Marco Magliozzi

© photo by Marco Magliozzi

One of the topics that inflames the contemporary debate is the role of the "masculine and feminine" within society. The so-called "patriarchy", which undoubtedly constituted the binary structure of the Western world, is partly accepted today as a cultural construct. However, little attention is paid to the fact that this same society is shaped and ordered according to a precise spatial structure and interpretation. Therefore, if the plural identities of the contemporary society are the affirmation of the self, they tend to move and act within a physical space which is defined by boundaries and possibilities. It is then legitimate to question the relationship between gender and space, in particular the role of gender in the discourse of space and the role of space in the discourse of gender. Gender theory is often visible and readable in the built environment, but when it has to be applied explicitly to architecture, it is hidden. It is masked by an extra- or pre-architectural preconception, since it is determined by external cultural impositions, and therefore to which architecture can only adapt or refer. But we must ask ourselves whether architecture is the mirror of a society, or rather the mechanism through which a certain social construct is imposed. 

In Greek culture, for example, the woman holds a very specific position within the space. She is in isolated, dependent, secondary and by men surveilled architectural structures. It is not by chance that the Greek historian Xenophon is among the first to theorise a correlation between gender and space: "the gods made provision from the first by shaping, as it seems to me the woman's nature for indoor and the man's for outdoor occupations [...] Thus a woman to bide tranquilly at home rather than roam abroad is no dishonour; but for a many to remain indoors, instead of devoting himself to outdoor pursuits is a thing discreditable [...]compelled to sit indoors, the body becomes effeminate and mind loses its strength". According to Xenophon, in this division Man-Woman-Outdoor-Indoor no confusion or exception is allowed. On the contrary, it is precisely the space that produces the gender distinction. It transforms the mental and physical character of the person who occupies the wrong place. (Wigley)

Xenophon's theories are certainly outdated today, however, they are very similar to what Leon Battista Alberti writes, who, on the other hand, has always been a reference for architectural reflections for us in the profession, and even closer to the modern way of thinking. In his fifth book, during the discussion on the design of "private homes", he gives an example of the "good exercise" of patriarchal authority applied to architecture. The house is conceived as a surveillance system within which women must be confined to spaces far from the world upfront, while men must be more exposed to the outside. The house is literally understood as a mechanism for the domestication of women:" the woman, as she remained locked up at home, should watch over things by staying at her post, by diligent care and watchfulness. The man should watch the woman, the house, and his family and country, but not by sitting still" (Leon Battista Alberti). Unable to control herself, according to Alberti, the woman must be controlled by external law, that is, the man. Marriage, which is institutionalised in the house, is understood as the domestication of a wild animal. The house, therefore, rather than simply the scene of this event, is the mechanism through which gender division is produced. In these terms, then, the role of architecture is to control sexuality (of the woman), the chastity of the virgin and the fidelity of the wife. (Wigley) The house is a system of surveillance, where everything that happens must be under control, and where action must be taken if necessary. It is the woman who supervises the physical space of the house, who holds the keys, so to speak, but it is the man who ultimately monitors the woman. The house has allowed the patriarchal order to impose itself on western society. It all comes from there. 

In contemporary society not much seems to have changed. According to modern stereotypes, women are often understood as the "queens of the fireplace", i.e. of the sexual, erratic, emotional, privatised and personal sphere represented by the home (Wigley). Just as the house is isolated and extraneous to the external space, the woman is also far from the public world, which is impersonal and ordered, stereotypically embodied by male figures. This historical excursus must therefore teach us something: it is a mistake to separate architecture and gender. It is the architect's task to address the world in which he lives and works, because this same space is not only the scenography but also the active tool for building society. Today the house must be understood not only as a necessary requirement for a dignified life, but also as a concept conceived and neatly structured by man to facilitate living with the opposite sex. If we can therefore say that today gender is a social construct, it is clear that the home is also a cultural artefact.