Cecilie Juul Jørgensen
Ph.D. Student,
Msc Sociology & Cultural Geography
Department of Sociology
University of Copenhagen
Mail: cjj@soc.ku.dk
Housing, Sociality and Materiality – an investigation into the social topologies of the Danish
single-family home:
The city, however, does not tell its past, but contains it
like the lines of a hand, written in the corners of
streets…every segment marked in turn with scratches,
indentations, scrolls
(Calvino, 1997: 11)
This paper is an investigation into a large-scale reordering of the Danish landscape, namely the
advent of industrially-produced single-family housing that came to radically alter the social and
natural landscape in Denmark throughout the 1960s and 70s. Half a million single-family houses
were produced or built in these two decades, enabling large proportions of the working classes
and lower middle classes to become home owners for the first time, thereby changing the social
and political landscape.
Though the topic of the paper is empirical, its object is theoretical. For the processes surrounding
and leading up to the large-scale privatisation of space through the spreading out of home
ownership are indeed fragmented, disorganised, and to some extent an unintended result of other
strategies. In this way, I argue, the socio-material landscape alterations of the 1960s and 70s are not
only a unique study in their own right, but also they pose a challenge to the topological
presuppositions of social theory. Topology is originally a branch of mathematics which imagines
different kinds of spaces, and recently it has spread into the fields of social science, where its
critical insights into spatial types, each with different rules for localising and distributing in a
variety of coordinate systems, have been used to question the underlying epistemological
assumptions of social science (Law & Singleton, 2005; Law & Mol, 2001; Mol & Law, 1994b).
Therefore the present paper is to be read as an experiment; rather than making manifest claims
about the social, the paper is a tentative attempt at inquiring into the properties of space, place and
society.
Using different topologies to analyse the advent of the modern system-built single-family home I
will argue that the large-scale privatisation of space through home-ownership problematizes social
theory’s explanation of inclusion and exclusion in society by introducing questions of space and
1
scaling to the field of sociology. Moreover, this approach will enable me to follow the changing
patterns in which the single-family home partakes simultaneously, that is, both as a political object
of ordering, a network object of technology, economy and ideology, and as a fluid object
intertwining materiality, sociality and senses of belonging.
The modern home is constructed as a safe, autonomous and private haven, supposedly untouched
by socio-natural processes. However, as argued by Kaika (2004), the modern home is indeed
founded both on the exclusion of undesirable social elements and metabolized nature and
technology hidden from view. Therefore, it is pertinent to inquire into the socio-material processes
that have gone into the making of the modern Danish suburban home as a space and time in which
the traditional blue- and white-collar workers could advance socially through home ownership. In
this connection, space is construed as a dynamic concept relationally ordering human and nonhuman actors through positioning and synthesis (e.g. processes of perception, imagination, or
memory) (Löw, 2008: 35).
I will begin, then, by briefly outlining the developments surrounding the large-scale landscape
alteration that took place throughout the 1960s and 70s, how the industrially produced singlefamily home became connected to the political reordering of society in the shape of the welfare
state (Cf.Joyce, 2003), and how this particular type of home ownership led to a radical
reorganisation of the physical and social landscape of Denmark. I then move to a more theoretical
exploration of the physical and social changes by attempting to outline a topological investigation
of home ownership, materiality and questions of inclusion/exclusion; thus attempting to frame
what Sayer (2000: 133) has described as a new spatially conscious sociology.
By drawing on a variety of sources from cultural geography to sociology, I will argue that
dwelling, ownership and processes of social segmentation ‘fold’ the natural landscape in particular
ways, while at the same time drawing their strength from the very same landscapes. In this
manner, I seek to challenge the existing debate over structure and agency in theoretical arguments
on social stratification (Löw, 2008: 26).
The investigation proposed in the paper works therefore on the premise of a dialectical
relationship between material practices and the symbolic meanings that social agents attach to
their environment in their course of engaging with the world. Thus, social and material space
should be seen simultaneously as a field of action and a basis for action, as is notably pointed out
by Lefebvre (1991). The premise also implies a focus on (everyday) practices and becoming (Thrift,
2008: 8; Thrift, 2006: 141).
