Is Mass Housing Increase or Decrease Symbolic Curtural Diversity? An Empirical Investigation

Housing is one of basic needs in modern society driven by the population growth and limited land resource. Housing for low-income segment has minimum standard features which difficult personalization. Nevertheless, people have means to create personal identity symbol on facade material to show personalization in the simplest way. Purpose of this research is to investigate diversity symbol type created by housing resident despite personalization limited constraint. Transdiciplinary housing theory [1] is served as basic framework of this research. Observations conducted in five housing in Palembang discover fewer collectivism symbols and many individualism symbols. Thus author revised the transdiciplinary model and create housing social architecture model for better descriptions on how housing dweller responses to housing architecture and defines their cultural identity. Instead of tune down culture symbolism, mass housing exhibits more basic roots of this symbolism. Keyword: Cultural, diversity, Identity symbol, Individualism, Mass housing Received 15 June 2021|Revised20 August 2021 | Accepted 26 August 2021


Introduction
Mass housing development for low-income people in Indonesia is done largely [2]. This housing development is conduct to provide affordable housing for low-income people works in city [3]. At the end of 2015, there are approximately 600 thousand houses was built in Indonesia and will be increased to 10 million house for the next 5 years [4]. In the housing developments, ratio of low-income people and high-income people provision is 7 to 3 [5]. Bureaucracy reformation cuts housing development permits from 33 permits with average time acquirement 769-981 days to only 11 permits with time average 44 days in favour to expedite housing development [6].
Housing community sociology has been research in long time in individualize western perspective [7]. Housing in the western was formed from individual culture has problem on how International Journal of Architecture and Urbanism Vol. 05, No. 02, 2021 211 to maintain individualism values in crowded residential space such as apartment. In Indonesia, the opposite problem emerges from development of housing is how to maintain collectivism values in residential space that tends to make individual people.
In Indonesian collective culture community, especially in rural area, mass housing development raises a new phenomenon. Housing invites new people with new life style and dynamic in community [1]. Standard houses are built in different ways from collectivity ways Indonesian vernacular house built [8]. Despite the different, mass housing drives a new economy opportunity from the increased number of community. This differentiation and opportunity toss up a bet between degraded collectivism values and increased community welfare in rural area [9]. This paper essays the assumption that mass housing introducing individualism and degrading collectivism values in rural area community. It resolves problems occur on how to recognize occurring dynamics in housing for low-income people observed from cultural individualismcollectivism symbols. This research gives two main contributions on settlement literature: -Overview on how collectivism and individualism unfold where mass housing presented in collective community.
-Proposed new theory on interdisciplinary approach to explain phenomenon related to connection between architecture and housing community sociology for low-income people.

Theory
According Salama, et al in [1], there are three theories used to explain human life style: group and grid, habitus and life mode. Group and grid theory from english antropolog, Mary Douglas, emerges in 1971 to illustrate group interaction in community [10]. Douglas formulize four group based on interaction pattern where dominant power between external and internal group take place. Group which has dominant internal interaction is isolate, such as prison. Group which has dominant external interaction (community determination) is positional. Group interaction based on self interest economy in community is individulist. This group considers social economy status in housing. Last type of group is enclave, where externally built structure is interactional declined and comply to internally built structure only.
Salama et al. in [1] perceives Douglas' group and grid theory intersect with habitus theory for Bourdieu [11] and life mode theory [12]. Habius is individual ability, tendency, and habit based on past experience [11]. Habitus creates human orientation to prioritize thing in life. This Individual habitus is manifested in three choices: cultural habits, survival needs, and social status. Life mode theory states there are three mode of human life: self-employed life mode, wage earner life mode, and career-oriented life mode [13]. Salama et al. in [1] argues that life mode is not only for work related issue but about family issue and life comfort role. A house choosing determined by life mode factor oriented on future, include family, work, and comfort factors.
The three theories then combines in one framework describes motive and dynamics might happen in housing. Figure 1 shows elaboration Salama et al. in [1] on three theories in one framework named transdiciplinary.  This research is also an ethnography study thus there is researcher lives in housing observed from the beginning. Researcher undertakes minimum intrusive and acts normally to lower suspicion amongst housing residents. If any suspicions arise, an elaborative explanation for purpose of this research is delivered.
An observation paper is given to the researchers to identify and log any religions symbol, cultural symbols, furniture, shops, vehicles, fences, children, head of households, and gardens in every house. All indicators represent Aspects in transdiciplinary theory, furniture (positional), fences (enclave/individualist), vehicles (status), children (family), shops (needs), culture/religion (habits/traditions), gardens (leisure), and head of households (work). All observation data on symbols and behaviors in the housings derived by researchers are analyzed in descriptive qualitative description.

