Home and beyond: Housework as aesthetic engagement with everyday environment

Introduction

Few tasks are more like the torture of Sisyphus than housework, with its endless repetition: the clean becomes soiled, the soiled is made clean, over and over, day after day. The housewife wears herself out marking time: she makes nothing, simply perpetuates the present . . . Eating, sleeping, cleaning – the years no longer rise up towards heaven, they lie spread out ahead, gray and identical.

These quotes are separated by less than a lifetime, yet by lightyears in tone. When de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex was published, most housework was still done manually – typically by women – and this laborious affair had continued in the similar vein since time immemorial. The burden of reproductive labour started to slowly ease in affluent countries towards the end of the 20th century through societal and technological changes, including emerging gender and class equality, ideals of efficiency and time management, and the rise of consumerism that flooded the markets with products and appliances (Silva, 2010). However, today many Global North households are wealthy in a material sense, but lacking in terms of time and psychological wellbeing (Bromet et al., 2011). Reflecting the changing times, the above quotes together paint a picture that housework has metamorphosed from endless labour to a mindfulness exercise. But is this picture accurate: whose housework, which chores exactly, and what could explain why the same topic evokes such different interpretations?

What is housework – or, what is not a chore?

As noted in the ‘Introduction’, a perspective has (re)emerged to pay closer attention to the aesthetic enjoyment available in everyday chores. Such a artistic-aesthetic ‘first-person enactor’ viewpoint, already pondered by John Dewey ([1934] 2005) nearly a century ago, has also been discussed extensively by Yuriko Saito (2017, 2022, 2023), who highlights this perspective’s long existence in Japanese aesthetics. In the Finnish context, this viewpoint has been recently studied by Pauliina Rautio (2009) and Pauline Von Bonsdorff (2022). Relevantly, Dewey also described engaging with one’s environment as ‘doing and undergoing’, where the enactor is always influenced and affected by the interplay of one’s own actions and affordances, or action options available in the environment (Dewey, [1934] 2005: 45; Gibson, 1977). This subject-focused stance contrasts with the canonic object-centred approach in Western aesthetics that has for long concentrated on the appraisable ‘surface’ qualities of objects (Sibley, 2006). Following Rautio, Saito and Von Bonsdorff, I propose that housework contains a bulk of actions that can be meaningfully examined as aesthetically rewarding. When I asked informants to discuss their homely-making practices, they all described undertakings that in some ways intertwine chores and hobbies. Not all housework counts as aesthetic practices nor should be interpreted as such, as it always depends on the situation and context. But, an instrumental task can be aesthetically enjoyable if the enactor engages with it thus.

Typically in quantitative research, housework is understood as repetitive chores to support and maintain oneself and the household. Generally, such chores comprise food preparation, cleaning and tidying, as well as some routine maintenance and reparation tasks. However, as the multifaceted discussion on the meaning of everyday in the field of everyday aesthetics indicates, it is extremely difficult to define some kind of universal everyday, or a typical daily task load of a person. ² What is common in one country and culture might be quite rare in another, and people in different sociodemographic or professional positions live non-identical lives. In my interviews, the problem of definition appeared early on. For the informants, the boundary between household chores and home-based pastimes was fluid as it depended on the person, timing and situation. What is arduous to one, might be enjoyable to another, and also the experienced level of laboriousness greatly depends on the context. Furthermore, even laborious chores might at times allow or prompt aesthetic enjoyment:

When I cook something simple from my own childhood for my baby, it warms the soul. The familiar motions, tastes, scents and textures comfort us both. (Minka, 29, F, Scotland; 9 years abroad)

Sometimes I cook traditional Finnish dishes . . . because of my childhood memories. When I cook or bake, I don’t want to experiment, I just want to relax into the familiarity of the motions, scents and tastes. It’s not really a hobby, it’s something that I do, who I am; I couldn’t replace these activities with anything because they are directly connected to specific thoughts and feelings . . . I often think about how to express my identity here through my actions and belongings. (Viivi, 32 F, UK; 7 years abroad)

