What is a homely Atmosphere and hOw does It Arise?

Ying Xin Tan

What makes a house feels like home? Where can we find the sense of comfort and belonging? Are they attached to a particular space, people or things? This essay explores how homely atmosphere arise, based on ethnographic accounts from Japan  and America. It argues that a homely atmosphere can be understood as a sense of ease and belonging grounded in a solidarity which is attached to space, emanated from bodies and determinant in nature. 

Introduction

Feeling “at home” is a phrase that is used to express a sense of comfort.  But why and how does a person’s house or residence relates to the feeling of at ease? In this essay, I explore the question “what is a homely atmosphere and how does it arise?” I argue that a homely atmosphere can be understood as a sense of ease and belonging grounded in a solidarity which is attached to space, emanated from bodies and determinant in nature. 

This essay is split into four main parts. In the first section, I first briefly outline some important anthropological writings on houses and homes, outlining the different yet closely related meaning of house and home: house being a material generic form of a residence and home referring to a subjective sense of belonging and “of being rooted within the world” (Samanani & Lenhard 2019: 2). In the second section, I examine the concept of atmosphere, which is characterized as an affective quality that is spatially discharged; which emanates from bodies (but irreducible to them); and that is also determinant. In the third section, I then turn towards the lived experience of home to better illustrate the complexity of a homely atmosphere. Using ethnographic accounts, I describe how actors create a homely atmosphere in their houses through decorations with ethnic objects (Olesen 2010) or bodily practices which generate heat (Daniels 2015). Lastly, I present my discussion on themes in the ethnographic accounts that contribute to defining a homely atmosphere. 

What is Home?

During my research for the answer to “what is a homely atmosphere,” I started with looking for definitions of the atmosphere. Never would I have thought that “home” is equally as hard, if not harder, to define than the atmosphere. To me, “home” conjures up images of the house that I have lived in since I was born. It reminds me of my family, local street-food, and a sense of warmth and fuzziness which makes me feel safe. However, house and home are concepts that are far more complicated than I originally thought. 

For heuristic reasons, in this essay, I present ‘house’ and ‘home’ as separate entities. ‘House’ refers to the material form of a residence whereas ‘home’ stresses the subjective sense of belonging, safety, of “being rooted within the world” (Samanani & Lenhard 2019: 2). House and home are two terms that are closely related, their roles in our lives have significant overlap, yet they are not necessarily tantamount to each other, as Samanani & Lenhard puts it: 

“Both ‘house’ and ‘home’ exist simultaneously as physical entities, subjective feelings, and as objects of various discourses which seek to shape, reinforce, or contest the forms they take. Both entities do not always map neatly onto one another. ‘Home’ may refer more to imaginary spaces, or bodily practice rather than physical structures, while houses, as sites of labour, conflict, and tension, may be at times fundamentally unhomely,” (Samanani & Lenhard 2019: 2)

In anthropology, houses and homes have been an essential background which eminent theoretical inquiry occurs, including discussion of kinship, personhood, and reproduction of class and gender. Houses came into sharp focus when Levi Strauss (1988) discussed buildings symbolically, of noble ‘houses’ playing a critical role in the interplay of power within society. By contrast, Bourdieu’s critical essay on Kabyle House (1973), structural material forms of house are seen as a microcosm of representation for social reproduction. Thereafter, Carsten (2003) has identified the hearth as the centre of the home in their study of Malay domestic life. It is Carsten’s attention towards togetherness, care and nourishment which eventually leads to questions surrounding ‘homeliness’ and the meanings of ‘home’ which I will explore below.

Home is a term that describes a continuum of concept: from a materialistic space, to the social construct of a family and then onwards to an ideal and process which does not yet exist. For some, the home is equated to security while for others (e.g. domestic abuse victims) the home is a place of threat. There are three main categories within which the meaning of home has been explored: materialist approach, feminist and critical approach, and home as a process and ideal. I will look at two different approaches of home: materialist approach and home as a process, which are ideas that are important in this essay.

