Sandra Wallman,The Capability of Places: Methods for Modelling Community Response to Intrusion and Change

Reviewed by: Karen Fog Olwig, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

‘How is it that similar settlements react so differently to the shock of change?’ This question is posed in the very first line of this volume and is its main topic of concern. Sandra Wallman addresses the question by the way of a model that can open up for exploration and comparison, and thus a better understanding, of different instances of reaction to change or disruption in varying local social systems. The aim, she emphasizes, is not to ‘assist interventions changing the structure of local systems’, but rather to make it ‘possible to know the character of a particular system before the intrusive stage, and so to plan to it realistically and more appropriately’ (p. 134).

The strength of the book is the clarity and intellectual rigor with which it describes how the proposed model was first generated through comparison of two London studies and then tested and further developed through studies in Rome and Zambia. An important aspect of this rigor is a careful exposition of the methods and design of the different studies. The London study was based on prolonged, in-depth fieldwork in two ethnically mixed areas undertaken by a group of researchers; the Rome study was very brief and conducted primarily by a lone researcher in two areas touched by immigration; and the Zambia study was basically an intervention oriented project targeting TB and HIV affected people and involving an inter-disciplinary team of researchers and practitioners. Wallman's ability to synthesize the data generated from such varying projects and to use this as a springboard for developing a general model is exemplary, and should be a source of inspiration to all who confront the diversity of place.

Wallman's model proposes that responses to change or intervention can be understood in terms of an open:closed local systems dichotomy. The open system (in the first study represented by Battersea in South London) is seen to be heterogeneous (e.g. mixed population and a variety of local social and economic resources) and characterized by few overlapping social relations, making it relatively easy to gain entry into the local social system. The contrasting closed system (represented by Bow in East London) is homogeneous and with tightly knit, over-lapping social relations leading to clearly demarcated borders that are difficult to cross.

Though the model emerged through ethnographic study of two actual neighborhoods, Wallman underscores that it does not correspond to actual cases. Rather, open vs. closed local systems should be viewed as two ideal types located at opposite ends of a continuum. Actual local systems will be found at different points along this continuum as more or less open or closed systems. Furthermore, the specific indicators pointing to the particular characteristics of such systems will vary and need to be ascertained through careful research, as is demonstrated through analysis of the local systems studied in Italy and Zambia. This finally leads to the development of a higher-level meta-indicator framework that allows for comparison between the cases.

In the London and the Rome studies the open/closed system model points to interesting contrasts in local social systems that help explains why immigrants are able to develop a sense of home in certain places, but feel unwelcome in others. In the Zambian study it becomes apparent that a greater complexity of somewhat contradictory relations may be at play, when local responses to outside interventions are examined. Thus, while the local area with the more open system may be quick to accept outside intervention aiming at reducing HIV and TB, it may lose this advantage just as rapidly if it does not have ‘a cohesive central core’ – a feature of more closed systems – that can sustain an interest in dealing with these health problems. Indeed, Wallman concludes that local societies work best when they are, on the one hand, not ‘too open and fragmented’ but remain connected ‘at the core’ and, on the other hand, not ‘extremely closed’ and able ‘to take up interventions once they have gained entry’ (p. 109). This suggests that while the classification of local areas according to the suggested open/closed model may be a useful first step in analysis of research data, it is only when we explore the field of interwoven, productive and/or tensive, open and closed relations within the various places that we gain a more in-depth and interesting understanding of the workings of social systems.