Examine the Argument That “Good Fences Make Good Neighbours” free essay sample

The argument in the title highlights the fact that no matter how close you are to a neighbour, both physically and personally, there is always a need for privacy. As mentioned by Jovan Byford, (Byford, 2009, p. 251) there is a paradox in the fact that neighbours are expected to be a community of people living together but at the same time everyone wants -and expects- their own space. The rules of engagement for a neighbour are an intrinsic characteristic built into us from our own experiences, and we act on them almost automatically. Byford illustrates this in his transcript of a conversation he had himself with a neighbour and his use of discursive pschology(Byford, 2009, pg. 257). It is a simple exchange of words in which both parties follow the unwritten rules of being a neighbour when an event, in this case, a mis-directed package, bring the two together. The conversation is immediately recognisable to any who have been in a similar situation, the neighbour apologises for being intrusive, and in doing so recognises the author’s personal space, and neither send out an invitation for the other to make the exchange any more than it is. We will write a custom essay sample on Examine the Argument That â€Å"Good Fences Make Good Neighbours† or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Both parties are recognising the boundary, or â€Å"fence† that is in place to prevent an invasion of privacy. The exchange is not premeditated to go ahead like this, it is just a skill that has been learnt through experience. In her work, Social psychologist Elizabeth Stokoe (Stokoe, cited in Byford, 2009, pg 264), examined what happens when these rules break down. Her focus was that of sound complaints stemming from sexual intercourse. This presented problems not just for the accused, but for the accuser. In the transcript taken from the man who made the complaint he preceeded by by making sure he wasn’t viewed in a negative way by pointing out that he was a good neighbour who adhered and respected the social rules. If he weren’t to do this, then he himself may have been accused of being a nosy neighbour, thus being neglectful of the rules. He most likely adopted the defensive form as naturally as the Byford and his neighbour carried out their dialogue. This breakdown of society’s rules needs repairing, and in cases like this, the reparation comes from a form of mediation. Usually, the matter can be resolved without having to call in a third party, a simple apology can acknowledge that someone was in the wrong and that they are didn’t act as appropriate as a neighbour should. On other occasions, a third party has to be called in to settle disputes, when things such as noise, boundaries, planning etc are blurring the boundaries of how the rules are interpreted (Byford, 2009. pg 263). This is just another way of maintaining the order that the rules of neighbouring create. The third party is an arbitrary outsider who reinforces how the rules operate, though it is still up to the involved parties to make a decision about where the â€Å"fence† is placed. A study in Manchester in 2004 suggests that most of â€Å"neighbouring† occurs in public or over a physical structure (as in a real fence) and that even the interviewees who reported visiting neighbours in homes were aware of â€Å"over-neighbouring†, and it was polite to be seen to respect the host’s right to privacy by limiting time spent at their home (Byford, 2009, p. 255). These rules aren’t the same the world over, in fact they can be strikingly different in some places. The Anthropologist, Stanley Brandes, travelled to Becedas, a small village in Spain in the 1970’s to study how traditional life was being affected by the process of modernisation (Byford, 2009, pg 259). His initial observations revealed that there didn’t seem to be such a concept as â€Å"over- neighbouring† there. Instead, the whole village came and went as in and out of each others houses as they pleased. â€Å"Neighbours entered our houses without hesitation and] took us under their wings to such an extent that we felt as if we had been initiated into a large family. † (Brandes, cited in Byford, 2009, p. 260). So to Brandes, it must have felt alien, with no clear boundaries and everyone involved in everyone elses lives to a household degree. He notes that they seemed to have a â€Å"Pathological fear† of privacy (Brandes, cited in Byford, 2 009, p. 260). However, as he spent time there, he came to realise that the village was not so much an extended family society, but a big brother society fuelled by mistrust. The fences had been removed in order to make sure that no one was cheating another and that there were no schemes afoot. The villagers were poor, so they â€Å"assumed that if a person could get away with with it, he will engage in almost any activity to further his own well-being † (Brandes, cited in Byford, 2009, p. 261). This is an example where perhaps the â€Å"fences† could make living conditions less stressful. Looking at these examples, it is clear to see where the hypothetical (and physical) fences have their uses. According to Erving Goffman, people will behave in a way that tells others how they wish to be interacted with (Taylor, 2009, pg 172), so this projection must carry within itself a boundary to those who see it. When Kate Fox’s person in a front garden is approached (Byford, 2009, p. 256) using Goffman’s theory, perhaps it is only right to assume they must be emanating an aura of approachability, otherwise they are not complying with the unwritten rules of being a neighbour.