Cleaning is such a chore. However, if you let everything become as dirty as tolerable before you clean it, it’s enjoyable, rewarding, to witness the transformation from grimy to shiny. (Heini, 34 F, Australia; 6 years abroad)

All 13 informants distinguished between everyday meals and special occasion cooking, yet these categories could blend or swap places: an everyday dish can become a special treat in certain situations. The interviewees expressed that their home-related chores and pastimes such as cooking and baking were influenced by necessity, in particular lack of familiar ingredients. This had prompted many to learn to prepare from scratch what they craved from Finland. Usually this was not lamented as an onerous chore, although it was treated as equal parts necessary and optional; after all, acquiring familiar flavours was understood as a bit of a luxury abroad. A slightly different viewpoint to the distinction between a chore and a leisurely activity emerged regarding cleaning and tidying. Some informants enjoyed these tasks at least occasionally, some did not, but one informant (Heini) turned cleaning into a ‘game’: the results were the most rewarding when they were dramatic.

A vaguer line in the sand appeared between housework and ‘small c’ creative-manual undertakings (Runco, 2020) such as handicrafts, interior decoration and gardening. Do knitting, crocheting, seasonal decorations or tending a garden count as chores or hobbies? The distinction appeared clearer with more obvious maintenance tasks such as mending, repairing or yard work, but overall, marking the boundary between labour and leisure was not at all straightforward. In everyday parlance a clear distinction, even polarisation exists between strenuous effort and relaxation. However, many of the informants felt they relaxed through doing, not resting. All of the interviewees conveyed that handicrafts, decorating and gardening are not similarly requisite or unavoidable chores as cooking and cleaning, but for many they do form an integral, ever-present and appreciated weft of the everyday that tends to entangle with routine tasks:

Handicrafts are not a ‘hobby’. When one sits, one knits. That’s what my mum did, my grandma did, isn’t it what all [Finnish] women do? I tinker and potter at home all the time, but I wouldn’t call them hobbies – I don’t schedule them, or put the outcome on Instagram . . . All that doing is simply a part of who I am. (Jutta, 47 F, Thailand; 6 years abroad)

All my pastimes relate to the home. Gardening, cooking, baking, making jams and preserves, knitting socks. I just enjoy making things and my family appreciates them. I always add a ‘Finnish twist’, to keep the cultural feel alive . . . At first this was a necessity – we didn’t have much money –but it has become a choice. It reminds me of my Finnish grandma. I have such fond memories of her. Why would I do nothing? It’s more relaxing to do, to make things. (Greta, 63 F, Australia; 54 years abroad)

I always change our decorative textiles like curtains and cushions to match the season. I don’t really think about it, it’s just something that I do . . . I’m more aware of my cultural heritage while living abroad. My home must feel familiar, homely, Finnish. It is a part of my identity. (Ella, 34 F, Germany; six years abroad)

Many of the interviewed women commented that they ‘must’ do handicrafts while watching TV because manual activity was understood as inherently relaxing but also as an inherited habit from one’s foremothers, whose creative resourcefulness and self-sufficiency informants admired. The most common terms used to describe household tasks that fall between chores and leisure activities, or alternate between these two slots depending on the situation, were tinkering and pottering or even more simply: ‘it’s just what I do’. ³ A person who desires to create things, either in the kitchen, of yarn, or in the garden, does so regularly, combining instrumental and teleologic tasks of upskilling or skill maintenance, produce-making or garment-making, entertainment and aesthetic experience. The informants’ own concept of housework ranged from routine sustenance and maintenance tasks to homely-making in a more general sense. Notably, most participants found it difficult to classify their activities at all. Many did not want to label their undertakings as ‘hobbies’ or ‘handicrafts’ because of the rather incidental, inspiration-dependent and almost subconscious nature of these activities: for example, when one gets the urge to bake, one bakes. The term pastime was associated with killing time, whereas chore or task omitted the recognised leisurely joy and expressive power available in the activities. In short, the interviewees appreciated and sought aesthetic experiences that consist of first-person doing and undergoing; responding to the feedback from the handled material; and corresponding with one’s environment through skills, taste and style.

