In the 1930s, Greenbelt families furnished their homes with the same
things used today: sofas, chairs, tables, etc. Designed so that all the
furniture faced each other, this living room set-up promoted interaction
and offered the family and guests a place to sit and chat after a long day
of work. If needed, the radio, set along the perimeter of the room,
provided a background source of entertainment. However, as
Terri Paik
mentions in her paper, people preferred to interact with each other and
leave the electronics alone.
Along comes television. The mass popularization and integration
of televisions into suburban homes caused the major transformation of
most American living-rooms. Furniture was rearranged so that the
television became the focal point, schedules were planned around
programming, and TV dinners and trays were invented (Hine). As more time
was spent in front of the television watching fictional families, these
real American families were losing essential bonding time necessary for
functioning.
With the initial breakdown in communication due to the television and
the increased size of kitchens, many families moved their gathering
area from the living room to the kitchen. After a while,
society became less infatuated with the device. Although people still
spend countless hours in front of the "boob tube", families have
atleast returned to the dinner table for their evening meals. Thanks to
the space provided for their informal dining area in the kitchen, families
are spending even more time in the erstwhile utility room. The extra space
provided for the informal dining area not only provides a place to share
meals, but it also allows more room for others to help cook or just sit
and chat while someone else is busy with the extended food
preparation.
Personally, the majority of time that I spend at home is in the
kitchen. I agree with
Hayley Bonica
when she mentions that kitchens reflect the type of lifestyle that the
family lives.
After a long day of school and work, I head straight for the
kitchen to grab a snack. After a small break in front of, what else, the
television, I head back to the kitchen to do some homework and studying.
My mother is usually working on dinner at that point, so it is actually a
mixture of studying and talking. Since dinner usually starts before I am
finished, I just put my books aside and eat with my family. The fact that
I eat slowly does not help diminish my time in the kitchen. If my kitchen
were not fashioned correctly, my family and I would not be able to do so
many chores simultaneously.
I know that for my family, the reason the kitchen has become the
central gathering spot in the house, rather than the family room, is
because, that is where we all socialize the most. Even if we are all in
the family room together, we rarely have meaningful conversations because
of the television. When my mother cooks, I am usually in there talking to
her, and our conversations will usually lead into our meals. I would not
agree with Dan Quayle's accusation, mentioned in
Marcel Winokur's
Third American Studies Project,
that television shows like, "Murphy Brown" are degrading family values. It
is up to the families to let that happen, and with all of the space we are
now given, I do not think that's truly possible. Life now is very
different from 1930s Greenbelt. Technical advances are no longer the only
family obstacles. With both parents working and more active children,
family members are usually too busy or tired to converse with one another.
Yet, despite the conflicting time constraints, it is still their
responsibility to find the time to bond and keep close ties. For my
family, dinner is the main gathering period, for others it may be
breakfast. It really does not matter when or how long this time lasts,
just as long as families use it to connect.
Home
Project1
Project 2
Project 3