Historical account of landscape alteration and new social formations:
Single-family houses as a category make up 42 % of all dwellings, and in absolute numbers they
amount to 1.1 million out of 2.6 million dwellings. Thus, this type of dwelling is the most
predominant in the Danish landscape, and approx. half of the Danish population lives in such
dwellings (Centre for Housing and Welfare, 2007: 26; Kraul & Søndergaard Madsen, 2007: 6).
While single-family houses have been constructed throughout the century (Lind & Møller, 1996:
10), this paper focuses on the approx. 500.000 houses that were constructed in the 1960s and 70s
(This being about 40 % of the total single-family housing stock (Centre for Housing and Welfare,
2
2007: 26)), as they mark a distinct type of landscape alteration and a vector of social
transformation.
This is a fairly standard account of the distribution of single-family homes in the Danish
landscape. We can bring out our maps and pinpoint the settlements, their concentrations around
larger towns and cities, and connect their construction to the post-war modernisation of Denmark.
Moreover, we can differentiate between country and city, as well as between pre-modern modes of
existence and modern such. All of this would not be inaccurate, yet we will not fully capture the
unique processes that have made the system-built single-family home the most widely distributed
type of dwelling in Denmark, nor its powers to change the socio-natural landscape.
The system-built homes constitute a unique example of network formation and spatiality, in that a
heterogeneous set of actors, from political interests and ideologies to taxation rules and
technological advances, were assembled around one object, the single-family home. Hence, I will
argue that the historical process of landscape alteration may be regarded as a particular topological
form, namely that of the network (cf. Mol & Law, 1994a: 649). In the network topology, a series of
elements with well defined relations between them work to fold the regional surfaces. Hence,
places with similar sets of elements and relations are close, while those with other relations are
distant. This means that two regionally different and indeed distant sites may come into one
network, and perform together so as to act upon space (Barry, 1993). In the following, I will
elaborate on the network formation in the technological and political realm that enabled a socionatural transformation of the Danish landscape, and although the network analysed here, by no
means is extensive I do believe it will illuminate some of the relationship between nature and
society.
Before 1940 there was no real financial advantage of owning rather than renting, but in the 1960s
and 70s property became the best investment one could make and furthermore, an investment
accessible to the traditional blue- and white-collar workers whose numbers had increased
dramatically due to Denmark’s post-war industrialisation and urbanisation (Centre for Housing
and Welfare, 2007: 12-15). Thus, 1.5 million people became home owners in just two decades
(Kraul & Søndergaard Madsen, 2007: 6) in a landscape alteration process that by critics was
described as “single-family home lava” effacing the surface of the rural Danish landscape (Centre
for Housing and Welfare, 2007: 15).
As is argued by Lind and Møller (1996: 9-10), single-family dwellings are to be construed as a
particular life form, intrinsically tied to the dynamics of modern industrial society as it emphasises
and indeed supports the functional separation between work and dwelling (production and
reproduction), while also symbolizing the notion of private property as a fundamental freedom in
modern industrial society. In this way, we may argue that the single-family dwelling materially
and socially marks the separation of work and dwelling in modern Western society, but more
crucially it also signifies the dualism of public and private. Indeed, the modern single-family
dwelling may be said to transfer political attention from the agora to the oikos with a resulting
embourgeoisement of the working classes cum home owners1.
1
It is in this connection instructive to note that large-scale mobilisation of the working classes took place in the public
realm, as exemplified in the birth of the Working Class Movement (later to become the Social Democratic Party) in the
1870s and 80s, as has been vividly described by author Martin Andersen-Nexø. Thus, one of the key moments in the
3
Although we thus may argue that the emergence of single-family dwellings in the 1960s and 70s is
a social phenomenon, we cannot adequately explain the social formation without considering the
input of non-human agents, specifically technology and land.
