Center renters: Tenant epistemologies as research strategy

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY Canadian Review of Sociology-Revue Canadienne De Sociologie Pub Date : 2023-02-06 DOI:10.1111/cars.12421
Mervyn Horgan
{"title":"Center renters: Tenant epistemologies as research strategy","authors":"Mervyn Horgan","doi":"10.1111/cars.12421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>One in three Canadian households rent their home, consistently accounting for around one-half of Canadian households spending over 30% of income on shelter costs (Statistics Canada, <span>2011, 2016</span>, <span>2022</span>). Regardless, hard luck stories of prospective homebuyers squeezed out by rising prices and interest rates still make better copy than those of the ever-expanding ranks of renters. Media sound bites from big bank economists, mortgage professionals, and realtors proselytizing about interest rates, mortgage stress tests, and home purchase incentives keep property ownership front and center in public discourse. Renters may speak but, unless they shout (or refuse to pay rent), they are not heard. Tenant voices are drowned out both by those wishing to get on the first rung of the property ladder and well-polished messaging from real estate interests. In the last decade, the number of rental households has increased by 21.5%, over 2.5 times growth rate of ownership (Statistics Canada, <span>2022</span>). Empirically, <i>renting</i> is quickly becoming Canada's new and evermore unaffordable normal.</p><p>While renting surges, Canadian housing research and policy lags, focusing primarily on the housing continuum's poles–-home ownership and homelessness. The continuing and pervasive “ideology of home ownership” (Ronald, <span>2008</span>) is quickly becoming untenable in Canada where home ownership is widely assumed to be <i>the</i> pathway to financial security. Yet, there is little international evidence that prosperous societies have more owner-occupied housing (Stephens et al, <span>2003</span>). In fact, varying rates of owner-occupied housing do not necessarily “reflect, still less match, changes in prosperity within countries” (Kemeny, <span>2006</span>, p1). At the other end of the continuum, from the widely acclaimed <i>At Home/Chez Soi</i> Housing First experiment to the Observatory on Homelessness, Canadian homelessness research is world-class. While homelessness persists, there is a wealth of available evidence to inform policy. Extensive research exists on homeless persons’ lived experience (Harman, <span>1989</span>; Somerville, <span>2013</span>), but there is markedly less work on renters. This may fit with a more generalized lack of social scientific work on the “unmarked” (Brekhus, <span>1998</span>). International evidence suggests a “persistent widespread bias against renters” (Krueckeberg, <span>1999</span>, p.9; see also Rowlands &amp; Gurney, <span>2000</span>), and Canadian research suggests that “tenure stigma” (Rollwagen, <span>2015</span>; see also Horgan, <span>2020</span>; Rowe &amp; Dunn, <span>2015</span>) remains pervasive. Overall, despite unprecedented rental growth, the everyday experiences of the 5 million Canadian households who rent (Statistics Canada, <span>2022</span>) remain poorly understood.</p><p>In Canada's hot housing market, ownership is elusive and/or undesirable for many, yet an increasingly untenable federal policy bias toward homeowners over renters persists. The pandemic sharpened focus on Canadian rental housing precarity, with over 250,000 households in rental arrears in 2020 (FINA, <span>2021</span>). Post-pandemic, the ongoing global structural transformation of housing markets precipitated by housing financialization will continue to shape affordability and rental precarity (Aalbers, <span>2017</span>; Fields, <span>2015</span>; Kalman-Lamb, <span>2017</span>). Global in scope, housing financialization impacts Canada's increasingly precarious <i>private</i> rental sector (PRS) in particular (August, <span>2020</span>; August &amp; Walks, <span>2018</span>). “Renoviction”/“demoviction” are now everyday terms referring to landlords evicting current tenants so as to renovate or demolish rental units and subsequently charge higher rents. For example, despite Ontario's Residential Tenancy Act limiting how evictions happen, renovictions are a core mechanism for real estate investment trusts (REITs), in particular, to secure higher rents (August &amp; Walks, <span>2018</span>; Zell &amp; McCullough, <span>2020</span>). Additionally, research in Toronto shows how minor municipal bylaw changes enable “mom &amp; pop” landlords to increase rents through renoviction (Slater, <span>2004</span>; Horgan, <span>2018</span>). Precarity, then, is becoming caked into Canada's private rental sector.