The Dock Team 114 As the Dock Team 114 and also organizers, it is our pleasure to also welcome you to this conference and to continue the opening with our lecture after the stimulating on-stage conversation. So our research is part as mentioned of a collaborative project between the Johannes Kepler University Linz and the Vienna University of Economics and Business called the contested provisioning of care and housing which is funded by the Austrian Academy of Sciences for three years. As the title suggests the aim of this project is to investigate ways in which market and community-based care and housing are contested, provided, and in flux. And so what are we going to do in this presentation? First, we will present our understanding of care and housing in order to discuss commonalities, differences and interconnections. Second, we will look at some preliminary results from our crossover research by zooming in on case studies in Austria, Hungary and the Netherlands. And third, we will transition into the general discussion by reflecting on interrelations of care and housing against the background of our findings. So both care and housing are foundational for human well-being. Care, on the one hand, is a life-guiding principle and basic human activity reacts to the always given contingency of life. Caring we encounter ourselves and also the world around us while at the same time connecting self-care, care for others and care for the living and material environment. Housing on the other hand refers to the activities that arrange a place for people to organize their livelihoods. Housing is about creating and inhabiting a habitation. Just as care thus encompasses housing, housing encloses care. encloses care. So care and housing are interconnected in manifold ways. Care is not restricted to oneself or other human beings, but also comprises one's own habitation, residential spaces, and local communities. Housing encompasses the material object, not only as a shelter and sphere of privacy, but also a space for connecting to neighbors as well as non-human environments in a meaningful way. Care and housing are therefore defined and are defining ourselves, our society and our surroundings. And moreover, care and housing both describe social practices. Care and care work are provided in a specific built environment and thus depend on different configurations of housing. Doing housing or living and acting in a place links these material infrastructures to a range of socio-cultural practices, such as participating in the community or commuting to work. So while care essentially comprises all activities connected to doing housing, housing constitutes the locus where most of the necessary care work takes place, be it in or around a home. What's more, both are subject, as we already heard, to far-reaching transformations in their societal organization. Since the 1980s, care and housing provision in Europe experienced increasing commodification, marketization, corporatization and financialization. with the reorganization of the welfare state, this led to structural problems of access and affordability, increasing socioeconomic and spatial polarizations, as well as social inequalities in the relations of gender, age, ethnicity, and class. Yet, diverse struggles have formed against this backdrop, which seek to reinforce or change existing forms of provisioning. Behind that is the goal of empowering actors such as residents, workers, care receivers, and givers, family members, or migrants. So in light of austerity politics, many have turned to the community as an alternative to the politics of marketization and neoliberal reforms. Accordingly, both are considered pillars of the welfare state, however, holding ambivalent positions in welfare and social policies. Therefore, care and housing are hybrids in their societal embedding. housing a hybrid in their societal embedding. We will now present some preliminary findings from our qualitative case study research, which is one part of the project. The empirical insights are based on the investigation of six community-oriented cases. In total, we conducted 28 episodic interviews, as well as a document analysis, for example, of website content. We also visited all six cases and used the qualitative content analysis. Both care and housing researchers examine such initiatives, referring to them as caring communities or collaborative housing, respectively. Interactions between these two discourses, however, have remained somewhat limited. In our empirical research, though, we found that numerous actors and strategies are already trying to adopt an integrative approach to the topics of caring and housing. We have identified the following key themes in our empirical work. First, we present integrative understandings of care and housing. Second, we explore the institutional hybridity of such initiatives. Third, we discuss some common challenges and difficulties. And fourth, reflect on contested interpretations and implications. The following passages from our interviews illustrate integrative approaches to caring and housing. An activist in a neighborhood initiative, for example, said, We are also trying to bring about new forms of everyday coexistence, togetherness and participation. And that's exactly where we want to go. That has to do with housing, that has to do with urban planning, and that has to do with new care arrangements. An initiator of a collaborative housing project specified, and one of the goals is to create something like a caring community so that residents can live actively for as long as possible through mutual support. can live