1 This special report invites the reader to enter domestic space, studying social structures through a sociology of social class in the home. This focus is first of all justified by privacy’s historically increasing importance, and by the significance of the home as an exemplary site for the development of intimacy.  The twentieth century was the one in which domestic space was conquered: work moved gradually out of the home; work hours decreased, freeing up time for other activities; and, at the same time, housing conditions improved significantly. This change was initially reserved for the bourgeoisie, but it gradually spread to other social classes; “comfort” reached the majority of homes by the 1960s.  In recent decades, housing has become increasingly important for individuals’ social existence. Its role in organizing sociability has grown stronger,  and the layout and decoration of the home have gained a new status in domestic practices, one demonstrated by the rise of DIY and furniture brands and the growing number of television programs and specialist publications dedicated to such practices.
2 Domestic space, then, is one of the matrices of individual socialization and the genesis of class subcultures. As the center of family relations, it is one of the main frameworks of primary socialization. Housing supports specific practices and representations, characterized by forms of sociability, by ways of dividing tasks and space between household members according to gender and generation, and by modes of appropriation through decor, layout, and furnishing. These ways of living vary with environment and depend on material housing conditions and the constraints these impose on lifestyle. The physical configuration and decor of the home function as socializing devices, shaping their occupants’ dispositions—something confirmed by the presence of works of art in bourgeois family homes as a vector for the early interiorization of a familiar relationship with legitimate culture ; by the effects of domestic order and disorder on the acquisition of dispositions that promote academic success among working-class children ; and by the role of overcrowding and constrained housing, which are factors in the importance of the street for teenagers on housing estates, and in their entry into gang life.  Lifestyles are shaped by living conditions, and are therefore closely linked to the position one occupies in social space and to the logics governing housing markets and public housing policies.
3 In a context marked by the explosion of both housing costs and economic inequality, everything indicates that social differences in housing conditions have increased significantly in recent decades.  Increasing inequalities in wealth make the division between landlords and tenants more and more structuring in definitions of social position and processes of social reproduction.  The development of ownership savings schemes since the 1960s, the construction of large housing estates, the renovation of old inner-city neighborhoods, and the promotion of single-family homes have also contributed to an increasing diversity in the housing supply and new possibilities for residential trajectories, giving one’s habitat an increasingly important place in the differentiation of social position and trajectories, but also material conditions of existence.  As a consequence, “whatever the forms of standardization of leisure, culture, food habits, or clothing may be, the conditions of control of space and the constraints of access to housing are powerful reminders of the social stratification of different lifestyles.” 
4 While the form a habitat takes is largely determined by the position one occupies in social space, it has another distinctive property. The “private world”  is relatively sheltered from relations of domination and confrontation between social classes. It certainly does not escape them: for instance, lifestyles may be highly sensitive to the influence of exemplars of expertise that can impose standards of good and bad domestic taste. And domestic space is never completely isolated from the outside world, since it is subject to coexistence with a neighborhood that may sometimes encroach on the domestic sphere, as well as visits from friends and institutional representatives that sometimes take the form of social control of private life, especially among the working classes.  Nevertheless, unlike other spheres of existence marked by the lasting and repeated nature of situations of contact and concrete experiences of domination—work, school, and so on—the domestic space offers a place to withdraw from relations with other social groups. It is an appropriable domain where one can organize one’s space and time as one likes, and where lifestyles express themselves more freely. This observation has already been established for the working classes, but it applies to other social groups.  As Pierre Bourdieu remarked, unlike cultural practices, which are largely shaped by the “express pedagogical action” of the school, other ordinary practices like those in the domestic space are subject to less powerful instances of legitimization, leaving more room for the membership group’s symbolic autonomy.  The domestic space is both domesticable and domesticated, characterized by the possibility it offers its occupants to deploy personal appropriations—decor, layout, leisure, and so on—that escape relations of direct subordination. 
5 The domestic space is defined by the duality, evoked by René Baer’s poem at the beginning of this issue, between submission to constraints related to the position one occupies in social space and the possibility of expressing symbolic autonomy: a place whose uses are determined by the structure of inequalities, the nature of the resources one possesses, and class membership, but also a space in which these constraints can be forgotten, a break from relations of domination, and a home for dreams, for the imagination, and for personal appropriations.
