Neighbors and Strangers: The sociology of proximity

Planning for strong communities must take into account the complex relationship between spatial distance and social distance.

In my previous piece about ‘nearness’ and social cohesion I was trying to explore what often seems to me to be a frequent and uncritical assumption in urban planning that proximity planning will produce social cohesion. I saw both proximity and social cohesion as contested terms: both have objective elements but also important subjective dimensions, and it was the latter that I argued were often overlooked in making the link between the two. I suggested we needed a better sociology of proximity if planners are to make the most effective responses to building communities which are strong, resilient and cohesive..

So here goes. And please feel free to comment on what follows.

---

What would a sociology of proximity be about?

A sociology of proximity would explore how spatial and social ‘nearness’ impact on social interactions, relationships and social cohesion within neighbourhoods and communities. It is about the relationship between spatial distance and social distance. In dense urban neighbourhoods, for example, housing is a setting where social relations are characterized by spatial proximity, but not necessarily by social proximity.

The relationship between spaces and human activity has been a concern of sociology since the times of the classical sociologists of the late 19th century. George Simmel is often identified as the classical sociologist most important to the field through his work on the Sociology of Space published in 1908 which laid the foundation for understanding how physical spaces and social structures intertwine. Perspectives on this have advanced through theorists and researchers from many differing sociological traditions from the empirical studies of the Chicago school in the early 20th century to later critical perspectives from the likes of Lefebvre and Harvey who argue that space is socially constructed and shaped by power relations leading to the production, in urban spaces, of inequalities in spatial access and distribution of resources.

Also relevant is the work of Bourdieu who suggests that routinised social practices containing knowledge, activities, objects and intentions are particularly important for shaping meaningful interactions.

The basic proposition is that space is not merely a backdrop for social activity but also an active force in shaping social dynamics. This can apply both to macro and micro level spaces. My focus here is to explore this notion at the micro-social level, in the neighbourhoods and other spaces of everyday life.

The proximity principle

An obvious place to start in unpacking this relationship is with the so-called proximity principle which asserts that individuals are more likely to form relationships with those who are physically, or spatially, close to them. It is argued that familiarity and repeated encounters are significant in fostering social connections.

Other related theories point to a tendency for people to associate with others with similar characteristics, or socially close, such as age, gender and social class, on the premise that similarity can encourage communication and trust.

Social network theory shows how proximity and shared spaces contribute to the formation of networks for social support and practical assistance. There are empirical studies which support these kinds of propositions.

However, a sociology of proximity needs to dig deeper into the patterns and nature of the social relations which occur in areas designed for proximity, (such as dense multi-use developments and apartment blocks) and in areas which are not (such as suburbs) .

Studies of neighboring have typically looked at three categories of relations: individual (who is more likely to develop relations), dyadic (who is more likely to develop relations with whom) and contextual (what kind of environment, in terms of design, architecture and proximity, makes relations more likely).

But we also need to look at the nature or quality of the relations which lie within these patterns of relationship formation in different settings. City dwellers may choose to develop relationships on the basis of social proximity, but spatial proximity remains the basis for neighbourhood relations based on greetings, social conversation, and the exchange of services. The respective roles of spatial and social proximity in neighbourhood relations needs further more analysis.

Neighbourhood ties

So let’s look a bit more at the lived experience of proximity. Jane Jacobs and others have shown that lived experience in neighbourhoods and localities is complex and changeable. Contacts between residents in their neighbourhood may be limited to a few neighbors. Residents are often involved in social networks other than those within the neighbourhood, and via social media. And living together in a socially mixed environment can also lead to tensions, misunderstandings and exclusion.

The range of social ties in neighborhood relations is wide, extending beyond some idea of friendship and ‘bonding’. Neighbourhood ties may derive from interactions such as talking to others, knowing their name, sharing a social event, or requesting favors. Such ties can be regarded as a ‘weak’ form of sociality when compared to friendship links. ‘Bridging’ rather than ‘bonding’ to borrow a term from social capital theory.

It has been argued, however that other important neighbourhood ties are ‘invisible’ because they do not involve observable interaction. The most basic form of neighbourhood relations, for example, lies in simply recognizing another person as a neighbor. Neighbors may be ‘friendly strangers’ who keep a respectful distance. Some people are apparently satisfied with knowing about their neighbors rather than investing time in interacting with them. Studies have highlighted the role of ‘public familiarity’ and of ‘lighter touch forms of sociality’. It is increasingly recognized that these less visible ties can be important with regard to developing a sense of safety or of belonging in a place or community, but how such relationships are determined by social and spatial proximity remains less clear.