Housework as gendered aesthetic practices

If housework is a problem, how to solve it? Commonly discussed options include more equal task-sharing, outsourcing or eradicating housework as thoroughly as possible. However, outsourcing and eradication may carry negative spillover effects. Exploitation of domestic workers and food couriers has been well documented across the globe (International Organization for Migration (IOM) UN, 2024; Malik, 2024), and many technological solutions are currently mainly available to the wealthy, whereas the physical burden of chores is usually the heaviest in poorer households (Zulfiqar and Prasad, 2022). Readymade meals have become controversial due to health risks of ultra-processed foods (Law, 2023). In affluent countries, leisure time spent in front of screens, for example, entertainment, social media and online shopping, has exploded (Fisher and Robinson, 2011). Philosophical questions that ought to be asked here are (1) why should we treat homely-making or household care work as inherently less meaningful than, say, watching TV; (2) if we manage to rid ourselves of housework, what happens to the required know-how; and (3) if people feel pressured under a task load, would a reasonable answer be better work–life balance, such as a standard 4-day workweek? A counter-argument exists that traditional domestic skills are no longer required in societies where needs can be fulfilled through the marketplace. This is the core supposition of a capitalist economy that rates everything in terms of tradable commodities and efficiencies (Rampell, 2013). However, this tends to dismiss and devalue in particular women’s home-related skills, interests and traditions and furthers the encroachment of commercialisation and commodification into the home sphere (e.g. smart home systems). Besides, it automatically assumes that activities and interests traditionally or stereotypically valued by men – such as technological solutions – are inherently more rational or valuable (Perez, 2019: 108–111, 148).

For Saito (2023: 148–149; 166–167), all actions of design, making and creating contribute to our shared world-making and influence the quality of life. She discusses professional design work but treats the term as equally applicable to care work and small c creativity that continuously remake the home sphere. Saito (2023) also makes a case of housework as self-care (p. 72): not to romanticise, but to recognise the quiet satisfaction a person can experience by aesthetically appreciating small everyday tasks. But not all home-related aesthetic practices are straightforwardly unproblematic. In the gender studies domain, it is relatively common to understand women’s embracing of household chores as post-feminist evidence of internalised patriarchy, thus posing a dilemma in itself (Casey and Littler, 2022; Forrester, 2022; Young, 2005). This underlying discourse does appear to affect how cognisant women interpret their own activities. Some informants recognised the controversy in enjoying activities that do not have a high social standing. Gender in particular combined with ageing was seen as socially adverse, whereas playing with role expectations could be seen as liberating:

But I’d never tell anyone at work [that I like some housework]. My colleagues are all male and they speak of their housewives and their interests in a demeaning tone. I have a strong masculine side that I maintain at work: it’s important not to be seen as femininely frivolous. (Stina, 42 F, Canada; 5 years abroad)

I’ve been growing fruit and making preserves forever . . . But no, I don’t introduce myself as a domestic person or handcrafter unless I know that others are too. I don’t want them to think I’m ancient, an old-fashioned grandma. (Greta, 63 F, Australia; 52 years abroad)

I’m a premature granny! It’s a big part of who I am: it’s cool to know how to knit, bake, and make the home feel homely. . . In Finland everyone’s taught handicraft skills, girls and boys alike . . . Hubby got excited about gardening when I wanted to try it. Neither of us knows much about it, we just sow things wherever and observe what will grow. It’s fun to experiment together. (Minka, 29 F, Scotland; 9 years abroad)

