Children’s perspectives on disorder and violence in urban neighbourhoods

Children’s place(s) in cities

In this era of globalization in which the stratification of resources in space remains at the core of society’s organization, paradoxically, despite all the progress and development, social inequalities have grown, perhaps even in an exacerbated mode (Sassen, 2001, cited in Sampson, 2002). On one hand, globalization has enhanced a sense of dispossession of the city, by the diffusion of lifestyles which are not limited to the city’s territorial limits; on the other, urban space social division has led to segregation, resulting in unequal opportunities in the access to material and symbolic resources, which affect different social groups.

While major changes in territorial management have occurred, children’s lifestyles in modern cities have undergone great changes as well (Christensen and O’Brien, 2003; Ennew, 1994; Holloway and Valentine, 2000b). Complex images and representations of social risk and childhood emerge associated to multiple reflections that position children as objects in a variety of situations (e.g. parental love, education) (Lee, 2001).

Consideration of children’s places in cities is inseparable from understanding the importance attributable to time in children’s lives. In recent years, profound changes have been observed in the ways children organize their time and daily lives. A decrease in free time to use in a spontaneous way, in association with an increased participation in organized activities based on planned time, marks many children’s lives worldwide. The significant institutionalization of children’s routines and practices highlights the parental and organizational restrictions imposed on children, which is reflected in their development. As Neto (2005: 24) suggests ‘today, life in the city is desperately rational and adult, which definitely constitutes a symbolic violence that marks the construction of childhood and limits children’s imaginary, fantasy and social learning’. ²

Subjectivity established by adults through various ways of looking at the city determines the conditions of children’s lives (Ennew, 1994). Population increases, traffic density and fear of crime are some of the factors that underline parental anxiety about their own safety and that of their children. Almost everything related to the street and other public spaces raises public suspicion and fear (Ennew, 1994). The more adults emphasize security issues in public spaces, the more cities become less child friendly, decreasing the possibility of children to access different types of experiences. Children’s play in streets is seldom seen freely in urban contexts since there is now equipment specially designed for this purpose, such as playgrounds, one of the hallmarks of present-day childhood (Karsten, 2003; Neto, 2005). Parental perceptions of risk and (in)security tend to result in the child’s confinement to enclosed spaces, specialized ‘islands’, mainly in the family, school or leisure places, being registered as a loss of freedom to use public spaces (Christensen and O’Brien, 2003; Holloway and Valentine, 2000a).

Based on the fear of seeing a child at risk, ‘hyper-vigilance’ has become one of the images of contemporary societies, expressed in an increasing privatization of space, equipment and activities for childhood (Katz, 2005). Ignoring the fact that it is not possible to protect a child from all social dangers (Ennew, 1994), parental anxiety tends to be exacerbated and translated into a polymorph of actions and systems, such as nannycams or mobile phone with GPS (Katz, 2005). Children’s activities are becoming increasingly formal in which the main effect is the scarcity or even absence of truly free time and the possibility to spontaneously explore streets, public spaces and natural environments. Urban life expresses the use of space in specialized forms, and often, home, school, play or workplaces are in multiple settings, which highlights the growing use of cars and other forms of transportation.

However, this is not a linear process and does not affect all children in the same way (Christensen and O’Brien, 2003). It results in marked differences in access to resources according to social origin and the nature of the areas where children are located or live (Almeida, 2009). (In)Security sharpens the gap between people’s different positions in the social structure (Katz, 2005), and one of the most important urban developments in western societies is related to the profound changes in children’s mobility and autonomy in cities. Several studies show that the use of public space by socially disadvantaged children tends to be done more without parental supervision, with a level of greater mobility and autonomy, than among those who belong to middle and upper social classes and who are more likely to participate in organized and formal activities (Valentine, 2004). This might expose the first group to higher levels of violence and disorder (Sampson and Laub, 1994), which confirms that poorer children are likely to be more affected by social risks in using public spaces than children of different social status (Christensen and O’Brien, 2003).

