La interfaz como metáfora

Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake in society, is either a beast or a god (Aristotle – Politics). The desire to belong, and to be a part of a wider social order is one of the ten desires that drive most Australians in their daily practices (Mackay 2010). Australian social commentator Hugh Mackay explains that this desire stems from the need for “companionship, human presence, *and+ a social context” (2010, p.153). As established in Chapter One, sharing is a social practice, and such practice takes place within a social context. Thus in this chapter I briefly outline some of the key features of the history of urban scholarship that has addressed questions of social interactions and social norms in cities and suburbs before explaining the conceptual framework I use in investigating sharing. A key part of belonging in any society, to having a social context, is awareness of and, relative, adherence to the rules that govern social practice. Rules can be formalised and set down in law, or they can be understood in terms of what constitutes ‘good’ social behaviour. Formal and informal rules rely on each other. For example, formal rules gain their power through socially sanctioned ideas of appropriate moral conduct. This latter, informal, form of governance is the focus of this study. Rather than seeking to understand the legalities of sharing practices, such as contracts of shared ownership or resource exchange, I explore the collectively constituted and individually embodied norms for sharing behaviour. By focussing on these informal norms I ask not only what is shared, but also ‘what neighbourly interactions occur?’, ‘what social norms influence practices of sharing?’, ‘what does it mean to share?’ and ‘why do people share?’

In this chapter I do two key things: first, I offer a descriptive analysis of social norms, and in particular norms of sharing, in the Australian suburban context. Second, I then establish the theoretical approach I use in order to make sense of the ‘rules’ shaping everyday understandings of sharing. To this end, I turn to the work of Pierre Bourdieu. In particular his concepts of habitus, field and capital and in doing so establish the methodological grounding for developing, designing and analysing concepts and practices of sharing in Australian suburbs.

Social norms

Custom… has rendered leather shoes a necessity of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them (A. Smith 1937, p.822).

According to sociologist Elizabeth Shove, social norms are “the sets of practices and expectations that constitute the barely detectable gridlines of everyday life [and which] form what would commonly be seen as a neutral backdrop against which dramas of contemporary social interaction are played out” (2003, p.2). Fehr and Fischbacher extend this definition further to include the prescriptive nature of social norms. They explain that “social norms are standards of behaviour that are based widely on shared beliefs *about+ how individual group members ought to behave in a given situation” (2004, p.185). Social norms thus are a set of shared expectations about proper behaviour that are created and maintained by social groupings and become a part of the taken-for-granted, habitual actions that constitute ‘normal’ life in any specific socio- cultural and environmental context. In Chapter One I established that in its very simplest form, sharing is a set of social practices (which involve acts of giving and receiving). Any social practice is shaped by social norms and thus a theoretical understanding of such norms promises to provide important insight into how concepts and practices of sharing are enacted in Australian suburbs.

Social norms and urban scholarship

Social norms and their significance in maintaining particular social practices in society have long played a role in urban scholarship. Historically, a key driver of urban studies has been concern about damage to the social norms that support strong social connections, strong ‘community’ as the result of the shift from rural to urban living (for example see Mayhew 1851; Booth 1886; Steffens 1904; Sinclair 1906; Park 1916). In this section I will briefly outline the relevance of the concept of social norms for understandings of urban life, before delving more deeply into the actual concept of social norms.

In 1887 the German sociologist Ferdinand Tonnies coined the terms gemeinschaft and gesellschaft as conceptual tools for categorising two different ways of human social existence (Choldin 1985). According to Tonnies (1887[1957]) Gemeinschaft refers to ‘traditional’ (village or small town) forms of community, primarily based on familial connection. Gemeinschaft refers to communities held together through kinship ties that

are inherited and strong. Such communities exist on common goodwill and cooperation in order to survive and progress. In contrast, gesellschaft indicates a modern, primarily urban form of society where, as Tonnies writes “everybody is by himself and isolated, and there exists a condition of tension against all others” (1887[1957], p.65). For Tonnies, gesellschaft relationships are based purely on exchange. As Choldin writes,

Individuals may have many social relationships in the city, but each party to a relationship expects to get from the other an amount equivalent to what he or she puts in. Contract is an essential of this system; contracts validate the exchanges and state the terms. In the city, each actor is an individual, operating on the basis of personal needs, interests, desires, and decisions (1985, p.26).

Tonnies was the forerunner for later urban studies scholars who emphasised the strength of social norms of collectivity in rural and small town communities, while at the same time deploring the loss of such norms in larger cities. This is not to say that social norms were any less powerful in the urban context, rather that norms differed and were considered to be less conducive to strong community connections. For example, in 1903 Georg Simmel proposed that the social norms of city life were driven by careful calculations about the individual benefits of all interactions. City people, unlike those in rural areas, react with the head rather than the heart. Following on from the work of Simmel, one of the key urban studies texts was Louis Wirth’s 1938 paper ‘Urbanism as a Way of Life’. Wirth argued that the very features of the city determine social relationships, behaviours, and personality and as a result urbanism would give rise to social disintegration. Such disintegration would be directly related to the breakdown of strong community relationships (Wirth 1938, p.24). Wirth’s assumptions about the destructive nature of the urban form were later heavily critiqued by a number of authors, such as Herbert Gans (1967), for failing to take into consideration factors of high mobility in the city and for emphasising too much factors of environmental determinism.

Prior to Wirth’s work Harvey Zorbaugh (1929) argued that the social life of the city tends to make people isolated, lonely and personally disorganised as a result of increased mobility. Zorbaugh argues this was due to transiency and “the world of furnished rooms”, where the

exaggerated mobility and astonishing anonymity of this world have significant implications for the life of the community. Where people are constantly coming and going; where they live at best but a few months in a given place; where no one knows anyone else in his own house... where there are no groups of any sort – it is obvious that there can be no community tradition or common definition of situations, no public opinion, no informal social control. As a result, the rooming-house world is a world of political indifference, of laxity of conventional standards, of personal and social disorganization (emphasis added 1929, p.82).

The idea that the city holds no sentiment or tradition and therefore is lacking in social norms that make for a ‘good society’ is considered to be because of “a rate of movement that makes strangers of neighbours” (Choldin 1985, p.17). In this case the occupation of individuals becomes more important than domestic location. As Zorbaugh writes, the city “lacks informal social control based on moral commonality” (1929, p.16), meaning that without shared sentiment and tradition, there can be no shared norms of moral behaviour.

The work of these early urban studies scholars contributed to an understanding that while social norms were functional and long established in rural and small town communities, in cities such norms were dysfunctional leading to social isolation and a lack of guiding morals. Another way of understanding this perceived difference is to examine the language of the rural idyll.

The rural idyll is based on the notion that rural settlements are configured around the importance of family and community (Little and Austin 1996). Indeed as will be discussed in the following chapter, it was this search to maintain such an idyll, in the face of deplorable conditions in the city, that lead to the development of the suburb (G. Davison 1995). The suburbs, as idyllic places for families, women, nature and community emerged from the desire to retain the rich bonds of rural living while living in close proximity to the services of the city. Yet ultimately, as discussed in Chapter One and as will be discussed in Chapter Three, there is a deep sense of discontent at the failure of suburban development to reclaim the life of gemeinschaft.

Understanding social norms

Social norms are dynamic and flexible, changing in response to differing social, physical, environmental and institutional contexts. In her paper ‘Sustainability, system innovation and the laundry’, Shove (2004) draws on an historical perspective to bring to light current practices of clothes laundering and the development and changes to the social norms that inform washing practices in modern societies. Shove notes that habits and techniques of clothes washing have changed significantly over the last century, resulting in an increase in domestic electricity and water consumption.

In the example of washing practices, changes to norms of cleanliness have occurred as a result of technological innovation. That is not to say that the development of such technology was not driven by a demand for greater cleanliness, but rather innovation enabled a particular standard of cleanliness to be achieved with ease. Alongside the technological shifts, the social developments and social implications of such changes have been profound. For example, the social context of what it means to be clean has shifted, requiring more regular laundering and to a higher standard of cleanliness. Bathing and showering have also been shaped by various social expectations and assumptions (Shove 2003). In Ancient Rome, bathing was considered a luxury and public baths a place for the wealthy to relax, to socialise and to rejuvenate. As a result large amounts of hot water were consumed by the social elite. In the fourteenth century however, bathing in Europe became associated with the transmission of the bubonic plague, thus people only washed occasionally and as such, little energy was spent on heating water. Socially, for someone to bathe too regularly in the 1300s was to risk being considered ‘unclean’ and potentially diseased (Shove 2003). Such a perception of bathing is in stark contrast to the way the majority of Australians now view personal hygiene – if the numbers of personal hygiene products filling the supermarket isles are anything to go by. Cleanliness today is not only associated with daily bathing but also requires the use of soaps, deodorants, creams and ointments. Thus, as far as protocols of cleanliness are concerned, in contemporary Australia, to act in a way so as to “maintain the company of our fellow citizens” (Pezzey 1992, p.351) is to ensure regular, and preferably perfumed, personal bathing habits.

The shift from bathing as an activity that posed a significant risk to health to an activity which ensures and signals health not only has implications for resource consumption, but has changed how social identities are created and maintained. In contemporary

modern life, as Kaufmann writes “there can be no construction of identity without the affirmation of cleanliness: to be oneself, to be a self-respecting individual, is to be clean” (cited in Shove 2003, p.148). Of course what it means to be clean, indeed the physical manifestations of cleanliness are shaped by our socially constructed understandings of hygiene and dirt.