Positional Aspects
There is only five percents of houses has social openness attributes sitting area furniture (chairs and table) on the front yard for guess and open talk. Author realize then that social interaction did not occur on sitting area of the yard but on the street and front yard while standing and watching children plays. The interaction also happens between the resident in the housing complex and outside complex because they are family related. Meanwhile, there are trader from outside housing complex comes to offers foods and merchandize in morning and afternoon. This interaction results an open housing complex rather than a closed tight fortress.

Enclave
Enclave can be defined as houses have similar facade or standard type. There is seven percents of the houses in original form or facade. These houses don't have massive changes on the facade or keep the original facade. They are tends located side by side on the junction and have many residents especially children. Children are often spend time outside their home to play with their neighbour or visit other house freely.

Individualist
While some houses remains the same. There are houses that have very outstanding differentiation. Changing paints, adding new part of building, covering all yard with ceramics, and closed fences are signature those houses have. There is car or grocery shop built blocking interior view of house from street. Residents of these house seldom been seen due to their occupations but have high structural position amongst housing residents. Minimum social interaction with surrounding community but has high social status or sell community's needs.

Status
The housing residents prioritize status is claimed to be individualist group. It covers 73% of the housing residents of observed housing. The residents are very individualist and uphold social status. Both can't be differentiate due to similarity in indications. Their status are defined by wealth and official symbols. They serve housing community in their own way which includes providing grocery shop or having high structural positions amongst housing residents.

Needs (Survival)
Fifteen percents of the community have their earning from the housing community whereas six percents from shops and the other nine percents from in house venture. In-house venture includes specific foods and cellular phone counter. Interaction from these house residents are mainly happen at their shops when other resident in the community visiting or buying from them. And there are fewer children in this house.

Habits/Tradition
Cultural aspect in this housing is not high enough. Only ten percents of houses have religion symbols like calligraphy or red paper (chunlian). These symbols are embedded in individualist houses mostly while more modest houses and enclave houses have them too. Even though residents of these houses have less interaction in the community, symbol on their houses represents their religiosity. Through cultural or religious event such as selamatan and tahlilan, they open their houses to neighbours and interact.

Family
Family aspect is stood out in enclave houses. These houses tend to have many children and their children play outside actively. Their houses' exteriors are modest while the interior can be extensive. Children sometimes play their toys inside house and moves from one house to another without any obstacles due to absent of fence between houses. And house's yard frequently holds big family gathering for interaction.

Works
Most of house residents has occupations outside housing complex whether residents of

Leisure
Approximately 18% of houses observed has gardens on their front yards especially the enclave houses. Gardens at these houses are planted with bushes located strategically. Individualist houses also have garden with is compromised by size due to optimization with carport or shop which enclave house doesn't have as constraints. Constraints on enclave houses' garden is no extensive design can be implemented because children play.  In this perspective, positional should be the base of enclave and individualist. Therefore, in collective community like in Indonesia, even individualist will participate being part of collectivism. Thus in observations there are more exterior individualist than enclave. This result is in line with finding from Davis and Wu in [15] that pleasure in social status have strong correlation with individualist. As said by Jiang et al in [16] individualism behind collectivism manifestation. Materialism can drive collective oriented quality in Asian community [17].
Culture and economy are manifestation of individualism where exterior are directed to show social status as part community that participate economically (through survival symbol) or culturally (through religion symbol).
Those thoughts lead author to revise transdiciplinary model.  Author convinces that this framework is better than framework of Salama et al (2017)  housing, exteriorly or interiorly, then surveying resident temporal orientation. Author's theory states that house in housing focus on interior will be future oriented, mean while house focuses on exterior will be past oriented. Second, author's inference from five housing with total 405 houses is relatively few and should be generalize in difference contexts. Third, indicators which author used might not valid yet to approach concept of individualism, status, needs, and habits.
A meticulously instruments development might be needed to enhanced this research theme.