Purpose -This paper aims to analyse the development and application of the conceptual framework within which housing scholars can think, talk about and advocate for "home". Design/methodology/approach -It reflects on the theoretical progress that has been made in embedding a legal concept of home in the last decade, and identifies opportunities for this scholarship to support critical engagement with laws and policies that give content to home meanings. Findings -A key goal for the concept of home is to help us to think about problems differently, by highlighting important issues flowing from the human relationship with home; with the ways in which the idea of home is present or absent in legal responses to home issues. A focus on home meanings enables us to examine questions which are not always deemed "relevant" to legal proceedings, for example, the human, social and personal costs of displacement and dispossession. The concept of home provides the vocabulary, and the theoretical framework, for articulating these human claims more coherently. It enables us to identify those problems in need of policy attention; to develop a narrative to express them; and to generate support for solving them. Originality/value -Ten years after the publication of "The meaning of home", this article reflects on the development of the legal concept of home, and the range of contemporary housing issues to which its applications are both relevant and significant.
(2010) 'The exclusion of (failed) asylum seekers from housing and home : towards an oppositional discourse.', Journal of law and society., 37 (2). pp. 285-314. Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6478.2010.00505.x Publisher's copyright statement:The denitive version is available at www.interscience.wiley.com Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract:The reality of human experience is that ‗housing' -which usually connotes the practical provision of a roof over one's head -is experienced by users as ‗home' -broadly described as housing plus the experiential elements of dwelling. Conversely, the condition of being without housing, commonly described as ‗homelessness', is experienced not only as an absence of shelter but in the philosophical sense of ‗ontological homelessness' and alienation from the conditions for well-being: the practical and psychological benefits that flow from having an opportunity to establish a home. For asylum seekers, these experiences are deliberately and explicitly excluded from official law and policy discourses. This article demonstrates how, in the case of asylum seekers, law and policy is propelled by an ‗official discourse' based on the denial of housing and the avoidance of ‗home' attachments, which effectively keeps the asylum seeker in a state of ontological homelessness and alienation. We reflect on how considerations of housing and home are excluded from policy debates and even legal analyses concerning asylum seekers, and consider how a new ‗oppositional discourse' of housing and home -which allowed these considerations to be taken into account -might impact on the balancing exercise inherent to laws and policies concerning asylum seekers.Durham Law School, 50 North Bailey, Durham, England, DH1 3ET; lorna.fox@durham.ac.uk; j.a.sweeney@durham.ac.uk. We are grateful to the Institute of Advanced Study at Durham University, whose generous support facilitated the research project on which this article is based, and to David O'Mahony who provided helpful comments on an earlier draft.
The importance of developing a system that is perceived to be 'fair' is a central element in debates about long-term care funding in the UK. It is therefore surprising that while previous research has established that older people tend to resent the idea of using housing equity, and other personal assets, it has often revealed little about the factors underpinning these attitudes or reflected on how they sit within a wider frame of social and political norms. Drawing on 60 semi-structured in-depth interviews with older home owners who have released equity from their homes, this paper explores why people feel that it is fair, or unfair, to require owners to use their housing equity to fund long-term care needs, once factors like reluctance to trade on the home, and mistrust of equity release products, have been excluded. While a small majority of our participants considered it unfair, a substantial minority thought it fair that they were required to use their accumulated housing equity to meet care needs. This distribution of attitudes enabled us to explore the reasons why participants held each view, and so reflect on the impact of pro-social and pro-individual norms in shaping attitudes towards intra-generational fairness and ideas about 'responsible citizenship'. Our analysis posits that the factors that shape attitudes toward using housing assets to pay for care, and their relationship to the wider rhetorical framework of asset accumulation, management and de-cumulation, have been misunderstood by policy makers. We discuss the implications of our findings for policies that seek to promote the development of a housing-asset based care funding system capable of attracting widespread support.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.