Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities [1st ed.] 978-3-030-17255-8;978-3-030-17256-5

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xii
Understanding Social Exclusion (Alfredo Mela, Alessia Toldo)....Pages 1-7
Key Concepts of Social Inequalities (Alfredo Mela, Alessia Toldo)....Pages 9-31
Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice (Alfredo Mela, Alessia Toldo)....Pages 33-43
Differences, Spaces and Exclusion (Alfredo Mela, Alessia Toldo)....Pages 45-74
Political Urban Exclusion and Participation (Alfredo Mela, Alessia Toldo)....Pages 75-79
Back Matter ....Pages 81-83

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN GEOGRAPHY

Alfredo Mela Alessia Toldo

Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities 123

SpringerBriefs in Geography

SpringerBriefs in Geography presents concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications across the fields of physical, environmental and human geography. It publishes compact refereed monographs under the editorial supervision of an international advisory board with the aim to publish 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance. Volumes are compact, 50 to 125 pages, with a clear focus. The series covers a range of content from professional to academic such as: timely reports of state-of-the art analytical techniques, bridges between new research results, snapshots of hot and/or emerging topics, elaborated thesis, literature reviews, and in-depth case studies. The scope of the series spans the entire field of geography, with a view to significantly advance research. The character of the series is international and multidisciplinary and will include research areas such as: GIS/cartography, remote sensing, geographical education, geospatial analysis, techniques and modeling, landscape/regional and urban planning, economic geography, housing and the built environment, and quantitative geography. Volumes in this series may analyze past, present and/or future trends, as well as their determinants and consequences. Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in this series. SpringerBriefs in Geography will be of interest to a wide range of individuals with interests in physical, environmental and human geography as well as for researchers from allied disciplines.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10050

Alfredo Mela Alessia Toldo •

Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities

123

Alfredo Mela Interuniversity Department of Urban and Regional Studies Politecnico di Torino Torino, Italy

Alessia Toldo Department of Cultures, Politics and Society Università di Torino Torino, Italy

ISSN 2211-4165 ISSN 2211-4173 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Geography ISBN 978-3-030-17255-8 ISBN 978-3-030-17256-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17256-5 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Introduction

Differences and Inequalities in Contemporary Cities: A Spatial Perspective As a result of the urbanisation processes that have taken place almost all over the planet, in 2018 about 4,200,000,000 people, corresponding to 55.3% of the entire global population, are concentrated in urban areas (United Nations 2018). This trend is destined to continue in the near future: indeed, the rate of urbanisation is expected to rise to 66% by the middle of the twenty-first century with a further increase of another 2.5 billion urban inhabitants, 90% of whom concentrated in Asian and African metropolises. As the urban population is increasing, so too is the proliferation of large cities: in 1990, there were only 10 megacities—i.e. urban complexes with more than 10,000,000 residents—but by 2014 that number had risen to 28. We can also add that the wealth produced worldwide, both today and in the decades ahead, will tend to be concentrated in urban and metropolitan agglomerations. According to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute (Dobbs et al. 2011), in 2025, 600 cities will generate 60% of the world’s GDP. Undoubtedly, these simple figures justify the claim that the world is becoming a more and more highly urbanised territory. Urbanisation has now become a global phenomenon, especially since even less densely populated and apparently non-urban territories (such as mining or tourist areas) are actually closely dependent on the city from an economic and political point of view (Brenner and Schmid 2011). This statement, however, requires essential clarification if we want to avoid generating a partial or distorted image of the contemporary urban phenomenon. It should be stressed that, while it is true that the earth is becoming increasingly urbanised, it is also true that contemporary urbanisation is very different from the way it was in the past—even the relatively recent past. Urban agglomerations are made up of settlements that are profoundly different from each other, in terms of both their physical form and their social composition, the resources available and the lifestyles of their inhabitants. This diversity is also characterised by profound social inequalities, which have increased overall in recent decades (Cassiers and

v

vi

Introduction

Kesteloot 2012) and which affect both the cities of the Global North and those of the Global South, to the point of making this distinction between world contexts increasingly less useful for interpreting the urban condition of the twenty-first century. Cities, especially big ones, are places where populations with very unequal living conditions are concentrated: for example, 40% of the families belonging to the United Kingdom’s wealthiest 10% live in the metropolitan area of London, which is home to about 25% of the national population. At the same time, however, London also houses 29% of the families belonging to the poorest 10% (Adomaitis 2013). There are many different reasons for this growing inequality, but they are all related to the consolidation of a capitalist development model that emphasises the flexibility of the workforce and the volatility of capital. It also depends on a crisis in the welfare state, even in the countries that have worked hardest on the development of this form of social guarantee, and on the dissemination of neoliberal policies all over the world. Even more accentuated, however, is the multiplicity of the dimensions of urban inequality and of the different forms in which it manifests itself. While the disparity of economic resources available to individuals and households is a fundamental aspect of inequality, many other factors contribute to creating disadvantage or privilege. Some of them, such as access to higher education or private services, are strongly correlated to the availability of economic resources; others, however, derive from factors, which are distinct from those of an economic nature while intersecting with them to a certain extent. Examples of these are factors linked to variables of ethnic origin, gender, differences in sexual orientation and religion. Taking this complexity into consideration, it is understandable that in the vocabulary of social sciences (particularly geography and sociology), as well as in the lexicon of the documents of transnational and national institutions, distinct concepts appear to designate the different dimensions of inequality or, on the contrary, to contrast it, such as ‘exclusion’, ‘inclusion’, ‘segregation’, ‘cohesion’, ‘integration’, ‘stigmatisation’ and so on. In the same scientific literature, however, these concepts are often given different definitions. Moreover, their use in media language or in public debate leads, in many cases, to an overlapping of meanings and to misunderstandings, which are reflected in urban policy issues. The first aim of this book1 is to contribute to analysing urban inequality and social exclusion by clarifying the terms used to describe its various aspects. It is an introduction to the subject and does not aim to provide an in-depth analysis of the debate that each of the concepts in question has generated in social sciences. What it does intend to offer is a brief overview of some of the keywords relating to this subject, highlighting their mutual relations and elements of distinction. 1

This book is the result of a continuous exchange of ideas and reflections between the authors. Specifically, the first and the second chapters were written by Alfredo Mela, and the third and the fourth by Alessia Toldo. The introduction and the fifth chapters were jointly written by both authors.

Introduction

vii

The perspective from which this analysis will be carried out has an important specificity: it considers urban inequality as a phenomenon that is both social and spatial. Some of the terms mentioned above, such as ‘segregation’, already imply a territorial dimension, while others do not necessarily highlight it. In this book, for every term examined we will always try to take into account its relationship with urban space. This means that the effects generated by any kind of inequality on the urban territory will be highlighted, but also—and above all—that space will be conceived not as a simple container for social phenomena, but as a factor that actively contributes to their production, interacting with social, economic and cultural variables. From this point of view, the prevailing approach in the text takes considers the shift in perspective, particularly over the last two decades, which has been labelled as spatial turn (Wolf and Arias 2008). This orientation towards an active and relational conception of space, which is connatural to geographical disciplines, has also influenced other social sciences in this phase, especially sociology (Löw 2016), even in fields of research that are different to those traditionally aimed at the study of the city and territory. In Urban Studies, spatial turn has facilitated the collaboration between geography and sociology, bringing their respective languages and theoretical reference points closer together without eliminating the specificities that characterise the two disciplinary traditions. This text considers the evolution of perspective and tries to apply it also to subjects which have not stimulated social– spatial reflections in sociological analysis in the past. There is still one aspect of the approach used in this book that needs to be clarified immediately. It focuses its attention on the different dimensions of urban inequality and proposes not only a review, but also a critical analysis of the concepts used to study it. Instead, we do not intend to carry out a systematic examination of the causes of these inequalities, even if in some points there are specific references to some of them. In general, we believe that the causes can be generated by different spheres of social activity: from the functioning of the capitalist socio-economic model to the role of the state and public institutions at various scales; from cultural reasons to processes deriving from relations with the natural and built environment. Often, then the causes overlap and reinforce each other. In any case, their study would require an in-depth analysis that is not part of the purpose of this work. After this short introduction, the first chapter addresses the concept of exclusion, focusing on the main definitions within the international debate and its central elements. This chapter stresses the fact that social exclusion is not just a synonym for poverty. While poverty is an essential factor, exclusion also refers to numerous other different dimensions. We focus on the spatial dimension of inclusion and exclusion, highlighting the ways in which space can contribute to implementing or contrasting these phenomena. Chapter 2 critically analyses another set of key concepts for the study of social inequality. Definitions will be compared in relation to each concept, highlighting the theoretical differences and the possible consequences of their use in the construction of urban policies. At the same time, the similarities and differences

viii

Introduction

between these concepts are highlighted, in an attempt to make the reader aware of the risks of their improper use. These concepts are divided into three groups. In the first, we analyse some fundamental terms referring to the insertion of specific groups of social actors in a social system: we deal with some keywords that feature in political discourse on this topic, such as integration, cohesion and capabilities as well as terms with opposite meanings, particularly expulsion. The second group takes into consideration concepts more directly linked to urban processes; in particular terms like segregation and spatial polarisation, and urban dualism. Finally, the third group includes terms related to social and cultural processes that strengthen inequalities between social groups and favour the assignment of marginal roles to minorities: in this sense, therefore, the concepts related to the symbolic power, such as stigmatisation and discrimination, is taken into consideration. Chapter 3 is dedicated to understand the controversial theme of differences as complex and contested term, through some different approaches. First, we deal with three main sociological approaches: essentialism, social constructivism and psychoanalytic tradition. We also briefly introduce the perspective of intersectionality, to describe how the overlap of multiple social identities can produce different combinations of discrimination, oppression and domination. These phenomena can be usefully understood within a framework of social and spatial justice. In particular, we introduce thee perspectives (from Iris Marion Young, Nancy Fraser and Edward Soja) that we consider particularly useful for our second goal. Chapter 4 is dedicated to analysing exclusion from a spatial perspective, in relation to those characteristics that can become elements of discrimination and trigger processes of exclusion. For this reason, we analyse exclusion from a spatial perspective, focusing on the specific differences (class, sex and gender, ‘race2’ and disability) related to different social groups: homeless people, women, homosexuals and queer people, refugees and asylum seekers and disabled people. Our second goal is to, in fact, train our readers’ sensitivity in order to understand the spatialities of social differences. That is, how social differences and spaces are mutually produced and reproduced, and how their interactions can produce social exclusion when particular groups of people are perceived out of place. Finally, Chapter 5 focuses on the importance of the political dimension of urban exclusion. To that end, we start with the concept of the ‘revanchist city’ and we arrive to deal with the phenomena of social exclusion within of populist and nationalist movements and the way they treat differences. In this context, so dramatically current, not only in academic study, but above all in the public and political debate, we interrogate ourselves it there are any real alternatives for marginal urban groups, opposed and deprived of both voice and representation—albeit with different forms and rhetoric—as much by neoliberal as by populist and nationalist policies. A comprehensive answer to this question would As we can better explain in the third chapter, the use of term ‘race’ is contested and controversial. We will use it between inverted commas in a problematic way, in order to highlight the effect of the discrimination based on the not-scientific belief on differences related, above all, to the colour of the skin.

2

Introduction

ix

require the examination of the different orientations of urban policies proposed for this purpose, a theme that goes beyond the intentions of this book. However, in the last part of the chapter, we reflect on the role of active citizen participation in decisions related to urban policies and their implementation, with the aim of promoting the inclusion of disadvantaged individuals and social groups. Since it is not obvious that these processes directly involve the marginal subjects as protagonists, it is necessary that the appropriate conditions are created and that the methods of participation are explicitly intended for the inclusion of every part of the urban population, through the use of modalities capable of counterbalancing the power of the strongest and most influential stakeholders.

References Adomaitis K (2013) The World’s Largest Cities are the Most Unequal, https://blog.euromonitor. com/2013/03/the-worlds-largest-cities-are-the-most-unequal.html. Accessed 20 November 2011 Brenner N, Schmid C (2011) Planetary urbanization. In: Gandy M (ed) Urban constellations, Jovis, Berlin, pp 10–13 Cassiers T, Kesteloot C (2012) Socio-spatial inequalities and social cohesion in european cities. Urban Stud 49(9): 1909–1924 Dobbs R, Smit S, Remes J, Manyika J, Roxburgh C, Restrepo A (2011) Urban world: mapping the economic power of cities, McKinsey Global Institute, Seul, London, New York Löw M (2016) The Sociology of space: materiality, social structures, and action, Palgrave Macmillan, New York United Nations/DESA Population Division (2018) World Urbanization Prospects 2018, https:// population.un.org/wup/. Accessed 13 October 2018 Warf B, Arias S (2008) (eds) The spatial turn: interdisciplinary perspectives, Routledge, London

Contents

1 Understanding Social Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Social Exclusion Beyond Poverty . . . . . . . 1.2 The Spatial Dimension of Social Exclusion References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Social Dimensions: Integration and Exclusion in Industrial and Post-industrial Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Spatial Effects: Social Segregation, Polarisation, Capsularisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Symbolic Power, Stigmatisation and Discrimination . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

1 1 4 6

......

9

......

9

...... ...... ......

17 24 28

. . . .

. . . .

3 Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Different Approaches: Essentialism, Constructivism and Psychoanalytic Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Intersectionality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion in a Perspective of Justice References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Exclusion by Economic Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1 Understanding Social Class and Social Stratification 4.1.2 Extreme Urban Poverty and Social Exclusion of Homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Gender Differences: Sex and Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Women and Urban Spaces: Fear, Times, Mobility . . 4.2.2 From Lesbian and Gay Spaces to Queer Spaces . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

....

33

....

33

.... .... ....

36 38 43

..... ..... .....

45 45 46

. . . .

49 52 56 58

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

xi

xii

Contents

4.3 ‘Racial’ Differences: ‘Race’ and Ethnicity and Ethnic Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Roma People and the Space of Camps . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Urban Squatting 4.4 Disabilities and Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

60 63 65 67 70

....

75

.... .... ....

75 78 79

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

5 Political Urban Exclusion and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Exclusion in Revanchist City and in Populist and Nationalist Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Giving Voice for to Marginal Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Chapter 1

Understanding Social Exclusion

Abstract The first chapter addresses the concept of social exclusion, focusing on the main definitions within the international debate and its central elements. This chapter refers to social inclusion as a goal, process and outcome and underlines its different dimensions, differentiating it from poverty. In fact, although we often use them as synonyms, the concepts of social exclusion and poverty do not exactly coincide, but they describe different conditions characterised by a relationship of cause and effect. Poverty is one of the dimensions of social exclusion, which refers to a wider and more complex situation. Keywords Social exclusion · Poverty · Multidimensional process · Spheres of social activity · Spatial dimension · Urban environment

1.1 Social Exclusion Beyond Poverty Among the concepts used to deal with the theme of social inequalities––both in abstract terms and with specific reference to their spatial manifestation––that of social exclusion has a particularly broad meaning, referring to different paradigms with which exclusion can be defined and analysed, to different causes and to different environments in which it occurs. The same can be said for its opposite, i.e. the concept of inclusion, increasingly used not only in the social sciences but also in many international documents, to indicate a framework objective that should inspire policies on various territorial scales and particularly urban policies. An example is the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by a conference of heads of state and government at the United Nations in 2015, which, among its 17 fundamental goals, states in point 11 ‘Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’. Therefore, the idea of social exclusion can represent a starting point of particular importance for the analysis of inequalities, which will then continue in the following chapters, taking into account concepts that focus more closely on specific aspects. Referring to the classical paradigms of sociology, those dating back to the nineteenth century, Byrne (2005) identifies three approaches that propose distinct conceptions of social exclusion, even though marginal areas of overlap can be produced. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A. Mela and A. Toldo, Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17256-5_1

1

2

1 Understanding Social Exclusion

The first is liberal, placing the accent on individual freedoms and on the balancing role of the market; the second is conservative, emphasising the importance of the integration of the subjects in an ordered and legitimate organism; the third is Marxist, focusing on the need to overcome the capitalist structures that generate inequality. Bearing these three traditions in mind, a partially independent way from Byrne’s analysis, we can observe that the first conceives exclusion primarily as an effect of the non-optimal functioning of the labour market, i.e. as an individual inability to access it. Consequently, it tries to find solutions by strengthening the role of the free market and the employment opportunities that derive from economic development. The second is consistent with the organicist and functionalist visions of society, which consider the non-inclusion of subjects as dysfunctionality of the social system and in particular of the subsystems that govern integration, such as family, school and cultural activities. The imperfect functioning of these subsystems produces anomie and conflict and must be repaired using regulatory policies. The Marxist tradition has two distinct versions: both believe that exclusion is the inevitable product of the laws of capitalism. However, the radical version believes that only the overcoming of that model can lead to a real inclusion of all subjects, while the interpretation of socialist or Labour reformism thinks that public policies, and in particular the Welfare State, can play a role of redistribution of resources and mitigation of factors of exclusion. In these classic paradigms, the fundamental role in the processes of social exclusion is played by the economic system, in its relations with the State. In some cases it is seen as a pure guarantor of the functioning of the market (in liberalism and, with opposite evaluations, in radical Marxism); or, in others, as a guarantor of the coherence of the system and the social order (in organicism), or even as the subject of rebalancing policies (in reformism). The most recent definitions, however, stress the multidimensional nature of the phenomenon of exclusion, i.e. the fact that it depends on a number of causes and is expressed in many areas of social interaction. For example Levitas et al. (2007) state that ‘Social exclusion is a complex and multidimensional process. It involves the lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority of people in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole’ (p. 9). From this point of view, in the face of an all-encompassing use of the concept, it is legitimate to ask the question ‘Exclusion from what’? (Silver 1994) and answer by indicating a number of areas to which certain subjects or social groups are denied access. The list of these elements can be broadly articulated: even if only referring to the field of material resources, in addition to income earned from work we could add that from fringe benefits, public policies, ownership (of land, housing, rents, etc.) and the availability of common goods (see beyond the chapter). However, exclusion can also derive from other aspects of a social, political and cultural nature: race, nationality or geographical origin, gender, sexual preferences, age, physical condition, lifestyles, religious and political orientations, place of residence, legal status, potential for access to food, housing, education, physical and mental health, a healthy environment, security, communication technologies, health, transport (Lucas 2012).

1.1 Social Exclusion Beyond Poverty

3

In addition, we also have to consider networks of relationships with other subjects and with different types of social entities (family, networks of friendships, associations, institutions). Other factors could then be added or those indicated here could be further articulated by distinguishing more subtly between the causes of exclusion. Emphasising the multidimensional nature of exclusion highlights the complexity of the processes that characterise contemporary society and that lead to a fragmentation of individual or family situations in the relationship with resources of various kinds. Moreover, emphasis is placed on the way that various factors can operate independently of one another, for example the exclusion of a foreigner from the right to vote in local elections–present in many European countries (Groenendijk 2008)–depends on national political choices and is unrelated to any consideration of people’s economic or social conditions. However, too much emphasis on the autonomy of individual causes and too much attention to their fragmentation would risk our losing sight of the fact that, very often, the various factors are interrelated and act together, leading to multidimensional and, for some, global and radical forms of exclusion. In view of this, a reasonable way of conducting reflection seems to be that which leads to the identification of a limited number of spheres of social activity and to the linking of phenomena of inequality to them, grasping both the specificities of each of them and their reciprocal interconnection. In this sense, a contemporary interpreter of Marxism, like Harvey (2010), while focusing his analysis on the evolution of capitalism as a global process, speaks of seven distinct spheres of activity that influence its trajectory. These spheres are: technology and forms of social organisation, social relations, institutional and administrative structure, production and work, relations with nature, daily life and its reproduction, mental representations of the world. He refuses to establish the priority of one sphere over the others but recognises that each of them evolves in dynamic interaction with the others. Additionally, the role of each sphere can have a more or less significant weight as the phases of development of capitalism and the spatial contexts themselves vary. In this way, production and labour were more important in industrial society than they are today in post-industrial societies, while the importance of daily life and environmental relations has grown. By examining each sphere and its conditions and relations with other spheres in a given time and context, we could identify the dominant and complementary factors of exclusion, trying to interpret how they operate in relation to different social groups and conditions. Similarly, we can then proceed to study the processes that promote social inclusion in each sphere, by trying to eliminate the structural barriers that oppose it and by creating the conditions that allow each individual, family or social group to play an active role in overcoming obstacles of various kinds. However, a multidimensional consideration of exclusion avoids its identification with a single type of social condition and particularly with the dimension of the scarcity of material resources alone. The latter is more often described with the concept of ‘poverty’ about which Ravallion (1994, p. 3) states that ‘Poverty can be said to exist in a given society when one or more persons do not attain a level of material well-being deemed to constitute a reasonable minimum by the standards of that society’. Certainly, in literature there are many different approaches to the definition and

4

1 Understanding Social Exclusion

measurement of poverty and the theoretical and methodological choices made in this regard also depend on the assessment of the impact of the phenomenon in various contexts (Laderchi et al. 2003), as well as the greater or lesser overlap with social exclusion. However, many poverty measures are based on the spending capacity or consumption of individuals or households or, in any case, on an assessment of material well-being. In those cases, there are aspects of exclusion that can be considered extraneous to the concept of poverty (Braun and Gatzweiler 2014); for example, the fact of living in an isolated area without the necessary connections may, in itself, represent a limiting factor of the relational network, but it is more difficult to include it in the condition of poverty. This book focuses mainly on the analysis of social exclusion/inclusion rather than on that of poverty, in order to keep the framework of the dimensions that must be taken into account as open as possible, even if it will be impossible to study each of them in adequate depth.

1.2 The Spatial Dimension of Social Exclusion As already mentioned in this chapter, the approach taken here to social exclusion highlights the active role of space in producing social exclusion. However, it is useful to add some considerations in order to clarify adequately this point of view. First of all, it should be stressed that it is not merely a focus on the social distribution of disadvantaged individuals or groups who suffer some forms of exclusion. This is undoubtedly a traditional subject for both urban sociology and urban geography and is at the centre of the Chicago school, which played a fundamental role in the initial phase of sociological studies on the city. The Chicago school of the 1920s and 1930s (led by Park, Burgess, McKenzie and other authors) was interested in understanding the mechanisms of ‘human ecology’ and their effects on the spatial structure of the city. On the other hand, even in that school, often considered theoretically weak and interesting only in relation to its contribution to the empirical analysis of urban space, there is an inspiration that goes beyond the simple description of the characteristics of different neighbourhoods. In fact, it intended to highlight the located character of social phenomena, considering that ‘one cannot understand social life without understanding the arrangements of particular social actors in particular social times and places’ (Abbott 1997, p. 1152). In this sense, regardless of any assessment of the conceptual apparatus of the Chicago sociologists, their lesson can still be considered current for the analysis of urban exclusion, although today both theoretical references and tools for empirical analysis have changed dramatically. Each form of exclusion, in fact, not only fits into a specific context, but also can be explained not only by a number of social variables but also by the characteristics of the places in which it manifests itself. In fact, in these spaces, communities are formed with modes of operation, reproduction and evolution that also depend on the ways in which they have adapted to their urban environment, which has been shaped over time by the sedimentation of social

1.2 The Spatial Dimension of Social Exclusion

5

practices of the population. This also means that no form of urban exclusion can be understood solely as a difference with respect to the characteristics of the social groups ‘included’ in the urban system. To understand this, attention must be paid not only to the social reasons which cause a group to suffer some kind of exclusion that prevents it from enjoying the resources available to others but also to the urban environment that this exclusion produces and the role it plays in the processes of exclusion. Moreover, this role almost acts in two ways. On the one hand, the environment is an active factor in reproducing the loss of resources, both due to its location and its conformation. For example, the poor population of many low-density cities, unable to afford to live in central areas with high annuity values, is forced to find housing in suburban areas without public transport and services. In these conditions, it is harder to find a job and, if a job is found, it is necessary to have a private transport to be able to reach it, bearing the costs that derive from owning this means of transport. This creates a vicious circle that keeps the group in marginal conditions, through a process that has been called mobility-related social exclusion. It corresponds to a situation that prevents a group of subjects from actively participating in the social, economic and political life of the city due to their reduced mobility in a context in which, vice versa, high mobility is a necessary requirement for inclusion (Kenyon et al. 2002). This type of process is also compounded by aspects, which are not functional but are capable of provoking stigma-related reactions linked to the symbolic dimension, as happens in many countries in public housing districts, simply because the organisation of space and the architecture of the buildings differ from that of districts in which private construction prevails. On the other hand, however, the environment of marginalised populations also acts as a space for adaptive processes, which seek to make proper use of the resources available, albeit in ways different from those of more established areas of the city. In this way, a process of appropriation of space is produced (Tapie 2014), also implicating the alteration of the initial conditions and the creation of a situation of habitability, linked to the possibilities offered by the surroundings, as well as by the lifestyles and livelihoods of the various groups. Examples of such processes can be found in slums, where a significant proportion of the world’s urban population lives. It is interesting to note that the most frequently used slum definitions are based mainly on the lack of a set of requirements that are present in the rest of the city. Therefore, an operational definition proposed by UN Habitat (2010) establishes that the proportion of urban population living in slums is the proportion of urban population living in slum households. A slum household is defined as a household lacking one or more of the following: improved water; improved sanitation; sufficient living area; durable housing; and secure tenure. Although useful for measuring the phenomenon, however, indicators based only on a lack of certain requirements do not fully highlight the aspects of the appropriation of space, which, without overcoming the causes of exclusion, allow this population, if the social and environmental requirements exist, to adapt to difficult living conditions. Moreover, the same document mentioned above highlights how many different types of slum exist and how the concept should be related to the urban context in which it occurs, since what can be considered slum in

6

1 Understanding Social Exclusion

certain cities would not be judged as such in others and since local variations make it difficult to apply universally valid criteria. It can be added that this dual function of the urban living environment–as a reproductive factor of social conditions and as a context that allows for possible adaptations–does not apply equally to all those living in it. Housing in a marginal area may be a transitional condition for some of them and a permanent situation for others; it may allow some people access to sources of income, albeit minimal, and may jeopardise the survival of others. Therefore, the common condition of spatial marginalisation does not necessarily imply a situation of equality between subjects: it is compatible, instead, with the formation of further hierarchies and inequalities within the area. So far, we have talked about an urban environment to allude to the characteristics of the living environment of excluded social groups. However, as can be partly guessed from the examples introduced earlier, this environment is made up of many elements, each of which plays a different and, as the cases vary, more or less important role. As we have seen, one of these elements consists in the location and the system of physical and virtual interconnections that connect the area where marginal groups live and the rest of the territory and, in particular, the places where fundamental resources can be found. Other essential elements are the quality of the physical environment, its urban conformation, the availability of services and public spaces, its healthiness, comfort and safety, the presence or absence of architectural barriers, the functionality of the houses and their adequacy to the needs of various types of family. In addition, the environment also includes intangible elements, of a symbolic nature for example which can be the basis for processes of stigmatisation by citizens from other urban areas, as well as identity factors for insiders. These include local knowledge and skills that can only be acquired by participating in local practices, such as those concerning the behaviour to be adopted or avoided. This is in order not to run the risk of conflict with criminal gangs, or those that allow illegal access to water, electricity or other resources in contexts where these are lacking or economically inaccessible (Sundaram 2010). The spatial dimension of social exclusion, therefore, encompasses all these elements and its interpretation must take into account the role played by each of them, their interaction and the amplification of the effects that it entails.

References Abbott A (1997) Of time and space: the contemporary relevance of the Chicago School. Soc Forces 75(4):1149–1182 Braun JV, Gatzweiler FW (eds) (2014) Marginality: addressing the nexus of poverty, exclusion and ecology. Springer, Dordrecht Byrne D (2005) Social exclusion, 2nd edn. Open University Press McGrow-Hill, New York Groenendijk K (2008) Local voting rights for non-nationals in Europe: What we know and what we need to learn. Migr Policy Inst 1–18

References

7

Harvey D (2010) The enigma of capital: and the crises of capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford Kenyon S, Lyons G, Rafferty J (2002) Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. J Transp Geogr 10(3):207–219 Laderchi CR, Saith R, Stewart F (2003) Does it matter that we do not agree on the definition of poverty? a comparison of four approaches. Oxf Dev Stud 31(3):243–274 Levitas R, Pantazis C, Fahmy E, Gordon D, Lloyd E, Patsios D (2007) The multi-dimensional analysis of social exclusion. Department of Sociology and School for Social Policy, Townsend Centre for the International Study of Poverty and Bristol Institute for Public Affairs, University of Bristol, Bristol Lucas K (2012) Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transp Policy 20:105–113 Ravallion M (1994) Poverty comparisons. Routledge, London-New York Silver H (1994) Social exclusion and social solidarity: three paradigms. Int Labour Rev 133(5–6):531–578 Sundaram R (2010) Pirate modernity: media urbanism in Delhi. Routledge, London Tapie G (2014) Sociologie de l’habitat contemporain. Vivre l’architecture, Parenthèses, Marseille UN Habitat (2010) Global Report on Human Settlements 2003, Revised and updated version (April 2010). www.unhabitat.org/grhs/2003. Accessed 13 Oct 2018

Chapter 2

Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

Abstract This second chapter analyses with a critical approach a set of key concepts for the study of social inequalities. In relation to each of them, some definitions will be compared, highlighting the theoretical differences underlying them and the possible consequences of their use in the construction of urban policies. At the same time, the similarities and differences between these concepts will be highlighted, trying to make the reader aware of the risks deriving from an improper use of them. These key words are divided into three groups. The first is related to some fundamental concepts referring to the insertion of specific groups of social actors in a social system, such as integration, inclusion, as well as terms with opposite meanings and, in particular, exclusion and expulsion. The second group takes into consideration concepts more directly linked to urban processes; in particular, terms like segregation, spatial polarisation, and urban dualism. Finally, the third group includes terms related to social and cultural processes that strengthen inequalities between social groups and favour the assignment of marginal roles to minorities: in this sense, therefore, the concepts related to the symbolic power, such as stigmatisation and discrimination are taken into consideration. Keyword Social integration · Social cohesion · Modernity · Elite · Inclusion · Capabilities · Segregation · Social polarisation · Dualism · Symbolic power · Stigmatisation and discrimination

2.1 Social Dimensions: Integration and Exclusion in Industrial and Post-industrial Societies In the previous chapter, we started from the negative concept of exclusion to address the matter of social inequalities, in their more general aspect. In this chapter, we are going to start looking at the subject in further detail, introducing a series of other concepts, analysing their different uses and the contribution of each of them to the interpretation of the imbalances that characterise contemporary societies. First of all, we are going to consider two concepts that are often considered as positive terms, and that appear as key words not only in the analysis of social sci© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A. Mela and A. Toldo, Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17256-5_2

9

10

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

ences but also in documents of national and international institutions, to designate objectives to be pursued through a set of policies. We refer here, in particular, to the concepts of social integration and social cohesion, often recurrent in the documents of the European Union, an Institution for which cohesion policy is one of the fundamental aims. It is necessary to specify that both concepts can be used with reference to different geographical scales. Thus, for example ‘cohesion‘ may indicate the objective of European Union policies aimed at reducing disparities between member states; the same term can also refer to a national, urban or neighbourhood scale. Similar considerations also apply to the concept of ‘integration’. As the scales change, however, the meaning of the terms varies slightly: while at a multinational level they mainly concern variables related to the action of institutions, or of large economic operators, at a reduced territorial scale they can also include interpersonal relations between the inhabitants. Between the two, the idea of social integration is that most deeply rooted in sociological disciplines; its history originates from the theories of the late nineteenth century, with particular reference to the work of Durkheim. In his essay on the social division of labour (Durkheim 1893), he distinguishes between two different ways of integration, using the concept of ‘solidarity’ to express them and distinguishing between mechanical forms of solidarity, based on poor social differentiation and homogeneity, and organic forms, based on the complementary nature of functions. Similarly to Durkheim, but referring to the systems theory Parsons and Smelser (1956) consider social integration as one of the functional imperatives to be resolved by each social system through its articulation into subsystems. In particular, the integrative function must allow the harmonisation of the parts of the system through the institutions that preside over the observance of regulations, primarily those of the legal system. With regard to the concept of integration, an important contribution comes from Lockwood (1964), with his distinction between social and systemic integration. The first focuses on relations between social players and refers to the formation of social order (or, on the contrary, of a condition of disorder) as a product of cooperative or conflictual relations. Systemic integration, on the other hand, emphasises the relationship between parts of the system, i.e. their consistency or inconsistency (Mouzelis 1997). We could, therefore, say that systemic integration is achieved if the subjects find ways of agreeing to act in a consensual way, while social integration is achieved if the institutions of a given society are mutually compatible and allow the system to function and to reproduce. In Lockwood’s intentions, the issue of social integration is more important than in Parsons’, which focuses more on systemic integration. In fact, he focuses on the issue of social change and questions the role of conflict (i.e. the non-cooperative relationship between players, based on the presence of opposite interests) in favouring or not favouring the evolution of the system (Archer 1996). The two types of integration now introduced also represent two different points of view on social relations. Systemic integration emphasises the need to preserve the social system, guaranteed by the harmony of the institutions and acceptance by the subjects of the

2.1 Social Dimensions: Integration and Exclusion in Industrial and Post-industrial Societies

11

principles that govern their operation. For Parsons, this principle applies to any type of social system, regardless of its size and position in a specific historical and geographic context. It is also reproduced at various hierarchical levels: it applies to social macrosystems, such as national societies, but also to their individual subsystems, i.e. economic and political. This makes it an ahistorical and universal prerequisite for the functioning of social systems. Social integration, on the other hand, starts from the point of view of the subjects and their interactions. They do not necessarily have the effect of an orderly reproduction of the system but tend to constantly modify, partly via the contrast between conflicting interests and the tension that is generated between subjects—individually or united in various forms of association—and the institutions themselves. The change and the capacity of social systems to adapt to different and constantly evolving spatial contexts depend specifically on the presence of various kinds of tension, although not every type of conflict necessarily produces positive changes. The divergence between these points of view is even more accentuated in theoretical positions such as those of Habermas (1984), which distinguishes, within societies, between the system and the lifeworld (German: Lebenswelt). The former refers to the economic and productive dimension and is oriented towards efficiency and instrumental rationality: integration into the system implies that the subjects operate in this dimension, assuming its logic. The lifeworld, on the other hand, is the sphere in which subjects relate to each other on the basis of values, standards and interactions based on communication and is the place where social integration is generated (Sonnenberg 2014). In the context of modern capitalist societies, however, the instrumental logic of the system tends to expand, permeating all fields of social life and thus determining what Habermas describes as the ‘colonization of the lifeworld’. In this position, therefore, one could say that systemic and social integration not only correspond to two different perspectives, but also stand in contrast to each other, determining a tension that can result, on the one hand, in the destruction of a social sphere in which the freedom and creativity of the subjects prevails or, on the other hand, in a rebellion of the latter against economic and political institutions. The historical horizon of the theories now briefly summarised is the western societies of late modernity, in which the integration of the subjects into the system is presented as inclusion in large social, political and economic structures of a basically national level, strongly organised and cohesive. Depending on the theoretical orientations of the various authors, this inclusion can be seen as a prerequisite for an orderly development or, on the contrary, as an oppression that causes the dissolution of the most authentic and culturally creative ties between the subjects. However, to what extent can these analyses still be considered relevant to contemporary post-industrial societies, the historical horizons of which have been profoundly transformed since the end of the 20th century? What does the problem of social integration look like today? In answering these questions, we can see how the problem of systemic integration has shifted. Strong advances have recently been made in the process of globalisation of the economic system, accompanied by an increasingly marked prevalence of the financial economy over that of production, and by a deregulation of the markets,

12

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

also linked to the growing role of the big multinationals. In this context—for which, in the 1980s, Offe (1985) used the label of ‘disorganised capitalism’—the complementary nature of the social subsystems (between the productive apparatus, political institutions, the judicial system and cultural reproduction agencies) no longer seems possible—particularly at global level—and in many respects, it is not even necessary for the operation of the system. On the other hand, the operation of the economic financial system can only be partially regulated by state institutions or even by those representing multistate entities (such as the European Central Bank); many of these institutions—particularly international ones—are beyond the control of the voters of the individual states so their active involvement in the definition of the policies they propose is not even required. The weakness of institutional regulation leaves the way open for global crises, such as that which began in 2007; this said, the presence of international crises is a recurring feature of capitalist economies and was also produced in the past, albeit in different ways and within the framework of profoundly different world structures. In this situation, the meaning of the social integration of the subjects also changes. It no longer refers to the complementary nature of the actions of the subjects within the framework of a set of shared rules and values. In the recent past of industrial societies (what Beck calls ‘the first modernity’), such complementarity was favoured by the similarity of the conditions and interests of large groups of social players, such as the employees of the big Fordist enterprises. The same conflicts tended to take on a collective form and were mediated by organisations capable of channelling the needs of large groups of people, such as trade unions or political parties. This situation has changed dramatically in post-industrial societies, where this mediation has ceased to be successful and the process of individualisation, in many respects already inherent in the societies of the first modernity, has been accentuated. In this case, despite being unable to find individual resources to respond to their needs, weaker subjects had the opportunity to rely on collective solutions, aggregating their interests and supporting their claims with mobilisation. In contemporary societies, on the contrary, this opportunity has largely ceased to exist, due to the increasingly acute diversification of individual interests, which makes collective actions difficult, partly because of the temporary nature of social conditions—due to the exasperated flexibility of work and the rapid change in the framework of available resources—which makes all aggregations unstable. What has happened has been defined as a liquefaction of society (Bauman 2000), accompanied by a precariousness of social relations; a temporariness of all relations that tends to extend from the working world to life as a whole (Deranty 2008). Within this framework, the effectiveness of forms of collective mobilisation—almost always rooted in a specific territorial context: local, regional or, at most, national—decreases drastically in the face of a global system, always ready to transfer activities and capital to the places where there is the best chance of making a profit, avoiding spaces where they meet forms of social or institutional resistance. The individualisation of society, therefore, is not an individual choice but rather a destiny that depends on structural conditions (Bauman 2001) and that obliges us to find individual solutions to problems that also affect large parts of the popula-

2.1 Social Dimensions: Integration and Exclusion in Industrial and Post-industrial Societies

13

tion—but in different ways (Beck 1986). You ought to be aware that when we talk about individualisation, we do not necessarily mean to allude to a radical loneliness of social players. These are often connected to numerous social networks: from family networks to friends, through to weaker and more occasional relationships that are generated in various areas of social life (from the neighbourhood to workplaces and during leisure time), including those of a virtual nature, established on social media. According to the expression of Wellman (2001), this is networked individualism and often, especially for those without their own resources, an individual attempt to solve problems consists in using the resources held by these networks. However, many of these networks are also temporary in nature and are made up of interpersonal relationships rather than collective ties. Moreover, more disadvantaged groups are characterised specifically by the weakness of the resources deriving from these networks. In the most radical cases, exclusion consists in the loss by the subjects of all links with social networks; in other cases, these links are very limited or concern only marginal networks, characterised by a poverty of resources. Translating these situations into spatial terms, we can say that radical exclusion corresponds to individual or family isolation, as in the case of homeless people (see paragraph 4.3 below) or for the poor, elderly people living alone in urban areas; less extreme forms of exclusion are represented by group or neighbourhood isolation, in marginalised parts of the territory, with no links to the places where resources are concentrated. There is still a big difference between the societies of ‘early modernity’ and those of today in terms of radical exclusion. In the former—at least in those with a high rate of development—this form of exclusion might have seemed to be marginal, linked to the accumulation of several types of disadvantage or to the inability of individuals to seize the opportunities offered within the social system, from participation in the labour market to the use of social guarantees offered by the welfare state. In contemporary societies, on the other hand, there are processes of radical exclusion linked to structural factors, i.e. the modes of accumulation of capital that dominate this phase of history. On this matter, in many recent works, Harvey talks about ‘accumulation by dispossession’ as a typical modality of today’s societies, even though it is similar in many ways to the forms with which the original accumulation that prepared for the affirmation of capitalism took place in the centuries preceding the industrial revolution. This is a form of expropriation of resources that takes place today through activities such as land grabbing—the acquisition of land in poor countries by foreign investors, with the consequent expulsion of indigenous peoples—or through financial mechanisms, in countries with high development. It is ironic to note, moreover, that ‘these forms of dispossession are now increasingly administered under the virtuous disguise of a politics of the austerity required to bring an ailing capitalism back into a supposedly healthy state’ (Harvey 2014, p. 58). This ‘ordinary’ nature of the exclusion of entire sectors of the world’s population is also reinforced by the impersonality of the processes that produce this phenomenon. According to Sassen (2014), exclusion is not perpetrated by an immediately identifiable oppressor but by a complex system made up of numerous players, social networks and financial processes, without a precisely configured centre. Sassen refers to these exclusions with the term ‘expulsions’ and specifies that this is a process

14

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

which, while originating at the margins of the global system, now tends to generalise to broader social groups. It goes beyond mere inequality or an increase in poverty: in fact, it is a more radical expulsion ‘from life projects and livelihoods, from membership, from the social contract at the centre of liberal democracy’ (ibidem p. 29). Moreover, it is transversal to the distinction between Global North and Global South: the examples given concern many continents and involve both financial crises and crises linked to the exploitation and contamination of the environment. The systemic character of expulsive processes and the complexity of the mechanisms that produce them do not prevent, however, us from recognising the role of the international elite, who benefit from the structural advantages of contemporary capitalism. This elite corresponds to a very small proportion of the world’s population, who hold enormous and growing wealth. According to a report by Oxfam (2018), 1% of the planet’s inhabitants have accumulated more wealth than the remaining 99%; moreover, the number of billionaires (i.e. those who possess more than 1 billion dollars, 90% of whom are men) rose during 2017, reaching 2043. Their wealth increased in the same year by 762 billion dollars; considering a longer period of time, including the years of strong international crisis (2006–2015), the wealth of billionaires has increased by 13% each year, while that of workers, in general, has increased annually by just 2%. The role of the world’s elite in the development of inequalities as well as their relationship with the city are being studied by contemporary sociology (Dorling, 2018; Atkinson, 2016; Rahman Khan 2012), as it has been in the past. The term hyper-bourgeoisie is sometimes used to describe them, especially in the Frenchspeaking world (Duclos 2002; Cousin and Chauvin 2015). Its emphasis is often placed not only on their globalised character but also their strong territorial mobility (Birtchnell and Caletrío 2013). The reason is that determines a condition close to that of extraterritoriality, because their wealth, as well as the power they enjoy, is not linked to a specific national context but, on the contrary, is largely beyond the control of the states, while being capable of influencing the policies. The increase in the concentration of wealth and power in the world elites corresponds not only to the increase in marginal population shares but also to the worsening of the conditions of the middle classes, strongly present in urban areas, whose weight had increased during the Fordist period. This phenomenon is mainly linked to the contraction of the services of the welfare state, as well as to the reduction of employment in clerical functions of many private services, made possible by the use of information technology. A specific problem, to which we will only mention here, is that of measuring social inequality. It is important to stress that this measurement depends not only on the choice of indicators but primarily on the definition given to the concept of inequality. However, an indicator commonly used for this purpose is the Gini index: it measures the difference between a perfectly equitable ideal distribution of income, or other variables, among individuals or households, and the distribution that is actually present in a given society. As we have seen, social exclusion cannot be considered a marginal phenomenon in contemporary societies. This is why the importance of contrasting it on different

2.1 Social Dimensions: Integration and Exclusion in Industrial and Post-industrial Societies

15

spatial scales is often emphasised on various fronts, particularly with reference to the large urban complexes in which the concentration of expelled populations, in close contact with privileged groups, highlights the severity of social inequalities and represents a constant factor of instability. It is no mere coincidence that many international declarations prioritise the need for an effort to accentuate inclusive processes in the urban environment. These documents include the New Urban Agenda that was adopted in October 2016 in Quito at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat 3). This document reaffirms many of the rights of populations: from the enjoyment of equal conditions of access to resources and infrastructure to the removal of all obstacles that lead to discrimination based on social status, gender, ethnic origin, age and legal status. The active recognition of this right is presented as a necessary condition for the search for a model of sustainable development. In many documents, however, the basic vision that guides the declarations relating to the right to social inclusion (or, at least, to the destruction of the obstacles that hinder this right) is not only inspired by principles of social justice, but also by the search for conditions that enable the non-conflictual coexistence of heterogeneous social groups, especially in urban contexts. A concept that goes in this direction is ‘social cohesion’. The documents of international organisations often mention it as an objective of primary importance but, when definitions change, sometimes the search for conditions of equality or the guarantee of a peaceful coexistence to guarantee the social order become the top priority. For example, the definition proposed by the OECD (2011) is of the first type, according to which a cohesive society is one: ‘that works towards the well-being of all its members, minimising disparities and avoiding marginalization and entails fostering cohesion by building networks of relationships, trust and identity between different groups, fighting discrimination, exclusion and excessive inequalities and enabling upward social mobility’ (OECD 2011). Here, therefore, a principle of social justice—or at least the reduction of injustice—is recognised as a necessary basis for social cohesion. A much more minimalist definition is offered by authors such as Woolcock (2011), who states that it corresponds to ‘The capacity of societies, not merely groups and networks, to peacefully manage collective action problems’. Here the main concern that seems to emerge regards the maintenance of a societal order and a complex of institutions that prevent conflict or allow its peaceful resolution. These observations highlight how the concept of social cohesion lends itself as much to interpretations that make it useful for the justification of change as too conservative uses that reinforce the idea of the need for control over conflicts or, at the very least, over substantial changes in existing social relations. On the basis of these different orientations, divergent theoretical constructs can also be identified, allowing the definition of the most important components of social cohesion. In the case of conservative concepts, the reference constructs are close to those which, in paragraph 3.1, are identified as the basis for systemic integration. There is, therefore, social cohesion if there are shared values and standards, democratic institutions capable of establishing standards of coexistence and ensuring that they are respected, widespread feelings of belonging to the social system and trust in

16

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

the institutions, accepted mechanisms for resolving conflicts. The idea of social inclusion also serves to maintain the system: attention is focused, above all, on groups whose social or cultural diversity (such as those excluded from the labour market or migrants) could pose a threat to peaceful coexistence. Including these groups means neutralising this threat, ensuring that they are not excluded, guaranteeing the minimum social conditions—with regard to income, education and access to services—so that marginality does not translate into open conflict. In the case of progressive interpretations open to change, the focus is on the quality of life and on the guarantees of access, by all subjects and social groups, to the resources that allow them to improve their conditions and to choose a lifestyle appropriate to their needs. The matter of freedom of choice is particularly developed in the approach proposed by Sen (1985) and based on the idea that societies must put subjects in a position to choose between different ways of life, effectively achievable thanks to the presence of certain conditions. The concepts used to define this approach are those of functioning and capabilities. The term ‘functioning’ refers to conditions of ‘being and doing’; for example, having adequate food, a home and at least a basic education. It must not be confused with the goods necessary to obtain this condition: being able to move throughout the urban space is not the same as owning a means of transport. The concept of ‘capability’ indicates a set of functions that a subject can actually access. The capability of a subject, therefore, indicates its capacity to choose between combinations of functions, meaning the freedom to access the functions that allow a lifestyle that is considered adequate. Developing the ideas of Sen, Nussbaum (2011) proposed a list of human capabilities, which could be understood as fundamental rights that all people must enjoy, in order to avoid processes of exclusion. The list includes the satisfaction of needs that are generally considered fundamental, such as health or personal integrity, but also goes beyond these, including (among others) the conditions that allow an emotional attachment to people and things, or those that enable what we call affiliation, i.e. a life shared with others, without factors of discrimination, which allows each individual to develop self-esteem and the possibility to engage in various forms of social relations. Relations with the environment and other species are also among the capabilities indicated by Nussbaum. In our opinion, the idea of affiliation as a fundamental aspect of inclusion that guarantees social cohesion is of particular interest. The interest is mainly due to the fact that the concept not only refers to the need to eliminate all forms of discrimination, whatever the basis (race, gender, role, ethnic origin, etc.) but also positively underlines that coexistence must start from conditions that promote equal relations between individuals, chosen voluntarily and capable of reinforcing a sense of belonging. It could be said, therefore, that being affiliated not only means being protected from active factors of discrimination, but also being recognised by others on the basis of their own characteristics and differences and being able to freely establish the social relations that you want to activate, without constraints or limitations that derive from predefined affiliations. This is one of the main conditions that allow active coexistence—and not just a coexistence that is not openly conflictual—in large urban complexes, where peo-

2.1 Social Dimensions: Integration and Exclusion in Industrial and Post-industrial Societies

17

ple with different characteristics and aspirations find themselves sharing relatively small spaces. This coexistence is often endangered not only by forms of discrimination—which have recently tended to become more violent, are often not prevented and, in some cases, are even favoured by government policies, at various scales—but also by the formation of physical and symbolic barriers that limit the possibilities of interaction outside homogeneous urban social groups or environments. Without a search for the conditions that allow effective affiliation, the call for social cohesion itself—and the policies that seek to implement it—risk being ambiguous, that is to say, referring mainly to an idea of social order that delegitimises conflicts and claims of differences, without adequately promoting freedom of choice and mutual recognition.

