Between mass-market conventions and everyday life: The domestication of dining furniture in urban Istanbul | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. International Journal of Food Design
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2056-6522
  • E-ISSN: 2056-6530
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Although dining tables and chairs function as the main furniture stereotypes valued for hosting in traditional Turkish households, this practice has been subject to changes and challenges in contemporary urban life in Istanbul. This qualitative study of dining furniture brings insights into the design, production, purchase and use of furnishings from a broad review of literature and from semi-structured in-depth interviews undertaken in the homes of young urban professionals in Istanbul between the years 2013 and 2016. Prescribed as indispensable stereotypes in the furniture retail stores and considered as essential domestic units by the interviewees, dining tables and chairs are found out as not fulfilling their intended hosting functions efficiently or being often replaced by centre tables or coffee tables, because of an increase in casual rather than formal occasions. Domestication of the dining table as an open buffet was considered a practical way to help hold the food and drinks that were also on couches and coffee tables. In addition, the dining table was used for completely different functions unrelated to eating, as study desks or as surfaces for folding and ironing laundry, whereas dining chairs were used as places to drape coats or clothing. Interrogating the disconnect between the consumption and use context of the dining suites yields deeper discussion about the level of intellectual capital of Turkish furniture industry and the consumer culture which advices the enactment of norms. Insights in these complex, changing and sometimes contradictory patterns may influence the design of domestic furnishings in Turkey. Therefore, more user-based design research and a further examination of contemporary patterns of use in urban households are needed to activate this potential for the Turkish furniture design industry.

© 2021 the Author(s). Published by Intellect Ltd
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows users to copy, distribute and transmit the article as long as the author is attributed, the article is not used for commercial purposes, and the work is not modified or adapted in any way.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/ijfd_00026_1
2021-04-01
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijfd/6/1/ijfd.6.1.103.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1386/ijfd_00026_1&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ang, I.. ( 1992;), ‘ Living-room wars: New technologies, audience measurement and the tactics of television consumption. ’, in R. Silverstone, and E. Hirsch. (eds), Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces, London:: Routledge;, pp. 131–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Attfield, J.. ( 2000), Wild Things: The Material Culture of Everyday Life, Oxford:: Berg Publishers;.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayata, S.. ( 1988;), ‘ Kentsel Orta Sınıf Ailelerde Statü Yarışması ve Salon Kullanımı’ (‘Living room use and status rivalry in urban middle class families. ’), Toplum ve Bilim, 42:Summer, pp. 5–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bali, R.. ( 2002), Tarz-ı Hayattan ‘Lifestyle’ a (From Tarz-ı Hayat to ‘Lifestyle’), İstanbul:: İletişim Yayıncılık;.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bayrakçı, O.. ( 1996;), ‘ Yerel ürün kimliği küresel dış Pazar’ (‘National product identity in the global market. ’), in N. Bayazıt,, F. K. Çorbacı, and D. Günal. (eds), Tasarımda Evrenselleşme 2. Ulusal Tasarım Kongresi, İstanbul:: İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi;, pp. 93–103.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Berker, T.,, Hartmann, M.,, Punie, Y., and Ward, K.. ( 2006), Domestication of Media and Technology, New York:: Open University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bourdieu, P.. ( 1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, London:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bozdoğan, S.. ( 2001), Modernizm ve Ulusun İnşası (Modernism and Nation Building), Istanbul:: Metis Yayınları;.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brandes, U.,, Stich, S., and Wender, M.. ( 2009), Design by Use: The Everyday Metamorphosis of Things, Berlin:: Birkhauser;.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Braun, V., and Clarke, V.. ( 2006;), ‘ Using thematic analysis in psychology. ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, pp. 77–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dellaloğlu, B. F.. ( 2016), Modernleşmenin Zihniyet Dünyası: Bir Tanpınar Fetişizmi (Mentality Realm of Modernization: A Tanpınar Fetishism), İstanbul:: Kadim Yayınları;.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Demirci, S., and Efe, H.. ( 2006;), ‘ Türkiye mobilya endüstrisinin yapısı ve bölgesel dağılımı’ (‘The structure and regional distribution of Turkish furniture industry. ’), Gazi Üniversitesi, Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 1:6, pp. 120–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Fallan, K.. ( 2008;), ‘ De-scribing design: Appropriating script analysis to design history. ’, Design Issues, 24:4, pp. 61–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fallan, K.. ( 2010), Design History: Understanding Theory and Method, Oxford:: Berg Publishers;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Featherstone, M.. ( 1996), Postmodernizm ve Tüketim Kültürü (Postmodernism and Consumer Culture) (trans. M. Küçük.), İstanbul:: Ayrıntı Yayınları;.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Goffman, E.. ( 1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, NY:: Doubleday Anchor Books;.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Giddens, A.. ( 1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Stanford, CA:: Stanford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Günay, R.. ( 1999), Türk Ev Geleneği ve Safranbolu Evleri (Turkish House Tradition and Safranbolu Houses), İstanbul:: YEM;.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Kelebek ( 2021;), ‘ Home page. ’, www.kelebek.com. Accessed 25 January 2021.
