Neighborhooding betwen barrieres and etendue witch place for the social links

Enhr Conference 2011 – 5-8 July, Toulouse

  Neighborhooding betwen barrieres and etendue witch place for
                       the social links

                       Abdelhalim BENBOUAIJILIENBOUAIJILI

Abstract

Frequently urban space is an area of either mix and separation, of contacts and solidarity as well of segregation
and individualism, all these different components making the essence and distinctive quality of a neighborhood.
Here, the sociological study of the Casablanca district named “Oasis” (of peace would we like to add) will lead
to the exploration of an heterogeneous area build up in steps. First, that almost empty space has been populated
homogeneously by transplantation of a slump, moving without consent a poor population, very homogenous and
with a remarkably strong sense solidarity, from shapeless barracks to a highly standardized “social” lodging
complex. On that particular part of the current neighborhood, a interesting research has unfortunately to be
canceled : the time shift of solidarity forms due to the new environement, because a first part of move of these
residents had already been done ten years before the second part, mixing that 2 steps effect in the process.
The other interesting aspect of this specific area is that populations of higher statuses have come in subsequent
steps of urban development. The 3 classical kinds of common housing have progressively appeared : after the
economical came the middle standing, and as prices of the ground lots were pushed up by speculation, recently
appeared also the luxury high standing. This area progressively shifted from homogenous one to a “mosaic”
according to the word chosen by Louis Wirth emphasizing the social and cultural heterogeneity as a distinct
characteristic of the urban world, a place of “métissage” from various populations. In fact a space for
coexistence and interaction on a common ground. Most analysis consider either more the side of the population
or look more on geographical repartition, but they can't avoid to question in both cases about these two faces of
urban space, as we intentionally do.

Keywords: District, place of residence, forms of solidarities, residential nearness, distance, barrier,
area, space, time, neighbourhood, inhabitants, collective life.

Introduction

My thesis is about “the forms of solidarities within the Moroccan urban society”. I choose to work on
a recently create district called “El Waha”.
New buildings were created further to an operation of recasement of the shanty town.
"BASCHKOU", therefore, an important population came to settle down in this new district, where we
can find heterogeneous residents and the various modes of housing.
The real estate market recovers various types of housing (economic housing, average status, and
luxury housing). My objective is to study the forms of solidarities which can be formed within this
district.
The object of the study concerned at first the operation of recasement of the resident of the shanty
town towards another district.
The purpose was to see how the change of the place of residence influenced the residents practices.

‘Mixité’: an urban and housing issue?                                                                   2

It turned out that the phenomenon was already born for a decade, indeed the first operation of
recasement concerned a first part of the population which settled down in buildings built within the
framework of the operation of the recasement.
Those buildings are close to this shanty town, it is about an economic housing.
Therefore, the social phenomenon object of the study set certain time to take shape at first, the primary
neighbourhood was uniform.
As far as only the inhabitants of the shanty town to be placed next on the new site, later, new buildings
raised themselves(drew up themselves) on this empty space where new arrivants come and so furnish
a district which take form,
Where from a certain mosaic which displays as the term used by " LOUIS WIRTH " which insists on
the importance of the heterogeneousness social and cultural as distinctive line of the urban world.
Of this fact the district in question becomes a place of interbreeding of differentiated populations, a
place of coexistence and interaction within a common space.
It is true that certain analyses centre rather on the populations, of the other one on the contrary on the
spaces, but they cannot avoid wondering in a case as in the other one, on the modes of articulations
between these two aspects of the urban world.
So, the outlines of this study draw up themselves. And the object of study will concern henceforth this
fundamental aspect that is the heterogeneousness of the population of the district " EL WAHA ", and
its incidence on the development of the forms of solidarities.

Problems

The residential context of "ELwaha" neighbourhood represents a relatively singular case, because of
the heterogeneousness types of housing, the economic housing environment on one hand, the housing
environment of "luxury" on the other hand,
The characteristics of these types of housing has a role to play during the construction of the relations
of neighbourhood, the small apartment, about forty meter, is next to the duplex and big apartement.
We could see the local residents are then near some of the others, this mixture of several types of
housing confers to this urban space a particularity, of this fact the social composition of the
neighbourhood and the district is the cause of such effects " solidarity, sociability, conflicts, tensions,
behaviour of avoidance ".
The scientific concern which intrigues me till now amounts is listed in the following way:
-How can we identify forms of solidarities while having a narrow relation with the place of residence,
and the neighbourhood?
- What are the measuring instruments of the sociological cohesion of a district, its level of collective
existence?
A first attempt wants whether it is the examination of the life of the district which allows the
individuality.
In other words, it is the links which unite the local residents who must be analysed. The cohesion is
not only a function of similar lines and of emotional links connecting the local residents of the same
fraction of the territory but also the common activities.
I suspect it because the district in question is " a place without soul, or without common history"
exception made by the primary inhabitants who resulted from the shanty town, but who stays a
hypothesis to be confirmed or to be rejected.
The degree of cohesion can appreciate by observation: the floor of building, the street. I would be
from then on the first unit of analysis, the objective is to see in which measure the residential nearness
favors the emergence of the forms of solidarities.
Is there an intensity of the social life within the type of houses?
According to the first conversations. We could say that the anonymity is the rule, the resident ignore,
don’t speak to each other enough. The individuals and homes are both foreign. This fact disrupts the
progress of my researches.

