanisms of this dynamic are determined by language.
Do physical environments perpetuate inequality based on gender? If so, do these environments enable 'subject' figures to maintain positions of power? Through the selected text I will now begin to explore how gender, sexuality & architecture craft the world of oppressive gender practices.
Gender
​
I will first explore the ideal of gender as it is situated in the realm of social politics. The term 'gender' has been used primarily to refer to categories of "the masculine" or "the feminine". These are categories, which posit a dialectic understanding within the sphere of the social. These terms are rooted in the behavioral sciences not the biological. Now that we have began to position our term 'gender' within the social realm we can begin to analyze the how social power structures and gender intersect. Social powers are enacted at different levels and at different times. The level of individual interaction is what we are concerned with here. In Nabokov's 'Lolita' we have two primary actors, the nymphet (the term Humbert uses for lovely young ladies) Delores Haze (Lolita) and Humbert Humbert. Our actors use many different methods to constitute power within the domestic space.
The power agency, which will be discussed here, will represent Humbert Humbert as the 'subject' figure
(i.e. wielding power).
The patriarchal setting assigns social power to adult male figures. In doing so it provides symbolic power to these figures therefore engendering males and oppressing females. By engaging in these practices of domination male figures maintain symbolic power over the domestic realm, which is physically the dominion of females. In 'Lolita', Humbert Humbert is a transient who marries Lolita's mother and thus assumes the role of patriarch and the symbolic power associated with the position.
“The idea of privacy is deeply embedded in Western political theories of freedom, person autonomy, patriarchal familial sovereignty and private property.”
I maintain that the home (domestic realm, private realm) is the space, which, is supposed to be removed from the politics of the polis. This space is actually more politically charged than typical public environments within the sphere of public life. Political roles are created by societies in order to create systems, which reinforce hierarchical structures. By creating these structures social roles based on gender, race, class, ethnicity are concretely marked. This is not to say that there is a book of structures, which one can skim in order to find where one resides within political space. I do mean to imply that these structures are maintained unconsciously by socially stratified groups through everyday engagement within the system of cultural politics.
“Paradoxically the home which is usually thought to be gendered feminine has also traditionally been subject to the patriarchal authority of the husband and father.”
The domestic space is associated with a privacy form political engagement. Upon analysis one clearly sees the domestic is more dynamic at certain instances than the public realm. Unlike, the static nature of public roles within, the domestic realm roles are constantly in flux. If we look at actors in the novel, Lolita, the character Humbert Humbert is initially a boarder with no social ties to the family. The deployment of power in this setting is two fold just as it is in larger social setting. Initially the actor must integrate himself into the domestic environment.
This role has no associated power or privilege imbedded. At this point Humbert Humbert is allowed to roam about as an unsuspecting predator (voyeur). His role as a heterosexual male is not challenged as he assumes a non- aggressive posture within the domestic space. The passive non-active role that Humbert Humbert assumes is counter to the socially constructed ideal male within the social realm. Humbert Humbert assumes no participatory role in relation to Delores’s personal development or discipline. But, gender structures allow Humbert Humbert to use very subtle methods of control to manipulate her behavior. The majority of Humbert Humbert’s control tactics utilize non-verbal communication. The non-verbal tactics used by Humbert Humbert involve physical proximity and sight. Humbert Humbert often gazed from his study area at Delores. Depending on the particular situation an as a male figure Humbert Humbert assumed the role of the subject of power within the seduction narrative. As the male figure by using spatial arrangements Humbert Humbert could non-verbally sign to Delores to move into his assigned personal space. Humbert Humbert’s power, as the male figure along with Delores lack of respect or cognition of accepted social behavior allow spatial boundaries to be distorted. Once the spatial boundaries became blurred individuals can easily transgress spatial territories. Spatial territories within the domestic space are associated with gender identities. Thus, spatial environments are imbedded with associate characteristics of the general inhabitants of the domicile.
The garden was the place where Charlotte Haze and Delores would hang clothes. The kitchen was the place Charlotte Haze would prepare sugarless meals for Humbert. The dinning room is the space Charlotte would initiate seduction rituals. The porch swing from which Charlotte continuously rocks while incessantly babbling is an attempt to win some semblance of fondness from Humbert.
