Home ownership, ideology and diversity: Re‐evaluating concepts of housing ideology in the case of Japan

Abstract

Traditionally, theories of home ownership ideology have emphasised its significance in maintaining social stability and political legitimacy, particularly in recent decades and in Anglo‐Saxon dominated societies (Kemeny 1981 Kemeny J (1981) The Myth of Home ownership: Public Versus Private Choices in Housing Tenure. Routledge London , 1986 Kemeny J (1986) ‘The Ideology of Home ownership’. In McLoughlin, B. and Huxley, M. (eds) Urban Planning in Australia: Critical Readings. Longman, Cheshire , 1992 Kemeny J (1992) Housing and Social Theory. Routledge, London , Forrest 1983 Forrest R (1983) ‘The Meaning of Home Ownership’. Society and Space, 15.1, 205 216 , Marcuse 1987 Marcuse P (1987) ‘The Other Side of Housing: Oppression and Liberation’. Turner, B. Kemeny, J. & Lundqvist, L. Between State and Market: Housing in the Post Industrial Era. Almqvist and Wiksell International ). Underlying these claims are ranges of assumptions concerning the nature of ideology or the systems of values and beliefs surrounding home ownership. This paper attempts to challenge these ideological and theoretical assumptions that have dominated housing studies since the 1970's. This challenge takes the form of a critique of the crude model of ideology applied by housing theorists. Alternatively, normalisation and discourse, the subjective meanings of housing and dwelling, and family and cultural practices are emphasised in understanding the relationship between tenure, hegemony and ideology. A comparative approach is also identified as an effective tool in revealing the nature and practice of home ownership values and ideologies. The case of Japan is drawn upon to demonstrate divergence in the role and effect of home ownership and ideology, and to undermine the ‘eternal truths’ applied to housing and home ownership in the European and Anglo‐Saxon context.