Close but Divided: How Walls, Fences and Barriers Exacerbate Social Differences and Foster Urban Social Group Segregation

Abstract

With their walls, fences and barriers, gated communities, which have proliferated over the last three decades, are now a familiar element of the urban landscape worldwide. It can be argued, however, that certain negative social consequences have attended their expansion, in particular “social segregation” between gated communities and non-gated neighbouring communities. To what extent do gated communities exacerbate social differences by inhibiting social interactions between their residents and the population living in surrounding areas? This paper analyses the social practices and viewpoints of residents of a gated community located in Mendoza (Argentina). It examines how these residents interact with members of the non-gated communities that surround them. It uses a qualitative research methodology with a case study strategy in order to analyse the social practices and viewpoints of the residents of the gated community, the social practices and viewpoints of members of the surrounding communities and the contribution (or otherwise) of these social practices to segregation. The analysis of a selected group of “neighbourhood social practices” undertaken by gated community residents shows that most such practices contribute to segregation – which can therefore largely be considered as an intended consequence of the viewpoints held by social actors but also on occasion as an unintended consequence.

Key Words:

• Gated communities
• Segregation
• Social differences
• Social practices
• Viewpoints
• Intended and unintended consequences

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank all interviewees for their time and collaboration with this research and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Notes

1. See for instance definitions given by Blakely and Snyder (1997), Caldeira (2000) and Atkinson and Blandy (2005).

2. Due to length restrictions it is not possible to go further here in the discussion of what gated communities are and are not and how to conceptualize those residential developments that try to imitate gated communities for high-income families. For further reading see Roitman (2008).

3. Although it is acknowledged that there are differences in terms of social and economic capital and interests, values and motivations among the residents of a gated community, it is considered as a homogeneous social group because of their similarities when it is compared to the social structure as a whole.

4. The concepts of intended and unintended consequences are taken from the work of Merton (1949) and Giddens (1984).

5. For further information on this, see Roitman (2008), Chapter 5.

6. Interviewees have been given false names to protect their identities.

7. A.Pro.CUP. stands for Asociación de Propietarios Conjunto Urbano Palmares.

8. Caritas Argentina, similarly to Caritas Internationalis, is a social organization of the Catholic Church.