In materialist approaches, houses are turned into homes through modification of its material form. For example, Miller examines the significance of material objects, (including furniture, knickknacks and materials such as concrete and wood) in contributing to a sense of home through his study of the act of renovation and decoration of residents in North London council estate (Miller 2001). He argues that the materials possessions which occupy the home in a particular way, with memories attached to them, act as physical anchors in upholding our sense of personal identity and belonging against the chaos of outer world (Miller 2001). Other materialist approaches look at houses as infrastructure, which is more focused on architectural design and features (including between houses) that leads to social or political outcomes (Helliwell 1996). Lastly, there are works which focus on emotion and affect. Houses (often material arrangements) incite a particular atmosphere or feeling that is detected subconsciously, which constructs one’s conception of home. This is where this essay is situated in, something which I will talk about more in length later.

Another approach of the home is home as a process – home-making. In this approach, homes are made -seen as practical habits and processes. For example, Douglas’ describes the home as the act of bringing a specific space under control, with regular cycles in time (Douglas 1991). Veness (1993) who worked with the homeless, argues that enacting a temporal order in every-day life and environment is crucial in making a home. This is done through rhythms and routines such as repeatedly visiting the same food kitchen shelters or neighbourhood (Veness 1993). Botticello also resonates with this sentiment in her work with Nigerians who live in London. She extends the sense of home out of private houses, into outdoor streets and markets, describing the home as ‘site of practices where comfort, familiarity, and intimate sociality occur’ (Botticello 2007: 19)

In this essay, I will look at the home through both materialist approaches, particularly how materials interact with actors to incite an atmosphere of comfort and belonging within a house, with additional focus on the temporality of rhythm in facilitating comfort and belonging through a sense of control of a specific space. Before that, I will explore the concept of atmosphere at more detailed to attend to the nuance of the term in relation to home.

What is atmosphere?

In day-to-day use, atmosphere is interchangeable with terms such as ambiance, mood, feeling or tone, to refer to pervading tone and mood; or characteristic mental or moral environment (Oxford English Dictionary) Many literatures have agreed that atmosphere is vague and hard to define, hence, instead of defining it, I will map out the defining characteristics of an atmosphere: spatially organised, emanating from bodies and determinant.  

Spatially Organised

One of the characteristics of atmosphere is that it is organised in space. Böhme emphasize on the spatiality of atmosphere, describing atmosphere as ‘‘spatially discharged, quasi-objective feelings’’ (Böhme 2006: 16). He equates atmosphere to haze-like, filing a space with a certain tone, diffused, yet having an indefinite circumference or centre vague in location. Anderson also posits that atmospheres have a characteristic spatial form of diffusion, particularly within a sphere (Anderson 2009). He recalls the materialistic roots of the word – atmos (ἀτμός) meaning vapour indicating the tendency to diffuse and fill; and sphere (σϕαῖρα) indicating a spatial organisation base on a circle (Anderson 2009).

This can further be seen in description by Böhme: “One speaks of … the homely atmosphere of a garden. On entering a room one can feel oneself enveloped by a friendly atmosphere…” (Böhme 1993:113). He describes the atmospheres of a garden, or a room, which are both spaces that are well defined. Albeit having an ambiguous boundary, Bohme and Anderson both agree that atmosphere exists in a certain space.

Emanate from bodies

Atmosphere emanates from assemblage of various bodies which includes humans and objects. Dufrenne describes atmosphere as “a matter of certain quality of objects or of beings” (Dufrenne 1973: 168). The quality is embodied by things, but does not belong to them. He associates atmosphere with collective consciousness that affects individual consciousness, felt when one encounters the group which emits it (Dufrenne 1973).  In a similar vein, Anderson argues that atmospheres are generated by assemblages of multiple bodies (human, non-human, discursive, etc.) which their affect on one another generates an envelopment (Anderson 2009). He stresses that atmospheres do not float free from bodies which constitute a situation (Anderson 2009). It is however, important to note that an atmosphere although emanated from bodies, it is not reducible to them (Dufrenne 1973), the completion of atmosphere requires the presence of a viewer which apprehends it, allowing the object to take on certain meaning (Anderson 2009).

Determinant

Atmosphere is something that is vague and shifting, yet it is singular and determinant in the way one can identify its quality as one is enveloped in it. In exploring the affective atmosphere, Anderson draws a connection between affect and meteoric bodies of air, which both have qualities of contingency and shifting, arguing that intensities remain indefinite, even as they effect (Anderson 2009). However, he also notes that while the term expresses something ill-defined, this something has an affective quality that is remarkably singular to those who feel it, which can be described as serene, homely, depressing and so on (Anderson 2009). Pennartz also concludes that the experience of atmosphere is not irrational, and its nature can be determined (Pennartz 1986). This conclusion is reached through his study in which he found five distinguished themes in experiences of pleasant atmospheres at home (Pennartz 1986).

