Lillian Chee’s chapter, “Domesticity, Gender, and Architecture” provides a rich analysis of the complex interplay between domesticity, gender, and architecture. The text engages with a variety of disciplines, historical examples, and contemporary perspectives to offer a nuanced understanding of the implications of domestic spaces in shaping and reflecting societal norms.

One key aspect of Chee’s analysis is her exploration of domesticity as a dynamic and contested space. She emphasizes the multifaceted nature of domestic life, moving beyond traditional views of the home as a static, private realm. By incorporating perspectives from geography, ethnography, and cultural studies, Chee demonstrates that the domestic sphere is subject to negotiations, contracts, and exchanges, challenging the notion of a fixed and unchanging concept of home.

Drawings by Kon Wajiro exhibited at Kinokuniya Shinjyuku in 1927, capturing a family’s
possessions in the living room and a plan of the house. Courtesy of Kogakuin University
Library

There are political implications of domesticity, particularly in relation to power dynamics. Chee discusses the critical geographies of domesticity, highlighting how spatial arrangements within the home can reinforce or challenge existing power relations. The geopolitical influences on domestic spaces, whether through colonization or migration, are examined to reveal how home becomes intertwined with broader political agendas.

The role of domesticity in the context of gender is a central theme of Chee’s analysis. She explores how mundane domestic routines, such as cooking and cleaning, contribute to the reproduction or empowerment of gender relations. By referencing feminist theorists and filmmakers, Chee illustrates how women have used domestic spaces as sites of resistance and self-expression. Her writing underscores the importance of acknowledging the gendered biases inherent in domestic architecture. Chee extends her analysis to the discipline of architecture itself, critiquing the tendency to marginalize domesticity within architectural discourse. She argues for an interdisciplinary approach, contending that understanding domesticity is crucial for comprehending spatial and identitarian politics. The text challenges the perception of domesticity as peripheral to architectural concerns, advocating for its recognition as an essential subject matter. The inclusion of affect and affective evidence in the analysis adds a dimension to the exploration of domesticity. Chee argues that affect, as a relational intensity between objects, spaces, and people, provides a means to unpack the complexities of domestic life. In areas affected by war, conflict, or censorship, affective evidence becomes particularly relevant in contexts where traditional knowledge may be hindered.

The ambiguity of domesticity is acknowledged – simultaneously limiting and emancipatory in its ability to maintain and unravel the status quo. The gendered overtones of domesticity challenge conventional narratives within architectural discourse, offering a critical space for reevaluation and transformation. Chee invites us to reconsider the significance of domestic spaces, viewing them as dynamic sites where societal norms, power relations, and gender dynamics are negotiated and contested. Chee’s interdisciplinary approach paves the way for a more comprehensive understanding of the role of domesticity within the intricate tapestry of architectural discourse, pushing architects to engage more with the socio-cultural dimensions of the spaces we design.