Relational Neighborhoods

Relational Neighborhoods

Frank A. Mills, Urban Psychologist

Over the past few weeks, I have participated in a spontaneous bonfire in a neighbor's backyard, helped a neighbor lay patio blocks, moved a neighbor's new couch into her house, shared beer, food, joys, and sorrows with neighbors, salvaged items from a neighbor's trash for my use, and picked my neighbor's lilacs and violets. I live in a Cheers neighborhood, where everyone knows my name, and for that matter, quite a bit about me, including my eccentricities. And you know what? That's what I like about my neighborhood; I am accepted, even when, or if, I care not to be part of the neighborhood doings.

I am fortunate in that I live in what an urban psychologist would call a "relational neighborhood." A "relational neighborhood" is a "group of people with which an individual interacts frequently, to whom an individual feels connected, or to whom the individual would go to for help." Relational "neighbors" may include family members, schoolmates, friends, co-workers, and church members, as well as neighbors.

Although "relational neighborhood," by definition, can define "neighborhoods" other than geographical neighborhoods it would serve us well to understand the characteristics of a relational neighborhood as they apply to the geographical neighborhood.

Andrew Crook in his essay on the Relational City ("The Relational City: A New Framework for Tackling Unemployment," Relationship Institute, Cambridge, England, 1997) suggests that there are three characteristics, and five "micro-building blocks" for the Relational City. Applying these to the context of a geographical neighborhood, we find that a relational neighborhood is a neighborhood where residents share a commitment to the neighborhood, to each other, and to joint participation in improving their neighborhood.

To delineate, Crook's three characteristics are ...

A commitment to place: A relational neighborhood is one to which residents are committed to, and feel pride in belonging to.

A commitment to people: A relational neighborhood in one characterized by mutual respect and concern among residents.

A commitment to participation: A relational neighborhood is one which residents know their joint power for change and use it.

For Crook, the five elements, or "micro-level building blocks," necessary to create a Relational City, or for our purposes, a relational neighborhood out of which beneficial characteristics like mutual trust and co-operation can develop are:

Face-to-face contact (Directness)
Residents physically meet with each other and mutually interact. In the process, they begin to understand and appreciate other perspectives expressed by neighbors. Simply put, relationships cannot exist if people do not come together.
Common purpose (Commonality)
Residents share a joint vision, or at least some elements. If residents do not share a common purpose there will be no opportunity to profitably work together. Common purpose requires residents to be convinced that there are common projects on which they can co-operate to their mutual advantage.
Contact over time (Continuity)
Relationships take time to develop. People are highly unlikely to form strong commitment to a neighborhood if they see their stay likely to be short.
Contact in different contexts (Multiplexity)
Multiplexity is the idea that a relationship between two (or more) people is strengthened if it takes place in more than one context. In my neighborhood, for example, most of my neighbors attend the same church and we all walk to the same stores.
Mutual respect (Parity)
Neighborhood residents are able to interact on roughly the same level with equal power. Neighbors meet on equal footing and contribute equally. When a particular neighbor chooses at times to remain aloof from the neighborhood a relational neighborhood will accept the neighbor back into the process as if he had never left.

Because Crook writes regarding the Relational City, it might be enlightening to examine the role of the relational neighborhood in the Relational City. Interestingly, such examination reveals that the existence of relational neighborhoods within the city may, or may not, be beneficial in the creation of a relational city.

The neighborhood organizer's handbook (Warren, R. B. & Warren, D. J., Notre Dame Press, 1977) suggests that there are six types of neighborhoods: Integral, Parochial, Diffuse, Stepping Stone, Transitory, and Anomic.* Of the six, only the Integral and Parochial neighborhood types are relational. The Integral neighborhood has a high sense of neighborhood identity, internal interaction, and external linkages. The same is true for the Parochial neighborhood, with one exception. The Parochial neighborhood does not have a high sense of external linkages. As Crook points out in his essay, for a city to be relational, its residents must have relational linkages outside of the neighborhood. In other words, they must participate in both relational geographical and external neighborhoods, e.g., school, church, work, etc.

For Warren & Warren, the Integral neighborhood is:

Active and involved. Internally, many civic, religious, educational or other neighborhood organizations exist. Externally, these are linked with resources in other neighborhoods and the larger community. Residents share social ties and a sense of identity as a neighborhood, and like living there. There is a feeling of small-town friendliness, but also being an integral part of the city. When a problem occurs, residents mobilize and take action, with internal neighborhood or external resources, or both.