</p><p>This contrasts sharply with the security of tenure experienced by those in non-market housing (including public housing, rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing, some housing co-operatives, community land trusts, among others), where housing costs are independent of market rates, based instead on tenants’ capacity to pay (Malpass, <span>2001</span>; Morris, <span>2009</span>). Canada's rental system remains dualist, with two different kinds of rental tenure; one non-market non-profit based, and the other, private and profit-oriented (Kemeny, <span>2006</span>; Matznetter, <span>2020</span>; Stephens, <span>2020</span>). Within this dualist system, non-market rentals remain marginal, accounting for only 6% of rental housing. Canada's rental stock is overwhelmingly concentrated in the for-profit PRS, whose expansion is profoundly changing housing experiences internationally, particularly through growth in “non-linear” and “backward housing trajectories” (Bobek et al., <span>2021</span>).</p><p>How did we get here? While it has been a long time coming, recent policy is instructive. Canada's Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the federal Crown corporation charged with managing Canada's housing sector, is barely involved in housing provision. Throughout his tenure (2014-21) as CMHC President and CEO, Evan Siddall was explicit about Canada's housing future shifting from ownership to private renting. So, while the 2018 National Housing Strategy (NHS)—<i>A Place to Call Home—</i>motions towards affordability in the rapidly growing rental sector, it centers private rental investment. For example, the single largest dollar item in the NHS is the Rental Construction Financing Initiative (RCFI), providing minimum $1 million loans to rental housing developers. While the RCFI is open to non-profits, there are serious restrictions on them, with many housing nonprofits already struggling as current operating agreements supporting earlier affordable housing initiatives, both federal and provincial, come to an end (Cooper, <span>2022</span>). At base, the RCFI incentivizes for-profit rental provision, in particular. This ripens conditions for PRS expansion and housing financialization as means of capital accumulation for developers in a build-to-rent sector increasingly dominated by REITs (August, <span>2020</span>). Simultaneously, municipalities scramble to regulate short-term rentals (STRs), specifically Airbnbs, which have fundamentally transformed the availability of regular rentals regulated by provincial and territorial tenancy law. In Halifax, for example, prior to the introduction of municipal regulation, STRs saw a 19.2% year over year increase (Wachsmuth et al <span>2019</span>).<sup>1</sup></p><p>What we have then is a rental sector facing multiple structural strains, from housing financialization at a global scale with marked local effects, to ongoing state reticence to get involved in direct housing provision, alongside a national housing strategy focused on homeowners, homeless persons, and rental providers. Amidst these strains, <i>renters</i> themselves are largely invisibilized. Therefore, one way for housing scholarship to support and inform activism, advocacy, and policy is becoming increasingly clear: center renters.</p><p>I want to suggest that housing studies scholars—an interdisciplinary bunch of which sociologists are just one part—work collaboratively and concertedly to center renters by developing <i>tenant epistemologies</i>. By tenant epistemologies, I mean research that centers tenants’ standpoints, foregrounds tenants’ voices, and works with tenants’ own accounts of their experiences. Patricia Hill Collins notes that to investigate “the subjugated knowledge of subordinate groups….requires more ingenuity than that needed to examine the standpoints and thought of dominant groups” (1991: 202). Inspired by Collins and deeply troubled by the relative absence of tenants’ perspectives from local, provincial, national and international conversations around housing, It is time to highlight the “subjugated knowledge” of tenants. Here, “epistemologies” is internationally pluralized to recognize that tenants are not a homogeneous group. In addition to social positon, type and duration of tenancy may impact any particular tenant's experiences, and so also their knowledge about and understanding of rental housing. For example, those living in rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing are likely to orient differently to their housing futures than renters who are subject to market rents. Likewise, we can anticipate differences not only between RGI and PRS tenants, but also <i>amongst</i> tenants, in particular those situated differently within the PRS.