More than ever nowadays, children’s rights are at the core of social policy, however it is in cities that the inequalities and paradoxes of its implementation will be felt the most. Social fragmentation and social division of space, so characteristic of urban life, reinforce the notion of existing ‘geographies of insecurity and fear’ (Body-Gendrot, 2001) and adults’ attitudes towards children tend to ignore children’s feelings about these issues. Childhood is thus crossed by several phenomena at the same time, and in some cases ‘children are becoming “empowered”, while in others they are becoming more institutionalized and subject to adult control’ (Madge, 2006: 10). The inconsistencies in the enforcement of children’s participation in social life accentuate their vulnerability in two ways. On one hand, they are overrepresented in poverty and social exclusion indicators and as victims of violence, particularly in urban areas. On the other hand, they are invisible and lack power in social and political decision centres (Almeida, 2009).

Methodology

The current investigation is part of a larger study, a PhD research project in sociology concerning childhood, violence and delinquency in Portugal (Carvalho, 2010). Aiming to achieve a better understanding of children’s socialization processes considering multi-problematic spaces, mainly about their involvement in delinquency, a case study was carried out between 2005 and 2009 on six neighbourhoods, involving a combination of qualitative methodologies. This article presents the results obtained at the first stage of the research, taking as its starting point the discussion of how children represent living in their neighbourhoods. Based on the analysis of children’s neighbourhood drawings and narratives, the intention was to identify the main contours of children’s socialization in the field, through their own accounts of their lives, and to examine their perspectives on disorder and violence.

Children’s perspectives on their neighbourhoods

The ways children experience and build a sense of ownership of space are fundamental pillars for their involvement in the change of space, and thus, to improve residents’ quality of life (Christensen and O’Brien, 2003). In this study, the word ‘neighbourhood’ has a strong presence in all the children’s productions, ⁴ unlike observations in other research (Rasmussen and Smidt, 2003).

Overall, when expressing their thoughts about their neighbourhoods the negative aspects overshadowed the positive ones (Figure 1). This overlap was particularly pronounced when they talked about ‘people’ (χ² = 125, p < .05) and ‘public equipment’ (χ² = 85, p < .05), and to a degree, somewhat lower but still significant, when they referred to ‘public spaces’ (χ² = 31, p < .05) and ‘shops and services’ (χ² = 31, p < .05). On the other hand, they were more positive about their ‘house/homes’ (χ² = 12, p < .05), ‘schools’ (χ² = 18, p < .05) and ‘family’ (χ² = 8, p < .05). It is worth mentioning that there is almost no difference in how they represented ‘children’ in this context. No significant gender differences were registered in any of the variables.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Children’s positive and negative evaluation of their neighbourhoods.

It is important to note that the most significant negative evaluation, expressed by almost half of the 312 participants (47.1%), is related to social interaction, specifically concerning ‘people’, in this case the adults with whom children interact or observe in daily life. Children turned out to be quite sharp regarding what they consider to be the greatest ‘people’ problems in their neighbourhoods, pointing out violence, disorder and crime. Regardless of gender or neighbourhood, adults’ attitudes and behaviours are mostly seen as disruptive and disorderly (e.g. Figure 2). However, there were significant age differences (χ²(1) = 4.829, p < .05). The 6- to 9-year-olds were more critical and negative about ‘people’ than were the 10- to 13-year-olds.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

My neighbourhood.

Children have a clear idea about their expectations of adults’ social roles and disparagingly referred to the existence of a large number of individuals who are distant from what they consider the reference model, those suitable for the maintenance of trust and social cohesion. Children approach the concept of social actor assigned to each individual, and most shared the idea that improving a neighbourhood’s quality of life relies on changes in the behaviour and attitudes of everyone living there.

This idea is also associated to the important expression of a negative evaluation of ‘public spaces’ (34.5%, n = 76), something common in all the neighbourhoods, because it is within these kinds of spaces that children located a wide range of physical and social disorders and violence. When referring to ‘public equipment’, there was no difference between boys and girls’ perspectives (χ²(1) = 0.367, p > .05), which were mostly negative, and intrinsically related to the lack of playgrounds, which have either not been built or because the two in existence had been wrecked by residents, not necessarily children, but by adults and youth who had used it for other purposes. However there were significant age differences (χ²(1) = 5.533, p < .05): the 10- to 13-year-olds complained less than the 6- to 9-year-olds.