While the works I discuss above explore how a homely atmosphere is created, not many delve into what a homely atmosphere exactly entails. Daniels concedes that queries directed at what constitutes a homely atmosphere were not fruitful, as many has pointed out that atmosphere is vague and difficult to put into words (Daniels 2015). While Pennartz simply denote the atmosphere as a feeling of ‘pleasantness’ (Pennartz 1986).

In the previous sections, I established home as a term that is distinctive from house, defined as a sense of ease and belonging. Atmosphere, though hard to define, presents itself with multiple distinct characteristics of its own. Combining these two concepts, I hence suggest that the homely atmosphere can be understood as a sense of ease and belonging which is attached to a space, emanated from bodies and determinant in nature by the person who sense it. I will now look at two ethnographic accounts which focus on the lived atmosphere of the home to support my understanding of the homely atmosphere.

How is a homely atmosphere achieved?

In this section I will draw on ethnographic accounts of Daniels who conducted impressive ethnographic work in urban homes in Kansai, Japan, focusing on the domestic atmospheres of contemporary Japan (Daniels 2015). In this work, she examines how  bodily practices [YXT1] (aided by technologies) generate an all-encompassing heat, which can create a ‘warm’ atmosphere akin to feelings of belonging and connectivity, while also allowing individuals’ needs for detachment from social demands.

There were two terms that Daniels’ informant uses in discussing the feeling of home with: kutsurôgu, which denotes a relaxed state; and bôtto suru, which is pertinent to being lost in thought.  These states are produced everyday through myriad of activities such as co-sleeping, co-bathing, sitting and sleeping on the floor or huddling under kotatsu.

In Japan

Daniels pays attention to how his informants prefer to use technologies which directly heats the body. These technologies include free standing heaters, kotatsu (low table with attached heat source, covered with quilted blanket), hot water bath and hot drinks and food. Kotatsu is often singled out by Daniels’ informants as an object in the house which evoke nostalgic stories from past childhood and strong experience of belonging and kutsurôgu (feeling at home). As seen in quote by Mrs Kema:

“When I was little we sat around a hori kotatsu [a kotatsu built into the floor] in winter. That was the setting (ba) of the family; and close by, there would be a hibachi (charcoal brazier). I really love the hibachi. We would gather around it and relax. We would place a mesh on top and bake dried potatoes, pounded rice cakes (mochi) and so on …” (Daniels 2015: 53)

This is a sentiment that is reflected in Japanese popular culture. The kotatsu is a particularly common trope in comics (manga) and animated TV series (anime). For example, Crayonhinchan and Chibi Maruko chan are two popular manga and anime series which depicts domestic every-day life of a Japanese household. Kotatsu appeared several times in both series, with characters often sitting huddled around the low table, enjoying food and commenting on how comfortable and warm it feels. This will often then lead to a situation where someone needs to get out from the kotatsu to get something (more food) or do something (wash the dishes) but, because it is so comfortable underneath the kotatsu, nobody is willing to get up. It is also common to see characters just fall asleep unintentionally while sitting around kotatsu due to being overly comfortable.

The TV is another object which is often brought up by Daniels’ informants. But it is more related to bôtto suru (being lost in thought). The act of sitting on the floor around a table and staring at the TV, is thought to be unsocial and alienating in popular belief. However, Daniels argues that the device facilitates the sense of togetherness while simultaneously allow individual actors to maintain a distance. Actors can express solidarity through bodily proximity, but still being able to spend time in idle private thoughts (Daniels 2015). Another activity which is closely tied to a homely atmosphere is taking off shoes and sitting and relaxing on the floor (which may or may not be tatami floors). A specific comfort is linked to the direct bodily contact with the ground, which Daniel accounts for the reason low table sitting area remain popular even in most houses with western-style dining table (Daniels 2015).

