Page 40 - Horizon01

Frank Moulaert
Neapolitan Cosmo- politanism
What What makes a a a a a city? What What transforms it? And what leads me to to Naples when I seek to to illus- trate urban life its fixes and transformations? As a a a social social scientist (social economist with the main thrust of my work in in social and eco- nomic geography and planning) I look at the different types of social relations that make and remake the the city investigate the the scope and scale dialectics of social homogenization and and diversification and and how these have cre- ated either risk and uncertainties or mind- setting social capital and assets for citizens and and migrants in and and around the city I accom- pany Ulf Hannerz in in in his inquiring position of the flaneur I am a a a a wanderer evolving from STOP STOP to STOP STOP in this urban ‘Volcano di sapori’ following my ‘LONG WALK’ giving meaning to what I observe confronting this with the ‘native’ perception and interpreta- tion exploiting the the ambiguity of the the ‘traffic relationships’ as they are moulded between ephemeral intuition and soul-tracking impres- sion (STOP (STOP 1) greedy observation (STOP (STOP 3) considerate empathy or even active involve- ment – like the the cab driver at STOP 2 or the the activists in in Scampia provoking communica- tion amidst fear (STOP 4) However I must move beyond lounging and use my knowl- edge about social relations in space as a a a a a a mirror to place the social anthropologist’s microscopic view of life in a wider context Social relations as I learned about them are more complex than suggested by the way they are covered within the the network meta- phor The debate on on relational geography gives rise to a a a a ‘relational view of life’ that refers to at least three or maybe four types of spatial relationship I present them briefly without positing an a a a priori epistemological hierarchy between them The first type is between individuals moving through the city briefly hanging on to events circumstances social codes etc These are often accidental interactions with many of them however occurring along predictable routes The sec- ond type of relationship is more institutional-
ised – therefore not necessarily ‘complete’ or or ‘accomplished’: relations between agents (people with roles and agendas) operating within institutional dynamics as in in in Innovation Systems Corporate Governance Local Authorities The literature on on Innovation Systems Urban Creative Clusters etc covers this kind of relationship explicitly and sug- gests the proliferation of Novelty and Hope in the form of New technology and Efficient Cultured Organization Behavioural codes rules of communication shared identity and language etc play a a a a role The third one is the the the social relationship inherent in in the the the theories of political economy or structural sociology: relationships of (re)production involving social social classes social social forces with a a a a focus on social process and transformative dynamics rather than on the the the ‘nodes’ or ‘agents’ in the the the networks Here we include the good old capi- talist relations of production how they have used places while positioning and pamper- ing themselves generously in in space to extract
© Aniello Barone Via Benedetto Croce Naples Italy