In 1960, single-family homes had been built for about a century (Lind & Møller, 1996: 14), but in
the late 1950s a string of technological developments opened up a “window of opportunity” for
the masses to become home owners. The post-war industrialisation had firstly set off a new wave
of migration from country to city where the new large industries now settled, and secondly – and
here crucially – industrialisation made single-family dwelling accessible to the masses through
mass production of standardised prefabricated housing (Ibid.: 9).
In the following, I will therefore look at the emerging building industry and their new materials
and new mode of housing production. Previously, construction of single-family homes was
undertaken by smaller enterprises, tied to a particular location and building style as well as the
traditions of craftsmanship. Yet, at the end of Second World War a range of new materials, such as
concrete, lime stone, fibre cement (Eternittm), and asbestos sparked off a process that enabled 1.5
million Danes to become home owners in just two decades. However, as shall become apparent,
these materials started their landscape transformation in an altogether different realm, namely the
social housing sector.
When analysing urban development in the decades immediately following the war, publicly
subsidised housing – or, social housing – stands as a quintessential feature signifying the
emergence of the grand project of the Danish welfare state. Increasingly, throughout the 1950s,
housing in conjunction with a range of hitherto dispersed fields of policy were drawn together so
as to create a coherent structure through which the welfare state could provide for all needs for all
citizens through rational scientific planning.
This is demonstrated in a 1945 white paper published by the Central Organisation of Danish Social
Housing Associations (FO) arguing for the need of comprehensive, rational and functional urban
planning in the shape of a scalar organisation of social and material space. Hence, everyday life
was to be structured by a system of concentric organisational circles from the individual housing
estate, where inhabitants would democratically organise their immediate everyday routines,
moving outwards to the neighbourhood, the borough administration and finally the municipal
government who, as the outer circle, had the responsibility of arranging the components inside the
circle so as to facilitate welfare (Fællesorganisationen af Almennyttige Danske Boligselskaber,
1945: 142)2.
formation of the working class movement was a famous clash with the police at a rally on one of Copenhagen’s greater
commons in 1872.
2
This mode of planning is critically assessed by architect John Allpass who in the 1960s did in fact undertake largescale housing projects in Copenhagen: ‘In the period [of the 1950s to 70s] the size of the estates and neighbourhoods
was given utmost attention… In summary, urban development was determined by ideas about particular social relations
and types of behaviour. Everything was modelled on behavioural research, but the actual inhabitants were given no say;
they were definitively reduced to objects in this modern form of planning” (Allpass, 1985) (My translation)
4
Space was to be functionally differentiated in order to bring about a democratically vibrant civil
society shaped by the welfare state (Fællesorganisationen af Almennyttige Danske Boligselskaber,
1945: 140). However, for the utopia of the perfectly ordered welfare society to emerge, new largescale housing had to be in place. The existing housing stock was outdated and largely derelict, and,
moreover, the traditional building industry could not provide housing in the scale, tempo or
economy required for the welfare project to come true (Fællesorganisationen af Almennyttige
Danske Boligselskaber, 1945: 143).
This imagination of the city as a series of functionally differentiated yet interdependent entities
echoes the duality of the welfare state: on the one hand, professional institutions and universalistic
welfare facilitate greater equality and individual well-being; on the other hand, the institutions
require a governable population which can be achieved through spatial ordering. Importantly,
such endeavours at governing may be regarded as an attempt to regionalise through the creation
of networks as is also emphasised by Mol and Law (1994: 649).
Thus, the 1945 white paper recommended: “An increased standardisation in order to accelerate the
transition from craftsmanship to industrial production” (Fællesorganisationen af Almennyttige
Danske Boligselskaber, 1945: 232) (my translation). Construction was to be moved from the
building site to the factory where prefab dwellings could be constructed at a greater pace aided by
the new aforementioned materials in serialised and standardised processes (ibid.: 230-31).
