51(10) 2111–2124, August 2014

Article

Interaction Pretext: Experiences of

Community in the Urban Neighbourhood
Ida Marie Henriksen and Aksel Tjora

[Paper first received, December 2012; in final form, June 2013]

Abstract
It has been suggested that community, social cohesion and territorial ties in neigh-
bourhoods may be characterised by three directions: the lost, the saved and the
transformed. On the basis of a number of case studies in a Norwegian city, it is
found that these three trends exist together, on the basis of various local interactive
practices. The concept of an interaction pretext is developed to answer in a more
nuanced way how various forms of social ties are developed, maintained and/or
altered. By combining this concept with local activity, four community types are
specified that may characterise different neighbourhoods and that may also exist in
parallel at one place: the passing-by community, the tight community, the weak
community, and the split community. Demonstrating the potential of a more
detailed empirical approach to the community question, the paper warns against too
analytically shallow suggestions about their development. By understanding how
neighbourhoods develop socially in different ways, it may be possible to increase the
probability of better community planning.

Keywords: community, interaction, interaction pretext, neighbourhood

Background: The History of the

Lost Community
The debate about the neighbourhood com-
munity and social cohesion has a long his-
tory within social policy and sociology.
Tönnies (1887/1963) applied the concepts
Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in order to
describe different types of community; the
traditional community with strong social
ties and dependencies between individuals,
and the modern community with its weak
ties and dependencies aimed more at com-
mercial transactions, respectively. In his cri-
tique of Tönnies’ equating Gemeinschaft

Ida Marie Henriksen and Aksel Tjora are in the Department of Sociology and Political Science,
NTNU (Norwegian University of Science and Technology), Dragvoll, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
Email: ida.henriksen@svt.ntnu.no and aksel.tjora@svt.ntnu.no.

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online

Ó 2013 Urban Studies Journal Limited
DOI: 10.1177/0042098013505891
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
2112 IDA MARIE HENRIKSEN AND AKSEL TJORA
with organic solidarity and Gesellschaft
with mechanical solidarity (Delanty, 2003,
p. 36), Durkheim proposed that life in large
groups was as natural as life in small groups
(Durkheim, 1964) and that organic forms of
solidarity replaced the traditional mechani-
cal solidarity in modernity. In the first half
of the 19th century, the Chicago school of
sociology was especially interested in the
social consequences of growing urbanism
(Forrest and Kearns, 2001). In more recent
times, the community question has been
brought forth with an ever-growing concern
for individualism and the loss of a neigh-
bourhood community (Jacobs, 1961), with
isolation as a consequence. Putman (2000)
gained a lot of attention for arguing for lost
social capital in American suburbs with his
book Bowling Alone, an important supple-
ment in the community debate, even though
he received criticism for stretching his
empirical analysis a bit too far (Fischer,
2005). At the same time as theories about
the lost community were being developed,
theories about the ‘saved’ community origi-
nated (Lupi and Musterd, 2006)—for
instance, as a result of individuals becoming
more mobile (Berger, 1960) and maintain-
ing social ties both outside and within their
living area.
Wellmann (1979) has organised theories
of community into ‘lost’ and ‘saved’ cate-
gories, and then argued for a juxtaposition
between the two in ‘the liberated’ commu-
nity. While personal relationships are as
prevalent and important for urban citizens
as for others, urban citizens’ social ties are
not limited to people being physically close.
Because of work, kinship and residence in
various places around town, people’s social
networks are being constructed over a larger
geographical area. A ‘city life’ may be the
basis for optimisation of social relations by
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
maintaining connections on the basis of
choice (Fischer, 1982) rather than physical
proximity, and one may suggest that such
social ties would be sustained and developed
in larger degree than accidental ones.
To avoid speculations of the macro level
on potentially changing communities, we
suggest in this article that a more interac-
tionally oriented analysis (inspired by
Atkinson and Housley, 2003; Goffman,
1959, 1963, 1971) of neighbourhood needs
to be undertaken. A well-functioning neigh-
bourhood may contribute to developing
and maintaining social relationships and
social integration (Dyb et al., 2004)—for
instance, through ‘meaningful encounters’
(Valentine, 2008) that are more than just
being civilised: they are occasions to develop
communal values and mutual respect. Such
encounters represent more than ‘low-level
sociability’ (Laurier and Philo, 2006, p. 4),
the everyday interaction between people
who do not know each other (but are just
being civilised). In our approach to com-
munity, we are strongly concerned about
interaction and action, and regarding the
social order of neighbourhoods as ‘forms of
activity’ (Strauss, 1993, p. 254), providing
‘contact zones’ (Askins and Pain, 2011).
Although interaction is taken for granted as
strictly routinised (Laurier and Philo, 2006),
it is within these (inter)actions that com-
munity is continuously created, maintained
or changed. Our main question follows this
logic and is fairly complex in its simplicity,
as we ask: how does (or doesn’t) community
in the urban neighbourhood occur? On the
basis of ethnographic studies in various
urban neighbourhoods in a Norwegian
mid-sized city, Trondheim, we look for
answers in people’s accounts and practices
regarding housing, neighbourhood and
community.
