A Comparative analysis between the concepts of house and home

vu ABSTRACT The act of dwelling, which involves the sum of all physical, social and psychological transactions of man and his space or another words 'his way of living on earth', is a complex problem to be understood and explained in wholistic terms. As for professionals like us -designers and architects- we comprehend the dimensions or the relations involved in the concept of dwelling, barely in piecemeal. Particularly, within the worldview of 'rational thinking', almost all professional fields, view and explain the concept of dwelling from their own standing points, which in turn, cause a danger of loosing the comprehension of the meaning and nature of the phenomenon as a whole. As a matter of fact, the concrete problem which causes this restless condition and motivates this study is; the way of regarding the physical dimension of the private dwelling activity- that is the 'house', as the total explanation of the dwelling act and consequently judging the phenomenon in terms of its physical, 'manifest' and objective dimensions and thus reducing the 'problem of dwelling' to the 'problem of housing'. From this point on, in order to come closer to comprehend the act of dwelling as a whole, it is found necessary to emphasize that the 'house', which resembles the physical and objective values, is different than the 'home', which represents the complex psychological processes, social transactions, experiential and behavioral dimensions. House and home are different concepts. While the two concepts have differing contents and values, they also have an entegral relationship. A way of distingushing the nature of the concepts and expressing the differences and relations within them is by determining some constant parameters and afterwards explaining the house and home through their relationships with such parameters. In this manner, with respect to the parameter 'x', the meanings, values and mechanisms involved within the concepts of 'house' and 'home' are expected to change.vuı When approached through this method, "time* is one of the 'parameters' that is designated and the relationship between 'time' and the concepts of 'house' and 'home' are taken up form three different perspectives. In the first place, when the concept of 'time' is to be related with the concept of 'house' and 'home', it is found out that there exists a 'linear' form of time for the 'house' and 'both linear and cyclical' time for the concept of 'home'. Within the perspective of a 'linear time', a house includes 'physical', 'practical' and 'economical' life periods whereas in 'linear and cyclical' times of home, different mechanisms such as 'temporal order', 'continuity', 'familiarity' and 'attachment to a place' can be mentioned. Second, within the parameter of 'time' when the concepts are to be judged from their 'formation processes', the house comes out as a 'product' and its production process usually involves 'objective and defined' phases. On the other hand, it appeared that the case of 'formation of home' involves a much more subjective and indefinite process through mechanisms like 'appropriation', 'personalization' and 'transformation'. Thirdly, the parameter of 'time' is interpreted as the 'historical time' and accordingly, the form and spatial organizations of houses seemed to have a 'changeable' nature within time. On the other hand, it appears that the 'experience of home', as the universal feature of man, has a 'timeless' nature. When the concept of 'space' is taken up as the parameter, it is found out that the 'space of a house' and a 'domestic space' resemble two different 'modes of space'. The space of a house, which is a product of a 'geometric space' mode, contains predictable values and relations. It is rather a conceptual and a representational structure. On the other hand, domestic space is the 'lived space' which is experienced form 'inside' through senses and feelings. It is the sum of 'places' which is formed by collection of memories. In this sense, the space of a house is likely to have an 'objective and neutral' nature whereas the domestic space is a 'subjectively produced and real living space'. On the other hand, when the space of a house and home are compared with respect to nature of the 'functions' held within the space; it turns out that through the physical space or the 'space of the house', one can read the 'pratical and manifest' functions or activites. As for the 'domestic space', in which the lifeIX values are contained, deeper and more latent 'symbolic' activities or functions are expresses and experienced. When the concepts of 'house' and 'home' are to be compared from the parameter of the 'dweller', again, different values and mechanisms relate to each of the concepts. In the first phase, when the relationship of 'dweller' and the 'house' is to be analyzed, it comes out that the role of the dweller within the concept changes depending on the 'modes of dwelling' and it shows that the 'dweller' may be regarded as a 'general determinant' for the production or existence of a house. A house may exist without the dweller whereas a 'dweller' for a 'home' is a fundamental, an absolute and a 'desparetly necessary' fact. In the second phase, when 'the communication of identity' is taken as the base, house and home turns out to be the basic media that enable the 'communication of identity' of the dweller. Further, the discussions that are held in this section suggest that the 'house', as being a physical and manifest structure with an an economical value is a means for sending messages to 'others' or to 'outside', whereas the 'home' is medium a of 'self reflection' and is a means for communication of the dweller with his or her own 'self. In the third step, when the 'users meanings' are to be concerned, the house is more likely to involve an 'economical meaning' since it is a product of social relations, whereas the meanings of home have a more subjective and 'psychological' base. The 'house' and 'home' both satisfy the needs for an ownership but in different senses. The parameter of 'dimension' may be interpreted in various ways. In one sense the word 'dimension' may be taken up as the 'characteristics or qualities' involved in a concept. In that sense, the 'dimensions of the house' are; 'a shelter or a physical structure', 'a design object', 'a socio-cultural artifact', 'an identity and status indicator', 'an ownership and an exhange value', 'a physical container of the dwelling act', whereas the 'dimensions of home' are; 'a set of relationships', 'an archetype/archetypal experiences', 'a lived space/place', 'a medium of self reflection'. On the other hand when the concept of 'dimension' is interpreted as the 'scale or the size' of a concept, then the 'house' is said to have an 'objectivelymeasurable' size and nature. The factors like Junctions, materials, aestetical values etc. are those that determine the dimensions of a house. On the other hand, it appears that the size or the dimensions of home are 'changeable', that is - a home may exist in the scale of an object or in the scale of a town or be experienced as a psychic state. When looked out from the the parameter of 'discourse', the analysis shows that the housing discourse appears to belong more to the 'academical and professional' fields. Particularly 'architectural discourse' involve discussions deal with the space of the house. As for 'home', which is a concept much closer to the life itself, it appears that the touchy and experiential nature of home is expressed in the fields of art, such as literature, cinema, painting etc. Throughout the discussions, it is found out that the nature of the concept of 'house' and 'home' are different, yet it is also figured out that within the framework of the modern dwelling concept, the boundries of 'house' and 'home' had become sharper and more manifest. In this sense, the thesis study, while explaining the concepts by comparing them with each other, also criticizes the very objective, isolated approaches in understanding the act of dwelling and argues that dwelling activity should be comprehended form 'inside' and within a wholistic approach. Consequently, those who professionally produce space should comprehend the distinction between 'house' and 'home'; and be aware of the concept 'home' beneath the concept of 'house'.