Order after death.

The graveyard, past and present. The graveyard scene here shows how people are processed after death. The fact that these are obviously old gravestones indicates that the manner in which this practice has been carried out has not altered over the centuries. It could be considered that the graves are lined in rows purely to allow for people visiting the graves to be able to access the graves easier, or it could be so that any limited space is used to its fullest advantage. Other forces in society are at work here, however, because the exact location of burial is not generally chosen by either the deceased or by the deceased’s friends or family members. The local council has the final say as to where a deceased person is put to rest, which indicates that even the deceased are still being controlled by people in authority, and that they have no option but to comply with said request; it could be considered to be the ultimate proof of control or shepherding of the people by those with more authority.

The multiple functions of the chair.

Rows of chairs.



Row of chairs.

The chair, although considered as being an item on which to sit, has a variety of functions. Depending on how chairs are arranged, and in which setting they are placed, dictates their usage. The top photograph here, where the chairs are lined in row upon row in a cathedral show that they are not to be used for the purpose of leisure; they are all facing one direction, and are all relatively closely placed in relation to one another, with no room to stretch the legs for comfort. The chairs are also of a basic structure, wooden and with woven seats making them robust whilst at the same time depicting that they are intended for lots of use. The fact that they face forwards, in the manner that they do, allows the assumption to be drawn that the people, or group of people, using the chairs will be expected to pay attention to someone, or something at the front, and to sit still. The chairs in the photograph below that one, are lined up, and once again as with the chairs in the cathedral they are not connected to one another indicating that they can be moved; but the establishments both have enough authority over the people using the chairs that they will not be moved by default of this authoritarian power that the establishments enforce just by being the voice of authority within each of the two establishments, and not necessarily by word of mouth or any given order. The chairs in the second picture are also in a row, but placed up against a wall, and they also allow for leg-room so that people can relax on them; there is also no focal point ahead of them so that reinforces the idea of the purpose of the chairs, as does the soft comfortable seat and back of each chair.

Recycling containers.

Recycling.

Three separate recycling containers can be seen in this photograph; one for bottles, one for cans, and one for clothing. The size of the containers shows the community how much use they are expected to receive. Each one dictates that only a certain item is placed in to it, depending on its structure and colour, or on written or pictorial information on the container itself. The fact that the slots in which to place the recyclable items are found high up on the containers tends to indicate that they are targeted at the adult population and not at children; adults are being instructed to place items within the containers instead of placing them in their normal weekly bin collection. This shows a certain modicum of responsibility, because it is targeted at adults, and is also a manner in which to persuade people to use recycling areas in order to show others within the community that they are being responsible; this then becomes a self-perpetuating cycle, with control going on at a level that people may not be aware of, nor even be concerned about. Grouping containers together convinces people to consider recycling more than just one selected item from their rubbish, and is a way in which to ensure that more recycling goes on.

Follow the signs.

Male.



Female.



Disabled. This was the only available sign of this nature, but a flash could not be used due to flashback which is why it is slightly darker than it would have been had a similar sign been available for photographing but set in a different location where there was more natural light to assist the shot.



Disabled/male.

Disabled/female.

None of the five signs above indicate that the doors upon which they are found lead to toilet areas. Society has been taught, through intergenerational transmission, that each of these signs mean there is a toilet in the vicinity behind the door upon which the sign/symbol is found. The signs themselves are interesting, because they denote (from the top): male, female, disabled, disabled/female, disabled/male. However, this in itself is a problem, there is nothing to suggest that the ‘male’ sign is wearing trousers, or indeed clothing at all; likewise the ‘female’ sign suggests a dress or skirt, but there is nothing in society that prohibits a male wearing a skirt or dress, and men in many parts of the United Kingdom can be seen wearing the traditional dress in the form of a kilt, which to all intents and purposes when silhouetted would resemble the ‘female’ sign. The use of unisex clothing makes it unascertainable as to which sign is aimed at which gender, and the only thing which allows for people, from the very young to the elderly, to comprehend which each sign dictates, is the socialisation process within any given community. The ‘disabled’ sign, also has inherent problems, since it does not depict that only people in wheelchairs, which is the symbolism of the sign, are permitted to use the toilets found there, in fact it is for the disabled as a whole. The power that the signs emit is seen in the fact that an able-bodied person will seldom be seen entering a predominantly ‘disabled’ toilet facility but will be seen to go looking for the appropriate toilet to their gender, and one that has been set aside for the able-bodied. The last two signs, ‘disabled/male’ and ‘disabled/female’ also present their own problems since they do not indicate males and all disabled people, and females and all disabled people, respectively, but rather they are gender specific signs indicating that a toilet facility for the disabled can also be found at that location; this once again is a meaning that is only learnt through socialisation from a very young age. Genders can be seen to be the issue here, with the two genders being directed to using separate toilet facilities within any given building. One toilet is much the same as another but it is unlikely that anybody within society will break the cardinal rule by using a toilet facility specifically meant for the opposite gender. So, these signs show how authority and control of people is put in to place and followed through the learning process of socialisation, even though a toilet is a toilet, with the exception of the urinal, and could equally be used by either gender.

Gendered toilets.

The urinal, the male domain. [A male member of the Orkney College staff, who wishes to remain anonymous, was kind enough to take this necessary photograph for me]




Female/unisex toilet.




Disabled/unisex toilet.