  20. Kesdi, B. N.. ( 2019;), ‘ New product development in the Turkish furniture industry: Experiences of in-house industrial designers. ’, master’s thesis, Ankara:: Middle East Technical University;.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Keyder, Ç.. ( 2000), İstanbul Küresel ile Yerel Arasında (Istanbul between the Global and the Local), İstanbul:: Metis Yayınevi;.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lefebvre, H.. ( 1991), Critique of Everyday Life, Vol. 1: Introduction, London and New York:: Verso;.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Masko ( 2021;), ‘ Home page. ’, www.masko.com.tr. Accessed 25 January 2021.
  24. Meriç, N.. ( 2005), Adab-ı Muaşeret Osmanlı’da Gündelik Hayatın Değişimi (Etiquette: The Change of Everyday Life in Ottoman Empire), İstanbul:: Kapı Yayınları;.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Modoko ( 2021;), ‘ Home page. ’, www.modoko.com.tr. Accessed 25 January 2021.
  26. Mosder ( 2021;), ‘ Home page. ’, www.mosder.com.tr. Accessed 25 January 2021.
  27. Nasır, E. B.. ( 2016a;), ‘ An investigation of transformation of living room furniture: The idea of living room furniture acquirement dynamics and use practices. ’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Istanbul:: Istanbul Technical University;.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Nasır, E. B.. ( 2016b;), ‘ Searching for vernacular concepts in the contemporary scene: The Turkish floor table as a source of design inspiration. ’, International Journal of Food Design, 1:2, pp. 135–58.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Nasır, E. B.,, Timur, Ş., and Gürel, M. O.. ( 2019;), ‘ Living rooms occupied: Narratives on the recontextualization of the “Museum-Salon” practice in modern Turkish domesticity. ’, Home Cultures: Journal of Architecture, Design and Domestic Space, 16:1, pp. 63–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Öncü, A.. ( 1997;), ‘ The myth of the ‘Ideal Home’: Travels across cultural borders in Istanbul. ’, in A. Öncü, and P. Weyland. (eds), Space, Culture and Power, London:: Zed;, pp. 56–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Özbay, F.. ( 1999;), ‘ Gendered space: A new look at Turkish modernisation. ’, Gender & History, 11:3, pp. 555–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Özkaraman, M. S.. ( 2004;), ‘ Türkiye'de 1800–2004 yılları arasındaki Değişim Süreci İçinde Tasarımı Etkileyen Faktörler: Ve Bir Örnek Olarak Mobilya Üretimi Modeli’ (‘The factors influencing the design in Turkey in the Transition Era between 1800–2004: Furniture production model as an example. ’), unpublished doctoral dissertation, İstanbul:: Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University;.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Paavilainen, H.,, Ahde-Deal, P., and Koskinen, I.. ( 2016;), ‘ Dwelling with design. ’, Design Journal, 20:1, pp. 13–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Sakarya, S., and Doğan, Ö.. ( 2016), Mobilya Sektör Raporu (Furniture Sector Report), Ankara:: Orta Anadolu İhracatçı Birlikleri;.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Saldana, J.. ( 2011), Fundamentals of Qualitative Research, New York:: Oxford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Schatzki, T. R.,, Cetina, K. K., and Savigny, E.. ( 2001), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, London:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Shove, E.,, Pantzar, M., and Watson, M.. ( 2012), The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes, London:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Shove, E.,, Watson, M.,, Hand, M., and Ingram, J.. ( 2007), The Design of Everyday Life, London:: Bloomsbury;.