actively for as long as possible through mutual support. So from these quotes, we have noticed that housing and care are being discussed in the field as preconditions for societal participation, particularly in older age. This seems to be a shared key aim, where the initiatives focus on adjusting the material conditions of housing or as they focus on promoting supportive social relationships. And in connection with this we have observed a growing focus on the living environment or neighborhood within our data set. An activist in the Netherlands for example stressed the importance of connecting residential homes with the neighborhood. Our project focuses on topics around housing for the elderly. The aim is to connect the residential home with the neighborhood, the living environment. In other words, we ask the question of how the living environment can be well used and actively shaped in a participatory process. In many cases, the living environment is being discussed as a key site for providing essential opportunities for participation. Additionally, it is worth noting that most initiatives in both fields seek to foster reciprocal caring relations. As a resident from a co-housing group, four seniors reflected on this kind of social relations they want to foster. I wanted to live in such a collective community in my pension. Well, just for the future, because the welfare in the Netherlands, as everywhere else, is changing. There's less help, so we have to try to support each other, not in a professional way, but in a sort of being good neighbors way. This is a very important principle of these collectives, to be a good neighbor, to look after each other. And so here we also find differences. Caring communities, on the one hand hand emphasize the importance of diverse caring relations. Access to professional care is often already either included or thought of. Residents from housing groups on the other hand frequently stress this importance of being good neighbors. And when a more serious care need arises, it typically requires outside assistance, which is the responsibility of individual residents. Regarding our cases, we also found new and shifting activities emerging between involved actors, for example, welfare providers or market actors who professionally organize collaborative housing for seniors or municipalities who support caring communities. An employee from a welfare provider explained, An employee from a welfare provider explained, new living in old age is a new business area for us. There's a collaboration between housing associations and building groups. Co-housing groups rent from them. They are in turn interested due to developer competitions, but it takes time. Next to an increasing collaboration between different providers, also what we've heard before, the quotes here underline that community initiatives do not exist in a kind of protected or reciprocal world. Instead, you have to manage multiple other requirements, such as those coming from markets and public authorities. coming from markets and public authorities. So as mentioned, does this work? No? Yeah, yes. As mentioned, we have observed common challenges and difficulties in our case studies. The first challenge revolves around establishing caring communities and collaborative housing projects from the top, so to say, from the top down, so to say. This could be seen as the result of a professionalization process on the top down, so to say. This could be seen as the result of a professionalization process on the one hand, where market and state entities, as well as larger third sector organizations, show an increased interest in supporting such initiatives. We are still more or less organized and financed by the municipal authorities. Of course, there should be public financial support in the future, maybe also from companies. But for the future, we want to be independent, anchored in the neighborhood, perhaps also with a kind of membership where people who live here contribute their time. And as an employee of a big welfare provider in Austria told us, as the welfare provider, we wanted to set the framework and provide tools, but not to have to be constantly active on site. In this context, as mentioned, intermediary organizations specialized in community building, be it publicly financed or also private financed, play a more significant role in community building. Another challenge concerns the often unstable political and financial support and inadequate subsidy conditions of such services. I mean, the Hungarian situation is not very easy. Small villages don't really get a lot of governmental support or central support, and they are pretty much left alone. I'm specific about elderly care. There's an assumption that, you know, relatives or the village, they somehow have to sort this out. This first quote of a project manager of a community in rural Hungary highlights the very still entrenched familialism within care work. And in the second quote, an initiator of a community project problematizes the lack of something like financial support. In other words, community-oriented projects are often in conflict with political actors, be it on the national or on the regional level. We identified diverse strategies. New social networks, as we heard today, are emerging, while simultaneously there is a rising interest from the public sector, from governments, in harnessing the resources of civil society. These initiatives can be seen as part of a strategy of an activating welfare state. As one initiator in the Netherlands, in the southern part of the Netherlands told us, we have to build a society where people take