What distinguishes the Integral neighborhood from the Parochial besides the level of external linkages is that the Parochial neighborhood's strong sense of identity and shared values is often based on ethnic or religious heritage. This raises at least two questions: First, how does the Parochial neighborhood hinder the development of the relational city, and secondly, the corollary question, how does the Parochial neighborhood become an Integral neighborhood without destroying it ethnic or religious identity and ties?

While it is hard, but not impossible, for the Parochial neighborhood to develop integral external linkages, the remaining four neighborhoods (Diffuse, Stepping Stone, Transitory, Anomic) each provide their own set of difficult obstacles to be overcome. When a city's neighborhoods are predominately non-relational the city quickly becomes dysfunctional.

I am fortunate in that my neighborhood is a relational neighborhood; others are not so fortunate. Our task as psychologists and planners working in urban neighborhoods is to first build relational neighborhoods, before we even consider brick and mortar. We can do so, by affording residents the opportunity to take ownership of their neighborhood. And here's where it gets hard on our egos, after all we are the professionals: Giving ownership does not mean affording residents parity with us. It means that we must take the second-seat, forcing ourselves to assist, perhaps even guide, but never directing or imposing.

*Six Types of Neighborhoods (Warren & Warren)

1. Integral

High sense of neighborhood identity, internal interaction, and external linkages

This neighborhood is active and involved. Internally, many civic, religious, educational or other neighborhood organizations exist. Externally, these are linked with resources in other neighborhoods and the larger community. Residents share social ties and a sense of identity as a neighborhood, and like living there. There is a feeling of small-town friendliness, but also being an integral part of the city. When a problem occurs, residents mobilize and take action, with internal neighborhood or external resources, or both.

2. Parochial

High sense of neighborhood identity, high internal interaction, low external linkages

This neighborhood is insular, with a strong sense of identity and shared values, often based on ethnic or religious heritage (but parochial does not necessarily mean religious here). There is also the sense that the neighborhood is different form the larger community. The neighborhood is likely to be homogeneous in terms of ethnicity, social class, religion, or age. Internally, neighborhood organizations exist that are important in resident's lives, but these are not linked closely to the larger community, and community self-reliance is valued. Mechanisms exist for enforcement of the prevailing norms and values. Residents like the neighborhood's closeness.

3. Diffuse

High sense of neighborhood identity, low internal interaction, low external linkages

This neighborhood is usually homogeneous in physical appearance (e.g., suburban subdivision with similar homes, or rental or public housing with similar apartments). The neighborhood also is usually homogeneous in income level; residents are often similar in outlook and like the neighborhood. Yet there are few neighborhood organizations, little recognition of how much values and concerns are shared by other residents, and little organized linkage with the larger community. Most residents' friends are outside the neighborhood; there is little interaction with neighbors.

4. Stepping Stone

Low sense of neighborhood identity, high internal interaction, high external linkages

High turnover occurs among residents, yet neighborhood organizations are active. However, residents are active in these largely due to their career commitments or immediate interests, not for long-tem commitment to the neighborhood. Residents are often professionals with external linkages to the larger community through their work. They bring these resources to local organizations, yet soon move on and the organizations must recruit new leaders. Neighborhood organizations quickly welcome new residents and get them involved; yet residents seldom identify themselves strongly with the neighborhood.

5. Transitory

Low sense of neighborhood identity, low internal interaction, high external linkages

High turnover among residents, few neighborhood organizations exist, and there is little interaction among neighbors. Cliques or residents may exist, but these are not linked to each other or the larger community. There is little sense of belonging top a neighborhood or of shared values or concerns. New residents are not welcomed or integrated well into the neighborhood. Many residents are linked more strongly to work or the larger community than to the neighborhood, and will seek help outside the neighborhood when needed.

6. Anomic

Low sense of neighborhood identity, low internal interaction, low external linkage

Few social ties exist among neighbors, few residents know neighbors from nonresidents, and suspiciousness often results. Few neighborhood organizations exist, and there is little sense of shared values or concerns. Residents usually do not like the neighborhood or do not think of it as a neighborhood, even if they like their own house/apartment. Residents are often individualistic and private, yet the neighborhood is vulnerable to external forces, and residents have little neighborhood help in facing these challenges. This neighborhood type may occur among residents at any income level.

[Note: Adapted from Warren & Warren (1977, pp. 95-112) and Heller et al (1984, pp. 134-135) by Dalton et al (2001, pp. 206-207). Used with permission.]