"Does housing in general, and home ownership in particular, comprise anything more than just a class-related distributive outcome?"
DISCUSS THE CONTENTION THAT HOUSING TENURE IS NOW LESS IMPORTANT FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SOCIAL CLASSES THAN IN THE 1950S
"Does housing in general, and home ownership in particular, comprise anything more than just a class-related distributive outcome?" (Hamnett 1995:257)
Hamnett posed this question in 1995 in his paper 'Home Ownership and the Middle Classes'. He went on to investigate possible answers in much the same way as I intend to discuss the contention that housing tenure is now less important for distinguishing between social classes than in the 1950s. Housing has always been of interest to geographers and sociologists alike, in their quest to determine social stratification and in their investigation into the various relationships between society and space. Indeed in the 1950s social theorists and policy analysts were mainly concerned with the reconstruction and repair of the post war society and the housing issues relating to that, in particular a desperate need and demand for an increased and improved council stock. However since then, and certainly in the latter half of the twentieth century, their focus has fallen much more on tenure, especially the continual rise of home ownership, its causes, its effects and specifically its relationship with class.
In thins essay I will briefly give a description of housing tenure and an explanation of social classes (as seen from two view points) in order to set the scene. I then propose to paint a social picture of the 1950s and the ideas surrounding housing tenure and social classes at the time, and indeed their importance. In order to draw a comparison I will go on to give an account of present day theories like that of Hamnett, Saunders, Forrest and others, and investigate whether the entitled contention is justifiable.
Social class is a concept which identifies certain groups within society that share common characteristics, over and above all, in terms of wealth, to create a somewhat hierarchical system of social stratification. Two prominent theories surrounding social class are that of Marx and Weber. Marxist and Neo-Marxist theorists base class on the capitalist job market, with its unequal power relations between the owners of capital (or the means of production) and the working class i.e. your occupation determines which strata or class of society you fall into. Weberians on the other hand, base class on people's ability to compete in any market situation. Both of these theories are valid and play a role in people's perception of class. Most commonly identified classes are that of the upper class, middle class and working class, the latter with the least amount of income and wealth, and the former the most. Some sociologists and social theorists in recent years have also argued that capitalist societies (most evidently Britain and the USA) have begun to create an under class, of socially excluded people who are trapped in deprivation and their exclusion. This all goes into what we as geographers come to discern as class and what I mean when I refer to class in this paper.
In addition to class, housing tenure is the other component under discussion in this essay. Housing tenure is the term used, and the way in which we classify a person or household's residence or home, into one of three categories. The first is home ownership, whereby the individual or household has possession of their property either in full or as part of a mortgage scheme. The second is private rental accommodation, in which situation the individual or household are tenants in a property owned by another person (landlord), and pay rent to this person but does not possess ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In addition to class, housing tenure is the other component under discussion in this essay. Housing tenure is the term used, and the way in which we classify a person or household's residence or home, into one of three categories. The first is home ownership, whereby the individual or household has possession of their property either in full or as part of a mortgage scheme. The second is private rental accommodation, in which situation the individual or household are tenants in a property owned by another person (landlord), and pay rent to this person but does not possess the property. The final sector is that of the state, or council housing. This is accommodation owned by the government that can also be rented by individuals and households, but at a generally significantly lower rate than in the private rental sector. In addition to and running alongside council housing is the Local Authority sector which functions in much the same way but are run by Local Authorities and demand rents that are slightly higher than their council counterparts.
"British literature regarding housing has been peculiarly dominated by issues of tenure and class for over 30 years" (Hamnett 1995:258). However before this, back in the 1950s there was little discussion of the relationship. The main reason for this was that the relationship was believed to be clear-cut. It was firmly accepted that the working class inhabited the council sector and that home ownership and renting in the private sector was the privilege of the upper and middle classes. Yet home ownership was not commonplace, only 25% of households in Britain in 1945 were homeowners (Hamnett, 1999) and much of the middle class lived in private rented accommodation. Indeed even in the 1950s Britain was thought of as a nation of renters (Forrest et al, 1990) with 65% of households renting from private landlords.
It was at this time that Britain was still in a period of recovery after the war, the economy had certainly not yet recovered, there was high unemployment and a high level of homelessness due to bombed cities and the return of evacuees and soldiers. These problems were almost solely associated with the working class and consequently there was huge pressure put on what was left of the council sector. In response, when the conservatives came into power in 1951 they built more council houses (180 000 a year between 1951 and 1957) than any other government before or since (Hamnett, 1999). Until this point housing tenure was still one of the most important distinguishing features between the social classes. The working class could not afford private rental accommodation, not least possess their own home.
However it is from this point that the relationship between housing tenure and social class began to alter as tenure changes in Britain started to occur. The new high quality council housing built in the 1950s attracted the skilled working class who, as the economy began to improve, were better able to afford the higher rents than their semi-skilled and unskilled cohorts, and before long the higher earning working class began to enter the home ownership market. At the same time the number of middle class home owners rose dramatically, 67.3% of professionals and managers owned their own home in 1961 (Hamnett, 1999), and fewer and fewer people were renting from the private sector. Despite the rise in working class homeowners the relationship between tenure and class was essentially maintained during the 1960s and 1970s. Commentators such as P. Saunders (1984) and J. Rex & R. Moore (1967) still believed housing to be the most important definition of class.
