Skip to main content

A multi-disciplinary framework for the study of private housing schemes: integrating anthropological, psychological and political levels of theory and analysis

Abstract

This paper examines the theories and methods involved in the study of the impact of private governance on residents in two distinct kinds of middle class housing schemes: gated community residents in New York and Texas living in single family attached and detached houses, and cooperative apartment dwellers in New York City. The studies employed a range of methodologies drawing on the disciplines of anthropology, psychology and political science. An attempt was made to understand residents lived experiences through a number of disciplinary lenses: theories of community and culture; theories of rationalization and psychological resistance, and theories of moral minimalism and representation. Each of these disciplinary layers added to the analysis, while at the same time, creating epistemological disjunctures and concerns that had to be addressed by the research team on an ongoing basis. The paper concludes with an evaluation of the benefits of this approach in terms of the production of new knowledge about private governance, while offering cautionary comments about undertaking interdisciplinary projects of this nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, M. P. (1988). The moral order of a suburb. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M. (1997). The dialogic unconscious: Psychoanalysis, discursive psychology, and the nature of repression. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, D., & Zelinka, A. (1997). Safe and sound. Planning, 4–10.

  • Brown, W. (2006). American nightmare: Neoliberalism, neoconservativism, and de-democratization. Political Theory, 34(6), 690–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover, M. (1959). The Rochdale principles in American cooperative associations. The Western Political Quarterly, 12(1), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A. (1997). The local governance of crime appeals to community partnerships. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daiute, C., & Lightfoot, C. (2004). Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, S. (2005). The sky’s the limit: Passion and property in manhattan. New York: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaze, G., Webster, C., & Frantz, K. (2006). Private cities: Global and local perspectives. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. (2000). The cooperative century: A historical view of residential coops. The Cooperator: Coop & Condo Monthly. http://cooperator.com/articles/540/1/The-Cooperative-Century/Page1.html.

  • Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of global capitalism. London and New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, D. (2003). Building American suburbia: Green fields and urban growth, 1820–2000. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Cooperative Alliance. (2006). Statement on the cooperative identity. http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html.

  • Jenson, S. (2004). Claiming community: Local politics on the Cape Flats, South Africa. Critique of Anthropology, 24(2), 179–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judd, D. (1995). The rise of new walled cities. In H. Ligget & D. C. Perry (Eds.), Spatial practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M. (1975). On the sense of loneliness. In Envy and gratitude and other works, 1946–1963 (pp. 300–313). New York: Delta.

  • Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 195–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristeva, J. (1982). Powers of horror: An essay on abjection. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Goix, R., & Webster, C. J. (2008). Gated communities. Geography Compass, 2(4), 1189–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefkowitz, J. (2009). Individual and organizational antecedents of misconduct in organizations: What do we [believe that] we know, and on what bases do we [believe that we] know it? In C. Cooper & R. Burke (Eds.), Research companion to crime and corruption in organizations. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, S. M. (2000). On the plaza: Public space and culture. Austin: University of Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, S. M. (2003). Behind the gates: Life, security, and the pursuit of happiness in fortress America. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, S. M. (2007). Towards a theory of urban fragmentation: A cross-cultural analysis of fear, privatization and the state. Cybergeo, 349 pp.

  • Low, S. M. (2008). Incorporation and gated communities in the Greater metro-Los Angeles region as a model of privatization of residential communities. Home Cultures, 5(1), 85–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, S. M. (2009). Maintaining whiteness: The fear of others and niceness. Transforming Anthropology, 17(2), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, S. M., & Lawrence-Zuniga, D. (2003). The anthropology of space and place. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (2000). How cities work. Austin: University of Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, E. (1994). Privatopia: Homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. Yale University Press: New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, E. (1998). Homeowner associations and California politics. Urban Affairs Review, 34, 52–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, E. (2003). Common-interest housing in the communities of tomorrow. Housing Policy Debate, 14, 203–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, K. S. (1993). Declining fortunes. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, S. (1998). Generation X: Anthropology in a media-saturated world. Cultural Anthropology, 13(3), 414–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perin, C. (1977). Everything in its place. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, R. (1991). Mexican migration and the social space of postmodernism. Diaspora, Spring.

  • Sanchez, T., & Lang, R. (2002). Security versus status. The two worlds of gated communities. Census note 02(02).

  • Sanchez, T., Lang, R., & Dhavale, D. M. (2005). Security status? A first look at the census gated community data. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(3), 281–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sazama, G. (1996). A brief history of affordable housing cooperatives in the United States. Department of Economics Working Paper Series Storrs, CT, University of Connecticut.

  • Schill, M. H., Voicu, I., & Miller, J. (2004). The condominium v. cooperative puzzle: An empirical analysis of housing in New York City. New York University, Law & Economics Research Paper Series, New York, New York University.

  • Scott, J. (2007). Pushing coops to explain why you can’t buy (p. 1). New York Times, April 21, Metro Section.

  • Sennett, R. (1970). The uses of disorder. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (1977). The fall of public man. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (2009). The myth of a purified community. (Unpublished manuscript).

  • Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, C. (2002). Construction et deconstruction des identities de genre. Cahier du Genre, 31, 185–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogan, W. G. (1995). The impact of victimization of fear. Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Cobin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2002). The influence of status judgments in hierarchical groups: Comparing autonomous and comparative judgments about status. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 813–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati, N., & Warren, M. E. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 387–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Housing, Urban Development. (2005). American housing survey for the United States: 2005, Current housing reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vesselinov, E., Cazessus, M., & Falk, W. (2007). Gated communities and spatial inequality. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(2), 109–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, C. (2001). Gated cities of tomorrow. Town Planning Review, 72, 149–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, C. (2002). Property rights and the public realm. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 29(3), 397–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson-Doenges, G. (2000). An exploration of sense of community and fear of crime in gated communities. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 597–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Setha Low.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Low, S. A multi-disciplinary framework for the study of private housing schemes: integrating anthropological, psychological and political levels of theory and analysis. GeoJournal 77, 185–201 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9334-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9334-1

Keywords

  • Gated communities
  • Cooperative housing
  • Community
  • Identity
  • Governance