Housing Stigmatization: A General Theory

Abstract

This article treats housing stigmatization as a social process of symbolic ascription, connected to inhabitants, housing form, housing tenure, and/or housing location. Stigmatization research tends to focus on personal stigmatization, or to examine housing only in relation to territorial stigmatization, while housing research tends to focus on health and policy. This article demonstrates that housing stigmatization, which is differentiated from personal stigmatization and territorial stigmatization, is a viable unit of analysis in its own right for stigma research. Seven core elements are identified, showing that housing stigmatization is: (1) relational; (2) contextual; (3) processual; (4) reinforceable; (5) reversible; (6) morally loaded; and (7) treated as contagious. Comprehending the elements of housing stigmatization will benefit destigmatization efforts.

‘It is surprising how much nonsense you hear’: How residents experience and react to living in a stigmatised place. A narrative synthesis of the qualitative evidence

“…For example, several studies were located in areas of concentrated public housing and identified public housing tenants experiencing stigma. However, it was not always feasible to distinguish whether stigma was linked to public housing or was spatially driven (or both), reflecting the need for future research that further investigates the interaction of these different forms of stigma (Horgan, 2020).…”

New Research on Housing and Territorial Stigma: Introduction to the Thematic Issue

“…Mervyn Horgan's (2020) groundbreaking article delivers a much-needed theoretical clarification of the concept of housing stigma. After describing the broader social-structural contexts and existing previous knowledge concerning housing stigmatization and related topics, Horgan describes seven elements of a general theory of housing stigma-identifying it as relational, contextual, processual, reinforceable, reversible, morally loaded, and contagious-all of which are revisited, in one form or another, in the following empirical articles.…”

Social mixing or mixophobia in regenerating East London? ‘Affordable housing’, gentrification, stigmatisation and the post-Olympics East Village

“…However, existing research provides limited evidence for such beneficent tenure mixing (Tunstall and Lupton 2010;Levin et al, 2022). On the contrary, many studies underscore how social mixing via new-build developments contributes towards heightened class and racialised divisions, including tenure stigmatisation by affluent homeowners directed against spatially proximate poor social tenants who in London are also often from BAME backgrounds (Davidson, 2010;Bretherton and Pleace, 2011;Lindsey, 2012;Horgan, 2020;Watt, 2021;Levin et al, 2022). Studies of mixed-tenure neighbourhoods in England have however tended to focus on private homeowners alongside social renters, with Bretherton and Pleace (2011) being one exception in also examining shared owners, a tenure category that is pertinent to the East Village case study examined here.…”

“…Hence, the first 'othering' process consists of widespread negative reactions by middle-class East Villagers towards this other 'not very nice' space -in other words, territorial stigmatisation (Horgan, 2020). Such stigmatisation emerged in interviewees' accounts of the 1970s' built Stratford Centre shopping mall located in the 'rest of Stratford'.…”

“…The second othering process is based upon housing tenure and consists of negative reactions towards social renters within East Village. Such tenure stigmatisation regarding social renters is widespread (Horgan, 2020;Watt, 2021), and a Triathlon Homes manager acknowledged its presence at East Village (see also Cohen, 2017):…”