1.0 INTRODUCTION
The literature reviewed in Chapter Three is not able to adequately explain the processes behind variations in the rate and nature of housing improvement between households in similar circumstances (income, tenure, household structure). Clearly, it is a complex network of supply and demand factors. On the demand side, analysis has so far largely focused on the household head or household as a unit. There is thus a gap in understanding of the effect of intra-household processes on decisions relating to housing investment.
O’Laughlin argues that “the bond of interdependence that unites conjugal families in Africa, as well as in the rest of the world are given too little analytical attention” (O’Laughlin, 1995:76). She writes further that feminist critique of neo-classical household models leads us to a “socially differentiated society” (ibid.:76), thus closing possibilities of analysing how people negotiate living within that differentiation. In the same vein. Sen emphasises that household members “live together under the same roof - sharing concerns and experiences and acting jointly. This aspect of ‘togetherness’ gives the gender conflict some very special characteristics” (Sen, 1990:147).
The framework for my research is an attempt to incorporate this seeming conflict (individual interest) and this seeming “togetherness” (household interest). This is important for housing analysis because people consume housing as a group, in this context the household. Therefore I attempt to present a conceptual framework that opens possibilities for simultaneously analysing conflict, cooperation and interdependence in the household. I postulate that these processes underlie decisions made and choices taken in households about expenditure towards housing improvement. Thus, I argue that a house and its improvements are a reflection of the particular country’s housing policy but, most important, that they are also a sociological statement about relations within the household and the interplay between the ideological, material and emotional dimensions of the household.
At a functional level I adopt the following key components of the household: kinship (based on filiation and affinity); shared residence; organisation of domestic functions
and activities; and shared financial arrangements. These components are important in the classification of households in my analysis. For example, kinship is critical not just because it defines rules of living, but also because it introduces a “larger degree of intimacy and interaction ...” (Brydon & Chant, 1989:138); hence kinship is at once both ideological and emotional.
To differentiate between different household structures I use sex of household head and composition as the criteria. The former is adopted because of the gender and ideological meaning it brings to the analysis. But it is also used widely in housing analysis. Although I am mindful of the theoretical and methodological problems around household headship (these are discussed in Chapter Two), I adopt this concept in my research methodology. I do this in the socio-economic survey but I do not assume who the head is. I let its meaning emerge from the qualitative research. I explore the concept further in my analysis of the contributions of both men and women, but also listen to the views of daughters and sons. The criterion of composition addresses the critical relationships articulated by filiation and affinity.
For purposes of this research housing improvement includes physical improvements to the top-structure and internal infrastructure reticulation (water and electricity), and household furniture. The latter includes a lounge suite, electric stove, television set, fridge, video machine, electric iron and kettle.
This chapter begins with the presentation of the research proposition and critical research questions that will guide my analysis and conclusions. Then I explain the choice of Newtown as my case study area. This is followed by a detailed presentation of my research design. Finally, I put forward what I consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of my research design.
2.0 RESEARCH PROPOSITION
Informed by the literature review and conceptual framework, the following hypothesis will be adopted for this research:
Decision making over the nature and scaie of housing improvement in Newtown is an outcome of the predominance of the ideological dimension over the material and emotional dimensions of gender and generation relations. In particular, the notion of “head of household", held by men, women, daughters and sons, and undergirded by extra-household
arrangements is more powerful in influencing decision-making outcomes in the household.
In order to clarify and elaborate on the hypothesis, I adopted the following research questions:
Domestic Income and Expenditure
Is there gender and generation expenditure specialisation in households?
Under what circumstances is the specialisation rigid or flexible? Who contributes towards housing improvement, and why?
What is the prevalence of income retention and under what conditions do different household members retain income for personal use?
The Exercise of Power in Decision Making over Household Expenditure
What levels of power are at the disposal of different household members, to do what, and why?
What is the impact of household structure on the organisation of power in households, and why?
Is the concept of autonomy of action applicable in households?
Does autonomy have the same meaning to and content for different household members?
Household Head
What are the sources of power that household members draw from? What is the impact of women’s income on their power and on the decision-making outcomes they are able to effect in households, and why?
How do different household members define the content of the concept of household headship, and what is the impact of a departure from that content on household relations, and why?
Does household headship necessarily incorporate breadwinning?
To test the hypothesis and questions, specific research tools were adopted. But it is important to reiterate that my primary concern was not housing improvement per se. I used housing as an entry point to understanding household relations. The choice of housing is elaborated upon in earlier chapters.
3.0 CHOICE OF CASE STUDY AREA
I used a number of factors in identifying an appropriate case study area. First, given the specificities of the South African context at the time, it was important for me to choose an area where I could access secondary data with ease. A number of historical studies had been conducted on Greater Inanda, within which Inanda Newtown (my case study area) is located. The area had been fairly recently mapped and I could access information and maps on it from the Durban City Council.
Second, since the mid-1980s the majority of African urban settlements in South Africa experienced political instability. In some areas this led to outright violence. Therefore I needed to choose an area where physical accessibility would not pose a problem for me throughout the research period. Although there was violence near Newtown, the settlement was spared, probably because it was largely politically homogeneous. I acknowledge that this assumption might have led to a generalisation in my study of the attitudes of the population towards gender and generation issues. However, in her study of the Inkatha Women's Brigade, Hassim (1988) identifies strong linkages between political affiliation, attitudes to tradition, and attitudes to gender issues. But I also looked at Campbell's (1989) study, which showed that there was diversity of perceptions on gender and generation issues in KwaMashu township despite political homogeneity (see Figure 1). Therefore, whilst mindful of a possible bias, I concluded that the specific hypothesis I was testing should not be significantly affected.
Ntu nim eD-lhdeknl
4 Kilometers