2.2 Spatial Effects: Social Segregation, Polarisation, Capsularisation As previously highlighted in the famous article by Wirth (1938), heterogeneity is one of the city’s distinguishing features, along with population density and number. This implies that relatively small spaces accommodate a variety of social groups that are different in many ways. Heterogeneity, however, manifests itself if the city is considered as a whole, i.e. on the macroscale; if, on the other hand, an analysis is carried out on a lower scale—such as that of the neighbourhood or even smaller spaces—much more homogeneous social-spatial entities could emerge. We could liken the situation to a puzzle: seen as a whole, it looks multicoloured, but in actual fact, it is made up of a large number of pieces, some of which are plain coloured, while others are, in fact, multicoloured. The analysis of the socio-spatial differences between the parts of a city—or even bigger urban contexts typical of the contemporary world—has been addressed by social and geographic sciences with the use of different key words; the most common of these is undoubtedly ‘segregation’. We are going to start from this term and then examine some other labels, which place the emphasis on specific aspects of the phenomenon, in point 2.2. The definitions of ‘segregation’ almost always emphasise the correspondence between the spatial and social dimensions of the phenomenon. Andersen (2003), for example after having given a rather simple definition of segregation stating that it: ‘means that different social or cultural groups are separated in space and have settled in different parts of cities’ (p. 5), points out that the spatial separation of different groups can only be interpreted as segregation if there is a significant form of difference between them, from a social or ethnic point of view for example. Moreover, the separation must have significant effects on the social conditions and quality of life of groups and, in particular, must be a factor that increases inequality. Taking all these conditions into account, ‘a more precise definition of social segregation could then be that segregation is a spatial separation of ethnic or socially different groups

18

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

leading to increasing social or cultural differences between these groups’ (p. 14, italics in the text). Incidentally, we can observe that, more precisely, definitions of this type refer, in an implicit or explicit form, to the residential separation between groups, meaning separation based on the spaces in which the houses of different types of the population are located. In addition to this—which is by far the most frequently analysed phenomenon—there are also other forms of segregation, or spatial separation of groups in other respects, as we will see later. In any case, while remaining on the subject of residential segregation, it must be said that, on the basis of the considerations mentioned above, it represents both a process and its result. As a process, segregation occurs due to the interaction between social variables (i.e. the characteristics of groups that favor their separation and the way in which social and cultural differences are perceived by the groups themselves) and spatial variables related to the city (e.g.: the differences between neighbourhoods in terms of quality of housing and services, real estate values, cost of living, accessibility, security, public space provision). This interaction tends to produce an unequal distribution of groups throughout the territory and this configuration then favours the reproduction of inequality over time. The mapping of this configuration, at a given time, is the static representation of urban segregation, i.e. the result of the process at a specific time. However, the process never has an endpoint; while it is true that inequality tends to reproduce, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it remains identical, neither socially nor spatially. The two types of variable are, in fact, constantly transforming, due both to their own interaction and to phenomena that depend on external causes. On a social level, many changes can occur: the post-industrial transformation of industrial cities, for example changed the social composition of many neighbourhoods; what were defined as ‘working-class neighbourhoods’ in the 1960s can continue to be housing areas for low-income groups, who do different jobs and—as has happened in many European cities—are immigrants from other countries or are second generations of migrant populations. Otherwise, especially if they are located in areas close to the centre, neighbourhoods can undergo upgrading processes and become fashionable neighbourhoods, populated by middle to upper-class people, with characteristics of the cultured and cosmopolitan bourgeoisie. In France, these are often referred to as Bourgeois-bohémiens and are among the most significant protagonists of the phenomenon of gentrification. The changes that affect the spatial dimension of the city are equally important, depending as much on the dynamics of the real estate market, sometimes linked to settlement in an area of valuable functions, as on public policies aimed at the regeneration of certain parts of the city, or urban mobility interventions, such as the creation of new metro lines or the movement of railway stations. All these phenomena alter the social map of cities, in some cases decreasing and in others increasing social and spatial inequality. The causes of segregation can be of varying nature: social, ethnic cultural (Van Kempen and Özüekren 1998; Musterd 2005), religious (Gale 2013; Calame and Charlesworth 2011), related to lifestyles and consequent migrations (Benson 2013), related to sexual orientation (Adler and Brenner 1992; Spring 2013), or age (Lagory

2.2 Spatial Effects: Social Segregation, Polarisation, Capsularisation

19

et al. 1980). These factors are often also correlated and they accumulate, resulting in composite segregation profiles, which require multifactorial analysis (Tammaru et al. 2015). As the causes and social groups considered vary, residential segregation takes on different characteristics. If attention is focused on a specific type of segregation, which concerns two or more urban population groups, a very important aspect is the exogenous or endogenous origin of the factors that lead to the spatial separation of these groups. By exogenous origin we mean causes independent of the residential choices of the group itself, but dependent on structural phenomena and/or residential choices of other groups. In this case, segregation is endured by the group and tends to represent a disadvantage. By endogenous origin, on the other hand, we mean processes of separation that depend on the residential choices of a given group, which decides to move away from other groups or actually separates from them as a result of their choices. This is a process of self-segregation, which some authors also refer to as ‘congregation’ (Knox and Pinch 2006). It is linked to the search for an advantage, which derives simply from the fact of distinguishing oneself from other groups and avoiding contact with them, or from the search for more intense relations with people with whom one shares sociocultural characteristics and lifestyles. In self-segregation processes, the tendency is to seek distinction in the residential choices of the elite, who choose to live in complexes of suburban villas in places that are privileged from an environmental and landscape point of view, or in gated communities, residential complexes closed off by gates and with controlled access, sometimes, sometimes even manned by private armed guards. Only in a few cases is the decision to live in these types of settlement, distinguished from each other on the basis of numerous variables (Grant and Mittelsteadt 2004) based on an interest in intensifying relations within the residential complex, with other types of needs prevailing more often than not. On this matter, Blakely and Snyder (1997) identify three distinct types of gated communities. The first is the lifestyle community, i.e. a community of people with homogeneous lifestyles in search of closer relationships, to reinforce their identity and share their interests. These include communities for the elderly or golf communities. The second type is that of prestige communities: they are intended for rich people who want to highlight their status by living in closed places which are inaccessible to less privileged classes. The third type is that of the security zone community, in which the fear of crime is predominant, whether the settlement is located in areas effectively characterised by high levels of insecurity, as happens in many metropolitan areas of Latin America, or whether the fear stems generally as a result of the presence of social groups other than one’s own. It is easy to see that only the first type is characterised by a search for social ties within the group of residents; in the other cases, coexistence can be limited to the sharing of internal services, for the exclusive use of the residents and to the observance of rules of good neighbourliness. Self-segregation may also occur among low-income social groups and, in particular, among ethnic minorities, but for these groups, it is defensive and is hardly ever separated from a process of segregation implemented by other sections of the population towards them. In other words: in the presence of a tendency towards social

20

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

and spatial marginalisation towards them, the minority can benefit from the spatial concentration in certain neighbourhoods and from the intensification of internal ties within their own community. In fact, in these neighbourhoods, cultural or religious aggregation centres can be established, based on the needs of the community, shops selling goods of particular interest to that group (for a foreign minority, typical food from their countries of origin, for example), services and intermediary figures useful for seeking work or for contact with the welfare department. The migratory chain mechanism can contribute to the aggregation of people and families with the same geographic origin: groups already settled in the city of arrival represent an important point of reference for new arrivals, especially in the first phase of integration in the urban context. Their compatriots can help them, in particular, in the search for a home suited to their economic possibilities and it is likely that this home will be located in the same neighbourhood as the first arrivals. However, the importance of this trend towards the urban concentration of ethnic religious minorities should not be overestimated: its emphasis lends itself well to reinforcing an essentialist view of cultures, according to which there is a spontaneous tendency to shut groups off in separate neighbourhoods; a view often used by political forces and by media discourses that fuel concern in relation to migrations and fear of foreigners or religious minorities (Phillips 2006). Concentration—largely due to structural conditions in the housing market—is represented as an ‘invasion’ and a subtraction of part of the urban territory from the control of the institutions, as well as a sign of the unwillingness of minorities to effectively integrate into the society they have just arrived in. Getting back to the matter of segregation due to exogenous causes, an important aspect to consider is represented by the manner and intensity with which it manifests itself. From this point of view, the degree of maximum intensity is that of compulsory segregation, i.e. the obligation for a part of the population to live in certain spaces. The case of Jewish segregation in the sixteenth—nineteenth centuries in many parts of Europe is a famous example of this extreme form of segregation, not to mention the even more extreme segregation implemented by the Nazis during the Holocaust (Cole 2013). The term ‘ghetto’ refers specifically to the forced settlements of Jews and the concept of ‘ghettoization’ evokes the processes that imposed obligated residence on this group, although it is sometimes used also for other forms of radical segregation. Another case is that of apartheid, the racially based forced separation imposed in South Africa from 1948 to 1994 (Smith 2003); this concept too has sometimes been used to describe situations of clear racial and social separation, albeit with different characteristics from that of South African apartheid (Massey 1990). However, to indicate more generally similar forms of segregation, the concept of hypersegregation has also been introduced (Massey and Denton 1989). This refers to the accumulation of different phenomena of residential separation, calculated using different indicators. In the most radical and violent cases of separation between ethnic groups, there are also forms of non-residential segregation, such as those concerning separation on public transport or the impossibility for the group discriminated against to attend services and entertainment venues intended only for the majority group. The concept of ‘ghetto’ is used also by Marcuse (1997); however, he stresses that in post-Fordist societies it takes the form of an ‘outcast ghetto’, where social groups

2.2 Spatial Effects: Social Segregation, Polarisation, Capsularisation

21

excluded from the mainstream of urban life are concentrated. It is different from ethnical and cultural enclaves; in fact, these are areas where immigrants and other social groups ‘congregate as a means of enhancing their economic, social and/or cultural development’ (p. 242). Finally, he uses the term ‘citadel’ to indicate urban areas where privileged social groups congregate as a means of maintaining their superiority in terms of power and wealth. Where these compulsory modalities are not present, the intensity of segregation can be established through appropriate quantitative measures, which make use of various types of indicators. It is not our intention here to address the issue of statistical measurement of segregation, which would require an examination of a wide range of specialist literature. It may, however, be useful to remember that different types of segregation indices have been constructed (Feitosa et al. 2007), with different purposes. The first generation of indicators aimed to measure the separation only between two urban population groups (such as whites and blacks for example): those proposed by Bell (1954) and Duncan and Duncan (1955) are of this type. Subsequently, indicators of segregation were created for several groups; furthermore, alongside global measures, which consider the phenomenon in the city as a whole, local measures referring to specific urban spaces were proposed. The spatial modalities of segregation can also be different in different urban contexts: minorities can be concentrated in the central areas of the city, or form large enclaves in peripheral areas or even be distributed in more limited settlements in many neighbourhoods (Massey and Denton 1988). In past centuries, numerous cities (such as Paris, Vienna and Turin) had a ‘vertical’ segregation within the same building, with the middle classes residing on the lower floors and poor families in the attics on the upper floors, or in the basements. Traces of this micro-spatial segregation can still be found in cities in the Mediterranean area, such as Naples (Laino 2016), and a similar type of vertical segregation has been formed more recently, in Athens for example but with a division that sees the richer classes occupying the upper floors of large condominiums (Maloutas and Karadimitriou 2001). However, we can see that it is not possible to identify a model of residential segregation, or of spatial distribution of uneven social groups with a universal scope: any attempt to attribute a general value to a single model of city—and, as has happened more frequently, a scheme derived from the European or North American city—can easily find numerous counter-examples in other parts of the world. Another observation that needs to be emphasised regarding the analyses of residential segregation based on statistics is that the results of such studies can vary considerably depending on the size of the spatial units used: segregation may seem more or less intense depending on whether these units are larger or smaller. This is a well-known problem in the literature, often referred to as the Modifiable Area Unit Problem (MAUP) (Wong 2009). Lastly, we can add that purely quantitative studies, while empirically verifying the degree of segregation present in cities and offering a spatial representation, are often insufficient to establish the causes of the processes studied and, in many cases, to account for their dynamics. With regard to the latter aspect, however, it should be noted that interest in the study of trajectories observed by neighbourhoods—especially in North America—has recently increased in terms of their social

22

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

composition and methods of statistical analysis useful for this study have been proposed (Delmelle 2015). In this way, it is possible to highlight the differences found in the evolutionary trajectories of neighbourhoods located in different urban contexts and to propose pertinent typologies (Foote and Walter 2017). As we have seen, the concept of segregation is the one that most directly refers to the unequal residential distribution in the urban spaces of different social groups, ethnic or otherwise, characterised by differences related to culture and lifestyles. However, it should be added that we could use the same concept referring to forms of non-residential separation, namely segregation processes that concern other areas of social interaction in the urban context. Sociological and geographical studies are becoming increasingly interested in these processes. We can observe these processes in the workplace, in leisure spaces, in schools, in the transport system. Moreover, according to van Ham and Tammaru (2016), the aim of segregation studies is to understand the degree of inclusion of different groups in the city. However, limiting the analysis to housing separation is not sufficient, the residence is only one of the dimensions in which processes of social inclusion or exclusion take place. Often, the different forms of segregation have a cumulative effect and important consequences on the biographies of subjects and family groups. Thus, for example the fact of living in an ethnically characterised neighbourhood means that its residents have access above all to social networks that connect people with the same ethnic background. For this reason, using these networks in the search of work, subjects will probably find it in the same sectors in which others of the same ethnic group are predominantly employed (Strömgren et al. 2014). The same phenomenon occurs with regard to the search for housing or leisure places: this reinforces the internal bonds of a segregated group and tends to reproduce, over time, the effects of separation from the rest of the population. However, it is also possible that forms of non-residential segregation can be observed in contexts characterised by a relative housing mix between the different ethnic components. In this case, the separation in other areas of social interaction shows how proximity does not automatically correspond to full integration. In the cities of Northern Italy, for example the existence of neighbourhoods with a high presence of foreigners—also of different nationalities—does not necessarily imply the formation of real ethnic enclaves. However, in these neighbourhoods, we can see separation more clearly in schools, with schools in which the foreign presence is limited, and others in which foreigners represent the majority of the school population. It should also be noted that, as the principle of ius soli is not applied in Italy, a large part of foreign students are actually born in Italy of migrant families. In these cases, scholastic separation does not depend on linguistic differences. When residential and non-residential dimensions of segregation are combined and reinforced each other, cities become ‘divided-cities’ (Marcuse 1993; Nagle 2009; Van Kempen and Murie 2009) where action for integrating the various components is particularly complex. In this context, we can use the concept of ‘social polarization’ (Walks 2001; Pratsche and Morlicchio 2012), which describes an urban condition in which social and spatial differences are particularly acute. Spatially, we observe the division of the urban system in two (or few) clearly

2.2 Spatial Effects: Social Segregation, Polarisation, Capsularisation

23

contrasting parts, in different terms. Often, in this concept, the widening of the gap between these parts is implicit. The phenomenon of social polarisation was at the centre of a broad debate, especially in the 1990s, and has sometimes been interpreted as a typical tendency of post-industrial cities (O’Loughlin and Friedrichs 1996). However, at that time the concept of social polarisation was especially relevant in the debate on global cities. In this regard, we can refer above all to Sassen’s thesis, which holds that in these cities the polarisation depends on the growth of employment both in high-income sectors—such as finance—and in sectors with low wages, while it decreases in industry, where middle-income jobs are more present (Sassen, 1991). Other authors, on the other hand, maintain that this theory does not have a general validity, but—at most—it can be considered a hypothesis, to be verified with empirical data in every city (Feinstein et al. 1992). Recently, however, the interest in the debate on urban dualism has decreased. This does not happen because cities—or rather, the large urbanised areas on a world scale—have become more integrated. It is because the idea of a simple dichotomy between the privileged and the disadvantaged areas appears insufficient. Therefore, the idea of dualism has been replaced by a more complex fragmentation of urban and suburban socio-spatial contexts. This is favoured by the progress of the growth processes of urbanised spaces in sprawling and often uncontrolled forms, which occupy vast territories outside the historical cores of the cities. Localised in these external spaces are internally homogeneous but highly unequal settlements, such as gated communities for middle-upper-class populations, informal settlements and residual rural areas. The big metropolises of Latin America are a perfect example of this (Coy 2006; Pirez 2002). However, we can find similar forms of fragmentation, which are increasing, also in other contexts (Webster Glasze Frantz 2002). This is encouraged by neoliberal policies, now widely applied in all continents, which have attenuated the constraints of land planning and have encouraged private initiatives and the real estate market as privileged instruments of urban growth (Sager 2011). One of the factors that have stimulated the spread of gated communities or, more generally, socially homogeneous settlements with sophisticated surveillance tools, is the growing concern for the safety of urban spaces. Moreover, this concern is not limited to residential complexes, but also to public space (Mela 2014), commercial areas, public and private services, schools and universities. Following this logic, fear and tools to guarantee the effective and/or perceived citizen security, are becoming the criteria for organising cities, both from an urbanistic and a social point of view. To define this trend, the concept of ‘capsularisation’ of cities (De Cauter 2004) has been used: it indicates a model of a city fragmented into capsules, organised into a multiplicity of areas that tend to be closed and controlled. Urbanites move between these capsules along communication channels protected and monitored by cameras (such as subway lines or high-speed roads), producing a network within which the secured urban interaction takes place. However, it does not cover the entire urban space: outside the network, there are spaces considered insecure and marginal, which rarely come into contact with urban capsules. This clear distinction reinforces a circular process that produces and reproduces security and insecurity,

24

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

which generates both an increase in control over capsules and an increasing exclusion of the rest of the city. In this sense, the concept of capsularisation seems to reproduce a dualistic trend also in twenty-first-century cities. However, it should be noted that both the capsules and what is outside them, include a wide variety of socio-spatial areas. Within them, there are residential and non-residential spaces, as well as places for specific social groups (like upper middle class gated communities) or categories (such as university campuses) and others in which different types of users are mixed (such as commercial spaces or means of transport). Even the excluded and insecure parts of cities are different: for example they may be informal settlements controlled by organised crime, or simply empty spaces, awaiting redevelopment, sometimes the site of self-managed activities of marginal subjects. The representation of the trend towards this form of networked urbanism (Atkinson 2008) can be considered an urban dystopia, which takes to extremes features that are present in contemporary cities. We observe, however, that such representation is not too far from what actually occurs in cities with a high degree of insecurity, as it is for some urban contexts of Latin America. Even European cities, although still far from that model, show a trend to the articulation in a multiplicity of enclaves, especially in their external part. As Secchi (2013) states, this is true for the Great Paris region, whose spatial articulation tends to form ‘a kaleidoscope of enclaves, which cannot be reduced to simple images, nor to the image of a uniformly rich centre and a periphery equally uniformly poor’ (p. 48, our translation). Such urban structure is linked to the functioning of the real estate market, but also strengthened by choices of public policies, often focused more on security and efficiency, than on equity and quality of urban life. These policies frequently use highways, noise barriers, boundary walls and sometimes also green spaces as elements of separation between areas with different social characteristics in order to reassure rich residents.

2.3 Symbolic Power, Stigmatisation and Discrimination Among the dynamics that produce and reproduce social exclusion and segregation and, more generally, the differences between the groups that inhabit the city, there is still one that has to be examined: that which refers to the exercise of symbolic power, through the stigmatisation of particular groups, conditions or social figures. These are dynamics that connect symbolic practices—particularly the attribution of negative connotations to particular subjects or groups of subjects—to real consequences that influence the living conditions and the system of relations of those that are stigmatised. As such, they involve the exercise of power, which can be held by political and institutional entities, agencies with various functions (educational, service, judicial, repressive, etc.) or also by other groups of urban residents or individual citizens. Since the beginning of the last century sociology has highlighted how the effectiveness of the consequences that fall on individuals or social groups as a result of stigmatisation does not depend on the reasons that led to the attribution of negative connotations, nor on the presence of objective facts that motivate such attribution,

2.3 Symbolic Power, Stigmatisation and Discrimination

25

but on the simple existence of a widespread belief. As already stated in the so-called Thomas theorem (actually formulated by Thomas and Thomas 1928), if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. Later, Merton (1948) translated this idea into the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy, described as ‘a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the original false conception come true’ (p. 195). An example of this concept is the exclusion of blacks from trade unions, based on the prejudice that African-American workers were inclined not to follow their instructions in disputes with companies. This exclusion made it impossible for these workers to behave in a manner similar to that of whites during strikes, tending to reinforce the prejudice. Thus, through these processes, stigmatisation, which is originally a mental attitude, is transformed into an active discrimination behaviour against a particular group. The result is the creation of a new form of inequality between social or ethnic groups or the increase of inequalities already present for other reasons. Many definitions of the concept of stigmatisation have been proposed; one of the most important is that of Goffman (1974), who understands it as ‘The phenomenon whereby an individual with an attribute which is deeply discredited by his/her society is rejected as a result of the attribute. Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity’. Goffman insists particularly on the consequences that fall on individuals and on the denial of their identity. A more analytical definition of stigmatisation is that proposed by Link and Phelan (2001), who see it as the effect of the convergence of a set of interdependent elements. The latter are identified as follows: firstly, it is necessary, in a given context, for some differences between people to be considered relevant (skin colour or sexual preference for example), while others (such as the colour of a person’s car or their eyes) are considered insignificant or recalled only under particular circumstances. Through a simplification process, different groups, such as ‘whites’ and ‘blacks’, are labelled, neglecting the variations in skin colour present within each group. Secondly, an association is made between the groups thus identified and their negative characteristics. It is then necessary for the group that produces the stigmatisation to identify itself as ‘us’, as opposed to ‘them’. Moreover, as a result of these processes, the stigmatised group suffers discrimination and a loss of its status. This discrimination can be reflected in individual behaviour or it can assume a structural nature when it becomes the basis of recursive processes, which lead the stigmatised group to be systematically disadvantaged. Lastly, certain political and economic forces can take advantage of the stigmatisation processes and actively work for their production and reproduction in time. The individual and social characteristics on which stigmatisation is based are of various types and they can change with the changes that take place between historical periods and contexts; moreover, the same group may endure processes of discrimination based on partially different factors over time and on the association with different types of the negative attribute. This is true, for example with regard to antiSemitic or anti-Jewish hatred, according to the expression of Taguieff (2018), which has been based over time on different forms of prejudice and is now experiencing new manifestations in French society, as well as in other contexts.

26

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

In the work mentioned above, Goffman distinguishes between three categories of stigmatisation, based on ‘abominations of the body’, ‘blemishes of individual character’ and ‘tribal’ affiliation ‘passed down through lineages’. The list of forms of discrimination based on beliefs and prejudices could be even longer; however, every categorisation of the various forms of prejudice cannot help but be based on criteria of relevance with regard to the differences and is therefore affected by the vision of the proponent. Here we would like to discuss one of these forms in particular: that defined by Wacquant, Slater and Pereira (2014) as territorial stigmatisation, which addresses specific parts of the urban space and its inhabitants or habitual visitors. In every modern age, there has been symbolic geography of urban districts and a perception of the degree of esteem or, on the contrary, of blame that they are subject to in the perceptions of citizens. However, this geography has changed with the changing phases of modernity, social stratification and the change in the categories on which the attribution of positive or negative characters is based. According to the authors mentioned (who take up previous works by Wacquant inspired both by Goffman and by Bourdieu’s conceptions of symbolic power 1991), the dissolution of the Fordist city has led to the emergence of new forms of stigmatisation. It no longer has as its matrix the typical forms of inequality and Fordist marginalisation and is partially unrelated to the poverty of the neighbourhoods or the presence of specific minorities. Consequently, in different countries, generic labels have been imposed to define the stigmatised neighbourhoods as ‘viewed as tears in, and threats to, the fabric of the nation: banlieue-ghetto in France, degraded neighbourhoods in Italy, Problemquartier in Germany, ‘sink estates’ in Great Britain, krottenwijk in the Netherlands and so on’ (Wacquant et al. 2014, p. 1273). The name of these neighbourhoods appears in the media and penetrates between different social groups with effects that, ironically, can be defined as democratisation of stigma: it is not necessarily the privileged groups that affix it to the neighbourhoods where the poorest live, the prejudices are almost unanimously shared by everyone, including those who live in similar neighbourhoods. Some names, like the Bronx, are used at international level and become a sort of universal emblem of marginalisation and violence, almost completely independent of the real characteristics of the New York neighbourhood. The stigmatisation of a neighbourhood transfers the negative attribute to the people who live there, or who habitually frequent it, and justifies discriminatory (or at least suspicious) behaviour by those who interact with them: be those people employers, teachers or the police. Almost automatically, these people are considered less reliable in different areas of urban activity. Paradoxically, the stigma is reinforced by the emphasis on positive examples of individuals born in those areas and established in various fields (such as cinema or sport): such cases are presented as the effect of exceptional talent or circumstances, capable of overcoming the handicap represented by the place of birth. The stigmatisation of certain neighbourhoods and their inhabitants penetrates deeply into the language of the media and into daily life in a way that is more effective the more general the negative attributions connected to those areas are. The trivialisation of territorial stigma makes it inaccessible by opposing arguments; indeed, while those who accept and reproduce the stigma seem to refer to display obvious common sense,

2.3 Symbolic Power, Stigmatisation and Discrimination

27

unrelated to ideological connotations, those who oppose it seem to be motivated by cultural attitudes or political visions that lead them to deny the evidence. When faced with the application of territorial stigma, as well as other types of discrimination, those who suffer it can react in various ways, either individually or as a group or community. The reactions can range from acceptance of the stigma, as an adaptation to a shared vision, to the use of spatial distinctions useful for being considered an exception (‘I live in district X, but on the border with Y’) or other types of micro-differences from the surrounding environment (Wacquant 2010). From the negotiation of our negative image, aimed at highlighting our ‘normality’ (Ryan 2011), to the explicit opposition and attempt to overturn the stigma. In the latter case, the identity of the stigmatised area’s resident is proudly claimed and their neighbourhood is the subject of a counter-narrative, exalting its qualities that other city dwellers ignore or refuse to consider. Thus, for example the Parisian suburbs are presented as a cosmopolitan place, where different ethnic groups coexist peacefully and where it is possible to enhance one’s own differences (Lapeyronnie 2008; Garbin and Millington 2012). At very least, an explicit conflict can be created between dominant narrative and counter-narrative, with the overturning by the inhabitants of the stigmatised neighbourhoods against the other residents, accused en bloc of being unfair and racist. Territorial stigmatisation does not necessarily follow a centre-outskirts pattern, exercised by the inhabitants of the central neighbourhoods (or those that are home to the wealthiest and most ethnic population) against the inhabitants of the poor neighbourhoods and those inhabited by minorities. Sometimes it follows a periphery scheme, with prejudice coming from marginal areas against other marginal areas. The stigmatisation of the Roma people, for example Romaphobia, which is present in most European countries, leads to a process of ghettoization, i.e.: the confinement of the group in marginal spaces, subject to strong stigmatisation (Power and Lever 2017). In contexts like Italy, where the Roma often live in informal settlements, on the outskirts of towns, stigmatisation is particularly acute in the inhabitants of the neighbouring districts, also inhabited by a population that tends to be poor and with a strong presence of ethnic minorities. We must not forget that phenomena like this, or similar phenomena, such as the mutual stigmatisation of residents in ethnic enclaves of different origins, are often used by politicians and the media as a demonstration of presumed universality and ‘naturalness’ of the processes of stigmatisation, which makes them obvious and legitimate. Even worse, they can be interpreted as the effects of a ‘war between quarrelsome minorities’, which indiscriminately discredits each of them, as a group incapable of coexisting in a civilised way with the others and, therefore, responsible for their own discrimination and segregation. However, it should be stressed that the processes that lead to the production and reproduction of territorial stigmatisation are not only—and not mainly—based on arguments and cognitive evaluations, but more often on negative emotions and sensations, many of which are related to space. In the representations of the stigmatised neighbourhoods, therefore, sensory images linked to the physical degradation and neglect of public spaces, to the presence of graffiti, litter on the streets, etc., have an important role to play—although these are often attributable mainly to public

28

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

administrations and property owners. These images can also contain sensory elements, such as annoying noises, loud conversations and the smells that waft out of ethnic restaurants for the local population. All these elements form a stereotyped representation that is subject to negative evaluation; this is then attributed without the need for counter-evidence to all the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, who are considered, therefore, as lacking in care for the public space, noisy, lovers of excessively spicy cuisine and so on. This stereotype becomes a filter through which any fact that refers to these neighbourhoods is interpreted, creating circuits that feed the reproduction of the stigma.

