Us and Them: Otherness and Exclusion

  • Simone TulumelloEmail author
Part of the UNIPA Springer Series book series (USS)


Urban fear is imbued with rational and irrational dimensions, some interlinked with, others independent from, urban life or the discourses of fear analysed in the previous chapter. This chapter, acknowledging that fear is not a simple ‘effect’ of specific ‘causes’, deepens the understanding of fear: it looks at the way fear is generated at the intersection of urban space and otherness, to build a theoretical framework supported by the work done by David Sibley on the geographies of exclusion and Iris Marion Young on the politics of difference. Diversity in urban (and especially public) space is debated, exploring encounters within contemporary, multicultural cities, with the aim of unpacking the role of feelings in the creation of relations between identity and otherness. Then, the chapter debates that the way the creation of such relations is necessary for the self-representation of societies and how the politics of exclusion are embedded in the construction of dichotomies such as ‘we’ versus ‘the others’ and the misrepresentation of (minority) groups. In conclusion, the chapter links such themes with urban studies and policy: it critiques Jane Jacobs’ theories on urbanism and exemplifies the processes of stigmatisation/removal through the case of ‘nomad camps’ in Italy.


Public Space Housing Policy Urban Space Mexico Border Ethnic Boundary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agamben, G. (2003). Stato di eccezione. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri.Google Scholar
  2. Banerjee, T., & Verma, N. (2001). Probing the soft metropolis: Third world metaphors in the Los Angeles context. Planning Theory, 2(2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (1998). Democracy without enemies. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996). Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berman, M. (1988 [1982]). All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bonafede, G., & Lo Piccolo, F. (2010). Participative planning processes in the absence of the (public) space of democracy. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr, J., Brown, E., & Herbert, S. (2009). Inclusion under the law as exclusion from the city: Negotiating the spatial limitation of citizenship in Seattle. Environment and Planning A, 41(8), 1962–1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassegård, C. (2014). Contestation and bracketing: The relation between public space and the public sphere. Environment and Planning D, 32(4), 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davy, B. (2008). Plan it without a condom! Planning Theory, 7(3), 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Epstein, D. (1998). Afraid/not: Psychoanalytic directions for an insurgent planning history. In L. Sandercock (Ed.), Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history (pp. 209–226). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) (2009). Housing conditions of Roma and travellers in the European Union: Comparative report. October 2009. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  12. Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of hope. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Healey, P. (1999). Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19(2), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heikkila, E. (2001). Identity and inequality: Race and space in planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 2(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holston, J., & Appadurai, A. (1996). Cities and citizenship. Public Culture, 8(2), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iacona, R. (2009). Caccia agli zingari. Documentary movie, screened 22 February on Rai3. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  17. IREF (Istituto di Ricerche Educative e Formative) (2010). Rom, Sinti, Caminanti e comunità locali. Studio sulle popolazioni Rom, Sinte e Camminanti presenti nelle Regioni Convergenza. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  18. Jacobs, J. (1994 [1961]). The death and life of great American cities. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  19. Kristeva, J. (1991 [1988]). Strangers to ourselves. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Laino, G. (2012). I Rom in Italia fra esclusione e rimozione. Strategie per l’esigibilità dei diritti e il superamento dei campi. In M. Bellomo, G. Cafiero, V. D’Ambrosio, M. Fumo, L. Lieto, R. Lucci, P. Miano, M.F. Palestino & M. Sepe (Eds.), Abitare il futuro. Abitare il nuovo/abitare di nuovo ai tempi della crisi. Atti delle Giornate Internazionali di Studio “Abitare il Futuro” (pp. 111–122). Naples: Clean Edizioni.Google Scholar
  21. Lorey, I. (2015 [2012]). State of insecurity: Government of the precarious. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  22. Mora, M. (2008). La Camorra lidera la persecución gitana. El País, May 18. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  23. Mora, M. (2009). Condenada a ser condenada. El País, February 1. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  24. Murray, C. (1999). The underclass revisited. Washington DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pain, R. (2000). Place, social relations and the fear of crime: A review. Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pan Ké Shon, J. L. (2012). Perception of insecurity in French poor neighbourhoods: Racial proxy or pure discrimination hypotheses? Urban Studies, 49(3), 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pew Research Center (2014). A fragile rebound for EU image on eve of European parliament elections. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  28. Phillips, D. (2009). Minority ethnic segregation, integration and citizenship: A European perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(2), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sandercock, L. (2000). When strangers become neighbours: Managing cities of difference. Planning Theory and Practice, 1(1), 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sandercock, L. (2002). Difference, fear, and habitus: A political economy of urban fear. Urbanistica, 119, 8–19.Google Scholar
  31. Schuermans, N., & De Maesschalck, F. (2010). Fear of crime as political weapon: Explaining the rise of extreme right politics in the Flemish countryside. Social and Cultural Geography, 11(3), 247–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion: Society and difference in the West. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Strati, F. (2011). Italy. Promoting social inclusion of Roma. A study of national policies. Accessed 1 June 2016.
  35. Sudjic, D. (1992). The 100 mile city. London: Andre Deutsch Limited.Google Scholar
  36. Sundberg, J., & Kaserman, B. (2007). Cactus carvings and desert defecations: Embodying representations of border crossings in protected areas on the Mexico-US border. Environment and Planning D, 25(4), 727–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas, H. (2000). Race and planning: The UK experience. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tulumello, S. (2014). Marchiare per escludere: i Rom d’Italia e i processi contemporanei di esclusione urbana. In F. Lo Piccolo (Ed.), Nuovi abitanti e diritto alla città: un viaggio in Italia (pp. 131–146). Florence: Altralinea.Google Scholar
  39. Wacquant, L., Slater, T., & Pereira, V. B. (2014). Territorial stigmatization in action. Environment and Planning A, 46(6), 1270–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams, R. J. (2004). The anxious city: English urbanism in the late twentieth century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Wimmer, A. (2008). Elementary strategies of ethnic boundary making. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 31(6), 1025–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Ciências SociaisUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations