Labor
Sociologist Erving Goffman saw the world as a theatrical stage made of front and back zones. The front stage is an arena for impression management, where individuals appear before others and present themselves in a formal manner. These are spaces where societal orders, customs, behavior, and gentility are maintained. Life in the back zone is more informal and private. The nitty-gritty of everyday life that goes on in the back zones often remain invisible to the outside world. Yet back zones are important because activities and behavior in these spaces help maintain the decorum and formality of the front.
In our study of grandiose mansions, we often focus our attention on formal living and dining spaces, magnificent porticos and elaborately decorated bedrooms. Architectural histories are replete with descriptions of magnificent details of main hall and parlors—often at the expense of a careful study of the back zones of these homes. Back zones include service spaces, kitchens, baths, servant’s quarters, garages and basements. Important activities such as cleaning, cooking, child rearing, gardening or maintaining the car or carriage occur in these spaces. Yet the architecture of the service spaces rarely get written up.
One reason why we fail to account for the back zones of homes in our analysis is that these spaces are arranged in relation to the front space to ensure their invisibility. Explaining the interior layout and social life of some of the homes used in this study Randy Bryant points out that "servants knew when to disappear and how to enter a property. … the house was served, through the back door, through the side door. … back entrance way, laundry.” The servants were generally invisible because “they only came into service when called upon, but in the main part of the house they were never seen."
A general lack of documentation and awareness of the backspaces in historic homes motivated us to focus our attention to the service wings of three houses in this neighborhood. Written documentation or secondary sources on life in the “back of the house” were scarce. So we used material culture—buildings, landscapes, objects, layout and fixtures as evidence. By carefully examining the interior arrangement and circulation we were able to find out how inhabitants moved within the building. We documented the spatial relationship between the main house and the service wings. We analyzed the material details, craft and level of ornamentation of stairs and doors in order to uncover the hierarchy of value and care put into front- and backspaces in these buildings.
In our study of grandiose mansions, we often focus our attention on formal living and dining spaces, magnificent porticos and elaborately decorated bedrooms. Architectural histories are replete with descriptions of magnificent details of main hall and parlors—often at the expense of a careful study of the back zones of these homes. Back zones include service spaces, kitchens, baths, servant’s quarters, garages and basements. Important activities such as cleaning, cooking, child rearing, gardening or maintaining the car or carriage occur in these spaces. Yet the architecture of the service spaces rarely get written up.
One reason why we fail to account for the back zones of homes in our analysis is that these spaces are arranged in relation to the front space to ensure their invisibility. Explaining the interior layout and social life of some of the homes used in this study Randy Bryant points out that "servants knew when to disappear and how to enter a property. … the house was served, through the back door, through the side door. … back entrance way, laundry.” The servants were generally invisible because “they only came into service when called upon, but in the main part of the house they were never seen."
A general lack of documentation and awareness of the backspaces in historic homes motivated us to focus our attention to the service wings of three houses in this neighborhood. Written documentation or secondary sources on life in the “back of the house” were scarce. So we used material culture—buildings, landscapes, objects, layout and fixtures as evidence. By carefully examining the interior arrangement and circulation we were able to find out how inhabitants moved within the building. We documented the spatial relationship between the main house and the service wings. We analyzed the material details, craft and level of ornamentation of stairs and doors in order to uncover the hierarchy of value and care put into front- and backspaces in these buildings.
- Bernard L. Herman. Town House: Architecture and Material Life in the Early American City, 1780-1830, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2005).
- Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, (New York: Anchor, 1959).
- Randy Bryant, interview by Arijit Sen and Stephen Anderson, Milwaukee, July 2, 2013.