Spaces for sociality

So neighbourhood ties do not necessarily have to be face-to-face or involve social interaction and may be of varying intensity. It is likely too that the patterning of social relationships is related to spatial context. Different kinds of spaces will likely offer different paths to, and forms of, sociality.

For example, in a recent piece on substack

bnjd

points to a continuum of locations for social contact from the public to the private. Public places, streets and some ‘third places’ are at the public end of the spectrum whilst private settings are often in houses and backyards. As he puts it, ‘walking on streets and riding public transportation are the best examples of the public side of the continuum. Living rooms and back yards are the best examples of the private side of the continuum. Retail stores and third places lie somewhere in the middle’. One might surmise that relationships based on stronger bonds and friendship are more likely in more private locations, whilst weak ties and more casual ‘invisible’ social relations are mostly towards the public end of the continuum.

Wickes et.al. provide a useful typology of neighbourhood ‘social conduits’, by which they mean neighbourhood features which encourage social interaction.

They identify:

Anchoring conduits which represent land uses that promote relatively scheduled and routinised opportunities for social interaction, for example schools, libraries and health clubs;

Local exposure conduits are those that support encounters with other frequent users at sporadic and unscheduled points in time and may encourage ties between users, such as neighbourhood parks and public squares;

Scheduled conduits facilitate scheduled activities for different users (e.g. train stations or pubic transport). These conduits provide opportunities for unplanned encounters with others, even though they are places that have particular functions where activities are scheduled and routinised; and

Extra local exposure conduits which comprise land uses that provide opportunities for unscheduled, sporadic encounters between diverse users such as supermarkets and shopping malls.

They go on to use this framework in a study of residents of over 100 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Their focus was on the role of different types of social conduits on a range of social interactions and attitudes associated with social cohesion. They comment that many current planning initiatives focus on creating co-presence through investment in high quality meeting places to promote social events which are fleeting and time limited rather than encouraging lasting community change. Their empirical findings suggest that investments in places that anchor residents and encourage a shared, collective identity may do more for developing meaningful interactions and perceptions of social cohesion that are more enduring. Simply creating opportunities for proximity will not contribute to strong communities on its own. They need to be the right kind of social conduits.

Barrie et al have studied the social value of spaces within an extreme mixed-use, high-rise building in Adelaide which hosts retirement living, disability accommodation, services for some of the communities’ most vulnerable groups, commercial tenants, café/retail outlets and corporate conference facilities. The findings demonstrate that public spaces in the complex are key to fostering ‘community’: the successful generation of community is as much about championing the actors involved as it is about the provision and design of building spaces.

Is proximity enough?

The apartment block setting analyzed by Barrie and her colleagues is one form of physical urban design based on proximity principles. The x-minute city model for urban planning is another which has been widely, and often controversially, applied in cities in many parts of the world. While the potential benefits of x-minute planning are well-documented, the equitable distribution and actual adoption of these benefits remain unclear. Studies suggest that few households manage to conduct all daily activities nearby, even in well-designed environments. Using Barcelona's dense, compact environment with its mixed land use and diverse amenities as a location, Maciejewska et al explore what socio-demographic determinants better predict the use of 15 or 30-minute lifestyles. Their results indicate that, although 95 % and 99 % of respondents lived in areas with access to urban amenities within 15 and 30 min respectively, their actual travel behavior shows that potential availability does not necessarily translate into actual usage. They go on to show how a range of socio-demographic factors help explain this disconnection including the expansive nature of modern urban lifestyles to cultural preferences for novelty, variety, and exploration.

Studies such as these should cause some reflection on the complexity of fostering community through proximity-based living and travel behaviour in built design and urban planning. We need more studies of the lived experience of proximity living -including an appreciation of the range of neighbourhood ties involved - to complement and provide context for the more familiar benefits which are ascribed to proximity-based locations.

If we return to the fundamental insights of Henri Lefebvre and Bourdieu referred to above that all spaces are socially constructed based on a range of factors including buildings and social and cultural practices, the outcomes from the study of the lived experience of people in dense multi-use areas demonstrates that creating proximity-based urban environments requires more than proximity. It requires a range of measures to nudge people towards modifying their established social and cultural practices which will allow the social construction of new spaces for a modified urban lifestyle.

This presents a challenge for planners. Even well-regarded urban planning such as Gehl’s work, based on how people use space and ensuring accessibility by prioritizing social infrastructure to support pedestrian-friendly spaces, alternative modes of urban mobility and encourage community engagement, all require the community to respond and be willing to make lifestyle changes.

Attention to the sociology of spaces and proximity clearly shows that proximity as an urban planning strategy on its own for building communities with stronger neighbourhood ties is not enough.