In the novel the character of Charlotte Haze (Delores's mother) constantly moved about a few spaces within the domicile. By mapping the narrative of this actor we can began to compose spatial identities that are analogous to gender identities. The spatial environments that begin to form this matrix are the garden, porch, kitchen and dinning room. In order to unpack the imbedded reality of these environments the obvious connection which, revolves around servitude. Each of the previously mentioned environments is laced with ideals of subjectivity and oppression.
The garden (which was the place where our hyper-civilized pedophile first encounters the nymphet) is the place Charlotte and Delores would hang clothes. Or tend to the fresh vegetables they would serve at meals. Both task carried out in the garden display roles, which throughout time have been assigned to females or slaves. The intersection of gender and race is coherently marked in the history of farming and textiles. The evolution of these wage-less trades throughout history helps perpetuate the continuation of this task as primarily gender assigned. The public sphere hierarchy sponsors oppression based on gender and race. Thus as societies evolve and groups enact political mobility social groups hovering in the fringes usually take on the role of oppressed figure.
"I was still walking behind Mrs. Haze through the dining room when, beyond it, there came a sudden burst of greenery--"the piazza" sang out my leader, and then, without the least warning, a blue sea-wave swelled under my heart and, from a mat in a pool of sun, half-naked, kneeling, turning about on her knees, there was my Riviera love peering at me over dark glasses."
In our setting the garden is the environment in which Humbert Humbert makes his decision to stay on as a boarder. At this point in the narrative the concept of 'desire' is introduced. Desire as a practice is more closely related to sexuality than gender. In distinguishing between the social and the psychological the garden is very important as a spatial locale for this seduction narrative. The garden scene places our actors together as the setting for their contact and thus begins to situate Humbert Humbert as the gender figure in opposition to the figure of Delores who he has already assigned a sexual role based on his sexuality. Humbert Humberts's identity as a European, white, heterosexual male is very important. I am very specific about his race, sexual orientation and gender because, they together constitute his ability to move into the Haze home.
“Each individual’s orientation to the cultural world is conditioned by the orientations of others. In this sense, habitus interprets individual situations and actions in relation to the predisposition and traditions of the group.”
The domestic setting of the Haze's was in the New England countryside around 1945. His identity allowed him entry into a domestic setting based on privilege associated with race (Anglo-Saxon), sexual orientation (heterosexual) and gender (male). As a white male his subjectivity was not questioned, as it would be for other racialized or nationalized males in this country setting. His sexuality (heterosexual) is directly related to the sexuality of both the mother and daughter as they function as heterosexual females according to socially constructed normative behavior.
The history of the garden is marked with practices of oppression. In this narrative Humbert Humbert, as male uses his subjectivity to gain access as an unassuming voyeur. This was a practice Humbert Humbert employed in public spaces before:
"It happened for instance that from my balcony I would notice a lighted window across the street and what looked like a nymphet in the act of undressing before a co-operative mirror. Thus isolated, thus removed, the vision acquired an especially keen charm that mad me race with all speed toward my lone gratification."
"Rope-skipping, hopscotch. That old woman in black who sat down next to me on my bench, on my rack of joy (a nymphet was groping under me for a lost marble), and asked if I had stomachache, the insolent hag. Ah, leave me alone in my pubescent park, in my mossy garden. Let them play around me forever never grow up."
The history this actor created illustrates how positioning oneself in space creates power. The power constructed here is not solely based on engagement. The moment Humbert Humbert stepped into the Haze garden he assumed the position as the subject. At that moment Charlotte and Delores had their subjectivity reconstructed without even realizing it. At what moment in the narrative does Humbert Humbert tend the garden? There is no mention of Humbert Humbert participating in this servile practice. Just as there is no mention of Humbert Humbert assisting with his laundry. Once again this is assigned to female figures. The social framework continually works to oppress bodies in space:
"Thursday. Very warm day. From vantage point (bathroom window) saw Delores taking things off a clothesline in the apple-green light behind the house."