References Adler S, Brenner J (1992) Gender and space: lesbians and gay men in the city. Int J Urban RegNal Res 16(1):24–34 Andersen HS (2003) Urban sores: on the interaction between segregation, urban decay, and deprived neighbourhoods. Ashgate, Aldershot Archer M (1996) Social integration and system integration: developing the distinction. Sociology 30(4):679–699 Atkinson R (2008) The flowing enclave and the misanthropy of networked affluence. In: Blokland T, Savage M (eds) Networked urbanism: social capital in the city. Ashgate Publishing, Farnha p, pp 41–58 Atkinson R (2016) Limited exposure: Social concealment, mobility and engagement with public space by the super-rich in London. Environ Plan A Econ Space 48(7):1302–1317 Bauman Z (2000) Liquid modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge Bauman Z (2001) The individualized society. Polity Press, Cambridge Beck U (1986) Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt Bell W (1954) A probability model for the measurement of ecological segregation. Soc Forces 32:337–364 Benson M (2013) Postcoloniality and privilege in new lifestyles flows: the case of North Americans in Panama. Mobilities 8(3):313–330 Blakely EJ, Snyder MG (1997) Fortress America: gating communities in the United States. Brookings Institution Press and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Washington Birtchnell T, Caletrío J (2013) (eds) Elite mobilities. Routledge, London-New York Bourdieu P (1991) Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Seuil, Paris Calame J, Charlesworth E (2011) Divided cities: Belfast, Beirut, Jerusalem, Mostar, and Nicosia. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia Coy M (2006) Gated communities and urban fragmentation in Latin America: the Brazilian experience. GeoJournal 66(1–2):121–132 Cole T (2013) Holocaust city: the making of a Jewish ghetto. Routledge, New York Cousin B, Chauvin S (2015) Vers une hyperbourgeoisie globalisée? In: Badie B, Vidal D (eds) Un monde d’inégalités. L’état du monde, La Découverte, Paris, pp 148–154 De Cauter L (2004) The capsular civilization. On the city in the age of fear. NAi Publishers, Rotterdam Delmelle EC (2015) Five decades of neighborhood classifications and their transitions: A comparison of four US cities, 1970–2010. Appl Geogr 57:1–11 Deranty JP (2008) Work and the precarisation of existence. Eur J Soc Theory 11(4):443–463 Dorling D (2018) The 1 percent and the rest: not just a slogan. In: Clark GL, Feldman MP, Gertler MS, Wójcik D (eds) The New Oxford handbook of economic geography. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 39–62

References

29

Duclos D (2002) Société-monde. Le temps des ruptures, La Découverte, Paris Duncan OD, Duncan B (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. Am Sociol Rev 20:210–217 Durkheim E (1983) De la division du travail social: étude sur l’organisation des sociétés supérieures. Alcan, Paris Fainstein S, Gordan I, Harloe M (1992) (eds) Divided cities: New York and London in the contemporary world. Basil Blackwell, Oxford Feitosa FF, Camara G, Monteiro AMV, Koschitzki T et al (2007) Global and local spatial indices of urban segregation. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 21(3):299–323 Foote N, Walter R (2017) Neighbourhood and socioeconomic change in emerging megapolitan nodes: tracking shifting social geographies in three rapidly growing United States metropolitan areas, 1980–2010. Urban Geogr 38(8):1203–1230 Gale R (2013) Religious residential segregation and internal migration: the British Muslim case. Environ Plan A 45(4):872–891 Garbin D, Millington G (2012) Territorial stigma and the politics of resistance in a Parisian banlieue: La Courneuve and beyond. Urban Stud 49(10):2067–2083 Goffman E (1974) Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Jason Aronson, New York Grant J, Mittelsteadt L (2004) Types of gated communities. Environ Plan B Plan Des 31(6):913–930 Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action: lifeworld and system: a critique of functionalist reason.-Cop. 1987.-457, S. Beacon press, Boston Harvey D (2014) Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York Knox P, Pinch S (2006) Urban social geography. An introduction, 5th edn. Pearson, Harlow, London Lagory M, Ward R, Juravich T (1980) The age segregation process: Explanation for American cities. Urban Aff Q 16(1):59–80 Laino G (2016) Il palazzo delle donne sole. Dinamiche urbane in un condominio napoletano. Territorio 7:7–25 Lapeyronnie D (2008) Ghetto urbain. Ségrégation, pauvreté, violence en France aujourd’hui, Robert Laffont, Paris Link BG, Phelan JC (2001) Conceptualizing stigma. Annu Rev Sociol 27(1):363–385 Lockwood D (1964) Social integration and system integration. In: Zollschan GK, Hirsch HW (eds) Explorations in social change. Houghton Mifflin, Boston Maloutas T, Karadimitriou N (2001) Vertical social differentiation in athens: alternative or complement to community segregation? Int J Urban Regional Res 25(4):699–716 Marcuse P (1993) What’s so new about divided cities? Int J Urban Regional Res 17(3):355–365 Massey DS (1990) American apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass. Am J Sociol 96(2):329–357 Marcuse P (1997) The enclave, the citadel, and the ghetto: What has changed in the post-Fordist US city. Urban Aff Rev 33(2):228–264 Massey DS, Denton NA (1988) The dimensions of residential segregation. Social forces 67(2):281–315 Massey DS, Denton NA (1989) Hypersegregation in U.S. metropolitan areas: black and hispanic segregation along five dimensions. Demography 26:373–393 Mela A (2014) Urban public space between fragmentation, control and conflict. City Territ Arch 1(1):15 Merton RK (1948) The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Rev 8(2):193–210 Mouzelis N (1997) Social and system integration: Lockwood, Habermas. Giddens Sociol 31(1):111–119 Musterd S (2005) Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: levels, causes, and effects. J Urban Aff 27(3):331–348 Nagle J (2009) Sites of social centrality and segregation: Lefebvre in Belfast, a “divided city”. Antipode 41(2):326–347

30

2 Key Concepts of Social Inequalities

Nussbaum M (2011) Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Harvard University Press, Cambridge OECD (2011) In: International Conference on Social Cohesion and Development. Background, Paris, 20–21 Jan. 2011. http://www.oecd.org/dev/pgd/ internationalconferenceonsocialcohesionanddevelopment.htm. Accessed 23 Nov 2018 Offe C (1985) Disorganized capitalism: contemporary transformations of work and politics. The MIT Press, Cambridge O’Loughlin J V, Friedrichs J (1996) (eds). Social polarization in post-industrial metropolises. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin Oxfam (2018) Reward Work, not Wealth, https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/reward-work-notwealth. Accessed 18 Oct 2018 Parsons T, Smelser NJ (1956) Economy and society: a study in the integration of economic and social theory. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London Pirez P (2002) Buenos Aires: fragmentation and privatization of the metropolitan city. Environ Urban 14(1):145–158 Phillips D (2006) Parallel lives? challenging discourses of British Muslim self-segregation. Environ Plan D Soc Space 24(1):25–40 Powell R, Lever J (2017) Europe’s perennial “outsiders”: a processual approach to Roma stigmatization and ghettoization. Curr Sociol 65(5):680–699 Pratschke J, Morlicchio E (2012) Social polarisation, the labour market and economic restructuring in Europe: an urban perspective. Urban Stud 49(9):1891–1907 Rahman Khan S (2012) The sociology of elites. Annu Rev Sociol 38:361–377 Ryan L (2011) Muslim women negotiating collective stigmatization: ‘We’re just normal people’. Sociology 45(6):1045–1060 Sager T (2011) Neo-liberal urban planning policies: a literature survey 1990–2010. Prog Plan 76(4):147–199 Sassen S (1991) The global city: New York. Tokyo, Princeton University Press, Princeton, London Sassen S. (2014) Expulsions. Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, London Secchi B (2013) La città dei ricchi e la città dei poveri. Laterza, Roma-Bari Sen A (1985) Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland, Amsterdam Smith DM (2003) (ed) The apartheid city and beyond: Urbanization and social change in South Africa. Routledge, London Spring A L (2013) Decline segregation of same-sex partners: evidence fron censuses 2000 and 2010. Population Research and Policy Review 32(%):687–716 Sonnenberg B (2014) Social integration and social involvement from a societal and individual perspective. Socio-economic panel study (SOEP). Dependencies and mechanisms of unemployment and social involvement. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 25–58 Strömgren M, Tammaru T, Danzer AM, van Ham M, Marcinczak S, Stjernström O, Lindgren U (2014) Factors shaping workplace segregation between natives and immigrants. Demography 51(2):645–671 Taguieff PA (2018) Judéophobie, la dernière vague. Fayard, Paris Tammaru C, Marci´nczak TS, van Ham M, Musterd S (2015) A multi-factor approach to understanding socio-economic segregation in European capital cities. In Tammaru C, Marci´nczak TS, van Ham M, Musterd S (2015) (eds) Socio-Economic Segregation in European Capital Cities, Routledge, London, pp 25–53 Thomas WI, Thomas DS (1928) The child in America: behavior problems and programs. Knop, New York van Ham M, Tammaru T (2016) New perspectives on ethnic segregation over time and space. A domains approach. Urban Geogr 37(7):953–962 Van Kempen R, Murie A (2009) The new divided city: changing patterns in European cities. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 100(4):377–398

References

31

Van Kempen R, Sule ¸ Özüekren A (1998) Ethnic segregation in cities: new forms and explanations in a dynamic world. Urban Stud 35(10):1631–1656 Wacquant L (2010) Urban desolation and symbolic denigration in the hyperghetto. Soc Psychol Q 73(3):215–219 Wacquant L, Slater T, Pereira VB (2014) Territorial stigmatization in action. Environ Plan A 46(6):1270–1280 Walks RA (2001) The social ecology of the post-Fordist/global city? Economic restructuring and socio-spatial polarisation in the Toronto urban region. Urban Stud 38(3):407–447 Webster C, Glasze G, Frantz K (2002) The global spread of gated communities. Environ Plan B Plan Des 29(3):315–320 Wellman B (2001) The rise of networked individualism. In: Keeble L (ed) Community networks online. Taylor & Francis, London Wirth L (1938) Urbanism as a Way of Life. Am J Sociol 44(1):1–24 Woolcock M (2011) What distinctive contribution can social cohesion make to development theory, research, and policy? In: Presentation, Paper presented at the OECD International Conference on Social Cohesion and Development, Paris Wong D (2009) The modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP). The SAGE handbook of spatial analysis, pp 105–123

Chapter 3

Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice

Abstract This third chapter is dedicated to understand the controversial theme of differences as a complex and contested term, through some different approaches. First, the chapter introduces the sociological approaches to differences, such as essentialism, social constructivism and psychoanalytic approach. Second, it introduces the concept of intersectionality to describe how the overlap of multiple social identities and differences can produce a different combination of discrimination, oppression and domination. Finally, the chapter deal with the concept of differences within a framework of social and spatial justice, through some specific discourses, including those of Iris Marion Young, Nancy Fraser and Edward Soja. This is a particularly complex perspective, characterised by a multiplicity of often-conflicting positions, which are not explained here. The reflections provided should not be understood as explanatory of this theme, but useful—because of their specificity—for the reading and understanding of differences, even before their treatment. Keywords Identity · Differences · Social differentiation · Essentialism · Constructivism · Intersectionality · Psychoanalytic tradition · Politics of difference · Social justice · Justice of recognition · Redistributive Justice · Spatial justice

3.1 Different Approaches: Essentialism, Constructivism and Psychoanalytic Tradition In the previous chapters, we have repeatedly referred to concepts such as identity, differences and diversity. Both positively and negatively, phenomena linked to the relationships between subjects in specific space-time contexts—such as, for example inclusion, cohesion and affiliation on the one hand, or exclusion, segregation, discrimination and stigmatisation on the other—also relate, as we have seen, to the way in which individuals deal with issues such as identity and alterity. Identity and alterity are complex philosophical concepts, which are often contested and particularly ‘slippery’ (among others, Brubaker and Cooper 2000). Partly for this reason, we are not going to dwell on their theories here. However, since the text © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A. Mela and A. Toldo, Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17256-5_3

33

34

3 Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice

makes several references to identity, or to identity issues, we believe it is important to provide some brief reflections on framing and positioning. According to Jenkins (2008, p. 5) identity is the human ability, rooted in language, to know who (or what) is what. It involves differences and similarities and could not exist without that same alterity from which it distances itself (among others, Remotti 2001). Identity and alterity are, therefore, two poles of a force field within which each individual mutually constructs both himself and, at the same time, the other, based on similarities and differences. Identity can therefore be interpreted as a social and cultural construction, a negotiation with alterity and with time (ibid.). And we believe it is appropriate to add, with space, as an element that contributes to shaping identity (Holloway 2005). These brief considerations, which on the one hand explain our perspective, on the other hand, work only as cues for those who want to further the controversial matter of identity.1 Here, in fact, instead of identity and discussions about it, we are going to try to take a difference-based approach (among others, Young 1990; Massey et al. 1999). Although not even ’differences’ represent a unique concept, with clear and defined boundaries, this approach is better suited—in our opinion—to avoiding the intrinsic viscosity of identity. Before going into the details of some specific differences (class, gender, ‘race’ and disability) we will deal—albeit briefly—with some useful questions for a better understanding of how they interact with space in the production of exclusionary phenomena. The concept of differences, central to the human sciences, has been theorised as an intrinsically social phenomenon. If we understand them as the ways that each of us can vary from one another, they lend themselves (like the concept of identity) to different approaches. Here, we outline three main ones: essentialism, social constructionism and psychoanalytic tradition. As each of us has certainly experienced for ourselves, some of the differences that characterise us have no influence on our social or working life, on security, on access to certain rights or services, such as housing, health, education, etc. On the contrary, there are a large number of traits (generally linked to what Giddens 2009, defines as primary identities, such as gender, ‘race’/ethnicity, disability; but also secondary identities, such as social class) that have an impact on our quality of life and opportunities. In addition to individual experience, it is important to recognise that some of these characteristics are the ordering principles according to which people group and structure themselves—or are grouped and structured—in specific social categories. As Smith (2005 p. 18) observes, these processes—which we can define as being of social differentiation—do not occur ‘naturally’, but are the product of the different ways in which power, material and symbolic resources interact. Interactions do not happen in a vacuum but change according to space and time (since the same differences are differently constructed depending on time and space).

1 Some

more detailed readings include, among the others, Jenkins 2008; Keith and Pile 2004.

3.1 Different Approaches: Essentialism, Constructivism and Psychoanalytic Tradition

35

This approach, which we call social constructionism, emphasises that social differences do not derive from intrinsically innate and fixed human variations, but are socially constructed, meaning that they are produced and reproduced through the interweaving of wider socio-spatial processes and individuals biographical narratives. For this reason, they are not universal but reflect the spatial and temporal variations of social interactions. Social constructivism is, in fact, a relational approach, since it interprets individual identities based on similarities and differences in relation to alterity. According to this logic, the notion of identity that stems from these reflections is multiple, relational, fluid and dynamic, with porous and changing boundaries. Social constructionism, now widely validated and used by the social sciences, develops as criticism to so-called essentialism. Essentialism is commonly understood as a belief in the real, in the true essence of things, i.e. the invariable and fixed properties that define the ‘whatness’ of a given entity. In this perspective, differences are perceived as transhistorical, eternal and unchangeable. In particular, for biological essentialism (or determinism), differences such as gender, ‘race’, etc. are primarily biological differences, naturally determined. This refers to discourses and practices which label and relate to particular groups of people in ways which suppress difference and homogenise and fix them, not merely stereotyping but either pathologising or wrongly idealising them (Sayer 1997, p. 454). For this reason, essentialism is generally interpreted as a form of sexism, racism and classism. Starting from post-structuralist thinking and, in particular, from feminist reflections, it is widely criticised and rejected within the social sciences. A last interesting approach, closely related to the phenomena of social exclusion, is that developed by David Sibley in the field of psychoanalytic tradition. Starting from his practical experiences with the Roma population, and drawing on the reflections of authors like Melanie Klein, Julia Kristeva and Mary Douglas, Sibley (1995) develops a series of reflections on the processes of exclusion and their relationship with space. Specifically, he argues that dominant social groups have a tendency to ‘purify’ space by trying to exclude what is perceived as foreign, similar to something ‘dirty and polluting’ and, therefore, different and distant. According to Sibley, these exclusionary practices help people to preserve their self (and their sense of identity) based on boundaries developed in early childhood experiences, that is, when they distance themselves from objects or things defined as ‘abject’. This notion, borrowed from Kristeva (1982), helps us to understand the phenomena of socio-spatial exclusion of individuals and groups identified as different, facilitating a series of conceptual links between individual psyche, bodies, social systems and spatiality (Sibley 1995). These ideas of self and others are not innate but culturally produced in interaction with the social context (and therefore situated in time and space) through stereotyped representations. These representations not only define the other and the self (in mutual opposition), but inform those processes through which social groups are perceived as being in or out of place in certain contexts. In his work, Sibley discusses forms of exclusion of ‘others’, such as children, the elderly, women and the disabled, as outsiders, paying attention to spatial exclusion in relation to the routine practices of daily life.

36

3 Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice

Ideas about abject bodies have been widely used in reflections on discrimination and exclusion related to sexuality, ‘race’, but also disability, etc. To make a tangible example authors such as Wilton (1998) have taken up the psychoanalytic tradition by applying the concept of border and proximity to the territoriality of centres for people with diseases/disabilities, studying the phenomena of discrimination, stigmatisation and social–spatial exclusion suffered by the guests. Wilton’s work (which dealt specifically with HIV patients) emphasises how the production and reproduction of differences are linked to the presence of both social and natural boundaries (e.g. the dichotomous notion of able/disabled) but also intrinsically spatial boundaries (e.g. through the exclusion of the sick through hospitalisation). This social and spatial opposition between self and others can be threatened by the geographical proximity of difference, which occurs when a facility for the sick/disabled settles in a neighbourhood, giving people the opportunity to move freely within it. Spatial separation facilitates the maintenance of social boundaries, since it restores the social differences perceived between self and others. Vice versa, physical proximity challenges its legitimacy. This, like other studies, reveals ‘that the most “successful” communities in terms of their ability to exclude facilities tend to be the wealthier, whiter, suburban single-family residential neighbourhoods’ (Takahashi 1992 cit. in Wilton 1998). Wilton (1998, p. 180) suggests that ‘this finding indicates that the immediate dynamics of community opposition must be situated within broader dimensions of social oppression’. While starting from different assumptions, social constructionism and the psychoanalytic approach are united by a rejection of essentialist views, emphasising the social invention of identity and differences as a spatially and temporally located process (Holloway 2005). Second, both underline how these processes ‘can produce highly spatialized understandings of difference, for example as we hold spatially specific understandings of where particular social groups are in or out of place’ (ibid., p. 401). These intellectual developments have augmented an emphasis on the spatial configuration of social difference with a series of more complex questions concerning the ways in which identities, bodies and places produce, and are produced by, one another (Wilton, 1998, p. 174). This has pushed geographers and urban sociologists to think innovatively about the role that specific spatialities play in constructing and reproducing individuals and groups as different (ibid.).

3.2 What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Intersectionality? Another fundamental concept with respect to the treatment of differences is that of intersectionality. Widely spread in academic and political debate, since the late 80s, early 90s, intersectionality derives from critical ‘race’ studies, in particular from the movement born in the legal academy committed to problematizing law’s purported colour blindness, neutrality and objectivity (Nash, 2008). It owes much to

3.2 What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Intersectionality?

37

the feminist and anti-racist reflections2 developed especially by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw who, for the first time, reflected on the overlapping phenomena of discrimination and oppression starting from the situation of black women. According to Crenshaw, in fact, it is not possible to understand these phenomena considering only gender or only ‘race’, because the two categories are deeply interrelated (as are the relative injustices). From these reflections comes the well-known metaphor of the crossroads: ‘Consider an analogy to traffic in an intersection, coming and going in all four directions. Discrimination, like traffic through an intersection, may flow in one direction, and it may flow in another. If an accident happens in an intersection, it can be caused by cars travelling from any number of directions and, sometimes, from all of them. Similarly, if a Black woman is harmed because she is in the intersection, her injury could result from sex discrimination or race discrimination’ (Crenshaw 1989, p. 199). Shifting the discourse from metaphor to reality, Crenshaw argues that black women experience discriminatory phenomena in a way that is similar to both white women and black men, through the combined effect of discriminatory practices on both a gender and racial basis. More in general, this theory is been used in social sciences in order to analyses and demonstrate how various categories such as social class, gender, sexual orientation, ‘race’, ethnicity, disability, religion, age, nationality and other axes of identity interact on multiple levels, very often simultaneously. This theory proposes that, in order to fully understand the multiple identity of a person, we need to think about every element as inextricably linked to all the other elements. This framework can be used to understand how systematic injustice and social inequality take place on a multidimensional basis. Intersectionality demonstrates that classical conceptualizations of oppression in society—such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and all prejudices based on intolerance—do not act independently, but they are interconnected and create a system of oppression that reflects the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination. Operationally, we can understand intersectionality as a tool to deconstruct the content of the methodology on which gender, ‘race’, class and other privileges have been constructed (ibid.). Over time, different approaches have been developed with regard to the concept of intersectionality (Walby et al. 2012), which is useful to know for the purposes of research and operational analysis. McCall (2005) identifies three of them in particular: intra-category, anti-category and, lastly, inter-category. The first, which is openly inspired by the work of Crenshaw, focuses mainly on particular social groups, often small in size, which are located at points of intersection of the various axes of identity that are generally neglected, in order to reveal the complexity of the experience within these groups. However, this approach has the disadvantage of neglecting the 2 The concept of intersectionality has been, at least implicitly, at the centre of the discourse of black

feminism and the anti-slavery movement of the nineteenth century, and was probably already present even before that. The famous speech ‘Is not I a woman?’ held in 1851 by Sojourner Truth–Isabella Baumfree (1797–1883)—at the Women’s convention in Akron, Ohio, is a good example. In recent times, there is a text written by the collective of black lesbian feminists Combahee River Collective, active in Boston between 1974 and 1980, on holding together oppression, racism and identity.

38

3 Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice

wider processes and social and institutional structures that can produce inequalities. The anti-categorial perspective, on the other hand, is based on the deconstruction of analytical categories. This approach considers as problematic the stabilisation of categories (gender, sex, ‘race’, disability, etc.) which risks essentialising and reifying social relations, and therefore gives priority to fluidity over the stability of categories. The disadvantage, according to McCall, is that it makes practical analysis too complex. Finally, the inter-category approach provisionally adopts the existing analytical categories to document the relationships of inequality between social groups and the changing configurations of inequality between multiple and conflictual dimensions. This approach, according to McCall, makes operational investigations possible, without losing sight, at the same time, of the larger structures that generate inequalities.

3.3 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion in a Perspective of Justice One of the most interesting perspectives for the treatment of differences and exclusion in their spatialities—especially in urban areas—is justice. Like the other concepts introduced in these pages, justice is a philosophical concept, complex, multifaceted and underlies different approaches that are not dealt with here. Here, we merely provide some perspectives that we see as functional to our reflections. The first two, refer to the works of Iris Marion Young, with the policy of differences, and Nancy Fraser, with the recomposition of ‘redistributive justice’ and ‘justice of recognition’. They can help us to understand the meaning and role of the social differences on which those practices and phenomena of exclusion are based, which we will explore in detail starting from Sect. 4.4. The third perspective concerns the concept of spatial justice and will be dealt with through the comparison of two (of the many) approaches, that of Peter Marcuse and that of Edward Soja. The reference to spatial justice is useful to better focus on the active role of space in the production and reproduction of phenomena of exclusion starting from specific differences. The first perspective we present is that of Iris Marion Young.3 Young’s research is aimed at building an alternative to the redistributive paradigm, considered inadequate to address problems of justice regarding the identity, respect and dignity of people, relationships of power, opportunities and the role of culture. The distributive approach (typically associated with the thinking of John Rawls) defines justice as the morally correct distribution of social benefits and honours among members of society 3 The work of Young (who was a feminist and militant philosopher) is deeply situated: her reflections

are primarily related to the themes of sexual difference, women’s oppression and the class, ethnic, age, health, culture and other differences that exist among women. It is also connected to a specific context, the United States. In opposition with the inclinations of a priori and abstract systems of justice, Young moves her investigation from reflection on the protests and claims made since the 1960s by movements of women, blacks, American Indians, gays, lesbians, the elderly and the disabled and, on another front, from environmental and pacifist struggles against American intervention in the rest of the world.

3.3 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion in a Perspective of Justice

39

(including wealth and income and other material resources, but also intangible social assets such as rights, opportunities, power and self-respect). According to Young, this perspective is incapable of accepting the demands for justice coming from social movements, such as that of workers, women or cultural, ethnic or sexual minorities, which question the very same systems of values that determine the nature of the assets to be distributed and the forms they take in different contexts. The weakness of the distributive paradigm is substantiated precisely in this passage: it ignores and tends to opacify the institutional context at the base of that system which is, at least in part, the very cause of unfair distribution models. Young’s proposal, on the other hand, places at the centre of discussions on justice the freedom from oppression and domination, understood as conditions of disadvantage and injustice, in a logic of promotion and respect for differences. According to her, this paradigm is able to highlight, much more than that of distribution, the asymmetrical relations of power and subjection, of exploitation, violence, marginalisation, integration and subaltern homologation, generated by the disregard for differences and, in turn, the causes and the root of the inequalities. Looking at the situation from the point of view of the oppressed helps to see, even before resolving them, the injustices of which they are victims. The oppressed, according to this logic, generally belong to social groups that can be identified based on precise differences, in relation to which individuals are judged by the standardising gaze of the dominant groups4 as abnormal, different and inferior. Recognising that, in today’s societies, individuals are often disadvantaged exactly because they are members of these groups, a comprehensive theory of justice cannot refer to the individual, but must also consider group affiliations. In particular, among the reflections that Young proposes in her most important work—‘Justice and the politics of difference’ (1990)—there are two issues that most interest us with respect to the objectives of our text. The first concerns the ‘thought of difference’ which redefines equality as the equal value of the differences that make each person a different being and, at the same time, equal to all others. Based on these considerations, Young argues in favour of a policy based on the positive recognition of diversity, which reconciles the equal treatment of each individual, with the fight against forms of oppression rooted in group differences. In this perspective, the realisation of equality does not imply the denial of the differences or social groups that are formed from them. Young does not contest or demonise group differentiation (although she considers it desirable that people be treated as individuals free of stereotypes and group norms). On the contrary, she considers it an endemic and inevitable and, in some ways, also desirable social phenomenon, because group identifications are often important for people, even when they belong to oppressed groups. Not only, although some groups have developed in reaction to phenomena of oppression, and relationships of privilege and oppression structure interactions between many groups, Young argues that group differentiation 4 It

is interesting to observe, as Young points out, how dominant subjects do not even have to think of themselves as a group, they occupy an unmarked, neutral, apparently universal position that gives rise to a normalising gaze.

40

3 Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice

is not in itself oppressive. The oppression of a social group occurs when one assumes a conceptualisation of the difference in terms of unalterable essence, which determines what the members of a group are, know how to do, or deserve. For Young, oppression is an analytical category (i.e. a family of discourses and conditions through which the conditions of a group can be assessed) with five categories (or ‘faces’): violence, exploitation, marginalisation, powerlessness and cultural imperialism. In Young’s view, these phenomena also have a spatial translation. In fact, the second body of reflections that interests us is that on the city as a social and material space of differences and, therefore, as a social and material space of (in)justice. Starting from the observation of urban dynamics, Young states that while distribution inequalities can be clearly read in the materiality of spaces, the social structures, processes and relationships that produce and reproduce these distributions are generally barely visible, if not hidden. Young identifies three aspects of these processes that contribute to domination and oppression: (a) centralised corporate and bureaucratic domination of cities; (b) decision-making structures in municipalities and their hidden mechanisms of redistribution; and (c) processes of segregation and exclusion, both within cities and between cities and suburbs. In this perspective, she proposes an idea of justice that shifts the focus from distributive schemes to deliberations and decision-making processes and, more generally, to all social and institutional relations susceptible to collective decisions.5 For Young, social justice in cities is therefore intrinsically linked to the recognition of differences, understood as coexistence, participation, multiplicity and heterogeneity in unity; a sort of flanked peculiarity, not attributable to identity, but not completely different from it, that the very nature of the city produces, multiplies and makes visible especially in public spaces. Even when simplified in this way, Young’s thought is important to better conceptualise differences, avoiding the risk of pursuing, through policies aimed at inclusion and justice, a false equality based on the interpretation of differences as a ‘gap’ between the binary opposition of what is perceived as normal and what is not. Typically in the form ‘A/not A’ (man/woman, able/disabled, heterosexual/homosexual, etc.) so challenged by post-structuralist and feminist thinking,6 in which the second term is defined exclusively as of the first one. This means, in practice, abandoning a vision of differences as anomaly or deviance, rejecting actions on diversity that actually aim to reduce the difference and bring it back within the norm. It is a particularly meaningful reflection when referring to contemporary cities, the subject of this text, which are inherently differentiated, in which diversity is given by those that are different (the poor, immigrants, the excluded and, in general, social, 5 In

fact, in the various moments of the decision-making process, the presence of a ‘heterogeneous public’ (Young p. 116), which also gives voice to the different and oppressed, promotes social justice better than a homogeneous public in which differences are annulled. With respect to interest groups, which explicitly and exclusively aim to achieve their own objectives, social groups represent a decisive step forward in the democratic sense, because in the discussion between representatives of social groups everyone must clarify and justify their reasons, obtain and offer attention, compare notes, and then make decisions on the basis of shared principles of justice. 6 In addition to Iris Marion Young, see also the perspective of Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida and Donna Haraway.

3.3 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion in a Perspective of Justice

41

ethnic and cultural minorities. Fincher and Jacobs (1998) and the spatial practices they implement. According to this logic, Young’s reflections have given prominence and a strong impulse to the dimension of the recognition of differences as a remedy to injustice, without denying the need for redistributive policies. However, the subsequent debate between the supporters of these two different positions has progressively intensified, to the point of crystallising into an irreconcilable opposition between redistributive justice and the justice of recognition. To this end, the second approach to social justice that we are going to deal with briefly is that of Nancy Fraser, who proposes an attempt to reconcile these perspectives. According to Fraser (1995), the result of the polarisation between distributive claims and claims of recognition leads to a shift away from the cultural policy of difference from the social policy of equality. In her work, Fraser demonstrates the senselessness of this antithesis and the need to develop a concept of justice able to reconciling these two dimensions. According to Fraser, in fact, the redistribution of resources does not guarantee recognition: to demonstrate this, she proposes the example of the African-American banker on Wall Street who, because of the colour of his skin, does not have the same ease of access to a taxi. Similarly, unequal distribution is not always a by-product of a lack of recognition: one need only think of the condition of a qualified male worker who loses his job due to a speculative merger between companies. Among Fraser’s reflections, one of the questions that we consider most important in order to better conduct the practical observation of social–spatial exclusion concerns the reasons why the non-recognition of differences is to be considered as a matter of injustice and not—as several authors believe (like Charles Taylor and Axel Honneth)—of mere self-fulfilment. According to Fraser, non-recognition is morally unfair because it denies some individuals and groups the chance to participate in social interaction on an equal footing with others. Moreover, it concerns social relations and not individual psychology: this means that non-recognition does not only translate into being the object of negative judgments, contempt, discrimination. On the contrary, it implies the impossibility of fully participating in social interaction and in institutionalised models that produce and reproduce cultural values. In this perspective, non-recognition cannot be interpreted as a lack of awareness of the oppressed (which very often leads to their paternalistic guilt) or merely reduced to the prejudice of the oppressors (to be resolved through authoritarian intervention on their cultural values). Lastly, we believe it would be useful to provide a third and final approach to matters of justice by introducing a fundamental variable for our reflections: space. Unlike social justice, the different approaches to spatial justice differ not so much in the treatment of the first term as in the theorisations of the second. The debate on these issues, typically Anglophone or English, is in fact characterised by a set of views, perspectives and methodologies of analysis that differ in terms of the consideration of space. Very briefly, and referring to other sites for further details, it is possible to identify two main approaches: the first interprets space as a container of socio-economic facts, processes and dynamics that originate elsewhere (in economic circuits, in busi-

42

3 Understanding Differences: Different Approaches, Intersectionality and Justice

ness strategies, in social dynamics, etc.). The second approach considers space and justice in a dialectical relationship in which space is a social product, the result of the relationships that take shape in it and, at the same time, able of influencing their production and reproduction. Transposed into discourses on justice, these two different perspectives can be exemplified, respectively, in the thinking of Peter Marcuse (2010), on the one hand, and Edward Soja (2010a,b), on the other. For Marcuse, spatial justice is a projection in space of social justice issues. The spatial forms of (in)justice derive from non-spatial processes, which originate elsewhere: ‘most problems have a spatial aspect, but their origins lie in economic, social, political arenas, the spatial being a partial cause and an aggravation, but only partial’ (Marcuse 2009, p. 195). By contrast, Soja (2010a) interprets spatial justice as a concept in itself and spatial forms of (in)justice as deriving also from spatial processes: ‘spatial justice as such is not a substitute or alternative to social, economic, or other forms of justice but rather a way of looking at justice from a critical spatial perspective’ (p. 60). Marcuse exemplifies his position through the Harlem case in New York. In his view, the spatial ghettoisation that characterises this area must be read as part of a broader process of discrimination against African-Americans that is rooted in history, ‘the spatial injustices of segregation and resource distribution are derivative of these broader injustices’ (Marcuse 2010, p. 88). In this perspective, space is causal but derived (Iveson 2011). While for Soja, who also refers to phenomena of ghettoisation and irregular distributions as examples of spatial injustice, the ‘spatial (in)justice can be seen as both outcome and process, as geographies or distributional patterns that are in themselves just/unjust and as the processes that produce these outcomes’. (Soja 2010a, p. 62). Starting from these assumptions, Soja elaborates a series of arguments to support his ideas on the spatiality of justice, identifying three fundamental principles of social–spatial dialectics: (i) the ontological spatiality of all being: we all live in a spatial dimension (as well as a social and temporal one); (ii) the social production of spatiality and (iii) the socio-spatial dialectic (that the spatial shapes the social and vice versa). These principles, he argues, “expose the spatial causality of justice and injustice as well as the justice and injustice that are embedded in spatiality” (Soja 2010a, p. 60). The contrast between Marcuse’s thought and that of Soja (which, mind you, is not just a question of different emphasis) is fundamental if we are to understand what we mean when we assign space an active role in the production and reproduction of exclusionary dynamics and phenomena (or, more generally, how bodies and places produce each other). In this sense, it is in the continuous interaction between differences (those that we will analyse in detail in the following paragraphs) and the spatialities they take on (and which in turn contribute to shaping them) that we must act to promote cities that are more inclusive, more equal and, therefore, probably fairer.

References

43

References Brubaker R, Cooper F (2000) Beyond “identity”. Theory Soc 29(1):1–47 Crenshaw K. (1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, p 139 Fincher R, Jacobs JM (1998) (eds) Cities of difference. The Guilford Press, New York Fraser N (1995) From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a ‘post-socialist’ age. New left review p 68–93 Giddens A (2009) Sociology, 6th edn. Cambridge Polity Press, Cambridge Holloway S (2005) Identity and difference: age, dis/ability and sexuality. In: Cloke P, Crang P, Goodwin M (eds) Introducing human geographies, 2nd edn. Hodder, Oxon Iveson K (2011) Social or spatial justice? Marcuse and Soja on the right to the city. City 15(2):250–259 Jenkins R (2008) Social identity, 3rd edn. Routledge, London Keith M, Pile S. (2004) (eds) Place and the politics of identity. Routledge, London Kristeva J (1982) Powers of horror: an essay on abjection. Columbia University Press, New York Marcuse P (2009) From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City 13(2–3):185–197 Marcuse P (2010) Spatial justice: derivative but causal of social justice. In: Bret B, Gervais-Lambony P, Hancock C, Landy F (eds) Justices et injustices spatiales. Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest, Paris, pp 75–94 Massey DB, Allen J, Philip S (eds) (1999) Human geography today. Cambridge Polity Press, Cambridge McCall L (2005) The complexity of intersectionality. Signs 30(3):1771–1800 Nash JC (2008) Re-thinking intersectionality. Fem Rev 89(1):1–15 Remotti F (2001) Contro l’identità. Laterza, Bari Sayer A (1997) Essentialism, social constructionism, and beyond. Sociol Rev 45(3):453–487 Sibley D (1995) Geographies of exclusion: society and difference in the west. Routledge, London Smith SJ (2005) Society-Space. In Cloke P, Crang P, Goodwin M, Introducing Human Geography, 2nd edn. Hodder Education, Oxon Soja E (2010a) The city and spatial justice. In: Bret B, Gervais-Lambony P, Hancock C, Landy F (eds) Justices et injustices spatiales. Presses Univeritaires de Paris Ouest, Paris, pp 55–74 Soja E (2010b) Seeking spatial justice. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Takahashi L (1992) National attitudes towards controversial human services. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Southern Young IM (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton Walby S, Armstrong J, Strid S (2012) Intersectionality: multiple inequalities in social theory. Sociology 46(2):224–240 Wilton RD (1998) The constitution of difference: space and psyche in landscapes of exclusion. Geoforum 29(2):173–185

Chapter 4

Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

Abstract This fourth chapter is dedicated to analyse the phenomenon of exclusion from a spatial perspective, in relation to some differences, understanding how they interact with space in the production of exclusionary phenomena. In particular, this chapter focuses on some specific social differences (such as class, gender, ‘race’ and disability). After deconstructing each difference, revealing it as a socially constructed product linked to specific space and time, the chapter address how they become spatialized elements of discrimination and trigger processes of exclusion, focusing on specific social groups, such as the homeless people, women and LGBTQIA+ people, Roma people and refugees and asylum seekers. Keywords Identity · Differences · Intersectionality · Social stratification · Social class · Homeless · Mobility · Sex · Gender · Heteronormativity · Performativity · Women · LGBTQIA+ people · Fear · ‘Race’ · Ethnicity · Linguistic turn · Material turn · Refugees · Roma people · Squatting · Disability · Medical model of disability · Social model of disability

4.1 Exclusion by Economic Differences According to sociological theories, the structure of social inequalities and people’s life opportunities depend on three fundamental types of resources, which are not always necessarily connected: economic (income and material wealth), symbolic (prestige and social consideration) and political (power). Over the following paragraphs we focus on the economic differences that we choose to link to a complex first category, challenged and progressively weakened by the growing importance of other sources of identification (such as ‘race’ and gender): social class. While we are aware of this weakening, we agree with those authors who see class divisions as remaining at the centre of fundamental economic inequalities. Social class continues to exert a great influence over our life opportunities and so-called class affiliation is linked to a wide variety of social and spatial inequalities and phenomena of exclusion.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A. Mela and A. Toldo, Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17256-5_4

45

46

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

In accordance with this logic, we introduce some concepts and theoretical approaches related to social class and then focus on some forms of exclusion, specifically suffered by those who live the most extreme form of urban poverty, the homelessness.

4.1.1 Understanding Social Class and Social Stratification To describe and analyse inequalities between individuals and groups, sociology uses the concept of social stratification (see also Grusky 2018). As mentioned above, economic factors play a fundamental, but not exclusive, role in the dynamics of stratification. It can also be determined by other attributes, such as ‘race’, ethnicity, gender, age, religious affiliation, etc. In more general terms, we can define social stratification as the set of more or less advantageous positions that individuals or groups occupy in a given society, based on the possession of socially relevant resources (including those of an economic nature). This is obviously a relational concept and tends to be hierarchical, since positions make sense within relationships of reciprocity that can put into some form of order (which need not necessarily be perfect). In his sociology manual, Giddens (2009) identifies four fundamental systems of stratification (slavery, castes, estates and social classes). Leaving the first three aside, here we concentrate on the concepts of class. The class system has specific characteristics that clearly set it apart the others: belonging to a class is not a question of fact, nor of law, and is based mainly on economic differences generated by mostly impersonal ties (such as those established, for example, between the class of employers and that of employees). Within sociological thought, there are different approaches1 to social stratification, including the conflictual and the multidimensional approaches, the reference figures of which are Marx and Weber, respectively. Very briefly, for Marx, classrelated interests can be traced back to the opposition between dominant groups (the owners of capital and the workforce) and dominated groups (the workforce). In these terms, a class is made up of a group of individuals who share a certain relationship with the means of production: it owns them, in the case of the capitalists, or offers labour, in the case of the proletariat. The relationship that binds these two classes is of exploitation. Only the creation of a class-consciousness (aware of its dominant position) can lead through a revolutionary act (the dictatorship of the proletariat) to total egalitarianism. Although the concept of class identity (and above all the desirable class-consciousness) has progressively weakened, scholars of the Marxist approach believe that social classes and class relations have not failed, but that they remain—reconfigured as a result of complex phenomena such as globalisation—as 1 In addition to the conflictual and multidimensional approach, there is a third fundamental approach

to stratification, which we will not be focusing on here, the functionalist approach (Davis and Moore 1945; Parsons 1949). This approach is an integral part of a broader theory of society, in which it is interpreted in the same way as the elements of an organism, i.e.: constituted by those who cooperate for its maintenance over time.

4.1 Exclusion by Economic Differences

47

the basis of social-spatial inequalities and injustices. Weber’s theory, on the other hand, can be considered as the progenitor of multidimensional approaches to stratification. Alongside the economic dimension (defined not only on the basis of the relationship with the means of production, but also on other economically relevant factors, such as working skills and professionalism), we find differentiated access to intangible resources such as culture and lifestyle, attributable to prestige and the possibility of influencing and imposing decisions and projects, i.e. political power. In accordance with this logic, the purely economic dimension defines class, prestige defines estate or status and political power defines the party. Considered together, these three categories (whose positions may also be inconsistent) structure a multidimensional system of inequalities. Depending on the approaches considered, the fluidity of the system varies and the boundaries between the classes become more or less clear, resulting in a lesser or greater possibility of moving between them. The passage from one class to another (in particular, from the ascribed class, which is accessed by birth to an acquired class different from that of origin) is defined as social mobility (Sorokin 1927).2 Nowadays, we tend to use the concept of class by giving it several dimensions, positioning it among the Weberian theories. In its current version, class is characterised both by distributive elements, which concern the distribution of the privileges of resources considered socially relevant, and by relational elements, which relate to the level of power held (according to this logic, the idea of class also includes issues that Weber attributed to status and party). This prerogative makes the empirical analysis of modern stratification very complex, due to the difficulty in determining criteria and in placing the classes in order. In fact, there is a great variety of models making class operative. They are usually based on occupational structure and take on different forms.3 In his manual, Giddens (2009) identifies four articulations: an upper class, characterised by the concentration of wealth and poverty (see paragraph 2.2.1 on the role of the elite); a middle class, characterised by extensive heterogeneity and often divergent interests (which is why some people prefer to speak of the middle classes), which now includes the majority of the population of industrialised countries; a working class, which has progressively decreased and, lastly, an underclass which represents the lowest segment of the social stratification, characterised by people in a condition of socio-economic marginality (ibid.).

2 Movement from the lowest to the highest levels indicates upward mobility; the opposite step indi-

cates downward mobility. Alongside this vertical mobility, there is a horizontal mobility that moves individuals between classes or social levels that are different but cannot be ordered hierarchically. 3 There are more descriptive models, which merely describe the social structure without analysing relations between classes. These models are usually preferred by those scholars, such as the exponents of functionalism, who see in stratification a spontaneous manifestation of the ‘natural’ social order Giddens (2009). On the contrary, so-called relational models, which try to analyse and explain the links between the classes, are generally used by scholars who adopt the paradigm of conflict (Marxist or Weberian) to explain the divisions and tensions existing within a society. These include the theories of Erik Olin Wright, who analyses the processes of class exploitation, and the approach of John Goldthorpe, rooted in the Weberian conception of class (ibid.).

48

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

Some authors believe that defined in this way, the classes have lost the most typical connotation of the sociological tradition (particularly Marxian) of defining collective subjects with their own identities and capable of unitary actions. Others, on the contrary, maintain that—although the forms of inequalities and social injustices are not exhausted—the concept of class represents not only a central element in the disparity of starting conditions and perspectives of life but also a fundamental factor around which collective identities and social relations are structured. On this matter, we consider the reading of inequalities within the biographies of individuals, which are evidently neither attributable nor reducible to individual categories, but to the intersection of several dimensions in specific spatial and temporal contexts, to be essential. In accordance with this logic, applying the concept of intersectionality to social research into economic inequalities does not simply mean adding other attributes to class, such as ‘race’, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, etc. This would be tantamount to theorising the secondary nature of the latter with respect to the primary role of class. As already mentioned, the life of a white heterosexual male blue-collar worker can be very different from that of a black homosexual female bluecollar worker and from all the intermediate positions between these two dichotomies. However, by simplifying the picture, in order to better understand the exclusionary dynamics that the relationship between differences and space triggers and reproduces, we can observe how the spatial exclusion related to economic disparities can evidently take on very different forms. As already discussed in Chap. 2, one of the most evident form is connected to residential segregation, with unequal distribution of groups throughout the territory which, in turn, favours the reproduction of inequalities over time. This is the case, for example, of marginal areas, suburban areas or labouring class areas which, previously occupied by the working class, become areas of settlement for low-income classes, even when they perform different tasks and—as has happened in many European cities—are immigrants from other countries or are second generations of migrant populations. Economic disparities are also at the root of discrimination and expulsion that involve the most vulnerable population in the processes of gentrification. Especially in the first theorisations (see Glass 1964) class membership assumed immediate significance, with occupation by middle-class families or individuals of housing and neighbourhoods from which the working class had been expelled. In the decades that followed, starting with the work of Zukin (1982), the role of lifestyles and localised choices of the so-called gentrifiers, or social groups such as artists, university students, intellectual professionals, etc., was emphasised. Fifty years after Glass’s original definition, although almost all the attributes of gentrification have been somewhat relativized, social turnover on an economic basis continues to be one of the fundamental traits of this process. The exclusion of vulnerable people from public space (such as the homeless, see the following paragraph) is, therefore, triggered, or exacerbated, by processes of gentrification, by entrepreneurialism governance (to quote Harvey, 1989, in which investment in the production of urban space is a central element) and place-making policies, which aim to build places for specific categories of consumers. In this perspective, marginal subjects are considered as undesirable, as they represent a collective cost with reference to social expenditure and the image of places.

4.1 Exclusion by Economic Differences

49

The mechanisms of urban development that can be ascribed to this logic tend, therefore, to eliminate social problems, not solving them, but through their expulsion from the arena in which competition for urban space is played out (Sassen 2014). In this way, poverty and social fragility are stigmatised and criminalised, rather than being addressed in their processes of structuring and (re)production. These mechanisms are at the basis of the theory of the ‘revanchist city’4 (Smith 1996) where media tend to amplify social insecurity and where behaviours that deviate from the norm are considered illegitimate and punished in a repressive manner. In accordance with this logic, the revanchist city, rather than reflecting the malaise of vulnerable people, testifies to the resentment of the middle class towards the lower strata of social structure.

4.1.2 Extreme Urban Poverty and Social Exclusion of Homeless Over the past twenty years, urban geographers and sociologists, among others, have extensively addressed the urban spatialities of the homeless. Most of the reflections developed can be traced back to works that link homelessness to broader debates on gentrification, urban restructuring and public space policy, particularly in the American context5 and in relation to the punitive turn in urban social policies. According to DeVerteuil et al. (2009), the punitive framework, from which representations such as the ‘carceral-city’, the ‘post-just city’ and the aforementioned ‘revanchist-city’ originate, tends to dominate the very understanding of the homeless and their geographies, reproducing a ‘portrayal of the kind of universal homeless subject found in media accounts’ (ibid. p. 650). For this reason, while remaining within a repressive perspective (and referring to other authors for the deepening of other geographies of homelessness, such as care), we argue for a greater commitment to understanding these subjectivities and their spatialities. In this sense, the first question to ask should be: ‘Who are the homeless?’.6 4 This term is used by Smith to conceptualise the urban order that has been emblematically outlined

since the 1990s in the city of New York led by Rudolph Giuliani, characterised by government strategies inspired by the broken windows theory (Wilson and Kelling, 1982) and by the politics of zero tolerance. 5 For an overview of the condition of homelessness in European cities see, for example, Doherty et al. 2008. 6 There are different definitions of homelessness, produced both in academic science and by agencies and organisations. At European level, FEANTSA (European Federation of organisations working with homeless) has developed a typology of homelessness and housing exclusion called ETHOS. The ETHOS typology begins with the conceptual understanding that there are three domains, which constitute a ‘home’, the absence of which can be taken to delineate homelessness. Having a home can be understood as having an adequate dwelling (or space) over which a person and his/her family can exercise exclusive possession (physical domain); being able to maintain privacy and

50

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

Within the scientific debate, there is now consensus about the fact that the homeless do not represent a discreet and defined category or, even less, a social class. Their experiences differ greatly depending on how the condition of homelessness is intertwined with ethnic—‘racial’, gender or age-related issues, the presence or absence of disabilities, etc. (von Mahs 2005; May 2008). The archetype of the homeless person as a poor, single man, belonging to an ethnic minority opacifies the life experiences of other individuals, such as women or children, sexual minorities, etc. The term ‘the homeless’ itself is, according to some, a mistake, since it tends to suggest an identity and all-inclusive nature of homelessness. It would be more appropriate to speak of homeless people, suggests Parsell (2010), according to which homelessness does not define these people and, above all, the way in which they think: ‘homeless is what I am, not who I am’, says one of the participants in his research, emblematically. In this sense, extreme poverty, which translates into a lack of a home, is to be understood as a trait that unites, but does not necessarily define, these people. Certainly, the absence of a private domestic space translates into a life experience considered out of the ordinary, characterised by deprivation and marginality but, above all, by practices of control and exclusion from that public space that, for homeless people, becomes, to all intents and purposes, a new home. Homeless people, in fact, not only live the public space, but they also inhabit public space, violating the usual sense of distinction between public and private. Streets, squares, stations and public parks take on the characteristics of private space, of a house, in which homeless people settle, more or less temporarily. In particular, public spaces become places in which to ‘go to the bathroom, sleep, drink or make love’ (Mitchell 2003 p. 135): socially legitimate activities in private space, which become illegitimate (and, for some, immoral) in public space. According to Snow and Mulcahy (2001), urban public order is above all a spatial order. The visibility of homeless people and their use of public space (in particular of central places, of gentrified, reclaimed areas, of image-places on which cities base their urban competition strategies) represents a threat or a real rupture of this order. Consequently, the current regulation of public space is characterised by the growing adoption of a wide range of strategies, of different intensity, the aim of which is to discourage non-standard use of the city by undesirable ‘others’, including homeless people.7 In identifying the practices of exclusion from spaces and their users who are considered illegitimate, several authors are inspired by the Foucaultian idea of control enjoy relations (social domain) and having a legal title to occupation (legal domain). This leads to the four main concepts of Rooflessness, Houselessness, Insecure Housing and Inadequate Housing all of which can be taken to indicate the absence of a home. ETHOS, therefore, classifies people who are homeless according to their living or ‘home’ situation. These conceptual categories are divided into 13 operational categories that can be used for different policy purposes such as mapping of the problem of homelessness, developing, monitoring and evaluating policies (for more information see the website http://www.feantsa.org. Accessed 15 October 2018). 7 It is clear that homeless people are not the only social group with a limited right to public space: just think of young people belonging to the so-called subcultures, skaters, writers, street vendors, prostitutes, etc. However, the absence of a house and the need to ‘inhabit’ public space characterises them as the subjects most affected by the changes that affect public space in the contemporary city.

4.1 Exclusion by Economic Differences

51

and discipline of bodies through space, understood as an instrument of power. Just think of the practices of containment and deterrence, which are becoming increasingly common in contemporary cities: for example the massive use of surveillance, human and otherwise; warnings and ordinances against begging, against the gathering of groups of people after a certain time, against the consumption of alcohol (and sometimes even food) in public space; discursive practices that increase suspicion, the perception of insecurity; the design of public space through so-called hostile or defensive architecture or design: benches with metal dividers, inclined, with single seats or seats that are too narrow to lie down (or a total absence of benches); gardens with timed water jets; steps and walls with spikes or pointed studs and so on. Several studies (including DeVerteuil et al. 2009; Doherty et al. 2008) show that these practices, although increasingly present and pervasive also in European cities, assume a less punitive connotation than the more extreme versions used by American cities, which also envisage extreme policies of displacement or relocation of homeless people.8 The control of space, therefore, takes place through the discipline of the body and of behaviour: access is guaranteed only to those who adopt legal, standardised behaviours, increasingly associated with consumer activities. Discouraging or banning other activities, considered illegitimate (though generally harmless), is tantamount to removing the ‘undesirables’ from public space, from the view of other residents and tourists. In addition, these strategies contribute to producing and reproducing deviant and dangerous identities in order to establish, by contrast, discipline and a planned and forced public normality in favour of all other citizens. ‘Survival itself is criminalized’, notes Mitchell (2003 p. 163). Cities annihilate the homeless by annihilating the space they call home. In this way, public space itself is also annihilated in the process (ibid.) with an objective loss of habitability involving the entire urban population. However, it is necessary to observe, as suggested by DeVerteuil (2014) how these conceptualizations of urban injustice, so focused on punitive dimensions and the logic of everyday control, reduce and simplify the geographies of homeless people, ‘flattening’ them on a general collapse of public space. In order to understand the real complexity of these spatialities, DeVerteuil suggests to consider punitive urbanism as co-existent with, and sometimes interdependent upon, more supportive currents within urban space (p. 875). In this perspective, he proposes a tripartite approach that connects spaces of the voluntary sector, its clientele and the broader state: abeyance, care and survival. The first is related to spaces of abeyance, where the voluntary sector acts as a container; the second to spaces of sustenance, where the voluntary sector acts as a critical node of client survival; and the third to spaces of care, where the 8 In

2017, during an 18-month investigation, the Guardian conducted the first detailed analysis of America’s homeless relocation programmes, compiling a database of around 34.240 journeys and analysing their effect on cities and people. American cities have been offering homeless people free bus tickets to relocate elsewhere for at least three decades. In recent years, homeless relocation programmes have become more common, sprouting up in new cities across the country and costing the public millions of dollars. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/ bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study. Accessed 18 September 2018.

