HOMEINTHEFRAMEWORK OF THEORY

Explorations of diasporic homes in this volume rely on an integrative theoretical framework. Like many other researchers of material culture (see, e.g., Berger 2014; Buchli 2020; Dant 1999; Knapett 2011), we advocate investigating human–object relations from a multidisciplinary vantage point, applying theories tested in the fields as diverse as anthropology and sociology, consumer and market research, sociolinguistics and semiotics. Applying a number of theories which could serve as perspectives focusing the researchers’ attention on the connections between home and society with its wide repertoire of discourses and practices seems to be an appropriate approach to gain different perspectives and thus gain a richer and more critical vision of home, homemakers and artefacts with which they interact (Berger 2014: 13–27; Durham and Kellner 2012: 3–4). The suitability of the chosen theories is determined by their effectiveness in providing modes of explanation and interpretation of sociocultural practices and structures related to home. And here we agree with Durham and Kellner (2012) who write that cultural and social theories are descriptive and interpretive; they highlight specific topics, make connections, contextualise, provide interpretations and offer explanations. We are aware that ‘descriptive’ and ‘interpretive’ are often used as pejorative terms in evaluating research projects as devoid of scientific vigour, yet in issues related to human life and values we deal with subjectivities which are not amenable to quantification or modelling, and thorough descriptions and reflective interpretations may thus prove to be the most revealing.

In theorising culture in general, and material culture in particular, researchers are often confronted with the question of how knowledge of culture is acquired and whether it is inseparably connected to language. Influential work by Bloch (1991 and 2018) challenges the leading role of the language. He postulates that much cultural knowledge is nonlinear and non-sentential but purpose-dedicated, formed through the extensive practice of closely related activities. Fairchild also defines culture as communication of behavioural patterns that are transmitted by symbols, and does not even mention language (Fairchild 1966: 80).