6 Finally, as a place where social class distinctions can be observed, housing is a privileged space for analyzing social relations between the sexes. By affirming that “the personal is political,” feminist movements and the sociology of gender have made domestic space a primary object for challenging and analyzing power relations between the sexes.  This is the space where domestic work occurs, a set of invisible, unpaid tasks largely carried out by women. It is also behind the closed doors of the home that women experience the most serious physical and sexual violence.  Because it is a place where male domination is exercised in specific forms, the analysis of lifestyles in the home represents a new way of studying the articulations between class and gender social relations.
7 By dealing with the inside of the home, this special report departs from the most widespread approaches to social structure, which often focus on other dimensions of practice—cultural practices, work, relationships with schools and politics, and so on. This extends a body of research that examines the role of space in the “social construction of populations,”  shedding light on what classes and class fractions owe to their place(s) of residence.  Residential space affects how they are formed in two ways: on the one hand, housing and neighborhood form an environment that generates practices and so lies at the origin of specific lifestyles that, under certain conditions, can function as a “local matrix of habitus” ; on the other, because of the symbolic representations it bears, residential space helps define social status, both because the population’s spatial distribution can reinforce the social hierarchy by naturalizing it, and because, like “status groups,” it can help to distribute places or positions on an alternative scale to those typically used to describe social space, like economic, cultural, or social. 
8 Much like a recent collective study of “little-middle” France, which showed how a suburban neighborhood can support both social trajectories and a specific “local domestic culture,”  such research begins from questions of housing, using a sociology where social classes “stand on their own two feet,” combining analyses of social position and lifestyles.  In the wake of the seminal article by Jean-Claude Chamboredon and Madeleine Lemaire on housing estates,  research looked at the logics of settlement, the modes of articulation between social and residential trajectories, and sociabilities, customs of the neighborhood, and forms of cohabitation in the local area. Despite the importance attached to the role of space, these works rarely entered into questions of housing,  whose private, intimate nature made sociological observation difficult.  Some, however, broke with this trend. This dates mainly from the 1980s, and followed Richard Hoggart  in describing the “culture of residence”  and the logic structuring the working classes’ “private world,”  analyzing the functions of domestic space among the upper middle classes,  and the forms the lifestyles of the “new middle classes” took at home.  In his survey of the space of French lifestyles in the 1970s, Bourdieu also included several dimensions of domestic practice—choice of furniture, ways of receiving guests, and so on —while other studies emphasized the variation of sociabilities within housing,  or studied processes by which housing models and ways of living are diffused from a historical perspective. 
9 Domestic space, then, is not new territory for the sociology of social class. But these studies had few direct successors. While the quantity of research on the domestic space has increased since the 1990s,  it typically occurs within new, competing frameworks that challenge classic ways of interpreting the social world. It has little interest in social structure,  preferring instead to examine variations in ways of living between different countries and cultural areas,  to deal with questions of habitat from the point of view of the “exclusion” of the homeless,  or, more recently, “residential vulnerability,”  and to postulate the existence in French society of a process of individualization that makes differences between social classes imperceptible or even non-existent.  The articles in this special report are united by the claim that there exists a relatively strong separation between research into social class and into domestic space, and by the desire to break this down.
10 The studies collected here all have the same ambition: to uncover the logics of the construction and transformation of domestic lifestyles specific to certain classes or class fractions, to examine the connection between social relations of class and gender, and to analyze the fact that differences between these lifestyles owe as much to inequalities in resources and positions in social space as to these social groups’ cultural autonomy. The six articles in this special report are accompanied by Hortense Soichet’s photographs of domestic interiors, which illustrate the variety of types of habitat and logics of appropriation. 
