Is house part of one’s pretension? Or is it the pretensions that shapes a house?
There is a famous saying by sir winston churchill, “ we
shape buildings, there after buildings shape us”. This we have felt is quite
true, as its always a mutual process on what we are and what space we occupy.
This idea of house becoming a strong identity of pretension, is more in a
consumer state like kerala, where in an agricultural society like tamil nadu or
in predominant industrial societies, there are less importance given for the
image of a house.
For such societies houses are a little more than a shelter
while the co existing environment is more important than the image. We can also
come across different communities who value the idea of co existence, and hence
continue living together in-heriting the houses from their past generation.
In a pragmatic society, where there more primary economic
opportunities, there are less importance given to the image or the idea of
identity. The idea of an image of the house will be secondary to ones thoughts
on his familes education, food and social existence. Such societies will have a
very predictable economic growth. In a society where secondary and tertiary
economies are more prominent, where there are multiple chances of sudden influx
of wealth, people see imageability as a main tool to establish their sudden
importance in the society. With a predominent number of NRIs and the influx of
foreign investment in last three decades, kerala has been witnessing this
specific situation of creating houses for displaying ego and power, and hence
there are large fissures which have developed in the coherence of the society.
Houses should have been a social decision while its been taken as a very
personal agenda in such societies.
Comments
Post a Comment