The concept of the ‘Cosmopolis’ is one in which cultural diversity is embraced as a force for good; socially, politically, economically, and in the built and open spaces of the city. There is a great deal of evidence supporting the negative effects of social, economic and cultural polarization. Uneven distribution of power between different cultural groups in the city to access resources and assets is common. Cosmopolis, however, is a goal for social and spatial justice. It is the ongoing process towards a socially cohesive city. It is the city, and its neighbourhoods, where people from different cultural backgrounds live their everyday lives. Where they make claims to their rights to the city and its spaces, as citizens. In my book ‘Bridging Cultures’, I stress citizenship and the practice of open democracy is an important and fundamental factor. For a truly democratic city, its citizens, no matter what their cultural backgrounds should feel they belong; their histories are recognized and their cultural demands are respected and met. According to the philosopher Iris Marion Young, she states: ‘In the ideal of city life, freedom leads to group differentiation; to the formation of affinity groups, but this social and spatial differentiation of groups is without exclusion. . . . The interfusion of groups in the city occurs partly because of the multiuse differentiation of social space. What makes urban spaces interesting, draws people out in public to them, gives people pleasure and excitement, is the diversity of activities they support.’
The case for diversity is strong; mixing cultural groups is the ultimate basis of a better and more attractive place. It fosters creativity, it encourages tolerance, and it leads to city officials appreciating the cross-fertilization potential of different lifestyles. Innovative economic opportunities arise. The engineering of social mixing is not a new concept. In the 19th century, idealists like The Settlement Houses and Co-Partnerships of Samuel and Henrietta Barnett, Octavia Hill, Jane Addams and others were aimed at educating and socializing the poor. They also sensitized the rich through deliberate social mixing in urban places. In planning history, the utopian communities of the Garden City Movement at the turn of the twentieth century sought to house different social groups in varying degrees of physical closeness and encouraged the use of shared community facilities. What Garden City neighbourhoods demonstrated was communities can be bound together with strong shared moral and social values. The predominantly Quaker principles for social justice was the basis for these values. These values were important a hundred years ago when mainly social and economic class disparities existed. Today, however, cultural diversity adds a further level of complexity in relation to values. In fact, some critics argue that diversity and tolerance of the ‘Other’ is challenging in contexts where lifestyles are incompatible or irreconcilable. In this case, it is not group identities but a collective identity that should prevail. I don’t disagree, however, I assert that collective identity needs to be robust enough to allow for socialization process in which everyday contact and tolerance can be learned.
The neighbourhood as a physical boundary is the arena where tolerance can be learned. A series of overlapping social networks in which the quality and strength of ties between neighbours is a measure. Several studies have shown the importance of unpretentious everyday casual social contact, or ‘weak ties’, that happen in neighbourhoods. They are a source of feeling at home, security, and practical as well as social support. The theory of weak ties suggests that acquaintances generated by such everyday interactions, like borrowing tools or simply a casual hello in the street, lead to people being better connected to the wider world. Weak ties also are more likely to provide people with information about ideas, threats and opportunities, stimulating creativity and innovation. Therefore, the differences between neighbourhoods is best understood as the differences between the form and content of social networks, the quality and frequency of weak ties, that arguably are the building blocks of social cohesion. In this context, access to learning tolerance, co-operation, and a sense of belonging is fundamental.
The aim of my book ‘Bridging Cultures’ is to provide the key values that will support people in learning to live together regardless of their cultural background, inspired by what we have in common rather than what divides us. It is a society based on solidarity and a common vision for equality for all sections of the community. It is a place based on interaction between different cultural groups and participation by all sections of the community in civic engagement. Key to civic engagement and participation is the role of shared spaces to re-build strong community ties and networks of social support and reciprocity. Hence the focus of the book is to demonstrate how social networks can be strengthened in the use and re-use of public spaces and the factors that support people of different cultural backgrounds to participate, engage and interact with others. Fundamentally, it is about the practices and processes of social innovation that bring people together to do things together. To achieve the goal of social and spatial justice is to be consistently innovating, testing and creating the collective sense of belonging in pursuit of the idealism of the Cosmopolitan city.
Noha is author of the book ‘Bridging Cultures: the guide to social innovation in cosmopolitan cities’ available on Amazon at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bridging-Cultures-Social-Innovation-Cosmopolitan/dp/1517157188