In distinction, the notion of ‘house’ emphasises the subjective sense of being rooted inside the world. Both ‘home’ and ‘house’ exist concurrently as physical entities, subjective feelings, and as objects of various discourses which seek to form, reinforce, or contest the types they take. ‘Home’ may refer more to imaginary spaces, or to bodily practices somewhat than bodily buildings, whereas houses, as websites of labour, conflict, and rigidity, may be at instances fundamentally unhomely. On a more macro-stage, anthropologists learning structure and concrete planning have highlighted that the fabric qualities of our environment work to form our bodies, habits, and mobility according to broader social patterns (see Buchli 2013 for an summary). Following Bourdieu, they ask how houses impart particular social understandings and roles, often focusing less on particular person homes or properties, and more on housing as a type of infrastructure (see Larkin 2013 for a review of infrastructural approaches).
While partitions – usually flimsy and transparent – can create a division between private and public, they can also lead to forms of sociality. Likewise, changing housing situations can be used to structure and maintain political outcomes. For instance, shifting Chicago ‘challenge’ residents into newer, blended-income buildings led them to lose entry to the free and effective heating methods of their former properties. Thereby, the residents were subject to a ‘sensory push’ in direction of changing into higher employees and customers, who bore the risks of their very own survival individually (Fennell 2011).
