|
|
|
In the aftermath of the eighties, one repercussion of the Thatcherite era has been sorely underestimated - the lack of decent seating in society. Too often we have been told to keep on the move, work more, earn more, be a success.
The previous government (and, for that matter, new labour), continually promoted activities that involved much in the way of standing, running, shouting or throwing things, but little in the way of nice relaxed sitting down.
The result of this has been a gradual erosion of comfortable seats in public spaces. This perpetuates the manic stop-go lifestyle, to the obvious advantage of those powers that be: no time to sit down is a result of having no place to sit down (though we are led to think that it is the other way around);
no time to sit down means no time to stop and think, to question the powers that be.
Yet there is still the appearance of places to sit down. These "Chairs", however, are the antithesis of a good sofa- they have been designed specifically to stop people from sitting around for too long.
Evidence of this can be found in any MacDonalds, where the clammy plastic seats are specially angled to promote maximum buttock slippage. Another example can be found on a typical railway station, where the one remaining bench will be inevitably be made of the coldest metal known to man, and at such a height as to be comfortable only when sitting on the top, assuming the position of a typical rudeboy.
Uncomfortable seating has even infiltrated our homes, courtesy of Ikea. (If you look under the interchangeable green striped fabric covers, their sofas are actually made of concrete).
The answer to this problem comes in the form of a piece of furniture that most of us take for granted- the sofa. I am not referring to the sofa that the majority of us sitting in our living room, however. This type of sofa is definitely not without merit, but is a far safer version of what I have in mind- the sofa in a public environment.
I believe that having more sofas in such a public setting would change peoples' attitudes for the better. Communal seating, such as a sofa provides, creates a forum for real, person to person interaction. This interaction could take place on an intellectual level, with the discussion of philosophical or political issues that may not have been tackled,
had the would-be-philosophers been worrying about their seating arrangements. Had there have been no sofas, I think many of the world's greatest philosophical theories would never have come about. If Sartre, Einstein or Darwin (to pick just three examples) had to think on their feet the whole time, I doubt we would have the knowledge of life we have today.
Alternatively, the interaction could be of a more physical nature, the intimacy of the sofa promoting bodily contact that might have otherwise been suppressed. How many relationships have come about through chance meetings on a sofa? The relaxed posture adopted by those sitting on a sofa both reflects and creates a more relaxed attitude overall,
the evidence of which can be witness on any number of daytime t.v. shows. A sofa is probably the only thing holding Richard and Judy's marriage together. In fact, the magic combination of sofa and television probably accounts for the majority of long-term marriages.
I believe that more sofas are a necessity, as the current level of sofas is unacceptable. We are in fact witnessing a slight sofa renaissance at this time, due to the proliferation of so-called "Coffee shops". However, these establishments are creating a state of sofa elitism, by not providing enough sofas. Within these upmarket dives the lack of adequate comfortable seating means that there is often a situation wherein two or three people will have access to the upholstered furniture,
while everyone-else has to make do with the shabby assortment of hard plastic or wood. Those that have sofa placement will feel privileged and those that do not will look down on these sofa-monarchs. Having just one or two token sofas is worse than having none at all, as it widens and aggravates the gulf between sofa-haves and sofa-havenots. The sofa-haves are usually reluctant to relinquish their position of power, and will inevitably spend the most time sitting around, which only annoys those who are sofaless.
Nevertheless, the amount of time spent sitting around is not the issue, as the sofa-haves are merely maximising the seating resources at their disposal (albeit in a way that also maximises posing value). It is an issue of empowering the many, and not just the privileged few.
There exists a seating class system, which parallels our actual class system. Within any given cafe, restaurant, pub or club, there are three distinct classes: aside from the Sofa-Haves and the Sofa-Havenots there are also the Sofa-Wannabes. This last group are the seat society's equivalent to our middle-class. Attempting to gain the status of sofa-rich,
they balance themselves on the arms of a sofa, poised to take the place of anyone foolish enough to leave the sofa realm. Naturally, this attempt to distance themselves from the sofa-poor is futile, as those who have attained sofa space never leave, much like the upper class aristocrats in their oh so lovely country mansions. Given enough sofas, however, I see a future where everyone has room to sit down, where there is no hierarchy of those who sit on the sofa, and those who must perch on the arms.
Decadence for all.
Equality of sofas
MJA98
Originally printed in A7 zine format in the autumn of 1998 by The Strange Billiard Table Press.
|
|
|
|