De Beauvoir’s description of how the days and tasks ‘lie spread out ahead, gray and identical’ reveals a societal lens of seeing homely-minded women as equally gray, dull and inconsequential as their chores. Stina expresses she cannot risk sullying her professional go-getter profile at a masculine workplace by revealing her homely interests or the aesthetic joy she finds through home-organising and decorative touches. Greta faces a similar dilemma: she feels her activities might mean her identity is miscontrued in a negative light as that of a bygone era, mentally and physically confined in the home. Conversely, Minka finds delight in her self-assigned role as ‘premature granny’: among her peers, her domestic skills and interests set her apart. Drawing from the Finnish school system, Minka interprets handicrafts and home-making skills not so much gender-related but as creative resourcefulness, even a source of fun in general. Throughout her interview, she expresses how home(ly)-making skills are capabilities that support creative resourcefulness and self-sufficiency, labelling them as particularly Finnish traits to uphold.

Housework as remaking of place and self

De Beauvoir justifiably viewed housework as unpaid, laborious and rather meaningless due to the endless repetition. Another thinker who famously described the tediousness of daily chores is Hannah Arendt ([1958] 2018), who discussed three categories of universal human activity: labour to keep oneself and the species alive; work to make tools and items; and action through speech to participate in the sociopolitical decision-making and meaning-making. For Arendt, labour was the least rewarding activity, work perhaps hierarchically above it, and action the most meaningful human endeavour. However, laboriousness does not mean undesirable in every situation; and work as the ability and authority to participate in the moulding of our shared world is a crucial form of social participation and exercise of agency, as Saito (2023) points out. In post-industrial countries, laboursome housework is becoming more optional: many in the Global North no longer need to carry out previously inevitable physically strenuous tasks due to various forms of technological and outsourcing options. De Beauvoir and Arendt could not necessarily foresee a situation where people, women in particular, would willingly engage in unpaid labour when it is no longer an obligation. Similarly, contemporary research and commentary are largely focused on solving the persistent problem of unfair task allocation (Deutsch and Gaunt, 2020; Knudsen and Wærness, 2008; Ruppanner, 2016). Yet, my informants discussed why they keep doing chores:

Decades ago, I made all our decorative textiles . . . partly due to money, partly because it was the only way to achieve a ‘Finnish look’ . . . I do think that chores can be sort of process art: for example, hand-washing dishes can be satisfying. There’s this aesthetic plasticity, somatic pleasure arising from one’s own movement and skills. That mindful contentment protects from the frenzy of the news, the outside world. (Heta, 76 F, UK; 52 years abroad)

I love rearranging the furniture of my home, it makes it feel fresh and homely. That’s what my grandma also often did . . . But yes, some tasks are burdensome although they are rewarding eventually. For example, cleaning the windows feels laborious to start. But once I’m at it, it’s actually quite relaxing. I don’t need to think, I just let my body carry out the motions. And the bright windows are my prize. (Ella, 34 F, Germany; 6 years abroad)

I have outsourced the routine cleaning but I still order cleaning products from Finland, they’re environmentally friendly and have the right kind of scent to fill the house with. I love to decorate with plants and candles and I like to add the finishing touches after the cleaner has been. (Stina, 42 F, Canada; 5 years abroad)

These three snippets illustrate how homely interests, chores and sense of self-identity can intertwine. Heta describes how focusing on the aesthetics of the task can ground a person, ‘protecting’ from external stressors. Ella in turn talks about the joy of reimagining her home environment and strengthening her self-identity through memories of family ties. She also discusses that once she ‘surrenders’ to the somatic rhythms of a chore, the activity itself can become a reward, along with the result. For Stina, routine cleaning is uninteresting but she likes to express her taste through specific details, such as scents – albeit she does not ponder in the interview how her regular cleaner experiences the routine tasks. All three informants interpret at least some chores not just as inescapable reproductive labour, but as self-expression, (re)making of the place and sense of self.

