Kitchen histories. Interior design in socialist and postsocialist homes.
The home is the site where the ego is forged,
moral subjects produced, represented,
enacted, pathologies, witnessed and judged’
Victor Buchli
This paper examines the interconnection between domestic interior design,
material culture, and people. Drawing from theoretical reflections by Daniel
Miller and Jean Baudillard, I am looking at how home objects reflect and
generate cultural meanings and practices. I will examine research conducted
by Caroline Humphrey and Victor Buchli, who provided with insightful examples
of ethnographic study of interior design in the context of industrialized societies
and the Soviet Bloc. Drawing from the case studies in Mongolia and Russia, I
will present how each of these writers described the connection between
‘socialist’ interiors and changing lives of the residents. I will then step into the
kitchen, as described in socialist and post-socialist ethnography. By focusing on
the normative aspects and discourses around its design, it is examined how
people constructed and restructured their kitchens (and apartments) in the
context of social change. I hope to demonstrate that domestic material culture,
in particular of the kitchen, provides with insights about the ‘nature’ of historical
transformation, social change, and subjectivities immersed in these complex
processes.
The ‘home’, anthropology, and interior design
One of the first critical voices on culture and the house, focusing entirely on the
interior design, was Jean Baudrillard’s cultural critique of modern interior,
presented in ‘The System of Objects’. Written in 1968, Jean Baudrillard’s
reflection on modern design was an attempt to understand culture entirely
through the materiality of the ‘house’. Baudrillard adopted a semiotic
framework, showing that interiors are structural combinations, holistic sets of
objects mirroring social relationships. In this materialist approach, Baudillard
1
argued that design and sets of objects within the household are instrumental for
the investigation of modern life and cultural change. In his view, there has been
a transformation of object in the modern world. The emergence of mass-
produced functional objects triggered a new organisational principle in interior
design and mirrored a profound transformation of symbolic values in the
society. In contrast to the ‘traditional’ aristocratic patriarchal system, based on
taste, modern design introduced a new type of human being, a liberated
‘interior designer’. In this context, décor, components of the interior, sets of
furnishings in the home correspond and personify human relationships, building
configurations and modes of personhood and sociality. Moreover, ‘beyond their
practical function, objects- and specifically objects of furniture - have a
primordial function as vessels, a function that belongs to the register of the
imaginary’ (27). Finally, through a semiotic conceptualization of the whole
interior, Baudrillard outlined a profound interconnectedness between the
transformation of physical and social environment.
Currently, a systematic examination of the domestic material domain has
become a key methodological instrument in the field of anthropology. As Daniel
Miller suggested, as in industrial societies daily activity is largely concentrated
on the home, it is necessary for ethnographers to conduct research by entering
the house. Moreover, one needs to ‘intrude’ on the house, carefully examine its
material culture and other micro-phenomena of human domestic setting. In
particular, the physical transformation of the home is to be a profound
instrument of analysis. While working inside the house, anthropologists need to
account on the dynamics between changing homes, subjects, and societies in
a variety of contexts. Drawing from a number of ethnographic examples, Daniel
Miller’s ‘Home Possessions’ depicted ‘home’ as a dynamic structure, deeply
embedded in the notion of personal and social transformation.
In this context, Miller’s appeal for the ‘anthropology behind closed doors’ is a
similar premise to Baudrillard’s idea of the ‘sociology of the interior’. Both of
these writers acknowledged the potential of interior design studies in the
examination of mobility and transformation of society. Moreover, they
emphasized the importance of the material element in the study of modern and
2
contemporary culture. In the following part, I will turn to ethnography of
domestic interior to show how this theoretical insight can be applied to produce
a rich account of a society in transition, with case studies in socialist and post-
socialist settings.
