 |
Spatial arrangements control one’s actions (Stea,
1970). It is common knowledge that the arrangement of furniture in one’s
livingroom controls the flow and quality of interactions. A small dining
table that seats four to six enhances listening and discussion, while round
or square tables minimize authority issues, rectangular
ones accentuate authority positions. Tables seating more than six intensify
engagements between neighbors but limit contacts beyond a person’s immediate
vicinity. In short, interactions are often impacted more by spatial
arrangements than by personal characteristics of the people involved (Wax,
1977, p. 51). Thus, the space we create controls our actions. We can
apply such knowledge from research and other writings (Freedman,
1975; Mehrabian, 1976; Proshansky, Ittelson & Rivlin,
1970; Seaburg, 1971; Sommer, 1969; Stea, 1970; Wax, 1977) to our own
experiences with controlling interactions through spatial arrangements. For
example, how does the furniture arrangement in residential waiting or
visiting rooms effect interaction? Is the furniture lined-up along the
walls, spaced apart from each other in such a way that people are forced to
sit separately—staring into the room or hiding behind a magazine or a coke
for privacy? Is the spacing representative of the classic but anti-social
schemes of waiting rooms and yesterday’s parlors? Or, is the furniture
arranged in close clusters that encourages small groupings and intimacy? In
multioccupant bedrooms, particularly in dormitories, we need to look at
sleeping arrangements. Are the beds lined up in orderly barrack fashion, as
if to warehouse troubled children (Whittaker,
1979, p. 5)? The latter constitutes spatial arrangement for strict
control and the enforcement of egalitarian standards. Or, are the beds
arranged in clusters that accentuate closeness within each subgroup. Such
spatial arrangement leads to greater individualization and forces caregivers
to individualize—to place human concerns over managerial ones.
As mentioned earlier, individuals require added privacy and an assurance of
ample space of their own at moments of tension and social change (Horowitz,
Duff & Stratton. 1970). Repeatedly we experience that children who are
tense require more space between themselves and others, even for such
absorbing group activities as eating or watching television. The necessity
for more space in moments of stress is not necessarily a manifestation of a
person’s irritability but rather a response to a “crowding experience.”
Namely, recent studies have revealed that crowded conditions cause people to
become tense and antisocial as if people within their immediate proximity
were their adversaries (Friedman, 1975).
We are reminded of instances of crises when children or adolescents dash off
to faraway corners, actually run away, or in intense moments of “crowding
panic,” engage in fighting or other flight behaviors—and even in suicide (Wax,
1977, pp. 51.52).
We are familiar with these tense times. Some occur almost daily at such
unavoidable moments as waiting for mealtimes, the school bus, or one’s turn
in an involving event. Others, such as sharing unwelcomed news, occur less
often. A restructuring of space for these anticipated crisis events that
assures ample buffer zones and action space for the individual (Horowitz.
Duff & Stratton, 1970),
will render such crises more manageable for child and staff. The added space
created permits the child or youth wider range of behavioral expression. |
 |