Not surprisingly, many of the children (n = 94, 30.2%) had asked for playgrounds to be built in their neighbourhoods (e.g. Figure 3). A smaller, but still significant, percentage of children (n = 37, 11.8%) noted they would also like to have gardens, more trees and more flowers on the streets. The need for more street furniture, mostly litter bins, recycling containers and street lighting was also pointed out. Some children, especially boys, highlighted the need to have a small soccer field. As found in other studies (O’Brien, 2003; Rasmussen, 2004), children’s emphasis on the need to have better playing conditions and to improve leisure facilities cannot be dissociated from their desire to be included in the neighbourhoods and to have a public space for themselves.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

My neighbourhood.

Associated to a notion of territoriality, a playground is a collective aspiration in all neighbourhoods, regarded as a social symbol which is perceived to be accessible to social groups living in other places. As other studies have stated (Karsten, 2003: 471), ‘playgrounds are the first arenas in which girls and boys learn to negotiate their behaviour in public’. The major complaint here is based on the perception of social discrimination for not having some of the classic elements of childhood worldwide: swings and slides. By not having playgrounds or any other specially designed areas for recreational use in their neighbourhoods, children are mainly sent to the street. On the one hand, it gives them the possibility of fully exploring their physical and social environment, but it simultaneously exposes them to a range of other situations that are clearly less desirable and potentially generate different risks.

Given this scenario, the positive value attributed to the ‘house/home’ is emphasized. This situation is not restricted to the children who have previously lived in more disadvantaged conditions, in the slums, and still have memories of those times. Many of the others, born since their families moved to these neighbourhoods, and mostly girls (61.9%, n = 39), mentioned several positive aspects of their ‘houses/homes’:

I didn’t like living in [slum’s name] because there were many animals, cockroaches, rats . . . and rocks and sand everywhere. We had many . . . many animals. . . . My home here is better and I have a room to myself and my grandmother and over there, I didn’t. My grandmother slept on a sofa in the living room. (Boy, 7 years old, 2nd grade, White Neighbourhood)

I really love my home, it’s beautiful! I’ve always lived here and my mother too. I’ve a room to myself and I’m always playing there when my parents are cooking. (Girl, 8 years old, 2nd grade, Yellow Neighbourhood)

The most critical were those boys and girls who were mainly affected by overcrowding in their homes, generally where a room was shared by parents, children or even other relatives.

The spatial concentration of social disadvantage in these neighbourhoods is reflected through high rates of poverty, unemployment and dependence on social/financial state benefits, strong residential mobility, cultural heterogeneity and low educational and professional qualifications. Analysing concentrated poverty entails more than discussing the spatial concentration of poor people as a result of various public housing policies in western societies; it is more important to discuss the multiple risks that poverty represents (Sampson et al., 1999). Children can be identified by socioeconomic disadvantage and apparently accept their social condition of ‘being poor’, recognizing their neighbourhoods as places of spatial concentration of socioeconomic disadvantages (e.g. Figure 4), which can exclude them from participation in city life.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

My neighbourhood.

Social disadvantage in multiple forms can be manifested in a low level of confidence required in relation to ‘others’, which lowers residents’ ability to intervene with regard to social control, and to take collective action aimed at children’s socialization (Sampson et al., 1999). Wherever children live, discovering the existence of the ‘others’ often implies raising questions about identity, difference, otherness and power (e.g. Figure 5). Taking into account the complexity of social life, the relations between cultural and ethnic groups are often in conflict. This is something that children become aware of, pointing it out as one of the major problems, not only among those living inside and outside these neighbourhoods, but also between groups of residents.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

My neighbourhood.

The fragmentation and heterogeneity of cultural dynamics in a given society lead to the idea of social cleavages and ongoing conflicts between different social groups, which can have a strong presence in children’s lives (Parkes, 2007). Each child participates in his/her cultural group life through family, peers and those who are closest, establishing a dialectic relation between notions of ‘self’, ‘we’, the ‘other’ and ‘others’ from which daily action is built (Bennet and Fraser, 2000).