11 The sociology of social class in the home moves along several dimensions. It refers first of all to the structural logic that governs the production of differentiated habitat types and their distribution in social space.  Secondly, comparing residential contexts and contrasting social groups reveals the social differentiation of housing preferences, variations in housing uses, and the symbolic meanings associated with them. These differences are embodied in decorations, layout, and furnishing, in personal or collective uses of the various rooms in the home, or in domestic sociabilities, which vary in terms of frequency, ways of receiving guests, and the nature of the social relations that unfold within them. Some forms of housing—like loft apartments for the “new middle classes” in gentrified neighborhoods —are associated with specific social groups and ways of living in a place. Among arable farmers, upward social mobility has brought with it a transformation of housing and residential tastes, which form part of the process of separation between work and private life and follow logics of distinction that aim to keep away stigmatized working-class groups and move closer to the local upper classes. 
12 Domestic lifestyles, defined by the expression of socially situated tastes and distastes, are also governed by the economy of the “maisonnée”:  the daily management of tasks that allow the domestic group to survive, and their distribution among household members, or between them and outsiders, vary greatly between social groups. The possibility of delegating domestic work to employees, who often have little job security, is a factor in social inequality;  it is also a distinctive attribute of upwardly mobile households, and can be the subject of classification struggles between different fractions of the middle and upper classes.  Examining the maisonnée also allows us to connect analyses of class relations to those of sex relations.  The gradual generalization of the norm of women’s work fuels criticism of their domestic confinement, division of labor according to sex forming, in certain contexts, a major line of differentiation between classes and class fractions.  But the distribution of domestic chores is still structured by strong gender inequalities,  which take different forms depending on social milieu, the degree to which men are willing to play a role,  and the delegation of these tasks, typically by upper class households to women from working or immigrant classes.  Despite the progress made by the egalitarian ethos, primary socialization still plays a decisive role in gender differences in the management of domestic tasks: the demand falls much more heavily on girls than boys, but this differs a great deal depending on their social class and the conception of childhood and relationships between the sexes prevailing within it, which is related to the parents’ cultural and economic resources and the power relations between them. 
13 The connections between gender, class, and domestic space are also at the heart of Family Fortunes, which we reproduce large extracts from here.  It took thirty years for this classic work of English historiography to be translated into French. In it, Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall decode the historical process by which a social class, the English bourgeoisie, was born. They show that, beyond its place within relations of production, the formation of the bourgeoisie was based on the adoption of a specific lifestyle that allowed it to stand out both from the urban working classes and the aristocracy that dominated it at the time. It was characterized by a strong emphasis on religion and a highly unequal recasting of social gender relations, which led to the exclusion of women from economic affairs, assigning them instead to a role centered on the family and tasks related to maintaining morality and educating children. Space played a fundamental role in this process, which relied on the bourgeois settling in residential suburbs, away from commerce and the urban centers where this social group was previously located. The birth of the English bourgeoisie was intrinsically linked to the invention of the home, which enshrined the separation between workplace and domestic space and between public and private life. The construction of housing as an intimate space separate from other social spheres was part of the same movement that relegated women to domestic space and assigned them management of the home.
14 The sociology of domestic space is based on the analysis of links between historical transformations of social space and the changes in lifestyles and social relations between the sexes. Over recent decades, popular male sociability in rural areas has redeployed itself from public spaces—which are now stigmatized—into the interiors of homes, excluding women from them.  Finally, paying attention to history leads us to examine the processes of construction, diffusion, and circulation of models and tastes in terms of housing.  We pay particular attention to the role of the authorities who prescribe domestic taste, and of “intermediaries” between producers and consumers,  including housing professionals—architects, decorators, and real estate agents—brands devoted to aspects of housing like DIY, decorating, and furniture, and specialized cultural products, including print media, TV shows, and blogs. The example of the open-plan kitchen reveals the dynamics of and obstacles to the diffusion of new domestic tastes. While the wholesale rejection of this arrangement by those living in housing estates makes it possible to identify several dimensions of working-class domestic lifestyles, and the distance separating them from those of the cultivated middle class, its adoption by some households who are, to a modest degree, upwardly mobile shows the logics of diffusion and appropriation of heteronomous habitat models based on symbolic logics specific to the social group that claims them.  Placed in a dynamic perspective like this, the sociology of domestic space illuminates the logics governing the differentiation of lifestyles and their distribution in social space, at the intersection of gender and social class.
Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby, eds, A History of Private Life (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1987-91); Michelle Perrot, Histoire des chambres (Paris: Seuil, 2009).
Olivier Le Goff, L’invention du confort: Naissance d’une forme sociale (Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 1994); Henri Coing, Rénovation urbaine et changement social: l’Îlot n° 4, Paris 13e (Paris: Éditions Ouvrières, 1966); Olivier Schwartz, Le monde privé des ouvriers: Hommes et femmes du Nord (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1990).
Gwenaël Larmet, “La sociabilité alimentaire s’accroît,” Économie et statistique 352-3 (2002), 191-211.
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (London: Routledge,  2015); Michel Pinçon and Monique Pinçon-Charlot, Great Fortunes: Dynasties of Wealth in France (New York: Agora, 1999).
Bernard Lahire, Tableaux de familles: heurs et malheurs scolaires en milieux populaires (Paris: Gallimard/Seuil, 1995).
Marwan Mohammed, La formation des bandes: Entre la famille, l’école et la rue (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2011).
According to the Family Budget Survey, between 1979 and 2006 differences in household consumption patterns shifted from food to housing: while the share of housing in the budget of executives remains stable, at about 12%, it rose from 12% to 19% among workers. The gap is even greater for income: the housing budget of the richest 20% remained steady at 12%, while that of the poorest 20% doubled, going from 12% to 24%. See Philippe Coulangeon, Les métamorphoses de la distinction: Inégalités culturelles dans la France d’aujourd’hui (Paris: Grasset, 2011), and Insee résultats 73 (2007).
Twenty-five years ago, Pierre Bourdieu and Monique de Saint Martin (“The Meaning of Property: Real Estate, Class Position, and the Ideology of Home Ownership,” in Body Politics: Disease, Desire and the Family, ed. Michael Ryan and Avery Gordon [Boulder: Westview, 1994], 45-71) noted that rising home ownership meant economic assets occupied an increasingly important place in social agents’ strategies of mobility and social reproduction. Since then, Louis Chauvel has emphasized the growing importance of property in income inequality (“Le retour des classes sociales,” Revue de l’OFCE 79 , 315-59). Recent work shows growing inequality and the increasing role of housing in their (re)production. See Hélène Chaput, Kim-Hoa Luu Kim, Laurianne Salembier, and Julie Solard, “Les inégalités de patrimoine s’accroissent entre 2004 et 2010,” Insee Première 1380 (2011), 1-4; Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2014).
Jean-Yves Authier, Jennifer Bidet, Anaïs Collet, Pierre Gilbert, and Hélène Steinmetz, État des lieux sur les trajectoires résidentielles (Paris: PUCA, 2010); Catherine Bonvalet, “Les logiques des choix résidentiels des Franciliens,” in Jean-Yves Authier, Catherine Bonvalet, and Jean-Pierre Lévy, eds, Élire domicile: La construction sociale des choix résidentiels (Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon, 2010), 55-76.
Coulangeon, Les métamorphoses de la distinction, 138.
Schwartz, Le monde privé des ouvriers.
Delphine Serre, Les coulisses de l’État social: Enquête sur les signalements d’enfant en danger (Paris: Raisons D’Agir, 2009); Ana Perrin-Heredia, “Logiques économiques et comptes domestiques en milieux populaires: Ethnographie économique d’une ‘zone urbaine sensible’” (doctoral thesis in sociology, Reims, University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, 2010).
“It is by forgetting domination, not resisting it, that the working classes reach the privileged site of their cultural activities that are least marked by the symbolic effects of domination. If the break from work on Sunday, the insular activities of organizing their habitat, or the relaxed activism of sociability between peers is the best way to grasp the cultural universe of working-class urban life in its symbolic coherence . . . this is because these conditions build a universe without confrontation, constructing moments of respite and places of otherness.” Claude Grignon and Jean-Claude Passeron, Le Savant et le populaire: Misérabilisme et populisme en sociologie et en littérature (Paris: Gallimard/Seuil, 1989), 81.
Pierre Bourdieu mentions practices related to buying furniture, food, and clothing (Distinction, 71).