 INTERACTION AND TYPES OF COMMUNITY
Weak Ties, Social Capital and
Accidental Encounters in the
Neighbourhood
Neighbourhood and community research
has been informed both by network analysis,
with particular emphasis on the neighbour-
hood consisting of ‘weak ties’ (Granovetter,
1973; Schiefloe, 1985), and theories of
‘social capital’ (Bourdieu, 1986). The idea
that social capital needs to be maintained in
the neighbourhood (Putnam, 2000) may be
regarded as a rather romanticised image of
the urban neighbourhood as a rural village,
with strong continuous social ties, but has
in fact served as one of many ideals for city
planners (Schiefloe, 1985). Sociologists,
however, being more careful with normative
analyses, have pointed out that less social
capital in dwelling areas does not mean loss
of social life as such (Schiefloe, 1985;
Young and Willmott, 1986), but that it is
based on factors other than place and dis-
tance. That does not mean that place is
irrelevant for quality of life. Research on
relationships between place and health, for
instance, has demonstrated that neigh-
bourhoods with various facilities and
recreational opportunities have positive
health effects (Cattell, 2004; Cattell et al.,
2008; Day, 2008; Dyb et al., 2004). Ties
(although weak) between neighbours may
produce ontological security (Giddens,
1984), on the basis of routine action and
interaction, recognition between people
during occasional encounters, while fetch-
ing mail, walking the dog, having a coffee
in the local cafe, or shopping in the local
supermarket. Oldenburg (1999) refers to
places like cafes and parks as potential
‘third places’, in which community may
develop outside the home (first place)
and work (second place). Third places
may be significant arenas for developing
social networks, recognition and identi-
fication, hence ontological security and social
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
2113
capital, and may often be related to local
spots, if not in the very neighbourhood
(Tjora and Scambler, 2013).
According to Goffman (1963) the social
self is always in interaction with others,
through ‘gatherings’ (incidents in which
individuals are present, but not necessarily
in interaction with each other) and ‘encoun-
ters’ (social events with temporary and spa-
cious borders, where interaction is likely to
occur). Interaction does however not
happen in a vacuum, but in relation to phys-
ical (in addition to social) structures. With
inspiration from Jacobs (1961), the Danish
architect Jan Gehl (1980) has for a long time
been studying how the physical design of
public space impacts on life between build-
ings and how place-specific social life seems
to arise and reproduce itself. Although Gehl
does not dive into a determinist notion of
physical structures as directly impacting
social life, he promotes the view that archi-
tectural design influences social presence
and therefore opportunities for gatherings.
On the one hand, urban neighbourhoods
may have potentially unexplored interaction
fields, because of physical and institutional
barriers (Schiefloe, 1985). On the other
hand, the design of public space may
increase the possibility that ‘necessary activ-
ities’ (taking out the garbage, going to the
store, picking up mail) and ‘optional activi-
ties’ (sitting on a bench and enjoying the
sun) may turn into ‘social activities’ (Gehl,
1980). How mailboxes, garbage containers,
car parks, benches and playing grounds are
placed and grouped may therefore influence
the level of accidental meetings and greet-
ings between neighbours with similar
errands.
We need to point out that a large number
of such encounters do not necessarily imply
a better neighbourhood, for all and every-
body. Some people would be quick to apply
various ‘engagement shields’ (Goffman,
1963) in situations where occasional
2114 IDA MARIE HENRIKSEN AND AKSEL TJORA
communication with their neighbours
might occur. Our argument is simply that
design elements influence occasions for
social interaction and thereby the type of
neighbourhood community.
Cases, Research Methods and a
Curiosity-based Analysis
This article is empirically based on 10
housing and community sociology projects
in the period 2006–11. They were inititiated
on the basis of a theoretical interest in the
community question, as well as an invita-
tion from the municipal administration of
the city of Trondheim to develop research
to increase our knowledge about, and
address the problem of, ‘student ghettoisa-
tion’. The empirical work has included a
case study of experimental dwellings (see
Thomsen and Tjora, 2006), three neigh-
bourhood case studies with 38 in-depth
interviews (South Town—12 interviews in
2006, Bay Garden—4 interviews in 2008
and Bay Village—12 interviews in 2008),
one survey of students’ dwelling experi-
ences (1400 respondents; see Thomsen and
Eikemo, 2008), five thematically based in-
depth interview studies; two about meeting
places (13 in-depth interviews and a small
survey with 94 responses in 2006 and
2008); two about students’ dwelling experi-
ences (36 in-depth interviews in 2009) and
one about well-established dwellers’ (later
referred to as ‘WEDs’, in 2010) accounts of
neighbourhood and local community (18
in-depth interviews). In addition, we have
carried out observations in the three neigh-
bourhood case study areas.1
Bay Garden and Bay Village are two very
different neighbourhoods in the same area,
situated only about 200 metres apart from
each other. Bay Garden is a relatively high-
density semi-urban block with six apartment
houses with a total of 130 apartments. The
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
apartments are one- or two-bedroom flats
and most of them only 33 square metres
each and mainly inhabited by young adults
in the establishment phase. Bay Village con-
sists of 27 traditional working-class houses
from the 1860s and is mainly inhabited by
elderly people or couples with children. The
residents in Bay Garden regard their occupa-
tion as non-permanent (representing a first
or early stage of a ‘housing career’) and quite
the opposite of the residents in Bay Village,
who think that their neighbourhood is a
place in which to live long and get old. South
Town is located just south of the city centre
and is close to one of the main university
campuses and a large university hospital.