Changing interiors and the ethnography of socialism
One of the pioneering applications of ethnography in the context of interior
design was Caroline Humphrey’s article on the mongolian tent. Material culture
in the tent builds a framework for daily operations and social categories of age,
sex, wealth, status and religious prohibitions. Moreover, within this round
microcosm, designated spheres of activity constituted profound cultural notions
of social organisation, mobility and division. Caroline Humphrey drew attention
to new objects and technologies, supplied after socialist revolution, that
entered the space of the traditional Mongolian home. She argued that new
interior design and ‘socialist’ material culture have distorted the former spatial
divisions and introduced new activities1, resulting in modifications of social roles
and traditional cultural categories. In the case of Mongolian tent, interior design
and modern objects in the tent were indicators of social change and generative
factors for the transformation of society.
Another ethnographic example of a socialist interior is Victor Buchli’s
‘Archeology of Socialism’. Drawing from the analysis of the Narkomfin
Communal House, Victor Buchli showed how domestic interior took part in a
larger scheme of soviet rhetorics with its social and cultural project. The
Revolution, apart from establishing a new political and economic order, was to
reform social formations built on the old ‘economic base’. As ‘social being
determines consciousness’, a good deal of political activity was focused on byt
and transformation of daily life and domestic interior.
On the example of a monumental communal house in Moscov, Victor Buchli
presented ways by which material culture was to facilitate such ‘domestication
of marxism’. According to Buchli, the interior of petit-bourgeois pre-
revolutionary izba was gradually replaced by a new model of hygienic ‘cultured’
1
For instance, introduction of books, washstand.
3
Stalinist izba, with red corners, commodes and household’s collection of
Marxist texts. These principles of the ‘domestic front’ as largely interconnected
with the sociopolitical transformation, were also well depicted on the example of
Narkomfin interior in the period of de-stalinisation. Type of furnishing introduced
on mass-scale in that period echoed modernist and marxist principles of the
party-state and, as Buchli suggested, discourses of byt reform, supplemented
with new concepts of dizajn, taste and ideas of ‘rationalisation of the domestic
realm’ (139).
Ethnography of socialist transformation embodied in changing domestic
interiors provided with a practical application of Jean Baudrillard’s and Daniel
Miller’s concepts of ‘anthropology behind closed doors’ and ‘sociology of the
interior design’. Caroline Humphrey and Victor Buchli also showed how
changes and the physical reconstruction of the dwelling both reflected macro-
level processes and generated micro-level changes in the people
accomodating the space.
Kitchen histories
On the 24 July 1959, during the American National Exhibition in Moscow,
Richard Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev engaged in a heated debate about the
differences between capitalism and communism, discussion that became one
of key episodes in the history of the conflict.
NIXON
I want to show you this kitchen. It is like those of our houses in California.
[Nixon points to dishwasher.]
KHRUSHCHEV
We have such things.
NIXON
This is our newest model. This is the kind, which is built in thousands of units
for direct installations in the houses. In America, we like to make life easier for
women...
4
This exchange of opinions illustrates that the material culture of the household,
specifically design of the kitchen, was a powerful rhetorical instrument in the
ideological battleground of Cold War. Khrushchov’s economic plans that
followed the American exhibition (1958-1965), concentrated on the
improvement of living standards, housing and consumer goods (Reid, 225).
Soon domestic appliances from America were brought to Russia for study and
with the help of the new equipment, Russian women were to be free like the
American (Reid, 227). As Susan Reid suggested, competing models of the
kitchen interior were indexical of the success of a particular socioeconomic
model. Within the political discourse, there was a rigid demarcation between
the material culture of the East and the West, ‘us’ and ‘them’, with a strong
emphasis on the inferiority of enemy’s products. Competing ideas of progress,
model of ‘successful society’ and women liberation were encapsuled in the
domestic interior design on both sides of the conflict. Susan Reid showed that
messages of modernity, ‘innovative beauty’ were encapsuled in the artefacts
and design. Mechanization of the kitchen (and the rest of the home) with
‘beautiful and compact’ appliances had a huge significance in the
conceptualization of ‘citizenship in the modern age’ and gender politics,
transforming everyday spaces and producing ‘gendered objects of desire'
(Reid, 228). New design ideas, distributed to the society by Soviet magazines,
domestic encyclopaedias, guided good taste and provided with advice on
‘rational’ living and arrangement of space.