Crime, violence and disorder in daily life

The most frequently mentioned problem pointed out by the children was crime (31.4%, n = 98). In their drawings, 6.2% (n = 20) of the children graphically represented a crime being committed in their neighbourhood, mostly in public spaces; but when they were asked to describe and talk about their own drawing many more situations related to crime emerged, followed by different types of disorder and violence (e.g. Figure 6).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

My neighbourhood.

Morenoff et al. (2001) have argued that there is extreme inequality in the distribution of resources within cities. They ascribe this to economic factors and ethnic distribution resulting from the territorial concentration of social disadvantage and social isolation to which different social and ethnic groups are subjected, combined with the lack of positive changes in some neighbourhoods where informal social control is more justified, to some extent, due to the concentration of violence and crime rates.

When combining graphic and discursive levels, the street appears as a fundamental place in participants’ lives, revealing the importance of access to public space. The street has a central place in children’s socialization in these neighbourhoods; and for many it is ‘the’ most significant place since infancy. Playing or staying out on the street, predominantly without parental supervision, is an activity frequently pursued by many children. The street offers them multiple possibilities for exploration and discovery, enhancing their positive personal and social skills, but no less relevant is the high level of exposure to violence and crime in this context. Street conviviality and sociability are often crossed by other threats – the lack of security, and fear and danger in the use of public spaces.

As expected, children’s forms of victimization in the neighbourhoods were subjects of particular interest and concern to the participants, with special attention to violent deaths, such as during illegal car races (see Figure 6). Another problem is domestic violence, which according to the children’s descriptions seem to affect a significant proportion of households in the neighbourhood:

My father hit my mother, and then my mother tried to kill my father. (Girl, 8 years old, 3rd grade, Green Neighbourhood)

‘I cannot go on the study trip because, in my home, my father and my mother are always fighting and every day it’s getting worse . . . I cannot go.’ – said the boy. (10 years old, 3rd grade, Blue Neighbourhood)

‘Do you think you can solve anything by staying?’ – asked the teacher.

‘Yes, I don’t let my father beat my mother. I take him out of the way.’ (Field notes)

In several cases, children’s place in the family seems to be exactly the opposite from what is expected, with these younger ones serving a parental role and acting to protect some of the adults. The violent acts may occur frequently and come to be perceived as less serious over time; they tend to be visible in all the neighbourhoods, almost to the extent of a ‘normalization’ of violence. The use of guns and other weapons, in which dangerous dogs are included, is enhanced not only through having easy access to such items but also by the knowledge of such activities taking place where the children live, not only in public spaces, but also in their homes, at the hand of their closest relatives:

Robbery with a gun is nothing special! (Boy, 10 years old, 3rd grade, Blue Neighbourhood)

The dog is a pit-bull who bites people and causes harm. . . . They are using the dogs to scare people, many dogs are used for fights and to do harm to people. (Boy, 7 years old, 2nd grade, Yellow Neighbourhood)

Children paid particular attention to damage to the physical environment, such as graffiti on buildings and public equipment, abandoned cars (or ‘stolen’, to use the children’s own words), garbage on the streets, dilapidated sidewalks and broken windows and doors. No less relevant were the various forms of social disorder children singled out: loud noise on the streets, day and night, the sale and drinking of public alcoholic beverages mostly in dead end streets, fights, conflicts, verbal harassment and threats (e.g. Figure 7).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

My neighbourhood.

These are some of the main issues repeatedly brought up during the narratives with reference to the drawings; in their descriptions children pointed out not only the involvement of residents, but also sometimes individuals and groups from other neighbourhoods in the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, in what seems to be a struggle over territory or criminal activities that undermine the effectiveness of informal social control. The issue of street lighting was also of great concern. It often didn’t work, as a result of vandalism, which conceals a variety of actions, from residents’ acts of crime to making police intervention more difficult:

I wish I could play in the garden but now you can’t play at all. There is no street lighting. Almost everything is broken and damaged. . . . Going out at night is dangerous because it’s very dark and there’s no more streetlights working. (Boy, 8 years old, 2nd grade, Yellow Neighbourhood)

Not all the children were passive spectators with regard to the violence, physical damage and social disorders in their area. It was possible to identify how some took an active part, holding a specific role that was generally known and commented upon by other children and residents. This is a clear example of how the childhood cultures generated here are underpinned by a culture of violence, integrating both intra- and intergenerational contributions.

