Examine the argument that Identities of place can be a Source of Inclusion and Exclusion. Essay Example
Examine the argument that Identities of place can be a Source of Inclusion and Exclusion.
There is an inextricable link between physical locations and personal identity: the one affects the other as the environmental psychologist Harold Proshansky states in “The City and Self-Identity”(Proshansky, 1983) “Place-identity is defined as those dimensions of self that define the individual’s personal identity in relation to the physical environment”. So, does the way locations affect our individual identity determine how we are included or excluded from parts of society, and how is the perception of places influenced by contrasts with other locations resulting in a sense of attachment or disassociation?
The importance of place in the social context is re-examined by Douglas Robertson (Robertson, 2013) with reference to three districts in Stirling; during the early 20th century the local council approved plans for 2 council estates and a private estate. It was quite clear that each of these new areas was designed to separately accommodate different strata of society: slum dwellers, lower middle class and middle class; “they were not averse to using “symbolic violence”, defined through stigma and sectarianism, as a means to further..... reinforce the local social hierarchy” (Robertson, 2013). We can see the establishment of three quite distinct places in which individuals will feel attached (included in) to one but not the other two locations. Other examples of this kind of place segregation can be seen in some very distinct city districts: the area known as Kristianborg in Copenhagen is a well known centre for alternative/communal living, and there is very much a sense of “them” and “us”.
This brings us to us to the concept of “Othering”: where a social group with multiple connections/similarities (the inhabitants of Kristianborg in our example) differentiate themselves from the rest of society and assume the role of an “unmarked identity” (a kind of reference
There is an inextricable link between physical locations and personal identity: the one affects the other as the environmental psychologist Harold Proshansky states in “The City and Self-Identity”(Proshansky, 1983) “Place-identity is defined as those dimensions of self that define the individual’s personal identity in relation to the physical environment”. So, does the way locations affect our individual identity determine how we are included or excluded from parts of society, and how is the perception of places influenced by contrasts with other locations resulting in a sense of attachment or disassociation?
The importance of place in the social context is re-examined by Douglas Robertson (Robertson, 2013) with reference to three districts in Stirling; during the early 20th century the local council approved plans for 2 council estates and a private estate. It was quite clear that each of these new areas was designed to separately accommodate different strata of society: slum dwellers, lower middle class and middle class; “they were not averse to using “symbolic violence”, defined through stigma and sectarianism, as a means to further..... reinforce the local social hierarchy” (Robertson, 2013). We can see the establishment of three quite distinct places in which individuals will feel attached (included in) to one but not the other two locations. Other examples of this kind of place segregation can be seen in some very distinct city districts: the area known as Kristianborg in Copenhagen is a well known centre for alternative/communal living, and there is very much a sense of “them” and “us”.
This brings us to us to the concept of “Othering”: where a social group with multiple connections/similarities (the inhabitants of Kristianborg in our example) differentiate themselves from the rest of society and assume the role of an “unmarked identity” (a kind of reference