“A man’s home is his castle,” as the saying goes: even a person in the most modest position, who occupies a subordinate role in numerous spaces, possesses the power to organize their existence and the layout of where they live just as they like the moment they return home.
Isabelle Clair, Sociologie du genre (Paris: Armand Colin, 2012).
Maryse Jaspard, Elisabeth Brown, Stephanie Condon, and others, Les violences envers les femmes en France: une enquête nationale (Paris: La Documentation Française, 2003); Alice Debauche and Christelle Hamel, “Violence des hommes contre les femmes: quelles avancées dans la production des savoirs?” Nouvelles Questions féministes 32, no. 1 (2013): 4-14.
Jean-Claude Chamboredon, “La construction sociale des populations,” in Georges Duby, ed., Histoire de la France urbaine, vol. 5 (Paris: Seuil, 1985), 441-71.
See, for instance, studies on the historical bourgeoisie neighborhoods of the upper classes (Michel Pinçon and Monique Pinçon-Charlot, Dans les beaux quartiers [Paris: Seuil, 1989]); on the “redeveloped neighborhoods” occupied by business executives (Bruno Cousin, “Entre-soi mais chacun chez soi: L’agrégation affinitaire des cadres parisiens dans les espaces refondés,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 204 , 88-101); on the different fringes of the middle and upper classes involved in the gentrifying of old districts in city centers (Anaïs Collet, Rester bourgeois: Les quartiers populaires, nouveaux chantiers de la distinction [Paris: La Découverte, 2015], and Sylvie Tissot, Good Neighbors: Gentrifying Diversity in Boston’s South End [London: Verso, 2015]); on stable working- and middle-class fractions living in peri-urban areas (Violaine Girard, “Un territoire périurbain, industriel et ouvrier: Promotions résidentielles de ménages des classes populaires et trajectoires d’élus salariés intermédiaires de l’industrie dans la Plaine de l’Ain” [doctoral thesis in sociology, EHESS, Paris, 2009], and Anne Lambert, “Tous propriétaires!”: l’envers du décor pavillonnaire [Paris: Seuil, 2015]); on financially insecure working-class groups on housing estates (Olivier Masclet, La Gauche et les cités: Enquête sur un rendez-vous manqué [Paris: La Dispute, 2006], and Pierre Gilbert, “Les classes populaires à l’épreuve de la rénovation urbaine. Transformations spatiales et changement social dans une cité HLM” [doctoral thesis in sociology and anthropology, Lumière university Lyon 2, Lyon, 2014]); and on working-class rural worlds (Nicolas Renahy, Les gars du coin: enquête sur une jeunesse rurale [Paris: La Découverte, 2005]).
Virgílio Borges Pereira and José Madureira Pinto, “Espace, relations sociales et culture populaire dans le cœur ancien de la ville de Porto,” Sociétés contemporaines 86 (2012): 115-134.
Max Weber, Economy and Society, vol. 1 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013).
Marie Cartier, Isabelle Coutant, Olivier Masclet, and Yasmine Siblot, The France of the Little-Middles: A Suburban Housing Development in Greater Paris (New York: Berghahn, 2016).
Christian Baudelot and Roger Establet, “Classes en tous genres” in Margaret Maruani, ed., Femmes, genre et sociétés: l’état des savoirs (Paris: La Découverte, 2005), 38-47; Olivier Schwartz, “La notion de ‘classes populaires’” (habilitation thesis, University of Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Versailles, 1998).
Jean-Claude Chamboredon and Madeleine Lemaire, “Proximité spatiale et distance sociale: Les grands ensembles et leur peuplement,” Revue française de sociologie 11, no. 1 (1970): 3-33.
This holds true, for instance, for the prolific body of sociology on the working class, where domestic space is neglected, with very few exceptions; see Philippe Alonzo and Cédric Hugrée, Sociologie des classes populaires: Domaines et approches (Paris: Armand Colin, 2010). This is shown by the issue that the journal Espaces et sociétés dedicated in 2011 to “working-class uses of space” (Thomas Sauvadet and Marie-Hélène Bacqué, eds, Espaces et sociétés 144-5 ), whose six articles focus on the relationship with the neighborhood, on public spaces, and on workspaces. It also holds true for The France of the Little-Middles; in spite of its stated focus on “ways of living” in housing (70), its description of “local domestic culture” is based entirely on sociabilities within the neighborhood.