This (re)making of place and self could be understood as strategies mainly relevant to migrants: home is often the first, or potentially the only place a newcomer can control. Home literally and symbolically creates familiarity and security, and can reflect the priorities and preferences of its occupant. Earlier research shows how migrants might ‘struggle against’ dwellings of the host country, where architecture, dwelling practices and decoration conventions do not match the migrants’ needs arising from cultural expectations (Shaweesh and Greenop, 2020). Migrants’ dwelling practices, including housework, can thus become more challenging, for example, due to the lack of space, materials or ingredients. However, my informants shared a notion that housework is not merely Arendtian labour, but it is also self-expression: a pragmatic way to contemplate what one wants to project or create into the world, in addition to providing (self)care. Labour and work blend with self-expression and self-identity when emigrants recreate their sense of self not just through familiar undertakings, but by taking pride and enjoyment in them. Sustaining or even ‘showcasing’ self- or cultural identity as a projection in the home carries a quiet sociopolitical undertone of claiming one’s place and expecting acceptance and recognition in the new homeland.

One does not need to be a migrant to want to display personality through taste and style choices. The interviews indicate that for an aesthetically minded person the domains of housework, interior decoration and self-expression can become blended to the point of minor distinction. Arnold Berleant (1992: 86, 93–98) writes how environments can either enrich and expand our lives, or impoverish and constrain us. His discussion centres on urban planning and architectural choices that either allow or limit a rich variety of human activity, but his thoughts are equally applicable to the home environment. Yet, active engagement with the environment in the form of somatically working with it is still an underexplored topic in Western aesthetics as Saito (2023) has pointed out (pp. 38, 72, 92). Contemplating a parallel matter, Matthew Crawford (2009: 60–69) writes about ‘friction and kickback’: how everyday affordances teach us by responding in ways that are at times unpredictable. According to Crawford, our increasing reliance on machines, electronics and other pre-programmed or readymade options, is insidiously robbing us of this pathway to learning. The less we need to develop or sustain manual-creative skills, the more we relinquish our ability to experience our full aesthetic potential (Crawford, 2015: 24, 75–78).

For Crawford, screen-based activities and algorithmic options in particular – say, gaming, social media scrolling or online shopping – comprise ‘pseudo-action’ that carries a risk of inbuilt deskilling in the manual-creative domain. ⁴ The paradox is that with all of today’s technological assistance and physical and virtual consumption choices we seemingly have more agential freedom, although it is ‘freedom’ to choose from an array of predetermined options, which does not equate with open-ended learning from, moulding or corresponding with physical surroundings (see also Christakis, 2017: 173, 180). This consumerist freedom tends to pair with environmental costs linked to fast fashion, food waste and excessive consumption in general (Laitala and Klepp, 2018; Närvänen et al., 2020; Rai, 2021). A countering yearning for positive agential influencing by using one’s own hands, skills, taste and style, became evident in the interviews:

In my work [as a journalist] everything is abstract, ephemeral; thoughts, words and videos on screen. Whatever I create, remains relevant a very short time. At home, whether it’s cooking, baking, sewing, I can make something tangible . . . I love my sewing machine because it enables me to alter my home décor as I please. (Halla, 58 F, Canada; 7 years abroad)

In Finland we owned our house, so it felt meaningful to tinker and potter, renovate and fix as needed. I liked to build and craft all sorts of useful things in the garage. Here [in Canada] we rent so we lack the sense of permanence. We do like to plant and tend the garden though . . . Being outdoors is good for keeping the whole family away from screens. (Kosti, 42 M, Canada; 5 years abroad)

Finnish food culture is strongly influenced by nature and seasons. Here in Australia folks just drive everywhere to shop, they never walk! There’s no connection between the origins and the outcome with food . . . no sense of roots, rootedness. They’ve lost the understanding of foraging or gardening as an essential step before cooking. (Aada 32 F, Australia; 3 years abroad)