This is an attractive area for the students and
young adults because of the proximity to
downtown and the university. The area has
been through demographic changes over the
past 10 years, mainly because students (and
their parents) have been buying large apart-
ments in town houses to let to fellow students.
Interviews with ‘well-established dwellers’
(WEDs) have been concentrated in central
residential areas that are slightly further away
from downtown, but are still regarded as more
urban than suburban. These areas consist
mainly of single-family houses, semi-detached
and terraced houses. Except for the areas of
the well-established dwellers, our cases are
densely populated areas. They are all consid-
ered middle-class areas.
In the overall design of the whole array
of projects we have been applying theoreti-
cal sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) by
which preliminary results and reflections
from one study have informed the ques-
tions and empirical sample for the next.
For example, the study of well-established
dwellers was needed for us to get a deeper
understanding of neighbourliness in a
neighbourhood that had evolved organi-
cally over time, and that was not well
enough represented in the first stages of
data generation.
 INTERACTION AND TYPES OF COMMUNITY
In the survey and the first studies, we
were struck by the fact that many people
would put a significant emphasis on the
role of neighbourhood community and at
the same time avoid investing ‘too much’
time and interacting extensively with neigh-
bours. Observation from Bay Garden con-
firms this: even though it was the middle of
the summer and warm weather, we only
observed people who spent time (and being
available for others) in the common area on
two occasions. We also found that the resi-
dents of Bay Village in particular used the
term ‘idyllic village life’ to describe it. Most
of the residents here knew each other quite
well, including names, work and family sit-
uation. In all the other neighbourhoods we
examined, people would know many of
their neighbours by face, but only a very
few by name. Of all our 92 in-depth inter-
views about housing and neighbourhood
(excluding those about meeting places)
only a handful of participants stated that
they had become friends with their neigh-
bours. While it was no surprise that neigh-
bourhood relations are maintained as weak
social ties (as suggested by Fischer, 1982,
and Schiefloe, 1985, among others), our
sociological curiosity was triggered by the
participants’ emphasis on neighbourhood
relations as important. Do the relatively
subtle forms of communication between,
and the weak social ties among, neighbours
have more significant social value than
often anticipated? It was necessary for us
to dig into the details of neighbourhood
interaction, including those very small
moments of recognition—a nod of the
head in the local supermarket, small infor-
mal chats in a hallway, more explicit acts
of communication, as well as organised
gatherings. Our observation has documen-
ted such practices and how they vary, of
which much is familiar from the sociology
of Erving Goffman (1963, 1967, 1971;
Kendon, 1988) and from the tradition of
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
2115
ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967). Our
contribution in this article is not replicat-
ing the detailed observation of these con-
tributors of detailed interaction studies,
but rather the use of in-depth interviews,
to identify the nuances of participants’
accounts of interactive (or non-interactive)
neighbourhood experiences and how they
put meaning into these practices.
The interviews were recorded digitally
with informed consent from the partici-
pants while the observations were written
directly on laptops or note books. Both
interviews and observations were later tran-
scribed and analysed through an inductive
strategy, generating empirical codes (Tjora,
2012) through the HyperRESEARCH soft-
ware for qualitative analysis.
Greeting the Neighbours (Routine
Time–Space)
Recognising each other is based on repeated
encounters over time (Goffman, 1963),
between neighbours often during everyday
routine ‘necessary activities’ (Gehl, 1980),
such as discarding garbage, getting the
mail, taking the bus or going shopping.
Goffman (1963) refers to ‘the nod line’ of
adults who greet each other regardless of
whether they know each other or not. In
our interviews, some participants mention
that they greet neighbours when they meet
them in the stairways, or that they only
greet the closest neighbours that they see
on a regular basis. In some situations,
neighbours may even have a small chat, on
the basis of continued interaction, during
other (necessary) activities
Maybe at the store, if you are in the super-
market queue and talking: ‘‘I have seen you
before? Right? You lived in the third floor, in
the building over there? How is it there, in
the party block, the D-building?’’ ‘‘Yes, there
2116 IDA MARIE HENRIKSEN AND AKSEL TJORA

is such and such’’ And then it [the conversa- to read the newspaper or a book. Examples
tion] starts (Charlotte in Bay Garden). include park benches, basketball courts,
football grounds and playgrounds of all
It’s that kind of random situations like shovel-
kinds that are open to the public. Also more
ling snow, or when you are on you’re way to
restricted semi-public areas, like backyards,
or from the supermarket, or returning from
front gardens (Gehl et al., 1977) and fenced
vacation. Or changing tyres is good occasion
areas may provide space for recreation. In
to talk with others (Edgar in WED).
Norway, all neighbourhood projects are
planned with arrangements for recreational
Standing in a supermarket queue, crawling
activities, as a result of the 1970s Norwegian
on the knees around the car to change from
urban planning regulations (Isdal, 2003).
winter to summer tyres, or shovelling snow,
The participant Erik describes the impor-
are all prolonged activities in one physical
tance of such space
spot, by which neighbours become visible
and available for a small chat.
