Intergroup Social Relations and Architecture: Vernacular Architecture and Issues of Status, Power, and Conflict

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between religion, majority-minority intergroup relations, and vernacular domestic architecture. Specifically, it looks at three facets of intergroup relations, power, status, and conflict, and their interrelationships with architecture. Through an ethnographic study focusing on the Zoroastrians, a religious minority in predominantly Muslim Iran, and their domestic architecture, we indicate how the design of the home and of the neighborhood expresses religion-related hegemonic social relations, power differentials, status distinctions, and conflict. We show that architectural features such as location, designs of houses, heights, and presence or absence of special devices, such as badgirs and "sacrificial spaces," play a part in the enaction of power, status, and conflict while forming a record of them. Architectural features can aid in the survival and preservation of a group's cultural identity, and be symbolic of resistance. We indicate how for the Zoroastrians, architecture became a means of resistance-a survival strategy-and how the home design began to incorporate fortress-like qualities to protect and preserve their unique religious identity and cultural traditions. We recommend the adoption of a socioarchitectural approach that involves simultaneous examination of both the social world and the material world, as examination of either produces an incomplete and partial picture.

On the contested nature of place: ‘Figuera’s Well’, ‘The Hole of Shame’ and the ideological struggle over public space in Barcelona

“…Similarly, the role of intergroup power struggles in shaping human environments has been occasionally discussed (e.g. Mazumdar, 2004;Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 1997). In the vast majority of research, however, the social struggles that routinely mark the creation, transformation and lived experience of our environments have tended to be submerged.…”

“…It is perhaps not surprising that researchers working in contexts with a stark and visible history of intergroup division and inequality have favoured this strong definition, which treats conflict less as a reflection of cultural differences in place 'preferences' or aesthetic 'tastes' and more as a symptom of underlying relations of domination, subordination and resistance (e.g. Possick, 2004;Dixon & Durrheim, 2004;Mazumdar & Mazumdar, 1997). Such relations, of course, are manifest not only in the concrete organisation of our material environments, but also in ideological struggles to define their meaning and value.…”

An investigation into the building-sanitary equipment in the traditional residential architecture

“…As a result of this change, traditional houses undergo some modern adaptations that aim to meet the needs of modern life. This results in Bayer et al 669 the removal of the traditional borders between the social groups at cultural, national and even local level (Dickens, 1988;Mazumdar, 1997;Kim and Kaplan, 2004;Youngen and Hostetler, 2005;Clark and Kearns, 2012). This study aims to probe into the elements that are important for man and therefore for the building which accommodates man; that give the building a livable quality; and that are called building-sanitary equipment.…”

How Do Social Values and Norms Affect Architecture of the Turkish House?

“…Regarding the issue at hand, there have been a number of comparative cultural studies . In their investigations about the domestic architecture of Iran, scholars such as Mazumdar and Mazumdar [23,24] have focused on the interrelationships between religious traditions and domestic vernacular architecture and the relationship between religion, majority-minority intergroup relations and vernacular domestic architecture.…”