Reading Summary:

The reading “If the Chair Fits: Sexism in American Office Furniture Design” by Jennifer Kaufmann-Buhler examines how office furniture, particularly chairs, serves as a visual representation of hierarchical and gendered differences in the workplace. Kaufmann-Buhler explores how chairs in office plans, such as those found in Roche’s Ford Foundation headquarters, signify human roles through various chair typologies, including lounging, executive, and secretarial furniture.

Kaufmann-Buhler argues that office furniture, rather than being merely symbols of hierarchy and status, reflects underlying standards and norms that have shaped gendered bodies and labor within the office environment. By studying the dimensions of chairs and desks from manufacturers like Knoll, Herman Miller, and Steelcase, the author identifies common patterns and typologies. These designs perpetuated gendered hierarchies and assumptions prevalent during the period studied.

Despite the contemporary shift towards mid-range and ergonomic chairs, gendered assumptions persist. There is a consistent pattern of exaggerated chair forms catering to assumed gender roles. Larger executive chairs with wide and square seats often imply they are intended for male bodies, while smaller secretarial chairs suggest a petite female user. Kaufmann-Buhler notes that many mid-century chairs were designed to showcase women to the “male gaze,” effectively objectifying them.

The author emphasizes the significance of addressing this issue, as chairs embody physical representations of human bodies, including arms, legs, and backs, directly mirroring the user’s body. Moreover, furniture design inadvertently reinforces gendered expectations and perpetuates discrimination and oppression associated with social class, gender, and ability.

Building Interpretation:

I agree with Kaufmann-Buhler’s argument that furniture design reflects and perpetuates discrimination and oppression related to social class, gender, and ability. This theme is evident throughout the University of Oregon campus, and I would like to focus on the Knight Library as an example. While the library’s environment may not exemplify the extreme points discussed in Kaufmann-Buhler’s writing, some underlying principles can be observed.

Upon entering the library, one encounters low-height computer desks equipped with various office task chairs at the front desk. Among them, there is a cushioned swivel chair designed for prolonged use, suggesting an intention to provide comfort. However, there is also a plastic high-top chair that embodies Kaufmann-Buhler’s notion of seats meant to be sat on rather than sat in. This chair appears intentionally uncomfortable, possibly designed to discourage extended use and keep the individuals at the service desk on their feet when assisting others.

This focus on uncomfortable furniture extends beyond the Knight Library and can be seen throughout the campus, particularly in public spaces that seem to target the homeless population. In these areas, the furniture ranges from simply uncomfortable to outright hostile, depending on the level of publicity. This deliberate design choice contributes to an unwelcoming atmosphere that specifically affects marginalized groups.

Front Desk of the Knight Library