Two years later, in 1947, the Parliament passed a bill on prefabricated housing giving the dawning
building industry financial benefits as well as a close connection to the social housing associations,
that is, a safe market (Lind & Møller, 1994: 133). Heavily subsidised by state loans the social
housing associations and the new building industry took to create large-scale housing projects in
the 1950s and well into the 1970s (although at that time, it was clear that the premises of the 1945
white paper did not hold).
That the newly-technologized building industry came to play a crucial role in the making of singlefamily dwellings may seem paradoxical and it was indeed an unintended consequence of a series
of otherwise dispersed events: the Social Democratic Party had tried to promote social housing at
the expense of privately own dwellings, but in 1958 they reduced public loans to construction in an
attempt to redistribute investments to other types of industry (Jørgensen, 2005: 53). From now on,
construction of social housing was to be driven by state guaranteed loans and the right to deduct
interest payment from taxable income; the latter being particularly useful for ordinary families as
marginal taxes and interest rates had increased over the 50s (Lind & Møller, 1994: 145f). Hence, the
state’s attempt to redistribute industrial capital made it financially advantageous for families with
a steady income to buy their own home, particularly as wages and affluence grew in the 1960s
(Centre for Housing and Welfare, 2007: 12).
While single-family dwellings earlier had been constructed by small local enterprises, the new
conditions for the building industry made single-family housing an interesting market. According
to a Gallup poll of 1950 blue-collar workers expressed a desire to become home owners (Jørgensen,
2005: 54), and their wishes came true when several companies in the new building industry
introduced the prefabricated system-built single-family house – in Danish termed the “type house”
(Lind & Møller, 1994: 138). Due to its industrial manufacturing, it could be produced in large
5
series, making it accessible to ordinary middle-income families. As a result large proportions of
white- and blue-collar workers found themselves, for the first time in history, able to buy their
own home, and they rapidly left the social housing estates that went into a downward spiral 3
(Centre for Housing and Welfare, 2007: 15).
Discussion of topologies:
The above account of course only covers a small fraction of the elements that went into the modern
landscape formation in the 1960s and 70s. While this is naturally a pragmatic choice given the
scope of the paper, it is also an attempt to demonstrate something of the network formation in
which one object emerges; an object able to cross space and time due to its particular assemblage of
heterogeneous actors: here the modern building industry, political parties for a variety of reasons
supporting the object, and the population taking to a standardised product.
System-built single-family homes took only two decades to become the most predominant type of
dwelling, and there are now 500.000 of them with 1.1 million inhabitants. The materials were
concrete, lime stone, fibre cement and asbestos (!), and they were used in a serialised production
with little or no attention to local styles and traditions. Hence, the system-built house can be seen
as an immutable mobile in an intrinsically modern network formation of mass production,
regionalisation (that is, a topology of functional differentiation whereby difference within regions
is repressed while difference between regions is made absolute: only dwellings, no production, no
consumption). This is in close correspondence to Latour’s famous assertion (1993) that modernity
produces the illusion that regions are the ontological basis of existence.
So up to now we have identified (at least) two ways in which the social works, that is, through
network assemblage and regionalisation as a mode of ordering. Hopefully, it is clear that these
topologies co-exist in the social and are folded into one another, just as they fold space and time
differently. The regional topology as a mode of ordering insists on the functional separation yet
interdependence of discrete spaces made separate by their very function in a system (yes, it is
circular!), while the network topology forges links and alliances between for example mechanical
production, lime stone quarries in Southern Zealand, concrete industries in Northern Jutland,
welfare ideologies and their unintended consequences, and ordinary workers’ imaginations of
home ownership and dwelling. Hence, in topological terms, the network folds regional surfaces
differently than the regional pattern would through the network elements and the way they hang
together (Mol and Law 1994: 649).
However, in this final part of the paper I will advance the hypothesis that a third topology can be
identified when looking at home ownership and the system-built single-family home, namely that
of the fluid (Mol and Law 1994)4. As poignantly pointed out by Vacher (2007) the modern home is,
before it becomes a home, firstly a commodity, that is, a product of alienated labour power. Hence,
3
The subsequent history of social housing is beyond the scope of the present study, but suffice to say that social
housing in Denmark still today struggle to attract resourceful members of the population.
