INTRODUCTIONThis volume explores the concept of place attachment to (1) illustrate its multidisciplinary foundations, (2) identify its various aspects, (3) highlight its potential importance in research and environmental design, and (4) lay the foundation for a conceptual framework to guide future research.The volume includes contributions of scholars with backgrounds or experience in anthropology, architecture, family and consumer studies, folklore, gerontology, landscape architecture, marketing, psychology, social ecology, sociology, and urban planning, with authors providing integrative analyses of place attachment from the theoretical and methodological perspectives of their fields. The chapters also examine attachment to a variety of places-homes, neighborhoods, plazas, landscapes-as well as place attachments at different life stages-childhood, middle years, and later years. The present chapter initiates a preliminary inquiry into the concept of place attachment, based on the material in this volume and in other writings. BACKGROUNDHistorically, attachment to place was of interest primarily to earlier phenomenological scholars, such as Bachelard (1964) and Eliade (1959), and to

This article examines privacy as a generic process that occurs in all cultures but that also differs among cultures in terms of the behavioral mechanisms used to regulate desired levels of privacy. Ethnographic data are examined from a variety of cultures, particularly from societies with apparently maximum and minimum privacy, and from analyses of various social relationships, such as parents and children, in-laws, husbands and wives. It is concluded that privacy is a universal process that involves culturally unique regulatory mechanisms.This article addresses the question posed in the title, namely, is privacy regulation a culturally universal process or is it a culturally specific phenomenon? Like the rabbi of Jewish folklore faced with petitioners holding irreconcilable opinions, my answer is "yes, both positions are correct!" This seemingly paradoxical response is based on an analysis of privacy as (a) a culturally universal process involving dynamic, dialectic, and optimization features, and @) a culturally specific process in terms of mechanisms used to regulate social interaction. Thus, I view privacy to be culturally pervasive at one level of analysis and culturally unique at another level of analysis.The first section of the article summarizes a theoretical model and rationale for conceiving privacy as a cultural universal. Dilemmas, issues, and a strategy for dealing with the question of cultural universals are then discussed, followed by a review of ethnographic data related to privacy. ~ I wish to acknowledge my appreciation for comments on earlier versions of this article

His research interests include empirical and theoretical analyses of the concepts of privacy, territory, personal space and crowding. This paper presents a ,theoretical analysis of the concept of privacy which emphasizes its role as an interpersonal boundary control process. The paper also analyzes mechanisms and dynamics of privacy, including verbal and paraverbal behavior, personal space, territorial behavior, and culturally based responses. Finally, several functions of privacy are proposed, including regulation of interpersonal interaction, self-other definitional processes, and self-identity.The concept of privacy appears in the literature of several disciplines-psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, law, architecture, and the design professions. One group of definitions of the term emphasizes seclusion, withdrawal, and avoidance of interaction with others. For example: Bates (1964): A person's feeling that others should be excluded from something which is of concern to him, and also recognition that others have a right to do this.

No abstract

No abstract