不只是一個房子:關於驅逐、鄰里和房屋所有權

Isaac William Martin. 2017. 「New Sociology of Housing.」 Contemporary Sociology 46(4): 392 -396

本文翻自Isaac W. Martin發佈於Contemporary Sociology的一篇書評。文章提到,早在2013年,Mary Pattillo在自己ARS的一篇文章里建議將Sociology of Housing的發展提上議程。這一新分支的發展並不是拍腦袋得出的結論而是隨著社會學對neighborhood的研究不斷深入,住房問題成了一個繞不開的話題。學者們發現住房(housing)如今不只是一個房子、一個空間的問題,它更是一種宏觀社會結構下的文化手段、一個聚集各種社會關係的節點。了解住房問題也對解決美國大城市中心高度集中的貧困問題有重要意義。於是本文作者在此處回顧了近兩三年里三本關於housing的研究。

  • Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City, by Matthew Desmond. New York: Crown Publishers, 2016. 432 pp.
  • Integrating the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income Public Housing Transformation, by Robert J. Chaskin and Mark L. Joseph. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 344 pp.
  • No Place Like Home: Wealth, Community and the Politics of Homeownership, by Brian J. McCabe. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. 240 pp.

通過驅逐從低收入租房市場獲利

Matthew Desmond在Evicted一書中指出住房不穩定(housing insecurity)是城市貧困(urban poverty)再生產的一種方式。當被驅逐成為一種生活方式時,人們面臨的不僅僅是缺少遮風擋雨的庇護所,而是因驅逐帶來的一系列經濟損失(無法取回的房租、訴訟費用、意外被縮短的工作時間等)。而當驅逐發生一次之後,這種不幸很可能會不斷反覆,因為把你趕出去的理由真的可以有很多(親子關係不和、太關心自己的鄰居、為了給被驅逐的親戚提供住處違反了房租合同等)。而此時,房東則從其中收穫利潤。基於此,Desmond認為驅逐是一個窮人和富人掙(xiang)扎(ai)共(xiang)生(sha)的過程,也即是一個階層關係。

不住高度貧困地區,那去住混合收入居住區(mixed income housing)行不行?

有人說,為什麼非要住貧困集中的地區?什麼資源也沒有,也不能幫助個人實現上升的社會流動,住在那兒不是腦子有病嘛?這些質疑的潛在假設是,換到一個好地方,窮人就不那麼容易再次陷入貧困了,因為他們會有更豐富的社會關係幫助他們料理生活以及更加優秀的模範可以學習。基於此,美國不少住房政策制定者也在推動把人挪出高度貧困居住區的政策的制定和執行(e.g. the Chicago Housing Authoritys Plan for Transformation)。然而有沒有效呢?Chaskin和Joseph發現:並不怎麼管用。

在對參與了Chicago這個計劃的租戶進行了焦點小組和採訪之後,他們發現雖然人們覺得新位置更安全更美了,並且工資也有一定增長了。但是這些租戶仍然沒有跨過貧困線,而且增長的工資也無法確定是「挪坑」帶來的影響。

整個計劃除了將人挪出來還負責幫助貧困住戶融入這個混合收入社區里。但是Chaskin和Joseph發現社區里的高端住戶並不想跟新來的租戶玩。社區里的正式、非正式社交通常都是基於收入進行過分類的,即富人窮人進水不犯河水。新租戶也因為入住的公寓看起來「太新」很容易被原住戶發現自己是外來的,並標記為「社區問題」。兩個群體缺乏互動也使得刻板印象肆意生長,比如一些中高等收入原住戶總認為那些最吵的是新來的貧困租戶。中高等收入住戶還會通過社區會議來限制該地區可負擔住房(affordable housing)的數量以求保住他們自己房子的價值。

窮租戶不光是窮,還沒權力

美國的社會自治程度很高,所以鄰里之間也玩政治(不知道對國內社區的借鑒意義大不大)。玩政治的方式是參加社區活動,即所謂履行公民責任建設社區。以往研究認為,房屋所有權能幫助人們更深度地參與到社區建設中。但McCabe的No Place Like Home指出,與其說是有房讓人更願意參與到社區建設當中,還不如說是較高的住房穩定性使得人們又更強的參與意願和公民責任感。因為通過分析問卷數據,他發現長期住戶,無論有房者還是租戶,相比於短期住戶都更容易參加社區里的政治活動。針對有房租的數據分析結果還指出,有房租的社區參與其實也並沒有比長期租戶更廣,他們只是更加頻繁的出現在對自己房子價值有直接影響的社區活動中。不僅如此,房屋所有權可能還會讓房主更容易阻礙他人的社區參與,比如阻礙該地區可負擔住房的建設,從而將一部分租戶長久地擋在社區參與的門外。

最終McCabe得出的結論是,鼓勵人們買房並不一定能促進社區建設,因為有房者為了維護自己的利益有自己的算盤要打。

小雨說:

