Contribution short abstract:

Inquiring into the increasing detachment of houses and kinship accompanying the boom of concrete houses in Laos, I argue that this detachment is rather welcome. This case invites us to question the persistent positive bias in kinship anthropology and to investigate processes of kinship uncommoning.

Contribution long abstract:

The boom in concrete houses across the global South is often described in a language of loss – loss of building traditions and skills, loss of sociality in favor of an increasing interest in privacy, less pooling of resources, etc. But why is it, then, that in places where local building materials are available, concrete is preferred? Perhaps, this has not only to do with this material’s modern appeal, but also with its potential to uncommon social relationships and to limit socio-economic demands.

During long-term fieldwork in upland Laos, I followed the emergence of concrete houses and noticed several incisive subsequent social changes, most notably the increasing detachment of building and dwelling from kinship. Processes of uncommoning related to houses were not presented to me as mere negative side effects but as a welcome development. However, at the same time, they point to novel forms of socio-economic exclusion.

Reconsidering the change in the social relevance of houses, I inquire into the reasons for and facets of uncommoning for persons who had lively experiences of intense commoning. This case invites us to question persistent biases in kinship anthropology, notably the ‘warm, fuzzy glow’ (Carsten 2013) emanating from concepts such as the ‘mutuality of being’ (Sahlins 2011). Indeed, despite insights on the contrary, ‘kinship and relatedness are still often depicted as definitionally positive’ (Goldfarb and Bamford 2025). The longed-for solitude behind concrete walls calls us to give ethnographic and conceptual attention to processes of kinship uncommoning.