52

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

voluntary sector reflects supportive aims of facilities. In this way, without denying more constraining and punitive elements of urban policy, DeVerteuil helps us to better understand a more complex, varied and articulated geography of homeless. Lastly, what we are still interested in showing, in conclusion to this paragraph, is the presence of strategies of adaptation and resistance that defeat the widespread conviction of homeless people as necessarily passive and incompetent individuals, and the way in which interaction with space can contribute to the emergence of their agency. In this regard, for example, Wilson and Keil (2008, p. 842) highlighted that in their everyday survival, ‘the bulk of the poor today (the homeless, the unemployed and the underemployed) practice remarkable reflexivity and creativity’ and constituted—in provocative terms—the ‘real’ creative class in cities. Numerous research have, in fact, observed that homeless people implement processes of appropriation of space which, although partial and limited, reflect their ability to transform and redefine these spaces, adapting them to their own needs and exercising some control over them. These are, of course, two-way processes in which public space is shaped by homeless people and, at the same time, the latter, and their survival strategies are influenced by public space. Faced with strategies of control or expulsion, there are in fact different types of response by homeless people, including exit, adaptation, persistence and voice (Snow and Mulcahy 2001). Exit implies abandoning the disputed space to move elsewhere, maintaining the same life habits. Adaptation, on the other hand, involves a change in survival behaviour in order to better adapt to the spatial context (which reflects the sociopolitical context). Persistence implies that homeless people continue to occupy the contested space without changing their behaviour. Lastly, voice refers to collective actions and protests, sometimes mediated, supported or guided by other social subjects. Homeless people, therefore, prove themselves capable of negotiating and reacting to the spatial and political limits they encounter in their struggle for survival: ‘some may exit the situation, others may adapt by modifying their subsistence repertoire, still others may persist in what they have been doing, and yet others may exercise their voice by engaging in collective protest. But whichever response or strategy they pursue, they are conducting themselves as active agents’ (ibid. p. 165).

4.2 Gender Differences: Sex and Gender Before understanding how sexual differences can interact with space in the production and reproduction of exclusionary discourses and practices, it is advisable to bring them more into focus. In terms of sexuality, differences between people can be traced back to a number of dimensions9 that relate to two main concepts: sex and gender. This is not, of course, a neutral operation. Defining these differences implies a posi9 We

refer primarily to gender identity, which concerns deep perception and awareness (i.e. the way in which we identify ourselves and make ourselves identified by others) that a person has of himself as an individual and that can be male, female or ambivalent: both or neither, typical of those who do not identify with the binary condition. According to this logic, instead of thinking of

4.2 Gender Differences: Sex and Gender

53

tioning with respect to the many approaches to gender inequalities, such as female poverty, disparity in terms of power and decision-making, in the use of resources; violence and stereotypes regarding women, homosexuals or transgender people. Moving away from essentialist and functionalist perspectives—which recognise a biological foundation in gender differences—we propose an approach that is more in line with feminist theories and, in particular, with postmodern feminism and poststructuralist thinking of scholars such as Judith Butler (1990). In this framework, which is certainly complex and more inclined to question than to define, the presence of a unitary basis of identity and experience that unites all women is challenged first of all. Postmodern feminists not only reject the existence of a unitary theory capable of explaining the position of women in society, but also that of a universal category of identity as a ‘woman’. Postmodern thinking applied to sexuality multiplies differences, denying an essential nucleus of femininity and recognising the existence of many truths and social constructions of reality. In addition to the multiplication of sexual differences, post-structuralist feminism deconstructs its key concepts. In accordance with this logic, sex—understood as the biological condition determined by genetic, hormonal and anatomical characteristics, which define the belonging to a male, female or intersexual condition10 —is not possible to attribute a gender as such. It is the assignments given by society, because of their role in reproduction and in our social construction of the body, which establish the relationship between biological elements and sex. Therefore, even the components of biological sex have a gender dictated by a social interpretation. With the term gender, we refer simultaneously not only to questions of (multiple) identities, but also of power: who defines what we are, the standards of normality, how our body must produce and reproduce our individual and social identity, etc. them as two alternative and self-excluding poles, the male and the female become the two extremes of a fluid identity in continuous movement. The concordance between biological sex and gender identity identifies so-called cisgender individuals, while those who do not feel comfortable with the sex assigned at birth are defined as transgender. It should be stressed that gender identity does not determine sexual orientation, which represents the way we respond to different stimuli (erotic, emotional and sentimental attraction) towards another individual. Lastly, we have role identity (or gender role), which indicates behaviours (what is said and done) within a relational context. This concerns the attitudes and aptitudes through which an individual interprets and communicates their own femininity, masculinity or ambivalence and which are considered appropriate in a given historical, cultural and social context. There can also be discordance between gender identity and role, testifying to the great variability and extreme complexity of human sexuality from a biological, psychological and social point of view. 10 Intersexuality is an umbrella term that encompasses several physical variations of the sexed elements of the body. Intersexual people are born with sexual characteristics that do not fall within the typical binary notions of male and female bodies, thus questioning the existence of only two sexes that are mutually exclusive. Given the incidence of these natural variations (although there is no full agreement on their treatment), the biologist Fausto-Sterling (1993) argued that it would be more appropriate and precise to recognise the existence—by default—of at least five sexes. According to this logic, one should think of sex as existing of continuum rather than being divided into easily discerned categories (ibid.). This perspective suggests that like gender, sex can also be interpreted as a social construction: we see two sexes because we have learned to believe that there are only two sexes.

54

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

In this sense, gender is a complex and contested concept that, because of its open, relational and dynamic nature, tends to create questions rather than provide univocal and universally valid answers. It does not develop in a way that is detached from historical-social processes, but it is an outcome, a performative element11 (Butler 1990) through which we can critically read the social phenomena related to the fact that human reality is sexualized. According to this logic, the complexity of sexuality is well testified by the acronyms of one of the most recent versions of the acronym that tries to express ‘other’ sexuality: LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual/agender/aromantic and finally other different sexual orientations and gender identities that do not identify with the previous categories). In particular, renaming yourself queer12 means introducing a difference, indeed multiplying (and bringing to the centre of the political debate) the discourse of differences—not just differences with respect to standard heterosexual sexuality, but also between the gay and lesbian communities and between those within them (whose homogeneity tends to be over11 Reflections

on gender as a performative element, elaborated by the feminist philosopher Judith Butler, are too complex and full of meaning to be properly dealt with here; however, we consider them so important as to mention them in a concise way, referring those interested in other places for further study. The thinking behind Butler’s research is: if gender is socially constructed, i.e. a cultural elaboration of sex and sexual difference, which mechanisms does its construction generate? To answer this question, Butler postulates the so-called performativity of gender, drawing on the theory of linguistic acts, according to which a statement that implements or produces the effects of what it mentions, in addition to describing the action itself, performs it. Applied to gender, this thought reveals how there is no distinction between gender and sex, since there are no fixed identities in nature that exist before gender, and how, therefore, both gender and sex represent categories in progress, produced and influenced by discursive and cultural practices. This is the meaning of Butler’s famous phrase that ‘gender is always a doing’ (1990) because it does not belong to the sphere of being, but to that of doing and becoming. This statement summarises Butler’s anti-essentialist stance, for which there is no fixed identity in nature whose gender is a sociocultural transposition, and therefore gender does not describe the identity of a subject, but performs it, meaning that it produces it at the very moment in which it describes it. 12 The term queer (strange, bizarre, not regular, etc.) was used for the first time in the 90s to include all other sexualities, not willing to be defined within the reductive heterosexual/homosexual dichotomy. Its use has, in fact, served to problematize the now obvious combination of gay and lesbian studies. This automatism risked not only leading to the cancellation of their differences, but also to reducing and naturalising a composite and complex identity on the basis of the common experience of homosexual oppression. Recognising a queer sexuality has brought the theoretical and political question of differences back to the centre of the debate. Queer indicates, in fact, a linguistic turning point (a re-appropriation of sexuality not as an objective reality, but as a changing field continuously redefined by discourses, representations and self-representations of specific cultural subjects. The re-appropriation of the term queer, therefore, is significant for at least two reasons. It is a term that, in twentieth-century English language, has come to be characterised as a form of hate speech whose aggressive re-appropriation is a sign of a strategy of attack on homophobia to be played on the same ground as homophobic language. Second, it is a term that can refer indistinctly to gays, lesbians and any other sexual subject perceived as perverse, deviated, abnormal and illegal (cf. semantic densification in queer meanings: strange, bizarre, not regular, inauthentic). It can, therefore, operate as an inclusive, transversal term, which does not obey the heterosexual/homosexual binarism naturalised also thanks to the constitution of homosexual subjects and communities linked to the idea of a natural sexual identity, innate or rooted in an absolute difference.

4.2 Gender Differences: Sex and Gender

55

represented by discourses and identity strategies). More generally, post-structuralist thinking stresses the difference between the sexual categories naturalised by positivist sexuality (Foucault 1976). According to this logic, queer theories deeply question standardisations (both heterosexual and homosexual13 ) and orthodoxy, making sexuality and gender categories fluid, infringing man/woman, heterosexual/homosexual dichotomies and emphasising the artificiality of their boundaries. For queer thought, it is culture therefore (separate from nature) that determines the construction of difference and of sexual discrimination; it is the sexual difference between socially and culturally constructed individuals (and not the difference between the sexes determined by nature) that regulates the social division of roles and the processes of socialisation. Having said that, what are the relationships between space and gender and how do they contribute to producing and reproducing discourses, practices and places of exclusion? The relationship between sexuality and space can be read in relation to the standardisation of heterosexuality as a device through which spaces are also disciplined and managed because of the binary oppositions that characterise the language and vision of the patriarchal world. In spatial terms, this dichotomy translates into the opposition between public space (productive and masculine) and private space (reproductive and feminine). In this perspective, space has a heteronormed and heteronormative nature because it is simultaneously the outcome of the normalisation of binary sexuality between men and women and contributes, in turn, to producing and reproducing this vision. The socio-spatial effects of these discourses are different. Based on polarities such as good/bad, right/wrong, etc., they convey the idea that there are places more suitable for women (not only the home of course, but also schools and kindergartens, shopping malls and venues, beauty centres, etc.) and places where women are somehow out of place, such as public space, particularly in the evening, at night. When a certain type of woman should be at home, avoiding putting her personal safety at risk: the heteronormative discourse is, in fact, strongly coercive also towards heterosexuality and not just homosexuality, as we tend to think. These are not just issues of security and fear, which are central to the debate on gender socio-spatial exclusion (as we will see in the next paragraph). The urban articulation so strongly structured on the productive/reproductive binomial is also reflected in the organisation of transport, or in the irreconcilability for women of the time they devote to work and family, due to the fact that many services are not able to respond to the new needs of women who work and, at the same time, take care of children and family. Up to now, however, we have tackled the problem of gender-based social-spatial exclusion while remaining within the man/woman binary. What happens when we consider one of the basic polarities of heteronormativity, which opposes what is considered normal (and therefore lawful) to the deviant (and therefore illicit)? When do 13 For some authors, homonormativity is the standardisation and hierarchy of particular forms of homosexuality within particular, classified, sexual, gender and ethnic norms (see Nast 2002, Brown 2014).

56

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

we accept the presence of other sexualities (fluid and barely definable by acronyms), when do we challenge, denying it, the existence of only two sexes and only two genders—male and female? Before dealing briefly with these two areas in separate form—for greater simplicity of treatment, but recognising them as different expressions of the same exclusive social construction—we propose a final observation, useful for contextualising the results of this social construction. Within the Sustainable Development Goals, there is a specific goal aimed at combating gender inequalities (goal five, gender equality). However, the only inequality considered within the goal is inequality between the female and male gender. Nowhere is there any mention of the need to combat discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people.

4.2.1 Women and Urban Spaces: Fear, Times, Mobility The exclusion of women from urban spaces is a broad and much-studied topic in the social sciences, within which it is possible to identify some recurring issues. Here we highlight just a few of them, including the safety and fear of women in public spaces, around which an extensive and sometimes controversial field of reflection has developed (Koskela and Pain 2000; Pain 2001; Whitzman 2007, 2011). Most of the speeches on the relationship between women, space and fear represent women as overwhelmingly limited by urban environments dominated by man and men, with the consequent restriction in the use of certain areas of the city (unattended or badly lit streets and squares, parks, underpasses, car parks, stations or public toilets) because of concern for their personal safety. The most immediate outcome of this perspective is found in those interventions, both tangible and intangible, aimed at increasing control and security: cameras, lighting, apps and crowdmapping14 to share information about places perceived as most violent, etc. These practices convey the idea that the fear of crime can be somehow ‘designed’ through interventions on built environments (for example, the use of elements of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design—CPTED). However, if it is true that places influence our experiences of fear, it is essential to recognise how fear, in turn, alters our experience of places, to the point of shaping their understanding, perception, use and even shape. For this reason, while it is understandable that some spatial planning and management interventions may in some way improve the perception of insecurity, it is essential to focus on the social causes of fear and understand its dominant narratives. The security-based approach, which is primarily a political posture, tends to reproduce discourses that intertwine various rhetorical concepts: not just the woman as a subject to be protected 14 See,

for example, HarrassMap, launched at 2010 as a Cairo-based interactive online mapping interface for reporting and mapping incidents of sexual harassment anonymously and in real time, in Egypt. Or, in Italy, where, an online crowdmapping platform recently activated in some cities to identify places perceived as not safe.

4.2 Gender Differences: Sex and Gender

57

(and to be treated differently depending on the way she lives) but also a reading of immigrants, or homeless people, more generally those who are on the margins of society, as potentially dangerous because they are directly connected to the risk of violence, particularly sexual violence. In this way, the security-based approach, typical of nationalist and populist movements (see Chap. 5), exploits the female body for factious, insinuating, if not explicitly racist and punitive purposes. In this framework, we believe that the search for more complex approaches to the issue of urban security could contribute to questioning gender relations in urban spaces, also addressing the difficult area of violence in private spaces, considering it not as an individual issue, but as a social, systemic and structural issue. For example, several feminist scholars have turned their attention to the public–private division of spaces as an obstacle to combat all forms of gender-based violence. As early as the mid-1980s, authors such as Wekerle (1980) and Wekerle et al. (1980) challenged urban development models based on the aforementioned opposition between private, reproductive and female space and public, productive and man-centred urban life. According to this discourse, at the basis of the relations between gender and the environment in capitalist societies, women find their natural space in the private sphere and in the home. It is precisely because of their absence from public space and life that oppressive and powerful discourses are produced and reproduced, in which female fear is one of the elements of normalisation. The embodied experiences of female fear thereby reflect the way in which patriarchal and neoliberal societies shape women’s bodies and try to control them through the heteronormativity of the urban form, advertising, regulations, education systems, institutional and family norms. In this way, the existence of fear in the city is not a mere reflection of social reality, but rather a result of it, through the power of the discourses that it conveys and on which it is necessary and urgent to act (Sandercock 2005). The contrast to the private/reproductive and public/productive dichotomy is also the basis of other reflections and consequent actions around the social-spatial exclusion of women. For example, the issue of reconciliation between work and family time is also reflected at institutional level through Community and national legislation. The growing interest in the management and planning policies of reconciliation in Europe has its origins in various factors, such as (i) the gradual transition from an industrial society to a service company; (ii) the high rate of competitiveness between the various national economies and the associated proliferation of flexible jobs, often characterised by insecurity and discontinuity; (iii) the increase in the number of women in the labour market (with the consequent change in traditional roles within the family); (iv) the individualization and the growing plurality of lifestyles, which sees an ever-increasing number of atypical, single-parent families (Boulin and Muckenberger 1999). At the European level, the solutions to these solicitations have led the European Union to include in its political agenda the issues related to equal opportunities and the reconciliation of work and family life. In March 1992, the European Council recommended that the Member States progressively adopt and encourage initiatives to enable women (and men) to reconcile their professional responsibilities with family and educational responsibilities arising from child cus-

58

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

tody (Recommendation 92/241/EEC). Concrete actions linked to the implementation of time schedules with different measures, such as those linked to the general criteria of management and coordination of opening time of public and private services, public administration offices, commercial and tourist businesses, cultural and entertainment activities and transport, also stem from this perspective. The theme of transport is particularly interesting because it crosses both the perspectives related to the times and movements of women, and to female fear. From which—always from a perspective of planning in relation to fear—various initiatives derive, ranging from the securing of stops and vehicles, to questionable operations such as those of women-only metro cars, present, for example, in Japan. A solution that sounds a bit like an admission of weakness and a need for protection and implies that it must be women (who, moreover, often constitute the majority of passengers) who change their behaviour and not those who harass them. One of the perverse effects of these initiatives is to initiate processes of self-segregation that contribute to producing and reproducing, heteronormative discourses of female fear by normalising them.

4.2.2 From Lesbian and Gay Spaces to Queer Spaces Gender spatiality is an issue that is widely dealt with by the social sciences. Disciplines such as geography and urban sociology have long addressed (and engaged in) understanding the phenomena of sexualisation of spaces, production and reproduction of sexualised spatialities and the role space plays in the construction of sexual identities. A large part of the reflections on these issues have focused on homosexual territories (mainly male, to a lesser extent lesbian, bi and transsexual). The theories on the birth and evolution of ‘gay neighbourhoods’ (or variants such as ‘gay ghettos’, ‘gay villages’, ‘gay districts’, ‘gay mecca’ for a review see Brown 2014) are one of the most substantial strands of this research. Starting from one of the first sociological contribute to this topic, by Castells (1983) several authors have written about the complex spatialization of non-binary sexualities. Many contributes stress—for example—how these territories have promoted (though not always guaranteed) autonomy, freedom and security for homosexuals, considering that explicit positioning within these sexualities makes people vulnerable to violence, discrimination, marginalisation and exclusion. However, several works show how these same spaces, born in the name of ideals of tolerance, freedom and inclusion, are actually characterised, in turn, by phenomena of exclusion. A first aspect concerns, for example, the expulsion of the poorest families and of low-wage service work in those gaybourhoods strongly characterised by processes of gentrification (ibid.). Another form of social-spatial exclusion identified and described by researchers is that which concerns the intrinsic masculinity of the territoriality (also) of gaybourhoods and how it has discriminated and marginalised many lesbian women by out-pricing rents and mortgages, privileging the male and masculine over the female

4.2 Gender Differences: Sex and Gender

59

and feminine (Taylor 2008). For example, Pritchard et al. (2002) have documented how Manchester’s homosexual territoriality discourages lesbian territoriality while accepting heterosexual territoriality. Doan (2007), on the other hand, has shown how some gaybourhoods and other gay spaces can be exclusive and alienating to queer sexualities. Adler and Brenner (1992), instead, starting from Castell’s genderdifference explanation (1983) observed that the supposed ‘invisibility’ of lesbian community is a function of scholars looking in the wrong places. In this perspective, they also suggest that other variables must be taken into account in the study of lesbian communities. Gender differences in the use of space, in fact, have more significant causes: the capacity to dominate space or claim territory refers on available wealth and restrictions placed by male violence on women’s access to urban space (ibid.). As Brown (2014) observes, other forms of exclusion and marginalisation have been studied less, but appear no less significant. For example, several studies reveal that gaybourhoods are a space for ‘whiteness’, and black queers have long since noticed this unrecognised privilege. In the South African context, for example, Visser (2003) and Tucker (2010) have mapped the candour (and classism) of the gaybourhood, Similar forms of exclusion have been suggested with reference to other attributes such as age and disability, in gaybourhoods that produce and reproduce discourses and skillful spaces (Skelton and Valentine 2003; Sothern 2007). Reck (2009), on the other hand, has documented how homeless young queers are inexorably marginalised and excluded from a symbolic gaybourhood such as Castro in San Francisco. Collectively, this wave of literature suggests a zero-sum game of identity and territoriality. The gains of some marginalised identities seem to come from the exclusion, domination or oppression of someone else (Brown 2014). Some authors have recently observed that this type of spatiality is not only changing, but is also reducing in scope and function (ibid.; Ghaziani 2011), although there is still a certain need for symbolism, including spatial symbolism, around gay sexuality. These transformations are not only based on phenomena such as incessant and structural gentrification, which increases housing costs—which is why sexual minorities have also begun to appear in peripheral and rural areas, showing increasing localisation indifference. For some, the entry into a sort of ‘post-gay era’ (for more details, Ghaziani 2011) should be read as part of a broader discourse in which the production of LGBT collective identities is moving from ‘us versus them’ towards an inclusive logic of ‘us and them’ (ibid. p. 101). The passage from a narrative of opposition (versus) to one of inclusion (and) implies that activists are less motivated to build boundaries (even spatial) towards the dominant groups. However, these processes do not necessarily translate into a post-discrimination era. Especially queer subjectivities, characterised by ambiguous and fluid sexuality, which are hard to classify, are the object of stigmatisation and discrimination. On this subject, Browne (2004) proposes the term ‘genderism’—consciously invoking the rhetoric of the various -isms (racism, sexism, classism, ableism)—that connotes hierarchies of power, which are prejudiced, negative, draw on stereotypes and are spatialised as well as producing particular spaces and spatial configurations (see

60

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

Sibley 1995). ‘Genderism, however, differs from these prejudices as it requires a contextual understanding of the spaces between male and female’ (Browne 2004, p. 336). Genderism refers to the hostile, pervasive although often non-violent (and therefore less visible than gender bashing practices,15 Namaste 1996) reading of bodies that are ambiguous in terms of gender. Genderism is the cultural notion of how gender represents an important criterion by which to judge people and substantiates the anomalous nature of non-binary genres (Hill 2002). Browne studies the effects that materialise in those spaces that are dichotomously located, such as public toilets, referring to the experience of women who are recognised as men or those who do not identify with any category. The question, for Browne (as well as for other scholars who refer to similar experiences in other spaces, including Doan 2007) is not so much to solve the problem of public toilets per se as to bring out the existence of sexually located spaces in which gender transgressions are often (violently) guarded.

4.3 ‘Racial’ Differences: ‘Race’ and Ethnicity and Ethnic Minorities From a sociological point of view, the concept of ‘race’ is one of the most complex, difficult and controversial. Within this publication, as already mentioned, we use it in quotation marks, indicating an unscientific and extremely problematic use. There is now broad consensus among scholars of disciplines such as evolutionary biology, anthropology and social sciences in general, on the total absence of a scientific basis.16 That is, on the fact that racial distinctions fail simultaneously on three fronts: they are not genetically discrete, they are not reliably measurable and, lastly, they are not scientifically significant (Smedley and Smedley 2005). However, it is still widely used, especially in relation to the construction of prejudices, stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes, hence its centrality within the discourse on exclusion.

15 ‘Gay bashing refers to violence against another person because of the perception that the person is gay or lesbian. Gender bashing, the parallel concept in the transgender community, denotes the harassment, abuse, or assault of gender and sex nonconformists. Basically, genderism and transphobia are the attitudes and gender bashing is the behaviour. Genderism provides the negative cultural attitude; transphobia fuels the attitude with fear, disgust and hatred; and gender bashing is the violent expression of these beliefs. Although genderism and transphobia often result in covert expressions of discrimination and antipathy, gender bashing is an overt expression of hostility’ (Hill 2002, p. 120). 16 As Giddens (2009) remind us, the ‘scientific’ theories on ‘race’ developed between the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth and were functional to the justification of the social order at a time when many European nations were turning into imperial powers ready to dominate populations and territories, through subjugation. As unlikely as the assumptions of De Gobineau, considered the ‘father’ of modern racism, may seem today, the superiority of the white (Caucasian) ‘race’ over others has been, and still is, at the basis of ideologies based on ‘racial supremacy’ (from Hitler2s German National Socialist Party, to the Ku Klux Klan of the United States, to the more slippery and capillary forms of racism that characterise today’s societies).