3                         Workshop 23: Housing and Cities - Changing Social and Spatial Boundaries

Because of a certain impermeability of the phenomenon, certain indicators favor this first impression "
attiquar ", the equivalent of the distance at the inhabitants who want at all costs to minimize the
contacts; however to be placed next suppose at least one coprésence on the building .
Certain spatial link so, the neighbourhood defines itself on the basis of the nearness of the house, and
of logement, he also supposes for his constitution a fixed settlement which wants that the resident lives
or often returns there, spends a good part there of his time. And that fact shall favor number of
relations, which we could call “relations of persons to nobody”.
The first place to analyse is the economic housing environment which the inhabitants of shanty towns
acquired, further to the first operation of recasement. The resident know each other. And this fact
favour forms of multiple solidarities, the life of every home was practically shared by a large number
of habitants.
The degree of intensity of the interknowledge produced a "brotherly" social link the united actions.
Individually and collective furnished the everyday life of the inhabitants " loan of things, furniture,
money, sale on credit. "

The united action reaches its paroxysm during the death of a neighbour. The contributions in kind and
in cash are common in such circumstances, the demonstration funeral is totally undertaken by the
neighbours the most close to the deceased.
The change of the place of residence, the shed in the apartment, the shanty town in the district
influences the mode of the solidarities.
This point is the first sociological question clarified, the residential mobility allows protect its
demonstrations of solidarities , and also contributes to its deformation, even to its decrease.
It is a question of seeing in which measures of the forms of solidarity as " darrat " manage to remain
within a new residential space.
How "darrat" becomes established again and used only by women?
We ask if they create a new network? How they composed with the new form? And how they deal
with the new recruits?
And we could also ask if there is an equivalent of this form of solidarity?
It seems obvious to focus primarily on the structural foundations of the neighbourhood, as well as
those                                                                                              figures.
The aim of the research would first identify an area of neighbourhood based mainly on residential
proximity, he adopted the capita position. The "single neighbour, who lives next door, or it engages in
a set activities "neighbourliness," it is also to see how far extends the residential proximity.
Ways to contact between neighbouring sites or accomplished this interaction also worthy of analysis,
it is to see how people build their relationships neighbourhood, they are limited to basic civic
interaction " hello, good evening "or they dig advantage of this opportunity to learn more about the
lives of their neighbours and preoccupation, there are residential stability that allows the identification
and establishment of some trust within the area of neighbouring.

The normative framework of neighbourliness implies recognition of others and self-preservation, the
other neighbour is out of "recognition" makes his "recognition", but requires at the same time
safeguarding the "self-preservation," neighbourly is also know "take its place" and give the other the
possibility of holding his own in all sovereignty.

Interaction minimum of greeting each other can grow over time: instead of the fleeting moment of two
paths that intersect, then there is a pause furnished by the conversation, which helps to increase the
area of social identification due to a broadened view of self, if this process is repeated several people
in a specific sector, area neighbourhood becomes an area of strong acquaintanceship.
Over time recognition can be deepened: we do not discern the contours of the social identity of the
neighbour, but it comes to identifying "what he is capable" as the register of skills on the register
Ethics .

At the same time we can see that happen to recognize skills can generate a step further: why not use

‘Mixité’: an urban and housing issue?                                                                   4

them? The neighbour may be in the position of "assistant" or "assisted" or only one of them, hence the
question of reciprocity or more precisely "rendition" .

The identification by the spatial dimensions is also one through which the manifestations of solidarity
can be analyzed, based on the fact that the first segment of the population "spread out horizontally on
the surface of living in the slums, is currently the vertical form of housing that takes over, they live in
apartment buildings, neighborhood relations may differ depending on whether one lives in the same
building, same floor, or the same side, perception and spatial representations of population provide
some clarity for the sociologist (who lives next door, where "the lady who is above").
Attendance neighborhood and they rhyme? , Means that people use it at home visits, there exists a
permeability private spaces of households, how far the intensity of it dating from the neighborhood
can hatch forms of solidarity?