Humbert Humbert began to locate spatial positions within the domestic unit allowing optimum sight to the garden.
“Seeing directly constitutes a direct communion between the eye and the object.”
The physical boundaries enforced to create seclusion (privacy) within the bathroom are used to transgress the space of the garden. The spatial arrangement of bathrooms with its inherent function determines its placement in a dwelling unit. This locale is a derivative of public social systems. At one point in time the bath was a public spectacle. The spectacle that accompanied the cultural phenomena of bathing was in every way related to the voyeuristic behavior of Humbert Humber. When public facilities were in operation in ancient societies the notions of community was sponsored by the state and deemed healthy. At this point in history there was no stigma attached to the activity of cleansing the body. The body was viewed on more spiritual grounds. When the state began to look negatively at the practice it was moved into the home and was assigned the stigma that it now enjoys. It evolved into a private activity of isolation and condemnation. The social stigma is responsible for the seclusion and again perpetuates the gender environmental practices thus, creating masked spaces allowing individuals to continually transgress physical beings. The view of bathing and bathing room activities as they were in the ancient western societies as public domain involve physical space in a very controlled manner just as today. The condition of bathing that I am concerned here with is the emersion in water and utilization of steam. These environments were controlled spatially just as they are today except they existed in a different realm. The use of these environments for sexual activity was one of the reasons why they cease to exist today. So our subject figure Humbert Humbert is using the bathing environment and the seclusion it provides as incubator for his sexual fantasies.
“Both private and public spaces are heterogeneous and not all space is clearly private or public. Space is thus subject to various territorializing and de-territorializing processes whereby local control is fixed, claimed and challenged, forfeited and privatized.”
The public realm made bathing an act one is suppose to hide. By removing the spectacle and isolating the activity the socially stigmatized activity has in this environment provided a very good environment for the actor to not view the unsuspecting female figure but also practice acts of masturbation of other self-gratifying acts in seclusion.
The spatial matrix beginning in the garden continues a path into the kitchen. Once the kitchen is introduced the matrix becomes more dynamic. As, stated servitude is the primary mode of utilization. The female figures move form garden to kitchen with the linens and fresh vegetables. Upon moving into the dwelling Charlotte engages another gendered figure, the maid:
“In the kitchen, the Negro maid, a plump youngish woman, said, as she took her large glossy black purse from the knob of the door leading o the back porch…”
This description by Humbert Humbert provides the introduction of a racialized body begins to represent the social identity of colored (race), female (gender) in physical space, which signifies her social and economic status in the larger public realm. By assigning particular race, gender and economic condition to this actor Nabokov, is reinforcing social roles and their aggregate subjectivity.
Just as Humbert Humbert is granted privilege (access) based on his white male identity the Negro maid in 1945 New England has associated social roles. The characteristics are clearly marked with language:
“The Negro maid…" the period terminology places the entire narrative for any socially aware audience prior to the 1960’s. “…a plumb youngish woman…”, creates an undesirable female figure to most racial collectives around the World not only the U.S. thus removing innate sexuality from the Negro female. “…large glossy black purse…”, which begins to construct class status based on culturally constructed aesthetic selection of personal artifacts. And to end with the placement of the purse at the back door, out of sight of the privileged space. The fact that she receives wages places it after 1910. The actor reinforces many intersection ideas about gender, sexuality and race while physically positing a marginalized being in the domicile.
The rear area of the dwelling encompasses the kitchen and the porch (piazza). Localization of these utilitarian spaces is similar to the placement of maintenance rooms, storage rooms or waste facilities in public buildings. The user of a public building can usually navigate corridors in a short period of time to find these abject spaces. The location of the kitchen and the porch ascribe to physical hierarchies, which correlate directly to the actors whose movement is mapped through the space. The maid, Charlotte and Delores are the primary figures who enact prescribed social roles in these spaces.