4.3 ‘Racial’ Differences: ‘Race’ and Ethnicity and Ethnic Minorities

61

The diffusion and pervasiveness of the concept of ‘race’ contribute to the essentialisation of an identity trait (by assigning them attributes or competences on the basis of biological traits. Barot and Bird 2001) which, instead, is the result of a social construction (we can talk about racialization or racial formation process Omi and Winant 1994). However, it is interesting to observe that, while remaining within an openly anti-essentialist position, social sciences have produced a variety of approaches to the problem of ‘race’. In cultural studies, postcolonial theory, cultural anthropology and human geography, ‘race’ is mostly conceived as a problem of language, an ideology, a narrative, a discursive construct (Saldanha 2006). According to theorists of the ‘linguistic turn’, including Judith Butler, whom we have already mentioned in the paragraph of sex and gender, anatomy of phenotype do not exist unless they are invoked by a process of signification, specifically about ‘race’ and gender. The primacy of epistemology of ‘race’ (how is ‘race’ know? Why was invented?) on the ontology, up to its explicit deontologisation (Gilroy 2000, cited in Saldanha 2006) rejects the fixity and predetermination of bodies, highlighting the senselessness of the prejudices that concern it. Many scholars in American’ critical race theory’, such as Winant e Omi, instead suggested for a more realist approach, according to that there are phenotypical differences, but stressing that their social force depends on other factors, such as culture, economics and the law. Finally, within a more recent “materialist turn”, some authors, such as Saldanha (2006) suggest a ‘materialist ontology of race”, through a stronger engagement with the “biological” dimension of “race’. They also suggest that ‘race’ becomes matter in bodies and within the interactions they have with the environment. In a racialized system, in fact, it happens that certain aspects of daily existence—work, interpersonal relations, residence, health care, education, legal protection, etc.—are shaped and bound by the racialized position of an individual within a specific society. ‘Battling against racism is then not a question of denying race, but of cultivating its energies against the stickiness of racial segregation. Crucial in this process is that social scientists critically engage with race‘s biological aspect. For if they insist that race is but a ‘social construction’, they might leave the discursive arena open for (closet) racists to reinstate biological justifications for white privilege’ (ibidem, p. 10). The unintelligible nature of ‘race’ often involves its replacement by other terms, first of all ethnicity (but also culture, nation, group, population, lineage, kind, breed, stock, …) although, as stated by Omi and Winant (2013), ‘all this initiative are mistaken at best, at intellectual dishonest at worst’. Also Ethnicity, in fact, has a purely social meaning, related to cultural differences that become effective or active in certain social contexts whereby members of ethnic groups can consider themselves, or be considered as, culturally distinct from other groups on the basis of factors such as language, history, religion, a geographical place or origin, a sense of history, traditions, values, beliefs, eating habits and so on. There is obviously nothing innate about ethnicity or ethnic groups, nor static or immutable: they are open, flexible, subject to change and usually defined by themselves (Barth 1998). Although preferable to the concept of ‘race’, since it does not involve biological references, the use of this category is also problematic when it suggests a contrast with ‘non-ethnic’ norms: the collective use of ethnic labels risks

62

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

producing divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’, so that some social groups are ethnic and others are not. In fact, ethnicity is an attribute of all the individuals who make up a population. However, it is more likely to use the term ethnicity in relation to minorities (Giddens 2009) and exclusionary discourses, also in relation to space. Social sciences are, in fact, extensively engaged in the issue of the spatial dimension of discrimination. The probability of experiencing ethnic or racial hostility varies between private and public spaces, and is undoubtedly greater in the latter, for example in streets, parks, on public transport, in department stores and restaurants. In his classic study, The Nature of Prejudice, Allport (1958) noted that prejudice can be expressed in a series of progressively more serious actions ranging (according to the so-called Allport’s Scale) from antilocution, avoidance and exclusion, to physical attack and extermination. For example, in a work from the early 1990s, Feagin observed how discrimination against black middle-class people includes a continuum of actions ranging from changing paths when meeting a black man, to verbal attacks, such as shouting racist epithets, to physical threats and harassment, to poorer service, for example in public housing (Feagin 1991). One of the main spatial manifestations of ethnic-racial exclusion is, as we have seen, segregation, especially residential segregation. In its most advanced forms, it gives rise to the structure of the ghetto (see Chap. 2). ‘The most extreme expressions of racial, ethnic or immigrant divisions are without the slightest doubt the Black ghettos in the USA and South Africa’ (Musterd and Ostendorf 2013 p. 3). Literature has, in fact, extensively investigated the phenomenon in the United States (among others Massey and Denton 1993; Iceland and Weinberg 2002) but also in European cities (Musterd 2005) trying to understand similarities and differences (Burgers and Musterd 2002; Wacquant 1993). Studies on both sides of the Atlantic have shown that this type of residential segregation cannot be understood from a single factor, be it identity or socio-economic. Works such as those by Galster (1989) on American urban areas, by Peach (1999) on the city of London and by Dawkins (2004) in Europe have, in fact, shown the simultaneous presence of a multiplicity of issues: economic, in the first place, connected to class and social position; but also discrimination on the part of the real estate market or the working world; difficulties in accessing information on housing, linguistic difficulties, residential policies and the management of migratory flows. In Britain, for example, ethnic minorities have been disadvantaged in the public housing sector for three main reasons (Knox and Pinch 2006). Initially, they had more difficulties in obtaining access to public housing because of their reduced stay (also due to migration policies that envisage the continuous movement of immigrants); secondly, they had access to poor quality housing and, thirdly, they were often concentrated in areas already characterised by socio-economic marginality. These three aspects are often linked to forms of unintentional, but sometimes also institutional, discrimination (ibid.; Hall et al. 2015). Some studies (Ratcliffe 1998) reveal a strongly discriminatory approach to immigrants’ access to housing, which is also characterised by largely essentialist traits: a study conducted in Bedford (UK) suggested that Asians were assessed as reliable and parsimonious individuals, while people of Caribbean origin were considered with suspicion (Sarre et al. 1989). Similar

4.3 ‘Racial’ Differences: ‘Race’ and Ethnicity and Ethnic Minorities

63

approaches emerge from research by Iosifides and King (1998) on the spatialisation of three different groups of immigrants (Albanians, Egyptians and Filipinos) in the suburbs of Athens. Although residential segregation is one of the most characteristic spatial traits of ethnically discriminatory practices, it does not exhaust the exclusionary dynamics that involve many social groups. In fact, if we consider the use of public space, a multiplicity of phenomena of exclusion emerge, even if they are often less codified and codifiable than residential segregation. For example, several authors have tried to reflect on practices that, in certain contexts, hinder or discourage the use of green spaces by minorities (among others, Dai 2011; Byrne and Wolch 2009). In a context like that analysed by Byrne (2012), in Los Angeles, giving up the right to visit some public parks—important places for people’s well-being and quality of life—by the Latin minorities can be explained starting from a combination of reasons: first of all, of an economic nature, when access to the park is not free for example, or connected to socio-spatial determinants, such as the travelling distance. However, Byrne also highlights the role of the characteristics and the representations of the parks themselves, which increasingly convey exclusive narratives: promotional images in which there are only white visitors; only white park staff, indications written only in English. Byrne’s work is also interesting in terms of the innovative perspective with which the park space is analysed: no longer taking its ‘naturalness’ as a fact and considering these places as mere containers for human activity, but seeing them as socio-natural artefacts capable of producing and reproducing ethnic-racial discourses and dynamics of racist and elitist power (ibid.). In the following paragraphs we deal in detail with two other specific forms related to ethnic exclusion in a residential key. The first concerns one of the most discriminated minorities at European level, that of the Roma people, and introduces a special area, that of the camp. The second focuses, instead, on a form of reaction and reappropriation of residential spaces that combines the practice of squatting with the social group of refugees and asylum seekers.

4.3.1 Roma People and the Space of Camps A Roma person is defined in many ways. In addition to Roma, which in the Romany language means ‘man’, he is also called, for example, gypsy, nomad, traveller. The derogatory use of these synonyms reflects the widespread discrimination against this minority and contributes to producing and reproducing exclusion and segregation (Maestri 2017). Although they do not constitute a unitary social group, the various communities—different in origin, history, movements, etc.—are, in fact, united within a single stigmatising identity, strongly based on stereotypes. Because of this exclusive social construction, which has its roots in the complex history of this people, the Roma are one of the most discriminated ethnic minorities in Europe. For this reason, in 2011 the European Commission adopted the European Union Framework for

64

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

National Roma Integration Strategies, which focuses on four key areas: education, employment, healthcare and housing. This last factor is central when dealing with the issue of socio-spatial exclusion. In fact, it is estimated that 38% of the Roma living in Europe (estimated at around 10-12 million people) are in a condition of spatial segregation and 10%, specifically, reside in an informal environment, i.e. a camp.17 In the camps—which in the broad sense can be defined as temporary confined spaces, characterised by an exceptional and ambiguous state between exclusion and protection (see Minca 2015)—there is a high percentage of Roma families. This is a situation common to many European countries; in Italy, for example, it is estimated that more than a third of the Roma in the country (about 40,000 out of a total of 120,000 people) have experience of residential segregation in authorised or abusive camps, located in isolated, peripheral places and badly connected to the city, with precarious and insufficient services, often overcrowded, in poor conditions of hygiene and safety. According to Solimano and Mori (2000, cit. in Sigona 2007), the choice of places where camps are built is indicative of an ‘urbanism of contempt’ in which the Roma people must be kept away from the population, and the general population does its best to maintain this distance. According to Sibley (1995), in fact, while the Roma can be considered exotic and interesting at a distance, they become deviant subjects when they move within the majority society. Within a general consensus on the centrality of the spatial dimension of the field in the construction of exclusionary phenomena, there are different stances regarding the different subjectivities it generates. One of the best-known approaches18 is that of the camp as a ‘space of exception’ (Agamben 1998) which produces a state of life that we can define as ‘naked’, unrelated to the sphere of citizenship, excluded from political domination (and its rights) and exposed to violence (in particular that of the power of the sovereign state). According to this logic, spaces of exception are relegated spaces that perpetuate the solitude of the stigmatised minorities that inhabit them, through the suspension of ordinary law (Marinaro 2009). In this sense, the segregation of the Roma camp is much more than the lack of a home. The camp generates its own economy, its own society, its own suspended culture, different from the context in which it is located. According to this logic, the vicious circle that leads to the construction of camps for thousands of sedentary Roma not only marks their daily life, but also defines the boundaries within which their expectations and the possibilities of social promotion are configured. For example, the 2017 annual report of an Italian association that deals with Roma (Associazione 21 Luglio) states that they have a life expectancy 10 years less than the expectancy of the Italian population.

17 The topic of camps, as spatial and sociopolitical formations, is receiving increasing attention from

the social sciences, due to their proliferation at global level (for a review of the different types of camp and analytical approaches see Maestri 2017). 18 In addition to Agamben’s perspective, it is worth dwelling briefly on another approach widely used by scholars in the fields: that of Foucault’s governance and biopolitics (see footnotes 21).

4.3 ‘Racial’ Differences: ‘Race’ and Ethnicity and Ethnic Minorities

65

The spatial isolation of Roma camps therefore plays a central role in maintaining and strengthening stereotypes. Moreover, it reflects the previously mentioned approach of ‘forgetting politics’ (Fernandes 2004) with reference to the construction of a political-discursive process in which this specific social group is marginalised and made invisible, at least in its residential location, within the dominant society. Alongside these visions, which accentuate the exceptional (and therefore weak) nature of the camps and their isolation as a strategy of exclusion, there are other perspectives that seek to bring out (without denying) the agency of the camp dwellers and their ability to forge their own political subjectivity. Following these approaches, the camp is not intended as predetermined by its condition of exceptionality but shaped by the myriad of interactions between its inhabitants and those who contribute to producing and reproducing it as a space (Rygiel 2011). As Maestri (2017) points out, although camps are designed to erase citizenship status and hinder a formal process of reaction, citizenship can still be emanated by subjects who, claiming their right to have rights, build new political subjectivities. This bottom-up vision of the camp opposes the idea of ‘exceptional space’ with that of ‘political space’ (Redclift 2013; Sigona 2015), which contributes to the construction of the Roma as political subjects.

4.3.2 Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Urban Squatting Like the other treated differences, it is important to approach the forms of exclusion that characterise this complex and heterogeneous social group19 reiterating the fact that its placement within the paragraph on ethnicity is the result of a choice functional to its easier handling. The social-spatial exclusion that characterises what we call forced migrations20 is based on several factors: ethnicity, of course, but also economic issues, gender, age, etc. Bearing in mind the theoretical framework of 19 There is a lively debate about the definitions used to describe the different situations underlying the broad category of forced migration. According to some authors, it would be appropriate to distinguish individual social groups (refugees, asylum seekers, etc.) and, above all, to keep them separate from those who migrate for economic or work reasons. Others stress the fluidity with which migrants move from one category to another, including those of legal and illegal nature, due to the blurred and porous borders of the categories themselves (Ehrkamp 2017). To this end, the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, refers to groups of people who travel in mixed movements using the term refugees and migrants. This recognises that all persons in transit enjoy human rights, which should be respected, protected and satisfied; but, at the same time, it highlights how refugees and asylum seekers—for whom there is a clear legal definition and specific protection measures established by international law—have specific needs and rights protected by a specific legal framework. 20 The contested term ‘forced migration’ is often used in the social sciences as a generic definition open to different interpretations, which includes various types of displacement and involuntary movement—both across external borders and within national borders. For example, this term has been used to refer to those who have been forced to move due to environmental disasters, conflicts, famine, or large-scale development projects. Forced migration is not a legal concept, and like the broader concept of migration, it does not have a universally recognised definition.

66

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

intersectionality, let’s try to address the relationship between this specific category of migrants and urban exclusion. This is a relatively new topic in the social sciences since, as Gill (2010, p. 626) argues, there has always been ‘a strong association between the notion of a refugee and the notion of states’, such that asylum and refugee research has a tendency to reify the nation-state and its consistency, coherence and authority (Darling 2017).21 However, since 2012, more than half of the 10.5 million refugees worldwide have been living in urban areas (UNHCR 2013), mainly in Western countries. Living in urban areas, for refugees and asylum seekers, can certainly be a path to socio-economic integration. For many, however, it is a path studded with major obstacles linked to discriminatory phenomena (racism, xenophobia) but also to problems of material deprivation, including, fundamentally, housing. In a context where refugees are legally allowed to live in urban areas, access to housing plays a key role in the social inclusion process. Housing conditions are essential for shaping a sense of belonging, security and personal well-being but, above all, they have a crucial role to play in access to employment, rights and social services, such as health care, education, etc. as well as in the development of the social economy, etc. The denial of these rights is generally exacerbated by discriminatory practices. ‘Race’ and ethnicity are still crucial elements in the understanding of discriminatory phenomena, such as spatial patterns of segregation and exclusion (Musterd 2005; Wacquant 2007). Many studies stress the importance of discrimination in influencing minority access to the housing market. As far as refugees and asylum seekers in particular are concerned, most European countries provide them with accommodation until applications are processed. However, the number of housing units available in reception systems is often insufficient22 and, almost always, the lodgings are located in deprived neighbourhoods or isolated areas, thus contributing to the reproduction of phenomena of spatial segregation (and also in this case we find traces of the previously mentioned forgetting politics). In these contexts of insufficient housing policies, which add to material deprivation and ethnic discrimination, many refugees adopt different adaptation strategies, including squatting and other informal housing options.

21 A first topic, as already seen for the Roma people, is the camp. This specific type of camp (like refugee camps, detention centres and asylum seeker camps) can also be interpreted as a place of Agambenian exception and suspension (Darling 2009) but also, in line with Foucault’s concepts of governance and biopolitics, as a disciplining technology that aims to create docile subjects through the meticulous regulation of intimate spaces and daily life. Space as a conscious instrument of exclusion is, for some authors, very evident also in the policy of moving asylum seekers from one detention centre to another, as is the case in Britain and the United States, in order to prevent or weaken relations with local communities. At the same time, as with Roma camps, these places can be interpreted as ‘political spaces’ where the emergence of a political refugee agency is possible. 22 Only a few countries, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, have specific policies to support refugees in terms of access to permanent housing after the status has been acquired. However, also in these cases, the results in terms of spatial and social integration are controversial; very often, in fact, they contribute to its reproduction (for more details see Bolzoni et al. 2015).

4.3 ‘Racial’ Differences: ‘Race’ and Ethnicity and Ethnic Minorities

67

Although squatting and migration have rarely been considered together, there is a large number of residential occupations by refugees and asylum seekers (see Mudu and Chattopadhyay 2016 for more details in Europe and the United States). In many cases, forms of illegal employment are based on severe material deprivation and emerge as a sometimes-extreme strategy to address housing needs and the absence of those rights that are acquired only through residence and the possibility of becoming a de jure, and not only de facto, population. This type of employment very often translates into the production and reproduction of the typical places of immigration: segregated ethnic enclaves, spaces suspended in an exceptional Agambian way. In other cases, squatting becomes a way to claim and obtain social recognition: a form of collective action in which space and social groups shape each other on the basis of a subjectively perceived common belonging, capable of triggering a political agency of participants. This often happens (but not always) when the occupations take place through collaboration with movements fighting for housing or radical squatting, NGOs, local citizens, where the extreme action of reusing abandoned buildings also serves to claim autonomy, self-liberation, self-determination (ibid.). In these cases, migrants have the opportunity to engage in unconventional forms of political participation for a double taking of stance and protest: against the policies of racist and class regulation (ibid.).

4.4 Disabilities and Spaces The interest of geographers and urban sociologists—and, more generally, of social sciences—in disability has long been marginal and confined to specific sub-fields of these disciplines. More recently, however, research on spaces, places and dis/able bodies and on the spatialities of disability, have proliferated. As for other differences dealt with here, disability is a very complex and contested concept, which can be read and dealt with in different ways. The main approaches to disability recreate the tension between identities based on biological factors (in this case the presence of illness, impairment and disability) and socially constructed identities A first approach corresponds to what is called the ‘medical model of disability’. In this model, disability is understood as an individual medical problem or ‘tragedy’ (Shakespeare 1996, cited in Parr and Butler 1999, page 3). Although, as Barnes (2008) points out, it is widely established that society’s response to people with impairments, or long-term health problems, changes considerably depending on time, culture and places. This is the point of view that has dominated Western society at least since the late eighteenth century. Consequently, people with disabilities have been kept away from so-called ‘normal’ or ‘ordinary’ people, because they openly called into question unanimously accepted values, such as unfortunate, useless, different, oppressed and sick (ibid.). The individualistic medical approach to disability is commonly associated with the International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicap of the World Health Organization. Synthetically, we can say that ‘impairment’ concerns the parts

68

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

of the body that do not work normally; ‘disability’ focuses on the activities that people cannot perform, especially basic skills of everyday life; and, finally ‘handicap’ refers to the social consequences of impairment or disability. In this framework, the concept of disability is related to a biological determinism, since it is based exclusively on medical definitions and on biophysical assumptions of normality, disregarding how strongly this concept is controversial and influenced by a variety of historical and cultural factors and contingent circumstances. In this perspective, disabled people are defined as not complete people, ‘whose bodies do not work; or look different or act differently; or who cannot do productive work. The key elements of this analysis are both raising the question of normality, because this approach assumes a certain standard from which disabled people deviate’ (Shakespeare 1996, page 95). Furthermore, in this approach, people who have a real or presumed impairment are understood to be in a position of dependency.23 These convictions were never seriously questioned until the 1960s, with the appearance of the movement of people with disabilities, which openly denounced the experience of ‘disability‘ and ‘handicap’ as a form of social oppression or even institutionalised discrimination. This social movement is based on, and simultaneously gives impetus to, a sociopolitical reinterpretation of the phenomenon of disability, which is commonly referred to as the ‘social model of disability‘ (an expression coined by Mike Oliver in 1981). This model recognises bodily differences in terms of impairments, but locates disability as a product of society (Holloway 2005).24 This view is well expressed in the documents produced by U.P.I.A.S. (Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation), one of the most influential organisations in terms of the history of thought inspired by the social model of disability. In the ‘Fundamental Principles of Disability‘ published in 1976, we can find new definitions of impairment and disability. They defined impairment as ‘lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organism or mechanism of the body’ and disability as ‘the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by contemporary organisation which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities’ (UPIAS 1976). The UPIAS declaration was a pivotal moment in the disability movement because, by rejecting medical and rehabilitative conceptions of disability and, instead, insisting on the understanding of disability as a social and political construction, it began to open up new ways of seeking to understand disability in society (Imrie and Edwards 2007). At the same time, the evolution of the social model, considered the milestone of social scientific disability studies, has also benefited from inputs such as feminism, post-structuralism and postmodernism, which emphasise social construction 23 The need for assistance has led to the emergence of a thriving and expensive ‘disability industry’, which includes state institutions, private companies, charity and voluntary organisations. The result, according to Barnes (2008), is that the inadequacy and dependence, which was previously only presumed, becomes real and strengthened. 24 In addition to the social model of disability, there are different approaches that interpret disability as a social construction. For a review, see Shakespeare (1996).

4.4 Disabilities and Spaces

69

of differences and related cultural oppression, as well as political and economical, also for disabled people. Based on these reflections, also academic research, in particular, sociological and geographical (see, for example, Barnes and Mercer 2004; Butler and Parr 1999; Gleeson 1997; Valentine 2003), has paid attention to the study of disability. However, some authors observe that in the wider social sciences, scholars are less likely to incorporate the dimension of disability into their research, compared to categories such as gender, age, class and ethnicity. In particular, urban studies on disability are documenting the different ways in which disabled people are constituted, and the intersections between their impaired bodies and particular places. These studies bring out the pervasive social injustice in the built environment that disables people in their daily life. From the perspective of the disabled bodies, cities are characterised by physical inaccessibility and exclusion from the socio-spatial mainstream, including public space, housing, employment, etc. Hahn (1988, p. 40) suggests the existence of a ‘disabling environment’ that is not fixed, immutable or natural, but made up of changing relations of force. In this context, a first type of disabling environment is characterised by the presence of architectural barriers and physical obstacles that make spaces (generally conceived and designed for able-body people Imrie 1996) inaccessible to people with physical and motor disabilities. For example, steps with no ramp; pavement interruptions, stairs and doors, non-compliant lifts, no signage for blind people, cash machines and other services being placed too high, unsuitable public toilets and public transport. In 1996, Imrie described the existence of an ‘apartheid design’, aimed at designing spaces for able-bodied people and characterised by a line of integration or assimilation to bring people back to normality. In this way, the main goal of social policies is to make disabled people more ‘normal’, rather than changing the system to accommodate disabled people for who they are. Furthermore, while the rhetoric alludes to independent living, the reality is a dependency upon community and welfare provision (Kitchin 1998). Although more than twenty years have passed, and planning tends to be more attentive to the experiences of spatial exclusion of people with disabilities, many authors agree to recognise the permanence of these dynamics in contemporary cities. In addition to these, there are interesting works dealing with the relationship between disability and specific spaces, such as sports spaces or playgrounds for children (see, for example Jeanes and Magee 2012) and, more generally, in relation to leisure spaces (see, for example, Aitchison 2003). Several other studies have been conducted on non-urban spaces. For example, these studies (developed in the specific field of research called accessible tourism. Buhalis and Darcy 201125 ) are related to the limitations of the touristic experiences of people with disabilities.

25 See, for example, a recent issue of Tourism Geography, in which inside the framework of the inclusive tourism the relationship between disability and parks and green spaces is treated, as well as historical places, hotels and reception system.

70

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

Alongside this type of environment, Hahn (1988) also identifies an attitudinal meaning of the disabling environment, in which the conditions of inaccessibility and exclusion are linked to the set of social responses, institutional conditions, public attitudes and policies of a given context. In this logic, is the interaction between the individual and the place in its material and immaterial components, which literally builds the disability. Consider, in this perspective, the experiences of social exclusion of people with mental disabilities (see Parr 1997, 2011; Parr and Philo 2003). In one of his works, Hall (2004) explores the hidden geographies of people with learning disabilities through the interpretation of their narratives about discrimination, abuse and rejection by individuals, groups and institutions. To these forms of oppression, these people respond by self-exclusion from certain public spaces and networks, creating new spaces where new forms of ‘normality’ and inclusion can be shaped. According to Hall, it is important to understand these phenomena not only with an inclusive view, but also from a socio-spatial justice perspective, ‘recognizing the need to reimagine the cultural, political and physical structures of society to enable full participation of PWLD (and all people of mental and bodily difference)’ (Gleeson 1999).

