Acknowledgements First of all I would like to thank Dr Lorna Warren, Dr Katherine Davies and Professor Richard Jenkins. I could not have wished for better supervisors, and they were always on hand to provide me with everything I needed – be it wisdom, advice, or good humour. I would also like to thank Professor Jenny Hockey for being enthusiastic about this thesis from the start, and supportive throughout. Thanks also to the many colleagues I have had while completing this PhD – particularly to those in the School of Health and Related Research and the Information School at the University of Sheffield. I am grateful for their encouragement and interest in my research. Thank you to my family for all of their support and special mention to my grandma, Doris Williams, for providing me with a blueprint for how I want to be when I’m 95 and counting. From the initial germ of an idea that gave rise to this PhD, through to its completion, I have been incredibly fortunate to have benefited from the friendship of many wonderful people, without whom writing this PhD would have been far harder. In particular I would like to thank the following: Alex Sherlock, Natalija Jarosenko, Jennifer Kettle, Katherine Running, Veronica Cano, Rachel Bate and Liz Turner. Thanks also to Jen Kettle, Humaira Saeed, Rachel Shirley and Clare Tebbutt for kindly proof-reading my chapters.
relationship between people and material culture as relational, where meanings arise out of the interactions between humans and objects, and materials are active rather than passive. Finally, in these previous studies selfhood is regarded as essentially individualistic, emerging out of individual residents’ relationships with their belongings. I suggest that this downplays the ways in which a person’s sense of self emerges through social interactions. In the next chapter I introduce my theoretical framework to critically examine the limitations of previous studies in more detail, and explain the assumptions I draw on in interpreting my own data. Chapter 3: Theorising material culture and identity 3.1 Introduction In the previous chapter, I argued that much of the existing literature on older people and material culture in residential homes contains a number of limitations. Firstly, previous studies take a functional approach to the relationship between residents and their possessions, assuming objects to fit predetermined needs in people, such as comfort or control. Secondly, there is a tendency to focus on individual residents and their possessions, rather than the broader social environment of the residential home. Thirdly, studies focus on cherished or treasured possessions, rather than the range of objects which constitute people’s homes. These features underpin the predominant argument of these studies, which is that by taking treasured possessions into residential accommodation, older people can maintain their sense of identity and transfer a sense of home. This argument relies on key theoretical assumptions about personhood, material culture, and how they relate to each other. Firstly, identity is seen as something which is fixed, and which is capable of being transferred, maintained and reclaimed. Secondly, objects are seen as repositories of identity, acted upon by people, and used when required. Thirdly, a person’s sense of self is developed and reinforced through their individual relationship with their belongings. In this chapter I challenge these assumptions and argue instead that identity is never fixed, but is an ongoing process which is constantly in flux. Furthermore, identity is not something that develops in isolation between a person and their belongings, but is negotiated through interactions with other people and objects in a social and material world. Additionally, material culture is not passive and objects have an agency of