</p><p>While experience alone might be insufficient as “evidence” (Scott, <span>1991</span>), in a context where the tenant experience is largely ignored, centering renters is essential. This then can be linked with and understood in the context of the broader structural transformation of housing markets and the rapid financialization of real estate.In order to deepen and extend housing studies centered on tenant epistemologies, and informed by Ruth Wilson Gilmore's (<span>2007</span>) approach to carceral geographies, analytically we can ask: what happens when we place tenants, rental units, and rental buildings and developments at the center of our studies and examine the social world that is organized around them? Think, for example, of Desmond's (<span>2016</span>) analysis of the devastatingly exploitative economic ecosystem surrounding the evictions industry in the US. Linking tenant experiences across buildings, streets, neighborhoods, municipalities, regions, and nations will help to build a more comprehensive picture of the transformation in housing that is well under way internationally, driven in large part by financialization. Furthermore, tenant epistemologies need not center only individual renters. The <i>collective</i> voices of tenants are at the core of tenant epistemologies. What might we learn by helping to convene both local and cross-Canada roundtables of tenants, where tenant voices and experiences not only inform, but direct our research questions? This requires us to not only listen to tenants, but to organize our work around tenant knowledge and experience to spur critical, informed and collaboratively produced analyses.</p><p>Research that centers renters is urgently needed, at a very minimum to provide some ballast against relentless popular media focus on homeownership. What knowledge and action might develop from tenant perspectives in a context where an ideology of ownership prevails, but is increasingly out of step with the everyday realities faced by 5 million Canadian households? Let's get to work.</p>","PeriodicalId":51649,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Review of Sociology-Revue Canadienne De Sociologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cars.12421","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Review of Sociology-Revue Canadienne De Sociologie","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cars.12421","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One in three Canadian households rent their home, consistently accounting for around one-half of Canadian households spending over 30% of income on shelter costs (Statistics Canada, 2011, 2016, 2022). Regardless, hard luck stories of prospective homebuyers squeezed out by rising prices and interest rates still make better copy than those of the ever-expanding ranks of renters. Media sound bites from big bank economists, mortgage professionals, and realtors proselytizing about interest rates, mortgage stress tests, and home purchase incentives keep property ownership front and center in public discourse. Renters may speak but, unless they shout (or refuse to pay rent), they are not heard. Tenant voices are drowned out both by those wishing to get on the first rung of the property ladder and well-polished messaging from real estate interests. In the last decade, the number of rental households has increased by 21.5%, over 2.5 times growth rate of ownership (Statistics Canada, 2022). Empirically, renting is quickly becoming Canada's new and evermore unaffordable normal.

While renting surges, Canadian housing research and policy lags, focusing primarily on the housing continuum's poles–-home ownership and homelessness. The continuing and pervasive “ideology of home ownership” (Ronald, 2008) is quickly becoming untenable in Canada where home ownership is widely assumed to be the pathway to financial security. Yet, there is little international evidence that prosperous societies have more owner-occupied housing (Stephens et al, 2003). In fact, varying rates of owner-occupied housing do not necessarily “reflect, still less match, changes in prosperity within countries” (Kemeny, 2006, p1). At the other end of the continuum, from the widely acclaimed At Home/Chez Soi Housing First experiment to the Observatory on Homelessness, Canadian homelessness research is world-class. While homelessness persists, there is a wealth of available evidence to inform policy. Extensive research exists on homeless persons’ lived experience (Harman, 1989; Somerville, 2013), but there is markedly less work on renters. This may fit with a more generalized lack of social scientific work on the “unmarked” (Brekhus, 1998). International evidence suggests a “persistent widespread bias against renters” (Krueckeberg, 1999, p.9; see also Rowlands & Gurney, 2000), and Canadian research suggests that “tenure stigma” (Rollwagen, 2015; see also Horgan, 2020; Rowe & Dunn, 2015) remains pervasive. Overall, despite unprecedented rental growth, the everyday experiences of the 5 million Canadian households who rent (Statistics Canada, 2022) remain poorly understood.

