discussions on section 8

The Housing Choice Voucher Program is a type of Federal assistance provided by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) dedicated to sponsoring subsidized housing for low-income families and individuals. It is more commonly known as Section 8, in reference to the portion of the U.S. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 under which the original subsidy program was authorized.^[1] The United States Code (the compilation of current U.S. federal laws) covers this program in Title 42, Chapter 8, Section 1437f.

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Administration have a special Section 8 program called VASH (Veterans Administration Supported Housing), or HUD-VASH, which gives out a certain number of Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless and otherwise vulnerable US armed forces veterans.^[2]

This is some basic information about Section 8 laws taken off of Wikipedia. I will now take this time to complain about politics….

I thought our class discussions on section 8 were very interesting. What really interests me, or rather what really dissatisfies me, is the way in which Federal level initiatives have been so engrained with historical oppression. The G.I. bill which we were discussing last class is my first issue with Federal level initiatives. I believe that the way the G.I. bill was first put into place was a sever reason for the repercussions of post World War 2 white flight.  We can’t change history of course, yet I believe the way in which the G.I. Bill is being carried out today is still furthering oppressive tendencies put on members of our Armer Forces. Putting aside controversial issues of War I believe the recipients of the G.I. bill are (heroes regardless of my own opinions on warfare and…) often put into such confined options for the locations in which they can choose housing. Limitations on the allotment of financial aid put forth in the G.I. bill currently further injustice within the housing market across social identity categories (race/religion/orientation/gender/class/able-bodiedness). The specifics would require a de-constructive analysis of our armed forces… that’s for another blog post. It’s impacts however can be seen today in the way in which Section 8 is currently carried out. I personally find myself being dissatisfied with the way in which federal level initiatives seemingly result in segregated communities.  ACLU.ORG for more details? those are my feelings at least….

‘It is another nature that speaks to the camera than to the eye: other in the sense that that a space informed by human consciousness gives way to a space informed by the unconscious… Photography, with its devices of slow motion and enlargement, reveals the secret. It is through photography that we first discover the existence of this optical unconscious, just as we discover the instinctual unconscious through psychoanalysis.’ (6)

I really appreciate this quote from the Rosy Martin article. I’ve been really trying to apply lamography to my own home space recently utilizing a lot of what other folks have been saying about their own spaces. It was really cool to see everyone else’s projects first as it really allowed me to better utilize this concept

I really enjoy this concept because it allows the old saying of “home is where the heart is” much more applicable to temporal spaces. I’ve always held the philosophy that home is more of a state of mind, and this article really speaks to me for this reason. Utilizing a lot of ideological beliefs makes dwellings much more comfortable to me, especially in an era where decadence is an unfortunate truth. Utilizing Martin’s processes on my own spaces, it makes the existence of harmful aspects of our world much more bearable . Incorporating activistic ideologies, especially those related to identity politics, always make me feel more at home, especially in the city.

the public sphere v. private sphere

The traditions associated with the privatization and publicity housing of the nineteenth century discussed in Elizabeth Blackmar’s article struck me as very interesting. She begins the discussion of privacy versus publicity by discussing the the 4th Amendment as it related to eighteenth century housing, addressing it as that which gave land owners rights over monetary value and the value of the work done by dependents cohabiting the house. What strikes me as interesting is how fine the line is between the private and public sphere. Even in the 18th century imminent domain was called upon a lot, consequently usurping individuals from their private homes despite the 4th Amendment. At the time expansion was prevalent, making imminent domain a popular tool of the early U.S. government. Even the institutional protection of privacy has its loopholes, making the line between rights of privacy [relating to the home] blurred. It is interesting to look at how institutional privacy has changed over time as well, where wiretapping and internet monitoring allows for an even more literal invasion of privacy within the home.

Blackman goes on to discuss how social traditions come into play in conceptualizing the public and private spheres. She explains how the perception of others comes into play within the home. She explains how families would open their doors for family members and other members of the community on New Year’s in the Eighteenth century. She goes on to explain how domestic intimacy, economic dealings, the going-ons of dependents and public service duties became scrutinized by members of the community with the justification that these were issues of “civic order” (pg 109). This strikes me as interesting because it illustrates how social customs can easily work work to mitigate the privacy one feels in their own home. The constant need to put one’s life in the public sphere– or at least a positive image of one’s life– can easily problematize the intimacy of the home environment. Socially the line between the spheres is easily blurred in the dealings of the nineteenth century. 

Yet with current governmental dealings on the issue of privacy and modern social norms bordering on stalking has the line between public and private gotten any better than it was in the 1800′s?

the home as oppressive?

While reading Rybczynski’s article after our previous readings from last week I must admit my perspective on the notion of the home has really been opened up. On pages 23&24 Rybczynski discusses the oppressive history of housing for the poor. Rybczynski says the poor of the Middle ages were, “extremely badly housed” and elaborates by saying their housing lacked proper sanitation. He even goes on to say that this continued up until the beginning of the 20th century. Such disparate conditions between the rich and the poor transcend the experience of home. The treatment and lack of sanitation stems from a sense of class stigma in which the sentiment was that the poor didn’t need the same sort of standards of sanitation. It’s interesting to look at paired with last weeks readings on the oppressive nature of the family dynamic. In the case of the family dynamic the home was looked at as a place which needed to be shielded from outside society, and often was just used to reinforce outside society. The common idea of home usually isn’t thought of as something that would bring about violence or oppression, yet Rybczynski has illuminated the truth of the matter: the home is not always “comfortable” and it’s not always safe.