However, not only aesthetic judgement was generated in this literature, but as
Victor Buchli suggested, it also served as a normative instrument. Post-Stalinist
design and objects in the kitchen were powerful instruments in the creation of
socialist utopia and distribution of marxist ethics, with its vision of a rational ‘byt’
and home ‘devoid of objects and the dangers of commodity fetishism’ (Buchli,
149). In this context, household advisers presented the society with what ‘is
correct’, emphasising ideas of petit-bourgeoius consciousness and irrational
consumer behaviour (Buchli, 220b). In the Khrushczev-era model of ‘de-
artefactualization’, interiors were open plan, multi-functional, with a dining area
in the kitchen. Within the marxist framework, the physical elimination of
traditional dining area, Buchli argued, was meant to transform the ritual of
5
meals into a ‘mechanical’ activity, a spatial and symbolic tool in the
reconstruction of the traditional model of family (Buchli, 141). Therefore, the
Cold-War era kitchen not only served as a component of the Cold War
domestic front but also facilitated practical applications of the ‘domesticated
marxism’.
Both Reid and Buchli showed how powerful ideas were injected into the
material culture of domestic sphere, artefacts and design, affecting daily rituals,
social norms and perception of the East/West living. I will now present
ethnographic examples of post-socialist settings where meaning and identity of
the objects within the ‘home in transition’ links up with these socialist
discourses, interconnected with a new element of transitional imagination. I will
focus on the significant effect former discourses had on the reconstruction of
domestic interiors, built environment and social life in general.
According to Krisztina Fehérváry, who looked at domestic design trends in
post-socialist Hungary, imaginary discourses of ‘Western normality’ make
people to furnish their homes with commodities that in ‘Western’ settings are
considered high-quality and extraordinary. In Hungary, luxury interiors with
‘American kitchens’ are seen as ‘average’ for Western Europe or the United
States. In contrast to Western ‘normality’2, ‘abnormal’ refers to the socialist era,
its everyday life, and material environment. Another observation made by
Fehérváry was the slang use of ‘Pure American!’ signifying an appreciation for
designs emphasizing user comfort, handy innovations. This expression
manifested Hungarian perspective on American culture, depicted as dedicated
to the pursuit of ease. Fehérváry argued that trends in renovation are a
manifestation of growing aspirations of Hungarian middle-class, claims for their
Western and European status and modern ‘normal life’ that these domestic
spaces represent.
New expectations and tendencies in the domestic design indirectly reflect the
Cold War demarcation of ‘Soviet’/‘Western’ material culture with ideas of
2
Conceptualized as natural and healthy, linked to the market capitalism, European middle classes and the
pre-socialist era in Hungary. (374)
6
respectable modern standard of living. Currently the open-plan ‘American’
kitchen with new appliances and furnishings serves as an index for
‘equivalence with western material standards’ (392). In fact, Hungarian
aspirations for ‘Western’ interiors bring into consideration Khrushchev’s claims
for socialism ‘catching up with and surpassing’ Western countries (385). Former
opposition between socialism and capitalism is reflected in the domestic
material culture, supplemented by the situation of the transition and new ideas
guiding new practice.
Similar phenomenon of a dynamic relationship between ‘old’ and ‘new’
discourses in the domestic interior is visible in post-socialist Albania. According
to Gen Fujii, constant repairs of the houses, rearrangements and DIY activities
illustrate the phenomenon of ‘a domesticated transition’. For Fujii, as Albanian
people undergo post-socialist transformation, they renovate their homes,
manifesting a deeper process of rearrangement and recent state of
incompleteness. Constantly changed interiors reflect both the ‘messy reality’ of
transition and new values, ideals and expectations. Like in the case of ‘normal’
Hungarian interiors, Albanians from Gjirokaster aspire toward a non-socialist
ideal, physically rebuilding their domestic environment according to this
‘imaginary’ model. In Hungary and Albania, the echo of former ideological
battles of the Cold War remained a strong element in material culture narratives
and practices around the domestic interior.