You have some kind of large open areas,
Several of our participants point out that
where you have a lot of activities, where you
they are more likely to recognise those
can play everything from football to basket-
neighbours who also work at the local
ball, and have a picnic. Thus I think the big
supermarket, like Carina from Bay Garden,
areas are important for the neighbourhood
doing her shopping almost daily: ‘‘I do not
because they are gathering points, especially
recognise any neighbours, but if they had
when the weather is nice. Also, we have the
been employees at Prix [the local supermar-
football field and bicycle track that are impor-
ket], then I would greet them’’. We will use
tant (Erik in WED).
the term routine time–spaces for these situa-
tions. They are routinely timed, often with a
Not surprisingly, parents with young chil-
common placing and timing between neigh-
dren are more likely to make use of immedi-
bours. Most Norwegian car-owners change
ate outdoor facilities (Cattell, 2004; Cattell
their tyres themselves, in front of the house
et al., 2008; Unstad, 2001), especially desig-
or in a residential parking lot, often within
nated playgrounds. However, otherwise
the same few days (there is a certain epi-
well-designed areas do not warrant actual
demic character to this seasonal routine). (designated) use. Rather, we have identi-
Also shopping routines are often shared, as fied a significant variation on the use of
some people have the routine of doing such spaces. For instance, backyards that
the grocery shopping after work several are shared between several apartments may
days per week, and those people with be designed for social occasions, but left
this routine will meet each other regularly. empty most of the time. Other places are
Even though these activities are not socially preferred—for instance, as reported by one
directed, their routine regularity in time respondent, Dagmar, from South Town
and space produces a social potential.
There are tables and stuff in the backyard so
it is possible to sit down, but not many take
Sitting on the Bench (Recreational
advantage of this. I believe it has something
Time–Space)
to do with how our property is organised,
Other neighbourhood spaces do not pro- because we have a separate park-exit, which
vide facilities for necessary activities, but makes using the park more convenient. Also,
opportunities to stay, to relax, to work out, the park has more sun, which will stay longer

Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015

 INTERACTION AND TYPES OF COMMUNITY
[in the afternoon]. In the backyard, there is a
row of houses to the west that blocks the sun.
And we have to go around the house and
then into the backyard. And it’s very big and
nice and there are flowers and trees and a
flag-pole [laughs], but you know, we don’t
use it much.
In the Norwegian climate, access to sunny
spots will influence use of outdoor areas in
large parts of the year. Dagmar does not use
the backyard because of the limited sunlight
and this physical fact may render an other-
wise nice recreational outdoor areas less
attractive. On the other hand, good sunlight
conditions may transform any rough back-
yard from a deserted place to a place of qual-
ity (Gehl, 2010). This is something Else from
WED experienced, when she and a friend
‘‘found out that there is a garage-roof close-
by in the backyard, where we live, which we
can use for sun bathing. And it is perfect’’.
While the design of recreational space is
important, physical qualities, like access to
sunlight and shelter from wind, are of sig-
nificant importance. In fact, areas may
attract such ‘optional activities’ (Gehl,
1980), both because of design and despite
design. As opposed to routine time–spaces,
as mentioned earlier, which are chosen on
the basis of need, accessibility (closeness) or
quality (prices, service, etc.), these recrea-
tional spaces are more carefully selected
and soon left permanently empty if they do
not facilitate a ‘nice time’ in some way or
another. Although the physical conditions
do not determine social life, they afford, or
offer resources for, certain forms of social
activities more than other, as shown earlier.
Nearby supermarkets may afford quick
greetings between ‘familiar faces’, while a
sunny spot by the nearby playing ground
may provide an opportunity for informal
encounter between parents.
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
2117
Getting Together (Social Time–
Space)
Some situations do have the social as an
aim. As noted by Bendik from Bay Village,
‘‘it is no doubt that what makes it a good
place to live, is that you can walk outside
and learn to know your neighbours’’. To
participate in voluntary work in the neigh-
bourhood and the wider local community
forms a basis for neighbours to socialise,
getting to know each other, or at least each
other’s faces. For him, it is important to get
involved and show oneself as part of the
community and the neighbourhood
It’s these things that bring people together;
doing things together. And there are many
collective activities. And you often have to do
something if you want to be part of the com-
munity. You actually have to act. To be part
of it and get accepted (Bendik in Bay Village).
He points out the importance of engaging
in social occasions to get to know neigh-
bours. These occasions may be planned in
advance, but could also be initiated on a
more accidental basis. In our interviews, the
participants have described examples of
meeting a neighbour on the way to the
supermarket and agreeing to get together
for a barbecue later in the evening, in an
‘‘impulsive dinner grilling’’, to use the own
words of participant Bodil from Bay Village.
Sociologically it makes sense that proximity
and accidental encounters (unfocused inter-
action) have potential for planned social
activities (focused interaction). Interaction
itself produces and maintains interaction,
and is with some continuity institutiona-
lised (‘this is the way we do things here’). In
the well-established neighbourhood of Bay
Village, the occasional ‘immigrant’ takes the
social occasions and expectations for
granted, and participates with little hesita-
tion. In one of the other cases, a relatively
2118 IDA MARIE HENRIKSEN AND AKSEL TJORA
new housing project, Bay Garden, all resi-
dents moved into approximately 130 apart-
ments at the same time and the ‘social
standard’ had to be negotiated as a more
conscious collective effort. This led to some
conflicts between the (socially) active
people on the residents’ board and the other
residents, who were more reluctant towards
collective efforts.