The matrix began in the garden and moved through the porch into the kitchen. The inherent relationship between the spatial environments shows the conditions of utility and serviceability that shape spatial hierarchies. The necessity for products of consumption based on basic needs of civilized societies makes it possible to gender space such as the kitchen. The kitchen, which is a receptacle for goods from the garden, is a place that also perpetuates gender inequality. Within the space of the kitchen the gender identities are marked just as they are in the garden. As an extension of the garden the kitchen continues the mode of servile existence for bodies gender female. In the kitchen Charlotte and Louise (the maid) continue the task assigned to them by their gender. The kitchen as a spatial environment is one that provides a setting of authority for the subject figure.
“Male power is symbolically displayed through posture, gait and expression, and so, Henley notes, is female subordination. The counterparts to the dominant behavior we have just described are signs of power inscribed upon the female body.”
The location of the parlor next to the kitchen provides another vantage point for our subject figure to survey his subjects. The design of dwellings give power to male figures who generally reside in living spaces such as the parlor while female figures tend to servile duties. From his position in the parlor Humbert Humbert could use this constructed power dynamic to not only survey his nymphet but also Charlotte. As the object of Humbert Humbert’s contempt Charlotte the unwitting female figure was trying to adopt the role of homemaker.
“…outward modification of behavior, initially coerced, become habitual through time. This seems to imply that the object of power is completely malleable.”
An overwhelmed mother of Delores who was less than adequate in managing the internal workings of an efficient home, Charlotte was more than willing to adopt the role after Humbert Humbert arrived. Once, Charlotte welcomed Humbert Humbert into the dwelling she unconsciously began to adhere to conventions society places on females in the domestic setting. The normative behavior inscribed on the female body in the home is that of servitude, which directly relates the spatial environment within the home Charlotte’s movement maps out. Though less than comfortable with the role of homemaker Charlotte willingly embraces the role thus giving Humbert Humbert symbolic power within her dwelling.
By forfeiting her power within the home in order to adhere to socially constructed gender roles Charlotte enables Humbert Humbert to constantly assume postures of localized power. Therefore, while situating oneself in the kitchen assuming normative gender roles Humbert Humbert as male figure is allow to control the spatial proximity of the female figures.
The relationship between the kitchen and the parlor are valuable as contiguous environments. The kitchen serves as an environment, which is typically gender female while the parlor (living room) is typically gender male. I say that the parlor is gender male based on the relationship to kitchen and the way it is used in the narrative. This is position is to locate the male figure, in a space to work or study which is posture that Humbert Humbert assumes in this environment.
“…ways in which users—commonly assumed to be passive and guided by established rules—operate.”
Humbert Humbert assumes a non-aggressive position and thus the power relationship in not concretely marked. Since it is not visibly marked Charlotte who, has assumed a aggressive posture in relation to Humbert Humbert based on her inherent desires is unaware of this lost of power. While Charlotte has become a servant to Humbert Humbert the spatial layout of the dwelling perpetuates the inequality in their gender situation. The parlor serves as a location of control. From this position Humbert Humbert is able to maintain visible contact with Charlotte and therefore maintain physical distance. By encouraging Charlotte to engaging in a series of meaningless task Humbert Humbert controls her physical contact with him. By embracing gender norms Charlotte unwittingly perpetuates a dynamic that is removing herself from the physical presence of the object of her desire. By senselessly engaging in social practices of servitude Charlotte imprisons herself in a feminine role that grants her object of desire access to her daughter.
“A place (lieu) is the order (of whatever kind) in accord with which elements are distributed in relationship of coexistence.”
The nature of the kitchen and the parlor are gendered and therefore hierarchical. The parlor as a locale offers the surveyor the primary vantage point. The gendered beings in the narrative have not put forth any resistance to the power of Humbert Humbert. This allows Humbert Humbert to continually use the social dynamic to perpetuate gender roles. The use of verbal control with spatial hierarchy is very important in the maintenance of social order within the domestic environment. If Charlotte puts forth any resistance to the verbal commands of Humbert Humbert as male figure then the spatial dynamic would become chaotic. Since Charlotte adheres to socially normative behavior when Humbert Humbert signals her to engage in a gender task (servitude) then Humbert Humbert is able to utilize spatial arrangements to move Charlotte to particular environments such as the kitchen. The kitchen exists to allow dominant figures to continue engaging in mechanisms of oppression. Once Charlotte moves to the kitchen in order to serve Humbert Humbert at any point she enables him to dominate her verbally and physically. The path employed to get Charlotte from parlor to kitchen is of importance. If once Charlotte were in the kitchen she still had the ability to equal sight control with Humbert Humbert then no inequality would exist. Since, the purpose of the kitchen is servitude then, her existence in the environment is predicated on activities that, occupies her sensory abilities. Once the female being engages in these activities then the ability to survey other occupied space is lost. Therefore as long as gendered task exist the ability of male figures to control spatial situations will exist.