more responsibility and care for each other. That's the broader perspective of this movement. And we see now that official government organizations start to realize that too. And they even say we as government should support the initiatives on a much broader scale because this is the direction that our society has to take. And the second smaller quote is from a flyer also from South-Netherlands where community building is widespread. So in both fields we found different strategies responding to current challenges and crisis. Our interviews show dissatisfaction with existing services and provisioning systems. Care relationships as well as housing provisioning are perceived as being threatened in our societies, whereby the respective community-based arrangement is seen as a possible solution or even a remedy. solution or even a remedy. While in some instance nostalgic references to community exist, many participants also critically reflected on the transformative potential of their initiatives. New arrangements often led to a critical questioning of traditional orientations that have shaped the provision of care and housing so far. And if community-based caring and housing arrangements could be interpreted as seedlings of a bigger social transformation towards maybe a more careful society, or as counter-movements in a Polanian way, remains an open question okay thank you um thank you very much so these are the um preliminary results and interpretations that are obviously informed from our own theoretical and disciplinary backgrounds so as you now have heard one main motivation for organizing this conference was to bring together a multitude of perspectives on canned housing so that we are able to discuss and assess interconnections and overlapping issues. So now as a transition into a general discussion, we give an outlook on some of the key themes we have identified, which does not constitute a comprehensive overview in any way, but is rather informed by the research presented at this conference in the coming two days and also our own work, which you just heard from or about rather. So the first theme is a key theme. It's about the wider neoliberal restructuring of canned housing provision, which includes the residualization of welfare policies, asset-based welfare, austerity politics, privatization, financialization of canned housing, and more. And all of this leads to increases in precarious canned housing arrangements and the production and reproduction of diverse forms of social inequality. Another related issue revolves around the question of how such reorganizations are connected to capitalist modes of production and reproduction, in particular to the logics of capital accumulation, and how this connects to patriarchal and racist forms of domination and oppression. Relatedly, other approaches highlight the foundational value-creating functions of care and housing provision vis-à-vis the value-taking activities of profit-oriented actors. This includes opening up the black box of financialization of, for example, care homes or even social housing. Accordingly, the reproduction of social inequalities or intersectional inequalities, rather articulated through care and or or housing features very prominently. This includes socio-spatial, socioeconomic, ethnic, and gender inequalities. And questions here center around how these diverse forms of inequality might reinforce each other, how they depend on the broader organization of care and housing regimes, as well as on the concrete forms of housing provision, forms of care and housing provisioning. Moving on, as a great deal of care work is carried out in domestic spaces, the home is of particular interest. Questions here revolve around how care work in domestic spaces is invisibilized and structurally devalued, how domestic caring becomes commodified in novel arrangements, how technological innovations in domestic spaces rearrange caring and living arrangements, and how the home does or does not become politicized and contested. And as we've already heard by Flavia earlier, the living environment also plays a crucial role in this. Its socio-material infrastructures can be inscribed with multiple forms of oppression on the one hand, but on the other hand it can also serve as a means of overcoming the divide between public and private spaces and thus contribute to fostering more caring relations between inhabitants and their surroundings. This crucially includes non-human entities and points therefore to the ecological implications of care and housing. The role of digital technologies is another important point. We have had a critical remark about this by Cornelia Klinger. Questions here concern the time-saving potential of such innovations. There's also a paradox of increasing care burdens on the one hand, despite technological progress on the other hand, and androcentric designs are being critically interrogated as well. And then last but certainly not least, the role of communities as potential counter-movements as you've heard earlier and also from our side will be a prominent topic. The community's transformative potential as an alternative to market and state-based provisioning forms is a key question here. And I think we've already heard or we could already detect this a little bit in the onstage conversation that there are diverging perceptions about the potentials of up or outscaling community solutions and potentially also reflect on the role of the state in this. So yeah, that's a preliminary list of interesting topics that we would like to delve into with you. And we're also excited to add more items to this list, of course, in the coming days. We're looking forward to open critical and multi-perspective debates, debates which will only increase in significance in the future, given the centrality of care and housing as basic human needs and how that provision is constantly evolving in light of the multiple crises of our time. We're looking forward to your questions and comments. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much for these valuable insights into your project or your projects. I think this gave a very good overview, a very practical overview of what you're doing and what will be the scope of the conference. I also want to thank again the panelists of the on-stage conversation and much more I want to thank you because you had a long patience now before we come to the final part of the start of the conference, the discussion. And I'm sure you will have many questions to either the doc team or to the panelists of the first round. And I would, Alexander has a microphone, so if you have questions, you can raise them. I would propose that you maybe introduce yourself shortly, and then we will collect a few questions, maybe, if it's possible. So who wants to start? That's always the most difficult part. Ah, there's one with the white pullover. Thank you. My name is Gizem Fesli, and I'm from Nuremberg, a PhD student at the University of Bayreuth on intersectionality studies. And I'm PhDing on strategies, on labor union strategies for care workers. And I have a question on the inequalities regarding race, class, and gender to Professor Auenbacher, but also to the PhD candidates. Because you have mentioned a couple times by now the intersecting inequalities. you have mentioned a couple times by now the intersecting inequalities and coming from the doctoral college of intersectionality studies I'm wondering what the theoretical framework behind the race class and gender behind the intersecting inequalities are. Is there a theoretical framework that you are using? Is there already a second question? Because otherwise I would propose that maybe, Brigitte, you want to start with? Yeah, at the moment there's obviously no. There's a second one. I'm glad. My name is Jenny Brönkert from the University of Duisburg-Essen. I have a question to the DOC team. Can you hear me now? Okay. Sorry. Jenny Brönkert from the University of Duisburg-Essen. So I have a question to the DOC team. I learned a lot about your research, but I was wondering, because you mentioned all your cases have in common. First of all, I learned a lot about your research, but I was wondering, because you mentioned all your cases have in common, first of all, I was wondering how you choose your cases, Hungary, Netherlands, and Austria. I think some practical reasons, but also some theoretical reasons. And then I was wondering, what are you different, are there also difference between your cases, or is it always the same? Thank you. We could have a third question before we have a round of answers. Think we can cope with three. Yes, there's a third one and then I would hand the microphone to the panelists. I have a question to the four PhD candidates. My name is Christopher Pitz, I'm from Eastern Germany. As you already said, there's some tendency, I think it was said on the panel before, of absorption of counter-movements. And the implementation of community care, of course, means saving a lot of costs due to increased efficiency compared to simple domestic care and also to increased absorption of unpaid labor. And when you say that these community projects should be conceived as counter-movements, what are their strategies, or what could be their strategies to encounter that they just increase, in the end end the amount of the surplus appropriated by the profit rate. Okay, thank you. I would propose now to have a round of answers and I would ask Brigitte to start and then I would hand over to the doc team thank you very much for this question I do not work with one single approach of the intersectionality research I'm coming from the discussion from the former indeed black feminism and this is where I started this discussion, but I also add approaches from social inequality research and the main point I made in this part is that I distinct between the structural dimensions of intersectionality in terms of gender, race, class, and the constituencies of the capitalist and modern society. That's one point, and the other point is that I draw on migration studies, which are very important for me to widen the perspective to the global south as well as to Eastern Europe. It's a pity that Anna Safuta cannot be here, but perhaps you know her work on peripheral wideness, and these are directions I go to. Okay, thank you. I think now the answers would ask the doc team for the answers to the questions raised so far. Yeah, thank you for all these great questions. We have a little bit to coordinate, but we will try to address all your questions. First of all, maybe it should be important to say a few words about our case selections, or better to say about our country selections. We observed in the preparation of the proposal of our project that in many countries there were very interesting developments concerning on the one hand the marketization, the economization of care and care work, on the other hand in terms of communitization as we call it. And to begin with the first country, for example the Netherlands, as many of you will know and there are many interesting studies about this, that community building and different kinds of community care organizations are very widespread in the Netherlands. So this was one point. And on