In an established neighbourhood like
South Town we find such conflicts between
tenants, who are mostly students who do not
feel included in the common activities, and
property owners. One explanation is that a
collective responsibility, like gathering trash
from pavements and tidying shared gardens
before the summer (after the snow has
gone)—in Norwegian termed dugnad—
happens every year during the students’ exam
period. Daniel in South Town expresses it
They inform about the dugnad three days
before, and that does not fit with my situation.
I have quite lot to do . So it becomes difficult
to suddenly accommodate four hours volun-
tary work in the middle of a busy study.
Or as Dina, who has lived in the same area
for many years, describes the difference
between the students and those who have
lived there for a longer time
Yes we always had that dugnad with some
social activity, like coffee or a beer in the end,
but not anymore. It ended when the students
moved in. It was always in their examination
period, and they had no time because they
had to study.
Daniel and Dina describe the contrast
between the students and the other resi-
dents in the apartments. Throughout our
data, the variation in needs for social life in
the immediate neighbourhood area is strik-
ing. During routine, recreational and social
time–space, there is a potential for
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
development of community between resi-
dents; however, this potential is not always
released. When the most socially active
people join the residents’ board and expect
everyone else to participate in social occa-
sions initiated by the board, a potential
source of conflict may arise. Residents may
have their social life elsewhere.
Having One’s Social Life Elsewhere
Fischer’s (1982) perception was that urban
residents had optimised their network
throughout the city and that contact with
the neighbours was less important. As sev-
eral participants have pointed out, the
immediate neighbourhood is not their
main area for social interaction. Or as Chris
from Bay Garden explained it
I have established my world through other
links than neighbourliness. It is at work and
through leisure activities, so I have no need
for that much contact with my neighbours .
just the opposite. If I had more contact with
my neighbours it would be at the expense of
other things in my life. If I were out of things
to do and social relationships, then I might
ask the neighbour if he would go bike-riding,
but I do not have that need.
Some of the participants invest a lot of time
and money in their leisure activities and this
will reduce the time spent at home and with
neighbourly activities (Kenyon, 2000). Chris
stated that he has so many friends outside
the neighbourhood that it seems unnecessary
to learn to know his neighbours. That hardly
any of his time is spent in his neighbour-
hood does not imply that he leads a life that
is socially limited. In a similar way, Christian
from Bay Garden points out
I have never made much contact with my
neighbours. That’s the way I am. I don’t walk
 INTERACTION AND TYPES OF COMMUNITY
straight ahead and talk to neighbours or
[other] people. If my neighbours had con-
tacted me, it would have been nice. It’s just
laziness, you cannot be bothered with making
contact. It’s not that I don’t want to. I just
don’t feel the need for it. I don’t want it
enough.
Rather, as suggested by Wellman (1979),
city residents’ social ties are not restricted to
the near neighbourhood, but are developed
within a larger geographical territory, in a
‘transformed’ community. Accordingly, for
Chris and Christian, the neighbourhood
may have very limited social relevance.
Discussion: A Typology of
Neighbourhood Community
The physical arena of a neighbourhood
may afford a location for ‘gatherings’ and
‘unfocused interaction’ (Goffman, 1963)
between neighbours: people who live close
to each other may just happen to spend
time in each other’s proximity, glance at
each other and offer occasional greetings.
In this article, we are concerned with such
gatherings, but also how more focused
interactions, or ‘encounters’, are developed
from gatherings by what we term ‘interac-
tion pretexts’. Routine interaction may
evolve into social ties, especially ‘weak ties’
(Granovetter, 1973). In general, we find
three times as many weak as strong ties in
the neighbourhood (Camina and Wood,
2009; Henning and Lieberg, 1996). We find
also in our study that only a few people
report having actual friends in the neigh-
bourhood. However, variations are huge,
individually and at the neighbourhood
level. Some people know their neighbours
by name, perhaps where they work, while
others do not recognise many of their
neighbours at all and could easily mistake
them for someone just visiting. And there
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
2119
are significant differences between our
cases—for instance, between the ‘dense
community’ among long-time dwellers of
Bay Village and within the less communal
atmosphere among first-time buyers in
Bay Garden. While these differences at a
neighbourhood (meso) level are interest-
ing, we are especially curious about how
different micro processes lead to such
differences.
By the interaction pretext, we mean a
common reference or concern that legiti-
mises an encounter, small-talk or a conver-
sation, on the basis of passing-by or
gathering in a shared physical space. For
instance, we have found that children play-
ing outside in residential areas or in a play-
ground may afford such an interaction
pretext, either because they are objects of
observation (focused attention) and small
comments (for passers-by or bystanders) or
because they are of common concern for
their parents, who may be watching over
their respective children. The latter point is
a source of continued contact between par-
ents of children of the same age in close
physical proximities (Cattell et al., 2008;
Unstad, 2001) and the same goes for pet
owners, who are more likely to get in touch
with neighbours than others (Wood et al.,
2005): the pet becomes an interaction pre-
text. Interaction pretexts may also vary at
the neighbourhood level—for instance, on
the basis of common seasonal outdoor
tasks (like tidying leaves in the autumn or
shovelling snow in the driveway during
winter), shared responsibilities (tidying up
after winter in common outdoor areas or
planning/doing restoration work on a
multi-flat townhouse), or shared problems
(struggling with a local problem of water in
the basement or fighting local urban plans).
While Goffman has been concerned with
how interaction may be focused (as
opposed to unfocused), we need to extend
our interest towards focused attention
2120 IDA MARIE HENRIKSEN AND AKSEL TJORA
Table 1.
