Drawing on multisited ethnographic fieldwork in two historic, attractive, and socially mixed neighborhoods, Kumpula in Helsinki and Malasaña in Madrid, this paper examines what makes people feel at home (or not) in their neighborhood. Marrying the literatures on social belonging and materiality, we analyze the interactions through which local places, people, and materials become familiar and personal. We identify the house in Kumpula and the plaza in Madrid as “everyday totems” that weave local life and community together. In both neighborhoods, the testimonies of home are accompanied with an attachment to the local totem and related lifestyle, but the house and the plaza generate different everyday politics of belonging. House–based belonging in Kumpula requires resources and long–term engagement that over time contributes to a personal, but rather exclusive web of belonging. Plaza–based belonging in Malasaña is more inclusive and elastic, but joining the web of belonging requires time and sociability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AminAsh. 2008. “Collective Culture and Urban Public Space.” City12(1):5–24.
2.
AminAsh and ThriftNigel. 2017. Seeing like a City. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
3.
AndreottiAlberta, GalèsPatrick Le and Moreno–FuentesFrancisco Javier. 2015. Globalised Minds, Roots in the City: Urban Upper–Middle Classes in Europe. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
4.
AntonsichMarco. 2010. “Searching for Belonging—An Analytical Framework.” Geography Compass4(6):644–59.
5.
AtkinsonPaul. 2015. For Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
6.
BachelardGaston. 1994. The Poetics of Space: The Classic Look at How We Experience Intimate Places. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
7.
BennetJulia. 2015. “‘Snowed in!’: Offbeat Rhythms and Belonging as Everyday Practice.”Sociology49(5):955–69.
8.
CaldwellLesley. 2013. “Imagining Naples: The Sense of the City.” In BridgeGary and WatsonSophie (eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City, pp. 337–46. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
9.
CalhounCraig. 1999. “Nationalism, Political Community and the Representation of Society: Or, Why Feeling at Home is Not a Substitute for Public Space.” European Journal of Social Theory2(2):217–31.
10.
CresswellTim. 2015. Place: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
11.
GregDickinson and Giorgia Aiello. 2016. “Being Through There Matters: Materiality, Bodies and Movement in Urban Communication Research.” International Journal of Communication10:1294–308.
12.
FloridaRichard. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
13.
GandyMatthew. 2016. “Landscape and Infrastructure in the Late–Modern Metropolis.” In BridgeGary and WatsonSophie (eds.), The New Blackwell Companion to the City, pp. 57–65. Oxford: Wiley–Blackwell.
14.
GansHerbert J.1962. The Urban Villagers. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.
15.
GómezM. Victoria, and KuronenMarjo. 2011. “Comparing Local Strategies and Practices: Recollections from Two Qualitative Cross–National Research Projects.” Qualitative Research11(6):683–97.
16.
GuibernauMontserrat. 2013. Belonging: Solidarity and Division in Modern Societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
17.
HardingAlan, and BloklandTalja2014. Urban Theory: A Critical Introduction to Power, Cities and Urbanism in the 21st Century. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
18.
HeylighenAnn, and StrickfadenMegan. 2012. “{Im} materiality: Designing for More Sense/s.” Space and Culture15(3):180–5.
19.
IngoldTim1993 “The Temporality of the Landscape.” World Archaeology25(2):152–74.
20.
JacobsJane. [1961] 1993. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Vintage books.
21.
JacobsJane, and CairnsStephen. 2013. “Ecologies of Dwelling: Maintaining High–rise Housing in Singapore.” In WatsonSophie and BridgeGary (eds.), The New Companion to the City, pp. 79–95. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
22.
JerolmackColin. 2013. The Global Pigeon. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23.
JerolmackColin, and TavoryIddo. 2014. “Molds and Totems: Nonhumans and the Constitution of the Social Self.” Sociological Theory32 (1): 64–77.
24.
KärrholmMattias. 2007. “The Materiality of Territorial Production: A Conceptual Discussion of Territoriality, Materiality, and the Everyday Life of Public Space.” Space and Culture10(4):437–53.
25.
KetokiviKaisa. 2008. “Biographical Disruption, the Wounded Self and the Reconfiguration of Significant Others.” In WidmerEric and Jallinoja (eds.)RiittaBeyond the Nuclear Family: Families in a Configurational Perspective, pp. 255–77. Bern: Peter Lang.
26.
KusenbachMargarethe. 2006. “Patterns of Neighboring: Practicing Community in the Parochial Realm.” Symbolic Interaction29(3):279–306.
27.
LoflandLyn H.1998. The Public Realm Exploring the City's Quintessential Social Territory. New York: Walter de Gruyter Inc.
28.
LoughranKevin. 2014. “Parks for Profit: The High Line, Growth Machines and the Uneven Development of Urban Public Spaces.” City & Community13(1):49–68.
29.
LymanStanford, and ScottsMarvin. 1967. “Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension.” Social Problems15(2):236–48.
30.
MarcusGeorge. 2009. “Multi–Sited Ethnography: Notes and Queries.” In Marc–AnthonyFalzon (ed.), Multi–Sited Ethnography: Theory, Praxis and Locality in Contemporary Research, pp. 181–96. London: Routledge
31.
MasseyDoreen. 2005. For Space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
MillerLinn. 2002. “Belonging to Country - A Philosophical Anthropology.” Journal of Australian Studies27(76):215–23.
34.
MolotchHarvey. 2013. “Objects and the City.” In BridgeGary and WatsonSophie (eds.), The New Companion to the City, pp. 66–78. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
35.
NarinKaren, and KraftlPeter (eds.). 2016. Space, Place and Environment. Berlin: Springer.
36.
NealSarah, BennettKaty, JonesHannah, CochraneAllan and MohanGiles. 2015. “Multiculture and Public Parks: Researching Super–Diversity and Attachment in Public Green Space.” Population, Space and Place21:463–75.
37.
RantisiNorma M., and LeslieDeborah. 2010. “Materiality and Creative Production: The Case of the Mile End Neighborhood in Montréal.” Environment and Planning A42:2824–41.
38.
SampsonRobert. 2012. The Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
39.
SavageMike, BagnallGaynor and LonghurstBrian J.2005. Globalization and Belonging. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
40.
SilverHilary. 2014. “Editorial: The Centrality of Public Space.” City & Community13(1):1–4.
41.
SimmelGeorg. 1950. The Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited by WolffKurt. New York: The Free Press.
42.
ThompsonMichael2017. Rubbish Theory: The Creation and Destruction of Value. London: Pluto Press.
43.
TorresStacey. 2014. “Where Everybody May Not Know Your Name: The Importance of Elastic Ties.” American Association, Community and Urban Sociology Section, 2014.
44.
UrryJohn. 2000. Sociology Beyond Societies Mobilities for the Twenty–First Century. London: Routledge.
45.
Yuval–DavisNira. 2011. The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
46.
ZukinSharon. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