References Adler S, Brenner J (1992) Gender and space: lesbians and gay men in the city. Int J Urban Reg Res 16(1):24–34 Agamben G (1998) Homo sacer: sovereign power and bare life. Stanford University Press, Stanford Aitchison C (2003) From leisure and disability, to disability leisure: developing data, definitions and discourses. Disabil Soc 18(7):955–969 Allport GW (1958) The nature of prejudice. Doubleday, Abridged Barnes C (2008) Capire il Modello Sociale della Disabilità. Intersticios. Revista sociológica de pensamiento crítico 2(1):87–96 Barnes C, Mercer G (eds) (2004) Implementing the social model of disability: theory and research. Disability Press, Leeds Barth F (1998) Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture difference. Waveland Press, Long Grove Barot R, Bird J (2001) Racialization: the genealogy and critique of a concept. Ethn Racial Stud 24(4):601–618 Bolzoni M, Gargiulo E, Manocchi M (2015) The social consequences of the denied access to housing for refugees in urban settings: the case of Turin, Italy. Int J Hous Policy 15(4):400–417 Boulin JI, Muckenberger U (1999) Times in the city and quality of life, Best 1/1999, European studies on time, European Foundation for Improvement of living and working conditions, Dublin Brown M (2014) Gender and sexuality II: there goes the gayborhood? Prog Hum Geogr 38(3):457–465 Browne K (2004) Genderism and the bathroom problem: (re)materialising sexed sites, (re)creating sexed bodies. Gend Place Cult 11(3):331–346 Burgers J, Musterd S (2002) Understanding urban inequality: a model based on existing theories and an empirical illustration. Int J Urban Reg Res 26(2):403–413 Butler J (1990) Gender trouble. Feminism and the subversion of identity. Roudledge, New York

References

71

Butler R, Parr H (1999) Mind and body spaces. Geographies of illness, impairment and disability. Routledge, London Byrne J (2012) When green is white: the cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum 43(3):595–611 Byrne J, Wolch J (2009) Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions for geographic research. Prog Hum Geogr 33(6):743–765 Castells M (1983) The city and the grassroots: a cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. University of California Press, Berkeley Dai D (2011) Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: where to intervene? Landsc Urban Plan 102(4):234–244 Darcy S, Buhalis D (2011) Introduction: from disabled tourists to accessible tourism. Accessible tourism: concepts and issues, pp 1–20 Darling J (2009) Becoming bare life: asylum, hospitality, and the politics of encampment. Environ Plan D Soc Space 27:649–665 Darling J (2017) Forced migration and the city: irregularity, informality, and the politics of presence. Prog Hum Geogr 41(2):178–198 Davis K, Moore WE (1945) Some principles of stratification. Am Sociol Rev 10(2):242–249 Dawkins CJ (2004) Measuring the spatial pattern of residential segregation. Urban Stud 41(4):833–851 DeVerteuil G (2014) Does the punitive need the supportive? A sympathetic critique of current grammars of urban injustice. Antipode 46(4):874–893 DeVerteuil G, May J, Von Mahs J (2009) Complexity not collapse: recasting the geographies of homelessness in a ‘punitive’ age. Prog Hum Geogr 33(5):646–666 Doan PL (2007) Queers in the American city: transgendered perceptions of urban space. Gend Place Cult 14(1):57–74 Doherty J, Busch-Geertsema V, Karpuskiene V, Korhonen J, O’Sullivan E, Sahlin I, Tosi A, Petrillo A, Wygnanska J (2008) Homelessness and exclusion: regulating public space in European cities. Surveill Soc 5(3) Ehrkamp P (2017) Geographies of migration I: refugees. Prog Hum Geogr 41(6):813–822 Fausto-Sterling A (1993) The five sexes. Sci 33(2):20–24 Feagin JR (1991) The continuing significance of race: antiblack discrimination in public places. Am Sociol Rev, 101–116 Fernandes L (2004) The politics of forgetting: class politics, state power and the restructuring of urban space in India. Urban Stud 41(12):2415–2430 Foucault M (1976) La volonté de savoir. Èditions Gallimard, Paris Galster G (1989) Residential segregation in American cities: a further response to Clark. Popul Res Policy Rev 8(2):181–192 Ghaziani A (2011) Post-gay collective identity construction. Soc Probl 58(1):99–125 Gill N (2010) ‘Environmental refugees’: key debates and the contributions of geographers. Geogr Compass 4(7):861–871 Gilroy P (2000) Against race: imagining political culture beyond the color line. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Glass RL (1964) London: aspects of change, vol 3. MacGibbon & Kee, London Gleeson B (1997) The regulation of environmental accessibility in New Zealand. Int Plan Stud 2:367–390 Gleeson B (1999) Geographies of disability. Routledge, London Giddens A (2009) Sociology, 6th edn. Cambridge Polity Press, Cambridge Grusky DB (ed) (2018) Social stratification: class, race, and gender in sociological perspective. Westview Press, Boulder Hahn H (1988) The politics of physical differences: disability and discrimination. J Soc Issues 44(1):39–47 Hall E (2004) Social geographies of learning disability: narratives of exclusion and inclusion. Area 36(3):298–306

72

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

Hall M, Crowder K, Spring A (2015) Neighbourhood foreclosures, racial/ethnic transitions, and residential segregation. Am Sociol Rev 80(3):526–549 Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geogr Ann Ser B Hum Geogr, 3–17 Harvey D (2012) The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. Profile Books, London Hill DB (2002) Genderism, transphobia, and gender bashing: a framework for interpreting antitransgender violence. In: Understanding and dealing with violence: a multicultural approach, vol 4, pp 113–137 Holloway S (2005) Identity and difference: age, dis/ability and sexuality. In: Cloke P, Crang P, Goodwin M (eds) Introducing human geographies, 2nd edn. Hodder, Oxon Iceland J, Weinberg DH (2002) Racial and ethnic residential segregation in the United States 1980–2000. Bureau of Census Imrie R (1996) Disability and the city. International perspectives. Paul Chapman Publishing, London Imrie R, Edwards C (2007) The geographies of disability: reflections on the development of a sub-discipline. Geogr Compass 1(3):623–640 Iosifides T, King R (1998) Socio-spatial dynamics and exclusion of three immigrant groups in the Athens conurbation. South Eur Soc Polit 3(3):205–229 Jeanes R, Magee J (2012) Can we play on the swings and roundabouts? Creating inclusive play spaces for disabled young people and their families. Leis Stud 31(2):193–210 Kitchin R. (1998) Out of Place’, ‘Knowing One’s Place’: Space, power and the exclusion of disabled people. Disabil Soc 13(3):343–356. Knox P, Pinch S (2006) Urban social geography. An introduction, 5th edn. Pearson, London Koskela H, Pain R (2000) Revisiting fear and place: women’s fear of attack and the built environment. Geoforum 31(2):269–280 Maestri G (2017) Are they nomads, travellers or Roma? An analysis of the multiple effects of naming assemblages. Area 49(1):18–24 Marinaro IC (2009) Between surveillance and exile: biopolitics and the Roma in Italy. Bull Ital Polit 1(2):265–287 Massey DS, Denton NA (1993) American apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press, Harvard May J (2008) Homelessness. In: Thrift N, Kitchin R (eds) International encyclopaedia of human geography. Elsevier, London Minca C (2015) Geographies of the camp. Polit Geogr 49:74–83 Mitchell J (2003) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford, London Mudu P, Chattopadhyay S (eds) (2016) Migration, squatting and radical autonomy: resistance and destabilization of racist regulatory policies and B/ordering mechanisms. Routledge, London Musterd S (2005) Social and ethnic segregation in Europe: levels, causes, and effects. J Urban Aff 27(3):331–348 Musterd S, Ostendorf W (eds) (2013) Urban segregation and the welfare state: inequality and exclusion in western cities. Routledge, London Namaste K (1996) Genderbashing: sexuality, gender, and the regulation of public space. Environ Plan D Soc Space 14(2):221–240 Nast HJ (2002) Queer patriarchies, queer racisms, international. Antipode 34(5):874–909 Omi M, Winant H (1994) Racial formation in United States: from the 1960s to 1990s, Rev edn. Routledge, New York Omi M, Winant H (2013) The theoretical status of the concept of race. In: Crichlow W (ed) Race, identity, and representation in education. Routledge, New York, pp 3–12 Pain R (2001) Gender, race, age and fear in the city. Urban Stud 38(5–6):899–913 Parr H (1997) Mental health, public space, and the city: questions of individual and collective access. Environ Plan D Soc Space 15(4):435–454 Parr H (2011) Mental health and social space: towards inclusionary geographies?. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

References

73

Parr H, Philo C (2003) Rural mental health and social geographies of caring. Soc Cult Geogr 4(4):471–488 Parsell C (2010) Homeless is what I am, not who I am: insights from an inner-city Brisbane study. Urban Policy Res 28(2):181–194 Parsons T (1949) Essays in sociological theory. The Free Press, Glencoe Peach C (1999) London and New York: contrasts in British and American models of segregation. Int J Popul Geogr 5:319–351 Pritchard A, Morgan N, Sedgley D (2002) In search of lesbian space? The experience of Manchester’s gay village. Leis Stud 21(2):105–123 Ratcliffe P (1998) ‘Race’, housing and social exclusion. Hous Stud 13(6):807–818 Reck J (2009) Homeless gay and transgender youth of color in San Francisco: “No one likes street kids”—Even in the castro. J LGBT Youth 6(2–3):223–242 Redclift V (2013) Abjects or agents? Camps, contests and the creation of ‘political space’. Citizsh Stud 17(3–4):308–321 Rygiel K (2011) Bordering solidarities: migrant activism and the politics of movement and camps at Calais. Citizsh Stud 15(1):1–19 Saldanha A (2006) Reontologising race: the machinic geography of phenotype. Environ Plan D Soc Space 24(1):9–24 Sassen S (2014) Expulsions: brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Sarre P, Phillips D, Skellington R (1989) Ethnic minority housing: explanations and policies. Gower Publishing Company, Farnham Shakespeare T (1996) Disability, identity and difference. In: Barnes C, Mercer G (eds) Exploring the divide. The Disability Press, Leeds, pp 94–113 Sibley D (1995) Geographies of exclusion: society and difference in the west. Routledge, London Sigona N (2007) Lo scandalo dell’alterità: rom e sinti in Italia. In: Bragato S, Menetto L (eds) E per patria una lingua segreta. Rom e sinti in provincia di Venezia, Nuovadimensione, Portogruaro, pp 17–32 Sigona N (2015) Campzenship: reimagining the camp as a social and political space. Citizsh Stud 19(1):1–15 Skelton T, Valentine G (2003) Political participation, political action and political identities: young D/deaf people’s perspectives. Space Polity 7(2):117–134 Solimano N, Mori T (2000) A Roma ghetto in Florence. The UNESCO Courier Smith N (1996) The new urban frontier: gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge, London Smedley A, Smedley BD (2005) Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. Am Psychol 60(1):16 Snow DA, Mulcahy M (2001) Space, politics, and the survival strategies of the homeless. Am Behav Sci 45(1):149–169 Sorokin PA (1927) Social mobility. Routledge, London Sothern M (2007) HIV+ bodyspace: AIDS and the queer politics of future negation in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In: Browne K, Lim J, Brown G (eds) Geographies of sexualities: theory, practices and politics. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 181–194 Sandercock L (2005) Difference, fear and habitus, a political economy of urban fear. In: Hillier J, Rooksby E (eds) Habitus: a sense of place. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 219–233 Taylor Y (2008) That’s not really my scene. Sexualities 11:523–546 Tucker A (2010) The rights (and wrongs) of articulating race with sexuality. Soc Cult Geogr 11:443–459 UNHCR (2013) Global trends 2012 http://www.unhcr.org/statistics. Accessed 12 December 2018 Valentine G (2003) Geography and ethics: in pursuit of social justice ethics and emotions in geographies of health and disability research. Prog Hum Geogr 27(3):375–380 Visser G (2003) Gay men, leisure space and South African cities: the case of Cape Town. Geoforum 34(1):123–137

74

4 Differences, Spaces and Exclusion

Von Mahs J (2005) The sociospatial exclusion of single homeless people in Berlin and Los Angeles. Am Behav Sci 48(8):928–960 Wacquant L (1993) Urban outcasts: stigma and division in the black American ghetto and the French urban periphery. Int J Urban Reg Res 17(3):366–383 Wacquant L (2007) Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Elev 91(1):66–77 Wekerle GR (1980) Women in the urban environment. Signs. J Women Cult Soc 5(S3):S188–S214 Wekerle GR, Peterson R, Morley CD (1980) New space for women. Westview Press, Dove Whitzman C (2007) Gender, fear of crime and the challenge of creating safer space. Environ Plan A 39:2715–2732 Whitzman C (2011) Half-full or half-empty? Planning for women’s safety in Victoria, Australia. Plan Theory Pract 12(3):367–385 Wilson D, Keil R (2008) The real creative class. Soc Cult Geogr 9:841–847 Wilson JQ, Kelling GL (1982) Broken windows. Critical issues in policing: contemporary readings, pp 395–407 Zukin S (1982) Loft living as ‘historic compromise’ in the urban core: the New York experience. Int J Urban Reg Res 6(2):256–267

Chapter 5

Political Urban Exclusion and Participation

Abstract This chapter focuses on the importance of the political dimension of urban exclusion dealing with two problems. On the one hand, the political dimension of exclusion is taken into consideration highlighting, in particular, the concept of revanchist city and the programmes of new populist and nationalist movements. To that end, we start with the concept of the ‘revanchist city’ and we arrive to deal with the phenomena of social exclusion within of populist and nationalist movements and the way they treat differences. On the other hand, the chapter addresses the role of active citizen participation as a possible way to give voice to urban marginal groups. Keywords Political exclusion · Revanchist city · Populism and nationalism · Participation · Neoliberal programmes

5.1 Exclusion in Revanchist City and in Populist and Nationalist Movements In the previous chapters, we have looked at the processes of exclusion and discrimination from different points of view, observing the ways in which they manifest themselves in contemporary urban systems, producing effects that counteract the objectives of social inclusion and cohesion, present in many declarations at international and national level. We have also examined some of the fundamental concepts used by social and geographic sciences to analyse these processes, trying to highlight their conceptual background, their social and spatial consequences and, in some cases, their possible ambiguities. We have also analysed the role of differences (in particular linked to social class, sex and gender, ‘race’ and disability), through the framework of intersectionality, in the construction of exclusionary processes within a reciprocal relationship with spaces, in particular, urban spaces. The perspectives of authors such as Iris Marion Young, Nancy Fraser, Peter Marcuse and Edward Soja have helped us to contextualise the way in which the production and reproduction of differences can be read in a framework of social and spatial justice. An approach related to justice represents an

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A. Mela and A. Toldo, Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17256-5_5

75

76

5 Political Urban Exclusion and Participation

interesting and certainly complex approach (given the philosophical implications of these concepts) within which the questions of exclusion and inclusion can be read. Before concluding, however, we would like to briefly focus on the importance of the political dimension of urban exclusion. This does not mean that exclusion is the result of an intentional political design. As mentioned, it derives from a multiplicity of causes, including the different ways in which policies, at different scales, interact with economic, social and cultural processes. The political dimension consists primarily in the fact that urban inequalities are both the effect of unequal relations with power and different groups and social conditions, as well as a complex of factors that contribute to reproducing these imbalances, including them—so to speak—in the same spatial structure of the city. With this in mind, we intend to introduce yet another concept, which proposes to grasp the interweaving of these factors: that of the ‘revanchist city’. Initially proposed by Smith (1996), this term refers to the effects of the processes of gentrification of the’90s, combined with security policies—understood as an operation to clear the city of all groups considered to be undesirable, with the growing privatisation of urban services and the increasingly extensive role assigned to the market. This has led to the consideration of all groups without economic power and with a weak capacity to contribute to the city’s success in global competition as no longer deserving of government support (according to an orientation largely present in the policies promoted in previous decades), but rather as the cause of their own disadvantaged condition and as a negative factor to be neutralised. Although it is still appropriate to distinguish between different types of revanchist city, especially if we compare the North American and European contexts (Aalbers 2011), we must admit that certain elements of that model are now present in most of the cities in the northern hemisphere and seem to tend towards their convergence. Therefore, the ideals of a generalised social emancipation, thanks to the development of an urban civilization (characteristic of the’60s and ’70s) have been replaced by a social demand, which also develops in contexts that have experienced an effective spread of the welfare state, such as the Netherlands (Uitermark and Duyvendak 2008), the United Kingdom (MacLeod 2002) or other European countries. Policies aimed at order and reassurance against fears linked to urban public space are one of the fundamental points of the political programme of populist parties and movements, which have been developed in almost every European context, sometimes entering positions of government or, in other cases, influencing the agenda of national and local governments in this sense. It is, however, possible to see lines of continuity, as well as differences between these programmes and those inspired by neoliberalism, especially with regard to the city and urban needs. Certainly, in neoliberal policies, the central aspect is represented by the big development projects, pursued by coalitions between different types of power centres, projects which, consequently, ‘can be considered as “elite playing fields” on which the stake is to shape an urban future in line with the aspirations of the most powerful segment(s) among the participants’ (Swyngedouw et al. 2002). The success of such projects, however, requires that the city be not only a safe place, under control but also a pleasant and conflict-free space, corresponding even from an aesthetic point of view to the tastes

5.1 Exclusion in Revanchist City and in Populist and Nationalist Movements

77

of the wealthy. This is why neoliberal programmes include the exclusion from the city (or at least from its more exclusive areas) of minority social groups and figures that can be perceived (on the basis on the characteristics they share) as sources of insecurity and urban decay. It is no coincidence that policies based on the idea of ‘zero tolerance’ have been consolidated precisely in the political and cultural climate of triumphant neoliberalism (Smith 2001). In the populist and nationalist movements, on the other hand, the aversion towards these groups and figures becomes a central theme. It is presented in direct terms, rather than as the corollary of an economic development policy, and is often accompanied by the idea that marginal subjects pose a risk not only for public security but also for the reputation of the city and the very identity of the local population. These movements propose drastic policies against various types of undesirable phenomena, especially due to their high visibility—such as prostitution in public places, drug dealing and homelessness—but above all, they are directed against migrants. In the rhetoric of these political forces, migration is considered as a phenomenon to be opposed in order to defend the native identity and way of life. The very idea of a multi-ethnic society is rejected in principle and in particular it is considered necessary to keep migrants on the edges of urban societies (and of local contexts in general) to prevent them from becoming an integral part of cities and neighbourhoods, leaving an imprint of cultures seen as a threat to the local identity. This generates what Ambrosini (2013) calls local ‘policies of exclusion’, meaning ‘the measures adopted by local authorities that aim to separate immigrants from the indigenous component of the population, by establishing specific, albeit implicit, indirect or hidden prohibitions against them, setting up special screening procedures or limiting their access to benefits and resources of local social policies’ (p. 8). In the policies of populist movements, therefore, the aim of the exclusion of migrants and policies for public order is not to create a city suited to the needs of the elite few; on the contrary, they are (at least in words) opposed, being considered supporters of globalisation and multiculturalism. The aim of these policies is actually to separate the native population from the migrants, to prevent the latter from being visible in the urban space and to prevent them from having their own voice in the debate on problems in the city and making a specific contribution to the ways in which they live together. Moreover, populist movements often present themselves as the authentic representatives of the native population, including the poor quotas, as political subjects capable of offering them a defence against the threats that stem from the opening of national societies towards the global world and, primarily, against the entry of foreigners. In this way, they seek consensus precisely in the low-income classes, while addressing their potential for mobilisation against migrants and radically excluded groups, rather than against the economic and political mechanisms of neoliberal globalisation.

78

5 Political Urban Exclusion and Participation

5.2 Giving Voice for to Marginal Groups In this context, are there any real alternatives for marginal urban groups, opposed and deprived of both voice and representation—albeit with different forms and rhetoric—as much by neoliberal as by populist and nationalist policies? A comprehensive answer to this question would require the examination of the different orientations of urban policies proposed for this purpose: a theme that goes beyond the intentions of this book, which focuses on the various forms of exclusion. It is, however, worth mentioning that attempts to include the weakest groups and social conditions, developed on an urban scale, have often been based on the proposal of new forms of direct social participation, complementary to those of representative democracy. These are activities through which citizens can have a personal influence on urban policies, without delegating action to elected representatives, sometimes interacting with local institutions, in other cases exerting pressure in forms of conflict or acting outside the scope of institutional action. In recent decades, this kind of participation has been extensively developed on a local scale in different parts of the world; at European level, it has also been encouraged by European Union programmes relating to urban themes, such as Urban Initiatives Programmes (such as URBAN programme) or, more recently, Urban Innovative Actions. Some people believe that innovative ways of conceiving citizenship, i.e. citizenship linked to participation in the active presence on an urban and regional scale, have manifested themselves thanks to these programmes (Garcia 2006). In this perspective, a ‘citizen’ is not only someone who has a legal status that identifies him as a member of a community but also someone who has a voice and the ability to offer or deny consent to urban policies that affect him. As observed by Fung (2006), even undocumented migrants whose children attend state schools hold citizenship, as they can have a say in matters relating to the way their children are treated. The very fact that they actively participate in urban life, aware of their rights, is already a form of citizenship that tends to include all social groups. The presence of structured participatory initiatives can offer an opportunity to exercise citizenship also to those who are excluded from the possibility of electing their representatives or do not feel that the party system offers programmes with which they identify. There is an extensive debate in the social sciences about the different types of participatory process, which concerns both the methods used, the results obtained and the subjects involved. The previously mentioned contribution of Fung, for example, proposes a possible classification, based on different criteria, of the devices used in participatory initiatives. There are also numerous critical analyses, especially with regard to the actual possibilities of engaging marginal groups of the urban population. First of all, we can see that not all the methods used to stimulate participation are really aimed at giving voice to these groups. Some methods, in fact, prioritise the involvement of those considered to be fundamental stakeholders, with reference to specific urban policies. These stakeholders often already have the tools to assert their own stances and are interested and competent in relation to the issues in question. In this case, the stimulation of direct participation ends up distancing marginal groups

5.2 Giving Voice for to Marginal Groups

79

even further from the debate, with fewer opportunities and abilities to express their needs. In other situations, although there is no prior distinction between the main stakeholders and the other players in the participatory processes, simple self-selection mechanisms can be used, favouring people who have more time, interest and expertise to effectively intervene in these processes (Cornwall 2008). In any case, these critical considerations are in no way intended to detract from the potential importance of opportunities for active participation by citizens in urban policy decisions and their implementation, in order to promote the inclusion of disadvantaged individuals and social groups. On the contrary, it should be stated that, while urban space is the place where social exclusion processes are particularly intense, it is also the place where situations that favour the visibility of their effects and can stimulate reactions from citizens and organisations of various kinds are created, with the emergence of strong demand for participation. However, these reactions do not necessarily automatically involve minorities. For this to happen, the right conditions must be created and the methods of participation must be explicitly aimed at the inclusion of every part of the urban population, using methods capable of counterbalancing the power of the strongest and most influential stakeholders.

References Aalbers MB (2011) The revanchist renewal of yesterday’s city of tomorrow. Antipode 43(5):1696–1724 Ambrosini M (2013) ‘We are against a multi-ethnic society’: policies of exclusion at the urban level in Italy. Ethn Racial Stud 36(1):136–155 Cornwall A (2008) Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices. Community Dev J 43(3):269–283 Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66:66–75 Garcia M (2006) Citizenship practices and urban governance in European cities. Urban Stud 43(4):745–765 MacLeod G (2002) From urban entrepreneurialism to a “revanchist city”? On the spatial injustices of Glasgow’s renaissance. Antipode 34(3):602–624 Smith N (1996) The new urban frontier. Gentrification and the revanchist city. Routledge, London Smith N (2001) Global social cleansing: postliberal revanchism and the export of zero tolerance. Soc Justice 28(3):68–74 Swyngedouw E, Moulaert F, Rodriguez A (2002) Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large–scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode 34(3):542–577 Uitermark J, Duyvendak JW (2008) Civilising the city: populism and revanchist urbanism in Rotterdam. Urban Stud 45(7):1485–1503

Index

A Abeyance, 51 Abject, 35, 36 Affiliation, 16, 17, 25, 33, 39, 45, 46 Allport’s scale, 62 Alterity, 33–35 Apartheid design, 69 Asylum seekers, 45, 63, 65, 66 B Binary sexuality, 55, 58 Biological sex, 52, 53 Biopolitic, 64, 66 C Camp, 63–66 Capabilities, 16 Capsularisation, 17 Carceral city, 49 Care, 28, 49, 51, 55, 61, 66 Cisgender, 52 Citadel, 21 Citizen, 23, 75, 78 Cohesion, 2, 10, 15, 33, 75 Control of space, 51 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED), 56 D Differences, 5, 9, 13, 14, 16–18, 22, 24–27, 33–36, 38–42, 45, 46, 48, 52–55, 59–62, 65, 67, 68, 75, 76

Disability, 34, 36–38, 45, 48, 50, 59, 67–70, 75 Discrimination, 9, 15–17, 24–27, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 45, 48, 55, 56, 58–60, 62, 63, 66, 68, 70, 75 Diversity, 16, 33, 39, 40 Divided-cities, 22 Dualism, 9, 23 E Elite, 14, 19, 47, 76, 77 Essentialism, 33–35 Ethnicity, 34, 37, 46, 48, 60, 61, 65, 66, 69 Everyday control, 51 Exclusion, 1–6, 9, 13–16, 22–25, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48–50, 55–60, 62–66, 69, 70, 75–79 F Fear, 19, 20, 23, 55–58, 60, 76 Fordist enterprises, 12 Fordist period, 14 Post-fordist societies, 20 Fordist cities, 26 Forgetting politics, 64, 66 G Gay, 54, 56, 58–60 Gaybourhood, 59 Gay neighbourhood, 58 Gender, 2, 15, 16, 34, 35, 37, 38, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52–61, 65, 69, 75 Gender identity, 52, 53

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 A. Mela and A. Toldo, Socio-Spatial Inequalities in Contemporary Cities, SpringerBriefs in Geography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17256-5

81

82 Genderism, 59, 60 Gentrification, 18, 48, 49, 58, 59, 76 Ghetto, ghettoization, 20, 26, 27, 58, 62 Gini index, 14 H Heteronormativity, 55, 57 Heterosexuality, 55 Homeless, 13, 45, 48–52, 56, 59 Homelessness, 46, 49, 50, 77 Homosexuality, 55 Hostile architecture, 51 Hypersegregation, 20 I Identity, identities, 6, 15, 19, 25, 27, 33–38, 40, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 58–60, 62, 63, 67, 77 Impairment, 67, 68 Inclusion, 1–5, 9, 11, 15, 16, 22, 33, 40, 58, 59, 66, 70, 75, 76, 79 Intersectionality, 33, 36, 37, 48, 65, 75 J Justice, 15, 38–42, 75 Justice of recognition, 38, 41 L Language, 26, 34, 54, 55, 61, 63 Lesbian, 37, 54, 56, 58–60 LGBTQIA þ people, 45, 54 Liberalism, 2 Lifeworld, 11 Linguistic turn, 61 Liquefaction, 12 M Marxism, 2, 3 Materialist turn, 61 Medical model of disability, 67 Mental disability, 70 Modernity, 11–13, 26 N Nationalism, 57, 75, 77, 78 Neoliberal programmes, 77 Neoliberalism, 76, 77 Networked individualism, 13 O Out of place, 35, 36, 55

Index P Policies of exclusion, 77 Politics of difference, 39 Populism, 57, 75–78 Post structuralism, 68 Post-just city, 49 Postmodern feminism, 53 Poverty, 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 26, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53 Power, 14, 21, 24, 27, 34, 38, 39, 45, 47, 50, 53, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 76, 79 Prejudice, 25–27, 37, 41, 59–62 Psychoanalytic approach, 33, 36 Punitive urbanism, 51 Q Queer, 54, 55, 58, 59 R Race, 2, 16, 34–38, 45, 46, 48, 60, 61, 66, 75 Racialization, 60 Racism, 35, 37, 59–61, 66 Reconciliation, 57 Redistributive justice, 38, 41 Refugees, 45, 63, 65, 66 Revanchist-city, 49 Role identity, 53 Roma people, 27, 45, 63, 64, 66 S Segregation, 9, 17–22, 24, 27, 33, 40, 42, 48, 58, 61–64, 66, 68 Self/other, 35, 36 Sex, 37, 38, 52–54, 60, 61, 75 Sexuality, 36, 52–55, 59 Sexual orientation, 18, 37, 53, 54 Similarity, 9, 12, 34, 35, 62 Slums, 5 Social class, 34, 37, 45, 46, 50, 75 Social cohesion, 10, 15–17 Social constructionism, 34–36 Social differentiation, 10, 34 Social integration, 10–12, 66 Social mobility, 15, 47 Social model of disability, 68 Social polarization, 22, 23 Social status, 15 Social stratification, 26, 46, 47 Solidarity, 10 Space of exception, 64 Spatial dimension, 4, 6, 18, 42, 62, 64 Spatial justice, 33, 38, 41, 42, 70, 75 Spatiality of justice, 42

Index Spheres of social activity, 3 Squatting, 63, 65–67 Stakeholder, 78, 79 Stigmatisation, 6, 24–27, 33, 36, 59 Stratification, 46, 47 Survival, 6, 51, 52 Sustainable development goals, 56 Symbolic power, 9, 24, 26

83 Systemic integration, 10, 11, 15 U Urban environment, 4–6, 15, 56 W Women, 35, 37–39, 45, 50, 53, 55–60