Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T00:36:00.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Planning theory and women's role in the city

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2009

Helen Meller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Feminist historians have expended a good deal of energy on delineating the cultural concept of the Two Spheres This curious cultural phenomenon emerged in the wake of the evangelical revival and the Industrial Revolution, and caused people to believe that the world was divided into two to match the two sexes. The male part was the world of public affairs, commerce, business and, of course, the defence of the realm. The female centred on the private domain: home, family and children. The problem that this imposed on women has never yet been successfully resolved: the sexual division of labour and the domestic location of women's work. In Britain in the nineteenth century, as the population moved into the cities and standards of living rose (if patchily), the physical form of the modern urban environment took shape in ways which perpetuated the continuance of the Two Spheres. This was particularly true for middle-class women, whose lives in suburban retreats had little physical connection with the rest of the city. Of all the pressures which dictated the form of nineteenth-century cities, there was not one related to finding new ways for women to live in modern cities outside a rigid interpretation of the Two Spheres.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History Yearbook , Volume 17 , May 1990 , pp. 85 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 The major theme of Davidoff, L. and Hall, C., Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class 1780–1850 (1987)Google Scholar, is the ‘separation of the spheres’ and the interpretation of that concept. The ‘Two Spheres’ is also closely related to ideals of femininity, a theme dealt with in a number of recent studies: see, for example, Burstyn, J., Victorian Education and the Ideal of Womanhood (1980)Google Scholar; Delamount, S. and Duffin, L. (eds), The Nineteenth Century Woman: Her Cultural and Physical World (1978)Google Scholar; Dyhouse, C., Girls Growing Up in Late Victorian and Edwardian England (1981)Google Scholar; Lewis, J. (ed.), Women in England 1870–1950: Sexual Divisions and Social Change (1986)Google Scholar; Rowbotham, J., Good Girls make Good Wives: Guidance for Girls in Victorian Fiction (1989)Google Scholar; Vicinus, M. (ed.), Suffer and Be Still: Women in the Victorian Age and A Widening Sphere: Changing Roles of Victorian Women (1972 and 1977).Google Scholar

2 Davidoff, and Hall, , Family Fortunes, 357–75.Google Scholar

3 Historians of planning have tended to ignore this, focusing on environmental and public health factors which also stimulated the growth of the planning process. An exception to this is the work of King, A.D., Colonial Urban Development: Culture, Social Power and Environment (1976), 11–13.Google Scholar

4 See Hardy, D. and Davidson, L. (eds), Utopian Thought and Communal Experience (1989)Google Scholar; and Fishman, R., Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century: Ebenezer Howard, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier (1977), 5–15.Google Scholar

5 Hayden, D., The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighbourhoods, and Cities (1981), 231.Google Scholar

6 Howard, E., ‘A new outlet for woman's energy’, Garden Cities and Town Planning, 3 (1913), 152–9.Google Scholar

7 ‘Away with your man-visions! Women propose to reject them all, and begin to dream dreams for themselves’ — Anthony, Susan B., 1871.Google Scholar Quoted by D. Hayden, Grand Domestic Revolution, dedication.

8 The major proponent of this view was P. Geddes and he influenced Raymond Unwin, Patrick Abercrombie, George Pepler and others. Meller, H.E., ‘City development in turn of the century Scotland’, in Art, Design and the Quality of Life in Turn of the Century Scotland, ed. Carter, C.J. (1983), 46Google Scholar; and Cherry, G. (ed.), Pioneers in British Planning (1981).Google Scholar

9 Harrison, B., Separate Spheres: The Opposition to Women's Suffrage in Britain (1978).Google Scholar

10 Ravetz, A., Remaking Cities: Contradictions of the Recent Urban Environment (1980).Google Scholar

11 Meller, H.E., Patrick Geddes: Social Evolutionist and City Planner (1990).Google Scholar

12 Geddes, P. and Thomson, J.A., The Evolution of Sex (1889), 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Rubinstein, D., Before the Suffragettes: Women's Emancipation in th 1890s (1986), 4.Google Scholar

14 Boardman, P., The Worlds of Patrick Geddes: Biologist, Town-planner, Reeducator, Peace-warrior (1978), 436.Google Scholar Sir John Cockburn had been the premier of South Australia and a founder member of the British Sociological Society in London in 1903.

15 Meller, H.E., ‘Cities in evolution: Patrick Geddes as an international prophet of town-planning before 1914’ in The Rise of Modern Urban Planning 1890–1914, ed. Sutcliffe, A. (1980), 201–3.Google Scholar

16 Geddes, P., Cities in Evolution: An Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and the Study of Civics (1915), 143.Google Scholar

17 Conway, J., ‘Stereotypes of femininity in a theory of sexual evolution’ in Suffer and Be Still: Women in the Victorian Age, ed. Vicinus, M. (1970), 140–54.Google Scholar

18 Published as a pamphlet from the Outlook Tower, Castlehill, Edinburgh, 1–12.

19 Ibid., 2.

20 Ibid., 5.

21 Geddes, and Thomson, , Evolution of Sex, 267.Google Scholar

22 ‘The sex business has changed so much that there is no question — I fervently hope — of tinkering with Evolution of Sex’. Letter from J.A. Thomson to P. Geddes, 3 June 1924, Geddes Papers, MS10555, National Library of Scotland.

23 Meller, , Patrick Geddes, 292–300.Google Scholar

24 Uttenhove, P., ‘Les efforts internationaux pour une Belgique moderne’ in Resurgam: La Reconstruction en Belgique après 1914 (1985), catalogue, 64.Google Scholar

25 Swenarton, M., Homes Fit for Heroes (1981).Google Scholar

26 Meller, , Patrick Geddes, 293–4.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., 296.

28 Beevers, R., The Garden City Utopia: A Critical Biography of Ebenezer Howard (1988), 170–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Geddes, P., Town Planning Reports: Jaffa and Tel-Aviv (1925), typescript, 14.Google Scholar

30 Geddes, P., Reports on the Towns in the Madras Presidency visited by Professor Geddes 1914–15 (1915), 96.Google Scholar

31 Mumford, L., ‘Patrick Geddes, insurgent’, New Republic, 60 (1929), 295–6Google Scholar; Mumford, L., ‘Mumford on Geddes’, Architectural Review (1950), 80–4Google Scholar; Mumford, L., ‘Men and ideas: the disciple's rebellion; a memoir of Patrick Geddes’, Encounter, 27 (1966), 11–21.Google Scholar

32 Hughes, M.R. (ed.), The Letters of Lewis Mumford and Frederic J. Osborn (1971).Google Scholar

33 Mumford, L., The City in History: Its Origins, its Transformations, and its Prospects (1961), 25.Google Scholar

34 Mumford, L., The Condition of Man (1944), 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Reprinted in Mumford, L., City Development: Studies in Disintegration and Renewal (1946), 129–64.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., 130.

37 Branford, V.V. and Geddes, P., ‘The drift to revolution’, No. 9, Papers.Google Scholar

38 Mumford, (1946) City Developments, 153.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., 164.