The bulk of theoretical work and field focuses primarily on these questions, once the first segment of
the study conducted, the research will focus on new entrants in much the same terms, in fact,
newcomers are divided into two segments, the first is a fraction of people who selected "residence
building called" the second button to another fraction that has settled into a "residence merely" bearing
the name "California is" having an arsenal of Security: restricted access to residents, the presence of
security guards, gates, surveillance cameras .... .

The people who live in the residence "is California 'deserves special attention since it presents a model
and a way of living that is characterized by the erection of a residential spatial distance, a mode of
appropriation of the singular space, which can be a form of solidarity "territorial" reflecting a new
trend in housing "luxury" or the population is not mixed or fractional living may live among
themselves, away the common already present in the neighbourhood, the first question taking into
account the play of closeness and distance in all its aspects (spatial, social, cultural), it is to see the
impact of these phenomena and their any translation in space, "wrote PARK human relationships can
still be analyzed in terms of distances, it is inferred that the distribution of individuals and groups in
the physical space is always a good indicator of these distances? Park and colleagues from Chicago
were not locked into this mechanistic conception ... in line with the work of Simmel ... gives a
different status to the concept of distance.... Physical proximity is not the guarantor of social
proximity, because "space is not the only barrier to communication and social distance is not always
adequately measurable in purely physique.

The study aims to see if there is one particular neighborhood in the walls of this residence, there are
specific forms of solidarity to own this space, overflowing them to other places surrounding the area.
The objective is to identify the manifestation of solidarity on the same neighbourhood that presents
different types of housing, the district “El Waha” I think is a fertile ground for conducting a good
sociological study that on two different levels.
First level of analysis of neighbourhood groups, through internal study group of housing. And the
sociology of habitat, and other than the analysis of the mode of insertion of this group in the urban
tissue.

Methodology

If we want to study the population of this district, I find it necessary to give the means to identify the
concerned persons. A first way of proceeding consists in bounding in priori one under group
presenting a relative homogeneity, the pioneers would be our first target.
So the outlines of the studied population can be encircled according to the nature of the residence at
the time of the investigation, it's the same for the geographical and ethnic origin.
It is a question of identifying a group of persons presenting a relative community of positions, this
approach will also touch the last newcomers, those who acquired a housing of average status and high
status.

5                          Workshop 23: Housing and Cities - Changing Social and Spatial Boundaries

Having emphasized the characteristics of the population of the district, the study will bend over the
aspect "relations" by moving the glance of the positions, the categories of classification towards the
forms of link.
And of solidarity what will allow to examine in great detail the game of the nearness and the distances
between the social beings, and by the way the criterion of nearness is put in to the test when we ask
the question: if the residents, of the same district, have a strong relations of neighbourhood or they
ignore each other?
Such is the first question which settled further to an informal interview with one of the resident of this
district: "here, it is bastard district, my relations with my neighbours is so limited. At the best form a
short hello safety. Totally the opposite, to my district of origin where I know everybody ".
Here we are with a personal biography of a resident, which expresses a trajectory, as being a
succession of states and event marked by breaks in the memberships, reorganizations of attitudes and
behaviours, changes of living space.
I plan to make an extensive study of the personal biographies of the local residents " ELWaha ". That
will allow me to reconstruct residential trajectories, or still careers according to the term used by
"HOWARD BECKER " on "outsider" to indicate the factors on which depends the mobility from a
position to the other one.
In other words, every inhabitant of this new district conceals in him a story, and an own residential
past, a space which he went through, lived, exploited, a space or social relationships were tied, and
also some forms of solidarities appeared.
 This residue of social relationships was imported on the new district by the various inhabitants where
from the question is that do the inhabitants tend to align themselves with the models which prevail in
their neighbourhood, either the juxtaposition of heterogeneous populations leads it to aggravate the
tensions and the difficulties of coexistence?.

References
ABBOTT ANDREW (1999) Department and discipline: Chicago sociology at one hundred, Chicago, Chicago,
university press.

ABBOTT ANDREW (2001) Time Matters, University of California Press.

ARBONVILLE D . (2003) La notion de choix résidentiels, in. SEGAUD J BRUN J-C ., dictionnaire de
l’habitat et du logement, Paris, Armand Colin.

ARGOUD D. et al. (2004) Prévenir l’isolement des personnes âgées. Voisiner au grand âge, Paris.

AUGE M. (1992) Non lieux, introduction à une anthropologie de la surmodernité. Paris, Le Seuil, « la librairie
du 20 siècle ».

