为 "房东 "辩护:为什么 "房东 "一词对租房仍然至关重要?

Danielle Kerrigan
{"title":"为 \"房东 \"辩护:为什么 \"房东 \"一词对租房仍然至关重要?","authors":"Danielle Kerrigan","doi":"10.54825/stuh8145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Ohio and California, legislators have proposed replacing the terms ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ in rental regulations. Landlords and landlord lobbyists argue that the feudal origins of the term don’t reflect the contemporary reality of renting. How seriously should tenant organizers, housing researchers and policymakers take these efforts to move on from ‘landlord’? While in their relative infancy, I argue that efforts to rebrand the term expand beyond name changes in organizations to media and legislation. They also seek to obfuscate and muddle what is increasingly one of the key social relations of survival, the landlord-tenant relationship, in order to preserve and expand landlord power and prevent or complicate increased regulation or oversight. To support this conclusion, this paper makes use of a key document analysis of a variety of published sources including proposed legislation, news articles and opinion pieces, and academic articles. Landlords’ (flawed) arguments for change, rest particularly on their claims that landlord-tenant relations are a transaction like any other in which landlords work to provide a simple service to consumers with free agency. I counter that, in fact, landlords and tenants are in an inherently antagonistic and unequal power relationship (Kerrigan & Wachsmuth, 2023), more akin to feudal relations than to the neutrality or even benevolence associated with alternative terms. As such, retaining ‘landlord’ remains essential; to discard it is to discard years of successful tenant organizing and campaigns that continue to highlight the exploitative relationship at the core of landlord-tenant relations to this day.","PeriodicalId":321208,"journal":{"name":"Radical Housing Journal","volume":"664 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Defense of ‘Landlord’: Why the term ‘landlord’ continues to be essential to rental housing\",\"authors\":\"Danielle Kerrigan\",\"doi\":\"10.54825/stuh8145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Ohio and California, legislators have proposed replacing the terms ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ in rental regulations. Landlords and landlord lobbyists argue that the feudal origins of the term don’t reflect the contemporary reality of renting. How seriously should tenant organizers, housing researchers and policymakers take these efforts to move on from ‘landlord’? While in their relative infancy, I argue that efforts to rebrand the term expand beyond name changes in organizations to media and legislation. They also seek to obfuscate and muddle what is increasingly one of the key social relations of survival, the landlord-tenant relationship, in order to preserve and expand landlord power and prevent or complicate increased regulation or oversight. To support this conclusion, this paper makes use of a key document analysis of a variety of published sources including proposed legislation, news articles and opinion pieces, and academic articles. Landlords’ (flawed) arguments for change, rest particularly on their claims that landlord-tenant relations are a transaction like any other in which landlords work to provide a simple service to consumers with free agency. I counter that, in fact, landlords and tenants are in an inherently antagonistic and unequal power relationship (Kerrigan & Wachsmuth, 2023), more akin to feudal relations than to the neutrality or even benevolence associated with alternative terms. As such, retaining ‘landlord’ remains essential; to discard it is to discard years of successful tenant organizing and campaigns that continue to highlight the exploitative relationship at the core of landlord-tenant relations to this day.\",\"PeriodicalId\":321208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radical Housing Journal\",\"volume\":\"664 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radical Housing Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54825/stuh8145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radical Housing Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54825/stuh8145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在俄亥俄州和加利福尼亚州,立法者提议在租房法规中替换 "房东 "和 "房客 "这两个术语。房东和房东游说者认为,这个词的封建起源并不能反映当代租房的现实。租户组织者、住房问题研究者和政策制定者应该如何认真对待这些为取代 "房东 "而做出的努力?我认为,虽然 "房东 "一词还处于起步阶段,但其品牌重塑的努力已不仅仅局限于组织名称的改变,还包括媒体和立法。它们还试图模糊和混淆日益成为生存的关键社会关系之一--房东与租户的关系,以维护和扩大房东的权力,防止加强监管或监督或使之复杂化。为了支持这一结论,本文利用关键文件分析法对各种公开发表的资料进行了分析,其中包括立法提案、新闻报道和评论文章以及学术文章。房东们(漏洞百出的)主张改革的论据,尤其是他们声称房东与房客的关系是一种与其他交易一样的交易关系,房东们的工作是为拥有自由代理权的消费者提供简单的服务。我反驳说,事实上,房东和租户之间本质上是一种对立的、不平等的权力关系(Kerrigan & Wachsmuth, 2023),更类似于封建关系,而非其他术语中的中立甚至仁慈。因此,保留 "房东 "一词仍然至关重要;摒弃 "房东 "一词就等于摒弃了多年来成功的租户组织和运动,这些组织和运动至今仍在强调房东与租户关系核心的剥削关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In Defense of ‘Landlord’: Why the term ‘landlord’ continues to be essential to rental housing
In Ohio and California, legislators have proposed replacing the terms ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ in rental regulations. Landlords and landlord lobbyists argue that the feudal origins of the term don’t reflect the contemporary reality of renting. How seriously should tenant organizers, housing researchers and policymakers take these efforts to move on from ‘landlord’? While in their relative infancy, I argue that efforts to rebrand the term expand beyond name changes in organizations to media and legislation. They also seek to obfuscate and muddle what is increasingly one of the key social relations of survival, the landlord-tenant relationship, in order to preserve and expand landlord power and prevent or complicate increased regulation or oversight. To support this conclusion, this paper makes use of a key document analysis of a variety of published sources including proposed legislation, news articles and opinion pieces, and academic articles. Landlords’ (flawed) arguments for change, rest particularly on their claims that landlord-tenant relations are a transaction like any other in which landlords work to provide a simple service to consumers with free agency. I counter that, in fact, landlords and tenants are in an inherently antagonistic and unequal power relationship (Kerrigan & Wachsmuth, 2023), more akin to feudal relations than to the neutrality or even benevolence associated with alternative terms. As such, retaining ‘landlord’ remains essential; to discard it is to discard years of successful tenant organizing and campaigns that continue to highlight the exploitative relationship at the core of landlord-tenant relations to this day.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信