4
Law and Singleton (2005) identifies a fourth topology, namely that of fire, which treats the object as patterns of
discontinuity between absences and presences. Given the scope of the paper, I will not dwell on this topology, yet in
later works I shall focus on the topology of fire as a means of understanding the tension between dwelling and social
stratification and inclusion/exclusion.
6
the modern home is not a home until it is worked on as such. This assertion takes us away from
the view of the social as network assembly and towards a view of the social as a process of becoming
(cf. Thrift 2008).
Put simply, the network topology cannot capture the gradual process of becoming which in my
view is pertinent to the discussion of housing, materiality and sociality. It is possible to use the
regional topology to arrange things so that we can say that society is made up by clusters
performing different tasks, yet the above account has demonstrated that this indeed merely is a
way of organising space and society. Then it is possible to use the network metaphor to argue that
the social is made up through heterogeneous assemblages performing space according to different
ideologies and modes of ordering, yet this does not capture the lived experience of dwelling and
imaginations hereof. In other words, the network topology does not fully grasp the symbolic and
material relations between space and existence, how materiality and sociality interact symbolically
(as imaginations of dwelling, ideals about ‘the good life’, and senses of belonging and/or
alienation) as well as materially (being in the environment, modifying one’s environment etc.).
Rather than staying within the network topology and explore how competing networks fold and
unfold the planes of the regional worlds, we may therefore again ask whether there are other
spaces around that have different topological properties (Mol and Law 1994: 653).
In 2002, the city of Odense (the largest city on Funen) published an historical account of the
development of one of its suburbs, Tarup-Paarup, originally two small villages grown together in
the 20th century due to industrialisation and urbanisation (Wedel Berthelsen & Nørregaard
Frandsen, 2002). Power shovels, cranes, cement mixers, trusses, concrete and fibre cement
cooperated with land surveyors, engineers and developers to transform the rural idyll of the small
villages to a modern suburban landscape of detached and semi-detached houses, and as such the
story of Tarup-Paarup is a perfect example of network formation and spatiality in that a range of
actors come to gather around one immutable mobile which is able to fold space in novel ways,
thereby changing existing socio-spatial relations ((Wedel Berthelsen & Nørregaard Frandsen, 2002:
9).
However, the historical excavation of the suburban landscape also reveals a far more nuanced
picture, namely the gradual and slowly evolving interaction between inhabitants and landscape, as
well as an identity formation in the new landscape. In the course of research for the historical
account, residents from the new suburban homes were interviewed and in the following, I shall be
looking at some of their accounts of place, identity and belonging. The dwelling perspective draws
on the work of Ingold (1995) and concentrates on the landscape as ‘lived-in’ dwelling (Cf.Bhatti &
Church, 2001), and through this perspective I want to illuminate the importance of everyday
experience in the environment for the creation of sociality and distinct identities, or, as argued by
Ingold, how the world becomes meaningful for people through action-in-the-environment rather
than through preconstruction of some formal design (Ingold 1995: 58).
Place, I will argue, is the result of processes of situating and space, that is, the distribution of
people and goods in space as is also pointed out by Foucault (2002). While Foucault’s approach
does not acknowledge the agent-in-the-environment, seeing place as the result of positioning and
7
spacing echoes some of the original residents’ experiences in the new suburb of Tarup-Paarup.
Anne, a day-care worker who moved to a semi-detached house with her husband in 1967, tells:
I was only 20 years old when my husband surprised me with a present. He had bought
this Koch-semi-detached. It was quite a change for both of us… But we settled in quickly
here in Tarup-Paarup. It was easy to befriend neighbours. Maybe because all of us were
in the same situation. We were all new-comers, and most of us couples in our twenties.
We enjoyed seeing everything flourish around us on what had previously been vacant
land5.