Anne-Marie Arborio and Pierre Fournier, L’Observation directe: L’enquête et ses méthodes (Paris: Armand Colin, 2010).
Richard Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy (London: Penguin, 2009), and A Local Habitation: Life and Times, 1918-1940 (London: Chatto and Windus, 1988).
Michel Verret, “L’économie spatiale de la culture ouvrière,” in Maurice Imbert and Paul-Henry Chombart de Lauwe, eds, La Banlieue aujourd’hui (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1982), 257-66.
Schwartz, Le monde privé des ouvriers. See also Joëlle Deniot, Ethnologie du décor en milieu ouvrieu: le bel ordinaire (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1995); Sophie Chevalier, “L’ameublement et le décor intérieur dans un milieu populaire urbain: Approche ethnographique d’une vraie fausse banalité” (doctoral thesis in ethnology, Paris Nanterre University, Nanterre, 1992).
Beatrix LeWita, French Bourgeois Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Pinçon and Pinçon-Charlot, Great Fortunes.
Sabine Chalvon-Demersay, Le triangle du XIVe: des nouveaux habitants dans un vieux quartier de Paris (Paris: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1984).
François Héran, “La sociabilité, une pratique culturelle,” Économie et statistique 216 (1988), 3-22; Michel Bozon, Vie quotidienne et rapports sociaux dans une petite ville de province: la mise en scène des différences (Lyon: PUL, 1984). For a summary of research on social relations and housing, see also Jean-Yves Authier and Yves Grafmeyer, Les relations sociales autour du logement: État des savoirs et perspectives de recherche (Paris: Construction and Architecture Plan, 1997).
Susanna Magri, “L’intérieur domestique: Pour une analyse du changement dans les manières d’habiter,” Genèses 28 (1997): 146-64.
The literature on the topic is abundant. See especially Authier and Grafmeyer, Les relations sociales autour du logement; Magri, “L’intérieur domestique”; François de Singly, “Habitat et relations familiales: Bilan” (Paris: Plan construction et architecture, 1998); Yvonne Bernard, La France au logis: Étude sociologique des pratiques domestiques (Liège: Mardaga, 1992); Jean-Michel Léger, Derniers domiciles connus: Enquête sur les nouveaux logements 1970-1990 (Paris: Créaphis, 1990); Béatrice Collignon and Jean-François Staszak, eds, Espaces domestiques: Construire, habiter, représenter (Paris: Bréal, 2004).
Yankel Fijalkow, Sociologie du logement (Paris: Découverte, 2011).
Marion Segaud, Anthropologie de l’espace: habiter, fonder, distribuer, transformer (Paris: Armand Colin, 2010); Irene Cieraad, ed., At Home: An Anthropology of Domestic Space (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1999); Daniel Miller, “Appropriating the State on the Council Estate,” Man 23, no. 2 (1988): 353-372.
See for example: Patrick Gaboriau, Clochard: l’univers d’un groupe de sans-abri parisiens (Paris: Julliard, 1993); Djemila Zeneidi-Henry, Les SDF et la ville: géographie du savoir-survivre (Paris: Bréal, 2002); Maryse Marpsat and Jean-Marie Firdion, eds, La rue et le foyer: une recherche sur les sans-domicile et les mal-logés dans les années 1990 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France/Institut National d’Études Démographiques, 2000).
As an illustration see Florence Bouillon, Les mondes du squat: anthropologie d’un habitat précaire (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2009).
Daniel Pinson, Usage et architecture (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1993); Guy Tapie, Sociologie de l’habitat contemporain: vivre l’architecture (Marseille: Parentheses, 2014).
These photographs come from a number of series produced since the mid-2000s within projects involving various territories and social groups. They have been the subject of several publications: see Hortense Soichet, Intérieurs: logements à la Goutte-d’Or (Grâne: Créaphis, 2011), Esperem!: images d’un monde en soi (Paris: Créaphis, 2016), and Ensembles: habiter un logement social en France (Paris: Créaphis, 2014). They are available at www.hortensesoichet.com .
