Abstract
This chapter explores the connections between neighbourhood features, intergroup interaction and attitudes to diversity further in portraits of five selected neighbourhoods. We use both survey results as well as empirical material from qualitative fieldwork to explore the ways in which residents see their neighbourhoods, and how they experience social life and their interactions with co-residents of different backgrounds. We identify features of an ‘intimate market society’ in two neighbourhoods where economic exchange and an attractive public space facilitate intergroup interaction. The sub-urban character of two other neighbourhoods is linked with a lifestyle that is less conducive to intergroup interaction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The focus on different qualities of closeness and distance in social contact goes back to sociological classics who understood the varied forms of ‘proximity and distance’ (Simmel 1992: 765) or the polymorphic balance of ‘involvement and detachment’ (Elias 2007) as universal features of sociality.
- 2.
We do not claim that all suburban areas are marked by such a style. But see also Schäfers (2006: 101) who argues that ‘The low communication density and decline in practices or behaviors oriented towards the general public are characteristic of settlements in suburban areas’. Mark Clapson (2003: 16) maintains that suburban life can mean different things in different national and local contexts. See also Menzl (2007) and Baumgartner (1988).
- 3.
Schröder et al. (2000: 195) also observed ‘that the evaluation and perception of the social space by residents has effects’; Friedrichs/Oberwittler (2007: 462) emphasize the relationship between ties in the neighbourhood and emotional bonds to the neighbourhood.
- 4.
Compare Ellen Berrey’s (2005) study of a Chicago neighbourhood that shows several similar features.
- 5.
Residents often see the area as part of Bornheim, officially the adjacent district.
- 6.
Where not indicated otherwise, statistical data are from a database compiled for this project on the basis of the official statistics of the cities for the year 2009.
- 7.
This refers to a database created on the basis of official data provided by the cities. See Annex for further explanation.
- 8.
http://www.berami.de/index.php?p=1; accessed on 9 December 2013
- 9.
See for instance Nordmeyer (2000): 19, a history of the area, where it is also portrayed as marked by diversity.
- 10.
However, as Ellen Berrey (2005) argued in her study of a Chicago neighbourhood, even a positive local diversity discourse may push the concerns of poorer residents to the background.
- 11.
Lofland (1998: 53–59) distinguishes four types of interaction-based relations of residents moving in urban public space while conceiving one another as strangers: fleeting, routinized, quasi-primary, and secondary-intimate relationships. These four types are defined by an increasing impact of emotions and moral commitments. Based on our data we can assume that repetition and recognition can be seen as a mechanism that may principally produce a shift from the first type to the latter types of relation. But in contrast to what Lofland states, our data suggest that already routinized relationships can be emotional although sometimes unilateral.
- 12.
This is similar to what Michael Keith describes a ‘double interplay between closeness and distance, strange and familiar’ (Keith 2008: 193–194).
- 13.
This is an estimate based on the population register for 31 December 2009.
- 14.
The city of Hamburg provides figures on the annual income per tax-payer for 2004. At the time, average incomes in the larger Stadtteil Eimsbüttel were about ten per cent lower than in Hamburg overall (Statistisches Amt für Hamburg und Schleswig-Holstein 2010b: 89). At the same time, the share of those on benefits was also much lower than in the city as a whole. The DivCon survey includes information on the household income of respondents.
- 15.
Names are not real names.
- 16.
Apparently a housing bloc for more than 250 members of immigrant families does not count as public housing.
- 17.
The DivCon area lies between Philadelphiastraße and Sprödentalplatz, and between Oppumer and Uerdinger Straße.
- 18.
An expert mentioned that in the past, the area had seen heated conflicts involving Kurds, Arabs, and Turks.
- 19.
They indirectly referred to the phenomenon as ‘those houses’ or the places where ‘something with women’ goes on.
- 20.
In contrast, a newspaper report described the association as ‘multicultural’. Among its members were Italians, Portuguese, Turks, and immigrants from the East (wz newsline of Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 23 August 2010).
- 21.
This assessment is based on data for our survey respondents. We referred to further information on rent levels and income, confirming the overall picture in the text.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schönwälder, K. et al. (2016). Five Stories of Neighbourhood, Social Life, and Diversity. In: Diversity and Contact. Global Diversities. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58603-2_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58603-2_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58602-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58603-2
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)