Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Everyday encounters with difference in urban parks: forging ‘openness to otherness’ in segmenting cities

  • Anna Barker (a1), Adam Crawford (a1), Nathan Booth (a1) and David Churchill (a1)

Abstract

In a context of hyper-diversity and social polarisation, it has been suggested that public parks constitute crucial arenas in which to safeguard deliberative democracy and foster social relations that bind loosely connected strangers. Drawing on empirical research, we offer a more circumspect and nuanced understanding of the – nonetheless vital – role that parks can play in fostering civic norms that support the capacity for living with difference. As ‘spaces apart’, parks have distinctive atmospheres that afford opportunities for convivial encounters in which ‘indifference to difference’ underpins ‘openness to otherness’. As places in which difference is rendered routine and unremarkable, the potency of parks for social cohesion derives from fleeting and unanticipated interactions and the weak ties they promote, rather than strong bonds of community that tend to solidify lines of cultural differentiation. Both by design and unintentionally, regulation and law can serve to foster or constrain the conditions that sustain conviviality.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Everyday encounters with difference in urban parks: forging ‘openness to otherness’ in segmenting cities
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Everyday encounters with difference in urban parks: forging ‘openness to otherness’ in segmenting cities
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Everyday encounters with difference in urban parks: forging ‘openness to otherness’ in segmenting cities
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