In Canada's hot housing market, ownership is elusive and/or undesirable for many, yet an increasingly untenable federal policy bias toward homeowners over renters persists. The pandemic sharpened focus on Canadian rental housing precarity, with over 250,000 households in rental arrears in 2020 (FINA, 2021). Post-pandemic, the ongoing global structural transformation of housing markets precipitated by housing financialization will continue to shape affordability and rental precarity (Aalbers, 2017; Fields, 2015; Kalman-Lamb, 2017). Global in scope, housing financialization impacts Canada's increasingly precarious private rental sector (PRS) in particular (August, 2020; August & Walks, 2018). “Renoviction”/“demoviction” are now everyday terms referring to landlords evicting current tenants so as to renovate or demolish rental units and subsequently charge higher rents. For example, despite Ontario's Residential Tenancy Act limiting how evictions happen, renovictions are a core mechanism for real estate investment trusts (REITs), in particular, to secure higher rents (August & Walks, 2018; Zell & McCullough, 2020). Additionally, research in Toronto shows how minor municipal bylaw changes enable “mom & pop” landlords to increase rents through renoviction (Slater, 2004; Horgan, 2018). Precarity, then, is becoming caked into Canada's private rental sector.

This contrasts sharply with the security of tenure experienced by those in non-market housing (including public housing, rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing, some housing co-operatives, community land trusts, among others), where housing costs are independent of market rates, based instead on tenants’ capacity to pay (Malpass, 2001; Morris, 2009). Canada's rental system remains dualist, with two different kinds of rental tenure; one non-market non-profit based, and the other, private and profit-oriented (Kemeny, 2006; Matznetter, 2020; Stephens, 2020). Within this dualist system, non-market rentals remain marginal, accounting for only 6% of rental housing. Canada's rental stock is overwhelmingly concentrated in the for-profit PRS, whose expansion is profoundly changing housing experiences internationally, particularly through growth in “non-linear” and “backward housing trajectories” (Bobek et al., 2021).

How did we get here? While it has been a long time coming, recent policy is instructive. Canada's Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the federal Crown corporation charged with managing Canada's housing sector, is barely involved in housing provision. Throughout his tenure (2014-21) as CMHC President and CEO, Evan Siddall was explicit about Canada's housing future shifting from ownership to private renting. So, while the 2018 National Housing Strategy (NHS)—A Place to Call Home—motions towards affordability in the rapidly growing rental sector, it centers private rental investment. For example, the single largest dollar item in the NHS is the Rental Construction Financing Initiative (RCFI), providing minimum $1 million loans to rental housing developers. While the RCFI is open to non-profits, there are serious restrictions on them, with many housing nonprofits already struggling as current operating agreements supporting earlier affordable housing initiatives, both federal and provincial, come to an end (Cooper, 2022). At base, the RCFI incentivizes for-profit rental provision, in particular. This ripens conditions for PRS expansion and housing financialization as means of capital accumulation for developers in a build-to-rent sector increasingly dominated by REITs (August, 2020). Simultaneously, municipalities scramble to regulate short-term rentals (STRs), specifically Airbnbs, which have fundamentally transformed the availability of regular rentals regulated by provincial and territorial tenancy law. In Halifax, for example, prior to the introduction of municipal regulation, STRs saw a 19.2% year over year increase (Wachsmuth et al 2019).1

What we have then is a rental sector facing multiple structural strains, from housing financialization at a global scale with marked local effects, to ongoing state reticence to get involved in direct housing provision, alongside a national housing strategy focused on homeowners, homeless persons, and rental providers. Amidst these strains, renters themselves are largely invisibilized. Therefore, one way for housing scholarship to support and inform activism, advocacy, and policy is becoming increasingly clear: center renters.

