Everyday Discourses of Support and Resistance: The Case of the Australian Social Housing Initiative

Abstract

Discourse analysis has a long history in housing studies and is used to explore the role of language in determining meaning and power in the urban policy field. This study explores the competing discourses used to frame new social housing construction in Australia under the Social Housing Initiative, introduced as part of the National Building Economic Stimulus Plan. Drawing on interviews with stakeholders (n = 152) conducted at 21 developments, discourse analysis reveals a series of discursive themes used to represent, support and challenge new social housing provision. Negative, mixed and positive discourses emerge – “Housing Commission” as negative; “public”/“social” housing as mixed; “community” housing as more positive. Each discourse provides a unique representation of the sociocultural, physical or economic values of social housing. The language used reflects the dominant status of home ownership in Australia and the extent to which each of these discursive groupings differ from or align with the ideal of home ownership. While failing to dislodge the powerful status of home ownership, it revealed how the mobilization of discourses which align social housing with the dominant ownership discourse might offer an opportunity for addressing tenure- and place-based stigmatization.

Key words:

• Discourse
• Social housing
• Home ownership
• Australia

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Tenure definitions common across Australia include the following: public housing, owned and managed by state housing authorities; community housing, owned and/or managed by not-for-profit community housing providers; social housing, the term to describe both public and community housing; and affordable housing, an increasingly popular term which centres primarily on the relative costs of private housing, both private rental and home purchase. Affordable housing scheme are increasingly included in private developments to provide subsidies rents for “key workers”. These definitions are far from fixed, with a history of state housing authorities to sell stock to tenants, transfer stock to private developers as part of regeneration schemes or to community housing providers. The tendency for state housing providers to retain ownership of stock, but transfer management to community housing providers also complicates tenure definitions and, in part, leads to the adoption of the term social housing.

2. Including dwellings managed by housing co-operatives and community or church groups.

3. Defined as homelessness, those with health conditions being aggravated by housing, and life or safety being at risk in accommodation, ex-convicts and persons with a disability.

4. The state government department responsible for managing social housing.