the other hand, Austria is known as one of the forerunners of a neoliberal transformation of care in terms of migrant live-in care. And also Hungary is for many reasons quite interesting example in terms of care and housing because in terms of care it's a receiving and ascending country for example for migrant care. And this is a few aspects which we tried to compare and think together. And yeah, we had cool cooperation partners there for sure. And that was also a reason why we choose these countries. Maybe we should go on. Maybe I can add to the second part of your question. Are there differences between the cases? So I think one thing that needs clarification first is that we carry out the case study analysis in the three countries. The actual case studies then are of initiatives in the country. So what interests us is how differences in the specific initiatives result from the institutional configuration in the cities or in the countries that we look at so that's maybe for clarification here and then regarding the question about our theoretical framework on intersectional inequalities here we as a doc team not necessarily have a shared theoretical framework on this because our theoretical point of departure is a Polanyian point and within, so there's the team, which you see on the center here, that's doing research on care and then there's the team housing, so to speak, doing research on housing and there we do employ different theoretical frameworks. So for example, in the case of housing, it's very relevant how a political economy approach on the financialization of housing shows how socio-spatial inequalities are reinforced by global capital flows. So that would be one perspective that is more relevant maybe to housing than to care. So while we do try to have a shared common framework, also we need to make adjustments depending on what exactly we look at. Yeah let me add one more point regarding the sample criteria we also had a theoretical kind of sampling which focused on initiatives that increased reciprocal relationships in some kind of ways and in the end we ended up with a very diverse set of different initiatives so collaborative housing which is my field of interest for example is already an umbrella term of different kind of institutional housing forms, including co-housing groups, but also other forms of communal living with, for example, separate apartments and shared spaces in one building. And then I want to pick up the last question, I think. Thank you for the question. Did I get it correctly that you wanted to know more about the potential of these initiatives regarding counter-movements, whether they can be counter-movements? I think this, as we said, remains to be seen or is an open question for us. We have different opinions on this also within our group. we have different opinions on this also within our group. I'll speak a little bit about the housing cases. We do see that there are new institutional mechanisms that they're using to decommodify housing provision, which could be seen as an aspect of Polanyian kind of counter-movements. For example, vetoes on future sales of the buildings or adding different flows of finance next to market-based finance and so on. But I wouldn't say, as you did, that this necessarily means that the accumulation of capital will be restricted by it. It could also add the accumulation of capital will be restricted by it, it could also add the accumulation of capital. Did I misunderstand you? I did not say that I think that the community care, sorry. I thought the opposite actually, that the community care projects would increase the surplus that the economy is producing due to increased efficiency of care compared to domestic care and due to the absorption of more unpaid care work compared to commercial projects. So actually the opposite. Maybe I can add to that. So the differences between the cases are built upon our concept of a two-fold hybridity. So there are different principles in play, reciprocity, market exchange, redistribution, and these are structured in different ways, so maybe one community can add to the surplus, but looking at the community as a community, the main focus may be reciprocity, so it can be a counter-movement being hybrid. I don't know if that makes it more clear, but I hope so. But thanks for the question, very interesting. Okay, we have time for another round of questions. So are there further questions you want to raise? Artile? Artile? the further questions you want to raise. Attila. Thank you very much for this introduction. It was really very nice. Then I have, I'm Attila Melek from Budapest, Hungary. And I have two questions. One, the first one is to Brigitte. In your talk, you had this very catchy sentence that we need to discuss the structural conditions, how to maintain hybridity. And I think that in the second part, you basically answered these things in the longer run, what are these conditions, decentralization, need-based economy, and so on. But I wonder in case you had something about the transition over that. Because that I think is something which we are all really sitting here a little bit to figure it out because I think your question is really pertinent. The second is to the DOC team. Is that this is a magnificent project but haven't you thought about using householding from Polanyi's vocabulary? you know, how is holding is a strange term In these forms of integration some people argue. It's not a form of integration This is why Polanyi later took it out and so on But when you look at this thing like care and housing what comes to your mind immediately in this way like care