I want to suggest that housing studies scholars—an interdisciplinary bunch of which sociologists are just one part—work collaboratively and concertedly to center renters by developing tenant epistemologies. By tenant epistemologies, I mean research that centers tenants’ standpoints, foregrounds tenants’ voices, and works with tenants’ own accounts of their experiences. Patricia Hill Collins notes that to investigate “the subjugated knowledge of subordinate groups….requires more ingenuity than that needed to examine the standpoints and thought of dominant groups” (1991: 202). Inspired by Collins and deeply troubled by the relative absence of tenants’ perspectives from local, provincial, national and international conversations around housing, It is time to highlight the “subjugated knowledge” of tenants. Here, “epistemologies” is internationally pluralized to recognize that tenants are not a homogeneous group. In addition to social positon, type and duration of tenancy may impact any particular tenant's experiences, and so also their knowledge about and understanding of rental housing. For example, those living in rent-geared-to-income (RGI) housing are likely to orient differently to their housing futures than renters who are subject to market rents. Likewise, we can anticipate differences not only between RGI and PRS tenants, but also amongst tenants, in particular those situated differently within the PRS.

While experience alone might be insufficient as “evidence” (Scott, 1991), in a context where the tenant experience is largely ignored, centering renters is essential. This then can be linked with and understood in the context of the broader structural transformation of housing markets and the rapid financialization of real estate.In order to deepen and extend housing studies centered on tenant epistemologies, and informed by Ruth Wilson Gilmore's (2007) approach to carceral geographies, analytically we can ask: what happens when we place tenants, rental units, and rental buildings and developments at the center of our studies and examine the social world that is organized around them? Think, for example, of Desmond's (2016) analysis of the devastatingly exploitative economic ecosystem surrounding the evictions industry in the US. Linking tenant experiences across buildings, streets, neighborhoods, municipalities, regions, and nations will help to build a more comprehensive picture of the transformation in housing that is well under way internationally, driven in large part by financialization. Furthermore, tenant epistemologies need not center only individual renters. The collective voices of tenants are at the core of tenant epistemologies. What might we learn by helping to convene both local and cross-Canada roundtables of tenants, where tenant voices and experiences not only inform, but direct our research questions? This requires us to not only listen to tenants, but to organize our work around tenant knowledge and experience to spur critical, informed and collaboratively produced analyses.