Low level of High level of
activity activity
High degree Passing-by Tight community
of interaction community
pretext
Low degree Weak Split community
of interaction community
pretext
(Tjora, 2004) at a task or responsibility, to
capture how interaction evolves in the
physical space of the neighbourhood. What
may be regarded as context in many inter-
action studies (and in conversation analysis
in particular) is drawn into our view of
interaction, qua interaction pretext. With
this concept, we maintain an ethnometho-
dologically inspired concern with how
interaction is accounted for, or legitimised,
within the situated subtle norms of a spe-
cific local community.
Our interviews and observations confirm
that similar life situations or staying in the
same physical space (‘gatherings’) are not
enough to ‘produce’ social ties in the neigh-
bourhood, although interaction occurs.
Celine, who was a student and first-time
buyer living in Bay Garden, stated that ‘‘this
is after all a temporary space for most’’.
Carl, also from Bay Garden, suggested that
‘‘it’s a little strange that we talk so little,
with people who live two metres away’’. Yet
when contextual factors, like the shared
problem of a ‘too tall’ building arising
nearby or an observational interest in chil-
dren playing in the street, affords an inter-
action pretext, talk is legitimised.
Other studies have also demonstrated
that neighbourhood community must be
understood as composed of dynamic and
complex processes (Kenyon, 2000) and it is
also well documented that physical
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
conditions matter for gatherings becoming
(focused) interaction between locals—for
instance, across public–private interfaces
(see Gehl et al., 1977). Our contribution is
first of all exploring these processes and we
will, in the continuing discussion, suggest a
typology based on a combination of inter-
action pretext and activity.
The activity dimension has been made
relevant during our interviews, in which par-
ticipants have been concerned about lack of
commitment from neighbours (Bendik in
Bay Village: ‘‘doing things together’’), as well
as too much pressure towards such commit-
ments (Chris in Bay Garden: ‘‘I do not have
that need’’). To put this dimension in simple
terms in our typology, we use ‘low activity’
and ‘high activity’ as extreme ends. While
the interaction pretext is related to attention,
concern and responsibility, activity is related
to concrete action directly. As Bodil in Bay
Village illustrates
Bench and table. It works in that way that we
actually go outside with our coffee cup and sit
down [and talk to our neighbours].
In Table 1, the interaction pretext varies
along the vertical axis, while activity varies
along the horizontal. A ‘max score’ on the
interaction pretext dimension implies mul-
tiple sources of attention, concern and/or
responsibility between neighbours. A ‘high
score’ on the activity dimension illustrates
a neighbourhood dominated by common
activities (barbecues, street games,
Christmas tree ceremonies and so on). We
have, combining the extreme values of the
two dimensions, suggested four different
types of communities: a passing-by com-
munity, a tight community, a split commu-
nity and a weak community. Even though
we regard these as ideal types (Weber,
1922/1971) of communities, quite distinct
 INTERACTION AND TYPES OF COMMUNITY
instances of them are represented in our
empirical material.
The Tight Community
With a high degree of interaction pretext
and a high level of activity we find the tight
community. People in such types of com-
munity have a vast range of situations in
which to encounter their neighbours, as well
as the interaction pretext to legitimise such
encounters. The barriers towards initiating
conversation are low; thus neighbours easily
participate in both optional and social activ-
ities. The individuals get to know each other
better, which works as a catalyst for even
more interaction pretexts and activities, in
an upward ‘communal spiral’.
Bay Village is characterised by aspects of a
tight community: everyone knows each
other by name and what they do for a living.
The residents have been socialised into the
community, through the community associ-
ation fighting together against specific city
developments (a common enemy), through
neighbours caring a great deal about each
other (for good and for bad), through cere-
monies like the national day flag-flying, and
through activities on Bay Beach (which they
regard as a shared property of Bay Village
house owners, even though it is municipal
ground). From a network perspective, the
tight community is a mix of weak and strong
social ties and is a good example of the rele-
vance of the ‘community saved’ argument
(Lupi and Musterd, 2006) in urban studies.
The Passing-by Community
The top left quadrant of Table 1 shows a
community with a high level of interaction
pretext, but a low level of activity. The resi-
dents may have various attentions, concerns
and responsibilities in common, but choose
not to invest time in social activities locally.
Some student housing areas can have some
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
2121
of these characteristics. Residents have a lot
in common—for instance, age and life
situation—but their (social) activities are
not related to localities in the neighbour-
hood. One result of spending so little time
‘around’ the neighbourhood is that resi-
dents do not recognise each other, even
though they sometimes wish they could
(reporting during interviews that they
would like to know the neighbours better).
Although our notion of a passing-by com-
munity is located in place, it does have
characteristics of a ‘transformed’ (place-
independent) community perspective (Lupi
and Musterd, 2006), in which residents’
weak and strong social ties are outside the
neighbourhood—recognising the employ-
ees in the local supermarket, but not their
neighbours; and having their closest friends
in other parts of the city.
