Lecciones para el caso peruano: sector minero

As discussed in some detail in Chapter 3, despite the dominance over young people in public space there is evidence that young people attempt to resist this through practising their own agency (Skelton, 2000, p90; Valentine, 2004, p84). On this basis, it would be unfair to ignore the fact that some young people in Ravenswood also resisted the attempts made to push them out of public space.

Previously I discussed the various tactics used by residents to clear Ravenswood’s public space of young people or ‘devils’. This included taking direct action to remove them as well as making adaptations to the built environment to deter its use by young people. One resident, Neil Lomas, acknowledged some limitations to these approaches. He explained how relying on the police to remove young people only worked for so long, as young people soon returned to the same places. This behaviour of young people is also acknowledged in the academic literature. Matthews et al (2000, p290) are also aware that young people persistently return to the spaces they are pushed out from, thus illustrating their spatial dominance. John Keeling, a Park Ranger responsible for locking up the play area each evening between Ravenswood and Gainsborough, spoke at length about how young people resisted being moved out of the play facility. He recounted how one evening when locking up as usual, instead of moving out of the play area a number of teenagers ‘started’ on him. These incidents show how young people resist the attempts made to prevent or deter them from using public space in Ravenswood, thereby illustrating their own agency.

There is also evidence that young people understood their own right to occupy public space in the neighbourhood. One teenager, Lewis, recounted various stories of Ravenswood residents confronting him and his friends whilst they were just ‘hanging out’ and requesting that they move elsewhere. He explained to me how, on numerous occasions, he had told these residents

163

that he and his friends had the ‘right to be there’ like anyone else, especially as they were not causing any trouble. Here I argue that not only is there evidence that young people resisted attempts to move them out of space but young people expressed a strong belief about their right to occupy public space in Ravenswood. The adoption of such civil rights language is also noted by Lees (2003) when she explored public space use by young people in Portland, Maine (p627). Although subtle in Ravenswood, compared to other places where more controversial methods were adopted, there is evidence of young people’s resistance to the various exclusionary measures adopted in Ravenswood, thereby expressing, that public space is theirs too (White, 1996, p45). Public space in Ravenswood is therefore a site of struggle and conflict.

5.6 Conclusion

As detailed in this thesis, public space is seen as essential in supporting the social mix agenda. More specifically, community open spaces in residential areas are envisaged as sites of conviviality and places for social interaction. As young people are seen as catalysts for social mixing, their use of public space is seen as particularly important. This chapter has aimed to address the second research question which explores this idea, to see whether young people use public space in a mixed tenure neighbourhood in the way that policy imagines. The empirical evidence presented in this chapter highlights a number of limitations to this aspiration. In Ravenswood the presence of young people in public space was perceived by many Ravenswood residents as ‘inappropriate’, reinforcing existing academic debates that suggest young people are not welcome in the public domain (Shacknell et al, 2008, p33). Consequently, the chapter argued that young people in public space were socially constructed as ‘devils’ (Valentine, 1996b, p581). Exacerbating this construction, evidence showed not only how young people’s presence in the public domain caused this construction, but also the variety of unexpected ways that young people appropriate space in Ravenswood. Moreover, and crucial for this research study, these social constructions of ‘devils’ were further entrenched by perceptions over where these young people were from. Often without direct evidence, it was assumed that young people responsible for ‘inappropriate’ behaviour in Ravenswood were from the neighbouring residential areas of Gainsborough and Priory Heath. By contrast, those young people who were from Ravenswood, or absent from public space, were socially constructed as ‘angels’. In light of this, the thesis argues that the social construction of young people, as either ‘angels’ or ‘devils’ is not an entirely linear process, as the existing literature suggests, depending upon either their presence or absence from public space. Rather perceptions about young people’s presence, behaviour and place of origin are all

164

co-constructed. In Ravenswood pre-existing ideas or stereotypes frame residents’ understandings of Ravenswood as well as other neighbourhoods, often centring upon notions of tenure. Residents living in predominantly social housing areas, such as the adjoining neighbourhoods to the case study are seen as ‘deviant’ (Allen et al, 2007, p241; Skeggs, 1997, p3), in contrast to Ravenswood residents. Ultimately as the reminder of the chapter showed, the material consequences of these social constructions worked to keep ‘different’ groups of young people apart in Ravenswood, minimising the opportunity for social mixing and thereby undermining the aspirations of the social mix agenda.