Research that centers renters is urgently needed, at a very minimum to provide some ballast against relentless popular media focus on homeownership. What knowledge and action might develop from tenant perspectives in a context where an ideology of ownership prevails, but is increasingly out of step with the everyday realities faced by 5 million Canadian households? Let's get to work.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中心租客:租客认识论作为研究策略
三分之一的加拿大家庭租房居住,占加拿大家庭住房支出的30%以上(加拿大统计局,2011年,2016年,2022年)。无论如何,那些因房价和利率上涨而被挤出市场的潜在购房者的不幸故事,仍然比那些不断扩大的租房者的故事更值得报道。大银行经济学家、抵押贷款专业人士和房地产经纪人在媒体上对利率、抵押贷款压力测试和购房激励措施的宣传使房地产所有权成为公众话语的前沿和中心。租客可以说话,但除非他们大喊大叫(或拒绝付房租),否则没有人听到他们的声音。租户的声音被那些希望登上房地产阶梯第一梯级的人和房地产利益集团精心制作的信息淹没了。在过去十年中,租赁家庭的数量增加了21.5%,是所有权增长率的2.5倍以上(加拿大统计局,2022年)。根据经验,租房正迅速成为加拿大新的、越来越难以负担的常态。在租房激增的同时,加拿大的住房研究和政策滞后,主要关注住房连续体的两极——住房所有权和无家可归者。持续和普遍的“房屋所有权意识形态”(Ronald, 2008)在加拿大迅速变得站不住脚,因为房屋所有权被广泛认为是通往财务安全的途径。然而,几乎没有国际证据表明,繁荣的社会有更多的业主自住住房(Stephens等,2003)。事实上,不同的自有住房率并不一定“反映,更不用说匹配国家内部繁荣程度的变化”(Kemeny, 2006, p1)。在连续统一体的另一端,从广受赞誉的“在家/Chez Soi住房优先”实验到无家可归者观察站,加拿大的无家可归者研究是世界级的。虽然无家可归现象仍然存在,但有大量现有证据可供政策参考。对无家可归者的生活经历进行了广泛的研究(Harman, 1989;Somerville, 2013),但对租房者的研究明显较少。这可能与更普遍缺乏关于“未标记”的社会科学工作相吻合(Brekhus, 1998)。国际证据表明“对租房者的持续普遍偏见”(Krueckeberg, 1999年,第9页;参见Rowlands &Gurney, 2000),加拿大的研究表明“任期耻辱”(Rollwagen, 2015;也见霍根,2020;罗,Dunn, 2015)仍然普遍存在。总体而言,尽管租金史无前例地增长,但500万加拿大租房家庭的日常经历(加拿大统计局,2022年)仍然知之甚少。在加拿大火热的房地产市场中,所有权对许多人来说是难以捉摸和/或不受欢迎的,然而,联邦政策对房主而不是租房者的偏见越来越站不住脚。疫情加剧了人们对加拿大租赁住房不稳定的关注,2020年有超过25万户家庭拖欠租金(国际泳联,2021年)。大流行后,由住房金融化引发的全球住房市场结构转型将继续影响可负担性和租金不稳定性(Aalbers, 2017;字段,2015;Kalman-Lamb, 2017)。在全球范围内,住房金融化尤其影响了加拿大日益不稳定的私人租赁部门(PRS)(2020年8月;8月,走,2018)。“翻新”/“拆迁”现在是日常用语,指房东驱逐现有租户,翻新或拆除出租单位,然后收取更高的租金。例如,尽管安大略省的《住宅租赁法》(Residential Tenancy Act)限制了驱逐的发生方式,但改造是房地产投资信托(REITs)的核心机制,特别是为了确保更高的租金(8月&走,2018;泽尔,麦卡洛,2020)。此外,在多伦多的研究表明,微小的市政法规变化如何使“妈妈”成为可能。流行房东通过翻新提高租金(斯莱特,2004;Horgan, 2018)。因此,不稳定性正逐渐融入加拿大的私人租赁行业。这与非市场住房(包括公共住房、按收入分配租金的住房、一些住房合作社、社区土地信托等)的使用权保障形成鲜明对比,在非市场住房中,住房成本与市场价格无关,而是基于租户的支付能力(Malpass, 2001;莫里斯,2009)。加拿大的租赁制度仍然是二元的,有两种不同的租赁期限;一种是非市场的非营利基础,另一种是私人的和以利润为导向的(Kemeny, 2006;Matznetter, 2020;史蒂芬斯,2020)。在这种二元体系中,非市场租金仍然处于边缘地位,仅占租赁住房的6%。加拿大的租赁存量绝大多数集中在营利性的PRS,其扩张正在深刻地改变着国际上的住房体验,特别是通过“非线性”和“落后住房轨迹”的增长(Bobek等人,2021)。 我们是怎么走到这一步的?虽然这是一段漫长的时间,但最近的政策是有益的。加拿大抵押贷款和住房公司(CMHC),负责管理加拿大住房部门的联邦皇家公司,几乎不参与住房供应。在担任CMHC总裁兼首席执行官期间(2014-21年),Evan Siddall明确表示,加拿大的住房未来将从所有权转向私人租赁。因此,尽管2018年国家住房战略(NHS)——一个叫家的地方——在快速增长的租赁行业中提出了负担能力,但它以私人租赁投资为中心。