and housing, what comes to your mind immediately in this way? Householding. Because care is continuous, although invisible, unpaid work and so on, but done in the household. And householding is doing the house, basically. So have you thought about using that? That would be the second question. OK, thank you, Artilla. Is there another question? I would again collect some questions. Thanks a lot for this interesting presentation. My name is Stefan Schutz. I'm a sociology student here at the JKU University. And I have one question for Flavia Martinelli. I'm very interested about the situation in Italy and in your presentation you were talking about counter movements from the far right and with these counter movements you meant the Meloni government policies from them or what counter movements from the far right were you talking about this would be very interesting thank you okay there could be another question then we have again three questions because if not for the moment, I would abuse my role. Ah, Alexandra, so I will abuse my role as moderator later. That's good, so you still have one. Yeah, I have another one. Alexandra Stigner from the Competence Center for Infrastructure Politics, Public Services, and Social Provisioning. In Germany, it's so much easier. Now, my question that came to my mind is reflecting on what Cornelia Klinger was saying about the dark side of housing is homelessness and the projects that you have been looking into and to which extent there is a connection. Because I know a couple of co-housing projects in Vienna. I also know about some of the projects that are in the makeup, in particular to address the question of housing and care for elder people. And I just wondered, how is this addressed? Is there a dimension where people that are homelessness, I mean, is there a dimension that is included in these projects? So it's just an open question, because the projects I know is very often people that have a certain, at least in Austria, that have a certain, they're middle class, they don't like to live by themselves, they have this approach. So that's some question that comes to my mind. How is that reflected? Or is it reflected? Because then at the same time in Vienna, there is also projects that deal with people that are homelessness. And is there an interlinkage? Is there some form? So that's the question that came up. Okay, thank you very much for these questions. I would propose to have, again, another round of answers. Blavia, would you like to start? Yes. Thank you for your question. I actually, I was not really referring to Italy when I mentioned that somehow we are serving the problems and the retrenching welfare state to the right-wing nationalist and populist movement. I was rather thinking of, for example, the Brexit vote, right? They were blue-collar workers that were feeling completely bypassed by globalization and so on. Or other right-wing shifts observed in left-behind places, often by social groups that were once the bulwark of progressive movements, workers' movements. So in Italy, it's quite complicated. I mean, I might be referring more, if I have to think about Italy, about the Delega, about Salvini who is advocating as opposed to the Meloni party you know regional autonomy which means that and they have obtained it and they're working towards this regional differentiated autonomy that would really somehow make richer regions richer and poorer regions poorer. So in Italy, it's quite complicated. But I was referring to the fact that this idea that the state should somehow somewhat care about left behind groups should not be handed to the nationalist and populist movement. We should rethink in a creative way how to bring back the state as a potential redistributive force. Not easy, not easy, but we should work on it. Okay, thank you. I will propose to continue with Brigitte. Thank you very much, Adila, for the question and comment. I'm working with the concept of hybridity for years for a simple reason. Because it allows me to think about complex constellations and just to give an example of the presentation of the doc team we heard in we cannot think communities without also thinking about the support of the state or the lacking support of the state and so on. So I started to work with this concept of hybridity years ago to make clear that we have shifting responsibilities in our society and these shifting responsibilities are also strongly related with the hybrid arrangements how care is organized between the sectors how housing is organized between the sectors so what's about the transition? I think the transition is the question Cornelia raised. Counter-movements can be captured or they can fail. And this concept of hybridity is in the middle of both. They can be negotiated. You can negotiate in these paths of transitions. What shall the state do? What can we organize by markets? What can we not organize by markets? And for me, the transition is a transition in the sense of at least at last local and global dialogue of society about responsibilities. That would be my way of transition, and this needs stakeholders. But we have a lot in the field, also progressive ones. Thank you very much. We'll hand over now to the doc team and to your answers to the questions so far. Dr. Thiem and your answers to the questions so far? Yeah, thanks Attila for the very important mentioning of the principle of householding. But I have to admit you're not the first. So Anna Zafuta told us also we should incorporate householding in our studies and we did so. Because care takes place in the private home. Family members are a crucial part of caring and