Identify the Argument That Neighbourly Relations
But more importantly they had to learn how to be a neighbour in a city. The boundaries between ‘public’ and ‘private’ are still evident in cities today. Kate Fox describes it as the ‘geography of neighbouring’. In every community there is an informal negotiation of space which establishes the daily functioning of the neighbourhood. Boundaries and communal junctions are places of interaction and for exchanges of pleasantries.Jovan Byford explains that most interactions occur over a boundary, a fence or in a public space like a street instead of in a personal private domain.
Harris and Gale (2004) conducted a study to examine neighbourly relations and they found the trend that most interviewees explained that if they go out of the house and see other neighbours they will chat but do not necessarily go to each other’s houses. It was clear that the interviewees described the awareness and danger of ‘over-neighbouring’ which is also interpreted as interference of someone’s private space.A recent ethnographic study conducted in a British suburb described neighbouring as an ‘occasioned activity’ (Laurier et al 2002). Instead of neighbourly relations occurring often and without thought, it was found it was for a specific reason. Ringing a neighbour’s doorbell is a planned interaction and there is a certain etiquette used to establish apologies relative to intrusion of space. Laurier et al used a discursive psychological approach to examine every day social interactions.This is a type of qualatitative research that gives evidence of how society functions and how we prevent it from breaking down.
Identify the Argument That Neighbourly Relations Essay Example
Jovan Byford explains a personal interaction he experienced “it was very clear that firstly there was a requirement by the other neighbour to establish a neighbourly identity, secondly there was an apology acknowledging the unexpected intrusion of my space, both in the physical and symbolic sense”. Jovan Byford describes neighbourly relations as a ‘slow dance’, moving together in society however never getting too close.Even with that brief interaction, the basic pricinples of neighbouring were played out and it shows that the most specific neighbourly relations occur with planning and with a specific manner. I mentioned before that a certain etiquette and language is expected with neighbourly interactions. In various studies conducted over the years, social scientists found that certain neighbourly characteristics are expected, for example, to have a certain disposition towards friendliness while at the same time respect peoples need for privacy and reserve (Willmott 1986 p. 5). A neighbour is also supposed to be available in times of trouble (Crow et al 2002 p.
136). It is clear that neighbourly relations rotate around divisions between private and public domains. Being a neighbour is not contained in a specific code of conduct manual (Byford), it is instead learned by socialisation. People acquire and develop knowledge about how to interact with others through this process. From an early age we practice living around other people and develop skills to interact appropriately for society.However rules governing how people live together and interact in a neighbourhood are not universal, different cultures and societies have different rules and customs regarding social interaction. In the 1970’s the anthropologist Stanley Brandes travelled to Spain to the village of Beccadas, western Spain.
Brandes experienced that neighbours entered each other’s houses without hesitation, and he was made to believe that he was part of a large family. He witnessed that there were complete contrasts between a neighbour identities such as he was used to, and a family identity.He noticed that boundaries between the inside and outside of houses were constantly blurred; normally a street is associated with public activities however in Spain villagers would move television out onto the street to take part in both and public domains. Brandes even reported that they had a fundamental fear of privacy, being reserved was associated as rudeness, and however, there was a reason for this communal proximity. Beneath the communal bound appearance people were viewed as unlawful driven to lying and cheating at any opportunity.The only protection was the reliability of a nuclear family, a security surveillance to prevent hostile attacks from the outside world. As I mentioned early on, one of the characteristics expected of a neighbour is to ‘friendly distance’.
However there are examples of when the community breaks down and the informal rules of society are breached. The boundaries between helpfulness and distance, friendliness and intrusiveness are open to interpretation, we are all individually minded humans therefore it’s easy for disputes to arise.According to the citizens advice service, the most common causes of neighbourly relations breaking down is the disrespect of giving ‘friendly distance’ and being noisy. Social psychologist Elizabeth Stokoe (2006) examined the neighbourly relational breakdown when complaints were reported regarding hearing sexual intercourse. People felt like hearing a private events but doing so made them feel like they had to be more reserved and private, however Stokoe experienced that making a complaint was rarely straightforward.Neighbourhood noise is not a new problem, during the ‘shock’ of urbanisation, estates suffering from overcrowding regularly heard more than they wanted from next door. Joanna Bourke studied some historic complaint, including ‘you can even hear them using the pot next door! ’ making neighbours feel the need to be more private and develop a ‘friendly distance’.
Although little evidence shows complaints to authority, people developed various ‘distancing mechanisms’ (Bourke). They made minor adjustments to daily life to increase friendly distance and avoid intrusions.