例如,NHS中最大的单一项目是租赁建筑融资倡议(RCFI),向租赁住房开发商提供至少100万美元的贷款。虽然RCFI对非营利组织开放,但对它们有严格的限制,许多住房非营利组织已经在挣扎,因为目前支持联邦和省级早期经济适用房计划的运营协议即将结束(Cooper, 2022)。从根本上说,RCFI特别鼓励以营利为目的的租赁提供。这为PRS扩张和住房金融化创造了成熟的条件,作为开发商在房地产投资信托基金日益主导的“从建到租”行业积累资本的手段(2020年8月)。与此同时,市政当局争相监管短期租赁(STRs),特别是airbnb,它们从根本上改变了受省和地区租赁法监管的常规租赁的可用性。例如,在哈利法克斯,在引入市政法规之前,str同比增长19.2% (Wachsmuth等人2019年)。因此,我们所拥有的是一个面临多重结构性压力的租赁部门,从具有明显地方影响的全球范围的住房金融化,到持续的国家不愿参与直接住房供应,以及专注于房主、无家可归者和租赁供应商的国家住房战略。在这些压力中,租房者自己在很大程度上是隐形的。因此,住房奖学金支持和告知行动主义、倡导和政策的一种方式正变得越来越清晰:中心租户。我想建议,住房研究学者——这是一群跨学科的学者,社会学家只是其中的一部分——通过发展房客认识论,共同努力,以房客为中心。通过租户认识论,我指的是以租户的立场为中心,突出租户的声音,并与租户自己的经历相结合的研究。帕特里夏·希尔·柯林斯(Patricia Hill Collins)指出,要调查“从属群体的被征服知识....”需要更多的聪明才智,而不是检查主导群体的立场和思想”(1991:202)。受到柯林斯的启发,并对当地、省、国家和国际上关于住房的对话中相对缺乏租户的观点深感困扰,是时候强调租户的“被征服的知识”了。在这里,“认识论”在国际上被多元化,以承认租户不是一个同质的群体。除了社会地位之外,租赁的类型和持续时间可能会影响任何特定租户的经历,因此也会影响他们对租赁住房的认识和理解。例如,与受市场租金影响的租房者相比,那些住在按收入与租金挂钩(RGI)住房中的人对住房未来的定位可能不同。同样,我们不仅可以预测RGI和PRS租户之间的差异,还可以预测租户之间的差异,特别是那些在PRS内处于不同位置的租户。虽然经验本身可能不足以作为“证据”(Scott, 1991),但在租户经验在很大程度上被忽视的背景下,以租户为中心是必不可少的。然后,这可以与住房市场的更广泛的结构转型和房地产的快速金融化联系起来,并在此背景下加以理解。为了深化和扩展以租户认识论为中心的住房研究,并根据Ruth Wilson Gilmore(2007)的住房地理学方法,我们可以分析地问:当我们将租户、租赁单元、租赁建筑和开发项目置于研究中心,并检查围绕它们组织的社会世界时,会发生什么?例如,想想Desmond(2016)对美国驱逐产业的破坏性剥削经济生态系统的分析。将建筑、街道、社区、城市、地区和国家的租户体验联系起来,将有助于更全面地了解国际上正在进行的住房转型,这在很大程度上是由金融化推动的。此外,租客认识论不必只以个人租客为中心。租客的集体声音是租客认识论的核心。 通过召集本地和跨加拿大的租户圆桌会议,我们可以学到什么?在圆桌会议上,租户的声音和经验不仅可以为我们的研究问题提供信息,还可以指导我们的研究问题?这不仅需要我们倾听租户的意见,还需要我们围绕租户的知识和经验来组织我们的工作,以促进批判性的、知情的和协作产生的分析。迫切需要针对租房者的研究,至少要对大众媒体对房屋所有权的无情关注提供一些支撑力。在所有权意识形态盛行的背景下,从租户的角度来看,什么知识和行动可能会发展,但与500万加拿大家庭所面临的日常现实越来越不一致?我们开始工作吧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Canadian Review of Sociology/ Revue canadienne de sociologie is the journal of the Canadian Sociological Association/La Société canadienne de sociologie. The CRS/RCS is committed to the dissemination of innovative ideas and research findings that are at the core of the discipline. The CRS/RCS publishes both theoretical and empirical work that reflects a wide range of methodological approaches. It is essential reading for those interested in sociological research in Canada and abroad.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information L'Enquête nationale sur les femmes et les filles autochtones disparues et assassinées au Canada: Explorer la relation entre l'existence de critiques externes et la prise de parole des témoins lors des audiences communautaires Boys, girls, and everyone else: Ontario public school board responses to gender diversity Considering the role of integration experiences in shaping immigrants’ post-migration food choices and eating practices “I don't have the energy”: Racial stress, young Black motherhood, and Canadian social policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1