Deprivatization and the Construction of Domestic Life

Abstract

Interpretations of and domestic life are increasingly deprivatized, that is, accomplished in various sites outside household. Addressing this situation, this article has two goals. First, it presents a constructionist approach to studies that views as a social object constituted through interpretive practice. Second, it documents how images and meanings are rationalized, public accomplishments. Featuring two interpretive conditions--local culture and organizational embeddedness--we illustrate socially situated construction of and discuss analytic implications of constructionist approach. The has long been cherished for its privacy. Its image in Western societies as an entity separate, distinct, and sheltered from other social institutions has flourished in popular culture, everyday discourse, and studies (Demos, 1979; Gubrium & Holstein, 1987; Jeffrey, 1972; Laslett, 1973; Skolnick, 1979). In this view, is a sphere or set apart from other realms, with distinct functions and discernible boundaries (Berger & Kellner, 1970; Hess & Handel, 1994; Parsons & Bales, 1955). For better or worse, domestic order is believed to exist authentically within households, family's natural habitat. Ultimately, inner reaches of home are fully accessible only to household members and close associates. Family life goes on backstage (Goffman, 1959), behind closed doors, in an intimate environment (Skolnick, 1987). Popular sentiment, traditional political interests, and professional scholarship have all--in their own fashions--placed in opposition to dehumanizing forces of modernity and bureaucracy, often going so far as to suggest that family, as it is conventionally known and valued, has been besieged by forces that undermine domestic sanctity. Perhaps Christopher Lasch (1977) articulated this most succinctly and poignantly when he portrayed as a haven in a heartless world. Lasch warned that traditional domain of domestic privacy was being invaded, overrun by myriad organizations and institutions of modern society. Adopting a version of private image, Lasch depicted as an endangered refuge from cruel world of politics and work (p. xxiv). Despite its popularity, ubiquity, and persistence, however, this vision of has been challenged on empirical, theoretical, and political grounds. The most notable assault accompanies a call to rethink family (Thorne & Yalom, 1982). With feminism as central galvanizing force, notion of a single, monolithic form has come under attack. The central argument is that THE FAMILY writ large--as in traditional image--is more ideology than empirical reality (see Bernardes, 1985; Osmond & Thorne, 1993; Thorne, 1982). At same time, feminists and others have assailed notion that is (or should be) insulated from external structures and forces. Family isolation, they argue, is illusory given close connections between families' internal lives and organization of economy, state, and other institutions. Matters of race, class, and gender further undermine public-private distinction (see Baca Zinn, 1992; Collins, 1989; Kessler-Harris, 1982; Osmond & Thorne, 1993). This suggests that, like monolithic family, the separation of private from public is largely an ideological construct, (Okin, 1989, p. 23)--more artificial than substantial--further demystifying dichotomy between public and spheres (Osmond & Thorne, 1993, p. 608). The growing repudiation of monolithic, private image has led to what some are calling a paradigm shift in studies (Allen & Demo, 1995)--a trend towards more inclusive theorizing and research (Baca Zinn, 1992) that increasingly recognizes pluralism and diversity (see Baber & Allen, 1992; Thompson, 1992; Walker, 1993). …