The act of sharing of hot food is closely linked to well-being. Sharing of food has a seasonal rhythm, with different foods being shared at different times of the year. For example, Daniel's informants often emphasis the health benefits of hot drinks in summer and sharing hot rice cake (mochi) in News Years (Daniels 2015). This leads to seasonal periods which feels more homely as they are tied to regeneration and relaxation. This temporality of atmosphere, which regular rhythm is incited throughout the year is in line with Douglas’ idea of having a home needing a structure in time. Perhaps bathing can be seen as the epitome of home activities, it is associated with both kutsurôgu and bôtto suru. Many men and women look forward to the bath after a long day of work, a practice which warms the body directly (Daniels 2015). Daniels argues that immersing in the same bathwater nurtures a sense of skinship, connecting household members intimately. The bathroom is important as the only private space to escape from social demands, and one can be lost in their thoughts (Daniels 2015). It also has a strong rhythm to it, as it occurs regularly at the end of every day.

In summary, Daniels argues that intimate atmosphere is shaped within a dynamic relationship between engagement with and dissociation from sociality. She argues that homely atmosphere emerges within a warm expansive heat, generated by bodies in close proximity.

In America

I now examine another ethnography, by Olesen (2010), who accounts how upper-middle-class American women use ethnic objects to create a desirable atmosphere in their homes. Olesen looked at why these objects can aid in creating a homely atmosphere. He argues that material objects such as ethnic objects are valued not for their otherness, but for their capacity to create a sensuous experience which prompts particular emotional state and generate a sense of animation that suggests sociality and domestic atmosphere.

Olesen argues that the values of ethnic objects, including their texture, colour, motif and the meaning of it create a sensory perception of the notion of home. For example, his informant Anne accounts why she liked bògòlan cushions:

“They’re so warm: I have decorated my home in a very modern style, which I like, I really do. But all that steel and glass also easily becomes very cold. So I put a couple of cushions, made of fabric like this, on the couches and chairs—and it’s fabulous! It completely does away with that cold feeling.” (Olesen 2010: 30)

It is important to note that Anne liked her house, but that she thinks it is infused with coldness. Olesen attribute this coldness to the reflection of light on steel and glass, and the echoes created by sound bouncing off the smooth materials (Olesen 2010). Decorating ‘cold’ materials, such as the white walls of concrete, with colourful textiles (which are warm to the senses) can alter the sensuous quality of a house.

This sense of warm or homely atmosphere, although figurative, can be felt through our senses working together. It is as much seen (by introducing warm colours) as it is heard (by reducing echo) or touched (by introducing rough, organic forms of textile). This is in line with Ingold’s description “the eyes are as much a part of the perceptual system for listening as are the ears part of the system for looking” (Ingold 2000: 245). In short, a homely atmosphere is sensuously grounded, which can arise from constellations of visual and material elements.

Another important point that Olesen makes is that the homely atmosphere arises through a distinction between the domestic and the public commercial space (Olesen 2010). For a space to be homely, it must be able to suggest domestic sociality and signify dwelling. It should be constituted of “traces of social life that has taken place and indicators that it will continue to do so,” (Olesen 2010: 36). In other words, a homely atmosphere only presents when a house looked as if someone lives there, with a myriad imperfections adding a human element to it. For example, the sofa being a little off centre so there is space for a weird coffee table one’s father insisted on getting; or the creaky door no one was bothered to fix; or the ugly fridge magnets one’s mother loves to collect; or scratches made by the children on tables and floors.  

By contrast, perfectly furnished interiors such as showrooms are unsettling, deemed as unhomely and lacking in atmosphere, as they suggest a misplaced intention to convey a certain impression of perfection (Olesen 2010). For example, one of his informants, Linda puts it: “the furniture may look good, everything might be beautiful and the decor really tasteful. But there’s no feel to it. No ambience, just the beautiful things.” (Olesen 2010: 34). Ethnic objects are particularly suited to infuse an irregularity into a house while maintaining the overall order of a well-designed home to suggest a lived-in atmosphere.

Discussion - A Homely Atmosphere

I argue that a homely atmosphere can be understood as a sense of ease and belonging grounded in solidarity which is attached to space, emanated from bodies and determinant in nature. This theory is supported through the two ethnographic accounts by Daniels and Olesen. 

