DISCUSS THE CONTENTION THAT HOUSING TENURE IS NOW LESS IMPORTANT FOR
DISCUSS THE CONTENTION THAT HOUSING TENURE IS NOW LESS IMPORTANT FORDISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SOCIAL CLASSES THAN IN THE 1950S"Does housing in general, and home ownership in particular, compriseanything more than just a class-related distributive outcome?"(Hamnett 1995:257)Hamnett posed this question in 1995 in his paper 'Home Ownership andthe Middle Classes'. He went on to investigate possible answers inmuch the same way as I intend to discuss the contention that housingtenure is now less important for distinguishing between social classesthan in the 1950s. Housing has always been of interest to geographersand sociologists alike, in their quest to determine socialstratification and in their investigation into the variousrelationships between society and space. Indeed in the 1950s socialtheorists and policy analysts were mainly concerned with thereconstruction and repair of the post war society and the housingissues relating to that, in particular a desperate need and demand foran increased and improved council stock. However since then, andcertainly in the latter half of the twentieth century, their focus hasfallen much more on tenure, especially the continual rise of homeownership, its causes, its effects and specifically its relationshipwith class.In thins essay I will briefly give a description of housing tenure andan explanation of social classes (as seen from two view points) inorder to set the scene. I then propose to paint a social picture ofthe 1950s and the ideas surrounding housing tenure and social classesat the time, and indeed their importance. In order to draw acomparison I will go on to give an account of present day theorieslike that of Hamnett, Saunders, Forrest and others, and investigatewhether the entitled contention is justifiable.Social class is a concept which identifies certain groups withinsociety that share common characteristics, over and above all, interms of wealth, to create a somewhat hierarchical system of socialstratification. Two prominent theories surrounding social class arethat of Marx and Weber. Marxist and Neo-Marxist theorists base classon the capitalist job market, with its unequal power relations betweenthe owners of capital (or the means of production) and the workingclass i.e. your occupation determines which strata or class of societyyou fall into. Weberians on the other hand, base class on people'sability to compete in any market situation. Both of these theories arevalid and play a role in people's perception of class. Most commonlyidentified
classes are that of the upper class, middle class andworking class, the latter with the least amount of income and wealth,and the former the most. Some sociologists and social theorists inrecent years have also argued that capitalist societies (mostevidently Britain and the USA) have begun to create an under class, ofsocially excluded people who are trapped in deprivation and theirexclusion. This all goes into what we as geographers come to discernas class and what I mean when I refer to class in this paper.In addition to class, housing tenure is the other component underdiscussion in this essay. Housing tenure is ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
classes are that of the upper class, middle class andworking class, the latter with the least amount of income and wealth,and the former the most. Some sociologists and social theorists inrecent years have also argued that capitalist societies (mostevidently Britain and the USA) have begun to create an under class, ofsocially excluded people who are trapped in deprivation and theirexclusion. This all goes into what we as geographers come to discernas class and what I mean when I refer to class in this paper.In addition to class, housing tenure is the other component underdiscussion in this essay. Housing tenure is the term used, and the wayin which we classify a person or household's residence or home, intoone of three categories. The first is home ownership, whereby theindividual or household has possession of their property either infull or as part of a mortgage scheme. The second is private rentalaccommodation, in which situation the individual or household aretenants in a property owned by another person (landlord), and pay rentto this person but does not possess the property. The final sector isthat of the state, or council housing. This is accommodation owned bythe government that can also be rented by individuals and households,but at a generally significantly lower rate than in the private rentalsector. In addition to and running alongside council housing is theLocal Authority sector which functions in much the same way but arerun by Local Authorities and demand rents that are slightly higherthan their council counterparts."British literature regarding housing has been peculiarly dominated byissues of tenure and class for over 30 years" (Hamnett 1995:258).However before this, back in the 1950s there was little discussion ofthe relationship. The main reason for this was that the relationshipwas believed to be clear-cut. It was firmly accepted that the workingclass inhabited the council sector and that home ownership and rentingin the private sector was the privilege of the upper and middleclasses. Yet home ownership was not commonplace, only 25% ofhouseholds in Britain in 1945 were homeowners (Hamnett, 1999) and muchof the middle class lived in private rented accommodation. Indeed evenin the 1950s Britain was thought of as a nation of renters (Forrest etal, 1990) with 65% of households renting from private landlords.It was at this time that Britain was still in a period of recoveryafter the war, the economy had certainly not yet recovered, there washigh unemployment and a high level of homelessness due to bombedcities and the return of evacuees and soldiers. These problems werealmost solely associated with the working class and consequently therewas huge pressure put on what was left of the council sector. Inresponse, when the conservatives came into power in 1951 they builtmore council houses (180 000 a year between 1951 and 1957) than anyother government before or since (Hamnett, 1999). Until this pointhousing tenure was still one of the most important distinguishingfeatures between the social classes. The working class could notafford private rental accommodation, not least possess their own home.However it is from this point that the relationship between housingtenure and social class began to alter as tenure changes in Britainstarted to occur. The new high quality council housing built in the1950s attracted the