Harms, Hans. “Historical Perspectives on the Practice and Purpose of Self-Help Housing.” Self-Help Housing: A Critique. Ed. Peter M. Ward. London: Mansell Publishing Limited, 1982.
With a strong emphasis on capitalist market structure and class conflict, Harms looks at self-help housing policy from a historical perspective. He differentiates between two interpretations of self-help housing: that held by individuals such as John F.C. Turner which sees it as a positive, autonomy-granting solution to housing problems and that held by individuals who challenge the benefits of self-help housing. Harms immediately adopts a class conflict-based view of self-help housing; he views it, as a practice adopted by dominated groups and as a mechanism used by groups in power to maintain the status quo. Furthermore, much of his discussion is colored by class-based perspectives. He maintains that one’s class determines the way in which an individual will view, and experience, the self-help housing issue.
One interesting point Harms makes involves the commodification of housing. Unlike “precapitalist” societies that were traditionally based on self-help subsistence lifestyles, today’s capitalist society turns houses into commodities, valued for their economic worth on the market. Clearly, this is problematic when looking at the housing needs of the poor; instead of building houses that accommodate lower income groups, houses are built that will sell on the market. For this reason, housing production is directly related to the “stratification of society.”
By looking, first, at the political nature of housing production, Harms makes an argument that self-help housing can either be a tool for collective action, or a tool for controlling public protest against the State. This emphasis on a “struggle from below” and the State’s attempts “to maintain the social relations of production” (20) is reminiscent of Marxist theory.
In terms of economics, Harms seems to disagree with those who view self-help housing as a cost-efficient – and therefore positive – alternative for the poor. Instead, he sees self-help policies as attempts to cut back on social expenditure. It also leads to the devaluation of labor and places heightened economic responsibilities on the individuals who must construct their own dwellings.
Unlike others, such as Gilbert, Harms sees self-help housing as a survival necessity, not as a calculated decision based on cost-benefit analysis. Focusing on the emergence of self-help housing in Latin America, particularly around the time of the Cuban Revolution, he claims that adoption of self-help policies by those in power was a reluctant, gradual process. Only because the revolution challenged the “existing structure of domination in the region” (23) did governments take the advice/instruction of other countries and transnational organizations to address the housing issue. Much like theories of leader co-optation, Harms views self-help housing programs as efforts to control potential protest and contain potential social movements.
Harms’ section on self-help housing in the U.S. focuses on market mechanisms and the “filtering process” whereby housing becomes available to lower income groups once middle to upper income groups vacate the housing for newer, better quality homes. He cites the Great Depression as a moment of economic and political tension; once the market and filtering process broke down, a severe housing crisis occurred, forcing the government to create the US Housing Authority and public housing initiatives. One example from Pennsylvania highlights the success and limitations of state-initiated and big business-funded self-help housing projects.
One aspect to consider for my project might be to look into a 1969 report sponsored by HUD and researched by Turner and the Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, “Self-help Housing in the U.S.” While it deals primarily with inner city self-help issues, it might shed some light on the way in which self-help housing has been viewed historically. According to Harms, the report was a result of political unrest and housing issues during the civil rights era. Reflecting the government’s interest in reducing public expenditure and intervention, the report focuses on income levels to differentiate between independent self-help, organized self- and mutual-help and employed self-help. Independent self-help was characterized by moderately low income groups and represented the majority of individuals participating in self-help. Because of their income level, this group was seen as relatively stable and apolitical. Harms does point out that the report failed to capture much attention from HUD; perhaps due to its relationship with the private building industry, HUD apparently failed to provide technical and financial assistance to non-profit organizations working in the field of self-help.
Tags: self-help housing, theory