As well as the dualistic social construction of young people, the empirical data showed how public spaces within Ravenswood, were socially constructed as threatening, dangerous and places to avoid due to their use by ‘devils’. This provides further evidence that social and spatial identities are co-constructed (Valentine, 2001, p5). Furthermore and with regards to the central concern of this thesis, these negative social constructions of Ravenswood’s public space resulted in spaces envisaged by policy as sites for social interaction to be actively avoided. Crucially, this worked to further undermine the aspirations for young people to be initiators of social mixing in neighbourhood spaces in a mixed tenure community. As shown and the beginning of this chapter, social mix policy gives little, if any, critical thought to the possible material consequences of both social and spatial identities.

Given the social construction of young people present in public space, systematic tactics were deployed to either remove, or exclude young people from occupying these spaces. Ravenswood’s community space therefore, became an exclusionary space or Interdictory Space (Flusty, 2001, p659), rather than a space of conviviality. The thesis argues that the desire to cleanse public space of young people was pursued by those with the most power, most notably home-owners. In so doing young people’s parity of participation or right to the city in Ravenswood was denied. These interdictory tactics included: direct action by both the police and residents, alterations to the built environment, and diversionary tactics. This is further evidence that young people are not wanted in Ravenswood’s public spaces and importantly are not given the opportunity to use public space for social mixing as social mix policies envisage.

It is a criticism of social mix policy and similar diversity agendas that these limitations and challenges are not acknowledged (Lees and Demeritt, 1998, p348), by assuming that different people will co-inhabit public space without conflict, when in practice it would seem that

165

insurmountable differences prevent positive social encounters (Arthuson, 2012, p111). As well as highlighting this failure to recognise the power of some in a community to control and dominate both others and public space, this thesis also raises concerns about social mix policy’s unquestioned assumption that the most privileged in a community will behave in a positive way towards social mixing. As the evidence presented in this chapter shows, this is not the case in Ravenswood. Home-owners went to great efforts to ensure public space was kept free of ‘devils’, and that features of the built environment which may prove to be attractive to young people were limited. Ravenswood home-owners pursue a public space idyll, whereby community spaces are preserved for appearance, and potential nuisances are limited, arguably in the pursuit of maintaining house prices and personal investment.

Having said this, there was evidence presented which indicates that social interaction did occur as the result of young people. However, rather than being the catalysts to social interaction young people or ‘devils’ became the common enemy amongst Ravenswood residents. Ravenswood residents reported how they united with one another under the desire to promote the exclusion of young people from public spaces in the neighbourhood. That said, and although evidence is limited, it would appear that the residents involved in this activity were all home-owners, and so restricted the possibilities for social mixing. For instance members of the Ravenswood Residents’ Association who lead campaigns for the closure and removal of various neighbourhood features were all home-owners.

Although undeniably beyond the scope of this chapter, a number of moral questions have arisen from the empirical data presented. As outlined in Chapter 2, Lefebvre takes a normative stance by arguing that everyone has a right to the city, whereby all members of a community regardless of their class, income, gender, ethnicity and age will have the right to access and shape space. As noted earlier this does not appear to be the case in Ravenswood. More specifically, for young people who come from lower income households, such as those living in the adjoining neighbourhoods to Ravenswood, they are more likely to be prohibited from accessing semi-public leisure activities (Ward, 1990, p3), such as youth and sport clubs, due to admission fees. In these cases it is arguable that access to public space takes on extra importance. A further moral question surrounds the consequences of young people’s treatment in Ravenswood’s public spaces. As shown here, young people constructed as ‘devils’ in Ravenswood were either removed or denied access to Ravenswood’s public spaces. As a result it would seem that these young people were pushed out into ‘marginal’ spaces. In

166

practice this often meant that young people retreated to less overlooked spaces, such as the Orwell Country Park, where there were fewer possibilities for conflict. It might be argued that this consequence of neighbourhood social mix policy places these young people at greater risk.

167