ASHER FRANCOIS ET APPEL-MULLER MIREILLE (2007) La rue est à nous, La LAUNE, vauvert, au
diable vauvert.

ATTIAS-DONFUT C. (1995) Les solidarités entre générations. Vieillesse, famille, Etat, Paris, Nathan.

BECKER HOWARD S. (1985) Outsiders, Paris, Metaillé.

BECK U. (1986) La société du risque. Sur la voie d’une autre modernité. Paris, Aubier.

BENKIRANE, R (1993) Bidonville et recasement : mode de vie à Karyane Benmsick, Genève, Institut
universitaire d’études du développement.

‘Mixité’: an urban and housing issue?                                                                              6

BERTHELOT JEAN–MICHEL, compte rendu de : JEAN MICHEL CHAPOULIE, la tradition sociologique de
Chicago, cahiers internationaux de sociologie, janvier –juin 2001.

BOUGALI, M la représentation de l’espace chez le marocain illettré, PARIS, ANTHROPOS. 1974.

BRESLAU DANIEL, l’école de Chicago existe-t- elle ?, actes de la recherches en sciences sociales, n 74,1988.

BRUN, J, « la mobilité résidentielle et les sciences sociales » les annales de la recherche urbaines, n59-60.

BERRY-CHIKHAOUI Isabelle, DEBOULET Agnès et ROULLEAU-Berger LAURENCE,                                           Villes
internationales. Entre tensions et réactions des habitants, Paris, la Découverte «Recherches »2007.

BERNOUX, P.SERVET.JIM.la construction sociale de la confiance.1997.

BRENDER A., l’impératif de solidarités, Paris, La découverte, 1996.

BERNARD FRANCQ, la ville incertaine, politique urbaine et sujet personnel, Louvain-la Neuve, éd.
ACADEMIA BRUYLANT « sciences et enjeux », 2003.

BIDART C., l’amitié, un lien social, Paris, la découverte, 1997.

BIDART C. sociabilités : quelques variables, revue française de sociologie, 1988, vol.29, n 4.

CASTELLS.M. la société en réseaux.1998.

COULON ALAIN, l’école de Chicago, PARIS, « que sais –je ?»,1992.

CLEMENT S.et al. Habiter et voisiner au grand âge, Toulouse, rapport de recherche ORSMPI
U558 INSERM, CIEU, CERS pour la fondation de la France (commission des personnes âgées) novembre
2002.

CLEMENT S., MANTOVANI J. MEMBRADO M., Du bon voisinage aux solidarités de proximités, in P.
Pitaud, solitude et isolement des personnes âgées, Toulouse, ERES 2004.

CHAMBOREDON JEAN CLAUDE ET LEMAIRE MADELEINE, « proximité spatiale et distance sociale : les
grands ensembles et leurs peuplement », revue française de sociologie, vol 31, n 1, 1970.
CHAPOULIE JEAN MICHEL, la tradition sociologique de Chicago, PARIS, le seuil 2001.

CHOFFEL P., DELATTRE E., Habiter un quartier défavorisé : quels effets sur la durée du chômage, premières
synthèses n 43.1, DARES, octobre 2003.

DANSEREAU, F , A GERMAIN « mixité sociale et                          aménagement :      histoire   d’une       utopie
urbanistique »,communication au colloque ACFAS,RIMOUSKI.

DANSEREAU, F. F NAVEZ BOUCHANINE et SAFAR ZITOUN « quelques leçons d’expériences de
relocalisation d’habitants des quartiers précaires au Maroc.1995.

DUREAU F., Les systèmes résidentiels : concepts et application, in J-P.LEVY, L’accès à la ville.les mobilités
spatiales en question, Paris, L’harmattan, 2002.

DURKHEIM.E., les règles de la méthode sociologique.1950, de la division du travail social, 1960.

DEBOULET, A « réseaux sociaux et nouveaux quartiers au Caire », les annales de la recherche urbaine 50-60.
(1993).

GAUCHET M.la démocratie contre elle-même, PARIS, PUF, GALLIMARD, «2002 »

GENESTIER, P « quels avenir pour les grands ensembles? », in j roman, ville, exclusion et citoyenneté, Paris,
EDITIONS ESPRITS.(1993) ;

7                            Workshop 23: Housing and Cities - Changing Social and Spatial Boundaries

GURVITCH G., les variations des perceptions collectives des étendues, cahiers internationaux de sociologie,
1964.

GRAFMEYER YVES et JOSEPH ISSAC, l’école de Chicago, éd. champ urbain1979.
GRAFMEYER YVES. Sociologie urbaine. NATHAN. 2000.