also analyzing living care. You can't do that without householding and it takes on some surprising constellations when a live-in care, mostly female migrant, gets into the family and they treat her like a quasi family member in good and in bad so she has to do work she's not there for or she gets treated a little better because she's seen as a quasi family member. Thanks a lot. I can add to this maybe briefly because it wasn't part of the presentation. The way we conceive of the double movement dynamic or the double movements rather in plural is that within care and housing provision we find in each regime different configurations of the socio-economic principles including householding and then movements encounter movements are efforts to reorganize the configuration of these principles in the provisioning process so that's our view on the double movement and then as Valentin has pointed out we have realized that when we look at care and housing we should include householding so you're very right like working in this kind of interdisciplinary project we started thinking about different integrative terms that we could use that highlight different interconnections between care and housing and so far we've mostly thought about the Polarnium term of habitation, which is a combination of material infrastructures and also social cultural practices. But we could also think about social infrastructures as one of these integrative terms. The problem that I have with householding is that it's very close just to housing. It sounds too close to housing. So mostly personally, I've used that easy excuse that you mentioned, that household is not really a Polanyian principle but comprised of just three other ones. Maybe regarding to the question about homelessness, I can first of all simply say that we don't systematically consider it in our research project. It's of course course, important to think of, and we also have a parallel session here at this conference, for example, on a theoretical level, what kind of care homeless people need. Regarding co-housing groups, I know different ones that have specific rooms for refugees, for example, or other vulnerable groups. But so far, I don't know any group that focuses refugees for example or other vulnerable groups but so far I don't know any group that focuses for example on working with homelessness in particular Okay thank you, still we have time for a quick round of questions a final one so if there is a demand for a further round feel free to answer, to question, to pose the questions. But we aren't angry if you ask them and answer them at the same time. Yeah. There's a colleague in the back. Thank you. My name is David Kapling. I'm a student here at JKU, a student of sociology. I have a question for the doc team in part and in part for Professor Arnbacher, but my question might be a chimera of the questions that came before. So orienting myself on the question about homelessness, maybe this is a little bit pessimistic, but maybe it isn't, and I'm just misunderstanding, but some very pessimistic intellectuals, thinkers, some of them sociologists, have said in the past that homelessness has a necessary function in society, or at least the threat of homelessness does, because that is what is needed to get us, the workers, to participate in society as it is today. Is that, in the opinion of the DOC team, a central part of modern society and if so, is that a contradiction to the community housing you have outlined or is the overcoming of this neoliberal perhaps principle part of your your frame of reference in the first place and connected to the question my neighbor here has asked another pessimistic thinker mark fishes basically repeated the old adage of there's nothing new in the West and claimed that any and all counter-movements are either destroyed or subsumed. Do you see this as, again, overly pessimistic or as wrong, or do you think that this is an entirely possible outlook which has to be addressed in and of itself? Thank you. Because then I will abuse my role as the chair. I want to. Now, just as a question to the doc team, because I interpreted the four inputs by the panelists before you as somehow referring to, I don't know, conditions of success or simply existence of the things you are researching. So on the one hand, there was like the alliances or the role of the social movements as a factor of success, maybe, of the emergence. Then there was the role of the state. So what is the role of the state in your case studies? Also, the way how these case studies are positioned in the emergence. Then there was the role of the state. So what is the role of the state in your case studies? Also the way how these case studies are positioned in the economies. Is this peculiar in the countries? Does it differ? However, I don't know whether you covered that. It might also be a dead end, my question. I'm not sure. And of course the conditions, if I refer to Cornelia, to the conditions of what might lead to failure. So because when she has homelessness, she has war, whatever, and I interpreted this as an analysis of failure, or possibilities of failure, of defeat. So, yeah. Is there another round of questions? Because then I would close the floor and would ask for the final answers before we can have to get together and continue the discussions in private. So I would ask Brigitta to start again because you were asked again. Yes, thank you very much. I would take up the question of the failure. I think that there is a modern principle which is a principle that everything can be made use of to improve modernity, to improve in the sense of