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Silverstone, R.. ( 2006;), ‘ Domesticating domestication: Reflections on the life of a concept. ’, in T. Berker,, M. Hartman,, Y. Punie, and K. J. Ward. (eds), Domestication of Media and Technology, New York:: Open University Press;, pp. 229–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Sorensen, K. H.. ( 2006;), ‘ Domestication: The enactment of technology. ’, in T. Berker,, M. Hartman,, Y. Punie, and K. J. Ward. (eds), Domestication of Media and Technology, New York:: Open University Press;, pp. 40–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sullivan, O., and Gershuny, J.. ( 2004;), ‘ Inconspicuous consumption: Work-rich, time-poor in the liberal market economy. ’, Journal of Consumer Culture, 4:1, pp. 79–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Suri, J. F.. ( 2005), Thoughtless Acts? Observations on Intuitive Design, San Francisco, CA:: Chronicle Books;.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Suri, J. F.. ( 2011;), ‘ Poetic observation: What designers make of what they see. ’, in A. J. Clarke. (ed.), Design Anthropology: Object Culture in the 21st Century, Wien and New York:: Springer;, pp. 16–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tanyeli, U.. ( 2004), İstanbul 1900–2000: Konutu ve Modernleşmeyi Metropolden Okumak (Interpreting Dwelling and Modernization from Metropol), Istanbul:: Akın Nalça Yayıncılık;.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Tepehome ( 2021;), ‘ Home page. ’, https://en.tepehome.com. Accessed 25 January 2021.
  46. TOBB ( 2017), Türkiye mobilya ürünleri meclisi sektör raporu (Turkey Furniture Products Council Report), Ankara:: Türkiye Odalar ve Borsalar Birliği;.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Tracy, S. J.. ( 2013), Qualitative Research Methods, Hoboken, NJ:: Wiley-Blackwell;.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Tunabotoso ( 2021;), ‘ Home page. ’, www.tunabotoso.com. Accessed 25 January 2021.
  49. Ulver-Sneistrup, S.. ( 2008), Status Spotting: A Consumer Cultural Exploration into Ordinary Status Consumption of ‘Home’ and Home Aesthetics, Lund:: Lund Business Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Üstüner, T., and Holt, D. B.. ( 2010;), ‘ Toward a theory of status consumption in less industrialized countries. ’, Journal of Consumer Research, 37:1, pp. 37–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Visser, M.. ( 1992), The Rituals of Dinner, New York:: Penguin Books;.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Warde, A., and Martens, L.. ( 2000), Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and Pleasure, Cambridge:: Cambridge University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Warner, L. W.. ( 1949), Democracy in Jonesville: A Study in Quality and Inequality, New York:: Harper & Brothers;.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Nasir, Esra Bici. ( 2021;), ‘ Between mass-market conventions and everyday life: The domestication of dining furniture in urban Istanbul. ’, International Journal of Food Design, 6:1, pp. 103–127, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/ijfd_00026_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/ijfd_00026_1
Loading
Between mass-market conventions and everyday life: The domestication of dining furniture in urban Istanbul
International Journal of Food Design 6, 103 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1386/ijfd_00026_1
/content/journals/10.1386/ijfd_00026_1
/content/journals/10.1386/ijfd_00026_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): alternative uses; consumption culture; dining furniture; domestic design; domestication; everyday life; furniture mass-market; hosting practices

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error