This excerpt shows the simultaneous creation of place and identity: the suburban neighbourhood
was not there until the first owners moved in, yet they were not suburban dwellers until situated
as such by the possibilities offered by the system-built homes on previously agricultural land.
Hence, there is a clear co-construction of landscape, sociality and identity at play in the above
excerpt. Gradually, the hitherto vacant land becomes a suburban neighbourhood and at the same
pace, residents become home owners through individual and collective imaginations of suburban
dwelling and ideals about the ‘good modern life’ which is framed by the suburban landscape. This
is particularly emphasised by another female resident, Lise, who moved with her husband to the
neighbourhood in 1968:
There were lots of children out here… We were all new and therefore equal. Children
created the networks between us. They tied all us young parents together in some kind of
shared destiny
The sense of belonging grows out of the everyday situated interaction where links between new
home owners ‘all equal because we were all new’ are mediated by children’s play in gardens and
homes. In this way the hitherto ‘empty space’ becomes a place imbued with meaning for the
inhabitants (Stedman, 2003). Lise puts it this way:
Maybe it’s because we have been here for so many ears, but we think it’s a great place. It’s
quiet and peaceful, and yet extremely close to the city. We’re in the country AND the
city!
Anne stresses the same attachment to place:
We will stay here. We have the woods and the stream. We’re in the country yet also the
city.
Temporality is one of the core concept in the above excerpts, that is, the sense of belonging in a
place evolves over time, as the environment and agent work on one another. Eksild, a head teacher
at the local school and Anne’s husband, expresses the dynamic relationship between agents and
dwelling, but at the same time the collectivity and norms surrounding the new suburban
neighbourhood:
We have let the house expand with the family’s needs…However, things didn’t run that
smoothly… Here in our cul-de-sac we were the first to apply for rebuild of our house and
therefore it was somewhat complicated. The rules back then in 1974 demanded consensus.
5
The excerpts are originally written in Danish, and are my translations.
8
Every single home owner in our cul-de-sac had to agree to let us rebuild our house; just
as the municipal administration had to approve of it and confirm that it was in
accordance with existing regulations. Finally in 1976 we could begin the rebuild, and we
made a new living room and bedroom… The second time was in 1979, when we expanded
the utility room and moved some walls.
In the above excerpt, Eskild also expresses a key feature of the fluid topology; the object undergoes
a gradual change over time, while at the same time remaining constant. The family’s home
changes according to the family’s needs, thus co-evolving with the family and the surrounding
neighbourhood. But at the same time, the rebuild projects do not change the status of the object; it
is still a suburban system-built home in a particular context of distribution (the network topology)
and ordering (the regional topology).
Concluding remarks:
As mentioned in the introduction, this paper should be read as an experiment on the properties of
space, as well as a way to engage in debates about the foundational assumptions of social theory
through the use of different topologies all pertaining to aspects of the social. The topic of the paper,
the system-built single-family homes, is not a marginal one; rather it is a mass phenomenon and
therefore a topological study of these types of dwellings does illuminate aspects of the
organisation of space, place and society.
I have tried to spell out the tensions and dynamics in the social due to the ways different
topologies fold urban space, and it is my conviction that this goes to challenge debates about
inclusion/exclusion in social theory, as space is organised through different parameters. To discuss
inclusion/exclusion in relation to housing we should therefore ask what modes of ordering pertain
to space, how networks of human and non-human agents come to fold the ‘neat’ regional surfaces,
and whether fluidity over space and time introduces other types of dynamics and particularly
special attunements of places? I have not developed the fourth topological form here, namely that
of fire (Law & Singleton 2005), but I believe it pertinent to future research on inclusion/exclusion
and attunement of places.
Following Löw (2008) (and Heidegger in some way) atmospheres of places arise through dweling
and ordering, and these atmospheres create both senses of belonging and alienation, thus enabling
exclusion through ‘consensus’ (Löw 2008: 46). In this manner, we arrive back at Giddens’s theory
of structuration (Giddens, 1984) whereby agents are restrained and/or enabled by structures and
resources, yet with the important difference here that space and place are active co-constituents of
the resulting inclusion and exclusion.