As social contexts change so to do the social norms, the practices and expectations regulating our everyday interactions with others. It can therefore be expected that different social contexts, and changing social contexts, will influence how sharing is practiced and contextualised. In the same way that notions of what it means to be clean have shifted over time, the meanings of sharing today are not necessarily the same as those of 50 years ago, nor will they necessarily be the same as those shaping social life in 50 years time.

Formal rules about anything are shaped and supported, indeed are only possible, because of shared understandings of acceptable behaviour. The limitations placed on who can drive a motor vehicle is one example of how explicit and formally sanctioned laws govern behaviour. In Australian society there are a set of formal rules dictating the processes that any person must go through in order to be legally allowed to drive a motor vehicle. In the state of Victoria, you must be 16 years or older before you are allowed to sit a test for a driver’s licence (Vic Roads 2013). Such a law is enforced through state policing and the threat of a hefty fine. Yet such laws come in to being, and are really only enforceable, because of a widely shared understanding as to what constitutes acceptable conduct (Fehr and Fischbacher, 2004). An age limit on driving is generally supported because of shared understandings of the physical and moral abilities required to drive a motor vehicle and shared understandings of the transition from childhood to adulthood. In Australia, there is a social consensus that allowing a 12 year old to drive would be socially irresponsible, posing as it does an unacceptable risk to the safety of the child and other road users.

Explicit laws exist in social and cultural contexts that validate the explication of acceptable and non-acceptable behaviours. In turn, informal expectations of acceptable behaviour are also shaped by the ongoing maintenance and presentation of formal rules. Such formal laws also apply to some practices of sharing in everyday life and the most obvious of these relates to the rules around private and shared property ownership as will be discussed below.

Social norms and sharing

There are many different examples that give insight into how the norms of sharing are popularly conceptualised in both academic and popular media. I briefly consider the social norms of private ownership and the significance these have in shaping contemporary Australian sharing practices. I also consider representations of sharing and giving and receiving in children’s media and in popular culture more generally. These examples are by no means definitive however they do provide some sense of how the social norms of sharing are publicly visible.

In the context of acts of sharing, it is helpful to think about how notions of sharing, exchange, borrowing and lending are developed through interaction with formal rules. Such an exercise helps to gain a deeper insight into the way elements of social norms are implicitly explained and learnt. An example of neighbourhood sharing practice that is shaped by an explicitly stated set of rules is the local library. Local libraries are formalised institutions of sharing which have been around for centuries. They provide a place in which collectively owned books (paid for by taxes) are housed and can be borrowed for a limited time. To become a member of a library one must agree to the various terms and conditions of membership, such as the commitment to return borrowed items by their due date. The date of items returned is monitored and policed by library staff, and failure to return an item on time results in a monetary fine (and ultimately a retraction of membership). Thus the practice of book sharing, in the context of a library, is governed by formalised rules and regulations that are understood by members.

The particularities of the norms of behaviour appropriate to a library can exist only within a context in which ownership, indeed private ownership, is acknowledged. Private ownership opens up the possibility, the legal right, not to share, and thus sharing becomes a conscious practice. In Australia laws which support individual property rights form a part of the landscape against which norms of sharing are established. For example, a part of my acceptance that a library book should be returned to the library comes from the understanding that the book is owned by the library and thus, without the proper exchange of financial capital, cannot be mine to do as I wish with. It is our implicit cultural acceptance of practices of private ownership that supports the formal laws requiring a book to be returned, while, in turn, our knowledge that a book must be returned reinforces our experience of the acceptability of private ownership.

Social norms of sharing in the suburbs

That contemporary suburban life is shaped by both formal and informal rules of private ownership is important for understanding social norms of sharing in Australia. Given that social norms differ according to time and place in history, it is important to consider how social norms of sharing are contextualised and manifest within suburban Australia. The suburban context emphasises notions of private ownership. Indeed in many ways suburban Australian identity was built on the ideal of private ownership. In 1942, three days before he became Prime Minister of Australia, Robert Menzies declared that private home ownership was a “bulwark against collectivism” (Murphy & Probert 2004), establishing the suburbs as places collectively understood as being symbolic of the capitalist paradigm. The Australian suburbs were built on the values of private ownership.

A brief consideration of patterns of private home ownership since the late 1880s reveals the longstanding link between suburban living and private ownership. The proportion of all private dwellings in Australia occupied by owners (outright and mortgaged) at the 2011 census was 69% (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011). While down from the historical peak of 71% in 1966 (Troy 2003), this level remains amongst the highest in the world and, as recently as the mid-1990s, Australia led industrialised societies in private home ownership (Badcock & Beer 2000, p.2). Often associated with the post-World War Two boom, this phenomenon reaches well into colonial history. Around half of all housing in the Australian colonies was estimated to be occupied by owners/purchasers by the late 1880s (Butlin 1964, p.249), a claim affirmed by the 1911 Census which