The Split Community
The lower right quadrant of Table 1 shows
a community characterised by a low level
of interaction pretext, but a high degree of
activity. House owners and tenants (for
instance students) tend to live separate lives
in the same neighbourhood, even though
the degree of separation has been debated
(Camina and Wood, 2009). Despite many
activities in the neighbourhood (spring
tidying—dugnads, family barbecues and so
on), such activities, as well as issues of
common attention, concern or responsibil-
ity, are not shared between owners and
tenants. In our study, we have found char-
acteristics of the split community in well-
established residential areas (Kenyon,
2000), in which tenants (students for the
most part) do not participate in activities,
because they regard them as ‘owned’ by the
permanent dwellers (the house-owners).
On the one hand, such communities may
be experienced as excluding to some
2122 IDA MARIE HENRIKSEN AND AKSEL TJORA
residents, as Daniel and Dina explained.
On the other hand, tenants do to a large
degree maintain their social life elsewhere
(Fischer, 1982; Wellman, 1979), as men-
tioned by Chris and Christian, hence
reducing the experiential significance of
exclusion. ‘Social gaps’ between different
groups characterise the split community at
the neighbourhood level, although there
may be ‘tight communities’ on different
sides of these ‘gaps’. Strong ties within dif-
ferent groups may even lead to bigger gaps
(divided communities) and alienation
between the groups (Phillips, 2006; York
et al., 2010) because of strongly differing
social and cultural orientations. Although
the physical condition may afford
gatherings—for example, in parking lots or
on pathways—the lack of an interaction
pretext reduces the development of
encounters.
The Weak Community
The lower left quaadrant of Table 1 shows
the community with a low level of interac-
tion pretext and low activity. Bay Garden
has many of the characteristics of a weak
community. It represents a ‘lost commu-
nity’ in Lupi and Musterd’s model (2006).
However, a lost place-based community
does not imply a general ‘loss of social capi-
tal’ (as argued by Putnam, 2000), but
reflects the orientation of young adults in
the establishment phase towards (social)
activities based on common interest and
not a shared residential environment.
Community is developed on the basis of
interests (including work and leisure activi-
ties) and not place. While the ‘lost commu-
nity’ argument is true (and observable) at
the physical level, our interviews with resi-
dents in such ‘dead’ neighbourhoods con-
firm that they do indeed have social lives.
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
Conclusion
By studying how neighbours experience
interaction and community at a micro
(local) level, we are able to broaden our
understanding on how both inclusion and
exclusion work in daily practice (Herbert,
2008), or how various neighbourhoods
afford sets of social processes in which par-
ticipation is not evenly distributed. People’s
increased mobility (Urry, 2007) and a grow-
ing individualisation within modern society
(Beck and Beck-Gernsheim, 2002) are
broader societal changes that are relevant for
what we observe as the decoupling of indi-
vidual experiences of community and neigh-
bourhood sociality. Although some forms of
ontological security (Giddens, 1984) are
related to the neighbourhood, this is pro-
duced and maintained also through ‘‘the
delicate negotiation of friendly distance’’
(Crow et al. 2002, p. 143). Combined with
close empirical studies, these broader social
theories help us to comprehend subtle social
changes that are nevertheless significant for
the future of the city as a liveable place. We
find that Wellman’s (1979) and Lupi and
Musterd’s (2006) categories of communities
as ‘lost’, ‘saved’ or ‘transformed’ do not cap-
ture the very delicate subtleness of neigh-
bourhood interaction and the importance of
weak ties (Henning and Lieberg, 1996).
Depending on interaction pretext and level
of activity, various forms of social ties are
developed, maintained or changed continu-
ously, often in various ways across the local
community. With our proposition of the
typology of interaction pretext and activity,
we suggest a co-existence of the lost, saved
and transformed community, and that argu-
ments about community changes need to be
grounded in far more detailed empirical
analyses to capture the very complex nature
of social life in the city.
 INTERACTION AND TYPES OF COMMUNITY
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial or not-
for-profit sectors.
Note
1. The neighbourhoods are defined as neigh-
bourhoods and with specific borders accord-
ing to the local municipality delineations.
References
Askins, K. and Pain, R. (2011) Contact zones:
participation, materiality, and the messiness
of interaction, Environment and planning D,
29, pp. 803–821.
Atkinson, P. and Housley, W. (2003) Interaction-
ism. London: Sage.
Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Indivi-
dualization. London: Sage.
Berger, B. (1960) Working-class Suburb: A Study
of Auto Workers in Suburbia. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital, in: J.
Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education, pp.
241–258. New York: Greenwood.
Camina, M. M and Wood, M. J. (2009) Parallel
lives: towards a greater understanding of what
mixed communities can offer, Urban Studies,
46(2), pp. 259–480.
Cattell, V. (2004) Having a laugh and mucking
in together: using social capital to explore
dynamics between structure and agency
in the context of declining and regenerated
neighbourhoods, Sociology, 38(5), pp.
945–963.
Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W. and Curtis, S.
(2008) Mingling, observing, and lingering:
everyday public spaces and their implications
for well-being and social relations, Health and
Place, 14(3), pp. 544–561.
Crow, G., Allan, G. and Summers, M. (2002)
Neither busybodies nor nobodies: managing
proximity and distance in neighbourly rela-
tions, Sociology, 36(1), pp. 127–144.
Day, R. (2008) Local environments and older
people’s health: dimensions from a compara-
tive qualitative study in Scotland, Health and
Place, 14(2), pp. 299–312.
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
2123
Delanty, G. (2003) Community. London:
Routledge.
Durkheim, É. (1964) The Division of Labor in
Society. New York: The Free Press.