This happens, as I have tried to demonstrate, through a regional mode of ordering whereby spaces
and people are divided and distributed according to prevalent ideologies, imaginations of space
and society, and normative ideals about behaviour. It also happens through network assembly
whereby certain positions are furthered while others are made more distant, as could be seen in
the case of the system-built single-family homes overwhelmingly favouring home ownership for
the masses, yet unintentionally setting off a spiral of housing segregation.
9
Then it also happens through temporal and spatial fluidity, as senses of belonging grow out of
dwelling, understood in a Heideggerian sense in which identity and sociality are created through
the on-going process of building-as-living, that is, as a mode of becoming. Place takes on the
characteristics of a certain mode of dwelling, and dwellers take on the characteristics of placebased dwelling, creating specific atmospheres that attract and repel simultaneously.
Reference List
Allpass, J. (1985). Beboerstyret Miljøforbedring Copenhagen: Miljøministeriet, Planstyrelsen.
Barry, A. (1993). The history of measurement and the engineers of space. The British Journal of the
History of Science, 26, 459-468.
Bhatti, M. & Church, A. (2001). Cultivating Natures: Homes and Gardens in Late Modernity.
Sociology, 35, 365-383.
Calvino, I. (1997). Invisible Cities. London: Vintage.
Centre for Housing and Welfare (2007). Housing in Denmark. Copenhagen: Centre for Housing and
Welfare - Realdania Research.
Fællesorganisationen af Almennyttige Danske Boligselskaber (1945). Fremtidens Boligvæsen.
Copenhagen: Fællesorganisationen af Almennyttige Danske Boligselskaber.
Foucault, M. (2002). The Archeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
10
Ingold, T. (1995). Building, Dwelling, Living. In M.Strathern (Ed.), Shifting Contexts Transformations in Anthropological Knowledge (pp. 57-80). London: Routledge.
Jørgensen, T. (2005). Fra lejlighed til ligusterhæk - Socialdemokratiet og boligpolitkken.
Department of History, University of Copenhagen.
Joyce, P. (2003). The Rule of Freedom - Liberalism and the Modern City. London: Verso.
Kaika, M. (2004). Interrogating the Geographies of the Familiar: Domesticating Nature and
Constructing the Autonomy of the Modern Home. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 28, 265-286.
Kraul, A. & Søndergaard Madsen, K. (2007). Parcelhusets Pionerer - Da Jensen flyttede på
Lærkevej. Ballerup: Bolius.
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Law, J. & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environment and
Planning D, 19, 609-621.
Law, J. & Singleton, V. (2005). Object Lessons. Organization, 12, 331-355.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lind, O. & Møller, J. (1994). FolkeBolig BoligFolk. Copenhagen: Boligselskabernes
Landsforening.
Lind, O. & Møller, J. (1996). Bag Hækken - Det danske parcelhus i lyst og nød. Copenhagen:
Arkitektens Forlag.
11
Löw, M. (2008). The Constitution of Space: The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity
of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory, 11, 25-49.
Mol, A. & Law, J. (1994b). Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology. Social
Studies of Science, 24, 641-671.
Mol, A. & Law, J. (1994a). Regions, Networks and Fluids: Anaemia and Social Topology. Social
Studies of Science, 24, 641-671.
Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage.
Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is It Really Just a Social Construction?: The Contribution of the Physical
Environment to Sense of Place. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 671-685.
Thrift, N. (2006). Space. Theory, Culture & Society, 23, 139-146.
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-Representational Theory: Space, politics, affect. London: Routledge.
Vacher, M. (2007). Hjemmet - kulminationen af en tilegnende praksis. 23-42. Copenhagen, Centre
for Housing and Welfare - Realdania Research.
Ref Type: Generic
Wedel Berthelsen, A. & Nørregaard Frandsen, J. (2002). Tarup-Paarup Bogen. Odense:
Skulkenborg.
12