It wasn't until the end of the 1970s and as Britain waded into the 1980s that significant changes began to occur. Thatcherism brought with it the 'Right to Buy' and consequently a gargantuan metamorphosis in the British housing tenure structure. For the first time the working class were given the opportunity to buy their council homes at a reduced rate and since 1979 nearly 2 million have been sold (Office of the Deputy Prim Minister Website). Home ownership skyrocketed with over 70% of households owning their own home, and only 8% renting private accommodation. Home ownership was promoted as a source of social stability and wealth accumulation, and seemed to take to the British public like a contagious disease. "In just fifty years the roles of the privately rented sector and home ownership have been completely reversed, and Britain has changed from being a nation of renters to being a nation of owners" (Hamnett, 1999:51).
But as you can see it is not just housing tenure structure that has altered. The 'Right to Buy' policy meant a significant increase in working class ownership too, therefore bringing natural changes to the natural tenure-class relationship of the 1950s. "Britain is now dominantly a nation of home owners and home ownership is no longer the perogative of the middle class as it was in the 1950s and before" (Hamnett, 1999:59). In their book 'Home Ownership: Differentiation and Fragmentation' Forrest et al echo this point saying, "none of the major categories [of tenure] is homogenous" (Forrest et al, 1990:96) and also "home ownership, that central prerequisite for membership of the middle classes, is now open to all" (Forrest et al, 1990:80).
So if the changes in tenure structure in Britain have allowed such changes in the class-tenure relationship surely housing tenure is no longer relevant in, let alone important for, distinguishing between social classes. We can no longer say that a home owner is of the middle classes and that the council sector is the tenure of the working class.
Saunders contested this in 1984 suggesting that home ownership provides a basis for class formation. He argued that Weberian theory denotes that classes arise from all market situations and therefore ownership of property was an important basis for class formation. Saunders called it a 'property class', separate from classes formed on the basis of labour market position or occupation. He claimed that you could occupy two classes, one in relation to the production process and one in relation to property. In which case housing tenure was still important in distinguishing between social 'property' classes.
However Saunders later retracted this idea saying "housing tenure and capital gains play a role in social stratification in general, and that class is but one element of social stratification" (in Hamnett, 1999:66). He went on to radically claim that certain consumption sectors, like housing tenure, represent an important form of social cleavage that cuts across class divisions. He even suggested that such sectors might be more important than class divisions themselves. He basically undermines the importance of class as a determinant of social inequality. Seeing it as only one dimension of a multi faceted social stratification.
It is my opinion and that of many others that tenure is now less important for distinguishing between social classes as it was in the 1950s. However research shows that other aspects of housing, besides tenure, are still valid in social stratification. Some observers believe that housing type, size, location and quality are now more important in terms of class. Hamnett believed "there is a clear relationship between current property value and the socio-economic group of the household" (Hamnett, 1999:62). He went on to provide figures supporting the idea that the middle classes have bigger, better quality homes than those of the home owner working class. So although tenure is no longer important, housing is.
In 1987 Forest and Murie launched a research project that was designed to explore aspects of social differentiation within the owner occupied sector. However they found that in the top end of the owner occupied market "for those more affluent households who are able to exercise choice some may choose not to maximise housing expenditure or status for various reasons" (Forrest & Murie 1987:335) this can then "distort the simple relationships between labour market position and position in the owner occupied market" (Forrest & Murie, 1987:336). There is evidence to support both sides of the argument and I am sure it is an area that will prompt continual and further discussion in future years.
In conclusion I would support the contention that housing tenure is now less important for distinguishing between social classes than in the 1950s. I believe it can still be used loosely in the respect that the semi-skilled and unskilled working class predominantly occupies the council sector. However I believe that owner occupation no longer denotes a simple single class and therefore it is wrong to use tenure to distinguish between classes in this way.
What I would say to close is that housing tenure should by no means be abandoned. It still has importance in other areas of social structure, perhaps in terms of gender and race, and should therefore be regarded as a key aspect to social theory and research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
* Doling, J. & Stafford, B. (1989) Homeownership: The Diversity of Experience. Aldershot: Gower
* Forrest, R. & Murie, A. (1987) The Affluent Homeowner, in Thrift, N. & Williams, P. (eds) class and Space: The Making of Urban Society. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul
* Forrest, R., Murie, A. & Williams, P. (1990) Home Ownership: Differentiation and Fragmentation. London: Unwin
* Hamnett, C. (1999) Winners and Losers: Home Ownership In Modern Britain London: UCL Press
* Hamnett, C. (1995) Home Ownership and the Middle Classes, in Butler, T. & Savage, M. (eds) Social Change and the Middle Classes. London: UCL Press
* Murie, A. (1991) Divisions of Home Ownership: Housing Tenure and Social Change, in Environment and Planning A, 23, pp 329-370
* Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) www.housing.odpm.gov.uk
* Saunders, P. (1984) Beyond Housing Classes: The Sociological Significance of Private Property Rights in Means of Consumption, in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol 8, No 2, pp 202-227
WORD COUNT: 1988
Louise Poynter Society & Space Dr D Phillips
December 2002 Assessed Essay GEOG 3190