Are toilets gender-specific? The urinal is most definitely an item made specifically with the male in mind. The purpose of which is presumably ease and speed of usage, because private households do not have urinals in them, in fact they are only to be found within public toilet facilities. Again, as with the signs on toilet doors, this is a process of socialisation which a male child must be introduced to in order to understand exactly what the purpose of the object is. This is the only toilet facility which is gender-specific, and yet there is no reason to have a gender-specific toilet because males are capable of using the ‘unisex’ toilet which they do for the majority of the day. The female/unisex toilet in the second and third photograph, found within both male and female toilet facilities can be used by both genders. The last photograph shows a toilet facility which is not only aimed at both genders but also at the disabled. The blue container which is used for the disposal of sanitary towels is very gender-specific, and once again something which is learnt through the process of intergenerational transmission. Each toilet facility shown indicates that at some level toilets can be used by both genders even if they are found within areas that have been specifically set aside for the use of a sole gender, however, the urinal is not a unisex item, and is therefore aimed solely at the male gender. Authorities and establishments ensure that the genders remain separate and make use of the facilities that have been set in place specifically for their own gender, by the use of door signs which direct the separate genders to a specific location, and further, by the installation of the urinal which can by default not be used by the female gender. The disabled are further controlled, in that they can only make use of a limited number of toilet facilities that they will not necessarily find at the same location as toilets for the able-bodied, which means that they have to go looking for a toilet that has been adapted specifically with them in mind; in a way, it could be considered that the disabled are being segregated to a greater degree, in this sense, than the segregation found between the male and female in this instance.

Personal choice or authority?

Multiple sinks.

This photograph of a row of sinks brings up some interesting points. It has already been established, in a photograph above, that self-contained cubicles that have both a toilet and a sink within them exist. The three sinks correspond directly to the number of toilets within the toilet area where the photograph was taken. It could be to ensure that people do not remain in the cubicle any longer than absolutely necessary and therefore it is a way in which to control the speed of people that are using the facilities, thus ensuring that there is a constant flow with nobody hindering the access of the next user. The point, however, this is unhygienic, because users of the toilets must open the toilet cubicle door, before being able to make use of both the soap container and then the tap facility. It can be ascertained, therefore, that germs will be found on every toilet cubicle door handle. So, is hygiene indeed the purpose behind the row of sinks, each of which could equally have been installed next to each toilet and have been self-contained facilities; or is the purpose merely to make certain that nobody has to wait longer than absolutely necessary for a toilet to become vacant, whenever there is high demand? Having sinks in a row outside the actual toilet cubicle could be considered as a manner in which an authority is ensuring that the toilet users take appropriate measures where hygiene is concerned. By placing the sinks on the outside of the cubicles, however, the authority of an establishment is in fact negating the concept of personal hygiene because germs have already been spread before the user even gets to the sink area. There is also the element of socialisation involved here, making the use of the sinks almost compulsory, whereas if the sinks were located within the cubicles there would not exist any external pressure to use the sink and therefore people may not necessarily conform with the accepted practice of washing their hands after using a toilet. There is a certain amount of authority inherent in placing the sinks outside of the toilet cubicles, and one that is reinforced by the fact that all toilets, that I have so far seen, have a sink/toilet ratio of 1:1, indicating that they could just as easily have been located side by side in the toilet cubicle thus ensuring higher hygiene levels, whilst simultaneously relinquishing any power of control over the user.

Push/Pull

Push to enter through door.

Internal door.

Pull door.

Fire Door

The fire door.

The internal door, seen in the previous two postings, is meant for heavy usage because it has a self-closing mechanism at the top of the door. Usage of the door is also made easier because there is no handle on one side which indicates it should be pushed when being approached from that side; additionally there is a decent sized pane of glass which ensures that people do not open the door in someone else’s face. The middle photo also shows that the door can be widened in order to allow access for large items that will not go through the normal-sized door-opening; the bolts at the top and bottom of the door indicate that those with authority within the establishment are permitted to open the doors wider as and when required, and for the most part only the single normal sized door will be needed to cope with human traffic throughout the day. Aside from the bolts, there is no authority that comes in to play with the internal door, because there are no locks and so forth. In the last photograph above, the ‘Fire Door’, authority and control over the use of the door are extremely evident. Instructions are given on how to go about opening the door; this in itself is an unusual feature because most doors do not have instructions explaining how they open. The fire door is the one door which is not permitted to be opened and used in the same manner as a regular internal or external door. This controlling feature in society is put in place from the age of childhood, and is so effective that even when a fire drill/alarm is sounded many will not use the fire door for the purpose for which it is intended. The authoritarian control over the use of the fire door is so deeply ingrained in to people’s psyche that the original thought pattern has to be overwritten by seeing the door being used in order for people to understand that the fire door may indeed be used during a fire drill; this odd phenomenon has been personally witnessed. The degree of control that exists, in relation to when the fire door can be used and to who is permitted to use it, could be considered a serious safety issue in itself; but since fire doors are seldom used and are also considered out of bounds for everyday usage, it stands to reason that the original ‘rules’ of not being permitted to use a fire door for access will remain as the voice of authority instructing people to find an alternative exit, possibly even during a fire, because in a sense the doors themselves become ‘invisible’ due to them not generally being considered in the same light that other doors are, as points of access in to and out of buildings.