Lataa ilmaiseksi

Summary
3 D E S I G N E N T E R S H O M E
149
One of the original motivators for developing the moral economy of the
household framework was to point out how households are important
ingredients in how public economy and the markets work, even if their role
had been downplayed as that of economic units (Silverstone 2005 1). But the
framework remains quite vague about what actually takes place in the household
vis-à-vis appropriation. It is difficult not to depict the market as consisting
of networked moral economies that act much like nodes on a conveyer belt.
At one point, stuff pours in. Then, the moral economy processes it and at some
point lets the stuff back out, to be again taken up by other moral economies.
This chapter discussed what goes on in the moral economies as they process the
stuff. It was shown that the processing is not as automatic and efficient as the
machine analogy would lead us to believe.
I interpreted the different appropriation styles as
Supervised ease (simple context, little time) (1 household),
Autonomous ease (Simple context, lots of time) (5 households),
Confused care (Complex context, little time) (5 households), and
Involved care (Complex context, lots of time) (6 households).
The interpretation is based on a two-fold analysis of the data: first, the
household’s subjective sense of whether their context of actions and, consequently,
appropriation of design is simple or complicated. The interpretation
is based on the recognition that the interviewees were making their dwelling
decisions with ease or with great care, on the one hand, and that, on the other,
the easiness or care was flavoured by autonomy (the decisions are quite independent
of anything outside one’s own aesthetic ideals), supervision (certain
authors are consulted), confusion (a person does not know or does not make
decisions) and involvement (the decisions are based on a person’s own taste,
but that particular person wants the dwelling to still be connected with some