Dyb, E., Solheim, L. J. and Ytrehus, S. (2004)
Social Perspective on Housing. Oslo: Abstrakt
forlag.
Fischer, C. S. (1982) To Dwell Among Friends:
Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Fischer, C. S. (2005) Book review: Bowling
Alone: what’s the score?, Social Networks, 27,
pp. 155–167.
Forrest, R. and Kearns, A. (2001) Social cohesion,
social capital and the neighbourhood, Urban
Studies, 38, pp. 2125–2143.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnometholodol-
ogy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gehl, J. (1980) Life between Buildings. Copenha-
gen: Arkitektenes forlag.
Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for People. København:
Bogværket.
Gehl, J., Brack, F. and Thornton, S. (1977) Inter-
face between public and private territories in
residential areas. Department of Architecture
and Building, University of Melbourne.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society:
Outline of a Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The Discov-
ery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualita-
tive Research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goffman, E. (1959) Presentation Self Everyday
Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1963) Behaviour in Public Places.
New York: The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on
Face-to-face Behavior. New York: Anchor
Books.
Goffman, E. (1971) Relations in Public: Microstu-
dies of the Public Order. London: Allen Lane
The Penguin Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) The strength of weak
ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78, pp.
1360–1380.
Henning, C. and Lieberg, M. (1996) Strong ties
or weak ties? Neighbourhood networks in a
new perspective, Scandinavian Housing and
Planning Research, 13, pp. 3–26.
Herbert, S. (2008) Contemporary geographies
of exclusion 1: traversing Skid Road, Progress
Reports in Human Geography, 32, pp.
659–666.
2124 IDA MARIE HENRIKSEN AND AKSEL TJORA
Isdal, B. (2003) The frame around our life:
research on housing and living conditions,
in: N. R. Council (Ed.) Housing Quality in
Transition. Trondheim: Tapir Academic
Publishing.
Jacobs, J. (1961) Death and Life of American
Cities. New York: Random House.
Kendon, A. (1988) Goffman’s approach to face-
to-face interaction, in: P. Drew and A.
Wotton (Eds) Erving Goffman: Exploring the
Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kenyon, E. (2000) Time, temporality and the
dynamics of community, Time and Society,
9(1), pp. 21–41.
Laurier, E. and Philo, C. (2006) Cold shoulders
and napkins handed: gestures of responsibil-
ity, Transactions of the Institute of British Geo-
graphers, NS, 31, pp. 193–207.
Lupi, T. and Musterd, S. (2006) The suburban
‘community question’, Urban Studies, 43(4),
pp. 801–817.
Oldenburg, R. (1999) The Great Good Place:
Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair
Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a
Community. New York: Marlowe and
Company.
Phillips, D. (2006) Parallel lives? Challenging dis-
courses of British Muslim self-segregation,
Environment and Planning D, 24, pp. 25–40.
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Col-
lapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Schiefloe, P. M. (1985) Nærmiljø i bysamfunnet
[The urban community]. Oslo: Universitets
forlaget.
Strauss, A. (1993) Continual Permutations of
Action. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Thomsen, J. and Eikemo, T. A. (2008) Aspects
of student housing satisfaction: a quantitative
study, Journal of Housing and the Built Envi-
ronment, 25(3), pp. 273–293.
Thomsen, J. and Tjora, A. (2006) Changeable
space as temporary home: a qualitative
exploration of life in an experimental student
Downloaded from usj.sagepub.com at FUDAN UNIV LIB on May 6, 2015
house, Nordic Journal of Architectural
Research, 19(3), pp. 11–20.
Tjora, A. (2004) Maintaining redundancy in the
coordination of medical emergencies, CHI
Letters, 6(3), pp. 132–141.
Tjora, A. (2012) Kvalitative forskningsmetoder i
praksis [Qualitative research methods in prac-
tice]. Oslo: Gyldendal akademiske.
Tjora, A. and Scambler, G. (Eds) (2013) Café
Society. New York: Palgrave.
Tönnies, F. (1887/1963) Gemenschaft und Gesell-
shaft [Community and society]. New York:
Harper and Row.
Unstad, M. (2001) Bomiljø og inkludering: en
casestudie av tre bortettslag og et boligområde
[Neighborhood and inclusion. a case study
of tree neighborhoods]. Project Report No.
307, S. E. Thoresen as, Oslo.
Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Valentine, G. (2008) Living with difference:
reflections on geographies of encounter, Prog-
ress in Human Geography, 32, pp. 323–337.
Weber, M. (1922/1971) Gesemmelte Aufsätze
zur Wissenschaftslehre [Samfunssvitenskapen
‘objektivitet’ makt og byråkrati], pp. 157–220.
Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag.
Wellman, B. (1979) Community question: inti-
mate networks of East Yorkers, American
Journal of Sociology, 84(5), pp. 1201–1231.
Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B. and Bulsara, M. (2005)
The pet connection: pets as a conduit for
social capital?, Social Science and Medicine,
61(6), pp. 1159–1173.
York, A. M., Smith, M. E., Stanley, B. W.,
Stark, B. L. et al. (2010) Ethnic and class
clustering through the ages: a transdisciplin-
ary approach to urban neighbourhood
social pattern, Urban Studies, 48(11), pp.
2399–2415.
Young, M. and Willmott, P. (1986) Family and
kinship in east London, New Society,
76(1216), pp. 26–28.