Pierre Bourdieu, Salah Bouhedja, Rosine Christin, and Claire Givry, “Un placement de père de famille. La maison individuelle: spécificité du produit et logique du champ de production,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 81-82 (1990): 6-33; Fabien Desage, Christelle Morel Journel, and Valérie Sala Pala, eds, Le Peuplement comme politiques (Rennes: PUR, 2014); and Edmond Préteceille, “La ségrégation sociale a-t-elle augmenté? La métropole parisienne entre polarisation et mixité,” Sociétés contemporaines 62 (2006): 69-93.
Anaïs Collet, “Le loft: habitat atypique et innovation sociale pour deux générations de 'nouvelles classes moyennes',” Espaces et sociétés 148-9 (2012): 37-52.
See in this issue Gilles Laferté, “Ferme, pavillon ou maison de campagne. Les formes résidentielles de l’embourgeoisement agricole,” 16-33.
Sibylle Gollac, “Maisonnée et cause commune: une prise en charge familiale,” in Florence Weber, Séverine Gojard, and Agnès Gramain, eds, Charges de famille: Dépendance et parenté dans la France contemporaine (Paris: La Découverte, 2003), 274-311.
The term maisonnée, distinct from household, refers to a basic unit of practical kinship that hosts a variable part of the daily tasks necessary for the material survival of its members.
François-Xavier Devetter and Sandrine Rousseau, Du balai: essai sur le ménage à domicile et le retour de la domesticité (Paris: Raisons d’Agir, 2011).
See in this issue Eleonora Elguezabal, “Du luxe bon marché. Travail de service et classement social dans les résidences fermées de Buenos Aires,” 38-51.
Céline Bessière, De génération en génération: Arrangements de famille dans les entreprises viticoles de Cognac (Paris: Raisons d’Agir, 2010).
See in this issue Anne Lambert, “Échapper à l’enfermement domestique: Travail des femmes et luttes de classement en lotissement pavillonnaire,” 56-71.
Clara Champagne, Ariane Pailhé, and Anne Solaz, “Le temps domestique et parental des hommes et des femmes: quels facteurs d’évolutions en 25 ans?” Économie et statistique 478-80 (2015): 209-242.
Cécile Brousse, “Travail professionnel, tâches domestiques, temps ‘libre’: quelques déterminants sociaux de la vie quotidienne,” Économie et statistique 478-80 (2015): 119-154; Ariane Pailhé and Anne Solaz, “Concilier, organiser, renoncer: quel genre d’arrangements?” Travail, genre et sociétés 24 (2010): 29-46.
Danièle Kergoat, “Rapports sociaux et division du travail entre les sexes,” in Margaret Maruani, ed., Femmes, genre et sociétés (Paris: La Découverte, 2005), 94-101; Caroline Ibos, Qui gardera nos enfants? Les nounous et les mères (Paris: Flammarion, 2012).
See in this issue Martine Court, Julien Bertrand, Geraldine Bois, Gaële Henri-Panabière, and Olivier Vanhée, “Qui débarrasse la table? Enquête sur la socialisation domestique primaire,” 72-83.
Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780-1850, second ed. (London: Routledge, 2002).
See in this issue Benoît Coquard, “‘Nos volets transparents.’ Les potes, le couple et les sociabilités populaires au foyer,” 90-101.
Magri, “L’intérieur domestique”; Anais Albert, “Consommation de masse et consommation de classe. Une histoire sociale et culturelle du cycle de vie des objets dans les classes populaires parisiennes (des années 1880 aux années 1920)” (doctoral thesis in history, Paris, Pantheon-Sorbonne University, 2014).
Olivier Roueff, Jazz, les échelles du plaisir: Intermédiaires et culture lettrée en France au XXe siècle (Paris: La Dispute, 2013); Loïc Bonneval, “Les tiers dans le choix du logement: comment les agents immobiliers contribuent à l’élaboration des projets résidentiels,” Espaces et sociétés 156-7 (2014): 145-159.
See in this issue Pierre Gilbert, “Troubles à l’ordre privé: Les classes populaires face à la cuisine ouverte,” 102-119.