Advertisement

Being at Home Today: Inhabitance Practices and the Transformation and Blurring of French Domestic Living Spaces

  • Véronique Beillan
  • Sylvie Douzou
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter analyses how various domestic spaces are caught up in some of the most significant societal transformations observed in France. The authors explore households’ inhabitance practices and underline the importance of two movements that interweave: firstly, a renewed multi-functionality in flexible domestic spaces and, secondly, the individuation of activities within these spaces. Both go hand in hand with a new composition of individual and collective daily temporalities and result in increased de-synchronised and spatio-temporal context-free activities served by ubiquitous access to services and nomadic tools. This complexity and the breaking or blurring of conventional boundaries imply that to track the dynamics of domestic energy use requires renewed units of analysis that would better capture the daily continuum of change as well as emergent patterns.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been carried out within the framework of the DEMAND: Dynamics of Energy, Mobility and Demand Research Centre funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as part of the RCUK Energy Programme and by EDF as part of the R&D ECLEER Programme. The French case study was supported by the French National Research Agency. The authors also want to express their gratitude to the reviewers and in particular Allison Hui and Gordon Walker for their careful readings, relevant remarks and support.

Bibliography

  1. CEREN. 2015. Données statistiques du ceren, année 2015 – répartition par usage des consommations finales d’énergie des résidences principales (climat normal).Google Scholar
  2. Claval, P. 2004. Les ouvertures de l’espace domestique. In Espaces domestiques: Construire, aménager, représenter, ed. B. Collignon and J. Staszak. Paris: Bréal.Google Scholar
  3. De Singly, F. 2000. Libres ensemble: L’individualisme dans la vie commune. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
  4. Durand-Daubin, M. 2016a. Activités des ménages par usage de l’énergie: Dynamiques quotidiennes et évolutions historiques. Paris: EDF Lab Paris Saclay. (6125-1802-2016-15929-FR).Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2016b. Cooking in the night: Peak electricity demand and people’s activity in France and great Britain. DEMAND Centre Conference, Lancaster, 13–15 April 2016, 13. Available at: http://www.demand.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DEMAND2016_Full_paper_158-Durand-Daubin.pdf
  6. Eleb, M., and A.-M. Châtelet. 1997. Urbanité, sociabilité et intimité: Des logements d’aujourd’hui. Paris: Les éditions de l’épure.Google Scholar
  7. Filiod, J.P. 2004. “C’est quoi ce bazar?” Pour une anthropologie du désordre domestique. In Espaces domestiques: Construire, aménager, représenter, ed. B. Collignon and J.-F. Staszak. Paris: Bréal.Google Scholar
  8. Guy, S., and E. Shove. 2000. The sociology of energy, buildings and the environment: Constructing knowledge, designing practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. INSEE. 2014. France, portrait social. Paris: INSEE.Google Scholar
  10. Kaufmann, J.-C. 1996. Portes, verrous et clés: Les rituels de fermeture du chez-soi. Ethnologie Française 26: 280–288.Google Scholar
  11. Lefebvre, H. 1974. La production de l’espace. Paris: Anthropos.Google Scholar
  12. Perrinjaquet, R., M. Bassand, and P. Amphoux. 1986. Domus 2005: Exploration prospective de l’habiter. Lausanne: Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne, Institut de recherche sur l’environnement construit.Google Scholar
  13. Pezeu-Massabuau, J. 1983. La maison, espace social. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  14. Rosa, H., and D. Renault. 2010. Accélération: Une critique sociale du temps. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  15. Schatzki, T.R. 2010. The timespace of human activity: On performance, society, and history as indeterminate teleological events. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  16. Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of normality. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  17. Shove, E., M. Pantzar, and M. Watson. 2012. The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shove, E., G. Walker, D. Tyfield, et al. 2014. What is energy for? Social practice and energy demand. Theory, Culture & Society 31: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Star, S.L., and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Staszak, J.-F. 2001. L’espace domestique: Pour une géographie de l’intérieur. Annales de géographie 110: 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Trompette, P., and D. Vinck. 2009. Retour sur la notion d’objet-frontière. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances 3: 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van der Schoor, T. 2016. Energy scripts and spaces. DEMAND Centre Conference, Lancaster, 13–15 April 2016, 11. Available at: http://www.demand.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DEMAND2016_Full_paper_128-Van-der-Schoor.pdf
  23. Walker, G. 2014. The dynamics of energy demand: Change, rhythm and synchronicity. Energy Research & Social Science 1: 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilhite, H., H. Nakagami, T. Masuda, et al. 2001. A cross-cultural analysis of household energy-use behavior in Japan and Norway. Consumption: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences 4: 159–177.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Véronique Beillan
    • 1
  • Sylvie Douzou
    • 1
  1. 1.EDF R&DPalaiseauFrance

Personalised recommendations