*Corresponding author. E-mail: a.crawford@leeds.ac.uk

References

Hide All
Allport, GW (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amin, A (2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural city. Environment and Planning A 34, 959980.
Amin, A (2010) Cities and the Ethic of Care for the Stranger. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Amin, A (2013) Land of strangers. Identities 20, 18.
Anderson, B (2009) Affective atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society 2, 7781.
Appadurai, A (2013) The Future as Cultural Fact. London: Verso.
Appiah, KA (2006) Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: WW Norton & Co.
Back, L (2015) Why everyday life matters. Sociology 49, 820836.
Barker, A (2017) Mediated conviviality and the urban social order. British Journal of Criminology 57, 848866.
Barker, A, Churchill, D and Crawford, A (2018) The Leeds Parks Survey: Final Report. Leeds: University of Leeds. Available at https://futureofparks.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/03/Leeds-Parks-Survey-Full-Report.pdf (accessed 24 November 2019).
Barker, A et al. (2019) Park futures: excavating images of tomorrow's urban green spaces. Urban Studies. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019875405 (accessed 24 November 2019).
Bates, C (2018) Conviviality, disability and design in the city. The Sociological Review 66, 984999.
Bille, M, Bjerregaard, P and Sørensen, TF (2015) Staging atmospheres. Emotion, Space and Society 15, 3138.
Bissell, D (2010) Passenger mobilities: affective atmospheres and the sociality of public transport. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28, 270289.
Blomley, N (2011) Rights of Passage. London: Routledge.
Boden, D and Molotch, H (1994) The compulsion to proximity. In Friedland, B and Boden, D (eds), Nowhere: Space, Time and Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 257286.
Böhme, G (1993) Atmosphere as the fundamental concept of a new aesthetics. Thesis Eleven 36, 113126.
Böhme, G (2006) Architektur und Atmosphäre. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
Booth, N et al. (2019) Spaces apart: public parks and the differentiation of space in Leeds, 1850–1914. Urban History, forthcoming.
Cantle, T (2001) Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team. London: Home Office.
Churchill, D, Crawford, A and Barker, A (2018) Thinking forward through the past: prospecting for urban order in (Victorian) public parks. Theoretical Criminology 22, 523544.
Conway, H (1991) People's Parks: The Design and Development of Victorian Parks in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, D (2006) ‘Sometimes a community and sometimes a battlefield’: from the comedic public sphere to the commons of Speakers’ Corner. Environment and Planning D 24, 753775.
Cotterrell, R (2017) Theory and values in socio-legal studies. Journal of Law and Society 44, S19S36.
Crawford, A and Hutchinson, S (2016) Mapping the contours of ‘everyday security’: time, space and emotion. British Journal of Criminology 56, 11841202.
Fincher, R and Iveson, K (2015) Conviviality as an ethic of care in the city. In Gibson, K, Rose, DB and Fincher, R (eds), Manifesto for Living in the Anthropocene. New York: Punctum Books, pp. 2327.
Gilmore, A (2017) The park and the commons: vernacular spaces for everyday participation and cultural value. Cultural Trends 26, 3446.
Gilroy, P (2004) After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture? Abingdon: Routledge.
Gilroy, P (2006) Multiculture in times of war. Critical Quarterly 48, 2745.
Goffman, E (1972) Relations in Public. London: Penguin.
Graham, S and Marvin, S (2001) Splintering Urbanism. London: Routledge.
Granovetter, M (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 13601380.
Hall, S (1993) Culture, community, nation. Cultural Studies 7, 349363.
Hall, S (2017) The Fateful Triangle: Race, Ethnicity, Nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heritage Lottery Fund (2016) State of UK Public Parks 2016. London: HLF.
Hewstone, M (2009) Living apart, living together? The role of intergroup contact in social integration. Proceedings of the British Academy 162, 243300.
House of Commons (2017) Public Parks: Seventh Report of Session 2016–17, HC 45. London: House of Commons.
Jacobs, J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Koch, R and Latham, A (2012) Rethinking urban public space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37, 515529.
Leeds City Council (2009) A Parks and Green Space Strategy for Leeds. Leeds: Parks and Countryside Department.
Low, S, Taplin, D and Scheld, S (2005) Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and Cultural Diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Manning, P (1992) Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Massey, D (2005) For Space. London: Sage.
Mayblin, L, Valentine, G and Andersson, J (2016) In the contact zone: engineering meaningful encounters across difference through an interfaith project. The Geographical Journal 182, 213222.
Moore, SF (1973) Law and social change: the semi-autonomous social field as an appropriate subject of study. Law and Society Review 7, 719746.
Neal, S et al. (2013) Living multiculture: understanding the new spatial and social relations of ethnicity and multiculture in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 31, 308323.
Neal, S et al. (2015) Multiculture and public parks. Population, Place and Space 21, 463475.
Noble, G (2013) Cosmopolitan habits: the capacities and habitats of intercultural conviviality. Body & Society 19, 162185.
Nowicka, M and Vertovec, S (2014) Comparing convivialities: dreams and realities of living-with-difference. European Journal of Cultural Studies 17, 341356.
Nowotny, H (2017) An Orderly Mess. Budapest: Central European University Press.
Paluck, EL, Green, SA and Green, DP (2018) The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy. Available at https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25 (accessed 24 November 2019).
Patrignani, E (2018) Overcoming essentialisation: a comparative study of ‘living-together’ conceptions. International Journal of Law in Context 14, 374395.
Peattie, L (1998) Convivial cities. In Douglas, J and Friedmann, J (eds), Cities and Citizens. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 247252.
Pettigrew, TF and Tropp, LR (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, 751783.
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A (2013) Atmospheres of law. Emotion, Space & Society 7, 3544.
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A (2015) Spatial Justice: Body, Lawscape, Atmosphere. London: Routledge.
Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A (2018) And for law: why space cannot be understood without law. Law, Culture and the Humanities. Available at https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872118765708 (accessed 24 November 2019).
Putnam, R (2000) Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Shaftoe, H (2008) Convivial Urban Spaces. London: Routledge.
Silbey, S (2005) After legal consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1, 323368.
Simmel, G (1971) The stranger. In Levine, DN (ed.), On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 143149.
Sunstein, C (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tasan-Kok, T et al. (2014) Towards Hyper-diversified European Cities. Utrecht: Utrecht University.
Thrift, N (2005) But malice aforethought: cities and the natural history of hatred. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers 30, 133150.
Valentine, G (2008) Living with difference: reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography 32, 323337.
Watson, S (2009) The magic of the marketplace. Urban Studies 46, 15771591.
Wessendorf, S (2013) Commonplace diversity and the ‘ethos of mixing’. Identities 20, 407422.
Wiltshire, G and Stevinson, C (2018) Exploring the role of social capital in community-based physical activity: qualitative insights from parkrun. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 10, 4762.
Wise, A (2013) Hope in a land of strangers. Identities 20, 3745.
Wise, A and Noble, G (2016) Convivialities: an orientation. Journal of Intercultural Studies 37, 423431.
Wise, A and Velayutham, S (2014) Conviviality in everyday multiculturalism. European Journal of Cultural Studies 17, 406430.
Young, IM (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Everyday encounters with difference in urban parks: forging ‘openness to otherness’ in segmenting cities

  • Anna Barker (a1), Adam Crawford (a1), Nathan Booth (a1) and David Churchill (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.