Now I will briefly return to the mapping Charlotte’s movement: from garden to porch to kitchen and now into the dinning room. The major tread that connects the environment of this mapping is the condition of servitude. In looking at the dinning area just as I have looked at the other areas the condition does exist. Is the condition still a derivative of larger social construction, I would say that there is a correlation. Just as the history of farming is related to oppression of particular collective identity groups the nature of food service is related to industries that participate in the oppressive servitude of marginalized groups. With the kitchen spatial conditions are based on utility. This does not go beyond merely human necessity. The manner in which kitchens are layout programmatically is purely a reflection of cultural ideals of functionality. Yes the function triangle in the kitchen is more a reflection of culture than function. If cultural tendencies form the spatial framework of the kitchen then logic would hold that culture probably informs the dinning area as well. The relationship between the dinning room and the kitchen is one based on utility. This relates back to servitude and the gender roles that we have tried to construct. The dinning area as a cultural invention is similar to the kitchen in that it is primary the dominion of the female. In the dinning area meals are served. Is there ever a need for an environment for this purpose? No there is not. The invention is based on socio-economic status within a society. Just as poor families each in a portion of the kitchen designated to the task of eating wealthier members of society partition space in order to reveal their affluence. The power structure responsible for the creation of the dinning room is the same mechanism that created the parlor and the porch and the kitchen. The actor assuming the role of servant is the participant who primarily occupies the environment. In our narrative Charlotte is the principle actor who occupies this space. Just as with the deployment of power in the parlor/kitchen relationship the dinning room serves as a space, which grants our male figure visible control over other actors. The nature of the dinning area is one that of transitory occupancy. Since members only inhabit the space for very short time period control usually happens though the use of other spatial territories. Movement from kitchen to dinning area is normative and requires the servant to maintain diligence in order to cater to the subject figure. The subject figure can deploy additional power by verbally guiding the subject figure between the contiguous spaces from his vantage point in the parlor. If this is done then Humbert Humbert as subject figure can easily control the time and spatial proximity of Charlotte, his major source of contempt. Once our gendered figures move into the dinning area the socially ascribed roles become even more coherent. In this setting the actors assume positions around a table that reveal authority. The location of actors in a dinning area is a clear marker of who is the subject figure.
Through mapping the female figure in the novel I have tried to position an argument that displays an analysis of spatial relationships within the domestic environment. Throughout the narrative the subject figure of Humbert Humbert deploys various forms of power. The use of surveillance as well as social structures granted the subject figure authority over the private dominion, which was initially property of a female figure. The subject figure assumed symbolic power within the domestic environment immediately upon moving into the dwelling. The ability of Charlotte to resist Humbert Humbert as a gendered figure may have been beyond her control:
“Power not only limits and constrains subjects, but constructs them molds them and incites them to discourses of self-exploration and self-creation.”
In analyzing domestic power situations within the narrative existing social structure pose at barrier to the uniqueness inherent all humans. Individual identities are constructed in the same manner as social constructed collective identities. The behavior that Charlotte exhibits once Humbert Humbert arrives at her door is culturally constructed. The very mechanism that puts females in classrooms and males in principles offices works to inscribe gender identities in the domestic. Thus, thrusting female figures into servile roles such as gardeners (slaves) while their male counterpart is in the dwelling controlling the controlling the logistics of the family (master)
Yes, Charlotte does accept her role as a female and is just as much responsible for the oppressive conditions that it creates. The initial trauma in this narrative is the death of Charlotte. In her quest to fulfill her role as a loyal female subject she lost her life because, she was betrayed by the object of her desire.