Some anthropologists, who ‘intruded’ on the post-socialist homes, have
identified a different set of meanings of domesticity connected to post-1989
transformation.
In some regions, structural constraints facing society in the context of
deindustrialization resulted in a different set of narratives about the home and
material culture. Frances Pine argued that in post-industrial Łódź economic
hardship and post-socialist ‘shock therapy’ resulted in anti-western sentiments
and domestic manifestations of nationalism. In this context, people manifested
a politicized rejection of consumerism in their domestic environment, buying
Polish ‘nasze’3 products and undertaking DIY transformations with the use of
3
Nasze – ‘Ours’, used as both local and national.
7
local materials and designs. In the Łódź region, the domestic domain is
juxtaposed and positively judged in relation to the ‘outside’, leading people to
gradually retreat to the household. The Manichean Cold War dichotomy of
East/West material culture is replaced by dualistic ideas of ‘nasze’ and foreign.
‘Where foreign goods had previously been a source of prestige and a sign of
affluence, they were now conspicuously rejected (Pine, 106), regarded as
dangerous and polluted. Moreover, ‘socialism’ evoked narratives of pride in
production and a sense of being part of a modern project. In consequence,
there has been a shifting relationship between public and private, inside and
outside, embodied in the domestic interior, attitude to material culture and
construction of a new subjectivity, with concepts of domesticated ‘nasz’, proudly
producing goods inside the home. Similar post-communist melancholy and
opposition to Westernisation, expressed in the domestic environment, can be
found in East Germany. According to Mariusz Czepczyński, Ostalgie, a
melancholic longing for ‘better times’ of the German Democratic Republic, is
strongly manifested in daily material culture, in sentimental return to cultural
icons of socialist landscape, household goods and designs (Czepczyński, 147).
Conclusion
Socialist and post-socialist ‘anthropology behind colsed doors’ showed that
domestic interiors are connected to broader social contexts, affecting daily lives
of the inhabitants. The cases of Caroline Humphrey’s refurbished Mongolian
tents, Victor Buchli’s ‘dizajned’ Narkomfin apartments and Susan Reid’s Cold
War kitchens illustrated interiors as the material embodiment of broader
discourses circulating in the Soviet Union. Post-socialist examples from
Hungary, Albania, Poland and Germany proved that rather than erasing these
narratives, the transitional ‘shock therapy’ intergrated them into new local
understandings and emerging discourses. These new meanings found their
expression in the physical environment of the household, affecting architectonic
form of the domestic environment. ‘If home is where the heart is, then it is also
where it is broken, torn and made whole in the flux of relationships, social and
material’ (Miller, 15). Anthropology of domestic interiors can provide with useful
8
insights into the nature of these changing relationships, both on a local level
and in the context of general transition.
Bibliography:
9
Baudrillard, J. 1996 ‘Structures of Interior Design’, in: The system of
objects, London: Verso.
Buchli, V. 2000 An archeology of socialism, Oxford, New York:
Berg.
Czepczyński, M. 2008 ‘Post-communist Landscape Cleansing’.
In: Cultural landscapes of post-socialist cities, Hampshire
and Burlington: Ashgate.
Fehervary, K. 2002 ‘American Kitchens, Luxury Bathrooms and the
Search for ‘Normal’ Life in Postsocialist Hungary’, in:
Ethnos, 67:3, 369-400.
Humphrey, C. 1974 ‘Inside a Mongolian Tent’, New Society 630: 273-275.
Miller, D 2001 ‘Behind Closed Doors’.In: Home possessions,
Oxford: Berg.
Pine, F. 2002 ‘Retreat to the household? Gendered domains in
postsocialist Poland’. In: Postsocialism, Hann C (ed.),
London: Routledge.
Reid, S. 2002 ‘Cold War in the Kitchen: Gender and the De-
Stalinization of Consumer Taste in the Soviet Union under
Khrushchev’, in: Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 211-
252.
10
