Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
American housing, like American society and American families, has been characterized by diversity. Even so, "we have come to accept a homogeneous perspective of American society, based on the lifestyle ideals of the upwardly mobile middle class." (Nader 1979: 5) But the assumption of the desirability of this American ideal of "upward mobility" in occupation, economics, and the accumulation of goods has led many Americans to adopt high consumption patterns in hopes of high satisfaction. "Year by year, from 1950 to 1980, the dream houses got bigger and bigger until Americans enjoyed the largest amount of private housing space ever created in the history of urban civilization. Over 91 percent of U.S. households had one person per room or fewer in 1970; over 29.4 percent of U.S. households had seven or more rooms in their home in 1976." (Hayden 1984: 38)
This study deals with a group of people in the Bay Area who have abandoned the ideals of "upward mobility" and instead have opted for an alternative lifestyle where the size of the dwelling influences consumption patterns as well as cultural values. Each of my informants was living aboard a boat in a marina. Many were raising families. All but one were living in less than 265 square feet of space.
In a lifestyle based on the "American Dream", uncontrolled consumerism and unlimited consumption predominate. In such a society, people are easily tied to installment payments and the expectations of others. "Needs" tend to be dictated by technology and advertising, popular culture, peer pressure, and corporations; little thought is given to "waste", and "enough" can never be defined. Robert Woods Kennedy in his influential book of the 1950s The House and the Art of Its Design argued that, as an architect, "it was his job to provide houses that helped his clients to indulge in status-conscious consumption, and he showed how to display the housewife "as a sexual being" as well as how to display the family's possessions "as proper symbols of socio-economic class", claiming that both forms of expression were essential to modern family life." (Hayden 1984: 109) One result of this design trend is that housing and consumption patterns still carry many aesthetic, social, and economic messages.
During the course of fieldwork, I began to wonder how choosing simplicity and limiting consumption could result in a sense of satisfaction. My informants stated: "I like not buying lots of things!" (T. de L.) "If I can't afford it, I don't need it!" (F.G.) "[We] buy less stuff, feel less controlled by possessions." (D.C.) "We don't buy any impulse items." (G.L.) "We don't have room for things that don't serve a definite purpose!" (R.C.) Could "downward mobility" in consumption and energy use actually be as satisfying as (or even more satisfying than) upward mobility?
Studies of contemporary American lifestyles based on consumption patterns have been made by archaeologists (William Rathje), economists (E.F. Schumacher), environmentalists (K.S. Shrader-Frechette), historians (David Shi), and philosophers (Duane Elgin). To my knowledge, the field strategy and conceptual orientation of the ethnographer have not been used. In my study, I (1) Rely heavily upon participant-observation as a source of basic field data; (2) use a transcultural perspective; and (3) contextualize my data within a broader frame of reference. (Spindler in Pilcher 1972: vi)
My reasons for studying live-aboards were in part personal. Being a live-aboard myself, I was aware of my own reasons for living aboard: initially, for adventure (I sailed to Mexico for the winter of 1982-1983 as crew member on a 40' sailboat), then for economics, and finally for fellowship. But I was curious to know why others had moved aboard. I was also interested in the process and consequences of living in such a small space. All my informants readily acknowledged the drawbacks and inconveniences of living in a small shelter with shared public facilities, but most could not envision living any differently at this point in their lives. Lastly, I had the impression that by choosing a more simple lifestyle where one could not consume without limits (because of space constrictions), my informants were able to take greater responsibility for their lives. Indeed, freedom from installment payments, goals to own their boat or to go cruising, and the importance of "feeling free" played a large role in the formation of both the consumption patterns and the lifestyle of my informants.
Although the community I studied was predominantly white and middle-class, it was composed of people with a wide variety of ages, occupational backgrounds, and economic situations. The ages of my informants varied from mid-twenties to mid-sixties, and I discovered that social intercourse was common between young and old. My informants included two dentists, three carpenters, a sales manager, a project manager, a secretary, a painter, a marketing manager, a writer, a yacht club manager, a sailmaker, a credit union vice-president, a babysitter, a yacht salesman, and a canvas worker. The income per family varied from $20,000 to over $65,000 annually, boat-related expenses ranged from $300.00 a month to over $2,000.00, and boat values ranged from $20,000 to over $150,000. This variation is uncommon in most residential and social communities.
In the urban environment, social ties are generally made with others of similar backgrounds, ages, occupations, hobbies, and not necessarily because of residential proximity. Perhaps because of the availability of public and private transportation and the convenience of the telephone, friends, relatives and other social groups no longer seem to relocate to (or remain in) a common residential neighborhood. In my study of a Bay Area community, I found an "urban neighborhood" where the inhabitants formed strong social ties that developed after relocating. But it was more than a territorially defined aggregate. Strong friendships and stronger familial ties generally developed because of proximity to one another and because of a common interest: each family had voluntarily chosen to abandon American ideals of "upward mobility" and conspicuous consumption. Each had decided to try living aboard a boat.
"Projections of household forms and sizes in 1990, 2000 or 2010 concur about the predominance of single people and the elderly, employed women and single parent families. . . . Planning boards [will have to] respond with something other than miniaturized condo efficiency units." (Hayden 1984: p. 177) Perhaps by examining this alternative lifestyle, where individuals seem to be successfully dealing with living in a small shelter and limiting consumption, we will discover that there is an alternative to the never-ending pursuit of "upward mobility", an alternative that allows a quality of lifestyle yet decreases dependence on the consumption of goods and resources
.............................
Please note that:
1) a "live-aboard" is a person who lives on a boat,
2) a "liveaboard" is the boat itself, and
3) to "live aboard" refers to the action of occupancy.
Two other types of water-borne residences, not to be confused with the "liveaboards" of my study, are "houseboats" which are generally larger and do not move, and "anchor-outs" which may be either of liveaboard or houseboat structure but are anchored offshore. Liveaboards and houseboats are generally moored at marinas along the shoreline of the Bay.
GO TO Chapter 2 - FIELDWORK AND METHODOLOGY