skilled working class who, as the economy began toimprove, were better able to afford the higher rents than theirsemi-skilled and unskilled cohorts, and before long the higher earningworking class began to enter the home ownership market. At the sametime 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 privatesector. Despite the rise in working class homeowners the relationshipbetween tenure and class was essentially maintained during the 1960sand 1970s. Commentators such as P. Saunders (1984) and J. Rex & R.Moore (1967) still believed housing to be the most importantdefinition of class.It wasn't until the end of the 1970s and as Britain waded into the1980s that significant changes began to occur. Thatcherism broughtwith it the 'Right to Buy' and consequently a gargantuan metamorphosisin the British housing tenure structure. For the first time theworking class were given the opportunity to buy their council homes ata reduced rate and since 1979 nearly 2 million have been sold (Officeof the Deputy Prim Minister Website). Home ownership skyrocketed withover 70% of households owning their own home, and only 8% rentingprivate accommodation. Home ownership was promoted as a source ofsocial stability and wealth accumulation, and seemed to take to theBritish public like a contagious disease. "In just fifty years theroles of the privately rented sector and home ownership have beencompletely reversed, and Britain has changed from being a nation ofrenters to being a nation of owners" (Hamnett, 1999:51).But as you can see it is not just housing tenure structure that hasaltered. The 'Right to Buy' policy meant a significant increase inworking class ownership too, therefore bringing natural changes to thenatural tenure-class relationship of the 1950s. "Britain is nowdominantly a nation of home owners and home ownership is no longer theperogative of the middle class as it was in the 1950s and before"(Hamnett, 1999:59). In their book 'Home Ownership: Differentiation andFragmentation' Forrest et al echo this point saying, "none of themajor categories [of tenure] is homogenous" (Forrest et al, 1990:96)and also "home ownership, that central prerequisite for membership ofthe middle classes, is now open to all" (Forrest et al, 1990:80).So if the changes in tenure structure in Britain have allowed suchchanges in the class-tenure relationship surely housing tenure is nolonger relevant in, let alone important for, distinguishing betweensocial classes. We can no longer say that a home owner is of themiddle classes and that the council sector is the tenure of theworking class.Saunders contested this in 1984 suggesting that home ownershipprovides a basis for class formation. He argued that Weberian theorydenotes that classes arise from all market situations and thereforeownership of property was an important basis for class formation.Saunders called it a 'property class', separate from classes formed onthe basis of labour market position or occupation. He claimed that youcould occupy two classes, one in relation to the production processand one in relation to property. In which case housing tenure wasstill important in distinguishing between social 'property' classes.However Saunders later retracted this idea saying "housing tenure andcapital gains play a role in social stratification in general, andthat class is but one element of social stratification" (in Hamnett,1999:66). He went on to radically claim that certain consumptionsectors, like housing tenure, represent an important form of socialcleavage that cuts across class divisions. He even suggested that suchsectors might be more important than class divisions themselves. Hebasically undermines the importance of class as a determinant ofsocial inequality. Seeing it as only one dimension of a multi facetedsocial stratification.It is my opinion and that of many others that tenure is now lessimportant for distinguishing between social classes as it was in the1950s. However research shows that other aspects of housing, besidestenure, are still valid in social stratification. Some observersbelieve that housing type, size, location and quality are now moreimportant in terms of class. Hamnett believed "there is a clearrelationship between current property value and the socio-economicgroup of the household" (Hamnett, 1999:62). He went on to providefigures supporting the idea that the middle classes have bigger,better quality homes than those of the home owner working class. Soalthough tenure is no longer important, housing is.In 1987 Forest and Murie launched a research project that was designedto explore aspects of social differentiation within the owner occupiedsector. However they found that in the top end of the owner occupiedmarket "for those more affluent households who are able to exercisechoice some may choose not to maximise housing expenditure or statusfor various reasons" (Forrest & Murie 1987:335) this can then "distortthe simple relationships between labour market position and positionin the owner occupied market" (Forrest & Murie, 1987:336). There isevidence to support both sides of the argument and I am sure it is anarea that will prompt continual and further discussion in futureyears.In conclusion I would support the contention that housing tenure isnow less important for distinguishing between social classes than inthe 1950s. I believe it can still be used loosely in the respect thatthe semi-skilled and unskilled working class predominantly occupiesthe council sector. However I believe that owner occupation no longerdenotes a simple single class and therefore it is wrong to use tenureto distinguish between classes in this way.What I would say to close is that housing tenure should by no means beabandoned. It still has importance in other areas of social structure,perhaps in terms of gender and race, and should therefore be regardedas a key aspect to social theory and research.BIBLIOGRAPHY============* Doling, J. & Stafford, B. (1989) Homeownership: The Diversity ofExperience. Aldershot: Gower* Forrest, R. & Murie, A. (1987) The Affluent Homeowner, in Thrift,N. & Williams, P. (eds) class and Space: The Making of UrbanSociety. 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 ModernBritain London: UCL Press* Hamnett, C. (1995) Home Ownership and the Middle Classes, inButler, T. & Savage, M. (eds) Social Change and the Middle Classes.London: UCL Press* Murie, A. (1991) Divisions of Home Ownership: Housing Tenure andSocial 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 SociologicalSignificance of Private Property Rights in Means of Consumption,in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol 8, No2, pp 202-227