A SPATIAL READING FOR DOMESTIC EQUALITY

Architecture functions beyond the concept of a physical enclosure, a social envelope, often defining relationships, values, and everyday practices within a household. In the Indian domestic context, residential spaces have often been organized in ways that intend to reinforce gender roles, caste divisions, and class hierarchies. A close reading of my house, however, suggests that its spatial arrangement does not actively discriminate on these grounds. Instead, the layout holds space for shared occupation, flexible movement, and non-hierarchical use by family members, guests, and household help.

​

The plan of the house is compact and clearly organized. The living space acts as the primary shared area and forms the social core of the house. The kitchen, placed adjacent to the living room, maintains visual and spatial continuity between spaces of social interaction and domestic work. From this central domain, circulation leads to a cluster of bedrooms and washrooms arranged along a short passage. The orientation and organisation of the plan prioritizes functional clarity and accessibility rather than separation or spatial control. Within the family, spaces are not assigned or occupied according to gender. All members use the living room, kitchen, bedrooms, and circulation spaces without restriction. No room is spatially privileged or coloured in a way that depicts gender hierarchy. The bedrooms are comparable in size and access, their placement  not suggesting dominance or ownership by any individual. Washrooms are shared and distributed based on convenience rather than status. This arrangement allows each family member to occupy the house freely and equally.

​

The kitchen plays an important role in understanding gendered patterns of space. Rather than being isolated or concealed, it is positioned close to the living room, making it part of everyday movements and rhythms. This placement ensures that domestic work isn’t tucked in one corner of the house. All family members move through and use the kitchen regularly, preventing it from becoming a space associated with a single gender. The openness of the kitchen supports shared responsibility and avoids reinforcing traditional domestic roles. Movement through the house further reinforces this non-hierarchical structure. Circulation from the living room to the bedrooms is almost linear, direct and unsegregated, letting movement patterns overlap naturally, allowing family members to encounter one another in shared spaces. The plan does not restrict visibility or access, and no part of the house functions as a controlled or exclusive zone. The treatment of guests also reflects an absence of spatial hierarchy. They use the living space for interaction rather than formality. Depending on familiarity, guests may move into other parts of the house, including dining areas, bedrooms, or the kitchen. The plan does not confine guests to a single front-facing room meant only for display, thereby avoiding performative class-based association often found in formal spatial orientations. 

​

The occupation of household help is an important factor in examining caste and class. In many Indian homes, domestic workers are segregated through separate entrances, restricted circulation, or designated service areas. In this house, such divisions are not rigidly encoded into the plan. The househelp typically moves in the periphery, in their areas of service, avoiding the living room as much as possible. Their circulation overlaps with that of the family, and their presence is neither hidden nor spatially marginalized. The kitchen itself is not treated as a back-of-house space but as part of the domestic core. There are no distinctive features such as separate toilets, seating, or circulation paths that would indicate social segregation. This absence suggests that the house does not spatially enforce caste or class hierarchy.

Discrimination in architecture often operates subtly through distance, concealment, and restricted access. The plan of this house does not rely on such mechanisms. Instead, it enables shared space, overlapping movement, and visible occupation by different users. The lack of segregated zones or controlled thresholds reflects a spatial refusal to formalize social hierarchy. While architecture alone cannot determine social relationships, it can either reinforce or resist existing inequalities. In this house, the spatial arrangement supports everyday practices of shared use and mutual access. The plan allows different occupants; family members, guests, and household help; to move freely and participate in domestic life without architectural restriction.

When examined through the lenses of gender, caste, and social class, the house does not emerge as a space of discrimination. Its layout prioritizes accessibility, shared occupation, and functional clarity over hierarchy and exclusion. Through its everyday use and spatial organization, the house supports an environment of negotiated equality rather than spatial division.