Firstly, feeling at home is strongly linked to a sense of relaxation and belonging to a household which exists mainly through expressing solidarity without neglecting the personal need to detach from social demands. Solidarity is felt and expressed through a myriad of activities which require close bodily proximity such as watching TV, co-bathing and sharing food (Daniels 2015). Secondly, a homely atmosphere is attached to space, particularly in our cases, to the house. This is seen evidently in both case studies where the interior of the house is given almost all the attention when discussing a homely atmosphere. In Daniel’s study (Daniels 2015), feeling at home is particularly tied to different spaces within the house which facilitates different activities: the bathroom for bathing, the low table sitting area where one sits and relax, and the dining area for sharing food. Whereas the informants in Olesen’s study often describes an atmosphere in relation to a room or spaces such as a corridor. Thirdly, a homely atmosphere emanates from bodies, as detailed by both case studies. In Daniels, the interaction between human bodies and human bodies with materials such as TVs, kotatsu and the floor generates ‘skinship’ and social heat which foster intimacy and sense of belonging. In Olesen’s case studies, the assembly of objects of specific qualities has an important role in generating a ‘lived-in’ atmosphere which suggests domestic sociality. Lastly, a homely atmosphere is determinant. For example, In Olesen’s case study, the informants are very clear about the presence or absence of a homely atmosphere. Whereas, when asked about the feeling of ‘being at home’, Daniels’ informants recall specific memories and feelings from the past (e.g., sharing food around kotatsu), which are similar across different people.

Conclusion

Physical houses and subjective notion of homes are closely related yet distinct concepts. In this essay, I explored the relationship between the materiality of a house and the subjective sense of home. Home is where one can be at ease; home is where one belongs. This sense of belonging is established through the expression of solidarity within a household. Family members living in the same house carry out bodily activities, with the aid of different technologies and materials, to generate a warm, encompassing social heat which can be felt as a homely atmosphere. Materials and the assemblage of bodies inside a house interact with each other to generate an intensity of figurative and literal warmth which can be felt through our senses. Through examining theoretical concepts and the lived experience of the home atmosphere, I showed that a homely atmosphere is a subjective sense of belonging which depends on solidarity and domestic sociality, which is attached to space, emanate from bodies and determinant.

References

Anderson, B. 2009. Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society 2, 77–81.

Böhme, G. 1993. Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics. Thesis Eleven 36, 113–126

Böhme, G. 2006. Atmosphere as the subject matter of architecture. In: Ursprung, P. (Ed.), Herzog and Meuron: Natural History. Lars Muller Publishers, London, pp. 398–407

Botticello, J. 2007. Lagos in London: finding the space of home. Home cultures 4(1), 7-23

Bourdieu, P. 1973. The Berber House. Rules and Meanings, M. Douglas (ed), Harmondworth: Penguin, 98–110

Carsten, J. (ed) 2003. Families into Nation : The Power of Metaphor and the Transformation of Kinship. In After Kinship, 136–162. (New Departures in Anthropology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daniels, I. 2015. Feeling at home in contemporary Japan: Space, atmosphere and intimacy. Emotion, Space and Society 15, 47–55

Douglas, M. 1991. The Idea of a Home: A Kind of Space. Social Research 58, 287–307

Dufrenne, M. 1973. The phenomenology of aesthetic experience / Mikel Dufrenne / translated by Edward S. Casey ... [et al.] (E. S. Caseyed ). Evanston, [Ill.]: Evanston, Ill. : Northwestern University Press.

Helliwell, C. 1996. Good walls make bad neighbours: the Dayak Longhouse as a community of voices. Oceania 62(3), 179-93

Levi-Strauss, C. 1988 The Social Organisation of the Kwakiutl, The Way of the Masks, Seattle:  University of Washington Press

Miller, D. 2001. Home possessions: material culture behind closed doors. Berg Publishers, Oxford, UK.

Olesen, B. B. 2010. Ethnic Objects in Domestic Interiors: Space, Atmosphere and the Making of Home. Home Cultures 7, 25–41.

Oxford English Dictionary, n.d. ‘atmosphere, n.’. (available online: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/12552?rskey=EwS0rM&amp, accessed on 6th May 2020)

––––––– n.d. ‘home, n.1 and adj.’. . (available online: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/87869?rskey=qCjb0V&amp, accessed on 6th May 2020)

Pennartz, P. J. J. 1986. Atmosphere at home: A qualitative approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology 6, 135–153.

Samanani, F. & J. Lenhard 2019. House and home. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology (eds) ) F. Stein, S. Lazar, M. Candea, H. Diemberger, J. Robbins, A. Sanchez & R. Stasch.

Veness, A.R. 1993. Neither homed nor homeless: contested definitions and the personal worlds of the poor. Political Geography 12(4), 319-40