Polanyi, a kind of social process, of economic process. And indeed, it's possible to see such counter-movements at forces of innovation in modern times and against their own intentions. So that's possible, but whether this will happen or not is a historical question. And Cornelia's argument has been in history until today, we have the experience that such counter-movements could be captured by capitalism and could be integrated in modern improvement. But whether this must be the case in future, no, I'm too optimistic that it must be the case. Andreas, want to add? If I understand Cornelia correctly in answering this, I think social democracy was a huge success if you compare living conditions of ordinary people today with ordinary people 100 years ago. But her argument, and in this I would follow her, is that this success, when looking from the 21st century, contains a lot of dangerous elements, especially with respect to the ecology and other dimensions. And I think that's dialectical development. But I think pessimism is not the only game in town let me come back to my very last to my first remark for the second round you do the future and I support and I encourage you to do better in the future but take a look back, a pessimistic look at the past. So I would agree with your division between past and future. And as a theorist, you have to sit on both sides. You have to look at it both ways and in both directions. And a criticism, a successful criticism comes from history. If you just ask people what they do in the future or what they intend to do, you get a too optimistic picture. But if you look at the past, you can add some criticism to it. That was my point, but the future is open, and the future is yours. Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you very much. So the floor is yours now, and you can do the good answers now, the final one. Thank you for all these questions. Maybe just a few thoughts on the role or the possibilities of the counter-movement within these collaborative or more communal care and housing projects, because we are running out of time and I think the beer is cold. What we found is quite often an optimistic view on these issues in these projects, in these local, regional initiatives in the cities we observed. And they are not naive, but they are also realistic. And what we found in our empirical interviews is a new kind of thinking is thinking together issues. So a new kind of thinking is thinking together issues. For example, issues of health, issues also of social exclusion. Not homeless was not a big topic, but the big issue of exclusion, of inequality within quarters, within cities. And this thinking together with aging and care and housing was for us in our empirical field studies really interesting and also promising maybe for the future so they that that's what we are trying to find out this new approach is to think separated areas together in a new way maybe innovative also and coming to homelessness is necessary. I mean, what's necessity and for whom it's necessary? So for example, the communities wouldn't agree with such an opinion. And yes, the second point, is it too pessimistic or wrong? I think it's both because it's too pessimistic and empirically as Florian showed it's wrong so we hope for the best and maybe remember the words Cornelia told us. Notwithstanding your comments what we can do say is that both fields are, so to say, on the move. There are a lot of changes happening. The institutional support structure is reconfiguring. There are new housing and care arrangements that enter the fields. And there are new inequalities or rearranging lines of inequalities that we see. And it's definitely worthwhile to trace these changes and to know what is happening in the field. I'll be brief. I wanted to answer your question a little bit, especially regarding the role of the state. And this is also answering to you, Flavia. It is very important, the role of the state. And that is one of the key variables in explaining the difference in between the countries that we look into. To give an example, when it comes to collaborative housing, there is virtually no institutional setup for communities to tap into in Hungary, for example. And then if it happens in Budapest, even then there's the issue that there is this conflict between the national level and the city level. So you have a void, essentially, that these communities need to somehow fill by working extremely hard on trying to establish their initiatives. So this is a very brief example and the institutional setup is very different in the Netherlands where it is captured by market actors, yes, but also very supportive for communities on the other hand. So these differences are very important. And then maybe I can close by referring to the question on the role of homelessness in society. I think probably a shared normative position that is the base of this project is that there should be good care and good housing for all, maybe add within planetary boundaries. And if such a vision exists, then I think this meritocratic notion that there is deserved homelessness or necessary homelessness can be rejected and Okay, thank you, so I think we're at the end now Thank you for your patience for your willingness to discuss. I would like to thank the panel of the first round to Andreas, Brigitte, Cornelia and Flavia and of course to the second round to Benjamin, Florian, Valentin and Hans and I invite you all to get together I think the drinks and the food will be outside so we can continue the discussion and otherwise I wish you a nice evening and come home safely because it's cold outside.