印象中國內關於住房和社區也是有不少研究內容的,以前很無知,現在得補補課了。不過此次清理事件對小雨最大的啟發是「housing as a cultural practice」這一觀點。個人境遇如何受到住房狀況變化的影響,而社會結構(尤其階層)又如何通過人們在住房上的各種博弈得以複製或改變,是日後會持續關注的一個內容。而由於住房和社區這密不可分的關係,這裡再貼一個關於分層研究里neighborhood effect的reading list(來自課程Social Stratification by Sarah Bruch),方便大家取用,小雨滾去復個習先。

  • DeLuca, Stefanie and Elizabeth Dayton. 2009. "Switching Social Contexts: The Effects of Housing Mobility and School Choice Programs on Youth Outcomes." Annual Review of Sociology 35:457-491.
  • Sharkey, Patrick and Jacob W. Faber. 2014 「Where, When, Why, and For Whom Do Residential Contexts Matter? Moving Away from the Dichotomous Understanding of Neighborhood Effects.」 Annual Review of Sociology 40: 559-579.
  • Caudillo, Monica L and Florencia Torche. 2014. 「Exposure to Local Homicides and Early Educational Achievement in Mexico.」 Sociology of Education 87(2): 89-105.
  • Carlson, Deven and Joshua M. Cowen. 2015. 「Student Neighborhoods, Schools, and Test Score Growth: Evidence from Milwaukee, Wisconsin.」 Sociology of Education 88(1): 38-55.
  • Sharkey, Patrick. 2016. 「Neighborhoods, Cities, and Economic Mobility.」 RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 2(2): 159-177.
  • Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2016. 「The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment」 American Economic Review 106(4): 855-902.
  • Chetty, Raj and Nathaniel Hendren. 2016. 「The Effects of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects」 National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 23001.
  • Chetty, Raj and Nathaniel Hendren. 2016. 「The Effects of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility II: County-Level Estimates」 National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 23002.
  • Ludwig, Jens, Greg J. Duncan, Lisa A. Gennetian, Lawrence F. Katz, Ronald C. Kessler, Jeffrey R. Kling, and Lisa Sanbonmatsu. 2012. 「Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults.」 Science 337(6101): 1505–10.
  • Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Sharkey, Patrick, Amy Ellen Schwartz, Ingrid Gould Ellen, and Johanna Lacoe.2014. "High Stakes int he Classroom, High Stakes on the Street: The Effects of Community Violence on Students Standardized Test Performance." Sociological Science 1: 199-220.
  • McCoy, Dana Charles, C. Cybele Raver, and Patrick Sharkey. 2015. "Childrens Cognitive Performance and Selective Attention Following Recent Community Violence." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 56.19-36.
  • Kirk, D. S. 2009. "A Natural Experiment on Residential Change and Recidivism: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina." American Sociological Review 74:484-505.
  • Duncan Greg, Murnane Richard J. (Eds.) 2011. Whither Opportunity: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children』s Life Chances. New York: Russell Sage
  • Harding David J. 2003. 「Counterfactual models of neighborhood effects: the effect of neighborhood poverty on high school dropout and teenage pregnancy.」 American Journal of Sociology 109(3):676–719.
  • Ludwig, J., J. B. Liebman, J. R. Kling, G. J. Duncan, L. F. Katz, R. C. Kessler, and L. Sanbonmatsu. 2008. "What can we learn about neighborhood effects from the Moving to Opportunity experiment?" American Journal of Sociology 114:144-188.
  • Sampson, R. J. 2008. "Moving to inequality: Neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure." American Journal of Sociology 114:189-231.
  • Desmond, Matthew and Carl Gershenson. 2016. 「Housing and Employment Insecurity among the Working Poor.」 Social Problems 63: 46-67.
  • Harding, David, Lisa Gennetian, Christopher Winship, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, and Jeffrey Kling. 2011. 「Unpacking Neighborhood Influences on Educational Outcomes: Setting the Stage for Future Research.」 Pps. 277-297 in Whither Opportunity: Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children』s Life Chances. Duncan, Greg and Richard J. Murnane (eds). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Sharkey, Patrick. 2009. 「Neighborhoods and the Black-White Mobility Gap.」 Economic Mobility Project.
  • Sharkey, P. 2008. "The intergenerational transmission of context." American Journal of Sociology 113:931-969.
  • Sastry, Narayan, and Anne R. Pebley. 2010. 「Family and Neighborhood Sources of Socioeconomic Inequality in Children』s Achievement.」 Demography 47:777-800.
  • Robert J. Sampson, Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Thomas Gannon-Rowley. Assessing 』neighborhood effects』: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28:443–478, 2002.
  • Fryer, Roland G. Jr. and Lawrence F. Katz. 2013. 「Achieving Escape Velocity: Neighborhood and School Interventions to Reduce Persistent Inequality.」 American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 103(3): 232-237.

推薦閱讀:

為什麼人人平等?
趙本山的小品是以醜化農民和殘疾人為主要笑料嗎?
《簡愛》中說「雖然上帝沒有這麼做,可我們在精神上依然是平等的」,這種平等怎麼理解?
看了《權利的遊戲》,想到歐洲總是在乎血統,比如誰誰誰之子。難道古歐洲沒有人吼一聲「王侯將相寧有種乎」?

TAG:北京租房 | 社会阶层 | 平等 |