Home as Self: An Architectural Framework for Well-Being

Abstract

This article conceptualizes well-being as an architectural construct in which intentional spaces, rhythms, and practices form a cohesive and interdependent structure of care. The CRD Home framework draws on Gaston Bachelard’s The Poetics of Space and psychological models such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to consider the home as both a physical environment and a metaphor for the self. We examine the reciprocal relationship between internal states and external environments, emphasizing the implications of this dynamic for identity, resilience, and holistic health.

Introduction

Core human needs have profoundly shaped the definition of the modern home. At its foundation, the home addresses basic physiological requirements: shelter, protection from the elements, and spaces for rest and nourishment (Maslow 1943). Beyond these fundamentals, modern homes increasingly incorporate dimensions related to emotional and psychological well-being, including love, belonging, and comfort. Communal areas such as kitchens and living rooms facilitate social interaction, while personalized spaces accommodate creativity, hobbies, and self-expression, aligning with esteem and self-actualization needs.

At the highest level, the modern home aspires to support holistic well-being and self-fulfillment through sustainable technologies, wellness amenities, and adaptable spaces designed to promote mindfulness, relaxation, and personal growth. Thus, the home reflects an evolving understanding of human needs, progressing from survival to flourishing, and may be defined not only as physical shelter but also as an environment that nurtures every dimension of well-being.

In parallel, the self can also be understood as a “home.” The CRD Home framework conceptualizes symbolic “rooms” as representing distinct dimensions of health and experience. Just as a house is organized into spaces for rest, nourishment, care, and connection, the inner life may be structured around practices and states that sustain well-being. This metaphor provides a structured lens for examining how internal states and external environments interact to shape resilience and identity.

Content

The Poetic Dimension of Space

Bachelard emphasizes the intimate relationship between lived spaces and psychological experience, describing the house as a nest for imagination and dreaming (Bachelard 1994). In this view, spaces extend beyond their material functions to support emotional integration, tranquility, and belonging. When applied metaphorically to the self, the symbolic and affective meanings of these “rooms” highlight how practices of care, reflection, and connection shape psychological well-being.

Internal States and Spatial Perception

Psychological research demonstrates that internal states — including emotions, bodily conditions, and cognitive processes — function as filters that influence the perception of space. Interoceptive mechanisms contribute to the evaluation of sensory information, shaping subjective experience (Craig 2009), that is, our internal bodily states shape the way we experience external environments. Affective science similarly highlights how emotions are constructed through the integration of bodily signals and contextual cues, influencing spatial appraisal (Barrett 2017). That is, emotions are formed by the brain interpreting bodily sensations within a given context, and this process shapes how we judge and experience the spaces we inhabit. Individuals often adapt their environments to mirror internal experience, while external features reciprocally shape affective states. Conceived metaphorically, the inner “home” reflects this same dynamic: internal conditions influence how individuals “inhabit” themselves, while external contexts reinforce or transform those conditions.

Reciprocal Determinism

Reciprocal determinism emphasizes that behavior, internal states, and environments are interdependent and constantly shape one another in feedback loops. The interaction between internal states and external environments exemplifies reciprocal determinism, whereby cognitive, emotional, and physiological processes continuously interact with contextual surroundings (Bandura 1986). Internal states guide the appraisal of environments, while architecture, cultural practices, and social contexts shape psychological responses. When the metaphor of the home is extended to the self, this dynamic suggests that practices of self-care and identity formation both shape and are shaped by external conditions, reinforcing the interconnectedness of inner and outer life.

Conclusion

Well-being emerges through the reciprocal shaping of internal and external environments. Viewing the home as both a physical dwelling and a metaphor for the self highlights the importance of designing spaces and practices that address fundamental needs as well as higher aspirations. As both necessity and symbol, the home, whether architectural or psychological, serves as a site of refuge, resilience, and identity formation. This framework underscores the value of cultivating environments, both within and around us, that foster holistic health.

DISCUSSION

How do you experience the relationship between your inner life and the spaces you inhabit? Share your reflections below.

References

• Bachelard, Gaston. The Poetics of Space. Translated by Maria Jolas. Boston: Beacon Press, 1994.

• Bandura, Albert. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.

• Barrett, Lisa Feldman. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

• Craig, A. D. “How Do You Feel—Now? The Anterior Insula and Human Awareness.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10, no. 1 (2009).

• Maslow, Abraham H. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50, no. 4 (1943).