All 13 informants conveyed an innate yearning to interact meaningfully with their immediate environment: to make, alter, rearrange or improve something. Aligning with Berleant’s notion about enriching or restricting environments, sometimes such yearnings are easily fulfilled, sometimes hindered. Relocating to a new country often poses one or the other – an expansion or a constraint to the person’s ability to utilise or mould their environment. Dwelling and yard types, climate and growth patterns, as well as general availability of ingredients and materials affect emigrants’ homely-making practices. Some recent research exists into the globally increasing interest in different kinds of everyday making; cooking, baking, handicrafts, interior decoration and even self-built housing (Besson, 2023). All of these activities can offer balance to the current prevalence of commercialised pseudo-action. Such balance is actively sought by my informants. Halla ponders how her screen-based work one-sidedly utilises her intellect, not her manual-creative skills. Kosti, the only male interviewee, cannot find meaningful ‘handyman’ jobs in a rental, but has shifted his creating and making urges outdoors. For Aada, tending a kitchen garden, foraging for ingredients or browsing farmers markets form an essential part of eco-ethical, psycho-physical nourishment. She feels her host country has lost this crucial element of food culture – and a connection between nature and urban life – and discussed in length her disappointment over it.

Concluding comments

The interviews revealed that the boundary between household chores and homely interests and hobbies is fluid and ‘messy’, as it often depends on not just personal preferences, but situation and context. The same chores can be laborious or enjoyable depending on the mood and circumstances. Importantly, the informants felt they lacked vocabulary to discuss this topic: all 13 identified value in home-related aesthetic practices for the sense of wellbeing and identity but struggled to classify or even verbalise their ‘tinkering and pottering’. Home-based aesthetic practices were seen neither as chores nor hobbies, but something blended and liminal. The majority described their undertakings as ‘what I always do’ or even more fundamentally, ‘that’s who I am’. In Dewey’s terms ((1934] 2005: 45), informants described the relevance of doing and undergoing, being influenced by their own actions in a particular environment, as well as expressing one’s identity through skills, taste and style.

A person who can make things – through growing, baking, handicrafts, repairing and so on – sees the world differently than a person who cannot, because the range of available affordances and actions is wider. A creatively or manually capable person is not beholden to commercial options only. My study suggests that the ability to mould or influence one’s physical environment through altering or making is important for fulfilling life. Today, the world seems to be radically expanding due to the influx of commercial, digital and virtual options and opportunities. Yet, more research is required to examine how the actual physical environment might be ‘contracting’ due to global changes in lifestyle, dwelling types and home contents: for instance, an urban renter might have less scope to renovate, garden or alter one’s dwelling compared with a rural home-owner, and the influx of commercial options ranging from readymade foods, fast fashion and plastic decorations may mentally and literally crowd out our skills and interest for home-made options. This does not mean romanticising manual tasks, or shunning commercial ease. Rather, my informants conveyed they benefit from access to manual-creative spaces, tools, materials and ingredients to maintain, expand and enjoy domestic skills.

Housework is our most mundane, enduring yet intimate interaction with the everyday environment, and thus holds existential meaning because it is simultaneously a potential avenue for a sense of achievement and aesthetic enjoyment. In doing housework – or more precisely, in valuing one’s homely interests and developing aesthetic practices out of enjoyable tasks – one can hone skills, taste and style. However, the societal narrative of reproductive labour as something nugatory or negative can diminish people’s general interest towards exploring this domain of manual-creative skills, aesthetic experiences and meaningful interaction with everyday environments. The rather small and homogeneous sample forms a limitation to this study, which did not examine questions of class or intersectionality in relation to housework. This article does not intend to deny, devalue or distract from earlier well-established scholarship addressing problems of gendered domestic labour, including its unpaid, un(der)valued status and unequal task allocation. Rather, I aimed to show that in a context in which a person has more agential opportunities due to access to task sharing, outsourcing or technological aid, some chores are not necessarily a burden, but can also be a source or stay for self- and cultural identity.