[In the case of the street lighting] Yesterday, they [some adults and young people] sent him [boy, 9 years old] again to turn off the lights, to turn off everything so the police won’t see anything . . . and he goes. He always goes, there he goes . . . he has done it since he was much younger . . . and the other night, he also did it for us to play cops and robbers. . . . Then, so everything was dark and nobody knew where everyone was hiding. (Boy, 10 years old, 4th grade, Green Neighbourhood)

The deviant influence of adults over children easily turned into a particular knowledge of violence that could be used among the younger ones for their own purposes, especially to have fun and play. Moreover, talking about it could give them personal recognition at a local level and increase their social status through involvement in violent practices (Carvalho, 2010).

Conclusions

This study confirms the importance of discussing how children see the city in order to reform cities within a child-sensitive framework (Christensen and O’Brien, 2003). Children’s agency to analyse and participate in social life has been clearly expressed; in the present study, their awareness of social problems was high and their willingness to be heard and to intervene was strongly expressed. Through the discussion of the social context where they live, children’s drawings can be understood as one of the most challenging approaches in the field of childhood studies, in a process where it is essential to attend to children’s own words describing their works (Kostenius, 2011).

More play space, better public space and public equipment maintenance and more security were the children’s priorities. Overall, children revealed a special concern over the neighbourhoods’ sustainability, approaching the idea of a ‘healthy city’ (Hancock and Duhl, 1999, cited in Oliveira et al., 2004: 97), which refers to urban spaces in which residents, both adults and children, are continuously creating and improving the physical environment and strengthening the community’s social networks and resources in order to achieve a better quality of life.

Children were eloquent when stating their views of social relations; most complained about living in their neighbourhoods, describing how social and spatial segregation and high exposure to violence and disorder affect them. A neighbourhood’s spatial segregation, in relation to other socially differentiated residential areas, was worsened by the degradation of public spaces and equipment, which is regarded as a sort of violence, whether by the physical limitations imposed or the symbolic effects of social relations among residents and non-residents. There were no significant gender differences, which might suggest boys and girls are increasingly present in the same spaces and subject to the same tensions and conflicts in these neighbourhoods. This can also be understood as how both boys and girls are increasingly challenging traditional children’s gender behaviours in Portuguese society (Almeida, 2009).

When comparing risks in different urban settings, Benbenisthy and Astor (2005) have argued that it is precisely those children living in socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods who are more likely to be victims of violence. In addition, this study’s discussion on children’s insights into urban violence leads us to recognize that as a part of the context where they grow up, violence appears ‘normalized’ to many children. This ‘normalization’ strengthens the risk of children’s devaluation of the seriousness and effects of violent acts and, not surprisingly, some participate in it from a very young age. Ultimately, children’s social development through violence is already structuring how they will interact with peers and adults and it will be reflected in children’s future roles in society.

In this process, special attention should be paid to the use of public spaces by children and adults. The street has a central place in children’s socialization in these neighbourhoods and parental supervision does not always provide their adequate protection; often, both boys and girls recounted how they were involved in social disorders and violence alongside their own parents or relatives. This forces us to question the nature of the existing social networks and how residents’ lack of intervention on social control reflects insufficient collective action to improve children’s socialization, which may endanger social cohesion (Morenoff at al., 2001). Up to a point, this might explain why younger children (6–9 years old) tend to be more critical in their perspectives than the older ones, who have probably become accustomed to living within a violent social framework. These are residential areas where one can identify a wide range of social problems; however, no less important is it to note that these problems do not lie or develop just inside these areas, and they cannot be analysed or prevented without taking into account other social systems (public education, health, social welfare, public safety and justice) and the effectiveness of social policies in the country as a whole.