HANNERZ, ULF. Explorer la ville, PARIS, Editions Minuits .1983.

ELIAS N. remarques sur le commérage, actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 1985, n60.
HERAN F., les relations de voisinage, Données sociales, Paris, INSEE 1987.

HERAN F., Trouver à qui parler : le sexe et l’âge de nos interlocuteurs, Données sociales, Paris, INSEE, 1990.

IYER P., The nowhere man, prosper Observer Taster (s.d).

JOLAS T.et ZONANBEND F., cousinage et voisinage, in j. Pouillon et P. MARANDA, échanges et
communication. Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi Strauss à l’occasion de ses 60 anniversaires, Paris,-LAHAYE,
Mouton, 1970.

MEMBRADO M, les formes de voisinage à la vieillesse, EMPAN, 2003, n 52.

NAVEZ BOUCHANINE, F « habitat et différenciation sociale ».thèse de troisième cycle, université Mohamed
5, Rabat.

NAVEZ BOUCHANINE, F « place des populations dans les interventions de restructuration et de réhabilitations
des quartiers d’habitat spontanées », politiques et pratiques urbaines dans les pays en voie de développement.
PARIS, l’harmattan.1987.

NAVEZ BOUCHANINE, F « habiter, modèles socio culturelle et appropriation de l’espace », thèse de doctorat
d’Etat en sociologie, Rabat.1991.

NAVEZ BOUCHANINE, F « l’espace limitrophe : un no man’s land entre l’espace public et l’espace
privé. »Espaces et société.1991.

NAVEZ BOUCHANINE, F. habiter la ville marocaine, Montréal et PARIS, L’HARMATTAN, 1997.

NAVEZ BOUCHANINE, F.R.MEJJATI et D. KHRUZ. « Étude socio-économique du bidonville de carrières
centrales », RAPPORT ICONE.1987.

NAVEZ BOUCHANINE, F, la fragmentation en question, 2002.

NAVEZ BOUCHANINE, F. « compétences collectives, émergence de la société civile et intermédiation sociale
dans la gestion urbaine »in J BERRY et A. DEBOULET « les compétences des citadins dans le monde arabe :
penser, faire, transformer la ville » PARIS, KARTHALA/URBAMA .2000.

NICOLE HAUMONT, les pavillonnaires, étude psychosociales d’un mode d’habitat, PARIS ,1966.
NOCON A .,Pearson M., The roles of friends and neighbours in providing support for older people, Ageing
Society, 2000,n20,p 341-367.

TONNIES.F .communauté et société.1944.

PETONNET, C « espace, distance et dimension dans une société musulmane », L’homme, revue française
d’anthropologie.1972.

PENNEC S., les solidarités de voisinages au féminin, des rôles entre proximité et distance, in P. Pitaud, solitude
et isolement des personnes âgées, Toulouse, ERES 2004.

PINSON, D. la maison en ses territoires, de la villa à la ville diffuse, 2002.

‘Mixité’: an urban and housing issue?                                                                     8

PHILLIPSON C., BERNARD M., PHILLIPS J., et OGG J., older people‘s experience of community life:
patterns of neighbouring in three urban areas, the sociological Review, 1999.

PROUTEAU L., et WOLFF F-C., les services informels entre ménages : une dimension du bénévolat,
E économie et statistique, 2003, n 368.

RAYMON LEDRUT .sociologie urbaine. PARIS, PUF.1968.

RAYMOND HENRI, l’habitat pavillonnaire, préface Henri Lefebvre, PARIS, CRU ,1996.

REEVES, N « le bidonville et la ville du futur », communication à la 5 conférence internationale de recherche
sur l’habitat, MONTREAL.

REMY, J « la limite de l’interstice : la structuration spatiale comme ressource sociale » in PELLIGRINO, P ET
al, la théorie de l’espace humain. Transformations globales et structures locales, 1986.

QUERE L., BRESLER D., l’étrangeté mutuelle des passants. Le mode de coexistence du public urbain, Les
annales de la recherche urbaine.1993, n 57 58.

SANSONT P., D du bon usage de la lenteur, PARIS, PAYOT ,1998.

SANSONT P., l’espace et son double- de la résidence secondaire aux autres formes secondaires de la vie
sociales, PARIS, champs urbains, 1978.

SENNETT R.les tyrannies de l’intimité, PARIS, SEUIL .1979.

SENNETT R. La ville à vue d’œil (1990), PARIS, PLON.

SENCEBE Y., définir la notion de territoire, documents d’accompagnement de cours Module 4, option
agriculture, ENESAD .2002.