4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
6.4 Exploring the current nature of the relationship between the residents in formal
The following section examines the type of relationship that existed between the residents in formal and informal housing in Clare Estate. These relationships are presented according to the perceptions and experiences of the respondents in formal housing.
This research showed that, 2.2% of respondents indicated that there was a harmonious relationship, while 13.3% of respondents indicated that there was a conflictual relationship and 75.6% of respondents indicated there was no relationship with the informal community. The remaining 4.4% indicated that they were apathetic towards the relationship with the informal community and 4.5% of the respondents did not specifically disclose the type of relationship with the informal community and selected the option
‘other’ in the questionnaire survey. However, with respect to the interviews undertaken with the respondents, seven respondents interviewed stated that it was a terrible relationship, four that there was no relationship, and three that there was a good relationship with the informal community (Respondent 1, 13 February 2009; Respondent 2, 19 February 2009; Respondent 3, 18 February 2009; Respondent 4, 17February 2009;
Respondent 5, 10 February 2009; Respondent 6, 17 February 2009; Respondent 7, 11 February 2009; Respondent 8, 18 February 2009; Respondent 9, 20 February 2009;
Respondent 10, 21 February 2009; Respondent 11, 22February 2009, Respondent 12, 17 February 2009; Respondent 13, 22 February 2009; Respondent 14, 22 February 2009).
Of the fourteen respondents living in formal housing in Clare Estate who were interviewed, seven showed that their relationship with the informal community was not a satisfactory one (Respondent 2, 19 February 2009; Respondent 4, 17February 2009; Respondent 5, 10
151
February 2009; Respondent 8, 18 February 2009; Respondent 9, 20 February 2009;
Respondent 12, 17 February 2009; Respondent 14, 22 February 2009). This was substantiated with the following statement; “Well there is a relationship, it’s not a good one. I just don’t want one, they have nothing in common with us” (Respondent 2, 19 February 2009). Since the relationship was not a good one some respondents did not want any involvement with the informal community. Another respondent stated; “Not nice one.
We try to speak to them to make peace. Sometimes we risk our lives to speak with them to make peace; we don’t know how they are” (Respondent 4, 17 February 2009).
Respondents felt comfortable speaking to the informal settlers; however, they were forced to speak to them, to avoid any problems. In addition, some of the other respondents stated that they do not engage in conversation with the informal settlers (Respondent 9, 20 February 2009). The following section examines the reasons why the respondents chose not to have any relationship with the informal community.
Four of the fourteen residents interviewed stated that there was no relationship between them and the informal community (Respondent 6, 17 February 2009; Respondent 7, 11 February 2009; Respondent 10, 21 February 2009; Respondent 11, 22February 2009). This was emphasised with the following statement, “We have no relationship, they are not the type of people I would like to call friends. We have nothing in common” (Respondent 11, 22 February 2009). The residents in informal housing were different from the residents in formal housing, therefore the interviewees chose not to have a relationship with them (Respondent 11, 22 February 2009). Another interviewee, stated, “Don’t at all. I am very careful who I talk with, they are different” (Respondent 7, 11 February 2009). The interviewee did not associate with individuals who were different from them. In addition to these statements, many of the respondents stated that they rather keep to themselves than associating with the informal community (Respondent 6, 17 February 2009).
Although the majority of respondents stated that they had a terrible and non-existent relationship with the residents in the informal residences, a few of them emphasised that their relationship was satisfactory. Three from the fourteen formal residents interviewed stated that they had had no problems with the informal community (Respondent 1, 13 February 2009; Respondent 3, 18 February 2009; Respondent 13, 22 February 2009). For example, Respondent 1 (13 February 2009) stated, “Have no problems with them. We always talk to them, wish them”. There ere no issues with the informal community and the residents in formal housing always conversed with them (Respondent 1, 13 February
152
2009). Another respondent stated, “They greet us and we greet them, so it’s ok”
(Respondent 3, 18 February 2009). These respondents have a cordial relationship with the individuals of the informal community.
From the evidence above, it is apparent that the interviewees were quite divided in how they described their relationship with the informal community. These differences were based on how they perceived the members of the informal community and indicative of Smith’s idea on the examination of relationships in terms of the spatial and social divisions in society (Smith, 1999, cited in Cloke et al., 1999). All neighbourhoods, like Clare Estate, were organised according to economic, political, cultural and social variables (Cloke et al., 1991; Massey et al, 1999; Scheinsohn and Cabrera, 2009). Furthermore, this organisation has emphasised the social and economic differences within society which in turn restrict individual engagements with one another (Cloke et al., 1991). Within Clare Estate, there were noticeable divisions that influenced an individual’s behaviour with another individual (Smith, 1999, cited in Cloke et al., 1999).
This case study showed that there existed social differences between the formal and informal communities which acted as barriers to forming relationships. Social divisions structure relationships in every society (Smith, 1999, cited in Cloke et al., 1999).
Furthermore, these social divisions exacerbate the perceptions of other individuals which limit a good cordial relationship (Sibley, 1995; Wratten, 1995; Hecht, 1998). Social and moral standing in society determine the types of perceptions and relationships that the residents in formal housing have with the informal community (Santana, 2002). This was evident with regards to how the residents in formal housing perceived the informal community. Thus, the respondents ‘labelled’ these informal settlers as ‘outsiders’ and assumed that they had nothing in common with them; therefore they either had a terrible relationship with them or refused to have a relationship with them. This was expressed by the following statements, “Don’t want one, they have nothing in common with us”
(Respondent 2, 19 February 2009), “We don’t know how they are” (Respondent 4, 17 February 2009) and “They are different” (Respondent 7, 11 February 2009). All of the above quotations encompass the idea behind social division and stereotyping. In addition, respondents also associated negative and ‘bad’ ‘labelling’ with the informal community thereby exacerbating the divisions between these two communities. Respondent 4 (17 February 2009) stressed this by stating that they were fearful of the informal community because they do not know the character of the individuals from this settlement. It is evident
153
that the respondents preferred to be segregated which in turn socially excluded the informal community. by Sibley (1995), Wratten (1995) and Hecht (1998), emphasised this by stating that in most cases interaction between group members is often limited to being
‘intergroup’ excluding other individuals. This exclusion therefore characterised the type of relationship that was present between the residents in formal and informal communities.
However, a minority of the interviewees emphasised that the social differences that existed within society did not alter or characterise the types of relationships that they had with the informal community. Although these differences structure and characterise relationships, in some cases they are overlooked (Cloke et al., 1991). Thus, Respondent 1 (13 February 2009) and Respondent 3 (18 February 2009), overlooked their differences with the informal community, enhancing social cohesion and integration between the two different communities in Clare Estate (Beall et al., 2002; Thorns, 2002).
The unsatisfactory and non-existent relationships that the respondents had with the informal community were attributed to the social differences and stereotyping that were present amongst the residents in the formal and informal communities in Clare Estate.
Furthermore, from the evidence above, the marginalised poor, in this case the informal community in Clare Estate, are socially displaced from society. The following section examines the personal experiences of the formal residents with respect to the forms of contact that the formal residents have had with the informal community in Clare Estate.
6.5 Personal experiences of the respondents in formal housing in Clare Estate,